Here is the copypasted message from Walter Thornton's son, Richard. This is on page 4 of the Susan Hayward guestbook. I thought it was a nice message. It was written on March 15th, 2004.
"My father was right-- susan hayward was a true beauty-- when she first stepped in "the Walter Thornton model agency" my father took a look at her and knew that she had a lot of potential and she was a very special model back then-- walter had a good friendship with susan and taught her good posture habits, hair styling and proper make up techniques among many other things--all her movies were very interesting-- till this day I still watch her movies and can't get enough of them-- I like that era a lot. "
Susan Hayward was in the right place at the right time. Color photography was in it's early stages in advertising, & her red hair photographed beautifully. By today's standards she would have been considered too petite (5'3 1/2") for modeling. (Which seems ridiculous since every woman is not 6 feet tall weighing 85 lbs!)
Yes, I always thought it was odd that Susan was so successful at being a model since by today's standards she would be much too short..however, as far as beauty, of course she ranked high with the best of them. It's too bad shorter/more petite women can't be assured a successful modeling career these days. I don't understand the paper/thin bony look and why it's so popular. I guess it works well with camera angles, but duh, I really don't know much about it. I just don't think those starved looking women are beautiful and sometimes I resent the magazines trying to convince me and the young girls and women of this country that this is what we should strive for...HELP!
God Bless Queen Latifah!
Yes Ginger, Queen Latifah and some other shapely and well rounded celebs do manage to defy the wasted, heroin-chic, gaunt look which is almost a Hollywood essential nowadays.
Here's a thought ( of course coming from me it will undoubtedly be bizarre but anyway). Normally, what is considered high fashion and the "Look" of a particular era needs to be relatively hard to acquire, otherwise virtually everyone can easily parade around looking immensely fashionable and ruin the exclusivity of it.
Example - in the 1920's in England when the poor could not afford holidays in the sun and most people worked in factories, mines, shops etc - it was difficult to get a glowing suntan and it became a mark of wealth and position. The poor went to Blackpool or local holiday towns and the rich went to Italy, Spain, Greek Islands, the Pacific etc.
Once the era of package holidays arrived from the 1960's onward, almost anyone could go on holiday and get a tan, so it lost its cachet.
Example 2 - From the middle ages to approx the dawn of the 20th Century in Europe, the urban poor and the peasantry simply did not have excess food to eat - usually they were hungry more than not, so for a woman of quality to look rounded, Renaissance, slightly plump, buxom, was a sign of affluence as most people could not achieve that look.
But again, when we enter our present time here in the West and First World, our problem is a surplus of food everywhere. Restaurants, supermarts, groaning buffet tables, parties, fast food outlets, etc.
So since it is now easy to be overweight - fashion dictates underweight as today's look, since it is hard ( for most people anyway) to achieve.
Which is an incredibly long-winded way for me to get to say that it is interesting that many of the Classic Actresses be they Mae West, Monroe, Loren, Lollobrigida, Mansfield, Lana Turner, Liz Taylor, Olivia De Havilland, Virginia Mayo, and so forth may have been considered slightly plumpish by today's waif look - but I personally don't think, that looking like someone who has just been released from a POW camp is alluring.
Susan Hayward seemed to retain a near perfect figure for her entire career - never exhibiting noticeable weight gains, never looking half starved. (Obviously great genes which should be a big plus for Timothy and Greg and their children )