Nepotism in the Mainstream?

The stories of Blunt and Radcliffe (which I am unfamiliar with)
leads me to believe that being in the right place at the right
time is more important than a family connection. Nepotism in it's
truest meaning (using power and influence to give jobs to people
in your family instead of to people who deserve to have them) does
not seem to happen with actors very often.

So for me. it's simply the use of that word and its meaning.
People in and close to the business have an upper hand as they do
in all industries.

Living and working in Los Angeles has given me opportunities you
have never and likely will never get. So if we change the word in
Gox19's post to "Connections in the Mainstream" and your comment
that "dynasties" dominate all the major film professions is
changed to people with connections dominate all the major film
professions, then we would be in agreement.

Very, very few people in this business "make it" without some
connection. But many, many make it without nepotism.
 
Cracker Funk said:
Gox is a troll if ever I've seen one.

I'll go on the record for something. I support nepotism. If you had a position of influence, and one of your family members possessed a talent in the same field, wouldn't you want to give them an opportunity? Ben casting Casey in "Gone, Baby, Gone" is a perfect example of what I think is right about Hollywood. I don't think there's enough of it.
Click to expand...

I know if I ever actually filmed anything my niece would definitely be the star ^_^
 
Look at Will Smith's kids for a worst case scenario. They're going to make millions of dollars before they even get pubic hair, and they're barely talented, if at all.
 
directorik said:
Very, very few people in this business "make it" without some
connection. But many, many make it without nepotism.
Click to expand...

This. Once again Rik knocks it out of the park. I know a LOT of people are bitter about nepotism and the like, but I'll tell you two things:

#1: It's not just in the film business, or the music business, nor is it exclusive to any industry at all. Nepotism has always been with us and it always will be. It's no more a problem in entertainment businesses than it is in any other. It's just more visible. It's our nature. Family does for Family. A very good friend of mine is where he is because of nepotism - and he manufactures plastic for medical devices. It is what it is. The patriarch of that same family sold his company along with all his patents and bought his two sons houses (as well as a dope vacation house for himself and the wife). It's what families do. Is it unfair, probably, but life is unfair. Deal. :D

#2: For every talentless hack actor/ess that got into this business because mommy was an actress or daddy was an entertainment lawyer, there are 10 or more folks who work crews and got there (at least in part, or through inspiration) via family connections and still DESERVE to be there.

Unless anyone wants to tell me that Wally Pfister only became a cinematographer SOLEY because his father was an ENG cameraman for TV and not due to any action taken to learn the craft and master it.

There's no point in being bitter about nepotism. None. Really, there's no point in even taking it into consideration because there's nothing to be done about it. With or without the family angle, you NEED connections in this business, because that is how you get work. If you go around bitter about things like nepotism, then your contacts list is going to get shorter and shorter. Nobody likes working with the bitter folks, they get called as a last resort if at all.

Focus on what can be controlled.

NOTE: Use of the word "you" in this thread is 100% generic.

As far as child actors are concerned, I'm out. That world is just way to weird for me to factor it into my life. I just sort of ignore it and move along. Nothing new really, child actors have been coming from pushy, wealthy, connected families for as long as there have been child actors.
 
Last edited:
Nepotism exists in all industries. The varying degrees of fairness are debatable and equally plausible.

"Hollywood", as a mythic entity meaning the big budgeted film business is about WHO YOU KNOW... if you're in the literal family of people already in the industry, then they already know you. JJ Abrams got a bar mitzvah present from Nichloas Meyer over 15 years before he directed Star Trek because he was a family friend.

How the general public reacts to someone's work or performance will dictate how "successful" their careers are on their own. Some will fade away and others will stand on their own. Hey, just like anyone else who manages to get into the Hollywood system!
 
Rik makes a very good point that putting everything under the umbrella of "nepotism" is something of a misnomer, a sin of which I am admittedly guilty.

In reality, I think it's about opportunities. I'll throw a couple of names into the ring: Sean Penn and Robert Downey, Jr. Both of these guys were the sons of film directors and basically grew up surrounded by the industry. Few would argue, though, that they are not deserving of every accolade they have been awarded. Their own success and fame has far surpassed their fathers'.

