I’m a funny one. My brain is wired weird, and sometimes it’s scary but most of the time it’s amusing. Take for example my response when asked what I, a hetereosexual woman, consider to be the ideal male physique. Most people would list about three traits, like “tall, broad shoulders, perfect teeth.” My list is… a bit longer. And don’t ask me where I get this stuff, because I just discovered in my psyche one day during my teen years, parked right next to my equally untraceable food and music preferences.
My unimaginably nitpicky criteria for the ideal male body:
Well-shaped butts, long legs, no chest hair and very little visible body hair, a certain length to the frame (a proportion I can’t describe, but I know it when I see it), a certain breadth to the shoulders (again, a very specific proportion), and the muscle tone has to be defined to a certain degree and no more but I’m not talking about the actual shape he’s in, but rather an intrinsic way his body arranges muscle and fat.
Yes, folks: the way a man’s skin, fat and muscle cling together is something that makes a difference in how attractive he is to me. Shut up. Da Vinci would’ve understood.
But a few days after I wrote that out last week and realized how hilariously specific it is, I had a truly sobering moment when I realized: my weird ideal for the male body is less specific than the US’s base requirements for a supporting or lead actress. Women who don’t meet those requirements get shuffled into “character acting.” A successful character actor is one of those familiar faces that’s been on all the big TV shows (and probably gets more interesting roles than lead and supporting actors), but you don’t know her name. Actresses are advised by agents whether their looks qualify them to pursue lead and supporting roles or doom them to “character actor” status.
The criteria for a lead or supporting actress runs something like this (at the moment – it changes every decade).
US Film & TV base requirements for lead/supporting actresses
(You can lack perhaps one to three of these traits, but you must feature the vast majority to get work in the US.)
- Underweight.
- White.
- Fleshy, pouty lips. If she’s serious about an acting career, she’ll get the collagen shots. (Oh, by the way, rumor has it: pouty lips are out, cheek implants are in. Actress wannabes are advised to see their cosmetic surgeons for complete details on sucking out the collagen and stuffing the cheeks until you look you have three noses. Mmm, sexy.)
- Long legs.
- Look 30 or younger. (There will be 5 roles reserved in every generation for women who look grown up. Good luck landing them, ladies.)
- Several inches taller than the average woman (average height is just under 5’4″ – most actresses are at least 5’6″).
- Medium to largish breasts. (They don’t want her to look like a porn star, but if she’s serious about an acting career, she’ll get those A-cups bumped up to at least a full B.)
- No big noses.
- No noses with bumps. (You can maybe get a part on a nine year old ailing Sci-Fi channel show with an imperfect nose, but you will not be deluged with offers from Hollywood.)
- No chins which seem long or short in proportion to the rest of the face (unless you’re a Barrymore or a Spelling, in which case the rules don’t apply to you, sweetie, and can we get you something else, anything else, and please remember us to your folks!).
- Perfect teeth.
- Big eyes. (Jennifer Garner is the only exception, and look how she’s got the puffy lips and all the other traits right down.)
- Long, glossy hair.
- No visible body hair (not that this isn’t an expectation for women outside of acting, too).
- Curvy, female butts are in right now. They weren’t 10 years ago. Enjoy the whiplash from trying to keep up.
Acting talent is optional. Conversely:
US Film & TV base requirements for potential lead actor:
- White.
- Perfect teeth.
Failing to nail either of these will slow a man’s acting career down considerably, but hallelujah, thanks to dentistry, at least the field’s wide open to white guys of every description.
Do you see the problem?
Among supporting and lead male actors we have a few truly fat men and a lot of chubby guys and a lot of guys who look slim in a suit but have a little extra padding around the middle. None of these guys would have the careers they have if we applied the same standards to male and female actors. We have guys with lovely glossy hair and guys with shaved heads or various stages of balding. We have guys with big noses and weak chins. Short guys like Tom Cruise. Guys with overhanging brows. Beady eyes.
I mean, if we bumped male requirements up to something as specific as the requirements for women, the US film and TV industry would lose all its leading men overnight (just “underweight” wipes out the whole brigade, though I’m sure some of them would be willing to starve if their careers were on the line). And wouldn’t that be a pity for all those people, including me, who find quite a few American lead actors attractive despite their “flaws”? Or because of them?
How does this shit happen?
