So if an actress wants to succeed in Hollywood is her figure or her acting ability more likely to get her the part?
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Beauty.
Name all the homely or plain actresses you can think of. Pretty short list, isn’t it?
I’m going to say acting ability, because 1) there is no shortage of beautiful women in the world to cast roles from, and 2) plenty of movie roles call for actresses who *aren’t *beautiful. For instance, maybe someone whose job is to be the seedy or villainous woman, or whose role calls precisely for a homely woman who beats her prettier rivals, etc. There is no shortage of homely women in the world either, but the subset of pretty and homely women who have great acting skills is tiny, just like it is among men.
nm
Both.
Seriously, being a successful actor is like being a professional athlete. The competition level is insane. So it’s not enough to be attractive or talented. You have to be attractive and talented and then you have to be lucky on top of it.
It’s only a subset of acting roles that call for an actress who is strikingly beautiful (and actresses suitable for those roles may not be physically right for other female roles).
Of course, it’s also the case that there’s a subset of male roles which call for hunky actors, and actors who fill those roles may find it difficult to get other roles when their matinee idol looks start to fade.
If we think this is a bigger problem for actresses than for actors, that suggests that writers/producers are offering a greater proportion of female roles which call for striking good looks. The OP mentions Hollywood, and even if this is the case in Hollywood its not necesarily the case for stage actresses, or in TV-land.
Maybe they just seem beautiful to you because of careful image control - you only see their image when it has been made up and, if necessary, airbrushed to produce an impression of beauty which you might not encounter on meeting them in the flesh. A friend of mine met a famous actress, renowned for her beauty, in the ladies bathroom in a hotel and realised that (a) she wasn’t actually that beautiful, and (b) she had dreadful skin.
These days ability.
Acting is a superficial industry. How you look dictates which parts you can be up for, what kind of personality you can portray, basically what stereotype you fit into. It sucks, but it works and ever will be so.
I wouldn’t say “beauty” is important so much as appearance. Ability also matters. It may be an even split, if indeed they can be measured objectively at all.
And of course the studios *still *pick beautiful actresses to play the homely women. They just put their hair up under a goofy hat and wear glasses or whatever.
Depends on the role. As Russell Crow said last year, people age out. He cannot play the Gladiator role anymore. If you have made a career out of your looks alone, then you have a short window. Some actors/actresses are able to transition. Helen Mirren for instance. Others can’t.
Films want people who are striking and memorable to look at. “Ugly” people certainly can be that. I would say an ugly person can certainly have a better chance in Hollywood than a generic cute girl or dishy dude.
Only as a supporting role.
Sure, there are quite a few “B-listers” who are not attractive - say, Helen Hunt. But, the vast majority of Leading Women are attractive - certainly well above the percentage in society as a whole.
Really? Helen Hunt?
Are you maybe thinking of Linda Hunt?
I would venture that looks play a main role in getting an actress noticed, but ability is what will sustain a career.
Most actresses are in the top 1% or so, as far as looks go. But the top 1% isn’t actually all that big a deal. Most people will see several women in their everyday life who are hotter than the typical actress. And yet, those women are not actresses. Why not? Because they can’t act, of course.
That’s my thought. I agree with Little Nemo that the true answer is “both” but if you had to pick one or the other, I’d say that the world has far more beautiful young women than it does talented actors. And you can use a lot of make-up and wardrobe to make someone prettier but you can’t powderpuff them into a better actress.
Thread relocated to Cafe Society from IMHO.
Helps to have both. Meryl Streep and Helen Mirren are still getting work. Both reasonably attractive, but not classic beauties. Bo Derek? Appeared last in Sharknado 3.
I think beauty gets your foot in the door, but only as the replaceable face du jour unless you back it up with some acting chops.
If you’re going to add a third characteristic, it should probably be “not being an absolute horror to work with”. Several rising stars (e.g. Linda Fiortino and Sean Young) disappeared after reports of onset diva-ness.
Yeah, Linda.
You should define ‘succeeding’.
I expect a beautiful actress could earn a good living from a series (e.g. Charmed had three.)
But for Oscars, you need ability.