I'll admit. I'm guilty of doing this. For my last movie, I cast an Asian model to play the lead. I feel so shallow, and so ashamed. :no: She was a pretty good actress though. But do you see a problem with this? Are you guilty of casting only beautiful people for your movies? I personally think it would be better if independent filmmakers, and Hollywood filmmakers, started casting more 'not so pretty / heavier' people in films. It would be better if there was more racial diversity in films to. Variety rocks!

What do you think?

Umm.. I don't quite know how to put this...because it's going to seem so obvious...but you should cast according to the character, if the character is supposed to be pretty, it wouldn't make sense to cast someone that was unattractive. Don't feel bad about it.

I usually have a very good idea of what my characters look like.. so I cast whoever's closest to that image.. or if I could see potential for them to bring something else to the character that I might not have thought of..which can change the image of them in my head entirely.. y'know?

I think the issue for me is not about whether the person is good looking, it's about whether they are photogenic.

Sid James was far from good looking, but he looked great on film and in fact many of the British actors from the 40's and 50's were character actors, as opposed to eye candy.

I think Mr Blond is right, that you have to cast according to the needs of the character, but I think that the idea of what kind of person can play a particular role ought to be more flexible.

I have many friends who are actors and the one thing they all hate about auditioning for TV and Film work is that they are almost exclusively cast on their appearance and almost always in a stereotypical way. Their ability to act is always an after thought. In fact, I know of one UK TV series whose audition consists of twenty hopefuls walking around the room in a circle, whilst a panel from the show compare the shape of their butts.

I think the problem is that many directors only see the actor as another prop, that either fits in with their vision or doesn't. I think it's really important to go to auditions with an open mind, trying to put to one side the picture of the character you have in your head.

There is no guilt in wanting to look at beautiful things, the gratification is immediate and its own reward. But you're a filmmaker telling a story, and as said above, cast for character. What if directors/casting people looked at a Gene Hackman or a James Wood or a Linda Hunt and refused to cast them solely based on appearrance, we would have lost their performances. IMO intelligence and personality in a performance far outweighs a pretty face.

Yahhh...Mr(Miss)Blonde is back :D

you should cast according to the character
I do. That wasn’t my argument though. My point was simple. There is a lot of prejudice in both the independent film and Hollywood film worlds. In many cases, not all, it has become more about vanity and making things look cool than content.

I usually have a very good idea of what my characters look like.. so I cast whoever's closest to that image.. or if I could see potential for them to bring something else to the character that I might not have thought of..which can change the image of them in my head entirely.. y'know?
Yes.


Sid James was far from good looking, but he looked great on film and in fact many of the British actors from the 40's and 50's were character actors, as opposed to eye candy.
The kind of discrimination I describe is more popular with women and non-whites.

In fact, I know of one UK TV series whose audition consists of twenty hopefuls walking around the room in a circle, whilst a panel from the show compare the shape of their butts.
LOL. Wow. That’s funny and sad.

The kind of discrimination I describe is more popular with women and non-whites.

You should look at "Redemption" a feature by one of our members. He's got a couple of great sequences in that film about his experiences in LA casting sessions as a black actor.

People want to see beautiful people on the screen. Guys like pretty girls, girls like handsome guys. Psychologically it goes much deeper than you might think. that being said, although 95% of roles are for traditional hollywood pretty actress/waitress types, more intellectual films often show less than gorgeous people as main characters. The point being that if the script and character call for it, then it calls for it. But most big budget productions are put together differently - they attach stars to a project, find funding, make a film that will make a profit just because people want to watch Joe or Jane hot stuff on the screen for 95 minutes.

Indie film is different. Make a film called "Ugly people rule the world", the indie market will eat it up. Things are changing. Make a more sophisticated film than the formulaic crap coming out of hollywood mills.

You should look at "Redemption" a feature by one of our members. He's got a couple of great sequences in that film about his experiences in LA casting sessions as a black actor.
Sounds like an interesting subject. Thank you for the recommendation.

