A rant on chauvinist movie critics, pretty boys and condescension

[dangermousie]

I 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.

Comments

[valarltd.livejournal.com]

May I add that Leo DiCaprio is far too pretty? He looks exactly like one of my best (female) friends. My mother even agrees on that point.

Not a great pic, but the one standing over my left shoulder

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

Heee. Now I am going to be very confused watching his films :)

I don't find Leo in the least attractive, but I do think he is a good actor, girly-looking or not.

[crumpeteer.livejournal.com]

See, the thing to me is that women are supposed to be pretty AND good actresses. You very rarely find a plain looking actress. Yet with men, if he's good looking and young, he just can't possibly act. They blame it on the actor being young (that's just crap, Haley Joel Osmett and Daniel Radcliffe are both wonderful very young actors), but I think it really boils down to male critics thinking that women shouldn't be allowed to appreciate a good looking man for some reason. And Hayden CAN act. You can't watch a lot of his stuff and deny that. Orlando has his moments of talent. And it seems like pretty young actors can't win any way they go. If they don't put a lot of emotion into the performance and act subdued the critics say they're stiff. If they put a ton of emotion in it, they say they're over acting. Well, fine then Mr. Critic, YOU do the acting then.

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

So true. And the "young" tag never wears off. I always thought that the reason Paul Newman got his Oscar when he was in his 60s? 70s? was because it took that long for the "pretty boy" label to wear off.

[crumpeteer.livejournal.com]

There's also the implicit attitude that even if they can't act, if they're more manly looking (ie, Chris Evans types) they're more easily forgiven. They say "oh, he's a tolerable young man" or whatever, but never take the offense that pretty men seem to make men feel. And they take it violently. There is always constant mockery from the male gender when it comes to "their women" thinking that pretty boys are attractive, yet if you like someone who looks a little more manly, for some reason men think that's understandable. Why is liking someone beautiful not understandable? It's a ridiculous double standard.

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

Yes, indeedy.

I would never argue that Bloom or Christensen (or any other pretty boy) is the best thing to happen to acting since Marlon Brando. Leaving aside everything else, I haven't seen enough of their stuff.

But in everything I did see them, they appear to be quite competent. Oscar material? Perhaps not. But horrible? No. If they looked more rough-and-tumble the critics would never really dwell on their (supposed) failures with such relish.

[katranna.livejournal.com]

>>Well, the movie would have been good, if they didn’t cast Nicole Kidman solely for her looks

I have seen some similar comments, as in: "She looks good, but can't act." But in those cases, it's usually true.

But I very much agree. I'm sick of people underestimating Brad Pitt because he started out as a prettyboy. He's not even pretty anymore, but I still see people dismissing his acting abilities because of his looks. Same with Jude Law. And just recently, I saw someone write how Johnny Depp couldn't be counted as a great character actor because he's "too pretty."

Besides, why ARE the rougher-looking guys accepted as good actors? It's not like women don't find Russel Crowes and Clive Owens, etc, attractive. I honestly think it also has to do with some men's strange feelings of discomfort at the more feminine-looking pretty men. (I encounter it in real life often enough--a lot of guys--most even--seem to take downright personal offense when I say that I find a particular feminine man attractive. They insist on putting his looks down, which they won't do if I said I found a scriffier-looking guy hot.) I propose that you could trace a correlation, not between how handsome a male actor is and the disparagement of his acting, but how feminine his features are, and the dismissal of his other abilities. And strangely enough, people don't seem to forget. If an actor was a somewhat girlish-looking pretty young lad at any point in his career, he'll have to fight that off up to his 40s.

:-P Though, um, I don't think either Orli or Hayden are all that great actors.

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

Oh, I can see people not thinking Hayden or Orli are good actors. Once again, tastes differ and all that. But what bugged me about those write-ups was the implicit attitude that if you are young and not brimming with testosterone, you simply cannot act (and shouldn't be attractive). It is was something I see time and time and time again. If you are pretty in a less "manly" way than you can't act and/or shouldn't be liked by women. Why?

I think some straight men might feel that someone who looks like e.g. Jude Law is more of an assault on their sexuality and gender ideas than someone who looks like e.g. Clive Owen. Jude Law is not "manly." Or something.

[katranna.livejournal.com]

Right. I just talked to coworker about it--basically, he said that a rough-looking guy, a man can "respect"--but not a femmy-looking one. Which is basically misogyny, since the reason they can't respect the femmy guy is that he's "too like a woman." And of course, they get all defensive when women find these men attractive, because I think it confronts them with the fact that women don't necessarily buy into their (male) value systems.

