i think one of the biggest failures of modern cinema is the misconception from producers that people want to see famous actors, all of my favorite movies star people i had never heard of because i’m actually able to engross myself in the story… how am i supposed to pay attention to the plot when then poor yorkshire kid is nate jacobs from euphoria
Totally agree. Everything comes down to marketing - they think big names that are hot rn will guarantee box office success. Because that's the only measure of success. But it really doesn't!
For me I think the thing about straight white teeth in period dramas is less about "healthy" versus "unhealthy" teeth and more about the unnatural bleached and straightened Hollywood style teeth compared to just... regular teeth. Teeth can be a little crooked and a little yellow/off-white without being decayed - in fact, that's totally normal, and the Hollywood teeth are just as much of an unrealistic beauty standard as the rest of it. It's just as distracting as the 'iPhone face' feeling in my opinion.
Not only normal but actually healthier. Our teeth aren't supposed to be as white as portrayed by Hollywood and when they are it's usually due to harmfull things used to whitening them/alter them that might even compromise the integrity and health of the teeth. That's at least the profissional opinion of a dentist friend of mine.
yeah, the hollywood smile isn't real. pretty much everyone has veneers. teeth aren't even supposed to be white but slightly yellow to varying degrees. naturally blinding white teeth don't even exist.
The teeth look like white chicklets… the whiteness just needs to be toned down… period dramas from the past like 70’s and 80’s have the actors real facial features… I mean scars or even some acne is real! The overall big drawn on eyebrows are definitely a fad from present time. I really am not able to watch a period drama that is not realistic. I am a history major and ancient history major so I really get frustrated with the wrong clothing… the shoes, the dresses, hair, jewelry… etc. I go back into time and do a sort of pop culture historical analysis and it is so fun to see the real culture at the place in time.
Yeh, humans in history had decently straight teeth like most animals do, its only since weve introduced more and more unnatural things have our teeth/jaws changed, but they would never have been white white.
I really appreciate how shows from the UK and Ireland actually have actors that look like normal people. I like how the characters on Derry Girls just look like normal people. They don't have perfect faces and thanks to that I was actually able to relate to them more.
Saaame, love British TV shows for that and I like that we are getting more and more dramas that are regional and increasing number of people using their own accents.
I agree, not every face out on the big screen needs to be mesmerizing in order to improve their acting skills. Audiences don't want to be constantly titillated, they want a good movie.
Yes. Even the reality show Love is Blind was more pleasant to watch in its UK season for this reason (+ the more down-to-earth personalities, on average)
To be honest, there's a big difference between "healthy" teeth and "hollywood" teeth. An average persons healthy teeth might be a bit yellow or not absolutely perfectly symmetrical. Hollywood teeth are often bleached which makes them less healthy than teeth that might be a bit yellow or off colored.
yes, and even "regular"straight teeth can have a modern look considering how braces are a relatively new invention. Before the age of getting children braces, if your teeth happened to grow in crooked there really wasn't much to do about it
This! There's nothing less "healthy" about having a yellowish color of your teeth, it's just genetics. Same with having them slightly crooked or uneven. But people these days are getting insecure over the silliest things, and will ruin their perfectly fine teeth to get them a couple of shades lighter :(
@@nemediv4086 and woe the person who can't afford to have their teeth made.... less offensive? because white teeth are a symbol of good character, diligent self care and responsibility. As soon as someone has any contact with customers or even colleagues, shiny white and even teeth are more reason to be hired than qualifications. So yeah, sometimes it is not about insecurity but about trying to edge out the competition for a job. So, while I agree that it is silly, and as someone who has brittle teeth and can't whiten them - they are a disadvantage.
To me it's the hollow cheeks and full lips and manicured eyebrows that give off "model/modern" faces. I also think that mascara and false lashes (any kind of smoking effect) highlight this. The 2009 P&P had plenty of actresses that have modern faces, but the production was also praised for their use of makeup (or their apparent lack thereof)
Exactly! Often it's also the hair. A lot of productions try to slightly alter historic hairstyles to make them more palatable for a modern audience, same with the costumes. All of that adds up.
@@griffindiary6692Slightly altered would be one thing. Completely ignoring in favor of a beachy wave? No women wore their hair down back then. Why not just set the story in modern times if modern hair and makeup will be used?
@@Imxel21People of all different backgrounds can have hollow cheeks and manicured eyebrows. Bigger lips are more common for people from warmer climates, but not exclusive to them. Many influencers alter their face with cheek filler, buccal fat removal, lip filler, and very manicured eyebrows so it’s not really a surprise that the look ends up looking more modern and “instagramy”. I don’t think anyone thinks that your average Somalian, for example, looks more modern because they have bigger lips.
@@PlugInKali Although they did make a point of ageing up the character as written. There's mentions of her being a spinster, which wouldn't apply if she was actually intended to be younger than 30.
The same thing is happening with voice over work in animation right now too. A-List actors are getting cast as animated characters because people know their name on the marquee, not because of their voice over abilities. The golden era of animation used professional voice over actors and character actors because they were the right fit for the character, not because they were celebrities.
@@taegan1831Absolutely! I think the thing with famous actors voicing characters is studios are just casting them for the star power with no consideration of whether they’re a fit for the character they’re voicing. More often than not, it pulls you right out of the narrative, and it feels like you’re watching and listening to a celebrity voicing the character and not just the character themselves. Done well - and there are absolutely celebrities voicing characters that are masterclasses I wouldn’t trade for the world (Eartha Kitt as Yzma, for one) - and the identity of the celebrity voice melts away into the background to let the character live and breathe.
Definitely! And even what products are available. Sometimes you can tell something was filmed in the '80s just because of they hair spray that existed. Plus, a character who was beautiful (or not) in their time would be measured along COMPLETELY different parameters. But people are weirdly uncomfortable about that fact.
I remember a reviewer was not happy with Ruth Wilson as Jane Eyre because she felt her eye brows were too perfect. It makes me laugh in retrospect, since I saw the adaptation and her eyebrows were just naturally arched.
Mia Wasikowska as Jane Eyre , Kiera Knightley as Elizabeth Swan, Kate Winslet in Titanic, Gweneth Paltrow in Shakespeare in Love, Anna Taylor Joy in The Witch all relatively unknown at the time and embodied their roles so perfectly
I disagree with Kate Winslet because even I knew in 199-ish when I saw it, that she was wearing the thin eyebrows and the brick-brownish lipstick that were in style in the late 90's but were not in style in 1912 within the upper classes. I know her acting is always great and that she's done other roles where her face looks natural and beautiful, but the makeup artist failed her for that role in Titanic.
I find it ironic that studios feel like they "have" to cast big name actors, because that's something that I find an annoyance rather than an attraction for a movie. You hit on it when you pointed out how it makes it feel like there is a small pool of performers that get a lot of the roles. For me, especially with period pieces, it's more difficult to imagine the person on the screen as the actual character in the story if I have already seen them playing lead roles in a dozen other settings, in addition to countless web pages and magazine covers.
And for me i feel like big american actors have that "iphone face" more than smaller ones of different ethnicities. I feel like they should cast people with a close european background for a piece set in that country, our beauty standards are way different and i just don't see the resemblance to that country at all. mixte 1963's michelle fits her role well, she looks young and has youngish features you'd see on your parent's class photo, she has european features too, she looks normal
Defo, I remember seeing the promo for the mary queen of scotts film with saoise ronan and margot robbie, neother looked right in their roles, but espesically robbie, however, i would like to see robbie in an australian historical drama, i think in her natural accents, reduces one false thing about it and might work.
I somewhat disagree. The problem is when they cast the wrong big actors in time period pieces. But I guess I can bring it back to what you said about studios feeling “like they have to cast big name actors”. Johnny Depp isn’t cast in lots of period dramas because studios feel like they have to, he’s cast in them because he does them well and he actually looks like he belongs. When it all comes down to it I think the main issue is casting these celebrities with these artificial plastic faces as well as the fashion and cosmetic choices made for the movie. Also if you think about it, it’s mainly the females that people complain about than a-list male actors that are cast in period dramas because women are more likely to get extensive plastic surgery and filler.
@@user-sg4ov7ng4hYou do realize us white Americans don’t look that different than white Europeans right? It’s not about having close European ties. It’s about the difference in cosmetic trends and overdone plastic surgery that leads to exotic looking faces. I can think of a quite a few American actors that do good period dramas. Also you know that period dramas aren’t exclusive to Europe, right? Besides the natives, American history goes back all the way to the early 1600s.
I actually don't think Jacob Elordi has too, too bad of an "iphone face." I could see him as Edgar Linton, maybe, or even Hareton if this adaptation is doing the entire novel. But, honestly, Heathcliff's casting as a non-mixed actor is kinda shocking to me in 2024. It's absolutely undeniable that he's non-white, and it's one of the MAIN REASONS for his othering in the Earnshaw family. A big issue that has happened by removing that aspect of Heathcliff is the idea people have gotten that Heathcliff and Catherine's relationship was ENTIRELY toxic. It became toxic over time, but their love as children was caring and pure. They were forcibly kept apart because of the people around them, and therefore, they became the poster children for how Romeo & Juliet Syndrome actually looks in real life: not so much aesthetic pining as codependent obsession that leads to them actively deceiving and running over all the other people in their life if it means they can even spend one minute with each other. Catherine's a bit of a brat and Heathcliff's full of passionate anger, but these traits aren't inherently evil. They're both spirited and just aren't built for the "good society" of the time personality-wise. People also forget the entirety of the story is told by two Unreliable Narrators with their own agendas that are made exceedingly obvious throughout the novel. Catherine gets an opportunity to move up in society, to be accepted by her family (finally) and they're both forced to face that Heathcliff will never be offered that opportunity, not just because he's an orphan, but because of his background and the color of his skin. This is a PARAMOUNT element to understanding the story and the reasons they were being kept so violently apart that keeps being left out. It warps the story at its core and makes a true Gothic drama into a pure piece of melodrama without any grounded stakes.
THIS. i thought it was quite clear upon reading the book that Heathcliff was not white, and like you said, it’s integral to the plot. so I’m shocked that a white actor has been cast….but maybe i shouldn’t be 😅
@@absurdistslothwhen movies try to turn a poc character to a fully white person they never do it to characters where their ethnicity doesn’t matter at all. But then again there’s very few stories that has a poc character without ever having some kind of narrative around their race
Actually, Heathcliff was said to resemble a Gypsy, so Eastern European. Dark by the standards of the 19th century is not the same as black. I think in today’s race obsessed world, people are reading into the words ‘dark almost as if he came from the devil’ to mean black. They actually want him to be black to show how multicultural the literary world is. It’s contrived and says nothing more than the people arguing it have white guilt and that extreme racism white people have when they try to sound non racist and then obsessively talk about how much they love poc! Mr Linton, the Earnshaws' neighbour, suggests that he might be "a little Lascar, or an American or Spanish castaway". It’s perfectly reasonable to cast a tanned dark haired white actor.
@@Mimi-si6qk What's funny is, I never actually said Heathcliff was definitively black. Only that he's definitely non-white. And, Romani is absolutely not the same as Eastern European.
Teeth is actually my main issue with "historical" appearance (after costume & hair, maybe..) but the American whitener smile that looks like veneers is just something I find hard to ignore. It leads to somewhat of an uncanny effect.. I remember and rewatch english literature adaptations by the BBC with British actors that looked "normal", that was in the 90s. Healthy teeth don't have to be white and perfectly aligned.
They don't just look like veneers, they usually are veneers. There's a reason they're uncannily white and straight and perfect - because they're not real.
As a mixed race kid growing up in Canada in a nearly all white school getting to read Wuthering Heights in 10th grade and experiencing a racially ambiguous character like Heathcliff was ao important to me. Seeing him be whitewashed makes me unbelievably angry and will inevitably dilute the themes of the novel when the obvious in book racism isn't translated to the screen
Yeah, but also, because racism is made up and very stupid, it's changed a LOT, even over the past hundred years. In a very real way, he would be Not White if he was Italian or Irish. If people look at it and go "but he's white, so that's stupid," that's maybe the point, because it wouldn't be any less stupid if they cast him mixed.
I just googled it, and Margot Robbie is about to play a teenager as a 34 year old, making her one year older than Stockard Channing was when she played a high schooler in Grease. Considering how goofy it is when actors in their mid-twenties play teenagers on CW shows, the weird miscasting here seems all the more likely to doom this project to a "Dear Evan Hansen" level disaster
@@colinneagle4495 I don't think the previous commenter meant that media *about* children shouldn't be made but rather that they shouldn't star in them. I mean we've seen enough cases of what happens to child stars (abuse by directors, their own parents, mental health issues caused by what happened to them, drug abuse, etc.)
I loved the 1995 P&P where I always felt that the Jane was the beauty in the room because she looked like what would have been considered beautiful in that time period.
It can be complicated though, because if you are trying to appeal to a general audience, is it more important to be adhering to period-accurate beauty standards or to communicate "this is the pretty sister, these ones aren't bad, these other ones aren't considered much to look at"? Also, 1995's Charlotte Lucas is way too pretty. 2005 adapted her better, where you can see why Mrs. Bennett thinks it's okay to take open shots at her looks and why she's desperate enough to make a play for Mr Collins. But I love both versions.
I believe dark hair would actually still have been preferred at the time. Blonde hair's desirability is a much more recent trend than I think people realize. But it's also about balancing expectations. Many historical periods had beauty standards which modern audiences would reject, because the idea that beauty is totally cultural makes people really uncomfortable. I think they did a good job balancing this. The hair styling is fairly period appropriate, without doing the weirder looks that would have been popular, for example. Jane could be the beauty and blonde, and they obviously chose to cast an actress who basically fit both the ideals then and now, and styled her appropriately. She looked like she had a modern face in gone girl. I think it's when the balance is thrown off and they just do modern styling that it becomes jarring.
Margot Robbie was in a period piece, Tarzan, that for some reason a lot of people haven't seen. It's actually a pretty decent movie. I don't think she had "iphone face" in that because her hair and makeup felt very 19th century. The reason Dakota Johnson has "iphone face" in Netflix's Persuasion is because her hair and makeup was way too modernized. Plenty of other things in that adaptation were too modernized, which is why it just didn't work. So I wouldn't discount Margot Robbie as being a good Cathy based solely on looks, but it is a weird thing now that Hollywood is more likely to hire a big star for a role that may not be a good fit. In years past, casting directors would want unknown actors in their roles for the simple fact that it's an unknown face, so it's more of a blank canvas, so to speak, for the character. It's really hard to get around the fact that when people see Margot Robbie they see Barbie.
i agree with you. I think that after participating in Barbie, Margot Robbie just got cemented as the literal embodiment of the doll who has been the beauty standard for almost the last century. As you are all saying she has played other non-modern roles before and no one had a problem with it, but after seeing her as a the perfect fit for a doll from the fifties made purely out of plastic (and Barbie the movie has been everywhere, so everyone has that image of Margot Robbie now) it’s become harder to picture her like anything but that. I so think she can pull it off tho, we’re just too used to seeing her on the red carpet with nowadays makeup :)
Obviously P&P '05 is the perfect example of how to do this, because it's EXTREMELY modernized - they remove layers, they don't cover their hair, lizzie has bangs - but it FEELS natural, and they've done some things that are more accurate, so it doesn't take you out of the period. I love margot robbie in stuff, and I think she has a lot of range, but I'm mostly confused by this casting because she IS too old, despite being young. If you've ever seen Focus, she and will smith are both fantastic, but you get the sense they're supposed to be in their early 20s, and they look younger than they are, but they don't look that young. She just doesn't have a baby face, it's not about looking good. I could have played 23 when I was 12. She could play 25, but just not 17, so it just seems really weird and like they didn't care about the appropriateness of casting at all.
