September 30, 2008

Fallacy of the big-name actor

As soon as I heard the news about Disney's casting Johnny Depp as Tonto, I guessed what the MSM's response would be.

  • Not that there aren't a lot Native actors who could play the role. (Including people such as Nathaniel Arcand, who already played it.) Most people know it's unwise to utter such a racist position even if they believe it.

  • Not that it's just a movie and casting decisions don't matter. There have been too many millions of words written on race for people to claim it's not an issue.

  • No, I figured that the primary response from Hollywood apologists would be variations of "it's a business." Studios operate to make money. If Johnny Depp will sell more tickets, isn't Disney obligated to use him?

    No. It's a fallacy that box-office success is impossible without big-name actors. As indicated below, most of the most successful movies in history haven't had big-name actors. (The films with a star actor are in red):

    All-Time USA Box office  1. Titanic (1997)
      2. The Dark Knight (2008)--Christian Bale
      3. Star Wars (1977)--Mark Hamill
      4. Shrek 2 (2004)
      5. E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial (1982)--nobody worth noting
      6. The Phantom Menace (1999)--Liam Neeson
      7. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)
      8. Spider-Man (2002)--Toby Maguire
      9. Revenge of the Sith (2005)--Hayden Christensen
    10. The Return of the King (2003)--Elijah Wood
    11. Spider-Man 2 (2004)--Toby Maguire
    12. The Passion of the Christ (2004)--nobody worth noting
    13. Jurassic Park (1993)--nobody worth noting
    14. The Two Towers (2002)--Elijah Wood
    15. Finding Nemo (2003)--nobody worth noting
    16. Spider-Man 3 (2007)--Toby Maguire
    17. Forrest Gump (1994)
    18. The Lion King (1994)--nobody worth noting
    19. Shrek the Third (2007)
    20. Transformers (2007)--Shia LaBoeuf
    This analysis assumes that we consider Johnny Depp a big-name star--someone who can open a movie. I think his performance as Captain Jack Sparrow carried the Pirates trilogy, but he hasn't proved he's a box-office guarantee in a non-Pirates movie. He often appears in Tim Burton and similar art-house movies and has never turned one of them into a smash.

    It also assumes that we consider Mike Myers and Eddie Murphy big-name stars--again, big enough to open a movie. In reality, neither one of them is a guarantee of success. Really, one could argue that only Leonardo DiCaprio and Tom Hanks are A-list stars in the movies above.

    Also note that Johnny Depp would be the second-billed star in The Lone Ranger, not the first. I don't think I've ever heard a producer say, "We need two big-name actors to carry this movie. One won't be enough." If Disney got George Clooney, Viggo Mortensen, or whoever as the Lone Ranger, why would it need Johnny Depp also?

    The bottom line

    Look at the facts. Even if you count Johnny Depp, Mike Myers, and Eddie Murphy, 15 of the top 20 movies did not have a big-name actor in the lead role. The "secret of success" seems to be to go with a relatively unknown young male character actor. In other words, to put money into the story, the director, the special effects, or the marketing--not into the actors.

    And don't tell me about US vs. international sales. Depp isn't a big action star, so I doubt he has a huge international following. He wasn't a box-office success until Pirates made him one.

    Moreover, Indians are immensely popular in Europe. I would think putting an authentic Indian actor and Indian culture in the movie would be a selling point for the European market. In fact, Hollywood might be smart to make Westerns just for the Europeans who love cowboys 'n' Indians.

    Conclusion

    Disney wasn't thinking about the box office when it selected Depp. It wasn't thinking about it logically, at least. It must've had another reason.

    I'm betting the thinking went something like this: "Mainstream (light-skinned) audiences won't be able to relate to some unknown (dark-skinned) Indian. They will be able to relate to pseudo-Indian Johnny Depp. He's close enough to cover our asses, so let's make him Tonto."

    This is the comfort factor I was talking about recently. In other words, the structural racism inherent in Hollywood. For more on the subject, see Lack of Diversity = Discrimination.

    So...sorry, Anonymous. You lose the implied debate. Better luck next time you think you know more about movies than I do.

    Below:  Pretty-boy Johnny Depp as "The Brave."

    5 comments:

    dmarks said...

    I think by the time of The Two Towers and Return of the King, maybe Viggo Mortensen was a big star actor by then.

