Categories
1900-1949 Women

England’s Most Beautiful Actress, 1929

Gladys Cooper (later to become Dame Gladys Cooper) was an English actress with a long career in films, TV and the theatre. She was born in 1888 and got her start on the Edwardian stage, and pre-World War One silent movies. Here she was in 1913.

Gladys Cooper, 1913
Gladys Cooper, 1913

I was familiar with her in one of her later roles from 1964 – that of Mrs Higgins, Henry Higgins’ mother in “My Fair Lady”, for which she received an Oscar nomination. But I never knew she’d had such a glittering career prior to that. Or been such a raving beauty.

In My Fair Lady, 1964
In My Fair Lady, 1964

In 1929 she was 41, and still described in this newspaper article in the Gloucester Citizen as “England’s Most Beautiful Actress”. She did have an angelic look to her, like an cartoon of a perfect flapper come to life.

Gladys Cooper with her children
Gladys Cooper with her children

In the article, she gives her thoughts on the subject of beauty. Her assessment is to be aware that beauty is skin deep, and that charm, personality, developing your intellectual talents and maintaining your health are more important in being an attractive person all round. Which is sensible and hard to disagree with.

She considers children one of the best ways of keeping young – well, yes, I suppose they are in that they keep you in touch with the more youthful side of life, although the lack of sleep involved isn’t great for a non-haggard appearance. I like her line saying that “I don’t see how one can get old with so much mischief and such a diversity of young interests around her.”

As a fellow 41-year-old woman, I am pleased that to see that “Time was when a woman of 35 was old. Now many women of that age are still considered girls.”

Beauty
By Gladys Cooper

(England’s Most Beautiful Actress)

“If I were only beautiful!” is the obsessing thought of countless women. To many of them physical attractiveness would mean the consummation of all their worldly aspirations and longings.

Does physical beauty really mean as much as all that however? I think not. Beauty ought to be as asset to any woman – it is, but only under certain conditions.

To the woman who is content to rely upon physical attractiveness alone, without attempting to make herself intelligent, clever, or amusing, and too lazy to develop whatever intellectual qualities she possesses, beauty is a handicap. Middle-age will find her very sorry for herself, and in old age she will suffer complete disillusionment.

The qualities which cause the world to acclaim a woman as beautiful are elusive, and I should think that three-fourths of the beautiful women of the world are as much in spite of their physical attractions [as] because of them.

Perfect features alone do not make a woman beautiful: expression means almost everything in a face, and since expression springs from thought, it follows that perfect beauty comes from perfect thinking.

So it is that many women whose features could be “torn to pieces” by a critic, achieve great attractiveness through beauty of expression. On the other hand I know women whose features have set in a permanently petulant cast purely as a result of their unbeautiful disposition. And I know few things more unpleasant than an ugly expression on fair features.

The more beautiful a woman is, the earlier should she look to her future. By developing her intellectual self she can face without fear the time when she will be no longer physically beautiful.

For that is a time that every woman has to face – we grow old soon and our looks go.

WOMEN WHO NEVER GROW OLD

Some women, of course, never grow old, and are beautiful to the last. Such was Ellen Terry, who was as gracious a figure in her old age as in her extreme youth. It was not physical beauty, however, which made Ellen Terry a loved figure. She had not perfect features, she was not a perfect type. But she had a charm that transcended any sort of physical beauty.

Charm! That is a word that ought to mean everything to a woman, that is the secret of three-fourths of the so-called beautiful women of the world.

They may, some of them, be physically beautiful, but that is only incidental. Many of them, as a matter of fact, are not beautiful, but are women of pure and beautiful thought which finds its physical refection in beautiful reflection. And they go on being beautiful forever.

A plain woman with the quality of charm will find herself a centre of attraction where a score of so-called beauties would be almost un-noticed.

Beauty does not get one far in any walk of life, unless it has something behind it. It may help in the first instance – in the theatrical profession it certainly does. But it is a slender reed upon which to lean unless there are brains and understanding behind it.

