Star Vehicle

As Formulaic Assurance,

Controlling Factor and Discursive Instrument in

1990s Hollywood

By Sultan Sahin Gencer

17 February 2007

2

Abstract

This paper conceptualizes the star vehicle, focusing in particular on the actresses

Jodie Foster, Julia Roberts, Sharon Stone and Meg Ryan in the historical context

of 1990s Hollywood.

The star vehicle as a concept and an institutional practice has multiple

interrelations, meanings and functions. I will argue that the concept of the star

vehicle integrates the textual, economic and discursive aspects of actresses with

one another, indicating the existence of high value, reputation and influence.

Therefore, I will consider the star vehicle in relation to its three underlying

conceptual elements: as a formulaic assurance, engaging with the transformation

of a particular actress in her familiarity and recognisability, often by type-casting

(and more rarely by off-casting) in similar genres, or sequels of formerly

successful films at the box office; as a controlling factor involving the

legitimisation of an actress as a risk reducer of film investment and revenue, as

well as a risk sharer by means of gross/profit participation of films’ box office;

and as an appealing discursive instrument in the media and economic- demands of

various discursive markets such as tie-ins and product placements of fashion,

cosmetics and other consumer products.

3

The Star Vehicle: as Formulaic Assurance, Controlling Factor

and Discursive Instrument in the 1990s Hollywood

The term star vehicle is a frequently employed concept in popular media as well

as in academic writings on film, media and star studies. However, less attention

has been paid to the actual meaning and function of this concept. Why does a

specific star (actress and/or actor) come to be seen as a vehicle and become a

crucial persona of filmmaking? How can we consider contemporary film stars as

vehicles in the diverse market place of Hollywood in film, media, entertainment,

and further in the consumer markets of fashion and cosmetics?

In this paper, I intend to consider some of these questions with particular focus on

four actresses in the context of 1990s Hollywood. Within this framework, I will

critically conceptualize the star vehicle drawing evidence from the actresses Jodie

Foster, Julia Roberts, Sharon Stone and Meg Ryan, while grounding them in the

historically distinct Hollywood film making of this decade. Indeed, on the one

hand, the star vehicle as a concept has multiple interrelations, meanings and

functions in terms of the textual and commercial aspects of film and other

(un)related markets. On the other hand, despite these multifaceted relations, it is a

formula which is practiced through considering a particular actress and/or actor as

a film’s commercial assurance. Thus, the concept of the star vehicle embraces

both individual treats and institutional practice.

The star vehicle is based on the transformation of the actresses’ familiarity and

recognisability often by type-castings or more rarely off-castings, in similar genre

films or in sequels to films formerly successful films at the box office.

By way of these formulaic practices, actresses are considered as controlling

factors and as ‘risk reducers’ by the film industry. These considerations are

reflected by way of participation or involvement in the sharing of profit or box

office gross and/or other film revenues between the major studios and the

actresses. Through these participation practices, the major studios not only

4

consider actresses as guarantors of the films’ earnings but also include them as

‘risk sharers’ in film investment. The institutional practice of the star vehicle is

partly formed by discursive rules of box office revenue, by essentially making

over fifty million and ideally over a hundred million dollars. These commercial

criteria reflect the minimum standards for the definition of success (commonly

known ‘hit making’), which is expected from actresses when studios cast them in

a movie as vehicles. 1

Actresses should at least correspond to a certain amount of

box office expectation, so that box office can then reflect their commercial value

as represented in such forms as salary and profit/gross participation share.

However, justifying the actresses’ commercial performances from the single angle

of box office figures only or whether they have made a ‘hit’ or not can be

misleading. There are in fact other practices and markets in which actresses are

highly valued and consistently demanded such as in product placement for fashion

and cosmetics. Therefore, I maintain that star vehicle encompasses multiple

aspects and expectations, and this variety should be accounted for in order to

discuss whether they are able to assure various commercial performances in areas

which are diverse but which also include theatrical box office.

I have considered the notion of the star vehicle as a discursive concept and as an

economic agent. In this analysis, I will refer to ‘star vehicle’ in relation to the

three underlying elements of this concept:

1. Formulaic assurance: involves the recognition of screen images as sustained

through typecasting.

2. Risk reducer and risk sharer: a significant legitimisation of the actresses

whereby they are seen as one of the crucial factors in guaranteeing film

investment and revenue. Actresses’ appearance in a film has also become an

‘economic rationale’ in the economics of Hollywood film making, through their

involvement with gross/profit participation.

3. An appealing discursive instrument in the media and economic-discursive

demand of various film (un)related markets, such as tie-ins and product

placements.

5

In our conception of the star vehicle, these elements are integrated with one

another, indicating the existence of high value, reputation and influence. Thus,

considering the diverse operations of 1990s Hollywood in the film, media and

entertainment industries, recognition of the actresses as ‘vehicles’ mainly intends

to draw diverse audience attention to a film or a product through a film and to

enhance awareness of a film both in domestic and international markets.

In that sense, the importance of Jodie Foster, Julia Roberts, Sharon Stone and

Meg Ryan arises out of their high potential to contribute to the commercial

achievement of a film. This has been verified to a certain extent by their continual

acting (at least one movie a year or more) which indicates that there is demand for

their appearance in a film. Furthermore, their commercial potential is (re)created

and (re)shaped by media discourse and by the economic values given to them

within the film industry.

