201 replies to this topic

[D.C.]

I could have sworn there was a thread that covered this topic, but after going through all 18 pages of the TV Potluck fora, all I could find were titles like "TV's Hottest Bodies," and that's not quite what I was going for.

We've talked about "looks-ism" on other threads, like the ones about gender and race on TV, but I think it deserves a topic to itself. Especially after reading this essay in today's Washington Post by a Hollywood acting coach. (Face It. It's Not About Talent.) It's gotten to where I usually watch British TV, which has always been better than American TV about casting actors who looked like "real people," with a range of body shapes and sizes and facial characteristics. So I was stunned when I caught an episode of, I think, Zoe 101 that my niece was watching. Not just by the fact that the acting was so terrible, but by the fact that every single girl on the show looked alike. You had your Studious One and your Exotic One and your Airhead One, with only the barest hints of costume changes to tell them apart. (Studious One had glasses, for instance.) Is this what we're churning out for kids nowadays? Not just an emphasis on looks, but an emphasis on physical homogeneity?

Of course, pretty doesn't necessarily have the best connotation on TV, either. Over on the Doctor Who threads, there's some discussion of a line a recent character had: She had been gorgeous but dumb, and when we see her again, she's smart but beyond ugly and crossing over into deformed territory, thanks to CGI. Her line is, "[I now have] the two qualities needed to see the truth: I am brilliant and unloved." Because, obviously, if you're ugly, you're going to be unloved. There's been a bit of debate over whether that's a sexist line or not. I tend to think not, but mainly because I don't see men, especially on TV, being exempt from the same assumption. Think of how many times people have pitched a fit over the Jim Belushi-type character having a gorgeous wife because he, well, looks like Jim Belushi. (We'll forget the personality traits of the Jim Belushi-type character for a moment.) And look at how often women write fanfiction about the Supernatural-looking guys, and adore their characters, and build entire websites around their characters, compared to, say, Michael Chiklis.

Edited by D.C., Jun 8, 2008 @ 5:24 PM.

[Split Ends]

I think part of the brilliance of The Wire is it's casting of "real" people. Even their hottest guy, Dominc West, cast as the lead in an ensemble, is just not that good looking. Everyone else is considerably drab by Hollywood standards. Compared to say, NYPD Blue, where the women were all gorgeous while partnering up it's portly, badly dressed lead with a succession of hot cops; there was a definite push for sex appeal.

Edited by Split Ends, Jun 8, 2008 @ 4:14 PM.

[NMdum1]

What is perhaps worse is that not only is there a) a terrific double standard with the ugly/fat bloke with stunning wife/girlfriend but b) somehow the fact that these cast members are totally gorgeous is constantly underlined by the characters being commented upon as such semi/frequently. My problem is that its the men ogling the women and not the other-way around with near enough frequency, it sometimes can get kind of misogyny and/or verging on sexual harassment which is served up as supposedly 'witty banter' and that these remarks so rarely benefits the show/movie. (I think this is why I don't like James Woods, it always comes off as smarmy when he's acting cocky, especially around attractive women.)

Admittedly, uniformly gorgeous people can benefit a project if it is supposed to be popcorn entertainment, it just shows up the stupidity of the whole system when they are aiming for something that is supposed to somehow be deep or meaningful or would just like to think it is. Admittedly something based around the darker, seedier and more criminal elements of Los Angeles and the entertainment/business world it hosts say, or something where there is a serious attempt at comment on the vacuousness of it all might actually benefit from a uniformly attractive cast almost hammering the point home. (I think this is another reason to be pissed off at 'Shark' because they could have if they'd wanted to actually pose some questions you know? That and the Woods thing with his character constantly hitting on his attractive boss/partner like its okay to talk to her like that just because she happens to look like Jeri Ryan and happened to come to real world prominence in a catsuit she was probably poured into. Okay, I'm a Trekkie, but honestly....)

I am particularly troubled by the fact that everybody seems to be getting make-overs now, including the startlet lets parents who seem to feel that the need to look at their best just to be seen out in public with their own children. Maybe its all a big conspiracy with stylists, cosmetics firms and plastic surgeons?

We are going to get into a situtation where shows will feel that they need to cast the mandatory 'ugly' person i.e. normal in the way that there is the desire to be racially sensitive and find ways of including actors from ethnic backgrounds in roles.

