3
« on: November 23, 2023, 04:22:43 PM »
This is an interesting debate: what defines an A-list actor ?
About Nicholas Hoult, I agree with AKA23: he is definitely not an A-list actor. Not yet at least. But that could change with the opportunities offered to him. Although he certainly has a background as an actor, he would not be immediately recognizable by the average moviegoer. For instance, I have seen Mad Max: Fury Road and I remember the character he portrayed. But I do not remember the actor behind that character. In my mind, Tom Hardy and Charlize Theron are the stars of Mad Max: Fury Road. The same about Paul Walter Hauser: he was not an A-list actor when he was hired for Richard Jewell and I would not consider him as an A-list star today.
I agree with SamanMoradkhani about the fact that the star-system in Hollywood is not as powerful as it used to be in the twentieth century. Nowadays, many people (especially younger generations) who go to movies, do not care about the actors or the filmmakers. I mean they do not even have favorite actors or directors. They are not attracted by an actor in particular but more by a concept developed by a film. I think that James Cameron and Christopher Nolan understand that very well. Most of moviegoers just want to be entertained and to have fun above all. Generally, they choose to see the films which are the most talked in social medias, which are the modern word of mouth. For instance, all the moviegoers who have seen Barbie, have not necessarily seen Babylon or Amsterdam. Then, Margot Robbie is not the main reason of Barbie box office success, although she is an A-list actress today.
I also agree with Gant in many ways: being a good actor is not necessarily being an A-list actor and vice-versa. For instance, Dwayne Johnson is commercially an A-list actor: but is he praised by the critics for his acting performances ? He is an entertainer and a box-office attraction for sure. But that does not make him a gifted actor. He cannot be compared with Leonardo DiCaprio or Matt Damon.
When Clint was a box-office draw from the late 60s to the mid-80s, he was not considered as a good actor but more as an A-list actor, a superstar, a commercial and cultural phenomenon. The critics started to be interested in Clint as a director first, even if they were probably more fascinated by the star than they wanted to admit it.
I think that Gene Hackman, Morgan Freeman, Kevin Costner, Meryl Streep, Angelina Jolie, Matt Damon, Leonardo DiCaprio, Bradley Cooper and Tom Hanks are some of the real A-list actors that Clint has directed.
About Clint, he was a real box-office attraction until the mid-90s: In The Line of Fire was probably his last real box-office hit as an actor. Now, he is more considered as a director than as an actor. Of course, The Bridges Of Madison County, Space Cowboys, Million Dollar Baby, Gran Torino and The Mule did very well at the box-office. But not like In The Line of Fire or Unforgiven with adjusted inflation.
Anyway, I hope that Juror #2 will be a good film first and a decent success at the box-office, to encourage Clint making some other films after this one.
Show Posts
