The shrinking actor syndrome
The swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet has a funny article claiming that male actors have become shorter while actresses have become taller.For example, John Wayne was 6′ 4″, James Stewart and Gregory Peck were 6′ 3″, Clark Gable and Cary Grant were 6′ 1″. All of them were huge in comparison to todays male moviestars. Dustin Hoffman, Al Pacino och Tom Cruise, Mark Wahlberg and James McAvoy are all 5′ 7″ Johnny Depp and Tobey Magurie are 5′ 9″ and Matt Damon 5′ 10″.
At the same time Nicole Kidman, Sigourney Weaver, Geena Davies, Uma Thurman, Connie Nielsen and Charlize Theron, Liv Tyler, Famke Janssen, Minnie Driver all range between 5′ 10″ and and 6′ 0″. In the old days there were no actresses that tall.
One explanation to this phenomena offered in the article is that there is more competition between female than male actors today, forcing women to be both beautiful (tall) and talented, whereas men are selected more exclusively on talent.
This sort of make sense but it also implies that men in the old days were primarily judged by their looks, which seems odd. Of course, it could be that there was even less competition among male actors in previous decades. Perhaps they only picked some tall guy they thought female viewers would appreciate. I mean, when you think about it, the big stars of older days all seem to be women – Greta Garbo, Joan Crawford, Bette Davis. There are no men from that time who can really match them. Except possibly Humphrey Bogart – and he was only 5′ 8″.
Filed under: Celebrities, Entertainment, Movies & TV | 19 Comments
Tags: short actors, tall actresses
Those tall guys were the exception. Most actors, even in the early days, were very short. (They say the average height of actors is 5′ 10″, which means there are lots of 5′ 6″ guys to offset the tall guys mentioned above.) When they made “Funny Girl,” Omar Sherif had to stand on a box to kiss Barbara Streisand. Tony Curtis was 5′ 8″. Jimmy Cagney was 5′ 6″. Robert Conrad was 5′ 7″. William Shatner is 5′ 8″. Alan Ladd was 5′ 4″. And, as you mention, Humphrey Bogart was 5′ 8″.
However, I might add that those are the heights on their press releases, and do not always reflect reality. My brother is 5′ 11′, and when he met David Bowie, he said Bowie came up to the middle of my brother’s chest. However, the official report is that Bowie is 5′ 10″.
I actually think the mix of heights — tall, short, and in between — better supports the theory that men are picked based on talent, rather than just on looks. If it were just looks, they’d all be tall.
Smaller men seem less intimidating.
The producers and casting agencies are driven by jelousy also like everybody.
Waltzing: Well, they are five rather conspicous exceptions. Can you metion five contemporary actors that are as tall and succesful? I can think of only one – Clint Eastwood, but he is mainly a director these days. No wait. Found a list – there is always some geek keeping track of these things: Clancy Brown 6-4 Tim Robbins 6-4.5 Jeff Goldblum 6-4 Donald Sutherland 6-4 Will Smith 6-2. But only Sutherland and Smith are as succesful as John Wayne and the others.
So I still say there is a shortage (haha) of tall actors.
Perzy: I don’t get it. Would the casters and producers really reject a tall actor merely because of poor self-esteem?
Sean Connery
And think of history. Napoleon, Admiral Nelson, T.E. Lawrence — sometimes, being short creates a greater motivation to succeed. At 5′6, 5′6, and 5′5, these were not big men, but they were fairly dynamic.
But he is 78 years old. Hasn’t done any real acting in years.
It’s true that there have been plenty of short prominent men in history. But not in the film history.
The story about Sharif and Stresiand is really strange. According to IMDB, he is 5′ 10″ (the american average) and Streisand is a mere 5′ 5″. Perhaps the data from IMDB are unreliable.
I’ve seen height given as everything from 5′9″ to 5′11″. Maybe the box was just because, for the seduction scene, four inches (and less if she was in heals) wouldn’t make him tall enough to really gaze down on her. Though I remember now that, at the time, the really big issue was that he, a Muslim Egyptian, was kissing a Jewish woman.
As for how many guys were short and how many were tall — I just remember that a very large percentage of the actors I was watching (many of them listed above) were short, and I also remember it being a news item when Fess Parker started acting, because it was hard to find women tall enough to play opposite him. But it could just be who and what I was watching — and when.
As for Connery, agreed that he hasn’t acted for a while, but he is more recent than John Wayne. But perhaps it is because I grew up watching him that I think of him as a contemporary actor. (Does Peter O’Toole count? He’s tall. Or is he too old, as well?)
As I reread your post, I also began to wonder if some of it has to do with the types of roles that exist today. You have to have a good bit of height to do some of the heroic roles of yore (not all, clearly, or tiny Alan Ladd couldn’t have made “Shane”), but most of the new, shorter batch of actors you’re naming would never appear in the type of movies that attracted John Wayne or Jimmy Steward — and vice versa — I don’t see Johnny Depp or Al Pacino doing anything Wayne, Steward, or Peck did. And on the other side, women in the old movies were mostly expected to be rescued — today’s female roles call for women who can rescue themselves. Debbie Reynolds could not have played Ripley in Alien. So might it have more to do with changing roles, vs. some sort of discrimination — a positive change, rather than the negative — stronger female leads need taller female actresses. More sensitive (or more intense or more emotional) male roles can withstand less height and muscle.
Just a thought.
You may be on to something. It would look silly today if actresses looked up at their male counterparts the way they do in the old movies.
Still, I like the old movies. Until recently I never watched anything in black and white, but then I saw “All about Eve” and now I’m into the noir films.
Absolutely, the old movies are great. It’s kind of apples and oranges. Different artistic goals, different technologies, different social order. Comparing old to new is like comparing directors from different countries. Both are wonderful — and it’s great that we have access to both.
WRONG. The US isn’t short on Tough Guy Actors, the casting universe is short on curiosity and willingness to see, audition available, new, amazing, strong, tough american actors… If the US is short on Tough Guy Actors — tell me why the brilliant and amazing Bruno Gioiello isn’t working every day. Don’t know him? I wonder why?? Look him up on IMDB He’s a GREAT ACTOR, strong, amazing performer.
I must have seen Gioiello since I’ve seen all episodes of Buffy, but I’m sad to say he didn’t stick in my memory. My main point, however, is about height, not toughness. I don’t think they’re correlated. Bogart, James Cagney and Al Pacino are all short and tough, whereas the opposite goes for Donald Sutherland, Jeff Goldblum and Will Smith, for instance.
ON the short actor/taller actress issue. I believe that many of the current actresses come from modeling which has always needed the taller body. Kidman, Theron, Thurman , Klumm all have been actresses, I believe
True. A few years back models were very popular so the transition to actress was more likely than today. If your theory is correct then actresses should become shorter now. Klum, the youngest of those you mention is 35. Notably, Ellen Page, 21, is a mere 5′1”.
I think it really has to do with what young men start pursuing early in their academic years. I believe more of the taller, athletic young men are primarily involved with sports rather than drama club.
Could be. Most people like things they have a natural talent. But it doesn’t explain why they used to be taller.
Jeff Bridges is 6′1″, big, strong, brilliant.
Well, he’s not my favorite or maybe it’s the movies he has done I dislike. (Except for K-PAX which was funny and interesting.)