The Curious Case of Kevin Costner

One industry pro’s thoughts on how Kevin Costner can take back his career

When talking with younger moviegoers, or those 35-and-under who work in the film industry, it astonishes me how unfamiliar they are with Kevin Costner and most of his filmography. I find that sports fans are well-versed with BULL DURHAM, FIELD OF DREAMS and TIN CUP, history enthusiasts can site JFK and maybe THIRTEEN DAYS (if they really have a mastery of film), and those with tastes old-fashioned enough to appreciate westerns will discuss the merits of DANCES WITH WOLVES and OPEN RANGE. But these acknowledgements come almost entirely from men. Women in this age bracket — at least those who work in the industry — have almost no familiarity with Costner’s work. So when I explain to them that Costner was once among the most powerful figures in Hollywood, they first express shock, followed quickly by disbelief. Perhaps even more telling, they don’t exhibit the slightest bit of curiosity. They might even laugh at you, dismissing you as part of an irrelevant generation that’s completely out of touch with popular culture.

But despite this widely held perception among the youth demographic that is so coveted and targeted by studios, I remain convinced that Kevin Costner is capable of launching a major comeback. A comeback that can return him to the A-list with just a few strategic moves and a handful of carefully selected films. One need only study the almost overnight resurgence of Michael Keaton (who has now played the lead role in consecutive Best Picture winners with 2014’s BIRDMAN and 2015’s SPOTLIGHT) to realize how quickly this can be done. Costner and Keaton are wildly different talents, so that is not meant to be a direct comparison, but rather an illustrative example of how two actors from the same generation have seen their profiles ebb and flow in dramatic fashion over the years.

This piece has been prompted by the release of Costner’s new film, CRIMINAL, which will be released nationally on April 15. But in no way is this intended to be a commentary on that specific film, which I have not seen yet. Instead I want to examine Costner’s career with a longer lens, and hope to do three things: (1) offer perspective on how Costner reached this point in his career, which is an important crossroads for him; (2) articulate thoughts on how Costner should shape his career going forward; and (3) explain what a resurgent Costner would bring to the industry overall.

As a longtime fan of Costner, some context should help explain where I’m coming from. I was born in 1976. BULL DURHAM, FIELD OF DREAMS and DANCES WITH WOLVES were released during my middle school years. JFK and the (hugely underrated) A PERFECT WORLD followed during high school. These were formative years when I first discovered my passion for film, and was spending countless hours watching and cataloguing hundreds of films, refining my tastes and identifying the titles that still serve as my inspiration today. But this work wasn’t done in a vacuum. I didn’t limit myself to new releases (though the late ’80s and early ’90s did provide a bounty of great films), but also went back decades and learned not only the history of the art form but also the history of the industry. In those pre-internet days, that was real work, but the process was its own reward. And by the time Costner was at the peak of his career, I had developed what could be described as a close-to-encyclopedic knowledge of the medium, which enabled me to understand how and where Costner fit into the historical spectrum of movie stars.

With BULL DURHAM, FIELD OF DREAMS and DANCES WITH WOLVES — and perhaps the most talked-about film in history (JFK) on deck — Costner had vaulted to the top of every Hollywood power poll by 1991.

Costner was a uniquely American product, and it’s not a coincidence that some of his breakthrough work (and earliest impressions on me as a viewer) came in two films about baseball, which at the time represented an intersection of my two primary interests: film and sports. But even at a young age I understood that Costner’s work represented something a few degrees different from other leading men of his generation. There was a stubbornness to his work that appealed to a quiet but willful teenager. The work carried with it an originality of voice, and announced a reluctance to be typecast into any one type of role. He passed on many traditional leaning man roles (such as Jack Ryan in the hugely anticipated 1990 blockbuster THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER) and instead blazed his own trail, turning Hollywood conventions upside down. A champion of overlooked or forgotten projects (most notably FIELD OF DREAMS and DANCES WITH WOLVES), he was protective of the authorship and vision of writers and directors. At his best, Costner consistently appeared in films that surprised, and that were more than they seemed to be.

This is partly what has made Costner’s comeback attempt so disappointing. After years of working only sporadically while he focused on other interests (such as his band, Modern West, a number of environmental initiatives, and a young second family), Costner has made a big push recently to re-launch his career. But the results have been middling at best, with a series of artistically average films that have also under-performed at the box office, failing to create any sort of real career momentum. To clarify, I’m defining Costner’s “comeback” as his film work following the success of the HATFIELDS & MCCOYS mini-series that appeared on The History Channel in May 2012. Since that series, Costner has now appeared in eight films, including the upcoming CRIMINAL, but to date none have been successful in either re-connecting him to his long-time fan base or re-introducing him to new audiences and broadening his appeal.

