This week, Neil Calloway argues that the success of Scarlett Johansson’s films isn’t down to the actress herself…
This week it was revealed that Scarlett Johansson was the highest grossing actress in the world. That’s not highest paid (that honour goes to Jennifer Lawrence), but the woman who has appeared in the films that have accumulated the highest box office gross.
Cumulatively, Johansson’s films have earned $3.3 billion at the box office; an impressive feat at first glance, but as the cliché goes, there are lies, damn lies and statistics.
For male actors, Harrison Ford (total $4.8 billion) recently overtook Samuel L. Jackson ($4.6 billion) as the highest grossing actor. Now, you could make an argument that people go to see the films that have put Ford on top because he is in them, but you can’t really say the same for Jackson and Johansson. Did you go to see Jurassic Park because Jackson was in it? Did you watch The Avengers films because of Johansson? It’s rather telling that despite first being mooted in 2010, there still hasn’t been a Black Widow movie. Nobody rushed to see the Star Wars prequels because of Mace Windu, did they?
That is not to say that Johansson and Jackson are not draws; Gemma Arterton was lined up to star in Under The Skin but was dropped in favour of Johansson as her name could secure more funding. Jackson can get a mid level, tongue in cheek action movie made that will do well on DVD, but neither of them are bona fide stars.
Morgan Freeman is the third highest grossing actor of all time; his movies make an average of almost $74 million each, but did you really go to see The Dark Knight because of his performance as Lucius Fox, or because it was a cool Batman movie?
Eddie Murphy is the sixth highest grossing star of all time, his films grossing a total of $3.8 billion, more than the almost $3.6 billion that Tom Cruise’s films have made, but when was the last time you said “hey, let’s go and see the new Eddie Murphy film”? His highest grossing film is one in which you don’t even see his face: Shrek 2.
The story really should be “Scarlett Johansson happens to have appeared in some very successful films.” (Her name may have secured the $8 million needed to make Under The Skin, but it only recouped $5.4 million of that at the box office).
The rise of the comic book film has seen a downturn in stars; studios feel safer with characters people know rather than actors the public are familiar with in unfamiliar settings. You can recast Batman or Superman or Spider-Man and people will still go and watch the film because they enjoy the universe. Outside of the franchises they appear in, people don’t necessarily want to watch their movies.
Scarlett Johansson is a fine actress who has made some good films (and appeared in some not so good ones, too). That the films she has appeared in have grossed more than another actress is, however, not down to her.
Neil Calloway is a pub quiz extraordinaire and Top Gun obsessive. Check back here every Sunday for future instalments.
. url=”.” . width=”100%” height=”150″ iframe=”true” /]
https://youtu.be/b7Ozs5mj5ao?list=PL18yMRIfoszEaHYNDTy5C-cH9Oa2gN5ng
