Just wondered if I could get your collective thoughts on something - I'm battling a little dilemma at the moment: Do we think it better to stick out for being different, and thereby to limit your casting range, or to fit a much wider profile, but to look pretty much the same as everyone else?
Here's what led me into the quandary: for the vast majority of my adult and late teen life, I have had short hair. Varying degrees of spikiness, granted, but short nonetheless. I recently took the decision to grow my hair, as I thought it would make me 'more castable'. With longer hair, I can play someone from pretty much any era, and as it's infinitely more stylable, of pretty much any type. It's currently shoulder-length.
But here's my problem: I'm not stunningly beautiful. Yeah, OK, I'll admit I'm probably not what you'd call ugly, but I'm not drop dead gorgeous either - I'm fairly average looking. Which is fine, and doesn't bother me in the slightest - but, by definition, means that I'm not a lot better, or a lot worse, looking than most other people. Consequently, if you were flicking through Spotlight, chances are that if you did notice me, you'd have forgotten me again once you'd looked over another 20 images. Possibly even another two. Just another average looking actress with mid-length, nothingy hair. However, if I have short spiky hair, I'm going to stand out a bit, just by virtue of being different. If you're flicking through Spotlight, and the other 3 actresses on that spread have mid length hair, you'll probably be more likely to remember me for looking a bit different.
But will having short hair typecast me? Or limit the parts and the plays for which I'm seen? Hmmm. So you see my problem... any thoughts? Any other short-haired actresses face this issue?
xx
