Was she really 'perfect'?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Ava Gardner
TheyCallMehFluffy — 18 years ago(March 27, 2008 02:28 AM)
I've read time and time again that Ava's looks were considered to be "perfect". I've never understood this, I've always thought that she was quite strange looking: her face is very angular, her nose is long etc
Let just clear up one thing: I DO think she is gorgeous. But not "perfect". I think the fact that she is not perfect makes her even more interesting to look at than, say, Lana Turner or Betty Grable.
So my question is: why do people keep saying her looks were perfect? Your opinions? -
deadpan_diva — 18 years ago(March 27, 2008 08:51 AM)
He had gorgeous eyes, high cheek bones and perfect facial symmetry. To me that is perfection. Aslo she was a little exotic looking which is just one of the things she had over Betty Grable and other similar looking women.
Filthy sounds stumbling, ugly and cruel
Between the lips of your beautiful mouth -
indie71 — 18 years ago(March 30, 2008 06:44 PM)
^^Yeah, her figure is definitely one of the things that was absolutely perfect. She had a classic, perfect hourglass shape. It's almost unbelievable to look at in some pictures; it really is hard to believe that she was really, naturally shaped like that. She had a 20 inch waist at one point!
Here's to trouble-free tomorrows, may your sorrows all be small
-Frank Sinatra -
alv
5b4
inkuo — 17 years ago(July 18, 2008 09:47 PM)I have to disagree with the above posters. I have the same issue with Sophia Loren; I understand why their bodies would be worshiped for their 'perfection.
More with Sophia Loren than Ava Gardner, their faces looked too weird for me. For some people, their faces look exotic or unique, and I can see that. Looking at some photos, I can't say either one does it for me, though Ava is certainly better-looking than Sophia. Claudia Cardinale for me beats both of them in the beauty and body department.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. -
royalprince — 17 years ago(August 14, 2008 11:04 PM)
I spoke of this on another thread on here on Ava's looks. My mother's friend was a costume designer in Hollywood. My mother's friend met Ava and she wanted her to be her secretary, but declined the offer. She said you had to see Ava Gardner in person to really understand the magnitude of how beautiful she was. She said her eyes were emerald green, and her eyes were simply jaw dropping. She said over all, this woman was just perfect! She said Avas films and photographs really didn't do this woman justice!
-
rosiecadaverdog — 17 years ago(August 21, 2008 03:46 PM)
I view it this way. 1. Some beautiful women are apparently perfectlike Ava Gardner and Grace Kelly. 2. Other beautiful women are made even more compelling by obvious imperfections..like Ingrid Bergman, Jacqueline Bisset. 3. There are women who are definitely not beautiful but Hollywood relentlessly hypes them as being beautiful and so people begin believing it. 4. Then there are large breasted blondes. For men who spend their life in 10th grade, all of these women are equally beautiful.
Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom. Not a hate crime? Oh. Okay. Got it. -
HawksRevenge — 17 years ago(August 21, 2008 03:54 PM)
No woman is "perfect" today they use makeup to cover flaws(Funny Anecdote; is when they use makeup to fill holes in their face)women in magazines are typically air brushed.
I think its funny how narcisisstic women are especially today because they look in the mirror and are turned on by what they see
The truth is the female body starts to fall apart by the mid 30's and at that point they need to exercize hard to maintain their appearance
So no, no woman is perfect!! -
royalprince — 17 years ago(September 03, 2008 03:10 PM)
You know something? back in the 30's 40's and 50's women's bodies were curvy, and very healthy in the entertainment industry. Today that same woman would be considered fat! I think women's bodies were more beautiful then, than they are now because they were healthy not anorexic looking! For example, look at Sofia Loren, she was very curvy and the public thought she had a fantastic, voluptuous body! Look at Marilyn Monroe, her body was not pencil thin and again she was this sex symbol.
-
merriam94 — 17 years ago(November 06, 2008 01:13 AM)
I don't think they would be considered fat todayat least not especially fat. It's amazing how many movie stars today have pretty much the same hip measurements as vintage stars, yet with much bigger waists because the movie industry these days doesn't seem to keen on curvy bodies. According to IMDB, Angelina Jolie's pre-pregnancy meausurements were 36C-27-36. If people today consider(ed) that a beautiful figure, I don't know why they would have a problem with Ava's 36-23-37. But with the really curvy ones, like Sophia Loren, yeah, they would probably be seen as fat. Even though weights back then weren't all that different than now, today there is hardly such a thing as being too thin, which was not the case in the past.
-
nalaluna69 — 17 years ago(February 20, 2009 06:57 PM)
You know something? back in the 30's 40's and 50's women's bodies were curvy, and very healthy in the entertainment industry. Today that same woman would be considered fat! I think women's bodies were more beautiful then, than they are now because they were healthy not anorexic looking! For example, look at Sofia Loren, she was very curvy and the public thought she had a fantastic, voluptuous body! Look at Marilyn Monroe, her body was not pencil thin and again she was this sex symbol.
You should see Sin Senos No Hay Paraiso on mun2 (channel in the USA) those woman are really pretty, latinas, and curvy. -
kathyselden — 17 years ago(February 24, 2009 05:22 AM)
You raise a good point, though I have to point out one thing- it's not so much that women's bodies have changed, it's just that standards of beauty have. There are still plenty of stunning women who no one would dare to call ugly- it's just that they're not the ones who are being put into magazines and on catwalks. I can't tell you how many absolutely stunning curvy women I've met of whom I thought, "Now SHE looks like a movie star". But that look just isn't in vogue now. Standards of bea5b4uty will always change- it's just up to us not to fall victim to the fickle nature or fashion
Fiddle-dee-dee! -
coolioava — 16 years ago(December 01, 2009 08:00 PM)
i don't know about that judy garland was gorgeous but MGM told her she was too fat at the age of twelve or thirteen and force fed her drugs until she was skinny. So behind the scenes hollywood wasn't all yay voluptuosness all the time.
-
heather_m1986 — 16 years ago(January 03, 2010 08:00 PM)
Most classic stars were somewhere between a modern size 2 and a modern size 6. Audrey Hepburn, Katharine Hepburn, and Barbara Stanwyk were always on the slim side. Sophia Loren, Marilyn Monroe, and Ava Gardner were on the heavier side. I actually think actresses weights are getting a bit back to normal now. Recessions usually kill trends toward waifishness. Scarlett Johannson is probably about a 4, maybe a six. Rachel McAdams looks like she's about a 4. Grace Kelly was about a 4. The size 0 really ought to go out of fashion
-
beedless — 17 years ago(February 23, 2009 09:51 AM)
Few pre-1970's hollywood beauty queens would pass current acid tests for beauty. Old guys who were indoctrinated in the Marilyn Monroe sexo-beauty ideal still have an appreciation for bloat, cellulite and cakey-faces.
-
CatelynTullyDidNothingWrong — 15 years ago(May 09, 2010 04:44 PM)
I've never heard that, and I don't think she is, but she was obviously very attractive. What Hollywood calls "flaws" (strong nose, wide set eyes, square jaw, cleft like Ava or whatever) are actually what makes up real beauty.
I donno why they say that, but a LOT of classic actors back then were thought to look perfect.
You think you think that you're glowing, but you had been ho-ing, and now you're pregnant.