The Rise of Chan
Monday, March 12, 2012 at 7:35PM 
Have you read this New York Times piece on the slow rise of Channing Tatum? It's basic thesis is that Hollywood's star-making system is failing. Pieces like this are always interesting reads as much for what they leave out as what they take in. The article ignores Ryan Gosling's ascent preferring to stick with the thesis that was in place before Gosling. The one that goes "Hollywood can't produce male superstars anymore because mid size dramas and comedies are no longer Hollywood's concerns and that's where stardom happens. Blockbuster franchise don't make stars, they only make franchise-specific stars." It's true in a lot of ways even if it's not the whole picture.
But it gets a lot right about Channing Tatum's particular case.
Relatability — I’m just like you, Middle America — does seem to be one of his strong points. In person Mr. Tatum is surprisingly humble and honest, two qualities that are almost nonexistent in Hollywood. He is self-aware, but also unguarded. “I know I’m not the best actor, but I’m in love with it, and I’m getting better with every movie,” he said.
It's a pretty thorough overview of his career and abilities with not one, not two but three of the most marketable leading man skills: He can sell a joke, he can hold a gun convincingly, and he can romance a girl. I appreciate the article's break down about what great physiques mean to actors and what they don't.
I always forget that Chan was in that Ricky Martin video "She Bangs"
Channing's Chastainy Schedule This Year
Jan 20th. Haywire (reviewed) the experimental actioner though Chan was fairly far down the cast list.
Feb 10th. The Vow a huge romantic hit with Chan front and center. It's actually the second most popular movie of 2012 thus far. Have you seen it?
Mar 16th. 21 Jump Street another lead part, comedy. That's three genres in three months.
June 29th. GI Joe: Retaliation he steps down from lead duties but he's still in it.
June 29th. Magic Mike the stripper drama inspired by his own life. This will be the biggest test of his bankability yet because it's not a pre-sold genre like action films or soggy romances.
Parting Shot...
I've yet to read an article on this star-making problem though that addresses that simple fact that star-making machinery was always faulty. It's just that we only remember the successes. For every Marilyn Monroe weren't there 100 ingenues that didn't work out even in the studio system?
Channing Tatum, Magic Mike, The Vow, music videos
Reader Comments (22)
ugh, hate to be a mavis but he's sounding like a "beth". He's cute and nice and all that, but my god, he bores the shit outta me.
The article ignores Ryan Gosling's ascent preferring to stick with the thesis that was in place before Gosling.
Drive under performed. The two Marisa Tomei movies were ensemble pieces.
There is a great book about the building of stars during the studio system called The Star Machine by Jeannine Basinger. It examines the entire process and shows that yes for every Marilyn or Garbo the road was strewn with Anna Stens and Mamie Van Dorens. Quite fascinating in that it explains the process that actors and actresses were brought along, bits, small speaking parts, support in A pictures, then the lead in a couple of B's and if all that worked a movie up to A's all along with the full studio publicity machine behind them. If they faultered at any juncture than they were either put back in support if they seemed strong enough to become a stock player or dropped to disappear or try again at another studio. The problem today and why it takes so long for most actors to break out is that there is no longer that star making apparatus in play. A pity since while it monopolized the stars lives it also offered many protections. For example the opportunity for continuous work thereby making them more identifiable to the public at large and lengthening their careers, shielding them from negative press which today's actors constantly besieged the paparazzi are totally without.
I think making people stars would be easier if they weren't anointed for just being in the public eye. Take Gosling, when the movies he chose and the films around him got better, his star ascended. You have to have MULTIPLE critical and box office success to be considered a star, not just the looks.
I am a big fan of Channing Tatum. While he's not the greatest actor, he has been good in movie that really allow him to breathe like SHe's the Man, A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints, The Dilemna, Step Up, etc. He shouldn't try to be a brooding leading man, we like our stars with charisma. t also appreciate that he acknowledges his faults and is working towards being better, being humble will only help him on his track to be a star.
I don't get the appeal. Kind of dumb hot, and generally only decent when he plays characters who are dumb hot with little else going on. He does look funny in 21 Jump Street. From what I understand sort of making fun of/being the epitome of said type, but with Hollywood giving him so many chances, he was bound to pull off a good performance eventually.
