Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2018 9:52:51 GMT -5
I really don't consider Tate to be all that beautiful. Sorry. Where is the eyeroll emoji when I need it? Tastes differ, I suppose. I don't know what your ideal of physical beauty is -- for my money, Sharon is hard to top. IMO, her face is simply exquisite, and she has a beautiful figure that doesn't look all fake. But I'll let everyone judge for themselves whether she was beautiful. I made an effort to find some shots where she isn't obscured by weird 60s fashion choices (which tend to get in the way of assessing how attractive someone is when judging them compared to people today) and a few candid shots as well as glam shots. I'm including a couple of nudes and semi-nudes because I think some of the '60 clothes (those dreadful waistless baby-doll dresses, for example -- she's wearing one in the fourth picture) obscure her figure and make her look bulkier than she was. To my mind, the shots that actually are prettiest are the informal shots -- the one where she's leaning over to someone and laughing, and the one holding up the baby clothes -- rather than the glam shots, but tastes can differ. I suppose if your standard of beauty only includes, say, giant fake inflated boobs imposed on starkly thin figures that nearly all actresses seem to have these days (a combination that almost never occurs naturally, which is one reason you didn't see it much until the era of plastic surgery), her figure won't do anything for you. Ditto if the (mostly achieved by lip injection) big pillowy lips are required. My guess is that in another 50 years, those things will be out of fashion and not generally regarded as beautiful. I'm also guessing the unhealthily low BMI look will also not be regarded as lovely. Too many actresses (and certainly models) today look like they need a sammich, IMO. Anyway, Tate's looks aside* -- Fine. The desire of people to make profits off other strangers' tragedies, and the desire of the public to stuff their gullets with endless re-hashings of prurient and/or gory events, are not tasteless. What is tasteless is a grieving sister condemning such desires as tasteless. *ETA -- *bookmarks this thread for the next time some dude flips off a remark on how women are so eager to put down and dismiss each other's looks as compared to men* ETA -- Since we're being shallow -- Tastes definitely differ, since I recall you raving in an inauguration thread about how gorgeous Ivanka Trump is. Me, I do think Ivanka has a lovely figure, but her face is just pretty and no more -- her chin is weak, her mouth not very well-shaped, among other flaws. Certainly it is prettier than average, but I don't go "Wow" and look again. ETA: I also wonder (since I think Sharon is as close to indisputably beautiful as one can get, and it appears Vince agrees) whether perhaps Rob has only seen a grainy newspaper shot of Sharon with some ridiculous 60s behive and an unflattering baby-doll dress. There was one that they reprint a lot, and it's kinda hard to even see Sharon past the 60s silliness -- I'll post it below. I mean, it's not that she looks unattractive exactly -- it's just that it kind of ages her and really doesn't do her justice (at least looking at it from a 21st century beauty perspective). I think the other pictures I post above let her shine through a lot more, IMO, and make it easy to envision her in real life, and compare her to modern beauties. (Heh. This phenomenon -- dated fashion making otherwise attractive people look silly and less attractive -- is already true with my high school yearbook. I am grateful that I never wore much makeup, always kept my hair simple, and wore a plain shirt and jacket that I might still wear today. My nieces agree that my yearbook picture has aged much better than many of my more trendy classmates. And OMG, my dad's yearbook! I got such a laugh as a kid when my dad pointed to the girl voted "Most Beautiful." She had the most preposterous hair, makeup and clothing choices -- so dated. Plus she was all posed in yearbook-y fashion, and somehow looked more like 30 than 17. But he showed me some candid shots of her, and then I saw what he meant. It's funny, looking at that same picture as an adult, I can see right past the silly hair, etc. and see just what a pretty girl she was. But not as a kid -- I just saw the dorky dated clothes and hair.)
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Feb 8, 2018 12:11:25 GMT -5
Weighing in on beauty, yes, she was beautiful. I can't see how someone would deny that.
