posted
After a sucessful season in our celebrity fantasy league I've organized, I figured it was time to open up a new branch to the franchise to help keep The National Femme Famosas on the map while it's in its off-season.
On the first Tuesday of each month, I will post a topic (just like anyone else here would) in hopes that a good conversation can come of this. This is all in preperation for the next season of our national pastime, which will come back on February 10, 2009.
Since I was on the topic of famous women, let's kick off this month's edition on the discussion of famous starletts of the past.
----
There is one woman whose feet I would really like to see, or to have seen. Her name is Majorie Howard and her feet were something of a legend. In the 1920s, D.W. Griffith, who was appearantly something of a foot man himself, got together with the legendary shoemaker Salvatorre Ferragamo and ran a competition to find the most beautiful feet in Hollywood. The first prize was to be a six-month film contract and runners up got shoes made by Ferragamo. Majorie Howard is the women who won the contest. Both she and her feet are now lost to history, but second prize went to the then unknown Joan Crawford. She was trying desperately to break into the movies, and entering a beauty contest for feet must have seemed as good a way as any other.
Now, I've seen photographs of Joan Crawford's feet, or, at least, photographs of Joan Crawford in which her feet appear, and I'd have to say that they were not really prize winning feet. There are no obvious deformities, the toes are nice and straight, they appear well looked after, but they're a little fleshy for my tastes, and the big toes are a little on the bulbous side. OK, so I know that beauty contests can be an insult to womanhood and, at the very least, highly subjective, and perhaps I wouldn't have adored Majorie Howard's feet, but I'd like to have had a chance.
As a matter of fact, if you read Ferragamo's autobiography, Shoemaker of Dreams, he says he preferred Joan Crawford's feet, anyway, but I'm not sure Ferragamo is a man you can always trust. He says Duchees of Windsor and Susan Hayward both had perfect feet. He says Alicia Markova's feet were "strong and lovely and startling." He says Mary Pickford's feet were "lovely." Greata Garbo's feet were just "beautiful", while Marlene Dietrich, he says, was the possesor of "the most beautiful feet in the world."
I guess if you were a great shoemaker then you tend to attract women with wonderful feet, but I suspect that Ferragamo was a bit if a flatterer. If you were rich enough to be able to afford a pair of his shoes, then he'd say you had beautiful feet too. He made shoes for Clara Petacci and Eva Braun but he dosen't tell us much about what they're feet were like.
And he also made shoes for Pola Negri. I have read somewhere that she was the first actress ever to paint her toenails. This seems unlikely to me. Surely civilization didn't need so many millenia to invent such an apparently cosmetic effect, but I'm in no postition to argue, and I've never seen a close-up of Pola Negri's bare feet any more than I've seen those of Majorie Howard, but I like to think that the woman who invented toenail polish must have had good feet, or at least good toenails.
The world of movies and movie stars is a strange one where feet are concerned. Movie stars are almost always beautiful. Their faces and bodies are whipped into shape by experts: make-up artists, personal trainers, plastic surgeons; and, although I'm sure their feet aren't entirely neglected, they are not the things by which stars are rated and judged, except through the means of our annual celebrity fantasy league, National Femme Famosas.
Actresses are photographed the whole time. You can buy whole books of Marilyn Monroe, or of Charlotte Rampling, or of Rita Hayworth, or Madonna. When we look at these photographs, even if we look with wholehearted admiration and approval, we are still subjecting these women to intense critical scrutiny. With the help of my contest, and the Lord Luncan's section on this forum, we just happen to scrutinize the feet more than anything else.
Having browsed through a number of books on Marilyn Monroe I've found that her feet have left me curiously unmoved. In a lot of ways this is a pity. Her wiggle may have been caused by the high heels she wore (some say it was because of an ankle deformity), and she did allegedly once say, "It was the high heel that gave a big lift to my carrer." Her feet are nice enough, but they're curiously wholesome and unsexy, and her choice of shoes, or at least the ones she was forced to wear in films was poor. For example, in that scene from The Seven Year Itch where her skirt blows up, the legs are great and the skirt is great, the cleavage and the face are great, but she's wearing some dreary white open sandals that do nothing for her or for me.
