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
ken123
Posts: 1807
Joined: April 14th, 2007, 4:08 pm
Location: Chicago

Todays Actresses vs Stars of The Past

Post by ken123 »

Joan Collins recently stirred up a hornets nest when she said that todays leading ladies do not measure up to the more glamorous female stars of of the " classic age " of film. Ms Collins contrasted the glamour of Ave Gardner & Lana Turner to Jennifer Anniston, with Ava & Lana winning hands down. Now while Ava & Lana are not my cup of tea, they are IMHO more glamorous & mysterious than Ms Anniston or any of todays female leading ladies, who in my opinion are vapid, and in some instances have no sex appeal whatsoever. Maybe I'm being just an old man ! :D
User avatar
JackFavell
Posts: 11946
Joined: April 20th, 2009, 9:56 am

Re: Todays Actresses vs Stars of The Past

Post by JackFavell »

Ms. Collins was right.

I was just thinking the same thing at the bookstore today. I realized that most of the modern biographies are about people who are not interesting.
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 »

.
You know how I feel about todays actors and actresses - talk about vapid!!! A huge reason, IMHO, is that few of them are around long enough to allow us to wonder where they came from. We see actresses every week on TV but when the show is cancelled, where do they disappear to, except the few, like Anniston, who go to the movies, if they don't get another show? There are a few that debutted on TV but transferred immediately to movies, and some of them are still around, but on the whole, there are only about one dozen actresses who are consistently making movies. Where is Helen Hunt? Right after her show ended, she was in everything coming out of Hollywood, then poof, she was gone. I'd rather see Linda Hunt in NCIS in LA anyway!!! Wherer are the beautiful girls from the TV show Las Vegas, or The West Wing, or even ER? I know Moira Tierney is in The Whole Truth, but that's it. And, actually . . . who cares??? They go, and we just get started on whatever new shows replace them, and life goes on.
.
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 am very conflicted by this question. I do think so many of the classic actresses were exoticaly beautiful. But I am beginning to wonder if the hours and hours spent in the make-up chair was the reason. We very seldom got a chance to publicly see the old movie queens without their make-up and hair productions. I never got to see my Mother-in-law that way. She would never be seen as a natural person. Today's Queens are quite a bit more willing to reveal their outer appearance.

My list of yesterday''s Queens is endless and I could not even complete the list from memory but here are a few I adored and appealed to me:

Deanna Durbin
Rita Hayworth
Lana Turner
Marilyn Monroe
Jeanette MacDonald
Myrna Loy
Veronica Lake
Joan Leslie
Maureen O'Hara
Elizabeth Taylor
Kim Novak
and many others. But many of the classic actresses were pleasant looking or cute but not screamingly beautiful. I do not always put sexy on my list but appealing is tops to me.

Here are just a few of today's Queens for me

Katherine Heigle
Cameron Diaz
Kate Winslet
Heide Klum (although not much of an actress)
Jennifer Lopez
Julia Roberts
There are many others but not everyone draws me to a movie theater. Anniston does not. I saw her in "He's Just Not That Into You" and she appeared to me to be without make up for much of the movie. She was so far from glamorous it was startling. Pretty does not apply to her IMHO.

Please don't call me out on my lists because I know there are many others from both lists I do like and forgot.


Uncle Stevie
Uncle Stevie


"Great Marriages Are Made In Heaven,
So Is Thunder and Lightning"
klondike

Re: Todays Actresses vs Stars of The Past

Post by klondike »

As far as their onscreen performances go, and/or their 'personalities' while in character, how can we really call any of our modern actresses 'vapid', or less than glamorous or classy, unless they're writing their own scripts?
Aren't they just acting down to the standards of their directors & screenwriters?
Shouldn't we instead be blaming our screenwriters & scripters & directors, who accept these gals' performances in such mindless, unchallenging roles?
User avatar
charliechaplinfan
Posts: 9087
Joined: January 15th, 2008, 9:49 am

Re: Todays Actresses vs Stars of The Past

Post by charliechaplinfan »

JackFavell wrote:Ms. Collins was right.

I was just thinking the same thing at the bookstore today. I realized that most of the modern biographies are about people who are not interesting.


Yes and a lot of the books are by people who are half my age.
Failure is unimportant. It takes courage to make a fool of yourself - Charlie Chaplin
User avatar
JackFavell
Posts: 11946
Joined: April 20th, 2009, 9:56 am

Re: Todays Actresses vs Stars of The Past

Post by JackFavell »

I used to love to look through the biographies. Next to biographies of Washington and Lincoln they throw in biographies ofsome woman who decided to blog about food, and another who learned to live with bad hair, and a guy who complains for a living on TV. I left the bookstore feeling kind of sick.
User avatar
charliechaplinfan
Posts: 9087
Joined: January 15th, 2008, 9:49 am

Re: Todays Actresses vs Stars of The Past

Post by charliechaplinfan »