Star Vehicle as Formulaic Assurance

In the available literature, the star vehicle is confined to the phenomenon of stars

and their functions in the film industry as a ‘commodity’, as ‘economic agents’

and as the ‘intertextual’ subjects of discursive and economic practices. John

Belton maintains that ‘stars are and always have been commodities’ and,

especially in today’s diverse marketplace, trade is conducted using a star’s image

within or around their films. In the era of corporate film, media and entertainment

businesses, ‘images are worth money’.2

Barry King, furthermore, associates the

star with film making practices, seeing a star as a ‘rational economic agent’ by

suggesting that one is ‘dealing with a pragmatic system of manufacture [by the

major studios], where the emphasis on the stars has the virtue of providing a

concrete meaning in guiding the process of production, exhibition and

consumption’. 3

6

According to Richard De Cordova’s definition, stars exist through an association

between ‘symbolic and economic’ identities, and they can be ‘the point of an

economic exchange only by virtue of its identity as constructed in discourse. Thus

[…] the star simultaneously changed the status of film as discourse and

commodity’.4

In Cordova’s view, ‘it is clear that the symbolic work that

established the actor as subject is closely linked to a specific economic strategy’.5

Stars therefore represent a ‘category produced by a particular institution and given

a particular function within that institution.’6

Although the star vehicle is practiced

in terms of the institutional formulae of Hollywood, it is meanwhile attached to

the uniqueness of each actress’ name and image. The major studios tend to

produce films that are more predictable by using star vehicle and uniting it with

typecasting and genre formulae. These films are also differentiated by the

uniqueness of the actresses, usually through the cultivation of specific individual

traits.

For instance, prettiness is attached to ‘America’s sweetheart’ Julia Roberts, and

sweetness has been branded upon the ‘romantic comedy queen’ Meg Ryan. A

strong persona, meanwhile, is attached to Jodie Foster, and sexy blondeness has

been redefined with Sharon Stone. The distinctiveness of these features has been

identified through their familiar filmic roles and genre. Although there has been a

strong association with certain types of characters and genre, they have not been

simply typecast from one film to another especially after the mid-1990s.

Therefore, I will refer to their distinguishing casting practice as involving the

concept of ‘virtual image-type-casting’. The distinct virtual image-type-castings

of Jodie Foster, Julia Roberts, Sharon Stone and Meg Ryan, their

‘strong/pretty/sexy/sweet’ identifications, are recognized as unique and valuable

resources belonging to each of them. Through these resources, they were

legitimized as vehicles of film investment by the major film studios of 1990s

Hollywood.

The main objective of the star vehicle is to attract an audience who already knows

the actress and can predict the kind of movie in which they are likely to appear.

7

When a star vehicle is produced, ‘the character is adapted to fit the star. A

frequently used mechanism centers the plot around a character who inevitably

displays the skills that the audience already knows the performer possesses.’7

By

means of textual adjustments, ‘higher priority’ is given to a star’s recognizable

features as individuals, rather than to the filmic character that the star presents.8

With the term star vehicle, Richard Dyer refers to the fact that films are centered

on the image portrayed by a particular actor or actress and that often film texts are

written or considerably adjusted in order to accommodate the image and the

demands of the star. The role of vehicle is likely to propose a ‘character of the

type’ attached to the star or perhaps a ‘situation’, ‘setting or generic context’

linked to the star.9

Dyer further elaborates on the interrelation between vehicle and

textual formulaic conventions:

Vehicles are important as much for what conventions they set up as for how they

develop them, for their ingredients as for their realisation. In certain aspects, a set

of star vehicles is rather like a film genre […] As with genres proper, one can

discern across a star’s vehicles continuities of iconography (e.g. how they are

dressed, made-up and coiffed, performance mannerisms, the setting with which

they are associated), visual style (e.g. how they are lit, photographed, place within

the frame) and structure (e.g. their role in the plot, their function in the film’s

symbolic pattern) […] Of course not all films made by a star are vehicles, but

looking at their films in terms of vehicles draws attention to those films that do not

‘fit’, that constitute inflections, exceptions to, subversions of the vehicle pattern

and the star image.10

The use of the star vehicle through typecasting, that is, the casting a star in roles

similar to past filmic characters and within a particular genre, is common practice

in Hollywood film making during the 1990s. The image-type-cast formula

operates in the way in which ‘America’s sweethearts’ Meg Ryan (Sleepless in

Seattle (1993), French Kiss (1995) and You’ve Got Mail(1998)) and Julia Roberts

(Pretty Woman (1991), My Best Friend’s Wedding (1997), Runaway Bride (1999)

and Notting Hill (1999)) have been cast mainly in romantic comedies; ‘Sexy-

beautiful-blonde’ Sharon Stone is associated with nudity-based movies such as

sex-thrillers (Basic Instinct (1992), Sliver (1993) and The Specialist(1994));

8

whereas ‘strong-serious’ Jodie Foster is linked with issue films such as dramas

(Nell (1994) and Somersby (1993)), crime-thrillers (The Silence of the Lambs,

1991) and science-fiction films (Contact 1997) rather than comedies with the

exception of Maverick (1994), for which in fact she auditioned before casting.

These image and genre based formulaic methods have proved considerably

beneficial in terms not only of the commercial aspects of films, such as theatrical

box office and other revenues from TV and video, but also in discursive practices

across the mass media of the 1990s. The various box office statistics (domestic,

international, worldwide and rental) of Meg Ryan’s and Julia Robert’s type-

castings show the use of various formulae, such as uniting the star-vehicle with

the sequel/remake of a previously successful genre.

