I remember being terribly shocked the first time I saw Casablanca and The Maltese Falcon because it was made clear to me that at the time these movies came out, Mary Astor (from The Maltese Falcon) and Ingrid Bergman (from Casablanca) were great beauties and also very sexually attractive. I think this also applies to other actors such as Greta Garbo.
I don’t find any of these women to be real beauties or hardly at all sexually attractive. But back in the 1930s and 1940s apparently, they were considered to be great beauties and extremely sexually attractive.
Is this just a question of my personal preference? Or do ideas of human beauty and sexual attractiveness change over the years? Do people who would be considered extremely sexually attractive in the 1930s and 1940s just not be attractive today?
If people who are considered extremely “hot” today (like maybe Megan Fox or Sophia Vergara or Emanuelle Chriqui) were transported back in time to the 30s or 40s, what would people back then think of them? Would they be considered sexually attractive? Or would they be “freakish” looking?
Are you mad, man? Those ladies (and I do emphasize that they were ladies) were and are sexy as all hell.
Here I thought you were going to complain about how women in old paintings are too fat for you, but to disregard Ingrid Bergman is inconceivable.
How old are you? The images fed to you by the media in your youth carry over into adult perceptions.
Personally I think the way Megan Fox presents herself is quite freakish in 1940 or 2012. I can’t imagine that being the object of anyone’s desire; it doesn’t even look like a real human. I have no idea who the other two are, but I’m not convinced any of them are really considered icons of our time and I certainly don’t think they’ll be remembered in a few decades.
But yes, clearly tastes do change. You just have to look at the styles of any other decade and notice how it’s not the same as now.
Of course they change. Marilyn Monroe these days would be considered to have a huge arse. Breasts seem to be a lot larger, or more accentuated today. (I know Jane Russell- name others- had a big rack).
Attractiveness is measured by standards of the time as well. I don’t think tattooed women would have been sought after in the 1950’s.
Also, instead of just women, think of men. I can’t see anyone today really thinking Fred Astaire would be much of a catch.
However, people can still have a certain je ne sais quoi that will transcend fashions and tastes. Ingrid Bergman, to me, is still very attractive (or would be in her prime).
There is a cultural and instinctive component. Clearly tastes do change over time, but only so much. You’ll struggle to find a culture where elderly women, or spotty skin is considered most desirable. Likewise desirable facial ratios have never really changed.
Times change and so do taste. We crave what we can’t have or see. As a result each era will want something a little different. Its just not the women but the movies themselves. Notice that the movies mentioned are solid and engrossing with good script and storyline. Without the crude language or nudity of today. There is a reason these movies are considered special along with the actors and actresses. Today’s actors have very little talent and as a result their longevity is short lived.
I don’t know if I quite buy that. There were certainly over 400 films released in 1942, the only ones which stand out today are *Casablanca *and Bambi. There were more than enough actors of limited talent and longevity back then to fill screen time with mediocre movies.
I think standards of beauty certainly do change over time. You present a small window, the last 80 years or so, but if we increase the scope the changes are even more dramatic. Cleopatra was considered the most beautiful woman in the world 2000 years ago, but evidence suggests that she was a very full figured woman that certainly wouldn’t stand up to the sort of tabloid scrutiny found today. The change from voluptuous to thinner as a standard for female beauty can also be seen in the great works of art such as Botticelli’s Venus. Wide child bearing hips were a sign of fertility and a few extra pounds spoke to wealth (very important in the age of dowries).
So, while there are probably a host of reasons behind the shifts in perception I think these comparisons suggest that beauty has always been a more utilitarian standard. What does one require from a mate and what physical traits are indicators of this?
Ideas of attractiveness do change dramatically over time. They also vary greatly from place to place. Consider the use of neck rings in parts of China. Most people would find women with extra-long necks rather freaky, I imagine, but people there thought it beautiful. Likewise for foot-binding in China.
It’s also worth remembering that even within one society and a given time, there is no universal standard of beauty. Different individuals consider different things beautiful.
I’m pretty sure it used to be a lot more OK to be fat than it is now, and still is in some cultures, as far as sexual attraction. If the Venus of Willendorf really is a fertility symbol, then what Oprah and I fight everyday is just our genes trying to make us hot. (Which I am, but I guess that’s an aside.)
I agree, and I wonder too, if there is a not-so-subtle distinction between beauty as an Ideal and what is “hot” sexually speaking, which may sometimes run to the exotic or new rather than one’s personal ideal of Beauty. That may just be the small head talking, though.
I had to google all three. All are attractive, I’ll give you that. But I think you’re proving a different point. There probably is as much disagreement on the beauty of these three compared to others of our time as there is comparing these three to the stand-outs of 80 years ago. Tastes differ, both over time and at the current time.
But what do I know? I’m old. I must agree with Bozuit, however. these three will barely be remembered in 5 years, let alone 50.
I wonder how much of the OP’s opinion is influenced by differences in makeup and hairstyles and fashions. An image of Ingrid Bergman from the '40s looks old fashioned today, and “old fashioned” and “hot” are somewhat opposing notions. But if Ingrid Bergman had been born 70 years later, she might look a lot “hotter” to you today.
I sure wish I knew how to make pictures appear in my posts without forcing the reader to click on a link. I’ve tried every button in the “advanced” editor, but there is no “[img]” tags or “insert image” button.
