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

[Michael Difani]

I agree with Patrick Goldstein about Kidman--I saw 'Australia' and other than the scenery, I was not impressed. Redford and Streep had far more chemistry in "Out of Africa" than Jackman and Kidman. I have enjoyed some epics--"Lawrence of Arabia", "Dr Zhivago", 'Bridge on the River Kwai" to name a few I would see several times. "Australia' did depict the Japanese bombing of Darwin in early 1942 (it was almost totally destroyed again by a cyclone on Chistmas Day, 1974) and the policy of taking Aborigine kids away from mixed marriages (carried on until the early 1970s)...Kidman can sing and she is very talented, but she is not a major star....Thanks for the column...MBD

[Kevin Jones]

A well-worn studio expression describes a "star" as an actor people would pay to see acting out the phone book. Take a picture like "Cocktail" for Tom Cruise, studio bosses refused to understand what made the picture perform better than its perceived quality and as a result they handed the power and the glory over to the star. It is precisely this small-minded mentality subscribed to by the studios and Mr. Goldstein that perpetuates the downward spiral of movies in general.

Baz Luhrman for his incredible vision and talent has only made four films. Two of which were based on classic works of literature. Two were original screenplays. You may not have noticed, but the studios have cut way back on making original material for precisely the reason demonstrated by "Australia's" diminished opening numbers. It keeps getting harder and harder to generate interest in original films.

I believe that if "Australia" were based on a run-away best-selling novel, the opening would have been entirely different. Moreover, I think if Will Smith were honest with himself even he would understand that he couldn't open a theatrical version of the phone book to the same level as "Pursuit of Happyness" because some people refuse to understand what allowed "Happyness" to connect with a wide audience.

If anything, what star power proves is that an actor's choices reflect his audience's interests and passion. Instead of dumping the weight of the whole picture on Nicole Kidman's star factor, why can't you admit that Will Smith couldn't open "Australian" any bigger and perhaps without Nicole Kidman wattage, the film's opening numbers might have easily been substantially less. Mr. Goldstein's defense of his simple-minded statement will undoubtedly force Ms. Kidman to seek "safer" choices in the future and make it even harder to get original stories into the marketplace.

[lawrence]

I agree with your article and think the ''real'' stars were Hayworth, Leigh, Dietrich, Astaire, Chaplin, Valentino, Brando, Grant, Welles, ...

[Celeste]

Absolutely!.

An unknown LA Times columnist, a nobody, hypothesizes in an op-ed that Kidman is not a movie star.

Hundreds have negated his premise. This man must love to argue, he wrote another column arguing his point, e.g., stardom is based on money. Again he was corrected.

Then he wrote a third, somewhat pissy, column to once again argue with his papers readers. His third column was conspicuously LACKING a comment section.

Based on his assertions, Bette Davis and Katherine Hepburn were also NOT movie stars. Jack Warner of Warner Bothers created the phenomenon of the "Star" and Kidman meets the criteria to a"T".

Perhaps, Mr. Goldstein should learn that having the last word doesn't validate his opinion, it does however showcase his control issues.

[John]

I go to see lots of movies, and buy lots of DVD's -- too many, in fact -- and I must say that my prime criterion for choosing a film is whether the plot and story is appealing to me.

This article, and the marketers whom the writer asked for moral support -- just don't get it.

We, the people, want good storylines, good plots, with good acting.

If Hollywood were to focus on that, then maybe their movies would do better -- rather than searching for stars, whom we really don't care about.

The only thing that stars help sell are gossip mags.

[Mary]

I see where Nicole Kidman says she won't apologize for her flops. My question is, why is she being offered roles in the first place if her presence in a picture guarantees a flop? She is shaped like a pencil and has all the emotional variance of an eraser. She's not worth $15 million unless producers want to throw away money on employing a strange-looking 40 year old actress who is box office poison. I might have gone to see Australia if it didn't have Kidman "starring".

[Bree]

To her true fans, Nicole Kidman will always be a star. Anyone can have a bad movie...it doesn't mean you throw out an entire career based on that! Besides, the next movie she makes may very well be Oscar worthy and won't you look cute sitting there with egg on your face when THAT happens?

[beauvier]

Want to know here box office status? Click this: http://www.the-numbers.com/people/NKIDM.php

The total worldwide gross of all her movies is $3 billion.
The total US gross of all her movies is $1 billion.

Is that a failure?

Haters, suck it.