I think I may have an idea why British shows don't go in for this as much. It probably has a lot to do with the financial climate the market operates in. The BBC is state-owned and doesn't show commercials, they aren't answerable to anybody but their Board of Governors, the Government and ultimately the British taxpayer for what they produce, they therefore aren't privy to the same pressures as say a commercial channel might be to match advertising with programming and present a coherent 'identity'. They are required to produce programming of the highest standards and probably would be jumped on by irrate middle class ladies from Middle England for trying such a stunt. It doesn't mean it doesn't happen, the soap opera 'Hollyoaks' is a pretty blatant example of it, but even then its toned down compared to an equivalent show. There's also the small matter that this blatant looks first thing doesn't sit well with the British as a people and that it would stand out too much, that whole gorgeous blonde thing seems to only really work on sun-kissed beaches and the likes. Our poor islands haven't been served by the weather. Lots of rain or wind means wrapping up and I suspect it means less reason to show people off and therefore less desire. Which somehow isn't very reassuring....

[TudorQueen]

I find this topic interesting because while I'm not exactly immune to good looks [Eric Dane on "Grey's Anatomy" makes me literally pant] I also find that there are a lot of non-physical characteristics that can make a performer very attractive to me. Over on one of the "Lost" threads, some of us were discussing the fact that there are many of us who find Michael Emerson [Ben] attractive. Now, Michael Emerson isn't grotesque or anything, but he's hardly the sort who makes one look up the word 'heartthrob'; he's got unruly, thinning hair, eyes that bug out a bit, and is often cast as creepy characters. But he also projects enormous intelligence, presence, and humor, and carries off many of the best lines in any given episode. I'm unashamed in my enjoyment of him, and my sense that I would like him just as much in real life, and it is a kind of crush.

In addition, I remember that when "West Wing" debuted, the show positioned the still-gorgeous Rob Lowe as the 'heartthrob'. Well, Lowe was indeed popular while he was on the show, but the heartthrob status turned out to ricochet among three other, lesser known actors: Bradley Whitford, [Josh] who had frizzy reddish-brown hair that receded more each season, and a pasty complexion that actually worked pretty well for his job-obsessed character, Richard Schiff [Toby] a bald, bearded guy with a hangdog expression and a perpetually morose attitude, and John Spencer [Leo] a middle-aged guy, not too tall, with the map of Ireland stamped on his features [or maybe Spencer wasn't from Ireland, he just acted as if he was and it stamped itself!]

FWIW, I was a member of Josh's harem. Still am...

[D.C.]

I don't remember what I was referring to--Philip Glenister and John Simm in State of Play, maybe?--but I said somewhere on these here boards that the British seem to get that sexy is as sexy does, not necessarily as sexy looks. Come to think of it, I think the French and the Italians get that, too. And I think most Americans get it, with the exception of Hollywood casting directors.

[Shelwood]

I also find that there are a lot of non-physical characteristics that can make a performer very attractive to me.

But it almost always seems to be male performers who get this benefit. The only (American) tv actress I can think of who may be slightly out of the norm but still considered attractive is Mary McDonnell, but she is only older, not at all, um, unclassically beautiful -- she still is very conventionally attractive, just older than most actresses. And the actor she is paired with on BSG is definitely in the unconventional category. I cannot imagine an actress with visibly scarred skinned like Edward James Olmos's ever getting cast for anything other than character roles, certainly not a lead, romantic role.

[TudorQueen]

Edward James Olmos is another actor whose gifts - intelligence, intensity, a mastery of a kind of zen minimalism - make him more attractive than his physical features might indicate. I loved him on "Miami Vice" and still love him, and have no problem believing that Mary McDonnell's Laura Roslin could fall in love with his Admiral Adama.

[MaggieCat]

Think of how many times people have pitched a fit over the Jim Belushi-type character having a gorgeous wife because he, well, looks like Jim Belushi. (We'll forget the personality traits of the Jim Belushi-type character for a moment.)

