Act Acting » Acting School » Oh, huh

Oh, huh

Question:

I think that alot of our "appreciation" of a given actor or actress is rooted in our unconscious reactions to their looks and/or to their

projected persona.  Any comments on that? Now hold on there a minute, Bubba!    There are very few drop-dead gorgeous actors…a lot of nice-looking movie stars, but it’s hardly the same thing…look at all the bodies on television and in film that can’t act their way out of an improvised paper bag…    Now examine all those "real" actors that have average or less-than-average looks and have talent oozing from every pore…    There are many that are down-right unattractive and are brilliant performers… That sort of shoots your theory to hell, doesn’t it?

Richard:    I don’t think I was very clear about what I was trying to say.  So, if at first…    Let me try an example:  Tom Cruise.  A very handsome man, with a very preppy, fratboy, upperclass look.  Usually referred to as a "hunk."  As a male of "lesser" good looks than Cruise, when I see him (or someone like him) I generally have an immediate and particular reaction (being very subjective here, of course) to him, based on my past experience with other men of equivalent looks.  Or, on the other hand, consider the character actor who played the biker who gets his clothes and motorcycle confiscated by "Ah-nold" at the beginning of Terminator 2 (sorry, his name escapes me).  His look, too, communicates many highly subjective things to me, based on past experience with other men with such "rough" looks.    In other words, we all have a tendency (regardless of our parents’ well- intentioned advice) to "judge a book by its cover."  I think it is a natural, and nearly inescapable, human tendency.  Studies have shown that, by and large, people of both sexes will ascribe higher intelligence, finer abilities, greater appeal, whatever, to persons who are "better looking,"  and likewise will ascribe the reverse qualities to persons at the other end of the "looks" scale.    A lot of this is inextricably tied in with our culture, I think.  Most movie stars, male and female, are at the high end of the "looks" scale. Even the ones who seem "average" are very photogenic;  their physiognomies generally are close to the "ideal" in proportion.  Even the "ugly" ones are usually ugly in a very "attractive" way.    I agree entirely that good looks and "talent" do NOT go hand in hand. If anything, I’d agree that most good-looking people have not had the same impetus to excel, since they’ve had an easier time of it by virtue of their good looks.    What I’m trying to get across, I guess, is that we, as fellow actors, tend to judge actors unconsciously, at least in part, on our "gut" reactions to their looks, on how their particular look affects us personally.  Thus, one is perhaps more forgiving toward the actress who reminds you of an old flame, or more critical of an actor who raises, unbidden, suppressed memories of the bully who used to make you eat dirt in grade school.    OK, somebody else’s turn… Geoff — (.sig repossessed, auction pending) Geoff Burkman                                 * * * * * [This message was posted to the ACTING-L mailing list and relayed to this newsgroup.  You may followup to the newsgroup or, if you are a  member of ACTING-L,  reply  to  the  list.   For  more  information  send E-mail to

Response:

writes:  Studies have shown that, by and large, people of both sexes will ascribe higher intelligence, finer abilities, greater appeal, whatever, to persons who are "better looking,"  and likewise will ascribe the reverse qualities to persons at the other end of the "looks" scale.

I have to say, when I see a good looking actor I do not ascribe higher intelligence or finer abilities to them.  In fact, I expect more of the opposite.  I see this business as one where having good looks opens many a door, regardless of the "talent and skill" involved, so again, to me, they have to prove themselves a lot more.  Prove that there’s more to them than what you see.  Prove that they’re not just a pretty face to look at.  And likewise, people at the lower end of the looks scale actually make me feel like they will be good – solely based on their "interesting" looks making for an interesting performance. Good looks don’t impress me – only in regards that I may envy a slightly easier path into show biz based on their superficial advantages – but then, this can be a superficial business, at times, huh?! Rosann :-)                                 * * * * * [This message was posted to the ACTING-L mailing list and relayed to this newsgroup.  You may followup to the newsgroup or, if you are a  member of ACTING-L,  reply  to  the  list.   For  more  information  send E-mail to

Response:

I think it’s clearly the American marketing angle and and general attitude about personal appearance, based on insecurities.

Yes, but isn’t it the advertiser’s attitude rather than everybody’s?  Those who sell products want the (consuming) audience to think that looking coiffed, painted, sugically enhanced, personally trained, and designer-dressed is the norm. I’m always amazed at the look of shows set in the Boston area. Sometimes I even see people I know on them as extras or in tiny parts.  But they don’t look the way they look in Boston, where 4 out of 5 women don’t wear makeup. Maybe for a job interview at a firm with "outsider" corporate style, or if they are the "front office" receptionists. For a very dressy occasion.  But not to do computer programming, or to the grocery, or the library. Certainly they never wear makeup at home; let alone to bed! Some shows are more like this than others.  IMHO, I think it’s really stupid looking to see a woman in bed in the middle of the night in full makeup. I’m a guy, and I (almost always) remove my makeup before going to bed.

