NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm watching American Pie 2 (Feature commentary) right now and, as I'm sure most of you know, the movie features Shannon Elizabeth as Nadia, the hot foreign exchange student with the nude scene in American Pie. Now, believe it or not, Shannon Elizabeth is actually a really good actress. I thought she was great in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back and Tomcats, and by great I mean acting great, not just her body (But I would be lying if I said I didn't admire that as well). She's a woman who I feel could be a quality actress with more roles than just the teenage sex movies, characters with depth and who would be interesting even if they weren't half naked. But the problem is that, regardless of how well she can act, people see her as a pair of breasts and nice legs (Until I saw her in more than just the American Pie movies I thought the same thing).

This got me thinking, amidst the many actors (both male and female) who get their roles purely because they're pretty and look good in a tight shirt there has to be a few who are good actors even without the chisled abs and flowing hair. Unfortunately, they'll never be able to distinguish themselves from the people who aren't anything if you took away their $35,000 in plastic surgery. Some of them will be able to break free from the constrictions (Shannon Elizabeth is actually a good example, in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back she originally auditioned for a very small role and Kevin Smith liked her audition and gave her one of the leads) but most will go down in history as "That nipple in XXXXX" or "That bicep in XXXXXXXX" or "XXXXXX's love interest".

Do you ever wonder about this, ever think about the skilled people who are viewed merely as physical objects? It makes me look at most TV and movies slightly differently.

Yeah. George Clooney only gets cast for his breasts :(

Here's the trick.

It's a visual media.

Your looks matter.

Notice that they only get ugly people to play ugly characters, unless they want to get in to lots of makeup?

The issue is, rather, that the ROLES are nipple-oriented.

And a quick Google shows that she's basically a nude model who can act, so, eh.

Yeah. George Clooney only gets cast for his breasts :(

and his bat-nipples

I'm watching American Pie 2 (Feature commentary) right now and, as I'm sure most of you know, the movie features Shannon Elizabeth as Nadia, the hot foreign exchange student with the nude scene in American Pie. Now, believe it or not, Shannon Elizabeth is actually a really good actress. I thought she was great in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back and Tomcats, and by great I mean acting great, not just her body (But I would be lying if I said I didn't admire that as well). She's a woman who I feel could be a quality actress with more roles than just the teenage sex movies, characters with depth and who would be interesting even if they weren't half naked. But the problem is that, regardless of how well she can act, people see her as a pair of breasts and nice legs (Until I saw her in more than just the American Pie movies I thought the same thing).

This got me thinking, amidst the many actors (both male and female) who get their roles purely because they're pretty and look good in a tight shirt there has to be a few who are good actors even without the chisled abs and flowing hair. Unfortunately, they'll never be able to distinguish themselves from the people who aren't anything if you took away their $35,000 in plastic surgery. Some of them will be able to break free from the constrictions (Shannon Elizabeth is actually a good example, in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back she originally auditioned for a very small role and Kevin Smith liked her audition and gave her one of the leads) but most will go down in history as "That nipple in XXXXX" or "That bicep in XXXXXXXX" or "XXXXXX's love interest".

Do you ever wonder about this, ever think about the skilled people who are viewed merely as physical objects? It makes me look at most TV and movies slightly differently.

Yeah. I feel the same way about Tricia Helfer, who plays Number 6 in Battle Star Galactica.

I would have to disagree with you on the quality of Elizabeth's acting, especially in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, but that wasn't your question.

Often in auditions you know if someone is even in the running to fill the role when they walk into the audition, and often it has nothing to do with thier talent. The role calls for something specific, your previous casting decisions call for something specific-huge number of factors that are assessed before talent enters into it. You always let them audition anyway, because occasionally they show you something you hadn't thought of and it opens the film or whatever up a little.

I feel bad for the actors because it is hard for them not to live and die by those auditions and it's a process for them to stop taking it personally (most of them learn that eventually, but they still have my sympathy). Casting can become a very de-humanizing process. Especially if you do a marathon audition, which I think is totally unfair to the actors because you can't help but shut down a little after a while.

The 'look' that is predominant in movies is overall driven more on 'pretty' than it is on 'appropriate,' and thats disapointing. I am sick to death of actors being called 'brave' for looking like normal fucking people. In independent fare you go with the actor you can get, and often they are 'normal' looking. Sometimes they are even better actors who can't get the 'pretty' roles.

I may have lost track of the question. Most the actors you know are 'pretty people,' even the 'good ones.' So it's not hard for them to over come the 'pretty face' thing. All they have to do is play a handicapped person or a normal looking person and their 'brave.' Susan Sarandon (sp) was pretty then 'good,' Harrison Ford, Jack Nicholson...I'm just naming the first people that come to my head, no real order or commentary.

As someone said, it is a visual medium and as Lenny Bruce had pointed out (when talking about why churches are elaborate) if you live in shit you don't want to visit shit, you want to visit classy. If you're going to experience the Lacanian mirror you naturally want it to lie to you. I don't fantasize about doing things I can do, I fantasize about the larger than life shit thats on the screen. But I don't like Lacan, and I don't like that whole pleasure/gaze thing. But I'm too cracked out (tired, not actually on crack) right now to go into it. (which incidently is why I'm rambling right now...so I'll stop...)

I have great Breats i wish you would nibble on them! :p

I have to agree, it's all pretty people, if you're ugly you have to be funny, or play the role of the ugly person. It's quite disturbing.

I have great Breats i wish you would nibble on them! :p
<nibble>

<nibble>
Wow my Breats are so HAppy!

What are these "breats" you talk about in you title? [/SpellingNazi] :confused:

What are these "breats" you talk about in you title? [/SpellingNazi] :confused:
Sieg Hail Gruppenfeuher(funny spelling nazi cant spell it :p )

Sieg Hail Gruppenfeuher(funny spelling nazi cant spell it :p )
Wrong! It's "Sieg Heil" :p
(I smell a threadjack)

Wrong! It's "Sieg Heil" :p
(I smell a threadjack)
Yeah i know damn Germans!thanks i spelt Feuher wrong too no? :(

Here's the trick.

It's a visual media.

Your looks matter.

Notice that they only get ugly people to play ugly characters, unless they want to get in to lots of makeup?

The issue is, rather, that the ROLES are nipple-oriented.
exactamente

Do you ever wonder about this, ever think about the skilled people who are viewed merely as physical objects? It makes me look at most TV and movies slightly differently.
Yeah I think that Leonardo di Caprio is a really great actor, like in The Basketball Diaries, but he gets cast in films like Titanic for his looks.