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

Yes. It's the Aragorn v. Legolas thing in LOTR. Men love the scruffy manly Aragorn and seem to be OK with women swooning for him. But Legolas? They think that there is something wrong with you because "he looks like a girl," though on a pure deadliness level he outweighs Aragorn.

I am not talking here about whether Orlando played Legolas better than VM did Aragorn. It's a purely visual image thing: look "girly" and men won't like you.

[katranna.livejournal.com]

And you know the kind of men I like. I have to put up with that kind of stuff all the time!

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

But not from "girly" men themselves, I hope :)

[crumpeteer.livejournal.com]

That's very true. Plenty of my guy friends commented that Legolas was "sissy" or "girly", yet they couldn't say much when I would point out that he just took out two orcs with one shot or that it was fairly easy to argue that he was more efficient when it came to hand to hand combat than any of the other warrior characters (all the elves were more efficient, but since they had long hair they got called "sissy"). Guys are more willing to side with the Han Solo/ Obi Wan types in Star Wars than they are with Anakin. Why? Anakin proves that he is athletically on the same level if not better than his peers and in the sheer rage department has the weights stacked in his favor. Yes, he's whiny, but he can also kick your ass. Men seem to forget this.

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

Your icon almost made me spill my ice tea.

It seems that for male viewers, unless you are scruffy or built like a heayweight, you don't exist as a "warrior" and/or not viewed as "manly," no matter how many Orcs you kill, how many rages you have, or how many princesses you bed. It's as if the visual stereotype overwhelms all else, which is ridiculous. Yeah, you need to be a sturdy lad to fight medieval style, but for a 17th century duellist (e.g.) speed and flexibility are much more important.

[crumpeteer.livejournal.com]

I cracked up at the icon when I first saw it myself.

The irony is that I understand that Hayden himself is a jock. It's ridiculous that "pretty boys" get stereo typed so fast. I don't understand why men are so incredibly threatened by prettier guys. Maybe they feel that all their "manliness" is for naught if women are still attracted to guys with some androgyny. You always hear about the fragile male ego, which is think is just an excuse for men to act bratty, but they should just get over it. It's frustrating.

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

I tried asking my husband about it, and it really came down to:

if a guy is "Aragorn" it's the kind of guy you'd like to be, so if women like him: yay!

But when you are a teenager/pre-teen you get inculcated into these rigid gender-roles and stereotypes (where anything least bit "unmanly" is percieved as horrible), so that you don't ever want to be like Anakin or Legolas or whatever. So when women like them, it's almost as if they reject you...

Bizarre....

[crumpeteer.livejournal.com]

Really. That is bizarre. Understandable, but it's something they just need to get over. Not that they will. I wish they'd understand that masculinity is an attitude more than a look. At least to me. Characters like Anakin and Legolas I both find very masculine. There's an underlying danger to them that overtly masculine guys don't have the advantage of. It's a lethalness that only people who look like them can possess.

I always went for the prettier guys. Androgyny has always sort of been my thing, though I do appreciate a well built man. Anime characters always appealed to me for that reason. Yes, they were androgynous to the extreme, but most of them could back up their words with action and angst.

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

Also, have you noticed? if one is an attractive actor who is more "pretty boy" (and appeals very much to women) then it's a lot more likely that gay rumors will pop up. E.g. I couldn't care less if Orlando bloom has sex with men, women or monkeys, but I find it rather interesting how the rumors about someone more stereotypically male-looking rarely occur.

Now, I can buy that one's opinion of a man's sexual orientation can be influenced by his manner or dress style, but bone structure and the breadth of their shoulders? That strikes me as patently absurd. It's as if men want to remove the men in question from some weird fictional competition.

[crumpeteer.livejournal.com]

Very much so. You wouldn't believe the gay rumors that Hayden and Orli have had in comparison to more masculine actors. And they persist almost until the guy is married. It's rather sad. Not only is that not really the general publics business, it's something that people believe with no proof simply because the way a guy looks.

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

Oh yes. I find it all rather bizarre.

One's sexual orientation is not genetically connected to how one looks.

I really do think it's because so many men view them as "women." Thus, just like women, they must go for men.

Are Hayden or Orli gay? Good for them. Straight or bi? Ditto. But since both have been going out with women, I would like more evidence than "hey, he doesn't look macho" before I assume they are gay.

[crumpeteer.livejournal.com]

It's also a way of undermining the competition. Women think these guys we don't approve are hot? We'll fix that by saying they have to be gay. That makes them no competition at all. Doesn't matter if they are or aren't, as long as they can tell themselves that they aren't competition, they feel better.

