Celebrity Directed Films: Are We Biased Against Them?

Three years ago, Madonna announced she was making a film called W.E. that would trace the love affair between King Edward VIII and an American divorcée, Wallis Simpson, a relationship that ultimately forced Edward to abdicate the throne so he could be with her. The film finally hit theaters this month and received a lot of attention, catapulting Madonna into the limelight as a director rather than as a musician. While Madonna has tried directing films before, this is her first high-budget feature and there was much skepticism about whether or not she would pull it off.

When movie came out, critics sharpened their claws to tear the film apart. With an abysmal 13% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes, Madonna’s new film has hardly been well received. Common criticisms include poor acting and a confusing script (which Madonna wrote herself). The general consensus is that W.E. looked pretty on the outside but was ultimately vapid. Roger Ebert called the film “elegant, ambitious and relentlessly monotonous,” and said that “there is little human interest or excitement.”

Scrolling through the list of reviews on W.E., I came upon a review from Daily Mail and read this interesting little tidbit: “A lot of people will loathe it, simply because it’s been made by Madonna. But if they were to watch it with no knowledge of who directed, they would be pleasantly surprised.”

Celebrity filmmaking is nothing new, but there seems to be an especially large influx of this as of late. Not only has Madonna jumped on board but so has Angelina Jolie with her film about the Bosnian War, In The Land of Blood and Honey, George Clooney’s The Ides of March, Ben Affleck’s The Town and Jodie Foster’s The Beaver, to name a few. Those are just the films that have come out these past few years–stars such as Clint Eastwood and Robert Redford have been making films for decades. All of their films have been met with a variety of responses, both good and bad.

Going back to what I’ve read in the Daily Mail, do celebrity directors actually have any effect on the way a critic or a moviegoer judges a film? According to Professor John Hall, who lectures in film studies at Boston University, this isn’t really the case. “My view is that they aren’t so often judged harshly as a result of the director already being known as an actor, or as a celebrity in some other way,” said Hall. “[With Madonna’s film] I’m guess that there might be some shots taken at her, but that may be partly because she is a woman who has been aggressive about her image. But I don’t think that’s typical and that might be the exception to the rule.”

There does seem to be a divide when it comes to male and female celebrity directed films. For example, Angelina Jolie’s In the Land of Blood and Honey currently stands at 55% on Rotten Tomatoes, and Jodie Foster’s The Beaver has 61%. Male directors have fared slightly better; George Clooney has gotten 85% of critic’s approval for The Ides of March, and Ben Affleck’s The Town has a overwhelmingly positive 94%. Hall says that a film’s rating could be slightly affected by this because men in Hollywood are more likely to be given more financial backing to direct a film over a female director.

“There are more examples of male stars who have gotten the power to direct, and a lot of that may be because Hollywood is more comfortable with giving money to these men rather than a woman star. Barbara Streisand had a lot of trouble over the years trying to get someone to support her as a director.” Hall said.

Regardless of their gender, celebrity directors seem to haves little effect on how people view a movie, and W.E. failed probably because it was just plain bad. Perhaps one of Madonna’s faults was taking on too much too early, and she would have benefited from making a less complicated film. Hall, however, argues that it is actually good to see a director grapple with something of substance. George Clooney’s first foray into the world of directing was with Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, a biography of game show host and alleged CIA assassin Chuck Barris. Clooney’s film received positive feedback, so it’s obvious that a first time director can make a successful debut film that deals with a complex story.

It looks like Madonna doesn’t seem to have any directing chops, so why let her make a film in the first place? Just because a celebrity can make a film, should they make a film?

Hall talks about the idea of celebrity directors getting support to make films because the idea of a famous person being attached to the filmmaking might make more money at the box office, even if the script isn’t stellar. “If [the director doesn’t] really have a really good script I would say no, they shouldn’t make the film. But that’s not to say that Hollywood won’t fund it. Obviously, if they see an economic advantage to having a celebrity direct the movie, that’s something they might try to do.” In this sense, W.E. is a bit of an anomaly as both a critical and box office flop, only managing to bring in $45,000, which is only a tiny fraction of the $36 million film budget.

Nonetheless, there are celebrity directors that have gotten past their status as an actor and gone on to make great films. Even Barbara Streisand, who is also primarily known as a musician, got rave reviews when Yentl came out. Hall cites Clint Eastwood as another example of an actor who has managed to get past his celebrity status and be known as a great director.

“[Certain celebrity directors are successful] in that they know something about the process and the history of the genre that they’re working in. Clint Eastwood, of course, understands Westerns intimately. His early movies were Westerns primarily because he really understood what Westerns were. The first Eastwood movies were really kind of simplistic and they weren’t that rich in terms of their stories or characters but he got better. I think some of these celebrity directors, given the time and if they have the talent, will get better.”

The bottom line is that films should be judged on their own merit, and not according to the influence of extraneous factors such as celebrity directors. However, not even critics are completely immune to this. Hall, who is a critic himself, says moviegoers should be aware that critics do have certain biases. “I would never say ignore the critics but I do think sometimes that when you read a critic’s review, you have to be aware of the critic’s agenda and their particular tastes regarding [certain] director. For instance, Pauline Kael, the most famous critic of all, had very clear biases and favorites. She loved certain directors and would be kinder to them than she would be to others’ [work] that she never liked, regardless of how another observer would view that [work]. I think that while critical voices are important, we should also understand that it is very subjective and take the opinion stated with a grain of salt.”

It looks like celebrity directed movies will always be a permanent fixture in the glamorous world of film. As long as celebrities have the means to explore directing, audiences will continue to see famous people make movies. But for every terrible Madonna film, there is also a great George Clooney or Clint Eastwood film. That is something in which both filmgoers and critics alike can rejoice.