Margo was absolutely fantastic as Queen Elizabeth, and the way they transformed her look was really impressive. I think if filmmakers put proper effort into costuming and makeup, the look of modern actors isn’t necessarily an issue. That being said, it seems like studios tend to push the sex appeal of the stars in an attempt to broaden the appeal of the film. Ugh.
YES - this. There's often so much pressure from that side of things to make the Big Names as sexy as possible - and to have that be sexy in a very modern, unchallenging way - that it gets in the way of the story. Robbie has successfully disappeared into other roles, but it's been in movies where she's clearly not a romantic lead. So I think it'll depend on how unglamorous they'll be allowed to look. Of course, I also don't see WH as a love story - to me it's gothic and rather horrifying. A tremendous work of literature, but Heathcliff is awful (albeit after enduring awful circumstances), Catherine never grabbed me, and Cathy was always way too snobby for me to get into as a character. So even at their most gorgeous, no star will be able to entice me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
As a woman who has been fond of period dramas since I was little, I think it’s an issue when actors are cast who obviously represent contemporary beauty standards. The reason for me is that it implies that “this is beauty, this has always been beauty” which is simply not true and further cements the rigidity with which we judge others and ourselves. “A main female character must have certain features, or else she is not worthy of being a main character” is a message many women subconsciously absorb into their self-perception. On a more practical note, it also quickly dates a film. However, the majority of audience members and critics want to see whatever the mainstream beauty is on screen. Beauty contestants of the ages before modern makeup and hair care are often seen as homely; actresses who have had weak chins, aquiline noses, small lips, soft stomachs and sloped shoulders - feminine traits favored for much of Western European history - are considered unbelievable as leads. The only historical type of look people accept is having big, innocent doe-eyes and a small mouth. Everything else needs to be contemporary.
...and then the jordant pettersons of the world get all confused & mad at women who don't fit that "demonstrably eternal" & easily attainable standard of "natural beauty"
@@lovelyletterl8515 I’m not exactly sure what you mean (im not Black) and I’ve seen this said on a couple other comments here. do you think you could elaborate on what part of the comment comes across racist? (asking in the most well intentioned way possible) I think this person is talking about historical europe and it would be a different discussion when it comes to casting POC in period roles. I wanna see what you’re saying im just not totally sure what the reference point is
Can't believe they couldn't find two 18 yr olds to become stars of the future - have superstars in supporting roles but have genuinely 'right aged' main roles 🙁.
As a European: when watching Tv shows starring people having perfect white teeth, it really stands out for me. Very few people in my country get their teeth done :) it is very American thing to see on TV
Iphone face is real phenomenon beyond plastic surgery and cosmetics. If Scarlett Johannsen can be convincingly dowdied into a 17th century Flemish peasant in The Girl with the Peal Earring, then most of the period film iPhone face is failure of the hair, make-up and costume team. It probably never helps if the actors look too much like their famous selves: like, no one complained about Florence Pugh having an iPhone face in her breakthrough role in Lady MacBeth, but her in pretty much the same look in Little Women after she had graced every magazine cover got that criticism. Barely anything changed but people being familiar with that face. That being said: I've seen iPhone faces in 350 year old paintings. Which is a trip, let me tell you that. And it wasn't hair, make-up, costume, teeth, health or them being instagram pretty that triggered that. It wasn't even beauty - it was just people's faces looking like they did. A directness, a slyness... Very hard to describe but immediately apparent to all who saw it. So I think there is something we do associate with modernity that goes beyond all of this. But it's so rare in paintings that the rarity makes me think that most non-yasssifed actors would be able to ditch their iPhone face if the productions allowed it. But considering that they didn't even try here to cast English, let alone go for Yorkshire or hire someone barely POC-ish for Heathcliff but went for a 34 year old Australian for Cathy - whose only period film has her in clown or SFX make-up - does not give me confidence that they will be this production.
@@magdn1 in the old paintings I think what gives me the iphone face impression are the eyes and the position of the face, sometimes the model's pose is something we still do this day, on insta. But definitely the half open eyes and pointing eyebrows are the thing. Small nose or fuller lips too, but that's rare in paintings
Scarlett has a very plain face without make up. That was very obvious in Lost in Translation. She is an excellent example of a visual chameleon. I. one picture she looks plain, in a other she looks like a modern, most beautiful woman. I appreciate that about her. Margot has much stronger angular facial features, her masculine jaw always distracts me. She is definitely not gonna fit in, but the producers don’t care about that.
i think another thing that is bothering people here is that heathcliff is explicitly described to be not traditionally anglo (although his specific heritage is debated amongst people). his being of colour is a core part of why he is sidelined and excluded and mistreated throughout the play, and i would assert is the foundation for his suffering. in an era where many period shows (bridgerton especially), is trying to do 'colourblind casting', casting someone like Jacob Elordi for a canonically non-white character seems quite hypocritical.
I had no idea his heritage was debated as he is referred to throughout the book as "gypsy" 😮 in any case, not giving this role to someone who matches the book description is just sad...
FWIW my mother and her family experienced a lot of gossip in southwest England because darker skin, dark brown eyes and dark brown hair. But when I say 'darker', what are we comparing with? We're comparing with the people around us who have porcelain skin that often can't tan. My mother has pale skin by the end of winter but tans easily. Spring, summer, and autumn, she has a little bit of a tan but that was enough in the 80s when I was a kid for her to be labeled 'dark skin'. When we're in the US, no one has said she has dark skin. Even when we traveled there in the 80s. Her family are just white. We checked genealogy and even did some DNA tests out of curiosity. Predominantly Irish, Scottish and Norwegian ancestry on DNA. Genealogy they're just west country and Welsh. On the other hand, my father's mother's side are gypsy (we call ourselves gypsies, so eff right off with correcting us, we carry with pride) and we're pale, blond hair and blue eyes mostly. You can look 'foreign' in villages in some places in the southwest. My hadn't even opened his mouth in our village the first time he was there and they knew he was part gypsy, even though he's blond. Figure that one out.
I think Dakota Johnson has a unique face and doesn't have iphone face at all. She looks out of place in that movie because she has her hair down and with a side part.
thank you for actually highlighting the context of the story being set in yorkshire!! i feel like a lot of american/non-british folks don’t understand the nuances of the story being set there, and the importance of the environment. i’m from yorkshire and the yorkshire moors are equally harsh and beautiful as an environment - i loved reading the brontë sisters because of the way they talk about the moors and how it shapes their characters. i worry about fennell directing. she’s rich, posh southern, and private school educated, and in my opinion proved that she can’t talk about class in a nuanced way through saltburn (which is also the name of a yorkshire town btw). i’m not sure i trust her to do it justice and i think the casting has just solidified that for me
I think the greatest mistake of a lot of period dramas/fantasy series is that they don't commit to looking different. They try to juggle modern hair and makeup with the historical/fantasy setting which only ends up as a disjointed mess. No, I don't want smoky eye makeup in my period dramas, and I don't want to think about hair spray ads when I'm supposedly watching elves (khm khm Rings of Power). I don't believe that people can have just an "Iphone face" unless they have had obvious procedures. But the unwillingness to put actors and actresses in hair and makeup that would fit the period ruins any immersion I might have, even if the costuming is flawless. At best it'll be a bit jarring, at worst, I'll feel like I'm attending a themed party where noone put in much effort.
P&P '05 is the only example I can think of doing this well. Like it's true, modern audiences don't want hair to be covered or two weird, but you can put it up in a fairly period accurate way. Light makeup. Costumes are paired down but not absurd. Etc.
When I was watching Persuasion I kept being distracted by Dakota Johnson’s lipstick. It was really pretty color but that’s not what i should have been focusing on 😅
I'm a Palaeopathologist so I'm going to info dump some stuff on you regarding post-medieval dental health. A lot of people did genuinely loose all their teeth. As for demographics I think actually the most affected population was women and this is because hormone fluctuation especially during pregnancy can cause caries. It was actually this rather than fear of what sweets would do to you that caused the tradition for women to have their teeth pulled just prior to their wedding. Poorer people would sometimes sell their teeth and have them extracted and one of George Washington's sets of dentures includes the teeth of enslaved people who probably were not asked for consent and almost definitely not reimbursed. Tooth loss may be due to caries or infections but people also can suffer from recession of the aveolar bone which eventually means the teeth are not really supported by all that much and just fall out. Some foods or practices could also damage teeth. Tooth wear (dental attrition) was less common in post-medieval populations, but still happened and is nearly entirely absent today. But also you'll see damage to teeth from people doing things like softening textiles in their mouths, smoking and clutching their pipe between their teeth, or holding nails in their teeth. BUT ALSO when you lose a tooth or several teeth the bone in that area recedes and thins out over time. If you survive having lost several teeth in a row for a few decades you can end up with very thin bone in that area and that would affect how you look.
I remember there was a fancasting of Dev Patel and Elle Fanning as Heathcliff and Cathy that got huge online. Whether it's accurate casting or not, at least a lot of fans would have been happy.
Interestingly, the 1939 Wuthering Heights cast Merle Oberon as Cathy, and she was was mixed, British/Indian, though that wasn’t widely known at the time.
You can have stunning actors in period drama roles: Keira Knightley, Rebecca Ferguson, Elle Fanning, Timothee Chalamet or Chris Pine are all beautiful people but they don't necessarily have iPhone face. Some people fit the roles, some just not - Margot Robbie is one of them, she is Barbie, she isn't Cathy. I mean, what's next Kylie Jenner as Anna Karenina?
Elle Fanning is gorgeous and the MUAs that work on her on "the great" are excellent, they manage to engance their beauty in such a seemingly makeup-less way that fits so well her character!
Exactly. The issue is that certain actors have looks that are clearly based on modern beauty standards, other actors have looks that are more “timeless” (timeless as in features that have been popular for decades, if not centuries), yet they have instead been casting actors with the modern look into period dramas. This isn’t to say that the modern look is inherently worse or anything, but it’s just for some reason casting directors or the directors themselves don’t want to cast someone who fit the beauty standard the for time period the movie takes place in.
Casting a modern beauty ideal is definitely the problem. I think we should let some other people who don’t fit exactly into the modern beauty ideal to have their moment in the spotlight alá Nicola Coughlin as Penelope Featherington. Not that they shouldn’t have any place - they have plenty of room in other genres. It also looks really bad after a few years (look at any period drama from the 70’s, the costumes look amazing for the most part (especially considering there was no google and not everyone could afford to have a historical costume consultant) but, the people (particularly women) completely break all suspension of disbelief, usually with a twiggy body type and no eyebrows. I’m not saying they’re not fit for any period drama, for instance, the type I just mentioned looked amazing in 1920’s period films, when a similar body type (thin, petite and boyish) along with the appearance of thin high eyebrows was in vogue, thanks to Chanel. Anyway, I’m more of a purist in the sense that I think historical accuracy always looks better, (Bridgerton isn’t aiming for accuracy, hopefully everyone knows that). I’m not about asking anyone to change their permanent appearance for a role. Just cast someone who fits it and who doesn’t mind changing small things like hair, makeup etc.. You’re not going to see them cast anyone who has full sleeve tattoos in a period drama, either. You have to choose what you do to your body in line with your career. Filling your face with filler and getting your teeth capped is great for Instagram and commercials and modern drama but, not so much for period films. It’s not about discrimination. It’s just a fact.
Agreed! Anyone who's had work done and now has a modern face has no place being cast in period dramas, imo. I'm tired of iPhone-face on the regular screen, please leave them out of my period dramas!
I think he was too. I feel like they called him a “Gypsy” or something in the novel. I could be wrong though since it’s been a long time since I’ve read it too. I think he just hard a slightly darker complexion but I don’t think he was black.
the faces themselves are rarely the problem, but the filler and veneers. though i think, like others have commented, that the makeup &costuming department are often overlooked in their value of transforming an iphone-faced celeb into a regular person of the past. some subtle yellow tinting of the teeth, hairstyles approximating historical accuracy and less obviously modern makeup can do a lot! to further use margot robbie as an example, her look as queen elizabeth really works for me!
History student here. I believe you are right about wealth, sugar and no teeth. I read once (I think it was the Victorian period, may be the EMP) were it was desirable to have no teeth or teeth decay because it meant you were rich enough to buy sugar, kind of like in poor parts of India being fat is not always a bad thing as it means you have enough money to buy as much food as you want. Also seeing modern teeth in period media does through me. I loved the scene where John and Abigail complain about their teeth problems. I was so happy you mentioned the show!
If you want to learn more about the history of fatness and how it was alternately seen as attractive because wealthy and ugly because racism, I highly recommend Fearing the Black Body. Super interesting book!
Just got to the part about skin color; in addition to African, I think it is very possible that the character is part Indian. In Francis Hodgson Burnette's "The Secret Garden," published in 1911, a person from Yorkshire refers to the people of India as "Blacks."
I think you're right, but I also would add this is a long-standing American-cultural and Hollywood glamour-focused problem, not exclusive to the iPhone era. Look at older Hollywood adaptations of Bronte novels, or Dickens and Walter Scott, or anything else which would qualify as "period drama" in the 20th century. You'll see 1940s hairstyles and makeup in 1830s settings. Zippers up the back of a medieval gown which is equipped with shoulder pads. And yes, major stars of great beauty (Joan Fontaine) playing characters like Jane Eyre. If anything, the mismatches were even more ludicrous prior to the 1970s or so. Filmmaking fashion goes through spasms of "gritty glamour" as well as our current over-polished ideal.
Love that you included Heathcliff was likely PoC. I feel like when we are included in modern adaptations of classics or period pieces often they have to bring in a fantasy element and things get increasingly and authentic on purpose. This was a good opportunity to cast him as PoC.
