Goldie Hawn was seen as a great beauty in her day?

Well, Ringo Start lookalike Penelope Cruz is considered a "beauty" nowadays. Not sure if standards have changed all that much.

Obscenely ugly

She wasn't, OP. She was considered a "cute" kooky comedienne.

She has beautiful eyes

She was viewed as ‘kooky’ and a personality. Since today everyone needs to be perceived as HAWT to have a public career she seems confusing. And because nobody in the public eye today has a personality, her value is a mystery.

No, she was cute with a great ass.

I never thought she was conventionally beautiful. She WAS blonde (fake blonde) and had big blue eyes. And she had a great figure; she'd been a dancer. But I didn't think she was even pretty.

She was beloved on the TV's "Laugh-In" as a "demented canary bird" as one friendly critic observed. She played dumb in a smart way, and had a very sexy dancer's body.

She wasn't beautiful, but she did a lot with her gamine looks.

She was the Amanda Seyfreid of her day.

She was never considered a "great beauty."

R9 is so right.

She got more glam and more conventionally better looking in the 1980s. And of course, her body was always amazing. She looked great in her 40s.

ABSOLUTELY NOT. Not even with her later second nose job.

Goldie Hawn was seen as cute, not as a great beauty (no matter what Goldie tries to tell you).

"her body was always amazing"

Sure, like an ironing board.

I remember watching an old movie on TV called, "Butterflies are Free" (1972) with her as probably a template "manic pixie dream girl" character.

I don't think she was a great beauty but I suppose if I were straight I'd find her body attractive.

She was quirky however and I think some people like that.

^ Triple A-cup, um, no.

That was the era of the big eyed waif. It also brought us Twiggy, Sondra Locke, and Shelley Duvall.

Penelope Cruz is stunning, she is truly beautiful.

Goop Senior did the role on Broadway, r16.

When she started out, Goldie's act owed a lot to Carol Channing.

Back then if you were blond and thin you were considered stunning.

[quote]My have the standards changed.

They sure have.

[quote]Back then if you were blond and thin you were considered stunning.

When she made her debut on Laugh-in and her films, she was not considered stunning. She was kookie.

She was a genre that really doesn't exist anymore.

She was supposed to be cute and quirky or something. I think Kurt Russell has always been out of her league.

Kate Hudson is a prettier, more refined version.

We all owe a lot to Carol Channing.

When did I eat corn?

R26 understands mankind.

G & L

The premise of the thread is wrong because she wasn't considered a "great beauty". Ever. She wasn't even particularly considered a beauty. You can see that in one of her early movies, Butterflies Are Free, she was a young, very sexy, cute chick. She was also a good actress and she was funny. Why should she be put down for not being something she never was, and no one thought she was?

R20 Why that looks like Marilyn Truman on "Will & Grace."

Sarah Jessica Parker, however, WAS considered a great beauty and that is a WTF for the ages.

Bookish beauty in Foul Play.

It was the look back then.

I thought she was adorable as Jill in "Butterflies Are Free", just perfect as the ditzy, slutty hippie girl. I can't see Blythe Danner as Jill. In fact, I can't imagine her in that role, she seems so wrong for it.

She didn’t have a “great” body, ever. But she was sexy and vivacious and appealing. IOW she had talent. And she did the best with what she had.

Jennifer Aniston has talent and personality, but less than Goldie and she is less attractive. But they are the same type. Guys don’t need Helen of Troy to get aroused.

True it was a popular Look, R34, but Liza wasn't ever considered a beauty either. Neither was Twiggy, really. She was just a clothes horse for a startling new type of fashion, which was not itself based on beauty.

The acclaimed beauties in the 1960s of the Carnaby Street period were people like Jane Asher, Julie Christie, Catherine Deneuve - that English Rose blonde colouring was really in. More offbeat were Anouk Aimee and Charlotte Rampling. There was vastly more influence of Britain and the Continent than of the US on beauty standards in 1960s.

[quote] The acclaimed beauties in the 1960s of the Carnaby Street period were people like Jane Asher, Julie Christie, Catherine Deneuve - that English Rose blonde colouring was really in.

I had red hair, bitch!

