The Need to PUNCH P*ulo

[Murgatroyd]

Why is it incorrect? * How do you suppose movies and tv programmes would get made if they soley selected cast members on talent alone? Some roles require a person to be good looking..and some require a person tpo be average etc.

Of course it depends on the script and the role itself, like the Jane Austen Biopic perhaps - that perhaps would suit a more plainer Jane..however im speaking about roles which are open and beleivable for the character in question to be good looking - like the role of Ana Lucia, for instance. If you read the character of ANa-Lucia before they casted anyone im pretty sure from reading the script most of us would envisage her being a spikey, yet good looking chic..therefore in those instances (when the script allows) it's perfectly acceptable to choose a good looking person over an average looking one for the role. It makes sense really. If however the script didnt give the impression that the character should be good looking, then yes, a more plain verison of AL would be the order of the day.

It's probably way back in this thread now, but I thought we were talking about roles where looks are not particularly significant to the character (I don't see why Nikki or Ms Klugh or Sun or Claire need to be good looking; Nikki has no character, Ms Klugh's looks are entirely inconsequential to her actions, yet she's randomly stunning all the same, Jin's surely not shallow enough to need beauty to fall in love with and because Charlie needs to fancy Claire is not a good answer - she seems fond of him, and he's not conventionally attractive) but seem to be a factor in casting anyway - and to suggest this isn't the case is kind of to ignore the general appearance of the main players in Hollywood and the Indian film industry and whatever comes out of Pinewood these days. Older female actors in particular who aren't considered good-looking, and, to an extent, male actors, are limited to 'character parts' (Lost actually does well to give Terry O'Quinn such a good part). I'm aware that this is at least partly because good looks are still widely considered an integral part of lead roles, especially romantic roles... which is shallow and limited. And I appreciate that there a few roles where beauty is significant - you couldn't cast anyone but an extremely beautiful boy of fourteen in the role of Tadzio in Death in Venice, for example - but I would suggest that far too many roles feel they 'require' a person to be good looking than is actually the case. I saw my first short, squat, overweight Hamlet two years ago, and he was far and away the best actor in the role I've ever seen - and also the only non-conventional looking actor.

I don't see why Ana Lucia needs to be good looking either, by the way, and I've often thought I'd be able to warm to the character more if she was played by an actor with a wider range of expression... and I've thought of several in the past, none of whom are notable lookers. What action required her to be good-looking? I can think of nothing she was required to do as an actor that couldn't have been just as well accomplished by someone with plainer looks. The unconventional men in Lost manage just as well as the supermodels. Why can't they let the female roles have the same scope?

So basically it's incorrect because it props up this unhealthy culture based far too heavily on the importance of conventional good looks, and it does it in a very visible and influental way.

[Beach Crew]

Originally Posted by KoR-evo,March 10, 2007 09:38 am

We'll see..we'll see

*Frowns* Don't make me get the broom.

And poor Paulo, he's really taking a beating in this thread. But I must say I'm enjoying the debate on the tv/film industry....very interesting. Tv/film will always focus on looks, there is no doubt about it....and we're never gonna escape that, it's just a fact of life. Yes, it's unfair, but it ain't gonna change, not in the near future anyways.

[lost_815]

Leave Paulo alone!

Alright so he's kind of pointless right now, but so is Bernard. At least Paulo's nice to look at. Ah ... how shallow. :P

[D-Roc]

Originally Posted by lost_815,March 11, 2007 09:08 am

Leave Paulo alone!

Alright so he's kind of pointless right now, but so is Bernard. At least Paulo's nice to look at. Ah ... how shallow. :P

Oh yes, fear not..Bernards thread is coming Joking..i dont want to upset Rosie..plus is Bernie even alive?..i dont want to disrespect the dead

[D-Roc]

Originally Posted by Beach Crew,March 10, 2007 10:42 am

*Frowns* Don't make me get the broom.

And poor Paulo, he's really taking a beating in this thread. But I must say I'm enjoying the debate on the tv/film industry....very interesting. Tv/film will always focus on looks, there is no doubt about it....and we're never gonna escape that, it's just a fact of life. Yes, it's unfair, but it ain't gonna change, not in the near future anyways.

Hmm, i like the broom

Yes..yes he is!