From my vantage point, it’s impossible to know the decision-making process that Costner and his representatives go through in targeting and then selecting projects, and whose influence is exerted most strongly during this process. But it’s clear that part of the strategy has been an attempt to position Costner as the next Liam Neeson, whose career was foundering until the surprise breakout hit TAKEN (January 2009) re-introduced him to a new generation of fans as a gritty but graying action hero. Neeson would subsequently appear in THE A-TEAM (2010), UNKNOWN (2011), THE GREY (2012), TAKEN 2 (2012), NON-STOP (2014), A WALK AMONG THE TOMBSTONES (2014), TAKEN 3 (2015) and RUN ALL NIGHT (2015), which have all been at least modest hits. Re-branding himself as an aging action star has unquestionably worked for Neeson. But it isn’t working for Costner. All of this orchestration represents a simple but deep miscalculation on the part of Costner’s handlers. Not only about their client’s skill set, but also about the composition of their client’s fan base and target audience. Costner has never come off well in macho action roles. Even in THE UNTOUCHABLES, he’s at his best when portraying Eliot Ness as a man out of his depth in battling Al Capone on the streets. And for all the toughness of his OPEN RANGE character Charlie Waite, the role’s effectiveness is largely derived from his wounded psyche and reluctance to resort to violence. The action films he’s joined of late simply feel like they belong to a different actor. Besides, Costner lacks the imposing physical presence of Neeson and other action stars anyway, not to mention the British Isles accent that seems all but mandatory these days. Costner has always been a thinking man’s lead actor, and his best roles have usually been more introspective and intellectual, anchoring films that tend to defy easy genre categorization.

DRAFT DAY (April 2014) and MCFARLAND USA (February 2015) were designed to re-connect viewers to Costner’s past success with sports films. I would contend that MCFARLAND USA was a step forward for Costner recently — a solid, feel-good story which was generally well-received, though it failed to reach a broad audience. Still, I would contend that the quality of this film should be the “floor” for Costner’s work going forward — this is the least audiences and industry observers should expect. DRAFT DAY, on the other hand, was a creative misstep. In attaching himself to one of the industry’s hottest (but also most overrated) un-produced scripts, Costner — or his reps — were hoping this would be the football equivalent of MONEYBALL. But it definitely was not. A glib, undramatic depiction of the NFL, this was a movie designed by and for fantasy football geeks and the like. As a piece of filmmaking it was underwhelming at best, and I would contend one of the weakest films of Costner’s career.

The trio of thriller films which have attempted to re-brand Costner as an action hero. In theory, the idea of bringing Costner on board as a mentor-type to Jack Ryan makes a lot of sense. If only the script was halfway decent. This reboot was DOA, and failed to re-launch the Jack Ryan franchise, which at last report was headed to television. It’s easy to say in hindsight, of course, but that was a character and a property that is trapped in the ’80s and ’90s, and Costner would have been smart to side-step that film. I felt this way strongly at the time, and more perspective has only made that decision more obvious. 3 DAYS TO KILL found Costner charting unfamiliar territory — Europe. His best films have always been deeply rooted in Americana, and watching Costner summarily dispatch euro-trash for two hours in a glossy but cartoonish spy thriller wasn’t satisfying for his long-time fan base. This was a calculated attempt to cash in on whatever foreign value he has at the box office, but creatively this brought nothing interesting to his career. We’ll see with CRIMINAL. Early buzz is not good, despite a strong and diverse cast, but I’ll reserve judgment until actually seeing the film.

Similar to a supporting role in a re-launched Jack Ryan franchise, conceptually the idea of Kevin Costner as Superman’s step-father made a lot of sense. After all, who better to play a Kansas corn farmer than the man who once built that iconic baseball field out of a corn field in Iowa? With a better script — and filmmaker at the helm — the casting of Costner as Jonathan Kent would have been brilliant. But the movie was a turkey, and its darker tones and design ran counter to the gravitas and western appeal of Costner in the part. This was a huge missed opportunity for all involved. The rebooting of the Superman franchise has been a disaster thus far, but conceptually this hit all the right marks — it could have been a tremendous comeback piece for Costner, but the overall project failed him. I do like the idea of what could have been though.

So how did Costner arrive at this point his career? As stated earlier, I believe he’s reached a crossroads. The strategic decisions he makes in the next several years will define the second act of his career (or is more accurate to say he’s now entering the third and final act?), and ultimately shape his legacy. He still has a lot of prime years left, but he can’t afford to make many more mistakes. Where did Costner go wrong? To quote his character Jim Garrison, let’s just for a moment speculate, shall we?

I’d argue it began with the huge success of DANCES WITH WOLVES. Through no fault of his own, Costner became the latest in a long line of directors to win multiple Oscars before industry icon and film geek favorite Martin Scorsese. Adding insult to injury for some Scorsese fans was the fact that Costner was the second golden-boy actor-turned-director to do so, joining Robert Redford, who won for ORDINARY PEOPLE over Scorsese’s masterwork RAGING BULL. And like many wildly popular hits that go on to win Best Picture, DANCES WITH WOLVES (whose perceived political correctness didn’t help either) became a victim of fan backlash in due course. A similar phenomenon has since occurred with FORREST GUMP (over PULP FICTION and THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION), TITANIC (over L.A. CONFIDENTIAL), SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE (over SAVING PRIVATE RYAN) and others. But creatively, make no mistake: DANCES WITH WOLVES is a phenomenal movie by any metric, and a more than worthy Best Picture winner. But creative missteps would soon follow.

