Heather Matarazzo ‘wholeheartedly disagrees’ with Charlize Theron

wenn22854003

This probably says too much about me, but I mostly know Heather Matarazzo from her role as “the best friend” in The Princess Diaries movies. Heather works consistently though and she’s had a solid career as a character actress for two decades, working in film and TV. I think she’s very pretty in a normal way, like a cute neighbor or a pretty woman at the gym. But yes, Heather is not Hollywood-gorgeous in that she doesn’t look like a model. She’s not tall or leggy and she’s not getting offers to represent beauty products, fragrances or fashion.

So, Heather had some thoughts about Charlize Theron’s British GQ interview, in which Charlize really and truly complained about how life is so unfair for six-foot tall blonde beauties. Charlize told GQ: “How many roles are out there for the gorgeous, f–king, gown-wearing eight-foot model? When meaty roles come through, I’ve been in the room and pretty people get turned away first.” Yes, play the smallest violin in the world for poor gorgeous Charlize and all of the hideously ugly actresses who get the roles that were supposed to be for Charlize! Anyway, Heather tweeted a link to Variety’s coverage of the interview with this comment:

Then Heather tweeted: “Maybe Charlize Theron should read my piece questioning ‘What the F–k is F–kable?’ in terms of the industry.” She linked to a blog post she wrote last year, which you can read here (NSFW for language). It’s a piece about what it’s like – as an actress – to be told by directors, producers and financiers that you are not right for a role because you are not “f—kable.” As in, actresses are turned down for work all the time because the men in charge don’t want to imagine sleeping with them. I believe Heather. And I think Charlize is f—king kidding herself if she thinks her model beauty is a hindrance in her career. And I hope more people call her out on it.

charlize gq

Photos courtesy of WENN.

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

98 Responses to “Heather Matarazzo ‘wholeheartedly disagrees’ with Charlize Theron”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. mkyarwood says:

    I wonder what the one role is she lost to someone else, for her to bring it up. It just sounds like she was sure she was going to get something, someone else got it, and she was like ‘well, they got it because they’re ugly’, in some kind of justification to herself. I think loads of typically pretty actresses are ‘uglied up’ for roles, herself included.

    • Mel M says:

      Right? Honestly with everything I’ve read about her and that fact that she actually got serious with Sean Penn who also has no self awareness I think this is about right.

    • it's like you know says:

      I bet this is exactly what happened, just like this.

      • lisa says:

        i do too

        i also bet no name actress is ever told, “we went with a stronger actress” but I’m sure that is often the reasoning. just because you were told you were too pretty or you inferred it, doesnt make it so.

    • MezzDame says:

      And if it wasn’t what she told herself, then perhaps that was what her agent told her rather than face eight feet of gowned fury….

    • Shaz says:

      Poor poor gorgeous me. Don’t hear her complaining about all the doors her looks opened. Maybe if she actually got into acting because of her acting talent and years of study, and not her beauty, I’d feel sympathy.

    • You Mother says:

      I think it was Chicago. She had it locked down until Renee Zellwegger got the part.

  2. Luca76 says:

    To me she will always be Dawn Wiener from Welcome to the Dollhouse ALWAYS!!!

  3. Esther says:

    good, we need to talk way more about the advantages of conventionally attractive people. even very socially aware people spend considerable amounts of time worshipping people that were simply born symmetrical.

    • Brittney B. says:

      Yep.

      It’s completely unfair — ableist, even — and the conditioning is so artificial and forced that biological instincts (preferring symmetry for mating reasons) have almost nothing to do with it at this point.

      I’m one of those people who is “conventionally attractive” to some but downright ugly to others… but I have friends who fall solidly into one category or the other, and the privilege of the absolutely gorgeous people… it’s undeniable. It’s night and day, walking into a store or restaurant or club with my former model friend vs. anyone else. But I also see the objectification and the inability to look past her looks, and I know older women who are still beautiful, but now feel invisible and ignored because of the sheer amount of attention they got as young pretty things. It isn’t even exclusively about the male gaze; some of the best peer-reviewed journals have published studies about lower professional expectations/higher monetary rewards for attractive men and women.

      Sorry I started rambling… anyway, I HIGHLY recommend Cameron Russell’s TED talk if you’re interested in the topic of beauty privilege and the problematic nature of focusing on appearance.

