Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Keep in mind that Hollywood controlled the actors and actresses many mention very closely. They were told what to do when the studio wanted them to do it. Today, actors control their lives and are no longer beholden to one studio for decades or unceremoniously dumped when the studio was done with them.
While I'd initially be inclined to agree since they're not under contract to studios any longer, given all the Weinstein info & the many others like him, there's been a lot of control & even squashed careers.
Weinstein forced the actresses he supported to wear only his wife's designs on the red carpet & to functions. I'm sure we've just heard the tip of the iceberg, which would explain all the public breakdowns we see on the regular.
I don't know which era was worse? Some horrid stories out there, even from way back when there were talkies.
Keep in mind that Hollywood controlled the actors and actresses many mention very closely. They were told what to do when the studio wanted them to do it. Today, actors control their lives and are no longer beholden to one studio for decades or unceremoniously dumped when the studio was done with them.
Excellent points.
The old star-making studio industry was brutal and controlling. The audiences benefited but the actresses often went through hell, so you bring up a very good point.
In some ways it was better back then, because once you were a start you really had it made and had staying power but could be just dumped as you note. As you point out, life is better today for actors as they have a lot more control over their lives than under the studio system.
At the same time, back then they would write movies just for the stars in their stable, so there were no "bad scripts" per se. Today, an actor or actress can pick a few bad films and then they kill their own careers. For example, Isla Fisher had some good movies and then some stinkers and it seems like now she is just gone. In the studio system, they would be writing the movies just for her and play to her strengths, so as long as she "played ball", she would have had staying power.
We are just talking "elegance" and it is not something selected for today and there aren't really roles for it today either.
I love Julia, but I've never thought of her in that context. To me she's more of an Everywoman. Elegance and sophistication require some measure of hauteur (think Catherine Deneuve, whom I can't believe I haven't thought of until now); I don't think this comes naturally to her; she played an enormously wealthy power broker in Charlie Wilson's War, but in my opinion was out of her element in the role.
Re: Your earlier post...Claire Forlani is exquisite.
That's a good point since I did say "woman of wealth." Yet I think JR has always been elegant even though she's never played the role of the wealthy heiress, to my knowledge.
Everyone named are actresses who "become" their character. If roles were written as they were a few, or several, decades ago most would become those characters.
Someone mentioned Charlize Theron. She played Eileen Wuornos.
Catherine Zeta Jones
Angela Bassett
Jessica Chastain
Glenn Close
Candice Bergen
Sigourney Weaver
Blythe Danner
Mary Steenburgen
Elizabeth McGovern
Diane Lane
Not sure if they are "today's elegant ladies...."
Birth year...
Catherine Zeta Jones 1969
Angela Bassett 1958 ...she sure looks good (and young) for a senior citizen....
Glenn Close 1947
Candice Bergen 1946
Sigourney Weaver 1949
Blythe Danner 1943....even her daughter, Gwyneth Paltrow is getting up there....52 this year...
Mary Steenburgen 1953
Elizabeth McGovern 1961
Diane Lane 1965.....still under 60 ....just....
As already mentioned ....Rachel McAdams....I like her a lot....
Rachel Weisz? (53)
Renee Zellweger ....maybe too old ....55 this year....
Status:
"Pickleball-Free American"
(set 8 days ago)
Location: St Simons Island, GA
23,471 posts, read 44,121,361 times
Reputation: 16866
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTB365
Not sure if they are "today's elegant ladies...."
Birth year...
Catherine Zeta Jones 1969
Angela Bassett 1958 ...she sure looks good (and young) for a senior citizen....
Glenn Close 1947
Candice Bergen 1946
Sigourney Weaver 1949
Blythe Danner 1943....even her daughter, Gwyneth Paltrow is getting up there....52 this year...
Mary Steenburgen 1953
Elizabeth McGovern 1961
Diane Lane 1965.....still under 60 ....just....
As already mentioned ....Rachel McAdams....I like her a lot....
Rachel Weisz? (53)
Renee Zellweger ....maybe too old ....55 this year....
Naomi Watts ....?.....just turned 56
Kete Beckinsale (50)....Charlize Theron (48)
Why does their age matter? They are still active in the film industry.
Frankly, I was hard-pressed to think of an actress under 40 that passed the acid test for elegance. Natalie Portman, perhaps? Oh, wait...she's 42. Tempus fugit...
Helen Mirren is elegant and so is Caitriona Balfe (Outlander).
Many actresses appear elegant on a runway, but in real life they don’t really seem so.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
