HD OR NOT HD

Being more of a Heat/Closer gal, this one almost got away. Does high-def make actors ugly? According to Wendy Ides writing in Times Online it does.

timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article1614166.ece

Love the quote about HD only being good for shooting ‘ant’s arseholes’. Which might be good news for ant’s agents, but not for actors, not when every pimple, plook and surgery scar shows up big time on the big screen.

Even worse, now that the average telly’s roughly the size of a Transit van, maybe actors should be worried. It’s bad enough that the paps cash in on a girl’s sweaty armpits, bad tit job or lips like a walrus’s private parts, but to pay to see this stuff forty feet wide down at the multiplex is not my idea of entertainment. Then again, maybe that’s exactly what it is.

What’s troubling is the idea that actors ought to look perfect. As the article argues, it’s not high-def that’s the problem, it’s bad make-up artists, which I think is a bit unfair to make-up artists. After all, when all you’ve got to work with is a tube of Preparation H and a panstick it’s pretty much impossible to make certain stars look less scary – and if you don’t believe me then you’ve obviously missed Uma Thurman plugging Virgin Broadband. Mind you, I'd get up like Witchypoo myself if Branson had offered me £18 million quid.