Casting only the "beautiful" people
- Thread starter cinematography
- Start date
You and I, I think, share the same philosophy on film. When making films, my main goal is to illustrate the story, as I see it in my mind, to the best of my abilities. At all costs, I try to avoid things that will interfere with my vision and the clarity of the result. For example: I don’t do cameos for the sake of doing cameos. I don’t advertise within my films. And I don’t cast people who look good but can’t act their way out of a room with the door already open.Mr.Blonde said:
----------------------------------------
Then I would go off of looks. I would close my eyes, picture the character, and who ever looked closest to what I saw in my mind would have the part.directorik said:
Who ever looked the part.
The one with the most talent and looked the part.
clive - I posed the question because I actually faced it. And it was a very hard decision.
I taped scenes with the two different actors and discovered that they were still BOTH excellent and would bring something very different to the character - both would work for the film and each would bring something unique to it. They each had great (and very different) chemistry with the other three actors.
The less physically attractive actor was closer to the character I had written and was willing to go the extra mile to bring the character to life - but she was heavy and not someone who most people would give a second glance to.
The very attractive actor was harsher, more “worldly”, than I had envisioned and wanted to challenge my original perception of the character - but she was beautiful.
It was an agonizing decision.
cinematography - when you say, “Who ever looked the part”, do you mean the most attractive?
In my “what if” scenario, the two actors are equal in talent and “correctness” for the part. But one is very attractive and the other frumpy. Who do you choose?
For now, let’s leave the men out of it - us guys are not good at judging attractive when it comes to men.
What films about normal people do you like that have average looking women in them? And not a minor characters - as the leads.
You're obviously a Tarantino fan. Thurman, Liu, Fox, Hannah, Fonda and Greer aren't exactly average looking.
BTW - this is a great discussion. It's really making me think.
I taped scenes with the two different actors and discovered that they were still BOTH excellent and would bring something very different to the character - both would work for the film and each would bring something unique to it. They each had great (and very different) chemistry with the other three actors.
The less physically attractive actor was closer to the character I had written and was willing to go the extra mile to bring the character to life - but she was heavy and not someone who most people would give a second glance to.
The very attractive actor was harsher, more “worldly”, than I had envisioned and wanted to challenge my original perception of the character - but she was beautiful.
It was an agonizing decision.
cinematography - when you say, “Who ever looked the part”, do you mean the most attractive?
In my “what if” scenario, the two actors are equal in talent and “correctness” for the part. But one is very attractive and the other frumpy. Who do you choose?
Mine too. But this discussion caused me to think about these film I like. And the actors are almost always very good looking.Mr.Blonde said:
For now, let’s leave the men out of it - us guys are not good at judging attractive when it comes to men.
What films about normal people do you like that have average looking women in them? And not a minor characters - as the leads.
You're obviously a Tarantino fan. Thurman, Liu, Fox, Hannah, Fonda and Greer aren't exactly average looking.
BTW - this is a great discussion. It's really making me think.
I may be wrong about this, but I think that on a gut level you knew exactly which actor to cast, but your mind got in the way. I'm a great believer in the the creative instinct and I always try to go with the gut.
Just out of interest, who did you cast in the end and do you feel it was the right decision? I hope you cast the less attractive actor, not because I think you should cast against prejudice, but simply because I think she was the actor you really wanted.
I'm really enjoying this thread too. Way to go cinematography
Just off the top- "average" looking actors who had me glued to the screen: Emily Watson (in just about anything) but especially in Breaking The Waves. Her face conveyed so many nuances: she was innocent, ridiculous, dark, profane. Emmanuelle Devos in Read my lips: she had charm, she was sexy. Alfre Woodard, Kimberly Elise, Sarah Polley, Diane Keaton...they all bring something unique-whether it's a physical thing a character quirk, a subtle performance. It's what makes them truly photogenic.
in the mainstream, it really all comes down to would you want to sleep with her or not? Is she sexy enough? But even that wears thin, think about it: how many of you guys dated someone who was a little overweight, or had a crooked smile or something and still found her incredibly sexy...it's called personality!
Yeah I get it, folks tend to like people who are easy on the eyes. And its a business.