@Terrence, Say what?! Haven't seen She's the Man, but if classifying the others listed as examples of quality acting, than the bar has been set very low.
I saw a rough cut of the trailer for Magic Mike. It's downright embarrassing, and especially so for Matthew McConaughey. Hopefully it will bomb so that we don't have to see Tatum shoved down our throat as a leading man. This guy projects less emotion than plywood
He's been lucky, but I'm not sure any of his movies succeeded because of him or because the concept was appealing at the right time like The Vow debuting during Valentine's. He reminds of someone you'd see in porn, to be honest.
I'm with you, Nathaniel. I thought the same thing when reading that NYT piece. 'They've conveniently forgotten Gosling.'
He's average looking and cringe worthy. Do not understand.
Nah, I think their thesis is spot on. Ryan Gosling could be a super-mega star if he wanted, but his movie choices are... well, too good for that. I don't think he particularly cares about being the next Tom Cruise, and would rather do good movies for the rest of his career. And why not?
Gosling's career will probably look a little bit more like Daniel Day Lewis (not to suggest they're similar actors, or that Gosling is as good as DDL). Gosling may do a couple 'big blockbusters,' but only with the right people, and otherwise he'll go ahead and pick his own projects and the really good ones will have a chance to blow up into something more, like There Will Be Blood. Heck, Drive almost did.
----
As for Chan -- and he's just become even dreamier now that I've learned that's the name he goes by LOL -- what's not to love?
He's a legit nice, down-to-earth guy, which is about impossible to find these days. People rant against his acting, but honestly... he's not that bad. He doesn't have a lot of depth, but he sticks to what he can do and does that well.
Plus, he has that key trait when it comes to making movies... the camera fucking loves him. I don't say that just referring to his good looks. He's just charming on screen, no matter what he does. He steals scenes, even around more talented actors. If that's not what qualifies someone to be a leading man (stealing everyone's attention), I don't know what is.
I remember watching one of his first movies ever, almost a decade ago, when I was in college. It was a spoof on a Shakespeare flick in which he played a prep-school soccer player and fell for one of his teammates, who was actually a girl portraying herself as a guy (only Tatum's character didn't know).
The movie itself was nothing special -- just a cute little flick that had a few chuckles, didn't veer off course, and made a great guilty pleasure -- but what I really remembered while watching it was him. I remember thinking to myself while watching it, "this guy is going to be huge someday."
It took him a little longer than I thought it would, and still I think he's been better at selling tickets than selling himself (which probably has something to do with the fact that he is a down-to-earth guy), but he's as close to a 35-or-under "leading man" as there exists.
---
PS. The NYT is on a role with articles on Hollywood lately. While their Tatum piece was excellent, their John Carter piece was even better. Reading the two together really explains a lot about Hollywood.
@ Nathniel. You based the movie on a Trailer. Not that im going to see the film but judging on trailer is kinda dumb. Even if it does bomb i doubt he's going away. He has other project lined up after that, I like the dude. He seem like a nice guy. good luck in the future.
Sorry my reply was to City of lights
I'm with Claire. I don't get his appeal at all, seems like he hasn't left his stripper days behind him.
joel6 - I am reading Star Machine at the moment - bit of a guilty pleasure but an enjoyable read and Basinger is leaving me convinced that the more things change the more things stay the same.
Re the absence of the studio system, I wonder if it has been replaced today by the actor's own agent/manager/publicists - a lot of the studio tactics seem to have a striking similarity to today's publicity and career planning (though less hokey). The big difference seems to be one of efficiency with the studios able to get a burgeoning star /full blown star in multiple films in the one year - unless your jessica chastain that doesn't happen anymore
@Trey lol! He's pretty good in she's the man. And in regards to his acting ability, he's not one of my fave acting talents, but there hasn't been a time where I haven't at least enjoyed what he was doing on screen. He REALLY needs to stay away from directors who want him to play boxed in characters. I think everyone wants him to be a leading man (probably based on looks) but he's really good when the whole movie is not riding on his shoulders.