I have no doubt, however, that there are plenty of equally talented actors out there whose names will never be known because they were born far away from Hollywood and either lacked the wherewithal and/or connections to obtain that lucky break.

Bottom line: Penn and Downey had BOTH the talent and the connections. Someone once defined "luck" as "ability meets opportunity". So few make it to their level in the biz that it's not surprising so many had built-in opportunities, either via nepotism or other means -- one less cliff face to overcome means one has a better chance of reaching the summit.
 
If it's any consolation, do you all know how much easier/ more economical it is to actually produce a short, or even a feature, with the resources we have available to us today? Old school...well, you'd be lucky to get a short to final print. So, while most of us may never attain *Hollywood* success (through connections or *nepotism*), appreciate the fact that many of us have the opportunity to create a substantial body of work in this medium. Didn't mean for this to sound condescending, I'm just thankful we work in a time when the actual production of completed works is feasible.
 
I do not know many of the stories of how people “made it” but I do
know the two actors who we Sean Penn’s “buds” in Fast Times. I
directed them both in a high school production of “One Flew Over
the Cuckoo’s Nest” a year before they were cast in “Fast Times”

No family connections at all. They both were auditioning for rolls
from age 8 - being driven by they parents from their home town to
Los Angeles on a regular basis. Both have had excellent careers if
not the fame of Sean Penn.

Like others have said, there is nothing wrong with nepotism in
“Hollywood” - the chaff is separated from the wheat quickly. There
is just as much, if not more, nepotism in other industries. There
isn’t as much in “Hollywood” as the first couple of posts suggest
so I don’t feel it’s a big issue. And certianly “Hollywood” - even
the big budget studio films - is not closed to people who aren’t
in the dynasty.

Nick, I look forward to your article about nepotism in Hollywood.
 
directorik said:
I do not know many of the stories of how people “made it” but I do
know the two actors who we Sean Penn’s “buds” in Fast Times. I
directed them both in a high school production of “One Flew Over
the Cuckoo’s Nest” a year before they were cast in “Fast Times”
Click to expand...

How cool is that?!

Oddly enough, I just re-watched Fast Times a week ago for the first time since the 1980's. I had completely forgotten that Spicoli's buds were Anthony Edwards and Eric Stoltz. In the BTS documentary it says they'd both been up for the Spicoli role until Sean Penn came in and blew everyone else out of the water.

I will say that, rather than nepotism, those two had the benefit of the luck of geography. There's much to be said about living close enough to L.A. to have your mom drive you back and forth to auditions from the time you're eight years old.

I'm sure my mom would've gladly driven me to and from the boat landing if I'd wanted to be a fisherman. ;)
 
directorik said:
Nick, I look forward to your article about nepotism in Hollywood.
Click to expand...

I think my article, if and when it happens, is going to focus on child actors. I was just so appalled by the performances in the new Narnia film (which, if I remember correctly, you rather enjoyed) so I researched the actors and it just struck me that they were totally undeserving of the amazing opportunities they've been given.

I would reiterate that when I say that I have a problem with nepotism in Hollywood I am referring to a fairly restrictive set of circumstances.

Obviously there is no doubt that nepotism is firmly part of the society that we live in. It's a natural part of growing up in an environment that is dominated by certain professions. What I take exception to is children at a very young age and with little to distinguish themselves from any old child on the street, being set for life just because of their parents profession and connection. Whilst it may not be nepotism in its most direct sense (except in certain circumstances), it is a form of nepotism.

I would also argue that just because it sometimes works, doesn't make it right. Obviously it would be a shame if we hadn't got actors like Michael Douglas, Alan Alda and Jeff Bridges- but I still have reservations, on principle, about actors who have gotten their breaks because they are the children of actors, directors, writers...etc. In an industry where talent should be everything, rather than industries where you can simply learn everything you need to know, I just worry that people are getting disillusioned with their chances of breaking into the mainstream. It would be a pretty bad situation if there were kids who thought that it wasn't worth it trying to break into the industry simply because all the top jobs are going to the kids of the famous people. That, in my opinion, would be/is a shame.
 
