If you're an actor your face determines the kind of roles you play. The audience has an expectation about you based on the way you look and it's best not to disappoint them. I've often wondered if ordinary people in the real world should do what actors do, and sculpt their personalities and vocational aspirations to fit the way they look.By way of example, the guy on the upper right (above) should clearly be a drug dealer. If he's an honest and drug-free man then that's unfortunate because nature has clearly chosen a different path for him and he'll never be happy as long as he's living a conflicted life. The guy in the middle of the second row (above) should obviously run a news stand and sell newspapers. Don't feel sorry for him because he'll make more money than you do. Customers will go out of their way to buy newspapers from a man who fits their image of what a newsie should look like.
Some people like the woman in the middle row above are cursed with a bland face. It's as if they have fewer facial muscles than everybody else. People like this are said to make good spies because they don't stand out in a crowd. Once again, don't feel sorry for these people because an inexpressive but pleasant face is deemed to be dependable and trustworthy and employers like that.
Employers don't like faces like these. They look like they're riddled with eccentricities and neuroses. if you look like these people you should put a lot of effort into finding a way to be self-employed.
33 comments:
This reminds me of how they used to find crimnal types back in the day- measuring their facial features etc. Like a low brow, close beaty eyes- it was some scientist who was later called a racist for wanting to kill off the weaker individuals. He took some really cool photography overlapping the photos of people comparing their features. Pretty cool stuff, Eddie!
It's obvious that none of them can be trusted!
Please, Uncle Eddie. Can you tell us where you got those pictures, especially the ones with the sequences of expressions.
They'd be a great resource for practising to draw different faces and expressions.
-Charlie
(BTW, this blog is great. Always interesting, but always a surprise).
I sometimes find it surprising how good one can judge people on their face (though exceptions seem to be the rule!) and was in this sense wondering what comes first, face or the attitude.
One scenario would be people treating you according to your looks which eventually forms you to be who you are treated to be.
Opposing that the idea that your actions are reflected in your looks, the nicer you are, the more charming the face..
I guess nr. 2 is probably right, though i'd find the first much more fascinating!
Self employment for me, then...
This post made me crack up. It is amazing how the way someone looks can fit vocational preconceptions based on appearance.
Quite.
hey Kali
Your talking about "phrenology" check it:
WIKI ON PHRENOLOGY
It's interesting the preconceptions that can be drawn from a face. Especially the eyes. I look at some of these more quirky folks and that's the first thing I notice.
Mistercharlie: The sequential photos you liked came from a new book, "Facial Expressions" by Mark Simon. The other pictures were from an old, probably out-of-print book on Fellini.
Danny: I wonder about the same thing. I guess we'll never know. I do think that people who aren't wedded to a particular field should seriously consider jobs that fit their face. They'll have an advantage when applying for the job and they'll probably do well in it since people actually enjoy dealing with pleasing stereotypes.
Kali: I don't believe in phrenology but it certainly produced some funny books. I wish I had the classic one which is full of pictures of criminal types like "footpads" and "hotel sneaks."
But lets leave the job area for a moment - do you think people could actually turn arrogant, greedy or plain dull because they are perceived as such since day one through their looks? That being misjudged as sneaky and greedy over your whole childhood and on will actually make your persona give up and let you become what you are mistaken as?
As said, this probably is far from truth, but i kind of like the concept that the way you are recognized over time inevitably forms who you are, giving your true persona no choice but to give up.
Couldn’t agree more – we need more visual archetypes! Hollywood used to understand this concept; the 1930’s and ‘40’s were the heyday of the American character actor - players who specialized in portraying specific character types on film.
Today that’s known by the derogatory term ‘type-casting’, and is considered passe by modern filmmakers. Only cartoonists still use and understand this concept; everyone else (with the exception of the producers of The Sopranos,) deliberately casts against type or, worse, casts according to whoever’s the trendy flavor-of-the-month.
With his face, Shemp Howard could have only been a comedian, and Peter Lorre could have only been a psychopath or an unsavory creep. Leo Gorcey was born to play a punk, just as Vernon Dent was born a comic businessman or politician. Sheldon Leonard could have been nothing but a homicidal mobster, Margaret Dumont couldn't have been anything but a dowager, Franklin Pangborn could have only been a prissy hotel clerk, etc...
The epitome of archetypal casting is the The Wizard Of Oz. Try imagining anyone besides Margaret Hamilton in the unforgettable role as the Witch - or someone else instead of Bert Lahr as the Lion. (Today, Hamilton’s name wouldn’t be considered a big enough draw, and her part would go to either Whoopie Goldberg or someone from Desperate Housewives. The Lion would probably be played by Will Smith or Bruce Willis.)
