Expect less pretty actresses to get film roles

More than 190 of Britain’s leading female actresses are demanding an end to sexual harassment ahead of the Bafta Awards.

For today’s definition of sexual harassment crosses over the line into comely young females using their being comely and young to gain work.

No, I do not mean that it’s just fine and dandy that every young woman who wants to strut their stuff on screen has to watch the producer toss off into a palm plant – and certainly not that rape is just dandy nor fine. But comely youth is something valuable and it’s absolutely certain that one or two have sold it over the years. It might even have been the marginal wannabes doing the selling but still…..any bird who has been to the screen test interview with an extra button undone on the blouse has been doing exactly that.

10 comments on “Expect less pretty actresses to get film roles

  1. You think? Maybe it will go the other way and even more pretty girls will get the gig?

    After all, there is a third party involved here – the audience. And men like watching pretty girls (so they can imagine sleeping with them). As do women (so they can b!tch about how fat that dress makes her look).

    So if it is a choice between a stunner and a slightly less stunner who will blow you, the latter will get the job.

    If there are no fringe benefits won’t all the jobs go to the prettiest?

  2. The Weinstein caper shows him to be a fat fool but there –as yet –exist no credible or evidenced charges of sex assault or rape.

    Because making propositions and being nudie in your own hotel room are not crimes. Nor is wanking into a flower pot–like dick pics a no class antic–illegal in hotel rooms. In public spaces –yes. In private no. Weinstein may be a man of low character but the women had choice at all times. Choice to tell him to put his pants on , to turn down his offer and to leave at any time. Making an offer of trade is not a crime in itself. Touching when asked to stop, not letting them leave etc, actual assault –those are crimes. Making an offer is not. Esp since several major actresses turned him down–they claim–and still went on to have big careers.

    Any one who thinks that unattractive actresses are going to get the female lead in anything other than art house fare is kidding themselves. I rarely go to the pictures any more as the quality of the marxist cant on display offends. But to have ugly women abuse your eye as well is a very silly plan.

    The acting females are just grandstanding for more of their fave drug–media attention.

  3. What’s changed? I mean, if producers did this before, why won’t they in future? Why did this shift from being an open secret in Hollywood to a news story?

    It’s hard to get away from the facts: 1) men like fucking young women 2) there’s a glut of women who want prestige acting parts early in their career that win awards and raise their value 3) those parts don’t even necessarily pay much, but they have prestige and open other doors.

    The Oscars are in decline, no doubt. Audiences are down every year, as is the box office effect, so maybe Weinstein’s fall is because he’s seen as less important.

    So, my guess is that there’s a Weinstein doing stuff for HBO or Netflix. That’s where the real acting money is now: The Big Bang Theory and Game of Thrones cast get paid like $1m an episode. Few movie stars make that money today.

  4. I agree with SMFS on this one.

    The actresses who were willing to put out for the casting agents thought that they wouldn’t get the job otherwise. So they weren’t as good for the movie as the ones who wouldn’t give blowjobs (or there was no discernible difference and they wanted to be picked out of a roughly equal pool).

    Therefore if willingness to give blowjobs is no longer a factor, either we’ll get better actresses (better at acting or better looking) or there won’t be any noticeable difference.

    Economically, the casting problem was a principal – agent issue – the person making the decision was getting a benefit (a blowjob) in return for foisting a less good (acting or looks) actress onto the studio and the paying customers. Without him creaming off that benefit (sorry), we should all get better actresses.

    Although I suspect the difference will be negligible.

  5. Or you could go the other way and film all encounters with starlets to show that they are grinning like monkeys and not, in fact, on the verge of tears as claimed.

  6. I posted a comment about his as an OT above – this £1m donation Emma Watson has made, will she be getting a big tax demand from HMRC in due course, like the Brexit donors have?

  7. I keep wanting to change that headline to “fewer pretty women”.

    It is an interesting example where the notional difference actually matters.

  8. May take a litle time, but in the end, same ‘ole, same ‘ole. Some fems will want a leg up, so to speak, to get the part, so it’ll be them making overtures – no harassement, maybe even filmed by the director for his own protection. Eventually, other girls learn how to increase their chances. Eventually the director once again, gets to choose among very pretty girls along with the leg over, so to speak.

    The men do desperately want those lovely girls. The lovely girls do desperately want those parts. Where there’s a will, there’s a way.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.