Charlize Theron: ‘Pretty people get turned away first’ from meaty roles

charlize1

Charlize Theron covers the new issue of British GQ to promote her role in The Huntsman: Winter’s War. I enjoy a good old-fashioned promotional tour, and Charlize has been shilling hard. I kind of wonder if the studio is going to lose money on this film though, just because no one really knows what it’s about, nor do they care? Still, if it bombs, no one will be able to blame Charlize. She’s shilling like a champ. GQ released some early quotes from the cover interview, and I have to say… I like Charlize’s head space these days. She’s 40 years old and I think she ran out of f—ks a while back. She’s complaining about how hard it is to be a beautiful woman in Hollywood, but she manages to NOT sound like a Jessica Biel-esque try-hard.

On being typecast: “Jobs with real gravitas go to people that are physically right for them and that’s the end of the story. How many roles are out there for the gorgeous, f***ing, gown-wearing eight-foot model? When meaty roles come through, I’ve been in the room and pretty people get turned away first.”

On ageing: “We live in a society where women wilt and men age like fine wine. And, for a long time, women accepted it. We were waiting for society to change, but now we’re taking leadership. It would be a lie to say there is less worry for women as they get older than there is for men… It feels there’s this unrealistic standard of what a woman is supposed to look like when she’s over 40.”

On South Africa: “I love my country. And it’s very hard for South Africans to believe that, because I left and speak in an American accent. I have a very, very strong connection to my country and to its people. It’s the mother that might have abandoned me, in a weird way, but not all the way. I’m not having a pity party, but I’m constantly trying to win its love back.”

[From British GQ]

Part of me loves that she describes herself as “the gorgeous, f***ing, gown-wearing eight-foot model.” Never let it be said that Charlize isn’t a confident woman. Never let it be said that she doesn’t have bigger stones than most of the men in Hollywood. But! I do take issue with the idea that “pretty people get turned away first.” I’m sorry, that’s bulls—t and not only that, it’s insulting to the actresses who do get those parts. I understand that Charlize is against typecasting and that sure, she’s probably been told many times that she’s “too pretty” to play a certain role. But historically, who has she lost roles to? Angelina Jolie? Julianne Moore? Nicole Kidman? Because they’re all so hideous and Charlize is just too pretty?

charlize3

Photos courtesy of British GQ.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

187 Responses to “Charlize Theron: ‘Pretty people get turned away first’ from meaty roles”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. magnolia says:

    I thought she was outstanding in Monster….BUT hollywood has a history of rewarding those eight foot f*cking beautiful models with Oscars when they “dare” to play someone “ugly”.

    So yeah I’m calling BS too.

    • Esther says:

      Hollywood or to be more precise the paying customers rewards people like her every day for merely being born physically symmetrical. If she wasnt pretty she wouldnt have a good job and certainly no wealth.

    • tiny martian says:

      Yeah, I’m trying hard to figure out what kind of meaty roles she’s talking about here, because from what I’ve seen, most of the meatiest are played by gorgeous women! And occasionally by gorgeous women with no makeup on, and maybe wearing some shapeless clothing.

      • Esther says:

        yeah, let her please list all those ugly actors that are winning Oscars.

        but maybe Kaiser is right and she just sees Jennifer Lawrence, Halle Berry, Matthew McConaughey and Leo Dicaprio as ugly people.

      • MsGoblin says:

        Yeah, it’s too bad she didn’t win that Oscar for playing the serial killer in Monster….

        snark

      • Tammy says:

        Do ugly people get work in Hollywood? LOL. I can name a few actresses who aren’t your standard norms of beauty that have won Oscars…

        Kathy Bates won a Best Actress award for Misery. She wasn’t particularly attractive in that movie and the role was real meaty… crazy, nutty meaty but still meaty.

        Sally Field won two Oscars… but I think she’s pretty. So she might not be a good example.

        And our favorite celeb to hate… Whoopi Goldberg has won an Oscar, Emmy, Tony and a Grammy.. one of the few that have. Not the most attractive person.. its more her personality than anything that’s unattractive.

      • MC2 says:

        I was wondering if she was being defensive over her playing Libby in Dark Places? It wasn’t a blockbuster but she has gotten a ton of flack for not playing the physical appearance of that character AT ALL. She produced that film & put herself in the leading role which was not a good idea. Libby was an unattractive woman who was haggard and that was a huge part of her character so Charlize in a baseball hat did not fit.

      • perplexed says:

        I think the difference between a less attractive person and a good-looking person getting a job is that the less attractive person usually has to be talented above and beyond what a good-looking person has to be in order to get their name through the door and get cast. Of the less attractive people who have made it in Hollywood it would be more difficult for me to name who is considered untalented or hit-or-miss. I’m not sure if an ugly version of Megan Fox or one of the Jessicas would be able to get through the door.

    • Neelyo says:

      In her defense, she produced MONSTER herself. If she hadn’t, who knows if she would have gotten the role.

    • J-Who says:

      My very first thought exactly, Magnolia!!

    • Val says:

      Not just that but she’s an Oscar-winning actress!! Not Emily Ratajowski!

  2. Esther says:

    man we really need to have a bigger conversation of the privileges of beauty. from earning more, being seen as a better person, lower jail sentences, romance, sex etc. huge advantage in life. lots of industries are based on average people worshipping pretty people, how sick is that?

    this really sounds like a white guy saying “but we are discriminated when a black woman gets a job” STFU Charlize!

    the whole of Hollywood is based on looks, cry me a river. how many ugly people are allowed to star in big movies? look at european tv and you will get a shock at first how “ugly” people are there, you know because they are cast on talent not on looks like in the usa.

    • Miss M says:

      Thank you!
      I only hear beauty is a disadvantageous trait in Hollywood (lol)… As if, she didn’t stand out first for her beauty…

      • Algernon says:

        I’ve got friends and relatives who are really beautiful and they have faced open, aggressive sexism in their workplaces. One of my cousins is a tall, gorgeous blonde and she’s a teacher. Parents regularly say absolutely disgusting things to her like, “Don’t tease our son, honey!” and imply that their sons wouldn’t see sleeping with her as abuse. I have a friend who’s very beautiful (she was a model when she was a teenager) and is now a lawyer, and she has been told over and over again she’d be a liability in the courtroom because no one would take her seriously as an authoritative figure, and people on juries might be intimidated by her and so not respond well to her arguments. So she’s not a litigator, she’s in real estate contract law, even though she was one of the best at mock trials in her law school. Total humblebrag, but my guy is handsome and he’s told me stories about when he was starting in federal law enforcement the old guard treated him like dumb muscle. He ran through positions in his agency for several years before landing in an office where he was encouraged to contribute to investigations, beyond being expected to be the one to run down fleeing suspects.

        I think it’s a relatively minor problem, compared to all the other issues of inequality in the world, but I do think really attractive people can face hurtful stereotypes and attitudes in professional arenas. We just hear about from actors because they have public platforms to talk about it.

      • perplexed says:

        I can believe pretty people face misconceptions about their looks in professional careers where intelligence and character are a necessity; however, I also think Hollywood is a different beast altogether. Good looks matter there more than intelligence or character if you want to be in front of the screen.

      • Algernon says:

        @ perplexed

        Yes, when I hear actors complain about being too good looking, I always think, “Are you sure it’s not a talent problem?”

      • paleokifaru says:

        Absolutely agree Algernon and Perplexed.

    • Dangles says:

      Conventionally attractive women, like all women, fall under the umbrella of being victims of sexism, so getting taken to task over their beauty privledge usually gets put on the back burner.

    • Wilma says:

      Yes, every day when I think my job as a teacher is hard I check my privilege and remember those poor beautiful people and the hardships they go through because of their beauty.

      • NeoCleo says:

        I know, Wilma. I thank gawd for my desk job when I think about all those poor beautiful people struggling to live with their handicap.

      • Smellsfishi says:

        @wilma and basically everybody who’s being sarcastic about this topic.

        You do know this is her job if she gets turned away for being to pretty she can’t work. That’s an issue. Even though it sounds stupid to complain about it is an issue. All of the actresses above like Juliane more are of course pretty but I think she means people who look like Adriana Lima. I don’t know honestly but if being pretty in Hollywood is an actual issue, I wouldn’t want people to be taking it as a joke.

        At first I can see everyone being like seriously this is what your complaing about, but this is how she gets money this is her work. If someone told you, you can’t do your job because you have brown hair, wouldn’t you be annoyed because now you don’t get a paycheck because of how you look. I don’t know if holllywood is really like this but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was. I don’t know how to word it exactly, but it’s like they’re telling you can’t do something in a complementary way because of how you look.

