Fame, film don’t always take

Paris Hilton, famous as far as anyone knows for simply being Paris Hilton, hit the big screen in her first real starring role this month. And reviews were resoundingly unforgiving for “The Hottie and the Nottie.”

“Though Hilton may be a model, if her work in ‘Hottie’ is any indication, she is no actress,” wrote Carrie Rickey of the Philadelphia Inquirer. Associated Press critic Christy Lemire talked of Hilton’s “nonexistent acting range.” The Miami Herald’s Connie Ogle wrote, “Starring in an explicit sex tape or sobbing as you’re shipped off to jail or wearing giant shirts with your own picture on them aren’t nearly so humiliating as being associated with this rubbish.”

None of this should come as a surprise, however, and for reasons that have little to do with Hilton herself. Film history is replete with the stories of people plucked from fields other than acting and asked to star in a movie. More often than not, the result embarrasses just about everybody.

Think of singer Neil Diamond in the 1980 remake of “The Jazz Singer”; there’s a reason he’s never been given a major role in another film. Think of Mickey Mantle and Roger Maris, who couldn’t convincingly play themselves in 1962’s “That Touch of Mink.” The justly revered Johnny Unitas didn’t do himself any favors when he played himself as a sportscaster in 1976’s “Gus,” the story of a place-kicking mule. And what about “American Idol” stars Justin Guarini and Kelly Clarkson in 2003’s “From Justin to Kelly”? About four people paid to see that travesty in theaters; all of them should have demanded their money back.

Filmmakers, especially producers desperate to scrape together financing and turn a profit, are always looking for ways to guarantee success. Since Hollywood’s earliest days, they’ve turned to famous faces as their insurance policies; surely, curiosity alone will pull enough people into theaters to ensure a profit. How else to explain why someone thought Babe Ruth should star in a silent film, 1927’s aptly titled “Babe Comes Home”? As an actor, the Babe was a tremendous home-run hitter.

The truth is that acting is more than just standing in front of a camera and moving around. It’s about technique, about acting natural but not boring, of looking at someone and saying “I love you” without being the least bit self-conscious, of convincing your audience that the celluloid world you inhabit is not only real but worth visiting. Those aren’t skills most people can pick up with the snap of a finger. It’s why there are entire schools devoted to acting, and why even famous faces who suddenly find themselves called on to be movie stars enroll in them.

Of course, there are some naturals who hit acting pay dirt the first time around. Diana Ross was Oscar-nominated for her first star turn, as Billie Holiday in 1972’s “Lady Sings the Blues.” So was Oprah Winfrey, who had the good fortune to be directed by Steven Spielberg in her first film, 1985’s “The Color Purple.” And Muhammad Ali did an OK job playing himself in 1977’s “The Greatest.”

But body-builder Arnold Schwarzenegger in 1970’s “Hercules in New York”? He was embarrassingly bad in his early films and worked hard for years to find a niche that worked. Madonna never did become much of a movie star, as witnessed by less-than-stellar performances in films including 1993’s kinky sex-romp “Body of Evidence” and 2002’s desert-island scrap fest “Swept Away.”

Still, the pressure remains to get these famous faces on the big screen. And the ante is upped in today’s media-obsessed culture, where the definition of “famous” is being stretched almost beyond recognition. Today, fame is an end in itself, not the result of anything so refined as skill, talent or even charisma.

There’s hope for standards yet. Jessica Simpson’s recent movie, “Blonde Ambition,” played in theaters for about 15 minutes before going to DVD. Pauly Shore’s name has pretty much disappeared from movie marquees. Ditto Tom Green’s.