You can’t be serious! I don’t know anyone with that preference; for the most part, you only HEAR the artist, anyway (more than you see him/her, anyway)…I could care less what he/she looks like. Man, if you’re serious, I know that a whole bunch of us would be more than willing to give you a list of extremely talented singers that are definitely not on the beautiful end of the scale.
Lee van Cleef wasn’t exactly the epitome of gorgeous but he did OK.
He had a face only a mother could love
I think this would find a better home in Cafe Society.
Off it goes.
You don’t know much about the business, do you?
Agents and casting directors are always looking for new talent. Looks certainly count, but having what casting directors are looking for counts more than any absolute. There is a certain charisma that those who will succeed have which agents can recognize.
My daughter, who had just finished third grade, went to an open call at a manager, said “I love Cheerios,” got signed two days later, and had her first part in a featured role after her third audition, and having only photos taken by a friend, not professional headshots yet. This wasn’t in Podunk, this was in New York.
I doubt the truly ugly would get far, because of a limited number of roles and because of lack of self confidence. It is easy to make up someone to look ugly, so a reasonably attractive person can play an ugly one but not vice versa. But there are tons of character parts for actors who aren’t beautiful. In New York, kids were classed as beautiful children (all blond) or character kids (everyone else.)
You do put your gigs on the back of your headshot, which might reassure a casting director that you won’t screw up on a set, but I doubt if this influences many decisions.
IMDB: “NO PHOTO AVAILABLE” - somehow appropriate to the thread:p
In the world of film theory, there are two explanations.
The first is the process of “identification”, where we identify ourselves with the character in a film. We see the film through that character’s eyes. This is how we become engaged in a film’s narrative. In a sense, that character become a version of ourselves. Nobody wants a version of themselves that is ugly.
The other (which explains why now and then there is an ugly male actor, but never an ugly female) is called “fetishism” or “scopophilic fetish”. This isn’t really related to the idea of a sexual fetish. Anyway, films treat women very differently then men. Specifically, films treat women as subjects to be looked at, as opposed to subjects to drive the narrative. Part of the pleasure of viewing a film is this voyeuristic pleasure of watching. Creating a fetish out of the act of watching. And in film, for whatever reason, this usually means watching a women. We get a lot less voyeuristic pleasure from watching ugly women.
Juliette Lewis and Angelica Huston are ugly?
I was thinking about something like this a few weeks back. There was an episode of “Life on Mars” that has a young woman in it who I think is rather remarkable in Hollywood for the utter plainness of her face. I can’t think of the actor or I would link to her.
(If anyone watches the show, she was the one who got shot in the shoot out at the (I think) liquor store.)
“Never” is waaaay too strong here. It’s unusual, but it’s not never.
One difficulty is always going to be deciding who is ugly. Someone listed Wallace Shawn above and I have had a Dope-documented crush on Wallace Shawn that I can run from but cannot hide!
The problem with this is that preferences are subjective. So, say, if my friend likes Avril Lavigne and I think her singing is musical dreck, I would be tempted to say that my friend only likes her because she is attractive. This is probably not the case, but it is really easy to fall into that line of reasoning. Some people actually like Ashley Simpson.
Of course, I know more than a few people who will not listen to music sung by people they find unattractive. Is this incredibly shallow? Maybe. But I’m not going to judge them on it.
On a related note, in Japan there is an entire genre of music, called Visual-kei, that focuses more on the singer’s appearance and stage presence than their music. Lots of crazy hairstyles, over-the-top clothing, and makeup makeup makeup.
But there are also plenty of very popular singers in Japan who would be considered homely in appearance. So, as I said before, it’s a matter of preference and those are subjective.
Agreed, Wallace Shawn is not an ugly man by any scale of mine.
Beaten to the punch!
Certainly not “ugly,” but may not be considered attractive by many standards is Philip Seymour Hoffman and he’s landed a couple of larger-type roles for sure. I consider him enormously talented.
Would he fit your criteria?
Complete mutts, in my opinion. Yours may differ.
Lilly Tomlin, Kathy Bates, hell, Phyllis Diller (ok, not an actor, but still). Gene Wilder, Marty Feldman, Harvey Korman, Meathead off Archie Bunker (forgot his name), the guy who played Charles Winthrop III on MASH, the older guy on 3rd Rock from the Sun. There are lots of unattractive actors.
Er, less attractive folk tend to go for the character actor roles. Also, there are few people who, with the help of modern makeup, hairstyling and personal trainers, don’t look attractive. Even Kathy and Lilly are not ugly. They’re just not stunning.
I’d say that acting talent is probably spread throughout the general population, as is ignorance, sadly.
I personally think John Lithgow is quite attractive for an older man, not to mention a fine actor on both screen and stage.
(Again, biggest problem with this debate… Beauty is in the eye of the bee-holder)
None of them are ugly, to me. (well, Diller, maybe). They are just not beautiful. The human race has never looked this good and since most people have regular features, ugly is not all that common anymore. Plain, yes. Not doing anything to help their attractiveness is also rampant, but sheer outright UGLY? Not so much (barring congenital anomalies and deformities of course).
I’ll have you know Jack Elam is a handsome cad.
I think ya mean David Ogden Stiers, the guy who played Charles Emerson Winchester III
We can add Woody Allen to that list. Ugly and creepy!
The way I see it–and I could easily be wayyy off base on this–being a full-time actor requires an extroverted personality. There’s a lot of networking involved. You’ve got to like going to parties and events, having your picture taken (unless you’re Sean Penn), talking with all sorts of people within the business, deaing a lot with your fans (in the beginning at least), not to mention the actual work, which involves putting on a whole bunch of makeup and performing your heart out in front of a whole bunch of people, even if they’re just other actors and film crew. It isn’t just about opening up to people. It’s about opening up to people all the time.
Now I’m not quite what I would call ugly, but I’ve never been that attractive either. Also, I’ve known my share of ugly people, and I don’t think I have to tell a lot of you that we don’t like crowds that much. More specifically, we don’t like crowds of people paying attention to us at the same time. That holds a vastly different connotation for us than it does for attractive people. Believe me, I can understand what makes a person want to spend every waking minute in some lab or in front of a computer far away from people. I was lucky enough to avoid that life, but damn, I can understand it.
That right there probably puts a lot of ugly people off from acting.
Just my $0.02.
There are a few different reasons . . .
First of all, there’s the self-fulfilling/vicious circle thing of “ugly” people not thinking they can make it, so not having the required confidence and/or bothering to try in the first place. Producers don’t walk around the country looking for normal people to be on television and in movies. Actors are a self-selected group, and you have to work your ass off to even get the chance of being successful. The notion that there are thousands of ugly people standing in line outside of Hollywood studios and being told no because of their looks is preposterous, but common.
You don’t see a lot of ugly people on tv because television producers aren’t necessarily looking for the best actors - they’re looking for attractive people who can get the scenes decently in a couple takes, be low-maintenence, etc. People will watch “that show with the hot girl / hunky guy”, but won’t as often go to the cinema for the sole purpose of oogling Eva Mendez or Edward Norton.
In movies, there are more “ugly” people. We don’t see them as “ugly” as they really are because they’re rich/famous, done up by a professional makeup artist, shot from the perfect angles, and wearing the perfect clothes. We’d all look good in such circumstances.