    Now how about an actual list of the most successful movies, adjusted by inflation? The soaring ticket prices skew your list to recent movies.

    The real list of successful movies will be quite different.

    I found it, in fact. Click here.

    Dark Knight is not even on the top 20.

    Go ahead and count if you want. I think a few more than 5 of them have big star actors. Depends on how you count it. I also see a bunch of cartoons with nobody in them, from the era before celebrity cartoon voices.

    Rob said...

    I'm not sure Viggo Mortensen counts as a big-name actor even now. ;-)

    One could argue that requiring a star to "open" a movie is a recent phenomenon. Therefore, analyzing the recent list of movies is meaningful.

    Looking at the inflation-adjusted list...it still proves my point. The only certifiable stars are Clark Gable, Paul Newman and Robert Redford, Harrison Ford in Raiders of the Lost Ark, and Leonardo DiCaprio. I'm not sure Charlton Heston was a box-office draw, but let's count him provisionally.

    Who else could we count as a big-name star? The producers of The Sound of Music cast Julie Andrews before the release of Mary Poppins, so she wasn't a star. Dustin Hoffman didn't become a star till after the release of The Graduate. Omar Sharif? Richard Dreyfuss? I don't think so.

    If we include Heston's movies, we get maybe six with big-name actors in the top 20 instead of five. I'd say that's statistically insignificant. Moreover, looking at other films with Clark Gable, Paul Newman, Charlton Heston et al. proves they couldn't guarantee a box-office smash. For every blockbuster they made, they probably made several films that did only so-so.

    Therefore, I'm sticking with my theory about big-name actors. The unknown Linda Blair made The Exorcist a hit, not a big-name actor. The shark made Jaws a hit, not a big-name actor. Etc.

    In fact, Margaret Mitchell's bestseller probably made Gone with the Wind a hit, not Clark Cable. Walt Disney, Cecil B. DeMille, George Lucas, and Steven Spielberg made most of these movies hits, not the actors. The Sting may be the only movie in the top 20 whose cast was essential to its success.

    In short, I'd say it takes a great concept and great execution to make a movie a hit. I'd say it's relatively rare that a big-name actor turns an average movie into a hit. Johnny Depp may have done it with Pirates, but that doesn't mean he'll do it with The Lone Ranger.

    dmarks said...

    The next thing for them to do with this Lone Ranger concept is to cast a Native as the Lone Ranger.

    Anonymous said...

    And don't tell me about US vs. international sales. Depp isn't a big action star, so I doubt he has a huge international following. He wasn't a box-office success until Pirates made him one.

    "Moreover, Indians are immensely popular in Europe. I would think putting an authentic Indian actor and Indian culture in the movie would be a selling point for the European market. In fact, Hollywood might be smart to make Westerns just for the Europeans who love cowboys 'n' Indians."

    Where did you get this info from ? As a European I can assure you cowboys 'n' Indian films are not all that popular. Also Depp was very well known and popular in Europe long before Pirates seems he became mainstream in American with pirates. But he had had a massive Euro following before that.
    As for the American Indian thing who gives a shite. Honestly do we start moaning on and on when some actor from the USA tries to be British or French or Irish! Even though the vast majority are pathetic attempts the only one that has come close is probably Depp who has played, Scots, Irish, English and a bit of a dodgy Romanian gypsy and he did it better than most. Given that you don't qualify him as an Native American then perhaps you can give him credit for being an actor that will at least be sensitive and potray the character to the best of his ability.
    People like you generally will always find something to moan about, so your bucket should run over on this one.

    Rob said...

    I said, "Indians are immensely popular in Europe," Anonymous. I didn't say, "Movies with Indians are immensely popular in Europe." I implied they should be popular, but I didn't say they were.

    If Depp has a "massive Euro following," were any of his movies before Pirates a massive Euro hit? If so, which ones? Finding Neverland? Charlie and the Chocolate Factory? Corpse Bride?

    There's a difference between being a popular celebrity and being a popular movie star, you know. Paris Hilton is (or was) a huge celebrity, but that doesn't mean she can make a movie a box-office success. People are interested in her affairs, not her acting ability.

    As for your complaint about my tendency to criticize, I guess you don't understand how the world works. I posted something about people who bitch and moan about bitchin' and moanin' long ago. Read it and learn.