One of the numerous things that struck me when watching the original 1975 movie Rollerball on TCM the other day – along with how po-faced it is, and how rubbish they were at predicting what the future would look like (mainly they thought by 2010 we’d all have clunky great tellies everywhere) – was the bone structure of the actresses.
In the 1970s female ‘film star looks’ meant strong, almost handsome features, straight Greek noses, feline eyes and noble chins. All three of Rollerball’s beauties (and in the plot they are exactly that, token beauties, concubines for James Caan’s sports star) – Maud Adams (above), Pamela Hensley (below) and Barbara Trentham – fit this description.
Contrast with today’s cinematic leading ladies, who with their round cheeks, snub noses and manga eyes look positively infantile. Though edging into their 40s, Cameron Diaz and Jennifer Aniston could play teenagers; Scarlett Johanssen, Natalie Portman and Drew Barrymore (below) all trade on babyish looks; the less said about Lindsay Lohan the better.
There are still strong-featured bombshells out there – Carla Bruni looks very 1970s, for example – but there does seem to be a general trend. Is there anything in this? Is it a function of a relationship, perhaps cyclical, between fashion and perceptions of beauty? Does Hollywood prefer ‘girls’ to ‘women’ these days? Or am I just talking complete twaddle again?
So, what we are saying here is that seventies women were bony and the latest crowd are little fatties and jail bait, nah, Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme.
You’re going for the ‘twaddle’ option, then Malty. That’s entirely feasible I grant you.
Really no idea, but wherever Susan Sarandon fits into your equations, I’ll go with that.
Not twaddle. The same applies to male stars as well; all those Brad Pitts, Tom Cruises, etc., who are older than Humphrey Bogart, Gary Cooper and Cary Grant were when they were at the top of their game, but act twenty years younger. In the Seventies you still had Caan, de Niro, Reynolds and others, none of whom could be defined as Boy Band material.
obviously we’ve all lost a fair amount of testosterone, women included.
Having grown up in the 70s I’m more comfortable with the fine-bone-structured, mistaken-for-David-Bowie-on-a-bad-day women who would be both up for it AND striking a blow for feminism at the same time. I must confess that I didn’t even know what Lindsay Lohan looked like before I read this post.
Ian, the admirable Susan S, the lady with overhang now sadly heading for the basement. Isn’t Maud Adams the burd who was serially tattooed in a movie, skinny though she was, Caan found the space to doodle.
The current look is quirky. In fact, the quirkier the better.
I remember seeing Rollerball when it came out, there was much talk of it being a parable for something or other. And you’re right about that look, it was the ‘Rachel Welsh look’ – taken to extremes in France by Dalida.
.or even ‘Raquel Welch’ (It was a long time ago…)
You have the honour, Susan, of just putting me off an excellent table of pierre aide, pork, beef, lamb, venison, toenail clippings.
Cooking with stones and pinkies.
Can’t you say just a bit about Linsay Lohan?
Or even about Lindsay Lohan?