Is there such a thing as a modern face?
Inspired by the Matt Bomer IS Montgomery Clift thread.
I think Angelina Jolie is a prime example. Whether or not she has had surgery, it LOOKS like she has. A kind of blow up doll look when she was younger, not more robotic/android since she is emaciated.
OTOH, I also think Sandra Bullock has a modern face but I can't put my finger on why.
For men, its a similar "hatched in a lab" look exhibited by Zac Efron - a somewhat feminized male, they look younger than their age.
Some people who don't have modern faces and could easily be at home along side Bette Davis and Clark Gable: Maggie Gyllenhaal, Jon Hamm, Kate Winslet, Amy Adams, George Clooney.
[quote]Some people who don't have modern faces and could easily be at home along side Bette Davis and Clark Gable: Maggie Gyllenhaal, Jon Hamm, Kate Winslet, Amy Adams, George Clooney.
Classic faces - Jane Seymour, Cate Blanchett, Daniel Day Lewis, Claire Danes, Hugh Jackman, Julia Roberts, Gwyneth Paltrow, Gretchen Mol, Kate Beckinsale, James Franco, Henry Cavill, Chris Evans.
Modern faces - Kim Cattrall, Sharon Stone, Zachary Quinto, Tom Cruise, Halle Berry, Neve Campbell, Matt Bomer, Ian Somerhalder, Zac Efron, Gale Harold, Colton Haynes, Jennifer Aniston, Justin Bieber.
[quote]Is there such a thing as a modern face?
Yes there is. See the list above.
I'm still not entirely getting it. Can anyone else add to the definition? This is interesting. Thanks.
[quote]its a similar "hatched in a lab" look
That says it all for me. Well done, R1.
What do other modern bodyparts look like?
This whole thing sounds like something one dizzy queen made up in her head.
If Matt Bomer has a modern face, then what was Jeffrey Hunter doing with it in 1955?
I watched an old (mediocre, although she won an Oscar for it) Bette Davis film the other day called "Dangerous," which was released in 1935. Towards the end there was an actor playing a reporter who looked "modern-day handsome" to me, as opposed to how "of their time" attractive the other actors (like Franchot Tone) came across. His name was Craig Reynolds, and he was married to actress Barbara Pepper before he died rather young at 42. There was something about his longer, messy hair, and his laid back, but slightly manic, performance that made me feel like he'd wandered in from the post-Brando era somehow.
Cavill is classic while Bomer is modern? I just don't get it.
Actually, I have a face that is not only handsomely beautiful, but iconic for the times. I'm stopped on the street and elsewhere often and asked "if you're famous," and tourists ask to have their photos taken with me.
I don't understand it, but I've come to accept it. However, I value my privacy and my interests (serial killing) keep me from wanting undue attention. So I will not be the face of our era.
Also, OP, the term "modern" is incorrect. You mean contemporary. "Modern" times are long over.
[quote]This whole thing sounds like something one dizzy queen made up in her head.
Ever heard of some people say "classic beauty"?
Try to imagine Kim Catrall as Queen Elizabeth 1 (note that Cate Blanchett and Helen Mirren looks nothing like the real Queen E).
[quote]I'm still not entirely getting it. Can anyone else add to the definition? This is interesting. Thanks.
Per R2's lists, classic=fuggo and modern=attractive.
Bomer's rabid gayfans seem so offended by the idea of their idol has a modern face.
"Actually, I have a face that is not only handsomely beautiful, but iconic for the times. I'm stopped on the street and elsewhere often and asked "if you're famous," and tourists ask to have their photos taken with me."
[quote]Bomer's rabid gayfans seem so offended by the idea of their idol has a modern face.
Vera Farmiga is also a classic beauty.
Is Zooey Deschanel "modern" by this definition? OP seemed to go MIA and I'm still trying to figure out what it means.
r18 - No, I think she's pretty classic.
There are these ultra modern faces like Keira Knighley and Goop who look totally anachronistic in period movies. Jennifer Ehle and John Hamm have classic faces. DDL and Meryl are able to morph into anyface.
