MovieChat Forums > Paul Newman Discussion > When did Hollywood leading men stop look...

When did Hollywood leading men stop looking great?

posted 8 years ago by Eva_Marrie
25 replies | jump to latest

I've bemoaned this multiple times, but I just never seem to get over it. Can someone please tell me in which decade specifically did this current fashion for thoroughly homely American male movie stars begin and why? Why do current Hollywood execs refuse to select for the sort of picture perfect looks that Paul had (he literally never took a bad photo)?

The reason I ask is that this seems to be specifically an American malaise. Latin American hear throbs look so amazing that your eyes hurt (including height). When casting Slumdog Millionaire, the director aimed to find an Indian actor for the lead, but failed because everyone he saw was just too handsome and too muscled for the part (he ended up going with a Brit)! I can list several classically handsome and currently working Brits, Australians, Scandinavians, Canadians (mostly in prestige TV).

And yet not one traditionally attractive (with nice, pleasing, proportional features) American with a current solid career!! The so-called A-listers are all either plain, have weird asymmetric features, or are terminally boring even if they do happen to have nice face (I'm looking at you, Clooney!).

I just don't get it... What happened to all the potential modern Newmans (or Redfords or Monty Clifts etc.)? Is there something wrong with American genes? Are they all working in modelling or daytime soap operas? Is there something wrong with the eyesight of casting directors when it comes to selecting US actors (but it works perfectly fine when casting foreigners)??

I mean - how did we end up with Chaning Tatum of all people???

[–] filmklassik 8 years ago

Right. Bogart and Cagney were both considered classically handsome. And everyone knows Spencer Tracy was classically handsome. (After all, what bobby-soxer didn't have a picture of Spencer Tracy on her wall back in 1955?)

And in the 60s, Dustin Hoffman was considered classically handsome. A hunka hunka burnin' love, right?

Forgive the sarcasm but my point is that male movie stars with "off beat" looks have co-existed with their classically-handsome colleagues ever since movies started talking back in 1927 -- and maybe even longer.

And you can't tell me that the wonderful Tom Cruise and the overrated George Clooney aren't every bit as handsome as the film stars of Hollywood's Golden Age.

[–] R_Kane (15828) 5 years ago

One handsome guy yet to be mentioned is Clint Eastwood, who’s still making movies as we speak. Eastwood, Newman, Mitchum and Connery looked (or will look) good till the day they die(d). The difference between these handsome men and handsome movie stars like Cruise and Clooney? Each of the men has more machismo in an unmentionable body part than both movie stars have in their whole bodies, put together.

[–] snepts (11123) 5 years ago

I happen to think Pitt is a good looking guy. As I try to think of others, I realize many aren't American but whatever. I'd rather talk about PN's accomplishments as an actor, rather than whine over some shortage of Hot American Meat. I guess it's cyclical, or maybe all the good looking guys are doing TV.

[–] DarthRoger (867) 5 years ago

It happened when men like Paul Newman and Humphrey Bogart got replaced with a bunch of beta males.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

You’re crazy! What about

Steve Buscemi
Michael Cera
Seth Rogen
Danny Trejo
Zach Galifianakis

You can keep your Paul Newman give me Paul Giamatti any day. Grrrr

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Really?

Chris Hemsworth, Ryan Gosling, Tom Cruise, etc. not hunky enough for you?

I wish I were as hunky as those guys!

[–] R_Kane (15828) 3 years ago

The change happened in the 60s, when a lot of stupid decisions were made. Hollywood, fueled with drugs, decided that audiences wanted to see “real people.” The truth was that audiences wanted—and still want—to see UNreal people, like Paul Newman.

[–] ebhaynz (3614) 2 years ago

I know this is 6 years late but I think here in the 2020's the concept of a "leading man" is DEAD. Why? Money. Although numbers are hard to come by I've seen interviews where they say Hollywood is half the value of what it was 20 years ago. Of course, Hollywood doesn't want you to know they're weaker now than what they've been in decades. So what we see now in Hollywood is desperation. They've got to go along with the latest trends, they pander to who they think will pay for their product. It kinda makes sense, the alphabet mafia is in charge of a huge slice of western society nowadays, and yes Hollywood is practically run by said alphabet mafia. So yes, for now Hollywood has eschewed the leading man but remember, Hollywood is half of what it used to be, they're fighting to stay alive. It can, and probably will, get A LOT worse.

