can't things change?shouldn't they?

people say this is the world of glamour and to succeed an actress needs to have the looks too,they say it has always been like that.But just because it has always been like that should it continue to be so?Why is there such a need to have pretty looking heroines,these actresses are here to play various characters and people/characters aren't always good looking.

People give examples of aish and sonali bendre and how bw standards have lowered with regards to good looks.But they didn't exactly get a lot of appreciation,acting wise.Do we talk much about if standards have risen or fallen as far as acting is concerned?

And the pressure to look good is so much more on actresses,like how the pressure to look good is so much more on women in real life too.

why is it that a good actress is considered less deserving than somebody who is also good and happens to be good looking too?Why is it that an actress who just has the acting chops,not looks,not dance or charm or "x factor"(whatever that means) is seen as less deserving?

of course if a role actually requires good looks(like draupadi or padmavati) then it is understandable but not every role needs a good looking actress.Or,does it?

Also,why are good looks necessary for period dramas,did everyone look good in the 20th century?

Ayushmaan has made place for himself in the commercial space.He is accepted and applauded by the people but we still need our actresses to be good looking to deem them deserving of the commercial space.

In an ideal world a star should be the package deal. Looking Charlize Theron she has the acting chops to do a monster but looks great. Look at Leonardo DiCaprio he is a complete package. Look at Madhuri or Sridevi.

The reason the standard keeps falling is because once again the industry is getting filled with mediocrity. Star kids clearly lack what meets the eye and is evident so their talent gets over praised to the skies. And the industry is now congested with star kids. They become the Meryl Streep of the industry in their second film. When arguably they actually got out-shadowed in the movie itself by the outsider.

The fact is good looking people attract an audience. Just like Sanjay Leela Bhansali films work party because they are aesthetically appealing to the eye.

In an ideal world we should have girl next door type looking people to play certain roles. But certain roles def require someone better looking and that is why everyone stated Aloo was miscast in Kalank and SOTY.

About the pressure on woman. Have models put pressure on people ever? Has there been a pressure put on American woman because hollywood that is not congested by star kids has a good mix of good looking and not so good looking actors.

And IMO most common people are better looking than the current star kids. They just dont have the grooming. But many Indian girls would look prettier than Alia if they had the grooming she does.

I just find this an excuse to accept mediocrity. Even in terms of talent it should be the best chosen out of 100s or 1000s in auditions. Not the one that has the sur name. Will raising the bar in talent put pressure on the common man to be more talented? Of course no one would make that argument if an actor is required to be exceptional in that area.

Aish received acclaim in movies like chokher bali, raincoat, taal, guzaarish, hum dil, devdas, jodha akbar many south movies. Just because she was more known for her looks, no one provided her good scripts on a platter, and no one overhyped her talent to be Merly Streep level does not mean that the acting standard has risen.

Yes were there actresses in the 90s more talented than her. For sure. But they were also a lot more actors and actresses talented than current star kids not to mention much more beautiful. Urmila is one example. Yes, in the 90s woman didn't get the meaty roles but even Mahima had great acting potential among others. Shabana Raza in Kareeb or Rahul alone wish showcase how she had more talent in her than Jahnvi or Sara.

I don't know if it's a matter of can and should things change, because the answer to this questions is a resounding yes. The ideal question is Would things change? I'm not too sure of the answer to that one.

Bollywood has always been filled with extremely beautiful women. Zeenat Aman, Madhubala, Nargis, Vjantimala, Nutan, Meena Kumari, and the list goes on, and on, and on. The huge differing factors between those actresses and the actresses of today is talent, and technology. Because there was no social media during that time, these women had to be good at acting in order to draw in an audience of their own right. Yes, the industry had operated under a patriarchy (it still does), and there were a lot of questionable content written for women (still are), but there were a rare few instances in which they got to shine, and set a standard for Bollywood. Mughal-E-Azam, and Mother India for example.

