“She’s a perfect case study in female insecurity. Depending on the role, the camera angle, the costume, and the hair and makeup, Ms. Holmes, 37, swings between polarities of trollishness and desirability. In some movies, she appears dwarfish and deformed with a head that’s too big for her body and empty, space-alien eyes. She is of average height but looks shorter. And when bulked up…she can pass as handsome: just barely.”
Can you imagine a reviewer for a major publisher trashing an actor like this? What did the actor do to The Times erstwhile reviewer, Stephen Holden? Deny him a selfie?
Has any actress ever been dragged through the mud like this?
Well, actually. It wasn’t Katie Holmes that Holden was talking about.
It was “Zoolander 2’s” Ben Stiller.
And this is where the sexism charge comes out and comes out strong.
Stephen Holden feels empowered to trash a male actor’s supposed insecurity? And then spew his own vitriolic impressions of Stiller’s physical attributes? And he’s free to do this with impunity simply because Stiller is…a man?
We’d like to know exactly how many times Mssr. Holden has raked female actors across the trash pit of his Greek God physical beauty standards? Then questioned their insecurities? Did a school-kid psychoanalysis of them for the sake of tearing down a film they appeared in?
Sexist. Double standards.
Or in the case of NYT’s reviewer Stephen Holden, no standards at all.