QuoteReplyTopic: Sharon Stone -- Dumb and Dumber Posted: February 17 2000 at 3:22pm
Cropping her hair was dumb. Trying to imitate Jim Carrey's lovely bowlcut in "Dumb and Dumber" was even *dumber*! I really don't like the crop at all, but I'll agree with you, JF, that at least it's more sophisticated-looking than Jethro Bodine on crack!
Okay, I know I'm being really nasty here. And honestly, I would *never* say these things to these people if I knew them personally. But I honestly have to wonder if some of these horrible short hair choppings aren't just publicity stunts. As far as I know, "Basic Instinct" was really the only film of Sharon Stone's that got "put on the map" so to speak. Well, with all these awful haircuts, she's definitely not going to let us forget her name and face.
;-)
I think Sharon Stone could use a real hairstyle, not just a haircut.
Stone wore a medium-length style for "Basic Instinct." It suited her fine hair--and her face--perfectly. Why can't these celebs leave well enough alone?
Ally
DaveDecker
Members Profile
Send Private Message
Find Members Posts
Add to Buddy List
Senior Moderator
Joined: November 28 2000
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3247
Good question, Ally. Sometimes I think the same thing, but for celebrities, it's not about finding what looks best on themselves. In part, it's about change, because change is considered "news," and as long as they're "in the news," they're not forgotten.
What does THAT say about their talents -- or the business that they're in! -- if they feel that they need to change their hairstyle to get/keep their careers on track?
I remember reading last year that supermodel Claudia Schiffer was "on her way out" because she refused to cut her hair and keep her look "fresh."
Personally, I think chopping off long, healthy hair that has already been deemed flattering is almost always a mistake. Look at Sandra Bullock.
I used to scoff at the idea that TV and magazines were defining beauty /for/ us. I argued that we saw certain things as beautiful because, well, they really are. Now I have to recant. Flipping through "In-Style" magazine, I see all kinds of hairstyles, makeup looks, outfits, furniture, and so on that are just plain awful. Someone with an "artistic" eye created them, apparently not considering the context. (The Mona Lisa painted on wood and hanging the Louvres? Good. The Mona Lisa silk-screened on a babydoll t-shirt? Bad.)
Cindy Crawford cuts off half her hair. Is she an all-new and modern Cindy Crawford? No. She looks like Cindy Crawford with a too-short haircut.
It's just hair! Change is nice. Cindy Crawford wouldn't wear the same shoes for ten years yet her hair is virtually unchanged? Does it look good? Of course it does, did it look good when she cut it? Yes, it did. It's back to same old same old and it looks good. Sooner or later new shoes start looking old and dated. When you go to replace them you realize the new shoes don't look like your old ones but they look good to! It's just hair!
Jennifer
Members Profile
Send Private Message
Find Members Posts
Add to Buddy List
Member
Joined: November 30 2000
Status: Offline
Points: 748
I think change is good. IF it's a "good" change! And sometimes we all make mistakes (ahem, not that I've ever made a mistake with my hair.....!), but we're also supposed to learn from our mistakes!
I'll admit that I would not want one, static look my entire life. We all change as we grow. But sometimes smaller changes can make a huge difference. I first highlighted my hair about 4 years ago, and it was a great change! And I added bangs about 10 years ago. They were definite changes but good ones, fortunately.
However, about celebrities, in particular actresses, most have a certain artistic flair about them. To be as successful as many are, often requires taking on a lot of risk. And that risk carries over to their hair, as well. And, as I originally mentioned, a change makes news, which keeps their images fresh in our minds!
Jennifer
Jennifer
Members Profile
Send Private Message
Find Members Posts
Add to Buddy List
Member
Joined: November 30 2000
Status: Offline
Points: 748
It's OK. I personally liked it better before and thought it suited her well but the new supershort nice too. Hope she doesn't keep it but if she does I guess I'll still look at her! Hal
On this point I strongly disagree with ya, Hal. Thorne-Smith has a square face (especially in her jaw) and a medium-to-large bone structure. The girl needs hair.
Pixie chops like this are best suited to willowy girls with delicate features.
Ally
Gord
Members Profile
Send Private Message
Find Members Posts
Add to Buddy List
Senior Member
Joined: December 09 2000
Location: Minnesota
Status: Offline
Points: 1395
When she wore her hair longer (not even past her shoulders), I never gave her face a second thought and just assumed she had delicate features. But when you take away the hair, unfortunately, her features become much more prominent and make her look a bit harsh, in my opinion. Not very pretty, feminine, or flattering.
In all fairness, I think *some* women can look feminine and pretty with the (right style!) of super short hair. But very few.
This is really disappointing to me because I *loved* the flipped style she's been wearing recently. It was very pretty and made her face look beautiful. It was a flattering change from the long locks she was sporting before. This pixie-ish thing she's doing now simply doesn't look good on her. I hope she's planning on growing it out immediately.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Topic Options
Post Options
Thanks(0)