The all-time king of moronic casting choices is revisionist director Tim Burton. (What kind of idiot would cast a five-foot-eight Michael Keaton to play Batman - in a film that contains a pivotal line about a “6-foot bat” terrorizing Gotham? The same moron who’d cast Johnny Depp as Ichabod Crane!)
Charlton Heston was cast in the original 1968 Planet Of The Apes for the precise reason that his aquiline features didn’t remotely resemble an ape’s. So what does the idiot Burton do for the [execrable] remake? He casts Marky Mark – who gets mistaken for a monkey 6 days out of the week. For Christ’s sake, couldn’t they have at least gotten someone who was fully-evolved?
Maybe I should get a job at the zoo. I can sweep peanuts around the ape cages.
And Eddie Fitzgerald was born to be a cartoonist. Oh, yeah! However, he's got those shifty eyes. Beware of Eddie's shifty eyes!
This blog is super-cool Mr. uncle, thanks for the theories
Hey Mike
you really need your own blog.
That's the best comment I've ever read on any subject.
Here's a name for it:
"Looks like a Cherub, Bites Like a Croc"
I'll draw your logo.
John, Mike: I'll second that! You need a blog! The sooner the better! I'll offer any help I can give!
You're right when you said that modern producers would pick somebody famous like Whoopie Goldberg to play the witch in "Oz" rather than an actress who actually looks and sounds like a witch. True, so true!
It reminds me of the way feature animation voices are chosen today. If you're not a live-action star you need not apply.
Ok, here I am. Now Eddie, tell me what I should be. I'm going through rough times, I don't have the slightest idea of what I should do with my life.
In that last set of nine, I like the guy in the bottom righthand corner - he's a dead-ringer for Rosie O'Donnell.
He casts Marky Mark – who gets mistaken for a monkey 6 days out of the week.
Well, the apes were so crappy that I was almost tricked into thinking Mark Whalberg is a decent actor.
Gabriel: Judging from the way you look and assuming you have a decent voice you should do something that puts you in the public eye: do caricatures, sell cars, be an agent or a promoter or a manager, demonstrate veggie slicers at country fairs, sell houses and hotels, be a radio or TV personality.
Although, one noted examples that violates Eddie's theory completely is one Ted Bundy (no not the father on Married With Children). That guy was a handsome, charming, family man. Noone would have suspected him of swatting a fly let alone raping and killing so many women that they fried him in the electric chair.
Also, sometimes it's great when a face defies a role. I'd love to see a super model digging a ditch or a big fat sweaty guy in a wife-beater grace the cover of GQ magazine. Maybe that's just me though.
Well. I think Mike f's comment is great. Get a blog!
I think casting against type is important and works great sometimes, though.
When all movies were cast according to type, with the right people with the right faces playing the right characters, the occasional reversal had all the more impact.
Now, though, we have the situation where nearly all the roles are cast against type (or simply because somebody is famous and will pull at the box office).
Examples of (good) modern day typecasting: Gary Oldman (psycho), Chris Walken (psycho), Owen Wilson (chilled hippyesque type).
Examples of (good) modern day casting *against* type:
Tom Cruise in Magnolia (he's a leather clad, sleazy self help guru if you haven't seen it – "Respect the cock! Tame the c**t!").
Chris Walken dancing in this Fatboy Slim video:
YouTube Link
Casting against type can work if it is the exception.
To be an exception, most casting has to be "normal".
It works by subverting expectations, and can be pretty funny.
lol, your propogating a self fulfilling prophecy. If a guy looks like scum, he will be treated accordingly thus making him act like scum.
Here is my favorite example of what morons people can be regarding appearances:
Glasses = Smart.
And yet all of my favorite people wear glasses, so it must be true, no? In fact, when I meet someone who doesn't need glasses I just assume they're illiterate and boring. "Nice guy, too bad about that 20/20 vision business. How I pity him."
I wore contact lenses for years, and was assumed by too many to be "ditzy", because I have blonde hair. (The free kind, from God.) Then I got blind enough that I had to go back to glasses. And now people think I am smart! :-D Gotta love those stereotypes, eh?
Although, one noted examples that violates Eddie's theory completely is one Ted Bundy (no not the father on Married With Children). That guy was a handsome, charming, family man. Noone would have suspected him of swatting a fly let alone raping and killing so many women that they fried him in the electric chair.
Hmm, I've always wondered why Ted Bundy was described as being "too handsome to be a murderer" by everyone involved with the case; I look at pictures of him and I instantly think sociopath! His eyes are absolutely dead in every photo I've ever seen, and he totally fails my personal Test of Evilness, which is looking at each half of someone's face separately and not finding the "nice" half. Even smiling, he has no nice half. In fact, he looks even worse. This proves he is 100% Evil, instead of the usual 50% Evil that most people are.
