Jennifer Aniston is cute but not beautiful, says Joan Collins

[coco vaughn]

i think it's nothing special, that's a fact
i agree with Joan, sorry fans

 

[Platinum Blonde]

If Joan Collins has really said those things I think she is a huge bigot and extremly shallow and that is her loss. Angelina Jolie is NOT the only gorgeous, beautiful, goodlooking woman in Hollywood.
I think talent and not looks should be the most important thing in Hollywood.
I'm so happy and grateful that I'm not as narrow-minded when it comes to beauty as Joan Collins.

 

[ALAUU]

She seriously just stated the obvious. And I agree with her, to a degree. There are beautiful actresses nowadays, but Angelina Jolie is the only one who is breathtakingly beautiful. Her beauty is out of this world.

 

[pacersfanatic36]

I guess it's neither here nor there then, whether or not actresses can actually, you know, act.

I was thinking the same thing!

And I have to say I really disagree with Joan Collins. In addition to the women who have already been named (like Halle Berry), I also think that Marion Cotillard, Jennifer Connelly, and Julianne Moore are very beautiful in the movie-star/Old Hollywood sense of the word. There are other actresses I find gorgeous as well, even if they aren't glamorous movie stars (Keri Russell, for example). And it's not like every actress from the 50s looked like Dorothy Dandridge or Grace Kelly.

Moreover, I know that it's a really unpopular opinion here, but I think Aniston's the more attractive one (even if she's not a "classic Hollywood beauty").

 

[blueorchid]

I'm sorry, but it isn't the 1950s anymore so why should actresses of today even have to live up to the beauty standards of that era? I find the more natural actresses that arose in the late 60s and 70s after the old Hollywood system died to be more beautiful than most of the 1950s stars.

 

[KhaoticKharma]

^ *raises hand* .. I don't find Angelia beautiful, or Jennifer 'cute' and I think Golden Age actresses had lighting and beauty trends on their side. Sure some of them were exceptionally good-looking but others just look close to that in retrospective only.. Joan Collins being one of them.

Good for Joan making it back to headlines for stating the obvious though, and for making such an anti-feminist comment proper of her generation. Gotta miss the 50s.

I agree with every single word of this comment so hard.

I'm always amazed at the fetishization of Old Hollywood, as though women were just magically born 1000x more beautiful a hundred years ago than they are now- and that beauty should be the only prerequisite for stardom

 

[TommyGirl]

It is a fact that Jen looks quite different from old school movie stars. But it is ok to look different, why does Joan have to state the obvious and put other woman down by these words? Like there is no more ways to get media attention for her, and maybe there really is not.

 

[tigerrouge]

Joan generally laments any situation where - in her eyes - standards have slipped when it comes to beauty, whether it's the stars we see on screen or the people we see in the street.

I understand her viewpoint, but I also welcome a world where we can see and celebrate all sorts of women, whether they be tomboys or glamour girls.

 

[blueorchid]

Have standards really slipped or have they just changed?

I wonder if older people in the 1950s complained that the current stars of the day weren't as beautiful as silent stars like Lillian Gish and Mary Pickford.

 

[tigerrouge]

Joan tends to go on tongue-in-cheek rants about the subject - she even did a rather hilarious make-over show last year - but other things she has said on the subject include this 2009 article for the same newspaper:

The rise of the sub-lebrity: The non-entities of the Noughties awards

Just what has happened to real celebrity? I don't mean the 'sub-lebrity' we have today.

These modern 'celebs' who seem to possess little talent, strip off to flash their knickers at the drop of a flashbulb or become famous (or try to) by dating someone famous, preferably a footballer. This type of paper fame soon evaporates and, within a relatively short time, many of them go from the glitter to the gutter.

I mean the real celebrities; the ones, like Ava Gardner, Clark Gable, Rita Hayworth and Ingrid Bergman, who were incredible actors with incredible talents and true star power. Because, in this world of the sub-lebrity, they do not exist today - and I'll tell you why.

The nouveau celebrity rot seemed to start at the beginning of the decade with the arrival of the new 'entertainments' of reality television (Big Brother, I'm A Celebrity...., Wife Swap, X Factor, Strictly Come Dancing and so on), to feed the appetites of a public eager to watch heartbreak, adultery, torture and hatred served up to them daily and nightly on their omnipresent boxes.

And, as a result, utter nobodies became instant celebrities, often garnering front pages in the tabloids and covers on magazines - and these wannabes demeaned themselves by eating animal intestines or marrying someone the public voted for or seriously injuring themselves attempting to dance. Their instant fame had absolutely nothing to do with dedication to a craft, talent or even hard work. Instead, it was: 'Look at me, I'm famous' - and that's all they wanted.

Devoid of talent, beauty or charm, in order to stay in the public eye, they have had to rely on self-serving antics. And, of course, every headline-grabbing time, the antics have become more and more bizarre and outrageous. So we have had Britney Spears publicly shaving her head (as she had a very public breakdown) and causing paparazzi chaos whenever she ventured out of her house; various celebrities dieting themselves down to skeletal proportions, yet insisting they don't have an eating disorder; bipolar former pop star Kerry Katona having liposuction simply to get publicity in a magazine article; and the ever-present Jordan - aka Katie Price - who seems to love a headline more than her children.