Uhm one scene in the book describes his skin being white as the wall behind him... Ive never seen a poc go ghostly white before... He was more acurately rough and tanned like someone who worked hard outdoors, never described as poc, more like a gypsy or spanish looking. Ethnically white but with dark features... People twist the book and then get upset they didnt cast a poc. Having said that the wuthering heights done a few years ago which did have a poc cast as heathcliff was amazing and the actor was fantastic so i feel like it should not be such a point of contention. Its not whitewashing, jacob elordi fits the description but if a poc was cast i would also not be up in arms
@@melizamenelly you can be Black and pale pumpkin butt ❤️. Not sure why you’re arguing with me when the topic came up in the video. Argue with the creator. 😂😂😂😂
@@chelseacruise6570 We probably have very different definitions of black since I live in South Africa and we consider mixed race people as their own race, we call them coloureds, coloureds can be pale yes... Some even look white... Black people are usually ranging from dark brown to so dark that they look blue or grey (usually immigrants from North Africa) I have never in my life seen a palr black person... Hopefully this helps you understand just how subjective race and racial classification is. He is dicribed as looking like a gypsy... Ive seen pale gypsies and tan gypsies.... I have never seen a black gypsie. Also not sure what a pumkin butt is? We dont really eat much pumpkn here 🤔And lastly, was not attacking you or fighting with you... Simply pointing out what the book says in terms of the character's discription. The time period in which the book was written also gives context... We are quick to place our modern ideas on classic works of fiction, becoming incensed over casting when in fact the casting is accurate to the book. There are so many amazing African Legends, famous queens, kings and great leaders. Wish you Americans would start telling those stories instead of bastardizing them when you do or taking over other people's culturally and historically significant work in an effort to appear diverse and inclusive. There are also some amazing American stories and histories about black people that should rather be adapted. And authors who write stories about actual people of colour should be elevated more. Dont know why you guys over there have such little self worth that you settle for co-opting white people's stories instead of creating your own amazing original work that will have a long lasting cultural impact and not just be used as a political tool. But what do I know 🙄
Heathcliff is treated as white-passing Roma by the household. It’s straight up said in the book that nobody has any idea what his ethnicity is. The point is his low class and unknown origin. Picked up in Liverpool, I imagine even if he was fully Irish, and not Roma or Moorish or Indian, he would still be shunned by an English household by period standards. The Irish themselves were shunning culturally distinct but physically passing Travellers. The book is meant, over and over, to emphasize that no matter how you think a situation should go, how many times people have the option to choose, the base obsession with current wealth, race and class standards will always twist humans when shit hits the fan-even if it’s not even an obvious distinction but a story about a person. Him being at least white passing with questionable origins is also a plot point because it makes him rage that even though he is an equal to Cathy, by known social race and known social class and his ‘disgraceful’ origins as an unwanted child he *technically* isn’t Jane Eyre by the author’s sister plays with this again; Jane is technically a gentlewoman, but is treated like they would the hired help in multiple situations because she has no social protection, and is preyed on by Rochester for the same reason-and Jane is white, mannered, and protected from outright rape by her *known* social class.
I'm only starting the video but Emma is definitely an amazing recent adaptation/period piece. They managed to perfectly blend historically accurate aesthetics with popular actors and a modern look to the film that made it genuinely relatable, and not just looking like serious stage actors reenacting a book you read in school (which, as much as I love theater, usually discourages people from costume films)
When all the actors' faces are honed to the same modern standardized iPhone face with skincare + procedures, it can become difficult to tell "the two blondes" (or whichever two young characters have the same hair color and build) apart. At least older characters usually have a few distinguishing wrinkles or face shapes to help us out! Sometimes, we just shrug at our house and accept that we're never going to keep them straight or wish that character actors had been cast rather than model-type actors.
I'm not sure it's just the "iphone" face. It's more that producers/directors/show runners/whatever don't care/don't have time/don't hire people who actually make the characters LOOK period appropriate. There are also ways of moving, comportment, that an actor needs to be mindful of when doing period pieces. But I think too often these days, all of that is ignored. One of my favorite period dramas is Tess of the D'Urbervilles, from 1979. While it's debatable whether Nastasia Kinski was appropriately cast, the rest of the cast and the settings, the sets, just EVERYTHING down to the tiniest details is so beautifully done it's just stunning to look at. Clearly care and time were taken. Just like how Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings is so wonderful because of the actors, the settings, the beauty of New Zealand, the meticulous attention to costumes and props! It is just astounding and we love how it turned out. We need more of THAT!
What a fascinating topic and I think that you do a good job navigating a discussion about appearance with a respectful and nuanced take. I have only briefly heard of the term "iPhone face" but your video reminded me of a article I read a while back that seems appropriate for this topic. This article discussed how in this age of Globalization, beauty standards have come to include the most desirable traits from around the world, creating a beauty ideal that is detached from place, genetics or reality. Because of this, the actors we currently consider to be the most beautiful tend to have features that don't naturally exist together, which is all the more noticeable when they appear in a story set in a historical time period before someone could have access to both teeth whiteners, a BBL, and the latest Korean face serum. Based on this video, iPhone face seems to represent the uncanny valley of contemporary of beauty standards.
We have to keep in mind that white, straight teeth are not a feature of modern capitalism in the West - they’re a feature of (many types of) privilege. As someone who’s seen much of the rural (and poor inner city) US, I can attest we still have plenty of yellow/brown, absent and uneven teeth. The irony of course is that no one wants to cast THESE non-Instagram faces (unless it’s as background actors for a movie about the Great Depression). I think what makes Instagram face what it is lies in the almost -AI uniformity and symmetry of their features. Even if they did come by their noses, cheekbones and lips naturally, it’s just SO improbable that an ordinary person is going to have won that genetic lottery (much less ALL the ‘ordinary’ main characters). Far from the Madding Crowd, imho, did a good job casting main characters who were striking, but not suspiciously model-perfect.
don't forget how incredibly pale they all are, even the ppl who are supposed to be poor farmers or whatever. like they wouldn't look pale, they'd most likely be tan from working outside most of the time...
Kathy goes from age 7 to 19 , Heathcliff ages to I think around 35 . Margot is pretty and probably has had work done . I just can’t see either of them in Wuthering Heights. I hate saying because they are too attractive. Maybe with different lighting? Or no makeup ? Or with different hairstyles . More natural hair ? I dunno it’s a tough one. I would love to see a Romani actor portray Heathcliff. Also Cathy isn’t a feminist. She’s pretty toxic yes. They both are. So I’m not sure how this will go
In my personal opinion, Pride and Prejudice of the 2000s truly casted correctly. Rosamund and Keira both have a renaissance kind of beauty--it's why Keira got cast in a lot of historical fiction films--and the actors cast as the men were not terribly "ugly" but they aren't also conventionally handsome. We fell in love with Mr. Darcy because we could SEE the character arc and how the way he grew fonder and fonder of Elizabeth every day was so beautiful.
There’s such a thing as an actor being too over-exposed and Margot Robbie, esp. with the release of Barbie, has well surpassed that. I’m really sick of seeing her face in everything, and her involvement turns me off the project. Actors need to know when to start turning roles down
As someone who LOVED Fassbender's portrayal of Rochester (I know the 2011 adaptation is not the most accurate to the book, but it is my favourite for multiple reasons), I am glad that his role as Heathcliff did not work out XD . Considering that in the earlier days, many of the actors who acted in period dramas came to be known and associated for their roles in said dramas (like Jennifer and Colin for P and P 1995, Matthew for P and P 2005, and Richard Armitage for North and South as examples), I wish current adaptations would also try to cast lesser known actors and give them a chance to shine, versus going for big budget names. Though I'm not a fan of WH the book, I commend Emily Brontë for writing a novel with a non-white character as a lead role, and the least that Emerald could have done was cast someone non-white in Heathcliff's role. There are so many talented, non-white British actors who could have easily been selected.
The British have always done period dramas much better than Hollywood, especially for TV because they know to cast people who look extremely normal yet a little charming, which makes the romance still epic but relatable. It actually makes the plots even more poignant because the actors look like everyday folks.
Personally I always pictured Cathy as beautiful but not in a conventional way? Basically that her beauty comes more from her charisma and expressions. I'm thinking someone like Gaia Girace, when she played Lila in L'amica geniale? But yeah, the director clearly just went for what's popular right now without thinking if the actors even suit the roles or seting, which just tells me everything about what kind of adaptation she wants to make. I bet that it's going to have beautiful cinematography like all her films, but that's about it.
Period peices that dont look old. The lighting is bright, the colors are saturated, whatever camera they use makes everything look new, The clothing never looks fully authentic. It doesnt looke like its authentically of the time, it looks like a netflix rom-com with vintage clothing. Dont get me started on robbi and elordi for wuthering heights. Im still livid about it. I also disagree with needing an adaptation every 10 years. I dont understand why people are "so ready" for the 5th, 6th, 7th adaptation of beloved novels that. Why is it wrong to not just appreciate all the ones that have come before? People say, younger audiences need updated material. Thats not true. The 2009 withering heights and the 1995 pride and prejudice are my absolute favorite iterations of both novels even though newer ones have come after them. I wish people would just be glad with what we have and stop getting their hopes so high for whats new and fresh, because normally, new and fresh, unless its an original concept, is going to pan in comparison to the well'done iterations that have come before it.
I watch Chinese period dramas which also align contemporary beauty standards, so I get it to a degree. Like, yeah, accurate Tang Dynasty makeup would be a little distracting haha… Also watching a Tang Dynasty set drama filmed 30 years ago is jarring because of the makeup trends and fabric choices. But also I’d like to see some accurate looking dramas. It’s kind of like the difference between watching a Korean drama versus a Japanese or Thai drama. Like wow, you can actually see skin texture in many of the latter, real skin tone. 😅 I understand filmmaking is filmmaking and will never be totally authentic or accurate, but it’s really fun when a director brings that authenticity to the screen.
It's important to talk about how racist the casting for Heathcliff was. Heathcliff is compared to dark skin romani people, Indian people (India) and Chinese people. It's not just about him having a tan or something. The guy cast is a White man. Very anglo looking. Honestly I'm shocked that after the poorly written The Talented Mr. Ripley rip-off anyone would think that that director would do a good job at tackling something that involves discrimination based on social classes and race. I liked Promising Young Woman but sheesh. Her upper-middle class background shows in Saltburn.
I felt the same. The only people who I have seen who liked Saltburn had no idea about Talented Mr. Ripley or the book it is based on so the ending came as a surprise to them and I think that was the appeal.
yeah, i'm not sure why everyone is so excited about her as a director. saltburn was so bland. the casting for heathcliff put me off this film entirely.
No big budget period drama movies in the past ten years? De Wilde’s Emma adaptation would like a word! But in all seriousness, very interesting observations on a topic I’ve never heard discussed before! I’ve been enjoying watching your chancel after stumbling upon it recently. Thanks for continuing to put out such thoughtful content :)
I think people need to stop and think: would Cathy and Heathcliff really be acting and feeling this way in their late 20's-mid-30's? Would Heathcliff really be that obsessed with what happened decades later to the point of madness had the events of Part 1 taken place in his late 20's/30's? I don't think so. It's the kind of intensity and hurt people feel when they are teenagers. I think they are way too old to be playing teenagers (for part 1 at least, but I don't really expect them to adapt part 2 of the novel), especially Margot Robbie. She also looks older than Jacob Elordi in my opinion (because she is) and none of them match the description of the characters even if they were age appropriate. So basically it's everything, this casting makes zero sense to me. None of them look like the characters, they are not age appropriate and they don't look the same age either. And I do agree it's a completely missed opportunity not to cast someone who's mixed raced or ambiguously POC for Heathcliff.
Hey, I loved this video essay! I completely agree with your points. It usually pulls me out of the immersive experience when actors in historical films look too modern: sharp, highly contoured cheekbones, flawless, smooth skin, shaped and groomed eyebrows, perfect, white teeth, and very symmetrical, surgically enhanced features like full lips and defined jawlines that reflect current beauty standards. These contrast with the more natural, less sculpted faces familiar in earlier eras. "Little Women" (2019) also suffered from this issue, as the actors' grooming and makeup style sometimes felt at odds with the period compared to the 1994 version. Micarah Tewers did a detailed and informative video essay on the costumes of this version and the period-inaccurate hair (and the absence of 1860s bonnets and 1870s hats), which I highly recommend. The new version of "The Buccaneers" (2023) also has a lot of pop-culture visuals and very questionable looks for the 1870s. On the flip side, films like "The Witch" (2015), "Emma" (2020), and "Atonement" (2007) did a remarkable job casting actors with more era-appropriate features and utilizing makeup, lighting, and costuming to enhance the authenticity. The actors in "Gangs of New York" (2002) also felt historically accurate, partly due to their natural (and appropriately "gross") appearances and less "Hollywood glossy" styling, and that starred two big Hollywood names at the time, Leo DiCaprio and Cameron Diaz, similar to Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi. Yes, Diaz's Irish accent was very much lacking, but I think the makeup and amazing costuming genuinely made up for it and allowed for a more believable portrayal. For Wuthering Heights, I hope the production focuses on "plaining down" Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi with natural makeup, avoiding heavy contouring or cosmetic enhancements, and using lighting that complements the raw, rugged landscape of the moors. Robbie looks a bit too old to play a teenager. I wish they'd cast two unknown, less modern-looking actors as the leads, especially if those actors are from Yorkshire. That would help capture the gritty, wild essence of the novel that feels authentic. The characters are meant to be raw and rugged, not polished with doll-like beauty. The problem lies partly with casting and partly with whatever the wardrobe and hair/makeup departments decide to do with the actors. Even if Robbie and Elordi are cast, the right costume designer and hair/makeup artist can make a huge difference in how they appear on screen. If they genuinely embrace the era and the roughness of the characters, they could MAYBE transform them into more believable versions of Heathcliff and Cathy. Fingers crossed that this version tries to get it right!
Obviously, there are millions of actors in the world, and many of them have faces, which look very "old-fashioned" and would be perfect for costume dramas. Why directors don't cast them, - I guess, because they don't expect less famous actors to attract viewers and make people go to the movies.
Iphone face is just ever so slightly before uncanny valley. You can tell they had something done even if you can't tell what specifically and it just fights against our perception of what "belongs" in the time period. Someone else spoke about teeeth. But I would speak about weight too: why are all the supposedly rich period girls skinny? Flesh was fashionable because it was expensive. It is one of the resons I have such a hard time seeing "period pieces" unironically. Like if you have ever seen paintings or sculptures of what their physical ideal were like, who they considered beautiful... these girls are georgeus in our modern sense absolutely but they would be too thin for the fashion of the time, way way too thin. In an era where body positivity has been a thing for awhile and is currently in its last leg, casting a full cast of middle size and plus size women (as it would be historically accurate among the upper class) would be transformative as f (for us). But they didn't. Because 1. They cuddle the audience biases instead of challenging them 2. All change in Hollywood is PR you don't need real transformative shit for good PR we allow them to get away with minimum effort bs.
The new Count of Monte-Cristo adaptation is an example of good casting in my opinion. All actors look as if they belong in the era where the story is set. I especially liked the actress playing Mercedes, she looked natural and charming. The clothing is a different discussion though.
