![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dangermousieI was riding the Metro today, reading the local “Express” paper. They have brief summaries of all the movies currently playing in town on the back pages, and I was curious to see what the critic wrote about Star Wars and Kingdom of Heaven, the two movies on that rather extensive list that I have seen. Surprisingly, the critic had almost identical comments about both of them. They amounted to: could have been a good movie, except for the fact that it starred a pretty boy who couldn’t act his way out of a paper bag (paraphrasing). Now, tastes differ and all that, and if this was the comment about one of these movies, I would have shrugged and forgot about it. But an almost identical comment about both? Really…
I have seen similar comments about Leonardo Di Caprio (who is not in any way a lust object for me, btw, but a really good actor) even after movies like The Aviator, which had him on screen for 95% of the running time, and looking far from pretty-boyish for most of it, and which worked, in large part, because of his performance.
It appears that if you are young, attractive, and not “butch” than you simply cannot act. (Notice how the men in question are always “boys” not “men” as if all men must look like Russell Crowe). How patently absurd! Ugliness is no guarantee of talent. There are plenty of pretty boys with no talent (Josh Hartnett, Ashton Kuchner), and plenty who can act well (I would put both Bloom and Christensen in this category). Heck, there are plenty of screen legends who, when younger, were pretty boys (Paul Newman, Peter O’Toole, even Laurence Olivier).
Now, someone could easily point out that this is not worth a rant. Both Christensen and Bloom, whether reviled by our local critic or left in peace, are having quite a career and making more money than I am likely to see in my entire life.
But that is not about two (or more) men I have never met. This is about the male gaze and the patronizing attitude to women. You never see a review stating “Well, the movie would have been good, if they didn’t cast Nicole Kidman solely for her looks” or “A pity Chicago was a failure because the casting director was blinded by the beauty of Catherine Zeta Jones and forgot to look for talent.” No, a female actress is expected to be both beautiful and talented. The male reviewers (and the movie reviewers are overwhelmingly male), seem to say that they can distinguish true talent regardless of beauty, thus all the beautiful actresses they admire are talented as well. They wouldn’t be blinded by looks. But look at those poor misguided women or girls. One whiff of sex appeal and their judgment disappears. If the male actor is “pretty” than this must be the sole reason he is cast, and he has no talent. There is a whiff of inadequacy there (one can be superior to a beautiful plank of wood, but not to a talented and handsome actor), but also more than a whiff of condescension: those poor dears…blinded by looks, it is our duty to disillusion them. They cannot decide for themselves. They cannot like the actor because he is pretty AND talented. The inadequacy leads to patronizing.
Well? I don’t think so, Mr. Male Critic. Leaving aside for another day the point that if you feel more charitable towards her acting when you ogle some female newcomer’s boobs, then I am entitled to be an equal consumer of a female version of T&A, I would also like to point out that I am quite capable of deciding whether someone is a good actor or not, regardless of their looks, and guess what? One does not need to be a craggy, rugged looking man to know how to act, just like being a pretty boy is not a monopoly on stupidity.
End Rant
In “honor” of this, I am going to dedicate today to pretty boy topics.
I will start the day with reviewing the Bollywood angsty thriller Karam, starring the very pretty and often shirtless John Abraham (who is a very good actor) and end it with my further thoughts on Revenge of the Sith starring the very pretty (though not shirtless often enough) Hayden Christensen who can also act.
I have seen similar comments about Leonardo Di Caprio (who is not in any way a lust object for me, btw, but a really good actor) even after movies like The Aviator, which had him on screen for 95% of the running time, and looking far from pretty-boyish for most of it, and which worked, in large part, because of his performance.
It appears that if you are young, attractive, and not “butch” than you simply cannot act. (Notice how the men in question are always “boys” not “men” as if all men must look like Russell Crowe). How patently absurd! Ugliness is no guarantee of talent. There are plenty of pretty boys with no talent (Josh Hartnett, Ashton Kuchner), and plenty who can act well (I would put both Bloom and Christensen in this category). Heck, there are plenty of screen legends who, when younger, were pretty boys (Paul Newman, Peter O’Toole, even Laurence Olivier).
Now, someone could easily point out that this is not worth a rant. Both Christensen and Bloom, whether reviled by our local critic or left in peace, are having quite a career and making more money than I am likely to see in my entire life.
But that is not about two (or more) men I have never met. This is about the male gaze and the patronizing attitude to women. You never see a review stating “Well, the movie would have been good, if they didn’t cast Nicole Kidman solely for her looks” or “A pity Chicago was a failure because the casting director was blinded by the beauty of Catherine Zeta Jones and forgot to look for talent.” No, a female actress is expected to be both beautiful and talented. The male reviewers (and the movie reviewers are overwhelmingly male), seem to say that they can distinguish true talent regardless of beauty, thus all the beautiful actresses they admire are talented as well. They wouldn’t be blinded by looks. But look at those poor misguided women or girls. One whiff of sex appeal and their judgment disappears. If the male actor is “pretty” than this must be the sole reason he is cast, and he has no talent. There is a whiff of inadequacy there (one can be superior to a beautiful plank of wood, but not to a talented and handsome actor), but also more than a whiff of condescension: those poor dears…blinded by looks, it is our duty to disillusion them. They cannot decide for themselves. They cannot like the actor because he is pretty AND talented. The inadequacy leads to patronizing.
Well? I don’t think so, Mr. Male Critic. Leaving aside for another day the point that if you feel more charitable towards her acting when you ogle some female newcomer’s boobs, then I am entitled to be an equal consumer of a female version of T&A, I would also like to point out that I am quite capable of deciding whether someone is a good actor or not, regardless of their looks, and guess what? One does not need to be a craggy, rugged looking man to know how to act, just like being a pretty boy is not a monopoly on stupidity.
End Rant
In “honor” of this, I am going to dedicate today to pretty boy topics.
I will start the day with reviewing the Bollywood angsty thriller Karam, starring the very pretty and often shirtless John Abraham (who is a very good actor) and end it with my further thoughts on Revenge of the Sith starring the very pretty (though not shirtless often enough) Hayden Christensen who can also act.
