The Trouble With Catching Lightning In A Second Bottle
David Carr takes on Larry King’s exit from CNN in this week’s column. And it struck me that CNN faces a similar problem to Hollywood trying to replace movie stars.
Real stars cannot be manufactured.
You can push them and push them hard. They can have some success. But talent that sustains, on the biggest or the smallest level, is a freak occurrence, not something the studios or producers can control. But you have to take some real chances in order for the freak occurrence to happen.
I had a conversation with Jared Harris the other day – DP/30 will be up this week – and we touched on the idea of Stars vs Actors. He smartly observed that a lot of it is just the happenstance of this movie or that movie turning into a big hit… or not. And things grow from there.
I always think of Sandra Bullock, who got chance after chance after chance. The casting agents in town knew she had something… and kept pushing her… and the projects kept failing. And then… Demolition Man and Speed… and all of a sudden, she has a chance to be a real movie star, depending on her choices from there. But the platform to have the chance came from many opportunities, many failures, and then, a couple of hits.
Long-form interviewing, which is what Larry King does and did on radio for decades before going on TV on CNN, is a dead form. There is plenty of radio out there, but it’s mostly people talking and not listening, not really interviewing. Terry Gross and some others at NPR. Katie Couric is now doing her version of DP/30 (though I am not claiming any connection) for CBS online.
But mostly, a dead form.
Creating stars… well, there are still the platforms being created. Every time a Zac Efron or Taylor Lautner or Josh Lucas comes along, “they” try and try hard to make them bankable stars. But it’s not the same as the past. For one thing, studios are out of control of it. The personal publicist has taken over, for better and worse. For better… stars have more direct control over their situation and work with people who hold their interests first. For worse, many personals don’t have the big picture perspective that conservative studios, who see the talent as investments, have.
The obvious case is Tom Cruise, before and after Pat Kingsley. Stars like Travolta, Murphy, Costner and others are brilliantly handled by Paul Bloch and Arnold Robinson… in that you just don’t ever see them getting slaughtered… they keep them and their stardom safe. ID/PR, amongst other interests, have a long list of young, hip, and often press-shy talent for whom they help find the balance.
Please don’t be offended if your company is not named in the graph above, but these are just a few examples to make the point. It’s a more personal situation than studio marketing, but in many ways, it is very much the same, if your client is going to be and remain a star. Whatever the truth is or is not, you have to define the story of the person and then, the publicists and agents and the talent have to serve that story.
But I digress…
CNN is left guessing, the ways studios are left guessing – and not unlike the way Disney was guessing when Gene Siskel died… though that was an even more complicated chemistry thing – about how to replace a star. Most of the rumors have been about media stars filling the slot… which is where everyone looks first… until they can’t find one that can work under the limitations or end up with Pat Sajak or Chevy Chase. Think about what Larry King does… around 200 days a year in studio. Plenty of time for a real life, but not much flexibility in terms of other career interests.
It seems to me that CNN needs someone who actually would love to have that responsibility as their life. it seems to me that CNN needs someone with a true interest in a wide range of topics. It seems to me that CNN needs someone who actually cares about listening (much as Larry seems to have checked out of listening in recent years).
It’s not completely unlike The Tonight Show situation. Conan O’Brien was championed by Lorne Michaels and a completely out of the box idea. He grew into being of real value. But what he brought to The Tonight Show was a niche, not a new voice or style, not an interest in being accessible to more people. There isn’t anything inherently wrong with that… it’s just that The Tonight Show has made a ton of money on mainstream.
If a celebrity, of whatever kind, comes into the Larry King Live slot, he or she will bring the baggage of their celebrity to the show. And the audience will adjust to fit that personality. But isn’t the point of that show to highlight the guests? Of course, the host becomes a celebrity. But you don’t tune in to watch Larry King. You tune in to the idea of the chat show… and then stay or leave depending on the guest.
And where is the next generation of broadcasters who will get out of the way of the guest?
Where are the up-n-coming stars who can keep their upskirts and fake marriage plans and arrests out of the tabloids?
And in a flash , you see why Disney is swinging so wildly at the future… because recreating the past over and over and over again seems painfully futile at times.
Sorry to be the grammar Nazi asshole, but . . . LIGHTNING! With the ‘e’ is what happened to Michael Jackson.
thank you, gna (kidding)
A DP/3O with Jared Harris is on the way! I’m in.
