The lookalikes suggests an entirely different application for Freud’s “the narcissism of the small difference.” Here, the differences may be small but the narcissism sizable.
Penelope Cruz is not beautiful. And that guy who is supposed to be a match for Clint Eastwood: gimme a break.
Those pairings just mark how far the standards have fallen.
Score: classics 11 vs. upstarts 1
I have seen better photos of all of them (the newbies) I suppose. Was that intentional, I wonder? Catherine Zeta Jones would stop me in my tracks were I to see her on the sidewalk.
I’d lay my coat over a mud puddle for her. Her beauty is that classic, and literally makes me go there.
I think the only one of the contemporary “stars” who looks better than the “original” here is David Beckham, but calling him a Hollywood star is something of a stretch. Beckham is an athlete who lives in Hollywood and has managed to trade in on his good looks. Errol Flynn was something else entirely. Maybe I just think Beckham seems better looking because in this picture he projects a more masculine and rugged image, but that’s also one of the key differences: Flynn’s look ranged from the masculine to, at times, a more androgynous sort of beauty, but he was also famous for his suave and debonair personality, whereas Beckham is more famous for his looks, his body, and his athletic skill.
Penelope Cruz has the smouldering smile of Sophia Loren
BLASPHEMY!
Of course, you left out Octo Mom and her creepy obsession with the incestuous Angelina Jolie.
A lot of the difference is expressiveness. The contemporary stars don’t seem to be able to do as much with their facial muscles. Look at the warmth of Cary Grant’s eyes, vs the guardedness of George Clooney’s.
Besides, has anyone seen Clooney “act?”
Look at the warmth of Cary Grant’s eyes, vs the guardedness of George Clooney’s.
I hear that’s one of the side effects of having your head stuck a long ways up your ass for interminable periods of time…
Leave a Reply
HTML tags allowed in your
comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
The lookalikes suggests an entirely different application for Freud’s “the narcissism of the small difference.” Here, the differences may be small but the narcissism sizable.
Penelope Cruz is not beautiful. And that guy who is supposed to be a match for Clint Eastwood: gimme a break.
Those pairings just mark how far the standards have fallen.
Score: classics 11 vs. upstarts 1
I have seen better photos of all of them (the newbies) I suppose. Was that intentional, I wonder? Catherine Zeta Jones would stop me in my tracks were I to see her on the sidewalk.
I’d lay my coat over a mud puddle for her. Her beauty is that classic, and literally makes me go there.
I think the only one of the contemporary “stars” who looks better than the “original” here is David Beckham, but calling him a Hollywood star is something of a stretch. Beckham is an athlete who lives in Hollywood and has managed to trade in on his good looks. Errol Flynn was something else entirely. Maybe I just think Beckham seems better looking because in this picture he projects a more masculine and rugged image, but that’s also one of the key differences: Flynn’s look ranged from the masculine to, at times, a more androgynous sort of beauty, but he was also famous for his suave and debonair personality, whereas Beckham is more famous for his looks, his body, and his athletic skill.
BLASPHEMY!
Of course, you left out Octo Mom and her creepy obsession with the incestuous Angelina Jolie.
A lot of the difference is expressiveness. The contemporary stars don’t seem to be able to do as much with their facial muscles. Look at the warmth of Cary Grant’s eyes, vs the guardedness of George Clooney’s.
Besides, has anyone seen Clooney “act?”
I hear that’s one of the side effects of having your head stuck a long ways up your ass for interminable periods of time…