Generations of Mediocrity or No-Name Brilliance

Generations of Mediocrity or No-Name Brilliance

Merit seldom plays a part in who our society decides to worship in the arena of popular culture. The only aspect of pop culture where merit is absolutely essential is sports. Ability is the only thing that matters on the playing field. If only this were true of our other forms of entertainment.

The people we worship the most, America’s answer to medieval royalty, are the handful of actors that inhabit or pollute the majority of the major films in America. They are the least vulnerable to the harsh reality of merit. They are also the most self-congratulatory group of folks you are ever likely to see walk along the red carpet. Only Hollywood is capable of taking a thoroughly mediocre film like The Departed, call it the best picture of the year, and have the rest of the world nod their heads in agreement.

Goodfellas was a movie worthy of such an accolade, maybe even Casino, but The Departed was just not a very good film. The best picture Oscar is rarely ever given for a good film so Hollywood was just being consistent. Rating one work of art over another is a stupid exercise to begin with but Hollywood is not famous for its intelligence. I realize that I am being preposterously generous by defining as art the product that ends up in the landfill of your local Cineplex, but I suppose even Adam Sandler movies somehow fit under the umbrella of art.

I can’t ever remember willfully watching an Academy Awards presentation, I have always thought that it is the height of anti-intellectualism to quantify art, and I have rarely agreed with the choices they make for "best" whatever. I just tune out this spectacle like I do anything else that I find annoying. Something that is a little more difficult to live with for anyone who enjoys movies is the whole Hollywood star system of actors.

There are probably tens of thousands of people in America who are capable of performing in a movie yet we are stuck watching fewer than about 20 people star in at least 90% of the major studio movies. If an actor stars in one successful film we seem to be stuck with that person for an entire generation. Whether or not that film was successful because of the merit of that actor is beside the point. A star is born. Any future success that this actor enjoys can be written off as a self-fulfilling prophecy. If a studio wants a film to succeed it can make that happen via marketing.

The last time that I went to a movie theater and sat through the previews, all that I could think was, “Are these the only actors we have?” One actor was staring in two of the upcoming movies. The choices Hollywood makes have nothing to do with merit, it’s all about marketing. There is very little incentive for studios to make good movies, all they want to do is make money. I have said that Hollywood could take a security camera tape from a suburban 7-11, doctor it up with a snappy musical score, market the living shit out of it, and it would be a blockbuster. If a movie has a $40 million marketing juggernaut behind it and opens in 3,000 theaters nationwide, it’s going to have a certain amount of success.

It’s depressing to me to think that I’m going to have to dodge Tom Cruise movies for the rest of my life. Jack Nicholson may live for another 30 years, and as long as they can prop him up in front of a camera, he will be staring in movies—most of them bad.

If only the movie industry could adopt some sort of “Three strikes and you’re out” policy. Actors should only be able to star in three films and then they must retire. They can go off and do local theater. They should at least have to lay fallow for a few years until they are able to develop a new persona. Since I have already mentioned thee two, Tom Cruise and Jack Nicholson have been living off the same personas for their entire professional careers.

I couldn’t name three good movies that I’ve seen in the last two years, but it is hard for me to reap enough praise upon all of the fantastic HBO series. HBO, for whatever reasons, has not relied upon the usual stable of stars to make all of their great serialized programs. I have watched six seasons of The Sopranos and the only actor I know by his real name is the guy who plays Tony. The rest of the cast may as well be real life New Jersey gangsters for all that I know. I know all of the character names on The Wire, even the minor ones, but I don’t know any of their real names. The same goes for Entourage, Rome, and Deadwood.

I would include the FX series, The Shield, in this same lofty category of television innovation, although that show had an entire season tarnished by the over-the-top acting of Forest Whitaker in his guest role. All of the other actors on the show are no-names. I love no-names. I don’t want to know an actor’s name except that of the character he is playing.

Probably my favorite character on The Sopranos is a shifty-eyed little creep called Silvio Dante. He is the person he plays on the show as far as I am concerned and I wouldn’t want to see him in any other role. To me, Silvio epitomizes the strength of these programs because the actors bring an anonymity to their roles and then the serial nature of the shows allows a character development that just isn’t possible in a two hour movie.

There isn’t a lot of room on these programs for a huge ego like Dustin Hoffman or any other major Hollywood jackass. I am almost never impressed by the work of super-celebrity actors which is why I have a soft spot for foreign films where I recognize no one. I would much rather sit through a Bollywood musical than see another movie with Leonardo diCaprio or Matt Damon. There are a lot of actors out there who deserve a chance. It’s time we start letting a little bit of merit play into this industry instead of the old methods of nepotism, cronyism, and using the same tired stars in every film.

This same system dominates the writing profession. In the January 29, 2007 edition of The New Yorker there is a not-very-funny essay by David Sedaris. I am among the people who thought that Davis Sedaris was a very funny writer back when he first became a household name. Since then he has been pretty hit and miss with week’s essay falling under the later category. Actor Steve Martin has an unfunny essay in their Shouts and Murmurs page. On merit alone neither of these two articles would have been published, but the name recognition goes a long way even in the hallowed pages of The New Yorker.

You can criticize professional sports all you want but it is an industry based entirely upon merit. You can be the greatest ball player that ever lived but if you have a few bad weeks—in some sports a bad game or two—and some new kid is going to be taking your spot. And as far as nepotism, the team you play for may take a look at your athlete kid, but if he can’t play he doesn’t get in the game.

It’s sad to think how much we are missing. Instead of watching Keanu Reeves in another lousy performance we could he heralding in a wonderful new actor. Instead of reading second-rate efforts by Steve Martin and David Sedaris, we could be ushering in a striking new talent.