| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Can $300M and a sex tape buy glamour? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 1 2006, 11:17 AM (691 Views) | |
| Jolly | Jun 1 2006, 11:17 AM Post #1 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
From the LA Times: The allure of illusion Coiffed and cultivated, Hollywood virtually invented the word. Where has it gone? By Carina Chocano Is Paris Hilton glamorous? She meets all the criteria. She's young, shiny, obscenely rich and reckless. She does precisely as she likes. She's an heiress. Old money! (Mature, anyway.) She is pure, uncompromised artifice. Noel Coward or Preston Sturges could have made her up — if it weren't for the sex tape. And the hamburger ad. And the album. And her mother. What does it mean to be glamorous anymore? What did it mean in the first place? Is Jessica Simpson glamorous when she's playing Daisy Duke? Is she glamorous as herself, eating tuna out of the can? Or is she glamorous only when she's posing for InStyle, in-styled within an inch of her life? Every once in a while a celebrity comes along who looks good in a tux, or seems smart and urbane, or doesn't attend an award show wearing a string, and magazines start chirping about "a return to glamour!" or "a return to Hollywood glamour!" Which is a redundancy, because there never really was any other kind. The word itself is practically a Hollywood invention, derived from a Scottish word for charm and enchantment, and then dusted off in the 20th century by studio publicity departments and the press. (The vestigial "u" is intentional, by the way. It was kept for added glamour.) Glamour popped onto the scene in the '20s, infusing the fantasies of fame, fortune and ease coming out of MGM, Paramount, Fox and Warner Bros. The stars, like the movies, were not made so much as they were meticulously assembled. Contract actors — who had gravitated to movies from the stage but also from the shops, the choruses and the clutches of rabid stage mothers — were coached in feigning the kind of upper-class upbringing they'd be reenacting on-screen. They were educated in comportment and diction, coached in music and culture, taught to know their way around antiques and fashion, presumably so that they could convincingly re-create the kind of existence to which Hilton was born in real life. The art of cinema was in its ability to make intimate even the most foreign lives and unattainable lifestyles. Cinematic lighting created glowing, flawless faces and diamond eyes. Hair and makeup were elevated to art forms. MGM art director Cedric Gibbons traveled to the 1925 exposition in Paris and brought Art Deco Modernism to the movies. Edith Head at Paramount and Adrian at MGM designed costumes that drew women to the movies by the thousands, just to look at the clothes. Even off-screen, stars were contractually bound to be groomed and dressed to perfection at all times. In his book "The Glamour Factory," Ronald L. Davis quotes actress Mary Astor, who wrote, "At Metro, you practically had to go to the front office if you wanted something as real as having your hair mussed … all automobiles were shiny. A picture never hung crooked, a door never squeaked, stocking seams were always straight and no actress ever had a shiny nose." Hollywood's Golden Age arrived with the Depression, and Hollywood movies became a sort of mass escape from reality that gave the haves gloss and the have-nots hope. The romantic screwball comedies of the '30s and '40s were replete with lovers from every side of the track. If glamour in the '20s had been embodied by the Garbos and Dietrichs of the world — tragic sirens, femmes fatales, highly strung and delicate romantic heroines in peril — glamour in the '30s became more playful and lighthearted. Romantic comedy heroes and heroines were rich, poor, ruined, rescued and recognized as worthy no matter how much money they had. All were sure of themselves in the way of people who know exactly who they are, and they belonged to specific social classes as surely as they lived. The movies acknowledged the differences between the classes they satirized and drew their tension from them. But in films such as "The Palm Beach Story" and "My Man Godfrey" they also offered the consoling notion that class divides could be bridged, if only people tried hard enough, and had a sense of humor. It was typical in Depression-era comedies, for instance, for the ambitious working-class girl in love with a well-born swell to be put in her place for the way she spoke, dressed or behaved. Vulgarity, in other words, was a social liability. (Of course, the snooty critic would eventually get her comeuppance — purity of heart always trumped rank in the movies.) The rich and sophisticated were held up to ridicule too. But their lives were served up as utopias and escapist fantasies. And they were ubiquitous in Depression-era and '40s comedies. Rather than feeding resentments — the large majority of the moviegoing audience was working class — screwball comedies delighted in exploiting social clashes for fun and for love. In George Cukor's "The Philadelphia Story" (1940), the spoiled and haughty heiress, Tracy Lord (Katharine Hepburn), is brought down to Earth by Jimmy Stewart's scrappy reporter. But he learns something from her too. Eventually, Tracy remarries within her class — but it's to the relatively human, flawed (he drinks) C.K. Dexter Haven (Cary Grant), not the stuffy, social-climbing George Kittredge (John Howard), whose snobbery and naked opportunism make him utterly unlovable. The glamour was built into the story. The girl in the gown could be an heiress or a chorus girl, the guy in the tux could be a millionaire or a regular guy in a monkey suit. Slumming and social climbing were acceptable as long as the character