Helen Mirren was someone who shot up in my estimation when I read an old article in which she confessed to having a thing about shoes. The article, needless to say, is given pride of place in my heart. She says, "I can't seem to throw them away no matter how battered and worn they might be." Then she talks about her latest acquisition, a pair of black court shoes from Seditionaries with studs embedded in the heel, and says, "They really worry people you know. I think that is a mark of an exceptional pair of shoes." How true that is. The article is illustrated with Helen lying on her stomach on a glass table surrounded by shoes. Lord have mercy.
Here is Britt Ekland in her book Sensual Beauty and How to Achieve It:
I believe a good-looking hand is as important as a good-looking foot. I'm not saying there is anything very sensual about feet, but after all they have been known to touch a man's lips, and obviously in the dark the poor soul isn't going to know what he's reaching for, so it's really up to you. If that's the kind of intimate realtionship you have, then you have to keep you feet lovable.
I'm not sure whether it's Britt's dodgy grasp of English or her lack of a good ghost writer that makes this paragraph so impenetrable, but you sort of know what she means, and at the very least she seems to have some inkling to what foot sex is about. Britt, I would say, on the evidence of the photographs in Sensual Beauty, has feet you definitely wouldn't have kicked out of bed. In some of the photographs they look a touch wrinkled, the little toenail is slightly gnarled and shapeless, but hey, the photographs are blown up pretty large. How many bare feet can bare that close an inspection? Not too many.
In thinking of Britt, I'm pretty sure that her feet have never actually figured large in a movie. I'm not absolutely sure becasue I haven't seen her entire oeuvre, and honestly I don't want to. I'm not a complete idiot. I wouldn't go to see a movie simply in the hopes of seeing Britt Ekland's feet, or anyone else's, and I'm perfectly happy seeing a film that has no feet in it at all. But if I'm sitting there in the dark watching a movie and suddenly there is some element of pedic sexuality, then it does tend to swamp my response to the rest of the film.
You know, come to think of it, I wondered how well these women would have done if The National Femme Famosas was around when they were in their primes?...
----
Let's remind everyone of who our Goddess is after the first, and historical, season:
posted
That was quite a classic read you posted. That should go down as one of the better topics ever thought through.
It shows how foot fetishism is underrated or underappreciated, but at the same time, it shows how our love for the female feet is quite essential into making every aspect of beauty shine through. Using celebrities who made headlines during the roaring 20s as examples was the perfect solution into making this argument stand out. If anything it should make people (especially those without this fetish) aware that foot fetishism has been a major component for having everything come together and make sense.
I guess Britt Ekland sort of missed the point in that paragraph you posted where she said, "I'm not saying there isn't anything sensual about feet...". WHAT?!!! Didn't anyone else read that part? Was I the only one who saw that? Shame on Britt!
That's okay. I don't think it's a good idea to have foot fetishism go mainstream because then everyone would want a piece of the action, making the aura and mystique non-appealing.
Awesome post!
P.S. I have nothing bad to say about Carmen Electra.
Posts: 60 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
i like the post too. very interesting to read about vintage starlets and their feet. im into shoes and love vintage styles. Salvatorre Ferragamo designed the t bar shoe, i think.
jen x
-------------------- small and sexy Posts: 46 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
This topic had me thinking a bit since I first read it because even though I'm new in here, I'm not sure how often this conversation comes up. I'm guessing that it rarely comes up. But nonetheless, what National said was well crafted. I guess he (aside from the Luncan's celebrity section on this forum) has a knack for covering the lifestyles of the rich and famous.
I've got some pictures of some of the ladies National mentioned in this topic. Only those who caught my attention more than the others.
I'm not sure if I can agree with what he says in regards to Marilyn Monroe. I think her feet look nice enough to be pampered constantly.
I guess to each his own. Then here's a couple from Pola Negri. She's, according to what National said, supposedly the first acress to be credited of painting her toenails. These pictures don't show her feet cause I couldn't find them. It's funny cause it connects to what he said about not being able to see a close up of Pola's bare feet anymore than he's seen those of Marjorie Howard, the girl who is lost to history.