This is all a by-product of a sexist culture, but the specific mechanism that takes place is this: when industry people look at a male actor, they see and evaluate the whole man as a total package of talent, physicality, and charisma. When they look at a female actor, they see parts. They see boobies and puffy lips and butts and legs and height and hair and eyes. If they don’t see the parts they’re looking for, they write her off. In short, they can’t see the forest for the T&A.
And don’t forget the casting couch. Women weren’t allowed to act in Shakespeare’s day, so female actors have really been fighting for inclusion for five centuries, and a lot of people in the early days of film and TV didn’t let women forget that. If women wanted roles, they could damn well go the extra mile to get them, and that meant giving someone sexual favors. And now that demanding sexual favors for roles is less common than it used to be, the attitude remains the same: those uppity females need to work harder than a man, if they want a role from me. Since acting is a subjectively measured craft, the only objective requirements men who hate women can force on them are visual. Film is the perfect place for this brand of misogyny because it’s one of the last industries where you can turn someone down for not looking a certain way.
Ever since men were oh-so-kind enough to let women have jobs as an alternative to sexually gratifying men in order to be provided for, women have been struggling with extra tough requirements. Look at the airlines, who as recently as 1982 were requiring women flight attendants to be skinnier than men. It’s all about white men seeing the world as something they own exclusive rights to, and if others want a slice they’ll have to prove they know their rightful second-class place in it by complying with a bunch of insane demands as a show of loyalty to the white male power structure.
Do real life men – you know, the audience – turn up their noses at an overall attractive woman because her lips don’t pout, she carries a few extra pounds, or her nose isn’t a particular shape? Does anyone know a real life heterosexual man who’s that picky? …that you do not suspect of being secretly gay and using this stuff as an excuse not to date the woman with whom you’re trying to fix him up?
Jennifer’s proposed list of male criteria to make things fair
I don’t actually advocate this list. Like I said, many actors I love would not make the cut. This is just for demonstration purposes.
- Lean physique, lean faces. No beer bellies, no fleshy faces. (Even though fleshy faces can be attractive, sorry; they’re not in at the moment. Get over it.)
- White.
- Full lips.
- Long legs.
- ETA: Tight, well shaped butts.
- Dramatic cheekbones. (Kind of random, but hey, we have to sort the winners and losers somehow, right?)
- Several inches taller than the average man (average is 5’10″, so we’re talking a 6′ minimum).
- Broad shoulders.
- No big noses (there goes 25% of them).
- No imperfect noses (another 25%).
- No weak or jutting chins (another 25% – wow, this is awesome! Soon we’ll have all those men begging us for a session on the casting couch!).
- Perfect teeth.
- Big eyes.
- Glossy hair.
That’s really not enough. To balance out the breast obsession, I should spell out some sort of criteria for acceptable nipples and pectoral muscle shapes. I have trouble doing that because even I’m not that picky and I know there’s no single ideal. And yet the same is true with women’s breasts, and we still have to cope with this fixation.
Imagine how many attractive, fascinating male actors this criteria would weed out.
Now imagine how many attractive, fascinating female actors you’ve never had the chance to see.
{ 104 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
Next Comments →
Hyperphonics said: “A woman may walk through the door, look at her average overweight hubby/boyfriend and think for a second, “I wish he looked like Adrian Brody”. Then she’ll think about all of the reasons she loves him in spite of him not being a sexpot and somehow, appreciate him more in that moment for it.”
LOL Not me.
I seem to recall walking through the door, seeing my ever-expanding ex-bf sitting on the sofa, and thinking to myself “You fat, god-damned pig, get on a diet!”. Then, after he went to bed, I logged on to the internet and jilled-off to some really hot photos of Russell Crowe. I also cyber-sexed with quite a few guys in AOL chatrooms. : )
I tend to believe that most women would be like me, had they rejected the cultural programming that society attempts to impose upon us all.
IMO, the best thing any woman can do is drop all of the emotional nonsense, and learn how to embrace her inner-pervert (yes, it exists). Luckily, my mother was very open-minded about sex, and I was introduced to the male form at a rather young age, via Playgirl magazine. Appreciating a man strictly for his sexual appeal was encouraged, which is why I tend to view most men as nothing but sex toys. I honestly cannot stand their company unless I’m horny. Some people might think I’m a bitch for being this way, but I don’t care; if it’s ok for a guy, it should be ok for me too. That’s how I see it.