was pure of motive and charming of personality. Fundamental to glamour were wit, urbanity, intelligence and a talent for adapting to change. And it was all wrapped up in very adult sequined dresses, martini glasses and flutes of champagne. Kids rarely entered the picture, and when they did, they were usually waved away — Mommy had a hangover. By the '50s, when the middle class boomed, moviegoers were less fascinated with class than with money, suddenly more attainable. And indeed, in the movies of Marilyn Monroe, the glamour icon's glamour icon, there's a shift from stories in which poor boys and girls proved themselves worthy of rich boys and girls by virtue of their cleverness, resourcefulness and character. Monroe's persona, though charming and innocent, isn't interested in love or class. She's interested in diamonds and millionaires. And to make the match, all she needs is sex. All he needs is money. Except that the personas of Monroe and Jayne Mansfield also incorporated a wink to acknowledge this scenario's absurdity. That has all but disappeared — we no longer find sex funny. The movies and glamour have long since amicably divorced, but some of the old aura clings. After going off to find themselves in the '60s and '70s, the movies went crawling back to glamour in the '90s and begged to make up. Glamour agreed, but you can tell they still don't sleep in the same room. The "glamour" icons of today, Scarlett Johansson and Keira Knightley, say, are beautiful, poised and smart enough to leave their red carpet looks to the pros. As for wit, class, intelligence and urbanity — they've been devalued in American life, where money trumps all. (Is Donald Trump glamorous? How about his late-model wife?) So why would they matter in the movies? The contrast between what is glamorous now and what was glamorous in the days of Cary Grant and Norma Shearer says much about how American society has changed. Glamour used to present an idealized version of adulthood. Now it presents an idealized version of adolescence. In the old days, glamour was all about unattainability, i.e., fantasy projection. These days, it has become unthinkable that a major Hollywood director might echo Cecil B. DeMille, who instructed Edith Head's department at Paramount to make clothes "that make people gasp when they see them. Don't design anything anybody could possibly buy in a store." Today glamour is tied to the idea of shopping to maintain the illusion that you are (a) kind of famous, or (b) on your way to being famous, or © essentially the same as famous people, because you share the same taste in home furnishings, core values and dog shampoo. Some of the stars with whose dog shampoo brand we may be intimately acquainted don't even appear in the movies, or at least not often. They may appear in TV shows that aren't so much TV shows as a chance to observe celebrities in their natural habitats. Which kind of resembles ours. Mainstream magazines have transformed themselves from facilitators of idol worship to guides to glamour consumption. Ironically, the movies are just about the only kind of media left not dedicated to creating complex mythologies about the lifestyles of the rich and famous. Once upon a time, a life like Paris Hilton's (pre-fame) was just the sort of fantasy life the movies sought to re-create for our amusement. With the rise of the glamour industry, no one, not even Paris Hilton, is immune to the lure of mass-media glamour. The real-life heiress marshals all of her considerable powers to transform herself into the loudest, gaudiest, most embarrassing thing she can dream up — a ketchup-splattering porn star, a gangster's moll who wants to be an actress, a chorus girl banging down society's door. With $300 million in disposable income, she might have purchased anything her little heart desired. And what she bought was the cheapest kind of fame. The only way up for the celebrity is to pretend she's moving on down. |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| ***musical princess*** | Jun 1 2006, 11:21 AM Post #2 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Jeez, she made a sex video with her boyfriend. It doesn't exactly make her a cheap porn star. :rolleyes: x |
| x Caroline x | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Jun 1 2006, 11:31 AM Post #3 |
|
MAMIL
|
What stops Paris Hylton from being glamorous is her personality. Same for that Simpson woman. I quite often don't agree with the articles that Jolly posts. This one is an exception. Today's celebrities are horrible. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| ***musical princess*** | Jun 1 2006, 11:33 AM Post #4 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
John, to be fair, you don't even know them. I'm not saying they are angels, but i'm just saying you can't soley base your opinions of a person on how they are percieved in the media. Let's not judge the celebrities by their front covers.... x |
| x Caroline x | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Jun 1 2006, 11:37 AM Post #5 |
|
MAMIL
|
I don't know what they're like when the cameras are turned off, but that's not the point. Marilyn Monroe wasn't glamorous when the cameras went off, far from it in fact, but she was hugely glamorous when the glare was on her. When the cameras are on, Paris Hylton appears to be vacuous and self-obsessed. She might be a lovely girl at home, but we're talking about her public persona, not about the person inside. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| ***musical princess*** | Jun 1 2006, 11:39 AM Post #6 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Well, that i will agree with. x |
| x Caroline x | |
![]() |
|
| kentcouncil | Jun 1 2006, 12:30 PM Post #7 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
Glamour defined.
