Actress Deborah Kerr dies at age 86

[amber]

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

Joan wanted to use her own wardrobe and the producers wouldn't let her..I don't think Joan was fug at all ..she had fantastic bone structure and yes she could be a be-yotch .personalitywise I'd say she had a good deal in common with Madonna and understood how to change her image with the times and to manipulate the media .. that is how she managed to survive for so long ..Madonna is better at it though.. she has gotten very far on far less talent than Crawford had .

I'm glad you compared Madonna to Crawford, in my head those two have much in common. They are kin, in my head. Which is, medium talent, maximum drive and maximum results. And having the drive to convince people that they are as fabulous as they think they are. That may sound snarky, but that is actually a HUGE talent. To convince others that you are good, and to try to be that good, despite actual limitations, very real limitations, wherein others are better than you but don't have the same drive. That is an unparallelled talent. I don't love it, but it is very real, and very important. In that, mostly others will only think you are as cool as you present yourself to be. Seriously, those chicks are the masters at that.

Like, that is the gift of fire signs, making themselves seem cool to other people, and having the drive to convince others that they are that good. It's like unbridled confidence at it's best. I fully acknowledge that that is a talent in itself.

And that was my whole point with selling her soul, in my opinion, she had very little, and made it into soooo much. An Aries specialty. And you are right about survival. It's true. And though I don't like the people, I admire greatly their perseverence and...I dunno...an insistence that they are good?
To address your points:
Bone structure: Okay, but not super. good though. She certainly doesn't have any super cheekbones.
Fug - I know she could look good, but I never liked her look, ever. But I have no problem with people who think she could look good, cause I can see that in the abstract.
And did I mention her dancing? Have you seen those old flapper films? At this point, that is my favorite thing about her. It's no small feat to be a good dancer. That is probably where most of my respect for her lies.

As an addendum, I read Bette v. Joan, and also just Joans biography, and lots of other stuff about her. Regardless of her performances, it is well known that Joan valued image above other things. And that it could be a deal breaker for her, regardless of the script. That? I don't respect as much. Bette would, and did, wear rags if it was a good role. She would be ugly till the cows came home if she had an opportunity to act her ass off. Bette cared about the script, Joan cared about the clothes. She felt she needed those clothes, or that boob job, or that rich husband. Whereas a more real actress would just care about the script, and peripherally the wardrobe.
I can't totally get with that. I still admire some of her work, but her entire attitude while being an actress and movie star is anathema to what I think of as acting, or stardom, or at least the small amount of integrity that exists therein.
Strike that, Joan and Madonna are absolutely what I think of when I think of stardom. And other people is who I think of when I think about actual craft, and the love of, and the expert rendition of craft.

[BombaySapphire3]

Well Joan did sacrifice her glamour in one film ..A Woman's Face" in 1941 and it is one of her best ..Davis incidently cited it as the only Crawford film she envied ..That book The Divine Fued is full of absurd inaccuracies BTW but entertaining nonetheless .I'm glad you expounded on these women and their drive for stardom ..it reminds me of an interview that La Nicks did for US magazine in 1989 where she stated that 10 or 12 years earlier that if she had really sold herself and her sexuality and image they way Madonna had that she could have been a much bigger star and richer than she was .The problem I had with that is that I don't believe Nicks ever had 1/10 of Madonna 's self promotion and media manipulating talent down and there was no MTV then so short of replacing Farah in Charlie's Angels it's hard to imagine how she could have gotten the same mass exposure then.God knows she handily beat Madonna in both looks and talent in the mid 1970s, but the interview was 1989 so maybe it was just the Klonopin talking.

[amber]

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

Well Joan did sacrifice her glamour in one film ..A Woman's Face" in 1941 and it is one of her best ..Davis incidently cited it as the only Crawford film she envied ..That book The Divine Fued is full of absurd inaccuarcies BTW but entertaining nonetheless .I'm glad you expounded on these women and their drive for stardom ..it reminds me of an interview that La Nicks did for US magazine in 1989 where she stated that 10 or 12 years earlier that if she had really sold herself and her sexuality and image they way Madonna had that she could have been a much bigger star and richer than she was .The problem I had with that is that I don't believe Nicks ever had 1/10 of Madonna 's self promotion and media maniplulating talent down and there was no MTV then so short of replacing Farah in Charlie's Angels it's hard to imagine how she could have gotten the same mass exposure then.God knows she handily beat Madonna in both looks and talent in the mid 1970s, but the interview was 1989 so maybe it was just the Klonopin talking.

Ah, I just don't think La Nicks had 1/10 of a willingness to change all that she thought was good about herself or music to promote herself in any false way.
But I do think she had all that drive, and even a talent for media manipulation. She just did it on her own terms. Which, rightly, weren't exactly the same terms as Madonna. And she did beat out in looks and talent, so...I think Stevie has every bit of media savvy as Madonna, but used it in support of her belief in music, rather than solely using it's power as imagery only.

So, basically, I think that Stevie wouldn't change her image or music unless she felt like it, I DO think she had the special gift for self promotion that Madonna had. She just didn't cater it to other tastes, she catered to promoting what she did, which was unlike other things. And she didn't, in the end, hold self promotion above the music.
One of the things I admire most about Stevie is her tireless publicity and touring behind her product. But for real. Not in the Madonna sense.

In my mind, she (Stevie) promoted her ass off, every time, every album, every tour - but she did so as what she always was before, or what she was now, not as anything more or less current, she promoted the work for what the work was - not the image of the work, not what the publicity said about the work, not about what the VIDEO said about the work. To her, the work was the work, the actual music.

Stevie promoted the **** out of herself and her band, for what it actually was, a huge talent, not as what someone said would sell the best right then, not as just promotion in itself, but promotion for a work of art that she believed in the value of. Besides its sellability. My thing about Stevie is that she can straddle the line of working for great results, with regular publicity bull****, but always the product is foremost in her mind.

So like, in my head, Stevie and her artistic integrity are Bette, and Madonna is Joan...
To put it very simplistically.
Gosh, I hope that made sense. If it didn't...well, well, I don't think you do!!!!

[BombaySapphire3]

Originally Posted by amber

So like, in my head, Stevie and her artistic integrity are Bette, and Madonna is Joan...
To put it very simplistically.
Gosh, I hope that made sense. If it didn't...well, well, I don't think you do!!!!

great analogy I do get it !

[darklinensuit]

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

The problem I had with that is that I don't believe Nicks ever had 1/10 of Madonna 's self promotion and media manipulating talent down

Stevie never let Bob Guccione leak her secret photo session.

- Jake

[BombaySapphire3]

Originally Posted by amber

And did I mention her dancing? Have you seen those old flapper films? At this point, that is my favorite thing about her. It's no small feat to be a good dancer. That is probably where most of my respect for her lies.

Yep I've seen "Our Dancing Daughters" she had won alot of Charleston contests before that film. She was actually quite good and natural in alot of her early films too before she really became Crawford whereas Madonna is just plain awful in film ..even in Evita she looked like a mannequin.