A Very Bad Girl(Quote) (Reply)
Depends what you mean by that. I rejected my gender programming – in fact, most of it never took because I just couldn’t get being a “girl” to save my life – and I can be as shallow as anyone about looks. But the way you handled that situation is, IMO, nothing to brag about. You avoided the stereotypical “female” ways of handling it, but instead opted for a stereotypically MALE form of passive-aggression. Overcoming our programming does not mean embracing the programming of the opposite gender. It means thinking beyond ALL the bullshit.
A better solution, IMO, would be for women and men to feel EQUALLY entitled to care about looks but also equally encouraged to think beyond that in evaluating someone’s worth to us.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
I totally disagree with you on that. I don’t feel as if I “behaved like a man”. Being critical is not a uniquely male trait. The way I behave comes naturally to me because it was never discouraged. That is the point I’m trying to make, here. The only reason such behavior is considered “male-like”, is because men are allowed to express it freely, without restraint.
I really enjoyed your article, but I’m amazed that you would respond to my comment with the very stereotypical nonsense that I assumed you were opposed to. Am I also “behaving like a man” if I wear pants, initiate sex, or pay for dinner on a date?
PS For the record, my ex was an ass, and unworthy of respect.
A Very Bad Girl(Quote) (Reply)
I wasn’t talking about being “critical” of his looks – that’s absolutely acceptable as far as I’m concerned, and so is dumping him because you don’t like his looks anymore.
What I was talking about was your passively aggressively thinking he’s a fat pig and then looking to others for sexual gratification. That’s the stereotypical male way of handling things, and I don’t consider it an improvement over the stereotypical female way.
I’d have just dumped his ass the instant I started having thoughts like that about him.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
OK, gotcha.
So, it’s alright for me to be critical, but it’s not “acceptable” for me to diddle to photos of men on the internet? LOL
No disrespect, but that sounds like something a misogynist might say.
It seems that you are still attempting to dictate what qualifies as appropriate behavior for a woman.
Masturbation isn’t just for men…. and, obviously, neither is the internet.
A Very Bad Girl(Quote) (Reply)
PS Whether you realize it or not, what you’re doing is, essentially, shaming me for reliving my frustrations in a way that you feel is too “male-ish”.
This is textbook sexism.
A Very Bad Girl(Quote) (Reply)
Typo edit: Relieving
A Very Bad Girl(Quote) (Reply)
She’s not trying to dictate what qualifies as appropriate for a woman – she’s talking about what’s appropriate for anyone. Trust in a relationship is an issue of personal responsibility and respect, not of gender, and it’s not really possible when you’re using and cheating on your partner. Calling it a “male” way of handling things is more to say that it’s a problematic trait that’s justified for guys because it’s “masculine” than to suggest that it’s actually okay for men and not for women.
On the original topic, I wonder whether the “bishonen” ideal might be the closest thing to a male equivalent of beauty standards for women (looking through the OP again, bishonen are usually within 1-3 traits of the both lists). It’s more of an Eastern thing and usually involves created characters rather than pre-existing actors, but the reactions it provokes are probably useful in showing just how badly guys would react to such an expectation.
Ikkin(Quote) (Reply)
What Ikkin said. And AVBG, quit twisting my words. I think masturbation’s great, fantasizing about others while in a relationship is normal and unhealthy and nothing partners should take personally, and my only objection to cheating is that it involves deception and/or the breaking of a promise, implied or otherwise. (My preferred solution: just don’t form monogamous relationships, and then cheating is never an issue.)
Something my mother said when I was a kid keeps coming to mind (paraphrasing): feminism is not about women becoming as irresponsible as men have been allowed to be. It should be about rethinking what’s acceptable behavior for BOTH genders, and then not making a distinction based on gender.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
Jennifer, I’m not putting words in your mouth. I’m going by what you’re saying.
For the record, I don’t really have any problem with men’s “bad behavior”. In fact, my solitary gripe about them is their hypocrisy. If I got all fat & out of shape, I wouldn’t blame a guy for being disgusted with me. The problem is, women are taught to accept men’s flaws and “stop trying to change them”. This is what makes me angry. I am not turned on by the body of an unkempt man anymore than a man is turned on by the body of an unkempt woman. I see a lot of guys making excuses and claiming “women aren’t visual”, or wallowing in some other form of denial.