      • Esther says:

        yeah its pretty interesting that also straight people see people with conventional good looks as better people.

        even babies have that and thats a good indicator its part of our makeup and not solely a social construct. (there are some social parts like race or that taller men earn more than shorter men.)

        im often amazed how little people seem to care about when its one of the most obvious advantages in life. more money, better grades, lower jail sentences and lots of jobs only exist for beautiful people! i mean some women PASS OUT when they see a good looking male celeb.

        if we are angry about men being paid more we need to be angry about pretty people making more. its harder to determine though.

        btw i have seen the TED talk a while ago. iits great but i think is soo deeply in us it will be near impossible to change.

  4. Who ARE these people? says:

    Charlize “I Believed the Pantene Ads” Theron.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz8ul-gmLyA

    • Christin says:

      Her comments made me think of that 1980s ad slogan the other day! I forgot it was Pantene, though.

      • Who ARE these people? says:

        I had to look it up, but the “Don’t hate me because I’m beautiful” tag line stuck.

  5. Dolkite says:

    I always thought HM was really attractive and I was kind of bummed out when she came out as gay, though there’s no chance she’d date me even if she was straight.

    The one girl in life I fell in love with looked like her with red hair.

    • V4Real says:

      I’m so glad C/B did a post on Heather. I mentioned her a few weeks ago on another post. I met Heather in a local hangout in midtown Manhattan. We used to hang out a lot. I sort of got a I’m into women vibe from her and it was confirmed the night she asked me out on a date. She was really cool and down to earth. She didn’t try to use her fame to stand out and a lot of people recognized her. To us she was just Heather, a hangout buddy.

      • Brittney B. says:

        You buried the lead there, V4Real!!

        My 13-year-old self is seething with jealous.

      • V4Real says:

        Oh and though we went on that date I never made out with her. But I should have just for bragging rights. We remained friendly for about a year after that but then we lost touch.

        Also around that time she was only about 21 or 22. I seem to attract men and women that are a few years younger than me.

  6. Kitten says:

    I’m sure I’ll get slammed for this but I’m not sure I really understand how her essay contradicts Charlize’s comment. I also found her essay quite….confusing.

    “For me, I had to stop sitting shiva, remove the blanket from my mirror and look. I had to look at my gorgeous face, with my piercing blue eyes, my pouty lips, small chin, slightly crooked nose, full teeth and smile. I had to really look at myself and see my beauty, and once I could accept the harsh reality that I was indeed, not only fuckable, but fucking beautiful, everything started to change. The roles I started to get called in for were women who were ‘beautiful, confident, secure’, they were complex, they had bite, they had depth.”

    So….she’s basically saying that she’s unconventionally beautiful and that directors, casting agents and the HWood machine made her feel ugly by telling her that she’s “unf*ckable” and that made her feel like crap about herself. Ok, got it. Then she goes on to say that she wasn’t getting roles because of her own self-perception because as soon as she started feeling good about herself she started getting the meatier, complex roles. Ok…?

    …so wouldn’t that PROVE what Charlize’s point that the more complex roles go to the women who have talent and presence, not the standard pretty face?

    Maybe I’m just misunderstanding her.

    I don’t think anybody could deny that being beautiful is an asset in Hollywood and that it’s an image-driven, brutal industry. But I don’t see how that contradicts Charlize’s point that the meaty roles aren’t automatically handed over to the prettiest woman. Otherwise, Alba Biel etc would have thriving careers working with the best directors.

    Charlize should have phrased it differently, but I still think what she said is likely true. I would feel differently if Charlize had said “Being beautiful in Hollywood is a hindrance because roles are not formulated for beautiful women” but her point was specifically about the GOOD roles, the meatier roles, the roles that top actresses fight for–or at least that’s how I understood her comment.

    • perplexed says:

      I think Charlize may have erred in saying that pretty people get shown the door first, not necessarily that pretty people don’t get the best roles (that’s not inarguable). It was the part about how she’s been in the room, and that pretty women have to leave first that made me go “wait, that can’t be right.” I suspect that’s the part of the statement some of us are reacting to the most.

      Even the part where Charlize used the word gorgeous didn’t make me flinch, because she really is THAT pretty. But of course I would have flinched if any other actress had. (That was a tangent, I know).