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

It's an extention of "you shouldn't like them, they won't like you back" Only manly men like they are would.

Whatever.

Angry Gender Studies Feminist, ARRRRR.

[katranna.livejournal.com]

Not a rejection of "you," but rather a rejection of "your" values. Which are deeply-rooted misogynistic, ie, like-a-woman=bad. (This does not mean the man himself is a misogynist, but thing is, it's so ingrained in every male since birth, that few can ever escape it.)

Basically, since boys are very little, they're taught that they have to different from girls. To be like a girl is the worst thing possible, because if you're at all like a girl, you can't be a "Man" and a Man is the only thing really worth being. (It's kind of okay for a girl to be a girl, but that's because they have no choice. To have the possibility of being a Man, and yet still be girly? Traitorous and unthinkable.)

This gets even stronger in middle school, where there's the added idea of being gay, which is not only "girly" but also "icky."

So boys grow up with these values of "being a woman is bad-bad-bad," and so "a man who's like a woman is contemptible and ugh!"

And then suddenly women tell them that they LIKE these girly men. Turns your whole idea of the right order of things upside down, especially if you've been working really hard all your adolesence to be as un-girly as possible under fear of bullying.

The annoying thing is, that while I'd say this makes men the victims of the remnanats of our patriarchy, they still try to impose their inherited standards of "like-a-woman=bad" on us, by this whole mockery and/or undercutting of women's attraction to any men who are, indeed, more androgynous.

And of course, this leaves the boys who are androgynous in a bad place--either by trying to deny their looks, or by being ashamed of them. Good god, how many absolutely beautiful boys I've known who didn't like how they looked because they weren't "masculine enough."

Re: Angry Gender Studies Feminist, ARRRRR.

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

*Nods*

Agree with every word.

[vierran45.livejournal.com]

But I very much agree. I'm sick of people underestimating Brad Pitt because he started out as a prettyboy.

I'm afraid I thought so, too, until I saw his performances in The Twelve Monkeys and Fight Club.

Besides, why ARE the rougher-looking guys accepted as good actors? It's not like women don't find Russel Crowes and Clive Owens, etc, attractive. I honestly think it also has to do with some men's strange feelings of discomfort at the more feminine-looking pretty men.

I completely agree with the above comment, and I have to agree that I've occasionally also fallen into the trap of feeling that attractive actors (male or female) are less able than less attractive people. It's a question of envy, so it's not always possible to fight against it , even though you acknowledge the reasons behind the feeling.

I also agree with dangermousie that there is a definite gender bias in the comments Men usually get off much more easily, whatever their acting ability, and females always get more criticism in general.

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

Oh, a woman is expected to be beautiful, if she is an actress of a certain age. I have yet to see a plain Jane make it. But for men, prettiness (and I mean a certain androgynous quality, not rugged good looks) is more of a liability with critics. Which just focuses how male-oriented they are.

Also, there seems to be a belief that only prepubescent girls find somewhat less butch men attractive. It's as if when the grow up they know better. Well, that is plain silly. I have liked a whole bunch of "manly" men (and my husband is pretty severely on that end of the scale) but I find rather slighter, more beautiful men equally attractive.

[vierran45.livejournal.com]

I completely agree with you. I think the cultural expectations in the Western world deem all "non-manly" men to be of questionable sexuality and thus not acceptable as desirable objects. If you compare the actors in Hollywood movies and the actors in Bollywood movies, the Indian films have a larger range in looks, from the pretty boy to the ugly guys ( by conventional beauty standards).

And by those conventional standards, I guess most people, but especially those not familiar with Bollywood, would deem Shah Rukh Khan a very ugly man, disregarding completely his screen presence and charisma. And he's of course of questionable sexuality, because he sings and dances in films and wears these silly see-through shirts every now and then ;-).

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

Oh yes. I wanted to bring in Bollywood and forgot. I think in some ways, because of being a more concervative culture, parodoxically it is easier to Bollywood men to be one very different ends of spectrum: they don't need to worry about proving their masculinity, because the notion of "being a man" is not "assaulted" by liberated women, gays or whoever.

[vierran45.livejournal.com]

Exactly. But the scene is changing, because nowadays there are all these rumours about the male casting couch and the threads in Bollywhat and other places about which stars are gay or not. And then there are all those rumours about SRK's alleged bisexuality. It doesn't matter to me at all whether it's true or not, but it shows that people nowadays questions the stars' appearances and conduct more broadly.