I think ultimately, that's the very thing that will always keep film a middleweight artform. Just imagine if Picasso painted fair beauties his entire life? booorrriiing. Yeah but I'm curious too, which one did you pick? I agree w/clive, I think you went on gut feeling.
shirleyb
Last edited:
directorik said:
Yeah..they're beautiful women.. but as if you never see beautfiul women at the store.. & those women were chosen because they fit the characters.. & they had the talent.. the characters are supposed to be beautiful..They are femme fatales..They're stylised to fit a fantasy.. haha..there's no denying that.
..look at guys like buscemi, kietel, roth..madsen..they look like everyday guys..
but it looks like this is becoming a conversation about everyone who isn't in the movies being unnattractive..
Mr.Blonde said:
that is an excellent explanation right there
well said
Oh no. I meant who ever looked closest to what I saw in my mind. If I close my eyes and see a character with a long pointy nose, I’ll go with the person with the longest and pointiest nose.directorik said:
I am.
And no, I’m not gay. It’s all a matter of contrast and comparison. How much does that guy look like Brad Pitt or Denzel Washington, two dudes that women go all googly for. When I have a hard time rating something, I usually look for the standard and then extrapolate from there.And thanks for the compliments, guys.
Wow, I've been gone awhile.
Good discussion.
You'll notice that the Buscemi / Keitel / Roth style of casting mentioned above is also a stereotype in its own way: since most filmmakers are male (I know, I know), they not only look past the idea of what's attractive when casting their leads, but they sympathize and relate with an average Joe -- as does most of the moviegoing population. I suspect we'd all sympathize with the average Janes as well, but the average Joes would rather look at supermodels for two hours.
On top of that, if the average script has a male as the protagonist and antagonist, the top female roles are... ? "Wife," "Girlfriend," "Waitress," "Hooker," "Secretary," etc. Since movies are, as was mentioned, an "escape," the average Joes making and watching films like to fantasize that they are capable of dating, marrying and employing disproportionately attractive women. I'm still waiting for a major Hollywood film in which a bunch of average or quirky-looking women are dating or married to insanely attractive guys and it's not treated as a satire...
We here on the microcinema level work with what we have, which is why my series is cast with "normal looking" people. Personally, I find the normal looking people more attractive because they're more believable, which makes their performances and stories more believable. I've heard something similar from a few viewers as well, so I enjoy the validation.
Good discussion.
You'll notice that the Buscemi / Keitel / Roth style of casting mentioned above is also a stereotype in its own way: since most filmmakers are male (I know, I know), they not only look past the idea of what's attractive when casting their leads, but they sympathize and relate with an average Joe -- as does most of the moviegoing population. I suspect we'd all sympathize with the average Janes as well, but the average Joes would rather look at supermodels for two hours.
On top of that, if the average script has a male as the protagonist and antagonist, the top female roles are... ? "Wife," "Girlfriend," "Waitress," "Hooker," "Secretary," etc. Since movies are, as was mentioned, an "escape," the average Joes making and watching films like to fantasize that they are capable of dating, marrying and employing disproportionately attractive women. I'm still waiting for a major Hollywood film in which a bunch of average or quirky-looking women are dating or married to insanely attractive guys and it's not treated as a satire...
We here on the microcinema level work with what we have, which is why my series is cast with "normal looking" people. Personally, I find the normal looking people more attractive because they're more believable, which makes their performances and stories more believable. I've heard something similar from a few viewers as well, so I enjoy the validation.
Oh, by the way: I'm straight, but I can tell the attractive guys from the unattractive ones. I know which guys I'd rather watch for two hours, and part of it has to do with physical appearance, but more of it has to do with personality and emulation. Would I rather put myself in George Clooney's shoes for two hours, or Drew Carey's?
Haha...a variation of the male gaze. I wonder what a 'female gaze' would entail...
After reading all the points brought up in this thread...who wants to play a former porn actor (not star, but from the good ole nasty days) suffering through the final stage of syphillus (complete with ooozing pustules, dementia, blindness) whose only redeeming quality is dying away from the 'pack'?.....
Hummm, maybe I should reconsider my main character......
