Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Modern faces

Is there such a thing as a modern face? Inspired by the Matt Bomer IS Montgomery Clift thread.

by Anonymousreply 4706/29/2014

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.

by Anonymousreply 109/19/2013

[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.

by Anonymousreply 209/19/2013

[quote]Is there such a thing as a modern face?

Yes there is. See the list above.

by Anonymousreply 309/19/2013

I'm still not entirely getting it. Can anyone else add to the definition? This is interesting. Thanks.

by Anonymousreply 409/19/2013

[quote]its a similar "hatched in a lab" look

That says it all for me. Well done, R1.

by Anonymousreply 509/19/2013

What do other modern bodyparts look like?

by Anonymousreply 609/19/2013

This whole thing sounds like something one dizzy queen made up in her head.

by Anonymousreply 709/19/2013

If Matt Bomer has a modern face, then what was Jeffrey Hunter doing with it in 1955?

by Anonymousreply 809/19/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 909/19/2013

Cavill is classic while Bomer is modern? I just don't get it.

by Anonymousreply 1009/19/2013

[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).

by Anonymousreply 1209/19/2013

[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.

Case closed!

by Anonymousreply 1309/19/2013

Bomer's rabid gayfans seem so offended by the idea of their idol has a modern face.

by Anonymousreply 1409/19/2013

"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."

Delusional MARY!

by Anonymousreply 1509/19/2013

[quote]Bomer's rabid gayfans seem so offended by the idea of their idol has a modern face.

Ummm, no.

by Anonymousreply 1609/19/2013

Vera Farmiga is also a classic beauty.

by Anonymousreply 1709/19/2013

Is Zooey Deschanel "modern" by this definition? OP seemed to go MIA and I'm still trying to figure out what it means.

by Anonymousreply 1810/04/2013

r18 - No, I think she's pretty classic.

by Anonymousreply 1910/04/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 2010/04/2013

Matt Bomer is a poor man's Henry Cavill.

by Anonymousreply 2110/04/2013

Zoey Deschanel looks creepy to me like a kitschy doll or image from the early 70s.

by Anonymousreply 2210/04/2013

R2. I disagree about Sharon Stone...I think she has a timeless beauty that would be at home in everything from a Busby Berkley musical,a contemporary action film or a Hitchcock thriller.

by Anonymousreply 2510/04/2013

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.

Begin.

by Anonymousreply 2610/04/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 2710/04/2013

R15: Just so you know, R11 was channelling Patrick Bateman from American Psycho.

by Anonymousreply 2810/04/2013

Postmodern face

by Anonymousreply 2910/05/2013

Exceedingly strange thread. Especially the racial stuff brought into it. WTF?

by Anonymousreply 3010/05/2013

The face of the future:

by Anonymousreply 3210/05/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 3310/05/2013

This is a face that could only belong to the modern era.

by Anonymousreply 3410/05/2013

Millions of teenage girls around the globe want to look like this:

by Anonymousreply 3510/05/2013

Did someone call for a modern face?

Let's get precise here, please.

by Anonymousreply 3610/05/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 3710/06/2013

Order means after World War One, no?

by Anonymousreply 3810/06/2013

Modern feces.

by Anonymousreply 3910/06/2013

I sensing that this thread is going to be deleted....

by Anonymousreply 4010/06/2013

Bump

by Anonymousreply 4110/08/2013

Modern: Miley Cyrus, Keira Knightley Classic: Snejana Onopka

by Anonymousreply 4210/08/2013

Snejana Onopka's skull and jaw are modern. But her nose and ears are classical. But Onopka is mostly modern.

Knightley is an in-between like Colgate at r27.

Miley Cyrus is modern.

by Anonymousreply 4310/08/2013

Bump

by Anonymousreply 4406/29/2014

"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.

by Anonymousreply 4506/29/2014

For a brief second, I thought the thread subject line read: Modern feces.

by Anonymousreply 4606/29/2014

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.

by Anonymousreply 4706/29/2014
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.