Agreed, it's really frustrating to get pulled out of the story by dubious or inexplicable costuming choices. You're allowed to make adaptations of course, but they have to be meaningful. And in this case France has 0 excuse because the costuming ressources? Are HIGH. On opposite ends of the relevant adaptation spectrum I'd tend to quote Lady J/ Mademoiselle de Joncquiere (2018), which looks historical but is also full of anachronisms, and the 2005 Accursed Kings/ Rois Maudits series that goes full interpretative theatre production.
Both Margot and Jakob have iPhone face because they have so many plastic surgeries. I mean if you get one thing done, that is fine, but these actors in the 2020s get their whole face done to the point that they look like a different person. The microbladed eyebrows, lip filler and lip lifts, the thinned out nose, hollowed out cheeks. No one usually has all these features. Just look at old fashioned portraits. People were still beautiful, but did not have Bratz dolls faces. They didnt look “done.” They had thin lips, imperfect noses, and natural cheeks. They also didnt color their hair obviously.
Margot Robbie really doesn’t look that different from when she was younger, I doubt that she had any significant procedure done other than maybe Botox. Also, not everyone has thin lips, having full lips is not a modern thing.
30:08 I too am haunted by this adaptation. I’m glad more regional accents are being given screen time in UK dramas. The North South divide in England is something that some historians have speculated may have been influenced by William The Conqueror’s “The Harrying of the North.” As far as idealized beauty standards in period dramas and their influence on how people see themselves, I hadn’t reflected on that. I think an upside of not being from a demographic (i.e. not being of primarily European descent) means I can’t conform to those on-screen beauty standards, so it doesn’t affect how I feel about my own personal appearance. In a strange way, that could make my personal viewing experience more enjoyable.
I'm not usually into historical/period drama, so I can't comment on the content too much. However, what you say makes a lot of sense regarding 'Iphone Face' in modern reproductions. I worked for over 30 years in a cinema, and gained a small understanding of the casting procedure and how Hollywood might affect the casting of movies, especially the blockbusters. When directors want their movie to be a huge success, they need money, and that means they need people to lay out the dollars. The money people, the producers, especially in Hollywood, and probably elsewhere in Europe too, for instance, would be very reluctant to payroll directors who they think might not be casting Hollywood-typical actors. They want their money back in the first weekend of a movie release, and if it isn't a huge hit between Friday to Sunday, it's considered a flop. (Crazy, I know!) Producers want the most well-known, beautiful and successful actors in their movies in order to make it more likely to be a success because they're laying out huge sums of cash, so It's really all down to the cinema industry of the last four decades and who is in charge of the money, really. This 'historical yapping' was extremely interesting, thank you. :) Also, I never knew Heathcliffe was a black/mixed race person, so I learned some brand new information, and that makes the story make much more sense, too.
@SceGno1 Based on descriptions of him as a "g*psy" and being compared to Lancars (indian sailors) and chinese royalty hes likely Romani or Indian. Its unclear his exact race but hes definitely not white.
I’ve noticed recently that people that were considered beautiful in the early 2010 are now seen as ugly or average. My features, body shape and hair was seen as very beautiful, now they aren’t anything special. There are a lot of people like that. Some people are 2020s pretty and some are 2000s pretty. My face definitely doesn’t fit into these new beauty standards. Back then being skinny was seen as pretty, but now you can’t just be skinny anymore. You need to be toned, have a small waist, big butt, perfectly sized boobs, can’t be too tall etc. There are SO SO many details. Skinny isn’t good enough anymore. Being average is seen as ugly. You can’t just be regular pretty anymore, to be considered beautiful you need to be drop dead gorgeous and fit very specific criteria. I’m so glad I’m not a teenager anymore.
Emma Mackey played an excellent enigmatic and other-worldly Emily Bronte in the film "Emily" and would make an amazing Cathy. But I guess the roles would be too close. I highly recommend watching the movie! It takes some creative liberties but it is a brilliant watch for the acting, charisma and chemistry between the actors.
This could've been a great opportunity to scout for young fresh talent in, and around, the Yorkshire area. A better casting could've been found of North English actors 18-20 rather than 2 Australian actors both born before Y2K. Even Raffey Cassidy would've been closer to the right age and she's 22.
Your section about teeth reminds me of the courtier character in Tous les matins du monde (1991) who has terrible teeth, a detail I loved for the historical accuracy, but also kind of hated because I felt like I was being asked to judge from my modern perspective and think "bad teeth"="disgusting"="this character is morally bad". A certain period drama that I had been wishing for for many years recently came out with IMO horrible casting with the totally wrong look, and it bums me out because it's going to damage the evergreenness of the work. But I feel like big-budget media just doesn't get made to last forever; it's meant as a consumable product to make as much money ASAP with no concern whether it gets forgotten afterwards. When we do get a big-budget something that does have that staying power and timelessness, it feels like an accident of fate. I feel like this has always been the case in my lifetime, but it may be further exacerbated nowadays by the need to court virality, the really fast turnover of trends, etc. Maybe those grainy BBC adaptations are just always going to be more successful in that regard, because different priorities, different audiences, different budgets? And that's why we can remember a lot more successful historical TV over movies in recent years?
Oh that's such an interesting idea about media being made as a quick cash grab and not as a timeless work of art. I've never thought of the movie of the week on Netflix that you forget entirely by the next day as being a sort of fast culture akin to fast food and fast fashion. Cheep disposable instant gratification made with no regard for their effect on the environment.
I think you got it. These are fast food media, not a four course meal. And just like with fast food, we have got to make the conscious effort to stay away from it and find the good stuff.
For me, I find that iPhone face is at least emphasized by hair, makeup, costume, and lightning. It just feels like a lot of missed opportunities in this casting!
I feel like iPhone face casting also tends to be a clue on if they are going to try and infantilize the audience in other ways. This increases the chance of early outrage. Speaking of actresses, you look like you could be related to actress Allison Munn (“Caroline” from “That 70’s show for example). Great video btw!
Studios demanding big names in projects is a tale as old as time. And the iphone face is an odd phenomenon and entirety subjective. Was Vivien Leigh too 'modern' looking when she played Scarlet O'Hara? I don't think she looks out of place, but would people at the time agree? Does she fit in for me because the film is so old? At the same time I don't think Keira Knightly looked the part of Elizabeth Bennett, but many people clearly disagree (and I do like her in period costumes of Pirates of the Caribbean). Maybe it depends of the period and if your looks molds well to the desired fashions/looks? Dakota Johnson looked like a lost time traveller in Persuasion. But was it just her face, or did the modern haircut and questionable wardrobe choices exacerbated the issue? I am not very interested in Wuthering Heights, so my disappointment is more on principle, and I genuinely cannot imagine either of them looking at home in a period piece. But who knows. Maybe hair, make-up, and wordobe teams will do the impossible.
At the mention of perfect teeth I immediately thought of Pirates of the Caribbean actors, extras and their teeth. Their make up and sfx team did amazing job with their appearances. Imagine Barbossa or Calypso with Hollywood set of teeth. Unthinkable.
i saved this video because i wanted to give it my full attention, and it was worth it!! in my opinion a big part of iphone face is the styling and especially grooming, like eyebrow shape, hairline etc. I feel like a lot could be done about Jacob and Margot's appearances if they disheveled them to the max with imperfect skin, messy hair, unwhitened teeth and unplucked eyebrows... sadly it seems that nowadays not many big budget productions are willing to do that :(
I am new to your channel, subscribed as I like it. Funny about this, I live in Yorkshire, England and my husband is a born and bred Yorkshire man! All working class so I would be very intrigued to see the attempts at the accents haha! The dialect and accent is unique. I am from Lancashire so that is different again!!
veneers are a huge reason why period dramas can feel off with modern faces. makeup, or lack thereof, can do a lot to transform a face, but the teeth will ruin it. having even and relatively white and clean teeth won't ruin a drama, but having extremely perfected smiles looks weird in real life AND on screen.
Oh! You’re from Asheville! (Dunno if you’re still there.) I saw the poster behind your head but didn’t know if it meant you’re from there. Also from NC here. Asheville’s always been a welcoming and beautiful place whenever I’ve been. I hope the area’s recovering from Helene. 💜
You mentioned there haven't been any more recent sweeping period dramas of note--I just have to point out 2019's Portrait of a Lady on Fire (maybe not high budget, but a huge success) which I think totally deserves a place among the greats like Pride & Prejudice and Sense & Sensibility! (Also Emma (2020), but that's more of a romcom I know)
This is what made shows like The Musketeers so successful. Everyone had different styles of beauty. Anne was more gentle, sweet and dainty. I think the actress who played Milady had a gap in her teeth, Athos had a cleft lip, Louis was well…. he had hair and it wasn’t great. The BBC (despite my issues with that company) knew how to cast their roles.
You raise a great point but I feel you need to watch more movies outside of the Hollywood. Often in European or Latin American films and series, there’s a noticeable appreciation for unique and natural features-whether it’s wrinkles, crooked teeth, or distinct facial structures-which often adds to the authenticity of the characters and stories. I always feel like the actors, even if they are attractive, look like a person you could meet on the street, and that this allows for a deeper connection because their story is reflected more realistically on screen. It’s also funny that when you mention Hollywood teeth in period productions you put a picture of Aneurin Barnard (next to Dev Patel), who has acted in so many period pieces and has "normal" / "period apropiate" looking teeth. He is a good example of an oil painting face, where he looks really good in period pieces, just like Holliday Grainger and Romula Garay.
Hey I just wanted to say that I love your channel, I wonder why it isn't more popular - your way of conveying information is great and you can SEE that you have a phD, te way you are able to connect different things and create a great video out of it. Congrats and good luck!
donald sutherland's STRAIGHT almost NEON WHITE teeth draw me out of pride and prejudice (2005) EVERY TIME without fail i wish they had done something to brown them up😂
I am so sick of famous people gaslighting us into thinking that all of their looks are just some creams and fantastic genetics. Fine, you all want to look the same (there is this meme of four actresses looking exactly the same and I have no clue who is who on that meme), but can you at least be open about the fact that you do cosmetic surgeries, ozempic, etc.? I live in a place where every second woman has multiple plastic surgeries and cosmetic procedures and I so miss seeing real faces around me..
![ARGENTINA vs. PERÚ [1-0] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 12](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/xtI25ENDDSY/mqdefault.jpg)
i think one of the biggest failures of modern cinema is the misconception from producers that people want to see famous actors, all of my favorite movies star people i had never heard of because i’m actually able to engross myself in the story… how am i supposed to pay attention to the plot when then poor yorkshire kid is nate jacobs from euphoria
This is my biggest complaint about Tom Cruise. All I see is Tom Cruise, not a character.
tbf Tom Cruise plays the same character every time so it is hard to see him as anything else
I'd rather have them use the multi million dollar budget for good writers and producers then on the populair actors.
Totally agree. Everything comes down to marketing - they think big names that are hot rn will guarantee box office success. Because that's the only measure of success. But it really doesn't!
Like Lord of the Rings! As far as I know it had a lot of actors that were not very well known
For me I think the thing about straight white teeth in period dramas is less about "healthy" versus "unhealthy" teeth and more about the unnatural bleached and straightened Hollywood style teeth compared to just... regular teeth. Teeth can be a little crooked and a little yellow/off-white without being decayed - in fact, that's totally normal, and the Hollywood teeth are just as much of an unrealistic beauty standard as the rest of it. It's just as distracting as the 'iPhone face' feeling in my opinion.
Absolutely - seeing people with obvious veneers in a period costume is wild
Not only normal but actually healthier. Our teeth aren't supposed to be as white as portrayed by Hollywood and when they are it's usually due to harmfull things used to whitening them/alter them that might even compromise the integrity and health of the teeth.
That's at least the profissional opinion of a dentist friend of mine.
yeah, the hollywood smile isn't real. pretty much everyone has veneers. teeth aren't even supposed to be white but slightly yellow to varying degrees. naturally blinding white teeth don't even exist.
The teeth look like white chicklets… the whiteness just needs to be toned down… period dramas from the past like 70’s and 80’s have the actors real facial features… I mean scars or even some acne is real! The overall big drawn on eyebrows are definitely a fad from present time. I really am not able to watch a period drama that is not realistic. I am a history major and ancient history major so I really get frustrated with the wrong clothing… the shoes, the dresses, hair, jewelry… etc. I go back into time and do a sort of pop culture historical analysis and it is so fun to see the real culture at the place in time.
Yeh, humans in history had decently straight teeth like most animals do, its only since weve introduced more and more unnatural things have our teeth/jaws changed, but they would never have been white white.
I really appreciate how shows from the UK and Ireland actually have actors that look like normal people. I like how the characters on Derry Girls just look like normal people. They don't have perfect faces and thanks to that I was actually able to relate to them more.
Saaame, love British TV shows for that and I like that we are getting more and more dramas that are regional and increasing number of people using their own accents.
I agree, not every face out on the big screen needs to be mesmerizing in order to improve their acting skills. Audiences don't want to be constantly titillated, they want a good movie.
i agree but i actually sort of found it hard bc theyre all late 20's playing like 14-16 yr olds
I looove the inbetweeners :)
Yes. Even the reality show Love is Blind was more pleasant to watch in its UK season for this reason (+ the more down-to-earth personalities, on average)
To be honest, there's a big difference between "healthy" teeth and "hollywood" teeth. An average persons healthy teeth might be a bit yellow or not absolutely perfectly symmetrical. Hollywood teeth are often bleached which makes them less healthy than teeth that might be a bit yellow or off colored.
Hollywood teeth are pointy little splinters when those veneers pop off
@@mn0g0nm100% this 🙌
yes, and even "regular"straight teeth can have a modern look considering how braces are a relatively new invention. Before the age of getting children braces, if your teeth happened to grow in crooked there really wasn't much to do about it
This! There's nothing less "healthy" about having a yellowish color of your teeth, it's just genetics. Same with having them slightly crooked or uneven. But people these days are getting insecure over the silliest things, and will ruin their perfectly fine teeth to get them a couple of shades lighter :(
@@nemediv4086 and woe the person who can't afford to have their teeth made.... less offensive? because white teeth are a symbol of good character, diligent self care and responsibility. As soon as someone has any contact with customers or even colleagues, shiny white and even teeth are more reason to be hired than qualifications. So yeah, sometimes it is not about insecurity but about trying to edge out the competition for a job. So, while I agree that it is silly, and as someone who has brittle teeth and can't whiten them - they are a disadvantage.
To me it's the hollow cheeks and full lips and manicured eyebrows that give off "model/modern" faces. I also think that mascara and false lashes (any kind of smoking effect) highlight this. The 2009 P&P had plenty of actresses that have modern faces, but the production was also praised for their use of makeup (or their apparent lack thereof)
Exactly! Often it's also the hair. A lot of productions try to slightly alter historic hairstyles to make them more palatable for a modern audience, same with the costumes. All of that adds up.
@@griffindiary6692Slightly altered would be one thing.
Completely ignoring in favor of a beachy wave?