Continuing with the theme of tremendous box office success leading to audience backlash, consider two of Costner’s follow-ups to DANCES WITH WOLVES: the June 1991 release of ROBIN HOOD: PRINCE OF THIEVES, and the November 1992 release of THE BODYGUARD. Both are classic examples of how huge box office hits can actually serve to undermine an actor’s career. This is admittedly counter-intuitive, but I stand by it, and I firmly believe the popularity of these two films contributed to Costner’s slide in the mid-90s.

But this analysis of box office performance and the shifting loyalties of Costner’s fan base is not intended to be the focus of this piece, as it’s never been the focal point of Costner’s career either. But it’s all relevant to the extent that the early box office success of Costner’s films began to hamstring him later on. As the profile of his work grew, and their production and marketing costs escalated, so too did the expectations. And in the mid-90s, Costner produced four consecutive misses of varying creative quality: A PERFECT WORLD (November 1993), WYATT EARP (June 1994), THE WAR (October 1994), and the infamous WATERWORLD (July 1995). After a slight rebound with the much-loved cult favorite TIN CUP (August 1996), Costner would then have another stretch of three straight flops (either financially or critically, or both in some cases) with THE POSTMAN (December 1997), MESSAGE IN A BOTTLE (February 1999) and FOR LOVE OF THE GAME (September 1999) to close out a decade in which Costner roared in as a lion but left as a lamb.

The box office success of both titles is easily explained: Costner rode the post-Oscars momentum of DANCES WITH WOLVES into a summer blockbuster, but a harsh critical response to the film — and Costner’s inability to pull off a British accent — did a lot of harm to his career. THE BODYGUARD, one of the most addictive and watchable bad movies ever made, became a massive hit on the shoulders of Whitney Houston and a powerhouse soundtrack, but negative critical reaction again outweighed its populist appeal at the box office. Up until these two films, Costner’s trademark was quality, not box office popularity. This, combined with the inevitable fatigue moviegoers experience with any prominent star who has appeared in a run of successful films, resulted in Costner facing fan backlash for the first time. Compounding this backlash was Costner starring in the highly controversial JFK in between (December 1991).

JFK, as previously mentioned, is possibly still the most talked-about film in history. But despite its box office haul, critical acclaim and awards nominations, I can’t help but think this film took a major toll on Costner. Any time you appear in a political film — especially one so polarizing — you run the risk of alienating half of your potential audience. It’s reasonable to suspect that JFK significantly eroded Costner’s fan base, which tends to skew older and more conservative anyway. The poor commercial response to the Kennedy-themed THIRTEEN DAYS (a film that’s very underrated in my opinion) would certainly suggest so. Still, JFK was a creative risk well worth taking. It’s a monumental cinematic achievement, and will stand the test of time as one of Costner’s most important contributions to film.

A pair of post-apocalyptic flops derailed Costner’s career in the mid-90s. WATERWORLD (July 1995) was one of the original mega-budgeted runaway productions to spin out of control in an era of increasing media scrutiny. I won’t defend the film — it’s a dud from whatever perspective you consider it from — but it actually ended up turning a small profit, and creatively it’s not quite as bad as you think, and I’d argue it compares favorably with many of the overblown comic book productions of recent years. The fact is, WATERWORLD, from a technical perspective, contained some stunning set design and had some interesting ideas. In my view, THE POSTMAN (December 1997) was a more significant misstep. In selecting his follow-up to DANCES WITH WOLVES as a director, Costner erred with a bloated, self-important bore, which admittedly had the misfortune of lining up against TITANIC at the box office. Costner should be credited for rolling the dice on another risk-filled project, and hindsight is of course 20–20, but he would have been well-advised to make a more conservative choice for his second film behind the camera.

There were many factors working against Costner’s 1994 film WYATT EARP, which was intended to be an epic western follow-up to his DANCES WITH WOLVES triumph. First, the well-received competing project TOMBSTONE had already been released in December 1993. Second, Warner Bros. made a strategic error in releasing the film in late June, not an ideal time for a serious-minded, deliberately paced drama light on action. And third, its 190 minute running time clearly scared off audiences. But I think it’s fair to suggest that this project was ahead of its time in many ways, and its failure was in part a function of that era’s limited distribution platforms. If this production were being mounted today, it would thrive as a limited series on cable, and could have been extended to 8–10 hours of content, which would have been an ideal structure for the type of story writer-director Lawrence Kasdan and Costner were trying to tell.