      • Kitten says:

        “It was the part about how she’s been in the room, and that pretty women have to leave first that made me go ‘wait, that can’t be right.’ ”

        I agree completely that was a dumb way to put it and of course people will read that and be like “oh yes, beautiful women suffer so much in Hollywood” followed by eye-roll.
        She articulated her point incredibly poorly but I still think that she’s probably right.

    • V4Real says:

      “But I don’t see how that contradicts the idea that the meaty roles aren’t automatically handed over to the prettiest woman. Otherwise, Alba Biel etc would have thriving careers working with the best directors.”

      No they wouldn’t because though pretty, their acting talents are about as deep as a mud puddle.

      But beautiful women have had meaty roles, Cate Blanchet, Angelina Jolie, Julia Roberts, Demi Moore and Halle Berry to name a few. Also let’s not forget people like Streep and Jessica Lange were beautiful in their younger years.

      • Kitten says:

        Oh I agree but I think that’s because they have the talent in conjunction with the great looks.

        Even Angelina (and I *think* we both agree on this V4Real) as beautiful as she is, isn’t necessarily the most fantastically-talented actress out there (notice how lightly I’m treading so as not to awaken The Beast) and even though she’s STUNNING in every sense of the word, she’s not getting the roles that say, J Law is.

        I realize that this is totally subjective but I’ve always found J Law very plain-looking. She gets the great roles because she brings something special to the screen. JMO but to me Lawrence has the gravitas to make complex characters believable.

      • perplexed says:

        I think of J-Law as being more charismatic than beautiful (at least in the bombshell way Charlize is), but I also think of charisma as a kind of beauty (which is less explicable and more mysterious). And I definitely think charisma can be more powerful than beauty (i.e the difference between Kate Middleton and Princess Diana. Both are/were beautiful as royals, especially compared to the rest of the Windsor family, but Diana’s charisma was more powerful). I don’t know if Charlize is factoring in the power of charisma enough in getting certain parts (never mind talent) — a less attractive person probably has gotten a role over her in the past, but I doubt that person was completely talentless. I mean, charisma is the only explanation I have for how Sean Penn managed to land her in the first place.

      • V4Real says:

        @Kit I like JLaw but as you can see I didn’t include her in my beautiful list. I think she’s pretty but not a take your breath away beauty as some of the others I’ve mentioned. Though some people find her quite beautiful.

        I do think AJ is a good actress, but I have never said she was a great one. So yeah, we agree. People can take that how they want, it’s my opinion. And though I’m not a fan of Theron I really liked her in Mad Max and some of her vulnerable roles such as The Devils Advocate, The Astronaut’s Wife and I can’t help it but I never grow tired of Mighty Joe Young. Don’t Judge Me.

        BTW Keira Knightly is another very attractive actress that has had some pretty decent roles.

      • perplexed says:

        Here’s a funny interview where Keira is asked about her prettiness:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FypcyrvpTp4

      • Kitten says:

        @V4Real-Keira’s a great example of a woman who is both beautiful and talented.

        Yet everybody loves Keira.

        That’s the thing about Charlize…I think people like to hate her because she presents an iciness and aloofness that we find off-putting.

    • littlemissnaughty says:

      “But I don’t see how that contradicts Charlize’s point that the meaty roles aren’t automatically handed over to the prettiest woman.” I don’t think that was actually the point Charlize made though. Her problem was that for some roles, beauty was actually a hindrance. That being beautiful disqualified her. I still want to know which parts she is talking about and who got them. Because this whole discussion is moot unless we know who actually did get those parts. Because there are SO many gorgeous people in Hollywood playing complex and interesting characters that I just don’t see her problem. It’s the “You’re just jealous” argument. They didn’t want her so she was too beautiful. Please.

      And btw., the fact that even supposedly unattractive characters are played by gorgeous people dressing up as the ugly duckling should tell us everything. So the character is ugly but we’re still going to give it to the gorgous one because hey, we do have to go promote this thing. Come ON.

      ETA: “…so wouldn’t that PROVE what Charlize’s point that the more complex roles go to the women who have talent and presence, not the standard pretty face?” Again, I just don’t think this is right. Because who are we talking about? She thinks she is the whole package but got turned away because of her beauty and THAT is crap.

      • SloaneY says:

        This! You have to be way above average in the looks department to even get into the audition in Hollywood. Charlize is basically complaining that the 1% of the 1% of beautiful people don’t get complex roles because of said beauty. Which, I bet, isn’t even true in about 80% of cases.
        Sour grapes, methinks.

