Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Sexier than Clark Gable


TopBilled
 Share

Recommended Posts

I was having lunch with a girlfriend today, and she told me about a theatre in La Jolla where her mother worked. She described her mother's experience with a young up-and-comer from Hollywood who appeared in a play there. Carla and I both agreed that this guy was sexier than Clark Gable. I would even go so far as to say he was sexier than Errol Flynn.

 

images-353.jpg

It's the nose for me. Perfectly formed. Usually in even the most attractive stars, their noses are not well-shaped.

images-439.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did have a purpose with this thread.

 

Some of the movie he-men that are worshiped for their looks were, in a broader context, somewhat unimpressive. Maybe they were 'hot' for their era, but when we look at all the men that creation has given us, they may seem rather mediocre.

 

Obviously, in the late 1950s, Elvis Presley was selling more movie tickets than an over-the-hill Clark Gable and was considered, by his generation, the sexiest.

 

But back to the point. How come some men who were truly Adonis-like, stagnated in B-pictures while other more over-hyped and over-the-hill performers kept getting the leads in A-pictures. Some of these careers were mismanaged.

 

One can argue the point of acting talent, but there were a lot of non-actors who became movie stars and had debatable talent.

 

When one looks at Guy Madison, it is hard to believe that such a specimen did not have an even bigger motion picture career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This could develope into a thread about "What Defines Being Sexy?", which to some doesn't actually mean looks alone. In everyday life, some of the sexiest WOMEN I've met weren't eye-popping beauties, but still attractive in a way. But there was something ELSE about them that struck me as "sexy". And it's that "something else" that defies description in mere words that makes the difference.

 

 

I think with Gable, it was not merely looks, but his entire COUNTENANCE that struck women as "sexy". He was good looking, sure. But NOT extrordinarily so. But the way he came across, whether affectated or natural, was the "sexy" part. And how can a skinny kid from Hoboken with a bobbing Adam's apple be considered "sexy"? Well Sinatra DID have that voice. But in of itself, his voice wasn't particularily that outstanding. It was his PHRASING that made the difference. It made his singing of a love song sound more GENUINE. Which brings us back to Gable. His physical attraction seemed more "everyman" and a possible achievement to Miss Jane public. Madison looked too good to be true, and out of the average women's league. Like a "pin-up" boy.

 

 

The same goes for women. The men in these forums might go on and on about how "hot" they think women like Paulette Goddard, Gene Tierney, Jean Harlow, Marylin Monroe and Raquel Welch are, but have deeper desires for women like Myrna Loy and Barbara Stanwick. THEIR "sexiness" comes off as more GENUINE more than just an outside appearance.

 

 

This is the best I can come up with about it. I hope you all got my drift.

 

 

Sepiatone

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I think we catch your drift here, Sepia. And yep, you're exactly correct.

 

And now I'm wonderin' which actor who wasn't exactly handsome in the classic sense Lori might think is sexier than Clark Gable???

 

(...sorry Lori) ;)

 

Oh and btw...Who posted those pictures down there of Warren Beatty and said it was Guy Madison, HUH???

 

(...yeah, just kiddin' around again here...but talk about a resemblence, eh?!) ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=Arturo wrote:}{quote}ST:

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> This sounds like Madame Elinor Glyn's definition of "It", which helped Clara Bow become a superstar in the late 20s.

 

Per Wikipedia:

 

From the 1927 novel, It: *"To have 'It', the fortunate possessor must have that strange magnetism which attracts both sexes... In the animal world 'It' demonstrates in tigers and cats-both animals being fascinating and mysterious, and quite unbiddable.*"

 

From the 1927 movie, It: *"self-confidence and indifference as to whether you are pleasing or not".*

 

Interesting definitions.

 

Or was Ms. Glyn just full of "It" ?

 

Elinorglyn.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not have the overall movie history knowledge that others on these boards have, and therefore did not recognize the man whose picture you displayed in your original post.

Kuddos to those who recognized the actor "Guy Madison".

 

"That said", I looked up Madison's filmography. I must admit, I have only seen him in one or two movies, but I do not recall being impressed with him.

This goes for his looks as well as his acting. In fact, his acting was probably ok, I don't even remember much about it one way or the other.

As for his looks, I don't find him "drop dead gorgeous" at all. He looks like he's made out of wax. This is how male models look to me, too. No personality, nothing unusual, no "energy". Maybe I mean no "it".

 

 

I'm not putting Guy Madison down, I'm just saying, there's more to a person becoming a big star than either talent or looks.

 

 

As for "sexy", two of the sexiest film stars I can think of off-hand are Robert Mitchum and Richard Widmark.

Probably no one would argue with me about Mitchum's looks, but that is not the only reason why I find him sexy. It's his whole demeaneur, his voice, the nonchalence; he's very "cool", ( however you want to define that.)

Widmark? I know a lot of people will probably be surprised at that one, but to me, he's very sexy, especially in his pre-1960 films. I know he's not traditionally good-looking, but he had this energy, there was something about the way he comes across on screen.

 

 

I'd rather have had one drink with either of the above gentlemen than have gone on for a whole romantic weekend with Guy Madison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, Guy Madison's Shakespearian career was short-lived *(*:^0 *)* but his little cameo in Since You Went Away is sexy in a little-lost-puppy sort of a way.

 

> I'd rather have had one drink with either of the above gentlemen than gone on for a whole romantic weekend with Guy Madison.

 

I'll tell him when he wakes up -- he's all tuckered out from last night's bridge game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

images-524.jpgimages-626.jpgimages-715.jpg

 

I am glad that we are bringing a renewed focus to Guy Madison. His career should be re-evaluated and re-appreciated.