The formulaic use of the star vehicle has resulted in significant box office

revenues as well as in a remarkable increase in the commercial value of the

actresses. An example of this would be the romantic comedy Sleepless in Seattle

(1993) directed by Nora Ephron, co-starring Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan, which

TriStar Pictures (Sony-Columbia) distributed and produced with a budget of $21

million. Sleepless in Seattle ranked fifth in the top grossing fifty movies of 1993,

with a total of $126.6 million gross at domestic box office. The film made in total

$101.1 million internationally, and $227.7 million at the worldwide box office.11

In addition to significant performances at the various box offices, Sleepless in

Seattle had positive critical receptions, most of which emphasized the star-

vehicles of Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks, the genre of romantic comedy and its

similarities with the film An Affair to Remember (1957). In The New York Times,

Vincent Canby emphasized that Sleepless in Seattle included successful elements

from past films not only because it evoked the movie but also because it presented

clips and a soundtrack.12

Five years later, in 1998, a similar romantic comedy

You’ve Got Mail was made by Nora Ephron, again co-starring Tom Hanks and

Meg Ryan. It was produced with a budget of $95 million and distributed by

Warner Bros, who spent $23.9 million on media expenses. Total domestic box

office gross was $115.8 million, international box office was $135 million and

worldwide was an astounding $250.8 million.13

In these two similar movies, Meg

9

Ryan functioned as a star-vehicle whose strategy, including the repetition of past

successful film formulae, contributed to ensuring a high box office as well as

extensive release on TV and video.

Similarly, Julia Roberts and Richard Gere co-starred in the romantic comedies

Pretty Woman (1990) and Runaway Bride (1999). Both movies were widely

released by Disney and grossed well at the domestic box offices making over

$150 million. Thus, they are ranked in various domestic top grosser lists as

‘successful’ films in media, ranked by the top 10, top 100 yearly and all-time

grosses of the 1990s. These star vehicle-based movies of Meg Ryan and Julia

Roberts are highly indicative of the formulaic use of the star vehicle, showing

how various influential elements are controlled and manipulated in order to

achieve high box office grosses initially.

In fact, as expected by the major studios, some of the actresses but not all, using

formulaic functioning, achieved initially high box office revenues during the

1990s. For instance, Jodie Foster both directed and starred in the movie Little Man

Tate (1991) and Nell (1994), and starred in Anna and the King (1999): these films

were not high domestic and international box office earners. Likewise, in the case

of Meg Ryan: although romantic comedy is associated with her, I.Q (1994),

French Kiss (1995) and Addicted to Love (1997) were not able to perform at the

various box offices.

Although formulaic star vehicle attempts may guarantee a film’s commercial

performance to a certain extent, the assurance provided may not always prove

convincing. As stated by King, perhaps the ‘public do not see trademarks [star

vehicle] and story types [genre] as a reliable means of judging films for the good

reason that neither of these indicate that a particular quality of a filmic experience

is guaranteed’.14

In some well-known instances, films were not able to achieve as

high a box office as desired, notwithstanding the fact that they were produced

with high expectations, relying on the previous success of actors and actresses and

the making of a sequel to previously high box office movies. Douglas Gomery

comments that ‘big stars only give a chance, not a guarantee. And there are

10

always surprises.’15

For instance; star-vehicle sequels tend to be seen as a reliable

formula in movie making practice, likely to decrease the risk of a low box office

for a movie.16

Despite the box office assurances of sequel and star vehicle status,

Sandra Bullock’s movie Speed 2: Cruise Control (1997) performed extremely

poorly at the box office. Produced with a budget of $110 million, its box office

revenue was a mere $48 million, even though the movie was the sequel to the

high box office grosser Speed (1996). As evident by this film, sequel and star

formulae status do not always suffice to repeat a box office achievement.

The following anecdote indicates how the industrial perspective considers star

vehicles as a guarantor of certain revenue specifically at the box office. Mark

Johnson, the producer of Good Morning Vietnam, recalls that producer Jeffrey

Katzenberg knew from categorizing box office figures that

If Good Morning Chicago [the proposed sequel of Good Morning Vietnam] gets

made with Robin Williams, it can arithmetically be worked out to do $12 million to

$13 million its opening weekend – whether it’s good or not. If the film doesn’t

work, it could do $55 million; if its pretty good, $75 million; if its very good, $125

million. But if someone else [is in] the film, those figures all change downward,

not upward. So you kind of back yourself into a star.17

As emphasized by this observation, star vehicle refers to the use of the star’s

(Robin Williams) existing market size, based also on the star’s potential audience,

to guarantee a certain amount of revenue from their predetermined filmgoers. In

the 1990s, crucial importance is given to the star vehicle because stars can

stimulate increased revenues for films not only in theatres but also, given the

diverse film practices of the major studios, through video, cable, television and

network. According to the Hollywood Reporter’s ‘Media Cost for Top 20 Films of

1998’, it is worth noting that the media expenses of movies with star vehicles

exceeded the $20 million. As illustrated by Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks’ star-

vehicle movie You’ve Got Mail (1998), with its media expense of $23.9 million.

In fact, Warner Bros. had already spent $65 million in making this movie,

including the $15 million salary paid to Meg Ryan. There were few movies where

media cost was under twenty million, such as Stepmom (1998) starring Julia

11

Roberts, Susan Sarandon and Ed Harris. By Sony, this movie was budgeted with

$50 million, $17 million of which constituted Julia Roberts’ salary. A further

$18.2 million was spent on media expenses.18

As we can see from the cost of these movies, by investing vast amounts of money

in movies and relying on star vehicle assurance and media appeal, the major

studios, with their sights on controlling movie revenue, are able to attain at least a

degree of control.

