It seems like over the weekend I’ve read and/or heard the phrase “star-making performance,” or some variant thereof, something like a dozen times, relative to Jennifer Lawrence’s performance in The Hunger Games, and something or other that Jessica Paré did on Mad Men. Well, bully for Lawrence and Paré and all, but isn’t the conventional wisdom nowadays that stars don’t matter? That they’re not the thing that, um, “puts butts in seats,” and are hence immaterial? And, if the conventional wisdom is indeed the case, then what good is a “star-making performance,” or “being” a “star?” Is “being” a “star” even possible, or desirablem, given this circumstance? Or is it just that opinion-mongers are so obsessed with the sound of their own voices that actual coherence, let alone consistency, doesn’t even figure into their pronouncements at all? (Never mind the sheer utter unimaginative rhetorical entropy that a phrase such as “star-making performance” embodies.) I dunno, maybe Smash has changed everything?
Just asking.
I remember an interview with Jennifer Lawrence from around the time of Winter’s Bone where she rather wryly commented that every film she had been in was supposed to be her “starmaking role.” The phrase came up constantly in the Winter’s Bone reviews – critical amnesia and all that…
Movie stars do still matter. While certain properties (like Hunger Games) or appealing concepts (like Chronicle from earlier this year, apparently) may be able to launch big without any headlining stars, in general movie stars do still put butts in seats. Ask any acquaintance outside of critical circles how much interest they have in an upcoming movie, and they first thing they’ll want to know is who stars in it, or “Is that the one where so-and-so plays such-and-such?”
I can guarantee you that whatever movie Jennifer Lawrence makes next will gross a lot more now than it would have if she hadn’t done Hunger Games.
I agree that there are a lot of self-obsessed flapping lips out there spewing endless hot air signifying nothing. that said trying to get a film financed without a star is a bitch
“Smash” is more intelligent and more entertaining than any new film currently in theaters.
FTR, my comment wasn’t an assessment of “Smash” as such, but just based on the show’s belief in stardom/star quality.
I tend to read “star-making role” as shorthand for “this is the first time I’ve taken this actor seriously”.
’ ”Smash” is more intelligent and more entertaining than any new film currently in theaters.’
Oh really? Any new film? Any new film currently in theaters?
Any new film?
Off all new films currently in theaters, none are as intelligent or as entertaining as…
Stokin’ the star maker machinery behind the popular film.
‘I tend to read “star-making role” as shorthand for ‘this is the first time I’ve taken this actor seriously.“ ‘
I think you might be too generous, unless by “seriously” you mean “estimate that this person will be perceived as making a great deal of money and therefore significant in the film world and thus it is important that I always knew this person would be lucrative/important, before the box office told me so.”
I guess David E hasn’t see Terence Davies’ THE DEEP BLUE SEA or else has forgotten that it is, indeed, currently in theaters.
Jessica Pare’s been around for over a decade making no lasting impression, plus she’s 30 years old. She isn’t breaking out into anything. Nobody wants an actress over 30 years old.
Plus nobody likes big breasts.
Nobody but psuedo-pederasts like yourself. Go back to your hole.
Holes only appeal to Lex ‘Hemmingway of the Telecine’ G if they don’t have pubic hair.
I can’t remember where I got the link for this article (maybe here?), but the writer is pretty spot on when it comes to the state of Hollywood stardom nowadays (or at least Ryan Reynolds):
http://ow.ly/9XQ17
P.S. If you have earned a Best Actress Oscar nomination, can any role after that can be considered “star-making”?