Help with a unique medical issue?

S

Snapper123

Well-known member
Hey guys, to start off, many probably know it is a dream of mine to direct and act in my own films, and even act in the films of others. The acting part was pretty much a destroyed dream of mine since birth, I've always wanted to play very beautiful, unique roles that would be seen in indie films, yet I was born diagnosed with lateral facial dysplasia which most of all, effected my nasal area much like how a person with cleft lip usually has a deformed nose.

At the age of 17, I decided that instead of going to film school, I would use the money to repair my face, to look better than the monster people have always teased me for looking like. When I had the surgery, the surgeon at hand set up a specific goal for my nasal structure to look normal. I had the surgery, and afterward, complications arose such as possible infections, collapse of nasal cartilage, and other deformites that give an extreme look even more so than the nose I was born with. It looks like this in real life under normal lights; even more-so under set lighting. I in all ways have a case where I can sue the surgeon for my surgical fee back, to get a revision surgery by a specialist, as well as suing for emotional distress and loss of wages, but the only problem is that the medical community thinks that "anyone who gets a surgery with being an actor in mind, needs therapy and has body dysmorphic disorder." - so suing for my real life loss in wages and emotional distress may be a bit hard, especially when many guys out there who aren't actors have pretty bad features because instead of acting, they get into fights, which I've never done and doesn't apply to me.

As a DP myself, I know that the way lighting reflects off of a face is crucial to setting the tone of the character, and beyond that, even how the actor looks is extremely crucial to the production. You don't have a guy who looks like Owen Wilson or Michael Jackson play a role that requires a young, romantic looking male. We all know that the audience even wants a handsome actor. So when the actor goes on screen, and looks like Leatherface, no one wants to look at them! :cheesy:

So just as a general question, would you guys agree that there is a pretty specific science behind the reasons people cast certain facial looks in film productions, for facial character and for how un-harsh the features looks under types of set lighting? That sort of science is one very important factor in my medical case, I'd probably end up having to have a DP or two as a witness-type-person to explain the science behind it.

Any advice? :undecided
 
Last edited:
i think this post should be discussed. It sounds like a very interesting topic. you're bound to get quite a bit of insight here, so, perhaps a moderator could move it to the Cafe where it may get more attention?
 
Snapper123 said:
[...]So just as a general question, would you guys agree that there is a pretty specific science behind the reasons people cast certain facial looks in film productions, for facial character and for how un-harsh the features looks under types of set lighting?[...]
Click to expand...

I think that may be putting the cart before the horse. Actor's physical appearances are, of course, a major consideration in casting for a variety of reasons. Helping to tell the story should be first and foremost. In your case, it seems to me that if there is reason to think lighting may pose a challenge, then that question gets answered quickly by someone competent to do so and in consultation with folks in other departments, such as make-up.
 
I was involved as a witness in the UK High Court in a compensation case where a Lighting Designer lost a leg in an accident and the other party admitted guilt. What was being settled in court was the compensation amount. As I understood it (which it turned out to really mis-understood it) the case was that the amount depended on the difference between his likely earnings over his working life with the limb, and without it. A world famous Lighting Designer was called to give evidence on how much he earned for his work for the Rolling Stones, Genesis and many others. His income being considered the peak of the profession. He was quized over the differences having a leg missing would have made, and basically much related to how important people's perception of a disability impact on their hiring.

The defence (not the correct term, but I can't remember the real one) did their utmost to find reasons in his history that would make the chances of him rising to the top of his profession unlikely. Drink, drugs, attitude, experience, and loads of other things were dredged up and used to mitigate the loss to the insurance company. It was very unpleasant, and not at all like the movies!

In this case, I suspect that your legal people will do a similar thing - the surgery was designed to increase your 'marketability' in an already crowded arena. The result has decreased it.

I guess it's going to be painful - but if you're strong, it sounds to a legal idiot like me, winnable to some degree.

I guess that the usual system will kick in, but you're after more. I suppose it's unrealistic to expect that even if the result of the operation had been 100% successful, that it could turn you into some kind of twinkly toothed good-looking film star.

I would expect the other side to try the angle that even if it had been successful, it is very doubtful if you would rise to the top of the draw list. As such, they'll determine the dream was unreasanable. Your team will argue the opposite. Without doubt, they'll call people you know to attest to your acting standard and even your directorial standard. If any evidence exists of you doing it badly, it will be used to wipe out the wish ever having a chance for conversion. They'll argue that not just a pleasant visage is required, but it's based on talent too!