In fact, it’s clear that this type of platform was on Costner’s mind, as a year later he would strike a deal with HBO to develop and produce a mini-series based on THE KENTUCKY CYCLE, a 9-act play exploring the mythology of the American frontier, which won the Pulitzer Prize in 1992. In the current entertainment climate, major film stars moonlighting in television is commonplace, but in the mid-90s it was unheard of. So Costner’s deal with HBO was a significant industry development. This project never happened, as Costner was diverted onto other work in features. But this is another project that would have likely been a tremendous success on modern television and all of the new outlets that are now available to filmmakers. At the time, this flexibility and access simply didn’t exist, and this without question limited the growth of Costner’s career at a pivotal juncture.

Perhaps fittingly, Costner’s creative high point in the last decade has been The History Channel event series HATFIELDS & MCCOYS, which debuted to critical acclaim and high ratings in May 2012. Adopting the mini-series format that should have been used for WYATT EARP and was planned for THE KENTUCKY CYCLE, this title struck a chord with audiences and yielded six Emmy nominations (and two wins — including Costner for Best Actor) and two Golden Globe nominations (and one win — again for Costner as Best Actor). I’m not sure if any other industry observers took note of the through-line connecting these three projects, but it’s plain to see. I would not advocate that Costner transition to television — but I do think producing an event series every 4–5 years would be an excellent idea, and given his passion for long-form storytelling, it’s a strong fit creatively. More on this below.

Those who work inside the film industry are sympathetic to the fact that — much like other professions — timing is everything, only more so in the case of actors. But Costner’s body of work in the ’90s — while containing moments of brilliance — was ultimately a missed opportunity to follow up on a remarkable turn-of-the-decade stretch with BULL DURHAM, FIELD OF DREAMS, DANCES WITH WOLVES and JFK, a run that any actor or filmmaker would kill for. So, what opportunities were missed? Actors come and go off projects quickly — and for so many different reasons — that I’m reluctant to speculate about “what could have been” with Costner. But for the sake of argument, I will do so, targeting three very specific films, all of which Costner was attached to star in at one point.

First up: THE FUGITIVE, in which Costner would have starred in the ‘Richard Kimble’ role eventually occupied by Harrison Ford. In this case, Costner’s decision to back out is easy to understand. This film was plagued with development and production problems for years, and if you’re a fan of this film, you should feel lucky — its success was a genuine surprise to many given the struggles in getting it made.

Next: THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION, in which Costner was set to play the lead role of ‘Andy Dufresne’ that eventually went to Tim Robbins. Scheduling issues were reportedly the culprit here, which is too bad. Rumored to be cast alongside Harrison Ford (in Morgan Freeman’s role), this goes down as one of the most tantalizing “what if” scenarios in recent Hollywood history. This movie turned out perfectly, of course, so no regrets for movie fans. But this project was remarkably in line with the type of work Costner was known for, and it would have been the perfect companion piece to A PERFECT WORLD.

And finally, AIR FORCE ONE, in the presidential role that also ended up going to Harrison Ford. Costner developed this project, but when scheduling issues arose again, he had to step away. This would have been the most obviously down-the-middle movie of Costner’s career, and the role probably wasn’t quite right for him, but it would have provided a box office boost at a time when he desperately needed it, and would have kept him firmly on the A-list of leading men. While not on the scale of SHAWSHANK, this still stands out as a missed opportunity.

Now, for the sake of argument, take a look at Costner’s filmography and make three simple swaps: remove THE WAR, WATERWORLD and THE POSTMAN, and replace those titles with THE FUGITIVE, THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION and AIR FORCE ONE. It’s reasonable to suggest that Costner’s career would have been in a different place. Easier said than done, of course, and you never know how any one particular film will turn out, but as an example of how easily an actor’s fortunes can change, it’s illustrative.

The first decade of the 2000s did little to reverse Costner’s fortunes. While these years produced two of his best films — 2000’s Cuban Missile Crisis thriller THIRTEEN DAYS and the stately 2003 western OPEN RANGE — it was mostly a string of misfires. No longer on the A-list of leading men, Costner simply wasn’t receiving consideration for the best roles, his Tig Productions no longer had a first-look deal with Warner Bros. (further cutting off his access to top-shelf projects) and at the same time he wasn’t launching very many of his own projects.

Costner followed up THIRTEEN DAYS with probably the two worst films of his career — the dreadful heist comedy 3000 MILES TO GRACELAND, and the inept supernatural thriller DRAGONFLY. Both were hammered by critics and shunned by audiences. While I won’t attempt on the creative rationale for the former, the idea behind the latter couldn’t have been more transparent: the filmmakers were desperately trying to tap into the same elements that made THE SIXTH SENSE a breakout sleeper hit a few years earlier. As always when filmmakers try to follow a trend, it was too late, and by the time the film was released it felt helplessly derivative. What also stands out to me about these films is that Costner was not aligning himself with the right filmmakers, and it’s worth mentioning that the filmmakers behind these flops either never worked again, or became totally insignificant within the industry. This was a pivotal moment in Costner’s career, when he should have been working with A-list directors, but he wasn’t.

