...but by looking at the movie art and other sources, would you agree that women had a certain beauty/elegance, then, that they don't retain today? I don't want to sound offensive, so please don't take my question the wrong way
Baby's on the Half Tip
yes they do there is no garbos but a bunch of paris hiltons.
shareBRAVO to you both...it is so true and unfortunate that we have put these boxtox'd actresses on the same pedestal as the past movie greats. I'm not that old, but all you need to do is watch their faces when the scene called for you to be able to move your FACE for an emotion, response, attitude, etc.....sad....especially for us as moviegoers.
Go see "The Queen" with Helen Mirren...it is a great performance -- regardless of which side of the fence you are on when it comes to Elizabeth II.
Do you truly believe that Bette,Greta,Rita,Joan,Irene and co. wouldn't have used botox if it was available to them?
"Girl,you betta bash Mister upside the head and think about heaven later!" - Sophia
You have a point, even Rita Hayworth, as beautiful as she was had her hairline taken back (very painfully i might add) and died her hair red! Then again...she didn't really need botox...but I think if she did at all then she would've used it!
sharealex hopes to be confused with a real human being someday.
"Howdy, Bub"
[deleted]
alex, would you repeat that once again? That will make it an even one thousand times.
"Mr. Holmes, they were the footprints of a gigantic hound!"
Oh, man. I missed what Alex said. Anyway, I feel a few of you may missunderstood what I was trying to say. (I'm the guy who originally made this topic/board-thing,subject whatever)
Anyway, I wasn't talking about the 30's or 60's. I was talking about the actual time this movie takes place. Although, I have to admit Norma Shearer is one of the most beautiful people to come out of cinema
Baby's on the Half Tip
its also worth remembering that a most actresses of the Norma Shearer era were silent movie stars, what they all told the story through the eyes and other means. Unlike todays stars, who are lucky to be able to tell a story at all!
I guess way back when, they didn't have CGI and other enhancements to reply on. The studio's had to reply on the actresses more, they beauty and talent!
[deleted]
lol In the interest of trying to answer the original question of the beauty and elegance of women in the late 1700's vs now...
There are 2 things that immediately come to mind. The main one is the style of dress of course. The standard awards show dress doesn't come close to even the most basic gowns worn by nobility back then. I
And two, they don't paint portraits like they used to, huh? lol
Trying to compare such totally different time periods is almost impossible.
But, since most women of nobility were inbred, todays women are far more beautiful and have the advantage of modern personal hygiene standards that were not possible back then.
I don't think it's a question of whether they would have had "work done" had it been available. They already had the beauty and elegance, they didn't need the work. And consider this, there was no "air-brushing" back then either.
Norma Shearer is one of the most beautiful women of all time. Considering she started that movie playing at 15-y/o at the age of 34, and stretched to play MA as 34 y/o when she was 36, that's some stretch of talent. The years from the death of the Dauphin and the beginning of her decline to the end of the picture are a pure masterpiece of acting, very very real and believable.
And consider this, there was no "air-brushing" back then either.
There were definitely ways of retouching photos at the time. I remember seeing a comparison of a retouched and un-retouched photo of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor from about 1940. All of the wrinkles and imperfections were removed.
I have a set of four Paasche AB airbrushes I bought from the estate of an old MGM studio artist, which he used to airbrush out some of Clark Gable's ears, frame by frame by frame, along with other chores. Gable's ears he mentioned specifically.
So, while all that handwork to paint on 24fps film must have been time consuming and expensive, I guess they did make the effort to do those kind of "corrections" on film when they thought necessary.
by abs_is_back ~ I don't think it's a question of whether they would have had "work done" had it been available. They already had the beauty and elegance, they didn't need the work. And consider this, there was no "air-brushing" back then either.
The airbrush was very much in use and pretty much fully developed in the 1930s. The same models in use then are pretty much still in use today and pretty much unchanged from then.
The airbrush has been around, in wide use, certainly since the turn of the 20c.
The 1930's certainly had air-brushing which was in full swing. Yes, I agree Norma was a unique beauty of a long-gone era.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
"Then" meaning the 1780's or 1938?
--------------
***Every troll is not a shill, but every shill is a troll.***
Back then, the studios looked out for and protected their stars. Now, it's a free-for-all. That's why you see so-called "stars" like Britney Spears and Paris Hilton flashing the nappy dugout.
share'"Then" meaning the 1780's or 1938?'
Either or both. But I was referring to the 30s. They did do wonderful tricks with lighting though.
Consider also that she played Juliette in her late 30s and her Romeo, Leslie Howard, was in his 40s! And it actually worked!
I think there are still actresses who are beauiful in a way reminiscent of those old hollywood beauties. I would say Catherine Zeta Jones, Charlize Theron, Scarlett Johanson, Emmy Rossum, Reese Witherspoon, Natalie Portman, Ashley Judd, Geena Davis, and Naomi Watts are just a few examples. But really, I think the reason that most actresses don't look that way anymore is because society has begun to adopt a new view on beauty, and now we recognize unconventional beauty that people wouldn't have viewed as beauty in those days. For example, actresses with a more quirky type of beauty are now seen as beautiful, for example, Kisten Dunst, Kate Hudson, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Drew Barrymore, Jennifer Aniston, Renee Zelwegger, and Uma Thurman. Also, society has changed and now actresses of different ethnicities and body types are now being appreciated, AKA Jennifer Lopez, Halle Berry, Rosario Dawson, Lucy Liu, Queen Latifah, etc. I think it's kind of negative and shallow to say that actresses aren't as beautiful anymore, just because they don't all represent one image of beauty.
"I roared...I rampaged...and I got bloody satisfaction" - Kill Bill Vol.II
its not so much about just beauty.
there is no grace or dignity anymore.
<< ...but by looking at the movie art and other sources, would you agree that women had a certain beauty/elegance, then, that they don't retain today? >>
I think it is primarily the styling and photography that makes them appear this way. The thing that HAS changed is that women are taller now. Shearer, Elizabeth Taylor, even Raquel Welch were quite TINY, and some of them like Veronica Lake were even under 5 feet tall!
When going out in pajama bottoms and Uggs is considered the height of fashion ... yes, I agree. Women of that generation had an absolute elegance about them. Even Lucille Ball, in the 50s, had a real sense of style even though she wasn't a traditional 'beauty'.
share