What does an actor lose when their prosthetics become the star?
Save this article to read it later.
Find this story in your accountsSaved for Latersection.
Acting is abouttransformation both psychological and physical.
When it comes to the showiest efforts, its mostly the latter that comes to mind.
And then theres the kind of transformation that requires latex.
There is something so old-fashioned about it, so labored, so stagecraft.
These inspired-by-real-life prosthetics are meant to bring authenticity, but they have a perverse way of achieving the opposite.
Its just that few of them have Letos hoped-for box-office allure.
At least inHouse of Gucci,excess, rather than realism, is the point.
Theyre working in the service of a story.
Doing that means eliding inconvenient facts, truncating messy developments, leaning into fiction to bridge gaps.
It means privileging some perspectives and discarding others.
The viewer gets this.
So why insist on comparing the fake to the original?
Or at least it used to be.
Whats considered permissible to play a part is under constant reassessment consider the not-so-distant history of blackface and yellowface.
The question here is whether we value acting over imitation.
Kristen Stewart, as Princess Diana, doesnt attempt to replicate her so much as offer an interpretation.
Stewarts jawline is different from Dianas.
She is five inches shorter.
Her eyes are green instead of blue.
And none of that matters because Stewart is so clearly meant to be playing a character.
Theres an innate absurdity to acting.
Thank you for subscribing and supporting our journalism.