      • Esther says:

        “And btw., the fact that even supposedly unattractive characters are played by gorgeous people dressing up as the ugly duckling should tell us everything. So the character is ugly but we’re still going to give it to the gorgous one because hey, we do have to go promote this thing. Come ON.”

        this!

      • Kitten says:

        Guys-Charlize PRODUCED “Monster”. It was her pet project so she decided to cast herself in that role (she did a phenomenal job BTW) like a LOT of actresses do. She’s someone who has experienced a lot of personal heartache and thought that would translate well into a character like Aileene Wuornos. I don’t know why she should get slammed for that? Are you saying because she’s beautiful that she’s unable to play a character who is not?

        Aside from that, your entire position is based on the supposition that she was talking about herself with the “8 ft tall gown-wearing woman” comment. I didn’t take it that way at all. I took it as her referring to the standard model/aspiring actress that are a dime a dozen in Hwood.

        It’s hard to argue when we disagree on her intention. You interpreted it as her complaining about being too beautiful to get roles and I took it as her saying that the great roles don’t automatically go to beautiful women.

        And I agree with her.

        Too bad Charlize isn’t here to elaborate..

        *shrugs*

      • mee says:

        Littlemissnaughty nailed it. The reason people are calling bs on poor Charlize’s interview is because it’s sour grapes for the times she didn’t get a role, probably due to losing to someone more talented than her. It’s not due to her looks. She is in the room because of her looks,not her talent.

        The examples of other talented and maybe not as “glamour girl beautiful” as Charlize actors – jlaw, blanchett- don’t support Charlize’s point that they gorgeous Amazon is shown the door,first, but that the more talented won out. Btw I don’t think Charlize is all that – she looks kind of plain actually when not made up, but she definitely has the stature and symmetrical features that can look striking.

    • FingerBinger says:

      @Kitten You won’t get slammed by me. I can’t agree with Heather but be dismissive of Charlize. Both of their experiences can be valid.

    • Eden75 says:

      This is what I was trying to say in my comments on Charlize’s article.

      Thanks for being way more articulate than i :)

    • Magnoliarose says:

      I took it to mean that she has been on the other side when casting decisions were made and noticed a trend. Other actresses have complained but Charlize is not the type to soften her words or present it in a dainty package.
      Many times a star can be present during auditions and have championed someone who gets shot down for a variety of reasons.
      Heather’s confession confuses me too. She disagrees but in a roundabout way actually agrees.
      She never said beauty makes it hard to have “a” career but it can decide what “type” of career an actress has.
      So then it’s pretty actresses are made unattractive for meaty roles unfairly, but then it proves her point that it’s a hindrance sometimes.
      Plain actresses complain they don’t get to be the sought after beauty and then full figured complain that they have to be funny and sexless. Every person can only speak about their own experiences. All arguments have merit and exceptions. Actresses want good roles and don’t like to be shut out because of age, size or looks. And all are right.

      • Kitten says:

        “So then it’s pretty actresses are made unattractive for meaty roles unfairly, but then it proves her point that it’s a hindrance sometimes.”

        Exactly.

        What’s funny is that the filmmaker, Patty Jenkins (a WOMAN) floated the script for Monster to Charlize after seeing her work in The Devil’s Advocate.
        I mean…can we still say that this was a case of people rewarding the most beautiful among us when it was a heterosexual woman who reached out to Theron because of her outstanding work in a previous movie?

      • perplexed says:

        “So then it’s pretty actresses are made unattractive for meaty roles unfairly, but then it proves her point that it’s a hindrance sometimes.”

        I don’t think asking actresses to look unattractive means that the looks are proven to be a hindrance. I think it’s simply requesting that they change certain flexible aspects of their appearance for that particular character because you’re acting, not playing yourself. Plus, I think anyone can look unattractive if one shows up in certain clothes and haircuts. Looking pretty is partly about grooming too, and having a sense of style (like Charlize does), and knowing how to enhance certain assets (or having the interest to do so). For acting, you would de-hance them because that’s what that particular part might require. Or go the other direction and up the ante if you’re in a James Bond movie…

        Asking an actress to change a flexible part of her appearance is like asking Ben Affleck to bulk up for Batman. Kate Winslet did that for Steve Jobs, and I think she sees that as part of her job, not necessarily as an extra hurdle to climb (although it probably helps to mention the transformation during Oscar time to get a nomination).