I don't think you can ignore the personality traits given to the Jim Belushi-type character in this particular hackneyed setup. Or at least I can't, because it's where most of my problems with it stem from. (The rest of the problems come from the fact that it's never ever reversed, where the husband is considered the more classically attractive while the wife is normal.) The husband in such a situation is usually not only not typical heartthrob material, but is usually presented as childish, uninterested in anything remotely intellectual, willing to lie to his wife to get whatever he wants, shows a complete disregard for a fair division of household labour even if the wife is employed outside the home, and generally self-centered and boorish. The wife is usually not only model-pretty but nice, intelligent, sympathetic, a mature adult, and nearly the sole caretaker of any children that may be present as well as her man-child husband.

This does not hold water for me.

Because we do have a culture that places a high value on beauty, and people both on television and in real life can wind up being questioned when they're dating someone that the general public doesn't perceive to be their equal in looks. Now in real life in my experience, the result 9 times out of 10 is usually that they are attracted to this person and they're funny/kind/interesting/what have you, but the fictional world isn't backing that up with these sorts of husbands who are none of these things (or only when they're aware they've fucked up catastrophically, but will revert immediately upon forgiveness) and frequently treat their wives' reasonable requests to say, do the damn laundry once in a while or skip football game number 5,874 for something she enjoys as some sort of epic sacrifice that he deserves a reward for. This is where the other part of my problem comes in, because it seems that there is no amount of stated-but-never(or highly infrequently)-seen good qualities that make up for a woman not looking like she belongs on the cover of Vogue. It's unfair to both since it presents men as incompetent slackers as the norm, and slightly less attractive women as invisible.

Edited by MaggieCat, Jun 9, 2008 @ 6:21 AM.

[Bruinsfan]

One of the things I like about Brothers & Sisters is that Matthew Rhys' character actually goes against that a bit. He's always paired with more physically attractive guys as love interests (well, at least Jason Lewis fits the conventionally attractive soap actor mold, though I've never personally found him hot), but his character is witty, intelligent, and a lawyer with a rich family—all pluses that would realistically allow someone to land a partner who's "out of his league" in the looks department.

[jeet]

FWIW, I'm a guy, not hideous but shorter than average and not in terribly good shape, but the guys that hit on me are way more attractive than the girls that do, so the whole [i]Brothers & Sisters[/s] thing doesn't strike me as that far-fetched.

Edited by jeet, Jun 9, 2008 @ 6:11 PM.

[CreedogV]

I'm using Moonlight only because I recently watched the episode; the same scene has been used in other shows.

Beth goes undercover to find some sort of deadly new drug. So, she dolls herself up and gets into an exclusive nightclub, bypassing the line, twice. Now, in the RW, Sophia Myles could probably pull that stunt. But in TV land, she's just as attractive as the vast majority of females she comes into contact with. In fact, as far as I can tell from the rest of the show, she's only seen as "typically pretty." We don't see her having to politely refuse a long line of shy, tongue-tied suitors. She gets jealous when Mick or Josh are around women who are to be seen as "stunning." In her defense, she did say she spent hours on her hair, makeup, and clothes, but I bet all the other women in line did, too. So, why all of a sudden is she the hottest thing on two legs?

Why am I being told two different things?

[TudorQueen]

Speaking of being told two different things, I'm still furious at the mixed messages sent by "Grey's Anatomy" over the Callie/George/Izzie mess.

George, after a disastrous attempt at sex with his 'secret' crush Meredith, begins dating Callie, a Latina orthopedic surgeon played by the lush, sexy Sara Ramirez. George's best friend, Izzie - a 'blonde, stacked supermodel' - doesn't like Callie and treats her horribly. After various ups and downs George and Callie get married impulsively in Vegas and seem happy together. George even calls Izzie on her awful behavior. But then, during a bump in the new marriage, Callie figures out that Izzie wants George for herself and mentions this to George, who then unveils the 'blonde, stacked supermodel' line, leading to a hurt Callie ["What am I, the consolation prize?"] throwing George out of their hotel room. George and Izzie get drunk and sleep together and decide that they are in love and George's marriage ends. Later, George and Izzie break up. [Yay!]

The mixed messages I got came from the way Shonda Rhimes seemed to want us to view Callie. Was she a lush, curvy beauty who could and should attract all sorts of interest? [Local 'manwhore' Mark Sloan was more than happy to spend time with Callie] or was she a big, awkward 'runner up' to the conventionally beautiful Izzie? George had never shown sexual or romantic interest in Izzie before, but suddenly she's his 'It girl' - is that because any man who wouldn't prefer the blonde lingerie model is dead inside?

