Where Oscar Leads: Gwyneth Paltrow
By Daron Aldridge
April 6, 2009
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Where Oscar Leads takes a look at exactly that - "where Oscar leads" the winners and whether the audience rewards the award winner by following them.
It was March 21, 1999, and the pinnacle of award ceremonies was winding down as Saving Private Ryan was cheated out of its Best Picture award by the Miramax machine's anointed favorite, Shakespeare in Love. On a night when Shakespeare in Love walked away with seven awards and the ire of disgusted Spielberg fans, the honors that Judi Dench and Gwyneth Paltrow received for supporting and lead performances didn't exactly make jaws drop in surprise. Spielberg probably wasn't too bitter, since Paltrow is his goddaughter, after all, and she played Tinkerbell in Hook.
So on the morning of March 22nd, Gwyneth Paltrow could be marketed as Academy Award winner Gwyneth Paltrow. Arm-in-arm with her new best friend, Oscar, let's see where the little gold man has taken Ms. Paltrow over the last decade.
Paltrow seemed to be trying to compete with the ubiquitous Samuel L. Jackson in 1998 as she appeared in five films during the course of the year as an above-the-title star. In addition to Shakespeare in Love, she had the contemporary-retelling of Great Expectations with Ethan Hawke, the mother-in-law from hell drama Hush, the indie Sliding Doors and the Hitchcock remake A Perfect Murder with Michael Douglas and Viggo Mortensen.
In order of box office tallies from least to most for her other 1998 films, Sliding Doors earned $11.9 million, Hush earned $13.6 million, Great Expectations got $26.3 million and A Perfect Murder came out on top with $67.7 million. It's clear that the films that rested primarily upon Paltrow's shoulders (Sliding Doors and Hush) were non-factors at the box office.
Following her Oscar victory lap in the fictionalized story of William Shakespeare, Paltrow's box office status could only improve.
For her encore to a Miramax-backed prestige and critically acclaimed film, Paltrow didn't stray from the formula, and that put her on the stage of the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion, by appearing in another Miramax-backed prestige and critically acclaimed film. She co-starred with Matt Damon (another Miramax golden child), Jude Law and Cate Blanchett (her Oscar competition the year before) in The Talented Mr. Ripley. While she wasn't the lead character, this was a shrewd move indeed to making wise, career-building choices. Paltrow and her people obviously understood her lack of box office clout and exercised discretion in script selection. After raking up five Oscar nominations, The Talented Mr. Ripley pulled home $81.3 million, which couldn't be attributed to Paltrow per se but helped further her reputation as a deserving Best Actress winner.
With an apparent change in selection criteria, Paltrow's head lost out to her heart for the next couple of films, Duets and Bounce. No one could really blame her motivation for doing Duets, as it was her chance to be directed by her father, Bruce Paltrow, who would pass away from throat cancer two years later. Despite being an ensemble road trip/drama/musical film, Bruce's little girl was far and away the most recognizable name in the cast, unless this was 1985 and Huey Lewis was still all the rage or you were a huge "Felicity" fan. So, the paltry box office for this Paltrow project of $4.7 million against a reported $16 million budget showed that a departure from the serious, important films might not be the best idea at the time. It also did no one involved any favors that Duets was ravaged by critics, with RottenTomatoes showing that the movie received only a 22% Fresh rating. Clearly, this sentimental project was bona fide misstep.
