This picture got me thinking
-
I have thought about this in the past, not so much the people she has met, but the events she has witnessed. She is a living historical archive.
-
@Catseye3 said in This picture got me thinking:
I saw a picture of J-Lo without makeup once. You would walk past her in the grocery aisle and have no recognition of her whatsoever. She looked less like her made-up self than Marilyn.
People like that get into this trap. It must take them hours to get ready because they cannot go out without all this preparation and makeup.
Good thing I do not have to worry about that! LOL
@taiwan_girl said in This picture got me thinking:
@Catseye3 said in This picture got me thinking:
I saw a picture of J-Lo without makeup once. You would walk past her in the grocery aisle and have no recognition of her whatsoever. She looked less like her made-up self than Marilyn.
People like that get into this trap. It must take them hours to get ready because they cannot go out without all this preparation and makeup.
Good thing I do not have to worry about that! LOL
Faith Hill was doing magazine covers and fronting for a cosmetic company 20 years ago. If you saw Faith without her make-up back then or today, she'd look like any other somewhat attractive lady her age. You'd never give her a second glance.
I run across Faith Ford in the grocery store now and then. My wife has known her since she was a kid. She did some modeling in NYC and a decent amount of tv work as an actress. Even when she left for New York, you could have found a dozen girls in her high school just as cute.
Especially when talking about women in the entertainment industry, they have to have a certain personality and looks the camera likes. And once they are lucky enough to make it, it's a grind to stay there, even at a level where you are just making a middle class living.
I guess the make-up, diet and exercise regimes are just part of trying to stay employed.
-
QE II 1956 close-up showing the entire face:
Marilyn Monroe, 1956:
-
@Jolly said in This picture got me thinking:
Candid vs. Posed.
1956, cameras were few and far in between. Subjects are seasoned public personalities very aware of being the focus of attention wherever they go and always had handlers/bodyguards around them. Never truly "candid".
-
@Jolly said in This picture got me thinking:
Utter bullshit.
Ya think???
"Few and far between"? In 1956? That's when 35mm SLRs came on the scene. I mean holy shit, the post-war years were literally the boom in the consumer camera market that we still have today.
Come on Ax, if you're going to make shit up, at least google something before you try to pretend you know what you're talking about.
-
-
@Jolly said in This picture got me thinking:
Candid vs. Posed.
1956, cameras were few and far in between. Subjects are seasoned public personalities very aware of being the focus of attention wherever they go and always had handlers/bodyguards around them. Never truly "candid".
@Axtremus said in This picture got me thinking:
@Jolly said in This picture got me thinking:
Candid vs. Posed.
1956, cameras were few and far in between. Subjects are seasoned public personalities very aware of being the focus of attention wherever they go and always had handlers/bodyguards around them. Never truly "candid".
You can’t have it both ways. On one hand you say cameras and pictures of celebrities were rare and on the other you say celebrities were always prepared for photos…
