November 3rd, 2009

Loz Mechanical

I don't need looks, I have this unholy acting talent...

This article is about British actors being too ugly for foreign audiences. It includes this quote:

Other British shows that have been glossed up include Seventies-set BBC police drama Life on Mars, starring Jason O'Mara and Harvey Keitel as time-travelling cop Sam Tyler and Gene Hunt.

... because John Simm and Phil Glenister are both so taxing on the eyes, wtf? (I AM SORRY, BUT HARVEY KEITEL IS GLOSSIER THAN THE GLENISTER? FOR SERIOUS, NOW?)

One UK agent who represented British actors abroad said that the lack of looks was not the only problem as the quality of British drama tended to fall below that of shows produced on US cable networks, such as The Wire, True Blood and 6 Feet Under.

I also love the idea that True Blood is higher quality than all British dramas. I admit, I haven't exactly watched True Blood, but those of you who do love it tend to mock it, so I am thinking --- not exactly high quality drama, here. High quality melodrama, maybe? There is a difference.

Call it Nationalism, call it pride, call it personal preference, I don't care, but this entire article has me banging my head against my desk. What are our standards of 'beauty' and 'attractive' if all British casts are 'too ugly' for foreign (read: primarily American) audiences? How do we define quality drama? (The Wire, I shall concede, looks pretty amazing, but Six Feet Under started awesomely and then had a scene so bad it became a Trope-namer.)

I don't need pretty faces for my drama, thanks. Pretty isn't always all that interesting. I want actors who can act, who have expression, and if it so happens that they're hot like a hot thing? BONUS.