Emily Ratajkowski is pretty much known for being that topless chick. That hot topless chick in the Blurred Lines music video, or that hot topless chick in the movie “Gone Girl”, and I’m not saying there is anything wrong with that. She’s hot and looks great topless, so I really see no problem in her doing her thing.
However, for someone who spends a lot of time being a hot topless girl, Emily thinks she’s too hot and topless for serious Hollywood roles. Clearly she has never seen a little made-for-tv movie known as “Gia” where Angelina Jolie was both hot AND topless AND won a ton of acting awards for that shit.
Emily opened up to ES Magazine (aka a magazine I have never heard of and might be a fictional publication that’s really just some horny 13-year-olds just looking for her to pose for some topless pics so they got their cool older cousin to fake this interview) and she said:
If you’re a sexy actress it’s hard to get serious roles. You get offered the same thing that they’ve seen you in. People are like sheep and they’re like ‘Oh, that’s what she does well.’ What’s so dumb is that women are 50 per cent of the population and they want to spend money to see movies where they’re portrayed as three-dimensional characters. The truth of the matter is no one wants to hear me talk about this stuff. Definitely the men who are casting films don’t want to hear it, but I just can’t not — I’m angry. It’s important to me.
Though I kind of get where she’s coming from, I have to disagree. These “sexy” women who get typecast as the hot chick are—and no offence to them—not usually very talented and don’t tend to have lasting careers in film. I mean, look at Megan Fox or Jessica Alba, two women who burst on the scene and stunned the world with their extreme sexiness and got movie roles based on that hotness, but had the acting range of my grandmother-in-law who couldn’t even fucking pretend I looked nice when I dyed my hair blond. Being sexy isn’t what got them typecast, having a small acting range did. They’re typically suited for one role, and that role happens to be sexy. I mean, men get typecast all the time based on the fact they can only pull off one type of role. They have a few years and then kind of fade into oblivion.
In fact, what typecast, moderately talented, hot white chicks are to movies is on par with what typecast, moderately talented, funny white guys are. I mean, what’s the difference in the flash in the pan popularity of Megan Fox and Jessica Alba in comparison to the dude who played Stifler (I know his name is Sean William Scott) or the kid who played McLovin (I can’t actually remember his name, but Superbad is one of the greatest comedies ever).
Also, does Emily Ratajkowksi not consider the likes of Angelina Jolie, Scarlett Johansson, Charlize Theron, Jennifer Lawrence, Mila Kunis, Eva Mendes, Olivia Wilde, Jennifer Aniston, Rachel McAdams, or Salma Hayek sexy? Because a lot of those women have initially gotten famous off of their looks or topped “sexiest” lists all over the world, but have gone on to receive serious and award winning roles, all while maintaining respected careers.
Women 100% want to see women in movies, Emily, you’re right about that, but we want to see talented women in movies that don’t suck. I mean, did you think that movie you made with Zac Efron about EDM DJs was going to be a hit and change the game for you? How about look at your life and look at your choices before you babble on with your bullshit about sexy women not getting serious roles.