People want to see beautiful people on the screen. Guys like pretty girls, girls like handsome guys. Psychologically it goes much deeper than you might think. that being said, although 95% of roles are for traditional hollywood pretty actress/waitress types, more intellectual films often show less than gorgeous people as main characters.
This is a perfectly valid point. It's unfortunate though that the mainstream isn't more interested in people who are more like themselves. Maybe they see films more as a way to escape the conventions and gloom of reality, and not so much as an artistic way to reflect reality. This may be why they (some) expect everything in their films to be beautiful and glamorous, and why so many filmmakers cater to this want – leaving many of the lesser looking better actors in the dust.

Sounds like an interesting subject. Thank you for the recommendation.


This is a perfectly valid point. It's unfortunate though that the mainstream isn't more interested in people who are more like themselves. Maybe they see films more as a way to escape the conventions and gloom of reality, and not so much as an artistic way to reflect reality. This may be why they (some) expect everything in their films to be beautiful and glamorous, and why so many filmmakers cater to this want – leaving many of the lesser looking better actors in the dust.

Well really now.. when you think about it.. we see people who look like themselves everyday, as you said..seeing a film is an escape from reality.. some people go to the cinema to simply witness somebody's life more exciting then there own unfold for 2 hours.. to just be voyeurs into the reality that exists for that time.. but movies have never just been about just watching regular people.. it's always some quest, some mission, some personal journey.. so we expect to see stylised versions of ourselves.. coz for that time.. we relate completely to that person...& for that time.. we are that person.

Yahhh...Mr(Miss)Blonde is back :D

Squee!! haha.. thanks, it's good to be back.

Well really now.. when you think about it.. we see people who look like themselves everyday, as you said..seeing a film is an escape from reality.. some people go to the cinema to simply witness somebody's life more exciting then there own unfold for 2 hours.. to just be voyeurs into the reality that exists for that time.. but movies have never just been about just watching regular people.. it's always some quest, some mission, some personal journey.. so we expect to see stylised versions of ourselves.. coz for that time.. we relate completely to that person...& for that time.. we are that person.
You make an absolutely flawless point, Mr. Blonde. However, I still think it kind of sucks that a lot of extremely talented performers are turned down simply because they aren't thin or hot enough. :grumpy:

Well this is a tough business.. & not everyone is right for it. That's life I'm afraid.

Well this is a tough business.. & not everyone is right for it. That's life I'm afraid.
Well, I'm going to do my part and start rebelling against the superficiality of the system by getting more talent and less beauty for my movies. Does this mean I’m going to start hiring people that don’t match the look of the characters I have in mind, or get butt ugly people just to help create the balance I want? Of course not. But if I ever have to choose between a supermodel that can’t act, and an average looking person that can act extremely well, I’m going to go with the normal looking person.

Good for you!! As I said.. cast for the character.. not the audience.

You'll just betray your script & yourself as an artist if you try to be all things to all people. Go with what feels right.. casting because of talent will reflect better on you then casting for beauty.

i agree pretty much 100% with Blondey, if you know as much about your characters as you should, then you should go from that and not who is 'it' right now, or who would look best on screen.

hahaha i know that the two main characters in the short i've just written aren't handsome, hell, one is based on me! :P

The extreme is easy - a beauty that can't act vs. the normal looker who is brilliant.

What if you have two, equally talented actors? Both would fit the part perfectly and each would bring something unique - and very different - to the character.

Two scenarios:

1) Actor #1 is very pretty to look at. Enthusiastic, sexy, but not supermodel perfect. Actor #2 is average. Enthusiastic, overweight, but not obese. Who do you pick?

2) Actor #1 is stunning. They type you see in movies and TV all the time. Actor #2 is frumpy. The type you see on line at the supermarket in Kansas. Who do you pick?

What if you have two, equally talented actors? Both would fit the part perfectly and each would bring something unique - and very different - to the character.

