# Physically attractive and in Film School?



## Tima (Apr 1, 2007)

Random, I know, but very curious to know...

I was wondering what people think about 'looks' and the chances of getting into film school?

Does anyone have an opinion on whether your physical apearance, especially for a woman, could have an effect on your chances of getting accepted?

For example, if your being interviewed, is it possible that they might say "we wont invest in her because she is too attractive to compete as a director in the industry?" Or vice versa??? 

I don't know why, but I feel like physical appearance can heavily influence their decision.???No?


----------



## Jayimess (Apr 1, 2007)

I mentioned on another thread that I got hell from a reader of one of my blogs for going "dolled up."  

I hope that if the gentlemen interviewing me found me attractive, that subjective opinion doesn't hurt my chances for admission as a writer, or any woman's as a director, or any position beyond talent.  It would be pathetic if it did...it's bad enough to get dismissed as talent, which happens all of the time, with the industry, but to have it factor negatively in academia?  Ridiculous.


----------



## Winterreverie (Apr 1, 2007)

amen to that.


----------



## Film_Jock (Apr 1, 2007)

Why would you be discriminated upon if you were attractive?  Thread starter, do you mean if you were unattractive?  Hollywood is a superficail business?  Name one ugly director besides Tarintino can you??  Directors are off-camera, so you are less likly to be off cause of that aspect???  W/E...


----------



## Film_Jock (Apr 1, 2007)

Sorry for flame.  Go for film if that is what you want.  Good luck.


----------



## BillyD (Apr 1, 2007)

Film_Jock,

I just logged on to see your posts - and they're all negative.  What's the deal?

Zip it.


----------



## Tima (Apr 1, 2007)

Jayimess ,that is exactly what I am afraid of, and like you, I really hope that it doesnt factor in negatively. And Film_Jock, no I really actually mean attractive. Yes, Hollywood is filled with beauties, but most of them are on screen and many male directors are beautiful, but the woman directors, relatively (to Hollywood standards) not so much (my opinion). And yes, it would be so pathetic and shameful if your looks whether good looking/not factored in and eclipsed over your talent.


----------



## Film_Jock (Apr 1, 2007)

Maybe more of the talented and attractive women are actresses instead???


----------



## Tima (Apr 1, 2007)

yeah, and thats what i am afraid of. See sometimes when your an attractive woman, you are pressured into acting over the more controlling aspects of the art, like directing, writing, etc. etc. So what Im thinking is film schools see this as a detriment to a succeeding director/writer and so they wont "recruit" you. I hope its not really like this, but its sadly possible.


----------



## titaniumdoughnut (Apr 1, 2007)

I mean, you could always try to look "directorish." Directors tend to have a kind of arty, intellectual look to them, even when they are attractive. I'd like to think it doesn't matter for an interview, but psychology tells us that appearance makes a world of difference. Dress the part, as they always say. I guess, LOOK the part.


----------



## Film_Jock (Apr 1, 2007)

If this is a concern why not wear Holloween makeup to interviews?  J/K


----------



## titaniumdoughnut (Apr 1, 2007)

Because that's retarded. I'm serious. Behave yourself, Film_Jock. If you don't have anything intelligent to say, you will find yourself saying nothing.


----------



## Tima (Apr 1, 2007)

Yes, Titaniumdoughnut, you are right. The artsy look always helps. I customize the way I dress all the time, so it shouldn't be any different this time. It gives them a taste of who we are. And Film Jock? How old are you?


----------



## Film_Jock (Apr 1, 2007)

Under 28


----------



## Kat333 (Apr 1, 2007)

So Films_Jock this is all an act right?


----------



## Nervous Larry (Apr 1, 2007)

The title of this thread, taken by itself is hilarious to me. It makes it seem like an anomaly. Like "Physically attractive and in Film School...possible?". I find it funny because I've noticed recently that most directors (male directors anyway) are either ugly or strange looking, or unkempt. Tarantino, Wim Wenders, Jim Jarmusch, Scorcese, Truffaut, Polanski (also child molestor) Woody Allen- all have strange/ghastly mugs. Granted, there are exceptions, but it seems like all the beautiful people become rock stars and all the creatures become directors.

