I don’t. The 1-inch height range seems weirder to me.
He didn’t say, but I assume it was all on their appearances. They had to have a skin color that seemed, at most, a tanned Caucasian.
I think it’s part of the package. A “lean dancer body”, “size 4 or 6” without breast implants is, statistically speaking, going to be a small breasted woman. A woman who wears a 4 or 6 with implants, even good ones, is unlikely to have the “lean dancer body” they’re looking for. Basically, they want skinny skinny, not curvy skinny.
Are there exceptions? Might there be lean dancer types wearing a size 4 with naturally large breasts or implants good enough that you can’t tell? Sure. But probably not enough to waste the casting director’s time looking through the skinny but curvy implant bearing women. Specifying no implants just saves everyone’s time.
I’m pretty sure they’re not checking for surgical scars though, so if you’re a tiny woman with implants and you really think they look natural enough to pass as natural breasts, go ahead and audition!
The one inch height deviation is probably because they’re looking for a number of women to be the same height for a dance or fight scene and/or wardrobe is already built or rent, and they’re not going to pay for a lot of alterations at this date.
Often, these “ugly” roles are referred to as “character” roles, and agents know what sort of work their actors are likely to be hired for. They’re going to skip the leading man adverts for an ugly thug looking actor and look for “character” casting calls. One more reason why, to really get the roles you are suited for, it’s best to have a good agent setting up your auditions.
When my daughter joined SAG, (which has nothing to do with breast implants 
) she had to fill out an extensive set of questions which would give an EEO person a heart attack. Appearance is clearly a job requirement, and so can be a factor. In fact girls are split into two major categories - beautiful children (blondes, thin) and character kids (everyone else.) Being a character kid is no handicap in getting a job - the series she was on was about 100% cast with character kids (and the equivalent adults.)
Casting agents send out calls to agents, who send it to the managers of the kids on their list (this is in New York) who calls the kid and tells them the time for the audition. So an actor will never hear about jobs they aren’t suited for. (Except for non-union type jobs which got advertised in papers and now on the web I assume.) Actors never get any explicit feedback either - you either get a callback or not. (My experience is commercials, industrials, and legit TV and movies, not theater.) if the kid screwed up royally you might get feedback from the manager - if the wrong people were sent, I suspect the agent would get the feedback.
As I mention, character covers a lot more ground than ugly. You can make up beautiful people as ugly. My daughter’s character wore a hair net and quite ugly clothes. Some Playbills have the headshots of actresses, and it is interesting to see how gorgeous that ugly woman up on the stage actually is.
Of course weight is harder to manipulate than general attractiveness.
Came in to point this out, though obviously there are actors who know exactly why they are or are not hired, especially if they’ve read part of the script (e.g. too fat or not fat enough if they’re going in for a Rob Schneider movie). There are also agencies devoted to character actors, including the (now defunct, I think) Ugly NY which had tons of tattoed people and funny looking old people.
I once saw a TV news piece about an agency dedicated to amputees. Whenever a producer needed to cast “One-Armed Guy #1,” they’d get a call.
Casting agents are not required to play by the same rules as any other HR-bound hiring person. This is because their stock in trade is making up stories. They are casting professional actors ( forget "reality t.v. for the moment. -gag- ) who are fully aware of what they look like, what work they may or may not get, etc.
Does John Hurt really look like Joseph Merrick**, the Elephant Man? No. But aside from heavy make-up gigs, one casts for the look. You have the look or can portray the look? Great. You’re in. You’re 6 foot 6 and thickly built with immense muscles, shoulder length jet black hair and you own a penis? Best not to show up for that audition for the road show of “Heidi”.
My one exposure to casting agents on a personal level happened when my son was about 3 1/2 and my daughter was 2. Oh, goodness, she was a pudgy 2. Adorable. ADORABLE !! The casting agent picked my son. Rejected my daughter. " She’s too pudgy". Fine. Take my son. It was his debut and retirement performance, all in one day. Did I take offense at the remark regarding my daughter? Nope. This was business. The job was a nutritional supplement drink for Pacific rim countries. A pudgy kid did NOT fit into the picture.
There’s no time for dainty. Casting agents - good ones at least- excel at cooking. They’re picking ingredients. Is the meal palatable? Thank the director and actors.
Also, one might thank a good casting agent.
Cartooniverse
** Dispute over the true name of Joseph Merrick laid to rest here.
gasp
Mary Anne “ugly”? I don’t think so. The operative word is “cute.”
Humph.
Not just movies, many entertainment based venues with public contact like amusement parks fall under the same rules allowing them to “theme” areas of crew within reason.
It’s just a dialect of Spanish, I speak enough of it to get by, and I am whitish.
I believe the reasoning was that they are going to be in corsets and implants are really obvious in that kind of costume.
Remember, Ginger was the beautiful one, and Mary Anne was the plain one (I wouldn’t say ugly). This has nothing to do with how the actors really looked, it was a fiction that the viewer was supposed to sign up to. That’s the point–“Mary Anne ugly” means “an actress who is pretty but portrays a character who is not pretty.” That is “TV ugly.” “Ugly ugly” means an ugly actor who plays an ugly character.
I thought it had to do with the fact that they were mermaids and they’d be in water and implants float?
The requirements don’t mention anything about swimming, so I doubt it’s a mermaid role.
No, the interview with the casting director mentioned corsets and other constraining costumes that would make the implants very obvious.
I think it is because they did not have implants back in the day when the movie was supposed to take place…Just like how you won’t see any hearing aids or electric wheel chairs
Hm, maybe I heard wrong…it was being discussed on snopes board and the mermaid theory came up there.
So do breasts.
I thought implants were…uh, floatier, than breasts. Or that they do weirder things in water, especially if they’re ridiculously huge ones. I’m trying to find that thread on snopes and failing, so I’m guessing this mermaid theory is a bust. So to speak.