The general thesis of this piece is to argue that as far as being an industry leader in any art form, the artist must strike a balance between critical and commercial success.
The more your work combines these two, the more culturally significant your legacy becomes. It is easier to define commercial success, at its most basic, it means profitability of a piece of work or performance such that no one involves in the presentation of the ‘product/creation’ loses money.
At its widest definition, it covers the overall popularity of the work measured by the total profit generated overtime. Critical acclaim at its core defines the ‘appreciation’ of the work of art or art, by the experts and critics in the field of the work who have some stamp of approval based on their perceived expertise. At its peak, critical acclaim is awarded with some official recognition of excellence.
However it is not as black and white as that. The business people and the popular mass of consumers engage with the critics, whilst the experts also keep an embarrassed eye on the popular reception and profitability of any work. As a result, it becomes futile to focus on one extreme (commercial success) without considering the other end (critical acclaim), and the interplay between the two, whether apparent or covert, tends to define the shape of culturally significant overall assessment of the artists in every field.
Let us consider cinema and movie stars. In Hollywood, the top stars are classified as A list and the Merriam Webster dictionary defines the A list as “a list or group of individuals of the highest level of society, excellence, or eminence”. Meanwhile Wikipedia tells us “An A-list actor is a major movie star, or one of the most bankable actors in a film industry. The A-list is part of a larger guide called The Hot List, which ranks the bankability of 1,400 movie actors worldwide, and has become an industry-standard guide in Hollywood.” The Hot List originated from the work of John Ulmer, a movie business journalist from America who, in the eighties, developed a scoring methodology for measuring star power and bankability of movie stars. The Ulmer Scale he developed categorised the stars between A to D lists (plus and minus) largely based on their celebrity power and thus ability to open a film and make it a box office success with the revenue returns on the budget as a key determiner of the rankings. The film budgets were divided into art film budget, modest budgets to high-cost budgets that can be equated to the big blockbusters. Likewise Mr Ulmer also measured the bankability of film directors, which turned out to be useful for producers to estimate profitability and thereby get financing for film productions. In this sense, one would be tempted to jump to the conclusion that it is commercial success that drives the rankings from A list (+/-) to the D list (+/-), and one wouldn’t be wrong.
However, it is more complicated than that. Critical acclaim remains the unicorn that all commercial hawks yearn to attain, just as commercial success continues to be the disdain that all critically acclaimed artists secretly desire. And firmly perched between the two is the ultimate assessment: where a work or piece of art combines both acclaim and profit, what some culture critics describe in one way or the other, either directly or indirectly, by the term ‘prestige work’. Examples of prestige works in the 7 traditionally defined arts include the Mona Lisa, Beethoven, Gaudi’s designs that remains a popular draw, Shakespeare’s plays, War and Peace, and so on.
So to be a true giant star of the big screen one must have made a mark in both commercial and critical success, and it is even better for legacy if the body of work is filled with prestige films. For movie stars, commercial success at its simplest, means box office success, whilst critical success means having a major role in a critically acclaimed film. For critical success the peak of the summit is a very memorably awards-scooping performance in a critically acclaimed film. A critical success need not be a box office hit but it increases in prestige if it is not a flop. A flop tends to hurt the status and bankability of a star.
The “prestige” angle is the ultimate triumph for a movie star, as it becomes a case of the proverbial killing two birds with one stone. Like the proverb itself, prestige films are a rare feat. In the struggle to maximize returns and minimise risk of failure, stars attempt all strategies to achieve success amid the strategies employed by the filmmakers. Hence some of the smart or more risk-loving stars turn to either producing their own work or appearing in a balance mixed of popcorn entertainers and art films. Others merely spread risk through sharing the lead in what Bollywood terms as multi-starrers. This brings me to the problem of multi-starrers: if they work, the success is shared, and little prestige is added to one’s star power. Even worse, there is also the very likely possibility that a “rival” sharing the screen may just walk away with all the plaudits. And where a multi-starrer does not work, it becomes a case of wasted effort, even though the fallout from the failure is less due to the often huge star casts.
Critical acclaim matters, and it is very important in the race to and for A-list status to nurture your fan base. Giving blockbusters, ultimately, is what separates the lions from the lambs, and it needs that extra something, some luck and clicking with the audience. Post the pandemic and the delirious barrage of superhero films, more stars are trying to mix critically targeted projects with the usual commercial fare to the point that nearly every important contender for top A-list is associated with at least one movie franchise. This balancing act strengthens the thesis that prestige films matter more than any other kind. Few are fortunate enough to strike the balance conveniently between the two. What is clear is that in ranking most culturally significant movie stars or artists in generally, the number of prestige works, as defined above, will undoubtedly have a major say in the outcome of the ranked positions.
Now on the issue of whether the success is shared or enjoyed solo and the intriguing nature of this dichotomy, well, that is a topic and discussion for another day.