Two scenarios:

1) Actor #1 is very pretty to look at. Enthusiastic, sexy, but not supermodel perfect. Actor #2 is average. Enthusiastic, overweight, but not obese. Who do you pick?

2) Actor #1 is stunning. They type you see in movies and TV all the time. Actor #2 is frumpy. The type you see on line at the supermarket in Kansas. Who do you pick?

Actually, it's not usually that hard a decision. The trick is to cast the principle cast together, so that the interaction between the key cast member is the deciding factor. By doing it this way you are not making a judgement about the person in isolation, which in turn makes it less likely that the casting will come down to decision about outward appearance.

In my experience once you get the right people together in a room the casting becomes obvious. Looking for the chemistry between people is by far the best audition tool I've found so far.

Originally Posted by Mr.Blonde
Well really now.. when you think about it.. we see people who look like themselves everyday, as you said..seeing a film is an escape from reality.. some people go to the cinema to simply witness somebody's life more exciting then there own unfold for 2 hours.. to just be voyeurs into the reality that exists for that time.. but movies have never just been about just watching regular people.. it's always some quest, some mission, some personal journey.. so we expect to see stylised versions of ourselves.. coz for that time.. we relate completely to that person...& for that time.. we are that person.


I agree with Mr. Miss Blonde's other comments entirely. We do watch films to escape but that's not the only reason. Movies have been about watching "regular" people. Just harken back to early days of filmmaking- Edison was filmming vaudeville performers and odd acts but the Lumiere Brothers' first film was a single shot made outside a factory just observing workers coming and going on your average day which may have been the very birth of documentary filmmaking right here. I think watching films is just as much the act of observing as it is what we're observing or whom. And if done just right, the camera can make just about anything seductive or photogenic or full of character and I think that's what makes film so magical.

I agree with Mr. Miss Blonde's other comments entirely. We do watch films to escape but that's not the only reason. Movies have been about watching "regular" people. Just harken back to early days of filmmaking- Edison was filmming vaudeville performers and odd acts but the Lumiere Brothers' first film was a single shot made outside a factory just observing workers coming and going on your average day which may have been the very birth of documentary filmmaking right here. I think watching films is just as much the act of observing as it is what we're observing or whom. And if done just right, the camera can make just about anything seductive or photogenic or full of character and I think that's what makes film so magical.

I completely agree.. alot of my favourite films are just about normal people.. so that totally makes sense to me.

You'll just betray your script & yourself as an artist if you try to be all things to all people. Go with what feels right.. casting because of talent will reflect better on you then casting for beauty.
You and I, I think, share the same philosophy on film. When making films, my main goal is to illustrate the story, as I see it in my mind, to the best of my abilities. At all costs, I try to avoid things that will interfere with my vision and the clarity of the result. For example: I don’t do cameos for the sake of doing cameos. I don’t advertise within my films. And I don’t cast people who look good but can’t act their way out of a room with the door already open.

----------------------------------------

What if you have two, equally talented actors? Both would fit the part perfectly and each would bring something unique - and very different - to the character.
Then I would go off of looks. I would close my eyes, picture the character, and who ever looked closest to what I saw in my mind would have the part.

1) Actor #1 is very pretty to look at. Enthusiastic, sexy, but not supermodel perfect. Actor #2 is average. Enthusiastic, overweight, but not obese. Who do you pick?
Who ever looked the part.

2) Actor #1 is stunning. They type you see in movies and TV all the time. Actor #2 is frumpy. The type you see on line at the supermarket in Kansas. Who do you pick?
The one with the most talent and looked the part.

clive - I posed the question because I actually faced it. And it was a very hard decision.

I taped scenes with the two different actors and discovered that they were still BOTH excellent and would bring something very different to the character - both would work for the film and each would bring something unique to it. They each had great (and very different) chemistry with the other three actors.

