The Uniformity of Hollywood

The Uniformity of Hollywood 

Many moviegoers have probably noticed a pattern in recent Hollywood releases: the same familiar faces appearing again and again on screen. As Marina McBain puts it, “it feels like we've been trapped in a loop seeing the same handful of actors in every role.” In the past few years, it seems like studios are increasingly relying on A-list actors to attract audiences and reduce financial risk, which cuts down opportunities for new and diverse talent. At the same time, industry beauty standards and the growing normalization of cosmetic procedures are shaping how actors look, creating an even narrower range of diverse faces in film. 

One reason why there is such a prevalence of stars in new releases is that studios started to prioritize risk aversion rather than going all in to create something original and meaningful. According to FilmLocal, the average budget for a film often exceeds $300 million. With a budget like that, it makes sense for studios to reduce financial risk as much as possible, and maybe casting huge stars can work. Big names like Jenna Ortega, Margot Robbie, or Brad Pitt do attract audiences, even if the movie itself needs a little work. In a review of the movie Crime 101, Malcolm McMillan writes, “the ending wraps the story up a little too neatly, but you'll have a blast watching Chris Hemsworth, Barry Keoghan, and Mark Ruffalo engaged in a potentially deadly game of cat and mouse.” The mentioning of these stars is like a promotion in of itself and works to sell tickets, but when it comes to other productions, it isn’t really a necessity to cast these actors. 

For example, the Beatles biopic that is set to release in 2028, casts Paul Mescal, Harris Dickinson, Barry Keoghan, and Joseph Quinn. McBain says, “At this point, I'm convinced that casting directors have a genuine phobia of fresh faces. And it's especially frustrating because if there's one genre where accuracy should matter, it's biopics.” And for the case of the Beatles, this is especially true: the Beatles themselves are a huge name; the movie will sell itself without the need for huge actors to promote it further, and one would think directors would cast actors who at least resemble the people they are playing. “That isn't to say I don't think these are

talented actors, but when you have several other actors who actually fit into the description of the roles, why not cast them instead?” McBain adds. To add on, casting big names seems to foster weaker engagement, and it is difficult for actors to break out of their most famous roles; 

for instance, many audiences still view Tom Holland primarily as Spider-Man, or Chris Evans as Captain America. 

Yet the repetition goes beyond casting. Increasingly, many actors on screen share a similar look, influenced by the growing normalization of cosmetic procedures such as fillers, Botox, and Ozempic. As these treatments become more widespread across the industry, the variety of faces audiences see is shrinking, and the industry increasingly favors actors with marketing power, rather than their talent or ability to disappear into a role. Take, for example, Dakota Johnson as Anne Elliot, from Jane Austen’s Persuasion, or the new adaptation of Emily Brontë’s novel, Wuthering Heights, with Margot Robbie as Catherine Earnshaw, an 18-year-old living in the early 1800s. When these castings were announced, many literary fans were “quick to point out that Emily Bronte described [Catherine Earnshaw] as having features too marked and too picturesque to be called pretty,” says McBain. Margot Robbie was not perceived to be a good fit for this role because her face is just too modern, and the internet started calling it the ‘iPhone face.’ Put simply, an iPhone face is one that is very modern, and Hollywood seems to be plagued with it; full lips, Botox, sculpted faces, perfect noses, the list goes on. According to NecoleBitchie, 50 to 80% of actors have undergone plastic surgery or cosmetic enhancement of some kind. Modern faces in period dramas make no sense, and cosmetic procedures normalized in productions “further narrows the range of facial features” that we see on screens. This has started a dangerous path within society where if your appearance doesn’t check off a set number of expectations or standards, you are automatically considered “ugly” or “not good enough”.

For aspiring actors, these trends have implications that extend far beyond what audiences see on screen. When major studios repeatedly cast the same small group of well-known performers, fewer opportunities remain for new talent to break into the industry. Acting has always been competitive, but the reliance on recognizable stars makes it even more difficult for unknown actors to secure roles that could launch their careers, which has worked time and time again. Marlon Brando, Audrey Hepburn, and Meryl Streep were all relative nobodies until a single career-defining role launched them into the spotlight. 

Despite all of this, audiences are not powerless in this cycle. Studios are the same as any company, and respond to what people watch and pay to see. Continuing to support productions with the same recycled talent and the same lack of diversity in representation, the industry will likely continue to produce them. But if audiences seek out and support projects that take creative risks and highlight new talent, Hollywood may have a reason to change course. In the end, the diversity of people in film may depend not only on the choices made in casting offices, but also on the choices made by the people watching.