Anyway the subject of beauty in cinema is quite an interesting one
I agree.
There are lots of things that go into keeping an audience's attention - different actors do it in different ways, and different audiences respond in different ways - some actors are considered beautiful and some may be considered homely, either way their appearance does have an effect on the audience, as does their style of acting and their inner being, which is also being projected. Was Humphrey Bogart or James Cagney handsome, or Jack Nicholson, at least in a conventional sense? Ernest Borgnine was a very fine actor and got lots of work because of his ability combined with his appearance. Samantha Morten played Jane Eyre in an earlier film, she could be considered plain, I suppose - she's a very fine actor and has a variety of impressive performances in her filmography. There are, of course, many "beautiful" actors and actresses who have established themselves as stars but aren't necessarily thought of as having great acting ability. It's definitely rougher on women, throughout the history of film - WAY, WAY rougher, which is a reflection on our society's attitudes.
If someone isn't conventionally beautiful they often are seen as character actors rather than leads, and they get supporting roles, but often the most interesting parts and the best actors are character actors. It's much easier for a male to be a star/character actor without being necessarily handsome, like Dustin Hoffman in his prime. At the same time, it's more difficult for a woman to be both, WAY more difficult, and if her career is founded only on her beauty and not at least equally her acting ability, this makes getting older and changing the nature of her roles very difficult, the beauty thing becomes a trap, a limitation.
reply
share