Todays Actresses vs Stars of The Past

Discussion of the actors, directors and film-makers who 'made it all happen'

Moderators: Sue Sue Applegate, movieman1957, moira finnie, Lzcutter

User avatar
srowley75
Posts: 731
Joined: April 22nd, 2008, 11:04 am
Location: West Virginia

Re: Todays Actresses vs Stars of The Past

Post by srowley75 »

When it comes to actors/actresses, I think I can say with reasonable certainty that glamour is the aspect that least excites me.

And while I am often amused by Joan Collins, I think it's ironic that she's the one going on about the lack of glamour or beauty or whatever in today's actresses, because for all her beauty and alleged sense of style, she's become something of a poster child for bad taste, having starred in some dreadful (though fun) films as well as one of the campiest TV shows of all time, Dynasty.

I've mentioned before how this year I've come to love the cinema of the 1970s (a decade that before I'd disliked) because the films of that decade just seemed so daring and exciting overall - and not just with regard to sex and violence. Even though one of the criticisms leveled against that decade was that there were few meaty roles for women, I nevertheless have come to love so many of the actresses whose careers took off during that decade - and almost all of them are the polar opposite of the ideal of "glamorous" (Glenda Jackson, Gena Rowlands, Jill Clayburgh, Liv Ullmann, Vanessa Redgrave, Pam Grier - and Sissy Spacek and Diane Keaton were already favorites of mine).

So to sum up - maybe the current crop of actresses aren't as glamorous, but to that I respond, "So what?"
User avatar
mrsl
Posts: 4220
Joined: April 14th, 2007, 5:20 pm
Location: Chicago SW suburbs

Re: Todays Actresses vs Stars of The Past

Post by mrsl »

.
Srowley:

Glamour is definitely one of the least necessities for acting in women. Talent and aptitude are far more important. However, when you pair non-talent with non-attractive, that is what irritates me. Two examples IMO of the non type are Cameron Diaz and Sarah Jessica Parker, now before anyone gets nuts - remember, that's my opinion, my son thinks the sun rises and sets with Parker, so we have our own private little war going one now and then. But, I don't think either one can act, nor is either one especially attractive. Make up and hair stylists can make anyone look good, but if you've seen photos of Sandra Bullock lately walking around with her baby, that's natural beauty. She doesn't need gobs of stuff to look good. Just as certain camera men knew how to film Bette Davis. She wasn't a raving beauty like Hayworth, but the right camera man could make her look gorgeous, and there's Doris Day with the filters to hide her freckles. I always got a kick out of that. Beauty is as beauty does, but you need the brain power to help things along.
.
Anne


***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *

]***********************************************************************
User avatar
Uncle Stevie
Posts: 461
Joined: April 15th, 2010, 10:15 am
Location: Bloomfield, New Jersey - USA

Re: Todays Actresses vs Stars of The Past

Post by Uncle Stevie »

I must add one hidden asset that some actors, men and women, have. Appeal. Some and I put Cameron Diaz in this category are very appealing and why she has been given some heavy dramatic roles lately. I think she is worth her weight. Others are not and I do agree with Sarah Jessica Parker being in the not category. Diaz, Bullock, Anniston, and others have appeal. They draw in crowds of customers to see them. I do not care for many of the actors acting ability but they draw and that is what movie people need.
Uncle Stevie


"Great Marriages Are Made In Heaven,
So Is Thunder and Lightning"
User avatar
JackFavell
Posts: 11946
Joined: April 20th, 2009, 9:56 am

Re: Todays Actresses vs Stars of The Past

Post by JackFavell »

I do enjoy some of these actresses - I find some of them pretty, and some can act. What I get from the classic actresses that I do not get from these new stars is style, grace, heavy duty emotion, and a certain gravitas. Even a Jean Arthur or Carole Lombard has a grounding that I don't see in any of the modern actresses on screen, except maybe Meryl Streep. I think this stems from paying ones dues in the studio system. I think of these new stars as the types who might be a good friend, or a girl I went to college with. When I watch a classic actress doing her stuff - I find an empathy that I don't generally find with the new girls on the block. Perhaps this has more to do with scripts than with the women themselves.

This morning, I cried watching Katherine Hepburn struggle with her loneliness and fear in Summertime. I felt it. I KNOW it. It touched me deeply. When watching Diane Lane in Under the Tuscan Sun, all I feel is , "Boy I wish I had that house" or "That Italian guy is so cute!" or mainly, "She is being a little self-indulgent." I also felt played by the moviemakers - "We'll make a chick flick no woman can resist. We'll put in all the things a woman could possibly want, and the public will flock to it!" It's not Diane's fault, I really like her, but I do not put myself in her place. I am as suspicious as Jane Hudson is when I see a movie like UTTS. I could empathize with Ms. Lane, if only the movie was more personal, not an attempt to capture me as a market. I did empathize with Lane when I was a kid and watched her in A Little Romance. It is the fault of the studios and the filmmakers and the writers that I don't get pulled inside a modern movie like I do the classics. They are too concerned with my pocketbook, and not concerned enough with my mind, heart and soul.
User avatar
Rita Hayworth
Posts: 10098
Joined: February 6th, 2011, 4:01 pm

Re: Todays Actresses vs Stars of The Past

Post by Rita Hayworth »

The only today's actresses that I like are Julia Roberts, Diane Lane, Angeline Jolie, and half a dozen others included - stars like Catherine Zeta-Jones, Sandra Bullock, and Scarlett Johansson are a very few handfuls that I like. All the others, including those on "Sex in the City" and "Friends" - I know people love them - but, to me they kind of turn me off big time. I wish not to express myself why I don't like them. Of all the actresses that I listed that I like (In Bold) - do not even come close to stars of the past ...

