<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[Ruth Chatterton]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><em>Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Female</em></p>
<hr />
<p dir="auto"><strong>jtyroler</strong> — <em>18 years ago(March 05, 2008 03:34 PM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">It's hard to believe that she was 39 when this was released.  She doesn't look close to that age in this movie.</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/topic/174947/ruth-chatterton</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 May 2026 16:10:18 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://filmglance.com/discuss/topic/174947.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Sat, 25 Apr 2026 23:05:09 GMT</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Ruth Chatterton on Sat, 25 Apr 2026 23:06:46 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><strong>mdonln</strong> — <em>9 years ago(January 14, 2017 09:41 PM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">I liked hearing on TCM that Ruth Chatterton was actually married to her co-star George Brent when this movie was made. He looked great; very sexy! I've always liked him. He made a lot of movies with Barbara Stanwyck, who I love; they had great chemistry. Some people say he mumbled a lot but I always thought he was effective.<br />
Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan.<br />
[Tarzan and his mate]</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1469685</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1469685</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[fgadmin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 25 Apr 2026 23:06:46 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Ruth Chatterton on Sat, 25 Apr 2026 23:06:33 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><strong>joeparkson</strong> — <em>12 years ago(March 22, 2014 07:45 PM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">She would not be considered fat today.<br />
Have you wandered through a college campus lately?<br />
Absurdity: A Statement or belief inconsistent with my opinion.</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1469684</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1469684</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[fgadmin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 25 Apr 2026 23:06:33 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Ruth Chatterton on Sat, 25 Apr 2026 23:06:20 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><strong>conway3000</strong> — <em>15 years ago(March 19, 2011 10:34 AM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">I thought Ruth Chatterton was very attractive in this movie.  I enjoy her as an actress. She wore a bathing suit in one scene.  She had a typical woman's body for 5'2" tall. Today she would be considered fat, but in the 30's she was considered good enough to appear in a bathing suit.</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1469683</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1469683</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[fgadmin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 25 Apr 2026 23:06:20 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Ruth Chatterton on Sat, 25 Apr 2026 23:06:07 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><strong>practicepiano</strong> — <em>16 years ago(March 17, 2010 06:19 AM)</em></p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p dir="auto">Is this the dress?<br />
<a href="http://www.thelifecinematic.com/filmcaps/female.jpg" rel="nofollow ugc">http://www.thelifecinematic.com/filmcaps/female.jpg</a><br />
It's a very classical style. I could see the design showing up at a modern day Hollywood glamor event.&lt;&lt;&lt;<br />
That's the one, and I was thinking the same thing!</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1469682</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1469682</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[fgadmin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 25 Apr 2026 23:06:07 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Ruth Chatterton on Sat, 25 Apr 2026 23:05:53 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><strong>Devans00</strong> — <em>16 years ago(March 17, 2010 12:40 AM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">practicepiano<br />
When she pretended to be startled at the sight of the owl then sent him to get the water, they came back to a shot of her face, and I thought "she would have slammed into the trees anyway  that hat blocks one eye completely, so she'd have no depth perception!"<br />
Ha so true.  Just goes to show that high fashion has always been impractical.  More about art than functionality.<br />
practicepiano<br />
I really liked the gown in the failed seduction scene, with the sash that twisted to hold up the front, then formed the low bow in the back (and I usually am fairly oblivious to fashion in films).<br />
Is this the dress?<br />
<a href="http://www.thelifecinematic.com/filmcaps/female.jpg" rel="nofollow ugc">http://www.thelifecinematic.com/filmcaps/female.jpg</a><br />
It's a very classical style.  I could see the design showing up at a modern day Hollywood glamor event.  Maybe update the fabric a bit<br />
I'm the opposite of you, practicepiano.  I love Art Deco so much, sometimes I forget to watch the actors because I'm so busy looking at the architecture, fashions and other design in the scene.  Then I have to rewind to follow the story.<br />
If a 1930s movie has rich folks as main characters, then I know I'm in for a treat.  It's a pretty safe bet since regular middle class and poor folks didn't really become regular central movie topics until the post war 40s and 1950s.<br />
No two persons ever watch the same movie.</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1469681</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1469681</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[fgadmin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 25 Apr 2026 23:05:53 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Ruth Chatterton on Sat, 25 Apr 2026 23:05:39 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><strong>practicepiano</strong> — <em>16 years ago(March 15, 2010 06:29 AM)</em></p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p dir="auto">I think my favorite was the lattice jacket looking thing she had on at the picnic. Very cool. &lt;&lt;<br />
I just watched that scene  it is very cool.<br />
When she pretended to be startled at the sight of the owl then sent him to get the water, they came back to a shot of her face, and I thought "she would have slammed into the trees anyway  that hat blocks one eye completely, so she'd have no depth perception!"<br />
I really liked the gown in the failed seduction scene, with the sash that twisted to hold up the front, then formed the low bow in the back (and I usually am fairly oblivious to fashion in films).</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1469680</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1469680</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[fgadmin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 25 Apr 2026 23:05:39 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Ruth Chatterton on Sat, 25 Apr 2026 23:05:25 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><strong>Devans00</strong> — <em>16 years ago(April 16, 2009 08:52 PM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">It's certainly more believable that a 39 year old woman could be head of a car manufacturer than a 23 year old.  Especially one who is comfortable with her sexuality and has her predatory technique down pat.  Alison Drake had that pillow throw foreplay down to a science.<br />
What I really like about Chatterton in this role is that she had a real woman's body.  She was short, not athletic and looked like she hadn't missed many meals.  Nice and healthy.  I absolutely loved the fashions they had her in.  I think my favorite was the lattice jacket looking thing she had on at the picnic.  Very cool.<br />
No two persons ever watch the same movie.</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1469679</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1469679</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[fgadmin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 25 Apr 2026 23:05:25 GMT</pubDate></item></channel></rss>