I was alive then and I do not recall anyone thinking that GOLDIE HAWN was a great beauty. She had a quirky oddball appeal but was not considered a great beauty. What did you come up with that ?

People referred to her as “cute.” Never once did I hear her described as a great beauty. Beauty standards haven’t changed. Memories have faded.

With her super-young looks and expressions, she gleamed with the fashionable beauty of her day. Men found her sexy.

She was considered an unconventional beauty / but way to cut down a woman based solely on her looks

Her day was a long one. She really held onto her looks well, not changing much at all between Private Benjamin in 1980, and The First Wives Club in 1996, before she finally gave into torturing her poor skin with all the sun tanning. But she never changed her style again after 1989, which was kind of disappointing.

Oops, sorry Jane. Must've only seen you in black and white!

R40 Correct. I knew a girl who looked something like Goldie and got compared to her. Guys were crazy about her but she wasn't a beauty - she was cute and sexy. Btw my dd who didn't like too many movie stars had a thing for Goldie Hawn, she had more charisma and cute sex appeal than a lot of great beauties.

Sorry, mistyped - "my dad"

No- cute and sexy but not a beauty- ok OP?

"She didn’t have a “great” body, ever."

Her body must have been considered pretty good since in several of her films it's shown off with skimpy clothing. She had a fit, toned body. What do you think constitutes a good body, big tits and a huge ass?

She invented perky. She is it’s ambassadress. From Perklandia. She has a pied a terre in Frivolity, the capital city.

Her good fortune was that she perfectly typified the times. Plus, she was gifted with brains and personality.

f she were 10 years older, she would not have stood a chance. Laugh-In debuted in 1968, just six years after the death of Marilyn Monroe. Compare Goldie's 'dumb blonde' public persona with that of Marilyn Monroe and her scores of imitators. Just as Marilyn is the perfect exemplar of America in the 1950's, Goldie embodies the hippie movement and the summer of love.

Of course, neither of these working actresses were their public personas. But they both understood their times and were lucky enough to capitalize on them.

She had the cutest wink.

As other have said, she wasn't considered a "great beauty" but there were a good amount of people that found her appealing, attractive or even sexy.

No.

Hope this helps.

R34, you must be high. The shorter hairstyle was in, but on Liza Minnelli? Liza was never ever ever ever considered beautiful or even good looking by anyone other than some gay men.

Jesus god how much filler went into them to get this?

[quote]The acclaimed beauties in the 1960s of the Carnaby Street period were people like Jane Asher, Julie Christie, Catherine Deneuve - that English Rose blonde colouring was really in. More offbeat were Anouk Aimee and Charlotte Rampling. There was vastly more influence of Britain and the Continent than of the US on beauty standards in 1960s.

True. I think it was a change from the Tuesday Weld, Sandra Dee, Jane Fonda ideal the decade started out with.

And Raquel Welch, Sophia Loren, Ursula Andress...curvy and sexy...but a change from the blonde bombshell in vogue in the late 50s early 60s

Why must a celebrity be a great beauty? Male stars haven't always had to be handsome. Ernest Borgnine, case and point!

Goldie was sexy and fun.

She was never a great beauty but she was a bit more glammed up than the Average Woman type, too.

Sort of the girl next door, if you lived in California.

She's a great beauty with a great body.

"If she were 10 years older, she would not have stood a chance."

Not sure I agree, since Judy Holliday had definite similarities.

[quote] Not sure I agree

I don't agree with that, either.

R9 makes a great comparison. R57 explains it well. Many, not just women up their attractiveness by being funny and flirty. It's a huge part of what "being sexy" is all about.

What if she was 10 years younger R 60 / 61? - Goldie was the perfect age and type to be the offbeat but sexy / ditzy hippie chick waif in ‘68 -if she was 20 in ‘79 she wouldn’t have embodied the disco era cute young thing nearly as well.

And Private B in ‘80 was a bit of a “comeback” or a second career the way other slightly past it performers of the late 60s very early 70s reestablished themselves in the early 80s - Bowie and Tina Turner did the same sort of things in music. I was in HS back then and they all seemed “old.”