Another strategy employed by Costner’s handlers was to put him in a series of quirky comedies. This yielded predictably mixed results. While the 2005 black comedy THE UPSIDE OF ANGER received a lot of strong reviews, it didn’t catch on with audiences or awards voters. It’s a nice little movie though, one of Costner’s best in the last decade, and creatively there’s a lot to like about it. Costner would go back to this well again in 2015, working with writer-director Mike Binder again on BLACK AND WHITE, a comedy-drama that again received some nice reviews, but simply didn’t connect with viewers. I think this spoke to an increasing disconnect between Costner and his fan base, who still want to see him in the types of films he was making in the late ’80s and early ’90s. That is an admittedly vague description of what they’re looking for, but when reviewing projects and scripts, Costner and his handlers should be able to recognize it when they see it. With 2005’s RUMOR HAS IT, I understood the logic of choosing this project. At least in theory. Work with an A-list director (though, in all honesty, has Rob Reiner made a good movie since 1995’s THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT? I would argue definitely not), join a talented ensemble cast with a concept (the “origin story” behind THE GRADUATE) that sounds commercial. But this was a poorly-written nostalgia piece from the jump, and was a career misstep for all involved, setting back Jennifer Aniston’s transition to features as well. This film further eroded Costner’s fan base, who simply prefer to see him in more earthy, grounded roles. His appeal as an actor is mostly limited to “everyman” roles. 2008’s SWING VOTE, in contrast, was an endearing, well-intentioned miss. In a role perfectly designed for him, Costner delivered a memorable performance, and the father-daughter elements of this story, and its overall thematic content, was appealing. But a cartoonish portrayal of the politicians and a story hook that simply wasn’t believable (despite the film’s best efforts to not take itself too seriously) undermined the film, which ultimately served as yet another example of the need for Costner to work with more seasoned and accomplished filmmakers.

Two paint-by-numbers genre films that didn’t hurt Costner’s career by any means, but also did absolutely nothing to elevate it. THE GUARDIAN miscalculated the leading man appeal of lightweight actor Ashton Kutcher, and MR. BROOKS simply felt like a tired genre piece that brought nothing new to the formula. The fact that nobody reading this article is even likely to remember these films proves my point.

For the purposes of this article, let’s all forget that THE NEW DAUGHTER (2009) ever happened. Okay? Okay. Moving on…

It’s important to point out that Costner did produce some of his best work in the 2000s. THIRTEEN DAYS (2000) is a hugely underrated political thriller that couldn’t find an audience despite its critical acclaim. This was unfortunate, as few films are more suspenseful or interesting. Notably, it’s also a project that Costner developed and produced and took control of from the start — the intersection of that role and that type of creative success is a recurring theme in this piece, you might have noticed. OPEN RANGE (2003) was a welcome return to the director’s chair for Costner. Righting the wrongs from THE POSTMAN, he delivered a sturdy, old-world western with a great lead performance by Robert Duvall, and provided a template for the type of supporting roles Costner should take on going forward if he begins to produce and direct more. But ultimately this film has proved to be a tease, as Costner has not directed again since. With 2010’s THE COMPANY MEN, Costner teamed up with an excellent filmmaker (John Wells) and a superb ensemble cast for a financial crisis drama that struck a chord with critics but failed to find an audience. In defense of moviegoers though, I believe this movie had a very limited distribution, and might not have even appeared in most cities. Still, this film represents a recent creative high for Costner, who excelled in a blue-collar supporting role.

This brings us back to the present. By now you know my position, and though I’ve taken Costner to task on a number of projects and have questioned how some of these missteps occurred, my faith in his talent is also plain to see. But it’s immensely frustrating that he has yet to follow up on the success of HATFIELDS & MCCOYS, or even identified the correct takeaways from that series. There have been no new or personal projects to make it through the production pipeline, with little to no news about what projects are being developed in the background. In the meantime, Costner has continued to be drawn back into lesser supporting roles in marginal films, and there are no indications that he intends to step back behind the camera, where I — and other silent observers — would contend he belongs.

I’ve long believed that the best point of comparison for projecting the next stage of Costner’s career is Clint Eastwood. Consider the trajectory of Eastwood’s career in the last twenty-five years. Prior to UNFORGIVEN (1992), Eastwood had been a big star in Hollywood for close to thirty years. Thirty years. But in what will likely surprise many, during that time he was never a significant box office draw. Just take a look at the commercial performance of his films in the 1980s (courtesy of Box Office Mojo, which began tracking data in 1980). Eastwood released twelve films in that decade, but only two finished in the top 10 at the box office in their respective years: ANY WHICH WAY YOU CAN (5th in 1980) and SUDDEN IMPACT (7th in 1983). Four additional films finished in the top 20, but an astonishing three titles finished outside of the top 50. We’re talking about Clint Eastwood here — one of the most recognizable movie stars in the history of the business.

