"Hollywood-Handsome" ~ Is Anybody Else Tired of Unrealistic Beauty in Film?

Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by EVOLVIST, Dec 27, 2020.

  1. EVOLVIST

    EVOLVIST Kid A Thread Starter

    The great majority of films churned out of Hollywood are cast in such a way that you can only be brave, strong, powerful, and kick everyone's ass if you you have perfect teeth, flawless skin, and trim bodies.

    Does anyone else think that this Hollywood-Handsome approach is off-putting and unrealistic?

    It's especially more prevalent today, as actors are cast more for how much sex appeal they emit, while surrounded by masses of CGI and bombastic effects, rather than how they perform for the camera.

    The John Wick series. The Bourne series. Any blockbuster Marvel and DC flicks: Avengers, Birds of Prey, Iron Man, Wonder Woman, etc., all overpouring with perfect navels, bulging codpieces, massive muscles, and protruding nips.

    It's in common everyday TV, too. Just watch something like Blue Bloods, or Yellowstone, with that typical saccharine cast of "actors." It has come to the point where I cannot find anything to watch without being drawn out of the movie or TV show with these unrealistic casts. I can watch Fargo or Better Call Saul (and Breaking Bad and The Sopranos) but the list is getting skimpy.

    Now, I realize that sex has always sold in Hollywood, for as long as Hollywood as been around, yet gone are the days of leading men like Karl Malden, Jack Klugman, Ernest Borgnine and Gene Hackman. They wouldn't be cast today. Greats like Clark Gable and Jimmy Stewart had their physical imperfections, and they could damn well act.

    I simply wonder if anyone feels the same way that I do. I'm not opposed to copious amounts of sex or taboo subject matter, good looks, or too-clever people, yet when it permeates almost everything, it's like eating too much candy; it can make you ill. (neither am I some sort of independent film snob who only lurks in the underground of filmmaking.)

    Anyway, has solid acting has been replaced by solid eye-candy? I think so.
     
  2. PH416156

    PH416156 Alea Iacta Est

    Location:
    Europe
    It's about the money and how a movie can sell. I can see reality and ugly people, for free, whenever I want.

    After all, movies are fiction and escapism, who wants to pay a ticket (ok, not in 2020) to see ugly people and reality on the big screen all the time? There are documentaries for that. They call it The dream factory for a reason. And that reason is still valid. There are exceptions; sometimes they write a role for someone that's not sports illustrated worthy and that allows a talent to shine, eg Kathy Bates in Mysery.
     
  3. Spencer R

    Spencer R Forum Resident

    Location:
    Oxford, MS
    Tom Hanks, Jonah Hill, Bryan Cranston, Adam Driver, etc. all seem to do OK without looking like male models.

    As you note, sex and good looks have been baked into the Hollywood fantasy factory since it began. And even into much foreign/indie/art cinema. Catherine Deneuve and Anna Karina were’t exactly ugly. This is never going to change.
     
  4. EdgardV

    EdgardV ®

    Location:
    USA
    As much as it has always been that way to a point, it seems to have gotten worse. All characters seem really glitzy. It makes me wonder if only stereotypically pretty people are going into the industry, making it difficult to find good average or character actors.

    But I find it even more prevalent on television. Whether it's a sitcom or drama, every character is ridiculously good looking. The rare exception being when they cast the token fat or ugly character. But it tends to be all one way or the other; rarely any characters in-between.

    It's to the point that I won't even watch TV dramas. They seem so predictable and unrealistic. Kind of like soap operas with good lighting!

    I miss the 1970s when they made films with grit.
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2020
  5. rainingdogs

    rainingdogs Death Of A Clown

    Location:
    Location
    Tom Hanks is more attractive than any muscle bound marvel star. He's so sweet and charming.

    I like old hollywood, when everyone was "pretty" - not sexy, pretty. Like Henry Fonda, Grace Kelly, etc.

    this oversexualised thing now is a bit of a yawn fest, and it isn't sexy.
     
  6. EdogawaRampo

    EdogawaRampo Senior Member

    There was that brief period from the late 1960's and into the 1970's when actors lacking conventional good looks made a name for themselves with sheer talent. Gene Hackman, Al Pacino, Robert DeNiro and a few handfuls of others I'm thinking...Not too sure they'd have much of a shot now.
     
  7. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR!

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    Keanu Reeves is 56. Trust me, he doesn't look like that. I think he's in "OK" shape, but he's not taking his shirt off in any of those films. He does do a lot of impossible stunts, but there's a whole stunt crew with wires and breakaway glass and all that other stuff to make it look real. But his physical appearance is not that great.