        Eta: I wish she was wearing pants in the first pic, I also wish she wasn’t laying so weirdly there either. If she wasn’t laying like that than, I don’t care if she doesn’t have pants, but the first pic looks weird when she’s in that position.

      • perplexed says:

        If she’s having difficulty getting parts, I think that’s simply because there aren’t enough parts for everybody and because Hollywood is a highly competitive industry, not because she’s too pretty.

        If her complaint is that meaty parts aren’t being written for women in general, then that’s what I think she should have said rather than going off on a tangent about parts not being written for people who look like her.

    • felixswan2 says:

      @ESTHER YesYes 1,000%

    • yael says:

      I have a serious question: how do you explain to someone that by purposefully hiring more people of colour than people who are white, we’re actually moving towards a more equal-opportunity society? I keep getting in the same argument with someone who sees it as a discriminatory practice. Their view is that to truly create equal hiring practices, names should not be included in resumes and outside agencies should be conducting blind interviews, so that way merit and experience are what matter. It’s a nice idea, but it’s not how our society currently functions and I can’t seem to get across why these new hiring practices are important.

      Any advice?

      • Algernon says:

        My company runs blind hiring interviews and it really works. We have a very equitable, diverse office. It can work, however, it takes a big commitment from the company that not many corporations are keen to make.

        Also, tell this person that the only people threatened by increased diversity are people conscious of losing an unfair advantage. If s/he really believes in equality, then s/he should welcome practices that bring more inclusion to your workplace. And the purposeful hiring of minorities/excluded groups is not “reverse racism,” it’s correcting an imbalanced system. The example is always, “Last time we hired someone we interviewed a dozen white people. This time we’re going to make sure we have at least 50% minority candidates in the pool.” That’s called parity, not racism.

      • yael says:

        That’s really interesting that your work actually does blind hiring interviews, @Algernon! I’m happy to hear it works well.

        As a follow-up to your suggested counter, what if their argument is based not on interviewing or pool candidacy, but on actual hiring decisions? That a company or volunteer organization has made the decision to rule out white candidates/volunteers in order to be “less white” (using the organization’s own words). This is what spawned the argument and what makes this person believe that the practice is discriminatory.

        Thanks for offering your advice/opinion!

      • Algernon says:

        @ yael

        I don’t see it as discriminatory because the whole system is still so unfairly favored toward white people, white men in particular. It’s like the dust-up over Hamilton’s casting advertisement for non-white actors. If every show on Broadway were doing that, then maybe we would have a problem. But one show out of what, a dozen?, prioritizing opportunities for others isn’t discriminatory. It’s a corrective measure because the whole thing is out of whack.

        So for your company, it’s not to look at this one hiring cycle. It’s to look at every cycle that’s come before. Have the candidates been primarily, maybe even overwhelmingly white? Well then, we’re going to use this next hiring round to make sure some other people get a chance, because we haven’t in the past.

        The pendulum is going to swing drastically for a while because the only way to see immediate change is to make radical changes. If people tried to do it gradually, it would take years, maybe even decades, to achieve real parity. But if organizations make sweeping changes *now*, we can get there much sooner. Look at the Oscar Academy membership dust up, it’s the same principle.

    • Goo says:

      Bless your heart, Esther… Always about race.

  3. GlimmerLinnie says:

    She’s my role model. Super talented, smart, stunning, self-confident – what’s not to love?

    • Esther says:

      maybe the way she talks about her maids?

      • Naya says:

        What did she say about her help?

      • Esther says:

        she wanted to bash gluten free food and revealed herself:
        ‘You know, I love my cleaning ladies, I’m gonna give-‘ They wouldn’t even eat it. My dogs wouldn’t even eat it.”

        not EVEN her maids would it eat but nice enough she offered it to them first and then her dogs.

        http://dlisted.com/2014/05/26/charlize-theron-shits-over-all-the-gluten-free-diet-fad/

      • Tara says:

        Charlize named a bunch of people, not just her dogs and maids. Out of context it sounds bad.

      • teacakes says:

        Esther, as per your own comment she says “they wouldn’t even eat it”, not “even they wouldn’t eat it”.

        Same words but the meaning changes slightly with the different arrangement.

      • Tulip Garden says:

        Better, to me, then pretending she doesn’t have maids. Of course she does and she offered them something she didn’t like. It happens all the time between people in whatever positions which is good because I hate waste.
        I don’t think Charlize was in any way equating maids with dogs, she was just amplifying how inedible whatever it was that she was trying to give away was. I’ve used that phrase, haven’t a lot of us? “I tried making fill-in-the-blank and it was so bad that after hubby and I (and/or our company) couldn’t stomach it, we attempted to feed the dogs and even they were like, “nope”!”

      • perplexed says:

        I think she said that the even the fashion people wouldn’t eat it, but that the maids wouldn’t even eat it. Yeah, depending on the placement of the “even”, the meaning changes.

      • V4Real says:

        But it still sounds bad. To say your dogs wouldn’t eat it is fine. But to say that “even my maids wouldn’t eat it is like admitting that they are lower than her. Why not just say no one I know will eat this.

  4. INeedANap says:

    But if you’re not pretty you’re either relegated to bit-part hell or nothing at all. Otherwise how do 20-something gorgeous women who look like teenagers keep getting the best roles?

    But! Confirmation bias, and I feel like she likely did have trouble being taken seriously as a talented actress. I love her comments on women and aging — women are allowed to age as long as they have the body and face of a woman with half the life experience.

    • teacakes says:

      Exactly.

    • Carol says:

      I see more men having problems with aging as well. I mean they always had problems with aging, who doesn’t, hence the mid-life crisis 20 year old wife etc. But I think nowadays women are looking better as they age than before. At least in the entertainment world, I find women looking better at 60 than their counterparts. I feel that concept of “men age like fine wine and women just age” is being a little shaken up. But that may be because women are more prevalent in the work force, have a better sense of self, have their own money and take care of themselves better than 30- 40 years ago. It’s still a man’s world but I see the tide shifting a little

  5. Locke Lamora says:

    Well, she is right, Hollywood is full of short, plain women. Poor poor pretty people, they have it so hard.

    If she wasn’t a georgeous, fucking gown wearing, eight foot model, she wouldn’t even be in the room.

    • Intuitive says:

      Exactly. And it’s not like she is a brilliant actor either. Maybe flashing your ass on tacky GQ doesn’t help!
      Also, who talks about ‘maids?! I’m liking her less and less the more she talks.

  6. Naya says:

    To be fair her type of beauty is more cute and wholesome than most of her peers. I can see a casting director refusing to let her read for Girl Interrupted based on just that look. Were she not a fighter, she would probably have been type cast as the hot girlfriend much like Jessica Alba.

    • perplexed says:

      I think Charlize Theron worked harder than Jessica Alba to prove herself (of course, I also think it helps that Theron is a lot more talented. I’m not sure if Alba actually is). But that’s what most of us, pretty or less pretty, have to do. So I see that as more of a necessary part of living, not necessarily a huge obstacle. Maybe her looks were a slight obstacle at the beginning of her career (but I also think being unknown was too), but not a huge one where it affected her negatively her entire life and deprived her of what she ultimately wanted to do in life as a career.

  7. GoodNamesAllTaken says:

    Hmp. Should have worn waders to get through this bullsh@t.

  8. Malice says:

    She seems unlikable.

  9. Christin says:

    Streep, Mirren, etc., seem to be doing just fine, 20 to 30 years beyond her age.

    • perplexed says:

      Meryl Streep was really beautiful in Manhattan and Kramer vs. Kramer. I think sometimes we forget how beautiful she was as a young woman (her beauty was also kind of icy), because her talent has become legendary. The talent has overtaken the beauty angle to become her prime descriptor, which I think is what happens to people who are both beautiful and talented. Ditto for someone like Blanchett.

      I don’t even dislike Megan Fox as a person, but the reason we talk about her beauty so much (or what there was of it before she got the weird plastic surgery) is because that’s all there is to talk about (besides the fact she married David Silver).

      • Christin says:

        She was also beautiful in that crazy movie where she played a famous romance novelist (She Devil?). Meryl has repeatedly shown her talent for drama, comedy, etc., and ‘looks’ don’t spring to mind first.

        Then again, I don’t recall her ever losing half-clothed on magazine covers to promote a movie.

      • Christin says:

        * edit — ‘posing’, not ‘losing’

    • Magnoliarose says:

      But think about just how many roles are available period. Meryl even complains about lack of material. How many Sophie’s Choice or The Hours are made? So if it is 1 or 2 per year and you don’t get even a chance, then of course you get frustrated when told your look is the reason.

      • Christin says:

        I can understand that, because truly interesting roles are few. However, I read interview quotes where she claimed to be in a position to work only when she wants to (financially). She has also mentioned the two endorsements as bringing in a good chunk of money.

