Friday, September 28, 2007
I've had enough of theatre's body politics
Guardian Unlimited: "The cynical deployment of 'beautiful' actors is just as rife in theatre as in the most mainstream Hollywood films."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
thing to be said about the historical implications of seeing beautiful people onstage, there is a more naturalness from the audiences point of view to want to watch the action taking place before them. i think it is completely ridiculous that you have to be good looking in order to be a successful performer but then again ho am i to say? no doubt re people being scrutinized more than ever but the problem i find with entire is scenario is that it takes away from the realism people are sometimes looking for. part of the thrill of entertainment is that it is real people doing things hat we dont often think of or that we can find ourselves in the characters. if they are too far removed because of the "beauty" it will become harder and harder to relate and easier and easier to dissociate from the world of glamour and glitz... the draw has always been appealing though so of course it will always remain.
This is some what sad to me that actors have to be attractive to act. Of course with the world of liposuction and plastic surgery people try more and more every day to look more attractive but do we really live in a world where we can' watch a show or be interested in a show if the actors are unattractive? Personally when I see shows I have no interest in how attractive the actors are, obviously if there is supposed to be an attractive character in a show there should be an attractive actor. I think a lot of how attractive the actors are is in the makeup. I hope that casting agents become more reasonable with the how the world is as a whole and realize not everyone is attractive and that should be portrayed in theatre.
I think one important thing about theatre is that when you hear something you have to take it at face value and let the play persuade you. when you see a production of 110 in the shade the whole cast tells you that lizzie curry is ugly. it doesnt matter if the actress is ugly, the character is just ugly. however in the productions i've seen of it, very pretty girls are always chosen. if you are told that a nondescript looking character is pretty, and she believes it, then she will be pretty regardless of what she actually looks like.
he other interesting thing to note is that villains are almost always ugly. witches have warts on their noses and when you are told to hate them by the characters they become ugly. it doesnt really matter what they look like. its what the character looks like that matters.
It is interesting that our society so leans towards looking at attractive men and women on our stages and screens. This article largely wants to blame the casting directors I think, but really, it's the general public that obsesses over perfection, even when they would never be that or expect that from another person in real life. It's something I think we've all been used to. It's ingrained in us, especially as Americans. We're presented with images of how we should be our whole lives, and even if people reject it and accept that it's perfectly fine to be short and curvy, we still want our actors to be skinny and pretty.
I definitely agree with you, Elize. Often it doesn't matter at all, stage or screen, what the actor actually looks like as long as the audience gets a good sense from the play how the particular person is supposed to be judged. In film you often get casting directors criticized for casting someone too pretty in an ugly role, arguments that so-and-so is too attractive for the part, but the public's not complainging, and I suppose the same is true for the stage.
Its seems strange to me, though, that critics or casting directors should be blamed for casting pretty people, or people with physical traits fitting of a particular role, when often times its simply fitting with the story. Isn't it the playwrite or author who dictated a particular physical trait of a character? This is not to say, of course, that in turn playwrites deserve the "blame." I'm not sure that anybody in particular does, maybe just society and contemporary expectations of performance.
In an equal-opportunity society, it is great to think that it doesn't matter how attractive someone is or is not. It would be nice to think that people are not judged on their physical appearance. But it is just not the case. Are there successful, less attractive stars out there? Yes. But for every less attractive star aren't there about 25 drop dead gorgeous ones?
So maybe looks aren't everything. But often times looks are what get you through the door. It's sad, but true. A critic is entitled to describe someone as beautiful/ugly or anything inbetween as long as they justify threir observation through the structure and comments of their critique.
We work in the 'beautiful people' industry. It's part of what we do - like it or not its pretty much the way it's been since it's started and no recent trend seems to want to change that.
It's also interesting that they only will cast people who are not of the "beautiful" varity when it is in direct way making fun of them.
Post a Comment