The Star Vehicle as a Controlling Factor and ‘Risk Reducer’

Beyond the formulaic use of the star vehicle through typecasting and genre

familiarity, there are other ways to boost the commercial performance of a film at

the box office and other markets, whilst also reducing the possible risk of failure.

The major studios tend to control almost all the elements which are likely to

influence box office achievement and which would be beneficial for further

screenings of films, elements such as: wide release (over three thousand screens);

opening on Friday; opening in summer or before and around Christmas and New

Year. Even after all these controlling strategies, the outcome of box office

performance may not always be satisfactory, as was the case in New Line's Town

and Country (2001)which cost over $90 million and made only $3 million in its

opening weekend across 2222 screens.19

A month after its first release, the screen

numbers were reduced drastically to 64, and it was nearly ‘pulled from release’

when, after four weeks, it had made only $6.7 million at the domestic box office

in four weeks.20

Although Town and Country hosted a star-studded array of actors,

including Warren Beatty, Diana Keaton, Andie MacDowell, Goldie Hawn and

Nastassja Kinski, it was announced as ‘the biggest flop in movie history’ by

Roger Friedman from FoxNews. It was furthermore stated that ‘it succeeds the

1998 Kevin Costner starring, The Postman.’21

Kevin Costner’s movies

Waterworld (1995) and The Postman (1997) are often cited as the actor’s biggest

12

failures. It was in fact noted that Kevin Costner had suffered ‘high profile movie

disasters’22

and his ‘Waterworld epic became one of the world's costliest flops.’23

According to Exhibitor Relations’ weekend box-office rank, ‘Warner Bros.' The

Postman (1997) fell out of the top-ten in only its second week, taking in just $3.5

million to finish 12th.’24

In terms of controlling commercial performances, the movies Waterworld and The

Postman are good examples of how uncontrollable and risky box office revenues

are, and also of their potentially negative influence on stars and studios.

Furthermore, these two movies had big budgets, wide releases on peak season

openings (summer and Christmas, respectively), were mainly produced and

distributed by major studios, and used previously successful star casts and

directors. Directors Kevin Reynolds (Waterworld) and Kevin Costner (The

Postman) were recognized for their earlier commercial achievements and the

value of their talent.25

Indeed, Kevin Reynolds directed one of the more

commercially successful movies of the 1990s starring Kevin Costner, Robin Hood

Prince of Thieves (1991). Theoretically, the risk of having a huge flop can be

counterbalanced by careful planning and wise marketing strategies. Yet, in

practice, this strategy sometimes proves ineffective even with vast sums of money

being spent. 26

Nevertheless, considering the star vehicle as a strategic risk

reducer, the major studios place this expectation upon a relatively small number

of star vehicle movies. It can be seen that the number of star vehicle movies was

326, which was significantly lower than the movies produced without star-

vehicles, at 1689. Out of a total number of 2015 movies, the majority of them

were consisted of a non-star cast between 1990 and 1996.27

Richard Corliss rehearses some of the reasons why the common industrial practice

of the star vehicle, with the reassurance of established star names, emerges.

Because brand commodities who bring one more element-and, in the right mix, the

crucial one-to the marketing of an expensive product. Because studio heads are

nervous folks who want the insurance and the reassurance of a known name. 28

13

Bill Daniels further states that ‘making major motion pictures takes star-power,

because a star’s name is perceived as something of a minimum-theatre-attendance

insurance policy. No one may turn out to see a newcomer’s brilliant first effort.’29

In the specific cases of Jodie Foster, Julia Roberts, Sharon Stone and Meg Ryan,

certain star vehicle elements operated successfully: their casting in genre-bound

or sequel and high budget movies produced and widely distributed by major

studios proved to be strategically effective. In fact, the majority of these actresses’

movies assured a certain level of domestic box office at around $50 million but,

few secured $100 million with the exception of Julia Roberts.

As indicated by the different findings, the star vehicle influence on the films’

commercial performances, and in particular the box office, varies. It is important

to note that even though star vehicle is employed as a legitimate formula in order

to reduce the risk of failure and to assure success, each film is a unique production

and each actress has an individual impact on that movie as well as on other

elements of the film. Moreover, the commercial performances of movies and

actresses extend beyond the box office and are sustained further by other film

related and unrelated markets.

The Star Vehicle and the Emergence of the Actress in Tie-ins and Product

Placements

Jodie Foster, Julia Roberts, Sharon Stone and Meg Ryan have all been at the

centre of media publicity during their star vehicle film promotions and film

related events in the 1990s. Star vehicles, by means of media appeal, suggest an

actresses’ merit (value, desirability, magnetism and significance) in media

publicity which allows for substantial movie openings which in turn enhances

media coverage. The major studios obviously benefit from the unpaid publicity

for films emerging from the increased media appearances of the actresses. The

14

appearances of these actresses at media junkets, press conferences, television talk-

shows, galas, festivals and award ceremonies provides advance publicity useful

for film marketing in that it boosts awareness of the film. In addition to the

advance publicity, tie-ins and product placements are integral to these events.

Therefore, these practices also need to be connected as an integral part of actress

recognition in star vehicles and their commercial performances.

