Take the 2-minute tour ×
Movies & TV Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for movie and tv enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Actors in the movies and TV shows from the 50s and the 60s often look old to me, probably way older than their actual age, or older than than you would expect their roles to be. First of all, am I just imagining things or is there really a perceivable difference in the age (be it real or just visual) of the actors or their roles compared to nowadays' movies? And what would the reasons for this difference be? Is this because of some healthcare or makeup advances in the 70s or lifestyle changes in the US or some other reason?

share|improve this question
6  
I don't really buy this or consider this to be a constructive exercise. How about a few examples to make your case? How older or unattractive does Elizabeth Taylor look in this 1950 image? –  coleopterist Dec 11 '13 at 9:48
    
I know what you're after, but the question currently doesn't have much substance. –  Napoleon Wilson Dec 11 '13 at 10:20
1  
This isn't opinion based, there was a definite identifiable trend in using older actors pre-1960. There are Academic Books written on the subject. –  John Smith Optional Dec 12 '13 at 12:36
1  
I have tried to improve the question a bit and would propose reopening (even if it could deserve some more substance, maybe some examples or more elaboration on how they look older or something similar). I for myself would not regard it "primarily opinion-based" (and not only because I have made this observation, too) as it is explicitly asking if there is a difference or not (even the original version of the question did this). But I tried to remove the statements about attractivity that could come across as subjective opinion. –  Napoleon Wilson Dec 12 '13 at 13:07
1  
@coleopterist The question of the OP didn't go into any particular direction, I think (which is why I tried to open it a bit more with the minor edit). He just saw some difference and wanted to know why that is. When older actors are chosen, they of course look older. The OP didn't give any direction into where the answer should lead (apart from the admittedly non-optimal tags maybe), the make-up and stuff was just the only thing that came to his mind, but he also asked for "some other reason". I think John's answer adressed the OP's original question (even before my edit to it) perfectly. –  Napoleon Wilson Dec 12 '13 at 16:14
show 7 more comments

3 Answers

up vote 17 down vote accepted

To be honest with you, the best answer to this question is the adage that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

There are a plethora of reasons why actors looked so drastically different back then, some of them social, some of them technical, but to assert that they were any less handsome is a misnomer.

Popular culture of the 1950's (and also but a little less the 1960's) circulated different ideals of what was attractive to an audience than we do today.

The 1950's was an interesting time in Hollywood, as the 'Leading man' persona was being jeopardized by the collapse of the star system, yet also given ballast by the post-war victory movies that were churned out at an unimaginable pace (compared to the rate of production today).

These movies privileged the idea of a leading man being strong, rugged and masculine. It's possible to represent this conservative view of masculinity with a younger male, but there was very little precedent for younger male leads at the time, it was simply felt that Audiences would respond better to more established stars.

There was also fierce patriotism to contend with, not only because of McCarthyism and the Cold War, but because of a strong development of American national identity following WWII.

Also, many of the older stars had embedded themselves into not only the public consciousness but the machinations of the studio industry.

The Studio system that was prevalent in the 1950's and 60's used contracted stars, who would be used for a predefined number of pictures. These contracts HAD to be honored, so as such there was little room for new talent.

This situation became pretty dire (as it extended to production crew and directors alike), and caused what was tantamount to crisis in the late 1960's. The only way for studio's to re-engage with their audiences was to allow New Creative Talent to take over from the stalwarts of the previous generation.

This transition became known as New Hollywood, and is what gave birth to the American Auteurs (Coppola, Kubrick, Peckinpah etc..). you'll notice that after around 1968 (ish), films start to become not only more graphic and controversial, but also took greater risks in using unknown, younger actors. Dustin Hoffman and Jack Nicholson got their big breaks during this period, to name but a few.

enter image description here Also, the 1950's was (for the most part) before the Teen Explosion: the introduction of 'The Teenager' as a marketable entity, with its own personality and traits. James Dean was at the threshold of this movement, and for most of the 1950's was really the only younger megastar.

This list of The most Handsome actors of the 1950's has James Dean as the only actor under the age of 30, and he died in 55'.

To Summarize, the 1950's idea of a leading male was an older, wiser, stronger representation of masculinity than we have today, and as such they picked their stars to match.

share|improve this answer
    
I've just realized I neglected Actresses from this answer too, so its kinda incomplete. Apologies. –  John Smith Optional Dec 11 '13 at 17:31
    
You could probably argue additionally that the age as a percentage of life expectancy was higher even if the average age of actors didn't change (life expectancy has grown quite quickly). This is a secondary effect to actual average actor age being higher, but it probably matters to what age people are perceived to be. –  matt_black Dec 31 '13 at 20:04
add comment

Its not imagining, you are probably right that in current films actor appear younger then their real age but in older film they look same to their age or might be older.

Some of my friend told me that in 3 Idiots, the face wrinkles of the leading actor (Aamir Khan) is removed digitally in the film, so that he can look like a college aged boy. So now days not only makeup but they also changes faces digitally. Similarly these days actor/actresses have cosmetic surgeries to look younger for films.

share|improve this answer
2  
Something else to consider is today's actors take better care of themselves than they did then. Less smoking, more physical training, etc. They pay people to take care of them (trainers, dietitians, managers, etc.). I don't think it's imagination either, but there are a lot more reasons than digital enhancement. –  Paulster2 Dec 11 '13 at 11:44
1  
@Paulster2 I always thought it to be more of a social/cultural difference. That actors back then were just older than their roles, or the combination of older men with younger women was just more common, or it was more common/desireable for men to look older/more mature. –  Napoleon Wilson Dec 11 '13 at 11:53
    
Another aspect which could be happening is the digitization of older movies where they used to be presented in 480x640 on analog TV sets and now are shown in 1080p on digital ones. Doing this provides a lot more detail they never used to worry about. 1080p is not kind to actors. –  Paulster2 Dec 11 '13 at 11:53
    
@Paulster2 yup, that's also true. I just presented few of them. There could be many other reason too. –  Ankit Sharma Dec 11 '13 at 12:37
add comment

Also black and white film shows off lines and wrinkles far more than todays digital colored film and TV.

I watch old shows almost exclusively, even though I am from the 90s era in high school. I notice men in 50s shows looking like guys in their early 50s look today, having actually been in their early 40s for real at the time. The women look younger though often. They used older and also more real looking people it seems. Women had wrinkles at ages they usually do, then, whereas today everyone gets botox. I prefer the old way. I enjoy people appearing as real folks, not some unattainable mold.

Everything has more depth in black&white. In colored film and TV-shows from then the coloring was light and more washed out. I prefer that as well and it looks more real. What people look in old shows is more real, I say. Today digital manipulation changes faces and weight. I see a star or singer on TV, then happened to personally meet them, and the difference is striking!

I will forever watch classics and old shows above anything newer. The content appeals to me more. Guys talk differently as well. There's a noticeable way guys spoke then in film, especially gangster and cop shows.

share|improve this answer
2  
Hello and welcome to the Stack Exchange. A quick note: this seems to be more opinion-based than a factually accurate answer, padded out with personal details about your preferences. I'd recommend taking the Tour under the help menu above to get a better idea how we work here. –  Meat Trademark Mar 10 at 13:07
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.