Drew Carey.. definately, he's got that cool TV show... you know, Who's Line. Just kidding.. (maybe)
Just kidding.. (maybe)
I had a long thought about this last night. But basically I just came back to my original thoughts which are, if the script calls for it it calls for it. I think one of the tougher things to do than to script and cast superficially is to bring out the inner beauty and even hero qualities in regular people in your script. 85% of people I have met have this inner beauty once you dig a little deeper. Of course I have met attractive people who are superficial just as much as I have met non-attractive people who are. But underneath the layer of skin lies a soul of untold depths. As a filmmaker, delving into that can be attractive unto itself. However, I seriously doubt many people want to watch a two hour love story with unnattractive people. The closest I can get it maybe Punch Drunk Love but those people are just untraditionally attractive.
The unnattractive guy who has charm and personality to woo the hot female(casablanca, etc), the ugly duckling girl who blossoms and now every guy wants her (sabrina), the couple who aren't particularly beautiful but who are attractive in their personality (Esotsm), These are the stories that people want to see. In the end I think people want to see hero-esque or better-than-they-thought-they-could-be, etc. type stories. And the more regular of a type of person you can cast in the role, the more an audience member can identify with that.
The unnattractive guy who has charm and personality to woo the hot female(casablanca, etc), the ugly duckling girl who blossoms and now every guy wants her (sabrina), the couple who aren't particularly beautiful but who are attractive in their personality (Esotsm), These are the stories that people want to see. In the end I think people want to see hero-esque or better-than-they-thought-they-could-be, etc. type stories. And the more regular of a type of person you can cast in the role, the more an audience member can identify with that.
After I asked Mr. Blond my question I realised that “average looking” or “normal” is going to be too subjective.
Though you did come up with some great examples, shirley. None of them classically “hollywood” beautiful, but all of them beautiful women. Concidering the talent of Emily Watson and Sarah Polley (in particular) I can’t help but think they would have achieved much more fame if they were more classically beautiful.
For my film, dark crimes, it was just about to come down to a coin toss. Casting director, producer, me and two of the actors couldn’t decide because both were so damn close - completly equal in talent and enthusiasm for the role.
And then the reality of marketing came up. What most decisions come down to when trying to earn a living with your films.
With no “names” in the cast, a very attractive woman on the poster and DVD box has a better chance being looked at.
It was painful - but I went with the attractive actor. It turned out to be the right choice. She challenged every perception I had of the character. Between the two of us the character - and thus the movie itself - became much more interesting. It turned out to be the most educational of all my feature shoots.
I know it sucks - but already we’ve had three distributors who first said “not interested” to the pitch, change their minds when they saw a picture of her.
Though you did come up with some great examples, shirley. None of them classically “hollywood” beautiful, but all of them beautiful women. Concidering the talent of Emily Watson and Sarah Polley (in particular) I can’t help but think they would have achieved much more fame if they were more classically beautiful.
For my film, dark crimes, it was just about to come down to a coin toss. Casting director, producer, me and two of the actors couldn’t decide because both were so damn close - completly equal in talent and enthusiasm for the role.
And then the reality of marketing came up. What most decisions come down to when trying to earn a living with your films.
With no “names” in the cast, a very attractive woman on the poster and DVD box has a better chance being looked at.
It was painful - but I went with the attractive actor. It turned out to be the right choice. She challenged every perception I had of the character. Between the two of us the character - and thus the movie itself - became much more interesting. It turned out to be the most educational of all my feature shoots.
I know it sucks - but already we’ve had three distributors who first said “not interested” to the pitch, change their minds when they saw a picture of her.
I agree with you. But that doesn't answer my question. Which is too bad. I would have found your answer interesting.Mr.Blonde said:
Something that I've noticed with Australian films is that.. while the cast might be attractive.. they do just look like regular people here. Especially with the film 'blurred'.. there's this boyish looking girl with really bad hair.. & yet.. her character get's alot of male attention..Or the rage in placid lake.. ben lee plays the main character & while..he isn't the biggest heartthrob in the world.. you still like him because of his personality that sets him apart from everyone else.
One problem is that scriptwriters are writing their scripts so that they will call for an all beautiful cast. This is also done with race. Take Lord of the Rings, for example. There is not one average looking person or non-white in that entire series. Am I saying that there should have been non-whites or average looking people in the Lord of the Rings movies? No. Not really. I’m only arguing that there is a lot of ground and people that isn't being considered. Many filmmakers are too preoccupied with beauty and making money, and not so much with being original or exploring their options.WideShot said:
I honestly would have doubts about handing my movie over to a distributor who thought like that. I usually try to avoid people who are that shallow.directorik said: