The London Lounge

It's not just stylish individuals who catch our attention but stylish couples and I put, first up, Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor in The Sandpiper.
NJS

Question: does style have sex? Is it essentially different in a woman from that present in a man?

Question: does style have sex? Is it essentially different in a woman from that present in a man?

Style is a human trait, present in both sexes. The style key words for a woman will be only slightly different from those we apply to men....(I think...?)

Cheers

Michael

Well, to quote Rousseau (again) - men and women... "In what they have in common, they are equal. Where they differ, they are not comparable".
I also tend to think style has no sex. Its means of expression may differ between men and women, but the essence must be the same. In fact, perhaps it is closer to reality to say style has both sexes, rather than that it is sexless. Stylish people charm all, but appeal to men and women in different ways. There is often a pinch of masculinity in a stylish woman (Dietrich comes to mind) and a touch of grace in a stylish man (O'Toole comes to mind).

I am sure, Costi, that this is true but I meant really either film or real life pairings in which the whole effect was greater than the sum of the individual parts: Bogey and Bacall; Cooper and Neal; Olivier and Leigh (Gable and Leigh come to that); Lancaster and Kerr; Tracy and Hepburn (Grant and Hepburn and Grant and Kelly too); Garbo and Gilbert; Donat and Madeleine Carroll; and others that come to my mind. I am sure that there are others; although, possibly, none recently, apart from Di Caprio and Blanchett in Aviator and Andy Garcia and Ines Sastre in The Lost City. Indeed, apart from those, I cannot think of a single recent screen pairing that really comes off as explosive. Most of the male leads are either childlike or awkward and most of the female leads are pretty enough, certainly, but lacking any really smouldering allure.
NJS

Sex appeal stuns, dazzles. Charm seduces. Do we have modern examples? I'm not sure we play by the same rules as old Hollywood. Both charm and sex appeal require concentration, an ability to focus on another rather than on oneself. Actors today seem too insecure in that they try too hard to seduce.

Interesting remark, ccox. Where some actors go wrong, in my opinion, is in trying to artificially cause in the audience the effects others produce naturally by being genuine. They study the effects, envy them and want to obtain them without thinking of the real causes. Like Balzac wrote (somewhere in Illusions Perdues, I think), talent is a promisory note with which nature endows us, that often has a rather remote settling date. They have no time to wait and get ripe, the movie industry wants fresh meat. So they learn to manipulate the audience, its feelings, instead of acting from the heart. It's the difference between the sea breeze and a fan. The audience always senses that, even if it chooses to let itself fooled on the moment. When it's over, they feel that they let themselves manipulated. Then they slip into routine and keep doing the tricks they learned, like circus dogs. On the other hand, there are theatre actors that cause you to stagger on your way out with the authenticity of the experience you have just witnessed.

Most of the screen 'stars' of today seem to me to resemble over-grown kids. However, Ines Sastre and Andy Garcia in The Lost City create some real chemistry.
NJS

The whole effect being greater than the sum of the individual parts is a good point. Sometimes, a threesome could be quite effective as well. Love in the Afternoon with Cooper, Hepburn and Chevalier come to mind.

The point about being genuine and authentic is an interesting one even though acting is, by definition, neither of those things. However, there is, I think, truth to it, and I agree that many contemporary actors lack that bit of 'authenticity'. I do not think that it helps that most have become a medium for product endorsement; they are much like a page of a magazine, available for advertisers as a media purchase. They make public appearances in borrowed frock and, if any, jewels. One does not find enduring relationships between designers / couturiers / tailors and today's leading ladies and men. Actresses are rarely showered with jewellery by their husbands, lovers and admirers. Instead, they turn up at industry events wearing borrowed baubles that have absolutely no significance to them and has no place in their real lives. 'Glamour' has never been so diluted, artificial and ephemeral. Many have become so malleable and subject to other people's whims (and money) that the participants appear rather hollow.

A colleague once quizzed a group of us, 'Which actress springs to mind when you think of a strand of pearls? And, don't say Grace Kelly or Audrey Hepburn or anyone that's dead.' Utter silence. It was an eye-opening question. It's a minor issue in the general scheme of things, but I suspect it's related to, or indicative of, the larger issue about authenticity.

Shredder - String of pearls = Ines Sastre.
NJS

shredder wrote:Actresses are rarely showered with jewellery by their husbands, lovers and admirers. Instead, they turn up at industry events wearing borrowed baubles that have absolutely no significance to them and has no place in their real lives.

Indeed, and it falls in the same category of falsification that the actors themselves resort to. The endorsement of a product by a public person should rely on the fact that the admired star has chosen or prefers the jewels, couture, perfume etc. of a certain designer or house. But being paid to display such products without having any personal attachment to them is pure fraud for both sides. Again, it's hunting for the effect while falsifying the cause.

As for the string of pearls - I think of Meryl Streep if, it has to be an actress. However, whenever I think of a string of pearls I can't help remembering the story of Birgit Nilsson at a rehearsal on the stage of the Vienna Opera with Karajan. Her necklace broke and the pearls scattered all over. Helping her to pick them up, Karajan asked if they were genuine pearls, bought with the astronomical fees she cashed in from the Metropolitan, to which Nilsson replied: "No, they are fake pearls bought with the lousy fees I get from the Wien Staatsoper"...

storeynicholas wrote:Shredder - String of pearls = Ines Sastre.
NJS

She photographs extremely well...