No women wore their hair down back then. Why not just set the story in modern times if modern hair and makeup will be used?
These are features that woc have naturally. Tread carefully
@@Imxel21yeah i feel like this whole iphone face debate can slowly become eugenics
@@Imxel21People of all different backgrounds can have hollow cheeks and manicured eyebrows. Bigger lips are more common for people from warmer climates, but not exclusive to them.
Many influencers alter their face with cheek filler, buccal fat removal, lip filler, and very manicured eyebrows so it’s not really a surprise that the look ends up looking more modern and “instagramy”. I don’t think anyone thinks that your average Somalian, for example, looks more modern because they have bigger lips.
Margot is undoubtedly a stunning woman, but she didn’t look 19 even when she actually was 19.
Exactly right.
She did in Neighbours
Emma Thompson was 36 when she played a 19 year old in Sense and Sensibility and she did not look that age, not by a long shot.
@@PlugInKali Although they did make a point of ageing up the character as written. There's mentions of her being a spinster, which wouldn't apply if she was actually intended to be younger than 30.
@PlugInKali she was definitely aged up in sense and sensibility
The same thing is happening with voice over work in animation right now too. A-List actors are getting cast as animated characters because people know their name on the marquee, not because of their voice over abilities. The golden era of animation used professional voice over actors and character actors because they were the right fit for the character, not because they were celebrities.
I’ve been thinking this tooooooo!
I think your right but there are still many times when popular screen actors did well in animations
EXACTLY. voice acting and regular acting is sooo different. not every actor is a good voice actor (i’m looking at you chris pratt)
@@taegan1831 Robert Pattinson in the English dub of The Boy and the Heron immediately came to mind, he killed it
@@taegan1831Absolutely! I think the thing with famous actors voicing characters is studios are just casting them for the star power with no consideration of whether they’re a fit for the character they’re voicing. More often than not, it pulls you right out of the narrative, and it feels like you’re watching and listening to a celebrity voicing the character and not just the character themselves. Done well - and there are absolutely celebrities voicing characters that are masterclasses I wouldn’t trade for the world (Eartha Kitt as Yzma, for one) - and the identity of the celebrity voice melts away into the background to let the character live and breathe.
Eyebrow grooming is part of this, too, I think. Particularly because there are trends around it. Microblading really takes you out of the moment.
Excellent point!
The effect that simply eyebrows can have on making or breaking a period look is so underestimated.
Definitely! And even what products are available. Sometimes you can tell something was filmed in the '80s just because of they hair spray that existed. Plus, a character who was beautiful (or not) in their time would be measured along COMPLETELY different parameters. But people are weirdly uncomfortable about that fact.
I remember a reviewer was not happy with Ruth Wilson as Jane Eyre because she felt her eye brows were too perfect. It makes me laugh in retrospect, since I saw the adaptation and her eyebrows were just naturally arched.
Mia Wasikowska as Jane Eyre , Kiera Knightley as Elizabeth Swan, Kate Winslet in Titanic, Gweneth Paltrow in Shakespeare in Love, Anna Taylor Joy in The Witch all relatively unknown at the time and embodied their roles so perfectly
I disagree with Kate Winslet because even I knew in 199-ish when I saw it, that she was wearing the thin eyebrows and the brick-brownish lipstick that were in style in the late 90's but were not in style in 1912 within the upper classes. I know her acting is always great and that she's done other roles where her face looks natural and beautiful, but the makeup artist failed her for that role in Titanic.
@@karimelupus I've always wondered about that but never bothered looking into it. Her makeup always struck me as modern.
Elizabeth Bennet lol but agree with tbe point
@@airari24 yeah but didn’t she do Pirate before P&P?
@VanessaEspinoza-ur2hu OMG! Now I'm being silly. Yes looked it up and ahe did pirates before P&P
I find it ironic that studios feel like they "have" to cast big name actors, because that's something that I find an annoyance rather than an attraction for a movie. You hit on it when you pointed out how it makes it feel like there is a small pool of performers that get a lot of the roles. For me, especially with period pieces, it's more difficult to imagine the person on the screen as the actual character in the story if I have already seen them playing lead roles in a dozen other settings, in addition to countless web pages and magazine covers.
And for me i feel like big american actors have that "iphone face" more than smaller ones of different ethnicities. I feel like they should cast people with a close european background for a piece set in that country, our beauty standards are way different and i just don't see the resemblance to that country at all.
mixte 1963's michelle fits her role well, she looks young and has youngish features you'd see on your parent's class photo, she has european features too, she looks normal
@@user-sg4ov7ng4h Isn’t Jacob actually British ? And Margo is Aussie but semantics.
Defo, I remember seeing the promo for the mary queen of scotts film with saoise ronan and margot robbie, neother looked right in their roles, but espesically robbie, however, i would like to see robbie in an australian historical drama, i think in her natural accents, reduces one false thing about it and might work.
I somewhat disagree. The problem is when they cast the wrong big actors in time period pieces. But I guess I can bring it back to what you said about studios feeling “like they have to cast big name actors”. Johnny Depp isn’t cast in lots of period dramas because studios feel like they have to, he’s cast in them because he does them well and he actually looks like he belongs. When it all comes down to it I think the main issue is casting these celebrities with these artificial plastic faces as well as the fashion and cosmetic choices made for the movie. Also if you think about it, it’s mainly the females that people complain about than a-list male actors that are cast in period dramas because women are more likely to get extensive plastic surgery and filler.
@@user-sg4ov7ng4hYou do realize us white Americans don’t look that different than white Europeans right? It’s not about having close European ties. It’s about the difference in cosmetic trends and overdone plastic surgery that leads to exotic looking faces. I can think of a quite a few American actors that do good period dramas. Also you know that period dramas aren’t exclusive to Europe, right? Besides the natives, American history goes back all the way to the early 1600s.
I actually don't think Jacob Elordi has too, too bad of an "iphone face." I could see him as Edgar Linton, maybe, or even Hareton if this adaptation is doing the entire novel. But, honestly, Heathcliff's casting as a non-mixed actor is kinda shocking to me in 2024. It's absolutely undeniable that he's non-white, and it's one of the MAIN REASONS for his othering in the Earnshaw family.
A big issue that has happened by removing that aspect of Heathcliff is the idea people have gotten that Heathcliff and Catherine's relationship was ENTIRELY toxic. It became toxic over time, but their love as children was caring and pure. They were forcibly kept apart because of the people around them, and therefore, they became the poster children for how Romeo & Juliet Syndrome actually looks in real life: not so much aesthetic pining as codependent obsession that leads to them actively deceiving and running over all the other people in their life if it means they can even spend one minute with each other. Catherine's a bit of a brat and Heathcliff's full of passionate anger, but these traits aren't inherently evil. They're both spirited and just aren't built for the "good society" of the time personality-wise. People also forget the entirety of the story is told by two Unreliable Narrators with their own agendas that are made exceedingly obvious throughout the novel.
Catherine gets an opportunity to move up in society, to be accepted by her family (finally) and they're both forced to face that Heathcliff will never be offered that opportunity, not just because he's an orphan, but because of his background and the color of his skin. This is a PARAMOUNT element to understanding the story and the reasons they were being kept so violently apart that keeps being left out. It warps the story at its core and makes a true Gothic drama into a pure piece of melodrama without any grounded stakes.
THIS. i thought it was quite clear upon reading the book that Heathcliff was not white, and like you said, it’s integral to the plot. so I’m shocked that a white actor has been cast….but maybe i shouldn’t be 😅
@@absurdistslothwhen movies try to turn a poc character to a fully white person they never do it to characters where their ethnicity doesn’t matter at all. But then again there’s very few stories that has a poc character without ever having some kind of narrative around their race
@sasielb8922 Its weird because BBC blackwashed Anne Boleyn only to whitewash Heathcliff. Sometimes I think they just want to anger everyone.
Actually, Heathcliff was said to resemble a Gypsy, so Eastern European. Dark by the standards of the 19th century is not the same as black.
I think in today’s race obsessed world, people are reading into the words ‘dark almost as if he came from the devil’ to mean black. They actually want him to be black to show how multicultural the literary world is. It’s contrived and says nothing more than the people arguing it have white guilt and that extreme racism white people have when they try to sound non racist and then obsessively talk about how much they love poc!
Mr Linton, the Earnshaws' neighbour, suggests that he might be "a little Lascar, or an American or Spanish castaway".
It’s perfectly reasonable to cast a tanned dark haired white actor.
@@Mimi-si6qk What's funny is, I never actually said Heathcliff was definitively black. Only that he's definitely non-white. And, Romani is absolutely not the same as Eastern European.
Teeth is actually my main issue with "historical" appearance (after costume & hair, maybe..) but the American whitener smile that looks like veneers is just something I find hard to ignore. It leads to somewhat of an uncanny effect.. I remember and rewatch english literature adaptations by the BBC with British actors that looked "normal", that was in the 90s. Healthy teeth don't have to be white and perfectly aligned.
Ikr!! Glossy beached teeth are different than straightened lighter teeth
Healthy teeth are in fact not white
When the teeth are whiter and more uniformly unblemished than the whites of the eyes, it makes me uncomfortable. Uncanny valley
They don't just look like veneers, they usually are veneers. There's a reason they're uncannily white and straight and perfect - because they're not real.
It’s not american whitener, it’s American veneers! 😂
EMMA!!!! THE 2020 EMMA ADAPTATION! THATS A RECENT SWEEPING JANE AUSTEN ADAPTATION!
And it was really, really good!!!
That's what I thought about immediately! But I suppose it didn't get as popular as it could be because of covid.
My first thought as well! An excellent adaptation on so many different levels ❤
Yes! I love that Emma adaption!
I adore Emma. But it is true that it's budget and box office wasn't that high.
That was an incredible film, but it was hardly marketed at all because of what was going on in the world :/
As a mixed race kid growing up in Canada in a nearly all white school getting to read Wuthering Heights in 10th grade and experiencing a racially ambiguous character like Heathcliff was ao important to me. Seeing him be whitewashed makes me unbelievably angry and will inevitably dilute the themes of the novel when the obvious in book racism isn't translated to the screen
Yeah, but also, because racism is made up and very stupid, it's changed a LOT, even over the past hundred years. In a very real way, he would be Not White if he was Italian or Irish. If people look at it and go "but he's white, so that's stupid," that's maybe the point, because it wouldn't be any less stupid if they cast him mixed.
Most likely he was white but not English. Also he is a negative character. I feel sad that was how it was taught.
I just googled it, and Margot Robbie is about to play a teenager as a 34 year old, making her one year older than Stockard Channing was when she played a high schooler in Grease. Considering how goofy it is when actors in their mid-twenties play teenagers on CW shows, the weird miscasting here seems all the more likely to doom this project to a "Dear Evan Hansen" level disaster
I agree but at the same time, a part of me is fine if children are never casted in anything ever again. We had our chance and look what we did.
@@202cardline That's such an interesting point that I hadn’t considered! Does that mean that media about children just shouldn't be made anymore?
@@colinneagle4495who said that?
@@peach4666 What are asking for clarification on?
@@colinneagle4495 I don't think the previous commenter meant that media *about* children shouldn't be made but rather that they shouldn't star in them. I mean we've seen enough cases of what happens to child stars (abuse by directors, their own parents, mental health issues caused by what happened to them, drug abuse, etc.)
I loved the 1995 P&P where I always felt that the Jane was the beauty in the room because she looked like what would have been considered beautiful in that time period.
Yeah she really looks like a beautiful statue or something. Not like she’d have Instagram
As she was in the book 😊
It can be complicated though, because if you are trying to appeal to a general audience, is it more important to be adhering to period-accurate beauty standards or to communicate "this is the pretty sister, these ones aren't bad, these other ones aren't considered much to look at"?
Also, 1995's Charlotte Lucas is way too pretty. 2005 adapted her better, where you can see why Mrs. Bennett thinks it's okay to take open shots at her looks and why she's desperate enough to make a play for Mr Collins. But I love both versions.
I believe dark hair would actually still have been preferred at the time. Blonde hair's desirability is a much more recent trend than I think people realize. But it's also about balancing expectations. Many historical periods had beauty standards which modern audiences would reject, because the idea that beauty is totally cultural makes people really uncomfortable. I think they did a good job balancing this. The hair styling is fairly period appropriate, without doing the weirder looks that would have been popular, for example. Jane could be the beauty and blonde, and they obviously chose to cast an actress who basically fit both the ideals then and now, and styled her appropriately. She looked like she had a modern face in gone girl. I think it's when the balance is thrown off and they just do modern styling that it becomes jarring.
Margot Robbie was in a period piece, Tarzan, that for some reason a lot of people haven't seen. It's actually a pretty decent movie. I don't think she had "iphone face" in that because her hair and makeup felt very 19th century. The reason Dakota Johnson has "iphone face" in Netflix's Persuasion is because her hair and makeup was way too modernized. Plenty of other things in that adaptation were too modernized, which is why it just didn't work. So I wouldn't discount Margot Robbie as being a good Cathy based solely on looks, but it is a weird thing now that Hollywood is more likely to hire a big star for a role that may not be a good fit. In years past, casting directors would want unknown actors in their roles for the simple fact that it's an unknown face, so it's more of a blank canvas, so to speak, for the character. It's really hard to get around the fact that when people see Margot Robbie they see Barbie.
I agree. I saw Tarzan and the styling of her was appropriate.
She did well as Queen Elizabeth as well.
i agree with you. I think that after participating in Barbie, Margot Robbie just got cemented as the literal embodiment of the doll who has been the beauty standard for almost the last century. As you are all saying she has played other non-modern roles before and no one had a problem with it, but after seeing her as a the perfect fit for a doll from the fifties made purely out of plastic (and Barbie the movie has been everywhere, so everyone has that image of Margot Robbie now) it’s become harder to picture her like anything but that. I so think she can pull it off tho, we’re just too used to seeing her on the red carpet with nowadays makeup :)
Which years past were these? Not anytime in the past 80 years that’s for damn sure
Obviously P&P '05 is the perfect example of how to do this, because it's EXTREMELY modernized - they remove layers, they don't cover their hair, lizzie has bangs - but it FEELS natural, and they've done some things that are more accurate, so it doesn't take you out of the period.
I love margot robbie in stuff, and I think she has a lot of range, but I'm mostly confused by this casting because she IS too old, despite being young. If you've ever seen Focus, she and will smith are both fantastic, but you get the sense they're supposed to be in their early 20s, and they look younger than they are, but they don't look that young. She just doesn't have a baby face, it's not about looking good. I could have played 23 when I was 12. She could play 25, but just not 17, so it just seems really weird and like they didn't care about the appropriateness of casting at all.
Margo was absolutely fantastic as Queen Elizabeth, and the way they transformed her look was really impressive. I think if filmmakers put proper effort into costuming and makeup, the look of modern actors isn’t necessarily an issue. That being said, it seems like studios tend to push the sex appeal of the stars in an attempt to broaden the appeal of the film. Ugh.
