Where have all the good girls gone?

Is it just me or is the female talent pool pretty miserable these days?

Where's the sexuality and chemistry gone? It seemed commonplace in the more sexually repressive golden age of film making.

I don't just mean the incredibly shaped Anita Ekberg or Kim Novak types, but the more sophisticated women like Louise Brooks, Grace Kelly or Lauren Bacall. As recently as the 1960s, it was alive in the Hammer films and the Connery Bonds.

Was such obvious sex appeal and suggestiveness lost with the rise of feminism and the war on so-called heteronormativity? I don't know, but there just doesn't seem to be much on the screen that appeals to me anymore. Maybe Hayley Atwell, Emily Blunt or Ruth Wilson, but that only confirms that these are desperate times.

Am I missing something? And don't go thrusting your small-titted Carey Mulligan or Keira Knightley girls-as-boys at me - they're so safe and sexless I could die.

It's not just you, Ambler. The pool is bereft of talent. Kirsten Stewart and whatnot...I mean, I never feel the pull to Carey Mulligan that others have. Gone seem to be the days of types like you mention or my aforementioned Senta Berger though (having not seen her German work) perhaps she falls on the step beneath Grace or Lauren Bacall.

Ah well.

Sad state of affairs. If you want to get depressed, Google "hottest Hollywood actresses". The results are not pretty, especially this pathetic list (Helga ranks at 50): http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070988001/

I imagine it'll only get worse, especially with the changing (or disposing) of gender roles and identities. Women like Ellen Page and Emma Watson seem to be spearheading this.

The "leading men" in Hollywood aren't any better. Something tells me that Freddie Redman (THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING and something else) is enjoying his part in Tom Hooper's latest piece of shit.

Feeling like Christina Hendricks, ScarJo and Penelope Cruz are the modern day sex bombs, maybe even Marion Cotillard. Of the Grace Kelly type, Amy Adams only really springs to mind, but don't really see as much sex appeal.

Control wrote:

Sad state of affairs. If you want to get depressed, Google "hottest Hollywood actresses". The results are not pretty, especially this pathetic list (Helga ranks at 50): http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070988001/

Interesting list, more for who's missed out than who's included. Alicia Vikander is the most striking omission. Surprised to see Gemma Arterton on it; must be the most obvious example of a failed Hollywood hype since Julia Ormond.

Control wrote:

I imagine it'll only get worse, especially with the changing (or disposing) of gender roles and identities. Women like Ellen Page and Emma Watson seem to be spearheading this.

Yep. Surely there will come a point when Hollywood sees that such women appeal to no one except lobbyists. Time to begin thinking about box office again.

Control wrote:

The "leading men" in Hollywood aren't any better. Something tells me that Freddie Redman (THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING and something else) is enjoying his part in Tom Hooper's latest piece of shit.

Yeah, a  mostly dismal bunch of metrosexuals, asexuals and opportunists. I'm hard pressed to think of any I'd want on my team except Idris Elba.

ScarJo has it going on in terms of screen presence and voluptuousness.

The fact that Eddie Redmayne looks slightly effeminate likely played a rather large part in his casting in "The Danish Girl".

Is the premise a total lack of "manly" men in movies?
I'm not a big fan of his, but Wahlberg wears his laddishness as a badge of honor.
Nor would I accuse his "Pain & Gain" co-star Dwayne Johnson of being a tutu-wearing pansy.

Chris Pratt has some of Harrison Fords early everyman charm, only he lacks the core of darkness that the Ornery One brought to his blockbuster roles.

I would agree that the likes of James McAvoy, Ryan Gosling, Chris Pine, ... aren't exactly your typical man's men.

Xenia93 wrote:

ScarJo has it going on in terms of screen presence and voluptuousness.

I do find myself liking some of her recent performances after finding her quite overrated for the past decade or so.
But is it a question of her truly improving or did some directors just find a way to use some of her stylistic traits (her slight aloofness) to their advantage?
I would say that in the case of both "Under the Skin" and "Lucy", this is a contributing factor to the perceived quality of the performance.

