I often blog about
my many experiences as a student at Stephens College, experiences which ultimately drove me to transfer to SCAD.
As a theatre major, I spent a lot of time liing, eating, working and learning with 35 women and 5 men. Something that I kept hearing over and over and over again by some professors, but mostly my classmates was "marketability". What is marketability? Essentially, it's like prostitution minus the sex. The questions everyone kept asking was "how can I get the professors/casting directors/agents to want me?". Friends started crash diets and manic exercise routines because their curves made them "unmarketable". People thought I was strange for cutting and dying my hair because apparently having short, red hair made someone "unmarketable". They obsessed with how to dress for auditions. They overloaded their schedules, sometimes taking 24 credit hours a semester so that they could learn new "marketable" skills. If you asked them "What is your type?" they could answer you immediately: Ingenue. Mezzo-Soprano Broadway Belter. Character Actor. I'm more of a director/stage manager. Et cetera.
I never bought into all of the marketability bullshit. How on earth could I know what my "type" was at eighteen/nineteen? Why would I want to rob my body of nutrients when I had such an intense schedule with classes, rehearsals, and crew credits? Why did I have to keep my hair at shoulder length when I found that to be really annoying and unflattering? Why did I have to buy into all of the sexist bullshit that exists in the entertainment world instead of trying to fight it?
I thought about all of this when I saw the Vanity Fair "Young Hollywood" cover:
Vanity Fair literally calls these actresses "dolls". This is disturbing on all kinds of levels. It's an insult to the actresses (why aren't there any young, up-and-coming actors featured?), because actors are living, breathing human beings that must actively transform into another person, while dolls are lifeless and inanimate. Don't get me wrong, these women are very talented and have been in a lot of great films. But to say taht they were only chosen because of their "doll-like" qualities is an insult to them, and its also an insult to the many young, up-and-coming actresses that *aren't* thin and white (*cough* Zoe Saldana *cough* Gabourey Sidibe *cough cough*). Sidibe has shown us that you don't have to be pale and waif like to take on an "edgy" role and get nominated for an Oscar. Zaldana has shown us that you can take awesome action roles that arent *just* about being sexy/sexually available.
If Hollywood is about making films about life, then ther should be (if you'll excuse my hyperbole) A GAZILLION different roles for young actors of all shapes, sizes, colors, religions, backgrounds, sexual orientations, and gender identities. VF can's say that there weren't enough not-white-not-skinny women in Hollywood for the cover, and pass the blame off to directors and screenwriters, who'll then pass off the blame to someone else, and so on and so forth. Each aspect of the entertainment industry, including the magazines that report on it, should take charge and call for a. more great women's roles in general, and b. more diversity, and c. create an environment where actors can live and work without the fear that they'll lose any chance of success if they do not fit a specific, and often unhealthy "look".