        I just don’t know if she has been proactively trying to land any meaty roles the past few years.

  10. Karen says:

    Most meaty roles are going to people like Cate Blanchet, Julienne Moore, Jessica Chastain, Kate Winslet, Sandra Bullock right now for women not in their 20s.

    Yup theyre all ugly trolls. She clearly has the opposite of rose colored glasses, because she’s seeing ugly that isn’t there. Hollywood doesn’t hire many “unpretty” people.

    • Taxi says:

      Sorry, but Bullock hasn’t ever done much “meaty.” She’s rom-com gold, though.
      Don’t even try to convince me that there was anything “meaty’ in Blind Side. It was a PC, heartwarming flick, she played it with her characteristic little bit of sass, and got an Oscar (more for personal popularity than acting depth.)

      • THE OG BB says:

        The Blind Side was pretty much a Lifetime movie. I’m still sore she won an Oscar for that dreck.

  11. Brea says:

    Unpopular opinion but she’s kind of right. None of the leading young actresses (Jennifer Lawrence or even super cute Bree Larson) will ever come close to being breathtaking beauties like Charlize or Angelina. To win an Oscar she literally had to make herself look unattractive.

    People can’t relate to them like they can to plainer women.

    • Christin says:

      She has pretty features, yet has said it takes two hours to get her hair and makeup done.

      Photos of her on the street reflect she’s a tall, blonde woman of slightly above average looks without all the cosmetic and photoshop help.

    • perplexed says:

      But I doubt Angelina gets turned away from parts.

      I think Jennifer Lawrence’s success does come down to to both actually being able to act, and doing franchises. Maybe it helps that she’s American too (i.e. the America’s Sweetheart moniker gets to be used here). She’s forgetting that people like Lawrence get parts because they have some degree of talent. So does Charlize, but some people are simply more watchable in terms of charisma than others, and I think Lawrence is. If I have to sit there and watch someone for two hours, I suppose I’d prefer they have some degree of charisma. Charlize is beautiful, but is she charismatic despite having some degree of talent? I’m not sure.

      • Maya says:

        That’s because Angelina is gorgeous and sweet – Charlize while equally gorgeous, is known to be rude and bit*cy towards people.

        People only talk good about Angelina and works with her again and again.

        Charlize – well I haven’t heard any co stars wanting to work with her again nor is she working with the same people again and again.

      • FingerBinger says:

        @Maya Who has Angelina worked with again and again? Gorgeous and sweet doesn’t get you roles in a film. That doesn’t have anything to do with it. You do need to know how to act. What co stars don’t want to work with Charlize again? Tom Hardy hasn’t even said that. According to you Charlize is rude and bitchy but she’s still getting parts in films. I don’t know what point you’re making.

      • Maya says:

        @Fingerbender: Clint Eastwood, Roger Deakins, Jack O’Connel, Christian Berger, David Fincher are just the few people who have said that they would love to work with Angelina again.

        Charlize is beautiful and talented but her personality doesn’t match up to that.

        Tom Hardy behaved like a gentleman and refused to talk about what happened on the sets – Charlize didn’t behave equally classy and now using that fight for promotion.

        Even if we leave Tom out of it – I can’t actually remember any celebs saying they want to work with her.

        Many namedrop Angelina, Jennifer Lawrence, Sandra Bullock etc but not Charlize.

        Charlize could be a wonderful person but her reputation is not and trust me, that will affect in Hollywood.

      • Tulip Garden says:

        I actually find Charlize I extremely watchable on screen. I enjoy her as an actress and as a “star” too. She is still working very steadily and in fairly huge projects, like mad max and now this sequel. Her career doesn’t seem to be suffering at all.
        I’ve never heard of her being unprofessional or ill prepared for her job. Rumors that she isn’t Mary Sunshine in interviews and her personal life are rampant but how many of us are? I mean she could well be a beyotch but sometimes that’s just a word associated with strong women.
        For me, great actress, true professional (consistent and dependable) all kind of givens. Also, she is definitely not an America’s Sweetheart type and doesn’t seem to desire that. Good for her!

      • FingerBinger says:

        @Maya That’s not what you said. You said people have worked with Angelina again and again. Now it’s people who’ve said they’d work with her again? Tom has talked about his behavior on the Mad max set. From his own mouth he said he behaved poorly. If Charlize is so horrible why does keep getting parts? This rude behavior you alleged hasn’t affected her at all.

      • Maya says:

        @Fingerbender: Donna Langley, Ellen Mirojni and a few more behind the scenes people who worked on her movies – happy?

        As for her rude behaviour not affecting her – sweety she just turned 40 and complained about not getting roles. Add her rude attitude – it is going to affect her very soon.

      • lizabeth says:

        The thing is, she doesn’t need to be ‘gorgeous and sweet’. She’s a boss and she owns it.

        Co-stars about Charlize-

        “She’s a brilliant lady to watch work and be around. And she also has a good sense of humor, so she takes my s–t and gives it back to me.” Nicholas Hoult

        “She commands a lot of attention. You can’t help but look at her when she walks into a room. She’s very cool. Charlize exceeded my expectations.” Kristen Stewart

        “She’s been incredible. She’s one of my favourites.” Chris Hemsworth

        “I loved working with all those people and Charlize is my new girl crush, for sure.” Emily Blunt

        “I think she is f****** awesome. I think she’s incredible. I think she’s one of the most talented actresses of our generation” Tom Hardy

        Pretty sure Charlize was talking about her earlier days as a model-turned-actress, as I very much doubt she auditions now, and a quick look at her IMDB says she’s doing just fine.

      • FingerBinger says:

        @Maya Sweety? Now you’re just being condescending. Charlize is busier is then she’s ever been acting and producing. Again this rude behavior it isn’t affecting her.

      • jessia says:

        @ Maya
        When has Angelina ever worked with David Ficnher? I think that was Brad Pitt.
        And frankly, Charlize might be seen as ‘rude’( I personally think she comes across very harsh) but the woman is getting far more work and better opportunities then Angelina Jolie.
        Do you realize that the director of MAMS even said Jolie was not easy to work with? She kept arguing with him and acting like she knew better about directing then he did. That is rude.
        Angelina Jolie’s last acting gig and directing gig bombed. So I think Charlize has it better career wise.

      • jessia says:

        @ FingerBinger
        You are correct. I don’t know too many of Jolie’s co-star and dircectors who have worked with her time again. If anything, Jolie seemed to have burned her bridges in Hollywood with her smug arrogance on her directing and the way she is acting based on the Sony leak emails. Charlize’s co-stars on the other hand all love her and say she is excellent to work with. Even K-Stew got along with her.
        I highly doubt Donna Langley or Amy Pascal will work with Jolie again after what happened with By the Sea and Cleopatra.

    • littlemissnaughty says:

      Now, why would that be an unpopular opinion?

      Seriously though, Charlize is gorgeous but a breathtaking beauty? I don’t know. She’s incredibly attractive but when you rate yourself above all the already gorgeous women in Hollywood and then complain about it, you need to re-think some sh*t. I would love to know which part she missed out on because of her beauty. And who was the plain woman that was cast?

      • Tara says:

        She didn’t rate herself above other gorgeous women in Hollywood. You’re putting words in her mouth.

      • littlemissnaughty says:

        No I’m not. When she says meaty roles aren’t going to women like her, she’s saying that the women who do get them are less beautiful. I love movies, I know my cinema. And looking at the women who do get those meaty, Oscar winning or nominated roles (or even just great parts that aren’t nominated for anything), I see very attractive women everywhere. So they got these parts because they were less attractive than Charlize. That’s what she’s saying. I called these other women gorgeous, she didn’t, that part’s true. Which doesn’t make her look better at all.

      • V4Real says:

        I know beauty is subjective but I don’t see gorgeous when I look at Charlize. She looks good when all photoshopped and made up but without the make up I just see an average looking woman.

        But I am wondering what meaty role she wanted but didn’t get that made her spew this Jessica Biel I’m too beautiful to get a good role nonsense.

        I agree with @littlemissnaughty. Charlize is indirectly saying she is better looking then the women who have taken on those meatier roles. She’s so full of herself.

      • Tara says:

        I think what a lot of people are missing is she was discussing getting roles when you’re coming up. She’s not talking about established stars. Basically pre-Monster she had to struggle to be seen as more than eye candy. It took a woman taking a chance on her and her career was immediately transformed. If she’s not right, then why did it take her uglying up to the extreme in Monster for her to be taken seriously? Nicole Kidman and Angelina Jolie had connections in the business. Charlize had none. Julianne Moore is attractive, but not in a superhuman way like Charlize is. Now Michelle Pfeiffer had the same problems as Charlize. And again Charlize was speaking in the context of trying to make it in auditions when you’re in a room full of people also auditioning.