Try it--look at a picture of someone who is purportedly Not Evil, split the face lengthwise, and you'll see the Evil side. That's a standard 50/50. That person is just like the rest of us, not the unflappable, generous soul he's pitching, so you can stop feeling so bad about how much better he is than you are.
There are exceptions, of course:
http://dummys.org/shari/shari13.jpg
We can all see that Lambchop is 100% Not Evil, while Shari's left side shouts "Eat felt, shithead!"
One of my favorites in the Casting Against Type department is Gene Hackman as that blind hermit in Young Frankenstein. I was astounded when I realized it was him. (I was a stupid teenager at the time, so maybe it wasn't so amazing to older audiences.) What a great career move after all the heavy lifting.
Mister: Great video!!!
Spizz: A fascinating theory about faces, especially since it's backed up with a picture of Shari Lewis and Lambchop!
Kali: Take a look at this: http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/magic/police/policework.html
Eddie I think the link got cut off! what is the last part of it??/
ohh nevermind- i figured it out!
how do you find such great things???
i use facial archetypes to judge people on a daily basis. It's natural. Thats why i love looney tunes characters so much. Their faces fit the role perfectly.
nice post uncle eddie! great response Mike.
Here's a sidebar to the whole concept of perfect visual casting, and how it can make or break a comedy.
During the initial Broadway run of The Odd Couple, Walter Matthau begged Neil Simon to let him play Felix instead of Oscar! (True story – Eddie and I both heard it from Neil's brother, Danny Simon. )
Matthau felt that he could “phone-in” the role of Oscar, but playing Felix would really require him to act. Simon, to his credit, told Matthau "Do me a favor, Walter, "act" in someone else's play. I wrote the part of Oscar with you in mind." And so Matthau played Oscar on stage and on film, and his desire to play Felix went unfulfilled.
Now, I’m sure someone can make the hypothetical case that Matthau could have been equally good playing Felix, BUT... before you do, go out and rent a movie called "Guide For The Married Man" (1967)
In that film, which is also about a pair of opposites, Matthau succeeded in convincing the director (Gene Kelly) to allow him to switch roles with the other leading actor, Robert Morse. So in Guide For The Married Man, we have a unique opportunity to SEE what would have happened if Neil Simon had given in and let Matthau play Felix.
Morse played the dirty old philanderer - and Matthau played the wide-eyed innocent – and the picture is a complete misfire from first to last; practically a textbook example of why you shouldn’t mess with a perfect thing.
There’s a reason why 40 years later, fans can still quote favorite lines from the Odd Couple movie verbatim, and no one – and I mean no one – despite the fact that it has a once-in-a-lifetime, all-star cast including Sid Caesar, Phil Silvers, Carl Reiner, Jayne Mansfield, Jack Benny, Art Carney and Lucille Ball – no one remembers Guide For The Married Man.
Well I remember the movie. But I have the dubious distinction of having been raised by a television set.
That said, even though I loved this movie as a kid, something about it always bothered me.
Knowing the back story gave me the "Ahh haa' moment.
And yes, start a blog damn it!
The world needs needs to drain your brain of all your hidden knowledge.
Vincent
Mike: A really good example of casting against type going awry! I hate to amit it but I like the song in that movie but you're right about the rest of it!
John: I was going to use a drawing of yours from Firedogs but Blogger wouldn't accept the html tag. Spumco has vigorously championed funny drawings for years and should have gotten credit for it here!
Vincent - don't get mad, but - in a moment of weakness - I used your name for the punchline in a story I left on John's blog!
Oh, for shame. Is my face red! [Not really. Haw!]
P.S. You should start a blog yourself, man!
The story I read (believe it was in Art Carney's biography) was that Walter Matthau was happy with his tailor-made part because he felt (despite it's title)"The Odd Couple" was the story of Oscar Madison, a sane, regular, albeit sloppy guy whose life is turned upside-down by taking in this neat-freak shlmeil. He thought he would have all the laugh-lines and audience sympathy. He was surprised and chagrinned that Felix (as played by Carney) was getting equal laughs and even greater sympathy from the rehearsal & preview audiences. He begged Simon to make a switch, let him play Felix and Carney play Oscar. Maybe switch parts a couple of months into the run? Simon rejected the offer. Interestingly, Carney DID play Oscar in a stage production in the 1970's, with Don Knotts (!) playing Felix. As far as I know, Art Carney is the only major actor who played (and convincingly) both Felix & Oscar.
Post a Comment