STARLETS, like Hedy Lamarr, Gene Tierney, Marilyn Monroe, Jane Russell, Kim Novak, Veronica Lake, Katherine Hepburn, Elisabeth Taylor, (why not the entire roster - see MovieMaiden Web-Site); and my beloved Rita Hayworth and then some. Every Single of these lovely stars were multi-talented. One particular example would be the Blonde Bombshell - Marilyn Monroe - she can do musicals, she can do dramas, she can do comedy, she can do pretty much everything in between. Marilyn Monroe was a TOUR DE FORCE on the Screen. So is my beloved Rita, she also can do pretty much like Marilyn also. Jane Russell who recently passed away - when she and Marilyn Monroe - did Gentlemen prefers Blondes - Can you think any of the Todays Actresses can do a Gentlemen prefers Blondes remake? - I can't think of two women can pull this thing off.

In Short - Stars of the Past ARE WAY BETTER than Todays Actresses - BAR NONE.
klondike

Re: Todays Actresses vs Stars of The Past

Post by klondike »

Hmmmm . . would seem the concensus here is that we don't have much to look forward to . . .
:roll:
User avatar
Rita Hayworth
Posts: 10098
Joined: February 6th, 2011, 4:01 pm

Re: Todays Actresses vs Stars of The Past

Post by Rita Hayworth »

klondike wrote:Hmmmm . . would seem the concensus here is that we don't have much to look forward to . . .
:roll:


Actually, there is one actress - that I completely forgot (she can be next Aubrey Hepburn) if she starts doing more drama and serious roles. I'm talking about Anne Hathaway.
User avatar
JackFavell
Posts: 11946
Joined: April 20th, 2009, 9:56 am

Re: Todays Actresses vs Stars of The Past

Post by JackFavell »

I like Anne Hathaway. She sings beautifully too.
User avatar
Rita Hayworth
Posts: 10098
Joined: February 6th, 2011, 4:01 pm

Re: Todays Actresses vs Stars of The Past

Post by Rita Hayworth »

i did not know that. I never heard her sing. I know she done some comedies, little drama, and quite a stunning resemblance to Aubrey Hepburn. Thanks, for telling me that! Maybe I ask my niece about her. She is a big Hathaway fan herself. Jack ... thanks for the note. :) ... Anne is one classic lady. I really like her a lot. She is a stunner.
User avatar
mrsl
Posts: 4220
Joined: April 14th, 2007, 5:20 pm
Location: Chicago SW suburbs

Re: Todays Actresses vs Stars of The Past

Post by mrsl »

.
Kingme:

Your list would be very similar to my own. If you look at it, you can see the reasoning behind my preferences.

My favorites are Julia Roberts, Sandra Bullock, Catherine Zeta Jones, Scarlett J., Maggie G., and (senior moment, can't recall Goldie Hawns' daughter), and I love Anne Hathaway.

During the golden years we had, gorgeous blonds, beautiful brunettes, ravishing redheads, and every one of them was sexy in her own way except for a couple who preferred to be the 'girl next door', like Doris Day, and Donna Reed. All of them had different methods of acting, different physical looks and hair, and most of them did not seek super notoriety. They had their affairs, weddings and when the babies came, they were left at home where they belonged, not in the public eye, or put on for a show. Some of them were pulled out for special photo ops, or Christmas specials, but on the whole the public was not encouraged to see them on a daily basis.

Going back beyond the 40's and 50's stars, however, was a different story. Those actors and actresses traded wives and husbands almost on a yearly basis, were often having feuds with others, and if not with each other, then with the studio (although I do understand that part of it). I loved B. Davis, Ann Sheridan, B. Stanwyck, liked Ida Lupino, Hedy Lamarr, and some others, could not stand Joan Crawford, Marlene D., and greatly disliked Greta Garbo, but at least they were all different and had their own auras.

You can take most of today's young actresses, toss them in a bag and pull out parts and you can make a whole with any of them, because they are all so alike. Many of them are like mannequins who need to have their arms and legs moved by someone else to show them what to do. At least that's how it seems to me. Maybe in 10 years or so they will finally form their own specific looks and actions, but with so much computer assistance, who knows if they will ever actually learn the art of acting.
.
Anne


***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *

]***********************************************************************
klondike

Re: Todays Actresses vs Stars of The Past

Post by klondike »

I thought Anne Hathaway was particularly good in her supporting role in Brokeback Mountain.
I'll never forget her scene in her cowgirl get-up . . at least as much as she wore of it.
Anybody else catch her in Brokeback?
User avatar
Rita Hayworth
Posts: 10098
Joined: February 6th, 2011, 4:01 pm

Re: Todays Actresses vs Stars of The Past

Post by Rita Hayworth »

mrsl wrote:.
Kingme:

Going back beyond the 40's and 50's stars, however, was a different story. Those actors and actresses traded wives and husbands almost on a yearly basis, were often having feuds with others, and if not with each other, then with the studio (although I do understand that part of it). I loved B. Davis, Ann Sheridan, B. Stanwyck, liked Ida Lupino, Hedy Lamarr, and some others, could not stand Joan Crawford, Marlene D., and greatly disliked Greta Garbo, but at least they were all different and had their own auras.

You can take most of today's young actresses, toss them in a bag and pull out parts and you can make a whole with any of them, because they are all so alike. Many of them are like mannequins who need to have their arms and legs moved by someone else to show them what to do. At least that's how it seems to me. Maybe in 10 years or so they will finally form their own specific looks and actions, but with so much computer assistance, who knows if they will ever actually learn the art of acting.
.


mrsl - Your points in these two paragraphs that you contributed - sum up very nicely. You are very observant here and I can see why you made it. You definitely gave me food for thought. Nice going ... mrsl ... I like your avatar of Robert M.
Post Reply