I also think Ivanka is beautiful.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2018 12:17:18 GMT -5
Certainly Ivanka is good-looking. But for my money, her face just can't compare to Sharon's -- ...which is fine, of course. I only bring it up because Rob dissed Tate as not particularly beautiful and I recall him raving about how gorgeous Ivanka is. Personally, I reverse that judgment, and think Ivanka is very attractive but not extraordinary, and Sharon is just stunning. I just genuinely can't see a flaw in Tate (outside of 60s styling choices, which I think tend to be awful and not very flattering). Rob apparently can. Like I said, tastes differ. ETA: I'll also admit to feeling a tad protective of Sharon, as much as one can to a person one never knew personally. I read Helter Skelter when I was 12 (it was on my parent's shelves), and I've felt that way since. It's not just that she was brutally murdered while begging for the life of her unborn child. (Susan Atkins responded "Look, bitch, I don't care about you" and then stabbed her repeatedly until she bled out. That's Susan's account, anyway.) It's also that by literally all accounts, Sharon was a sweetheart of a person who never had a bad word to say about anyone, and was way more about her baby and husband and friends than about her ego and her looks. There's something sad to me that her horrible death in particular gets singled out and exploited and rehashed constantly for decades. She should be cooing over her grandchildren now.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 9, 2018 10:14:51 GMT -5
Fine. The desire of people to make profits off other strangers' tragedies, and the desire of the public to stuff their gullets with endless re-hashings of prurient and/or gory events, are not tasteless. What is tasteless is a grieving sister condemning such desires as tasteless. Grieving? It was fifty years ago. How about the Waco series currently airing on the Paramount Network right now (it's quite good, imo)? There are plenty of relatives around, I am sure, along with a couple of actual survivors. Does that make it tasteless? Then there are movies like The Deliberate Stranger (one of several Bundy movies). I am really not grokking why Tate's sister has some sort of special right to judge, here. And moving to generalities, who should be able to speak for those who were tragically killed/murdered? I think that's an interesting question. I know nothing about Tate's sister and her relationship with Tate, but for the sake of argument, let's suppose they were estranged. Would that change things? As to Tate's beauty, I'm sorry that my tastes are different (I think she's very pretty, as a matter of fact, just not at the oh-my-god-she's-unbelievably-gorgeous level that you have her). Your pics aren't making a dent in that regard. I guess I could go to the trouble of posting pics of other women whom I find more attractive, but what's the point? It's subjective, as you say. And I did note that many people did consider her quite beautiful. But you really seem to think that matters here. So fucking what if she was beautiful? Does that make her murder any more of a tragedy? Does it somehow support her sister's--and your--position here on the making of this film? No, of course it doesn't. So why are you so focused on her looks?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2018 10:59:19 GMT -5
My point is pretty much the OPPOSITE of "she's beautiful, therefore her murder matters more."
It's that several other people were murdered too, and yet it is always Sharon who gets dragged out and exploited constantly, again and again and again, in a way the other victims do not, which I submit is pretty much entirely because of her beauty.
Is anyone eager to make a movie called "The Haunting of Rosemary LaBianca?" or Abigail Folger, the young heiress? Or Steven Parent, the 18 year old who was killed? Or Jay Sebring, the Vidal Sassoon of the 60's? No. I'll bet ten dollars most don't even recall their names off the top of their heads. They rest in (relative) peace, and their families are less constantly assaulted. Sure, those victims are mentioned in passing in films and books about the Manson murders. But they aren't the continual single focus of films. Most people today probably wouldn't immediately recall who they were without a prompt. Show me a movie that's just about Steven Parent or Rosemary LaBianca. I'll wait.
A friend of mine had a teenage brother who was killed in the Lockerbie crash. No one is making a fictionalized movie about his life and death in particular (though I'm sure there are books and films about the disaster itself), singling him out over all the other victims again and again, and embroidering his life where it's just not fancy enough to make a buck, revolving around a (fictional) idea that he was haunted by premonitions of his early doom. If my friend opened the newspaper to see an article about such a movie, with Justin Bieber in the role of her brother, she'd be fucking horrified and disgusted. It would re-open old wounds. I'd say she'd have the right to pronounce it "tasteless."