    All the movies you mention are superhero/spy movies, and I think it's a part of the genre that these people are in top physical condition. Chris Pratt was a fat slob when he was hired to star in Guardians of the Galaxy, and he told the director, "you know, you didn't ask me to, but I'm going to get into great shape so by the time I have that shower scene in the film, I'll look great." He dieted and exercised and shed all the extra pounds, and on the day of the shoot, he did the scene and the crew applauded. They knew what he went through to look like an action movie star.

    Paul Rudd was interviewed by Howard Stern for 90 minutes about his work in Ant Man, and he mentioned something surprising: he said Marvel did not pay for his trainer or tell him to get into shape. He did it on his own. In fact, they didn't even have a suggestion on who he could hire. He just made some calls, found somebody, and the guy basically had him run 2 hours every day for 3 months, and lift weights 4 days a week. As Paul said, "I didn't want to take my shirt off in the one scene I had and look like a bloated 50-year-old jerk." (The actor is 51 right now.)

    I think the reality is that no audience wants to see unattractive stars in big blockbuster films. Would you accept an overweight James Bond, or an ugly-looking Wonder Woman? I don't think so. They don't necessarily have to look like Arnold Schwarzenegger in his prime, but they can look "good" without going nuts. I would put Robert Downey in that category.
     
  8. formu_la

    formu_la I'm not a robot

    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    Talent it everything, but I have no problem with good look. Strong men, beautiful women -bring it on.
     
  9. The Wanderer

    The Wanderer Seeker of Truth

    Location:
    NYC
    you're always free to take them or leave them, attractiveness is a positive
     
  10. Drew

    Drew Senior Member

    Location:
    Grand Junction, CO
    Funny.... I think there are very few atractive women in the movies over the last 20 years. But I spend less and less money on cinema so I'm probably not going to be the person they listen to.
     
    Spastica likes this.
  11. Wildest cat from montana

    Wildest cat from montana Humble Reader

    Location:
    ontario canada
    If that 's your feeling I recommend the great book ' Raging Bulls and Easy Riders ' which deals with this in depth.
     
  12. will_b_free

    will_b_free Forum Resident

    Location:
    Boulder, CO
    This is why it is good to add some BBC to your diet. The actors on almost every series, be it Doctor Who or one of those non-Doctor Who shows they also do, have real butts, real teeth, and other defects of real people.
     
  13. GregM

    GregM The expanding man

    Location:
    Bay Area, CA
    It would help if they mixed some new acting talent into the mix, and based casting on acting chops and actors fitting the screenplay, rather than favors to agents and Hollyweird insiders. If the role calls for someone good looking, that's fine by me. But the same faces in movie after movie is just not good. Those who saw my criticisms of The Irishman know how much I hated seeing a digitally youthful De Niro, Pacino and Pesci instead of younger actors who could pull off those roles.

    I saw the OP used John Wick as an example, but Keanu appearing in those movies was to their benefit, I think. He did most of the driving, stunts and combat scenes himself and seems uniquely suited to do that. I don't know many other actors who could have pulled it off.
     
  14. LilacTeardrop

    LilacTeardrop "Roll It Over My Soul...and Leave Me Here"

    Location:
    U.S.
    This. I'd add iTV & CBC. Hollywood has long been the epitomy & domain of beauty & glamour. The dazzling array does get a bit tiresome, as do the scripts/content.
    Couldn't agree w/you more on that. I often think, why is the casting pool so small? I can almost scream when I hear Meryl Streep is appearing in yet another film or tv limited-run series & same applies for Tom Hanks. I don't care how good an actor is, familiarity does, in fact. breed contempt, or at the very least, yawns. But it does, like so much else, all come down to the almighty dollar & return-on-investment.
     
  15. Beatles_Apple

    Beatles_Apple Forum Resident

    Location:
    USA
    You mean you have a problem with comic book superheroes looking like comic book superheroes?
     
    Jack Lord, mr. steak, aroney and 4 others like this.
  16. EVOLVIST

    EVOLVIST Kid A Thread Starter

    If attractiveness is a positive, conversely being unattractive must a negative, right? You can take it or leave it, yes, but is it psychologically healthy to have our definition of attractiveness dictated to us by entities outside of ourselves?

    This is tangential, but also kind of on the subject: Why do superheroes have to look like that in the first place? They must have the physical attributes to do menial tasks, like fight super villains, but that has nothing to do with their faces. The impression is given, that unless you look and act a certain way, in the comics or on the screen, that no matter how great your super power, you're not going to be a part of a super team with a face like a foot. This is coming from a supposed altruistic band of super heroes who evidently are just lazing about most of the time, because they don't show their faces until there is a galactic trauma, or to fight one another, or when a super villain shows up. Superman certainly isn't stopping world hunger (though he's capable of it), Batman isn't exposing government corruption with his detective skills; therefore, so much for the little man. Meanwhile Batman lets The Joker kill anybody he wants.

