Is it wrong to cast one person over another based on their looks?

iamWZA

iamWZA

Active member
I'm constantly in awe of other people's beauty. If someone beautiful sits near me on a train I find it incredibly difficult not to stare at them.
When I visualise my film, the actors are very good looking...and if it's possible I want to get good looking actors when the time comes for casting. But is that wise? Should I choose one person over another just because they're attractive, even if the more attractive one can't act as well?
 
I would choose whomever could act better first, because a shitty actor/actress ruins the film. Then I would choose whomever fits the part, I mean, if the part calls for someone pretty, choose them, if it doesn't, find someone who fits the part.

You aren't going to cast a good looking person as Quasimodo regardless of how well they can act!
 
Of course, looks can be a key factor in casting; What does the character need to say through their looks? What does the part ask for? beauty, ugly, old, young, scary, timid?

Off - topic: As to your compulsion to stare at beautiful people; that is evolution at work, or perhaps God (you decide). I saw a fascinating video that discussed a study about attraction. The really interesting thing is that women were attracted to men who had an immune system most-diverse from their own. That is, without knowing anything about the men, the women can detect men's immunity makeup! They didn't necessarily pair up with them, but they were attracted to them. The pairing ended up to align with looks. Each had approximately the same beauty.
 
Your audience likes to stare at pretty people, too. But it depends on the film. If this is a B level horror movie, looks are fine. I've done it, at least when the person is backed by experience and credentials. If this is a hard drama you are better served with a realistic looking good actor. Sometimes I turn people down for being too pretty, since it may not fit the character, or may intimidate the audience. Most films would suffer greatly from having only models on the cast, regardless of acting ability. The only thing that matters is if they can portray who they're supposed to portray effectively, just make sure that's your reasoning and it has nothing to do with your desire to watch them twelve hours a day during production.
 
It's not only ok, it's mandatory. The camera loves someone who is captivating.

But it doesn't have to even be beauty, an interesting face can hold more appeal than a beautiful one. Someone like Steve Buscemi couldn't be called A-list handsome but his googly eyes are interesting and the camera loves him. Take the beautifully cragged face of Danny Trejo, a work of art. Same with Edward James Olmos. The oddness of Helena Bonham Carter and Christina Ricci. Personally I've always loved films for the character actors, the leads are generally somewhat interchangeable and bland (with a few exceptions like Clooney) and should be. A lead with too much personality is going to harder for a wide audience to inhabit. But a character actor is externalised and a good one can carry a film into cult status.

Danny Devito has his thing, Willem Dafoe, Christopher Walken, Ron Perlman, Pete Postlethwaite, Forrest Whitaker has his eye, Luis Gusman, DJ Qualls...hmm, not many actresses on my list, looks like you have to be male to be ugly and photogenic at the same time. But then women in general tend towards good looking or as many makeup youtube videos prove, can be made to be. Some of these are great actors, some entertaining actors, some just okay but provide a perfect foil to the lead. Of course it doesn't hurt if you can get Charlize Theron and Michelle Pfeiffer in Ladyhawke and the Russia House was my first love...
 
Like everything, casting well is a balance. Looks are obviously important because film is a visual medium, but I would personally say acting ability is more important. Stars usually have the complete package.
 
Are you seriously asking this....

Unless there is a story reason for them not to be attractive, given equal (or close) acting ability and fit for the part, you ALWAYS cast the more attractive one.
 
My rule is always cast the person who seems to best capture a character's character on camera. If you shoot your auditions, I think it's generally pretty obvious who the best option is.

That is of course assuming you're only auditioning people who roughly meet the character's physical description in the first place (though I'd assume that's a given).

The only time I can see 'better' looks specifically coming into play, is when you have two actors whose performances are on par with each other.
 
Just don't do what they did in transformers, cast someone for their looks that couldn't act her way out of a wet paper bag. It was embarrassing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top