|
Flicking through the telly channels last night, I stopped for a few moments on "Red Dragon", the remade one, not the one with beardy Gil-Grissom-CSI-when-he-was-young in it. In the scene I was watching were Harvey Keitel, Ed Norton and Phillip Seymour Hoffman. Not the prettiest bunch of men in the world, and it occurred to me, not a bunch of men that would look out of place in real life. Keitel could easily be your local fishmonger, Norton a friendly neighbourhood mechanic and Hoffman.... er... the town weirdo? And bar a very few extreme lookers in the men's department of the film and tv industry, who get very boring to look at after a few years... George, Brad and Johnny (I can't believe I have actually become bored of looking at Johnny Depp), men get to be sexy, funny, interesting characters for us to long for, drool over or just to enjoy watching when they're not draw-droppingly gorgeous. What is is that stops us from putting "normal" looking women on the screen in any roles other than secretaries, next door neighbours, etc, insisting instead that the stars of the shows and movies HAVE to be beautiful (and I'm not going to start on the obvious and over worked thin/fat issue except to say OOOh have you seen Medium recently?... Patricia Arquette is GLORIOUSLY normally shaped and I just saw an episode with her sister in it too, looking beautifully like a fifty year old bombshell)? Is it just sexist male film and TV producers suffering career-long midlife crises or is it really just true that we (the audience/consumer etc) can't bear to look at less than beauty-queen looks in women on our screens? Are we incapable of seeing them as sexy, compelling and interesting as characters? In real life, men aren't THAT vacuous... they do regard the "not perfect" looking women in their lives as sexy compelling and interesting.... (except for a few exceptions, of course, who need to be overlooked generally, in everything) so why do they insist on the horridly gorgeous women populating the screen? The "ugliest" woman I can think of on the telly at the moment is Glenn Close... and she's only allowed because she's a certain age and Ugly Betty ain't ugly, she just has a bad hairdo and huge braces. This intrigues me. So here's an exercise....: Read the following list of just some current big TV names who just AREN'T physically gorgeous, but who ARE regarded as either hot steaming totty by quite a lot of the audience or at least interesting and watchable and THEN imagine what their female equivalent might look like if such a thing were allowed on our screens: Kiefer Sutherland (24). Hugh Laurie (phwoar, frankly... always was) (House). Robert Sean Leonard (House). David Caruso (YUCK! I mean, CSI Miami). Gary Sinese (CSI NY). James Spader (in present shape, Boston Legal). David Boreanaz (the one out of Angel and Buffy and Bones). Philip Glenister (Life on Mars). John Simm (Life on Mars). Michael C Hall (Dexter... oh GOD when will I get to see Dexter 3?). Jason Lee (Earl). etc etc etc etc. Would you watch them then? Honest answers or downright lies in the comment box please. Just wondering.
|
