By Jazmin Jett |Staff Writer|
On a scale of one to offensive, how much do the tattoos that actors and actresses adorn actually matter, in regards to the characters they play? According to the opinions of the media and viewers alike, they matter a lot.
CSUSB student Mackenzie Viera said, “No one should be penalized for their being unique; especially actors and actresses. They should be judged by their talent”.
For the most part, the characters that actors and actresses immerse themselves in are shy of tattoos.
They’re usually left to exude the depth of their character throughout the film, as opposed to relying on aesthetics.
I’ve always had several anecdotes as to why actors cover their tattoos for films; the main one being that the director wants a distinct separation between the characters of his movie and the personas we attach to actors and actresses.
But even then, are we as viewers that dense to not be able to differentiate between the two?
Rebecca Keegan of The LA Times elaborates on this very subject suggesting that the everyday practices entertainers indulge in (such as normal hygiene, tattoos/piercings, etc.) make them an inadequate choice for period films.
She points out the blemish of one film in particular saying, “[Daniel Day-Lewis’] performance in ‘Lincoln’ has earned rousing endorsements from Civil War historians, but close watchers of the film have spotted one glaring [error] in this otherwise honest Abe — earring holes.”
Aside from those whose expertise concerns that of historical events/figures, you’d have to be extremely anal to not only notice such a miniscule fact but to also attempt to diminish the actor’s performance.
In some cases, tattoos aren’t only covered for roles they occasionally make an appearance to contribute to the actors/actresses role.
For example, I and the remainder of the world are more than aware of Angelina Jolie’s tattoos. If one day she were to wake up without her alluring eyes, full lips and I don’t give a f— attitude, her tattoos would still contribute to her appeal.
If not for recently watching Jolie’s infamous bath scene in Wanted, where hers and artificial tattoos are boldly shown, I wouldn’t have been induced to take a closer look at some of her other films and notice tattoos are nowhere to be found.
Though Jolie’s tattoos were ideal in Wanted, attributing to her daring and mysterious demeanor, does this suggest tattoos are only okay for typecasting and stereotypical roles? Apparently.
It seems the only time I’ve ever seen tattoos on screen are when they’re on a cholo, gang member, “bad guy” or used for cultural attribution.
Kyle Buchanan of movieline.com claims, “I just don’t get why actors are so determined to cover their bodies with [tattoos] when they’re inevitably going to need to sit in the makeup chair…”.
Neither I, or anyone on this planet, has the power to suggest that actors/actresses yield to their artistic expression in order to satisfy some ideal type.
Ultimately, what someone decides to do with their body has nothing to do with the next person. Live and let be, right?