The focus on Sharon isn't a result of Sharon's fame in life. You brought up Natalie Wood -- unlike Natalie Wood, who was indeed a global star who had major starring roles in numerous classic movies people still watch and discuss, Sharon was a minor starlet who could be a regular at a Big Sur inn without many of the other regulars even realizing she was an actress. Minus her gory murder, no one would be making a movie out of her. (They might well out of Natalie Wood, whose career was considerably more distinguished and well-known.) Poor Sharon would likely be an obscure, happy, doting grandmother somewhere. Have you seen (even heard of) any of Tate's movies, except perhaps Rosemary's Baby (in which Sharon had basically a walk-on part)? No. Barring that one movie, they were cheesy and forgettable, and her parts in them, other than Valley of the Dolls (which was poorly reviewed and hardly a smash hit) minor. They'd be utterly forgotten except for the fact of the murders.
And unlike Natalie's death, where the cause of death was always a bit mysterious, and new facts have recently surfaced implicating her husband (which is why discussion about her death has resurfaced), there is no mystery to Sharon's death -- we know who killed her, how and why. There have been no new facts in the last 50 years -- just rehashings of the old ones. Unsolved murders or disappearances, especially ones where new facts crop up, tend to draw lasting attention. But that's not the case here. That's not why Sharon in particular gets singled out.
She gets singled out because she's gorgeous and blonde. (The pregnancy absolutely adds to the poignancy, but I submit that if Abigail Folger had been pregnant, it still would have been Sharon who got the attention. Abigail was young and wealthy, but only reasonably attractive rather than a blonde stunner.)
You bring up Bundy and Waco. Sure, people make films about those events. They're focused on the events overall, the perpetrators, or the investigation. Can you name me any that are full-length dramas based on the life of one of the Bundy victims (actually, fictions sprung from an imagined idea about one of the victims)? Then name me one where they did so without talking to any of their still living immediate families? I'll wait.
Unlike the films about Bundy and Waco, this latest Tate film isn't a documentary (or even a dramatization) about Manson that talks about the murders overall. It isn't focused on the investigation into them. It isn't about the murderers. This is a story about Sharon Tate -- one which, according to her sister, is based on a total invention, that Sharon was "haunted" by premonitions of her own gory fate. Minus the murders, there's not much story to tell about Sharon's life, to be honest. So they are glamming up the story with inventions rather than trying to get an honest grip on the real Sharon, by, say, interviewing her fucking sister.
And I posted all those pictures and went on and on about Sharon's beauty because (1) you dissed it, and (2) you scoffed at the idea of her beauty being the reason her death in particular is constantly dredged up. Since I'll bet many people in this thread don't have much idea of what she looked like, I wanted to give them a shot to assess it for themselves,and to ponder why it is her death in particular keeps getting dredged up. And by the way? your personal assessment of her beauty (which, as you admit, is in the minority) is not what matters for the purposes of my point. Actually, nor does mine, except insofar as it was generally shared. My point is that MOST people found and find her incredibly beautiful, which is why HER murder is the one that keeps getting dredged up rather than Rosemary LaBiancas or Abigail Folgers or Steven Parent's or Jay Sebring's. THAT'S the particular fascination with Sharon. NOT her role in Valley of the Dolls.
And I think it sucks. That's my point. Leave the poor girl alone. Let her family have what peace they can. And if you can't, if you're determined to make a buck from it, be prepared for the family to say it is tasteless.
Poor, poor condemned filmmakers. Poor Hillary Duff. They shall cry all the way to the bank, and it is all meanie mcmeanie greedy Debra Tate's fault for making a big deal out of her dead sister.
To be honest? I find it really, really off-putting that you are so dismissive of Tate's sister's pain, and the way you minimize Sharon's horrible death as not being much of a tragedy.