YES - this. There's often so much pressure from that side of things to make the Big Names as sexy as possible - and to have that be sexy in a very modern, unchallenging way - that it gets in the way of the story. Robbie has successfully disappeared into other roles, but it's been in movies where she's clearly not a romantic lead. So I think it'll depend on how unglamorous they'll be allowed to look.
Of course, I also don't see WH as a love story - to me it's gothic and rather horrifying. A tremendous work of literature, but Heathcliff is awful (albeit after enduring awful circumstances), Catherine never grabbed me, and Cathy was always way too snobby for me to get into as a character. So even at their most gorgeous, no star will be able to entice me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
She outacted THE Saorise Ronan in that (in my opinion). It's insane she had no nominations for playing her.
As a woman who has been fond of period dramas since I was little, I think it’s an issue when actors are cast who obviously represent contemporary beauty standards. The reason for me is that it implies that “this is beauty, this has always been beauty” which is simply not true and further cements the rigidity with which we judge others and ourselves. “A main female character must have certain features, or else she is not worthy of being a main character” is a message many women subconsciously absorb into their self-perception.
On a more practical note, it also quickly dates a film.
However, the majority of audience members and critics want to see whatever the mainstream beauty is on screen. Beauty contestants of the ages before modern makeup and hair care are often seen as homely; actresses who have had weak chins, aquiline noses, small lips, soft stomachs and sloped shoulders - feminine traits favored for much of Western European history - are considered unbelievable as leads.
The only historical type of look people accept is having big, innocent doe-eyes and a small mouth. Everything else needs to be contemporary.
...and then the jordant pettersons of the world get all confused & mad at women who don't fit that "demonstrably eternal" & easily attainable standard of "natural beauty"
Im black. This is starting to sound annoyingly racist.
be careful
@@lovelyletterl8515 how so?
@@lovelyletterl8515 how so?
@@lovelyletterl8515 I’m not exactly sure what you mean (im not Black) and I’ve seen this said on a couple other comments here. do you think you could elaborate on what part of the comment comes across racist? (asking in the most well intentioned way possible) I think this person is talking about historical europe and it would be a different discussion when it comes to casting POC in period roles. I wanna see what you’re saying im just not totally sure what the reference point is
Can't believe they couldn't find two 18 yr olds to become stars of the future - have superstars in supporting roles but have genuinely 'right aged' main roles 🙁.
EXACTLY
As a European: when watching Tv shows starring people having perfect white teeth, it really stands out for me. Very few people in my country get their teeth done :) it is very American thing to see on TV
Iphone face is real phenomenon beyond plastic surgery and cosmetics. If Scarlett Johannsen can be convincingly dowdied into a 17th century Flemish peasant in The Girl with the Peal Earring, then most of the period film iPhone face is failure of the hair, make-up and costume team.
It probably never helps if the actors look too much like their famous selves: like, no one complained about Florence Pugh having an iPhone face in her breakthrough role in Lady MacBeth, but her in pretty much the same look in Little Women after she had graced every magazine cover got that criticism. Barely anything changed but people being familiar with that face.
That being said: I've seen iPhone faces in 350 year old paintings. Which is a trip, let me tell you that. And it wasn't hair, make-up, costume, teeth, health or them being instagram pretty that triggered that. It wasn't even beauty - it was just people's faces looking like they did. A directness, a slyness... Very hard to describe but immediately apparent to all who saw it. So I think there is something we do associate with modernity that goes beyond all of this. But it's so rare in paintings that the rarity makes me think that most non-yasssifed actors would be able to ditch their iPhone face if the productions allowed it.
But considering that they didn't even try here to cast English, let alone go for Yorkshire or hire someone barely POC-ish for Heathcliff but went for a 34 year old Australian for Cathy - whose only period film has her in clown or SFX make-up - does not give me confidence that they will be this production.
Yes, it really depends on the costume, hair and makeup choices.
Does Florence Pugh have an iPhone face cuz I don’t see it??
I don't think Florence is an Insta beauty
@@magdn1 in the old paintings I think what gives me the iphone face impression are the eyes and the position of the face, sometimes the model's pose is something we still do this day, on insta. But definitely the half open eyes and pointing eyebrows are the thing. Small nose or fuller lips too, but that's rare in paintings
Scarlett has a very plain face without make up. That was very obvious in Lost in Translation. She is an excellent example of a visual chameleon. I. one picture she looks plain, in a other she looks like a modern, most beautiful woman.
I appreciate that about her.
Margot has much stronger angular facial features, her masculine jaw always distracts me. She is definitely not gonna fit in, but the producers don’t care about that.
i think another thing that is bothering people here is that heathcliff is explicitly described to be not traditionally anglo (although his specific heritage is debated amongst people). his being of colour is a core part of why he is sidelined and excluded and mistreated throughout the play, and i would assert is the foundation for his suffering. in an era where many period shows (bridgerton especially), is trying to do 'colourblind casting', casting someone like Jacob Elordi for a canonically non-white character seems quite hypocritical.
Wait, in a time of colourblind casting it would not be hypocritical right?
"Non white" 😂
I had no idea his heritage was debated as he is referred to throughout the book as "gypsy" 😮 in any case, not giving this role to someone who matches the book description is just sad...
@@suddhadasi fr, I always thought he was romani
FWIW my mother and her family experienced a lot of gossip in southwest England because darker skin, dark brown eyes and dark brown hair. But when I say 'darker', what are we comparing with? We're comparing with the people around us who have porcelain skin that often can't tan. My mother has pale skin by the end of winter but tans easily. Spring, summer, and autumn, she has a little bit of a tan but that was enough in the 80s when I was a kid for her to be labeled 'dark skin'. When we're in the US, no one has said she has dark skin. Even when we traveled there in the 80s.
Her family are just white. We checked genealogy and even did some DNA tests out of curiosity. Predominantly Irish, Scottish and Norwegian ancestry on DNA. Genealogy they're just west country and Welsh.
On the other hand, my father's mother's side are gypsy (we call ourselves gypsies, so eff right off with correcting us, we carry with pride) and we're pale, blond hair and blue eyes mostly. You can look 'foreign' in villages in some places in the southwest. My hadn't even opened his mouth in our village the first time he was there and they knew he was part gypsy, even though he's blond. Figure that one out.
I think Dakota Johnson has a unique face and doesn't have iphone face at all. She looks out of place in that movie because she has her hair down and with a side part.
I think it's both 😅
I think it's a bit of both as well, but she looks fine enough that she probably could have skated through if not for the script being like... that 😂
So much was wrong with that movie it’s hard to tell
The makeup was also atrocious - at one point, she has a bronze-y smokey eye. Just awful.
I agree! I actually think Dakota Johnson has a very morph-able face. In that film, all the other modernizations threw the whole vibe off balance 😅
thank you for actually highlighting the context of the story being set in yorkshire!! i feel like a lot of american/non-british folks don’t understand the nuances of the story being set there, and the importance of the environment. i’m from yorkshire and the yorkshire moors are equally harsh and beautiful as an environment - i loved reading the brontë sisters because of the way they talk about the moors and how it shapes their characters.
i worry about fennell directing. she’s rich, posh southern, and private school educated, and in my opinion proved that she can’t talk about class in a nuanced way through saltburn (which is also the name of a yorkshire town btw). i’m not sure i trust her to do it justice and i think the casting has just solidified that for me
I think the greatest mistake of a lot of period dramas/fantasy series is that they don't commit to looking different. They try to juggle modern hair and makeup with the historical/fantasy setting which only ends up as a disjointed mess. No, I don't want smoky eye makeup in my period dramas, and I don't want to think about hair spray ads when I'm supposedly watching elves (khm khm Rings of Power).
I don't believe that people can have just an "Iphone face" unless they have had obvious procedures. But the unwillingness to put actors and actresses in hair and makeup that would fit the period ruins any immersion I might have, even if the costuming is flawless. At best it'll be a bit jarring, at worst, I'll feel like I'm attending a themed party where noone put in much effort.
It’s always a bad sign when all the background actors have period accurate clothing and hair but the main character looks out of place.
P&P '05 is the only example I can think of doing this well. Like it's true, modern audiences don't want hair to be covered or two weird, but you can put it up in a fairly period accurate way. Light makeup. Costumes are paired down but not absurd. Etc.
When I was watching Persuasion I kept being distracted by Dakota Johnson’s lipstick. It was really pretty color but that’s not what i should have been focusing on 😅
It was specifically the lipstick that stuck out like a sore thumb. I mean amongst other issues but that was the most aggressively off thing to me!
I'm a Palaeopathologist so I'm going to info dump some stuff on you regarding post-medieval dental health. A lot of people did genuinely loose all their teeth. As for demographics I think actually the most affected population was women and this is because hormone fluctuation especially during pregnancy can cause caries. It was actually this rather than fear of what sweets would do to you that caused the tradition for women to have their teeth pulled just prior to their wedding. Poorer people would sometimes sell their teeth and have them extracted and one of George Washington's sets of dentures includes the teeth of enslaved people who probably were not asked for consent and almost definitely not reimbursed. Tooth loss may be due to caries or infections but people also can suffer from recession of the aveolar bone which eventually means the teeth are not really supported by all that much and just fall out. Some foods or practices could also damage teeth. Tooth wear (dental attrition) was less common in post-medieval populations, but still happened and is nearly entirely absent today. But also you'll see damage to teeth from people doing things like softening textiles in their mouths, smoking and clutching their pipe between their teeth, or holding nails in their teeth.
BUT ALSO when you lose a tooth or several teeth the bone in that area recedes and thins out over time. If you survive having lost several teeth in a row for a few decades you can end up with very thin bone in that area and that would affect how you look.
I remember there was a fancasting of Dev Patel and Elle Fanning as Heathcliff and Cathy that got huge online. Whether it's accurate casting or not, at least a lot of fans would have been happy.
!!! would love dev.
Imo British actors in general don't have iPhone face, should've kept it an English affair
Interestingly, the 1939 Wuthering Heights cast Merle Oberon as Cathy, and she was was mixed, British/Indian, though that wasn’t widely known at the time.
You can have stunning actors in period drama roles: Keira Knightley, Rebecca Ferguson, Elle Fanning, Timothee Chalamet or Chris Pine are all beautiful people but they don't necessarily have iPhone face. Some people fit the roles, some just not - Margot Robbie is one of them, she is Barbie, she isn't Cathy. I mean, what's next Kylie Jenner as Anna Karenina?
Don't manifest that!
Kaya Scodelario as well, she’s absolutely stunning, and she actually played Kathy in the 2011 adaptation. Also one of the few with a PoC Heathcliff
Elle Fanning is gorgeous and the MUAs that work on her on "the great" are excellent, they manage to engance their beauty in such a seemingly makeup-less way that fits so well her character!
Exactly. The issue is that certain actors have looks that are clearly based on modern beauty standards, other actors have looks that are more “timeless” (timeless as in features that have been popular for decades, if not centuries), yet they have instead been casting actors with the modern look into period dramas.
This isn’t to say that the modern look is inherently worse or anything, but it’s just for some reason casting directors or the directors themselves don’t want to cast someone who fit the beauty standard the for time period the movie takes place in.
I don't know much about the actual anna karenina but I guess Kim K is from approximately the right part of the world 🤷♀
Casting a modern beauty ideal is definitely the problem. I think we should let some other people who don’t fit exactly into the modern beauty ideal to have their moment in the spotlight alá Nicola Coughlin as Penelope Featherington. Not that they shouldn’t have any place - they have plenty of room in other genres.
It also looks really bad after a few years (look at any period drama from the 70’s, the costumes look amazing for the most part (especially considering there was no google and not everyone could afford to have a historical costume consultant) but, the people (particularly women) completely break all suspension of disbelief, usually with a twiggy body type and no eyebrows. I’m not saying they’re not fit for any period drama, for instance, the type I just mentioned looked amazing in 1920’s period films, when a similar body type (thin, petite and boyish) along with the appearance of thin high eyebrows was in vogue, thanks to Chanel.
Anyway, I’m more of a purist in the sense that I think historical accuracy always looks better, (Bridgerton isn’t aiming for accuracy, hopefully everyone knows that). I’m not about asking anyone to change their permanent appearance for a role. Just cast someone who fits it and who doesn’t mind changing small things like hair, makeup etc..
You’re not going to see them cast anyone who has full sleeve tattoos in a period drama, either. You have to choose what you do to your body in line with your career. Filling your face with filler and getting your teeth capped is great for Instagram and commercials and modern drama but, not so much for period films.
It’s not about discrimination. It’s just a fact.
Agreed! Anyone who's had work done and now has a modern face has no place being cast in period dramas, imo. I'm tired of iPhone-face on the regular screen, please leave them out of my period dramas!
yeah i mean they can have work done if they want but if they have iphone face then they shouldn't be cast in period pieces.
Honestly it's way more plausible to see poc in a lot of time periods than people think, but veneers are never going to blend.
I haven’t read the book in many years, but I always pictured Heathcliff as Romani.
He was.
ok i love that i’m only imagining that now ty ♥️ i think it’s spelled w an i tho but i got what you meant :)
I think he was too. I feel like they called him a “Gypsy” or something in the novel. I could be wrong though since it’s been a long time since I’ve read it too. I think he just hard a slightly darker complexion but I don’t think he was black.
I agree, americans when they imagine poc, can only seem to imagine black people. So many other colours of poc exist
@@samaraisnt I think you’re right. AI results failed me when I googled how to spell it. 😜
Also, they should've cast Avan Jogia. Hes beautiful but distinct and also actually brown
That’s a great suggestion!
He is beautiful
Say less. This would have been amazing casting.
U are so right
the faces themselves are rarely the problem, but the filler and veneers. though i think, like others have commented, that the makeup &costuming department are often overlooked in their value of transforming an iphone-faced celeb into a regular person of the past. some subtle yellow tinting of the teeth, hairstyles approximating historical accuracy and less obviously modern makeup can do a lot! to further use margot robbie as an example, her look as queen elizabeth really works for me!
History student here. I believe you are right about wealth, sugar and no teeth. I read once (I think it was the Victorian period, may be the EMP) were it was desirable to have no teeth or teeth decay because it meant you were rich enough to buy sugar, kind of like in poor parts of India being fat is not always a bad thing as it means you have enough money to buy as much food as you want. Also seeing modern teeth in period media does through me. I loved the scene where John and Abigail complain about their teeth problems. I was so happy you mentioned the show!
Yes I love HBOs John Adams, I think it was so well made
That’s insane. Really interesting that nobles were more likely to lose their teeth! I never would’ve guessed that but it makes sense
If you want to learn more about the history of fatness and how it was alternately seen as attractive because wealthy and ugly because racism, I highly recommend Fearing the Black Body. Super interesting book!
Just got to the part about skin color; in addition to African, I think it is very possible that the character is part Indian. In Francis Hodgson Burnette's "The Secret Garden," published in 1911, a person from Yorkshire refers to the people of India as "Blacks."
