|
|
Post by Nel on May 14, 2007 1:19:30 GMT -5
THE CLASSIC BARDOT LOOKPhoto Credit: The Fashion Spot/Google ImagesThe quintessential Bardot hair was known for being this brilliantly golden, voluminous mess of strategically placed curls that beautifully frames the face.  How do you think Brigitte had hers done and what would be the best way to do this yourself? Any tips, products, tricks, articles, or other such items that relate to this look would be warmly welcomed (with karma perhaps ^^). |
|
|
|
Post by ChildOfTheMoon on May 26, 2007 20:45:14 GMT -5
Aww I love those old photos. I'd say that haircut does much to the whole look. Short layers on top. Another thing Im guessing would be rollers and hair spray.
I read many articles about fashion from 60s and hairspray seems to be no.1 styling product used in 60s/70s.
extra info: I read an interview with her hair stylist (Im sure I'll have it somewhere, If I dig it out I'll post it) and as I recall he was her stylist during the 70s, (when her hair got real long, almost without any layers but still "piecey") He said he used big can sized rollers on her hair, and he liked it better than teasing hair, as it provided more volume (but it is apparent that she did some root teasing in many of her hairstyles)
There are some photos where Bardot seemed to have got rid of the hair spray, her hair doesnt appear all that thick, but fine and silky. So I'd say lots of that wavy, thick magic was provided with some clever and wild styling.
I also read about her adding hair pieces in her hair, but did they have those back then? Im not so sure about that.
As you can tell I'm obsessed with hair!
|
|
|
|
Post by Nel on May 27, 2007 7:50:38 GMT -5
Hehe well if it's Bardot-type hair I'm definitely obsessed too! Thanks for all of the info, so very helpful! <333
|
|
|
|
Post by ChildOfTheMoon on May 28, 2007 20:56:20 GMT -5
Hello Nel, I'd add that dying hair will definitely help in creating volume. But it only works with real dye, (not those that can wash out) and is a risky business. I test first on hairs that I collect from my hair brush.  As you can see Bardot has some bangs here. Those can create volume on front/top, but are extra work if your hair doesnt listen to you. I used to have bangs and could never keep them in one place. Maybe its not for everyone. But of course nothing is impossible with some hair spray.  I prefer her look without bangs, it's very simple. Also her hair is not at all "slick" or all that shiny, the way you see today in those shapoo tv ads. Her hair looks windswept and wild. And quite "matte" I like that better than slick and smooth. All those looks from 50/60/70s are easier to achieve today, because there are many more products available. For instance back in Bardot's days, many women used foundation on the lips for that nude look, but today you can find skin coloured lipsticks that wont make your lips dry. Also, hair products have improved much. Although I like many of old fashioned beauty tips, I like finding out how they did it, and then looking for "updated alternatives" I think that people have lost sense for good taste. Well, many of them anyway. The image of female beauty and class is so distorted today. Tacky makeup, expensive clothes and anorexia are "in". Just to think that someone like Bardot in her 20s would be considered too fat today. Here are some fun makeup tips from the 60s: www.fiftiesweb.com/fashion/make-up.htm |
|
|
|
Post by Nel on May 29, 2007 21:59:01 GMT -5
I love the info and the link, ChildOfTheMoon! Now that you point it out it's amazing how wonderful the makeup, hair and other beauty-related looks were considering that they had less to work with back in those days... which is also funny since I've always preferred retro beauty to the modern trends.
And to me, Brigitte has THE perfect figure. I hate what kind of body types are popular these days.
|
|
|
|
Post by ChildOfTheMoon on Jun 2, 2007 16:52:45 GMT -5
Glad you liked my tips, Nel. I agree, women really knew how to bring out their beauty back then. Even with Bardot, when you look closely, she still kept everything simple. And yet in my eyes she is more beautiful and classy than any new face. Maybe it is because famous "beauties" of today have all been under the knife. They just dont have that unique charm and natural beauty, because there are not natural. I dont know if you saw Kylie Minogue's attempt to pull of BB's look? Here is her Body language" album cover: www.mp3parati.com.ar/images/K/caratulas_KYLIE_MINOGUE-BODY_LANGUAGE-FRONTAL.jpg I dont have anything against her, but that picture ...   It's just TOO much. By the way, how can I add pics when Im posting here? |
|
|
|
Post by Nel on Jun 3, 2007 5:54:23 GMT -5
^ You put the image's URL between the following brackets: ![]() [/img] Hope that helps, if not feel free to PM me In response to Kylie's album cover: Oy vey -- she has WAY too much makeup on for starters, she looks airbrushed/digitally enhanced. As you were saying one of the biggest aspects and charms to BB's look is how natural and not overdone it looks. (Take notes, Kylie! ) |
|
|
|
Post by ChildOfTheMoon on Jun 3, 2007 19:08:41 GMT -5
Thanks for that Nel. You're right about the airbrushed pic. Everything today is that way. I'm into graphic design, and I'm sick and tired of all the "inhanced" photos I have seen. All women end up looking pretty much the same. But I would also add that even though they didnt use this technique back in BB's day, there was still some "tinting" of the pics. You know adding colour (usually red/orange) which was popular for some reason, that makes the whole photo glow in that certain shade. It is the case with the pics posted in this thread. That makes it hard to see what shade of blonde Bardot was, (sometimes she looks almost like a redhead in those tinted pics) or if she was tanned or not. But fortunatelly there are plenty of "real" photos of BB out there without any changes. Although there is usually a set with special lights, when she is posing which makes a certain difference, but that is acceptable in my opinion. I still prefer candids, it is the best way to see what she really looked like, her true hair colour, what she liked to wear etc... But still, I like those tinted pics too, they have that retro feel to them... And I love most things retro... I passionately hate the airbrushing that goes on today. I prefer old photos from 50/60/70s when I need a makeup or fashion tip, rather than reading some mag with Paris Hilton on the cover. I better stop my ranting. ;D I know I already said it, but this is such a cool place for us nostalgic souls. What made you decide to do it? I'm glad you did! So thanks! Now we'll just have to let more ppl know about it. |
|
|
|
Post by Nel on Jun 5, 2007 1:11:27 GMT -5
That is why I like them as well, however I totally get what you're saying about being frustrated over it muddling colour accuracy.