[–] brux (14666) 2 years ago

What are you defining as Hollywood. The studios?
Yeah, I think the studios are doing OK, but there is competition now from all over the world and outside the media industry. People are shooting decent movies on their iPhones today. or piecing together documentaries from video from Youtube clips. And the movie as an art and business form is losing its base. You cannot really say much in 2 hours or less, so we get these movies that have sequels that are years apart or may never even get made.
Some are even saying that Hollywood, and even America, is just a place to get your global money laundered.
Our country is just a military base for a globally dispersed and diverse group of billionaires that want to rule the world, and our movies are not propaganda and framing tools. They always have been, but especially today.

[–] ebhaynz (3614) 2 years ago

Yes, it's hard to quantify everything by the numbers as they are purposefully muddled. Studios can't be doing that bad it's been a long time since any of them filed for bankruptcy. What do I define Hollywood as? Banks that own the studios.
I was a huge movie lover for over 30 years but now when I drive by a theater showing the latest movie I'm COMPLETELY uninterested in - I shake in disgust that I've become the same as my parents when I had to practically drag them to see Empire Strikes Back.
But yeah you're right, what can you say in 2 hours that hasn't already been said? A Macguffin, a hero, an antihero, SFX(which used to be a HUGE deal, now more of a burden), another sequel to a sequel, etc. The art form has been bled dry. I've seen old clips of Roger Ebert who said movies were the most significant/popular art form of the 20th Century. I don't this will end up being true for the 21st Century.

I'm sure there's a way to create something new, something along the lines of being interactive that's made with exceptional quality/storytelling/entertainment value. Somebody will come along and change the paradigm, it might take decades instead of years though.

[–] brux (14666) 2 years ago

> I was a huge movie lover for over 30 years but now when I drive by a theater showing the latest movie I'm COMPLETELY uninterested in

Well, I can agree with you on that. But, also, you have to realize that movies are economically and mentally targeted at a young, and whatever that means or associates with. There are very few movies that "mature", and I mean that as intelligent adults, who want to see movies with a point that are much more complex that almost all crime, superhero, vampire ... who thinks vampire are interesting past about 12 years old? People finally realize that they are being forced to settle for mind-numbingly stupid movies.

This thread is about looks, and I think people don't care so much about looks. Who says Paul Newman is good looking. I always thought he had a kind of creepy expression on his resting face ! ;-)

I think it's better to see people who look like they could be normal people.

From what I have been hearing they are going to try to fold Virtual Reality into movie and life by 2050 to get people spending 60% of their lives in CyberSpace. How revolting.

[–] ebhaynz (3614) 2 years ago

I've read that the first Star Wars movie changed everything into what we now have today. The 70's movies were mostly dark, heavy, criminal, scary, depressing then Star Wars came along with all those toys to boot. The 80's movies were light, fun, action packed, silly, cheesy. The 90's more refined, modern, technical, better SFX. I saw cracks in the early 00's and by 2010 it was all over. American's have become obese and much dumber, along with most other western countries. Today's movies cater to them.

You're right about Newman, he wasn't really handsome as much as he was lean, rugged, charming. Redford was handsome.

I don't know what the future holds, right now we live in a time when a large section of the populace are stupid, goofy/geeky/nerdy, frumpy, morbidly obese, ill mannered, socially awkward, weak. I was overseas most of the 90's/00's when I finally returned to the U.S. that first month I saw so much stupid sh!t it changed me for life. I'm now living outside the U.S. I see it spreading around the world but then again this might be what 60 is like for most everyone.

[–] sslssg (30333) 2 years ago

I've said this a few times on here and I'll keep saying it. I think one of the biggest issues is quantity. In the year 1950 there was 1,878 movies released world wide. In 1995 there was 3,539. That number keeps steadily growing. Especially with streaming services now putting out their own content, as well as other direct to video movies. In 2021 there were 12,458 movies released. So while I think there are still quality films being made with quality actors, the amount of crap one needs to wade through to find it is exponentially more than it was in 1950.

[–] brux (14666) 2 years ago

I have found some really good stuff on Apple and HBO.
A lot of British stuff, but some things are really far advanced.
I just got done watching "Big Little Lies" which is something from the description I never thought I would get into, but it was excellent. "Bad Sisters" was good in a different way. A lot of stuff is female centric and gets some backlash, but they are good stories of the human condition.

[–] ebhaynz (3614) 2 years ago

True, quantity is a big issue plus competition from other platforms. Another thing is look at the top 10 grossing movies. All Junk, the big tentpoles make money but not worth watching unless you're 12 or live in China.

In the past decades there were several movies released every week, and odds were something was worth seeing. You always had something to look forward to..work hard during the week, go to the movies and mall on Friday and maybe Saturday too.

In today's world there's no buzz, no water cooler talk, nothing to get excited about.