Comments on: Uber Skinny Stars: It Starts At The Top

By: mog

mog — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 20:16:32 +0000

“equating thin with pretty and fat with ugly”…
Yes, it is destructive (and untrue), but thin=pretty, fat=ugly is a real shorthand in the media. Individually we have a huge range of preferences and ideals of beauty, but most people will also recognise a social ideal that fits certain conventions of what beauty is. In our society, at our time, that is skinny, usually blonde and white, wearing expensive clothing and cosmetics, and extroverted. Just as wearing glasses is TV shorthand for “intelligent character”, those other markers are TV shorthand for “desirable character”. God forbid they have to explain it through well-written dialogue.

I once read a study on the perception of facial beauty which always cheers me up. People were shown a sheet of 25 photographs of faces of ordinary people, the kind of faces you would see if you hung around a bus shelter. While there was a general consensus when asked which faces others would see as attractive, there was not one face in the entire study which was not picked as the most beautiful by at least a few people. Not that I can remember the name of the study or who wrote it or anything useful like that.

By: bethany

bethany — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 06:51:46 +0000

“But, if you keep the game existing in simple terms, thin versus fat, then most people will not hate him for going for the pretty girls.”

I’m a little uncomfortable with this sentence, only because it is equating thin with pretty and fat with ugly. In other words, why can’t people “not hate him” for going for the pretty AND fat girls.

I realize it’s part of a larger point about why you don’t see more size 8-14 women on TV, but I guess it’s just one of my pet peeves (and one that I sometimes slip into and have to catch myself) where I let thin/pretty and fat/ugly be interchangable. And I think that’s a destructive (and untrue) way to use language, so I just wanted to throw that out there.

Interesting discussion. (Though, I wouldn’t really say fat women are that well represented in the media either…)

By: Liza

Liza — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 04:42:34 +0000

Usually Lurking:

If I ever finish my screenplay, you’ll see it.

(That’s a pretty big ‘if’ so don’t hold your breath.)

By: Alyssa

Alyssa — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 02:10:19 +0000

Jackie, you make an EXCELLENT point!
I think this particular form of torture-as-entertainment started with “The Biggest Loser.” Torture them AND scream at them, then put it on TV for public consumption. (Oh, and don’t forget to have them stand on a large scale in their underwear!)

By: Diana

Diana — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 19:44:32 +0000

I think one of the things that amazed me when I was living in the UK was that people on UK TV shows, especially their soaps, looked normal, they looked average but of course they have shifted towards more of a uberskinny look just like Hollywood.

By: Jackie

Jackie — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 19:14:14 +0000

I was very sick recently, and only had enough energy/attention-span to watch old 80′s videos on VH1 Classic. It’s really amazing, to look at how the videos were based on stories. Not women shaking their asses, people just having plain fun. There were even a few fat women in the videos for good measure. Of course, in the 80′s they also showed videos by fat singers too.

I don’t understand how someone could be a parent of a daughter today, and not be angry and upset every minute of the day that their child is held up to these rediculous standards. Children can’t even watch cartoons anymore without having adult messages about how people should live and look infused into their heads.

I wrote an article about this, if the owner of the site is interested ask me and I’ll e-mail it to you, or if anyone is interested in it being on this site let the owner know. How you cannot watch cartoons today without the show being about someone being picked on. It’s no longer situational humor. Like, “Hey public transportation sucks!” or “Don’t you hate being sick!”, no it’s “Look at what a loser this person is!” all the time. It’s like bullying 101.

What I’m saying is, we need to leave children out of this. There should be size diversity everywhere. I recently saw Dr. Phil doing another Weight Loss Camp episode, where someone who can’t breath after running is considered adding to the drama of the show.

Torturing fat people that’s a ratings grabber? I don’t understand, what is different from running a fat person around till they can’t breathe for ratings satisfaction, how is that any different from the meaning of torture? For something people CANNOT CHANGE. It reminds me of an episode of Criminal Minds I saw, where this sadist enjoyed making women run until their legs broke and they had to stop, and then he would kill them. I apologize for being graphic, but that is horrific, doing the same thing to a fat person outside of breaking their legs, but causing them to be unable to breathe, that’s ok. That’s entertainment? WTF?!

By: Alyssa

Alyssa — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 15:57:58 +0000

To be honest, I think many of you are giving producers too much credit for thinking about it that much. It’s all about money. They throw up on screen whatever they believe will get the most eyeballs watching their stuff.
And they like control. Keeping desperate young actors obsessing over their looks ensures that they have control over said actors. The fact is, every actor knows that what they look like is 90% of their career. If you’re a young woman in Hollywood, that means being skinny (no matter what it takes), having white teeth, getting mani/pedis and waxing.
It’s not just performers who are insecure. There’s no such thing as job security in the entertainment industry, and EVERYONE’S head is constantly on the chopping block.
The young woman who was on DeGrassi was probably ordered to lose weight. I’ve seen that over and over: Friends of mine whose careers took off once they went from slim to skinny (and usually brown to blond, as well) on the advice of their agent, or a director or producer.
I think the reason you don’t see as much of that in British TV and in our own theaters is that they are far less likely than Hollywood to cast on looks alone. Yes, they want attractive actors, but they also need the acting chops.
Hollywood couldn’t care less about talent. they just want hotness. (And Anglo-looking actors.)

By: littlem

littlem — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 04:33:11 +0000

In Wake Up, I’m Fat! Camryn Manheim wrote that the director of The Road To Wellville deliberately looked for a variety of body types & sizes in the cast.

Well, not to sound like SourFace, but how long ago did she write that? 2001? I think she was right, but I think the “average” size of women who are supposed to be “desired” – which of course all women on screen are, unless they’re “larger”, as other posters have pointed out – shrinks annually.

It seems that to address the problem thoroughly, it would be as important to pay attention to trending as the way things are at any given point.

(And then there’s film v. TV v. theatre, but I have no wish to take up the whole page with just one comment … )

By: Becky

Becky — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 01:03:53 +0000

But at The CW it’s a different story. They’re trying to pull in the Gossip Girl audience and that’s the image: hyper-skinny models.

I think it’s interesting that they said that, because the girls on GG (with the exception of Jenny)aren’t hyper skinny model types. They are quite thin, of course, but not like the girls on 90210.

By: Rhonwyyn

Rhonwyyn — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 00:58:32 +0000

One of the things I liked about watching BBC America and occasional shows on PBS is that it seems the Brits use real people in their shows. I can relate better to those shows and the people in them because of it. Otherwise, I confess that I’m mostly scornful.