Whether I'm in England or America - I divide my time between the two - I can't escape them. The latest show to air on British TV is a programme called Jon And Kate Plus 8. It's already a huge hit in the U.S. and 'stars' Kate and Jon Gosselin. Right now, they're the biggest 'A-listers' in the U.S.

Never heard of 'em? No, neither had I until recently. They are an extremely surly, charmless, unattractive couple who had eight children, made a reality show about their family and then separated. But for some weird reason the American - and now British - public has taken them to heart and they now appear on the celebrity magazine covers constantly, as well as many of the nightly entertainment shows.

And they've done nothing, said nothing and, in fact, are utterly without any appealing characteristics. They're loathsome and dislikeable.

All of this begs the question: what has happened to the true celebrity? Where are the Marilyn Monroes, the Elizabeth Taylors, the Richard Burtons and the Jackie Kennedy Onassises?

Today, the magazines and entertainment shows are populated with people who don't have much talent, but loads of chutzpah and who are managing to crawl up the ladder of populist celebdom by fair means or foul.

The X Factor is a brilliant case in point. The more gruesome, raucous and appalling the act in the early auditions, the more everyone seems to love it.
Simon Cowell nicknamed John and Edward Grimes (or Jedward) 'those vile twins' - and rightfully accused them of being talentless, little swaggering exhibitionists. Yet the public loved them, Simon had to listen and they soared in mind-boggling popularity and got through to the final six acts.

Then there is Jordan. There were other glamour models - Jodie Marsh and Melinda Messenger - but Jordan triumphed and her career is a phenomenon, embracing all aspects of her multiple vocations (topless modelling, chat show host, entrepreneur, children's author and so on). But she pays someone else to write her books and basks in all the tabloid attention, while wailing to be left alone or 'get closure' over her divorce as she eats bugs in the jungle on I'm A Celeb. . .

The most depressing consequence of our obsession with 'sub-lebrities' is that the real stars - the actors who are attempting to craft a career from talent and long years of training - are being left on the breadline as the airwaves are clogged with reality shows.

But their TV bosses know it's cheaper to make a reality show with unknowns who might become famous (or wannabes and glamour models desperate for those 15 minutes of fame) than to produce sitcoms or dramas in which they would have to pay professionals.

So today's minor celebrities - lacking any true discernable talent to maintain their fame and desperate for as much attention as possible - need to behave ever more outrageously to garner headlines. Every day the news is full of some starlet or wannabe singer falling down drunk or dressing like a bag lady in expensive rags.

But the saddest part about our obsession with sub-lebrities is that so many young girls strive to emulate them. If Britney falls down and is sick in the gutter, then too many young girls seem to think that if it's OK for her, it's OK for them, too.

Ever since the dawn of movies, the young have copied their stars and idols. In the Thirties, Forties and Fifties the studios were strict about how their talent behaved, as the studios rightly believed they were role models for the young. Hence the stars behaved impeccably when the spotlight was on them and although they might misbehave (and often did), it was well behind closed doors.

The studio publicists kept all naughty shenanigans out of the papers and the media, by and large, went along with it. Although everyone knew about JFK's philandering, Loretta Young's out-of-wedlock baby with Clark Gable and Rock Hudson's homosexuality, not a whisper appeared in the Press.

The true stars of the Forties, Fifties and Sixties were larger than life and incredibly charismatic and glamorous. I was lucky enough to meet some of them as a young actress arriving in Hollywood at the end of the Golden Age, when sadly the gilt was beginning to tarnish. TV was taking over and the studios were rarely signing new actors.

I was put under contract around the same time as Kim Novak, Shirley MacLaine and Jayne Mansfield, and we all had to conform to the groomed and glamorous appearance demanded by our respective studios. I was severely castigated when I once appeared at lunch in jeans and without make-up.

One of the great stars I met was Elizabeth Taylor, then just married to her third husband, film producer Michael Todd. Not only was she a true beauty, she was also down to earth and fun. She'd been a movie star since the age of seven and knew how to behave like one.

We dined at a restaurant on Sunset Strip called La Rue and she was dressed to the nines (as was I) in satin, mink stole and diamonds. I'd admired her since childhood. She deserved the accolades for her beauty, sheer star power and the epic quality of her lifestyle.

Then I met Ava Gardner - dangerously gorgeous and a headline-making superstar who often downgraded herself by saying she couldn't act. Well, she could. She had true talent and that indispensable star power.

The public was more savvy then. Actors didn't become stars unless they truly had the real X factor. There were loads of Marlene Dietrich or Hedy Lamarr wannabes, but the real versions made it because they were truly exceptional in every way.

Of course, the ultimate celebrity of all time is still Marilyn Monroe. In the 47 years since her death, hundreds of books have been written about her and her beauty still looks modern. I wonder how many of today's sub-lebrities would ever achieve that degree of longterm fame and adulation?