And I think that today's actors really don't get opportunities to grow like in the studio system, like its either act in 2 movies then headline a film or bust. Also, and this is just in regards to male actors, but a lot less of them it seems are coming from theater backgrounds. I mean when was the last major male actor to come from the theater? Denzel?
@ray I'm not saying the guy isn't nice or hard-working. I think it is unfair, based on his background and choices of where he decides to give interviews, that online trolls question who he says he is in regards to his sexuality. But my opinion still stands that he is a terrible actor. I don't understand his appeal except for the fact that his looks cater to many young girls/women. I'm 34. I've never been interested in pretty boys or muscular boys. Tatum gives off nothing in his face, voice, presence for me to believe he can act.
As for the trailer, it practically gave away the entire story, sans ending. So yes, I can definitively say that it is an embarrassment to everyone involved.
@Matt
There are plenty of actors and actresses out there pumping out movies left and right. Gosling has been mentioned numerous times here, and he definitely fits the bill -- with a bunch of movies, including several huge roles, this past year.
Joseph Gordon Levitt had a bunch in 2010 and has a bunch due out in 2012, and still managed to pump out 50/50 and do all his own personal projects in 2011.
Michael Fassbender's year in 2011 was very light. He only managed to play Carl Jung in A Dangerous Mind, Magneto in X-Men: First Class, Rochester in Jane Eyre.... and what would have been an Academy Award nominated performance if he didn't show his peen in his phenomenal movie about a sex addict, Shame.
Actors doing a gazillion movies in the same year may not happen as often as it did, but it still happens. And insofar as it happens less, I bet that's because movies take longer to film now and actors have to do so much more of the publicity.
@City of lights
I don't see what his sexuality has to do with anything, and why you mentioned it. It really doesn't make sense in context with the blog, any of the comments or the NYT article.
I guess you brought it up as some internet speculation meme, but even in that context it doesn't make sense as something that would somehow hurt his career or take away from his ability to act.
1) any 'star' of his level of fame will have internet speculation about their sexuality, even if they've been married for 20 years and have a half dozen children.
2) any speculation about his sexuality obviously doesn't bother him; if it did, he wouldn't have pushed to make Magic Mike.
3) the speculation doesn't register anywhere beyond comments on obscure internet blogs and IMDB forums no one reads, except maybe obsessed teenage girls and agents.
4) It's clearly not hurting him at the box office (and I doubt anyone 'coming out' ever will, given the way things are going... my guess is someone like Matt Bomer or Neil Patrick Harris will prove that with a huge hit Leading Male type movie one of these days.)
As to the point that you don't get his appeal... to each their own. My mother things Legend of the the Fall is the pinnacle of Anthony Hopkin's career and one of the best movies ever made. She's nuts, obviously, but the point is that there's now 7 billion people on this world and if just a couple million see something in someone or something, that person or thing can get to become very, very successful.
I, for one, concede Chaning Tatum doesn't have a great deal of depth to his acting, but is fine for what he does... B or C movies made to be relatively safe forms of delivery at the box office, with characters that only have a couple of issues going on, and delivering his performance with a bit of charm and a wink and a nod at the camera that doesn't pull me out of the movie, yet let's me in on a little bit of the fun.
Damn, he should have been cast in Twilight. Those movies would have been so much better.
I think he would have been great in the Dirk Diggler part in BOOGIE NIGHTS.
Damn you Mark Wahlberg!
Channing Tatum is a block of wood who should go back to stripping. I don't think I've enjoyed one performance he's given. And I refuse to see "The Vow," so I wouldn't know if he's amazing in it. Not every pretty face is meant to be in front of a camera.
I'm glad to hear he's a nice and humble person. But as an actor, he doesn't interest me in the least.
I always find it odd when movie stars show their awareness of how their careers and career moves work. It makes them look like businessmen more than actors.
“If I could tell studios one thing, it is less emphasis on the abs, more attention to the acting.”
That quote is just spot on, even if the writer leaves out Hardy, Gosling or Fassbender to prove his point. Because in the end, it's so very true, talent is secondary when making new male movie stars. Hardy, Gosling and Fassy are just (fortunate) exceptions.
Hardy and Fassbender are fated not to buck the trend of excellent foreign types who never make it mainstream.