      • littlemissnaughty says:

        I’m not sure where she’s supposed to be talking about the start of her career? Do we have the whole interview yet? And if that’s the case, how many “meaty” roles go to up-and-comers anyway?

        You can think about Natalie Portman what you want but she at least – at one point – acknowledged that beauty helps. On Inside the Actors Studio she said that yes, in terms of getting work, it helps to be perceived as beautiful. Of COURSE it helps.

        Maybe, just maybe, gorgeous people aren’t used to being turned away sometimes. So it can’t have been that Charlize wasn’t right for the part or that she sucked at her audition. No, the pretty people were turned away.

      • Tara says:

        I read the entire article. Clearly when she talks about a room full of people auditioning she is referring to a certain phase in her career before she became an established enough star to have roles offered to her. Don’t even start with Natalie Portman who is so out of touch she said when the economy was horrible back in 2008 that it was good for people so that they would not be lazy or something like that. She also called meat eaters rapists. She is almost as out of touch as Gwyneth Paltrow with her quotes.

      • littlemissnaughty says:

        Well I’m not buying GQ, that’s for sure. And no, I still don’t buy what she’s saying about the poor pretty people having a hard time in Hollywood. There is NO evidence to support that statement. And SHE is a terrible example, obviously. Actors are turned away for countless reasons. Auditioning and not getting parts is par for the course for the love of god. So she didn’t get some roles. Her thought is “Well, I must’ve been too gorgeous.” while I’m thinking “Who are these ugly people she is talking about???” She really needs to tell us which roles she’s talking about because otherwise it’s nothing but “Wah wah I’m too beautiful.” Because again, maybe she just sucked.

        You don’t have to like Natalie but as you said yourself, she’s pretentious and out of touch. And even SHE acknowledges the privilege of beauty.

      • perplexed says:

        I think an actress is more likely to get the chance to ugly themselves up to play a part like Charlize did in Monster rather than just getting a less attractive actress who actually looks the part. So all that says to me is that Hollywood, at times, requests that actors make themselves less attractive for certain roles, but overall wants them to be good-looking in their real life — not that pretty people are turned away from the roles themselves.

        I also think it’s easier to make one’s self look less attractive by not doing hair and make-up and gaining some weight rather than trying to ask an actress to go the other way and transform themselves into a beauty if they weren’t born with the symmetrical beauty in the first place (i.e Tori Spelling — case in point of someone who is thin and at one point had all the money to try and make herself look good, but still couldn’t match up to the other people on 90210 looks-wise, even though they weren’t 8 feet tall like Charlize).

      • Liz says:

        No way in hell is it HARDER for the pretty girls when getting started!!! Been there, and these f*king gorgeous model types get through more doors, faster, and with LESS skill than us “regulars.”

        None of these women ever seem to take that into account. Perhaps the reason the role went to that “not so pretty girl” is because she has been busting her ass for years working at actually being a better actress and so, she was right for those “meatier” roles BEFORE you.

        I bet she didn’t go around that room asking those “lesser” women how long they’ve been pounding the pavement and working their craft. But I’d bet her ALL her money, it was much longer than her!!

        These actresses need to shut up about being too pretty for good roles. They are taking a valid case about lack of substantial roles for women and making it all about “me, me, me being too beautiful.”

        Sincerely,
        Mildly Attractive Actress (real casting term!)

  12. perplexed says:

    Normally, I like her but she sounded kind of conceited here. She’s not wrong about her own gorgeousness (she’d definitely stand out in a room more than Jessica Biel), but just because Natalie Portman isn’t 8 feet tall doesn’t mean she’s not beautiful either. Why are people forgetting about the face??? I don’t necessarily aspire to look like Jennifer Lawrence or Julia Roberts, but no way would I classify either of them as plain or not pretty. And I think Julia Roberts might be 8 feet tall….

    • Amber says:

      It’s funny you mentioned Natalie Portman, because in all the years that I’ve watched Inside the Actors Studio where people have been asked about typecasting and/or “beauty”, Portman is the only one who immediately springs to my mind as one of the rare guests who didn’t “woe is me”, or dance around it, but actually said “Yeah, are you kidding? Being considered attractive is absolutely a bonus. Of course you’re not the first person thought of for certain roles. But as far as getting in the door in the first place? Psshaw! And I’d be lying to say otherwise.” A few other actors have made comments similar to Charlize’s, but followed it by saying that they can’t complain, you know? Maybe she did and they cut that part out. (Though I’m certain Charlize too has been asked this question enough times to come up with a better answer for it.) I also remember John Goodman saying that he wasn’t going to lose sleep over not being able to play Tony in West Side Story. That “the grass is always greener” is not a good mentality to have. And character actors carve out their own niche that typical leading men won’t or can’t do. The grass being greener is also utter bullsh*t because, as others have mentioned, there’s beauty privilege not just in Hollywood (where it’s extraordinary), but in general for us as a species!

    • siri says:

      Interesting you mention Julia Roberts, because this is actually one of the actresses Theron might be referring to. Erin Brokovitch…would they have given this part to Charlize? Roberts is the better choice, not because she’s not pretty, but because she comes over more accessible. You need some warmth here, and Roberts can easily radiate this. Charlize has an aura of distanced coldness, and arrogance around her, and I believe she’s a troubled soul. Money Monster, the new film directed by Jodie Foster, where Roberts has a part as an TV executive- that part could have been be acted by Theron as well. But would Clooney have chemistry with her? Hard to imagine.

      • perplexed says:

        “Charlize has an aura of distanced coldness, and arrogance around her, and I believe she’s a troubled soul.”

        In that way, I see that as more a function of her personality than her looks. If an actress doesn’t get a part, I would think that’s how their personality comes across in a part, not necessarily because of their physical appearance. Julia Roberts does have an accessibility to her, and again I see that as more of a function of how her personality comes across onscreen (her public persona, I mean, not necessarily how she behaves in private).

        That’s why why an actresses say their looks have limited them at times, I find it a little strange, because there were probably a confluence of factors as to why one pretty person got a role over another pretty person.

        On another note (this might be a tangent), I also think it’s possible that sometimes a particular person’s beauty might just not be appealing to some people in general — it’s not like pretty people appeal to the same people all at once either. So if you’ve got two pretty people in a room, maybe that other person’s beauty was more appealing to whoever was doing the casting.

      • siri says:

        Sorry if I didn’t express it well enough, but I actually WAS referring to the different personalities;-) Both women are considered beautiful, yet Roberts has the more open, accessible flair around her. I actually do not consider Theron ‘beautiful’ BECAUSE of that coldness around her. And I think you are right about the appeal, which might have to do with our own personality as well, or with the casting people’s for that matter. Theron’s beauty seems to be perfect for something like Mad Max, but I wouldn’t cast her for Still Alice…And even in Sweet November, a movie I really enjoyed watching, the appeal was brought in by Keanu.

  13. Ramona Q. says:

    “Poooor you!” Said like Livia from The Sopranos.

  14. lisa says:

    that cover photo makes me think of that amy schumer skit, “this is where the poop comes out”

  15. AlmondJoy says:

    And non pretty people hardly get roles at all or even the chance to become big names in Hollywood so there’s that…

    • Marty says:

      I’m sure it’s frustrating for her to be turned away from the roles she wants, but it’s hard to sympathize with someone who’s already won an Oscar, gets steady work, while still fitting the status quo of beauty.

  16. Jayna says:

    All I’ve got she is breathtaking, and her body is to die for.

    I do love the diversity of her roles, and she’s a really strong actress. I really liked that movie she did that didn’t get a lot of press a few years ago. It was the indie movie written by Diablo Cody, Young Adult, where she played a 37-year-old alcoholic returning to her hometown checking out a long ago ex who was happily married. She wasn’t a likeable character in the movie, and I thought she did a phenomenal job.

    • Dangles says:

      Yeah, I liked that too.

    • Neelyo says:

      Loved YOUNG ADULT and her performance. That’s the kind of role that’s ignored come award time. She didn’t ugly herself up and she wasn’t playing a historical character.

    • Kitten says:

      I’ve watched YA too many times to count. LOVE that movie so much.

    • Tulip Garden says:

      Loved that movie! She was terrific and how great was Patton Oswalt?!

    • Dee Kay says:

      I loved her superweird chemistry with Patton Oswalt in that movie! Until he showed up and they pseudo-hooked up, that film wasn’t doing it for me. Then BAM it became really funny and tragic and engrossing. Love the second half of that movie.