Nick, I never knew you hated kids so much!

I blame the parents.*








*disclaimer: this post was tongue in cheek. (hey is that where the British word 'cheeky' comes from?)
 
NickClapper said:
I would reiterate that when I say that I have a problem with nepotism in Hollywood I am referring to a fairly restrictive set of circumstances.
Click to expand...
I hope that if you write your article you will elaborate on your
restrictive set of circumstances. I must admit that I remain
rather unclear as to what they are. But it is encouraging an
interesting discussion.

NickClapper said:
It would be a pretty bad situation if there were kids who thought that it wasn't worth it trying to break into the industry simply because all the top jobs are going to the kids of the famous people. That, in my opinion, would be/is a shame.
Click to expand...
I, too, think that would be a pretty bad situation. Fortunately,
the top jobs are not going to kids of the famous people. Many,
many child actors are getting excellent opportunities all the time
and many of the top jobs are going to kids without direct family
connections. Just kids (and parents) who work hard.

The highest paid child actors of 2010 - in order
Agnus Jones
Miranda Cosgrove
Selena Gomez
Dylan and Cole Sprouse
Keke Palmer
Miley Cyrus
Rico Rodriguez
Demi Lovato
Victoria Justice
Atticus Shaffer

One (clearly) has family connections. Gomez’s mom was “a stage
actress” but I found no credits so I can’t imagine the young
actress got too much of an undeserved leg up through that
connection. Lovato’s mother was a Dallas Cowboys Cheerleader -
enough, I would say, to know what to do and who to do it, but not
to be nepotism.

So at best three of the ten top paid child actors of 2010 have
family connections that helped them get their break. And in my
opinion, only one. An encouraging 70% of them got their breaks by
hard work and (perhaps) some talent.

Those are very good odds and should not cause disillusionment
about chances of breaking in to mainstream.

According to a poll on screenrant, the best performances by child
actors were:

Natalie Portman - Leon
Christian Bale - Empire of the Sun
Bailee Madison - Brothers
Kirsten Dunst - Interview with a Vampire
Dakota Fanning - Hounddog
Haley Osment - Sixth Sense
Henry Thomas - ET
Jodie Foster - Taxi Driver
Chloe Moretz - Kick-Ass
Max Records - Where the Wild Things Are

Foster’s mother worked for a producer. Osmet’s father was an
actor, but with only four minor credits before his son got the
role I have a difficult time believing a casting director offered
the part to him out of nepotism. Dunst’s mother owned an art
gallery - does that count as an advantage over more deserving
actors? Bale’s father was a talent manager.

So even allowing your (in my opinion) very narrow definition of
nepotism, we find ourselves at only four of ten. In my opinion
only two might fit.

Just using these two examples the statistics are not in favor of
nepotism over talent. Twenty child actors - seven family
connections to the business - thirteen who got their break and
jobs due to their talent.

Right now the most talked about child actor is Hailee Steinfeld.
No family connections got her her first job.
 
Hmmm... I can't be doing with another extensive research period so I'll take your word that they only have some small connections.

For the first list I can honestly say that I only know about three of the names on there. I'm assuming that these are Justin Bieber type, kids TV show actors in the States? I would need to read up on who the heck they are before making any sort of informed comment :)

As for the second list, I would point out that almost all of those child performances were not their first gig and that they had much smaller TV/movie credits before their big break. Do I think that Christian Bale getting the job on Anastasia that led to him being cast in Empire of the Sun was something to do with his father being a talent manager? Probably. Do I regret it? Not at all.

The trouble is is that it's very easy to pick out these uber-successful examples and congratulate them. My point is more about franchises (I might have to restrict my article to that then) where the roles that these kids are given are a guarantee of a lifetime of fame and employment.

A lot of the kids on that list have had excellent careers as adult actors. But take Haley Joel Osment for a second. Oscar nominee as a kid and his career has fallen apart as an adult. Would that have been the same had he been given the Harry Potter role that he was touted for? Almost certainly not.

Kids who make one fantastic, stand alone movie have a springboard to success, but it's not a given. There are lots of kids in excellent films who haven't been able to do anything else... what the hell happened to Justin Henry from Kramer vs Kramer?

