What makes an actor a big box office draw? Is it fame alone or is talent required? Usually that question is confounded: it’s hard to rule out that an actor became famous because he is talented.
The actors playing Harry, Ron, and Hermione in Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows are most certainly famous, but almost certainly not because they are talented. They were cast in that movie nearly 10 years ago when their average age was 11. No doubt talent played a role in that selection but acting talent at the age of 11 is no predictor of talent at age 20. The fact that they are in Deathly Hallows is statistically independent of how talented they are.
That is, from the point of view of today it is as if they were randomly selected to be famous film stars out of the vast pool of actors who have been training just as hard as they from ages 11 to 20. So they are our natural experiment. If they go on to be successful film stars after the Harry Potter franchise comes to an end then this is statistical evidence that fame itself makes a Hollywood star.
Here’s Daniel Radcliffe on fame.
Cheap Talk 
8 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 29, 2010 at 4:21 am
Niko
While “the fact that they are in Deathly Hallows is statistically independent of how talented they are” is true, their casting in future movies will not be independent of talent. If going “on to be successful film stars after the Harry Potter franchise” is the test, then we still won’t know whether talent or fame got them those jobs.
In other words, Radcliffe didn’t become famous because of his (current) talent, but it could still be his talent that makes him a box office draw (and gets him hired).
November 29, 2010 at 6:55 am
hbi
“who have been training just as hard as they from ages 11 to 20.”
I would guess that few other actors would have trained just as hard or had as much support, experience, coaches etc devoted to them – the opportunities for training for these guys was quite different than for other teenage actors.
November 29, 2010 at 7:39 am
twicker
@hbi — I agree completely. Radcliffe et al. have had more access to better actors (from whom to learn), better coaches, etc., than, say, an 11-year-old who does regional theatre in Des Moines. How many 11-year-olds start their film careers working with folks like Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman, and the late Richard Harris – or have the immediate personal connections to, and money to pay for, the coaches?
Their early luck created talent, IMHO.
November 29, 2010 at 11:50 am
jeff
Impossible to know of course but given (A) the rents available and (B) the zeal of parents, I would not be surprised if there were many young actors with training that approximates this. The rents and the ‘rents: a potent combination.
Ask whether 3 actors, trained just as Ms Watson, Mr Gint and Mr Radcliffe have been, but who were not already committed to be in the film would have won in an open audition competing with all of the other actors age 20. If not, then we have a valid experiment.
November 29, 2010 at 1:11 pm
twicker
@jeff:
Even given the rents available, I doubt there are many child actors who have had the kinds of exposures and resources, even approximately, that Radcliffe, Grint, & Watson had.
Remember some of the lead actors they had the great good fortune to work with:
1) Richard Harris (nominated for 2 Oscars)
2) Dame Maggie Smith (won 2 Oscars)
3) Robbie Coltrane
4) Kenneth Branagh (actor, director, 4 Oscar nominations, etc.)
5) Julie Waters (2 Oscar nominations)
6) Alan Rickman (won Golden Globe; won Emmy for Best Actor; etc.)
7) John Cleese (won Emmy for Best Guest Actor; won several other awards, etc.)
And that’s just their co-workers up to the second movie (Chamber of Secrets).
I agree that, if you had training and experiences that approximate theirs, then it’s a tossup. IMHO, though, that would be akin to saying that, if you’re an engineer and you have training that approximates a master’s from MIT, then you’re one of the top engineers.
If they become successful, then I think you still have the open question of whether it’s fame or talent (much like an MIT engineering grad who becomes a successful engineer may be a really great engineer — or be given opportunities that, say, an Illinois Tech engineer doesn’t get just because the MIT woman graduated from MIT; same effect for Harvard MBAs and their social networks). If, however, they *don’t* become successful, then you have a strong case that their initial success was *not* due to talent, or predictive of the type of talent that’s required in later careers (see note below). You might be able to see if Radcliffe et al. landed parts/received salaries that are demonstrably *better* than similarly-aged actors who also land large parts — and that may be the experiment you’re thinking of (I’ll cop to not being an economist).
On a side note — Daniel Radcliffe had been in the movies prior to Harry Potter (played a young David Copperfield in “David Copperfield,” and played a young boy in “The Tailor of Panama”), and continued his career outside HP during the shooting (including his famous turn in Equus).
And that’s a hilarious clip — Judd Apatow is awesome (and Harry — sorry, Daniel — is showing some definite talent :).
yrs,
twicker
Sidenote: I would suggest that there may be a couple of confounds with child actors breaking out of the roles that made them famous, even if they have talent:
a) First is that audiences (and studios, directors, producers, etc.) may overidentify them with their original characters — meaning that their fame may hurt them when perceived by others, regardless of talent.
b) The other is that, as your colleague Adam Galinsky has shown, power can cause people to become more self-centered (by which I mean less likely to take the perspective of others). If a child actor succumbs to this, then s/he may become more petulant, more of a prima donna than average for actors and, thus, may be shunned by directors/etc. who may be able to find other actors who are almost as talented and much easier to work with.
c) Being famous, these actors will command higher salaries than newer actors; thus, their price premium may limit their roles given their cohort (though they could always go the low-budget artsy film route for awhile, bring their expected salaries back down in line with their cohort, and then re-emerge).
November 29, 2010 at 10:07 am
ramblingperfectionist
Fully agree with hbi and twicker; this isn’t going to be even a reasonable approximation for the sort of experiment you want to do.
November 29, 2010 at 10:22 am
twicker
I’m sitting here trying to figure out how you *would* do this experiment, given the number of confounds floating around. As mentioned above, I’m not sure that the HP folks are now representative of much of anything (kinda like the children of stars, who have piles of resources and contacts better than any of their peers). It’s such a game of chance …
I’m actually reminded of this “post reality” TV series on Hulu:
If I Can Dream
http://www.hulu.com/if-i-can-dream
Plucked a group of essentially unknowns with some basis for talent, put them up in Hollywood with access to incredible amounts of resources and contacts, and then … waited to see what happened.
Not an experiment per se, but some interesting data that seems related (obviously edited for consumption and not for research).
November 29, 2010 at 9:39 pm
Random Student
The 10-year-old Michael Jackson provides strong evidence that world-beating talent *can* be identified at an extremely young age:
Maybe I just have blinders on, but I’ve certainly never seen any 10-year-old even come close to demonstrating this skill at performance. The fact that the single most precocious preteen singer of all time happened to become the single most successful pop performer of the modern era is pretty compelling. (Unless you attribute it to fame begetting fame…)