There is nothing about Vivien Leigh that looks androgynous. Sje had exquisitely beautiful features. |
This is a very odd/random comparison! š |
Farrah posed in a red swimsuit with her nipples poking the fabric. That and the hair are why she was on the wall of thousands of teen boys' bathrooms.
I agree Leigh and Jaclyn were more beautiful. |
No contest - Vivien Leigh - in the opinion of this black woman. I actually never understood all the fuss about FF. Brooke Shields is far more compelling, in my view. |
Vivien Leigh looks like Delta Burke.
Jacklyn Smith looks like Mila Kunis. Farrah Fawcett looks like a prettier version of Blake Lively and Melanie Griffith. Christie Brinkley was the quintessential āAmericanā beauty. She was everywhere and oozed the perceived American beauty standard. I donāt know her name, but there was a famous model in 90s who now appears in the Talbots catalogue. Sheās still gorgeous and very natural looking. |
Brooke Shields looks more mannish than Giseleā¦and that says a lot. |
Hands down Vivien. Classic beauty |
That was my question also. Totally different time frames and appearance. |
For those noting that Jaclyn Smith was more beautiful than Farrah, I think it's similar to Friends: Jennifer Anniston got most of the attention but Courteney Cox is more classically beautiful. Interestingly, there were nipples involved in that case also.
|
Eh, CC needs a haircut and a softer color. Desperately. |
I agree Smith was the more classically beautiful of the Charlie's Angels, but I think Fawcett's appeal was not just the hair but also her smile. If you look at photos of Fawcett where she isn't smiling, she looks only slightly above average in terms of beauty, but her smile is big and very natural and inviting. It made her seem approachable and inviting. That's why that poster of Fawcett was so iconic -- it's the way she's tossing her head back and smiling like you're in on the joke. She was a very good model even though Smith was the beauty queen. I think it can be hard to evaluate the beauty of film stars from before the 1950s because that was when movies were more like stage plays, including a lot of artifice in styling actors. Like to me the classic Vivien Leigh image is her pursing her lips a bit and arching her eyebrows over her big eyes. But that appearance is pretty artificial -- those eyebrows are drawn on with a hyper-dramatic arch, her lips are drawn on to look like a rosebud, too. If you look at photos of her from before she was a star and where she has less makeup, she can look extraordinarily different and not like the image you have in your head. Movie stars back then were kind of like the way you think of drag stars now. It was much more about artifice. It wasn't until the 50s that Hollywood started embracing a more natural look onscreen and the makeup/costuming really strongly diverged from stage work in terms of approach. And the movie stars also got more strikingly attractive (Elizabeth Taylor, Audrey Hepburn, the Hitchcock women) because their appearance was simply enhanced on screen -- their faces weren't being drawn on in the same way. |
What are you smoking? BS was spectacularly gorgeous, and not remotely mannish, in her "prime." She is still very beautiful. I literally have no idea how you could think that. |
Both ladies are very beautiful. Probably natural beauties, too, in their youth. |
+1 Google her when she was young. She was always gorgeous and feminine. Gisele - OTOH - nothing beautiful about her. I'll bet the people who photo shop her pics are better looking. |
Iām talking about how Brooke looks now. Mannish. She was beautiful and rather delicate looking as a child, teen and young adult. Did you see her on Colbert? Why did she wear a spaghetti strap top with a cutout? Why accentuate a square frame? Her face is very square and slick now. Wonder what work she had? |