Nicole Kidman: Movie star or box-office loser?

When I wrote about "Australia" the other day, I said, somewhat flippantly, that the movie "once again proves that Nicole Kidman is many things, but not a movie star." 20th Century Fox, in fact, is selling the film largely as a Baz Luhrmann extravaganza, not as a Kidman-Hugh Jackman picture. I've been getting a lot of flak from readers, especially loyal Australians, who been posting comments defending Kidman's movie stardom and, well, basically saying I'm an idiot.

Fair enough. But who's right? Is she a star or isn't she? First, let's define our terms. In the movie business, being a star isn't about being a recognizable celebrity. If that were true, Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan would be getting $15 million a picture. Being a star is not about being a great actress, either, or Kate Winslet and Cate Blanchett would be getting $15 million a picture. (For the record, Kidman has given many fine performances, going all the way back to "To Die For." She can be a formidable presence on screen.) Being a movie star is about a very simple equation: Do people pay money on opening weekend to see you in a movie? Movie marketers want actors whose presence in a picture makes rank and file moviegoers say: Oh, my God, I want to see that movie.

By that standard, Kidman doesn't fit the bill. In fact, there are shockingly few female stars of any stature that fulfill that equation. I called a couple of movie marketers to ask if I was being unfair to Kidman. Their answer: No. As one marketer cannily noted, "If someone moves a Will Smith film onto one of your [release] dates, you panic. If someone moves a Nicole Kidman movie onto your date, you shrug. She's just not a real commercial force." Or as another marketer put it: "She's an actress, not a movie star. There's a big difference."

You can see for yourself by checking out her track record at the-numbers.com, one of the more reliable box-office websites. It reveals that Kidman has had several distinct chapters in her career, only one relatively brief one where you could say she was a genuine star.

Period One: The Tom-Cruise Era. In the early-mid 1990s, she was an intriguing new screen luminary, but her only big hits--"Days of Thunder" and "Batman Forever"--were summer action movies carried by Cruise or "Batman's" Kilmer and Co.

Period Two: 2001-05. This is the era that established Kidman as a recognizable commodity. She appeared in a series of international hits, notably "Moulin Rouge," "The Others," "Cold Mountain," "Bewitched" and "The Interpreter." But marketing experts say none of these movies was solely propelled by her star wattage. "The Others," for example, was a genre thriller sold on its concept, not its star. "The Interpreter" had Sean Penn, who could've carried the film with almost any actress. Ditto for "Bewitched," which was as much Will Ferrell's movie as Kidman's film.

Period Three: 2006-08. As far as Kidman is concerned, it's the Ice Age, with flops like "Fur" and "The Invasion." Kidman was a supporting presence in "The Golden Compass," but marketers say that movie did well overseas because of its concept, not its costars. At best, Kidman has helped elevate genre material (as she did in "The Others") or delivered a strong performance (as she did in "Cold Mountain" and "The Hours"), But it's hard to say she drove fans to the theaters, as Will Smith does--or Julia Roberts did in her heyday.

What's really depressing is that when you ask marketing execs to name the actresses that do earn their keep, you're usually met with silence. There are always caveats: Meryl Streep in the right role, as with "Mamma Mia!" Angelina Jolie, who can put some extra oomph in a genre film like "Wanted." Reese Witherspoon or Sandra Bullock in the right kind of comedy. In today's Hollywood, it's a lot easier to build a career as a respected actress than as a box-office icon. Whether you're Nicole Kidman or anyone else, it's a man's, man's, man's world.

Photo of Nicole Kidman in "Australia" by James Fisher / 20th Century Fox

Comments

[Steve Sailer]

One reason Nicole Kidman keeps getting cast in leading lady roles is because she's so much fairer in skin tone than any potential leading man. In romantic scenes, Hollywood likes "the fair sex" to be, well, fairer, than the tall, dark, and handsome hero. The funny thing is that "tall" doesn't seem to matter as much these days. Nicole is about 5'-11", making her several inches taller than her ex-husband Tom Cruise, yet they were cast together three times. Cruise is much darker than she is, so they were seen by movie executives as having the basic requirement of screen chemistry: that the man be darker or ruddier than the woman.

[Jo M]

Nicole was awesome in Australia and Moulin Rouge. And I disagree with John (Dec 3) - Australians are NOT boycotting Australia. The cinema I went to yesterday was packed!

[jj]

silly article from another box-office nerdy
check-it-every-week-kind-of-guy
I have to say who cares?
Nicole Kidman is fine Lindsay is fine(leave her alone)

[Natasha]

Movie star or not, I was surprised at how much her performance in The Golden Compass made me cringe, and I'm not even finished watching the movie. A far cry from her turns in To Die For and Moulin Rouge.

[Yese]

Well, im from Venezuela. So, my english is no good. But im going to try to say something here...

Nicole Kidman has been one of my favorite actress since im 13 years old, im 21 now. I dont think shes a movie star at all. I dont think shes the best actress and the whole world. But i believe and i saw in many of her movies an amazing peformace" (actuacion). That any other actress could ever try to do. Like in Birth, that movie is just amazing and she did a perfect job.

I think shes making a big mistake with all that stupid botox on her face that will bruise her job. But what can i say.. shes just another person in the world, just like us. she makes mistakes, shes not perfect, so, why is all this peolple saing all the bad things about this women. Are you guys perfects?? are you completely PERFECT in your guys job?? cuz im not. So, i have no reasons to destroit nobody else. If you dont like any movie, so you dont need to see it. Or if you dont like any actress or actor SO, DONT GO TO SEE IT. Just like that. Why need the people to say bad and ugly things about others. Thats pathetic.

So, in the end. ALL The people who is trying to destroy Nicole Kidman's job is just so PATHETIC as HER. Just because you'are playing the stupid "fame people game". Wich is "GIVE ME MORE ATTENTION" ... and thats what you guys are doing. In a bad way. But you are doing it. So, im sure that Nicole is very happy cuz she has the people attention and thats what she and ALL hollywood actors wants.

*** Si no tienen otra cosa que hacer que criticar a la gente BUSQUENSE UNA VIDA cuerda de vagos!! ***

Peace

[Christian Toto]

It may be a man's world, but unless that man is named Will Smith he's not gonna guarantee fannies in the seats.

[Alejandro]

What an idiot. Nichole Kidman as an actor has more talent in her little finger that most. The problem is that most moguls are not interested in talent. It's the bottom line that counts and that is trully sad. It's all marketing and most of the time it's about how to market a bad product in Holywood, with the exception of a very few films such as Austrailia. I loved the movie and Nichole Kidman made it great and to my mind is worth seeing again. "Oh yea" youre still and idiot as are most critics

[cal chris]

I think the question is....Albino or Stepford wife?

[clockerbob]

nicole peaked in" eyes wide shut" as did J lO IN
THE MOVIE" OUTASIGHT". i THINK
IT IS THE DIRECTOR WHO HANDLES THE FEMALE STAR.
MARILYN MONROE SAID THAT in an interview with edward r morrow,

[Jim in Australia]

I am an Australian, but I must admit that Ms Kidman is not one of my favorite actresses. She was excellent in "To Die For", but I have not appreciated her work in anything since. Some of her "fame", and I believe her Oscar as well, is more to do with her being Mrs Tom Cruise, and she may have garnered the sympathy vote simply because of her recent divorce.

Hugh Jackman is great in just about anything. It therefore would not have mattered who played opposite him in "Australia". It is, perhaps, a pity that they didn't choose somebody else.