Main Edition
US
FR
June 6, 2023 - 10:00am
With his latest Marvel Cinematic Universe effort chugging toward the billion-dollar mark, it’s clear Hollywood has found an enduring powerhouse in the surprisingly controversial figure of Chris Pratt. The beefy everyman actor, who has unapologetically aired his non-progressive political and religious views, has drawn criticism from the mainstream media even as his box-office drawing power has enabled his films to tap a vast and easily ignored audience demographic. Namely, the centre of the American political spectrum, what Pratt has called “the big group in the middle” who feel alienated by all the “wackos” engaged in “political posturing”.
Pratt has fronted a string of big-budget franchise movies such as Jurassic World Dominion, The Super Mario Brothers Movie, and Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3, all nearing or exceeding the billion-dollar mark at the box office. This success stands out even more starkly when compared to rival actors like Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson (DC’s Black Adam), Paul Rudd (the MCU’s horribly-titled Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania), and the returning cast of the first Black Panther film, all of whose recent releases failed to meet billion-dollar expectations.
Arising from middle-American beginnings in rural Washington state, Pratt’s unabashedly outspoken political and religious views contrast starkly with the cautious approach of most Hollywood actors. Nonetheless, he has avoided consignment to the Christian movie ghetto in which the likes of fallen stars Kevin Sorbo and Jim Caviezel ply their trades. His recent success with The Super Mario Brothers Movie, a bland, apolitical animated film aimed squarely and safely at both Nintendo-loving parents and their children, can perhaps be attributed to how its anodyne fan service is at odds with the more overtly message-driven nature of much of today’s blockbuster fare. It is already the second-highest-grossing animated film ever.
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3′s success, in particular, adds another feather to Pratt’s cap: rescuing director James Gunn from the potential professional oblivion into which some off-colour tweets had placed him. Despite pressures from fans and critics, Pratt’s unwavering support for Gunn has been instrumental to the film’s achievement while the director, in turn, has resisted online calls to replace the actor as Star-Lord on account of the stances Pratt’s church has taken on LGBT issues.
In light of outraged boycotts and cancellation campaigns from both Left and Right, “woke” and “anti-woke,” this approach shows another way forward: simply give the audience what they want, which is the same old stuff, served with overpriced concessions and devoid of any sort of political messaging at all.
Pratt’s appeal seems to be rooted in his relatability. His run-of-the-mill “athletic guy” build and middle-of-the-road characters set him apart from the extreme, heavily steroid-enhanced figures seen today in Hollywood. This positioning, it seems, places him on a trajectory akin to that of Clint Eastwood and Tom Cruise — both extraordinarily prolific actors with complicated public perceptions, yet who are capable of consistently delivering high-quality entertainment for mass audiences.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI broadly agree and suspect the wheel will turn back to entertainment rather than movies repurposed ‘for a modern audience.’
Pratt isn’t an Eastwood-level actor, although he’s more versatile (his comic turn in Parks & recreation illustrates where his true talents lie), but I agree his star will only shine brighter. He does his thing and does it well, and never professes to be anything other than an actor.
Ironic that such an old-fashioned concept is suddenly so refreshing.
I’m happy for him that he’s made it to the A-list, but he is just not a good actor, even though he was easily the funniest part of Parks and Rec from the beginning.
This opinion solidified for me watching Magnificent Seven; Chris Pratt next to powerhouses like Denzel Washington and Vincent Dinofrio was absurd, and the skill differential stood out like a sore thumb.
I hope he hones his trade and takes on some more interesting roles at some point, but I guess he’s busy cashing in on his many blockbuster franchises.
“Ironic that such an old-fashioned concept is suddenly so refreshing.”
Not so refreshing in Hollywood, just with plain old regular folks like me. 🙂
I’m happy for him that he’s made it to the A-list, but he is just not a good actor, even though he was easily the funniest part of Parks and Rec from the beginning.
This opinion solidified for me watching Magnificent Seven; Chris Pratt next to powerhouses like Denzel Washington and Vincent Dinofrio was absurd, and the skill differential stood out like a sore thumb.
I hope he hones his trade and takes on some more interesting roles at some point, but I guess he’s busy cashing in on his many blockbuster franchises.
“Ironic that such an old-fashioned concept is suddenly so refreshing.”
Not so refreshing in Hollywood, just with plain old regular folks like me. 🙂
I broadly agree and suspect the wheel will turn back to entertainment rather than movies repurposed ‘for a modern audience.’
Pratt isn’t an Eastwood-level actor, although he’s more versatile (his comic turn in Parks & recreation illustrates where his true talents lie), but I agree his star will only shine brighter. He does his thing and does it well, and never professes to be anything other than an actor.