  17. Tara says:

    She wasn’t calling herself eight foot tall and gorgeous. She was using an extreme example of what Hollywood does not go for for meaty parts. She had to mask her beauty to be seen as more than eye candy, so she is right. They didn’t want to hire her for the Devil’s Advocate because she was too pretty. The director said it himself. That said, she is now the example of someone who could be insanely beautiful and be taken seriously as an actress. I think today Hollywood loves actresses who can be pretty on the red carpet and plain or ugly for a role on the screen.

    • perplexed says:

      The thing is pretty people don’t actually get turned away. They usually come into the audition, show that they can ugly themselves up, and the director accepts them. Keira Knightley was told she was too pretty to play the part in Pride and Prejudice, but then she came in, and the director accepted how she had presented herself. She didn’t actually get turned away — she got the part as did Charlize in The Devil’s Advocate. If Charlize got the part then there’s no actual turning away from her to go and get someone else.

      Even if she meant something else, this quote does read badly nonetheless.

      If she had said that you have to prove yourself, despite being pretty, that would have made more sense. And even if you do have to prove yourself — so what? That’s what we all have to do in life to get a job.

      • Christin says:

        Years ago, a director was casting A Place in the Sun, which had three main characters (a romantic triangle of sorts). Shelley Winters wanted the part of the poor factory worker girlfriend. The director would not consider her because she had a glamorous image at the time. He was very particular about the casting and spent two years working on this movie, to get it right.

        Instead of giving up and whining about being passed over due to attractive looks, Shelley kept trying. She invited the director to lunch. He was about to leave when she revealed herself as a very average looking fellow diner, seated near him the whole time.

        Result — She got a screen test (under the condition she appear as she had that day), won the role and earned an Oscar nomination.

        Not sure how many actors/actresses are going the extra mile to do something like this.

    • Locke Lamora says:

      But that’s the compromise then? Pretty people like her get to do blockbusters and make insane amounts of money, and plain women get the meaty but not so lucrative roles? But it isn’t even like that, pretty people get all the roles, and when they don’t get every single one they complain.

      • Kitten says:

        She’s not *just* a pretty woman though, she’s a f*cking fantastically talented actress. Also, she wasn’t complaining–she was just being matter-of-fact about it.

        Charlize has done both low-budget indie films and high-budget blockbusters and while her looks may have opened the door for her, it’s her talent that has kept her steadily working with great directors and high-caliber actors.

      • Locke Lamora says:

        So is Kathy Bates, yet I’m not seeing her starring in multi-million blockbusters or posing on covers of magazines. She could have ten times the talent and but she wouldn’t have the career she has were she not beautiful.

        Her beauty opened doors for her, and that’s the hardest part, so I find complaining about it incredibly annoying.

      • Kitten says:

        EXACTLY. Kathy Bates has played some of the most iconic, well-written characters in film and television so yeah, she’s a perfect example to support Charlize’s point that the best parts don’t always go to the prettiest faces, they go the Kathy Bates-type actresses with gravitas and screen presence.

        I think it’s so funny how everyone here is complaining about Charlize complaining lol. She stated something that is undeniably true in a very plain way and everybody jumps on her for it. I guess she should have said that all the good parts go to the beautiful women. Sure, that would be a patently false statement, but it would make everyone happy.

      • perplexed says:

        I think Kathy Bates is a bit of an anomaly, not necessarily the norm.

      • Kitten says:

        @Perplexed-Meaty, complex roles for female leads are also “not the norm” though. Women usually get cast as the wife, the girlfriend, the mistress, the daughter. Roles for women are often one-dimensional and only serve as a way to challenge or support the meatier role that inevitably goes to a man.

        Again, that’s the point Charlize is making. She’s saying the GOOD roles go the actress who is best suited for the part, not simply handed over to the beautiful model who came to Hollywood to play pretend for a living cuz “hey, everybody’s doing it”.

      • perplexed says:

        I think it’s possible she meant it that way, but I also think she could have been clearer. The way the quote reads isn’t that fluid. I am wondering if the interviewer cut out the middle of the quote or something — it reads kind of clumsily. The first part of what she’s saying makes sense. But then it goes off into something about beauty with no transition in between to make clear why she started talking about that.

        Maybe the fact that I feel pretty people DO get meaty parts also affects how I read and interpret her quote. Nicole Kidman, Cate Blanchett, etc are tall and pretty and I would say they’ve gotten substantial well-written roles. Kidman has a similar iciness to her beauty and she’s extremely tall, but I think she’s gotten meaty parts. In the end, I think there are many factors as to why one person gets a job and not another. I also think some actresses succeed in making certain parts more substantial than they might otherwise have been and others might not have the ability to convert on doing that (like, uh, Jessica Alba or Megan Fox).

    • Kitten says:

      Exactly, Tara. I re-read that quote a hundred times now trying to see where everyone is getting that she was describing herself and I STILL don’t see it.

      I think she was simply stating in a very honest way that the most interesting roles go to women who have a lot of screen presence and talent, not so much to the model-turned-aspiring-actress. And yes, I’m aware that Charlize once upon a time fell into that category, but let’s not pretend that she hasn’t proven herself to be more than a pretty face.

      Mostly, I don’t understand why people are acting like it’s so hard to believe that the really great roles would be given to Jennifer Lawrence and not Megan Fox.

      • Tara says:

        Not only that. People are missing that she’s not talking about being turned away now. She is talking about being turned down for meaty roles when you’re in the auditioning phase of your career. Pre-Monster that’s when it was a struggle for her to be taken seriously because of her looks. She’s not talking about established stars. She’s talking about a time when she would have never been offered the same parts as Nicole Kidman or Julianne Moore. People have really misunderstood her quote. She could have worded her statement better because it’s so easy to take out of context.

      • Kitten says:

        Right. She didn’t say “beautiful women have difficulty getting roles in Hollywood” she was specifically talking about the GOOD, meaty, sought-after roles.

        2 Days in The Valley was the first movie that got Charlize noticed and she had a pretty basic role: she played the sexy Norwegian girlfriend. It was hardly an interesting role, but it got her foot in the door.
        From that point forward, she had to prove that she had the chops to hold her own on-screen. And yeah, I think a lot of people were like myself when they first saw her and just thought of her as another pretty face.

        She’s not saying that appearances don’t matter in Hollywood, she’s not saying that beautiful women don’t get cast, she’s saying that being merely beautiful can sometimes be a hindrance in that directors and casting agents often want a more relatable-looking actress who has the screen presence to pull off a complex character.

      • perplexed says:

        “Mostly, I don’t understand why people are acting like it’s so hard to believe that the really great roles would be given to Jennifer Lawrence and not Megan Fox”

        Jennifer Lawrence has more talent and screen presence than Megan Fox does. I’m not sure if Fox could pull off Lawrence’s role in Winter’s Bone. That part of the equation that includes talent helps. And I think Lawrence is considered “hot” like Fox is (i.e sexy, good body, appealing in less clothes, etc), but her hotness isn’t the only thing there is to talk about.

      • Magnoliarose says:

        I don’t see it the way it is being taken. She’s not saying, “I’m the most beautiful and only ugly bitches get the roles I want!”
        To be honest I have no idea if given a chance Fox couldn’t do good work but Lawrence is certainly extraordinarily charismatic and talented.

    • Liz says:

      perplexed just NAILED it.

      I know an actress, on the same level as me and we could play similar roles. She has been told many times “too pretty” and given a chance to present herself as less.

      I, on the other hand, who doesn’t look as model-like as her, did NOT get to audition for many of those roles.

      So I do not buy any of this crap about “too pretty”… what they mean is “that’s not the look we were going for.” Because these actresses present themselves in that way!

      Girl mentioned above doesn’t have a single photo wear she isn’t wearing a ton of makeup. And just LOOK at the way all these actresses market themselves.

      Don’t want people to ONLY think of you as the beautiful model type, well perhaps you should stop doing photo spreads like a model!

      Otherwise, shut up, show up for a read looking LIKE the character should and prove you’ve got the chops. If you can’t, it’s not your beauty to blame. It’s your VANITY!

      A woman working 40 hours a week in a factory is NOT going to spend hours on hair and makeup and have expensive clothes.

  18. Dhavynia says:

    I don’t think she meant that her peers are inferior compared to her, I think she means that people see her as a model and not an actress or that her looks make her stand out too much. Let’s face it, she’s the pretty girl everyone loves to hate and can’t see past her looks IMO

    • perplexed says:

      But who has really ever hated her though? We’ve all said she’s beautiful and credit her with her beauty, amazing body, and talent, and when she was dating Sean Penn, everybody thought she was too good for him and hoped she would see the light. It’s only with this interview that some of us are going “wait what?”

