Pretty to Plain, Just Add Glasses

"She is tolerable, but not handsome enough to tempt me" - Mr Darcy of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice

Sorry to state the obvious, but novels are not a visual medium. When a character is described as unattractive, we take their word for it, and create a picture of them in our minds with that in consideration. Because beauty is a personal and subjective thing, many people will have differing ideas on what is unattractive. Not to mention, if not a lot of detail is given, you can interpret 'unattractive' to mean anything from not conventionally attractive in the time period the novel is set in, to utterly repulsive. But what happens when a novel is adapted into a film? Casting directors need to cast the beautiful characters, which should be easy enough with Hollywood's abundance of gorgeous stars. But what to do about the plain women and the unappealing men? Will they cast an unattractive actor? Perhaps a plain, or less conventionally attractive actor? Unsurprisingly, they will often opt for an attractive actor, and they may or may not go to lengths to hide their good looks, depending on how important the character's appearance is to the plot. But expect the character to still look beautiful, as a quote from The Simpsons of all places puts it quite well, they will be "TV-ugly, not ugly-ugly".

It always bothers me when a character in a book is described, sometimes even at great length, as unattractive, at least conventionally so, and yet they are played by a beautiful actor. One example that perfectly illustrates my point is Keira Knightley as Eliza Bennet in the 2005 adaptation of Pride and Prejudice. It was a stupid casting choice because Knightley is not only a very attractive woman, she probably would have been considered very attractive in the era in which the film is set, so you can't even justify it with the differing standards of the time periods. The casting of Jennifer Ehle in the 1995 BBC adaptation was, I felt, much more fitting. Although by no means an unattractive actress, I would believe that, with her rounder face and softer features, Ehle would not have been considered very pretty by the standards of the time period, while her sister Jane, played by Susannah Harker, had the more desirable long face shape and sharper, more striking features.

It is very common for films to have roles of supposedly unattractive characters played by attractive actors, simply because... um... actually I don't know why. Are film makers afraid that we as viewers won't watch a film if it has realistic or ugly characters in them? If we could handle Lon Chaney's hideous makeup in the 1925 film The Phantom of the Opera, we can handle a genuinely plain person every now and then. Anyway, for whatever reason, beautiful people are cast in these roles, usually 'de-prettified' in some way by dressing them in less flattering clothes, giving them bad hair or by adding glasses. Admittedly, giving an attractive actor unflattering clothes is a fairly good trick, but it doesn't really work because a beautiful actor is still beautiful with messy hair and a baggy argyle jumper.

Now, there is something that I must address, because if I don't it is sure to come back and bite me in a less than pleasant place. Here I am going on about characters having makeovers in film adaptations, when I thoroughly enjoyed the film adaptation of Louis Sachar's Holes, despite the fact that this film is guilty of just that. In the book, the protagonist, Stanley Yelnats, is an awkward teenager who is frequently teased for his weight, and later given the nickname Caveman because of his size, and also because a fossil that he finds. In the film, Stanley is played by Shia Labeouf, a tall, thin, lanky actor who is, let's face it, very attractive. Having watched some of the film's extras, they do explain that they had considered casting a chubby or overweight actor, but because in the book the character becomes slimmer and fitter over a long period of time, which would have been very difficult to show in a film, they had to remove that aspect of the character. They also mention that chubby teenage actors are hard to find, although I doubt that very much. True, this casting choice did mean that the whole bullying thing had to be swept under the rug, and the Caveman nickname didn't work quite as well, but I understand why they made this decision, and at least they put some thought into it and didn't just think "well, we can't cast an actual fat person, our characters all need to be attractive!" and I thought the film worked well despite this, so I will let it slide because I just love that film.

Back on the subject of glasses, I have to say that something I always take issue with is this persisting idea that glasses are supposed to be unattractive. It seems that, in movie land, people can't see Julia Robert's face behind a pair of glasses; maybe they are magical or something. Adding glasses works somewhat in older films because glasses were not particularly stylish, and they didn't come in very many differing or fashionable designs, so in these cases I will let it slide, albeit reluctantly. But the problem is that it is still used as a 'de-beautifying' technique to this day, and as a glasses wearer, I can't help but feel offended at the implication that my choice to not stick my fingers in my eyes every morning or spend hundreds of pounds to be shot in the eyes with a laser makes me 'frumpy'. On top of all of that, it is just lazy. Some films utilise makeup and prosthetics to make their actors look less conventionally attractive, but some just feel that throwing on a pair of glasses will do just as well. Don't expect us to see a pair of glasses and automatically see the character as unattractive. Christopher Reeve was still Christopher Reeve, even with his Clark Kent glasses on. Now, I know that Superman wore glasses as a disguise and not as something to make him look less attractive, but my point is that, even when he wore large, thick-framed glasses, he was still a good looking man.