G.L.Horton — Newton, MA, USA <http://www.tiac.net/users/ghorton                                 * * * * * [This message was posted to the ACTING-L mailing list and relayed to this newsgroup.  You may followup to the newsgroup or, if you are a  member of ACTING-L,  reply  to  the  list.   For  more  information  send E-mail to

Response:

IMHO, I think it’s really stupid looking to see a woman in bed in the middle of the night in full makeup. I’m a guy, and I (almost always) remove my makeup before going to bed.

I wonder if you wouldn’t check your face more carefully if you knew some total stranger would get into bed with you and stare at your face from 1 foot away :-) Soaps aren’t life anyway. They are demented dream worlds. They resemble America in the way car commercials resemble the experience of getting stuck in traffic. The shows are thrown together under extreme pressure. Typically they shoot a one hour show every day. If they didn’t standardize the way people look, you probably wouldn’t recognize them day to day. It’s a job; as they say on the set "It isn’t brain surgery." There are some very good actors chained to the soap opera wheel. It’s one of the few games in NY that provide regular work. Ken                                 * * * * * [This message was posted to the ACTING-L mailing list and relayed to this newsgroup.  You may followup to the newsgroup or, if you are a  member of ACTING-L,  reply  to  the  list.   For  more  information  send E-mail to

Response:

On American television, almost nobody is ugly. …In contrast, on British  television, the actors look just like everyone who lives on your street.

Are you saying that the people who live on your street are ugly?  8-) I remember reading a few years back that people in the former Soviet Union prefer Mexican soap operas to American soap operas, because in the American one, it seems like everyone "just stepped out of the shower." I make no attempt to comment on the underlying reasons for this…

I think it’s clearly the American marketing angle and and general attitude about personal appearance, based on insecurities.  Some shows are more like this than others.  IMHO, I think it’s really stupid looking to see a woman in bed in the middle of the night in full makeup. I’m a guy, and I (almost always) remove my makeup before going to bed. — Daniel                                 * * * * * [This message was posted to the ACTING-L mailing list and relayed to this newsgroup.  You may followup to the newsgroup or, if you are a  member of ACTING-L,  reply  to  the  list.   For  more  information  send E-mail to

Response:

writes: I think that alot of our "appreciation" of a given actor or actress=  is rooted in our unconscious reactions to their looks and/or to their projected persona.  Any comments on that?

Richard Alan replied Now hold on there a minute, Bubba!    There are very few drop-dead gorgeous actors…a lot of nice-looking movie stars, but it’s hardly the same thing…look at all the bodies on television and in film that can’t act their way out of an improvised = paper bag…    Now examine all those "real" actors that have average or less-than-average looks and have talent oozing from every pore…    There are many that are down-right unattractive and are brilliant performers… That sort of shoots your theory to hell, doesn’t it?

Here in New Zealand we get to see a mixture of both British and American = film and television. There is a very noticeable difference in between the 2 = cultures in television in particular. On American television, almost nobody is ugly. Yes there are exceptions, particularly in comedy ( Roseanne and Drew Carey spring to mind) but by = and large the American shows we see, particularly dramas and soaps, everyone = is good looking (with the exception of Tori Spelling :-) .=20 In contrast, on British television, the actors look just like everyone = who lives on your street. Some are good looking, some are ugly, some are = interesting, some fat some thin etc etc. Basically they look like Joe or Jane Average I make no attempt to comment on the underlying reasons for this = phenomenon. Mainly because I haven’t got a clue. :-) Regards …Tom =20                …Tom Vavasour… =20              Celebrate Apath…         (Yes I know this is an old sig,          but getting around to changing it=20          just doesn’t feel right……)=20                                 * * * * * [This message was posted to the ACTING-L mailing list and relayed to this newsgroup.  You may followup to the newsgroup or, if you are a  member of ACTING-L,  reply  to  the  list.   For  more  information  send E-mail to

Response:

writes: I think that alot of our "appreciation" of a given actor or actress is rooted in our unconscious reactions to their looks and/or to their projected persona.  Any comments on that?

Now hold on there a minute, Bubba!     There are very few drop-dead gorgeous actors…a lot of nice-looking movie stars, but it’s hardly the same thing…look at all the bodies on television and in film that can’t act their way out of an improvised paper bag…     Now examine all those "real" actors that have average or less-than-average looks and have talent oozing from every pore…     There are many that are down-right unattractive and are brilliant performers… That sort of shoots your theory to hell, doesn’t it? Richard Alan —To believe is very dull.  To doubt is intensely engrossing.  To be on the alert is to live, to be lulled into security is to die.—    –Oscar Wilde–                                 * * * * * [This message was posted to the ACTING-L mailing list and relayed to this newsgroup.  You may followup to the newsgroup or, if you are a  member of ACTING-L,  reply  to  the  list.   For  more  information  send E-mail to

Response:

Related Posts

Leave a Reply