It's funny how, this time six years ago, journalists were talking about how the actors chosen to lead big-budget Hollywood films were getting younger and younger, with stars like Tobey Maguire, Matt Damon and Ben Affleck headlining some of the summer season's biggest movies. This trend was presaged as a sort of "passing of the torch" with Hollywood's traditional rugged action stars like Stallone and Schwarzenegger basically making way for a much younger and much less...masculine set of action or cinema heroes.
Youth was the catchphrase of many a writer about the future of Hollywood, with twenty and thirty-something stars, directors and writers being tipped to inherit moviemaking in general from the aging stars of yesteryear, including old fogeys like Tom Hanks and Cruise and Harrison Ford. Considering that among the up-and-comers included some pretty awful excuses for actors like Paul Walker, Elijah Wood, Hayden Christensen, Jessica Alba and Shia LeBeouf, that future didn't seem particularly bright.
2008, therefore, comes as a huge sigh of relief to those dreading the takeover of these pseudo-performers as it seems that audiences aren't quite as youth-obsessed as Hollywood once thought they were.
Three of the year's biggest opening movies are headlined by stars all over 40, with the lead actors of Iron Man, Indiana Jones and Sex and the City Stars all having passed the big four-zero at the least two years ago, and in Indy's case many, many years ago. In stark contrast, movies centered around young heroes like Speed Racer and the Narnia sequel, Prince Caspian, have conspicuously floundered at the box-office, in the case of the latter, despite the very healthy grosses of its predecessor. There's no real science to my analysis but I can say categorically that it should be clear to studio execs that audiences don't gravitate towards a given movie based on the age of its stars. There's no need to cast a twenty-something unknown as Tony Stark when a forty-something Robert Downey Jr., baggage and all, is available and perfect for the role. There's no need to re-cast Indiana Jones just yet (pay attention, George Lucas) when everyone still likes Harrison Ford just fine in the role. And there's no need to flog us with useless romantic comedies, which are now a shadow of what they used to be, starring Jessica Simpson, Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan (though I honestly wouldn't mind seeing more of Katherine Heigl) when Sarah Jessica Parker, horseface and all, and her menopausal or almost menopausal cohorts can still sell their movie like hotcakes.
I've nothing against movies with young people; heck at 33 I'm still within the demographic that is still pleased by a younger-skewing cast. But lately I've found myself extremely disheartened with Hollywood's tendency to go young, which is basically dictated by sequel math, i.e., how much older the actor will be by the nth installment of a potential blockbuster franchise, and not by the actual talent the actor has. Had this math been strictly applied, the 43-year-old Downey Jr. would surely have seen his chances of snagging the role of Stark dwindle, with the film's director Jon Favreau already declaring he wanted to find the next Brandon (shudder) Routh.
Of course, there are some roles that need actors of a certain age (the Harry Potter gang and even Spider-Man come to mind) but for a while Hollywood apparently figured its future lay in casting young actors no matter the role, and no matter how bad the actor. Iron Man would have been a perfect example of that logic, and thank God it isn't. Thank God Superman Returns now must suffer that ignominy.
Incidentally, I cringe at the thought that Captain America, whose movie has the potential to be the next Spider-Man, has already been cast based on the alleged actor's looks and not on his talent or resume. Someone posting on some messageboard claims to already know (though he wasn't telling) and said only "he has the physicality to pull it off" which basically sent a chill down my spine.
Marvel, and every other moviemaking outfit out there, should take down notes about how this summer is going; pandering to sequels and future installments is NOT the way to go, while casting actors who are RIGHT for their parts, WHATEVER their age, IS.
4 comments:
Elijah Wood is one of the finest actors on the scene. Which one of his 40 film have you missed?
I would think it safe to say that the defining performance of Elijah Wood's career, or certainly the most widely viewed, was as Frodo Baggins. I found that portrayal decidedly one-note and without any real evolution in the course of the three films, and when I read the books AFTER watching the trilogy I realized that his characterization wasn't even faithful to Tolkien's original vision. I've also seen some scattered performances of his, like where he played a Jew wandering around the former Soviet Union in search of his origins and the movie where he carried around an old typewriter. I didn't see much versatility there, and his Frodo really left a bad taste in my mouth. The problem isn't what I've missed; it's what I've seen.
Still, I will concede that it's not quite fair enough to lump him together with the likes of Paul Walker and Jessica Simpson. I just thought of young actors I didn't particularly like. I didn't necessarily mean to offend. Still, I hope I've at least clarified why I feel the way I do about his acting.
We will agree to disagree. Come visit my website ELIJAH WOOD PERFORMER FOR OUR TIMES and let me convince you otherwise.
Edward C. Patterson
http://www.dancaster.com/ejw
author of
Bobby's Trace http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1434893960
Cutting the Cheese http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1434893847
No Irish Need Apply http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1434893952
The Closet Clandestine http://www.amazon.com/dp/1438220502
Come,Wewoka http://www.amazon.com/dp/1438227639/
Fair enough. I'll visit these sites soon enough. Thank you for dropping by! It's always nice to see a new face around here.
Post a Comment