The less physically attractive actor was closer to the character I had written and was willing to go the extra mile to bring the character to life - but she was heavy and not someone who most people would give a second glance to.

The very attractive actor was harsher, more “worldly”, than I had envisioned and wanted to challenge my original perception of the character - but she was beautiful.

It was an agonizing decision.

cinematography - when you say, “Who ever looked the part”, do you mean the most attractive?

In my “what if” scenario, the two actors are equal in talent and “correctness” for the part. But one is very attractive and the other frumpy. Who do you choose?
I completely agree.. alot of my favourite films are just about normal people.. so that totally makes sense to me.
Mine too. But this discussion caused me to think about these film I like. And the actors are almost always very good looking.

For now, let’s leave the men out of it - us guys are not good at judging attractive when it comes to men.

What films about normal people do you like that have average looking women in them? And not a minor characters - as the leads.

You're obviously a Tarantino fan. Thurman, Liu, Fox, Hannah, Fonda and Greer aren't exactly average looking.

BTW - this is a great discussion. It's really making me think.

The less physically attractive actor was closer to the character I had written and was willing to go the extra mile to bring the character to life - but she was heavy and not someone who most people would give a second glance to.

The very attractive actor was harsher, more “worldly”, than I had envisioned and wanted to challenge my original perception of the character - but she was beautiful.

I may be wrong about this, but I think that on a gut level you knew exactly which actor to cast, but your mind got in the way. I'm a great believer in the the creative instinct and I always try to go with the gut.

Just out of interest, who did you cast in the end and do you feel it was the right decision? I hope you cast the less attractive actor, not because I think you should cast against prejudice, but simply because I think she was the actor you really wanted.

I'm really enjoying this thread too. Way to go cinematography :woohoo:

What films about normal people do you like that have average looking women in them? And not a minor characters - as the leads.[

Just off the top- "average" looking actors who had me glued to the screen: Emily Watson (in just about anything) but especially in Breaking The Waves. Her face conveyed so many nuances: she was innocent, ridiculous, dark, profane. Emmanuelle Devos in Read my lips: she had charm, she was sexy. Alfre Woodard, Kimberly Elise, Sarah Polley, Diane Keaton...they all bring something unique-whether it's a physical thing a character quirk, a subtle performance. It's what makes them truly photogenic.

in the mainstream, it really all comes down to would you want to sleep with her or not? Is she sexy enough? But even that wears thin, think about it: how many of you guys dated someone who was a little overweight, or had a crooked smile or something and still found her incredibly sexy...it's called personality! :P

Yeah I get it, folks tend to like people who are easy on the eyes. And its a business. :mope: I think ultimately, that's the very thing that will always keep film a middleweight artform. Just imagine if Picasso painted fair beauties his entire life? booorrriiing.


Yeah but I'm curious too, which one did you pick? I agree w/clive, I think you went on gut feeling.

shirleyb

Mine too. But this discussion caused me to think about these film I like. And the actors are almost always very good looking.

For now, let’s leave the men out of it - us guys are not good at judging attractive when it comes to men.

What films about normal people do you like that have average looking women in them? And not a minor characters - as the leads.

You're obviously a Tarantino fan. Thurman, Liu, Fox, Hannah, Fonda and Greer aren't exactly average looking.


Yeah..they're beautiful women.. but as if you never see beautfiul women at the store.. & those women were chosen because they fit the characters.. & they had the talent.. the characters are supposed to be beautiful..They are femme fatales..They're stylised to fit a fantasy.. haha..there's no denying that.

