Paris Hilton was an established model when she was given her reality show. While the word “merit” seems wrong, she got the show because her agent pitched it to Fox and they thought it could make money. The the sex tape was leaked after the show was ready to air and Fox execs were actually worried the show would tank because of it. It was only after that the story changed to “Paris Hilton got her show because of a sex tape.”
And Emma Roberts isn’t a bad actress. I saw her in Scream 4 and she was actually pretty good.
I don’t spend much time worrying about Hollywood nepotism, but this…
…essentially begs the very question being asked here, because it takes for granted the very factors that we need to actually consider.
The first thing it does, as others have pointed out, is completely downplay the importance of “getting in the door” in the first place.
Secondly, it assumes that these “chops” that successful actors need to have are an incredibly rare commodity, that only a select few actually have them, and that these few are the ones who become successful.
The issue here is not that the sons and daughters and nephews and nieces and brothers and sisters of Hollywood figures can’t act. i’m not arguing that people with no ability at all get acting jobs. If fact, many of these folks are perfectly decent actors, and do a perfectly good job in the roles they are given. Emma Roberts is, as Justin Bailey notes, a competent actor who does her job just fine.
The main issue is that, in many cases, these products of nepotism are no better (even if they’re no worse) than any number of other actors who don’t make it. The main difference between them and the also-rans is the fact that they had a friend or relative who held the Hollywood door open for them.
Sure, there are a few actors in every generation that stand out for the brilliance of their performances, and who are identified as having abilities above and beyond the rest. But once you get below that level, there are plenty of actors who are perfectly good at what they do, and this group includes many big stars, as well as plenty of people you’ve never even heard of. It is in this broad middle of the acting bell curve that connections have the most sway, precisely because there are plenty of competent actors out there, and nepotism is as good a reason as any to choose between them.
Yeah, but the only reason that there’s such a glut of people who would love to have that job is that the stakes are so high. “Hollywood star” is a REALLY really glamorous job description with comparatively VERY few job opportunities. Naturally, there are going to be many more people seeking it than realistically have any shot at getting it.
I’m not being cynical. I’m saying that you are wrong in your assumptions.
What makes a good actor? I don’t know and neither does anybody else, but I have to assume that just like everything else in the world it is a combination of nature and nurture. If there is a genetic component to acting then it’s reasonable to assume that it runs in families. If there is a cultural component then it’s reasonable that a person in an acting family might know more about what it takes, has more access to resources to develop that talent, and more incentive to succeed. In a pure meritocracy the expectation would be that acting families would be over-represented compared to the population.
But there are no meritocracies, never have been, and never will be. IMO, they aren’t possible even in theory. People react to the world around them including the people around them. This will always override pure merit, assuming that such a thing even exists. If nobody knows how to define acting talent in an objective sense, then it is literally not possible to do the rating required of a meritocracy. This applies to every other field that has ever existed, since no objective rating of any skill, talent, intelligence, or ability has ever existed.
You’re comparing reality to a totally imaginary objective scale. It’s not cynical to reject that.
My problem with Hollywood nepotism is that it is greedy. The maid who gets her daughter a job as a maid is helping her but, that is qualitatively different than say Will Smith and Jada Pinkett-Smith, who both have more money than they can ever spend, producing movies so they can get their children starring, and no-doubt high-paying roles in them. I’d be happier with the Smiths if they’d picked some poor mother’s children for the parts.
Whether it should bother me it not, I find Will Smith’s kids to be an egregious example of Hollywood nepotism.
Some interesting points here on both sides of the discussion.
Yeah, but, realistically, parents want their kids to be happy, and kids like to imitate what Mom and Dad do, and parents who are successful and happy in their careers naturally find it easy to imagine their kids following in their footsteps.
I think it would take a fairly major and unusually rigorous conviction of principle to get a major actor to sit down with their starstruck kid and say:
“Look honey, I think you’re wonderful, but then I’m your parent. If you really want to be an entertainer then you have to go the dance class recital and school play route just like all the other little kids who want to be entertainers. And if you want to be in a professional production then you wait till you’re old enough to handle it like a grownup, and go to casting calls and auditions just like all the other hopeful kids in this town. If you’re good enough and dedicated enough to make it on your own then be my guest, but I’m not going to give you any extra help or do you any special favors just because you’re my kid.”