Also, I never cheated on my ex, so I don’t know where you’re getting that from. Looking at other guys doesn’t make me a cheater. He should consider himself lucky that I was as loyal as I was. Not only did he neglect his body, but he had a rotten attitude. The kicker is how he would withhold sex to punish me for arguing with him. He knew I have a high sex-drive, so he used this to manipulate me. As messed up as he was, I still approached him in a sexual way because, well, you know, I was horny. It was a very disturbing experience for me to be constantly rejected by somebody in his condition. That being said, I don’t feel the least bit guilty for looking at other guys or cyber-sexing in chat rooms.
Lastly, I am sick & tired of the notion that women have to be the “bigger person” or provide an example of “good behavior” for men to follow. I want no part of that burden. I am not an angel, I am human. Despite what mainstream society would have us believe, men and women are not that different from one another. Women are not morally superior. The belief that we are is just as sexist as asserting that women are inferior.
I disagree with your mother’s definition of feminism, btw. Irresponsibility knows no gender. Also, I have never “became” anything. What I am is how I have always been. I’m certainly not going to change my personality just because somebody thinks it’s too similar to stereotypical guy behavior. Real feminism is opposed to this type of pigeonholing. It’s about accepting & encouraging diversity, not fitting into a cookie-cutter standard. I don’t act like a man, I act like me. That’s what you fail to understand.
A Very Bad Girl(Quote) (Reply)
You said you cyber-sexed with other guys. I wasn’t the only one to interpret that as cheating.
You are indeed distorting everything that’s been said so you can beat a straw man. No one told you to be the “bigger person” here. And you completely twisted the quote from my mother: she was talking about society TOLERATING irresponsibility in men that it won’t tolerate in women. You want everyone to be as irresponsible as society allows/encourages men to be. I happen to think we should expect responsible behavior from all adults, regardless of gender.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
I don’t think cyber-sex qualifies as cheating, especially when your SO is withholding affection and alienating you.
I’m not really buying the “mental cheating” thing.
PS I left a couple of comments on one of your more recent articles, which is very good, but they are not showing up.
A Very Bad Girl(Quote) (Reply)
Cheating is defined by the individuals in the relationship, and IMO what matters is whether the other member of the couple considers it cheating – in this case, that would be your ex, and I don’t know if he considers cybersex cheating. I’ve talked with many women who think “Woohoo, I treated that guy like shit!” is somehow feminist, and that’s how your comment came across (you have to admit, leading with the “goddamn pig” remark contributed to that interpretation). Treating people like shit is never something to celebrate – even though sometimes it’s necessary or even justified, which is why at no point was I judging you for it.
Now, had you simply described your reluctance to date/stay involved with guys who aren’t physically attractive and your response to visual stimulation that we’re told isn’t normal for women, I’d have considered that being in touch with your real self. So if you’re content to leave it on that note and move on, so am I.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
Well, all I have to say is, you’re not the one who had to live with the guy… and trust me, “had” is the keyword.
I told him I didn’t want to be with him anymore, and he just wouldn’t leave. The arguments were getting worse & worse, his piggishness was getting worse (I’m not just talking about the weight thing, either. I wont get into what else, because I don’t want to gross you out)… the whole thing was a mess. I finally had to lock him out of the apartment and put his stuff on the porch; he wouldn’t leave on his own, and I just couldn’t take it anymore.
And, for the record, I am NOT one of those women who thinks “Woohoo, I treated that guy like shit!”. In fact, unfortunately, I tend to get along with most men better than other women. If I treat anybody like shit, it is usually in retaliation for them treating me like shit.
A Very Bad Girl(Quote) (Reply)
I do think, for the record, that the “women are more interested in a man’s personality and less shallow and will stay with unattractive men because they’re awesome like that” myth is, first of all, societally-ingrained bullshit, and second, a really unhealthy to propagate.
No, we can’t all date Adrian Brody, and a realistic image of what we want in a romantic partner is important. But:
1) If you’re going to have sex with someone, you probably want to find them sexually attractive. That’s not unreasonable–especially if you’re *only* going to have sex with that person.
