But that's not the point. It's not about boycotting attractive people. Like @Strat-Mangler said, it's about the casting, and how studios glue tons of supermodel types into one film, or as he mentioned a type of TV or film that is too prevelent: the teamup between two insanely good looking super cops. That one has gotten really old! I watched The French Connection last night for the first time in 30 years. Not a good looking person in sight for the main actors. Oh, there was lots of charisma for the main actors, sure, but an actor should have charisma, no matter their looks. My son was watching O Brother, Where Art Thou? the other day. What an excellent cast! Aside from George Clooney (one good looking actor in an ensemble cast, big deal) everyone was either ugly or plain ordinary, which leant a certain credibility to the film (to the degree that Cohen Bros film mimicks real life, which isn't much), but the cast was plausible for 1937. It's a great movie. But for those who say, "Oh, I see real life every day, so why would I want to see more real life in film?" No, you see what they want you to see, from adverts of burgers that will never look like that when you open the wrapper, to promises from politicians who will only give you the illusion of what you want, which is seldom the real thing. It is the illusion that concerns me. It is a disassociation from reality, even from the simple act of relaxing in front of the TV and watching a millionaire tell you how you can manage your diabetes. Once you take it in, you think you can turn it off, but you can't. All of that said, what might be "wrong" for me in television and film, might be just fine for somebody else, and I respect that. My question was merely who is tired of it. If one isn't tired of it, that's fine. I see that there are a few who are and some who are not. Cool! I also realize that there might be some excellent entertainment that I'm missing out on, because I can't abide by the cast. I can live with that. It simply means that I must dig deeper. However, I won't lie, I started this thread because I also want people to question what they watch. I believe there is a deep-seeded over medication inherent in the entertainment we choose, so I've become cautious. I believe we are ingesting something that goes a lot deeper than mere entertainment. The mind is an extremely intricate beast that will believe anything if it provides comfort. Sometimes that works to our benefit, and sometimes not. It's a matter of being discerning watchers, just as one might be a discerning reader or a discerning listener. Subjectivity is a beautiful thing, yet I wonder how much objective power is behind what they foist on us. John Lennon sang, "They keep is doped on religion, sex and TV. A working class hero is something to be." Or as a great man once said...(warning NSFW or those easily offended)
"Hollywood Handsome." Like "Hollywood Ugly." Sissy Spacek as Carrie. She did a great job acting, but man, she did not fit the character's physical description as in the book at ALL. Again, pretty people for the movie versions. (Hollywood ugly = take someone great looking, and give them no makeup and a not-great hairdo) (sometimes throw in a pair of bad looking glasses for the character) Considering the tone of the story, that's one case where it would have been better if the actresses were not as great looking as Sissy Spacek and Piper Laurie, superb actresses though they may be. I'll take the pretty looks for escapism such as film noir or the rare "romcom" for me - not for a movie about the tortures of being different in high school. "Hollywood Ugly" also includes someone like Lili Taylor in Dogfight - how on Earth was she ugly?!? I remember reading an article many years ago about "Hollywood ugly" that mentioned the movie, but also how, for the movie Frankie and Johnny, starring Al Pacino and Michelle Pfeiffer (directed by the most horrible director IMO, Garry Marshall), it originated with Kathy Bates and F. Murray Abraham. Think about what a huge change that was. Re: the main questions, there would be no movie Marty made today, or make that the last 30-40 years. Or God forbid who would have played the main parts.
I've always had the impression that the ONLY reason Schwarzenegger had a viable career in Hollywood was his size. He was actually quite ugly until he must have had cosmetic surgery (which he has never admitted) to try to moderate his unattractractiveness. He certainly didn't succeed on his paltry acting skills. Why do all his characters have an Austrian accent?
I think that's obvious from your choice of avatar (Tuesday?). Nothing wrong with that (or her, for that matter).
Not in a movie paired with Dustin Hoffman, he wouldn’t. I mean, in the mid-‘70s those guys were virtually doubles.
Isn't that just as much of a conceit though? The French Connection most likely deliberately has no good looking actors, in a bid to keep it as gritty as possible. There's a couple of girls that work in my local supermarket that are better looking than most hollywood actresses.
I like looking at great looking guys on the screen and am glad Hollywood casts actors I can relate to at least on a superficial level.
Funny. I was about to write something like that. I've always thought of myself as a fairly good looking guy. I've never had problems with the ladies, but if they were to cast me in a film, yeah, I'd look pretty normal/average, which is exactly the kind of actors I like see. Anyway, "handsome" or "pretty" is very subjective to the guy or gal on the street. Not so much in film, as the chicks, especially, are all about the same type.
I'm sure plenty of insecure guys bitched and moaned about "pretty boys" like Cary Grant or Robert Taylor of Montgomery Clift back in the day. Hollywood is escape. You can always watch Coronation Street or Eastenders, or walk down any Scottish high street for grim reality.
I think it can go both ways. I watched Seven Days of the Condor the other night. Robert Redford basically kidnaps a woman while running from the bad guys. Within a few scenes they are in bed together. Rather farfetched if, say, Gene Hackman played the role. Much more believable when it's Robert Redford in his prime. At the other end of the scale I watched an episode of TV show The New Girl where Zooey Deschanel goes to a bar and is ignored by the men and has a bad time. I mean, come on - in real life any woman who looks like Zooey Deschanel would be hit on constantly. It was nonsensical because the actress is very attractive and pulled me out of the show.
It’s like Rhoda (Valerie Harper) being the desperate, man hungry best friend on “Mary Tyler Moore”. Mary was cute enough back then, but Valerie Harper was a real beauty. Talk about “TV ugly.”
I find TV far worse than films, purely because it is easier for independent filmmakers to get a film made and cast it how they want, which isn't going to happen with a TV show. So you get plenty of films with more realistic casts as often to cast a miss world or greek god wouldn't work. But with TV shows these days it just seems to be a cast of beautiful young things as they think that will keep people going back, where in reality it's good writing and direction that keep people going back.
What, you think it’s unrealistic that the neighborhood fire station in downtown Chicago employs not one, but several beautiful sexy female firefighters?
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I'm currently watching some of The Equalizer. Neither McCall of the chief Geek would fit the mold of Hollywood Handsome.
I actually find the "beautiful people paradigm" in series television amusing and often quite hilarious. I watched a police procedural show once (The Unit...if I recall correctly) where every cop,, skell, EMT, lawyer and Medical Examiner was portrayed by actors who looked like buffed-up Chippendale dancers and Sports Illustrated swimsuit models. What a hoot.
I’d rather watch pretty/handsome people in movies. Yet, I love watching things like the Bowery Boys and Mel Brooks and Woody Allen movies. Not that these folks or casts are ugly but they fit the dynamics of their material rather than a cute face. What I find funny are the complaints about the perfect sexy stereotype women found in super hero movies. It’s certainly true but no one points out that the men are exactly the same stereotype. They got muscles on their muscles. Of course no guy in real life can compare either, but that’s why it’s a movie. If you compare yourself to fantasy characters you’re in for disappointment. Still, if you got super powers, you shouldn’t need a muscle-bound body. But it sells the total package and image.