I agree, it's a fact of the industry..it's never going to change. I can agree with Murg on a level but then i have to also realise that some roles just require good looking folks..of course some dont and perhaps this is where talent should be the only choice. But then, we the viewers kinda dictate what we see on TV..and i guess we dont want to see average looking people. When i say 'we' i mean the public in general.

[Beach Crew]

Originally Posted by KoR-evo,March 11, 2007 12:20 pm

Hmm, i like the broom

Yes..yes he is!

I agree, it's a fact of the industry..it's never going to change. I can agree with Murg on a level but then i have to also realise that some roles just require good looking folks..of course some dont and perhaps this is where talent should be the only choice. But then, we the viewers kinda dictate what we see on TV..and i guess we dont want to see average looking people. When i say 'we' i mean the public in general.

*Giggles* Ok then

His poor pretty face....hmmm, I wonder if he has good abs?

It won't, it's been this way too long for it to change. Yeah, but those roles that don't focus on looks tend to be the ones that win award and then are forgotten about, and they're not given the appreciation they deserve. Or they are a "Token role"....like Hurley for example. Exactly, people want beautiful people to look at, coz even though it doesn't reflect real life, it's nice.

[D-Roc]

Originally Posted by Murgatroyd,March 10, 2007 10:42 am

It's probably way back in this thread now, but I thought we were talking about roles where looks are not particularly significant to the character (I don't see why Nikki or Ms Klugh or Sun or Claire need to be good looking; Nikki has no character, Ms Klugh's looks are entirely inconsequential to her actions, yet she's randomly stunning all the same, Jin's surely not shallow enough to need beauty to fall in love with and because Charlie needs to fancy Claire is not a good answer - she seems fond of him, and he's not conventionally attractive) but seem to be a factor in casting anyway - and to suggest this isn't the case is kind of to ignore the general appearance of the main players in Hollywood and the Indian film industry and whatever comes out of Pinewood these days. Older female actors in particular who aren't considered good-looking, and, to an extent, male actors, are limited to 'character parts' (Lost actually does well to give Terry O'Quinn such a good part). I'm aware that this is at least partly because good looks are still widely considered an integral part of lead roles, especially romantic roles... which is shallow and limited. And I appreciate that there a few roles where beauty is significant - you couldn't cast anyone but an extremely beautiful boy of fourteen in the role of Tadzio in Death in Venice, for example - but I would suggest that far too many roles feel they 'require' a person to be good looking than is actually the case. I saw my first short, squat, overweight Hamlet two years ago, and he was far and away the best actor in the role I've ever seen - and also the only non-conventional looking actor.

I don't see why Ana Lucia needs to be good looking either, by the way, and I've often thought I'd be able to warm to the character more if she was played by an actor with a wider range of expression... and I've thought of several in the past, none of whom are notable lookers. What action required her to be good-looking? I can think of nothing she was required to do as an actor that couldn't have been just as well accomplished by someone with plainer looks. The unconventional men in Lost manage just as well as the supermodels. Why can't they let the female roles have the same scope?

So basically it's incorrect because it props up this unhealthy culture based far too heavily on the importance of conventional good looks, and it does it in a very visible and influental way.

Oh, yes..i agree with you that when the role doesnt require a nice looking person then talent should be the only factor in an actor/actress getting a role - i do agree with you on this.

It's just that I notice you mention that the role of Ana-Lucia 'didnt' require a good looking person, such as MR. Now this is were we disagree i think. I reckon that the role 'did' require or at least did 'benefit' from having a good looking chick in the role. I think the relationship' angle with Jack meant that Lucia's believability in catching Jacks eye was crucial (since we know that Jack only goes for 'lookers'..shallow as he is). Also, i really got a sense that Ana-Lucia was always mean to be a character with so much outer steel yet inner vunerability. For this reason i found it really captivating to see such a beautiful looking person (imo) who was so vunerable yet tried to conceal it and didnt play off those looks to get ahead in the world. Tbhis, for me was a captivating aspect of MR's portrayal of AL..and i really think that the role asked for thats sort of person..and indeed a good looking woman.

I do agree that not all role require this - but then it's down to subjectivity and the insight of the casting directors (or the pressure placed on them by the networks..and inturn the pressures placed on them by the public).

I also agree that it's not a healthy trend setter to cast people based on their looks..but then if were talking about MR, then i dont think this was the case - I think he looks was my tongue on the cherry on the icing on the cake (so to speak)