You do have to bear in mind that some sorts of beauty were very iconic within their era.
Julie Christie's beauty was so terribly iconic of the sixties, but I don't know if she'd have been considered so in, say, the 1930s, when the iconic beauty was for petite doll-faced women like Olivia de Haviland, Irene Dunne (another fresh-faced beauty), Claudette Colbert, Joan Bennett, Constance Bennett, Margaret Sullavan. There were always exceptions and those who ran against type, of course, but generally it's interesting to see what the preferred look was in each era.
In the 1940s, some of those held on but actresses like Lana Turner, Ingrid Bergman, Jennifer Jones, Ava Gardner began to mix it up . . .
In the 1950s you had two extremes: Marilyn Monroe and Sandra Dee/Doris Day, but Audrey Hepburn coming in with something unique and different.
In the 1960s, the Julie Christies and Faye Dunaways and Jane Fondas came in - Natalie Wood had been a child actress but she became a star, really, in the 1960s.
Some of those 1960s actresses would never have made it in the 1930s; and the cinematography made different demands, as well, in different eras. Today's HD closeups showing every pore might not have done any favours even for actresses like de Haviland with her perfect features and heart-shaped face.
The men seem to do better across genres and eras - Cagney and Bogart and Muni were hardly heart-throbs in terms of looks. People who say Dustin Hoffman couldn't have made it in the 1930s forget about people like Cagney and Muni.
But you take your Gary Coopers and Bob Mitchums and Gregory Pecks and Tyrone Powers and Robert Taylors and Errol Flynns - they were simply fucking gorgeous men and they'd have had a chance always.
The women fall far more victim to trends in looks.