Coming to the actresses of today, they're far too concerned about the way they look rather than the craft of acting. This may partially be due to the increased pressure of having to look beautiful by the acting industry itself, or the beauty industry that has wiggled its way into every aspect of our lives. As evidenced throughout history, what is deemed beautiful has always culturally differed. It's only in the past few decades that we have started to dictate what beauty should look like all across the board. Body hair on women is a huge no no, but it's okay for men. Women have to apply as much make up as a clown in a circus, but men can get as rugged, and dirty as they want. Women aren't allowed to carry weight on their bodies because then they'll look "undesirable", even though most women have meat on their bones. The problem is that even the actresses from yesteryear had varying body shapes, while the actresses from today all look the same. I wouldn't even be able to tell them apart, because of how similar they are. They don't have a single, unique quality that sets them apart from one another, while for the older actresses, they all had that little extra something.

I don't know what has gotten into these actresses head. Fifty years from now, no one's going to remember them for how many covers of the magazine they were in, or which beauty products they endorsed. If they want to be immortalized, then they have to start paying attention to acting - the very thing they claim to having the birth right to do. Unlike the older actresses whose names are still remembered today, the current generation of actresses will be long forgotten.

@grumpydwarf huh?!when did i say anything,directly or indirectly about accepting mediocrity acting wise?I asked in my post itself that why is it that an actress with only acting chops is considered less deserving to be a commercial actress than an actress with acting chops and looks both.Neither of these examples are mediocre acting wise.

If you are talking about accepting mediocrity looks wise then yes I am guilty of it,I don't have this need to have pretty actresses.Like I am on the fence about supporting alia because of all the allegations of groupism,nepotism,snatching other's work but my opinion that she isn't a beauty has mostly never been a hindrance in my support for her an actress.I would support her fully if it wasn't for the mentioned allegations as IMO she has the talent.I like good looking people too,but it isn't really much of a problem if actresses aren't good looking.I feel like people here almost have this need to have good looking women on their screen..it's ridiculous and sexist because we have loved the likes of srk.ajay devgan,aamir in commercial cinema for decades.

The pressure on women to look good is real,are you really denying it?Acting is a profession that requires the potrayal of different kind of people and not every person is a beauty.

You clearly missed the point. I am saying that star kids that lack very evidently in the looks department have overhyped talent. Thus the standard declining in both looks and talent seems to be declining ! And not rising in anyway as you claim.

About the pressure to look good. I also said that have a healthy MIX of good looking and average looking people just like there are in real life would help ease that pressure. And most common people in India are better looking than star kids just not as well groomed. So they have nothing to be insecure about from my perspective.

Originally posted by: grumpydwarf

You clearly missed the point. I am saying that star kids that lack very evidently in the looks department have overhyped talent. Thus the standard declining in both looks and talent seems to be declining ! And not rising in anyway as you claim.

i didn't CLAIM that acting talent has risen,i merely said that people talk more about beauty standards falling than discussing about IF acting talent has RISEN or FALLEN.It was to highlight how obsessed people are with looks.

Originally posted by: ImmortalsOfM

i didn't CLAIM that acting talent has risen,i merely said that people talk more about beauty standards falling than discussing about IF acting talent has RISEN or FALLEN.It was to highlight how obsessed people are with looks.

As far as I have known people have talked about star kids acting talent too. Aloo for example was bashed because people were overhyping her and comparing her performance to Meryl Streep. Meanwhile, no one in the industry talked about Randeep Hooda’s performance which many here agreed was better.

Cinema is a visual medium and that is the reason why beauty is so important. Having said that, in no way do I feel that beauty is a pre-requisite to being in the industry, simply because acting is much more important and to me, looks are secondary. But I can't speak for others, that's just my opinion.

In Hoollywood, looks are far less important to acting and that is how it should be in BW also. Look at Saoirse Ronan. She doesn't look that good as compared to many of our actresses. but the reason she is accepted and loved in Hollywood is because of her talent.

Bollywood is more looks-oriented, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.