Oh wow how amazing would it be in Dev Patel was Heathcliffe? He’s such a great actor and was wonderful in the Green Knight.
There's a lot of people on Tik tok pushing for him to be in the role!
He would make more sense!
I’m going to assign this to Hollywood. I tend to favor British shows & films because actors tend to look less modified.
I think you're right, but I also would add this is a long-standing American-cultural and Hollywood glamour-focused problem, not exclusive to the iPhone era. Look at older Hollywood adaptations of Bronte novels, or Dickens and Walter Scott, or anything else which would qualify as "period drama" in the 20th century. You'll see 1940s hairstyles and makeup in 1830s settings. Zippers up the back of a medieval gown which is equipped with shoulder pads. And yes, major stars of great beauty (Joan Fontaine) playing characters like Jane Eyre. If anything, the mismatches were even more ludicrous prior to the 1970s or so. Filmmaking fashion goes through spasms of "gritty glamour" as well as our current over-polished ideal.
Love that you included Heathcliff was likely PoC. I feel like when we are included in modern adaptations of classics or period pieces often they have to bring in a fantasy element and things get increasingly and authentic on purpose. This was a good opportunity to cast him as PoC.
Uhm one scene in the book describes his skin being white as the wall behind him... Ive never seen a poc go ghostly white before... He was more acurately rough and tanned like someone who worked hard outdoors, never described as poc, more like a gypsy or spanish looking. Ethnically white but with dark features... People twist the book and then get upset they didnt cast a poc. Having said that the wuthering heights done a few years ago which did have a poc cast as heathcliff was amazing and the actor was fantastic so i feel like it should not be such a point of contention. Its not whitewashing, jacob elordi fits the description but if a poc was cast i would also not be up in arms
@@melizamenelly you can be Black and pale pumpkin butt ❤️. Not sure why you’re arguing with me when the topic came up in the video. Argue with the creator. 😂😂😂😂
Most people think Gyspy or Spanish. A small but vocal population think otherwise. Putting POC in non POC roles has become a fetish of whites.
@@chelseacruise6570 We probably have very different definitions of black since I live in South Africa and we consider mixed race people as their own race, we call them coloureds, coloureds can be pale yes... Some even look white... Black people are usually ranging from dark brown to so dark that they look blue or grey (usually immigrants from North Africa) I have never in my life seen a palr black person... Hopefully this helps you understand just how subjective race and racial classification is. He is dicribed as looking like a gypsy... Ive seen pale gypsies and tan gypsies.... I have never seen a black gypsie. Also not sure what a pumkin butt is? We dont really eat much pumpkn here 🤔And lastly, was not attacking you or fighting with you... Simply pointing out what the book says in terms of the character's discription. The time period in which the book was written also gives context... We are quick to place our modern ideas on classic works of fiction, becoming incensed over casting when in fact the casting is accurate to the book. There are so many amazing African Legends, famous queens, kings and great leaders. Wish you Americans would start telling those stories instead of bastardizing them when you do or taking over other people's culturally and historically significant work in an effort to appear diverse and inclusive. There are also some amazing American stories and histories about black people that should rather be adapted. And authors who write stories about actual people of colour should be elevated more. Dont know why you guys over there have such little self worth that you settle for co-opting white people's stories instead of creating your own amazing original work that will have a long lasting cultural impact and not just be used as a political tool. But what do I know 🙄
@@melizamenellyStorm Reid has two black parents and came out pale. You’re just closed minded.
Heathcliff is treated as white-passing Roma by the household. It’s straight up said in the book that nobody has any idea what his ethnicity is. The point is his low class and unknown origin.
Picked up in Liverpool, I imagine even if he was fully Irish, and not Roma or Moorish or Indian, he would still be shunned by an English household by period standards. The Irish themselves were shunning culturally distinct but physically passing Travellers.
The book is meant, over and over, to emphasize that no matter how you think a situation should go, how many times people have the option to choose, the base obsession with current wealth, race and class standards will always twist humans when shit hits the fan-even if it’s not even an obvious distinction but a story about a person.
Him being at least white passing with questionable origins is also a plot point because it makes him rage that even though he is an equal to Cathy, by known social race and known social class and his ‘disgraceful’ origins as an unwanted child he *technically* isn’t
Jane Eyre by the author’s sister plays with this again; Jane is technically a gentlewoman, but is treated like they would the hired help in multiple situations because she has no social protection, and is preyed on by Rochester for the same reason-and Jane is white, mannered, and protected from outright rape by her *known* social class.
I doubt the brontes were socially conscious in anything except alcoholism.
I'm only starting the video but Emma is definitely an amazing recent adaptation/period piece. They managed to perfectly blend historically accurate aesthetics with popular actors and a modern look to the film that made it genuinely relatable, and not just looking like serious stage actors reenacting a book you read in school (which, as much as I love theater, usually discourages people from costume films)
Yeah I forgot Emma because of getting lost in COVID timing lol
When all the actors' faces are honed to the same modern standardized iPhone face with skincare + procedures, it can become difficult to tell "the two blondes" (or whichever two young characters have the same hair color and build) apart. At least older characters usually have a few distinguishing wrinkles or face shapes to help us out! Sometimes, we just shrug at our house and accept that we're never going to keep them straight or wish that character actors had been cast rather than model-type actors.
I'm not sure it's just the "iphone" face. It's more that producers/directors/show runners/whatever don't care/don't have time/don't hire people who actually make the characters LOOK period appropriate. There are also ways of moving, comportment, that an actor needs to be mindful of when doing period pieces. But I think too often these days, all of that is ignored. One of my favorite period dramas is Tess of the D'Urbervilles, from 1979. While it's debatable whether Nastasia Kinski was appropriately cast, the rest of the cast and the settings, the sets, just EVERYTHING down to the tiniest details is so beautifully done it's just stunning to look at. Clearly care and time were taken. Just like how Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings is so wonderful because of the actors, the settings, the beauty of New Zealand, the meticulous attention to costumes and props! It is just astounding and we love how it turned out. We need more of THAT!
What a fascinating topic and I think that you do a good job navigating a discussion about appearance with a respectful and nuanced take. I have only briefly heard of the term "iPhone face" but your video reminded me of a article I read a while back that seems appropriate for this topic. This article discussed how in this age of Globalization, beauty standards have come to include the most desirable traits from around the world, creating a beauty ideal that is detached from place, genetics or reality. Because of this, the actors we currently consider to be the most beautiful tend to have features that don't naturally exist together, which is all the more noticeable when they appear in a story set in a historical time period before someone could have access to both teeth whiteners, a BBL, and the latest Korean face serum. Based on this video, iPhone face seems to represent the uncanny valley of contemporary of beauty standards.
We have to keep in mind that white, straight teeth are not a feature of modern capitalism in the West - they’re a feature of (many types of) privilege. As someone who’s seen much of the rural (and poor inner city) US, I can attest we still have plenty of yellow/brown, absent and uneven teeth. The irony of course is that no one wants to cast THESE non-Instagram faces (unless it’s as background actors for a movie about the Great Depression).
I think what makes Instagram face what it is lies in the almost -AI uniformity and symmetry of their features. Even if they did come by their noses, cheekbones and lips naturally, it’s just SO improbable that an ordinary person is going to have won that genetic lottery (much less ALL the ‘ordinary’ main characters). Far from the Madding Crowd, imho, did a good job casting main characters who were striking, but not suspiciously model-perfect.
So fascinating to think that sounding like you're from the South in the UK denotes 'fancy', when it's mostly the opposite in the US.
UK history would explain why.
Because the UK is not the US
that is why is funny to see some period asian movies with actors who look dead gorgeous, there is not way someone look that good back them.
don't forget how incredibly pale they all are, even the ppl who are supposed to be poor farmers or whatever.
like they wouldn't look pale, they'd most likely be tan from working outside most of the time...
I saw Iphone Face and Period Dramas and my mind instantly conjured up the image of Mrs Bennet with a smartphone and social media....*shivers*
Oh goodness ...
😂😂😂
Is it possible to wear a hole in the screen from too much swiping on the Tinder accounts you secretly made for your daughters?
Kathy goes from age 7 to 19 , Heathcliff ages to I think around 35 . Margot is pretty and probably has had work done . I just can’t see either of them in Wuthering Heights. I hate saying because they are too attractive. Maybe with different lighting? Or no makeup ? Or with different hairstyles . More natural hair ? I dunno it’s a tough one. I would love to see a Romani actor portray Heathcliff. Also Cathy isn’t a feminist. She’s pretty toxic yes. They both are. So I’m not sure how this will go
She absolutely has had work done. That’s the problem now-EVERYONE is getting work done. A lot.
In my personal opinion, Pride and Prejudice of the 2000s truly casted correctly. Rosamund and Keira both have a renaissance kind of beauty--it's why Keira got cast in a lot of historical fiction films--and the actors cast as the men were not terribly "ugly" but they aren't also conventionally handsome. We fell in love with Mr. Darcy because we could SEE the character arc and how the way he grew fonder and fonder of Elizabeth every day was so beautiful.
The 1968’s Romeo & Juliet film will and always have the most gorgeous period film couple.
they were so beautiful the costumes were amazing
There’s such a thing as an actor being too over-exposed and Margot Robbie, esp. with the release of Barbie, has well surpassed that. I’m really sick of seeing her face in everything, and her involvement turns me off the project. Actors need to know when to start turning roles down
Exactly be selective
Nothing makes me feel more old than the concept that Farah Fawcett would no longer be considered hot by 'modern' standards. She is a timeless beauty!
As someone who LOVED Fassbender's portrayal of Rochester (I know the 2011 adaptation is not the most accurate to the book, but it is my favourite for multiple reasons), I am glad that his role as Heathcliff did not work out XD .
Considering that in the earlier days, many of the actors who acted in period dramas came to be known and associated for their roles in said dramas (like Jennifer and Colin for P and P 1995, Matthew for P and P 2005, and Richard Armitage for North and South as examples), I wish current adaptations would also try to cast lesser known actors and give them a chance to shine, versus going for big budget names.
Though I'm not a fan of WH the book, I commend Emily Brontë for writing a novel with a non-white character as a lead role, and the least that Emerald could have done was cast someone non-white in Heathcliff's role. There are so many talented, non-white British actors who could have easily been selected.
I completely agree with everything you stated! (However, my favorite Rochester is Toby Stephens. Still, Fassbender was great!)
@@abigaylebaer1085 Hahaha I understand, Stephens is also great in his role!
The British have always done period dramas much better than Hollywood, especially for TV because they know to cast people who look extremely normal yet a little charming, which makes the romance still epic but relatable. It actually makes the plots even more poignant because the actors look like everyday folks.
Personally I always pictured Cathy as beautiful but not in a conventional way? Basically that her beauty comes more from her charisma and expressions. I'm thinking someone like Gaia Girace, when she played Lila in L'amica geniale? But yeah, the director clearly just went for what's popular right now without thinking if the actors even suit the roles or seting, which just tells me everything about what kind of adaptation she wants to make. I bet that it's going to have beautiful cinematography like all her films, but that's about it.
Period peices that dont look old. The lighting is bright, the colors are saturated, whatever camera they use makes everything look new, The clothing never looks fully authentic. It doesnt looke like its authentically of the time, it looks like a netflix rom-com with vintage clothing.
Dont get me started on robbi and elordi for wuthering heights. Im still livid about it. I also disagree with needing an adaptation every 10 years. I dont understand why people are "so ready" for the 5th, 6th, 7th adaptation of beloved novels that. Why is it wrong to not just appreciate all the ones that have come before? People say, younger audiences need updated material. Thats not true. The 2009 withering heights and the 1995 pride and prejudice are my absolute favorite iterations of both novels even though newer ones have come after them. I wish people would just be glad with what we have and stop getting their hopes so high for whats new and fresh, because normally, new and fresh, unless its an original concept, is going to pan in comparison to the well'done iterations that have come before it.
I watch Chinese period dramas which also align contemporary beauty standards, so I get it to a degree. Like, yeah, accurate Tang Dynasty makeup would be a little distracting haha… Also watching a Tang Dynasty set drama filmed 30 years ago is jarring because of the makeup trends and fabric choices. But also I’d like to see some accurate looking dramas.
It’s kind of like the difference between watching a Korean drama versus a Japanese or Thai drama. Like wow, you can actually see skin texture in many of the latter, real skin tone. 😅 I understand filmmaking is filmmaking and will never be totally authentic or accurate, but it’s really fun when a director brings that authenticity to the screen.
It's important to talk about how racist the casting for Heathcliff was. Heathcliff is compared to dark skin romani people, Indian people (India) and Chinese people. It's not just about him having a tan or something.
The guy cast is a White man. Very anglo looking.
Honestly I'm shocked that after the poorly written The Talented Mr. Ripley rip-off anyone would think that that director would do a good job at tackling something that involves discrimination based on social classes and race. I liked Promising Young Woman but sheesh. Her upper-middle class background shows in Saltburn.
I felt the same. The only people who I have seen who liked Saltburn had no idea about Talented Mr. Ripley or the book it is based on so the ending came as a surprise to them and I think that was the appeal.
yeah, i'm not sure why everyone is so excited about her as a director. saltburn was so bland. the casting for heathcliff put me off this film entirely.
No big budget period drama movies in the past ten years? De Wilde’s Emma adaptation would like a word!
But in all seriousness, very interesting observations on a topic I’ve never heard discussed before! I’ve been enjoying watching your chancel after stumbling upon it recently. Thanks for continuing to put out such thoughtful content :)
I think people need to stop and think: would Cathy and Heathcliff really be acting and feeling this way in their late 20's-mid-30's? Would Heathcliff really be that obsessed with what happened decades later to the point of madness had the events of Part 1 taken place in his late 20's/30's? I don't think so. It's the kind of intensity and hurt people feel when they are teenagers.
I think they are way too old to be playing teenagers (for part 1 at least, but I don't really expect them to adapt part 2 of the novel), especially Margot Robbie. She also looks older than Jacob Elordi in my opinion (because she is) and none of them match the description of the characters even if they were age appropriate. So basically it's everything, this casting makes zero sense to me. None of them look like the characters, they are not age appropriate and they don't look the same age either. And I do agree it's a completely missed opportunity not to cast someone who's mixed raced or ambiguously POC for Heathcliff.
The adaptation with Kaya Scodelario paired her with a young black actor as Heathcliff but this movie was considered a flop.
I absolutely love historical yapping, please do continue
Last period drama movie I enjoyed was Anna Taylor Joy’s Emma. The set, the music, the adaptation- all so well done and beautiful
It was gorgeous, I loved it too!
Hey, I loved this video essay! I completely agree with your points. It usually pulls me out of the immersive experience when actors in historical films look too modern: sharp, highly contoured cheekbones, flawless, smooth skin, shaped and groomed eyebrows, perfect, white teeth, and very symmetrical, surgically enhanced features like full lips and defined jawlines that reflect current beauty standards. These contrast with the more natural, less sculpted faces familiar in earlier eras.