She has that "silent film" look to her that's almost scary to concetrate on. You don't to look at her pictures in a haunted house for fear she might appear.
Then here's Britt Ekland, the hottest in the bunch. They're not foot-fetish related, but i just wanted to account for how hot she was back then.
If the National's celebrity game was around for the times Pola Negri was at her peak, it would've been quite interesting to see who would've won. I think Marilyn Monroe would've had the best chance of winning at least one championship. I like Ekland, but I think she would've had stiffer competition.
Posts: 60 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hard for me to say CiscoKid--I'm a full on sole man, and it's very hard for me to judge SOLELY based on the tops of the feet and the toes. For me it begins and ends with the soles and toes from the bottom.
FOOTAGEof the old actress' soles is hard to come by,
although I believe there is one of Marilyn, along with 5 or 6 others in the same scene, in Some Like it Hot.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey I agree with all of the above, although foot_fetishist, being the film buff that I am, I believe the following women probably would have given Norma Jean a run for her money:
Dorothy Dandridge (fellas I drool every time I see this woman): http://55secretstreet.typepad.com/55secretstreet/images/2007/11/09/dorothy_dandridge_bw_headshot.jpg (The scene from Carmen Jones where she asks Harry Belafonte to blow on her freshly painted toes to dry them is a classic scene) Foot Girl and the other ladies in the forum, the sight of a young Harry Belafonte may be eye candy to you. (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2134/2432232381_8465058cba_o.jpg)
Honorable Mention: Barbara Eden, Jane Fonda, Jane Kennedy, Julie Newmar, Lauren Bacall, and Sharon Tate (be careful when searching for pictures of her on the net, there are some of her that are very, very, graphic. She's a sentimental favorite of mine.)
Posts: 190 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I tried doing a web search for Marjorie Howard; I got everything BUT the silent actress! National, you might want to check out a 1924 movie called PETER PAN. Betty Bronson plays Peter, and she is barefooted throughout the entire film! The fact that she's playing a boy isn't really that off-putting.
-------------------- "You have very nice feet!" Posts: 3712 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
*Bear with me, folks. This is quite a read.*
After reading the replies, it made me stop for another second and think about how much the times have changed. From the starletts of the 1920s towards the 1960s reminds you of how much more simple times were and what the definition of class, etiquette, and subtle taste were when you apply it with how simple being "sexy" meant. With images such as those of Monroe, Newmar, and Ekland, making you stare into the messages they were flirting you with, tells you of the simple, playful teases they wanted to instill into the playful imagination that's called your perverse helm.
We all have them. I think looking at pictures of the starlets of the past can be the slight indication of how dirty and perverse things can get when you are alone with one of them. Meaning you can't quite judge a book by its cover.
I get those X-Rated images in my head when I think of Britt Ekland, and Julie Newmar (a lot of thanks to "bison4me" for bringing her into the light of this conversation. For those not familiar with Newmar, here she is during more innocent times:
Lauren Bacall also struck a chord in my attention. From these pictures, you can tell her voice is on the husky side. She's probably the last girl you want to cross, especially when you consider that she starred in stylish Hollywood crime dramas, and I think in some cases, those that emphasize moral ambiguity and sexual motivation. She is your classic example of what a femme fatale personifies.
Like "Dancing Fool" (and I assume many others), the soles of a woman's feet is my favorite part, but fantastic sole pictures of famous women are not common. The toes are more prominent in these pictures. I have to settle with those in the meantime. However, I do have to say that if the toes do not look great, then I'm not interested in seeing what her soles look like, so the toes play a pivotal part when it comes to judging these ladies.
----
Betty Bronson in Peter Pan became her calling card. I think afterwards, she started to fade in obsurity and never really recovered back to popularity because she couldn't make the transition into becoming a sex symbol such as the afroementioned ladies in this thread.
I wouldn't mind had she walked around barefooted throughout the course of another film, but I can't see myself worshiping the feet of a woman who plays the role of a guy, though I can understand why many others on this forum can agree with you that that isn't really so repellent.
