I just watched the 1961 movie, *The Misfits. *In the titles, the three “stars” (Clark Gable, Marilyn Monroe and Montgomery Clift) were listed in huge letters. Following were the two “co-stars,” Thelma Ritter and Eli Wallach, listed together in smaller letters.
First of all, Montgomery Clifts character (and performance) could have been omitted, and the movie wouldn’t have suffered for it. It might have even been improved. It was a totally extraneous character and a lackluster performance.
Eli Wallach’s character, on the other hand, was just about as much a part of the movie as Clark Gable’s character. And ironically, the best acting was done by Wallach and Ritter, the two “co-stars.”
So are a movie’s “stars” simply the biggest names. Are lesser-known actors listed as “co-stars,” regardless of the importance of their roles and their contribution to the movie? Is a well-known actor in an unimportant role more of a star than a lesser-known actor in a major role?
Clift had the better agent.
The “stars” are those that are top-billed and paid the most. “Co-stars,” in this context, is a category for those who aren’t the big names in the film, but who can get a credit ahead of the regular actors in the cast.
The size or importance of the role is not a factor. It’s a combination of the agent, the actor’s track record, and the actor’s wishes.
Clark Gable’s name on a marquee guaranteed a degree of ticket sales, as did Marilyn Monroe’s and Montgomery Clift’s. Putting them in large letters hedges the studio’s bets that the movie won’t lose money, even if it sucks.
Eli Wallach’s name on the poster puts zero butts in seats on opening weekend, but makes for good word of mouth advertising; his performance assures a degree of ticket sales on week two, and pacifies the director whom the studio wants to use again soon.
Dom DeLuise adds no value to the movie. Not sure how he had a career, unless he had photos of Burt Reynolds and Hal Needham doing freaky stuff with dogs and ponies.