      • SloaneY says:

        But it’s obviously not a hindrance if pretty or beautiful people are still getting uglied up to play a role. Name me 5 women who are not pretty, who are regularly getting good meaty roles.
        Kathy Bates, I’ll give you one for free.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      I can see where Charlize is coming from, too. I think she put it awkwardly, but there are disadvantages to being conventionally very beautiful. I also think there are advantages, and they outweigh the disadvantages, and if I had to choose, I’d probably pick beautiful, but I don’t think it comes without some downside. Some women are going to hate you for something you can’t help. People might make judgments about your intelligence if you have a certain kind of beauty. I can see how a movie producer might want a less conventional beauty for a very substantive role. I think part of the problem is made clear by the reaction to Charlize’s original statement – eye rolling (including me) and disbelief. You’re gorgeous so you don’t get to have problems. Stfu.

      • perplexed says:

        I think it’s the way she worded her statement that incited reaction, not that I don’t believe that a beautiful person can have problems. Because she’s an industry where she’s competing with other beautiful women, my automatic reaction was to think that she most likely lost a role to another beauty. And, no, I don’t think she’s saying she’s the most beautiful woman ever, but I think her statement came across as though she was forgetting that her competition is most likely other pretty women (okay, maybe not women as tall as her, but still pretty). I’m more likely to think she may have lost a role to Nicole Kidman than to Heather Matarazzo.

  7. ladysussex says:

    I missed commenting on this story yesterday. I just want to tell CT to take a seat. Did she get turned away from Monster? She won the top awards for that movie. Playing the evil queen in Snow White is pretty meaty too. And yeah, poor thing. Bless her sweet little heart. She should be grateful that she works regularly, makes top dollar, has lots of beauty contracts and Dior paying her millions. So she just needs to STHU!

    • Josefina says:

      IIRC, Charlize produced that movie. So we could say she cast herself.

      • SloaneY says:

        And how did she get to the place where she could be a producer and hire herself? By being beautiful enough to model and get into acting without the hurdles that less beautiful people have.

      • FingerBinger says:

        @SloaneY You’re over simplifying it. You should read up on how monster was made. It wasn’t as simple as Charlize was beautiful and money was thrown at her.

      • perplexed says:

        But she was able to get into the industry in the first place because of her beauty. She established a name, in part due to her beauty, and was then able to produce the movie. She did cast herself, and on the one hand, we could see that as evidence of an actress casting herself in a role a director might not have given her otherwise, but, on the other hand, I also suspect that the people funding the movie were on board with handing over money because she was established to some degree. When Natalie Portman produced her movie about Israel, she was told it was better to cast herself because she was a known entity rather than to go with an unknown, even though Portman herself was willing to cast somebody else.

      • SloaneY says:

        My point was that she would likely never be in a position to produce a movie at all if she hadn’t been beautiful enough to get a foot in the door of the industry. Didn’t she get into acting through modeling? It’s not like she worked her way up from assistant stage managing A Doll’s House at the community college theater to producing a Hollywood film.

      • FingerBinger says:

        @SloaneY I understand but I’ll reiterate you’re over simplifying. Most actors however they look start producing projects. In a roundabout way you’re proving Charlize’s point.

      • Magnoliarose says:

        @FingerBinger that has been my point. This is basically saying there is no way by hard work, intelligence and maneuvering that she had a movie made. No, it’s her looks.
        Therefore proving the bias.

      • perplexed says:

        I believe Charlize has worked hard. But Hollywood is also a looks-based and highly visual industry which covets a certain kind of beauty and sexiness. So I don’t think she’d necessarily face the same stigma for her beauty that an attractive lawyer might face in a courtroom of an attractive female professor facing a group of young men. Women in those professions probably have to alter how they dress or do their make-up in order for people to hear their words. Someone in an intellectual profession talking about the drawbacks of beauty is probably easier to sympathize with than someone in a looks-based industry where wearing a see-through dress to a premiere for work-related purposes isn’t considered odd.

      • SloaneY says:

        But there are MILLIONS of people who work hard, are intelligent, creative and pay their dues and NEVER get the opportunities that she has. Simply because they are not “beautiful”.