R48, she had a fit, toned body. But a “great” body implies something unusual. Not necessarily T&A, but somehow exceptional. Elle McPherson has a great body. Serena Williams’s body might not be the average person’s ideal, but I’d call it great before I’d call Goldie Hawn’s body great.

IMO, Goldie Hawn had a good body. Not great. But aesthetics are subjective.

No she was the pretty girl next door.

I think her appeal is obvious. Those legs, that ass. Straight guys would find this hot. I find her much more appealing than the plastic Kardashian look popular now.

Google Goldie Hawn, little black dress. I wish I could post but it won't let me.

She is perky not beautiful. She played the dumb blonde which a lot of guys find appealing.

This pic

Pvt Benjamin was just two years after Foul Play, R63.

She was cute and perky, at times beautiful.

Kate Hudson never would have had a career if she'd had non-celebrity parents.

Kooky, sexy, adorable - that’s how she was regarded.

She was known for her ditzy baby voice and idiotic laugh. Which is why it was interesting when she later emerged as a movie star speaking in a relative low pitch..

She was a funny and cute Jewish girl who got a nose job and had a great figure which she flaunted on TV. When she got serious about movies and fame she got a chin implant and other tweaks to make her box office presentable. Always something very likeable about her.

Hello. Judge my nude photos on sex gay dating site - socgay.club (username Niko)

I’m just not clear yet as to whether she was considered beautiful or whether she was considered cute and perky. Would someone please clarify?

I think she has an intriguing face (although she's subjected it to a lot of ahem, intervention over the years).

She's a very good comic actress, she moves like a dancer (if not a well trained dancer),and she can't really sing, but...

It would be interesting to see if she'd pursued heavier dramatic roles, using her natural (deeper) speaking voice, not the chirpy comic one, and really used her expressive features. She probably wouldn't have had as long and commercially successful a career, but I'd still be curious to watch her work.

I really like these photos of her from 1965.

She's got a unique mix of California girl-next-door with something more ethnic, earthy, sensual.

Last in the series (I think).

"with something more ethnic, earthy, sensual."

That's the Jewish part, R76. I don't know where you get the California, she's from DC. Blonde isn't always mean "California," and Goldie was not California-like.

The woman can dance, she's charming and funny. The camera loves her. She owned First Wives Club. She put Bette Midler and Diane Keaton to shame.

She looked pretty damn good in her best performance ever as Helen Sharp!

She was cute - and cute has a lot of safe sex appeal for straight men. Plus, it's non-threatening/challenging for Frauen.

Goldie and Maggie Smith should host the Oscars next year or at least appear since it’ll be the 50th anniversary of their wins.

[quote] I’m just not clear yet as to whether she was considered beautiful or whether she was considered cute and perky. Would someone please clarify?

Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think anyone ever thought about how she was considered. One thing different then, was: media wasn't all-consuming. People didn't worship the media. The public didn't know as much about show business. I mean there were no shows like ET, for example. There was no People magazine. Media didn't decide for you who was popular. It is actually hard to understand now. Stars were made by the public, much more...

Maybe it seems like she's from the dark ages but she's still alive, it's not like tastes have totally changed. So you can look at her pics or movies and decide what you think.

"Media didn't decide for you who was popular"

Oh, please. There were a number of weekly and dozens of monthly magazines that had entertainment features and reviews. There was trash like Photoplay and Modern Screen. The difference was that you had to know how to READ.

She was on Laugh-In when I was a kid. One of the cute things about her was her name. Back then I never thought of Goldie as a Jewish name, just one that reflected her blondness and sparkle.

Groovy....

R85, any kind of jewelry is usually Jewish.

she was always considered cute, adorable but never a great beauty

God you people are picky. He’s “TV Average Looking” which equals “a lot hotter than normal” IRL. Like Jim on The Office. They’re not Paul Newman; but they’re hotter than most.

This thread is exhausting.

A lot of you don't understand the question. It doesn't mean what your father thought or what your third grade teacher thought. It's how Goldie was sold to and seen as by the media and public in general. Her publicist most definitely did not sell her as a "great beauty," and the public and media never saw her that way either - she was a silly girl next door type.

She was classy and sassy!

