infactuation

is it just me or that the actresses in the 50s and 60s are stunningly gorgeous. they really are. i'm in the midst of watching "dail m for murder". the cinematography is way of it's time. the storyline is as smart as it's actors. because of this, i'm in the mood for hitchcocks thillers and other 50s or 60s movies. just cause of it's actresses. they're drop dead gorgeous.

i think why they were what they were is that they were what they were. confused? then you're linguistically challenged, i'm afraid. they didn't alter their faces nor their breasts. neither do they have well toned bodies unlike women these days. they're just this pretty, slender, graceful ladies that just pales in comparison to females these days. gone are the days where young ladies seat primply and well -- lady-like. nowadays, bodily piercings are the trend. conversely in the 50s-60s, hardly there were any piercings. there were, porbably peircings but what they wore were mainly earstuds that looked charming as well as elegant as they were.

aonther reason is probably of what they wore. fully gowned with pleats or embroideries that fit perfectly to show their beautiful curves. with sea-foam green as popular as what black is today. they didn't wore clothes that were exposed, they instead focused on their curves. you see, elegance, in those days were refined. not as horrid as today. where beauty is when you show part of yourself. there is a term for that: softcore.

on a final note: what did i just wrote on? i'm no critique. was that an article? why did i do that? i-i'm confused. what am i even talking about? what was that sound? was that a scream? wait. no that was just the tv. ha ha