The Clark Kent effect. Like somehow nobody in the entire school noticed Rachael Leigh Cook was stunningly gorgeous.
They never just “let it down”, they shake it loose… all that’s missing is the voiceover talking about Pantene.
No, Sarah Jessica Parker got a nose job during the course of Sex and the City (or maybe just after?). There was a very noticeable change in the size of her nose, and many articles noting how it was a nice change from the drastic nose jobs you see. She still looked like herself, but her nose was thinner and less bulbous.
As others have said, I consider it appropriate when the appearance of the actor or actress is important to the role. If their appearance conflicts with the role to such an extent that it disrupts suspension of disbelief, then it’s valid to criticize their appearance specifically in reference to the decision to cast them in that role. This includes cases of casting someone who is too “pretty”–even in a set of magic Hollywood ugly-inducing glasses–as a character who needs to be ugly in order to make sense.
Aside from “looking the part”, no, I don’t think it’s appropriate.
Like it or not, acting is a visual art, so it’s always appropriate to criticize an actor’s looks. That doesn’t mean an actress should be criticized for not being 89 lbs, but how they look is part of what makes the characters they play believable. And, in fact, it goes both ways. Sometimes an actress isn’t pretty enough for a part, but plenty of times I’ve seen women cast in roles as average or even ugly, but just aren’t. I have tons of respect for someone like Charlize Theron, who was gorgeous in Devil’s Advocate, and quite repulsive in Monster. Even though she is a good actress, her acting alone just wouldn’t have cut it.
That said, there are nitpick things, and certainly how someone looks when they’re not filming, or to a lesser extent making an official appearance, really shouldn’t matter. If she’s sick, leave her alone, but if she was filming like that, it may be a valid point.
Being unattractive limits the calls you get quite a bit, I would think. There will be plenty of character roles, but few starring ones, unless you are lucky enough to break out in a character role. Also, women who play unattractive are often very attractive. Take a look at their head shots to see. It is harder to go the other way.
In the US, sending pictures of yourself on an application is not done. In the Biz, the picture is 90% of the application (since I doubt many pictures casting directors receive get flipped over.)
I think it would be more appropriate to link to the actual essay that she wrote: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/09/ashley-judd-slaps-media-in-the-face-for-speculation-over-her-puffy-appearance.html. (My apologies if it has been posted, I didn’t see it.)
Judd’s op-ed goes beyond whining about how people are trashing her looks. It is about the conversation going on in society today, where a woman’s worth seems to be measured more by her looks than by her merits or talents. Should a celebrity expect that a certain amount of public description comes with her job description? Yes, absolutely. But I think it is entirely fair to point out that our nation’s preoccupation with physical beauty is getting increasingly catty and nasty.
Please provide evidence for this claim. Every site I can find has very dubious photographic examples. This one clearly shows no difference at all, and yet the accompanying text talks like it’s unequivocal proof she had one.
Evidence? All I know is that near or at the end of the TV series, the bump on the bridge of her nose was reduced and the end became less bulbous.
Criticize? Not generally kosher. I think it’s OK if the appearance is out of character for a role (or is contrary to something they are promoting), or if they botched a plastic surgery.
But it’s fine to notice and wonder about a sudden change in appearance especially when it could signal a health crisis.
When I saw the thread title, I came in to say this.
But then I saw that turtles were included in the poll options.
So no evidence, then. I stand by my original point; it’s all an illusion caused by ageing, make up, or camera angles.
I kind of like turtles, too. Should’ve checked that box.
Does she require that her face and body, altered or otherwise, appear on billboards, etc. or is that a side effect of doing her job, which is to act? She’s done a number of films that haven’t ever resulted in full press of media with billboards, so I’m pretty sure she’s not demanding them, nor is she demanding to be photoshopped to hell and gone. Actresses are constantly complaining about how they’re depicted in advertising, not only because it creates a false image for others but because it makes things more difficult for them, when people are constantly shocked (or presuming that they’ve “let themselves go”) when they see them in their real life form.
I’m entirely positive that not a single actress in Hollywood has “set” the beauty bar anywhere. You’re giving them power that they simply do not possess.
Not many people know this, but the turtle is nature’s suction cup.