This discussion vaguely reminds of the website of the Iconoclast, a site that I’m probably firewalled away from. He had a lot of theories about how relatively little-known actresses break out into the A list, and how A list actresses go back to the B list, and especially how B list actresses get to the C list where you do a lot of erotic thrillers. Don’t know that I bought any of it, and he seemed a little TOO interested in the actress’ careers, but it did make for some interesting reading.
No question, Madonna, and her ability to hold the public’s attention, is what any pop star should emulate, if they want to stick around. I don’t know if that’s still possible today with all the noise out there. When Madonna was emerging, I don’t think there was the same level of celebrity culture; it existed, but it wasn’t to the same degree it is now. It’s easier for a lone star to do it, than it is for a group (witness the demise of boy bands), but at some point the star is going to have to do something controversial. Wasn’t that a big part of Madonna’s appeal? Maybe things have changed enough that a perfectly packaged image, always doing the right thing (and maybe saying something stupid once in a while) will be the way to keep star power.
Madonna at least give the impression that there’s some depth (even if it’s just faking a British accent), but what will Jessica Simpson offer in 20 years? It’s going to be real hard to shed the image of a dumb blonde, especially since she’s been the focus of a reality show that isn’t doing anything to change that impression. If she does decide to champion some cause, or re-invent herself (like any good star should be able to do), will anyone be able to take her seriously?
I forgot to mention in my first post, that this isn’t restricted to actresses. What was it, maybe a year or two ago, Colin Farrell was everywhere. Gender equality and all that.
I guess I don’t really understand this thread, because I truly do think that Scarlett and Keira fit the ‘It Girl’ stereotype. From the OP:
Looking at Keira Knightley’s imdb page, she seems to fit:
-
an actress is in a movie in a small but important role: The Hole, which is notable in that the 16 year old Keira bares her chest. Yikes. Not a small role, but a small movie, to be sure. It was released in 2001, so was likely filmed in 2000. (15 year old! GAH!) In 2001 proper, she starred in a movie of the week for ABC/Disney.
-
the movie gets buzz and/or she gets buzz for her role - inside the industry - the public at large is still completely in the dark: I never heard of The Hole until this year.
-
she gets cast in a few movies based on the buzz: 2001 marked the first year in which she has more than a single entry in imdb. (Of note is that she played the decoy in The Phantom Menace; cool trivia.) Now she gets cast in a bunch of projects…
-
a year-plus down the road, all of these movies are getting released at around the same time - or within 12 months anyway - and the PR hype machine cranks up to note the coincidence and make a sacrificial offering of this starlet to the public - holding her up and throwing her against the wall of opinion to see if she sticks…: The next year, 2002, 6 different projects come out that she is in, including Bend It Like Beckham.
-
few do and the rest limp away: She is one of the few who do.
At this point, she’s got some traction and can pick and choose roles. She selects carefully, choosing PotC and Love, Actually. After they come out, she’s a bonafide star after having come through the ‘It Girl’ machine successfully.
Scarlett Johansson fits the formula almost as perfectly. She did two projects per year after reaching her sweet 16, many of which were less than stellar. (Eight Legged Freaks? I am so watching that again.) Notably, the last year of this ‘slow and steady’ one or two projects per year period, she was in Lost In Translation, which did indeed generate considerable industry buzz. The next year? Six projects, just like Keira.
Unless this thread is only about ‘It Girls’ that have no talent? I’m so confused.
Well, despite the fact that i’m not her biggest fan, i’m not sure it’s fair to call Nicole Kidman a starlet. Despite having appeared in some crap, she is a talented actor with consistent box-office draw potential, and a range of acting abilities that makes her well-suited to a wide variety of roles.
I don’t think you quite have it. “It Girls” are usually in their 20s. Your examples of Keira Knightly and Scarlett Johanssen are just teenagers moving into an adult acting schedule.
When they they were under 18 Keira and Scarlett did the few movies you mentioned, but then they exploded in six movies at once. This was after they turned 18 and were in complete control of their acting schedule.
The It Girl phenomenon doesn’t fit for child actors for this reason.
I can see where Ellis Dee is coming from - you put forth a nice argument. And I never heard of the Hole either!
Anyway, for the sake of this general post, I would say KK and SJ do probably qualify.
I think Ellis Dee’s question at the end is key:
I think that does matter. What I find particulary…jarring?..with these “it girl”/ “it guy” hype examples is the incongruity - when it happens to actors like Julia Ormond or Gretchen Mol, or on tv with that ex-Playboy bunny Julie (Jenny?) McCarthy or that guy with squinty eyes from Pearl Harbor (Josh something?) - it just seems so…off. Hype, HYPE, HYPE!!! But the acting chops or at least the “right person for the right role” vibe just seems completely absent.
With Keira Knightly, at least, her energy, intelligence and at least basic acting skills seem pretty evident to this untrained eye. The hype gets extreme, but it seems to come from a legitimate place.
So, yes, to my mind, the post applies to those types, but it is the over-hyped and undertalented/uncharismatic that I am most curious about.
Another case study: Vin Diesel. Believe it or not, he isn’t a bad actor, from low-key roles in Saving Private Ryan and Boiler Room. But all of a sudden, the suits decided he should be the next big action superstar, so he was in *Pitch Black * (not a half-bad Aliens ripoff), and *The Fast and the Furious * (a bigger hit than I ever would have imagined) and xXx almost back to back. Strangely, he avoided the sequels to both of those successful action movies and instead made Chronicles of Riddick, a sequel of sorts to the lesser-known Pitch Black. Then he did that Disney comedy, so I don’t know what’s up with his career. He seems like a nice enough guy in real life, and even a bit of a geek (which makes him cool), but I don’t find him to be a charismatic “action hero/leading man” at all.
