how important are 'the beautiful people'?

well, it's self explanatory.

but that's a bit dull so i'll explain. as most people would notice, most of the hollywood films are full of people who beat us all in the gene pool races to physical attractiveness. bluelighters (for some reason) don't seem to be an ugly bunch, but we've got nothing on your average american movie.

and even when the leads and support actors/actresses aren't stunningly beautiful they do seem to have that timeless intruiging kind of appearance; like phillip seymour hoffman isn't great looking, but he's certainly interesting to lookat. similarly, christina ricci isn't conventionally attractive, but god damn is she hot.

anyway, i want to know how important this is? obviously it means somerthing; having something that you like looking at in terms of character is as important as set design, cinematography and other aesthetic qualities i guess.

but i wonder if a good film can exist with full-on ugly people in it? and i wonder if such a thing really exists; like i sad regarding hoffman and ricci - some people might not look how we expect beauty to appear, but they're beautiful because of (or in spite of) it anyway.

have you seen films which you've loved because the people in it are hot? have you avoided (or seen and hated) movies that have starred ugly people? is it important at all?

i'll add more later, if this gets off the ground, but i think it's important; as i've intimated though - more on the 'interesting' looking people side though. that said, films like closer and cruel intentions (which i both adored) benefit wholeheartedly from the fact that everyone in them is amazingly hot. still, that's a thematic constant, so not typical to every film.

what do you think?

interesting topic, while reading it i immediately thought of cruel intentions. i think it is probably true that humans as a whole would rather watch a film where the characters are physically attractive. my question is what makes somebody attractive to them? in the case of actresses i think its almost purely physical, but for men i think its based on the characters that they portray more often than not. for example i dont think al pacino, robert deniro, dustin hoffman, or benicio del toro would be thought of as sexy if it werent for the awesome chacrters they have played in the past.

There's a major difference between Hollywood and British or European film and tv IMO.

Personally I can't watch a film or tv show just because <some hot hollywood siren> is in it. And I find UK and European stuff refreshing because the people in the shows look real.

Originally posted by onetwothreefour
have you seen films which you've loved because the people in it are hot?

Click to expand...

Are you talking about a film that's basically shitty -- lame script, horrible actors, etc. -- but has good-looking actors? If that's the case, I'd have to say no (and dumb movies I liked as a child don't count, lol). Unless it's a porno, if a film's only redeeming value is the "hotness" of the actors, I don't have any interest in seeing it.

have you avoided (or seen and hated) movies that have starred ugly people?

Click to expand...

NO NO NO NEVER NEVER NEVER!!! The VAST majority of films I think are incredible star people who bear very little resemblance to the overpaid, underwhelming actors most people seem to think are hot.

To backtrackL

i wonder if a good film can exist with full-on ugly people in it?

Click to expand...

1. Yes, absolutely (quick answer).
2. I don't think I can give a useful answer to a question like that. I've found that most actors people seem to find most attractive strike me as very bland, while the striking or unusual-looking ones catch my eye (I'm not comfortable referring to people as "ugly," really).

Anyway, hotness is all about the attitude. Seriously.

This is a really interesting topic, 1234, and I'm glad you brought it up. I guess it just never occurred to me that some film lovers might value appearances over *substance.*

^ i agree with fruitfly

the only time i think appearance would matter is if the looks didn't fit the character, or if the person was so hideously ugly that I couldn't pay attention to anything else lol

agreed, in most cases.




either; sometimes i've watched horrible films which have been at least bareable, but only because of some eye candy, and other times i've found that my physical interpretation of an actor or actress helps me to a range of things. sometimes i just feel as if i gel better with the movie if i find the protagonist attractive - i think scarlett johanssen's beauty (and coppola's ability to choose truly intriguing looking people for both of her films, in fact) is a definite factor in how much i like the movie. just as i admire the aesthetic of the set, the lighting, the costume and so on, i admire the aesthetic of the actors and actresses.

i'm definitely not saying that it is a large factor, but i think there's an effect worth noting, at least.


re: avoiding 'ugly people':



i agree. i've never been turned off a film merely because i find the people in it unattractive or ugly. nonetheless, i've certainly had trouble suspending disbelief when watching films where the protagonist is supposed to be some great beauty and i just don't see it. for the most part though, it's about the actor. plenty of people who may not be that attractive can certainly persuade us that they are through the very way that they carry themselves.

not that people with low self-esteem can't be pretty (and nor are all confident people hot), but some people exude a certain sense of confidence that goes a long way towards it. similarly people who appear vulnerable can sometimes be just as sexy and compelling on the big screen.




spot on: there is a lot to be said for people who look interesting.




cheers.