  19. nina says:

    Selma Hayek, Halle Berry, Angelina Jolie and of course, Charlize Theron are beauties and not the non threatening kind.
    BUT…that comes with a lot of privilege as well and yes I am sick of the word privilege too.
    I don’t see any of the younger actresses with this kind of beauty, only thing they have is youth. I mean imagine Jlaw at 40…or any of the Emma’s.
    But Charlize needs to chill,she’s no Adriana Lima and that first pic is gross wth?? It looks like she’s not wearing any underwear sheesh.

  20. MAC says:

    She is on the cover of GQ with no pants on….

    • Miss E says:

      I know! She looks like she’s on the cover of Playboy. All that’s missing is a pair of bunny ears.

  21. Jess says:

    Tonedeaf comment.

  22. Magnoliarose says:

    There is some truth to what she’s saying but didn’t articulate it well. There are roles where exceptional beauty prohibits certain roles. Not many but some. Michelle Pfieffer ran into that problem.
    I don’t think she intended target say everyone was ugly but that her model looks can be a hindrance and a distraction. Lots of actresses are very pretty but in a more accessible way. I think it’s also her intense vibe.

    • Magnoliarose says:

      Autocorrect is a nightmare. Target=to.

      I hate my iPad sometimes. I thought I deleted some words but no.
      Ugh.

    • Kitten says:

      This. People get off on knocking the perceived “ice queen” off of her pedestal.

      • Eden75 says:

        Exactly.

        Heaven forbid one of the beautiful people complain that being gorgeous is a hindrance, How dare you say anything that might be taken as whiny by the people that aren’t that pretty. Go sit in your corner and just be pretty. No one wants to hear that you have a brain or an opinion.

      • perplexed says:

        No one is saying she can’t have an opinion — people are disagreeing with her opinion. Statistically, pretty people (or well, pretty white people) thrive in Hollywood. Sure there are exceptions, but they are exceptions, and pretty people are the norm in Hollywood. The one hindrance I can see to Charlize getting a meaty part is her height, not necessarily her beauty, since starring opposite Tom Cruise probably requires a shorter woman (and even he seems to dig tall women to play the part of his wife). If we must agree with everything she says or not give a countering opinion, then maybe the comments section should be turned off so that we can hear only her opinion and no one else’s.

        It’s possible she really did mean something more benign (like that she had to prove that she’s more than just a pretty face), but if that’s the case, then she should have outright stated that. This quote wasn’t presented well, imo.

        And I’ve always had the impression that Charlize Theron is quite well-liked and respected as a public figure. I don’t think anybody is trying to knock her off her perch — I think there is simply genuine disagreement with what she claimed.

      • V4Real says:

        @Eden75 But did you give Jessica Biel that benefit of the doubt when she said it? I think Charlize said it just how she meant it which comes off a bit conceited. Poor Charlize can’t get the good roles because they are all going to that old less attractive Cate Blanchet.

        Oh and by the way there’s only an inch separating Cate and Charlize in height but we don’t hear Cate complaining.

      • FingerBinger says:

        @V4Real It sounded ridiculous from Jessica Biel because she can’t act. Biel was making it out like she Meryl Streep in a model’s body.

      • Kitten says:

        @Perplexed-Ok, let’s phrase it a different way, because yes, maybe this wasn’t perfectly-articulated.

        Is it difficult to believe that the role of say, the one-dimensional *beautiful wife* is less-sought after than the role of a leading actress who may be tortured or complex or experience some sort of transition or character arc?

        If you were an aspiring actress, would you want to play the standard pretty woman or the well-developed, challenging role of the female character who gets substantial screen time and the opportunity to flex your acting chops?

        Charlize is making that distinction here. She’s saying meaty roles are often developed for actresses who have the physicality and screen presence required to make the character believable, not so much for the supermodel who may look beautiful, but doesn’t have the substance or talent to back it up.

        It’s the difference between being cast as the interesting female lead or the token pretty wife.

        ..and it’s not difficult for me to believe that seasoned casting agents and directors who see 8 million beautiful faces a day start to build up a bias about beautiful women, perhaps making the assumption that they don’t have talent.

      • perplexed says:

        I think you’ve made the distinction well, but I don’t think Charlize did. I am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she meant something else (since most of the time she seems fine enough to me as a person — I’ve generally liked her), but everyone else seems to have contextualize what she meant, which makes me think she didn’t articulate her point well at all.

      • Eden75 says:

        @V4Real, I would have if, like Finger said, Biel could act and, tbh, if she had had a modeling career as big as Theron’s.

      • V4Real says:

        @Eden75 But your comment was more about Charlize not being able to complain about her beauty being a hindrance. You didn’t say anything about her talent. So since you didn’t mention talent, if Charlize is allowed to say she’s too beautiful to get meatier roles then Jessica Biel can also complain about being to beautiful to get roles.

        But Charlize is not only conceited, she is also a liar because she has had some pretty good roles in her career. Maybe she’s not getting the ones she wants because she’s not as good as she think she is. Angelina Jolie kills Charlize in the looks department, yet somehow she doesn’t feel her beauty is a hindrance. Julia Roberts was considered just as beautiful as Charlize but Julia got good roles and didn’t bitch about being too beautiful.

        Someone mentioned JLaw and said she’s not as beautiful as Charlize but there are people out there who begs to differ. I’ve seen Charlize without make up and it’s safe to say she definitely hides behind Maybeline.

      • Magnoliarose says:

        V4Real- But also take into account how limited good roles are for women period.
        Kitten articulated it well.
        It would be disingenuous for Charlize to pretend she doesn’t know she’s attractive. People are attractive in different ways and it has a lot to do with what scripts someone is offered.
        People eye roll Biel because she’s a terrible actress so her argument rings false. Charlize can act, but she’s put in a certain category to compete and her look and persona are very strong. Angelina is similar. If you think of her roles her looks do play a certain part of her characters.
        I honestly think she was being matter of fact and not ego stroking. Why wouldn’t she want better material? All actresses complain about it in different ways.
        WOC, 50+, fuller figured, disabled, ingenue, plain;they all struggle to find good roles.

      • V4Real says:

        And there’s nothing wrong with knowing you’re attractive but she’s playing the I’m too good looking to get a meaty role card. Perhaps she has gone after roles that went to other actresses and her only consolation is she was too good looking to get that role. Maybe she just wasn’t what they were looking for and it had nothing to do with her looks. IMO I think she was ego stroking. Plenty of women who are considered good looking by Hollywood standards have gotten some damn good roles despite how beautiful they are Angelina Jolie is one of them, Julia Roberts, Nicole Kidman, Demi Moore and Cate Blanchet are a few others.

        I do agree that in general there are not enough good roles for women but I don’t think it has anything to do with how good looking Charlize think she is.

    • Tara says:

      V4real Julia Roberts was never beautiful in the way Charlize is. Julia Roberts was always pretty in an accessible way. I also don’t think Angelina kills Charlize in the beauty department as you say. Especially not today. Angelina could never be America’s Sweetheart though because her looks are too ice queen like Charlize. These women intimidate people. Sandra Bullock and Julia Roberts and Jennifer Lawrence are attractive in an accessible way so it’s easier for them.

      Let’s roast Charlize for sharing her own experience. Unattractive women have it hard of course and women known for their looks have it hard being taken seriously. If Charlize is lying, then why did Taylor Hackford go on record saying that he liked her acting in the audition for The Devil’s Advocate, but he didn’t want to cast her because she was too good looking? People just don’t like to hear pretty people complain. I get that, but she was being honest about her experience pre-Monster.

  23. Zaytabogota says:

    Maybe the producers don’t want to have sex with the eight foot model but they will pick the person they and by extension the audience will find most attractive. Tia Leoni said the one thing they’re looking for is ‘f*kability’, you’re either f*kable or not and if not you don’t get hired.

    All these pretty people who got their big breaks and plenty of roles by virtue of their looks sound so ridiculous when they claim to have no hope against the uglies. It’s like a white person claiming it’s so hard when blacks get all the roles or rich people claiming they can’t get a break because they are discriminated against in favour of the poor….. Not on the planet we’re living on. Accept and appreciate the pretty privilege, it’s granted you a very wealthy life.

    • FingerBinger says:

      This comment confuses me. What are you saying?

      • Zaytabogota says:

        That pretty privilege is like any other type of privilege; white privilege, rich privilege… you cannot claim your privilege makes you lose opportunities to those without privilege when that’s obviously not the case!

  24. Tallia says:

    Oh Boo Boo. Poor you.

  25. Marigold says:

    The lament of the pretty girl never goes down well. Also, what the what is going on with her nethers on that cover? It’s like a weird void down there.

