1. Lounge Update headed your way. Check the thread in the Observation Bar. If you don't like the light style, click the light bulb at the top-right of your screen.

What, to you, is glamour/glamorous?

Discussion in 'The Powder Room' started by Laura Hunt, Oct 8, 2012.

  1. Laura Hunt

    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. :)
     
  2. LizzieMaine

    LizzieMaine Bartender

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

    Alice~ One of the Regulars

    Messages:
    138
    Location:
    England
    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.
     
  4. LizzieMaine

    LizzieMaine Bartender

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

    W-D Forties Practically Family

    Messages:
    684
    Location:
    England
    ...or looking like a porn star.
     
  6. LizzieMaine

    LizzieMaine Bartender

    Who? Is she on TV or something?
     
  7. LizzieMaine

    LizzieMaine Bartender

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

    sheeplady I'll Lock Up Bartender

    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.
     
  9. LizzieMaine

    LizzieMaine Bartender

    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
  10. 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.
     
  11. LizzieMaine

    LizzieMaine Bartender

    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?
     
  12. scottyrocks

    scottyrocks I'll Lock Up

    Messages:
    7,314
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    In the golden era it was glamor. The GE was glamorous. Today is just glam - a pale imitation of glamor.

    This is glamorous:

    [​IMG]

    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.
     
  13. LizzieMaine

    LizzieMaine Bartender

    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.
     
  14. LizzieMaine

    LizzieMaine Bartender

    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
  15. ThemThereEyes

    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.
     
  16. lolly_loisides

    lolly_loisides One Too Many

    Messages:
    1,846
    Location:
    The Blue Mountains, Australia
    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.

    You're confusing glamour with sexual allure.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2012
  17. Bluebird Marsha

    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.
     
  18. mariagarcia495

    mariagarcia495 New in Town

    Messages:
    6
    Location:
    California
    I totally agree with you.
     
  19. LizzieMaine

    LizzieMaine Bartender

    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.
     
  20. Amy Jeanne

    Amy Jeanne Call Me a Cab

    Messages:
    2,788
    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! :D
     

Share This Page