Given what I see in the mirror, I'm confident that I'll be a success in this field.


----------



## Tima (Apr 1, 2007)

Hahaha Larry...

So the topic of the thread is hilarious but very understandable right?

Anyways, im interviewing soon, so wish me luck everyone.


----------



## Film_Jock (Apr 1, 2007)

This is a graduate school fourm.  Are you sure you fit the criteria?


----------



## Jayimess (Apr 2, 2007)

Film Jock, this is a valid topic.  Please don't ridicule the respondents! If you're not interested or knowledgeable on this question, move along.

Tima, Winter, and myself have all been chosen for interviews at some of the best graduate film programs in the country, so we ARE qualified.  

Filmmaking is a boys' club, everyone knows that.  The deck is stacked against women, but we were chosen for interviews even though our applications clearly indicated the presence of a uterus.

The question is, are looks a factor?

I get brushed aside as an actress CONSTANTLY, by people inside and outside of filmmaking...

I'm currently serving as Guest Director on a 400 level group project at my alma mater, and it's the first time in history that a female has directed this class project.

Yesterday was our first day of production, and it poured rain, so we had to cancel our extras for an outdoor scene.  We needed one extra, though, and I was the only one who fit the demographics, so I had to jump into a period costume while my crew set up a scene.  

When I came out in a dress and heels, three males on set told me I looked great, and asked why I never pursued acting.  They still respect me, and listen to me and our female A.D., but still had that "film+girl=actress" mental image.

I bartend once a week, and I mentioned I was shooting a film this weekend to some of my patrons this Thursday.  Most, if not all people assumed I'm an actress, and were surprised to find out I'm a writer/director.

It's just the way things are.

I just hope the interviewers don't go, "Hey, we're down to the final selections, let's take this ugly guy over this girl.  Nobody will take her seriously, anyway."

We're all in panic mode as the finish line comes closer, scrutinizing every little detail as how it might impact our applications, no matter how insignificant it may seem to someone else.  

I'm not regretting my choice of wearing an orange top under my jacket to my UCLA interview, but if I get rejected, I might start to.


----------



## Kyle Johnson (Apr 2, 2007)

YOUR face? You cant even SEE your own face. you arnt responsible for that ****. its there to amuse others.


----------



## Tima (Apr 1, 2007)

Random, I know, but very curious to know...

I was wondering what people think about 'looks' and the chances of getting into film school?

Does anyone have an opinion on whether your physical apearance, especially for a woman, could have an effect on your chances of getting accepted?

For example, if your being interviewed, is it possible that they might say "we wont invest in her because she is too attractive to compete as a director in the industry?" Or vice versa??? 

I don't know why, but I feel like physical appearance can heavily influence their decision.???No?


----------



## titaniumdoughnut (Apr 2, 2007)

Kyle, I worry about you sometimes.


----------



## Kurt Wagner (Apr 2, 2007)

i think looks is a considering factor to a small degree... despite what they say.  Why else would schools like NYU request a passport size picture as part of their application.  I can understand that looks are important in acting, but common... in production related fields?  I don't think so.


----------



## rockstar (Apr 2, 2007)

Here's something I'd thought I'd share. During my interview at UCLA, the head of the program told me that they're very intentional about having women in the program. While this is very specific to the producer's program, I'm sure that there's a similar mentality for the other programs. After all, the chair of the Dept of Film, TV and Digital Media IS a woman.


----------



## Kurt Wagner (Apr 2, 2007)

oh, and rockstar brings up a good point... I think they also want to balance the diversity.


----------



## Jayimess (Apr 2, 2007)

So...does that mean we'll get in just because we're women?

Cause that's no good, either.


(Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't!!)


