A few years ago, New York dermatologist Dr David A Colbert received an unexpected call from a Hollywood director. The director was shooting a film starring a high-profile actor who had plumped his face with so much filler it wouldn\u2019t move.<\/p>\n
The director proceeded to berate Colbert, whose practice has treated famous faces such as Sienna Miller, Naomi Watts and Robin Wright, for stilting his star\u2019s ability to emote. \u201cHe was kind of rude,\u201d Colbert said. \u201cHe was like, \u2018Hey, can you stop doing what you\u2019re doing [to his face]?\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n
The director was mistaken: Colbert had never given dermal filler, or Botox, to the actor. \u201cBut I felt for him, because he wants his actors to look like people,\u201d said Colbert, who did not disclose the identities of either.<\/p>\n
That director was fighting a losing battle. These days, the new \u201cit\u201d product among celebrities isn\u2019t a $280 La Prairie concealer or $1000 Decort\u00e9 moisturizer. It\u2019s an entirely new face, with pillowy lips, stretched-out skin and a stationary forehead. For the rest of us, that means staring at faces on movie screens and streamers that look enhanced \u2013 and therefore restricted \u2013 by expensive cosmetic procedures.<\/p>\n
When the trailer for Christopher Nolan\u2019s The Odyssey dropped, armchair critics griped<\/a> that Anne Hathaway, who has denied cosmetic surgery rumors, could not move her forehead enough. They found it unbelievable that Penelope, Odysseus\u2019s wife, would have access to that good a dermatologist in ancient Greece.<\/p>\n In the Wicked franchise, Ariana Grande plays Glinda the Good Witch in the Land of Oz, where apparently beauty standards are just as rigid as the real world: Grande\u2019s airbrushed lack of expression led one Dazed writer to ask<\/a>: \u201cIs Botox ruining cinema?\u201d Ditto for Margot Robbie as Wuthering Heights\u2019s Cathy, whose Barbie-smooth features inspired speculation of cosmetic surgery, which could inhibit the lusty facial contortions one might make during a bodice-ripping scene.<\/p>\n Ariana Grande in Wicked (2024). Photograph: Universal Pictures\/AP<\/p>\n Much of this nip-tuck speculation is mean-spirited. It reeks of misogyny, blaming women for unrealistic beauty standards that are widespread in film-making and muffling necessary discussions on ageing in the industry. Millie Bobby Brown, only 22 years old, said that audiences\u2019 responses to her unchangeable expression during the Electric State press tour left her holed up<\/a> and \u201cdepressed for three, four days\u201d. The pitchforks have come for men, too. Barry Keoghan said<\/a> that online abuse about the way he looks (fans have speculated<\/a> on whether or not he got filler) has made him \u201cshy away\u201d from acting and public life, and Ryan Gosling\u2019s ageless appearance on a recent episode of Jimmy Fallon had an uncanny valley vibe, or so some fans tweeted.<\/p>\n But it is also true that some of the best acting comes from total abandon and a willingness to be ugly \u2013 whether that\u2019s Lucille Ball chucking chocolate down her gullet in I Love Lucy, or Charlize Theron\u2019s unflinchingly raw depiction of the poverty-stricken serial killer Aileen Wuornos in Monster. Apparent dermal fillers, Botox, lip augmentation and jawline contouring do not exactly allow for expressive, soul-stirring performances. \u201cIt\u2019s almost become standard that the face doesn\u2019t move as much as it used to,\u201d Colbert said.<\/p>\n That lack of movement presents an existential threat to the craft of acting. Beauty has always been a job requirement for being a star, but so has facial dexterity. Is all that filler going to make for worse performances?<\/p>\n Actors have sculpted their faces for as long as the film industry has existed \u2013 and audiences have always voiced their opinions on the topic.<\/p>\n Marsha Gordon, a historian and professor of film studies at North Carolina State University, cites a 1929 article<\/a> in Motion Picture magazine titled The Flesh and Blood Racket. The piece named and shamed mostly men who had gone under the knife, such as the boxer Jack Dempsey, who fixed his battered nose in preparation for a screen career. The bullish actor Louis Wolheim, known for playing thugs, wanted a rhinoplasty to help transition into leading roles; studio executives at United Artists successfully served a restraining order to stop him from changing it.<\/p>\n \u201cThe close-up was so crucial to moviemaking. I just imagine Marlene Dietrich, Greta Garbo or Clara Bow\u2019s face filling the screen,\u201d Gordon said. \u201cIt wasn\u2019t just about conveying emotion. It was an opportunity for audiences to sit in the palace of a movie theater and see a beautiful face.\u201d<\/p>\n Greta Garbo in The Painted Veil (1934). Photograph: API\/Gamma-Rapho\/Getty Images<\/p>\n These women were not immune to face-sculpting rumors back in their day. Legend has it that Dietrich removed her molars to achieve her famously arch cheekbones, and MGM reportedly secretly sent<\/a> Garbo to see a surgeon. Neither actor is remembered for hamming it up onscreen \u2013 both projected a subtle coolness \u2013 but they were celebrated for their signature features. Dietrich\u2019s pencil-thin brows, for instance, or Garbo\u2019s sunken, hooded eyelids.<\/p>\n \u201cFilms have become less intimate in terms of framing a performer\u2019s face,\u201d Gordon continued. \u201cAs we shift away from a culture of movie theaters, from big screens to tiny screens, I wonder if that has something to do with this tolerance [for filler].\u201d<\/p>\n Dr Anthony Brissett, a Houston-based cosmetic surgeon and president of the American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, points not to screen size but modern high-definition cameras, which reveal more than the naked eye. \u201cThere are things that actors and actresses will share with me that bother them\u201d about their appearances, he said. \u201cI have a hard time seeing it. Then I\u2019ll watch them on television and yeah, sure enough, there it is. They\u2019re under a high level of scrutiny and feeling this desire to look the same continuously.