Why does she always criticise modernity?
-
bwalright — 18 years ago(June 19, 2007 11:05 AM)
I feel that styles took a bad trashy turn when Madonna 1st came on the scene. She was gutsy to dress the way she did to make people stand up & notice ( and make her $$ for it too! ) But, it's been a downward spiral ever since, I'm ready for a new trend towards classy fashions. Sick of seeing women's butt cracks when they bend over & men in baggy hobo, slob clothes pu!
Who are these so-called designers we are making rich? -
anthropo — 18 years ago(July 05, 2007 05:33 PM)
Good question. She made some now often quoted remark about stars not being what they used to. Personally, I never thought her to be a great actress mediocre at best I think most of her peers felt the same way. For all her films her performances were never really acclaimed. IMO, it's ironic for that remark to come from her when she was basically an appendage of Bogart.
-
-
gomi2 — 18 years ago(September 29, 2007 04:11 PM)
"but even the 1940s and 1950s were all about conformity."
"Also, agents and producers had more control over actors in Lauren's time where they often controlled every part of their physical appearance, maybe that is why they all looked 'so good and different'."
And today we're "rebels?"
OK, there's a giant dump truck load of things wrong with those statements.
1 - Evidently you have never heard of Beatniks, Lenny Bruce, Rebel Without a Cause, Jazz, Bettie Page, and the list goes on for as long as I am tall. Conformity!? Popular culture has always been about conformity. It still is today. I would certainly agree that (American) life was more about Conservative-Christian lifestyles, but "conformity" has always been the majority. Just like how today millions of kids all "rebel" by dressing like Marilyn Manson. Yeah that's real rebellious.
2 - Considering how completely over-produced, formulaic, systematic, brainless, and easily digested movies are today (and music, and TV), I'd say that we have not made any progress. Instead, we have stagnated, or even taken a step back.
3 - You say the movies of the 40's and 50's are basically the same as movies today, but then you have to consider that they were the first ones to do it. It was original and ingenious back then. Repeating it is tired and pathetic.
4 - Given the exposure of stars in tabloids, and how they are shamed almost into oblivion for every single infraction of our concepts of physical beauty - a little cellulite here, a wrinkle there, gaining a few pounds as they grow old, and GASP aging HOW DARE MOVIE STARS AGE LIKE NORMAL HUMAN BEINGS - I think our society has more "control"5b4 over movies stars now than ever before.
Think about how people's careers are basically destroyed (or made) when they are caught doing drugs, sleeping with prostitutes, drinking while driving, cheating on their spouses, or any of the other things that billions of people do every single day.
We treat these people like Gods when they never asked to be. We worship them and name our fokking kids after them. We pay our hard-earned money to watch the sh!+ they star in. We buy their albums when they delude themselves into thinking they can become a rap star.
AND STILL as soon as they show a glimpse of humanity, as soon as they present themselves in any realistic fashion, as soon as they display themselves to be just like any other person with a job, we turn on them. We destroy their careers. We insult them. We make them the butt of our jokes.
Yeah I'd say we have more control over celebrities today, in the numbers of the millions of people who devour their garbage, than a handful of people who did their makeup and fed them their motivation in the 50's.
We suck. -
xcOxCoXco — 18 years ago(September 29, 2007 05:38 PM)
"Considering how completely over-produced, formulaic, systematic, brainless, and easily digested movies are today (and music, and TV), I'd say that we have not made any progress. Instead, we have stagnated, or even taken a step back. "
You are so bloody right! bless ya -
Peter_Fields — 18 years ago(December 21, 2007 07:49 AM)
Personally, I can't believe a previous person who posted had the nerve to compare Lauren Bacall to Lindsey Lohan. Lindsey is a no talent hack with one personality she brings to every role. This person noted that Lauren was 19 when she starred in "To Have and Have Not" but failed to mention the maturity, ability, talent, and poise that Ms. Bacall displayed in her first roll as compared to Lindsey who practically phones in every performance and rarely connects with her "co-stars." Lindsey is the LAST person Lauren Bacall should be compared to. If Lindsey is the ONLY person you could pull out your hat to compare Lauren Bacall to, then you need to start studying film instead just watching them.
On another note, Ms. Bacall has a good point when referring to old Hollywood. She's not so much saying that current Hollywood isn't as good as her era, she's saying that current Hollywood doesn't present or portray itself as well as in her era. Hollywood was all about fantasy, dreams, escape. You didn't see the scars, scabs, and dirt because there was little. And when there was any, you had publicity people that cleaned you up fast. Your career depended on it. Ms. Bacall has a good point in that respect. Current Hollywood wears their scandals and improprieties like a badge of honor. It's become the norm to assume that any "trash" can become a star and surely everyone is finally getting their 15 minutes. You can get out of your car with no underwear, flash your cooter and it's become the norm. You can father 10 kids from 10 different women and as long as you pay your child support, you're a great guy. Stars are no longer people we look up to and aspire to be. They're us now. They're no different than you and I except they assume they exude glamour because some whoring designer dresses them for an award show. They get to be crappy people publically and feel no backlash.
Ms. Bacall is also correct on the current crop of actresses. You can watch most films and interchange many of the current actresses in the roll and you'd get the same product. Ironic, but true. Actresses in Laurens era may have been manufactured by the studio system to develop their individual looks and personalities, BUT, they also had the talent to pull it off. Something todays actresses don't show a knack for doing.
It's difficult to disagree with Lauren on these aspects. -
warrior-woman-1 — 16 years ago(November 02, 2009 06:57 PM)
there's a lot to be said for living in the past, movies were for entertainment, actors were somthing special, Hollywood was concidered a land of magic for a reason. today, its all to much reality. who goes to the movies to see reality.
its ment to be escapisam. heros of old movies were heros. almost all of todays actors look weak, compare orlando bloom, zac efron and danial crage to bogart, burt lancaster and sean connery. and actreses had personality, Katherine Hepburn, Lauren Bacall, ingred burgman. hollywood isnt any fun any more, everyones serious, geting drunk stoned and arrested. bring back the heros.
and in case anyone is thinking im some 60 year old. Im 17.