----------



## Jayimess (Apr 2, 2007)

Wait.  NYU makes you send a pic?

That's crazy.


----------



## Winterreverie (Apr 2, 2007)

Hey if being a woman gets me into UCLA then great-- I mean, there is no way that they interviewed every or even most women that applied. As you said before, film has historically been a gentleman's club, and (at least in the director's program) they only interviewed the top 5% or so of their applicants and if being a women gets me in over an equally qualified man-- great, that hasn't happened enough in this industry. And I sincerely doubt they'll choose a women over a more qualified man. 

I think the attractiveness factor is so much of an issue for the women that apply to these schools, because if a woman is attractive or cute, she's immediately deemed as dumb or naive. I've fell prey to that one-- that's how I learned to be outspoken. And in a 20-35 minute interview there is hardly enough time to see beyond that first impression.

If you think about it, how much could a passport picture influence an application? Apparently a lot if they're asking for it.


----------



## rockstar (Apr 2, 2007)

Jayimess, 

I don't think we'll get in just because we're women  Since it's already known that filmmaking has traditionally been a man-dominated arena, I don't think I need to restate that. I wouldn't read too much into either - UCLA wants to admit women and is intentional about giving women the opportunity to pursue filmmaking, but I wouldn't leap to the conclusion that it means that all women will be accepted simply because she is a woman. 

I think they're looking for a balanced program. I remember looking at past stats, I read somewhere, 40% in the Producer's Program are women. So almost 50/50.


----------



## Film_Jock (Apr 3, 2007)

Are you so pompus you have to create a thread hinting at how attractive and talented you are but may be rejected cause of those traits?  Maybe you lack something if you get rejected not have too much?  I apologize if I sound harsh, which is intentional.


----------



## Jayimess (Apr 3, 2007)

You should apologize for sounding like an idiot, whether it was intentional or not.

I believe, but can not say for certain, since I didn't start this topic, that a comment I posted in another thread sparked this thread.  I came under fire, somewhere completely unrelated to this site, for wearing a suit to my UCLA interview.  I was accused of trying to use "typical female ploys" to get ahead, and it was said that I should have dressed down.

Why is it pompous to have confidence in your appearance, talents, potential, or successes?  Why is it pathetic to have doubts in those same categories?

Please gag Film Jock, moderators.  He just inspires anger, and causes those of us who are nervously awaiting acceptance letters to waste time and energy ignoring him, or responding to him, like I just did, to defend ourselves and/or other users.


----------



## Tima (Apr 3, 2007)

Right on Jayimess! Couldn't have said it better.


----------



## REDking (Apr 3, 2007)

Let Film_jock speak its fun to see him make an ass of himself. Plus I'm hoping on some level it's performance art, I mean how could someone called Film_jock not be a meat head. In fact he should get his own thread, we could call it "Me and my *****in' Camaro!". Plus people like him do exist so it makes no sense not to have them metaphorically "tarred and feathered" here on the forum.

Anyway as for the topic it's fair to bring up the question of "looks" but it's more disturbing to me to have the poster bring it up without any evidence of "looks" being an issue in her actual interview. I know that's not her point as its a hypothetical argument.

So yes it's possible but it's also possible that youth culture and especially female youth culture has been marinated in so much sexual objectification that they themselves bring the issue to the table as an insecurity.

What does that mean? Hell I don't know I just wanted to say objectification. At the end of the day your work will speak the loudest as your looks will not determine your will. 

But I do agree women (good looking or fugly) have had a hard time gaining support as directors in particular and worse yet have not had an even playing field and because of this it's their responsibility to fight against their oppressors.


----------



## titaniumdoughnut (Apr 3, 2007)

I'm sorry about Film_Jock. He's been banned. He had signed up with a temp account at a site that deletes all mail after a few hours, so he obviously meant to be a troll.


----------



## Kat333 (Apr 3, 2007)

Aw, thats to bad. I thought he was pretty entertaining.


----------

