In a recent post about Jennifer Garner telling a friend she thought Elektra was awful, a reader left an interesting comment:
Personally, I think an actor should say straight-forward what he thinks about the film. If he doesn’t like it, it should be his choice to say so. This maybe his only chance to save face. Because, in the long run, he has more in stake than an executive – whom nobody knows anyway. An executive can pile up crap without ever blinking, while an actor is one of the front-people of a film production. If it is crap, people will remember it. And everybody knows what happened with Sharon Stone, who continued smiling on all her B-movies. It’s their responsibility and their right as artists to say what they think. It is their credibility who is in question and I can only have more respect for those who say what they think needs to be said.
The comment brings up some good points and it got me thinking about the issue.
Here’s the way I see it. An actor who puts out a bad film doesn’t suffer as much at the producer, because ultimatly it’s the producer who losses the money. Actors are easily forgiven. Heck, just look at Harrison Ford, Robert Di Nero or Al Pachino… every film these guys have been in for at least the last 5 years has sucked eggs… but we don’t really hold them responsible for that.
When an actor is hired to be in a film, the job goes beyond just acting in front of the camera. It also involves promoting the film. So if I pay you $4 million dollars to be in my movie, you better aslo promote the hell out of it! If you think the film sucks, then keep your opinion to yourself until after it’s been on DVD for a while. To come out say say you think it sucks to the public would break the contract, because it would conflict with trying to promote the film.
Also, look at it from the actor’s point of view. If they go and shoot their mouth off that a movie they just filmed sucks, then what are the chances that producer will ever hire them again? ZERO. And word gets around fast. Other producers will be hesitant to hire that actor as well.
Also, more and more big name actors are tying their salary in with the revenues of the film. IE. The more money the movie makes, the bigger the paycheck for the actor… so an actor isn’t going to bad mouth the film. Also, the OTHER actors in the movie may get really pissed off too. Afterall, it looks good on an actor’s resume to have a big money maker on there… and if one of the actors bad mouths the movie, then the success of the film will take a hit.
Yes, I think an actor should say what they think about a film… but only once the comments can’t effect the revenue of the film (after it’s done it’s run in the theatre and DVD stores). To yack about it before that would betray the trust ofthe producer, effect their future employment, tick off other actors and probably set them up to be sued for breach of contract.
Your thoughts? (picture taken from the photo gallery of JeffLava.Com)
And I’m looking forward to posting my “50 cents” worth…thank you for the support Simone!
Sorry, but I was talking about The Godfather III here when Al Pacino made that comment. Sorry fot the typos folks, it’s been a long day.
I’ve been trying to construct my post here when I saw this reply from Darko regarding Justin. LOL Anyway, welcome back Justin, looking forward to more of your posts.
Back to the topic, I say it depends on who is talking really, and what exactly they are saying. Now this is not about someone saying something about a movie theyve been in or how bad it was, but recently, Halle Berry was saying that there arent enough film roles for Black actresses, and she felt that Hollywood was being racist. Now I was thinking whether she really should have said that or said nothing at all. Because you will then try to think, hang on, are we hearing this ranting from someone who won an Oscar, then made “Catwoman” and then because its such a big flop, she rants that there arent any good enough film roles for her? Maybe she has a point, and for these ones, who have been victims of a bad project, it’s not as if it will be hard for them to get better ones, just maje sure your agent finds youa bettermaterial next time. And if you are in the position to “control” the situation, use it to your artisitc advantage.
Speaking of actors who thought the movie they did wasnt that great, but long after The Godfather II was released, I remember Pacino saying that Copolla is losing it, this was after deciding to star George Hamilton into the movie who can not act on his life, and then for the Mary character, replacing a then worn out Winona Ryder for his then non-actress daughter Sofia. I didnt mind him saying that actually. Heck he was right, The Godafther III was no way in the league of either Godfather I and II.
I think you have to pick your moments, when to say and what to say.
Yes indeed, I am he. I prefer Infamous to famous. As I avowed before, I will commence the vertical climb to establishing my reliance, integrity, and credibility once more.
lol
Are you the famous “Justin” from the Audio-edition ???
There is no simple formula or algebraic equation that can calculate the outcomes of an actor/actress spouting off their opinions of a film before it is released. Nor is there a statute in any law preventing it, so unless they are obligated due to contract to promote the movie I see no reason that they shouldn’t state their opinions when they see fit. The question isn’t really should they, more than what’s going to happen if they do. So if they don’t care what the outcome will be, then it’s really up to the individual actor/actress’adherence to any moral code or standard. If I were in their shoes, it would be my humble attitude that would impede me from saying anything about projects I’m working on. But now then, wouldn’t the tabloids be at a loss if more people in Hollywood were humble?
Wow. So let me summarize some of the stuff:
Actors are prostitutes whose performance is not seen by the average film go’er, who should take the money and be glad that they can work, shut up about the film cause their opinion is not relevant and could destroy the films promotion and their future carreer.