  8. SJO says:

    Thanks Heather,
    far more typical are
    Michelle Pfeiffer in Frankie and Johnnie. A film about an ex con and a diner waitress originally written for Kathy Bates. Love Michelle but she is hardly Kathy Bates. Wonder why they didn’t cast Kathy…..hmm
    Or Susan Sarandon in White Castle. If you read the (amazing) book the character Susan plays is pretty crusty. Hardly the ever f’able Susan.
    Over the years Hollywood has become younger and more impossibly beautiful. Its a pretty sad state of affairs considering it is now 2016. If things keep up like this in 20 years every actress will be an impossibly beautiful 22 year old. Either that or all roles will be played by the children of Will and Jada Smith.

  9. HKG says:

    Totally agree with Matazzaro. I had a very renowned theatre director tell my friend, an asst. director, that he couldn’t see from a previous performance that I had any sexual appeal. He ended up casting me as a lesbian.

  10. Daisy says:

    Charlize is too tall for a lot of the leading men who tend to be on the shorter side and don’t want some Olive Oil with aggressive tendencies cramping their style.

  11. Ramona Q. says:

    What great, lead parts have been given to “unattractive” women in modern cinema? I can think of only one: Francis McDormand in Fargo.

    • mee says:

      Exactly. Charlize should just stop while she’s still pretty. Once she loses her looks she’ll complain about how all the roles go to younger actors whom directors want to f—-.

  12. Patricia says:

    I’m considered beautiful. I’m also tall. I’m also somewhat heavy.
    I known plenty of women who are thin, plain, and short. They are more easily brushed over and ignored. They have a harder time getting a job, a taxi, a bartender’s attention, and respect in general. It makes me mad for them, because I clearly see the way (men especially) treat them versus me, who looks men straight in the eye and can charm with my looks.
    Charleze lives in a parallel reality. For most people, being tall and beautiful is absolutely an advantage. I have used my height and looks to my advantage throughout my life and I’ll be the first one to say: it absolutely gives you an advantage. And it’s nothing I did or anyone did to deserve it. It’s genetics and the way you learn to hold yourself.
    I’m not tooting my own horn. I’m not a model and my weight is a struggle. I’m not perfect but I do have physical qualities that I never had to work for that make some things easier for me. And if I denied that I’d be a smacked ass.

    • Naddie says:

      Honest question: Do you think that the way someone holds her/himself can somehow overshadow beauty? In other words, if Charlize didn’t spend 1 hour putting her make up on and had the body language of a Kristen Stewart, would the “misfortune of being pretty” go away?

      • Patricia says:

        Probably yes, it can make a difference. Don’t we all know at least one very petite woman who feels much bigger in person because of her commanding personality? Or at least one woman who isn’t conventionally “pretty” but she looks beautiful because of the amount of confidence she exudes?

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      I agree with you, Patricia, and as I said above, I think the advantages of being beautiful far outweigh the disadvantages. But there are some disadvantages, mainly the hostility of some other women. I had a friend in New York who was an aspiring actor – just a beautiful girl and sweet and kind, to boot. Other women hated her. She worked as a waitress for awhile, and the other waitresses resented her so much no one would give her any extra time and they treated her like dirt. As I said, she was a truly nice person, and she bent over backwards not to offend people, but they wouldn’t give her a chance. I’ve seen variations of that my whole life.

    • nina says:

      I never knew being tall was an advantage for women?

  13. JenniferJustice says:

    What I find curious is that Charlize did get the role for Monster/Aileen Wournos and she totally uglied herself for it – and successfully…fantastically! It was a meaty role. But now she’s saying she can’t get roles unless they’re for pretty women. She just played the warrior chick in the Mad Max remake, a weathered, one-armed, buzzed-cut woman. They didn’t play on her looks, so…..Huh?

    As for Heather, let’s be honest. If a movie is calling for an actress whose playing a seductress or love interest to a good-looking male lead, she isn’t going to fit that role. If she were going for a girl-next door, non-threatening character (looks-wise), she would be a better fit. She hasn’t had any major roles and will probably never be a leading actress because she isn’t a very good actress. She’s okay, but she’s not stellar. I’ve only ever seen her in bit parts such as Law and Order, and Roseanne. There are all kinds of beauty, but why do we have to pander to these celebs’ ego and pretend she is something she is not. She is not pretty. She is not sexy. She is not a great actress. She’s destined to small roles.

    Sounds like they both aren’t accepting something.