It all left a sour taste in my mouth, and elsewhere. Are we, as a society, so hung up on certain specific, WASP-based standards of beauty that the idea of Callie over Izzie is laughable?

[jeet]

I think this was just a function of casting.

No one - man or woman, no matter how secure or beautiful - likes to be compared to a potential competitor.

[MoonlitLady]

I think this was just a function of casting.

I agree with this. IMO, one of the (few) things GA does well is that it doesn't present any one character as more physically attractive than another. Sure, there's the "McDreamy/McSteamy" stuff, but none of the characters lack for romantic involvement. Callie's worry that George wants the more stereotypically "attractive" blonde bombshell is an anomaly in the main character arcs, though realistic.

I really believe the George/Callie storyline was just a victim of Shonda's "make-up/break-up" style of writing relationships. Izzie was just a tool facilitating that break-up. (Not to say Izzie isn't a tool in general, but that's for another topic.)

[StuckeyGilmore]

Is this what we're churning out for kids nowadays? Not just an emphasis on looks, but an emphasis on physical homogeneity?

I think Disney Channel is doing a great job with the casting of their shows, as far as looks go. For example, Hannah Montana. You've got Miley, who's pretty, but does't seem to be like supermodel stick-thin pretty. And her best friends are Lilly, who's the cute little curvey skater chick, and Oliver, who has this horrible long shaggy haircut and would definitely not be getting the swoony teen girl audience. And even on racial lines, the two girls who are cast as the beautiful popular girls in the class are a black girl and an asian girl. Other shows on there use the same thing, having kind of curvy actresses such as Raven, Brenda Song, Monique Coleman, or Sabrina from the Cheetah Girls. I don't watch any of the Nick kids shows, I'm not sure I could handle them, but Disney Channel has definitely got it right as far as casting "real kids".

[Research Girl]

Her line is, "[I now have] the two qualities needed to see the truth: I am brilliant and unloved." Because, obviously, if you're ugly, you're going to be unloved. There's been a bit of debate over whether that's a sexist line or not. I tend to think not, but mainly because I don't see men, especially on TV, being exempt from the same assumption. Think of how many times people have pitched a fit over the Jim Belushi-type character having a gorgeous wife because he, well, looks like Jim Belushi.

Jim Belushi (and the King of Queens) were cast as the husband of a much, much more attractive woman, yet I have a hard time coming up with a woman who is cast as the romantic interest of a man 10x better looking than her. These shows made it several seasons and the viewers likely didn't have a problem with the difference in the men and women's looks, even if some internet commentators did.

[TudorQueen]

I can't think of a single example on American television to dispute your point. The closest I can come is the source material for "Ugly Betty": In "Betty La Fea", the Central American telenovela, the title character ends up with her very handsome boss.

Whether or not "Ugly Betty" follows this path is anyone's guess. I'd rather they didn't, for a number of reasons specific to the show, but overall do think it's past time for such a pairing to be as routine as Jim Belushi/Courtney Thorne-Smith or Kevin James/Leah Rimini

[NMdum1]

I guess the Belushi/Thorne-Smith combo must be some sort of prime exhibit for this line of thought. See I can sometimes accept it more if the screen couple is say middle-aged and a more attractive woman in the sense that once he's got the girl, say at around thirty then some guys let themselves go and the whole domestic, suburban lifestyle goes to the waistline. I wonder if that's what we are told to believe in this instance without it being expressly spelled out? I have to presume so.

There's also the factor of people gradually making less effort in the relationship as time goes by expecting their partner to always be there which may go to explain away the personality problems and that women are often drawn to men who are both pleasant but not exceptional to look at but also good company to be around. It might explain the 'Grinch' Phenomenon.

I'll grant you that I have had very little exposure to 'According to Jim' - I'm British and I think it only airs on a satellite minority channel. I think both factors may well have played their part here at least.

[Research Girl]

I can't think of a single example on American television to dispute your point.

Ugly Betty is the closest I can come because although the actors who play Henry and Betty are equally attractive in real life IMO, Betty is put in far less flattering clothes and appears less attractive. But Henry is presented as unattractively geeky, so it doesn't quite work.

