Isn't she beautiful? Women from another time

I share SLAYER69's appreciation for Sophia Loren, she is truly an eternal beauty.

I am also a big sucker for a "Gibson Girl".







P.S. Hey SLAYER, no mystery at all as to how The Cid was able to stay upright in the saddle despite being dead, right?

What about this icon... evrybody knows her name and beauty. The other day I watched a docu about her life which was narrated by herself and it was imho a sad story with a reasonable good ending for her.

At her late thirties early forties she disapeared... At old age, and on wellfare Hugh Hefner got word of her where abouts and sent his best lawyer to take care of her royalties.... Unfortuanately she has past away now.



An inspiration for many many women (and men..lol) and girls then and today....

a reply to: zatara

The classic 'rock' pinup tattoo is based off her.

a reply to: FlySolo

I did a thread simular a while ago. Yesterdays women for me all the way. They seemed so much more beautiful...And real!......

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: stargatetravels
a reply to: FlySolo


I completely agree OP, women from this era are just different class.
They ooze class, sophistication and beauty.

Her eyebrows are freakin me out man!

originally posted by: Bluesma
The man that exudes restraint and dignity faced with others all day might be just as likely to let off a little steam in the evening at home with a few scotch's and some verbal or physical abuse of his own wife.
Even a woman who exudes grace and restraint in face of others may be taking such abuse at home and accepting it as justified and part of being a wife (or perhaps even her fault for not cooking a good enough dinner, or wearing a better lipstick) -even if she makes it clear to her entourage that the same sort of treatment will not be tolerated by anyone other than her own mate.

As another pointed out, Hollywood was rough on actresses at that time, they were treated like objects owned by studios during their contracts and obligated to do whatever they were told, and that often included sexual services.
It was a mans world, for sure- all about the image, the object, that which is visible. But the unseen was not exposed or acknowledged, so we won't find much evidence of it in the media of that time.

Not a single star, until you got mine...

a reply to: Bluesma


Thanks for posting logical responses. I always get tired of people commenting on the "good ol' days"...good for who exactly? LOL

Prohibition happened largely because of the women's rights movement and abusive alcoholic husbands in that time period. Those were not any "good ol' days" for women. There have been a lot of "bad ol' days" for women in history and these time periods are no exception. Women's lib didn't happen because life was fantastic.

Either way, back to topic...here's one of my favorites that has not been posted:

Katherine!

originally posted by: Night Star
Yep, class! Back then a woman didn't have to be almost anorexic and half naked to be beautiful. There was something left to the imagination.

Class, whatever.

I watch these movies and see a bunch of people completely acting cool and tough, the class was all feigned largely, more of an egotistical response to all the foolish people that were watching.

I see more and more amazing women daily where I live, smarter, hotter, more internal power coming through, I do not see any of these anorexic women, tight fitting clothes showing off the incredible work they have put in at the gym........

Where I am, every second or third girl I can see and FEEL the excellence becoming greater each day it seems, I uproariously laugh that it was better then, these girls now are shining DESPITE all the medias attempts to make them stereotype themselves.

I'll just leave this here,

a reply to: FlySolo

In the 1940's she was a Halloween Pin-Up...just beautiful!

originally posted by: FlySolo

She looks like Kelly from Saved By the Bell

Nice thread. I agree with the sentiments expressed regarding these bygone beauties. There are some nice collections of photos on YouTube of actresses from different eras. They were great in their own way. People are great.

I have a fascination with people like Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall and Peter Lorre, the 40s and 50s classics. John Huston, the name alone, it requires no sentence of elaboration.

There are some great home videos from Roddy McDowell on YouTube of house parties he had at his house on the beach at Malibu. Very famous people just hanging around talking and cutting up, as one might do at a beach or cottage party anywhere, with friends.

There is also a multi-part interview McDowell did in which he discusses some famous actresses from the 30s and 40s that he knew or knew about because, having been a child actor during that period and having grown up in Hollywood, he had a long familiarity and panoramic perspective on their careers and what fame did to them.

He was a very intelligent and perceptive man.

Here is Part 1 of a 12 part video interview he did, talking about stars of the past.



As Ross McDonald said of Raymond Chandler, "He wrote like a slumming angel and invested the sun blinded streets of Los Angeles with a romantic presence."

One could say the same about Hollywood.