:-)
Well, that’s one way to see it. Here in Europe, and don’t get me wrong, we are not even close of making 1/4 of the movies Americans are making, I have the feeling we respect a bit more the job of actors and directors. Of course we don’t have 20 milion dollars laying around to throw at “Alone in the Dark”-scripts just to make money.
A director chooses the actors and he has the final word. He will never get fired of a filmset, since he is the principal creative force behind the production. He has the Final-Cut. If he goes, there is no film. The excorcist 2 switch is unthinkable. Luc Besson (french director) is trying to apply the american-system in France. But, the directors are better prepared and have spent more time developping the script.
Actors are paid less than their American counterparts. To make a living, most of them do a lot of theatre. Clearly, they don’t do this job for the money.
Since, there are few films being made, the films who do get made must be good. By consequence, actors don’t need to sell their film. They give their opinion when asked for. I have never hear an actor say that a film is “bad”, but actors won’t say it is good when it isn’t. They will avoid the answer.
But you’ve convinced me that in an american system, when you accept $4 million for a film – giving your ‘ok’ on the script, you better be carefull what you say.
Still, didn’t Sandra Bullock said Speed 2 was crap, a few weeks after its release…
Actors are essentially prostitutes.
And hos shouldn’t talk smack about their Johns’ business, unless they know what’s good for them!
The average film go’er in my honest opinion is not always worried about the quality of the acting or the direction. As long as the acting is okay and the directing okay they will watch anything as long as the storyline is of interest. This explains how films that receive great critical acclaim do not always do that well at the box office. And also explains why films that reviewers / movie experts / bloggers hate yet the film gets bums on seats and makes money. Todays mass market is about holding the attention span of increasingly easly distracted audience by giving them some action, giving them some pretty people, giving them a few tears, giving them a few laughs. This coupled with a relativly plausible storyline and all around 2-hours long and you got yourselves a blockbuster!
What an actor can rebound from also might depend on what they have accomplished. De Niro, Pacino and Ford can probably get away with it. For every crappy movie these guys put out you still remember the Godfather roles.
Garner is still trying to establish herself as a viable actress. She is helped by the fact that she has a successful TV show and thousands of guys drooling to see her in movies. Others don’t have that luxury and dissing a movie and a producer might not be good for their careers.
Another problem as with about actors claiming that ‘movie x sucks’is that they are not necessarily the best judges of the content of the film but nevertheless making there opinion public could have a major effect on the sucess of the film. It certainly concievable that someone working on ‘insert generally respected film here’ thought that the project sucked, or found it dull etc, when in reality the film might impress a significant portion of the movie going population. There is no reason they shouldn’t privately express their opinions on the matter, but it should stay private.
As for distancing themselves from films for their own career…it raises interesting questions about the hiring practices for major studios. Ultimately the film going audience ought to be able to draw the distinction between the actor and the film. By this I mean, we should recognize that just because a film stunk, it doesn’t mean that it was the fault of the actor. So when we see their face on a new trailer, we shouldn’t dismiss the film outright because the actor was in a bad film (though there are cases where actors genuinely stink, or from experience just do poor quality films and it is legitimate in such cases to be wary). It seems reasonable to think that most actors who have reached some level of skill could look really good given the right role. There is probably a thin line between A list and B list star in terms of talent in most cases. An interesting case is that Tarentino movies. He routinely pulls up actors who seemed washed up/or never quite made it big/neglected. They don’t flop in his films, they tend to thrive.
Nevertheless it seems that studios pick their stars on the crest of popularity, or by seeing ‘who is hot right now’ while leaving actors who have had a couple bad roles in the dark for someone to resurrect once they have been forgotten. Unfortunately the general movie going public swallows the star drama whole which just feeds the motivation to put people like Colin Farrell in lead roles, or use pop stars act in films based on their struggle to make it in the tough world of entertainment. All this rant was unfortunately to make the point that politics drives the choice of who stars rather than just talent. Its just sad that we the public feed the cycle.
I liken acting to any other business in that you will be fired if you don’t spout glorious comments and nuggets about your employer and chat up the virtues of being part of that company team, or at the very least your career can easily die without warning. No one needs to hear what an actor thinks about their work or the films they do. It’s not relevant. Only the audience’s opinions matter. Through word of mouth, a movie with either raking them in or it won’t. I say, I’ve heard enough from the actors for 90 minutes, so let the quality of the flick speak for itself!
As I stated in the original post, she didn’t do much wrong apart from confide in a friend who isn’t trustworthy enough to hold a confidence. She didn’t make these comments in an interview or in public. At the end of the day, if a film sucks, reviewers and film watches will soon let the world know. It doesn’t really need the actors comments to comfirm it.
John, on a slightly different note, and I don’t mean to be nit picky, but you have spelt Pacino’s name wrong (no H).