  14. perplexed says:

    If she’s up for a role, I think she’d be probably be put on a list with the other beautiful but substantial actresses. I think Cate Blanchett is going to be her competition, not Kathy Bates. I think what’s off-putting about her remark is failng to account for the fact that a talented and gifted person probably did get a role she wanted, regardless of whether that person was beautiful or not.

    On paper, she was too pretty to play the role she did in Monster. But then so was the rest of Hollywood, most likely. They would have had to ugly up anybody who played that role since that character wasn’t even in-between beautiful and less attractive, which is a more common standard of appearance you’d see in real life. It’s not like real life people are that ugly either, never mind Hollywood people. Our next door neighbours are probably better looking than that character was. Maybe some Hollywood actresses, in their bubble, are forgetting that real-life people aren’t usually that ill-groomed and terrible looking with jutting teeth and unconditioned hair.

  15. kri says:

    sigh. Charlize was born that way. She can empathize, sympathize, etc. but she will never be able to experience it. I find that the US film industry is so geared to the 14 year-old male ideal fantasy woman (and man) that it’s just crazy. And when someone does get “ugly” for a role (hi charlize) they get an academy award for it. I’m not dismissing CT’s acting-she’s damn good-I’m just saying that beauty brings privilege-especially for women.

  16. Snowflake says:

    I agree with Charlie. I think if you are a good looking actor, you get put into “pretty roles.” If you’re not as good looking, you get cast for character roles. And it’s hard to get out of that box. It would take more work to make a actor look plain for a role. Also, Hollywood values pretty people more, so they want to keep them in that leading actor role. Whether you are pretty or not as pretty, you get stuck in that role and its harder to get out of it. I don’t we why people are telling out over her comment. I think I’m taking it the way she means it.

    Btw she was phenomenal in Monster. If you haven’t seen it, you should.

    • perplexed says:

      To some degree, a pretty actress can be pigeonholed by their looks. But I also think they can overcome it if they’re not a complete idiot. I’ve always thought of Charlize Theron as beautiful, but not a bimbo. On the other hand, someone like Jessica Simpson probably hasn’t overcome a certain stereotype in my eyes. Despite her beauty, I’ve always thought of Charlize as being fairly intelligent and strong. It’s never struck to me to categorize as a beauty who is dumb or has no personality to speak of. And although she is a bombshell, I do think her beauty conveys a certain depth, not Kim Kardashian vapidness. Some beautiful women can be thought of as intelligent too, and she’s one of them. Honestly, I think it comes down to how you carry yourself. Jennifer Love Hewitt isn’t 8 feet tall or model-ly looking, though attractive, but there was a time when I probably thought she was a bit of a bimbo, but not simply because of her looks. It was her talking about her va-jazzling that made me think that…

      • perplexed says:

        “It’s never struck to me to categorize as a beauty who is dumb or has no personality to speak of.”

        Sorry, that should read as follows: “”It’s never struck me to categorize Charlize Theron as a beauty who is dumb or has no personality to speak of.”

  17. shannon says:

    Welcome to the Dollhouse, Saved, etc.

  18. Adrien says:

    It’s funny because I always thought Chalize gets the best roles because she’s not intimidatingly hot like Cameron Diaz or Nicole Kidman. She looks like an regular tall woman with too much confidence. She is a friendly looking Katherine Heigl.

    • Snowflake says:

      That’s funny, I don’t think Cameron is that pretty. I think Charlize and Nicole are stunning, cam is girl next door pretty. Still pretty. Funny how people have different tastes.

    • perplexed says:

      I think some of Charlize Theron’s untouchability as a beauty does from her confidence. She carries herself like she knows she’s beautiful (which, in her case, enhances her beauty, rather than detracts from it). Thus, for getting the part of a less -good-looking person, I would think she’d simply have to adjust that and, you know, act like a less good-looking person. If she still loses a role despite doing so, I think that’s simply because the director probably just found someone who suited the role better. I don’t think that’s losing in a traditional sense of being denied an opportunity because you have something others don’t have — you’re losing to someone who was probably your equal in talent or some other gift. With the number of people competing for roles, I don’t think women lose roles just for being pretty. I think it’s a whole range of factors than can determine why you didn’t get to play a certain character, which is different from losing a job as a secretary because you might have been too pretty for the boss’s wife to handle.