I don't think you ever get over losing a loved one in such a horrible way. Not ever. Losing anyone you love is huge -- especially when you lose them in an unexpected or particularly terrible way. My mom lost her 16-year old brother in a car accident decades ago -- she still grieves. The other week I was with my friends in Florida. I had a heart-to-heart with my friend's mom (age 70) (with whom I am very close) about how much I still miss my dad. (Scorn me if you like, but I still cry about it, three years later. And since he died of a terrible disease that rapidly devoured his brain, I still have nightmares about some of the dreadful, traumatic events of the last months of his life, which gave me panic attacks at the time. I expect I always will. I'm weak, what can I say, and I loved my dad very much.) My friend's mother was very comforting -- she told me that she'd lost her mother thirty years ago, and still misses her and yes, cries about it sometimes.
Congrats on your stoic ability to just get over things, I guess. Some of us are just weak and sentimental and don't just forget about our dead loved ones, even after years. A lot of us, actually. And I submit more so when they die young and/or horribly, as Sharon did.
Tate's sister is still grieving enough to go to every Manson family parole hearing to speak out about her sister's death and against the release of her murderers. Her life (as was her mothers) has been heavily devoted to being an advocate of family impact statements at parole hearings.
I also find it seriously offputting that you are quick to condemn Tate's sister when you imagine a remark she makes could be read as her thinking she should get paid (I don't think that's what she meant, by the way, but whatever). However, you think it's teh awesome and only natural that these film makers make a buck out of it.
I don't get your assessment, at all, of what is and isn't tragic and what is and isn't tasteless.
Finally, I never said they couldn't make the film. I never argued for censorship. Not once. I responded to the question you asked -- is it tasteless?
I concur with Tate's sister -- yes, yes it IS tasteless that they keep dredging up that poor girl's horrible death again and again, even though there are NO new facts, NOTHING new to shed light on, to fictionalize and exploit her, and that they do so without so much as mentioning it to her living family, who get to first hear about such efforts in the goddamn news. Even a heads up "hey, we're making this movie" or a "hey, we want to get Sharon's story right, can we interview you?" would to my mind make it a touch better (the latter in particular), even if Tate's sister had sent them packing.
She shouldn't learn about it for the first time in the news, which is apparently the case. And if the film makers are actually trying to do something about Sharon's life, why the fuck wouldn't they want to talk to the people who actually knew her best? The fact that they didn't shows that they don't give a shit about Sharon's life, as does the fact they are revolving the story on what (according to Sharon's sister) is in fact a falsehood -- that Sharon was haunted by premonitions). What they give a shit about is making a buck out of exploiting her.
Which, IMO, is tasteless. Which is what you asked.
And I am relatively certain that nothing I can say will make you grok, or at least admit you grok.
But I'll put it this way anyway, in case anyone else reading isn't grokking.
Let's say your sister (or daughter, or some member of your immediate family) was horribly murdered by a notorious serial killer. Let's make it your daughter, since I know you have one and I know you love her. Certainly you would have to deal with the terrible loss and grief, and brace yourself for the fact that her name would forever be coupled with the name of that serial killer, and that it would likely be mentioned every time that serial killer came up. Nothing to be done about that -- it is inevitable.
How would you feel if someone decided to make a movie, not about the serial killer or the murder investigation, but specifically focusing on your daughter's life and horrible death in particular, revolving around some fictional idea that she was haunted by premonitions of exactly such a death? And they didn't bother to interview or so much as notify you? You just opened the newspaper to read about a new film called "The Haunting of Robeiae's Daughter"?
I'm betting you would feel you had some "special right to judge" that was not shared by, say, me or some random person in Utah.
I'm betting the rest of the forum would agree you had that right, and would not condemn you for saying it was tasteless and exploitative. And THAT is what we're talking about -- not her right to stop the film or get paid, but the right to say "yes, it is tasteless that they are (again) exploiting my sister's horrible death to make a buck."
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Feb 9, 2018 12:48:23 GMT -5
I think her beauty matters only in as so far as it helps make her a far more sympathetic victim for a visual people. If I were casting a film about fictional murders, I'd want someone who looked like her because while it shouldn't, people who are visually engaging get more of a reaction.
I don't have a link, but I can remember people talking about how a kid who is blonde, blue eyed and the picture of innocence will get an amber alert faster than a less cute kid, or even a Hispanic or black child, which is, if true, a travesty in and of itself.