2) Being someone’s friend is no less important, and implies no less love, than being their SO. You can love someone a whole lot and still, if you’re not attracted to them, there’s nothing saying you “should” date them.
3) Unless you have a specific goal for which you want a SO, there’s nothing wrong with choosing to remain single because the local talent isn’t doing it for you. There’s a “oh, she’s just deluding herself, isn’t that pathetic” message in society about this, but you know what? If it comes to tying myself down to some guy I feel “meh” about sexually or going it alone with a vibrator and some fantasies about Giles…well, the fantasies don’t get stomach flu at 3 AM and they don’t make me come home to meet their parents, so I’m not seeing the problem with Option 2.
So yeah: annoying. And what’s more annoying? Society bombards women with all this you-have-to-be-less-shallow, look-past-the-surface-of-a-guy, Ugly-Guy-Hot-Wife bullshit and THEN turns around and talks about how women have low sex drives. And some women do–just like some men do–but really? I’m betting a substantial proportion of low-libido chicks are the ones who got suckered into relationships with meh guys who have “great personalities,” since That’s What Women Care About. Argh.
…and I’m ranty.
Izzy(Quote) (Reply)
Rant away, Izzy. It really gets on my nerves when people say it’s biological for men to look for physical attraction and women to look for security. I believe this is absolutely a matter of conditioning. In a world where women have, until recently, been denied the right to pursue education, business, property ownership or any other means of taking care of oneself, what could we do but marry? And who would you marry – the gorgeous guy who seems likely to drink a lot instead of working, or the stable but dull man who doesn’t light your hormones afire?
Conversely, a boy in that situation is hardly going to grow up thinking someday a woman will provide for him if he just picks the right one. Women had been rendered so powerless, and limited to one track (housekeeping and mothering), there was really nothing for men to use as a selection criteria but looks. Boys were taught that women automatically had maternal instincts, so there was no reason to worry “This one might not be a great mother to my children.” All girls were taught the skills of housekeeping that applied to their station (DIY or servant-bossing) because they sure weren’t taught anything else. What would a boy have done, but choose the cutest one who would have him?
We may be a hundred or more years beyond all that being fully true, but the attitudes and life skills don’t disappear overnight.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
“Do real life men – you know, the audience – turn up their noses at an overall attractive woman because her lips that don’t pout, she carries a few extra pounds, or her nose isn’t a particular shape? Does anyone know a real life heterosexual man who’s that picky? …that you do not suspect of being secretly gay?”
– or Patrick Bateman.
Claudia Black is a hottie! The (physically, generically) hottest girl I know – who is desired by all – also has a bump on her nose (which she hates, but few girls feel sorry for a self-loathing uberbabe). Come to think of it Claudia Black has always reminded me of the girl everyone fancied at uni, who was the spit of her, bent nose and all. She was actually extremely sporty, a joker, and friends with mostly men, so going against typical representations there as well I guess.
I liked Gillian Anderson a lot partly because her scenes with Mulder were often convincingly intimate and friendly so it was easy to imagine actually getting along with her – the character had life, spark, a soul. And in her (if anything too wordy) monologues she sounds like she reads a lot of classical English literature.
I like the Jessica Albas and Biels as well, but it’s in a very different way – the emotions aren’t engaged so the libido hardly cranks up at all; it’s like a machine with multiple triggers and stages and the generic babe isn’t enough to get even 10% of sex-mode up and running. In my experience anyway. I mean, the girl I fancied most in my life was just someone whose character I admired – not an amazing hottie or of a preferred physical type. It’s not about ‘aiming for what I can get’ either – I was once propositioned by a tall modelly girl who strongly resembled Heidi Klum but I just wasn’t feeling it; maybe I found her boring or something. At the time and now and again to this day I have this little voice that wants me to kick myself over it, but it’s not something I can really feel strongly – it’s just a voice that comes from false acquired notions of what I ought to want. It would be a trophy everyone else would admire but I might be faintly ashamed of. I always felt it was supposed to be about more than robotically banging the best possible T&A – I don’t think that’s something you get taught; it’s just a deep down fucking true instinct that gets smothered by so much bull. And I feel like 95% of womankind are all off the menu cos they are fixated on their equivalent bull.