      Someone like Maura Tierney is a really good actress and probably considered less good-looking in the traditional sense from Theron, but I don’t think she’d be on the same list as Theron for a part because she’d probably be auditioning for tv, not movies. Theron’s movie competition are good-looking women too. (And in real life I’m likely to think Tierney would also be considered attractive, even if she’s not a statuesque model like Theron. In Hollywood the range is likely to go from pretty to less pretty, not pretty to completely ugly). If Theron was younger (and maybe even an unknown), she probably would have been snapped up to play Leo Dicaprio’s wife in Wolf of Wall Street, which it appears some actresses wanted to play.

  19. anna says:

    I love that Charlize can even say that, when she not only played a meaty and unattractive part as Ailleen Wuornos in Monster, but got a friggin Oscar for it. Go away Charlize

  20. Pepper says:

    I do think a certain kind of beauty can be a small hindrance. When I think of all the top/most awarded dramatic actresses, almost all are certainly conventionally attractive, fairly slim, nice hair/teeth etc. But few are rare breathtaking beauties. They can all play a ‘regular woman’ without a crazy amount of ‘uglying up’.

    Like Naomi Watts, Laura Linney, Jodie Foster, Meryl Streep, Amy Adams, Viola Davis, Julia Roberts, Emma Thompson, Kate Winslet, Julianne Moore, Brie Larson, J-Law etc. All conventionally attractive, pretty to beautiful women, absolutely. But if I saw them on street, regular clothes, not all made up, they wouldn’t really stand out as exceptionally stunning. Attractive, yes, but not that ‘I can’t take my eyes off them’ beauty. Then there’s women like Cate and Tilda who are absolutely stunning, but in a slightly off-kilter way.

    I do think Charlize’s looks have probably lost her some roles. She’s tall and has that model look, so if nothing else I’d say that causes some problems when finding male actors to star with her. She’s taller and more attractive than most of them, so if she doesn’t want the trophy girlfriend/wife roles she’s somewhat limited as far as films that feature standard romantic relationships (which a lot of the best dramas do). I think there’s a reason she and Angelina pivoted into action.

    I also think actresses with that VS model kind of look struggle a bit. If you look like Megan Fox, you could be the next Meryl, but good luck getting out of the ‘hot girlfriend’ box.

    • perplexed says:

      I think if you’re truly talented/gifted/charismatic you can get out of the “hot girlfriend” box. You probably just have to be willing to prove yourself. Which I think Charlize did. But I don’t know if other actresses are either that determined or have the talent. Jessica Alba said she’d change the writer’s words when acting… because? — maybe why don’t you try concentrating on becoming skilled at acting before you try and mess with what’s been written for you? I also don’t think having to prove yourself is too much to ask of anyone. Beautiful actresses (some, not all) are the only people I’ve seen talking about proving one’s self as if it’s unusual — that’s what everyone else has to do, why not them too? Do beautiful women in other careers talk about having to prove themselves as if it’s some odd thing? I wouldn’t think so.

      I also think beautiful actresses have to remember that their industry is extremely competitive. If it’s hard getting out of a certain box, it might be because the industry is so money-driven and there are so many people competing for one part. It might not be just about looks when it comes to losing a part. Maybe Charlize lost a part, not because the other person was less good-looking, but because that person was a known entity who was considered reliable for a project of a certain magnitude. If Sandra Bullock were up for a part against Megan Fox, and Bullock won the part, it could simply be because we all know that Bullock brings in the money.

    • Naddie says:

      Megan Fox is not a good example, tho. She falls in the same category as Jessica Simpson or Amber Heard, who make an effort to be the hot dumb character.
      I think Emma Stone is the only physically stunning young actress who’s mainstream and get good roles.

  21. perplexed says:

    Some have noted Charlize’s aloofness and whether that makes her appear icy and thus less accessible. After seeing this interview, I wonder if she appears more remote because of the accent change — maybe the change in accent and lower voice has changed the vibe she gives off. She seems really sweet here with her original accent…and higher voice:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rscqutP0hoY

  22. Stadun says:

    I agree with both of them, mostly because I believe that as a male casting he is going to use an excuse/reason to not cast someone & that reason/excuse is going to be what holds the power over the women. So for Charlize the reasoning will be different than for another actress. Unfortunately, they don’t come out and say “Um, I’m just not feeling it’s you. But try again next time.” They use the auditions as a power play- you’re too heavy, you’re too thin, white, black, ethnic, generic…whatever they can say to make you examine yourself and see if something needs to change. It’s the little man scrapping for some power in the trickle-down system of Hollywood.