Don’t find Ingrid Bergman pretty but you do like Megan Fox. How about splitting the difference, OP; do you know who Isabella Rosselini is? I’ll include the links, as this message board doesn’t allow embedded pictures or videos.
Poor Julie Bowen got the aging disease; well, she is 42.5 years old as of the other day. All of 3 weeks older than me. But for a female actress, hell - she’s a wizened hag. :rolleyes: We all know no one over 35 is sexy.
Funny how this is such a personal thing I find women who care for their health as improving with age and “peaking” in their late 30’s and mid 40’s
But if women have a shelf life I’ll take a shot at that “spoiled” Susanna Hoffs (53) although she would be even prettier had she avoided the knife.
Of course we are talking about celebrities and photo ideals, physical looks seem to be secondary when you have a connection with a person in real life…or the closer it gets to closing time
Being an avid photographer and a veteran of the movie industry I think many people would be surprised how plain most of these women appear without high dollar makeup artists, ideal lighting and now photoshop.
Here is a link that shows what I am talking about, the style of shoot is very “fashion” based and ages quickly but when it is “fresh” they will seem to look more attractive than styles you are use to.
I just saw “My Week With Marilyn” and it’s got me feeling weak in the knees.
Have you seen it? In many ways it’s pretty much on point.
Michelle Williams was unbelievable.
Julia Ormond played Vivian Leigh and I would not have recognized her as the same lady who played Marie Calvet in Mad Men and would never have recognized her from her work in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.
I have no idea if it was hair and makeup or if it was something internal to the actress. But I certainly am willing to buy your argument. Thank you so much for that link.
The following is perhaps the best photo I have yet found of Sophia:
OMG! That is truly a magnificent beauty.
I am certainly willing to admit that a large part of her beauty is due to hair and makeup. However, I have seen some beautiful women when they have just woken up and have not applied any makeup or anything else to help improve their looks and they were still truly beautiful.
Sophia played Selma in Daymon Wayan’s “My Wife and My Kids” in 2002. That was a network sitcom and so she was active ten years ago.
I tend to think that anyone who has been active on network TV and starred in a sitcom ten years ago and is still working today, will very likely still be remebered in five years time. Of course, only time will tell.
Just take a look at that photo. Does that photo not truly depict a truly stunning beauty? It seems to me that her beauty is of the classic kind and that photo will very likely still be circulating five, ten and even twenty years from now and this same controversy may still well be active at that time.
Part of attractiveness is being able to give off the impression that one is wealthy enough to display the trait in question. For instance, a dazzling smile with straight teeth means that you’ve got enough money to take care of your teeth, and you had parents who either had straight teeth genes, or had enough money to put you in braces. Tanned skin used to mean that you worked outside all day, and pale skin meant that you lived a life of leisure, and then it flipped, so that pale skin meant that you were in an office or factory all day slaving away, but tan skin meant that you were on the tennis court or your yacht. When food was scarcer, plumpness was admired. When food became more plentiful, Thin became In.
Going back a tad, the women Rubens painted would be considered obese by todays standards but were beauties back in their day.
(Possibly because carrying extra pounds meant that you were well off)
Also historically very pale skins (Which were considered a must) meant that you didn’t have to work in the fields.
I’ve noticed that the beauties of the mid 20thc, possibly because fashions covered them up more, would seem a little flabby to our eyes, whereas to their eyes our beauties might be considered unfemininly muscular, perhaps even grotesque.
(emphasis added)
Even for her most ardent fans, I suspect that after 30 years in the ground Ingrid’s appeal is waning somewhat.
Looking at Wikipedia’s photo of Ingrid Bergman, her features seem rather too strong to be considered “pretty”, at least IMO. Part of that could be the lighting and make-up, though: most “glamour” shots of women these days are taken face-on and with fill-lighting to minimise shadows and make the features look smaller and softer. That photo wouldn’t have been taken like that these days. (Also, what the hell is going on with her shoulders?)
