Actors certainly deserve recognition. The long hours they spend preparing for their roles, the mental, physical, and emotional toll required to get into the minds of different characters and portray them in compelling ways, all while undergoing the demanding process of shooting, is nothing short of an act of sheer will, one for which they should be commended. Indeed, we want to recognize their accomplishments, but some ways of doing this are better than others. When hearing of an actor’s physical transformation for a role, such as Christian Bale’s massive weight loss for The Machinist (2004) or Charlize Theron’s departure from beauty norms to portray a serial killer in Monster (2003), we can’t help but be captivated by such commitment, even if, and especially if, such commitment includes a certain level of masochism. But what are the consequences of praising actors for these physical transformations, and should we even be praising actors for this practice?
For the purposes of this article, I will be using the term “physical transformation” to refer specifically to performances that employ a visible bodily transformation in order to more faithfully embody a role, and not solely for aesthetically pleasing purposes. [1] When praising actors for their physical transformations, we praise the dedication such transformations represent. Afterall, if an actor is willing to put in the work to gain or lose a significant amount of weight, or is willing to appear before the cameras with an intentionally unglamorous appearance, it must signify a true commitment to embody a particular role. Such dedication, by extension, appears to exemplify some truly great artistry of acting. However, I would like to challenge that this is necessarily the case.
Such physical transformations have a long history with the acting philosophy known as The Method, whose practice is commonly known as method acting. This style of performance encourages actors to fully immerse themselves into the emotional psychology of the characters whom they seek to portray. Physical transformations serve currently as one of the primary means by which actors psychologically embody their roles, as the physical transformation is used to access a psychological one. In contrast to other forms of method acting that have historically presented higher liabilities for the studio, such as Marlon Brando’s eccentric behavior that made working with him so difficult, physical transformation presented “an approach to acting that evoked the Method’s behavioral extremes at the same time that it fetishized discipline,” [2] making it a practice much easier for studios to control while still offering an alluring edge to audiences.
It is no wonder then that physical transformations for roles have become commonplace in Hollywood, to the point that now the expectation for “serious roles” equates to the “intense bravery and commitment and personal transformation” [3] on the actors’ part.
However, the issue with equating physical transformations with serious, transformative acting, is that we then substitute the physical appearance of the actor for the actual acting. While it may be true that physical transformations do indeed signify a certain commitment to a role, it does not necessarily signify the quality of the performance. Afterall, “a change in body does not obviously communicate a change in character,” [4] which is what actors seek to achieve through their performances. Therefore, when we praise actors for their physical transformations, we risk commenting only on their physical appearance, rather than saying anything substantive about the artistry of their work.
Beyond the risk of misplacing our praise when we celebrate the physical transformations of actors, we also may be unwittingly contributing to harmful expectations. It is no secret that films can inform and shape public perceptions, and, when dealing with issues of bodily appearance, the effects can be especially impactful. When actors engage in physical transformations for certain roles, there emerges a link between bodily appearances and the characters they portray. Often, physical transformations are utilized to portray characters with a negative connotation attached, whether that be Christian Bale’s sixty-two-pound weight loss to portray Trevor, a character ravaged by guilt, in The Machinist, or Charlize Theron’s weight-gain and de-glamming makeup to portray a serial killer in Monster. This establishes a moralizing connection to physical appearances, which reinforces the already existing cultural connection between one’s bodily image and one’s character.
In popular culture, the ideal toned body “represents strength of character” and “signifies . . . a praiseworthy dedication to shape the unshapely form through devotion to exercise and investment of personal capital in its physical rehabilitation” [5] while making every other body represent a lack of these traits. This harmful stigma is only exaggerated by the dramatized portrayal of less-than-savory characters, whose physical appearances are made to be one of their defining aspects by actors’ well publicized physical transformations into their representations. Just as our praise of these physical transformations can supplant substantial praise of the artistry of the actual performances, so the physical transformation itself can serve as a superficial substitute for character portrayal, perpetuating a moral value system based on external appearances. In a culture where “the body has become inextricably linked to personal identity and self-worth,” [6] this practice is particularly harmful to audiences, who take such moral associations with physical appearance to heart. No doubt, making these associations “contribute to the body dissatisfaction and appearance anxiety found by clinical research to be a highly potent risk for developing eating disorders.” [7] In praising actors solely for their physical transformations into certain roles, we risk not only misdirecting our praise, but participating in a culture that assigns value based on one’s physical appearance, reinforcing the unrealistic expectations of the “ideal body.”
In light of these concerns, should we be praising actors for their physical transformations? Perhaps not, but perhaps there is also a better way to recognize their dedication to their craft. Instead of praising actors for their physical transformations alone, perhaps we should direct our focus to the whole of their performances, acknowledging the role that physical transformations play in these for either better or for worse, but also acknowledging the other aspects of transformation they undergo. Most of the magic of an actor’s transformation to a certain role, after all, often manifests in subtler ways: slight mannerisms, vocal inflections, and facial expressions that imbue characters with a liveliness that transcends appearances alone. Thus, in opting to place more emphasis on these qualities than mere physical appearances, we can truly celebrate the artistry of actors’ transformations.
[1] Esch, Kevin. “‘I Don’t See Any Method At All’: The Problem of Actorly Transformation.” Journal of Film and Video 58, no. 1/2 (2006): 96.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Pearl, Sharrona. “Deglamming as Estrangement: Ugly in Monster, The Hours, and Cake.” Cinej Cinema Journal vol. 8.1 (2020): 219.
[4] Ibid., 223.
[5] Fox-Kales, Emily. Body Shots: Hollywood and the Culture of Eating Disorders. SUNY Press (2011): 2
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid., 4
Comments