Combine that with the fact that she was pregnant. With the fact that at the time there was footage of her. It just plays well.
She shouldn't be anymore or less important or her murder any more or less tragic (Well, maybe a little more tragic with the lost of her baby) But sadly, it is seen that way.
If I say OJ, most people will think of Nicole Brown Simpson. Very few talk about Ronald Goldman.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2018 13:02:59 GMT -5
I think her beauty matters only in as so far as it helps make her a far more sympathetic victim for a visual people. If I were casting a film about fictional murders, I'd want someone who looked like her because while it shouldn't, people who are visually engaging get more of a reaction. I don't have a link, but I can remember people talking about how a kid who is blonde, blue eyed and the picture of innocence will get an amber alert faster than a less cute kid, or even a Hispanic or black child, which is, if true, a travesty in and of itself. Combine that with the fact that she was pregnant. With the fact that at the time there was footage of her. It just plays well. She shouldn't be anymore or less important or her murder any more or less tragic (Well, maybe a little more tragic with the lost of her baby) But sadly, it is seen that way. If I say OJ, most people will think of Nicole Brown Simpson. Very few talk about Ronald Goldman. Yes, I think this is about right. I find Sharon's murder terribly tragic, especially the fact that she died pleading for the life of her baby. She was due in two weeks. A terrible thing. And it's a terrible thing when a small, blue-eyed, blond child is murdered. Nicole Brown Simpson's death was terrible and wrong. All terrible, terrible things. But it's yucky that such (young, pretty, blond) victims draw outsized attention, while the equally tragic deaths of, e.g., Goldman, Parent, or a little Black or Hispanic child don't. Moreover, the victims' families don't WANT the kind of attention Tate gets, and yet it also serves to diminish the deaths of the other victims. It sucks on both sides. It's cruel to the families to have their tragedies dredged up again and again (especially when it's just for some stranger's profit). And it's cruel to the families of the other victims, who have their tragedies dredged up by proxy, with the added implied insult that their loved ones matter less. And it's pretty much about exploiting those victims and society's greater sympathy with the blonde and beautiful -- in Tate's case with this movie, just to make a buck. Tasteless -- at the very least, particularly when done without so much as giving a heads up to the families of the victims. ETA: Assuming this sort of thing has been done with regard to other victims besides Tate, as Rob asserts? That doesn't make it any less tasteless. And again, the question posed in the OP is whether it is tasteless. ETA: Here, here's a sympathetic story for you. Steve Parent, 18, just graduated from high school, working two jobs so that he could save money to go to college. Tragically in the wrong place at the wrong time -- he was simply visiting a friend who lived in the caretaker's house, and was in his car leaving the premises when he ran into the murderers. If he'd stayed an hour longer with his friend (who was not murdered and didn't even hear the attacks), or left fifteen minutes earlier, he'd be alive. The promising future of a hard-working kid, ended horribly. But he was an average-looking kid with glasses. So, meh, not so great on film. On the plus side, of course, his remaining family are unlikely to open the newspaper to see an advertisement for "The Haunting of Steve Parent." On the down side, his remaining family get it dredged up anyway because of the Sharon Tate obsession, except no one cares about their loved one. ETA: Steve Parent, age 18 Abigail Folger, age 26 Both young. Both killed tragically and horribly on that same terrible night. But no endless fascination with them as individuals. Why? Because they weren't in Valley of the Dolls? No. Because they weren't blonde and gorgeous.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 9, 2018 15:35:00 GMT -5