..look at guys like buscemi, kietel, roth..madsen..they look like everyday guys..

but it looks like this is becoming a conversation about everyone who isn't in the movies being unnattractive..

the characters are supposed to be beautiful..They are femme fatales..They're stylised to fit a fantasy.. haha..there's no denying that.

that is an excellent explanation right there

well said

Danke.

cinematography - when you say, “Who ever looked the part”, do you mean the most attractive?
Oh no. I meant who ever looked closest to what I saw in my mind. If I close my eyes and see a character with a long pointy nose, I’ll go with the person with the longest and pointiest nose. :lol:

For now, let’s leave the men out of it - us guys are not good at judging attractive when it comes to men.
I am. :D And no, I’m not gay. It’s all a matter of contrast and comparison. How much does that guy look like Brad Pitt or Denzel Washington, two dudes that women go all googly for. When I have a hard time rating something, I usually look for the standard and then extrapolate from there.


And thanks for the compliments, guys. :)

Wow, I've been gone awhile.

Good discussion.

You'll notice that the Buscemi / Keitel / Roth style of casting mentioned above is also a stereotype in its own way: since most filmmakers are male (I know, I know), they not only look past the idea of what's attractive when casting their leads, but they sympathize and relate with an average Joe -- as does most of the moviegoing population. I suspect we'd all sympathize with the average Janes as well, but the average Joes would rather look at supermodels for two hours.

On top of that, if the average script has a male as the protagonist and antagonist, the top female roles are... ? "Wife," "Girlfriend," "Waitress," "Hooker," "Secretary," etc. Since movies are, as was mentioned, an "escape," the average Joes making and watching films like to fantasize that they are capable of dating, marrying and employing disproportionately attractive women. I'm still waiting for a major Hollywood film in which a bunch of average or quirky-looking women are dating or married to insanely attractive guys and it's not treated as a satire...

We here on the microcinema level work with what we have, which is why my series is cast with "normal looking" people. Personally, I find the normal looking people more attractive because they're more believable, which makes their performances and stories more believable. I've heard something similar from a few viewers as well, so I enjoy the validation. ;)

Oh, by the way: I'm straight, but I can tell the attractive guys from the unattractive ones. I know which guys I'd rather watch for two hours, and part of it has to do with physical appearance, but more of it has to do with personality and emulation. Would I rather put myself in George Clooney's shoes for two hours, or Drew Carey's?

the average Joes making and watching films like to fantasize that they are capable of dating, marrying and employing disproportionately attractive women.

Haha...a variation of the male gaze. I wonder what a 'female gaze' would entail...

After reading all the points brought up in this thread...who wants to play a former porn actor (not star, but from the good ole nasty days) suffering through the final stage of syphillus (complete with ooozing pustules, dementia, blindness) whose only redeeming quality is dying away from the 'pack'?..... :D

Hummm, maybe I should reconsider my main character...... :no:

Drew Carey.. definately, he's got that cool TV show... you know, Who's Line. :D Just kidding.. (maybe)

I had a long thought about this last night. But basically I just came back to my original thoughts which are, if the script calls for it it calls for it. I think one of the tougher things to do than to script and cast superficially is to bring out the inner beauty and even hero qualities in regular people in your script. 85% of people I have met have this inner beauty once you dig a little deeper. Of course I have met attractive people who are superficial just as much as I have met non-attractive people who are. But underneath the layer of skin lies a soul of untold depths. As a filmmaker, delving into that can be attractive unto itself. However, I seriously doubt many people want to watch a two hour love story with unnattractive people. The closest I can get it maybe Punch Drunk Love but those people are just untraditionally attractive.

The unnattractive guy who has charm and personality to woo the hot female(casablanca, etc), the ugly duckling girl who blossoms and now every guy wants her (sabrina), the couple who aren't particularly beautiful but who are attractive in their personality (Esotsm), These are the stories that people want to see. In the end I think people want to see hero-esque or better-than-they-thought-they-could-be, etc. type stories. And the more regular of a type of person you can cast in the role, the more an audience member can identify with that.

What about Mask (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089560)? Granted Cher isn't wholly unattractive, but the guy is pretty narly looking. Although I suppose it's makeup, so maybe that doesn't count.

After I asked Mr. Blond my question I realised that “average looking” or “normal” is going to be too subjective.