Gordon(Quote) (Reply)
I saw Jennifer and Izzy talking about the pop socio-biology memes that fly about and I wanted to add my own observation: we keep getting told (seems to me) that beauty is real and measurable and indicates ‘fitness’ yet as groups athletes and intellectual high-achievers aren’t noted for being unusually beautiful. Maybe there’s a generically beautiful ‘mean’ human form and the deviations represent security in diversity for the species, so maybe the most beautiful are optimal in some sense, while human-normal environmental conditions prevail… but it clearly can’t have THAT much of an effect.
I think intuitively there’s something to be said for the theory that we seek out partners whose genetic quirks complement our own. If it was all a drive towards perfect beauty (averageness) species would lose diversity and the advantages that diversity confers.
And humans aren’t even all that diverse. Humans evolved in Africa and spread out all over the globe in a time-period that is very very short on an evolutionary scale. That’s why racial differences are actually slight, even though folk can get hung up on the visually obvious. So think about it: we are culturally intolerant of diversity even though we are if anything short on diversity as a species. On average, if you examine the DNA of two blood-related monkeys from a single troop, you’ll see a lot more variation than you will when comparing two unrelated humans from opposite sides of the globe. If beauty is ‘averageness’ it seems that monkeys are less interested in it than we are. I would take a wild guess that monkeys intuitively know what’s good for them better than we do, with all our sophisticated cultural contrivances and perversions.
I don’t want to replace a pop-science of beauty promotion with a pop-science of ugliness promotion, but certainly we should be aware that the ‘science of beauty’ likely owes much to cultural presuppositions.
Gordon(Quote) (Reply)
This actually made me think of a huge issue I had with Aus series Underbelly. Apparantly New Zealand breeds its heroin junkies more glamorous than the rest of the world, because this character look like she could be moonlighting as a supermodel. I saw a picture of the actual woman, she was quite pretty for a junkie, but she still looked like a junkie. It made her storyline seem so unbelievable.
Scarlett(Quote) (Reply)
Well, that’s interesting. Even if people’s tastes vary widely, I’ll bet there’s a lot of overlap – your list of criteria for men was surprisingly similar to mine, even the sort of “length to his frame” – I know EXACTLY what you mean. The dramatic cheekbones is also something that would definitely have made it to my list. In real life, I might find a guy attractive who doesn’t fit any of those criteria, but yes, I have a very particular ideal in mind.
Karakuri(Quote) (Reply)
I know you’re talking about the loss of good female actors to these standards – but I perceive it as a loss of a fantasy on the part women as well. I find Japanese BL games and erotic women’s manga so refreshing just because for once something is tailored to our gaze and it’s an amazing feeling. Ten times better if it’s accompanied by a great story and characters.
Karakuri(Quote) (Reply)
Karakuri, I don’t think I focus much on cheekbones, but I find I like eyebrows with some arch to them. And eyes that have a bit of flesh to the under-eye lid – enough to create a shadow under there. I mean, seriously, my list could’ve been longer, LOL.
I remember when Young Riders came on TV in the late 80s. Here was a show with MULTIPLE ATTRACTIVE MEN, CONVENIENTLY STORED IN ONE PLACE! For my viewing pleasure! I hardly knew what to do with myself.
Before then, I’d always had the feeling a bunch of ugly geezers behind the scenes were carefully putting lots of meh-looking men forward in an attempt to educate us females that we shouldn’t go looking for gorgeous guys because that is shallow and unpatriotic, and a shirking of our duty to provide sexual services to all the mehs and uggos of the nation. But of course, the astounding lack of even ordinary-looking women made it clear that if I wasn’t modelesque, these same men felt I should lock myself in a cupboard somewhere to prevent floods of vomit from rolling down the hillsides and overtaking the town, should I show my face and body outside. I wasn’t sure how I was supposed to eventually sexually service the uggos if I didn’t leave the house, though. Hmm.
