I don’t see it. She looked overweight, with a big nose, with weird teeth. Hardly a sex symbol.
Offsite Link| by Anonymous | reply 11 | May 15, 2022 6:32 PM |
Her blonde hair was to distract from her face.
| by Anonymous | reply 3 | May 15, 2022 5:49 PM |
Standards of beauty change with each era. She was more glamorous than beautiful and had a knock out body. She looked really good in the satin bias cut gowns fashionable at the time
| by Anonymous | reply 4 | May 15, 2022 5:51 PM |
By 1930s standards she was sexy. I think she was captivating, not necessarily good looking. Something about her was definitely engaging, or else we would have long forgotten about her by now.
| by Anonymous | reply 5 | May 15, 2022 5:52 PM |
They’re called Motion Pictures for a reason - what works amazingly on the screen often doesn’t carry over into stills - and vice-versa plenty of gorgeous models were dull as dishwater in movies. Her look is definitely textbook for her era, along with countless other starlets and chorus girls of the day — but she had undeniable charisma and appeal when acting.
| by Anonymous | reply 7 | May 15, 2022 5:57 PM |
OP, you forgot to ask ELDER GAYS. I'm sure there a few genuine 112 years olds here who can give you a true assessment.
| by Anonymous | reply 8 | May 15, 2022 6:00 PM |
She looks sexy and debauched in OP.
| by Anonymous | reply 9 | May 15, 2022 6:05 PM |
If you see her in films, it was also her personality. In photos, she looks a bit cheap but she had a sassy quality. Apparently, she was extremely well liked by all who worked with her in her brief career.
| by Anonymous | reply 10 | May 15, 2022 6:13 PM |