ThirdMan wrote: September 17th, 2019, 8:12 am
the movies need stars
I'm not sure I would agree with that, personally.
Star vehicles have a long history of commercial and critical success in Hollywood, but they also have some inherent drawbacks, I would argue. Generally speaking, the bigger and more recognizable the actor is, the more difficult it becomes for most audience members to view them as the character they are trying to portray. It ties the hands of the writers whenever the stars become too closely associated with their signature on-screen persona (you can't make Hugh Jackman
too sleazy, you can't make Will Smith
too incompetent, you can't make Tom Hanks
too vile, etc...), and the ensuing cult of personality often leads to an unhealthy feedback loop behind the scenes and some superstars viewing themselves as more important than the film they're in.
But even on a purely cinematic merit, I think there's something to be said about the immersive quality that a no-name cast can bring to the table. A lot of Hollywood cultural milestones (
Psycho, the original
Star Wars trilogy,
Jurassic Park,
Lord of the Rings, arguably
The Godfather, etc...) were made with very little initial star power, which allowed people to fully buy into their respective universes and characters. I would argue this is also a positive side effect of watching foreign movies without any internationally renowned actors. I would imagine that my reaction to
City of God or (the original!)
Oldboy would have been very different if I had kept thinking "oh yeah, it's that guy from all those other movies and TV shows".
It can certainly be done right (the gentleman in your avatar, old-school Humphrey Bogart, Katharine Hepburn and Clint Eastwood flicks, most of the Hitchcock-Stewart collaborations, etc..), but it's far from a pre-requisite to success, in my opinion.
- it would be fine, but as it is, I much prefer to watch a film at home.
