Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaqarbal
Exactly. In a word: COMPLEXITY. And understanding the complexity requires ability to distinguish nuances, differences, variations, diversity, changes, tones, etc.
|
I agree that comparisons are necessary when discussing movies, music, books, art, etc. But the focus of the discussion
we're having in this thread is on physical appearance,
not art. Based on the pics you've posted here, it seems your scope of what's physically attractive is rather narrow. I see no complexity or differences in the pics you've posted in your attempts to distinguish between who's "hot" or "not."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaqarbal
That's why when you watch Tess, if you're a sensitive person, you appreciate the delicate beauty, tenderness, feelings and deep emotions of Nastassja Kinski's character, as a performance from a wonderful actress. Someone who says he watched Tess just because Kinski is "hot", is nothing but a brute and insensitive person, unable to appreciate art and beauty.
|
Tess is a good film, not a great one, imo, and Kinski's performance is ok, but again, not great. Compare her acting in Tess to Streep's performance in Sophie's Choice, and I think you'll see the difference. Having watched the movie several times in my life, I find it tiring. Then again, perhaps my perspective is tainted by the fact that I've met Kinski and know too many intimate details about her personality and her life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaqarbal
And there are many ways of understanding beauty, like:
- Physical beauty
- The beauty of a voice
- The beauty of a personality
- The beauty of an emotion
- The beauty of an artistic creation
- The beauty of an artist's performance
- Beauty according to oneself
- Beauty according to others
- Etc....
|
I don't disagree with you. But I've yet to see you post a pic here of a woman whose
emotions you admire.