Now you just imagine saying that while those wide eyes looking up at you from that adorable little face slowly fill with tears as the dreams of “being in the movies just like Mommy and/or Daddy!” recede into the child’s version of eternal oblivion known as Maybe Someday When You’re Older.
I’m not saying that Hollywood parents shouldn’t say that to their kids, and I bet that many of them do. I’m just speculating that most likely it’s not only greed that keeps some parents from saying it.
A guy at my old church said the only way he got into the elevator maintenance and repair union was through his dad and uncle, who were members, and that because it was such a steady paying job (with union rules and negotiating power) that applying without significant “sponsorship” was just spitting in the wind.
I’m sure that Jaden Smith and Rumer Willis got all their work purely based on their respective talent levels and not the power wielded by their parents (Will Smith/Jada Pinkett Smith and Bruce Willis/Demi Moore, respectively).
It’s more admirable to get a job through nepotism than the other time honored Hollywood way-the casting couch.
There are worse places that practice nepotism and who-you-know. Entertainment is such an insignificant of life and besides, as Katharine Hepburn used to say-there is nothing to it. Shirley Temple was doing it when she was four.
Not true at all. (And this is addressed to all in this thread who don’t really understand what goes on. I know New York mostly, not Hollywood, but same difference.)
It is very easy to get your foot in the door. Agents and managers are always looking for talent. But it takes a special kind of personality to make it past the first step. My daughter got signed from an open call. Her manager could judge the kids based on them reading a single line. Amazing until you have hung around with actors - then you can tell.
The vast majority of the kids of actors never act, of course, but there are enough famous families for me to think that there is a genetic component. Think of Henry, Jane, and Peter Fonda, and more.
Just being around casting directors and others who make the decisions does help. I suppose understanding the business helps also. At one audition a casting director asked my younger daughter if she wanted to act - no way. I got asked if I was trying out for the role of the father in another.
If you’ve got the charisma, if you can be reliable, you could get in if you are close to the action. A superstar might get tolerated if he is unreliable, but my daughter acted with a kid, plucked from the streets pretty much, who blew his chance and got canned. (And she got his lines.)
So, having been on the inside, nepotism doesn’t bug me at all. However you hate Tori Spelling, she did act more or less competently on a show getting good ratings - which is all that counts.
Bull. My daughter was in no school plays, and was in one summer theater program for kids like millions of other theater programs around the country. Agents and managers are not looking for kids who know how to dance, except for special roles. They are not looking for kids who know how to sing. They are definitely not looking for kids who have gone through acting lessons. In fact her manager actively discouraged lessons, because they hurt the naturalness of the kid.
When my daughter left her first audition (she was about 10) she told me that she smiled when she went in, kept on smiling when she was there, and smiled as she left. That is what they were looking for. Nothing has ever astonished me more than that she got signed.
You get to recognize the kids who have it. She rode to a summer camp with one kid who she thought was good. We watched him in a production and immediately recommended our manager to his mother. He also got signed immediately, and was in a few movies in major roles (and got a good writeup in the Times!)
Finally, no kid who has ever been on a set thinks there is any glamor and romance in acting. It is a few minutes of work amidst long periods of boredom as the crew does the lighting and stuff. It is hard work, often with long hours, but it is the opposite of glamorous.
Exactly. And they had a hook. And their shows made tons of money, so those criticizing the money people for putting them on don’t understand what the business is all about.
Nepotism is always helpful in getting any job, and isn’t a bad thing per se. In most cases, people are being hired based on their ability, but they have an edge from being related to someone, so when comparing two equally qualified candidates, the one with the existing relationship gets the nod. The employer gets the advantage of having some background knowledge about the person, an extended chain of communication, and usually the person will work hard to fulfil the expectations.
If you think nepotism leads to lot’s of useless brothers-in-law getting hired, then you don’t much about business. It happens, but it’s a straight out loss for the business, and isn’t tolerated outside of small privately held businesses.