I should not like to be thought that I disparage physical beauty. In a reasonably-minded person, it ought to be a glorious thing, and it is the duty of every woman who is beautiful to do all she can to remain so.

There are many ways which she can preserve her attractiveness. First she must preserve her health, for I do not think an ailing woman can be beautiful. “Delicate” beauty does not mean ailing beauty. By living a health life and thinking healthily, a woman may do much to preserve her freshness. These are days when women look younger than ever.

Time was when a woman of 35 was old. Now many women of that age are still considered girls.

“MAKE UP”

Present day fashions offset beauty much more effectively than the fashions of our forebears, and the athletic life of present-day youth also helps considerably. Present day “make up” too, by its naturalness, is infinitely better than the artificial fashion of former generations. No right-minded woman need fear age, and I think the most pathetic spectacle is that of the woman who, driven to desperation by the first grey hairs, tries to look young and succeeds in making herself into a freak. Middle-age can have beauty and dignity if taken complacently; it is a tragedy to the woman who gets into a panic because she detects signs of its approach.

My own view is that children are one of the best things for helping to keep a woman young. I don’t see how one can get old with so much mischief and such a diversity of young interests around her.

That may not be a popular view, but I give it as my own experience.

GOOD LOOKS – AND DUTY

A beautiful woman has a big responsibility to her home. If she cares she can make its whole atmosphere reflect her personal charm. If she is vain and empty, her good looks will avail her less than nothing, and will probably be a curse to all with whom she comes into contact.

It would be a happier world if every good-looking woman would look upon her beauty not as a personal asset about which she had reason to be proud, but something towards which she had a duty – the duty of sharing her gift with the world.

Categories
1900-1949 Women

Women and their Ears, 1929

I’ve been hearing a lot of late about body shaming, fat shaming, and all the ways that women (well, mostly women) can be derided physically. I remember quite clearly the first time I became aware that imperfections in my appearance were apparently fair game for mockery. I was fourteen and a devotee of Mizz magazine, which I’d read ever since my mum found a copy on a bus and gave it to me, correctly thinking I would enjoy it. This was the late 80s and I loved all the 1950s revival fashions, beauty advice and mildly scandalous problem pages. Even now I still think about some of those features – a fairground fashion shoot where the models all seemed to be wearing clothes inspired by Ace from Doctor Who, a vox pop by Candida Doyle from Pulp, a tweed waistcoat I coveted and a beautiful coppery-coloured lipstick modelled (I think) by Terri Seymour (now better known as Simon Cowell’s ex).

But it was one uncharacteristically bitchy little article giving advice on how to get back on a hussy who had stolen your boyfriend that stuck with me. One of the ways in which you could do this, apparently, was to “laugh at her open pores.” Never mind that this mythical boyfriend-stealer might well have flawless skin, or that the boyfriend-less girl may not. What was certainly the case was that I had (and still have) oily skin and the accompanying open pores, and until that point it didn’t occur to me that it was something that you could (or even should?) be ashamed of. I remember it in a kind of eating-the-forbidden-fruit kind of way, in that I suddenly became negatively aware of myself physically, having been unaware and unbothered by what I looked like up until that point.

But that’s small fry compared to the gruelling grooming regime that is currently seen as the new normal among young women of today. Waxing, tanning, all manner of eyebrow atrocities. These are frankly a step too far for me to be arsed with, but girls much younger than fourteen are now exposed to such things. Ever since Heat magazine’s “Circle of Shame” a woman’s body has been fair game for general ridicule. And I am still annoyed about the episode in Friends where the perfect Rachel was disparaged for her “chubby ankles”. If Jennifer Aniston can’t escape this, then who can?