Though you did come up with some great examples, shirley. None of them classically “hollywood” beautiful, but all of them beautiful women. Concidering the talent of Emily Watson and Sarah Polley (in particular) I can’t help but think they would have achieved much more fame if they were more classically beautiful.

For my film, dark crimes, it was just about to come down to a coin toss. Casting director, producer, me and two of the actors couldn’t decide because both were so damn close - completly equal in talent and enthusiasm for the role.

And then the reality of marketing came up. What most decisions come down to when trying to earn a living with your films.

With no “names” in the cast, a very attractive woman on the poster and DVD box has a better chance being looked at.

It was painful - but I went with the attractive actor. It turned out to be the right choice. She challenged every perception I had of the character. Between the two of us the character - and thus the movie itself - became much more interesting. It turned out to be the most educational of all my feature shoots.

I know it sucks - but already we’ve had three distributors who first said “not interested” to the pitch, change their minds when they saw a picture of her.

Yeah..they're beautiful women.. but as if you never see beautfiul women at the store.. & those women were chosen because they fit the characters.. & they had the talent.. the characters are supposed to be beautiful..They are femme fatales..They're stylised to fit a fantasy.. haha..there's no denying that.
I agree with you. But that doesn't answer my question. Which is too bad. I would have found your answer interesting.

Something that I've noticed with Australian films is that.. while the cast might be attractive.. they do just look like regular people here. Especially with the film 'blurred'.. there's this boyish looking girl with really bad hair.. & yet.. her character get's alot of male attention..Or the rage in placid lake.. ben lee plays the main character & while..he isn't the biggest heartthrob in the world.. you still like him because of his personality that sets him apart from everyone else.

I agree with you. But that doesn't answer my question. Which is too bad. I would have found your answer interesting.

I'm sorry.. what was your question again?

But basically I just came back to my original thoughts which are, if the script calls for it it calls for it.
One problem is that scriptwriters are writing their scripts so that they will call for an all beautiful cast. This is also done with race. Take Lord of the Rings, for example. There is not one average looking person or non-white in that entire series. Am I saying that there should have been non-whites or average looking people in the Lord of the Rings movies? No. Not really. I’m only arguing that there is a lot of ground and people that isn't being considered. Many filmmakers are too preoccupied with beauty and making money, and not so much with being original or exploring their options.

I know it sucks - but already we’ve had three distributors who first said “not interested” to the pitch, change their minds when they saw a picture of her.
I honestly would have doubts about handing my movie over to a distributor who thought like that. I usually try to avoid people who are that shallow.

I know it sucks - but already we’ve had three distributors who first said “not interested” to the pitch, change their minds when they saw a picture of her.

At the end of the day you made the right decision. When people are depending on you to pay them you can't afford to get too precious about getting the film sold. I understand what cinematography is saying, in that you should be able to say "Hey, I'll just find a distributor who doesn't need some hot chick on the cover to sell a film," but in reality it's just expensive and time consuming on feature production to turn down a distribution deal.

The flip side of this, is that there are market places for "Arthouse" films where the less attractive actor may have been a bonus, it's all about how the film is packaged, because the direct to DVd market in the UK isn't that large, the arthouse market tends to be one of the main European selling arenas, The truth is that this market place has slightly different requirements.

Interesting discussion and a good lesson for me on not making assumption about other people's processes. I'm good, but I still can't read minds :lol:

I honestly would have doubts about handing my movie over to a distributor who thought like that. I usually try to avoid people who are that shallow.
Then you are in a better position than I am. I don’t have the option to choose among several distributors, all offering me money for my movies. When a distributor opens the checkbook my desire to avoid them diminishes.

Then you are in a better position than I am. I don’t have the option to choose among several distributors, all offering me money for my movies. When a distributor opens the checkbook my desire to avoid them diminishes.
I didn’t say I would turn him down. If I was just starting, and my main goal was just to get my foot in the door, I would probably compromise my values and let a shallow a--hole distribute my film.