To be honest? I find it really, really off-putting that you are so dismissive of Tate's sister's pain, and the way you minimize Sharon's horrible death as not being much of a tragedy. I never said any such thing. In fact, I said it was certainly a tragedy. Nor did I ever say anything about my standard of beauty being about "giant fake inflated boobs imposed on starkly thin figures," though that's what you implied, simply because I don't find Tate to be as beautiful as you find her to be. Regardless, again: EVERY film ever made about actual events that involved tragic deaths could easily be objected to by one relative or another, for the same reasons Tate's sister is offering up. Every single one. I can't see what makes this one over some imaginary line at all. And again, her sister talking about how she owns the rights to Tate's image doesn't sit right with me, either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2018 15:49:38 GMT -5
This is what you said: Sharon Tate's murder was a tragedy, to be sure, but it's hardly the most tragic thing of all times, imo. And her sister's comment about her owning the rights to Sharon Tate's image leaves a bit of a bad taste in my mouth, frankly. There's a bit of a "I deserve to get paid" there, I think. and It is interesting that you think it entirely reasonable for people to continue to be fascinated by her murder, for filmmakers to continue to sensationalize and depict her fifty years after her death -- and yet not reasonable for her sister to continue to grieve. And that you think it's the right of filmmakers to make a profit from it, but it leaves a "bad taste" that her sister remarks that they never consulted her, even though she owns her sister's image rights. (Speaking as a lawyer? That just might be relevant. I dunno -- I'd have to see what they're doing with the film and what her rights consist of. It's not about whether she has a right to a "cut" (which she does not even imply--what on earth makes you think she's looking to make a quick buck? Couldn't she make a fortune, if she wanted, writing about her sister herself or authorizing someone to do so? ). It's about whether she had a right to be consulted.) And as I just explained at some length, neither YOUR views on Tate's beauty nor MINE are particularly relevant to my argument. What IS relevant is that MOST PEOPLE find her beautiful, and that therein lies the fascination with her, as opposed to all the other (mostly forgotten) victims. Indeed, I've addressed every point you've made, at length, sometimes several times, with my reasons. You don't think it's tasteless. I do, very much so. Also insensitive. I have nothing to add, unless you have new arguments. The rest of the forum can make up their own minds.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Feb 9, 2018 22:55:29 GMT -5
Just dropping in to state my opinion that all of Trump's adult children vaguely resemble rodents.
Except for Eric. He vaguely resembles a vampire rodent.
Carry on.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Feb 9, 2018 23:21:29 GMT -5
Oh come on. Ivanka is very attractive. And I can't imagine you saying that if Trump's sons weren't Trump's sons.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2018 1:35:29 GMT -5
Just dropping in to state my opinion that all of Trump's adult children vaguely resemble rodents. Except for Eric. He vaguely resembles a vampire rodent. Carry on. Oh come on. Ivanka is very attractive. And I can't imagine you saying that if Trump's sons weren't Trump's sons. Well, yes, but Trump's sons ARE Trump's sons, and they're both pretty awful. I follow them on Twitter and, yeah, I'm afraid I can only giggle at any insults aimed in their direction. As for Ivanka, I agree she's attractive, and as I noted earlier, has a great figure. But to be fair, some rodents are cute.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Feb 10, 2018 10:06:10 GMT -5
Christine's remarks were about their looks, not them as people. I don't know that I'd call either Don Jr. or Eric good looking, but they might be. (I have no issue admitting a man is a good looking person, I just don't know that I see that in them) But so say they're unattractive in they physical traits, in terms of resembling rodents, is silly. And it's ridiculous when it comes to Ivanka. She's beautiful.
