Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2019 1:51:56 GMT
The first name who comes to my mind is Jessica Lange - of that trio of the "greatest" living American actresses (Close, Lange, Streep), she is the only one who could be considered "traditionally" pretty and is perhaps the most daring of them in her choices - probably the most "physical" of the trio. Close's legacy is bolstered by classic films (Fatal Attraction, Dangerous Liaisons, The Big Chill, etc.) and Streep is, well, Streep - Lange may well be remembered for her beauty first (King Kong), but I think her versatility and willingness to try all three acting mediums (Triple Crown winner!) speak for themselves. ![](https://i.redd.it/ukesjbtx5m721.jpg)
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Apr 8, 2019 2:12:13 GMT
There are none (who never relied on their looks. Not neccesarily coasted). If you are regarded as a beauty, even if you are also a great actress, you use it to your advantadge where neccesary. It allows you to play certain parts, regardless of skill. Julie Christie did it. Vanessa Redgrave in her youth did it. Jane Fonda did it. Lange also did it where neccesary.
Vivien Leigh gave arguably the greatest screen perforomance by an actress in film history ( Scarlett 'O Hara in Gone With The Wind). She could not have played that role without relying on her looks, even though the skill was self-evident. But Scarlett had to be a beguiling beauty to be believable.
Shit, Laurence Olivier and Marlon Brando absolutely used their looks to their advantadge as younger actors. It's not a negative for an actor who is also gifted. It's just part of the arsenal.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Apr 8, 2019 2:38:37 GMT
I can think of no successful, good looking actor (man or woman) who did not get parts they would not have otherwise gotten if they weren't attractive. Lange in your OP would have never been cast as the Kong blonde if she were overweight with terrible hair and a big nose. Everyone "relies" on their looks to an extent. It's a visual medium. Even someone unattractive probably gets parts specifically because of that, they just generally aren't as good as the ones attractive people get.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Apr 8, 2019 8:04:30 GMT
Well...it isn't "never" rather it's "how" they did it ...........Lange is a really good one - I mean she actively fought her looks and could have had a whole other career - and she played GBGM (great beauties great madness ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/6692321/images/KAUR26Rad8w62aSMorQH.gif) ) and she aged she then played parts "like a man" - a lot of people hate her (wrongly) and she got older and she nailed Broadway and TV early and won both awards in quick fashion - she broke into movies gorgeous but then used the mediums as she wanted. Streep is a very unconventional beauty (the nose) but very beautiful and she's used her looks and played against them - she's peerless, Close is to me a character actress more. Again that's the Olivier thing she has (like Redgrave) - she's great because she does the work - Olivier is arguably best of all time because he has the most mind-boggling great work (across all mediums) regardless of crap - in the numbers game he wins - and that's one clear way of judging .......... well for American actresses she's in the running - her looks play less of a role than Streep or Lange who used them and subverted them more - Close did too but less so and they are less important to how she handled her career. Woodward is a great mention we've had so far...........Spacek............
|
|
|
Post by MsMovieStar on Apr 8, 2019 8:30:14 GMT
Oh honey, Judy Davis! ![:iloveu:](//storage.proboards.com/6692321/images/UGAf7oTgrfqTraTpcIEe.gif) She never had to do T&A roles...
|
|
cherry68
Based
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_lavender.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_lavender.png)
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 4,090
Likes: 2,352
|
Post by cherry68 on Apr 8, 2019 10:41:13 GMT
Virna Lisi rejected many roles to avoid the blonde beauty stereotype. She refused the role of Barbarella because she didn't want her son to see her half naked, and a Bond girl because she didn't want to be objectified. She paid a huge fine because she broke her contract with Paramount who wanted her to play mostly roles based on looks.
She never had surgery and she was never shy to show her wrinkles at mature age. 😍
|
|
LaraQ
Badass
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_skyblue.png)
English Rose
Posts: 2,378
Likes: 2,887
|
Post by LaraQ on Apr 8, 2019 11:42:58 GMT
Cate Blanchett.I know opinions vary about how attractive she is,but I think she's a really striking woman and an example of someone who thrived due to her ferocious talent rather than her looks.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Apr 8, 2019 11:54:41 GMT
Cate Blanchett.I know opinions vary about how attractive she is,but I think she's a really striking woman and an example of someone who thrived due to her ferocious talent rather than her looks. She's a staple for fashion and beauty campaigns, including a very fetching global beauty brand campaign for Giorgio Armani. Blanchett absolutely plays that game to get and stay ahead. She plays many roles where she's supposed to be seen as desirable (as recently as Oceans 8).She shows how attractive she can look with perfect hair and make-up selling perfume on billboards and magazine spreads, and it sells the perception to the industry that she is indeed attractive and desirable, and it in turn helps her get work not playing sexless mothers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2019 12:19:07 GMT
How about Angela Bassett? Juliette Binoche? Isabelle Huppert (not as "traditionally" pretty as Bassett and Binoche, but still very attractive and has aged magnificently)?
