Inspired by this CS thread on John Lithgow’s latest soup commercial: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=353863
Does a great actor disgrace him/herself by “whoring” him/herself to hawk a corporations’ products? Or is this just another acting job?
There are too many factors. It depends on how proud the actor is and how serious the product is. I have no problem with the proudest of actors doing ads for the most respectable of products, or the least impressive actors doing ads for unimpressive stuff. I happen to think that the products John Lithgow is hawking are pretty darn good, and I think he’s pretty darn good, too, but it’s not like he’s turning down offers from the Royal Shakespeare company, or selling bongs, know what I mean?
As somebody once put it, “Doing ads for Old Navy doesn’t mean your career has hit rock bottom; it means it’s hit rock bottom, face down and skidding…”
Oskar Fischinger, the German animator, did some of his best work in advertising. Circles, an early color short, was done for an ad agency whose slogan was, “We reach all circles.”
Admittedly, shorts shown in European moviehouses in the 30s are a fur piece from today’s TV drivel, which sort of backs Ethilrist up.
In the 70’s, Academy Award winner John Houseman did commercials for McDonalds; the ridiculousness of the combination was a routine staple of Johnny Carson’s “Tonight Show” monologue.
IIRC, in the '80s George C. Scott did a commercial (for a car?) in which he emphasized “I have never done a commercial–EVER.”, implying that this product was so good that he was willing to break his self-imposed standard to endorse it.
For Houseman, the endorsement clearly damaged his reputation as an actor. For George C. Scott–who by then had graduated to the kind of campy-celebrity-status reserved for iconic giants whose best work was far, far behind them (see: Elizabeth Taylor)–not so much. In Lithgow’s case, he may be relying on the campiness surrounding the idea of endorsing something as trivial as soup; look what its done for the career of William Shatner.
:smack: :smack: :smack: Note to self: RTFOP. At least twice before posting. For any insignificant little details that may prove embarrassing later on.
Houseman redeemed himself a little with those “they eeeaarrrrrrn it” commercials.
The problem I have with Lithgow’s soup commercials is they’re so damn dumb. He’s certainly capable of better, funnier work than that.
Wasn’t the Sistine Chapel a work-for-hire? If it’s good enough for Michaelangelo…
Yeah, I know, it wasn’t a commercial. But the general idea that doing work for money sullies the “purity” of the art isn’t a new one.
A lot of “A” class actors hawk products…in Japan.Wasn’t that the basis of Lost in Translation?Also,I’ve heard a lot of famous voices…Gene Hackman,Michael Douglas,James Coburn
No, no, Oskar Fischinger is perfectly relevant. An actor is one kind of artist, and a painter or drawer or animator is another kind of artist. Both might to have to make a decision as to whether advertising work is consistent with artistic integrity, and I don’t see how the decision is any different for the one than the other. (Except that, when you’re an actor, people actually see you work, as opposed to merely seeing your work.)
IMHO I agree that it is just another acting job. However, I also agree that it depends.
Robert Vaughn hawking the Helsinki Formula did get beneath dignity.
Ha, Lithgow is not a great actor. He did third rock from the Sun.
Anyway, it’s not about being a serious artist, it’s about marketing to your audience. Are you a streetwalker, an escort or a courtesan? If you want to be a courtesan you don’t put an ad in the paper. If you are hot enough to be an escort you don’t need to walk the street.
It’s more about marketing strategy than it is about serious art. If you look at the visual art world, all the gallery hype is fucking ridiculous, half of the art is total crap, I’ve seen stuff that is scribbles with trite sayings written next to them going up in some of the highest end galleries in New York. It’s all utterly irrelevant, whether the artist is serious or not, it’s about who their market is, and whether or not that market will be pissed off by them doing that to such a degree that they’ll cease to be a fan. If you don’t care, then you have to weigh how many fans you’ll lose versus the fact that people keep thinking about you because you are in their mind.
For a half-assed sitcom actor like John Lithgow it’s really irrelevant whether or not he does soup commercials. It won’t hurt his ability to do a sitcom, and besides it probably means his career is already hurting, and he needs some cash if he’s doing domestic commercials.
Erek
Why should I resent it when someone I like gets paid lots of money? It’s not even my money.
I dunno, I’m stumped.
Erek
Kristin Chenowith, who currently has seven movies in some stage of production and is also appearing in The West Wing, would be surprised to hear that.
I previewed that about 10 times – it’s Chenoweth!
It doesn’t apply if no one’s heard of you before you do the Old Navy Commercials. It’s only if you were already famous and then did one.
Erek
I think Rafael said it best in The Agony and The Ecstasy:(paraphrased) “What are artists but whores? We must create, therefore we must find a patron. It is the way of things.”
It should depend on the commercial, but it doesn’t. Top actors are afraid of 1) over-exposure and 2) being percieved as being hard up and on the way downboth in the eyes of the studio and the public. But the money is tempting. Which iw why some will do voice over work and some will do commercials in the Far East. About ten years ago we wanted to use Sean Connery in a spot. He like it, and almost said yes, but finally declined. But if the spot were to run in Japan and only Japan, we were told, he wowuld do it.
Here’s an interesting anecdote. Seagrams had approved a TV spot form their agency in which Bruce Willis (hot from Moonlighting) was going to do a little TV campaign. But the agency had to report back to the CEO that Willis wouldn’t do it. The CEO then asked “What did you ask him” The agency responded that they approached him wit the offer and even offered him the more than the maximum they though they could. The CEO’s response was “You asked him the wrong question. Go back and ask him how much it wold take to get him to do the spots?” Next scene: Willis singiing for Seagrams.
John Lithgow is currently the lead in a musical nominated for 11 Tony Awards in 2005. Lithgow himself was nominated for Best Leading Actor in a Musical (he lost…to his co-star in the musical). That’s ok, because he already won a Tony for Best Leading Actor in a Musical for 2002’s Sweet Smell of Success.
Half-assed sitcom actor he may be, but he’s a damn fine Broadway actor.
I think it would be cool if celebrities donated all the money they got from commercials to charity. To be fair, for all I know, many of them do. But I mean, you get a job in a commercial because you’re famous, not because you’re talented. Yes, you got famous by being talented (well, maybe) but that way they can use the (IMO overly) high value society places on celebrities (as opposed to talented, but lesser known actors) to funnel money from Hollywood to good causes. Although I would assume they get relatively little, compared to what they get for movies, so it’s not really a big deal.