But the kids who are catapaulted into these franchises when they're ten or eleven or fifteen or whatever get an unfair advantage over, not just the kids who are talented and trying hard to get these sort of roles, but the kids who produce stand out performances in a film (like the ones you mentioned as well as their forgotten counterparts) but don't have that assurance of a career.

I'll be interested to see what happens to Max Records. And Kodi Smit McPhee (that kid has some serious talent- just Wikied him (I can't stop!) and his mother is an actress and his sister is quite well known as an actress too... Doh!).

And just for the record, I'd never really thought about this in any depth (other than getting aggravated by the Narnia kids) so I apologise that my argument hasn't really settled in to place yet. I know that I have a problem with this, but I'm still working out whether it's simply with franchises, child actors or even just the Pevensie children...
 
NickClapper said:
Hmmm... I can't be doing with another extensive research period so I'll take your word that they only have some small connections.
Click to expand...
I did the research this time so you wouldn’t have to. Thirteen of
the twenty have no connections at all - three (Foster, Bale,
Cyrus) have very clear connections and four have very nebulous
connections. And I’ve never thought about this much either. It is
this post that sparked my interest.

I am really not terribly familiar with child actors - I only
recognize one on the first list - and they are TV actors in the
States. But I needed a list of child actors so I could see if you
were correct about nepotism in Hollywood. From a Google search I
pulled two lists - the top 10 highest paid and the “best”
performances - so I couldn’t be accused of hand picking specific
actors. If most of them had family connections I would have said
so.

Regarding the second list, I didn’t mention their breakthrough
role - we are discussing only how they got their start. You’re
right, most of them had been working hard before they got the
breakthrough role mentioned on that list. Not nepotism at all -
just good, old fashioned hard work.

In all fairness, Nick, you have gone from nepotism to having a
long term, successful career.

It seems your issue is with longevity and fairness. Nothing about
this business is remotely fair so you and I have an agreement
there.

And obviously you really have an issue with the Narnia kids.

It seems that nepotism in Hollywood is not much of an issue. Child
actors without family in the business have a chance of getting
roles and having success.

NickClapper said:
My point is more about franchises (I might have to restrict my article to that then) where the roles that these kids are given are a guarantee of a lifetime of fame and employment.
Click to expand...
To be honest, that doesn’t sound like an interesting article. It’s
kind of a no brainier. Of course an actor that is cast in a big
franchise like the Potter films is going to have an advantage.

However, as I think about it, I wonder...

Which child actors, cast in a franchise film, have achieved a
lifetime of fame an employment? I suspect the Narnia kids will all
be “where are they now” trivia questions in five years and the
three Potter kids will not work much as adults. They will always
be famous for their rolls but a lifetime of employment....
 
Well, if they don't work much as adults I'm sure it will be at least partially related to the fact that they can all sleep in beds of £50 notes...

But they now rank amongst the most bankable Hollywood stars and, provided they want to continue in that career trajectory, will be offered top end roles in movies that probably won't bomb at the Box Office. The Narnia movies are less popular and therefore potential future earnings will be slightly less, but all the same they've got a pretty decent life ahead of them.

I think that franchises are genuinely important on a couple of levels. Firstly they are the foundations on which box office takings are built and secondly because they have a unique fan base and therefore the responsibility of the actors/production team is a lot higher.

But, in order to keep this in perspective, we should think that perhaps we are only talking 20% of actors getting into the business through some form of nepotism, but that's still a massive chunk. What percentage of people work in careers related to the film business? That's a pretty small number and makes the 20% look extremely disproportionate.
 
Since we're on the subject of child stars and questionable talent, I'm surprised no one has mentioned The Last Airbender. No nepotism here as far as I can tell with Aang. He was chosen primarily for his martial arts skill. I felt his dialogue delivery was a little flat. But do you blame the director, or the talent? I haven't been a fan of M. Knight since he released The Happening. And this movie just solidified in my mind that the director is on a downhill slide (hopefully just a slump). But that's a whole different discussion.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3226241/bio
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top