They can afford top of the line beauty treatments so they often look younger than regular people of the same age. Look at Demi Moore and Nicole Kidman.

Anonymous wrote:I just wonder since they have to emote more and have expressions on their face. Since their work is creating facial and body expressions...wear and tear. On the other hand, they have the best nutrition, exercise and oodles of money to relax and not worry.

As PP pointed out, if they are on film or tv, they don’t have to emote more— they just emote normally. There really isn’t more wear and tear— it’s only more if compared to a person who doesn’t emote at all in their normal life.

Turns out good actors are causing their bodies to literally FEEL what they're emoting. Awful example was a pregnant actress playing an abused pregnant woman who miscarried in an episode she filmed. The actress then miscarried in real life a week later. Linda Hamilton's twin sister abused pills and booze and accidentally died in her hot car during height of covid. She looked a lot younger than Linda even though she was abusing herself. It is totally the emotions and your body believing what you tell it.

Anonymous wrote:No one ages faster than anyone else. Sometimes people look older due to life style choices, not acting as a career.

Lifestyle choices, including not wanting/not being able to afford botox.

I used to be an actor. Being active and keeping fit is part of the job and that holds off aging. Being inactive and drinking heavily will age anyone.

Anonymous wrote:Underweight, smoking, sun exposure, and genetics, not emoting.

Yes to all of this.

No one ages faster than anyone else. Sometimes people look older due to life style choices, not acting as a career.

I just wonder since they have to emote more and have expressions on their face. Since their work is creating facial and body expressions...wear and tear. On the other hand, they have the best nutrition, exercise and oodles of money to relax and not worry.

I'm an expressive person and used to perform on the stage, for two decades. I still look young for my age, in my 50s. It's genetic. My mom was not a performer but she also looked young until her early 60s, when the wrinkles really set in.

Also, many film actors are not expressive in a broad way. For dramatic film/TV work, subtle expression is valued, especially now. Think of an actor like Jon Hamm as Donald Draper, or Carey Mulligan. These are not broad actors. They have highly expressive eyes and the ability to subtly shift their facial expression in a way that communicate a lot in a close up

This is so different from the kind of work I did as a stage actor/dancer/performer, where you needed much broader expression and more physicality to express the same emotions.

So no, I would not expect that film/television stars age faster than the average population. In fact I would assume they would tend to be better looking than the average person and thus appear to age slower because of more generally youthful health appearance.

Underweight, smoking, sun exposure, and genetics, not emoting.

Actor here. No. Genetics are what matters. And having to emote for work doesn’t mean you smile/frown/whatever all that much more than other people—because you aren’t necessarily doing it when you aren’t onstage or in front of a camera.

I think so OP. That plus sun exposure due to lifestyle and filming outside.

They are all underweight, thus look very wrinkly.

Well, Victoria Beckham agrees with you.

Actors spend their whole like emoting strong emotions and putting themselves in dark psychological mindsets for the sake of their craft. Even for regular actors, having to smile and laughing and cry for most of their lives...do they develop lines and wrinkles faster due to all the usage?

I wonder even about public figures...Kate Middleton, for example, has to have a smile plastered on her face since she married Prince william at age 30. Does she have more crows feet and laugh lines and other women?