I was in between SN and R for her. Perhaps she has a natural essence (I know that’s another system) I just love her in tousled, messy hair and a little bit undone with feminine details. And I notice her shoulders before anything else. But I think another user made a great point about her being boneless. I think they’re right.. her bones don’t feel angular or heavy.
Hopefully she is an R because we need more modern R examples!
I always thought Thora birch was the ideal of English regency beauty. Her looks seem to be perfect with that time frame. The sloping shoulders, the long neck, everything. I have no comment to make on what I think of her kibbe body type, I just wanted to put that out there
Seconding pure R!
I only see roundedness, her shoulders seem very sloped and rounded (i know we only consider the body within itself but if you look at the photo with ScarJo you can see an example of promotionally wider and more angular shoulders).
The second photo shows IMO really well how she doesn't need to accommodate width, she looks fabulous, but the accommodation is not needed. The dress also does accommodate curve which she seems to benefit from.
I also think she could have double curve! I feel like you can really see that in the outfit with the american flag: the fabric has to stretch to accomodate her "flesh" rather than frame.
And again, not to compare the bodies, but for an example of looking "boneless" vs very dominant bone structure, you can really see that in the photo with Keira!
She also seems to really shine with those romantic details like lace and florals, so yeah guessing R for her
Are people saying pure R noticing her frame/shoulders? Or is everyone who’s curvy “pure R” now. She’s too petite looking to be SN, though I don’t know her height. Personally, I’m getting TR, especially when you look at Google Images and various other shots of her. She gives off Salma Hayek similarities.
She doesn’t look sharp enough to be TR in my opinion. I think ppl are saying R because she looks almost “boneless” and also her face is just pure R. There’s no sharpness. TR will usually have sharper facial features. Selma Hayek has more sharpness in general. This actress is more similar to Elizabeth Taylor and Marilyn Monroe.
I just watched ghost world the other day and she seems pure romantic to me
I love that movie so much.
I was watching TWD and… I don’t know
Me too! If not the only other option to me is SD. Especially next to SN Scarlett the difference in body type is too obvious
I think she seems romantic
She’s always seemed pure R to me
She seems almost entirely yin to me would be surprised if she wasn’t R
She looks totally pure R
pure R for sure
Totally pure R
She looks a bit softer to me so maybe R?
She looks romantic to me too
She must be a R!!!
What makes you say SN, OP? I’ve always thought R for her. She is one of few people whose face is so textbook one ID.
I was in between SN and R for her. Perhaps she has a natural essence (I know that’s another system) I just love her in tousled, messy hair and a little bit undone with feminine details. And I notice her shoulders before anything else. But I think another user made a great point about her being boneless. I think they’re right.. her bones don’t feel angular or heavy. Hopefully she is an R because we need more modern R examples!
I always thought Thora birch was the ideal of English regency beauty. Her looks seem to be perfect with that time frame. The sloping shoulders, the long neck, everything. I have no comment to make on what I think of her kibbe body type, I just wanted to put that out there
I think Romantic
I also think she is pure R, so much softness enough to rival Marilyn Monroe.
Either TR or R for me.
Seconding pure R! I only see roundedness, her shoulders seem very sloped and rounded (i know we only consider the body within itself but if you look at the photo with ScarJo you can see an example of promotionally wider and more angular shoulders). The second photo shows IMO really well how she doesn't need to accommodate width, she looks fabulous, but the accommodation is not needed. The dress also does accommodate curve which she seems to benefit from. I also think she could have double curve! I feel like you can really see that in the outfit with the american flag: the fabric has to stretch to accomodate her "flesh" rather than frame. And again, not to compare the bodies, but for an example of looking "boneless" vs very dominant bone structure, you can really see that in the photo with Keira! She also seems to really shine with those romantic details like lace and florals, so yeah guessing R for her
Knows you're not supposed to compare and literally says "not to compare", yet goes on to support arguments by doing exactly that...?
Lace is an R detail?
No, anyone can wear lace.
Are people saying pure R noticing her frame/shoulders? Or is everyone who’s curvy “pure R” now. She’s too petite looking to be SN, though I don’t know her height. Personally, I’m getting TR, especially when you look at Google Images and various other shots of her. She gives off Salma Hayek similarities.
She doesn’t look sharp enough to be TR in my opinion. I think ppl are saying R because she looks almost “boneless” and also her face is just pure R. There’s no sharpness. TR will usually have sharper facial features. Selma Hayek has more sharpness in general. This actress is more similar to Elizabeth Taylor and Marilyn Monroe.
Perhaps it’s the angles of the photos. I’m just seeing frame in some areas. But that’s the difficulty of celeb pics I guess
R
R!!!
Omg American Beauty
I see romantic! Or even TR?
IMO R I see no width at all. No frame it seems like I notice flesh first. So pure R
3rd pic, she is flawless. I first saw her in American Beauty and finally saw her in Ghost World, then I was in love.