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

[francois Lucet]

monsieur JOHN,il est tres drole de lire l ignorance, d'un sois disant expert,pas etonant que nous n'avons plus de stars, se sont des marionettes de John proposal.Mon dieu qu'el domage.

[Markus]

Put simply, if you were to use this "bar" (which is as artificial as Twinkies), there would be very few movie stars. Angelina Jolie, Jodie Foster, Robert DeNiro, Al Pacino, Brad Pitt, Tom Hanks, Renee Zellweger, Russell Crowe, Leonardo DiCaprio, Halle Berry, Ben Affleck, Matt Damon and, well, the list could go one, but you get my point -- you name 'em, almost NOBODY is a movie star using this faux box office criteria. NONE of these actors can open a movie and have guaranteed box office. In fact, I would argue that using your criteria, the only movie star currently in the world is Will Smith -- and even that is only temporal. Julia Roberts used to be able to make her mark at the box office, but no longer. Will Smith's time, too, will come to an end, as did Sylvester Stallone's, Tom Cruise's, Ahnold's, Clint Eastwood's or even Tom Hanks'. What a silly article. They paid you for that?

[Harry]

I think a fairer question to ask is "Is she a movie star in an age when people just don't care about movie stars?" Just to say "it's a man man's world" isn't enough, as I'm sure the likes of George Clooney is finding out. Frankly, I think she IS a movie star with some acting chops ( a la Clooney), But we're simply living in an age when an actor who plays a role that an audience can't immediately identify with them in is simply going to struggle. Leo DiCaprio is going to struggle to bring people in to see a downer like "Revolutionary Road", just like he struggled with "Body of Lies". At the end of the day, audiences attention span and dollars are so limited, that they want to see their favorite star/actors in comfortable roles, not in roles they covet as "artists".

[KJ]

I'd post a comment about this, but it's five minutes I'd never get back.

[jodyfilm]

While the author may be correct about Nicole Kidman's bankability, what about George Clooney? He's paid at least as much as Nicole Kidman and has as many box office bombs. Why don't journalists or movie executives moan and grown about his performance? Jodie Foster had one film with mediocre box office in ten years and it's the end of starring roles for women. George Clooney makes two or three disappointments in one year and he's still booking the big deals. Please explain!

[Kris Ford]

Jack Warner would disagree.

A "Movie Star" is not defined by net profits.

Harken back to what defined "a star". Presence, awe, magnetism, the indefinable draw, Nicole has IT, she always has had IT. Nicole Kidman IS a Movie Star.

Bette Davis and Katherine Hepburn went through periods whereby their films were critical successes, but not huge profit earners, their Stars were not adversely affected either.

Julia Roberts can raise babies in Santa Fe for another five years, but when she walks on the screen or down the street, she is and will always be a Movie Star.

I've seen Kidman walk into a room, jaws drop, that is a Star!

The above editorial is what is referred to as, defensive, sour grapes.

[independant producer]

Kate Hepburn was considered Box office poison.....AND she's considered one of our great stars now. Nicole is the modern day Kate Hepburn.

Using your criteria the only star today is Wil Smith. I don't buy that point of view.

She's a STAR.

[Scot L Spicer]

Nicole Kidman has done well in a couple of films, but at this point I run from anything in which she is a lead. I love the majesty of Australia the nation, but I would only see the movie for the director, if that. Nicole Kidman has not only been through a series of poor films, she has not demonstrated any style as an actress.

[LR Ozwatcher]

Acting is just a job and all actors merely workers - they have contracts and end points - lets view Kidman in perspective - any one who can hold the job in this industry with dignity, talent and charm is surely worthy of admiration. My feeling is that she may exit soon but re-emerge in a decade with a Meryl streep level performance - lets hope.

[moe-niq]

I am an Australian living here in LA with my Australian Family. Just because Nicole Kidman is Australian doesn't mean we support her. We do not like her acting and her "sameness" is boring. To Die for was perhaps her best. After that it has all been down hill. I thoroughly agree with John. Don't go and see the film. It is not a true depiction of Australians.