Josh Hartnett is another “It Guy.” It seemed like they were trying to force him on everyone, with *Pearl Harbor * (which I didn’t see) and *Hollywood Homicide * (which I wish I hadn’t seen). I don’t find him cool or compelling or charismatic at all – he just seems so bland and “vanilla,” like Keanu Reeves but more of a non-entity. I’m annoyed he is cast in The Black Dahlia, an adaptation of the ultra-noir James Ellroy mystery novel.
Basically, some studio exec/agent/publicist (or a combo of all three) decides to treat the IT GIRL as a business investment.
They pump a lot of money into getting her into the tabloids, on the cover of slick, glossy magazines, dating a Hollywood bad boy (who is probably using her as a beard), and hawking Maybelline.
There are three outcomes, all with perils:
(1) The Big Failure- AKA “The Gretchen Mol”- You pump all the time and resources into making her a star and the results are either medicore (Ormand) or devestatingly bad (Mol). She may be in one or two movies as "the girlfriend"but never lands that “tentpole” blockbuster role. And NEVER contributes to the first weekend gross of a movie. There will be nothing to show for all the cost and manpower. This outcome usually results in a talent agent hanging himself in a Vegas hotel room after writing a cryptic, yet poetic, suicide note.
(2) Temporary Success- AKA “The Jessica Simpson”- You absolutely get your money back. And then some. It was definitely worth the effort. The only real loser here is society. These are the folks that we call “pre-packaged” and wonder why they are famous. Soon, the publicist will not have to give magazine editors blowjobs to get this type of client on the cover. The magazine editors will be passing out the oral favors. These stars are worthless in every way except monetary value. And every time one of them makes a dollar, they are forced to send one cent of it to Zsa Zsa Gabor and one cent to George Hamilton; the patron saints of the “Why the Fuck are they famous?” Eventually, through overwhelming crappiness, they will fade from the scene (or at least out of center stage). Then we will wonder, what ever happened to that guy that played “Fez”? This level of success will NOT lead to Vegas hotel suicide. However, it WILL be a fast and meteoric rise to fame, so at least ONE junior agent handling the account will OD on coke in a West Beverly “massage parlor” with two underage, Asian prostitutes. Yet at the funeral, even his closest friends will be glad they pulled a fast one on the world.
(3) The Gold Standard (AKA- The Julia Roberts Special). Every now and then, through raw talent, spectacular charm, hard work or blind ass luck, one of these “It Girls” will actually become the next Julia Roberts; earning 12-20 million a picture. They will shake off the “flavor of the month” label and become a permanent fixture. It doesn’t seem like Reese Witherspoon is going anywhere. Meg Ryan’s been here for years. Who knows HOW Madonna keeps going?! But they are here to stay.Now, the agent tragedy in this case is much more interesting. What will happen is that the “next Angelina Jolie” will decide that now that she is a huge star, she will change agents. She will do this to show how powerful she is, moving up three spots in Entertainment Weekly’s annual POWER rankings. Her former agent, who put all that cash into her and will not see the end benefits, gets so enraged that he murders his soft-core, porn star girlfriend and plays a fun little game called “Suicide By Cop.” At least one of his other clients will sign on with one of his competitors while LITERALLY standing by over coffin at the viewing.
I always think of Lindsay Lohan as the typical “It” Girl. She went from relative obscurity to fame overnight, it seemed. Now she’s everywhere.
Indygrrl - I hear you, and in standard jargon, LL certainly qualifies as an “It Girl,” as does Hilary Duff, etc…
I am not sure if she fits the description we are working through in this thread. She was a child star who happened to land a couple of roles - Freaky Friday and Mean Girls - that had some critical and popular success. Her filling out into a curvy attractive grown-up-looking type of starlet didn’t hurt either.
But I haven’t seen - but I haven’t looked in detail so it may be there - a situation with her where she was identified as buzz-worthy by insiders, attached to a handful of movies and then hyped. With her, it was more “hey, look who might make the transition from child star to starlet - who knew?” Which, to me, is different - still a ton of hype, but coming from a different place…
My $.02.
middleman - nice summary. Cameron Diaz would qualify as a “Roberts” - I thought Reese would, too, but so far her trajectory hasn’t been as clear. Same with Sandra Bullock - she was a big-time over-hyped It Girl and transitioned to a Roberts, but has faded since for a variety of reasons…
Most of the ones who make it tend to be Roberts-lite anyway. No one has really gotten close to her fame.
But you are right. There are several who have gotten there as I said above, through raw talent, spectacular charm, hard work or blind ass luck.
Bullock- Spectacular charm. She’s just sweetly likeable.
Witherspoon- Hard work. She mixes in some solid Indie movies and takes on quirky roles between cheesy romantic comedies.
Diaz- Blind ass luck? Something About Mary made her career. She’s not the MOST beautiful girl in the world. Her talents seem one dimensional. Sje’s always just seemed to be in the right place at the right time.
Zeta-Jones- Hard work. She married an old, but influential Hollywood player. That keeps her going, but it has to be hard work taking one from him every night.
Jolie- Raw Talent. And she’s really hot…
Thanks for the clarification, WordMan (and Justin_Bailey). I knew I was missing something, and now understand better.
I don’t have any others to add, but in defense of Josh Hartnett, I’m a fan of that giving up sex for lent movie (40 Days?), I thought he was respectable in lackhawk Down, and I think there was one other that I liked him in. However, I would fight like a cornered mongoose to change the channel if Hollywood Homicide came on the screen.