Cute + kooky = ugs

R89 was supposed to post to the Colin Jost thread - but it pretty much works here too!

Jim on the office had the most BDF ever...until Beto came along.

OMG, what is wrong with some of the posters (^) on this thread? Are you drunk? Stoned?

I waited on her and her son Wyatt many, many years, ago. She is much more attractive in real person than she appears on screen. You could tell she was a very on hands mother with him as he was probably around two. Very friendly and down to earth

Always nice to hear a celebrity seemed down to earth and kind. She always seemed like a good person with a good heart.

She still is a beauty.

That's Cameron Diaz, r99.

R100 nope, it’s Goldie.

Julia Phillps said Goldie rarely bathed

More beautiful Goldie.

Who?

R103 That's Aileen Wournos!

This is Aileen, r105.

Was Susan Sarandon considered hot?

no r107 but her breasts were

Sarandon was sexy in “Atlantic City.” And lemony fresh!!

[quote]Susan Sarandon

Cunt

Oh and Goldie's giggle is real and you can't help but smile when she's doing it.

Goldie benefits (?) from breast augmentation

I always found Susan Sarandon stunningly gorgeous and she still is. I don't know what work she's had done, but it's brilliant.

[quote]Goldie benefits (?) from breast augmentation

I think it was three kids and old age.

If Patty Duke had been a bit taller she would have been considered one of the beauties of the '60s.

Or maybe beauty is too strong a word and should be used sparingly.

Even later in life - beautiful eyes, great hair.

Goldie was more of an Cameron Diaz or Meg Ryan or Anna Faris type (speaking of more contemporary actors). Goofy and sexy, cute in a 'girl next door' way so she was always castable, but not seen as a glamazon or great beauty who needed her looks for her career or was used to sell cosmetic products.

She actually does very well in dramatic roles, it's a shame we don't see more of them. I loved her in Deceived even though it was a pretty stock standard 90s thriller, her big teary-eyed closeup in 'Cactus Flower' is incredibly cinematic, and there's The Sugarland Express (dir. Spielberg) where she kills it doing a redneck 'Bonnie and Clyde' situation.

She also had some great dramatic moments in 'Shampoo' where she subverts her onscreen persona. Love when she drops the cutesy act, commands Warren Beatty (in her real, low voice) to grow up, and decides for herself that she's going to go to Egypt.

We missed out on what might have been an interesting period for her when she retired from the business to do that Mind Up / Mindfulness program stuff. But my sister is a teacher and says they use it in the classroom and it is wonderful, so at least it's important work. A shame her HBO series fell through, as well as the Jennifer Saunders-penned drama Ashes to Ashes.

Puleeeze, R114. Goldie was flat as a pancake when she was young. TEN kids wouldn't cause those boobs. Sally Field same thing. Flat flat flat.

Cameron Diaz didn’t need her looks for her career? What did she build it on then, her acting talent? Things you learn on DL every day...

[quote]Puleeeze, [R114]. Goldie was flat as a pancake when she was young. TEN kids wouldn't cause those boobs. Sally Field same thing. Flat flat flat.

Of course your right Doctor. People's body doesn't change at all. Everyone has the same body at 20 when they are 70. Good call.

R119 Cameron Diaz is beautiful and does have sex appeal (see The Mask) but most of her roles have her cast as a more goofy, quirky girl-next-door type. There's Something About Mary, My Best Friend's Wedding, Vanilla Sky, The Sweetest Thing, Bad Teacher, even the Charlie's Angels films. She's coarse and silly, making a fool of herself etc. and gawky on screen. Her Globe-nominated performance in Being John Malkovich might be the biggest example.

Yes she is tall and conventionally attractive, but not a Charlize Theron or ScarJo or Angelina Jolie or Margot Robbie type where those are the roles she takes and is considered for. She's more in the goofball Goldie Hawn archetype.

R120, I don't know why you must "defend" Goldie from having implants as if they're a federal crime.

And why do some people who have never seen a real tit in their life always think they are implants.

[quote] "Media didn't decide for you who was popular"

Oh, please. There were a number of weekly and dozens of monthly magazines that had entertainment features and reviews. There was trash like Photoplay and Modern Screen. The difference was that you had to know how to READ.