"Little Women" (2019) also suffered from this issue, as the actors' grooming and makeup style sometimes felt at odds with the period compared to the 1994 version. Micarah Tewers did a detailed and informative video essay on the costumes of this version and the period-inaccurate hair (and the absence of 1860s bonnets and 1870s hats), which I highly recommend. The new version of "The Buccaneers" (2023) also has a lot of pop-culture visuals and very questionable looks for the 1870s. On the flip side, films like "The Witch" (2015), "Emma" (2020), and "Atonement" (2007) did a remarkable job casting actors with more era-appropriate features and utilizing makeup, lighting, and costuming to enhance the authenticity. The actors in "Gangs of New York" (2002) also felt historically accurate, partly due to their natural (and appropriately "gross") appearances and less "Hollywood glossy" styling, and that starred two big Hollywood names at the time, Leo DiCaprio and Cameron Diaz, similar to Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi. Yes, Diaz's Irish accent was very much lacking, but I think the makeup and amazing costuming genuinely made up for it and allowed for a more believable portrayal.
For Wuthering Heights, I hope the production focuses on "plaining down" Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi with natural makeup, avoiding heavy contouring or cosmetic enhancements, and using lighting that complements the raw, rugged landscape of the moors. Robbie looks a bit too old to play a teenager. I wish they'd cast two unknown, less modern-looking actors as the leads, especially if those actors are from Yorkshire. That would help capture the gritty, wild essence of the novel that feels authentic. The characters are meant to be raw and rugged, not polished with doll-like beauty. The problem lies partly with casting and partly with whatever the wardrobe and hair/makeup departments decide to do with the actors. Even if Robbie and Elordi are cast, the right costume designer and hair/makeup artist can make a huge difference in how they appear on screen. If they genuinely embrace the era and the roughness of the characters, they could MAYBE transform them into more believable versions of Heathcliff and Cathy. Fingers crossed that this version tries to get it right!
Obviously, there are millions of actors in the world, and many of them have faces, which look very "old-fashioned" and would be perfect for costume dramas. Why directors don't cast them, - I guess, because they don't expect less famous actors to attract viewers and make people go to the movies.
Iphone face is just ever so slightly before uncanny valley. You can tell they had something done even if you can't tell what specifically and it just fights against our perception of what "belongs" in the time period. Someone else spoke about teeeth. But I would speak about weight too: why are all the supposedly rich period girls skinny? Flesh was fashionable because it was expensive. It is one of the resons I have such a hard time seeing "period pieces" unironically. Like if you have ever seen paintings or sculptures of what their physical ideal were like, who they considered beautiful... these girls are georgeus in our modern sense absolutely but they would be too thin for the fashion of the time, way way too thin. In an era where body positivity has been a thing for awhile and is currently in its last leg, casting a full cast of middle size and plus size women (as it would be historically accurate among the upper class) would be transformative as f (for us). But they didn't. Because
1. They cuddle the audience biases instead of challenging them
2. All change in Hollywood is PR you don't need real transformative shit for good PR we allow them to get away with minimum effort bs.
The new Count of Monte-Cristo adaptation is an example of good casting in my opinion. All actors look as if they belong in the era where the story is set. I especially liked the actress playing Mercedes, she looked natural and charming. The clothing is a different discussion though.
Agreed, it's really frustrating to get pulled out of the story by dubious or inexplicable costuming choices. You're allowed to make adaptations of course, but they have to be meaningful. And in this case France has 0 excuse because the costuming ressources? Are HIGH. On opposite ends of the relevant adaptation spectrum I'd tend to quote Lady J/ Mademoiselle de Joncquiere (2018), which looks historical but is also full of anachronisms, and the 2005 Accursed Kings/ Rois Maudits series that goes full interpretative theatre production.
Both Margot and Jakob have iPhone face because they have so many plastic surgeries. I mean if you get one thing done, that is fine, but these actors in the 2020s get their whole face done to the point that they look like a different person. The microbladed eyebrows, lip filler and lip lifts, the thinned out nose, hollowed out cheeks. No one usually has all these features. Just look at old fashioned portraits. People were still beautiful, but did not have Bratz dolls faces. They didnt look “done.” They had thin lips, imperfect noses, and natural cheeks. They also didnt color their hair obviously.
Yes!
Margot Robbie really doesn’t look that different from when she was younger, I doubt that she had any significant procedure done other than maybe Botox. Also, not everyone has thin lips, having full lips is not a modern thing.
30:08 I too am haunted by this adaptation. I’m glad more regional accents are being given screen time in UK dramas. The North South divide in England is something that some historians have speculated may have been influenced by William The Conqueror’s “The Harrying of the North.” As far as idealized beauty standards in period dramas and their influence on how people see themselves, I hadn’t reflected on that. I think an upside of not being from a demographic (i.e. not being of primarily European descent) means I can’t conform to those on-screen beauty standards, so it doesn’t affect how I feel about my own personal appearance. In a strange way, that could make my personal viewing experience more enjoyable.
7:45 meme mom mentioned ❤
Margot Robbie has the iPhone face cuz she’s TOO FLAWLESS, especially those damn perfect teeth
I'm not usually into historical/period drama, so I can't comment on the content too much. However, what you say makes a lot of sense regarding 'Iphone Face' in modern reproductions.
I worked for over 30 years in a cinema, and gained a small understanding of the casting procedure and how Hollywood might affect the casting of movies, especially the blockbusters. When directors want their movie to be a huge success, they need money, and that means they need people to lay out the dollars. The money people, the producers, especially in Hollywood, and probably elsewhere in Europe too, for instance, would be very reluctant to payroll directors who they think might not be casting Hollywood-typical actors. They want their money back in the first weekend of a movie release, and if it isn't a huge hit between Friday to Sunday, it's considered a flop. (Crazy, I know!)
Producers want the most well-known, beautiful and successful actors in their movies in order to make it more likely to be a success because they're laying out huge sums of cash, so It's really all down to the cinema industry of the last four decades and who is in charge of the money, really.
This 'historical yapping' was extremely interesting, thank you. :) Also, I never knew Heathcliffe was a black/mixed race person, so I learned some brand new information, and that makes the story make much more sense, too.
He's not black! He's described as "Moorish" and "gipsy". So, a bit swarthy, but not subsaharan. 🤷
@nineteenfortyeight6762 thanks for the correction, but if I understand Moorish correctly, they were black skinned.
@SceGno1 Based on descriptions of him as a "g*psy" and being compared to Lancars (indian sailors) and chinese royalty hes likely Romani or Indian. Its unclear his exact race but hes definitely not white.
I’ve noticed recently that people that were considered beautiful in the early 2010 are now seen as ugly or average. My features, body shape and hair was seen as very beautiful, now they aren’t anything special.
There are a lot of people like that. Some people are 2020s pretty and some are 2000s pretty. My face definitely doesn’t fit into these new beauty standards.
Back then being skinny was seen as pretty, but now you can’t just be skinny anymore. You need to be toned, have a small waist, big butt, perfectly sized boobs, can’t be too tall etc. There are SO SO many details. Skinny isn’t good enough anymore. Being average is seen as ugly. You can’t just be regular pretty anymore, to be considered beautiful you need to be drop dead gorgeous and fit very specific criteria. I’m so glad I’m not a teenager anymore.
Emma Mackey played an excellent enigmatic and other-worldly Emily Bronte in the film "Emily" and would make an amazing Cathy. But I guess the roles would be too close. I highly recommend watching the movie! It takes some creative liberties but it is a brilliant watch for the acting, charisma and chemistry between the actors.
I keep meaning to watch this, I hear it's good!
This could've been a great opportunity to scout for young fresh talent in, and around, the Yorkshire area.
A better casting could've been found of North English actors 18-20 rather than 2 Australian actors both born before Y2K.
Even Raffey Cassidy would've been closer to the right age and she's 22.
Your section about teeth reminds me of the courtier character in Tous les matins du monde (1991) who has terrible teeth, a detail I loved for the historical accuracy, but also kind of hated because I felt like I was being asked to judge from my modern perspective and think "bad teeth"="disgusting"="this character is morally bad".
A certain period drama that I had been wishing for for many years recently came out with IMO horrible casting with the totally wrong look, and it bums me out because it's going to damage the evergreenness of the work. But I feel like big-budget media just doesn't get made to last forever; it's meant as a consumable product to make as much money ASAP with no concern whether it gets forgotten afterwards. When we do get a big-budget something that does have that staying power and timelessness, it feels like an accident of fate. I feel like this has always been the case in my lifetime, but it may be further exacerbated nowadays by the need to court virality, the really fast turnover of trends, etc.
Maybe those grainy BBC adaptations are just always going to be more successful in that regard, because different priorities, different audiences, different budgets? And that's why we can remember a lot more successful historical TV over movies in recent years?
Oh that's such an interesting idea about media being made as a quick cash grab and not as a timeless work of art. I've never thought of the movie of the week on Netflix that you forget entirely by the next day as being a sort of fast culture akin to fast food and fast fashion. Cheep disposable instant gratification made with no regard for their effect on the environment.
I think you got it. These are fast food media, not a four course meal. And just like with fast food, we have got to make the conscious effort to stay away from it and find the good stuff.
For me, I find that iPhone face is at least emphasized by hair, makeup, costume, and lightning. It just feels like a lot of missed opportunities in this casting!
Casting Healthcliff as white, not even racially ambiguous, was enough to make me know I will never watch it
The picture of Poldark 😂😂
It had to be done 😂
I feel like iPhone face casting also tends to be a clue on if they are going to try and infantilize the audience in other ways. This increases the chance of early outrage.
Speaking of actresses, you look like you could be related to actress Allison Munn (“Caroline” from “That 70’s show for example). Great video btw!
So glad I was suggested the vid. Happy to subscribe ! Your analysis was great, and you were super entertaining❤
Awe thank you so much ❤️
We were ROBBED of Sarah Snook's Persuasion!!! I hope they do that book justice one day!
It is my roman empire haha
Studios demanding big names in projects is a tale as old as time. And the iphone face is an odd phenomenon and entirety subjective. Was Vivien Leigh too 'modern' looking when she played Scarlet O'Hara? I don't think she looks out of place, but would people at the time agree? Does she fit in for me because the film is so old? At the same time I don't think Keira Knightly looked the part of Elizabeth Bennett, but many people clearly disagree (and I do like her in period costumes of Pirates of the Caribbean). Maybe it depends of the period and if your looks molds well to the desired fashions/looks? Dakota Johnson looked like a lost time traveller in Persuasion. But was it just her face, or did the modern haircut and questionable wardrobe choices exacerbated the issue? I am not very interested in Wuthering Heights, so my disappointment is more on principle, and I genuinely cannot imagine either of them looking at home in a period piece. But who knows. Maybe hair, make-up, and wordobe teams will do the impossible.
At the mention of perfect teeth I immediately thought of Pirates of the Caribbean actors, extras and their teeth. Their make up and sfx team did amazing job with their appearances. Imagine Barbossa or Calypso with Hollywood set of teeth. Unthinkable.
i saved this video because i wanted to give it my full attention, and it was worth it!! in my opinion a big part of iphone face is the styling and especially grooming, like eyebrow shape, hairline etc. I feel like a lot could be done about Jacob and Margot's appearances if they disheveled them to the max with imperfect skin, messy hair, unwhitened teeth and unplucked eyebrows... sadly it seems that nowadays not many big budget productions are willing to do that :(
I love the nuance you brought to the subject - very much needed in today's world
I am new to your channel, subscribed as I like it. Funny about this, I live in Yorkshire, England and my husband is a born and bred Yorkshire man! All working class so I would be very intrigued to see the attempts at the accents haha! The dialect and accent is unique. I am from Lancashire so that is different again!!
Accents are important I think, so I'll be interested to see how that goes too! Thanks for watching!!!
veneers are a huge reason why period dramas can feel off with modern faces. makeup, or lack thereof, can do a lot to transform a face, but the teeth will ruin it. having even and relatively white and clean teeth won't ruin a drama, but having extremely perfected smiles looks weird in real life AND on screen.
Oh! You’re from Asheville! (Dunno if you’re still there.) I saw the poster behind your head but didn’t know if it meant you’re from there. Also from NC here. Asheville’s always been a welcoming and beautiful place whenever I’ve been. I hope the area’s recovering from Helene. 💜
I live in the UK now but we were visiting NC around when Helene happened. So much devastation 😔
You mentioned there haven't been any more recent sweeping period dramas of note--I just have to point out 2019's Portrait of a Lady on Fire (maybe not high budget, but a huge success) which I think totally deserves a place among the greats like Pride & Prejudice and Sense & Sensibility! (Also Emma (2020), but that's more of a romcom I know)
Love your yappin'! Please keep making these videos 🙏
Awe thank you, planning a lot more historical yapping!
This is what made shows like The Musketeers so successful. Everyone had different styles of beauty. Anne was more gentle, sweet and dainty. I think the actress who played Milady had a gap in her teeth, Athos had a cleft lip, Louis was well…. he had hair and it wasn’t great. The BBC (despite my issues with that company) knew how to cast their roles.
You raise a great point but I feel you need to watch more movies outside of the Hollywood. Often in European or Latin American films and series, there’s a noticeable appreciation for unique and natural features-whether it’s wrinkles, crooked teeth, or distinct facial structures-which often adds to the authenticity of the characters and stories. I always feel like the actors, even if they are attractive, look like a person you could meet on the street, and that this allows for a deeper connection because their story is reflected more realistically on screen.
It’s also funny that when you mention Hollywood teeth in period productions you put a picture of Aneurin Barnard (next to Dev Patel), who has acted in so many period pieces and has "normal" / "period apropiate" looking teeth. He is a good example of an oil painting face, where he looks really good in period pieces, just like Holliday Grainger and Romula Garay.
Hey I just wanted to say that I love your channel, I wonder why it isn't more popular - your way of conveying information is great and you can SEE that you have a phD, te way you are able to connect different things and create a great video out of it. Congrats and good luck!
Awe thanks, I'm new on RUclips:)
loved the 'old' All Creatures Great and Small 😍😍😻😻
donald sutherland's STRAIGHT almost NEON WHITE teeth draw me out of pride and prejudice (2005) EVERY TIME without fail i wish they had done something to brown them up😂
So true, that and a couple other is why bbc 1995 series will always be a winner for me
Appreciate what you and your husband said on the subject of Northern accents!! (As a Scouser).
I am so sick of famous people gaslighting us into thinking that all of their looks are just some creams and fantastic genetics. Fine, you all want to look the same (there is this meme of four actresses looking exactly the same and I have no clue who is who on that meme), but can you at least be open about the fact that you do cosmetic surgeries, ozempic, etc.? I live in a place where every second woman has multiple plastic surgeries and cosmetic procedures and I so miss seeing real faces around me..