What, to you, is glamour/glamorous?

• Oct 8, 2012

• #1

Laura Hunt

New in Town

Messages

16

Location

1944

Apologies if this is already a thread, I did a search with no results.

What qualities constitute glamour to you? And I'm talking both outwardly and inwardly. Is the golden era inherently glamorous? What, specifically? Are there any characters in classic film that you think are inherently glamorous? Why? What makes them so? Very interested in everyone's opinions about this.

 

• Oct 8, 2012

• #2

LizzieMaine

Bartender

Messages

33,039

Location

Where The Tourists Meet The Sea

Real glamour makes no apparent effort at being glamourous. If you're obviously trying, it isn't working.

 

• Oct 8, 2012

• #3

Alice~

One of the Regulars

Messages

138

Location

England

LizzieMaine said:

Real glamour makes no apparent effort at being glamourous. If you're obviously trying, it isn't working.

Click to expand...

I agree with this. I also think people must be comfortable with themselves and their appearance to appear glamorous - or at least give the impression that they are.

 

• Oct 8, 2012

• #4

LizzieMaine

Bartender

Messages

33,039

Location

Where The Tourists Meet The Sea

Another good rule is that glamour is not the same thing as "sexy." Glamour, in fact, is all about icy aloofness, not "smokin' hawtness"

 

• Oct 8, 2012

• #5

W-D Forties

Practically Family

Messages

684

Location

England

...or looking like a porn star.

 

• Oct 8, 2012

• #6

LizzieMaine

Bartender

Messages

33,039

Location

Where The Tourists Meet The Sea

Paul Roerich said:

Glamour? Today? Dita Von Teese, even when clothed.

Click to expand...

Who? Is she on TV or something?

 

• Oct 8, 2012

• #7

LizzieMaine

Bartender

Messages

33,039

Location

Where The Tourists Meet The Sea

All I can say is, if she keeps standing like that she's gonna have a heck of a backache in the morning.

 

• Oct 8, 2012

• #8

sheeplady

I'll Lock Up

Bartender

Messages

4,479

Location

Shenandoah Valley, Virginia, USA

Paul Roerich said:

She's damned if she does and damned if she doesn't. With reactions like yours, why should Dita (or any other woman) even bother to be glamorous?

Click to expand...

I think that Lizzie's comment was meant to be tongue in cheek and in humor. We all have different visions of glamour- while a lot of people might find Dita to be glamorous, others wouldn't. It's not like everyone here would agree on a single definition, yet along a long list of people.

 

• Oct 8, 2012

• #9

LizzieMaine

Bartender

Messages

33,039

Location

Where The Tourists Meet The Sea

I'm being sarcastic, as if you didn't know, in an arch Jean Arthurish manner. There's a whole thread for discussion of Miss Von T, and bringing her up in threads not specifically devoted to her tends to derail the conversation into love-her/hate-her/couldn't-care-less-about-her. No need to do that in this thread.

For what it's worth, I've always gotten a "trying too hard" sense from her -- she's very good at what she does, but you never lose sight of the fact that it's performance for her. Glamour should at least seem effortless. Garbo was glamourous. Dita is a showgirl.

(And I bet she does get a backache standing like that.)

 

Last edited: Oct 8, 2012

• Oct 8, 2012

• #10

rue

Messages

13,319

Location

California native living in Arizona.

I agree with Lizzie. Dita is a polished picture, not glamourous.

Honestly, I can't think of one famous woman today that would be considered to have actual glamour. Sex appeal, yes, but that's it.

 

• Oct 9, 2012

• #11

LizzieMaine

Bartender

Messages

33,039

Location

Where The Tourists Meet The Sea

That's how a man sees it. A woman will likely see it differently. Unless you're arguing the purpose of glamour is to serve the male gaze?

 

• Oct 9, 2012

• #12

scottyrocks

I'll Lock Up

Messages

9,160

Location

Isle of Langerhan, NY

In the golden era it was glamor. The GE was glamorous. Today is just glam - a pale imitation of glamor.

This is glamorous:

Glamor was a natural state of extreme beauty back then, an inner feeling. It was graceful beauty with no ulterior motives. In-your-face-sex was not a part of the equation.

 

• Oct 9, 2012

• #13

LizzieMaine

Bartender

Messages

33,039

Location

Where The Tourists Meet The Sea

Lemme let you boys in on a little secret: a lot of us don't dress to please anyone but ourselves.

As for glamour, I stick to what I said at the very beginning: if you're trying to be glamourous, you aren't. To be DITA, for example, Dita has to put on her Dita hair, and put on her Dita face, and put on her Dita clothes, and get in her Dita car and drive to her Dita public appearance, and wave to her Dita public.

