The 50 Smartest People In Hollywood
The December 7, 2007 issue of Entertainment Weekly ran a cover story entitled The 50 Smartest People In Hollywood, and as you can surely guess, the story was a list of the 50 smartest people in Hollywood, including short blurbs explaining the rationale for each person on the list...Which can be found here:
The 50 Smartest People In Hollywood
As the subtitle of the story puts it, "It's not about power anymore", which is a reference to the annual Power List that the magazine used to do, but has obviously abandoned this year...
The main point I'd like to make about this banal topic is that EW made a horribly misguided mistake by switching from Power to Smarts.
You see, we can easily understand "power", and how it operates in Tinseltown. We can understand box office receipts and Neilson Ratings, and how fiscal success helps one accumulate power in the industry, whether one is the star of these films and TV shows, or the writers, directors, producers and execs...We can also understand how winning awards and generally being well-liked and famous fit into this equation of "power"...
Consider the famous line uttered by Tony Montana in Scarface:
"In this country, you gotta make the money first. Then when you get the money, you get the power. Then when you get the power, you get the women."
I believe this statement to be true. About human nature, about this country, and about Hollywood.
But what about intelligence? How does Entertainment Weekly, or me and you and everybody we know quantify the intelligence of various people in Hollywood, and then rank them based upon that intelligence?
I have no doubt that most, if not all, of the people on EW's list are smart in some way, and of course there is always somebody smarter, and dumber, than me and you and everybody we know, even in LaLaLand...
But how do we quantify all that brain power in relation to the entertainment industry? What makes 'em so smart? Like I mentioned, EW gives their reasons for the people on the list, but this is exactly where the entire premise falls apart, and really, makes EW look a bit foolish, because their reasoning is often shallow and suspect. Vague and subjective, and that's no way to quantify and rank intelligence...Otherwise, their other popular rationale is box office success, which is also no way to quantify and rank intelligence.
Judd Apatow is #1 on the list. If this list had come out a year ago, I believe he would have still been on the list, but I doubt he would have cracked the top 10. So, what was EW's rationale for putting Apatow at #1?
"This year, he didn't just bring the funny; he changed the whole funny business. On the heels of The 40 Year-Old Virgin, he hit the zeitgeist with two raunchy-yet-resonant laughfests - Knocked Up and Superbad - that mopped up a combined $270 million."
Now, I can understand how Apatow's track record with those three films makes him a rather powerful creative type in Hollywood, and how those three successes gives him more and more leverage to make the films he wants the way he wants, employing the actors he wants. Right now, most actors and producers and studio execs would die or kill to work with Apatow. That's power, and it's understandable.
But it remains unclear, to me, how his recent successes with these three films makes him the smartest person in Hollywood. According to EW, "he has so cemented his place as the lord of the LOL hits that studio execs now speak of making comedy in a 'post-Judd world.' If that's not smart, we don't know what is." I don't know about you, but that sentence makes perfect sense if you substitute "power" for "smart". As it is, it's absolutely nonsensical.
Box office success and intelligence simply do not correllate. Transformers made $318 million in the US alone this year, and if you've seen that film, I think you'd agree that "intelligent" is not a word anyone would use to describe it. The people behind the CGI and other technical aspects are undoubtedly brainiacs, but of course, they don't make the film smart or stupid, and more importantly, they don't help sell magazines.
But what about Apatow's three comedies in question? Sure, they're funny, but are they actually smart? All three rely quite heavily on profanity, sexually explicit dialogue, drug humor and general dysfunction, none of which are new comedy fodder. EW mentions that Apatow's films have heart in addition to the sophomoric raunch, which they do, but again, I'm not exactly sure how this mix of humor and heart is groundbreaking or necessarily smart. There are tons of comedies out there that adeptly mix raunch and sentiment. Hell, for all of Porky's explicitness and outright dumbness, it had it's fair share of heart. Tell me that you didn't feel for poor Pee Wee and all his sexual travails...
My point is, while Apatow is undoubtedly a smart fellow, and his films aren't nearly as dumb as something like Porky's, they're still not that smart. I think it would be better to say he's the luckiest person in Hollywood. EW uses the word "resonant" to describe his three films (we should note that he didn't write or direct Superbad), and that idea of resonance probably comes closest to quantifying Apatow's intelligence, if anything, but again, I'm not sure if being able to tap into the zeitgeist necessarily makes one smart. Porky's grossed $108 million in 1982, which is nearly as profitable (maybe better if adjusted for inflation) as any of Apatow's three films. Do you think anyone in 1982 believed writer and director Bob Clark had captured the zeitgeist of that era? Well, yeah, he did, because sex and drugs (and rock'n'roll) is the always the zeitgeist of every era, especially for these film's demographics. Again, box office success and intelligence don't correlate, but that seems to be what EW is mostly doing with Apatow, and most of the players on their list.
But enough about Apatow. What about some of the other Hollywood players on EW's smart list?
Who and why? Who and why?