Taking a broader look at Eastwood’s post-UNFORGIVEN career, if you look at the top 10 box office hits on his filmography, you will find that eight of the ten are post-1992: (1) American Sniper — 2014; (2) Gran Torino — 2008; (3) In the Line of Fire — 1993; (4) Unforgiven — 1992; (5) Million Dollar Baby — 2004; (6) Space Cowboys — 2000; (7) Mystic River — 2003; (9) The Bridges of Madison County — 1995.

It is also worth noting that despite now being known as a four-time Oscar winner, Eastwood had not received a single Academy Award nomination as of December 1992. It wasn’t until age 62, with UNFORGIVEN, that Eastwood truly arrived. That film would become his biggest box office hit to date, and net him three Oscar nominations and two wins (for Best Picture and Best Director). A decade later, at age 74, Eastwood would then win Oscars for Best Picture and Best Director again with 2004’s MILLION DOLLAR BABY. This following the acclaimed 2003 crime drama MYSTIC RIVER, which should have swept all of the major awards that year if not for the Academy’s insistence on awarding THE LORD OF THE RINGS franchise with what amounted to a “career achievement” award. In total, since 1992, Eastwood has received eleven Academy Award nominations, which also includes the titles LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA and AMERICAN SNIPER.

It’s not a coincidence that the lone collaboration between Eastwood and Costner — the 1993 crime drama A PERFECT WORLD — resulted in Costner’s career-best performance. This film is widely considered one of Eastwood’s best, but is also probably his most underrated. I’ve often felt this film’s poor box office showing was simply a function of Oscars fatigue. Costner and Eastwood were coming off Academy Awards triumphs in 1990 and 1992 respectively, and it seemed as if moviegoers were just looking for something new.

At an age when many in Hollywood are packing it in, Eastwood managed to finally hit his stride by taking complete control of his career. Since UNFORGIVEN, he has only acted in one film which he has not directed himself: IN THE LINE OF FIRE (1993), which he signed on for before wrapping UNFORGIVEN. Known for working quickly and keeping production costs to a minimum, the no-hassle, no-frills, low-maintenance Eastwood has kept moving, and continued to evolve, branching out into composing original music for his films, and working in unexpected genres and exploring new subjects and types of characters. He has become a renaissance man who continues to surprise well into his 80s. He also works constantly, a factor which can’t be underestimated. He’s had plenty of misfires in between the hits, but he doesn’t allow himself to get stuck. More importantly, he doesn’t allow anyone else to shape his career. His successes and his failures are his own, which isn’t something most Hollywood figures can claim.

Admittedly, I am not a part of Costner’s inner — or outer — circle. But it certainly appears that too much interference and meddling are holding back his career. At the most basic level, he has become too reactionary, allowing himself to be a side player in other people’s films. A large part of his comeback strategy has been appearing in a series of supporting roles meant to prop up younger stars in films such as MAN OF STEEL, JACK RYAN: SHADOW RECRUIT and the upcoming space race drama HIDDEN FIGURES. I’m certainly not advocating that Costner try to become an A-list leading man in his early 60s, but right now he’s settling for films ranging from average to poor. There’s just no percentage in this.

Consider the directors that Costner has worked with. How many would be considered more accomplished than Costner himself? Only two for sure: Clint Eastwood (A PERFECT WORLD), and Oliver Stone (JFK). And I would argue the only metric by which Eastwood outpaces Costner is volume. Arguments can be made for Brian De Palma (THE UNTOUCHABLES), Ron Shelton (BULL DURHAM, TIN CUP), Rob Reiner (RUMOR HAS IT) and Phil Alden Robinson (FIELD OF DREAMS). But Shelton and Robinson’s filmographies are not much more extensive than Costner’s, Reiner has been in decline since the mid-90s and wasn’t an elite filmmaker when working with Costner, and De Palma’s resume may score higher on the “film geek” spectrum but Costner working at his peak is able to craft films with wider appeal. The bottom line is that Costner simply hasn’t worked with many filmmakers who are more skilled than he is, and that’s had an impact on his career.

Going forward, Costner needs to either direct all of his films, or work with higher-level and more cutting-edge filmmakers. It’s telling that Costner’s three best films since 2000 are all properties that he developed, produced and/or directed: THIRTEEN DAYS, OPEN RANGE and HATFIELDS & MCCOYS.

With 1990 Best Picture winner DANCES WITH WOLVES, Costner made perhaps the most audacious directorial debut in Hollywood history, announcing the arrival of a major filmmaking talent. But he chose not to follow up on this part of his career until THE POSTMAN in 1997, a disastrous flop that would have ended the career of most directors. He would rebound with the excellent western OPEN RANGE in 2003.

And this is the crux of the issue. I would argue — hell, I am arguing — that it is time for Costner to make a shift to directing full-time. He’s had an excellent run as an actor, but his real talent lies behind the camera. He has a great eye for detail, a wonderful sense of pace and atmosphere and a keen understanding of how to work with actors. If Costner and his representatives are struggling to identify and then select the right roles — a plight easy to sympathize with in contemporary Hollywood, where well-written roles are indeed scarce — then he simply needs to create the roles for himself. And this means taking advantage of the fact that he’s part of a rare breed: the actor-director.