Okay so I thought maybe I went too far in my comment. I guess I was unclear, also, because what I meant was today is much more a time of manufacturing consent. But a lot of what I said was valid. Nobody talked about weekend box office grosses outside of Hollywood. You didn't know stars' ages. I think it was People mag that started that. Before, you literally had to find that in an encyclopedia or almanac. Yes there were movie magazines, I never saw one in my parents' home. Oh sure you knew who the big stars were. Anyone could read Hedda Hopper for ex.

But what I should have said was that today almost all stars have to be beautiful, male or female. There used to be homely or even ugly stars who were BIG stars (Edward G. Robinson, Wallace Beery, Ernest Borgnine, etc.) Really doesn't happen any more. Maybe the OP just can't fathom that there used to be movie stars who weren't considered beautiful. Like Goldie. I. e., big star? Must have been considered a great beauty. Because all big stars are supposed to be beautiful.

Sorry, this part should have been in quotes also

[quotes] Oh, please. There were a number of weekly and dozens of monthly magazines that had entertainment features and reviews. There was trash like Photoplay and Modern Screen. The difference was that you had to know how to READ.

"You didn't know stars' ages."

What planet did you live on in the 1970s, R124?

Goldie has put on some weight on in her older years too. It's not like she's even that busty now. Weight gain causes women breasts to get bigger most of the time.

Look at poor Shelley Duval. Like Goldie, when she was young she was very thin with small breasts, then when she popped up again on Dr. Phil after being out of the spotlight for many years, she had put on a huge amount of weight, and now her breasts were very big and hung down to her belly.

[quote]Weight gain causes women breasts to get bigger most of the time.

Exactly R 127. The female breast is mostly made up of a collection of fat cells called adipose tissue. But I'm sure all the gay boys here knew that already.

So fun bags are fat bags?

R126 Where did you find the ages of stars in the 70s? Without the internet where did you look to find out the ages of TV stars for example? Since you seem to know. Like if I wanted to find out how old Florence Henderson or Ann B. Davis was on The Brady Bunch, or the age of Merv Griffin or Jack Benny or John Forsythe or whomever, where/how was that information at one's fingertips?

R130, I'm not R126, but the World Almanac used to have an alphabetical list of celebrity birthdates (which might not always have been perfectly accurate). Of course, not all celebrities were listed, and the Almanac only came out once a year, so the latest hot thing wouldn't be in there. All well-established stars were listed, though. I used to look them up all the time.

Also, articles about actors did sometimes mention their ages, so there was that. And there were printed guides like [italic] The Filmgoer's Companion[/italic]. I don't remember if that book actually listed birthdates, but it contained a list of the actor's films, so you could make a rough estimate from the date of the first one.

I agree it was harder to find out, but it's not like it was top secret information.

Goldie Hawn was not a great beauty, but in her film heyday (10+ years after the Laugh-In era, which for some reason people seem to be focusing on) she was pretty and had a sweet, irresistible onscreen persona. I agree with others who have said it's not hard to see why men would think she was attractive.

In Foul Play and Seems Like Old Times, she was paired with Chevy Chase who was - believe it or not, kids - a very handsome man in his younger days. They did not seem at all like a mismatch. In fact, they made a cute, attractive couple.

Speaking of Foul Play, I watched that movie for the first time in decades a few weeks ago. It holds up pretty well. If nothing else, it's a hilarious time capsule of the era - almost every scene has something in it that's just so late-'70s you can't help but laugh. It was filmed on location in San Francisco and has lots of scenes of the city, so San Franciscans might enjoy the glimpse of SF in its prime as "America's Favorite City".

Thank you, R131. Jesus, I can't believe there are people who think life began with the internet.

In addition, there were Who's Who books i.e. Who's Who in the Theater. I spend many study halls in the library reading the Current Biography yearbooks - an encyclopedic series that featured in depth bios of everyone from world leaders to show biz personalities. And as R131 said, it was almost mandatory for ages to be in newspaper/magazine articles, "Film star Mickey Rooney, 55, announced that he and his seventh wife are divorcing..." I found a Information Please 1962 almanac in my garage when I was a kid, and it listed the ages and HEIGHTS of celebrities. The heights may have wrong, but so is Google when it lists 5'9" Cary Grant's height as 6'1.