*shamelessly bumping my own thread*

Fargo

A great movie, top notch acting, and not a looker to be found.

Here's my 2 cents on Asian movies. I find that Asian movies, especially the ones from Hong Kong and India are filled with "pretty" people. I have personally find that there are a lot of good HK movies which did not do good cause there aren't any good looking actor(ess) in it.

I don't know what it is, maybe we Asians are shallow like that.

European films, IMHO, have the most realistic looking people in them. Maybe it's cause Europeans are ugly (jk ) But then again, it is nicer to look at good looking people than the average ones, that's human nature I guess.

I think you could take an average or ugly person and put them in a interesting/dangerous/appealing role and they'd become attractive. I think it's all about the image they portray and the "coolness" factor in the role. Take a good looking person and make them a dunce, instant turnoff.

I am drawn to flicks featuring the likes Philip Seymour Hoffman or Christina Ricci. Steve Buscemi...I am in. I haven't watched a movie for the OMGwhatababe factor since junior high. Not that I am a movie snob. I own Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle and that is funny shit.

I think the beautiful people are there to lure in the vacuous movie goer. No offense to the visually stimulated only crowd.

There are good looking well crafted actors out there. Brad Pitt, Edward Norton, Jude Law...these boys are not just another pretty face.

An example of the beautiful people....Julia Roberts. She looks like someone tried to cram another set a teeth into her yap. Beautiful? No. Good Actress? No. Have I entertained her films? Not all by choice. She has yet to convince me.

Perpetual Indulgence said:

An example of the beautiful people....Julia Roberts. She looks like someone tried to cram another set a teeth into her yap. Beautiful? No. Good Actress? No. Have I entertained her films? Not all by choice. She has yet to convince me.

Click to expand...

Julia's beauty is unique. She's got all the unattractive parts (nose, eyes, mouth) but when you put them together, they look good. It's just like Sophia Loren.

Oh, I am a fan of unconventional beauty just review my ex-boyfriends. Julia doesn't fall in my favour. Beauty is in the eye...blahblahblah.

i think you're right. what's considered beautiful is such a relative thing and changes with time as well. just think of films made in the twenties and the "look" that was popular at the time, it's a lot different to what we see on our screens and in magazines now days. so basically i think that the media has the ability to a rather large extent dictate what is desirable, what is not, and thus also where the majority of the viewers attention will lie.

that said, i must admit that if there is a actor or actress who i think is attractive in the leading role of a film, it will make that movie a little bit more enticing for me to see. i.e. Closer. when i first saw the ads for this movie come out i thought that the plot line sounded interesting and when i also saw that Jude Law and Natalie Portman where starring in it, it made me want to see it all the more (still haven't seen it though ). i think that having an attractive star in the lead role has twofold possibilities. on the one hand it can make a good movie great (if the beautiful people are good actors aswell), but on the other hand having overly attractive people play the lead roles can take away from the deeper meaning of the story because the viewers attention is split (half or more than half is focused on marvelling at this beautiful figure on screen and the rest on the actual story). i think this wouldn't be the case though if western civilisation didn't place such great importance on appearance. where viewers delegate their focus would shift and hence how they perceive and evaluate movies would be different.

ahh, yeahhhh, i'm sort of getting a bit lost with what i'm trying to say here...

basically i think that over emphasis on casting "beautiful people" in movies can take away from the artistic nature of film because as the saying goes 'art imitates life' and in reality the beautiful people make up maybe a little less than 10% of the worlds total population... but still that's not to say that everything that is aesthetically beautiful can't be artistic too, it's just that i think the ratio of cinemas current out put is out of wack (especially in Hollywood).

good topic

the only movie that springs to mind that was chock full of ugly people is "gummo" and i fucking hated that movie.

other than that i cant really think of any examples of ugliness on parade in film. even the actors/actresses whom i dont find attractive aren't "real life ugly" they're "movie ugly". i think this is something that 1234 touched on in his original post. like steve buschemi (sp?) is totally movie ugly but he has some endearing physical qualities not to mention he's a total badass.

i know for a fact that i dont enjoy movies simply because they have attractive people in them, but i will admit that i prolly dislike certain films bc i find them asthetically offensive.

^ For the record, Gummo is NOT meant to be aesthetically pleasing! Quite the contrary, in fact.

i thought immediately of the shining- an amazing film but you wouldnt sit there wishing shelley duvall would get her kit off but if i watch a film with a"pretty" actress i cant help but think much else which kind of makes me lose track of the story

fruitfly said:

^ For the record, Gummo is NOT meant to be aesthetically pleasing! Quite the contrary, in fact.

Click to expand...

dont do that