Subscribe
Have you ever wondered why a certain guy is attracted to certain actress? I get asked my opinion on this subject quite often, actually. Especially since I attend a plethora of film press junkets and have the opportunity to sit down with many actresses in person. Of course, it would be unprofessional to answer that. At least directly, right? Though, what on the surface seems like a shallow question may not be. In fact, it might just be downright insightful! For example: A lot of my friends ask about Zoe Saldana. This makes perfect sense because (a) obviously Saldana is quite attractive and, more importantly (b) a lot of my friends are nerds…
For Saldana, not even taking into account her appearance as a blue alien in the biggest blockbuster movie of all time, Avatar, she has another appearance on her resume that will always endear her to people I surround myself with: She was in Star Trek. It’s a rule: Any actress who appears in a Star Trek or Star Wars film will always be held in high regard (eg Carrie Fisher, Natalie Portman) — at least by the vocal male population that uses the Internet as their sounding board. Is Kim Cattrall a sex symbol because she played Samantha on Sex and the City? No. It’s because she played Valeris in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country.
What does that say about us as a society, though? Nothing much, except guys who like Star Wars and Star Trek will worship any girl who’s willing to enter that world, paycheck or not. That’s still a more respectable attitude than guys who are drawn toward celebrities whose looks are good for (ahem) private arousal — Olivia Munn, Brooklyn Decker — than any real substance. These are probably the guys to stay away from unless you’re a girl who is attracted to Ian Ziering, then, it’s probably a good fit. The good news is that this particular brand of male is too busy playing flip cup right now, anyway. (Or, as Wikipedia tells me, the game can also just be called “cup.” Which was, I had thought, a fake card game made up by Chandler Bing.)
Speaking of Friends, Jennifer Aniston played Rachel but will always be tied less to her co-stars — Courteney Cox and Lisa Kudrow — than to a woman she has never shared a screen with, Angelina Jolie. To a guy, Aniston represents not, as she does to females, the jilted former wife of Brad Pitt who we pity. For guys, she represents everything Jolie is not: Attractive yet approachable; ordinary, but in a good way; not attempting, in her own mind, to save the world; and, most notably, not once married to Billy Bob Thornton. These are all things guys will find attractive. She is everywoman for the common man. The laid-back, cool chick. Which is ironic, because at the height of Friends’ popularity, Aniston was perceived as the opposite of all these things. Aniston hasn’t changed. It’s just the male perspective of her has changed when directly compared with the eccentric Jolie. Is this fair? Probably not. But she doesn’t seem to be complaining.
There are certain actresses who carry a sense of just-out-of-reach unattainability to their persona. A persona that opens up the adventurous side of the male personality that could encourage a guy to either (a) sing The Pixies during karaoke or (b) cover Stillwater on tour for Rolling Stone. At one time this was Audrey Hepburn; today this would be Zooey Deschanel. Guys who love Deschanel aren’t in love with her, they’re in love with the idea of her. This is dangerous. These are guys looking for an excuse to chase their wildest dreams. Unfortunately, it never ends with catching their dreams. It usually ends with him sobbing, on the F Train ride home from Brooklyn, asking himself why it didn’t work out and why she wants you to really listen to the lyrics of “Nothing Better” by The Postal Service. (Damn you, Ben Gibbard!)
Then there’s the confusing cases of Anne Hathaway and Maggie Gyllenhaal. Two enigmas when it comes to this question. Hathaway seems to have found a niche in the gay community but, for some reason, isn’t mentioned much as a straight male’s celebrity fantasy. Which is odd, but not completely surprising. Based on the roles she has played, there’s never been one that — like Deschanel in (500) Days of Summer — sparks the emotional epicenter of the male psyche. Or, maybe, considering her popularity in the gay community, no insecure straight male wants to openly admit to his attraction. Fearing the inevitable “You like the girl from The Devil Wears Prada?” questions which lead directly to “Wait, you’ve seen The Devil Wears Prada?”
Gyllenhaal, for her part, is the unchallenged queen of the love her/hate her debate. No actress is more polarizing for really no reason. Half the people I know claims she made The Dark Knight better, taking over for Katie Holmes; the other half feels she almost ruined it by just being there. How to tell these two camps apart, in my opinion? Her detractors are more likely to be in that flip cup line, renewing their Maxim subscriptions while Gyllenhaal’s defenders are possibly, right now, and even more annoyingly, sitting at their computers, just like me, writing pieces just like this one.
Mike Ryan is an entertainment writer who contributes to New York magazine, Vanity Fair, AOL’s Moviefone and Yahoo News, among other outlets. He lives in New York.
Comments
Post a comment