Will Smith is #5. Why? "He has revitalized and re-defined old-fashioned movie stardom in an era when movie stardom has become small and suspect." Again, I'm not even sure I know what that means or what it has to do with being smart, but if I pretend that I do, I would namedrop Tom Hanks, who seems to me to be an "old-fashioned movie star" who is perhaps more bankable than Will Smith, and certainly more lauded as an actor. Of course, I have to remind myself that Will Smith has a film coming out at Christmas, I AmLegend, which is a Warner Brothers film, and of course, Time-Warner owns Entertainment Weekly. Hey, ya think that's why they put Will Smith on the cover, and gave him another full-page picture inside? All Apatow got was an unflattering illustration.
Tom Hanks didn't make the list.
Ben Stiller is #20. Stiller made the list because "He cracked the code for making comedy bankable overseas." Well, Stiller is mostly just an actor these days. His last writing and directing credit was Zoolander in 2001, and as a producer he's been responsible in recent years for films such as Blades Of Glory, Tenacious D: Pick of Destiny, Dodgeball, and Starsky & Hutch...We can argue about the relative intelligence of these comedies, but it will never answer the question of how HE, Ben Stiller, "cracked the code for making comedy bankable overseas." What do you think Jenny and the guys at Dreamworks marketing department might say about all this? What if Stiller's overseas success is merely because there's something adorable about his face, or the underdog qualities of many of his characters in recent years? But again, I don't see how overseas box office bankability equates to "smart".
Tim Palen is #35. He's Co-President of Film Marketing at Lionsgate. EW says he's smart because "He made torture porn look cool." Seriously.
Diablo Cody is #38. She's a screenwriter. Her first finished, produced script is for Juno, which went into limited release in the US just last week. According to EW, Cody is the 38th smartest person in Hollywood because "Not since John Hughes has anyone mined the adolescent soul with such clarity and compassion." Now, I'm not the biggest fan of John Hughes, but I was the target demographic for his biggest and best films (National Lampoon's Vacation, Sixteen Candles, Breakfast Club, Ferris Bueller's Day Off), and my point is, John Hughes has written 38 films in his career, many of them quite good and very successful, and so far Diablo Cody has written one, and as glowing as the reviews have been, maybe we ought to hold off comparing her to Hughes, at least until after her next screenplay gets made. By Warner Brothers, by the way. You know, owners of EW Magazine?
Are you still with me? Have I rambled far too much for such a banal topic such as this?
Yeah, I think I have, but I hope I've made some sort of point.
I also think this post has been pretty cool torture porn in it's own right.
Seriously.
Hotcha! Hank
The 50 Smartest People In Hollywood
As the subtitle of the story puts it, "It's not about power anymore", which is a reference to the annual Power List that the magazine used to do, but has obviously abandoned this year...
The main point I'd like to make about this banal topic is that EW made a horribly misguided mistake by switching from Power to Smarts.
You see, we can easily understand "power", and how it operates in Tinseltown. We can understand box office receipts and Neilson Ratings, and how fiscal success helps one accumulate power in the industry, whether one is the star of these films and TV shows, or the writers, directors, producers and execs...We can also understand how winning awards and generally being well-liked and famous fit into this equation of "power"...
Consider the famous line uttered by Tony Montana in Scarface:
"In this country, you gotta make the money first. Then when you get the money, you get the power. Then when you get the power, you get the women."
I believe this statement to be true. About human nature, about this country, and about Hollywood.
But what about intelligence? How does Entertainment Weekly, or me and you and everybody we know quantify the intelligence of various people in Hollywood, and then rank them based upon that intelligence?
I have no doubt that most, if not all, of the people on EW's list are smart in some way, and of course there is always somebody smarter, and dumber, than me and you and everybody we know, even in LaLaLand...
But how do we quantify all that brain power in relation to the entertainment industry? What makes 'em so smart? Like I mentioned, EW gives their reasons for the people on the list, but this is exactly where the entire premise falls apart, and really, makes EW look a bit foolish, because their reasoning is often shallow and suspect. Vague and subjective, and that's no way to quantify and rank intelligence...Otherwise, their other popular rationale is box office success, which is also no way to quantify and rank intelligence.
Judd Apatow is #1 on the list. If this list had come out a year ago, I believe he would have still been on the list, but I doubt he would have cracked the top 10. So, what was EW's rationale for putting Apatow at #1?
"This year, he didn't just bring the funny; he changed the whole funny business. On the heels of The 40 Year-Old Virgin, he hit the zeitgeist with two raunchy-yet-resonant laughfests - Knocked Up and Superbad - that mopped up a combined $270 million."
Now, I can understand how Apatow's track record with those three films makes him a rather powerful creative type in Hollywood, and how those three successes gives him more and more leverage to make the films he wants the way he wants, employing the actors he wants. Right now, most actors and producers and studio execs would die or kill to work with Apatow. That's power, and it's understandable.
But it remains unclear, to me, how his recent successes with these three films makes him the smartest person in Hollywood. According to EW, "he has so cemented his place as the lord of the LOL hits that studio execs now speak of making comedy in a 'post-Judd world.' If that's not smart, we don't know what is." I don't know about you, but that sentence makes perfect sense if you substitute "power" for "smart". As it is, it's absolutely nonsensical.