But where the hell is the one with Bryan Cranston that was promised? After this season’s Breaking Bad I would follow that man into battle.
I agree totally on DP’s main point, the publicist took power and the business is not the same since. Another name that springs to mind is Patrick Wilson. Been “The next big star / Sex symbol” in at least three movies and those projects never popped in the mainstream or he never got credit. I think he’s an amazing actor and my wife would run through freeway traffic to see him. yet stars can only be manufactured to a point, its up to the public to decide.
I’m just repeating an obvious, lame point I’ve made a zillion times here, but…
It seems like a CRUISE or PITT would show up in a first big movie, like Taps or Risky Business, or like Thelma and Louise, and an audience would be caught off guard, like “Who’s THAT guy?” Or going back a generation, even though he’d been in TONS of stuff prior, Nicholson in “Easy Rider.” A galvanizing performance that announces the arrival of a NEW TALENT who people actively LIKE from the word go.
Now, nothing against Bradley Cooper, but did Bradley Cooper, or Josh Lucas, or Sam Worthington, or Jesse Eisenberg, really ever have an EASY RIDER moment? A THELMA AND LOUISE? A collective HOLY SHIT! moment from all of America and the world that A STAR WAS BORN instantly?
Again, like all those guys, but in each case it seemed like they just sorta started showing up in everything UNSOLICITED, in lead roles, making the SNL and magazine rounds before anyone who had a chance to vote on their “stardom.”
Obviously, people remembered Cooper from ALIAS or his kitchen show or Wedding Crashers, or might’ve seen Worthington in Hart’s War for a split second or something… But there seemed to be no PUBLIC REFERENDUM on “Yes we want more of THIS GUY!” It’s like the decision was made from on high before it ever went to vote… Like one day Cooper’s the goofy best buddy in McConaughey/Carrey romcoms, two months later he’s hosting SNL and landing magazine covers like his moment has arrived.
Wasn’t Seacrest circling that Larry King gig?
If the Emmy voters screw over either Hamm or Laurie this year for Cranston. I will believe them to be even more mentally deficient as before. Seriously, Don Draper has no equal and it’s about time Hamm gets the reward that type of acting deserves. Oh yeah, I do hope you talked about Mad Men a little bit David because Harris is freaking awesome on that show.
Lex, that’s how it works now. They just show up and we have to decide if we want to keep them or not. The whole keeping them or not thing is rather weird but if you ever saw that trippy 60 minutes piece about Matthew Mcconaughey, you would see how this star building started in the 90s, and how it still continues in an every bigger fashion today.
Now we have new people coming each and every week but it seems there are still moments where we can be taken by surprise Lex. I guess the level of surprise is diminished some what by the speed of things these day, but we are still surprised. Someone new will show up very soon, you will want to do things to them Lex, and this woman will rock your world. Hopefully she’s legal.
Hopscotch… they decided to wait until next month… but it’s planned. The Emmy stuff is heating up, which is a lot of fun.
Lex… dead on. For me, the last one was Fassbender in Hunger. Before that, probably Gosling & McAdams.
Hey, don’t forget Charlie Rose when talking about long-form interviews. He’s really the current reigning king.
IOv2 – it’s tough to have literally three of the best lead actors in drama in the last decade be up for Emmy’s at the same time…but so it goes. Cranston’s doing just as good work as Hamm and Laurie.
Hop, the guy has won for Malcolm and Breaking Bad. He’s had his time, rah rah, now they need to give it to Hugh or Hamm. The rewarding of the same actors/actresses/shows/writers/reality shows over and over again is why I hate the Emmys. God awful awards show. Absolutely god awful.
Oh yeah, if you are going to replace Larry King, you’ve got to replace him with someone who can give you decades of time. If I were them I would just give it to Anderson Cooper but that dude has had a bug up his butt to travel since his Channel One days, so I guess that leaves Seacrest or some dude from NPR.
Just give it to John Larroquette.
Mutiny… FTW.