Product-placement means using brand names or products in movies or at

particular movie events. Tie-ins refer to the promotion of movies via a brand

name product and vice-versa. In order to advertise and promote various products

and brands by films and/or actresses, the business side of tie-ins and product

placements are most often exercised as hidden deals. Although various

information about expenditure and earnings of films (budget, media expenses,

salaries and box office) are discussed in various media publications, the earnings

from product-placement is rarely publicized. They can be said to represent the

least publicized of commercial negotiations amongst the major studios, actresses

and consumer markets. By way of tie-ins, Meg Ryan’s co-starring movie with

Nicolas Cage, City of Angels is advertised together with the Panasonic brand

name portable DVD player (the Palm TheatreTM

). As illustrated in Figure 1.1, this

advertisement shows a still of Meg Ryan and Nicolas Cage. The advertisement

also includes the City of Angel’s DVD announcement: ‘City of Angels available

now for sale or rent on DVD from Warner Home Video’ in 1998.30

15

Figure 1.1 Product Placement of Meg Ryan

Meg Ryan and Nicolas Cage in

City of Angel (1998) Panasonic

DVD Player. Film Review. 1998.

Apple Brand Laptop is product

placement of the movie Film Still

from Warner Bros.

Wasko maintains that product placements and tie-ins reflect the tendency of film

commercialization and commodification by a diversified Hollywood.31

The extent

of product placement in star vehicled films indicates the current magnitude of the

actresses and actors in terms of assuring commercial potential and their discursive

recognitions (critical acclaim, reputation and credit) in the film industry and

media. In Conspiracy Theory (1997), starring Julia Roberts and Mel Gibson,

Kentucky Fried Chicken and Coca-Cola were central products among others.

These implicit earnings remain supplementary to the commercial performances of

films and film personas. For example, in the film, You’ve Got Mail (1998), the

Apple brand is advertised with Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks prominently using one

of its products. Figure 1.1 shows that the laptop is a core device in the movie’s

story line. Also used in the same movie are AOL (America Online-Time Warner’s

internet service), Starbucks Coffee and H & H Bagel Sandwich store. It has not

yet been reported in any publications whether Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks were

paid for this product placement or the revenue that Warner Bros. received. The

implicit facets of those earnings add more revenue to the total commercial

performance of the movie and the market value of Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks.

16

Most significantly, during film promotion in the 1990s, the actresses usually pose

for fashion photos which aim to increase audience awareness of the to products

and to movies through actresses’ exclusive appearances in magazines. These

promotional photo shoots are combined with special interviews with the actress

concerning their forthcoming movies.

While Meg Ryan was promoting The Door (1991), she posed in various

magazines wearing glamorous designer clothes by such brands as Dolce Gabbana,

Versace, Ralph Lauren and Gucci as given by Figure 1.2. On the cover of Vanity

Fair December 1999, Meg Ryan projected her sex appeal with ‘a half-dressed’

pose, wearing only a skirt from designer Halston and a top from Ripcosa. Her

fashion poses included dresses from the designers: Dolce & Gabbana, Narciso

Rodriquez, Lainey Katayone Adel and Chanel. Hair and make up products used

were from Clairol and Estee Lauder.32

17

Figure 1.2 Meg Ryan Fashion Poses

Meg Ryan wears Gucci, Dolce & Gabbana and posed for Ralph Lauren

Her dresses are from Dolce & Gabbana and Narciso Rodriquez, Vanity Fair, December 1999, pp.

8, 14, 52, 186-187.

18

Figure 1.3 Jodie Foster’s Distinctive Posing for Fashion

Jodie Foster was on the cover of the magazine while she was promoting

her upcoming movie The Anna and the King (1999). She was wearing a

cashmere sweater by designer CELINE. Her red cashmere dress by

Randolph Duke. Tatler, January 2000, pp.28-35.

As illustrated by Figure 1.3, while Jodie Foster was promoting Anna and the King

(1999), in her fashion poses, she was dressed by CELINE, Emporio Armani and

Giorgio Armani.33

The most interesting fashion pose was published in Vanity

Fair, and entitled ‘The Three Graces’ showing Michelle Pfeiffer, Jodie Foster and

Meg Ryan all sitting next to each other on the floor. The actresses were all

wearing DKNY Jeans and shirts, and Jodie Foster’s shirt was from the Donna

Karan Collection.34

It is highly interesting to note that fashion posing and product

19

placement developed further in Vanity Fair’s June 1999 representations of Julia

Roberts. Her bodily and facial details were divided and covered by brand name

products such that every area of her body and face was worth money. Promoting

her upcoming movie Notting Hill (1999), she was on the magazine cover wearing

a shirt by designer John Galliano and earring from Fred Leighton.35

Her hair was

styled with ‘Neutrogena Clean Shampoo-Balancing’, and all of her makeup

products were from Neutrogena as stated in detail in the magazine: ‘On her

cheeks, Soft Colour Blush in Vibrant Poppy; on her lips, Lip Plush Lip Color in

Riot Red’.36

As can be seen in Figure 1.4, in the feature pages, her glamorous

poses were composed wearing dresses from ‘Chanel Haute Couture’, and ‘Atelier

Versace’; a shirt by designer Veronique Branquinho and a hat by Lost Art.37

Increasing demands for actresses from fashion designers verify their highly

acclaimed reputations, with product placements further adding value to the

actresses as a consequence of their valued position in the film industry and in star

vehicles. Jackie Stacey considers fashion product placement as a commodity

which is maintained through consumption practices. ‘The cinema provided

display windows for women’s fashion, and manufacturers and retailers of

women’s clothing ‘transformed ready-to-wear clothes into star imagery’38

20

Figure 1.4 Product Placements of Julia Roberts for Fashion

During promotion of Notting Hill (1999), Julia Roberts posed wearing

designer clothes and cosmetics. Vanity Fair, June 1999, pp. 12, 106-107.