It wasn’t so much that no one tried to socialize me as that I just couldn’t handle the double-think required to get properly socialized.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
In the commentary on the DVD for Bon Cop, Bad Cop (a Montreal film), the director and producer comment on how one woman is really too attractive to be a really good actor, but it’s not her fault, she can’t help it, and they go on about how talented the other actors are. Most of them would not be considered beautiful (Colm Feore is the second-most attractive, I guess), and some would never be hired by Hollywood at all. But they are good character actors. It is really bizarre to hear comments like this on a DVD commentary, and it makes me wonder whether I should work on my French and move to Montreal. Except I might be too attractive. (And too many of the roles are still too sexualized.) :p
Anemone(Quote) (Reply)
When I watched BBC dramas Occupation and State of Play, I did notice that a number of the actresses didn’t look as blandly perfect as I’d expect to see in US drama. They looked more… well, normal. Several were clearly in their late thirties or forties (late 40s for State’s Deborah Findlay). To a lesser extent, you had the same with the last Torchwood serial – Liz May Brice (MI5 Agent Johnson) is quite butch, and Findlay pops up again (now in her 50s) – and The Sarah Jane Adventures (Lis Sladen is _61_ now).
Why there’s a difference, I don’t know. But all three serials and the Adventures are all awesome, almost as if older and less blandly perfect actresses can still…. ACT. My god.
Charles RB(Quote) (Reply)
It’s possible BBC prefers less attractive performers. Many years ago, Marina Sirtis came to the US to look for work because she was too attractive to work in the UK. So she got to be the token babe on Star Trek instead.
This appears to be a possible bias in Montreal, too. (My above comment.)
Sometimes you can’t win.
Anemone(Quote) (Reply)
Many years ago, Marina Sirtis came to the US to look for work because she was too attractive to work in the UK. So she got to be the token babe on Star Trek instead.
I can understand extraordinary good looks limiting the number of roles available to an actor – I mean, it’s a visual medium and no one can look “right” for every part. Except, Hollywood thinks women who fit the above checklist are the ONLY people worth casting, and they should be cast in every female role, even when that role specifically calls for a woman whose looks do not scream “Hollywood starlet.”
But the happy medium here is obvious: most groups of 100 people in real life contain all sorts of looks – pretty people, people who have interesting if not strictly good-looking faces, people who are very plain, and people who are remarkably beautiful. This should be the model for casts. Instead of all gorgeous or all not-so-gorgeous, why not a little of everything including the really nowhere near gorgeous?
did notice that a number of the actresses didn’t look as blandly perfect as I’d expect to see in US drama.
I’d say “Hollywood drama” rather than US (not as a correction, but just an interesting observation). I’ve noticed that American TV made in NY, Vancouver and other areas outside southern California tend to cast some women who wouldn’t make this checklist. Of course, very few American movies are made outside the Hollywood set (that is, even if they’re filmed in another country, they tend to cast mostly Hollywood actors), so you don’t get a lot of variation in “American” movies.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
I wonder why telly made in NY and Vancouver is different?
“Hollywood thinks women who fit the above checklist are the ONLY people worth casting”
And then there’s condition viewers – I remember finding out people thought Tara from Buffy was fat. Because she’s not as skinny as the rest of the actresses. (So what the hell would they think of an actress who actually was fat?)
Charles RB(Quote) (Reply)
I’ve seen Amber Benson (Tara) in person, and actually she’s a very slim, fine-boned, medium-height woman. It’s actually that the other actresses are unusually tiny in build and stature. Which I consider a REALLY freaky thing to be judging people for, possibly even more so than weight.
I figure NY and Vancouver are different because they don’t have the insane amount of ungodly perfect-looking actors to choose from. Between cosmetic surgery and generations of people who look just so having babies with other people who look just so, the percentage of Los Angelenos who look “just so” is way, way higher than anywhere else I’ve lived.
Which may also cause people who live here to forget the normal range of beauty in human beings.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
The lollypop look has been in for years – see Nicole Ritchie with her giant sunglasses that make her look like a little girl in her mummy’s clothes.
It’s so unnatural how these looks come ‘in and out’ – I mean, when the look goes ‘out’ the folk who look like that are still by and large stuck with it – it’s not like changing one’s wardrobe!!
And it doesn’t reflect the nature of sexual selection, which is only so height&build-focused in the case of fetishists, and media exposure is certain to increase fetish development. When Beyonce and Jennifer Lopez were big new stars everything everywhere was ‘ass, ass, ass’ – I like ass but the fixation is just stupid. Ass-as-ephemeral-trend is not something I can relate to. Ass is forever. Ha ha.
Gordon(Quote) (Reply)
And it doesn’t reflect the nature of sexual selection
No kidding! How long would a species last, with requirements that strict?
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
← Previous Comments
Next Comments →
{ 7 trackbacks }