Response to "On the Face of It, Looks Top Talent"

I wanted to respond to Anthony Abeson's article "On the Face of It, Looks Top Talent."

I never thought I'd disagree with anyone that says looks take precedent. However, that is exactly the situation that I am facing. Now don't get me wrong here. I'm not Kelly LeBrock saying, "Don't hate me because I'm beautiful." I'm not conceited or full of myself, or think I'm drop dead gorgeous. I know that I'm not anything more than just me.

But I am finding it hard to find work, mainly in the theatre because I'm "too pretty." 

My headshot, I'm told, is "too glamorous," yet prior to this picture I was constantly being told I'm prettier than my picture. Make up your mind already! Shouldn't your picture look like you? Well, mine finally does, and now it's too pretty.

My current headshot has helped me get various acting jobs, and kept me from getting various jobs as well. In theatre, the more plain the better. I can't understand why. The same people who see plays also watch TV. What's the difference? I'm constantly being told I am "too glamorous" as if that's a bad thing! Dita Von Teese does glamour all the damn time!

The thing is, when I was overweight and wore little makeup, the "hot" girls got the jobs. Now that I am a "hot" girl, the "plain" girls are getting the jobs. I feel like the beginning of the movie Office Space where no matter which line the guy is in, the other one is always the one moving. What's so wrong with being pretty?

And I've got some good credits and training to boot.  I have lead roles in the feature films: Ghostwatcher 2, released by Lion's Gate Films, and False Face, which just premiered on July 15th and is currently being shopped for distribution, as well as an U5 role on One Life To Live.

So I have heard that it's true that looks come before talent, and I've also heard the reverse.

So now I wonder: Who's right?

-- Seregon O'Dassey

Comments

[Laura]

You know those movie/TV makeover plots? Some girl is always kind of a nerd (supposedly), and then she gets some new clothes and a better hairstyle, and voila! The hottest guy in school suddenly wants to date her. If you notice, those are never actually "plain" actresses seeing what they would look like all dressed up. They're always gorgeous women that they throw into a pair of fake glasses and some overalls, and there's no hiding their gorgeousness, even when we're not supposed to notice it. They're never "too pretty" for a role.

Your picture is hot. It screams sex. I don't doubt that it gets you in lots of doors for on-camera work, where "hot" rules. But as a medium, theatre is a bit more forgiving of physical flaws - there are no extreme close-ups, so the acting is more important. And if your photo doesn't tell exactly the right story, then you might not get a chance to show them your acting talent. If I'm being completely honest, if I was casting theatre, I think this headshot might confuse the issue. If I needed to cast a Jessica Rabbit-type sexpot, I would call you in immediately. But if the role wasn't overtly sexual in nature, probably not. I might need a girl next door, and you might play a phenomenal girl next door - in fact, your acting might knock it out of the park. But you might never even get the chance to read for it in the first place based on this photo. Not because you're too pretty - I'd call lots of attractive girls for the likeable girl next door role. But your picture says "vixen," and that's too much for the role.

I think it's tougher for women than men - we have to have a wider selection of pictures for different situations. What gets us in the door for a soap won't work the same way for a Shakespeare repertory company, and neither of those would work the same way for a toothpaste commercial. What I'm getting at is this: I think you're right, and everybody in this business is judged by their looks first, which we all know is not a good indicator of anybody's talent. But I wonder if maybe it's using just this one photo for everything that is hindering you, rather than the fact that you're too pretty.

[Miki Yamashita]

I would use a headshot that looks a lot more natural so that you can be seen as potentially being able to take on different looks. I'm not saying look more generic, but this photo is far too narrow a type for you.

You are very attractive, but upon very close examination of this picture, you have several things going on that are "too much." The angle of your body is pushing your cleavage too far towards the camera (you don't have to pose like that, if you are buxom people will notice that anyway). Your haircolor does not look natural (even in this smaller version of the pic your roots are visible), and with the big earrings, all the elements make you look slightly dated. Your facial skin tone is lighter than your body skin tone, so the makeup looks a bit mask-like.

With this picture, you will get called in for a "vixen" of questionable class, perhaps "bridge and tunnel," and that's about it. You could TOTALLY and EASILY turn this around and work your beauty to your advantage by the "Less is More" strategy. Your website shows your old black and white picture, which doesn't seem like an accurate representation etiher, so how about a happy medium? A fresh, clean, color shot of you (with a more natural haircolor and subtle highlights) maybe outdoors, by a top-level headshot photog.

Also, I am assuming that you are being told that you are "too pretty" in the NY market? If so, you should stay in NYC, because ultimately, that general opinion of you will ultimately work in your favor.

Here in LA, the beauty standard is so stratospherically high that only someone like Gisele Bundchen would ever be told she's "too pretty." The rest of us are Ugly Betty. Sigh.

Good luck!