They'll find visually unattractive people who have made a good living from their lack of looks - there are plenty of naturally ugly people around, and often get really good parts based on their looks.

All this will put extreme stress on you trying to make your case, but if you're up to it, I wish you the very best. Personally - I couldn't care about looks - but people sadly are prejudiced, and the movie industry does tend to work on beautiful=good, ugly=bad. If you can cope with this, I can't see any reason why you can't direct and act - but you might just have to live with not having the look that suits every part - but that applies to every actor.

I'm assuming you have sympathetic legal advice - my colleague who I was a witness for had excellent legal support, but it took nearly three years to get through the system and now he goes First Class, and I'm in the back!

Good luck.
P
 
Actually, it's not that I thought a better face would make me a better actor, its that I had a deformed face before and still do; any filmmaker in the entire world would say that they would not cast a clinically deformed person as a lead role in a film that would otherwise require a romantic looking person (which is the roles I want to play, I don't want to play roles that require a deformed persona.) It by all ways effects my career. But moreso than effecting my career, it effects my entire social life and happiness (I have virtally no social life because of my deformed looks), and the career thing is simply an extended issue that adds to the many, many reasons the surgery needed to be a success as opposed to a botch. Helps all in the world that the neglectful techniques were documented in the surgery, so it's already a proveable malpractice and fraud case; just, the career assesment helps. And nah, I'm sorry, but there are no known actors in the field who get respectful and mature roles while suffering from clinical facial deformities. It's just not there. Not even Sarah Jessica Parker applies.

Oh and btw, I plan on directing, but not acting in, a few films before I go through with this case, so I'll have talented works to back up my claims. Acting and director wise, though, it's not really possible to measure an actors talent, as the talent may depend entirely on the look of the actor at hand; most parts in films are created more around the actors look instead of multiple monolouges and high action sequences; I know that as a writer. Art is also subjective, meaning the scientific standard of a production is set solely by the directors decision; if the director wants genetically perfect actors, then by law, that is the filmmaking standard for that specific production, and that standard would connect to a malpractice case. The bigger and main point is, though, that I need a filmmaker to say "I would not cast this person (me) under any talent circumstance because they look deformed and the film business, in connection with appealing to audiences and creating works of beauty and art, cannot accept a person who looks deformed beyond what the character of the film requires by the script already written." basically. Even having one castor saying this about one specific production is enough, there's no way my surgeon would be able to find a named director to say "Oh I'd cast a deformed person for my star role no problem" unless he snagged the castor and director of Twilight ! Haha.

It also even stops me from creating my own works of art, as I want to act in my films, and I cannot a. because of the emotional stress I already endure, and b. because I, as a professional, know that the look I have is unsuitable for my productions. I don't know, I just wish I knew how to get help on this. It'd be better if I was already a named director. It even effects my press value, as no one wants to look on TV and watch an interview or listen to an award ceremony given to a person who looks unsightly. It effects everything. And especially since films require set lights that make the actor's features more harsh, I know that filmmakers cast people who look the best and "most human" under set lightings, it's partially why many actors tend to have a certain look about them.

Btw, we're talking about a person with a nasal feature like the photo on the left : http://www.beverlyhillsprofiles.com/images/procedures_ba/revrhino_a_12_ba.jpg - a feature that looks very clinically deformed and unhealthy.
 
Last edited:
well it depends how extreme the facial distortion is. for example many actors such as sylvester stallone made a fine career with a slightly messed up face. I can't quite remember what Stallone has or had but possibly some mild form of facial paralysis or some such thing? Not to mention his crooked nose etc, which many other actors also have so how severe is this that you speak of? Hard to say because the photo you showed I didn't even detect anything wrong in the woman's face. It just looked like 2 different types of noses or faces and I didn't see any 'deformity'
 
Well, luckily, you aren't a medical expert nor a *successful* casting director. But that woman had a severe documented case of nasal-cartilage infection, where over half her nose contracted and melted away. You're probably one of those people who foolishly think "oh god gives everyone an equal look." Also, with the sylvester stalone example, he is not a successful teenage actor at all, he is a 50 year old boxer whos injured his own nose several times. That look would not be fitting for 18 year old actors who want to play respectful and artistic roles of young characters, not grandpas who shoot guns all day and fight people. Also, any type of nasal surgery that gives a person a nose as injured looking as Sylvester Stalone's nose, its considered malpractice by law. Science and psychology at its finest, and I don't even try hard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top