Having said that – I’ve never come across an example of “ear-shaming”. Until now, in this rather odd little piece quoted in The Lancashire Daily Post in 1929. I’m glad I didn’t read this as a fourteen-year-old as well. It would have depressed me, as I very soon became incredibly self conscious about my one weird ear. I know now that it’s called Stahl’s ear deformity – I have a extra rib on the top bit of the ear that makes it a bit pointed. Hence the other much cooler (and actual official and medical) names for it being Vulcan Ear, Spock’s Ear, or Elfin Ear. Age fourteen it was a nightmare that meant I never wanted to wear my hair up. Now I love it, although admittedly a turning point to getting to this point was when Lord of the Rings came out and I realised I was basically half-Hobbit. Short, a bit scruffy, and a weird ear that sometimes sticks out of my hair. It’s also very rare in Caucasians, apparently, so that’s interesting.

So, hang on to your ears for a wild and crazy ride into why women should ideally just manage to not have any ears at all, thank you very much. Not even weird ears like mine, just any ears. Incidentally, despite the title of the piece, men don’t escape scot-free. Men’s ears are also hideous but “in men this matters little: the majority of men have no pretensions to beauty, and one unlovely feature more or less can hardly make much difference.”

Lancashire Daily Post, 29th October, 1929
Lancashire Daily Post, 29th October, 1929

Women and Their Ears

Is there anyone who would dare to maintain that men and women would not be improved in appearance if it were possible to do away with ears, or at any rate to fix them in some less prominent part of the anatomy than the side of the head (writes W.H.U. in the “Birmingham Post”)? The modern generation of womankind, recognising that ears are rarely beautiful, sensibly hides the offensive feature from sight, and one could wish that all her elder sisters would copy her example. For at present a state of topsy-turveydom exists.

Young girls, whose ears, if not actually pretty, are at least tolerable, invariably hide them under their hair, whilst grandmothers and great-aunts display theirs with the utmost abandonment. And it is unfortunately true that the human ear, like the human nose, tends to get larger and more fleshy as it gets older. In men this matters little: the majority of men have no pretensions to beauty, and one unlovely feature more or less can hardly make much difference. But women are the ornamental sex and it is a shame to see old ladies of handsome and dignified mien spoiling their appearance by exposing their ears when they might just as easily train their hair to cover them up.

And how useless, too, is the ear as a feature. Admittedly it provides a useful support for spectacles and equestrian bowler hats, but otherwise what useful purpose does it serve? It is capable of showing no emotions, save shyness and embarrassment, and this only in the young (whoever heard of an elderly man’s ears turning pink?)

It is not event expert at the job for which it is intended by Nature, for when a man desires to listen with unusual intentness he generally finds it necessary to enlist the help of his open mouth. And everyone knows how much keener hearing a dog has than a man.

The ears do not even denote character to any great extent. If they stick out prominently they make a man look foolish; if they are flat and inclined to bulge in at a certain point they encourage the suspicion that their owner was once a prize-fighter in a boxing booth. Moreover, does not the ear contain the projection called “Darwin’s Point,” an ever-present, and perhaps a little humiliating, reminder that in some remote age it tapered in the manner of those of most animals?

Categories
1900-1949 Food & Drink

Radishes Have No Food Value, 1929

Some vegetable-based advice from 1929 here, but it’s a bit harsh on the poor old radish, which is declared to have no food value.

The Southern Reporter, 24th October, 1929
The Southern Reporter, 24th October, 1929

It’s also really wrong. The radish is a good source of vitamins and minerals, particularly vitamin C and antioxidants, especially one called sulforaphane which might help fight cancer cells. In your face, 1929!

I’m fascinated by nutrition knowledge and advice though, the way it changes, and how we’re still finding out things all the time about how the body works. Doing Weight Watchers some years ago, I saw a slimming tip from an old issue of Jackie magazine promoting cheese as a dieting snack. On the Weight Watchers points system, cheese was one of the first things to be, very sadly, ditched, as you can probably use up a days worth of points on one small block. So this seemed absolutely ridiculous to me. But then the Atkins diet came in, advocating avoiding starchy foods and promoting protein and fats, and it suddenly didn’t seem so crazy after all.

And it will all change again, I expect. Maybe like Woody Allen predicted in Sleeper: