I was flipping through channels the other day and happened to stop at the Munsters. My FIL made the observation that Yvonne De Carlo (Lilly Munster) was the biggest celebrity in the cast at that time. He referred to her as being a “Hollywood A-lister back then”. Apart from her role in the Munsters, I was unaware of her body of work, but am usually skeptical of the sort of sweeping claims my FIL is known for making. So I checked imdb and see that Ms. De Carlo did in fact appear in a number of big films in the 40’s and 50’s. I’m still, however, unconvinced she qualifies as an ‘A-list’ celebrity, but because I wasn’t around in the 40’s or 50’s, it makes it a little more difficult for me to gauge how prominently she may have loomed in the public consciousness back then. If someone pressed me to name an A-list actress at the time the Munsters came out I would have chosen a name more like Elizabeth Taylor, rather than Yvonne De Carlo.
All of this of course begs the question what qualifies someone as being an A-list celebrity to begin with?
Who qualifies as an A-list celebrity in 2019? George Clooney? Julia Roberts? Dustin Hoffman? Meryl Streep? Yes? Then what about Lisa Kudrow, Betty White, or Ashton Kutcher? Or maybe Carrot Top or Mr. T?
Ultimately, is there some sort of litmus test one can apply to determine if someone is an A-lister or not? At what point does one’s star fade and is there a minimum time one needs to be in that spotlight to qualify as the genuine article, as opposed to someone merely experiencing their 15 minutes?
My rule of thumb, which I think I only just now thought through, is: could they, right now, line up a $25M paycheck for a film with nothing else going for it yet?
Say you’re a Hollywood producer and a given movie star walks in to tell you he’s very interested in doing — well, no, not a sequel to an existing hit, or whatever, and there’s no costar standing right next to him looking to sign a contract at the same time. But he’s looking for that deal, and you can make it happen right now.
IMO, an A-lister is someone Joe Average knows and thinks enough of to think of them when they think movies (or TV). Someone who the average fammily can sit around the dinner table and say things like, “Did you read Julia Roberts is going to do a TV series?” “Wow!”
No one says, “Did you read? Yvonne DeCarlo is in the new James Bond movie.” “Who”? “You know, Lily Munster?” “So?”
There’s only one real criterion for A-list and that’sthe name above the title.
Or in more crass showbiz terms, whether people come to see the star, or the movie.
None of those names strikes me as A-list in 2019, except maybe Meryl Streep. Julia Roberts and George Clooney were, but are they still?
I’d say people more like Bradley Cooper, The Chris’ (Evans, Pine, Pratt,) Jennifer Lawrence, Margot Robbie, Scarlett Johansson, etc…
Sometimes they try to force it and it fails, like with Taylor Kitsch. After Friday Light Nights ended, he headlined two Hollywood blockbusters in a row: Battleship and John Carter. Unfortunately they both bombed and he never really made it to the A list. (And then four years later he got a second chance: season 2 of True Detective! Ouch.)
There’s a phrase where an actor can “open” or “headline” a movie. If the actor is guaranteed to be a drawcard for audiences based on name alone, that’s A List. And they can remian A List even after three flops in a row. Jennifer Lawrence is still A List even though she hasn’t had a hit for a while now.
More precisely, and to be even a bit more crass about it, people come to see the star acting, not because they have reputation for doing nude scenes regularly, for instance.
It probably would have been more accurate for your FIL to say that she was a “big star” at the time, or the “biggest star in the show”, rather than “A list”. As commonly understood, a “big star” is a very generic term and would have worked just fine.
Discussions of “A list” always get into these quibbles, and are definitely a moving target. A star like Julia Roberts would probably want to be talked about as an “A list” star, and would be treated like one socially in Hollywood, but probably not treated like one professionally any more (at least not in private conversations out of her earshot).
And ISTM that the whole “A list” mostly only applies to US actors. As the Brit/Aussie eco-sphere of actors seem quite content to do starring roles, as well as top supporting roles, as long as they are working. US star actors seem to more concerned with keeping their status from role to role (in contract negotiations it’s about where they show up in billing, and their price floor).
There is no definitive list, maybe the folks over at 538 should come up with some metrics on this?
This isn’t the 1970s - nobody pays the price of a movie ticket to see someone naked, not when any and all nude scenes are leaked online the day after the film is released, at the latest.
Everyone is talking A List actors. I’m curious how you would define what an A list musician? Obvious he would be the main draw at his concert, not the opeding act. What other criteria would you use?
How about what an A list athlete is well? Or an A list author?
With respect to composers for films, I’d argue that there are only a few right now: John Williams is pre-eminent; Zimmer, Morricone, and Shore are distant seconds but still qualify. Vangelis used to be A list, but no longer.
For literature/sports, I’d say it’s someone whose fame is so big that even people who aren’t interested in literature/sports have heard of them.
For music it’s a bit trickier as, unlike the other two, it’s pretty much impossible NOT to hear some regularly. Still, the above criteria holds for Classical:
Vivaldi, Bach, Haendel, Beethoven, Mozart : A-List Chopin, Liszt, Wagner, Brahms, Tchaïkovsky, Verdi, Debussy, Ravel, Stravinsky : almost A-List
All the others are behind.
For popular music, there are too many factors, due to wider exposure.