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

I think this comes hand in hand with the liberalization of culture.

When all the men were percieved as "men" and there were no "gay" scene to really speak of (in the open at least), there is no questioning of roles as the roles are secure. But now, it's becoming more Western in its alltudes and unfortunately that means bad stuff as well.

[katranna.livejournal.com]

Hmmm, yes. Very true.

And you do know that the whole "ewww, gay guys!" reaction that men sometimes have is also, at base, misogyny?

Because when you have sex with a women, you are putting her in an inferior position. So when a man has sex with another man, either he's putting that other man in a woman's "inferior" place--which makes men feel very uncomfortable to consider that possibility--or he's "letting" himself be used as a woman, and thus accepting inferiority. The second one is the kind that men have the most contempt for. (Forgetting the fact that most gay men do not have strict "roles.") In previous times, it was considered okay to be gay so long as you were the "top."

This also accounts for why lesbians are not icky, since women are negligeable, and nothing they do together matters. Also, women having sex does not make men queasy, because it does not involve men being put in an "inferior" position. The only exception is masculine lesbians, because they're infringing on "male territory." You would think that the idea of two women not needing a man would also make some guys uncomfortable, but in truth, those of them who'd be made uncomfortable by that simply can't fully accept that as true. They always think lesbians can be converted into a threesome, somehow.

And this is why, imo, that the men who truly regard women as equals are far less likely to be homophobic.

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

You keep writing all these things that I not only agree with, but find really illuminating (as to why men are OK with lesbians but not gays). Thanks!

You've a crazy gender-studies freak for a cousin!

[katranna.livejournal.com]

:-D 'S my hobby.

[katranna.livejournal.com]

>>I have yet to see a plain Jane make it.

Renne Zwellweger. No matter what people try to pretend, she's not a beauty. But a good actress.

>>Also, there seems to be a belief that only prepubescent girls find somewhat less butch men attractive.

Yeah, when I see that argument (always made by men), it always seems like they're just scrambling for some kind of "explanation. "They're less threatening! Teenage girls are projecting themselves onto their interest! When they grow up, they'll be drawn to "proper" rugged man by their hormones!"

Really guys, it's okay. We can like both kinds of men. There's nothing wrong with liking either kind of beauty.

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

Yeah, Renee might not be as pretty as Catherine Zeta Jones, but she is not a male version of e.g. Paul Giamatti.

And so many pretty actresses get their Oscars when they "uglify" which is as if "wow. Plain woman. How corageous to pretend to be one."

[kimbari.livejournal.com]

(I encounter it in real life often enough--a lot of guys--most even--seem to take downright personal offense when I say that I find a particular feminine man attractive. They insist on putting his looks down, which they won't do if I said I found a scriffier-looking guy hot.)

Okay, you've just explained to me the lack of shit I've been getting from my husband over my sometimes-ridiculous fangirling of Edward James Olmos. ROFL

It probably also doesn't hurt that the two men are also the same age...

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I don't think anyone would view EJO as a pretty boy :)

[elvensapphire.livejournal.com]

Brava!!! Very well said.

And I completely agree.

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

Mmmmm...icon!

[elvensapphire.livejournal.com]

Even more mmmmm ~ Pretty boys who can act! *g*

[lazypadawan.livejournal.com]

These men equate that kind of attractiveness with frivolity. It happens in music journalism/criticism as well. In their minds, men have to be ugly to be real musicians or songwriters.

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

I discussed this further with my husband and he said that men see someone like Clive Owen or Russell Crowe as an achievable or an admirable ideal. But someone like Orlando never is because you just have to be born with those looks.

And he also pointed out that for men, fighting is supposed to be about super efficiency and skill, not grace and Legolas looks very graceful doing it. More graceful than efficient, whatever the result. And Anakin? It's the emotional thing. Men are supposed to be stern masters of their emotions. Obi-Wans, not Anakins.

I found this quite interesting.

[lazypadawan.livejournal.com]

LOL @ your icon!

Since AOTC, I've gotten the idea that the reason why some men really beat up on Hayden's performance is because he was very emotional and it's not considered "manly." Anakin's fireplace declaration of love in AOTC makes guys feel uncomfortable because he's spewing his guts and THEN he gets rejected. These fanboys wanted Anakin to be more like Han Solo, suave and flippant ("I love you"/"I know").

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

Oh yes, that is precisely it (and I have male confirmation :D). Men want to be cool and detached and in control and Anakin is not.

I got my icon from one of the lovely posters at do_me_anakin