Two months later, Paltrow re-teamed with Shakespeare in Love co-star and then-boyfriend Ben Affleck for the romantic drama Bounce. If you are like me, I tend to even forget that Affleck was in Shakespeare in Love. I'm not sure what that says about him or his role. Anyway, Bounce was a co-headlining film with both Affleck and Paltrow sharing considerable screen time together and it didn't exactly have blockbuster written all over it. The film's plot centers on Paltrow as a widow, whose husband was on board a plane that crashed because Affleck's character gave him his seat. Guilt and its apparent, unlikely byproduct, flirtation, ensue and the movie doesn't really go anywhere, which is very much like the similarly-themed and equally-uneventful but much more salacious Random Hearts from the year before. With an opening weekend of $11.4 million, a light bulb should have gone off in the studios' heads that neither of these actors are big-time draws outside tentpoles, which open big regardless, and Oscar bait, which typically have the slow build. Fortunately for Miramax (Harvey Weinstein must be Paltrow's bookie since she was their stable actor), Bounce would virtually break even with a $36.8 million gross against a modest budget of $35 million.
So far, Oscar hadn't led anywhere particularly glamorous or profitable for Paltrow. She was making her own choices for her own reasons and not because she had Oscar in tow.
Following another side trip into indie ensemble territory, by appearing in Alan Cummings and Jennifer Jason Leigh's The Anniversary Party, Paltrow attempted her most mainstream and uncharacteristic film yet – the Farrelly brothers' Shallow Hal in November 2001. That's right. The queen of Miramax's Oscar canon teamed up with the reigning court jesters, donning a fat suit to boot. To draw the parallel to high school, Paltrow basically left her comfort zone of the theater kids for the slacker dudes hanging out behind the cafeteria smoking a bowl before skipping P.E. for a munchies run. With Shallow Hal, Jack Black was trying to parlay his hysterical supporting role in High Fidelity into lead roles. Paltrow is the object of the title character's attention and carries the heft of the comedy.
Many people, the studios included, like to make the straightforward correlation that a movie's opening weekend is directly linked to the appeal of the stars. If that's the case, then who gets credit for the $22.5 million Shallow Hal earned in its debut? It's unlikely that it's Paltrow, because this type of film and its audience couldn't care less about an Oscar sitting on her mantle. Her next venture into full-fledged comedy, View from the Top, would help to prove that conclusion. Some of the credit for Shallow Hal should be Black's because he at least had some recognition by the audience. The real "stars" of this film were the Farrelly Brothers themselves. Advertising it as "from the makers of Dumb and Dumber," was all this audience needed to hear. Regardless of who gets credit, all of the players, including Gwyneth Paltrow, had hit on their hands with a final gross of $70.8 million on a budget of $40 million.
Just a month later, Paltrow's trip on the comedy train wasn't quite at its destination as she appeared in the Royal Tenenbaums. The quintessential quirk of Wes Anderson was on full display in his film about an awkwardly dysfunctional wealthy family. As the daughter, Paltrow was essentially one branch of this tragically fractured family tree that is Anderson's specialty. The release of his films follow the indie route to the letter with a very limited release and then the buildup to more and more screens as critical reception and audience demand dictates. Therefore, you can't use the opening weekend barometer as the guide for some of her post-Oscar films, despite the Tenenbaums raking in $52.3 million.
Aside from the flameout that was Duets, Paltrow was following a smart path to blend ensemble parts with featured roles.
For Paltrow, 2002's Possession followed The Royal Tenenbaums and for a film that never hit too far north of 600 screens, it carried a surprising $25 million budget. Sadly, the Neil LaBute drama never cracked the top ten, with a debut of $1.6 million and final of $10.1 million. Possession is another example of Paltrow taking roles in films that interest her as opposed to cashing in. This is evidenced in the fact that Possession was her only film released in 2002 and the report that she declined the lead role in The Ring, which would end up grossing $128.6 million in the same year as Possession fizzled. Only three years after winning an Oscar, she was taking parts she found personally appealing and skewed the usual path of Oscar winners who take the next big paycheck for films of questionable to downright pathetic quality. We're looking at you, Cuba Gooding Jr. and Halle Berry.