Box office success and intelligence simply do not correllate. Transformers made $318 million in the US alone this year, and if you've seen that film, I think you'd agree that "intelligent" is not a word anyone would use to describe it. The people behind the CGI and other technical aspects are undoubtedly brainiacs, but of course, they don't make the film smart or stupid, and more importantly, they don't help sell magazines.
But what about Apatow's three comedies in question? Sure, they're funny, but are they actually smart? All three rely quite heavily on profanity, sexually explicit dialogue, drug humor and general dysfunction, none of which are new comedy fodder. EW mentions that Apatow's films have heart in addition to the sophomoric raunch, which they do, but again, I'm not exactly sure how this mix of humor and heart is groundbreaking or necessarily smart. There are tons of comedies out there that adeptly mix raunch and sentiment. Hell, for all of Porky's explicitness and outright dumbness, it had it's fair share of heart. Tell me that you didn't feel for poor Pee Wee and all his sexual travails...
My point is, while Apatow is undoubtedly a smart fellow, and his films aren't nearly as dumb as something like Porky's, they're still not that smart. I think it would be better to say he's the luckiest person in Hollywood. EW uses the word "resonant" to describe his three films (we should note that he didn't write or direct Superbad), and that idea of resonance probably comes closest to quantifying Apatow's intelligence, if anything, but again, I'm not sure if being able to tap into the zeitgeist necessarily makes one smart. Porky's grossed $108 million in 1982, which is nearly as profitable (maybe better if adjusted for inflation) as any of Apatow's three films. Do you think anyone in 1982 believed writer and director Bob Clark had captured the zeitgeist of that era? Well, yeah, he did, because sex and drugs (and rock'n'roll) is the always the zeitgeist of every era, especially for these film's demographics. Again, box office success and intelligence don't correlate, but that seems to be what EW is mostly doing with Apatow, and most of the players on their list.
But enough about Apatow. What about some of the other Hollywood players on EW's smart list?
Who and why? Who and why?
Will Smith is #5. Why? "He has revitalized and re-defined old-fashioned movie stardom in an era when movie stardom has become small and suspect." Again, I'm not even sure I know what that means or what it has to do with being smart, but if I pretend that I do, I would namedrop Tom Hanks, who seems to me to be an "old-fashioned movie star" who is perhaps more bankable than Will Smith, and certainly more lauded as an actor. Of course, I have to remind myself that Will Smith has a film coming out at Christmas, I AmLegend, which is a Warner Brothers film, and of course, Time-Warner owns Entertainment Weekly. Hey, ya think that's why they put Will Smith on the cover, and gave him another full-page picture inside? All Apatow got was an unflattering illustration.
Tom Hanks didn't make the list.
Ben Stiller is #20. Stiller made the list because "He cracked the code for making comedy bankable overseas." Well, Stiller is mostly just an actor these days. His last writing and directing credit was Zoolander in 2001, and as a producer he's been responsible in recent years for films such as Blades Of Glory, Tenacious D: Pick of Destiny, Dodgeball, and Starsky & Hutch...We can argue about the relative intelligence of these comedies, but it will never answer the question of how HE, Ben Stiller, "cracked the code for making comedy bankable overseas." What do you think Jenny and the guys at Dreamworks marketing department might say about all this? What if Stiller's overseas success is merely because there's something adorable about his face, or the underdog qualities of many of his characters in recent years? But again, I don't see how overseas box office bankability equates to "smart".
Tim Palen is #35. He's Co-President of Film Marketing at Lionsgate. EW says he's smart because "He made torture porn look cool." Seriously.
Diablo Cody is #38. She's a screenwriter. Her first finished, produced script is for Juno, which went into limited release in the US just last week. According to EW, Cody is the 38th smartest person in Hollywood because "Not since John Hughes has anyone mined the adolescent soul with such clarity and compassion." Now, I'm not the biggest fan of John Hughes, but I was the target demographic for his biggest and best films (National Lampoon's Vacation, Sixteen Candles, Breakfast Club, Ferris Bueller's Day Off), and my point is, John Hughes has written 38 films in his career, many of them quite good and very successful, and so far Diablo Cody has written one, and as glowing as the reviews have been, maybe we ought to hold off comparing her to Hughes, at least until after her next screenplay gets made. By Warner Brothers, by the way. You know, owners of EW Magazine?
Are you still with me? Have I rambled far too much for such a banal topic such as this?
Yeah, I think I have, but I hope I've made some sort of point.
I also think this post has been pretty cool torture porn in it's own right.
Seriously.
Hotcha! Hank
Labels: celebrities, Entertainment Weekly, Hot Poop Filler, Laminated List
posted by Hank Mohaski at 7:30 PM
4 Comments:
I just pooped.
I make laws.
Now I peed.
I think that pretty much sums it up.
Good post - the only problem is now I hate EW even more than I did before.
Post a Comment
<< Home