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Apr 8, 2019 12:28:53 GMT
How about Angela Bassett? Juliette Binoche? Isabelle Huppert (not as "traditionally" pretty as Bassett and Binoche, but still very attractive and has aged magnificently)? All of them have gotten roles and career opportunities because they were perceived to be attractive. Bassett does not get cast in How Stella Got Her Groove Back, if producers don't think she'll make a good looking pairing with Taye Diggs. Whoopi Goldberg was not going to get that part.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Apr 8, 2019 12:47:49 GMT
How about Angela Bassett? Juliette Binoche? Isabelle Huppert (not as "traditionally" pretty as Bassett and Binoche, but still very attractive and has aged magnificently)? Well, I will say on my beloved Huppert on one occasion (at least) - that her looks and her manner - posture, speech, behavior - was railed against that is a perfect example of why the "critical community" or "awards" are always BS and you should never factor them into assessing an actor - because there is always a herd-like mentality and especially to anything done differently. Huppert played Madame Bovary for Chabrol. It is unlike any other version of the story imo YET it is very faithful to the text and the reason it's different is that Huppert is not Binoche basically. That's what critics want because that's what the book gives you - beautiful woman destroyed by her choices - that's Flaubert's book. But that's not "just" Chabrol's film. Don't get me wrong, she got good reviews too but most of the bad ones are expressly surface (ie she's too "earthy" or "common" or too "modern") - Chabrol's film uses a ton of irony on that aspect and if you don't get it, well, you don't get it - that is also the case in another one critics misunderstood with Huppert - the Taviani Bros. Elective Affinities (so-so film) ............again where Huppert plays a tragic beauty and when she does people often don't find her beautiful enough to actually be tragic, even if as a performance it's pretty stupendous.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2019 13:25:35 GMT
pupdurcs - I think you're missing the overall point of the thread. Even if the parts require beauty, these actresses never simply "settle" on being beautiful. Compare the women listed here to someone like Scarlett Johansson, and I think you'll see what I mean. pacinoyes - I love Huppert in Bolognini's La Dame aux Camélias, too. Off topic, but Bolognini is totally underrated as a director.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Apr 8, 2019 13:36:48 GMT
pupdurcs - I think you're missing the overall point of the thread. Even if the parts require beauty, these actresses never simply "settle" on being beautiful. Compare the women listed here to someone like Scarlett Johansson, and I think you'll see what I mean. pacinoyes - I love Huppert in Bolognini's La Dame aux Camélias, too. Off topic, but Bolognini is totally underrated as a director. Well is that even fair on Scarlett Johansson?....she is a Tony winning actress. I don't think Johansson "settled" for being beautiful by risking her rep on stage (more than once now) and actually pulling it off.It's a lot more than many beautiful actresses have done, especially when they dont have to I'm not some huge ScarJo fan, but I feel like she's the wrong example if you are trying to call out beauties who never challenged themselves. She's stretched a fairly narrow range to it's absolute limits and challenged herself a lot. She'll never be the greatest actress in the world, but like her peer Natalie Portman (who is also limited) I give her respect for trying.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2019 13:42:39 GMT
pupdurcs - I like Johansson a lot! But you have to admit that she was totally coasting in the years between her initial film stardom (2003) and her Tony win - even her performances in Woody Allen films are totally "meh."
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Apr 8, 2019 13:54:02 GMT
pupdurcs - I like Johansson a lot! But you have to admit that she was totally coasting in the years between her initial film stardom (2003) and her Tony win - even her performances in Woody Allen films are totally "meh." I don't think ScarJo was "coasting" during that period. It's clear she wanted to do interesting work, if you look at most of her film choices.I think she simply wasn't a good enough actress and had to improve with time (and challenging herself on stage improved her onscreen confidence a lot I think). Being a muse for Allen would be considered challenging work for most actresses. The fact the Allen couldnt get much out of ScarJo's narrow range at the time was more about how much skill she lacked. She was taking on roles that were interesting and challenging on paper (A Love Song For Bobby Long, The Other Boelyn Girl, A Good Woman, The Black Dhalia, The Prestige, the Allen movies) but she mostly lacked the skill level and range to do much with those roles. She's had to grow a lot as an actor.
|
|
|
Post by bob-coppola on Apr 9, 2019 23:18:52 GMT
That's kind of a broad question. What makes someone not relies on beauty? Deliver good work, play interesting parts in interesting movies and not just be in movies in which they look pretty and do nothing? If that's the case, then most great actress fit the bill, 'cause pretty much everyone in Hollywood is better-looking than average.
But if by "not coasting on looks", we're talking about women who seek the best, more challenging parts even if they have to give away the glamour of celebrity, then the current choice is Charlize Theron. She's a walking goddess and has played roles that are not necessarily ugly (I mean, Furiosa isn't pretty but she isn't ugly, she's simply not sexualized at all. Same goes for Tully), but simply don't ask or theorically shouldn't be played by a gorgeous woman, but she adapts to the parts because the internal work fits so much her acting strenghts. Monster, Young Adult, Tully and Mad Max are incredibly different parts, Theron looks very different but they all have one thing in common: they're incredibly intense, magnetic roles.
Another one who fits the bill imo is Kristen Stewart. She's convencionally pretty, but always plays her parts very straight, cerebral and introspective, in a way her looks are the last thing you'd remember about her as an actress. It's funny, the same way Theron seems to avoid the "pretty girl" label by transforming a lot, Stewart does so by not changing at all, but projecting an icy persona. It's always fun to think about things some actors constantly bring into their works.
|
|