|
|
It was a confusion of ideas between him and one of the lions he was hunting in Kenya that had caused A. B. Spottsworth to make the obituary column. He thought the lion was dead, and the lion thought it wasn't. - P.G. Wodehouse | |
![]() |
|
| schindler | Jun 1 2006, 12:33 PM Post #8 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
There you go. I think Grace Kelly is another prime example. |
| We're all mad here! | |
![]() |
|
| ***musical princess*** | Jun 1 2006, 12:49 PM Post #9 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Elizabeth Taylor![]() x |
| x Caroline x | |
![]() |
|
| Optimistic | Jun 1 2006, 12:57 PM Post #10 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
She's not as famous, but she's pretty damn glamorous :
|
|
PHOTOS I must have a prodigious quantity of mind; it takes me as much as a week, sometimes, to make it up. - Mark Twain We shall not cease from exploration And the end of all our exploring Will be to arrive where we started And know the place for the first time. -T. S. Eliot | |
![]() |
|
| ***musical princess*** | Jun 1 2006, 12:58 PM Post #11 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
The most glamorous of them all!!!![]() x |
| x Caroline x | |
![]() |
|
| kentcouncil | Jun 1 2006, 01:03 PM Post #12 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
Liz Taylor is not what she used to be... in fact, the phenomenon of celebrities becoming caricatures of themselves could be said to have started with her...
|
|
It was a confusion of ideas between him and one of the lions he was hunting in Kenya that had caused A. B. Spottsworth to make the obituary column. He thought the lion was dead, and the lion thought it wasn't. - P.G. Wodehouse | |
![]() |
|
| sue | Jun 1 2006, 01:04 PM Post #13 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
To me, the word 'glamour' implies a timeless elegance, as in the above examples. I don't see the the blonde teeny-bopper celebs in the same category at all. |
![]() |
|
| sue | Jun 1 2006, 01:06 PM Post #14 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
No kidding. I caught a few minutes of her on the Larry King show the other night, and had to turn it off. Don't know why she would put herself through that.
|
![]() |
|
| ***musical princess*** | Jun 1 2006, 01:06 PM Post #15 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
She was in the news today. Something about back problems or something... i'll see if i can find the link... ( :lol: Okay, it was NOTHING to do with her back... good old trusty BBC... ) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/5032480.stm x |
| x Caroline x | |
![]() |
|
| schindler | Jun 1 2006, 01:09 PM Post #16 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
Right there with you, Sue. That's my definition as well. |
| We're all mad here! | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Jun 1 2006, 01:15 PM Post #17 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
Ever see the Tv movie about her life? Thought that the actress did a pretty good job.... |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| kentcouncil | Jun 1 2006, 01:20 PM Post #18 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
Jennifer Love-Hewitt is very pretty, but someone like Audrey Tautou would have captured the grace and elegance of Audrey Hepburn much better. |
|
It was a confusion of ideas between him and one of the lions he was hunting in Kenya that had caused A. B. Spottsworth to make the obituary column. He thought the lion was dead, and the lion thought it wasn't. - P.G. Wodehouse | |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Jun 1 2006, 01:22 PM Post #19 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Agree! It just oozes "star quality"!
|
![]() |
|
| sue | Jun 1 2006, 01:24 PM Post #20 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Oh yeah! She would be perfect; good call. |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Jun 1 2006, 01:25 PM Post #21 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I understand what you're saying... but sometimes that's exactly what they want you to do!
|
![]() |
|
| sue | Jun 1 2006, 01:26 PM Post #22 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Agreed. Like I said, timeless elegance. You just can't buy that. |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Jun 1 2006, 01:29 PM Post #23 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
David Spade made some comment along this line (I paraphrase): "Celebrity" means we celebrate you, not you celebrating yourself to get us to notice you. |
![]() |
|
| ***musical princess*** | Jun 1 2006, 01:32 PM Post #24 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Stop trying to hide it! I know you have an Audrey fetish so you might as well just admit that you wanted yet another film with her in so you could drool over her. ![]() x |
| x Caroline x | |
![]() |
|
| Optimistic | Jun 1 2006, 01:33 PM Post #25 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
If I were a lesbian I'd be droolin' all over Audrey T. That girl is GORGEOUS. |
|
PHOTOS I must have a prodigious quantity of mind; it takes me as much as a week, sometimes, to make it up. - Mark Twain We shall not cease from exploration And the end of all our exploring Will be to arrive where we started And know the place for the first time. -T. S. Eliot | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2









:

I caught a few minutes of her on the Larry King show the other night, and had to turn it off. Don't know why she would put herself through that.


12:35 AM Jul 11