Here's a sample of the McDowell Malibu clips. They are all short and very sweet if you were a fan of the talented and beautiful people in them.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: FlySolo

We just need to live another 100 years and then we can have virtual reality and sex bots to live our life in any period or any girl we want!

Progress.

Then I can say they're finally putting technology to good use. About time, lol. Personally I think she is attractive, but I HATE the hairstyles of those decades. I don't know why, I just don't care much for them.

Sophia Loren: She isn't eye candy. She's an eye candy store!

www.pinterest.com...

This is a great interview with a very famous old time star, who was beautiful in her prime but is a little past it in this. However, what impressed me about Mae West when I first heard the interview, was her very high intelligence and razor sharp wit. She was a long way from being anybody's fool. She was the kind of "dumb blonde" who might go into the revolving door after you but come out ahead of you, if you weren't careful.

Many of these classic personalities are much more interesting than the films they were featured in. (But those are fun too, of course.)

Just a heads up - off topic trips into misogyny and the downright crude will be removed.

No other warnings will be issued

a reply to: FlySolo

I think the lighting, the artistry of costume and personal appearance, the incredibly rigorous training in diction, posture, bearing, and gait, or all the little elements that make up a big old-fashioned charm, and the easy way these female stars delivered their lines all makes for an entirely enchanting and magical experience. There is really no comparison to today's actresses. We have some fine actresses alive, but most of the younger actresses today simply have lost all of that charm that was once a mainstay of any performing artist on stage or screen. Carole Lombard, Judy Garland, Jean Harlow, Myrna Loy, Vivien Leigh, and a huge long, long list of others, simply outclass any actress today.

Aside from the training, are there any other reasons? I think definitely the whole culture has become so degraded and so devoid of outmoded ideas such as virtue, self-respect, dignity, modesty, etc., that many young women simply don't have any guideposts to go by. And if you try to show a woman of say around 25 a movie from the 30s, she will mostly likely be very bored and not understand it. It is a rare bird of either gender in their 20s today who would find the very old movies interesting. Of course these young people exist, but I am guessing that with each passing generation the beauty of the previous generations begins to fade more and more into the abyss of time.

Women the 1890s, the 1880s, the 1860s, etc., must have had their own charms, that to us may seem elusive or impenetrable, but people in 1915 did sigh for those lost days when women were different, somehow.

I do not know if the recent Hollywood scandal of nude images of starlets being released on social media is very widespread or even if the stories are entirely legitimate and true, given that they may be used to attack net neutrality. However, being kind of very old-fashioned myself, I did wonder if women in the 1930s would have posed denude for so many cameras in their own day. A few probably did, but most probably did not, just because doing so in that period would have come across as very cheap and depraved. And yet, today it is de rigueur.

The sheer beauty and mystery and glamour of those long forgotten days were largely products of a very sophisticated and well staffed, well trained army of stylists, hair dressers, designers, lighting wizards, etc., who were gifted artists, in all fields. And they all worked to create this incredible glorious Golden Age of cinema and of the 1930s and '40s super stars that enchant us even to today. Were women then different than they are now? Personally, I believe they were very different, and that you simply cannot recapture a kind of mentality and culture that flourished generally in America in the 1930s and '40s. I wish too I had been of era and not of this one.

a reply to: FlySolo

Beauty indeed. I think though back then, leading ladies were filmed with Vaseline rubbed on the lens to blur blemishes or imperfections. Her hairstyle is softer.

Of course there's also the fact they aren't eating chemicals, like the food of today. No plastic surgery, no Botox, which is dreadfully obvious and not attractive.

I was responding to the OP, which wrote:

Something about that period where the women seemed more sophisticated and mature than today.
something...I can't put my finger on.

I was answering that my opinion is that class and sophistication is often interpretations of emotional repression.
That is not off the subject of what is attractive in the styles of that period, in women.
That was my answer to what the "something" is that he/she could not put a finger on, and brought it to the table for us to consider.

-I'd like to point out that my first post in this thread responded on the more superficial aspects of the question- make-up, hairstyling and photography. But the objections were made by the OP that there was something deeper to this impression to be considered.... so I went there.

My last peep before this is taken out. Go ahead. I was warned and accept the consequences. I think if the OP leads the interpretation of their post in a certain direction, it is not off topic.