----
I like to share other pictures with everyone because it emphasises just how rewarding these women were to the essence of our sexual curiosities. Women who are very famous in the present moment also realize the impact they have had on them as to regard them as role models.
I will use examples which feature women who participated in my celebrity contest, National Femme Liaison. I guess the influences the women of the past instilled in the modern day hotbodies were quite convincing that the guys who voted in my contest thought they were that alluring as well.
First, we have Charlize Theron as Marilyn Monroe --
Absolutly stunning! I think no celebrity can pull of her look better than Theron.
Next, we have someone who's also stunning in her own right. Those who voted in my contest know that she's the American Female Class Division II Champion, Christina Aguilera.
First Christina Aguilera as Marilyn Monroe. Look at the similarities --
In the 1920s, Pola Negri would've been banned from the USA, and denied access into other civilized nations for posing as provactively as Aguilera did in those photos.
Both Theron and Aguilera will be back in our ultimate celebrity fantasy league when it returns in February. The contest will run through July 4, 2009. And I promise to post pictures as good as the ones you saw with Christina Aguilera. Only this time, you'll see their feet so that we can make appropritate decisions.
----
Times have changed. Times are not as simple because information travels faster than the speed of light. Privacy is not an issue anymore because stars from the past were quite appealing because their private lives were keep mysterious to the public eye.
All the women were (or still is, if that's how you want to phrase it) very beautiful. Without them to serve as a stepping stone for other women to pursue on, debates such as the National Femme Liaison would become unintriguing.
All of you guys have personal favorites:
"Swman" would enjoy the company of Rita Hayworth. It looks as if "Dancing Fool" is just fine with Marilyn Monroe. "Dougiezerts" wanted Betty Bronson to be placed in the immortal meter by giving credit to the work she's done. I almost forgot who she was, man. Then she dawned on me. Thanks vey much for making us appreciate her. Even though she faded from the public the way she did, I'll look more into her backround.
"Bison4me" has Raquel Welch as his lovely queen.
Like "the_foot_fetishist", I, too, am a bit smittened by Britt Ekland. I also would want to have my way with the feet of Julie Newmar. I bet not a lot of people are familiar with Lillian Gish. I would go back in time to see what she was all about.
----
I'm glad that you guys enjoyed this topic. Your replies made me appreciate the topic even more, and you gave these women another life to live by. I just though it would've been nice to remind people what these women stood for and represented.
The National Femme Famosas and its fans give great thanks to these women and the different appeal they brought to our infatuations.
--National
[ July 05, 2008, 07:53 PM: Message edited by: National ]
posted
Everyone who responded here made very valid points. Everyone had a different take on it, but still the argument each gave was solid. I enjoyed each picture that was posted. The one that really grabbed my attention was the Christina Aguilera ones, where it said that she resembled Pola Negri.
I'm going to take one of those pictures (if the original guy who started this thread doen't mind) and compare that to the one I have. Again, right on point, showing that everyone here knows what he/she is talking about.
It takes a lot of creative sense to pull this argument off. Credit to the guy who started this topic (national) and everyone else who join in (including myself).
P.S. Where did you find out that Pola Negri was the first actress to paint her toenails?
Posts: 1 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
National, think of it this way: We see women wearing men's clothes all the time, right? And there are some girls who have short haircuts that make them look boyish, right? So I really don't think that a barefoot actress in reverse drag playing a boy is such a bad thing. Now, if it was an actor playing a barefoot girl, that would be entirely different! Here's a still: http://users.sa.chariot.net.au/~dkoks/BettyBronson/Pictures/1-344.jpg
-------------------- "You have very nice feet!" Posts: 3712 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
We all know the person playing the role in that 1924 version of Peter Pan was a female. But we all know that Peter Pan is a male fictitious character. Perhaps the point I was trying to make was that I thought it would be funny if people found out that some guy worshiped Peter Pan's feet, without taking into consideration if a female was in that costume.
It's like saying in front of the world, "Hey! I sucked on Peter Pan's toes!" And the people just take it at face value. If you tell them that it was an actress who played that role, then everything will be just fine.
Again, not taking anything away from what you said. It was just a comical overtone that I failed to point out in the first place.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wu]](graemlins/wu.gif)
