Ginger looks overweight - The Barkleys of Broadway (1949) Discussion

[–] smith-684 17 years ago

Because fast food is cheap and speedy.
Because they aren't well-educated about nutrition.
Because of heredity.
Because of laziness.
Because of food addictions.
Because of working long hours and grabbing the first thing to eat.
Because of lack of exercise, sitting on butts in front of TV/PC, driving everywhere these days, etc.

I thought Ms. Rogers looked terrific and her dancing was better than ever! She more than held her own and was no longer shadowed in her dancing skills by Mr. Astaire.

reply

[–] Tashtago 16 years ago

She looks a little frumpy but her dancing and comedic skills more than make up for it. She was pretty sexy in the 30s.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] npaxton-3 16 years ago

Ginger had not been in a musical for 10 years. She was an avid tennis player and swimmer. She also played golf, shot skeet - a real outdoors enthusiast. She developed a different kind of a body with muscles in her upper torso. Alas, she wasn't quite as flexible in some of the romantic dances. But I loved the "Bouncin' the Blues" tap number and thought that her acting with Astaire was top notch and very natural as a battling but really in love couple.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bonarc 16 years ago

In the 1930s, at the height of her success, she was 5-4 1/2 and 105 pounds. So in 1949, not surprisingly, she's heavier...but to my eyes not over weight. While Fred remained at 5-9, 140 or thereabouts. So they looked a bit different together.

In fact, Ginger has a different, more athletic body...with less flexibility than her glory days...but is still quite the dancer. Fred said that her tap routine in Barkleys was the best she ever did, and he should know. Ginger was stronger from being a tennis champ...and more womanly.

The film works well for me...as a parting snapshot of film's greatest paired dancers of all time. Fred said that Ginger and he worked so well together in the 1930s, that all the other beautiful partners he ever danced with "just looked wrong" with him. Perhaps the same could be said...and a number of you are saying it...for the 1949 Ginger.

I take her looks for what they are...as a more mature woman and dancer. I do think the electricity is still there between them....but it's different, in that each balances the other in a new, and more knowing way. They still dance quite beautifully together...and the choreography is wonderful. I find this film to be very moving parting (and conscious) farewell of each, to each other.....and to us, the audience.

They both continue live in the public imagination. Why? Because their partnership...in all of its excellence, beauty, and consummate professionalism... is immortal. It will never die.

reply

[–] cnb 16 years ago

What a lovely and well-written post. Thanks for a well-thought-out and knowledgable response to a flippant comment.

reply

[–] flan99 16 years ago

Bonarc,

A wonderful post.

I've always thought that Ginger aged much better than most stars who were around for 25-30 years -- which in itself is a rare group of actors.

reply

[–] eden_echo 16 years ago

I'm sorry, I was watching this this afternoon, and I did not see anyone who looked overweight, in fact, she could have used few more pounds.

"I promise you before I die, I'll surely come to your doorstep"

reply

[–] krdement 16 years ago

I watch some of Ginger and Fred's films almost every time they are shown on TCM - which is fairly often. However, this is one of their films that I do not watch as frequently. I also saw it today - for the first time in a couple of years.

To my mind Ginger Rogers is one of the top 5 or 6 female performers ever. I have always thought that she was not just supremely talented and versatile, but absolutely beautiful. This afternoon, I remarked that she was more beautiful and wonderful than ever. The white gown she wears while dancing on stage with Fred at the "benefit" is stunning. She looked like a hot, sexy angel. In that dress she is simultaneously as graceful, elegant and sexy as I have ever seen her. In fact, I thought she was as graceful, elegant and sexy as any woman of any age ever. Overweight? Not to me.

I kick myself for not taking in this movie more often. I will definitely tune in the next time it is aired - just to see her in that dance number if nothing else!

John 3:16

reply

[–] cattcarn 10 years ago

I'm with you. I love Ginger. She could do it all. I'm not a fan of musicals but watched this last night. They were great together.
She looked beautiful and fit. I did not see her as overweight.

reply

[–] TheDuchessofM 15 years ago

It's only her jawline. If you compare her waist in this movie with her waist in her 30s musicals, they're about the same.

http://edwardianpromenade.com

reply

[–] trina_crys 15 years ago

LOL she was by no means overweight in this movie. She looked as beautiful as ever. Her body was soft and curvy as a woman should be in my oppinion. As women get old their bodies get fuller, hers filled out as bit but she kepted it up well playing sports (as many have already pointed out here). I wish my body looked half as good a hers did in this movie lol.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] emc7711 14 years ago

Amen to that busby1959! I love this movie. I don't have a clue what this moron is talking about. Ginger looks stunning in this movie.

reply

[–] movibuf1962 14 years ago

Shedding some light on this...

Dance critic Arlene Croce wrote a very detailed, defining book about Astaire & Rogers back in 1972 (of which I still have the paperback version), and calls attention to this as well. While she doesn't like her appearance in "They Can't Take That Away," she doesn't say Ms. Rogers is overweight; she says that she developed a muscular thickness in her arms and back from ten intermittent years of swimming and tennis. Consequently, she now had the body of an athlete as well as a dancer. In any event, it's wickedly unfair to just dismiss that as being 'overweight-' she had curves and muscles, and wore them both well!!

And I happen to think she looks fabulous in "They Can't Take that Away From Me" in the white spaghetti-strap gown which show off her fabulous muscular back, arms, and torso.

reply

[–] lottapaws 13 years ago

It would be notable to explain that what is deemed sexy in women has changed over the years. While in the Roaring Twenties, flat chests were the style, in the late forties and fifties, women were more curvaceous. Think of early Marilyn Monroe. Sadly, the anorexic figure seems to be in style today.

Considering the camera adds a good ten pounds to the frame, I can't imagine how thin some of today's actresses must be. I don't understand why women would want to starve themselves, ruin their health (many if not smoke as a diet aid!) by depriving it of needed nutrition, and be proud of protruding bones. I've been that thin as I am one who has to work at keeping weight on my frame, and there is nothing sexy about a rail thin frame!

Miss Rogers looked gorgeous in this movie, she has no equal in Hollywood today! No one would look as sexy as she did in this movie!

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Eightythreeyearoldguy 13 years ago

Way too much emphasis is put on weight these days, contributing to the increasing number of anorexic women.

Life, every now and then, behaves as though it had seen too many bad movies

reply