"Nobody talked about weekend box office grosses outside of Hollywood"

Not really true. Newspapers and magazines regularly had stories about movies that had grossed beyond expectations and those that were bombs. If you wanted exact stats, weekly Variety (which I read) had them. I don't think it's good for weekend box office results are so readily available to the public today because, as usual, the dummies think that low box office means bad movie.

The actors you mention as ugly big stars - Edward G. Robinson, Wallace Beery, Ernest Borgnine - they were CHARACTER ACTORS, not romantic leads. Ernest Borgnine worked, but he didn't get the girl.

Dumb and beautiful with Dean Martin.

Legends.

She was cute and quirky, not beautiful. Her look lent itself very well to her ditsy comic persona.

[quote] "Nobody talked about weekend box office grosses outside of Hollywood" Not really true. Newspapers and magazines regularly had stories about movies that had grossed beyond expectations and those that were bombs.

I had a subscription to Variety as a kid but c'mon it wasn't mainstream out of the industry. When "Entertainment Tonight" debuted in 1981 it all changed. It was the first daily show about the industry and they reported on grosses, hits and flops. It was before "E!" or "Movietime" as it was called when it first went on the air.

Adorable not beautiful. The entire premise of your thread is shit OP

r76 she looks like a Polish girl

[quote] I had a subscription to Variety as a kid but c'mon it wasn't mainstream out of the industry. When "Entertainment Tonight" debuted in 1981 it all changed. It was the first daily show about the industry and they reported on grosses, hits and flops. It was before "E!" or "Movietime" as it was called when it first went on the air.

Thanks for being the first person here who seems to get what I meant.

As for you folks saying the ages of stars - the bigger ones - were in the World Almanac. Yes, but I'm just saying stats like this were not as easy to find. And only the more well-known stats. I don't think life began with the internet. I existed before the internet and I actually recall my parents and their friends competing in a weekly a neighborhood quiz (sort of Trivial Pursuit before it existed) where they would actually have to go to the library and look in reference books and ask the librarian for answers to trivia questions that they could now find the answers to in seconds. This wasn't info you'd find in the encyclopedia but things like obscure movie trivia and pop culture references from previous decades, etc.

If you think we used to have *easy* access to all kinds of info like we have now, you're just not thinking it through imho. Sure, if you consulted reference books or were some kind of entertainment nerd, you could *find* things, but I didn't mean that. I meant today even people who would otherwise not even read a book, or have much knowledge - or even much interest - in pop culture and entertainment facts - know all about them.

And yeah Edward G. Robinson and Wallace Beery (and other less than beautiful stars) were character actors but they were also STARS. They headlined and were top billed in movies. They were MAJOR stars. Marie Dressler was a major star. Today do we really have these extremely popular, less than handsome/pretty stars? Not as much. Think about most of the young actors today. They come out of modeling and being cute child actors, a lot of them. Oh sure there are the less conventional looking ones but do they end up headlining big movies? Maybe I'm wrong, idk.

Goldie was cute, never a beauty.

Ernest Borgnine got the girl in "Marty", plus an Oscar. He also had Ethel Merman (for about a month!).

Ed Norton isn't exactly a beauty , but more of a nice-looking character guy. John Cusack, about 10-20 years ago, similar. Tom Hanks still headlining. There are others. De Niro and Pacino weren't conventionally handsome nor was Dustin Hoffman back then. There's also been a bit more leeway for guys to look more nebbishy or off-beat than for women.

R144, we were talking about actors from the 1930s-50s who weren't conventionally good looking. Hoffman, DeNiro, Pacino, throw in Elliott Gould and Jack Nicholson, come from the AGE of the unconventional lead. New Hollywood and all that shit from the late 60s-70s.

Humphrey Bogart wasn't conventionally handsome back then, though he had been a beautiful baby whose picture had been used on baby food advertisements.

Paul Muni, Charles Laughton, James Cagney -- none of them beauty contest hopefuls either.

Cagney was very sexy when he was young.

You would have had no doubt Goldie would be a tigress in the sheets.