It’s an interesting article with a lot of thought-provoking comments.
I’m not sure I agree with this statement:
“Put those millions instead into a farm system based on the old studio system. Groom talent. Teach people with natural screen charisma to act. Most of all, teach them how to behave in public with class. And then when they’re ready, get that publicity machine humming.”
I think this demonstrates an idealized view of Hollywood’s past.
I remember growing up in the 1960s–my mother loved “movie magazines,” and she and my dad, and all their friends gossiped about the bad behavior of various movie stars. There was a lot of talk about which stars were controlled by “the mob,” (e.g., Frank Sinatra), and of course, the multiple divorces (Liz Taylor, etc.), and the public and private fighting that led to those divorces (e.g Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz). And the suicides (e.g., Marilyn Monroe). And the shacking up. And the “satan worship” and other odd-ball religions that some of the movie starts got tangled with. And the DRINKING–oh, my, so many of the movie stars had problems with drinking and drunkenness, as well as various addictions to drugs.
And our parents would talk in whispers about which stars were “queer.”
This was all public knowledge, even though we didn’t have an internet. We had “gossip columnists” like Rona Barrett and Walter Winchell, and these people would pass on all the juicy stuff.
Also, this statement seems to present the argument that stars are just actors picked out of a lineup based on their looks and thrown into a juicy “superhero” or “video game” role. This really isn’t true.
Almost all of the current crop of movie stars worked their way through the system. Quite of a few of them have college degrees in theater-related fields. Many of them worked as children and teenagers in community and school theater (some in church theater). They went to New York or Hollywood, did the rounds of auditions (and got turned away), got work in local theater, took whatever parts they got (many of them very lowly and embarrassing!), and eventually, mainly because of their hard work and perseverance and their “networking” skills, got “noticed” and were handed a huge break, and from then on, kept working their way into “star” status.
There are a few exceptions, of course. Right now, a lot of children of the old movie and TV stars are becoming stars themselves. I think that some of them have talent, and some don’t. Drew Barrymore is the 5th generation of actors–the story of the Barrymore family acting legacy is fascinating. (I personally don’t think she’s a very good actress, but I think she’s a wonderful producer.)
But for the most part, our current stars were nothing at one time, and now they’re “something” because they’ve WORKED their butts off to get there. This is the way it’s always been in the entertainment business–those who succeed work hard and network.
I think the reason Hollywood makes movies about video games and superheroes is because that’s what makes money, and money is what keeps the industry going (same is true of ANY industry in the United States).
Only about 90% of the movies made actually make a profit–it’s important for the sake of all those people who are employed in the movie business that the 10% continue to be profitable. If 100% of the movies failed to make a profit, there would be massive unemployment among all the stage hands, camera crew, production assistants, artists, costumers, carpenters, etc., not to mention the actors, who work in movies today.
Also, there are a lot of people who love those movies about superheroes. For my husband, the X-men movies are a childhood dream-come-true. He has read and collected X-men for decades, and has always loved the stories. He also collects comic books about many of the other super-heroes, and is thrilled that there are now movies about them. He is waiting for a good Dr. Strange movie–his favorite super-hero. I’m waiting for Aquaman!
I personally think that a lot of really good stories are difficult to adapt to a screenplay. Movies are a visual art form, and when stories are driven by clever dialogue, it’s difficult to write that into an appealing screenplay. I watched It’s A Wonderful Life over Christmas, and if that were made into a movie today–well, it wouldn’t be because there’s simply too much talking and not enough action!
Some people would say, “I wish they would go back to making movies with more talking and less action.” Well, think about the chick flicks–I’ve only watched a few, but they are soooo deadly dull–all talking, and nothing NOTHING happens. Just talk, talk, talk. And of course, in real life, people don’t talk like they do in those chick flicks.
I would like to see really good movies of the Little House books, especially The Long Winter. I’ve thought about working it into a screenplay. But to be honest, I don’t think I would ever find a producer willing to take it on. That cute TV series kind of broke the mold and fixed in people’s minds what “Little House” should be. So many people would actually be offended if The Long Winter was made into a movie portraying the story exactly the way Laura Ingalls Wilder wrote it in her book. It’s very dark and cold and anti-government, and no cute romances or sassy “Laura” lines–just a courageous family slogging along trying to survive, and two incredibly brave young men who risked their lives to save the town. Someday I’ll try writing it. But I don’t think anyone will buy it from me.