I used to love bookstores, trawling through the film section, now you really have to dig about or go to a big bookstore to get anything unusual.
Failure is unimportant. It takes courage to make a fool of yourself - Charlie Chaplin
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 »

.
Klondike:

Actually, I was parroting Ken123 in using the word 'vapid'. I can't help thinking of Nina Foch and her story about being so upset over the secretary's part in Executive Suite, and how she worked to build it up to mean something. How many people over the age of 50 don't know who Thelma Ritter was? She was a maid in most of her films, never a leading lady, yet her performances were so outstanding that she stood out above the stars very often. I noticed Marsha Hunt in Mrs. Parkington the first time I saw it and muttered an audible "oohhh nnoo" when she died, because she made such an impact on me in the short 5 or 10 minutes she was on screen. I've been griping about writers and directors for years now, where have you been not to have seen? I maintain all the re-makes are due to the lack of good writers, and as for directors, all they can do are close-ups, rarely do you see three or four people in a group standing head to toe on screen. As for Uncle Stevie's 'Today' list of actresses, I agree with him except for Cameron Diaz and Heidi Klum. I would also add Maggie Gyllenhall and Cherise Theron to the list of fine new comers. I have all sorts of ideas on this subject but since bit by bit I've already stated them here and there, I won't bore with a repeat.
.
Anne


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

]***********************************************************************
User avatar
ken123
Posts: 1807
Joined: April 14th, 2007, 4:08 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Todays Actresses vs Stars of The Past

Post by ken123 »

Screenwriters bare a great deal of responsibility for the lack of good roles for todays actresses ( actors also ) as do the directors.The roles that they write for women are depictions are women at their worst, using their bodies to get ahead and foul language which lowers (IMHO ) their likability. The roles go from vapidness over way over the top sensuality. In no way can I be considered a prude of have prudish atitudes.
User avatar
silentscreen
Posts: 715
Joined: March 9th, 2008, 3:47 pm

Re: Todays Actresses vs Stars of The Past

Post by silentscreen »

ken123 wrote:Screenwriters bare a great deal of responsibility for the lack of good roles for todays actresses ( actors also ) as do the directors.The roles that they write for women are depictions are women at their worst, using their bodies to get ahead and foul language which lowers (IMHO ) their likability. The roles go from vapidness over way over the top sensuality. In no way can I be considered a prude of have prudish atitudes.


Well Ken, we have found common ground, LOL. I don't even watch today's movies. I will see "Secretaritat" because it's a Disney movie and Diane Lane has an interesting part about a real woman, not something manufactured by a screenwriter.
"Humor is nothing less than a sense of the fitness of things." Carole Lombard
stuart.uk
Posts: 1805
Joined: January 21st, 2008, 12:25 pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland

Re: Todays Actresses vs Stars of The Past

Post by stuart.uk »

I wonder if the fashions of the 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s play a part in this. Back then it was almost expected for a woman to be ladylike and glamorous, whereas now modern day females go for a more pratical look, such as power dressing trouser suits or for casual wear jeans. Imo that doesn't mean they're any less attractive for doing so.

I think it's great if a modern day actress can do a period piece from the so-called more glamorous age. Then I think they can equal the actresses of the 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s

I think Jane Seymore, Kate Winslett, Kylie Monugue, Julia Roberts and Helen Mirren are good examples
User avatar
Professional Tourist
Posts: 1703
Joined: March 1st, 2009, 7:12 pm
Location: NYC

Re: Todays Actresses vs Stars of The Past

Post by Professional Tourist »

mrsl wrote:I noticed Marsha Hunt in Mrs. Parkington the first time I saw it and muttered an audible "oohhh nnoo" when she died, because she made such an impact on me in the short 5 or 10 minutes she was on screen.

Hmmm, well Marsha Hunt is not deceased. In fact, she just celebrated her 93rd birthday on Sunday the 17th. Also there is is no one named Marsha Hunt in the cast of Mrs. Parkington according to the IMDb listing. Perhaps the actress who made the good impression in that film had another name?
User avatar
ken123
Posts: 1807
Joined: April 14th, 2007, 4:08 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Todays Actresses vs Stars of The Past

Post by ken123 »

In so far as Marsha Hunt dying in a Greer Garson film,that film was Blossoms in the Dust where upon learning that she is a foundling MsHunt kills herself.
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 »

.
Thank you guys:


How stupid of me. I know that as well as I know my name. Just chalk it up to another Senior moment. I love all of Greer Garsons movies, and Blossoms in the Dust is one of my favorites. Edna Gladney fought to change the questions on birth certificates so children would not be faced with abuse from peers because of her adopted sister's death. Can you imagine thinking a person is not good enough because you don't know his or her family? It's things like that which make me glad I live in a slightly more enlightened age. And on top of everything, I just watched Mrs. Parkington on DVD last weekend, double dumb me. I guess Mrs. P. was on my mind (what little there is of it!)
.
Anne


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

]***********************************************************************
Post Reply