And his younger children don't look all that different except... younger. Giving Barron a pass because he's a kid means that it's more about dislike for the adults. I've no problem with disliking the Trumps, but let's be real.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Feb 10, 2018 11:23:26 GMT -5
It's true that I wouldn't post things (things that, to be clear, I actually do think) about public people's looks if I liked them, even a little bit, as people. Regardless, I would never say it to their faces, or somewhere where they might read it. I am not into hurting people's feelings. But since it's just us here.... .... they do have a vaguely rodent look about them, imo. It's because their features (noses, mouths) are very small on wide faces. Ivanka's cheeks are especially very wide. I'm not saying she's ugly, at all. And they all look better smiling, where their mouths take up more space on their faces. I don't even dislike Ivanka, but I don't think she is beautiful. She's certainly above average (her face) and she has a gorgeous figure except for the disproportionately sized breasts. (Don't get me wrong, large breasts are awesome, but they need to fit the body to be appealing to me. E.g., Scarlett Johannson.) Okay, enough cattiness from me. Tee hee. Get it? I'm the cat, they're the... never mind.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2018 13:05:16 GMT -5
I agree with Christine's assessment of Ivanka. She's certainly very attractive, absolutely more attractive than average, and her figure is very striking, but some of the proportions of her face and body are not symmetrical or in proportion with one another, and I think are just a bit awkward. Sure, she's way more attractive than average, though, and surely turns heads. derail/ To note, Beauty is always somewhat subjective, and what appeals to one person may not appeal to another. Of course. But it's not utterly an individual thing -- otherwise, why is there generally broad agreement that some people are beautiful and some aren't? At least three things come into play that are not individually subjective (though they may change from era to era and culture to culture) -- (1) the harmony and proportion of a person's features with one another, (2) the tastes of a particular era (e.g., the fleshy Renaissance babe versus the 6 foot tall Amazon twig of today), and (3) the tastes of a particular culture within that era (different nations and cultures don't share identical tastes, esp. as to body shape). I make a distinction between what fits widely accepted standards of "beautiful" and what is specifically appealing and attractive to me -- they are not the same and do not always overlap. E.g., I think Brad Pitt is indisputably extremely "beautiful" by generally accepted standards. I can appreciate his beauty, and would never for a minute deny it. However, on a personal level, he just does not particularly appeal to me -- he is simply not my type, and leaves me cold, physically speaking (of course, if I knew him personally, I might assess him differently; I'm just talking pure looks). Sean Connery was more my type. He's beautiful, too, in a different way. Viggo Mortensen is definitely less "beautiful" -- he has imperfections for sure -- but I personally find him much, much more attractive than, e.g., Brad Pitt because I personally like a certain brooding, rugged quality (and indeed, certain imperfections) as opposed to the pretty-boy look. He's my PERSONAL idea of what I dig, but I absolutely get why some women don't think he's attractive -- I can see the "flaws." It's just that those very "flaws" happen to appeal to me. And it isn't just about being blonde and white. (Though, as we've noted, that sure helps get people's attention if you're kidnapped or murdered....) It's about proportion. The nose and mouth that looks beautiful on a woman of color is not necessarily going to be the same one as on a white woman like Sharon. Indeed, Sharon's nose, while beautiful, would look wrong on Halle Berry (another woman I think is just indisputably gorgeous). That's where so many people getting plastic surgery get it wrong -- they tend to go for an identical button nose or duck lips or huge knockers that might look great on another woman, but are just wrong with the rest of their face/body. Angelina Jolie's mouth is lovely, I think -- on her. But not on everyone. (Remember Barbara Hershey's lip injections. Gaah, mistake! Her original mouth was right with the rest of her features.) Michael Jackson's nose job (the first one, not the later botched abominations) was a yuuuuge mistake. His original nose was in proportion to his face, and beautiful. The plastic button he had imposed looked all off with the rest of his face. Marilyn Monroe's plastic surgery was actually far more artful, which is why most people don't even realize she had any. She had a wee, hardly noticeable adjustment to her nose and chin that brought them into more harmonious proportion (this was confirmed by her autopsy and medical reports, which were released a while back. I think she was beautiful without it, but at least what she had done was in harmony with the rest of her face. Here's my thing with Sharon -- she may or may not particularly appeal to a particular individual, but I think it's hard to dispute that she fits a widely accepted standard of "beautiful." Everything is in harmony with everything else. To the extent Sharon has a flaw, it's that she's almost a little too perfect, which makes for a certain coldness (sometimes, a single "imperfection" in an otherwise perfect face makes it more appealing, I think). That's actually why I like the candid pictures of Sharon best -- her natural expression when her face is lit up adds the warmth and humanity that isn't so much there in many of her more posed pictures. The one where she's laughing and the one where she's holding up the baby sweater break my heart. Here's a fun piece re evaluating beauty -- www.oprah.com/oprahshow/measuring-facial-perfection-the-golden-ratio
|
|