Matt Bomer is a poor man's Henry Cavill.
Zoey Deschanel looks creepy to me like a kitschy doll or image from the early 70s.
It's been long established that modern refined faces are due to a modern diet of refined carbs and sugars. Even non-whites when fed on a modern Western diet acquire the facial characteristics and height of modern white Americans. See link below.
The jaw structure and noses shrinks over generations on this diet. Contrary to white racist cranks, the "Nordic look" is not going away. It's definitely here to stay.
In the future, all races will look like Cheryl Tiegs, courtesy of the processed food industry.
Bon appitit, suckers!!!
I think we need further deliniation of what we call classic and modern.
For Classic we shall use: Doric, Ionic or Corinthian.
For Modern we shall use: Daliesque, Pollackette, Kandinskyishillish.
Florence Colgate, who was picked as the most beautiful woman in the UK last year, has a face halfway between the classical look of actresses like Lauren Bacall and the modern look of Victoria Beckham.
Colgate is perhaps a mix of Ionic with early Dali. Being almost symmetrical, it isn't an intricate face.
Exceedingly strange thread. Especially the racial stuff brought into it. WTF?
r30, nothing racial about it. The classical faces of all races are going into extinction. The modern face is the future face of all humanity. Despite the non-movement toward "health foods," the food industry is the one really in charge. The health food movement is a failure. Refined carbs and sugar isn't going away.
And while I know this a PC-sensitive topic, a majority young women on this planet want to look Nordic---or if not will once exposed to the MSM. Being nonjudgmental myself, I have no opinion on this since what one does with her body is none of my business. But the trends are clear worldwide. Latin, African and Asian females want to look fair. Perhaps not exactly like Colgate in the previous post, but in that direction. Is that a crime? With gene technology and advances in cosmetic surgery and makeup, Harry Cohn's vision for Rita Hayward will become a world reality.
Lots of money to be made on the future beauty industry. I won't make a dime out of it, but a few of you reading this will.
r32, actually, millions of males look like that now. That article does not consider the coming gene technologies and cosmetic procedures. The future face will look more emaciated, with a larger forehead and smaller jaw.
Already there are young people who think Marilyn Monroe and Elizabeth Taylor look like the baby boomer equivalent of Marjorie Main.
r24, that upper right Inuit is mixed. Not pure Northeast Asian Inuit. At the very least, has a lot of Russian genes mixed in. There are tons of guys walking the streets of Anchorage, Alaska (and mostly living on them) who look just like the other two guys.
I wouldn't mind looking at a world full of guys who look like r32's pic.
"It's been long established that modern refined faces are due to a modern diet of refined carbs and sugars."
Nah. What defines "the face" of an era isn't genetic changes, there are fashions in faces and in any given area, the fashionable sort of face tends to take over the media in any given era. Even before the days of photography, portraits of any given era tend to look oddly similar, because artists used features that were more fashionable than realistic. I have an example from the 1840s below, when ladies were always painted with large eyes, creamy skin, and the same not-found-in-nature thick neck and sloping shoulders.
Nowadays, strong jawlines, prominent cheekbones, and full lips are in fashion for women, so girls with those features are hired as models, actresses, etc. The only difference between now and 1840 is that when girls want more fashionable faces, they're going to plastic surgeons instead of portrait artists.
For a brief second, I thought the thread subject line read: Modern feces.
Faces particular to specific regions' races don't change very much. Look at faces in paintings from a few centuries ago in Europe and people on the streets if their cities today, or the Mayan Aztec look of certain Central Americans, the bronzes of south India still seen in the faces of people there.
What does change is taste and fashion. Who gets chosen to be the face of a cosmetic, cast as a beauty in a movie, fill a billboard. The other change is the ethnic mix of races that we see increasingly. Those aren't the norm yet nor are they presented as the face of beauty.
Personally I like the mixed look. It's probably only a matter of time before a wave of art directors and casting agents change the accepted notion of beauty to the racially interbred.