STARS IN OUR EYES

Fully aware of what he brings
to the table.

The recent death of Kirk Douglas was a signal that the participants of "Hollywood's golden age" are fast disappearing. In fact, Kirk might have been the last of the greats.

It also served as a reminder that some people are born to be not just actors, but movie stars. One look at Kirk in his prime, and you know this isn't a plumber, bursar, or milkman. He isn't even a leading presidential candidate in the JFK mode. This is a S*T*A*R!

Even the name Kirk Douglas tells you everything you need to know -- everything except he was born in upstate New York as Issur Danielovitch, the son of Russian immigrants. So when you think of Jewish movie stars, forget Woody Allen for once and go with Spartacus.

Nobody in movies today looks remotely like Kirk Douglas (except Michael Douglas, and that's only because he can't help it). Actors like Tom Cruise and Leonardo DiCaprio strive to look forever young, as if they even sleep with sunblock with a 95 SPF.








On the other hand, when you consider that Humphrey Bogart and
Tom Cruise are both age 56 in these photos, maybe taking care of
yourself isn't such a bad idea.

Kirk Douglas' movie debut in 1946 must have been a shock to audiences. Consider three of the most popular movie stars from a little over a decade earlier.



Gaze upon those faces carefully. Now picture them on a movie screen. Today's audiences would turn away in revulsion, these actors suitable only for the latest chapter of the Saw franchise. In no way, shape or form does this trio look like movie stars by our standards. Yet for theatre owners in 1932, booking a movie starring any of them was like printing money.

Talent and personality be damned -- neither George Arliss, Marie Dressler nor Wallace Beery would get past the studio security guards today. But back in the early 1930s, they were just what the doctor (i.e., studio accountants) ordered. Arliss reeked of class in a time of Depression, while Dressler and Beery were simply relatable.

For whatever reason, people just looked different back then. Or did they? Study these two compelling photos taken roughly a century ago.

The melancholy young woman and disheveled fellow could be featured in a Wes Anderson movie. Who they don't look like, at least at first glance, are ZaSu Pitts and Charlie Chaplin. It makes you consider the magic of make-up, costumes, and making funny faces for the camera.

Is it possible that movie actors of different times could switch places without anyone being confused? Only two came to mind -- and I'm talking physical, not stylistic, similarities. As I studied their photos, the resemblance came primarily from their younger days.

Could be half-brothers, right? Although it might be more obvious they are, in actuality, Paul Muni and John Malkovich, as you can see when they're older:

 

Well, whaddaya know -- there's still a resemblance, kinda sorta. Would Malkovich have made it as an actor in Muni's time? On stage, very likely. On screen... perhaps in supporting roles made popular by Dwight Frye, aka Renfield in Dracula.


So perhaps some actors really are essentially interchangeable with those of the past. Let's sign off by comparing a 1950s soiree with Vogue's 2019 Young Hollywood Party:

Well, there goes my thesis all shot to hell.

                                                       ***************