\u201d<\/p>\n double quotation markVisible plastic surgery is an immediate audition killer for almost every project I\u2019ve worked onMarie, casting director<\/p>\n Age used to be an actor\u2019s enemy. During the Hollywood star system days, when studios controlled every aspect of actors\u2019 lives, a fortysomething woman might quietly fade away, such as Dietrich did, or accept more character roles, which were often undignified (Bette Davis in Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? comes to mind). Now, female actors are no longer expected to disappear from the limelight after turning 30. A woman in her 40s can carry a film \u2013 but it helps her career to look as if she never aged. (It would also help her career if she never turned 60<\/a> either.)<\/p>\n \u201cI just sort of expect female actors somewhere between 30 and 60 are probably doing stuff, and they\u2019re not going to move their foreheads,\u201d Colbert said. Male actors do it too, but \u201cit\u2019s very competitive, especially for women.\u201d<\/p>\n Hollywood\u2019s filler-mania mirrors national interest: an estimated 1.6 million Americans<\/a> received facial procedures last year, with neurotoxins and fillers being the most popular. Then there is the sudden rise in GLP-1 drugs, such as Ozempic and Wegovy, which have slimmed down famous bodies and faces to the extent that fillers are required to correct for the gauntness.<\/p>\n At the same time, forgoing these kinds of doctor\u2019s appointments has become a show of dedication to one\u2019s craft \u2013 an indication that the industry\u2019s new beauty standards are not aligned with the work, or representative of how the regular people being portrayed in films look. Kate Hudson said that she quit Botox<\/a> while filming her Oscar-nominated role in Song Sung Blue, since the film was set in the 1980s, before the procedure hit the market. Jennifer Lawrence told the New Yorker she gets Botox but draws the line<\/a> at forehead filler, which shows more on camera.<\/p>\n In casting, there are two types: bankable stars and actors who lack name recognition. Stars don\u2019t audition for parts, actors do, and the stakes are higher for actors debating whether to get in on the cosmetic enhancement trend.<\/p>\n \u201cVisible plastic surgery is an immediate audition killer for almost every project I\u2019ve worked on,\u201d said Marie, a Los Angeles-based casting director who has worked on network TV shows and major film releases. (Marie is a pseudonym.) \u201cNetworks really hate plastic surgery unless it\u2019s on someone who\u2019s already famous, then they magically don\u2019t notice it. The more famous you are, the more you can fuck with your face before it starts to hinder your chances of getting on in a movie.\u201d<\/p>\n Marie said that some younger, up-and-coming actors clearly have filler, which looks good in a selfie but prohibits them from embodying a role. \u201cIt\u2019s really sad, a lot of younger actresses feel the need to be beautiful on Instagram, but then it makes them less realistic and accessible,\u201d she said. \u201cBeing a model and an actress are two different things. I wouldn\u2019t send someone [to a director] with visible plastic surgery, because they would look at us like we\u2019re crazy and have bad taste.\u201d<\/p>\n Still, Marie said that cosmetic surgery or filler is never directly addressed in casting processes she has been involved with. \u201cIt\u2019s completely unspoken,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n double quotation markI think what audiences are going to want to see more and more is the truth, which is imperfectionsZak Barnett, acting coach<\/p>\n Zak Barnett, 50, is an acting coach in Hollywood. He does not have conversations about cosmetic enhancements while training actors on their artistic processes, but said his students talk to their agents about it, debating whether it will help them land jobs.<\/p>\n Barnett believes that AI\u2019s recent infiltration of Hollywood might help to reverse this trend. \u201cThe desire to be perfect will be taken over by AI projects and AI actors,\u201d he said. \u201cI think what audiences are going to want to see more and more is the truth, which is imperfections. If we get back to character-driven stories, then we won\u2019t want anything to obstruct that authenticity.\u201d<\/p>\n It\u2019s a nice thought. But Jessica M Goldstein, a journalist who has covered Hollywood aesthetics and culture, is not as hopeful. \u201cBeauty standards under capitalism require there to always be something new to purchase,\u201d she said. \u201cThere might be a superficial change \u2013 humanmade things become a badge of prestige or class, like how brands will talk about something being made in America. But that doesn\u2019t mean that people are going to stop paying to have work done. It just means the nature of the work will change.\u201d<\/p>\n Goldstein predicts a shift toward more subtle enhancements. Fifteen or 20 years ago, actors started to get veneers en masse<\/a>. Famous smiles all looked identical. These days, veneers are less standardized \u2013 though they\u2019re still nice-looking, and very expensive.<\/p>\n To some extent, this shift is already happening with faces. Brissett, the cosmetic surgeon, says patients are reporting \u201cfiller fatigue\u201d, either opting to dissolve their filler or not re-up when it wears off (most fillers last up to a year). \u201cIt\u2019s something they\u2019ve outgrown,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n More people are turning to facelifts, Brissett said, which is the second most popular cosmetic surgery procedure in the US. The \u201cdeep-plane facelift\u201d can cost up to $40,000 in major metropolitan areas such as New York or Los Angeles. It\u2019s a newer, more natural-looking procedure intended to make someone look refreshed but not necessarily radically different. Crucially, it allows for facial movement. \u201cCelebrities, public figures, and high-profile individuals are having it done quietly,\u201d one surgeon told<\/a> New York magazine last year.<\/p>\n Jennifer Lawrence might shy away from filler, afraid of how it would impact her acting. But when asked if she had had a deep-plane, she eagerly responded<\/a>: \u201cBelieve me, I\u2019m gonna!\u201d<\/p>\n