Actually, I got Matt Damon to kinda-sorta talk about this phenomenon — the “creation” of a star — a decade or so ago. (Just for the first two minutes of the interview, though.) I think what he said then still holds true to a large degree. Work does beget work. But what is the piece of work that gets the ball rolling?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgoOO6BITzw
Also, David: To follow up on what you said about finding someone willing to work under the restrictions Larry King has worked under: I remember reading an interview with Jimmy Fallon in which he talked about how he came to accept the offer to take over Conan O’Brien’s timeslot. Evidently, it was not an easy decision. He said that someone advised him to take the gig — but also warned: Taking this job is like taking the job of pope. After you do this, you won’t do anything else. Or, more precisely, you won’t be accepted doing anything else.
“I got Matt Damon to kinda-sorta talk about this”
Who’d you get to play Good Cop to your Bad Cop?
Leeza Gibbons
I said “Good Cop”
I think Hugh Jackman was the last “star” to break out from nowhere as in the example from Lex.
I know it’s debatable whether he is a star who can open a movie where he doesn’t play Wolverine. But when the first X-Men came out, I know a lot of people saying “where did he come from and what a great performance.”
Tony Robbins
Bishop Desmond Tutu.
You go and try to get Bob Costas if you’re serious about doing a long form interview show and not the crap Larry King’s been doing for a number of years now. Don’t get me wrong, I really loved Larry’s late night radio show and I’ve still got tapes of some of his interviews along with three or four of his books, but his CNN gig has almost always been shit by comparison (and not by comparison). Tom Snyder came the closest to what Larry did on radio when he had the slot after Letterman on CBS, but he’s not coming back obviously.
The sad and damning thing about Larry King’s stardom on CNN is the absolute fact that he got famous for doing the worst work of his life.
I second the Bob Costas nomination. BRING FORTH… THE COSTAS!
It’s been a while since I’ve seen him and he’s too old to be a long term replacement but I really liked it when Michael Jackson would step in and host. Great, quick wit. Engaging and well informed.
I think Harry Smith from CBS news would do a good job w/such a program. Alas, are they no Dr. Joyce Brothers waiting in the lurks?? Oh, Mo Gaffney. She’s sensible and I think would put people at ease to speak. Or someone else’s humor and demeanor would be great for such a spot would be Paula Poundstone. She’d never barate anyone but she’d totally cut through any bs w/her quick witted questions. I’d totally turn in to watch some lying sacks exposed by their own line of excuses. Not some host shouting who only wants to build up his own ego.
I third Costas. And though many will disagree with me, Bryant Gumbel is still aces at this sort of thing and would be a terrific choice.
Bring back Dick Cavett!!!!
Costas is great, ditto Gumbel. Charlie Rose has the best guests and is the worst interviewer.
ALEXA CHUNG.
MAKE IT HAPPEN.
Also: KILBY IS BACK NEXT WEEK.
BEST NEWS EVER.
Cavett would indeed be the best, but he doesn’t want to do it anymore. (He came back to do one with Mel Brooks for TCM; they offered him more, but he declined.)
Cadavra: I was afraid of that. Seriously. I’ve often wondered why, with so many cable and on-line venues available these days, Cavett hasn’t made some sort of comeback. That’s a pity, because I used to love some of his extended 1-on-1 interviews. I still remember the multi-part interview he did with Richard Burton after Burton had sobered up and went back to Broadway (in Camelot, if memory serve me correct). He told Cavett this funny/scary story about how, one night backstage, he and his dresser were talking about Burton’s film credits — and Burton realized there were something like five or six films on his resume he had no memory of making whatsoever, because he was so drunk during their production. BTW: He didn’t say which ones they were, but I’d be willing to bet that The Klansman was one of them.
Wasn’t Jackman’s shot to stardom pretty much the equivelent of a 1930’s musical where the lead breaks a leg, and the understudy goes on to fame? I thought he was a last minute scramble replacement for Dougery Scott who was hired for the role but then had MI2 shoot for too long. No one tried to manufacture him as a star, he was just in the right place at the right time.
I loved Costas on the old later show (Kinnear was alright as well), he was able to get real conversations going and remember him being prickly during a Letterman interview when not getting actual answers to the questions. He’s easily the best out there now but does he really need a nightly gig? He probably has enough on his plate to keep him busy, he has solidified his place in television history, and I can’t imagine that he would volunteer for the grind of a nightly CNN gig that would put him across the table from members of The Hills or Anna Nicole Smith’s nightmare entourage.