Make An Argument
Why going “big name” isn’t always a good thing
By Eric Hughes
September 29, 2010
Casting big names is lazy
I’ll say it. It’s probably a lot easier to pair up A-listers than it is to hold real auditions to determine who would make a solid X. Why go looking for a bad-ass pretty boy when you can spend a lot less time concluding that hey, Bradley Cooper could do it?
Imagine what Mad Men would have turned out like if instead of “no names,” AMC and Matthew Weiner – or whoever took the lead on casting – went with household names to fill the shoes of Don Draper, Peggy Olsen, Joan Harris and so on. I bet that ‘60s aura would be cheapened some. Yet we wouldn’t know any better because we never would have known how good the show could have been.
The same goes for a show like The Office. While the first season was airing, Steve Carell wasn’t Steve Carell. And if Steve Carell wasn’t Steve Carell, then Rainn Wilson wasn’t Rainn Wilson and Jenna Fischer wasn’t Jenna Fischer.
Sure, the American cast is more attractive than Ricky Gervais’ Office ever was. But part of the fun in those first few seasons was the belief that the mockumentary could actually exist because a) the comedy wasn’t so slapstick and physical and b) more importantly, we the audience had no preconceived notions on who the actors were. As such, The Office felt believable.
Now I know what you’re thinking: But The Departed was awesome, and it won the Oscar for Best Picture. Yet for every Departed, there’s dozens of other name projects that just outright bomb. Look at All the King’s Men, which starred the likes of Sean Penn, Jude Law, Kate Winslet, Anthony Hopkins, Mark Ruffalo and more. That flick arguably had as much star power as The Departed, yet grossed (worldwide) just 17% of its $55 million budget.
A-listers snatch the spotlight they already have from the up and comers
Back during my days in Los Angeles – I want to say January of this year – I got talking with the lead actress of a production I was assisting on who also worked extensively in theater. Her name, nor the show she tried out for, isn’t of importance here. It’s the anecdote I’m concerned with.
In our discussion, the actress hit on many of the points in The Times article. She related to an experience just a few years prior to the production we met on where she was very close to nabbing a lead role on a Broadway play – like down to the final two close – but wound up losing out to an A-lister.
The A-lister? She’s great. But it pained me to think that the actress I was talking to missed out on her big break because of another actress who already had plenty of attention.
This kind of thing must happen all the time, and I get it since the producers are catering to their audiences by giving them “what they want.” It makes more sense from a sales perspective to go with what you know (or, I guess, think you know) will do well as opposed to an untested talent.
Yet that mentality is what got Broadway into the situation it’s in right now.
I don’t know. I think The Times article struck a chord in me that made for an interesting talking point. And, it’s tough maintaining a balance here because I’m just as guilty as the next guy when I get excited about, say, Philip Seymour Hoffman starring in Christopher Nolan’s next movie. (Not true… but doesn’t that sound fantastic?)
Continued:
1
2
|
|
|
|
Print this column