  26. FansyVagabond says:

    She’s talking about Hollywood standards, not real life. Obviously no leading actress in Hollywood is unattractive, but Hollywood’s idea of a leading lady has a softer beauty like Nicole (before she went crazy with the PS) Kate Winslet or more quirky features like Cate Blanchett’s. Charlize has striking in your face cat eyes that Hollywood has a hard time humanizing on the silver screen. Also being much taller than a lot of leading men doesn’t help. She spent the first 10 years of her career only getting muse role where her character is nothing but the leading man’s object of desire. It took a role like Monster stripping away her looks completely for Hollywood to start considering her seriously as an actress. I love watching her because she’s very engaging on screen and I think it’s for the best that she doesn’t get those Oscar bait roles her peers are in because she ends up taking films which are far more unique like Young Adult and Mad Max.

    • Yun says:

      In what world is Cate Blanchette quirky? No snark intended, but to me she’s your average pretty blonde white woman. As is Charlize Theron. Not a quirk between them.

      • Magnoliarose says:

        I think she’s saying Cate is not traditionally pretty and not thought of as a sexy model type.

  27. perplexed says:

    Here’s Viola Davis explaining the difficulty she has had in getting parts. Charlize was present during the interview and heard what Viola Davis had to say, which is why Charlize’s quote above seems even weirder:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOOS77gowlg

  28. terry says:

    Charlize will always have more opportunities because of her looks in Hollywood. She has likely missed out on some leading roles due to her height. The majority of leading men in Hollywood are shorter than her even without heels on and studios don’t want their leading men to be dwarfed on screen.

    Her comments though remind me when Judy Garland complained about Grace Kelly beating her to a best actress oscar. To her Grace had access to opportunities that Judy could never have because beauty is worshipped in Hollywood.

  29. chelsea says:

    Who are these non-pretty people getting all the meaty female roles in Hollywood? Someone point them out to me, these non-pretty unicorns just so I know they exist. The young Amanda Plummers that just got off the bus from Des Moines, where are they? That’s right Charlize, they’re not working, and they know they won’t be working, so they don’t waste their time.

  30. me says:

    Oh come on, your looks are what got you in the door !

    • perplexed says:

      Yeah, I think looks get you in the door, and after that you prove yourself (like everybody else has to). But at least you managed to get through the door.

  31. Claudia says:

    … She was with Sean Penn …

  32. Sofia says:

    Actually I don’t see the problem to be the beauty, personally it seems to me that there are more roles for vulnerable female characters and we know how strong Charlize is or how she conveys it to her characters. Can we see her play the characters that are usually meaty? I remember she was up to play the Renee Zelwegger’s role for Chicago, Roxy Hart and I think about it and can’t see it. Charlize is just too strong, too big to play roles that require a less imposing presence. I always see her as playing strong and she played vulnerable characters back in the day but I find it difficult to see it now. It goes beyond looks. And if what she is saying was true she could never be cast for the role that gave her the Oscar.

  33. islandwalker says:

    She can be an amazing actor just don’t care for her off screen persona. (The Penn relationship killed it for me.)

  34. manta says:

    I don’t feel whining here. As someone wrote above, prior to Monster an The yards her roles weren’t exactly “meaty”. And when I try to remember many nominees/winners of awards of past years ( not a measure of a great role I think, but that seems to be the indicator for many), Glenn Close, Sissy Spacek, Sally Field, Sigourney Weaver, Frances McDormand, Laura Dern or Emma Thompson come to mind. Of course these ladies are not ugly but they’re not beautiful in a Dior-J’adore kind of way. That’s how I took her quote, the leggy blonde isn’t the fisrt considered for a role with gravitas, not that nobody ever hires her.
    The parallel someone made with Pfeiffer seems accurate. Theron also costarred with Basinger and Dunaway who said they faced similar challenges. It’s possible she forged an opinion from various experiences, not just her own.

    • Sofia says:

      But she made choices that reinforced her “leggy blonde” persona didn’t she? I still think about that Dior ad and wow, that’s so Charlize! But at the same time it reinforced a certain public persona that doesn’t seem to be compatible with certain roles. But that’s not just about her looks, the more famous an actor/actress gets the harder it is to do things that aren’t safe and probably casting directors want to hire them for stuff that’s guaranteed success and “in brand”. What she said was valid but not the whole story.

  35. dana says:

    Maybe a better way for her to say, for her to get meaty dark (non sexy) roles they want actresses not a beautiful as she is.
    Not for nothing, I know historically this is true for male actors. The prettier, the less they’re given dark dramatic roles. Theres a great book on Hollywood men and it was a constant in the studios that the pretty men never were given dramatic leads.. more the funny pretty heartthrob roles. I don’t think this applies so much for women but maybe she means outside of her beauty standards. I did like her comment on aging.

    • kay says:

      it’s a very tricky thing, because more and more looks are considered also for male quality roles. More and more female audiences are demanding our leading men to be not only good actors, but also eye candy: they have to be great actors and if they are good looking they are more successful and get more offers: examples of why Tom Hardy, Michael Fassbender, Jake Gyllenhaal, Oscar Isaac have more successful careers than their more unfortunate looking but equally talented peers, it’s a very competitive world.

  36. perplexed says:

    Ultimately, she or anyone else probably has to work harder to prove themselves, but that’s life in general for everyone.

    I won’t deny her gorgeousness though.

  37. Div says:

    She’s not entirely wrong imo as Hollywood tends to favor people who are beautiful but not drop dead gorgeous—people the general public can relate to and find non-threatening. It is something that publicists and PR people have mentioned before….that they have to cast someone who has a non-threatening beauty and yet is relatable. Angelina Jolie was once mentioned by some director as his first choice, back before she was famous, but he was told she was too intimidating. Back in the old days of Hollywood there were a lot of great beauties: Grace Kelly, Ava Gardener, Rita Hayworth, Liz Taylor, Lauren Bacall, Dorothy Dandridge, etc. Nowadays there are only a few: Halle Berry, Angelina, and Charlize. That’s not to say that Julianne Moore and Jennifer Lawrence aren’t beautiful, because they are, but I don’t believe that most people would put them in the category of “great beauties” like Angelina or Grace Kelly.

    That said, the flip side is that it is even harder for less attractive people than the pretty people the public can identify with or people who are drop dead gorgeous.

    • perplexed says:

      When someone isn’t relatable, I think that has more to do with how they present themselves personality-wise rather than their beauty. I think Charlize is more of a bombshell beauty, and maybe some people feel distanced from that, but at the same time I think her personality is what is distancing, more than her looks. I think she can act, but in interviews I do think she lacks that quality that Julia Roberts has when you see her on a talk show. I wouldn’t say she’s boring, but some people have a certain personality that makes you keep on watching whereas others don’t pull you in as much, no matter how beautiful they might be.

      Angelina Jolie is considered to be beautiful, and I wouldn’t necessarily characterize her as perky or open the way Roberts is. However, she’s another one I think people are more open to listening to and seeing what she has to say, even though she might not be “relatable” in the traditional sense. Charlize is someone I’ll watch in a movie, but not necessarily someone I’d probably interested in making conversation with, since she’s sort of interesting but not THAT interesting as a person. Sometimes I think it’s simply the personality that blocks people from seeing an individual a certain way more than physicality, but I don’t know if someone like Rob Lowe, who has said he wasn’t taken seriously when younger, would be willing to acknowledge that. In real life, I’ve noticed it’s the extremely good-looking people with good personalities who draw people in, not simply extremely good-looking people.

    • Jib says:

      I don’t find Angelina beautiful at all. I find her interesting looking, in an odd way, almost alien looking, but to put her in the same category as Charlize seems wrong. I don’t think Charlize’s looks have hurt her too much, but I can see her getting turned down for some roles. But boo hoo, I’m sure she got others just for her looks. I do think Julianne Moore, JLaw, Julia Roberts are all attractive but nowhere near as drop dead gorgeous as Charlize, though.

  38. kay says:

    Every time she starts to be more likable and in some way relatable then BAM! she comes out with some bitchy comment about how high she thinks of herself, so arrogant and so condescending to describe herself that way, and at the same time try to make victim out of herself for being a “gorgeous eight foot model” Bitch please, you’re back in my celebrity dumpster category.

  39. kay says:

    Also: why bitching about your good looks being a problem to you (you poor thing) while doing a magazine cover where literally you’re showing your ass and posing sexy? Isn’t that desperate? I usually don’t criticize if a woman whats to show her body I never slut shame anybody but for christ sake, your literally spreading your legs on an international magazine.

    • SloaneY says:

      “People don’t look at me as a serious actress, just a pretty model”, says the made up woman with no pants on GQ

      • perplexed says:

        I have to admit I don’t get it when actresses give these particular quotes when on the cover with GQ with relatively little clothes on.

