Following the release of The Odyssey (2026), I expected the majority of online discussion to surround the movie’s revolutionary filming technique (being the first movie ever shot entirely on IMAX). Instead, Instagram and X seemed to focus on an entirely different aspect of the film: the apparent lack of wrinkles.
In a viral post on X, one moviegoer stated, “Having Botox is like a disability for actors,” including an image of Anne Hathaway as Penelope. The post criticized Hathaway’s strangely smooth forehead during a heated scene opposite Telemachus (Tom Holland), in which her character grapples with the loss of her husband. Although Hathaway has never admitted to undergoing any cosmetic procedure, audiences accused her virtually wrinkle-free face of stunting her performance. Without any fine lines, many claimed Penelope’s grief failed to translate in Hathaway’s acting. These moviegoers left the theater unimpressed, blaming Botox as the culprit. Hathaway has now become the latest topic of discussion in a much larger debate: Is Botox ruining acting?
Since the beginning of the entertainment industry, Hollywood has fixated on the way women look. The industry criticizes actresses for appearing too old while also scrutinizing those with excessive cosmetic work. Aging actresses fear for the longevity of their careers, worried more wrinkles will result in fewer roles. In a report conducted by the Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film at San Diego State University, research found that 60% of women in broadcast and streaming television were in their 20s to 30s. Only 16% of women, however, were in their 40s. Furthermore, according to research by the Age Without Limits Campaign, movies are four times as likely to feature a talking animal as the main character than a woman over 60.
As Hollywood pressures actors to preserve a youthful appearance, a peculiar misalignment emerges between the industry’s demands and the demands of acting. While the industry insists on physical perfection, the art of acting often calls for ugliness to create moments that are raw and unrefined.
Through the pressures of the industry, cosmetic procedures like Botox have grown increasingly more common. Yet, these procedures pose a significant danger to the quality of films. Paralyzing facial muscles to rid individuals of wrinkles, Botox restricts the facial flexibility that acting depends on. When actors freeze portions of their face in the pursuit of everlasting youth, they can no longer convey small, subtle expressions. They lose the ability to form an angry furrow of the brow or relay suspicion through squinting eyes, ultimately diminishing the weight of their performance. Frozen, static faces prevent actors from appearing authentic or relatable in their roles. Audiences then become removed from the film, unable to identify the humanity of the characters on screen. This separation between an actor and the character they play greatly reduces the engagement of a film; viewers become hyper-aware that they are watching a movie instead of growing fully immersed in the story. Rather than engrossing themselves in the plot and setting, audiences begin to think about the actors beyond the screen.
An actor’s face is an essential tool in storytelling to elicit empathy from audiences. Beyond its positive effect on viewer engagement, facial acting also hints at emotions, revelations and tensions that simply cannot be communicated through dialogue, music or camera angles. Facial acting forms another dimension of meaning, conveying implicit messages through subtlety. The proliferation of Botox strips films of this storytelling device.
Of course, this emerging danger to acting arises from the acting industry itself. Ageism remains embroiled in Hollywood, and the public continues to pick apart women’s appearances. In the discussion about cosmetic procedures in the entertainment industry, we place far too much emphasis and blame on women. Women should undoubtedly be able to do what they please with their own bodies without facing public criticism. However, when the industry and public eye compel actors to receive Botox and other cosmetic procedures, these procedures become problematic. There also is a gross inequality in how the public analyzes women’s appearances compared to men’s. While people love to criticize Hathaway’s expressions in The Odyssey, barely anyone calls attention to Ryan Gosling’s updated look. Aging female actors worry about finding work, but the public praises older male actors like George Clooney as “silver foxes.” More so, over half of lead male characters in streaming and broadcast television are older than 40. Instead of pointing fingers at female actors, we must examine the acting industry at large. By imposing unrealistic beauty expectations upon actors, the industry subsequently degrades its own films.
Personally, I think describing Botox as a “disability” might be a little harsh. Nevertheless, it is necessary to consider the ramifications of Botox on the quality of films and on audiences, too. The growing presence of Botox on screen teaches vulnerable viewers to fear aging rather than embrace it, setting the harmful precedent that aging is something to circumvent. The truth is, aging is unavoidable. As ageism infects the film industry, audiences and movies suffer alike. Wrinkles and fine lines on the big screen should not be shamed. We must stop trying to evade the inevitable.
Michelle Bookbinder is a member of the Class of 2029 in the College of Arts and Sciences. She is a staff writer
for the Arts & Culture department and can be reached at msb394@cornell.edu.