According to Kelly Cutrone, the founder of the New York and L.A. fashion public

relations company (People's Revolution), payments to actresses for product

placements started with small amounts that rose rapidly during the 1990s.39

In

some instances, payment reached almost $250,000. ‘These kinds of deals are

considered affordable because they allow marketers to use a celebrity's name and

likeness for a fraction of what a full endorsement deal might cost, such as Nicole

Kidman's $4 million, three-year contract to be the face of Chanel No. 5.’40

Besides these individual actress product placements, and as noted by Susan

Ashbrook, founder of public relations firm Film Fashion: ‘the red carpet has

become a business’ specifically during such prestigious awards ceremonies as the

Academy Awards (Oscar Ceremony) and Golden Globes.41

The Academy Awards

21

Ceremony in particular is one of the most famous global events in which the

majority of film people are dressed by designers and wear brand name cosmetics

and jewellery. In 1995, Umma Thurman wore Prada; in 1996, Sharon Stone

‘paired a Valentino ball skirt with a turtleneck from the Gap’, and in 1999 Winona

Ryder wore diamond earrings from Bulgari.42

As reported in 2001, ‘more than

$200 million of diamonds and gems [are] lent to the star’ to wear during the

ceremony, a figure that indicates the important market that this event has

generated. 43

Figure 1.5 Product Placements of Sharon Stone and Meg Ryan

Sharon Stone appeared in Spanish sparkling wine Freixenet in 1992.

Meg Ryan posed in Spanish sparkling wine Freixenet in 1997.

The Independent, 5 December 1999, p.19.

22

Actresses’ product placements are apparently not limited to fashion and

cosmetics, they also involve drinks, Jodie Foster for example appeared for

Morinaga Caffe Latte in Japan, 1999.44

As illustrated by Figure 1.5,

advertisements for a Spanish sparkling wine, named as Freixenet, included

Sharon Stone in 1992 and Meg Ryan in 1997.45

Actresses appearances have also

been used to endorse perfume and cosmetic products, such as Jane Fonda, Nicole

Kidman, Penelope Cruz and Catherina Zeta-Jones.

Star Vehicle as ‘Risk Sharer’

I consider gross participation as an important economic recognition of actresses

as star vehicle by the Hollywood film industry. Participation and involvement

indicates how industry values the actresses in a film project and acknowledges

them as an active party in negotiations. There are two types of participation

practices: participating to share box office ‘profit’ and participating to share box

office ‘gross’.

Involvement of gross or profit participation from the box office means sharing

both the success and the risk of failure in a film’s performances. Furthermore, it

may sometimes include a share of the film’s ancillary revenue, such as video and

merchandising.

Gross or profit participation follows from an actress’ commercial assurance in

terms of former box office and secondary market revenues. The importance of

partaking in different participations indicates the actresses’ individual value (like

salary) and the degree of recognition given by studios. If there is a highly

convincing assurance of a star vehicled actress, gross participation is negotiated.

Otherwise, only profit participation can be issued, or there is detachment from

participation until the studios are convinced of the actresses’ commercial

potential.

Unlike net profit participation, gross participation deals are always arranged with

‘big name stars, producers, directors, and other participants with greater

23

bargaining power sometimes can negotiate […] The gross participant's share of

profits is usually based on gross revenues less certain adjustments.’46

The discourse of participation is formulated by ‘$20-million-per-pic and the first-

dollar gross participation clubs.’47

During 1990s Hollywood, Harrison Ford,

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Mel Gibson, Nicolas Cage, and Will Smith all received

$20 million salary and 20% of gross participation.48

Even though the participation

discourse creates the justification within certain amount, each actress and actor

has a different deal payment and different gross participation. Outside the twenty

club, Tom Hanks made a highly illustrative participant deal with as high as 50%

of the gross, but without a high up front payment, for acting in Saving Private

Ryan (1998).49

Keanu Reeves arranged a deal with Warner Bros. for $12.5 salary

and 12.5% of the gross for his acting in The Replacement (2000).50

As seen in the cases of the above names, significant gross participation is usually

associated with the actors’ commercial presence in the 1990s. However, Sandra

Bullock, Michelle Pfeiffer and Julia Roberts were also contractually entitled to

gross participation and received salaries between $10 and up to $20 million. Meg

Ryan agreed to receive $8 million for acting in City of Angels (1998) and $10.5

million starring in You’ve Got Mail (1998) in addition to ‘a bonus clause that give

her up to ten percent of the first-dollar gross profits.’51

Sharon Stone received $2.5

million salary and 10% of the gross for Sliver (1993).52

As has been emphasized, the expectation of success from star vehicles as ‘risk

reducers’ is structured by their contract, which is a legally recognized agreement,

articulated by participation involvement. Gross participation involvements reflect

the high degree of the actresses’ commercial recognition and value given by the

major film studios. This participation is negotiated when actresses are seen as star

vehicles, as able to assure certain revenues for films and reduce the probability of

a flop. Julia Roberts, Meg Ryan, Jodie Foster and Sharon Stone are perceived in

this ‘power’ category as distinguishing star vehicles and are therefore valued

individually in 1990s Hollywood.