 

I put him in the same category as Sterling Hayden and John Derek. Pretty boys that wound up in B-pictures but had the potential to be huge stars, had they been promoted better and placed in more prestigious film projects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Valeska, baby, I don't care if a film actor doesn't even know how to pronounce the titles of Shakespeare's plays, let alone act in them. I'd usually rather see Will's work performed on stage, anyway.

It's not about how cerebral an actor is, or how academic or "intellectual" the movies he appears in are. There are a lot of very lightweight films that I love - possibly most of the films I love are "lighweight".

 

Most of the actors I find "sexy" were in some very good movies, some indifferent ones, and a few tht are downright wince-worthy. That "quality" I was talking about has as little to do with how "high-toned" the movies they appeared in were as it has with their looks. ( sorry, that was a pretty awkward sentence.)

 

 

Duh...now that I think about it, the one film I really remember well that Madison was in, *Till the End of Time*, also had Mitch in it, in a "featured" role. I should have thought of that before.

 

 

I remember wishing that Mitchum had played the Madison character; as I'd have much preferred to have seen more screen time for him, even if it meant less for Madison. On the other hand, it is a little difficult to imagine Mitch playing Madison's character.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TopBilled wrote:

 

"I put him (Guy Madison) in the same category as Sterling Hayden and John Derek. Pretty boys that wound up in B-pictures but had the potential to be huge stars, had they been promoted better and placed in more prestigious film projects"

 

Well, I have little to say about John Derek, but Sterling Hayden is a whole different matter. What makes Hayden memorable on-screen is not his looks - although I do concede that his height is formidable.

It's that quality I was talking about...you remember Sterling Hayden, regardless of how memorable or not the movie you saw him in might have been.

 

Although Sterling Hayden never had the huge star career that many of his contemporaries had, he was always good, always commanded the viewer's attention in a scene. This was because he had that quality - a kind of presence ( not related to his tall physique) that made you want to watch him whenever he was onscreen. And he had a great voice.

 

I would put Hayden in a whole different category from the pretty boy actors you have cited in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Sterling Hayden was marketed as a pin-up boy in the 1940s. He outgrew that phase but I do not think he was given the opportunities he deserved because he was considered just another pretty face who could not act.

 

The irony was that, more than Madison and Derek, he really could act, though he often had to go the B-picture route to prove it. In his later years, you can see that he is clearly taking character parts that force people to take notice that he can skillfully flesh out a role on screen. He probably grew bored with the earlier kinds of assignments that limited his range and when someone like Stanley Kubrick hired him, he saw an opportunity to play against type and poke fun at the fluff he wanted to break free from doing. He definitely grows as a performer over time and is worth a career retrospective.

 

Robert Wagner is another one in this group. He had the 20th Century Fox publicity machinery in his corner for many years, but aside from something like A KISS BEFORE DYING (made ironically for another motion picture company), he does not get the chance to really prove himself as an edgy or serious actor. He instead fell into a comfortable television career doing formulaic mysteries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

misswonderly,

 

I totally grok.

 

Rather than "sexy or not," I look at it as a question of "sexy to me, sexy to you."

 

No stones hurled at my Guy can ever knock him off his pedestal in MY personal "Hall of Hunks." :^0

 

One of the reasons I find him striking is that, at the time of his debut during WWII when "men were men," he seemed like such a boyish "male ingenue."

 

Instead of gawky or comedic like Robert Walker or Mickey Rooney, Madison appeared naive, guileless and, per Ms. Glyn's definition of "It," totally unaware of his beauty -- though all that could very well have been because he didn't know how to act.

 

Interesting too that for someone who came off as fairly vapid, his career lasted over 40 years. He starred in a popular TV western series in the 50s and made his last appearance in the late 1980s.

 

Ooops, gotta run ... Guy's awake and bidding three no trump !

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does "grok" mean? ?:|

 

Of course "sexy" can have as many different meanings as there are people. What's attractive to you might be dull or even repellant to me. And vice versa.

 

I wasn't hurling stones at Guy Madison, I was just saying that I, personally, did not find him to be sexy; also, I did not find him particularly memorable in *Till the End of Time*. But as far as I can recall, he wasn't bad, either.

I wasn't so much putting Guy down as saying that, to me ( obviously, "to me", I never claimed to be speaking for others), he was not as interesting or "sexy" as the other two actors I cited.

 

I do agree with you that sometimes a "boyish" actor can be appealing. ( Not too boyish, though, we don't want to be accused of cradle-robbing or cougarism. :| )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=misswonderly wrote:}{quote}What does "grok" mean? ?:|

 

 

It's from Robert A. Heinlein's 1961 book Stranger in a Strange Land:

 

"Grok means to understand so thoroughly that the observer becomes a part of the observed—to merge, blend, intermarry, lose identity in group experience."

 

It's become a fairly obscure, slightly hyperbolic slang term for "Boy, do I ever GET what you MEAN !"

 

Like, when you say:

 

> It's not about how cerebral an actor is, or how academic or "intellectual" the movies he appears in are. There are a lot of very lightweight films that I love - possibly most of the films I love are "lighweight".> Most of the actors I find "sexy" were in some very good movies, some indifferent ones, and a few tht are downright wince-worthy. That "quality" I was talking about has as little to do with how "high-toned" the movies they appeared in were as it has with their looks. ( sorry, that was a pretty awkward sentence.)

 

. . . I totally grok, right down to the 'awkward sentence' ... IOW, me too 1000% . . . "Right ON, Sistah !" . . . etc..

 

And you're dead right -- your supposed aspersions about Guy Madison were nothing but figments of my imagination ... as is (sadly) my affair with him. (sniffle)

 

396_Colliers-02.jpg

 

But, heck . . . every cougar needs a scratching post . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

© 2023 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...