        I think it would make more sense to talk about this at a Hollywood Roundtable interview where you’re most likely to be taken seriously as a person, not as an object.

      • Tara says:

        You’re proving her point. Why can’t she look hot in a magazine cover and still be taken seriously?

      • perplexed says:

        I don’t think that was her point though. She didn’t say she was overlooked for being objectified or for embracing her beauty or for embracing her own objectification. She said pretty people are turned away first from meaty roles, the notion of which most people are disagreeing with through counter-examples.

        I do take her seriously (I’ve never put her into the bimbo category as I might with someone like Pamela Anderson or Britney Spears), which is probably why I’m surprised as to how she phrased her quote (inarticulately).

      • Tara says:

        Charlize’s point over and over again has been about people putting women in boxes and not allowing them complexity and the freedom to embrace their bodies and femininity while going for gritty parts. Here you have examples of people thinking because she looks sexy on a magazine cover she shouldn’t be taken seriously. The two are not mutually exclusive. She can be a serious actress and look hot on a magazine cover. Why not?

      • perplexed says:

        I don’t see any of that in her quote. Her quote didn’t come off as deep as everyone else has contextualized it for her. And I don’t think being a good actress and being beautiful/hot are mutually exclusive either as evidenced by the number of actresses working today who are both. She’s not the only one. She’s won an Oscar, so clearly people do take her seriously.

        At the same time, if she wants to play the role of a nun like Amy Adams did in that Meryl Streep movie, I can see how these kinds of covers might be a hindrance to getting those roles. It’s not like you’re simply playing yourself when you go out for these parts. You’re expected to transform, and that’s where these kinds of covers, rather than one’s actual physical appearance, might hurt some actresses in that regard if those are the roles they’re looking for. No one is saying they can’t be sexy, but if you have to go to an actual audition looking like a nun to prove that you can play that role because you did a GQ cover with your legs up in the air (rather than because you’re a glorious beauty), that seems to me to be a small compromise to make.

    • Christin says:

      This reminds me of how Clooney ‘promoted’ his recent movies. No one has a clue (based on the publicity) what the movie plot is. We just know George has an amazing marriage and Charlize is pointing out problems of the beautiful ones.

      • Anne tommy says:

        He didn’t promote them by posing in his jockstrap on the cover of Cosmopolitan, though, or in denim cut offs in Marie Clare. Personally I’m grateful for that, but Charlize could do a classier pose while still being sexy.

      • Christin says:

        Completely agree. I was trying to think of a male equivalent cover look (not necessarily George doing it), and you have painted the visual. That is not a classy pose, at all.

  40. mayamae says:

    This irritates me as much as men whining about their white man’s burden, and people who get jobs through nepotism, then deny it helped them.

    Charlize has been in industries – modeling and acting – in which her looks have done nothing but give her advantage. And I can’t help but point out that she was born and raised in a country where she was also at great advantage. Seems like it’s given her a sense of entitlement.

  41. Naddie says:

    Oohh man… Let’s all pray for these poor pretty people who are so turned away. Can’t stand this woman. Beauty is only a probem when you make a big deal out of it. Jessoca Szor is a gorgeous actress, yet all eyes were on Blake Lively in Gossip girl.

  42. perplexed says:

    Hollywood is one of the most competitive industries on the planet. I would imagine that when you’re starting out that there might be hundreds of women up for one starter part. So there could be any number of reasons (probably some indefinable) an actress might be turned away for that role. Maybe the agents tell a lot of them they’re too pretty for a certain role to keep their morale up. Even if they don’t get that part, they probably are kept in mind for other roles, which is how some of them, like Charlize Theron, are able to become stars, despite their mind-blowing beauty.

    • Liz says:

      Try thousands. For an under 5 (line) role on a tv show, you can expect over 1000 actresses to be submitted. Especially between the ages of 20-35.

      • perplexed says:

        I figured the numbers had to be larger, but I wasn’t sure. That industry is so competitive. If someone has to fight hard for a part, I think it has more to do with the level of competition than anything else.

        I’m starting to wonder how someone like Jessica Biel or Charlize Theron can even know what their competition looks like if there are so many people competing for a part. In then, it seems to be people like Charlize who rise to the top to become stars and Oscar winners anyway.

  43. caitlinK says:

    I can’t imagine a “plain” girl winning a good role from a pretty girl in Hollywood. It almost NEVER happens. I can actually think of at least 3 examples, 3 films in which plainer actresses should have gotten the roles, but all three went to Hollywood beauty queens instead. Charlize’s “Monster” role was *supposed* to go to a woman who more resembled the homely serial killer it was based on; the director even originally told her she was “too pretty” for the part. But instead of giving a less beautiful girl a break in the industry, they “uglied” the gorgeous Charlize up–to beyond recognition, w prosthetic features and contact lenses and a mandatory 40 pound weight gain. In other words, they went out of their WAY to make sure a beautiful star could have a good, challenging role in a movie, instead of casting someone who more naturally resembled Aileen Wurnos. (sp?) Nicole Kidman was given a prosthetic nose so that, again, a beautiful star could play a role meant for a less pretty girl (author Virginia Woolf.) Halle Berry’s character in Monster’s Ball was originally supposed to be a plain looking waitress; to achieve that look–which she didn’t–this beautiful actress simply had an unflattering haircut and no makeup. In “Frida”, the life story of the Mexican artist, who was NOT, in any way, physically beautiful, they gave the role to gorgeous Salma Hayek, assigning her a unibrow to compensate for her lack of resemblance to the real Frida. My point is that in every ONE of these films, a plainer actress could have been hired for the role, but someone beautiful was hired instead. I just don’t see how Charlize has the nerve to complain that it’s “harder” for pretty people in Hollywood to get good roles—when it’s so blatantly, embarrassingly untrue, esp. when she’s had more of or as many roles as any of her other extremely successful Hollywood peers.

    • Magnoliarose says:

      You sort of proved her point. Salma Hayek should not have been considered for Frida, according to you, because of her looks, even though she did a good job. So then what roles should Salma play? She loved the story, but you are saying she was too pretty for the role. I can see this being true for a talent free beauty but these women aren’t that.

      • perplexed says:

        A plainer but talented person probably could have done a good job too. But in the end the beautiful (and talented) person got the job anyway. Maybe a pretty person has to prove they can play the role, but honestly, given the level of competition, I think anybody in Hollywood has to jump through hoops to prove they can transform, not just pretty people. The ones who are willing to jump through those hoops are probably the ones who get the parts (like Kate Winslet did when she took a selfie of herself in glasses and a brown wig to get the part she wanted in the Steve Jobs movie). The ones not willing to jump those hoops are probably getting stung by bees like Gwyneth.

    • Anne tommy says:

      Salma produced Frida, I think, which puts a different spin on it. I thought she was very good in it, “despite” being a pocket sized goddess.

  44. Paige says:

    I used to love Charlize Theron and I’ve seen Cider House Rules, Sweet November, and Monster many times.

    Every time she gives an interview, I get more turned off. She’s lost a fan.

  45. AnotherDirtyMartini says:

    Oh wahhhhhh, Charlize.

  46. Anare says:

    Angelina Jolie is gorgeous but I would not put Nicole Kidman or Julianne Moore in that same category.

  47. Elle says:

    Why doesn’t she try to be ugly then? Gain some love handles. She’s got the cash; she could have a plastic surgeon bring her features closer to average. I think she doesn’t do any of those things because she knows (like most pretty people who complain do) that being ugly is far, far more difficult.

    • Christin says:

      She once said it takes 2 hours to have her hair and makeup done. There is a celebrity makeup artist who has a 20-minute video on how to do her ‘natural’ smoky eye. It takes most of the 20 minutes to carefully do a ‘made-under’ eye look like she wears.

      When she’s been snapped out running errands without full attention to hair and makeup, she is just a tall blonde. She chooses to play up the ‘glamazon’ image. Case in point is this cover.

      And again, do we know anything about the movie she is currently supposed to be promoting? I would think producers and directors also look for someone who will promote the product versus themselves. I know very little about the private lives of actresses like Meryl and Kathy Bates.

  48. Mo says:

    Oh boo hoo Charlize! Pretty people get everything handed to them in Hollywood ALWAYS, watch me cry real tears. Oddly I don’t even find her gorgeous, she’s pretty enough, but sort of boring looking – she was lovely when she was younger and had that youthful glow but she has a sort of middle aged soccer mom look to her face now, not that there’s anything wrong with that, it’s just not this timeless beauty she seems to consider herself. If she wasn’t 100 feet tall and slim no one would look twice. I just don’t see her as this amazing beauty everyone says she is.