True celebrity is not just a passing fad. True celebrities' images won't fade - unlike those of the sorry crop of nobodies who passed for 'stars' in the Noughties.
​

​

 

[tigerrouge]

And the women she lauded as her 'style queens' (same source

There have been many glamorous women, both in public life and in show business, over the past hundred years or so. Here's my choice of the dozen most drop-dead gorgeous.

THE DUCHESS OF WINDSOR (born 1896 Quite severe, tiny and actually quite plain, but the American-born Wallis Simpson wore exquisitely tailored clothes and carried herself with such dignity and style.

MARLENE DIETRICH (born 1901 A complete original and the epitome of Thirties glamour. Not necessarily the most beautiful woman of her time, but she always wore superb clothes and had the best possible lighting. She was still enthralling audiences with her nightclub act in her 80s.

VIVIEN LEIGH (born 1913 An exquisite beauty - the most beautiful of her age - she was a great actress who knew how to dress well.

RITA HAYWORTH (born 1918 In Gilda, in that black satin strapless dress and the black satin gloves and that shock of gorgeous red hair, she defined Forties glamour.

AVA GARDNER (born 1922 The Press dubbed her 'The most beautiful animal in the world'. With her feline green eyes, fantastic body and sensational love life, she was my glamour icon!

JACKIE KENNEDY ONASSIS (born 1929 The epitome of American class and elegance. Everyone copied her style, me included. I simply adored everything she wore.

GRACE KELLY (born 1929 She was glamorous in an incredibly ladylike, East Coast kind of a way, a woman who looked sensational in a twin set and pearls with that beautiful halo of blonde hair.

ELIZABETH TAYLOR (born 1932 A true beauty who enthralled the world with her chequered love life and violet eyes.

MARILYN MONROE (born 1926 That hair! That face! That body! She positively glowed. She didn't dress very glamorously off-screen, but here was a woman who looked glamorous even in the nude. She still looks modern today in photographs from the Fifties and Sixties.

AUDREY HEPBURN (born 1929) Usually dressed by Givenchy, she was the last word in understated elegance with a beautiful voice and manners to match, an icon who is admired and emulated by the youth of today.

PRINCESS DIANA (born 1961 No one else came close to her at the time. She was the most glamorous woman in the world in the late 20th century, with great hair, beautiful eyes and an amazing wardrobe. I copied a lot of it!

CHERYL COLE (born 1983She slightly reminds me of myself, with the big hair, smoky eyes and the full-on red lipstick. The camera just loves her.
​

 

[eternitygoddess]

^One thing there isn't like the rest...

 

[tigerrouge]

Who knows what - or who - we'll be looking back at in twenty years' time!

 

[FASHIONLOVA]

she was right about jennifer aniston and wrong about angelina.
there are way prettier actresses than her. her face and features just don t make sense and she s really not pretty
but hollywood every now and then likes to brainwash people into believing that someone God's gift to earth when they clearly aren t

 

[blueorchid]

I just don't understand why we should be following beauty standards from the 1950s in 2010. I'm sorry.

 

[Spiral1532]

And the women she lauded as her 'style queens' (same source

Some interesting choices. But IMO she left out the most beautiful ever, Greta Garbo.

It's interesting that she mentioned the Duchess of Windsor. Not a beauty by any means, but definitely a paragon of style. She wore Mainbocher often (which for me = ). She sometimes used to purchase his entire collections.

Ava Gardner reportedly had a perfect hourglass figure (with measurements of 36-20-36).

Vivien Leigh was both ravishingly beautiful and supremely talented.

 

[jun3machina]

everything that's older was better....im sorry but i agree with joan....so many things these days lack quality and appeal and that goes for actors/actresses. when random people can get mega famous from youtube and the sensationalism of 'from nothing comes everything' mentality to the disgusting rise of fame of susan boyle ((disgusting in the fact she was whored out like a show pony or a circus sideshow, and not for her talent) ) because she doesn't look like your average sex pot but has some major talent just shows how tasteless and desperate our society and media outlets have become in their search for actual talent

 

[blueorchid]

Do you really think most of those actresses got famous through honest means and talent alone? The casting couch has always existed.

 

[isa.b.elle.]

she was right about jennifer aniston and wrong about angelina.there are way prettier actresses than her. her face and features just don t make sense and she s really not pretty
but hollywood every now and then likes to brainwash people into believing that someone God's gift to earth when they clearly aren t

agree and agree. personally i don't like nor Angelina nor Jennifer and in my opinion one of the most beautiful face right now is Diane Kruger. i love her,when i see a close-up of her face i'm just breathless

 

[before]

What a ravishing list, quite white and quite Hollywood, I suppose those two go together. I don't know how her statements on Aniston can't apply to Cole as well, whom I find pretty/cute but not beautiful.
True, we live in a talentless and irrelevant celeb world, but how Joan doesn't find Cheryl Cole to be somewhere between medicore and crap is beyond me. Maybe she should stick to Vanity Fair, that'll sate her want for "true" celebrities.