Appearances can be deceiving, though, and Paltrow subjected audiences to her own Chill Factor and Catwoman in the form of 2003's View from the Top. For a hefty paycheck of a reported $10 million, she starred in the flighty flight attendant comedy that sat on the shelves for two years before what was essentially a cameo appearance in theaters. Opening to $7 million, thanks in large part to the prominence of Mike Myers in the ads, View from the Top would end with $15.1 million. That's correct: View from the Top barely made more than it paid its star. I will avoid any and all "crash and burn" metaphors because that would be tactless.
It's important to look at the timing of this film in relation to her Oscar win. View from the Top fits the aforementioned textbook notion of a studio thinking that because a person wins an Oscar that they can win at the box office. There is no other reason to justify that large of a payday for Paltrow, who, regardless of her talent, was an unproven box office draw. And which studio was the one that was gullible enough to think that paying her that kind of money was a wise investment? It was none other than her benefactor Miramax. Maybe the Weinsteins justified that substantial of a salary hike as penance for her only being paid $750,000 for Shakespeare in Love. Admittedly, this is merely the shell of a conspiracy theory but not one that should be dismissed outright. Whatever the reason for the cash grab, it put a ding in her otherwise smart post-Oscar strategy.
Like a moth to a flame, Paltrow went back into the loving embrace of her period drama genre that had been so kind to her before with the release of the Sylvia Plath biopic, appropriately titled, Sylvia. She seemed to be showing the powers that be that she wasn't particularly interested in making films for a buck's sake but rather in building a career on choices that interested her, as seen by the suicidal author biography's skeletal take of $1.3 million.
If the rumored reason she signed on for the effects extravaganza Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow is true, then Paltrow really was marching to her own beat. Supposedly, she agreed to the film for a minimal salary because she was blown away by the short film it was based upon. Her pro bono work on Sky Captain likely enabled the makers to keep the budget to the reported $40 million. While many people recall Sky Captain as a flat out flop, in reality, it made $49.7 million worldwide ($37.8 million in domestic gross). But once again, the entire film didn't rest on her shoulders as she shared the screen with rising star Jude Law and Lara Croft herself, Angelina Jolie.
For Paltrow, familiarity apparently doesn't breed contempt, as she not only returned to Miramax for 2005's Proof but to John Madden, her Shakespeare in Love director, and a role she had played in the original play on which the movie was based. Proof was just that — proof — for those that who didn't think that Paltrow alone was a box office draw. While the Madden-Paltrow reunion tour cost $20 million to make and only made $7.5 million domestically, it did give Paltrow her second Golden Globe nomination. So, it was a logical choice for her given all the players involved and she garnered the type of critical praise and satisfaction that seems to fuel her choices.
With an Apple in the oven during the making of Proof, Paltrow would enter the next phase of her career – part-time actress and full-time mother. Over the next three years, she would appear as nothing more than a supporting player in films like Infamous, the Capote biopic NOT starring Philip Seymour Hoffman, and the Royal Tenenbaums-esque Running with Scissors.
By 2008, Paltrow was back in the forefront as one of four Oscar-nominated or Oscar-winning actors, who to appear in a film from an unlikely genre. Alongside Robert Downey Jr., Jeff Bridges and Terrence Howard, she bust out of pseudo-maternity leave with the blockbuster Iron Man. As Tony Stark's longtime assistant and eventual love interest, Pepper Potts, Paltrow got a big-time role in one the largest movies of 2008. It was reported that once again her decision was based on her kids because she lived close enough to the studio that could be home during the course of filming.
So where did Oscar lead Paltrow? The answer is "wherever she chose to go." Aside from her View from the Top, she didn't seem tempted by the lure of big paydays and cookie-cutter mainstream projects. By surrounding herself with people she trusted, like the folks at Miramax, family and frequent co-stars, Paltrow filled her resume with films that she believed in. You have to respect her for that and personally, it makes me a bigger fan.
Unfortunately, many other winners succumbed to the hype that surrounded their Oscar glory and followed a much different and drastically disastrous path to either box office ruin or continual critical bashing. These types of train wrecks will be fodder for future looks in Where Oscar Leads.