Unlike most actors, Costner is a proven content creator, and more than capable of generating and developing his own material. But it’s true that most talents that fall into this category tend to be notoriously self-reliant in shaping their careers. In addition to Eastwood, Robert Redford and Warren Beatty come to mind, both fiercely independent creatives who became filmmakers as a means of controlling their own destinies so to speak. George Clooney as well, though he has mastered the art of playing the Hollywood game and dabbling in more obviously commercial fare as a means of obtaining financing for his smaller, more personal films. Ben Affleck is now very much following in the Clooney mold, and it’s worth noting that he recently launched a significant comeback of his own by stepping behind the camera with the breakout 2007 crime thriller GONE BABY GONE, setting up subsequent successes with THE TOWN (2010) and the Oscar-winning ARGO (2012).

But among these filmmakers, only Redford occupies the same turf as Costner — meaning independent-minded actor-directors with a fan base who responds to their western ethic and athletic, everyman appeal. Redford has remained active as an actor, especially in recent years, but the later stages of his career has also been marked by a transition to directing, most notably in the early ’90s with modern classics A RIVER RUNS THROUGH IT and QUIZ SHOW.

The recent success of HATFIELDS & MCCOYS was an indication that Costner was moving in this direction. But in the last few years he has reverted back to appearing in films that simply don’t feel like the right creative fit, and once again it feels as if Costner is treading water. As an industry professional and observer, not to mention just a regular movie fan, Costner’s potential as a full-time director is highly intriguing. He could be that rare filmmaker who moves back and forth between the indie and studio worlds. And though his work behind the camera thus far might indicate a limitation to westerns, he could easily branch out.

The unknown variable here is of course Costner’s desire to produce and direct more of his own films. He may not want to do this. As mentioned previously, his film career has been sidetracked before by outside interests. And I’m certainly not suggesting this would be easy to do. It takes a rare blend of talent, vision, confidence and opportunity to succeed as a director. I’m quite certain Costner doesn’t lack the first three parts of this equation. But he has to put himself in the position to get those opportunities. And if the opportunities don’t present themselves (let’s face it, studio executives are notoriously cowardly when it comes to hiring and working with strong-willed, independent filmmakers), then Costner will have to create those opportunities for himself.

I obviously have a strong belief in the idea that Costner should direct full-time. Because this strategy makes so much sense, let’s assume that Mr. Costner would agree with me. The question then becomes: where does he go from here?

It should be noted that Costner has never reprised a character or appeared in a sequel, prequel or spinoff (note: I am choosing not to count his blink-and-you’ll-miss-it cameo in BATMAN V SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE). But he does double back on subjects of interest, particular themes and a few sub-genres. Three baseball films. Three westerns. Two Kennedy-era thrillers. Passing on Jack Ryan only to appear in the re-boot two decades later. Stepping away from THE KENTUCKY CYCLE only to re-visit a similar world in a similar format with HATFIELDS & MCCOYS. These trends are instructive when speculating on what moves Costner could/should make next.

Costner has also made some unconventional moves recently, highlighted by the publication of a book he co-authored titled THE EXPLORERS GUILD, a Jules Verne-esque adventure story that is designed to reverse-engineer a film series. It’s an intriguing and ambitious book, filled with interesting ideas and great artwork — it reminded me of THE INVENTION OF HUGO CABRET. I’m unsure of its status as a film project, however. While I would push Costner to develop and direct more prestige Sundance-style indie films, this book does represent the type of move that Costner needs to be making. (And yes, this book ended up next to good company on my bookshelf)

On a broader level, Costner’s love for music dictates that he needs to find a music-based project to develop, and potentially star in. Imagine what a career boost starring in a film like CRAZY HEART would have been? That film’s inspiration, Robert Duvall’s TENDER MERCIES (1983), is equally suggestive. On a related note, the time could be right for Costner to direct a musician bio-pic. Watching the recent Hank Williams film I SAW THE LIGHT, it was hard not to imagine how Costner might have made a more interesting film. WALK THE LINE is another example of the type of movie that Costner could develop, produce and direct. It’s time for somebody to mount a serious production chronicling the early years of Elvis Presley — Costner should be that filmmaker. LAST TRAIN TO MEMPHIS has been mired in development hell foryears at 20th Century Fox, but there is no shortage of alternative source material to draw from.

Other types of projects that come to mind are character-driven heartland thrillers such as A SIMPLE PLAN or family dramas in the mold of AFFLICTION or IN THE BEDROOM. Another filmmaker that Costner could emulate is John Sayles. Costner could build a filmography every bit as varied as those offered by Eastwood and Redford. As a movie fan who wants to see filmmakers maximize their potential, it’s frustrating to me that he hasn’t.