Ironic that such an old-fashioned concept is suddenly so refreshing.
I enjoyed his ‘The Terminal List’ not because it was that good but because it was just refreshingly old style with no discernible wokeness or preaching etc.
Same here!!
Same here!!
I enjoyed his ‘The Terminal List’ not because it was that good but because it was just refreshingly old style with no discernible wokeness or preaching etc.
Mark Wahlberg is unabashedly Christian as well. He’s left California because it’s not safe for his children, and he’s trying to build Hollywood 2.0 in Las Vegas.
Hollywood 2.0 in Las Vegas (or anywhere outside the deep blue states) is an interesting possibility. I hope Wahlberg succeeds.
Hollywood 2.0 in Las Vegas (or anywhere outside the deep blue states) is an interesting possibility. I hope Wahlberg succeeds.
Mark Wahlberg is unabashedly Christian as well. He’s left California because it’s not safe for his children, and he’s trying to build Hollywood 2.0 in Las Vegas.
Batemanese: “these two stars have proved that money talks”.
Movie-goers: “these two stars have proved that talent talks”.
Me: “I don’t want to be lectured to when seeking entertainment.”
Especially from people who pretend to be someone else for a living.
Me: “I don’t want to be lectured to when seeking entertainment.”
Especially from people who pretend to be someone else for a living.
Batemanese: “these two stars have proved that money talks”.
Movie-goers: “these two stars have proved that talent talks”.
Shock horror! People are tolerant of other people’s beliefs especially when it’s not being shoved down their throats under the guise of “entertainment”.
Hollywood is no longer interested in entertaining or making money. Its constant social justice messaging is aimed at changing people into progressives.
Hollywood is no longer interested in entertaining or making money. Its constant social justice messaging is aimed at changing people into progressives.
Shock horror! People are tolerant of other people’s beliefs especially when it’s not being shoved down their throats under the guise of “entertainment”.
It’s interesting.
In my experience, most people think Tom Cruise’s religious views are pretty bonkers, and that he is kind of bonkers generally.
But they don’t really care about that in terms of watching his films. They just want a good film, whatever that means to them, without political or religious messaging, or even just heavy handed moralizing.
I imagine if Cruise were to turn out to be into kiddy porn or something like that, their tolerance would not extend that far, but people in general just don’t want to be lectured to all the time.
It’s interesting.
In my experience, most people think Tom Cruise’s religious views are pretty bonkers, and that he is kind of bonkers generally.
But they don’t really care about that in terms of watching his films. They just want a good film, whatever that means to them, without political or religious messaging, or even just heavy handed moralizing.
I imagine if Cruise were to turn out to be into kiddy porn or something like that, their tolerance would not extend that far, but people in general just don’t want to be lectured to all the time.
… that the middle of the demographic spectrum is willing to splash out for accessible, non-threatening entertainment.
“Non-threatening”? Is that an euphemism for entertainment that is not a form of ideological marxist activism, disguised as agitprop?
… that the middle of the demographic spectrum is willing to splash out for accessible, non-threatening entertainment.
“Non-threatening”? Is that an euphemism for entertainment that is not a form of ideological marxist activism, disguised as agitprop?
Note: Washington State borders Canada and the Pacific Ocean. It is therefore not “middle-American”.
I though he meant middle American as in regular-Joe American rather than a geographic place?
I think “fly over” would have been a more appropriate term, but much of Washington outside Seattle-Tacoma resembles the Midwest more than it does coastal cities.
And its political class are the worst kind of left-wing loons. I think it’s the proximity to Canada.
I can second that. Although Portland and the Oregon political class vie for far-left loon honors.
I can second that. Although Portland and the Oregon political class vie for far-left loon honors.
Rural Washington has more in common culturally with Idaho and Montana than Seattle or Portland.
I though he meant middle American as in regular-Joe American rather than a geographic place?
I think “fly over” would have been a more appropriate term, but much of Washington outside Seattle-Tacoma resembles the Midwest more than it does coastal cities.
And its political class are the worst kind of left-wing loons. I think it’s the proximity to Canada.
Rural Washington has more in common culturally with Idaho and Montana than Seattle or Portland.
Note: Washington State borders Canada and the Pacific Ocean. It is therefore not “middle-American”.
never heard of the bloke… who cares?
Just end your subscription already 😉
Evidently you, since you always make sure to comment on what you claim not to care about, and that costs a subscription price.
Just end your subscription already 😉
Evidently you, since you always make sure to comment on what you claim not to care about, and that costs a subscription price.
never heard of the bloke… who cares?