Romantic and Dramatic are the extreme ends of the yin-yang-spectrum of physical characteristics. That means, that Dramatics have dramatic facial features, extreme yang - sharp or broad, high cheekbones, very special facial features, like big or sharp noses, small or narrow eyes - could also be excessively big, huge eyes, like Joan Crawford, otherwise yang faces are almost manly faces.
My husband defines a yang face as "having character, being interesting" and yin face as "boring". (I have a yang face :-D)
The Romantics have this yin face. Round or heart shaped, short, childlike, with round or delicate, small features, big, feminine eyes, small nose, lush mouth, soft, applecheeks, dimples, you know, the classical idea of feminine beauty.
Now, Theatrical Romantics are only slightly sharper than Romantics. Romantics are all curves and kittens, Theatricals have some sharpness in bone structure.
So, take a guess. Which of these ladies would pass as men? Which of these ladies could be called less beautiful, in the classical, pretty, girlish kind of way. You know, Disney princess kind of way.
I would have guessed five of the six right, and the last one wrong.
I don't understand why Hedy Lamarr is "Theatrical Romantic" but Lana Turner "Dramatic".
What's Dramatic in her?
What's not yin in her lush, round mouth, round apple cheeks, cute little nose and chin... she even has dimples!
But - according to Kibbe she obviously belongs in the same groups as Anjelica Huston, Tilda Swinton and Cher.
And here's how Lana Turner got older:
Here's how Kathleen Turner got older.
They are both identified as Dramatic by Kibbe.
I wonder if he makes decisions like this to ensure he will have business, because this type identification system isn't very systematic and logical...
Also, this is Hedy Lamarr:
"Theatrical Romantic body type (flesh)
yin
Soft and voluptuous, although trim and smallish (as opposed to wide and bulky).
Hourglass figure;curvy bustline and hips with a waspish waist."
Er... how is that "soft and voluptious"? "Hourglass figure"? "Curvy bustline"? "Waspish waist"?
Some in the book were placed in the wrong spot due to mistakes on the editor's part. Natalie Wood, for instance--he recently told some clients that she is SG. I can see Lana Turner being something other than dramatic.
ReplyDeleteSuch a pity the book wasn't better proofread by Kibbe, then :-. I mean, I have a lot of confidence in him, what he says makes perfect sense and he seems to know what he is talking about... so things like this make it very confusing. :-(
ReplyDeleteI can understand Natalie Wood... I was thinking about her looking very much like a Soft Gamine when I was collecting the images for my celebrity collage :-D So, thank you for the confirmation :-)
Em they do have the manly wibe in them an Lamar do has that theatrical romantic face and look like she ia soft but her look in the eye gives some danger.As for the Cathleen and the other one maybe they are more dramatic clasic so it is not so severe but rather well balanced also.But their look and demeanor is certainly not sweet or rounded. It is not an exact science you need to look at the overal vibe the peron gives and maybe try to imagine them in romantic or gamine clothes nooo it wouldnt work but clasic maybe more so so dramatic clasic I would say...
ReplyDeleteThere are a lot of people who can't find their ID image. Sometimes I wonder if we're dumb or the system is just flawed. Another one I can think of, that doesn't fit the description is Kim Kardashian, her bone structure is far from delicate and without the bum implants she doesn't have the hourglass figure but I see her very often as an example for TR. If the essence matters so much, then most of the clues our bodies give for our type are down right useless. Kibbe has dropped the Natural, Classic and Gamine categories, now you can only be either a Soft Natural or a Flamboyant Natural, a Soft Classic or a Dramatic Classic, a Soft Gamine or a Flamboyant Gamine. Wtf is going on with that system?
ReplyDeleteKim is soft natural, her jaw is very narow , but her bones are heavy.
DeleteIn my opinion the system is a complete hoax. Looking back I could have been typed at least four different profiles, depending on age and weight fluctuation. As of now, I don't fit any of them, and most of the styles are not useful in my professional environment.
ReplyDeleteWhile doing a Google search on the topic I found Mr. Kibbe insisted his book was published some 30 years ago, when spandex was not readily available in clothing, which is simply not true. Invented in the late 50's, it was commonly used in 1960's fashion , and jersey knits were used by Coco Chanel in her early career. Even if his statement were true - what bearing would that have had on classifying the size of a person's nose, mouth, or feet? Furthermore, he states the questions are not to be taken to seriously, but 'it's an art' and 'you should go back to what you liked when you were a kid'.
Summary:
1. Trying to save face by providing inaccurate information on clothing material, while avoiding the whole issue of body parts usually not covered by fabric at all.
2. Going back on the whole subject, claiming the questions about physical features shouldn't be taken too seriously, and being all about what you liked in the first place, while the original concept was all about physical features.
Why waste time and money on something like this? It's not that hard to accentuate or play down what you like or dislike about your looks, and your style is 100% your own.
Agreed
DeleteI think you are 100% right. Besides, he keeps telling people on facebook not to “overthink” or not being too “intellectual” because it’s an art, but hey if you are 5’0” you can be basically any type and if you are 5’8”+ you can only be 3 of the types: Flamboyant Natural, Dramatic or Soft Dramatic (srsly wtf). Why? Because he says so and if you ask for a deeper explanation he will say in a scientifical like way that if you are tall yang is always dominant no matter your features (rly) so you can’t never be a different type other than one of the three I mentioned. In my honest opinion, complete bullshit. Maybe it’s not an art at all and maybe he is the only one overthinking, he keeps changing “rules” of his own system because not even himself has a single clue about it. And appart from all of this, most of his recent transformations posted on fb are dreadful. I’ve seen Romantics who in their before they look very soft and feminine and he somehow manages to make them look manly and bulky. Conclusion: don’t waste money on a guy that put limits on the clothes and the colors you can wear. His descriptions are merely subjective and going through his transformation will only make you satisfy his opinions about your body & clothes and not necessarily your own.
DeleteTruth is beauty is a website I found that covers the different types but also has the Ethereal and Ingenue. The dramatics are more narrowly defined than Kibbe style. It also shows how the two or three of the styles creates it’s own subtype.
ReplyDeleteIf you fit into the Kibbe style then it works fine if not I find truth is beauty may be the answer.
I think you misunderstand the system. I don't think there's anything said about women passing for men, or anything about one type being less pretty than another. It's just about the size and prominence of the skeleton, and how much flesh is attached. Supermodels are in the dramatic category, like Lana Turner, and nobody is saying they aren't pretty. They're gorgeous, but they're big humans. I don't think that's offensive. I think Lana Turner looks like she has prominent bones, that's why she has those gorgeous cheeks well into old age. The women you compared her to don't have much flesh so they would be the extreme version rather than the soft version. In my opinion nobody on this page is less attractive than anyone else. Maybe you just have a very narrow view of what is defined as beautiful. Not everyone wants to look like a child's cartoon (disney princess).
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteKathleen turner looks like a natural , blunt features you know?
ReplyDeleteAnd Lana like a soft dramatic she had a sultry magnetism
Hedy Lamarr was TR but tall (?) I have no idea. Also I’ve seen a woman who I considered a TR too but looks pretty tall on her photos. If I considered her as SD, she has delicate bones while SD has large bones.
ReplyDelete