ME TOO, I don't think I'll ever understand the intense fascination with Paris or any of those ladies that are so popular now (what's worse is when people make comparisons to people of today like Jessica Simpson, Kate Moss, Lindsay Lohan, Sienna Miller, and Paris Hilton to the icons of the past, like Brigitte, Edie, Marilyn, Liz Taylor, etc. It drives me nuts!)
It's downright annoying, not to mention upsetting, that we are bombarded with images of those people so much. It's part of what makes me love the people from past decades so much, because it's such a contrast, it's such a relief to know that at one point class and real beauty existed.
Awww I'm so glad that's how you feel about it, I was hoping I could create a place that would allow people interested in the original glamour and icons of the past, mainly the sixties since I find it a particularly interesting decade (a lot of the class and straight-up glamour seen in the fifties left-over but with a mix of more earthy, edgy, funky, occasionally mod stuff that would go on to the seventies), to gather and discuss it. It just seems like so much fun and I'm so curious to know how people like Brigitte achieved their look.
Initially I thought tackling a project such as this, with more than one subject, was going to be too much work, but I think I have enough passion behind it to make it work (I've had experience with fashion sites before, but never on a subject I was truly interested in). And of course with all the help I've been getting too, which has been wonderful.
I agree, we've been doing fabulously so far but I feel as though we should have more people aware and part of this community! I'm going to promote it more in various places, and also I think opening the website, which I plan to do soon, will help show people what we're doing. Right now there's just a coming soon page and this forum, which isn't much to some people.
|
|
|
|
Post by alicia on Jun 5, 2007 1:23:37 GMT -5
Those people don't even dress themselves! |
|
|
|
Post by Nel on Jun 5, 2007 2:18:43 GMT -5
^ Such a good point. It just further cements the fact that if they do "resemble" these icons, it's unoriginal, it's not creative, they can't do it without a stylist. In other words, they can't even rip off someone without the help of someone else! So silly.
|
|
|
|
Post by ChildOfTheMoon on Jun 6, 2007 11:35:28 GMT -5
You know what's funny. Those women would never be compared to these icons, IF they didnt have bunch of other ppl taking care of them. Like Alicia said, they dont dress themselves. They dont do anything on their own. Some even have ppl teaching them how to speak properly. (yes!) Another funny thought about airbrushing. You know how some "stars" look totally different in some photos? Their face looks transformed, or their breasts a lot bigger, legs longer... well I finally figured out why. Their pictures are airbrushed by different people, who take away/add whatever they want. So if you compare different magazine photos, taken by the mag's own photographer, you'll see these women looking totally different in lets say Vogue than in Elle. Im not talking makeup only, but even their bone structure... Funny, but kinda sad. You should definitely do that. No shame in self promotion if its for a good cause. Actually I feel that there is a need for a site like this, so it's just a matter of informing ppl. I'll suggest this forum if thats ok with you, on some other fashion sites/blogs I like? |
|
|
|
Post by Nel on Jun 7, 2007 4:01:51 GMT -5
^ Oh I'd love that, that's so nice of you ♥ The more the merrier!
And I agree, the level of airbrushing used these days is alternately funny and sad. Ultimately I just think authenticity is beneficial for everyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by alicia on Jun 7, 2007 17:28:23 GMT -5
Most of them have nothing of substance to say, no real personalities, no talent. So they're loved for their looks (which aren't even theirs due to stylists, plastic surgery, airbrushing, etc.) and their fame and money (which they don't even deserve).
Yeah airbrushing needs to go away. I can see it to an extent, but they always go way overboard. They even once took off Cindy Crawford's belly button (why do that in the first place?!) and forgot to put it back on. Haha I bet NBC wished they had that technology back in the day for Barbara Eden.
|
|
|
|
Post by ChildOfTheMoon on Jun 8, 2007 15:11:26 GMT -5
They removed her bellybutton?! Thats just ridiculous! This is why I dont trust anything I see in magazines or on TV nowadays. So fake, and silly! Jessica Simpson , for instance, looks like a goddess in some photos, and like a man in others. |
|
I prefer her look without bangs, it's very simple. 
It's just TOO much.