98 replies to this topic

[papeetepatrick]

bart, on Feb 23 2009, 10:23 PM, said:

Re:  Mae West.  There seem to be elements of self-parody -- or even self-delusion -- in her film image.  Can "glamour" coexist with that?

I think there's self-parody, but not self-delusion.  This was an intelligent woman, who had written plays and gotten arrested for them, only to be inspired with what she saw in jail and write about that.  Wrote scripts, had big power in Hollywood.  I am sure she would say she was glamorous, and she ought to know.

[cubanmiamiboy]

Glamour, glamour...
http://www.smh.com.a...eb__300x257.jpg
http://www.ballet.co..._makeup_500.jpg

[Old Fashioned]

I don't think vulnerability should automatically disqualify someone (Hayworth should still count); if that's the case then Veronika Part wouldn't be considered glamorous.  She strikes me as someone both vulnerable and sensitive, which only adds to her appeal.  Are we looking at someone's stage or screen persona or off stage/screen as well?  There are those who project a very glamorous image on stage but I can't imagine them walking around in a fur coat and sunglasses.  Then there are those capable of both--Anna Netrebko, Irina Dvorovenko.

[papeetepatrick]

Old Fashioned, on Feb 24 2009, 09:42 AM, said:

Are we looking at someone's stage or screen persona or off stage/screen as well?  There are those who project a very glamorous image on stage but I can't imagine them walking around in a fur coat and sunglasses.  Then there are those capable of both--Anna Netrebko, Irina Dvorovenko.

Good point, and to dirac's and my discussion about Lana Turner, I should add that Bette Davis praised her work as an actress in 'Cass Timberlane' and at least one other early picture I can't recall, but said that 'Lana was different from the rest of us, in that she was concerned with her image both onscreen and off.  The rest of us were just doing our jobs and working to do our roles professionally within the films'  (not good memory of the exact quote, and 20 years since I had that book). I always picked that up about her, and that's why seeing her in person was exactly the same as seeing her onscreen--it still looked like you were looking at a film, and I've never seen anything like this; certainly seeing Garbo in an old scruffy coat tromping about the East Side was not like looking at a film.  I found her unique in this way and disappointing in other ways as a result of this--she had little sense of humour about herself (which I think points to extreme vanity), which her galpal Ava Gardner had in profusion, as did Dietrich.  But I can easily see Hayworth as being perceived as glamorous too.  Agree that some have it only onstage and onscreen, and some have it onstage and off.   The queen of England has it all the time, as I see it.   I think part of glamour for a long time has had to do with publicity and developing of singular images, so that while some glamour can also be 'secret glamour', as it were, and very obvious to any onlooker just by its irresistible magnetism, much of it has to do with knowing who the person is and the way a myth has been built around her--which doesn't mean it's purely artificial either, because this can then be built into the art as well, integrated into it, even though it was inserted from without.  This is what I think happened to some degree with Suzanne Farrell, although she was born with that extraordinary body.

[cubanmiamiboy]

papeetepatrick, on Feb 24 2009, 09:21 AM, said:

... about Lana Turner, I should add that Bette Davis praised her work as an actress in 'Cass Timberlane' and at least one other early picture I can't recall, but said that 'Lana was different from the rest of us, in that she was concerned with her image both onscreen and off.  The rest of us were just doing our jobs and working to do our roles professionally within the films'  (not good memory of the exact quote, and 20 years since I had that book). I always picked that up about her, and that's why seeing her in person was exactly the same as seeing her onscreen--it still looked like you were looking at a film, and I've never seen anything like this

Oh, definitely Lana..!  
http://s3.amazonaws...._1023138229.jpg

[sandik]

dirac, on Feb 24 2009, 01:56 AM, said:

Ravishing as that peacock is, however, I don’t think it detracts from sandik’s original point, which was that glamor is to a considerable degree a contrivance.  (I think one of the word’s older meanings relates to magic, casting a spell, which is what glamorous human beings can certainly do.)

I'd forgotten the magical aspect of the word -- many thanks for the reminder!

Thinking further about this topic:  I think my original example about animals might be flawed, since they do preen in order to attract attention from potential mates.  So perhaps there is intention in the animal world as well.  Still, I think I'd like to hold onto the difference between glamor and elegance

(and yes, peacocks look lovely and sound awful -- perhaps they have the same kind of glamor as silent film actors?  Lena Lamont...)

[sandik]

papeetepatrick, on Feb 24 2009, 03:45 AM, said:

bart, on Feb 23 2009, 10:23 PM, said:

Re:  Mae West.  There seem to be elements of self-parody -- or even self-delusion -- in her film image.  Can "glamour" coexist with that?

I think there's self-parody, but not self-delusion.  This was an intelligent woman, who had written plays and gotten arrested for them, only to be inspired with what she saw in jail and write about that.  Wrote scripts, had big power in Hollywood.  I am sure she would say she was glamorous, and she ought to know.

My local PBS station just ran their series on comedy which included several extended clips of West.  Talk about being aware of your affect on people!

[papeetepatrick]

sandik, on Feb 25 2009, 01:08 AM, said:

So perhaps there is intention in the animal world as well.  Still, I think I'd like to hold onto the difference between glamor and elegance

Oh, there was never the slightest disagreement on that part.   Elegance is by far the higher, although they can co-exist.

[MakarovaFan]

Olga Chenchikova is another glamorous ballerina.