    Outside of the "spy" movies, these are ensemble casts, which is really the main issue, because one or two explosively good looking people here or there, without being the main characters, is what life really looks like. But I find the ensemble to be too cloyingly beautiful, to the point of overt exclusion.

    I simply wonder if we just eat it up because this is the way, without questioning what we're really watching.

    Even if you disagree, I mentioned television shows, too, where really there is even more of this fare. Turn on primetime television and there's not a soul who isn't beautiful unless they are comic relief. I don't even know how to count all of these shows, and that's not even including the streaming services. It's like one big makeup ad, with a plot (sometimes).

    Yes! Absolutely! I would have to watch such a rare thing. It would be amazing.

    I realize that there's a certain disbelief that we must suspend when watching a film or a TV show, but to what point? When do we start asking questions about what we watch? I'm sure the answer will vary from person to person, but I'm at the point right now where film and TV are letting me down (for the most part). It's as if most stuff is getting too far away from reality, even within the confines of the genre, where yeah, spaceships are all over the place, but you can't stand atop one, without a spacesuit, while picking off bad guys with your blaster. You can only dodge so many bullets before the law of probability catches up with you. Gravity is real, folks.

    I'm just asking more care from filmmakers. They know that we'll swallow just about anything, so they do it.
     
    David67 and Gumboo like this.
  17. razerx

    razerx Forum Resident

    Location:
    Sonoma California
    I am sure there are plenty of Hollywood movies featuring average looking people. Romcom and fantasy films do require such aesthetics I think.
     
  18. Michael

    Michael I LOVE WIDE S-T-E-R-E-O!

    I have no problem with it at all...Fantasy goes both ways with the human and inhuman characters...funny how it's easier to get past the fantasy aspect of the character but the character being in good shape would bother someone? Humorous!
     
  19. Gems-A-Bems

    Gems-A-Bems Forum Resident

    Location:
    The Duke City
    :eek: What??


    oh!
     
  20. CraigBic

    CraigBic Forum Resident

    Location:
    New Zealand
    I don't really agree with this, my feeling is that great acting isn't nearly so rare as you claim it is. If anything I think it's more prevalent these days and moving towards a much more naturalistic approach.
     
  21. PH416156

    PH416156 Alea Iacta Est

    Location:
    Europe
    :laugh:
     
    Max Florian and MrGrumpy like this.
  22. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR!

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    I can remember when Dustin Hoffman, Robert DeNiro, and Al Pacino came on the scene in the early 1970s, and the Hollywood press was abuzz with the concept that maybe an actor with non-model good looks, who just had incredible acting skills, could succeed. None of these guys are what I would call "traditionally attractive," but they all have amazing talent and boundless charisma... and you can't fake that.

    There are roles in TV for less-than-attractive people, but generally they're called "character actors." Some become enormously successful: I'd point to the three guys in Big Bang Theory as one of many examples. There are also plenty of shows that take advantage of the TV trope where one guy is good looking and the other guy is not, so they play off the "opposites" conflict. I worked a bit on 2-1/2 Men for many years, and Charlie Sheen and Jon Cryer are good examples there. Ensemble shows like Lost were filled with people from all walks of life: young, old, great-looking, average, handicapped, crazy, and really smart. A lot of the drama came from the conflict that arises from throwing together people from vastly different walks of life.

    The John Hughes "teenage angst" movies of the 1980s are filled with situations with an unpopular kid who falls head-over-heels in love with the hottest girl in school. Sometimes it ends in tragedy, sometimes not, but it's often very thoughtful and interesting. Hughes himself was no prize and understood that audiences want to root for the underdog.
     
  23. Kyle B

    Kyle B Forum Resident

    Location:
    Chicago
    I look at some of the actors who starred in popular TV shows back in the 70s and 80s: Carroll O’Connor, Jean Stapleton, Larry Hagman, Penny Marshall, Ralph Waite, Alan Alda, Bob Newhart, Carol Burnett. Would performers like that have lead roles today? Or would they be relegated to supporting roles?
     
    EVOLVIST likes this.
  24. Spencer R

    Spencer R Forum Resident

    Location:
    Oxford, MS
    Who really cares? They had jobs then. And TV shows like All In The Family, Dallas, and Laverne and Shirley were jokes compared to the best of modern TV.
     
  25. The Wanderer

    The Wanderer Seeker of Truth

    Location:
    NYC
    Absolutely.
     
    johnaltman and bpmd1962 like this.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine