Slashdot Mirror


Why Does Hollywood Remain Out of Step With the Body-Positive Movement? (nytimes.com)

According to a report from The New York Times, Hollywood continues to praise plus-sized actresses in knockout roles and then reduce them to bit parts about physical weight. Slashdot reader cdreimer shares an excerpt from the report: The first thing Danielle Macdonald did at the Cannes Film Festival in May was break into a cold sweat: The airline had lost her luggage. She was already nervous enough. Ms. Macdonald, 26, had been plucked from obscurity to play the lead role in "Patti Cake$," a drama about a rapper that was about to face the Cannes critics. Now she had to find something glamorous to wear -- pronto -- to the premiere. "As a bigger girl," Ms. Macdonald told me recently, "where was I meant to find something that would fit?" Her story then veered in an unexpected direction -- revealing her approach to Hollywood, which expects its lead actresses to be scarily skinny. "I gave myself a pep talk," she said. "This situation is what it is. Find a way to work around it." The red carpet crisis was resolved (another "Patti Cake$" star, Cathy Moriarty, lent her a black dress), but if the experiences of countless actresses before Ms. Macdonald are any indication, it will not be as easy to overcome the career obstacles that await her post-"Patti Cake$."

For women -- less so for men -- weight is perhaps the most stubborn of the entertainment industry's many biases. Have an average-sized body? Call us when you've starved yourself. In particular, Ms. Macdonald must avoid a cycle that plays out over and over in moviedom, one that some film agents coarsely call the fat flavor of the moment. A plus-size actress, almost always an unknown, lands the central role in a film and delivers a knockout performance. She is held up by producers and the entertainment news media as refreshing, long overdue evidence that Hollywood's insistence on microscopic waistlines is ending. And then she is slowly but surely pushed into bit parts, many of which are defined by weight.

16 of 688 comments (clear)

  1. Mo ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... ney.

    Next question, please.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    1. Re:Mo ... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Next question, please.

      Okay, here is the next question: Why is it always about women? Why does Hollywood only use buff guys in leading roles? Why are the male sex symbols never short near-sighted bald guys with beer bellies?

    2. Re:Mo ... by penandpaper · · Score: 5, Insightful

      why is this topic on /. ?

    3. Re:Mo ... by Crashmarik · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Slashdot news for SJWs
      Stuff that doesn't matter in the slightest.

    4. Re:Mo ... by msauve · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Slashdot news for SJWs"

      There's not much new for them. They're way ahead of the news for stuff to be offended about.

      To the poster: attractive bodies of either sex are attractive, even if most of us aren't. Get over yourself and live with the fact that you're ugly. How old is this "body-positive" terminology, and where's the yin to the yang - is there a politically correct "body-negative" view? Sounds like a recent California manufactured thing to me. Sorry about you being unattractive and having to go for some "body-positive" shtick in a lame attempt to get laid..

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    5. Re:Mo ... by saloomy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Every single study done by doctors and healthcare researchers says that being heavy, curvy, fat, or "voluptuous" is bad for your health, leads to a menagerie of diseases, and is the largest impactor of life expectancy, more so than income level.

      So, the "body positive" movement is really a "health - negative" movement. Sorry, but facts are facts.

    6. Re:Mo ... by Calydor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The healthy average is somewhere between Callista Flockhart and Honey Booboo.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
  2. This isn't that complicated by JoshuaZ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hollywood is interested in making money. As long as people prefer to see a certain type of person movies will have more of those people because people will then buy more movie tickets. Most movie stars of both genders are people who are considered to be very good looking for the same reason. Unless you can change the culture, you need to threaten the bottom line. And the Fat Positive movement is still small enough that they are unlikely to be successful in that regard.

    1. Re:This isn't that complicated by Orgasmatron · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The imbalance is in the human genome.

      A woman's suitability for mating is easy to assess visually, mostly. A man's is not, mostly.

      This is wired into us, all of us, at a very deep level. Even when mating isn't on the table, so to speak, we still recognize and respond to women visually - and women do it too! Even little babies do it before they've had a chance to be corrupted by evil white heteronormative cismail white evil bad culture. That means that good looking men get very little of the benefits of good looks that attractive women get, but conversely, unattractive men don't lose as much as unattractive women either.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
  3. Okay by pseudofrog · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm a pro-social-justice person, and I defend a lot of /. stories that stretch the "News for nerds, stuff that matters" line. But no, this one really doesn't belong here. I get why it's here though: Touch on a social justice theme and the clicks and angry comments go on for hours.

  4. What the fuck am I doing at the TMZ website?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What the fuck am I doing at the TMZ website?! I thought I was visiting Slashdot!

  5. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Fuck this horseshit. I can't even go to a tech site without seeing this crap.

  6. Answer: Attractiveness by Kunedog · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Customers spend more money on what they're attracted to. Stop trying to do "conversion therapy" on them like a 20th century Puritan who can't stand the thought of a gay man.

  7. What would be because 'Body Positivity' is a sham by Noishkel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There is literally nothing positive about being fat. You feel worse, your cloths don't fit well, you smell bad, oh and it will FREAKING KILL YOU.

    I'm sorry, if that's so much of a hard reality then you really need to readdress your priority that you're personality is so fragile that you have to try to make everyone else feel as bad as you just to get by. But you're kill yourself, and encourage people to NOT try and address extreme weight issues is doing way more damage to other people that your own hurt feelings. Hey, I used to weight 370 pounds. Worked my literally ass off to get down to about 290. It's hard, it sucks, but it's what you have to do if you intend to make it past about 40.

  8. "AVERAGE SIZE" by bigwill666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I looked at 5 seconds of the trailer for that movie. I hope that lady is not average sized, or else this country is worse than I thought.

  9. Re:What would be because 'Body Positivity' is a sh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Exactly this. "Body Positive" is euphemism, it is code for "fat is OK". Fat is not OK. Normalizing fatness leads to more fatness. I read a study that determined that the best predictor of obesity was not genetics, it was your social circle. If you hang out with and associate with fat people, you are more likely to be fat. Obesity is a self perpetuating epidemic that has no upside.