See I can sometimes accept it more if the screen couple is say middle-aged and a more attractive woman in the sense that once he's got the girl, say at around thirty then some guys let themselves go and the whole domestic, suburban lifestyle goes to the waistline. I wonder if that's what we are told to believe in this instance without it being expressly spelled out? I have to presume so.

But in reality couples tend to get fat together and women are slightly more likely to gain weight (partly due to childbearing).

women are often drawn to men who are both pleasant but not exceptional to look at but also good company to be around. It might explain the 'Grinch' Phenomenon.

In real life, when couples are rated by outsiders, most couples are around the same attractiveness level. Everyone can think of a few exceptions, but there is a lot of evidence that 4s end up with 4s and 8s end up with 8s. Television often runs counter to reality with men who are 4s ending up with women who are 8s, which I think is a product of television writers and producers (stll mostly male) personal fantasies.

[NMdum1]

Okay, I think I might be thinking about one couple I know and extrapolating (friends of my parents) as well as my mother's mother and her step-father. Any who....

[TudorQueen]

The character of Marissa - and the actress, Mischa Barton - did become more and more unpopular over the run of the series, until her surprising death was actually cheered by some. However [and this may be a minority opinion], I did find Mischa Barton lovely, and her first appearance, beautifully framed in the doorway from Ryan's viewpoint, effective enough for me to believe she really did take Ryan's breath away.

[Split Ends]

I read somewhere that the O.C.'s pilot script described Marissa as "painfully beautiful" or something.

Well, I find her looks painful -- because if she would eat more, she would be beautiful. But then again, while I didn't watch that show, I thought the so-called geek was much better looking than the tough/pretty boy.

[rennet]

I always thought that the reason OC viewers hated Marissa was because she had no personality and they resented be told to love her just because she was pretty or because it was written that all the characters dropped everything to take care of her. Not all viewers thought she was attractive, so her whole raison d'etre on the show fell flat for many people. To me it was a little evidence that just because an actress is pretty doesn't mean she'll garner a fanbase, especially if many of her defining characteristics were annoying. They should've spent some of her wardrobe budget on acting lessons. (The Hat!) Just as pretty but with personality was Summer, who lost so much weight between seasons 1 and 2 that she was no longer as cute and her rage issues were less funny since she seemed like she might be starving.

[jackiecarr]

Jim Belushi (and the King of Queens) were cast as the husband of a much, much more attractive woman, yet I have a hard time coming up with a woman who is cast as the romantic interest of a man 10x better looking than her. These shows made it several seasons and the viewers likely didn't have a problem with the difference in the men and women's looks, even if some internet commentators did.

Personally, I think that Kevin James is quite attractive as far as facial features, even though he's a heavy guy. I wouldn't say he's 10x worse looking than Leah Remini at all. Even Belushi isn't particularly bad-looking, but I definitely see the point that for women on TV attractiveness is equal to being slender. As much as I despise that show "The Parkers" I guess I have to give them credit for showing Countess Vaughn as a cute sexy girl that guys fought over.

[misere]

It's annoying when a character's physical attractiveness/unattractiveness is spelled out in the pilot episode, because a) not everyone will agree, and b) looks come and go.

The pilot episode of House is guilty of this, and it has always irked me. House describes Cameron as "beautiful," "gorgeous," and states: "You could have married rich, could have been a model, you could have just show up and people would have given you stuff. Lots of stuff, but you didn’t, you worked your stunning little ass off."

First, I don't know in what universe Cameron or her actress could work as a model. She's too short to do runway or catalogue and not well-endowed enough to work as a lingerie/swimwear/men's magazine model. Second, I and many other people would never describe her in such glowing terms. She's pretty or cute, IMO, not gorgeous or stunning. Funnily enough, Hugh Laurie was promoting House in the UK, and the host of a talk show felt the need, before showing a clip of that scene to the audience, to describe Cameron as "moderately attractive" in a damned-with-faint-praise sort of tone. Hee.

Edited by misere, Jul 3, 2008 @ 1:05 AM.

[Research Girl]

It's annoying when a character's physical attractiveness/unattractiveness is spelled out in the pilot episode, because a) not everyone will agree, and b) looks come and go.