[carbro]

cubanmiamiboy, on Feb 21 2009, 11:13 PM, said:

. . .   [G]lamour, in my eyes, is a whole attitude in which external image plays a key factor.  Makeup and sense of fashion are truly essentials,. . .

cubanmiamiboy, on Feb 22 2009, 07:33 PM, said:

I did think about Pavlova.  The thing is that for some reason I tend to associate "glamour" with some sort of aesthetic language, in which a very obvious made up image plays the biggest role, with no room for simplicity.

dirac, on Feb 23 2009, 07:46 PM, said:

I agree – glamor is to some degree self-willed.  As has been noted above, a woman can be beautiful, charming, or elegant (or a combination of all three) and still not be glamorous.  I think some of the examples named in this thread are wonderfully beautiful and appealing women, but I still wouldn't describe them as a glamorous.  It's a tricky thing.

cubanmiamiboy, on Feb 23 2009, 08:38 PM, said:

sandik, on Feb 23 2009, 03:09 PM, said:

I don't see  examples in nature of glamorous animals, while I do see elegant  ones

Well, yes...animals can't change the way they look  unlike humans...Still, when I read about it, one came to my mind  instantly as a glamorous one
http://www.wonderful...acock/pic01.gif

I think we can agree, then, that where there's glamour, there's also artifice.  I find it hard to imagine any woman as glamorous without conspicuous makeup and a drop-dead outfit.  

I think when we call a peacock glamorous, we're beginning to confuse glamour with charisma.  Charisma, btw, seems to be a quality that dogs pick up on.  I noticed in my dog's playgroup, the dogs and the humans were often attracted to the same people and/or dogs who had that certain aura.

In the lines sandik quotes, below, it is clear that glamour and charisma each serve to boost the other.

sandik, on Feb 23 2009, 06:09 PM, said:

This is the opening paragraph of a recent article on Sylvie Guillem by Debra Craine in the Times:

"Sylvie  Guillem is unbelievably elegant but she hasn't made the slightest  effort. Her face is scrubbed free of make-up, her long auburn hair is  tied back with casual aplomb, and she's dressed like a truck driver.  Scruffy and natural - is this how ballerinas are supposed to look? Yet  there has always been something extraordinary about this glamorous  French artist, and no matter how much she downplays it, her innate  charisma can't help but assert itself."

[dirac]

Quote

I think we can agree, then, that where there's glamour, there's also artifice. I find it hard to imagine any woman as glamorous without conspicuous makeup and a drop-dead outfit.

Not to change the topic to actors, but Angelina Jolie at this year’s Oscars partially refuted the second half of your point.  Jolie had taken care with her appearance but obviously hadn’t spent the entire day dolling up and I would not be surprised if the dress was one she had in her closet.  She still blew everyone else away.

Quote

There are those who project a very glamorous image on stage but I can't imagine them walking around in a fur coat and sunglasses. Then there are those capable of both--Anna Netrebko, Irina Dvorovenko.

Dvorovenko, of course.  

[papeetepatrick]

dirac, on Feb 25 2009, 02:59 PM, said:

Not to change the topic to actors, but Angelina Jolie at this year’s Oscars partially refuted the second half of your point.  Jolie had taken care with her appearance but obviously hadn’t spent the entire day dolling up and I would not be surprised if the dress was one she had in her closet.  She still blew everyone else away.

She did not have that effect on me, and never does.  She is glamorous, but I do not find her beautiful, and think her face has a coarseness and hardness to it.  Therefore, I do not find her especially elegant. There is no accounting for tastes, but I do not buy her number, and she does have a way of insisting that one does buy it; it's possible that that may insinuate its way into her appearance.  I watched no more than 5 miniutes of the show at odd moments I would glance at it, but was only happy to see Sophia Loren, although she didn't seem to belong there.

[aurora]

carbro, on Feb 25 2009, 01:46 PM, said:

I think when we call a peacock glamorous, we're beginning to confuse glamour with charisma.  Charisma, btw, seems to be a quality that dogs pick up on.  I noticed in my dog's playgroup, the dogs and the humans were often attracted to the same people and/or dogs who had that certain aura.

Interesting distinction. I think you can be charismatic certainly without being glamorous (President Bill Clinton springs to mind). But I think Charisma is probably an essential element in glamour.

I don't really see that peacocks are charismatic though. Charisma is, to me, a force of personality that I don't see that one can ascribe to an entire species of birds.

[bart]

Thinking of peacocks, or at least the glamourous ballet  costumes that remind us of peacocks ....

http://www.topfoto.c...es/ppage92.html

http://www.topfoto.c...es/ppage65.html

http://www.topfoto.c...es/ppage69.html

[kfw]

aurora, on Feb 25 2009, 03:58 PM, said:

carbro, on Feb 25 2009, 01:46 PM, said:

I think when we call a peacock glamorous, we're beginning to confuse glamour with charisma.  Charisma, btw, seems to be a quality that dogs pick up on.  I noticed in my dog's playgroup, the dogs and the humans were often attracted to the same people and/or dogs who had that certain aura.

Interesting distinction. I think you can be charismatic certainly without being glamorous (President Bill Clinton springs to mind). But I think Charisma is probably an essential element in glamour.

I don't really see that peacocks are charismatic though. Charisma is, to me, a force of personality that I don't see that one can ascribe to an entire species of birds.

I too see charisma as a force of personality, a power of attraction. In regards to elegance . . . well, spirituality is probably an overused word, but I do think of elegance as an inner quality, especially in comparison to glamour, which, however delightful and alluring it can be, seems trivial and superficial and superimposed (whether by the person or the audience or both) in comparison.