Salomé wrote:

Is the premise a total lack of "manly" men in movies?

Also the lack of 'womanly' women. I suppose androgyny is still fashionable among the ruling classes.

Salomé wrote:

Xenia93 wrote:

ScarJo has it going on in terms of screen presence and voluptuousness.

But is it a question of her truly improving or did some directors just find a way to use some of her stylistic traits (her slight aloofness) to their advantage?

Not sure it matters. Kim Novak wasn't much of an actress, but when she was cast to her strengths it worked.

Hilly KCMG wrote:

It's not just you, Ambler. The pool is bereft of talent. Kirsten Stewart and whatnot...I mean, I never feel the pull to Carey Mulligan that others have. Gone seem to be the days of types like you mention or my aforementioned Senta Berger though (having not seen her German work) perhaps she falls on the step beneath Grace or Lauren Bacall.

Ah well.

There are some relevant paragraphs as to what you are talking about in this New Yorker piece.

Quote :

In effect, Stewart suggests that they’ve made an ultra-low-budget movie, but with (relatively speaking) lots of money. Among her noteworthy observations in Feinberg’s piece is her interpretation of the film itself, but what Stewart says about it reaches far beyond the confines of this movie and touches on the state of the industry—and of acting—over all:

In Stewart’s view, the film does the service of showing moviegoers how, in real life, actresses like the Binoche character (“who are interesting and good and strive to do cool stuff and do stuff that makes people think”)—the sort she clearly sees herself as—must coexist now, more than ever, alongside people like the Moretz character (“surface BS, put-together commercial/commodity-type actresses”).

Stewart captures, on the wing, a dichotomy that runs through the whole history of movies—but that often cut differently in the old days. Among classic movie stars, there were basically three types: thespians, showgirls (for men, hoofers), and pinups (men: beefcakes). For instance, Barbara Stanwyck was a Broadway star in serious dramas before going to Hollywood; Joan Crawford was a chorine; Lana Turner was discovered in a drugstore. Katharine Hepburn and Bette Davis were actresses; Rita Hayworth and Audrey Hepburn were showgirls; Ava Gardner and Kim Novak were pinups—models chosen for movies because of their pretty faces. (Of course, the apotheosis of the pinup star is Marilyn Monroe.) There’s another category, child stars who grow up on-screen (Judy Garland, Elizabeth Taylor) and those who don’t (Shirley Temple).

In other words, some of the greatest performers in the history of movies were hired on the basis of “surface BS” and employed as “put-together commercial/commodity-type actresses.” For that matter, plenty of good movies were mistaken for “commercial/commodity-type” films at the time. Some of the movies in which actors “do stuff that makes people think” are populated by “surface BS, put-together commercial/commodity-type actresses,” whether it’s “Vertigo” or “Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter?” or “The Barefoot Contessa” or “Gentlemen Prefer Blondes” or “Johnny Guitar.” (It’s worth noting the astoundingly condescending reviews that Crawford received for that last film at the time.)

http://www.newyorker.com/culture/richard-brody/kristen-stewart-and-the-movie-actors-dilemma

It's rather ironic that the inspiration for the piece is a Kristen Stewart feature, as she would fail both as an actress and as a throwback (appearance wise) to the Hollywood of old.

Salomé wrote:

Xenia93 wrote:

ScarJo has it going on in terms of screen presence and voluptuousness.

I do find myself liking some of her recent performances after finding her quite overrated for the past decade or so.
But is it a question of her truly improving or did some directors just find a way to use some of her stylistic traits (her slight aloofness) to their advantage?
I would say that in the case of both "Under the Skin" and "Lucy", this is a contributing factor to the perceived quality of the performance.

I don't think she's an amazing actress, but I really like her ability to command the screen, which is sometimes just as impressive. I loved her performance in Under the Skin.

I think they're all in heaven now.