POPULAR tried to make Brooke the gorgeous one, but Sam was just as pretty, maybe moreso. Hell, I always thought Tammy Lynn Michaels was prettier than Brooke.

But that's also really true for high school. Frequently the kids who are considered hot are attractive, but not the best looking in school- it has so much to do with where they rank socially.

[MethodActor05]

But that's also really true for high school. Frequently the kids who are considered hot are attractive, but not the best looking in school- it has so much to do with where they rank socially.

That's what I loved about Paige on Degrassi- she's really not all that pretty, yet she was the most popular girl in school and considered "hot". I think a lot of that had to do with attitude and her trendy wardrobe.

Compare her to characters like Alex or Ellie- they're both much more physically attractive than Paige, yet because they're outcast types, no one ever comments about how good-looking they are.

One of the things that I really liked about Greek was how they actually used casted a geeky-looking guy to play Rusty. It seems like lately, it's been all about "slap-the-glasses-on-and-we'll-pretend-this-buff-dude-isn't-a-hunk" stuff.

[wwhk]

One of the things that I really liked about Greek was how they actually used casted a geeky-looking guy to play Rusty. It seems like lately, it's been all about "slap-the-glasses-on-and-we'll-pretend-this-buff-dude-isn't-a-hunk" stuff.

As opposed to Buffy, where the very attractive Nick Brendon (circa the first three seasons) and Alyson Hannigan were playing the plain, "can't get a date to save their lives" social outcasts. Luckily, the actors and writing were able to portray Xander and Willow as spazzy and strange enough to explain their low social standing in high school. But still, the good looks of the actors made me strain a bit.

I think part of the brilliance of The Wire is it's casting of "real" people. Even their hottest guy, Dominc West, cast as the lead in an ensemble, is just not that good looking. Everyone else is considerably drab by Hollywood standards.

I don't know about The Wire, but I'm always struck by how drab and unattractive the cast of the The Sopranos is. They have blemished skin and paunchy waistlines and people dress horribly. It's such a turn-around from the usual "pretty people" on TV.

In addition, I remember that when "West Wing" debuted, the show positioned the still-gorgeous Rob Lowe as the 'heartthrob'. Well, Lowe was indeed popular while he was on the show, but the heartthrob status turned out to ricochet among three other, lesser known actors: Bradley Whitford, [Josh] who had frizzy reddish-brown hair that receded more each season, and a pasty complexion that actually worked pretty well for his job-obsessed character, Richard Schiff [Toby] a bald, bearded guy with a hangdog expression and a perpetually morose attitude, and John Spencer [Leo] a middle-aged guy, not too tall, with the map of Ireland stamped on his features [or maybe Spencer wasn't from Ireland, he just acted as if he was and it stamped itself!]

The thing about TWW is that the typical female Wingnut finds so many of the men dead sexy. Toby, Jed, Josh, Sam, Leo, Hoynes, Charlie, Santos, Simon, Danny- they're all considered extremely attractive in TWW fandom. I would say it's a mixture that the cast of TWW, while not always perfect-looking (actors like Rob Lowe or Emily Procter being the exception), was always charismatic and filled with personality. And Aaaron Sorkin really knows how to write the perfect man, IMO. The typical Sorkin male is very white-collar, super-smart, sensitive, witty, well-spoken, and chivalrous. So you have guys that look like Richard Schiff or Robert Guilliaume (Isaac over on Sports Night) becoming sex symbols. This really couldn't take place elsewhere.

On the opposite side of the coin, I doubt that Allison Janney would be seen as attractive had she not played CJ Cregg.

[Ulkis]

I can't think of a single example on American television to dispute your point. The closest I can come is the source material for "Ugly Betty": In "Betty La Fea", the Central American telenovela, the title character ends up with her very handsome boss.

Whether or not "Ugly Betty" follows this path is anyone's guess.

I think "Ugly Betty"'s already kind of failed at this because you can see that America Ferrara is good-looking, also, Daniel is hot but not THAT hot, and so their looks are pretty much equal.

Popular was silly. The unpopular crowd was ridiculously pretty. Why do people cast Christopher Gorham as a geek? He's really cute!

On "Buffy", Willow especially grew more glamorous as the seasons went on but I bought Willow and Xander as believable outcasts in the beginning.