[ SECRET POST #3062 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3062 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 064 secrets from Secret Submission Post #438.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

06. http://i.imgur.com/kHM6jaJ.jpg

[sarillia]

Is that Veronica Lake with her hair caught in a machine?

[(Anonymous)]

It might be. They made her change her hairstyle during the war because factory workers were copying her iconic hairstyle and it was contributing to accidents. This may have been from a safety campaign.

[(Anonymous)]

They look different because of makeup and styling. There's nothing wrong with preferring that look, but it's not anything to do with actually being prettier.

[(Anonymous)]

black and white photography makes almost everyone look better.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, this. The heightened contrast needed for B&W tends to wash out things we'd otherwise see.

[(Anonymous)]

This, along with the hair/clothing styles. I don't think the actual prettiness of actresses have changed much.

[silverr]

Came here to say this.

Also differences in filmmaking. With HD you see every pore: the lower resolution (not to mention deliberate soft focus are acreful lighting) in older movies means everyone's almost airbrushed.

[herpymcderp]

Film quality. The old film quality was pretty bad, so it has the added effect of making a lot of films look like they were shot through gauze or haze when close-ups were attempted.

It's a lovely, romantic look to be sure, but it also had the benefit of making it hard to see wrinkles and lines and skin blemishes so stars looked a little less human, a little more ethereal. Nowadays with film quality so high it means out action is more punchy and intense and things explode in 1080p, but you can also see every little imperfection on people's faces and bodies if it hasn't been photoshopped out.

[(Anonymous)]

What this always makes me wonder is - it has to be possible to replicate that effect, right? But you never really see anyone manage it - even in things that are shot in black and white going for a purposefully retro feel (like Good Night And Good Luck) it's a completely different feel / visual tone from actual old Hollywood films, and it's really confusing to me.

[(Anonymous)]

Actually the film was just fine. Some close ups were shot through gauze, smoke or gel on the lens to make them softer.

It may be that people in general made more of an effort to be combed and dressed, and actresses in particular never went anywhere with a pin out of place, unlike the current generation who are much more lax about hair, makeup and occasionally, hygiene.

[(Anonymous)]

My first thought was "Well, they were probably whiter."

And then I thought, "Were they, really, I wonder -- it's not like there's a ton of nonwhite sex symbols today."

And then I thought, "This train of thought is rather SJW of me. Don't know if that's good or bad. Eh, whatever."

[elaminator]

I'm not sure I find them prettier, but I have noticed the difference too. Obviously some of it is going to be styling and the difference in film, but maybe there's something else that factors into it as well that I haven't noticed. I don't know.

[(Anonymous)]

Make up and make up styling was different back then, especially for black and white film. Could just be that different aesthetic you're responding to (I know I respond to it)

[(Anonymous)]

It is cause they look like real people and not anorexic sticks whose faces have been botoxed to the point where plastic store mannequins have a wider range of expressions. The were also expected to have a degree of personality and not just be adjunct of a male lead's personality. It says something about modern life when 1940s women had more progressive roles and stories.

[(Anonymous)]

Maybe it's because of less overall plastic surgery. People's faces had character back then, it wasn't the same parade of generic faces you get today. With some notable exceptions. Scarlett Johansson for one.

[(Anonymous)]

I love that you used such an incredibly unflattering picture for this secret.

[(Anonymous)]

It's the black and white photography.

B&W always masks flaws.

[(Anonymous)]

Black and white does wonders to hide blemishes and poorer skin.

But I personally think it's the glamour. In the age of twitter and paps and shit, todays celebs have less of a glamorous untouchable inhuman (as in better than human) vibe.

Scarlet johanson is easily on a par with the best of the bombshells physically, but we know too much about her real life, she's too human.

[(Anonymous)]

I agree with the styling/HD suggestions above, but mostly wanted to share this Martha Stewart as Veronica Lake photo (and some of the other celebrity transformations linked imo also support the styling/HD argument):

http://www.themakeupgallery.info/lookalike/stars/1950s/50smisc.htm

You picked a strange picture to argue your point.

[(Anonymous)]

Veronica Lake had mystique and charisma, but I never really thought of her as beautiful. She was pretty, but not beautiful, like say, Lauren Bacall. Of course that's all subjective. I would say that some actresses back then had much more of a commanding screen presence than many actresses (and actors) today.

[(Anonymous)]

I find the contouring trend to somewhat blame. It can look good in still photography but in motion film and real life it looks like crap. It's also ridiculous how how they are contouring boobs, ab's, etc.

[(Anonymous)]

Actors and actresses had a lot more class back then compared to now. The way they carry themselves is different.
Obviously the fashion and hair/make-up trends were different.

[saturnofthemoon]

Because they hire more based on acting talent?

[houtarouh]

Make-up styling was very different then, but indeed they did looked beautiful. That doesn't mean that there aren't any beautiful actresses or models nowadays. Take Hayley Atwell, Rachel Weisz, Lupita Nyong'o and Dita von Teese for example (especially the latter, in which it takes guts for a model to bring back an era of bygone fashion that is burlesque/pin-ups).

While we're talking about classic beauties that are favorites of mine, besides Veronica Lake (nice picture of her there), it's Lauren Bacall, Katharine Hepburn, Lucille Ball (she even remained beautiful when she got older during "The Lucy Show" and "Here's Lucy"), Nichelle Nichols, Vivien Leigh, Lena Horne, Judy Garland (though the drugs, plus drinking/smoking and hepatitis really aged her in the later years, she was still beautiful inside and out), Audrey Hepburn (she remained beautiful when she got older and it's sad that nobody posts photographs of her when she's older, because she still had that charm), Shirley Jones, Hedy Lamarr, Clara Bow, Jane Russell, Natalie Wood and Elizabeth Taylor. I could have list more, but it'll be a long list, haha!