24

Conclusions

In conclusion, as presented by ongoing discussion, the star vehicle has been seen

as crucial commercial formula in 1990s Hollywood.

The notion of the star vehicle is an interrelated concept that embraces formulaic

assurance, referring to a recognition of screen images that is sustained through the

virtual image-type-casting of Jodie Foster, Julia Roberts, Sharon Stone and Meg

Ryan in similar genre films. The star vehicle is furthermore an economic agent,

concerned with legitimization of the actresses by the economics of film making,

as risk reducer and risk sharer. The star vehicle is also an appealing discursive

instrument in the media and in the economic-discursive demands of various film

(un)related markets.

Moreover, the high level of demand for star vehicles enhances formulaic

assurance, especially during film promotion, and maintains the star vehicle’s

beneficial functioning in the film industry.

25

Notes

1With the term ‘box office’ I refer to the money gathered from ticket sales in the movie

theatres. Box office gross is the estimated amount of total earnings collected at the movie

theatre. Comprehensive box office analysis in relation to ‘success’ can be found in A.De

Vany, Hollywood Economics: How Extreme Uncertainty Shapes the Film Industry,

Routledge,. London & New York, 2004, p. 231.

2 J.Belton, American Cinema/ American Culture, McGraw- Hill, New York, 1994, p.112.

3B.King, ‘Stardom as an Occupation’, in P.Kerr (ed.) The Hollywood Film Industry,

Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1986, pp. 166-167.

4R.De Cordova, Picture Personalities, Illinois UP, Urbana & Chicago, 1990, p.11.

5 Ibid. p. 46.

6 Ibid. p. 19.

7 R.Maltby, Hollywood Cinema, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, 2004, p. 386.

8 Ibid., p. 387.

9 R. Dyer, Stars, British Film Institute, London, 1998, p. 62.

10 Ibid.

11It was ranked by 189 in all-time domestic box office and 226 at all time worldwide box

office gross. The opening weekend cashed $17.2 million, that 13.6 per cent of total gross.

In 1993, Sony was the third studio in the domestic market with 18.5% share after Warner

Bros. and Disney.

12New York Times, 25 June 1993, p.1.

13 The opening weekend cashed $18.4 that is 15.5 per cent of the total box office. You’ve

Got Mail was widely released through 2,948 theatres on 18 December 1998, Friday. Its

box office revenue was ranked 232 and 190 in all-time domestic and worldwide box

office respectively. It was rated as PG by MPAA. Box Office Mojo, viewed 23 May

2005. <http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=youvegotmail.htm>

14King, pp. 166-167.

15‘Town and Country Is Worst Flop in Movie History’, Studio Briefing, 30 May 2001,

viewed 27/05/05 <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119925/news>

16 Ibid.

17Quoted from S. Albert, ‘Movie Stars and the Distribution of Financially Successful

Films in the Motion Picture Industry’, Journal of Cultural Economics, vol. 22, 1998, p.

257.

18The Hollywood Reporter Film 500 Special Issue, August 1999, p. F-55.

19Released on 29 April 2001, <http://www.imdb.com>

26

20Studio Briefing, 30 May 2001, viewed 27 May 2005,

<http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119925/news>

21Ibid.

22‘Costner on the Come Back’, Studio Briefing, 19 January 2001, viewed 27 May 2005,

<http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114898/news>

23‘More Water Trouble for Kevin Costner’, Studio Briefing, 12 February 2002, viewed 27

May 2005 <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114898/news>

24‘Final Weekend Box Office’, Studio Briefing, 6 January 1998, viewed 27 May 2005

<http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119925/news>

25 Robin Hood Prince of Thieves (1991) produced by Warner Bros. with a budget of $50

million. It made half of budget at opening week $25.6 million through 2369 screens in

June 1991. Total domestic gross was $165 million, international was $225 million and the

worldwide was $390 million. Additionally, its rental in the United States was $86

million, <http://www. Imdb.com>

26 J.Izod, Hollywood and the Box Office 1895-1986, Macmillan, London, 1988, p. 187.

27De Vany, p.126.

28R.Corlliss, quoted from M.Barker, ‘Introduction’, in T.Austin and M.Barker (eds),

Contemporary Hollywood Stardom, Arnold, London & New York, 2003, p.19.

29B.Daniels, D.Leedy and S.D. Sills, Movie Money: Understanding Hollywood’s

(Creative) Accounting Practices, Silman-James Press, Los Angeles, 1998, p. 6.

30Palm Theatre DVD Player by Panasonic Advertisement, Film Review, 1998.

31J.Wasko, How Hollywood Works, Sage, London, Thousand Oaks & New Delhi, 2003,

p.154.

32 Vanity Fair, December 1999, pp. 8, 14, 52, 186-187,192 & 215.

33J.Hohnen, ‘Just Jodie’, Tatler, January 2000, pp.29-33.

34Vanity Fair. April 1999, pp.152-153.

35Vanity Fair, June 1999, p.164.

36Ibid.

37Ibid., p. 102, 104-106, 164.