At least the idea of the 'brainy specs' makes a little bit of sense, considering short-sightedness is related to reading a lot of books, even if the reason for this isn't fully understood, so I can accept that it is somewhat grounded in logic. Also, at the very least it is a somewhat flattering trope, even if it does have a somewhat patronising feel to it, as if to say, "Hey, you four-eyed kids may not be good looking, but at least you're smart!" although I suppose it is to separate the 'brains' from the 'beauty' for the sake of balance.

Incidentally, many people now consider glasses to look very attractive, so suck on that, Hollywood.

Much Ado About Nothing: A Tragedy in Disguise

The well-known Shakespeare play Much Ado About Nothing is a comedy about two young lovers whose love is disrupted by a series of misunderstandings brought about by the bitter, sly and manipulative Don John.

For me, the play has always had a large question mark hanging over the 'comedy' part. Yes, it does follow the conventions of a comedy: two young lovers, longing to be together, are kept apart by some form of authority figure, and are eventually able to come together by the end, and they get married and everyone is happy. But many people, especially feminist critics, would question whether the ending was in fact happy.

To give a brief overview of the plot, Claudio and Hero are in love, and intend to marry. But Don John stages a scene for Claudio to 'overhear' so that he thinks Hero is being unfaithful to him. The gullible young Claudio is swindled, and chooses to confront Hero, not privately, but on their wedding day, utterly shaming her until she faints from shock. Claudio then proceeds to leave her, disgraced, at the alter. Hero's family decides to tell Claudio that Hero has died, and when the news of her innocence is announced, Claudio grieves for her. Luckily, it is revealed that Hero is not dead at all, and the two get married and live happily ever after.

At the risk of sounding dramatic, I feel have to add: 'Or do they?' Hero, being the traditional, submissive woman in this play appears to have no pride. She seems to simply accept what Claudio has done to her. Apparently it's okay that he publicly humiliated her and accused her of lechery on rather unsubstantial evidence, because he is very, very sorry. I do not consider this play's ending a happy one, as Claudio in no way pays for his misguided and thoughtless actions, although it is hardly a tragic ending, as there is no death. However, the lack of death does seem to be the one thing that stops this play from being a tragedy. Therefore, I believe Much Ado About Nothing to be a tragedy in disguise.

After some studying and research on the subject of tragedy and comedy, I have discovered a way to make Much Ado About Nothing, the comedy, into The Tragedy of Claudio and Hero with only a few small changes.

First things first, in order to keep with the format of the Aristotelian tragedy, Claudio must be of a high status. As he is a nobleman, he is already of fairly high status, so no changes required there. Very importantly, as a tragic hero, he will need a tragic flaw. Again, no changes needed, as we can call his naïve and influential tendencies a tragic flaw, as well the fact that he is clearly short-sighted and severely judgemental.

The scene in which Don John tricks Claudio into believing Hero is unfaithful could remain wholly intact, and act as the pivotal point where Claudio begins his descent. He shames Hero on their wedding day, again, no changes necessary, and again, Hero's family later tells Claudio that Hero has died as a result of his heartless verbal onslaught.

Here is where the changes must begin (note how late in the play the changes become necessary): Claudio, grieving for Hero, laments the consequences of his actions, but his pride and sense of honour convince him that he did the right thing in confronting her for her misdeed. When it is revealed that Hero is innocent, Claudio, overcome by grief and regret for his grave error of judgement, takes his own life, tragically, before the news reaches him that Hero is not really dead. Hero, bereft at the death of her lover, follows suit and takes her life as well. Curtain.

Note how, with so few changes, all of them towards the end of the play, this comedy becomes a tragedy. The main differences are that Claudio is punished for his cruel actions, after his descent from a noble, if shy, young lover to a cold, unforgiving 'murderer' as it were. Unfortunately, Hero still does not receive a happy ending, but as a tragedy, it is more fitting, whereas it seems unfair that Hero gets no form of compensation for the terrible experience she has had to endure at her new husband's hand, in what is supposed to be a comedy.

Obviously, this is only my opinion, but I feel that the play would have worked better as a tragedy, as it has always bothered me that Claudio avoided the consequences of what I consider to be a terrible thing to do to someone, particularly to the woman you supposedly love, and none of the other characters seemed to find this unjust. What is very interesting, I find, is that if Claudio simply took a minute to think things through before openly insulting Hero, things would have run much more smoothly, whereas the tragic hero Hamlet suffered dearly for thinking things through too much. Shakespeare's heroes need to learn to find a happy medium, I suppose.