If asked to advise Costner regarding potential projects, I would recommend that he direct a low-cost, contemporary western that could transition from festival darling to end-of-year awards contender. I believe that film can be found in the 1990 Kent Haruf novel WHERE YOU ONCE BELONGED. A harrowing tale of small town crime and punishment, it evokes the Paul Newman classic HUD, and it would also offer Costner a strong supporting role. Additionally, its atmospheric setting on the high plains of eastern Colorado would enable him to work from his part-time Aspen residence. Haruf is a critically-acclaimed novelist whose books are not widely read, but he’s a wonderful chronicler of the modern west, with a voice that has much in common with Costner’s own. His most recent book, OUR SOULS AT NIGHT, is currently being produced with Robert Redford and Jane Fonda in the lead roles.

Another acclaimed author whose voice and style would make for a unique match with Costner’s filmmaking sensibilities is Wallace Stegner, whose work spanned five decades from the 1930s through the 1980s. Another chronicler of the contemporary and historical west, his work has never been adapted by Hollywood, but that is long overdue. Two works in particular stand out as ideal fits for Costner. THE BIG ROCK CANDY MOUNTAIN, published in 1943, is a sprawling generational saga about a frontier family’s harrowing struggle for survival and quest to capture the American Dream in the hardscrabble years of the early 20th century. Reminiscent of epics such as LEGENDS OF THE FALL and THERE WILL BE BLOOD, this novel would provide a great foundation for an event television series spanning 8–10 hours, or make for a potentially groundbreaking epic film if the studios or financiers would have the guts to back it. Also worthy of a serious look is Stegner’s fictionalized “re-imagining” JOE HILL, which tells the story of the infamous labor organizer in the early 20th century west. Costner, once attached to the Neil Jordan film MICHAEL COLLINS about the Irish political revolutionary, could be drawn to this type of politicized human drama that also happens to be deeply rooted in both the mythology of the American West and the history of western folk music. This could be a powerful, highly relevant prestige film whose period setting brings to mind the current frustration in America over financial inequities.

If Costner wants to re-visit a period western and recapture the DANCES WITH WOLVES zeitgeist, he should research the life story of photographer Edward Sheriff Curtis, who gave up his fortune in the early 1900s to pursue his great idea: to capture on film the continent’s original inhabitants before the old ways disappeared. He would spend the next three decades documenting the stories and rituals of more than eighty North American tribes. The undertaking changed him profoundly, from detached observer to outraged advocate. Curtis would amass more than 40,000 photographs and 10,000 audio recordings, and he is credited with making the first narrative documentary film. This has all the makings of an epic feature — or event series — about the vanishing west and the cost of creative obsession. I can’t think of a filmmaker more suited to telling the Curtis story than Costner.

Another variation on the doubling-back theme comes with the David Halberstam book FIREHOUSE, an account of 9/11 from the perspective of the firehouse which lost the most men on that day. Costner was previously attached to star in Oliver Stone’s WORLD TRADE CENTER, and if this type of project and tribute still appeals to him, he would find a wealth of narrative material to work with in this spare but deep book by one of the best journalists this country has ever seen.

The projects listed above don’t even begin to count the abundance of original scripts out there in need of a strong producer and director. And this is the larger overall issue at play. With escalating production budgets and an increasing reliance on pre-branded properties (followers of this space know this is a recurring complaint of mine), studios are mired in the bad habit of hiring young, malleable filmmakers that must submit to the micro-management of executives, shareholders and other meddlers more intent on minimizing risk than maximizing possibilities. These younger filmmakers, who are also much more versed in the “language” of these properties and franchises (I’m referring primarily to comics, YA fiction and video games) are taking work away from more experienced storytellers who would give a wider range of viewers movies worth their time and money. Some prestige actors-turned-directors have found a way into this niche. Kenneth Branagh comes to mind with credits such as THOR, JACK RYAN: SHADOW RECRUIT and CINDERELLA. But it’s notable that for the most part they are no longer making prestige films for older and more sophisticated audiences within the studio system. A resurgent Costner behind the camera could — much like Eastwood — provide a pipeline of low-cost, interesting adult fare to studios to help supplement their higher-cost, higher-risk gambles on tentpole properties.

My only hope is that Costner has already reached these same conclusions. If granted an audience with Costner, I would tell him all of these things in person, perhaps even more convincingly. I imagine it would be a lot like that sequence from FIELD OF DREAMS in which Costner’s Ray Kinsella attempts to convince James Earl Jones’s Terence Mann to join him on his seemingly insane quest at the urging of that mysterious voice. Terence Mann is of course hesitant to go along, half-convinced that Kinsella is indeed out of his mind. Mann tells Kinsella: “I wish I had your passion, Ray. Misdirected though it may be, it is still a passion.” Then, with resignation: “I used to feel that way about things…”

But there’s one key difference here: my passion isn’t misdirected. I’m not alone in believing Costner is ready for a major comeback. But based on recent results, I may be alone in understanding what needs to happen for that comeback to become a reality.

April 11, 2016 — Beverly Hills, California