“That face looks like it’s seen an iPhone before.”
That’s the Internet’s go-to reaction the second a new period drama is announced. According to Align Magazine, the “iPhone Face” phenomenon occurs when an actor or actress looks distinctly modern when compared to the time period that they’re portraying. From Wuthering Heights to Persuasion to Daisy Jones and the Six, the iPhone has completely infiltrated our current media landscape.
The overly plump lips, gleaming white veneers, and Botoxed-to-perfection faces seen everywhere in Hollywood today are not only problematic for historical accuracy, but also as a representation of our current beauty standards. While actresses’ bodies and faces have always been under strict scrutiny, I can’t help but notice how uniform the faces of our current leading ladies are. Not only does it feel like everyone looks the same, but the current cosmetically enhanced look on screen is entirely unachievable.
While I’m not criticizing our present starlets for seeking cosmetic enhancements, as even revered actresses like Meryl Streep cannot escape the strict requirements of conventional beauty, it’s frustrating to never see yourself in characters that you admire.
As social media begins to overtake traditional media, I can’t help but notice how its beauty standards, such as having a symmetrical face, have infiltrated the film industry. Social media trends, such as filters that test facial symmetry or negative canthal tilt, have manifested themselves on the silver screen through facelifts and buccal fat removal.
The faces that I see on screen are a far cry from my own. As someone with naturally thin lips and a surgery scar on my right eyebrow from when I was younger, I can tell that my face doesn’t fit the mold, no filter required. Despite seeing movies with a myriad of different characters of various body types and ages, I can never quite see a face that looks like mine. In our current age of inclusivity, why are natural signs of life like scars, eyebags, or visible wrinkles excluded from contemporary media?
Will women like myself, women who know that we will never meet these impossible metrics of beauty, ever get a chance to see ourselves on screen? Whether it be a crooked nose or crow’s feet, representation matters. No matter how small, being able to see parts of yourself reflected on screen can help normalize the features often hidden behind an excessive amount of insecurity.
Beyond the relatable aspect of seeing faces that look like mine, I personally love watching the expressiveness of a natural-looking face. In one of my favorite rom-coms, When Harry Met Sally, Meg Ryan’s facial expressions and movements are a telltale sign of Sally’s personality. The character’s many nose scrunches show Sally’s stubborn nature and become one of her most endearing qualities, allowing the audience to fall for her, just as Harry does at the end of the movie.
These tiny facial imperfections can not only be a sign of life, but they also add a certain level of je ne sais quoi that makes our favorite characters all the more lovable. Looking back at some of my other favorite films from the 90s, I can’t help but notice how strikingly ordinary many of the characters look. Billy Crystal, the other lead in When Harry Met Sally, sports a receding hairline, yet he is still a beloved rom-com character.
It feels as though Hollywood has traded facial diversity for marketability. But many audience members don’t want consistency at the box office; we want raw, original storytelling.
As the old adage goes, a picture is worth a thousand words. In my opinion, the best pictures are those with the most unique compositions.