On the other hand, to be GARBO, all Garbo had to do was throw on an old overcoat and a floppy hat and a pair of dark glasses and go down to the corner to get a Daily News and a pack of cigarettes -- it didn't matter what she did or what she wore. She was GARBO. That's real glamour.

 

• Oct 9, 2012

• #14

LizzieMaine

Bartender

Messages

33,039

Location

Where The Tourists Meet The Sea

We clearly define glamour differently. And since this thread is directed primarily at the women of the Lounge and not the men, why don't you gents take a seat in the back there, and let's let the women of the Lounge speak up and see how they define it.

 

Last edited: Oct 9, 2012

• Oct 9, 2012

• #15

ThemThereEyes

One of the Regulars

Messages

246

Location

Arkham

I agree, most of us dress for ourselves.
Glamour, to me, is an attractiveness through charm and something mysterious. That je ne sais quois that can only come naturally.

 

• Oct 9, 2012

• #16

lolly_loisides

One Too Many

Messages

1,845

Location

The Blue Mountains, Australia

Laura Hunt said:

Apologies if this is already a thread, I did a search with no results.

What qualities constitute glamour to you? And I'm talking both outwardly and inwardly. Is the golden era inherently glamorous? What, specifically? Are there any characters in classic film that you think are inherently glamorous? Why? What makes them so? Very interested in everyone's opinions about this.

Click to expand...

Like other posters I believe that glamour is something that should be effortless - and it can apply to women & men. In terms of actors of the 30's & 40's I say Ann Dvorak or Warren William easily can be defined as glamorous. Was the Golden Era inherently glamorous - of course not, it was like every other era, diverse. There are plenty of golden era movies that come to mind that aren't the least bit glamorous.

Paul Roerich said:

... which begs the question: if absolutely no men were around to see them, would women still make the effort to be glamorous?

Click to expand...

You're confusing glamour with sexual allure.

 

Last edited: Oct 9, 2012

• Oct 9, 2012

• #17

Bluebird Marsha

A-List Customer

Messages

377

Location

Nashville- well, close enough

I don't think glamour is effortless- but it must appear to be effortless. Isn't there some old connotation to the word that implies bewitchment or enchantment? Some weird combination that makes you just want to be in the presence of this fabulous person? Of course, once they start actually talking, the glamour is often destroyed. Maybe that is why actors/actresses of the Golden Age seem to possess that "something". They were much more careful about controlling their image than modern celebrities. You could project your own desires on to them without being influenced by knowing anything about their real personalities.

 

• Oct 9, 2012

• #18

M

mariagarcia495

New in Town

Messages

6

Location

California

LizzieMaine said:

All I can say is, if she keeps standing like that she's gonna have a heck of a backache in the morning.

Click to expand...

I totally agree with you.

 

• Oct 9, 2012

• #19

LizzieMaine

Bartender

Messages

33,039

Location

Where The Tourists Meet The Sea

Bluebird Marsha said:

I don't think glamour is effortless- but it must appear to be effortless. Isn't there some old connotation to the word that implies bewitchment or enchantment? Some weird combination that makes you just want to be in the presence of this fabulous person? Of course, once they start actually talking, the glamour is often destroyed. Maybe that is why actors/actresses of the Golden Age seem to possess that "something". They were much more careful about controlling their image than modern celebrities. You could project your own desires on to them without being influenced by knowing anything about their real personalities.

Click to expand...

Again, the example of Garbo comes to mind -- tantalizing glimpses, not full-on reveals. Glamour depends on being enigmatic. It isn't something that can be dished up on a plate like macaroni and cheese.

 

• Oct 9, 2012

• #20

Amy Jeanne

Call Me a Cab

Messages

2,852

Location

Colorado

Glamour, to me, is unrealistic and unachieveable. Both outward an inward. The example of Garbo is a good one because I think she's glamourous onscreen, but not so much off. Also Dita having to put on all her "Dita" things to be glamourous is also what I would define as glamourous. To me, there is something about "trying too hard" when it comes to glamour, but that's not quite the word I'm looking for. Maybe "unrealistic" -- the word I used earlier is probably the right word.

Kay Francis and Lilyan Tashman are the closest things to real, pure glamour in my opinion. Clara Bow, while I love her to bits, is not glamourous in my book. Nor are the Lane sisters. Those women are quite "earthy" to me and I could imagine "hanging out" with them. Kay and Lilyan would not associate with me and that makes them glamourous, also. This isn't a bad thing -- it's just how *I* PERSONALLY define glamour!