The A-List Mythology

Is Jennifer Aniston a superstar, asks Entertainment Weekly in the latest issue. Just asking means there is an assumption that she should be, a "c'mon, look at her, she's Jennifer Aniston!" attitude. It's part of a belief that some actors can be placed into any project and the result will be a blockbuster, that ticket buyers will fall over themselves just to see the "star" no matter what the film is about.

If that were the case, wouldn't A-listers like Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts and Will Smith always have been superstars, right from their first film? No, you have to earn it and keep it by making smart choices -- either compelling stories or at least the kind of cheese that works for you.

Ever since Friends began, Aniston has been tagged for future glory. When her fairytale marriage to Brad Pitt collapsed, many thought she would get a box office boost á la Nicole Kidman, but there is a huge difference: Kidman can act and picked roles in films like The Hours while Aniston is a light weight and picks films like Rumor Has It.

Of course anytime you point this out a Team Aniston fan tells you she has talent, just look at The Good Girl, just as EW does. Fine, she slummed it in one indie. Now name another. Sly Stallone did the same in Cop Land to rave reviews, subsequently returning to gems like Driven and he is now making another Rambo. One film isn't a career.

EW even tries to credit her with box office hits, citing Bruce Almighty and Along Came Polly, but these are Jim Carrey and Ben Stiller vehicles, and she was just along for the ride.

Aniston is reportedly commanding $9 million per film, so I don't deny that someone thinks she's worth it, but she's not going to be a huge draw until she works her way up through some more small, supporting roles. Rachel made her bigger than life, but she's tiny on the big screen.

It's The Pictures That Got Small

There are no 20-something acting superstars these days, and The New York Times blames it on the actors.

Using the career arc of Orlando Bloom, Sharon Waxman argues that today's stars can't open a film and are unable to fill box office coffers. Bloom rose to prominence as the elf Legolas in The Lord of the Rings trilogy before moving on to Troy, Kingdom of Heaven and Elizabethtown.

Stardom came easier to the young only a decade or two ago. At 23, Tom Cruise grasped it with the release of Top Gun in 1986, and flaunted it two years later by turning a vehicle as slight as Cocktail into a major hit. Julia Roberts was a superstar at 22, after the success of Pretty Woman in 1990, and Leonardo DiCaprio was just 23 when Titanic turned him into an international screen presence in 1997.

All quickly rose into Hollywood's top salary tier - the ranks of the $20 million actor, or thereabouts - and achieved bankable status with nervous executives who were willing to make a costly film because these actors were in it.

There are just so many problems with this argument that I just don't know where to begin. Firstly, this smacks of the same excuses for this summer's box office drop off. It's because of DVDs, video games, an ancient curse, etc., etc., anything to take the spotlight off the awful films that were released.

Look at the movies referenced as star makers: Top Gun, Pretty Woman and Titanic. All three are in the Top 100 box office earners, with Titanic leading the list. Hardly a fair comparison to Kingdom of Heaven now, is it? I remember when Titanic was playing and nobody was saying, 'Hey, let's go see that Leo DiCaprio flick.' The argument seems to be that if there had been anyone else in the lead role of these movies, they would have been forgotten about.

The right casting can add to a great film, but no actor can save drek. It wasn't Orlando Bloom that sunk Kingdom of Heaven. Maybe it was a film about a Middle Eastern crusade when the U.S was invading an actual Middle Eastern nation that put people off. Of course if Russell Crowe was in it, it would have been huge. Sure, just look at Cinderella Man.

It's not the stars that got small, it's the pictures.