38J.Stacey, Star Gazing, Routledge, London & NY, 1998, p. 181. Since the early years of

Hollywood, actresses always associated to fashion, cosmetic and jewellery and these

commercialisations are highly circulated. This aspects insightfully engaged by following

studies: C.C.Herzog & J.M.Gaines, ‘Puffed Sleeves Before Tea-Time’, in C.Gledhil (ed.),

Stardom Industry of Desire, Routledge, London & NY, 2003, pp.74-91.; T.Harris,

‘Building of Popular Images Grace Kelly and Marilyn Monroe’, in C.Gledhil (ed.),

Stardom Industry of Desire, Routledge, London & NY, 2003, pp.40-44.; M.Hall,

27

M.Carne & S.Sheppard, California Fashion: From the Old West to New Hollywood,

Abrams, NY, 2002.

39B.Moore. ‘Awards show fashion deals reach new mark: $250,000’, Los Angeles Times,

24 February 2005, viewed <11/03/2005

http://metromix.chicagotribune.com/search/mmx0502240069feb24,1,7859358.story>

40Ibid.

41Ibid.

42Ibid.

43 Hello, 10 April 2001, pp. 8-28.

44 http://www.imdb.com

45 The Independent, 5 December 1999, p.19.

46Ibid., p. 44.

47C.Petrikin, A.Hindes & D.Cox (eds), Variety Power Players 2000, Perigee Book, New

York, 1999, pp. 206 & 198.

48Ibid., p: 198-217.

49Ibid., p: 208.

50Ibid., p: 214.

51<http://mrshowbiz.go.home>, 15 October 1998, viewed 4 November 2001.

52Empire, September 1993, p.88.

Filmography

Addicted to Love, (dir.Griffin Dunne, prod. Bob Weinstein & Harvey Weinstein), USA,

1997.

An Affair To Remember, (dir. Leo McCarey, prod. Leo McCarey & Jerry Wald), USA,

1957.

Anna and the King, (dir. Andy Tennant, prod. Terence Chang), USA, 1999.

Basic Instinct, (dir. Paul Verhoven, prod. Mario Kassar), USA/France, 1992.

City of Angels, (dir.Brad Silberling, prod. Carl Colpaert, H.Michael Heuser & Nicholas

Paleolges), Germany/USA, 1998.

Conspiracy Theory, (dir. Richard Donner, prod. Jim Van Wyck), USA, 1997.

Contact, (dir. Robert Zemeckis, prod. Jan Brad Shaw & Linda Obst), USA, 1997.

French Kiss, (dir. Lawrence Kasdan, prod. Charles Okun), UK/USA, 1995.

28

Good Morning Vietnam, (dir. Barry Levinson, Prod. Mark Johnson), USA, 1987.

I.Q., (dir. Fred Schepisi, prod. Sandy Gallin & Scott Rudin), USA, 1994.

Little Man Tate, (dir Jodie Foster, prod. Randy Stone), USA, 1991.

Maverick, (dir. Richard Donner, prod. Bruce Davey & Richard Donner), USA, 1994.

My Best Friend's Wedding, (dir. P.J.Hogan, prod. Gil Netter & Patricia Whitcher), USA,

1997.

Nell, (dir. Michael Apted, prod. Jodie Foster & Rene Missel), USA, 1994.

Notting Hill, (dir.Roger Michell, prod. Tim Bevan, Richard Curtis & Eric Fellner),

UK/USA, 1999.

Pretty Woman, (dir. Garry Marshall, prod. Laura Ziskin), USA, 1990.

Robin Hood Prince of Thieves, (dir. Kevin Reynolds, prod. Gary Barber, David Nicksay

& James G. Robinson), USA, 1991.

Runaway Bride, (dir. Garry Marshall, prod. Gary Lucchesi, David Madden & Ted

Tannebaum), USA, 1999.

Saving Private Ryan, (dir. Steven Spielberg, prod. Ian Bryce, Mark Gordon, Gary

Levinsohn & Steven Spielberg), USA, 1998

Sleepless in Seattle, (dir. Nora Ephron, prod. Patrick Crowley & Linda Obst), USA, 1993.

Sliver, (dir. Phillip Noyce, prod. Joe Eszterhas & Howard W. Koch Jr.), USA, 1993.

Sommersby, (dir. Jon Amiel, prod. Richard Gere & Maggie Wilde), France/USA, 1993.

Speed 2: Cruise Control, (dir. Jan de Bont, prod. Mark Gordon), USA, 1997.

Speed, (dir. Jan de Bont, prod. Ian Bryce), USA, 1994.

Stepmom, (dir.Chris Columbus, prod. Ronald Bass, Margaret French Isaac, Patrick

McCormick, Pliny Porter, Julia Roberts & Susan Sarandon), USA, 1998.

The Doors, (dir. Oliver Stone, prod. Brian Grazer & Mario Kassar), USA, 1991.

The Postman, (dir. Kevin Costner, prod. Kevin Costner, Steve Tisch & Jim Wilson),

USA, 1997.

The Replacements, (dir. Howard Deutch, prod. Jeffrey Chernov, Steven Reuther & Ervin

Stoff), USA, 2000.

The Silence of the Lambs, (dir. Jonathan Demme, prod. Gary Goetzman), USA, 1991.

The Specialist, (dir. Luis Mandoki, prod. Steve Barron, Chuck Binder & Jeff Most),

Peru/USA, 1994.

Town & Country, (dir. Peter Chelsom, prod. Michael De Luca, Lynn Harris & Sidney

Kimmel), USA, 2001.

Waterworld, (dir. Kevin Reynolds, prod. Ilona Herzberg, Andrew Licht & Jeffrey A.

Mueller), USA, 1995.

You've Got Mail, (dir. Nora Ephron, prod.G.MacBrown, Julie Durk & Delia Ephron),

USA, 1998.