Ok, rant time
So here now it's time for me to go off on something that may sound stupid or petty or whatever, but screw it, it's my blog.
I am really into movies, as if you didn't know that already, and I follow the movie news and stuff as well as watch the movies themselves. And I have noticed a very weird and irritating thing that has been going on in the last few years. Well, maybe not the last few, say the last ten or so.
There have always been, and always will be, actors and actresses who are cast in movies not for the acting skills they may or may not have, but for their physical appearance. Now, I have no problem with that, the fact that we are a beauty obsessed culture should come as no big shock to anyone out there. And besides, the movies are such a visual medium that it's almost unavoidable. Add in the fact that there are some long standing traditions in the movies of using good-looking, disposable characters. Take horror, comedy and thrillers as the best examples of this. Horror movies have used naked women (and men) for so long that even before they were naked, say in the 50's, they were trying to get away with showing as much as they could (bathing suits, the infamous angora sweaters, etc.). When it comes to comedy, the movies I have in mind are usually the lower-brow type, Animal House, Revenge of the Nerds, American Pie, that sort of thing. So the point is, this is something that has been used for a long time, and will continue to be used, whether the "moral majority" approves or not.
The part that annoys me to no end is the fact that for whatever reason, these genetically (and more recently surgically) blessed people are now assuming that because they were cast in a movie, that indicates that they are somehow all great actors. They will make a splash in some movie or another by showing their tits or ass or having some sex scene or whatever, then if they become well known enough to be cast again, they will turn around and put a "no nudity" clause in the contract. What bothers me about this is the hypocrisy of this. You were in the movie because you have a nice rack, not because you can act!
Probably the best example I can think of right now is Shannon Elizabeth. This girl was kicking around Hollywood for a while, making low budget crapola, then she got a boob job, took off her shirt in American Pie, and got kinda famous for it. All the while with an atrocious accent and all the acting skills of a mannequin. So then, she decides she is better than just eye candy, and won't do any more nudity. Fine, but the only reason guys went to see her in ANYTHING else was because they thought she might get naked, or because she was good looking. The acting never got better, and is painful to watch. Take away the topless scene, and what do you have? Nothing! If there is going to be a girl who isn't going to do any nudity in your horror, comedy or whatever, then make it someone who can at least act. Hence "actor". Get it? Other examples of this weird trend include Denise Richards and Elizabeth Berkeley (although she seems to understand her role slightly better than most). There are more, but you get the idea. Hypocrites!
Now, this may sound sexist or whatever, but I really don't feel it is. There are men who do this same thing. Also, and this is an important inverse to what I said above, there are women who get into the movie biz by taking it off, then turn around and show that they really can act. Some might argue or disagree with me, but I think a good example of this is Jaime Pressly. She got noticed in 'Poison Ivy: The New Seduction', where she had about 47 nude scenes. She didn't seem to want to do much more nudity after that, but here's the thing: she can be hilarious as a comedic actress. So she used her physical attributes to get in the door, then used her actual talent to stay there. And I have no problem with that. Other examples if THIS side of it include Sharon Stone, Jaime Lee Curtis and possibly Halle Berry, but her nudity was more of a comeback type thing, rather than getting in the door.
Whatever happened to the Adrienne Barbeaus, that Betsy Russells, the Leanna Quigleys, the Shannon Tweeds, the actresses who realized that maybe they weren't Oscar material, but understood that their physical beauty would keep getting them movie roles, as long as they understood and accepted the roles they got, and had fun with them? There isn't anything wrong (in my mind at least) with being lower on the totem pole, if you have fun and understand what your role is. Does that make sense?
I am in no way saying here that women actors are no more that tits and ass, by the way, so don't think that. I am just saying that don't pull the old bait and switch on us. "Here's my great body, come on in the store!" "Wow, ok!" "Oh, and by the way, inside the store here there isn't any more of my great body, just some really crappy acting." Who would shop in that store again?
I am really into movies, as if you didn't know that already, and I follow the movie news and stuff as well as watch the movies themselves. And I have noticed a very weird and irritating thing that has been going on in the last few years. Well, maybe not the last few, say the last ten or so.
There have always been, and always will be, actors and actresses who are cast in movies not for the acting skills they may or may not have, but for their physical appearance. Now, I have no problem with that, the fact that we are a beauty obsessed culture should come as no big shock to anyone out there. And besides, the movies are such a visual medium that it's almost unavoidable. Add in the fact that there are some long standing traditions in the movies of using good-looking, disposable characters. Take horror, comedy and thrillers as the best examples of this. Horror movies have used naked women (and men) for so long that even before they were naked, say in the 50's, they were trying to get away with showing as much as they could (bathing suits, the infamous angora sweaters, etc.). When it comes to comedy, the movies I have in mind are usually the lower-brow type, Animal House, Revenge of the Nerds, American Pie, that sort of thing. So the point is, this is something that has been used for a long time, and will continue to be used, whether the "moral majority" approves or not.
The part that annoys me to no end is the fact that for whatever reason, these genetically (and more recently surgically) blessed people are now assuming that because they were cast in a movie, that indicates that they are somehow all great actors. They will make a splash in some movie or another by showing their tits or ass or having some sex scene or whatever, then if they become well known enough to be cast again, they will turn around and put a "no nudity" clause in the contract. What bothers me about this is the hypocrisy of this. You were in the movie because you have a nice rack, not because you can act!
Probably the best example I can think of right now is Shannon Elizabeth. This girl was kicking around Hollywood for a while, making low budget crapola, then she got a boob job, took off her shirt in American Pie, and got kinda famous for it. All the while with an atrocious accent and all the acting skills of a mannequin. So then, she decides she is better than just eye candy, and won't do any more nudity. Fine, but the only reason guys went to see her in ANYTHING else was because they thought she might get naked, or because she was good looking. The acting never got better, and is painful to watch. Take away the topless scene, and what do you have? Nothing! If there is going to be a girl who isn't going to do any nudity in your horror, comedy or whatever, then make it someone who can at least act. Hence "actor". Get it? Other examples of this weird trend include Denise Richards and Elizabeth Berkeley (although she seems to understand her role slightly better than most). There are more, but you get the idea. Hypocrites!
Now, this may sound sexist or whatever, but I really don't feel it is. There are men who do this same thing. Also, and this is an important inverse to what I said above, there are women who get into the movie biz by taking it off, then turn around and show that they really can act. Some might argue or disagree with me, but I think a good example of this is Jaime Pressly. She got noticed in 'Poison Ivy: The New Seduction', where she had about 47 nude scenes. She didn't seem to want to do much more nudity after that, but here's the thing: she can be hilarious as a comedic actress. So she used her physical attributes to get in the door, then used her actual talent to stay there. And I have no problem with that. Other examples if THIS side of it include Sharon Stone, Jaime Lee Curtis and possibly Halle Berry, but her nudity was more of a comeback type thing, rather than getting in the door.
Whatever happened to the Adrienne Barbeaus, that Betsy Russells, the Leanna Quigleys, the Shannon Tweeds, the actresses who realized that maybe they weren't Oscar material, but understood that their physical beauty would keep getting them movie roles, as long as they understood and accepted the roles they got, and had fun with them? There isn't anything wrong (in my mind at least) with being lower on the totem pole, if you have fun and understand what your role is. Does that make sense?
I am in no way saying here that women actors are no more that tits and ass, by the way, so don't think that. I am just saying that don't pull the old bait and switch on us. "Here's my great body, come on in the store!" "Wow, ok!" "Oh, and by the way, inside the store here there isn't any more of my great body, just some really crappy acting." Who would shop in that store again?
posted by Prophet422 at 7:38 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home