Credit: Far Out / YouTube Still
Mon 3 August 2026 14:30, UK
The age-old dilemma of what success looks like in the creative world rages on, and whether we’re talking about movie stars or rock stars, there doesn’t seem to be a definitive answer.
The ideology that surrounds different creatives is fascinating. I suppose it all comes down to the adage of ‘If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?’; that is, if no one witnesses your art, does it still exist, and while the answer is, of course, yes, such a stipulation strikes fear into the hearts of many.
Consider someone like Frank Zappa, who was never bothered about album sales or success, but simply wanted to make music that felt authentic to who he was as a person, and so, a lot of that time, that led to quite scattered and chaotic-sounding music that was never going to find mainstream success. Alternatively, artists like Madonna, who originally started off in a punk band, then wanted to move over to pop to try to make more commercial music.
The same applies to the world of movies; Timothée Chalamet once revealed that when he met Leonardo DiCaprio, the esteemed actor “said to me, ‘No superhero movies, no hard drugs’,” Chalamet recalled, “Which I thought was very good” Chalamet seems to have stuck to that rule (so long as you don’t consider Willy Wonka a superhero), as both he and DiCaprio are no doubt two of the most accomplished actors in Hollywood, and yet they haven’t always starred in the highest-grossing films.
At the end of the day, everyone needs to get paid, so most actors will make at least one movie solely for the money. This was a dilemma that once faced John Cusack, who had opportunities to do big blockbuster movies but wasn’t sure whether it made sense to take them on.
And then, when it came to the idea of success, he appreciated that the term’s meaning changed depending on who you ask. Overall, he tends to take on movies that he wants to be a part of, rather than those that will make him money…except for one. You have to let people have one off every now and then, and for Cusack, that exception came in the form of Con Air.
“People are always telling me, ‘You should do more of this, more of that. Why aren’t you more of a star? You could be more successful’. But it’s all relative,” he said, “It all depends on your definition of success. Is High Fidelity or Being John Malkovich a success? Both films will probably make money for the people who made them. But neither of them, in total, will make what Con Air made in its opening weekend, $200million.”
Further reading: Cutting Room Floor
It’s admirable for any performer to put the financial gains to one side and focus on art over commerce, but the longer Cusack has remained in the business, the harder it is to believe that the 1997 blockbuster remains the only paycheque gig he’s ever taken.
Since his own self-admitted exile from mainstream Hollywood, he’s turned into a lesser version of his Con Air co-star, Nicolas Cage, appearing in countless action and thriller movies that are released straight to video, and it’s difficult to believe he’s doing those for the love of the game.
ADD AS A PREFERRED SOURCE ON GOOGLE 
Content Curated Originally From Here
