Ryan Gossling?

The character he portrayed in "Lars in the Real Girl" seemed more charming than real-life Ryan.

I get annoyed and insulted. Men can go ahead and feel that way about this silly article if they would like.

I do not morn the passing of the bullshit artist as a male role.

For too many decades, male actors have been cartoon characters in action films or bumbling antiheroes in chick flicks. There really hasn't been room for charming male actors in much of anything Hollywood has produced for many years, probably due to their enthusiasm for paying CGI people and their deep reluctance toward paying witty writers.

Similar articles written about women always put the blame on women and that's the difference.

Funny scene from "Intolerable Cruelty"

i simply ooze and secrete charm.

YES INDEED

He knows how to use it, too.

For the life of me, I cannot think of a charming Republican, man or woman. it is interesting, don't you think?

I wouldn't call it charm. Charm means you actually did something...went out of your way....for no material reason.

Look at the way Obama presents himself and then look at, say, Mitch McConnell...OMG, maybe not...

Last edited Sat May 25, 2013, 10:54 AM - Edit history (1)

"A man who has in mind an apparent advantage, and promptly proceeds to dissociate
this from the question of what is right, shows himself to be mistaken and immoral.

Such a standpoint is the parent of assassinations, poisonings, forged wills, thefts,
malversations of public money, and the ruinous exploitation of provincials and
Roman citizens alike.

Another result is passionate desire - desire for excessive wealth, for unendurable tyranny, and ultimately for the despotic seizure of free states. These desires are the most horrible and repulsive things imaginable.

The perverted intelligences of men, who are animated by such feelings, are competent to understand the material rewards, but not the penalties. I do not mean penalties established by law, for these they often escape. I mean the most terrible of all punishments: their own degradation."

Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.)

Errol Flynn (come to America rather late in character-forming), David Niven, Michael Douglas...

Hollywood can provide the charm, if sufficiently motivated.

This generation, however, doesn't believe in it. Or romance. Or family. Because their fathers all walked away, or at least half of them? Because their mothers are too busy staying alive and keeping the kids in school? Because their employers wouldn't recognize charm even as a social tool?

Modern society sucks. The films reflect that.

'people do this'

I offer no evidence for my hypothesis. I do know that charming guys are mostly portrayed wearing suits, unless in the tropics or very nearly, then they wear the loose fitting white linen pants and shirts. Anyway, guys rarely wear suits now. It either has to be a work requirement or a special occasion for a guy to wear a suit. It has also become so bad that a man can't drink in a bar wearing a suit without being asked what's the occasion, or looked at funny. Just look at the picture associated with the OP.

As a graduate student, back in the 60's, I met, worked with and socialized with men and women from many countries and cultures. That's when I experienced social graces and charm far beyond any slight examples of those I had experienced in American culture. (I grew up in considerable financial comfort in the Midwest and I had seen kindness and generosity - but those are not the same as charm.) Throughout my adult life, up to and including recent travels to the EU and Asia, I continue to see charm in social and business settings. Meanwhile, back in the States, men (and women) have become increasingly either pushy, brash and greedy or insecure, frightened and needy. Charm would just get in the way of those whose focus is material gain - mortgage brokers and hedge fund traders don't need no stinkin' charm! For those at the other end of the income spectrum, finding employment, paying off student loans, etc., leaves no time or energy to develop or practice charm. Since many of them have never even been exposed to charm, they have no idea of its existence.

On the whole, I treasure people with charm. The exceptions are sociopaths and politicians.
I've worked with hundreds of politicians at local, state and federal levels. The higher they rise, the more of them have achieved prominence through a smooth glibness & faux sincerity which should not be mistaken for charm. At best, it's a corrupted subset of charm, easily distinguished by the fact that their "charm" is limited to their promise-filled speeches, but not carried through in their deeds or actions. Sociopaths are similarly quite charming and manipulative but untrustworthy.

More excerpts from the OP's linked article:

Grant had developed a new way to interact with a woman onscreen: he treated his leading lady as both a sexually attractive female and an idiosyncratic personality, an approach that often required little more than just listening to her—a tactic that had previously been as ignored in the pictures as it remains, among men, in real life. His knowing but inconspicuously generous style let the actress’s performance flourish, making his co-star simultaneously regal and hilarious.

Charm is a quality that is tantalizing because it simultaneously demands detachment and engagement. Only the self-aware can have charm: It’s bound up with a sensibility that at best approaches wisdom, or at least worldliness, and at worst goes well beyond cynicism. It can’t exist in the undeveloped personality. It’s an attribute foreign to many men because most are, for better and for worse, childlike. These days, it’s far more common among men over 70—probably owing to the era in which they reached maturity rather than to the mere fact of their advanced years. What used to be called good breeding is necessary (but not sufficient) for charm: no one can be charming who doesn’t draw out the overlooked, who doesn’t shift the spotlight onto others—who doesn’t, that is, possess those long-forgotten qualities of politesse and civilité. All of these acts can be performed only by one at ease with himself yet also intensely conscious of himself and of his effect on others. Another word for the lightness of touch that charm requires in humor, conversation, and all other aspects of social relations is subtlety, which carries both admirable and dangerous connotations.

Male charm is all but absent from the screen because it’s all but absent from our lives. Most men hold charm in vague suspicion: few cultivate it; still fewer respond to it; hardly any know whether they have it; and almost none can even identify it. Women commonly complain about the difficulty in gaining any conversational purchase when, say, trying to engage the fathers of their children’s classmates or the husbands of their tennis partners. The woman will grab from her bag of conversational gambits—she’ll allude to some quotidian absurdity or try to form a mock alliance in defiance of some teacher’s or soccer coach’s irksome requirement. But the man doesn’t enter into the give-and-take. The next time they meet, it’s as though they’ve never talked before; the man invariably fails to pick up the ball, and any reference the woman might make to a prior remark or observation falls to the ground. Men don’t indulge in the easy shared confidences and nonsexual flirtations that lubricate social exchange among women. Even in the most casual conversation, men are too often self-absorbed or mono-focused or—more commonly—guarded, distracted, and disengaged to an almost Aspergerian degree. (Garner’s futile efforts to engage the unengageable—be they flinty triggermen from Detroit or by-the-book feds—is a running gag in Rockford.) Men consistently fail to meet the sort of obvious standards set by guides to etiquette and to the art of conversation common 50 years ago.

Think about what was said about Elvis' dancing.

But mostly this was just an excuse to bash men. Congrats. If I said that our society teaches women to be vapid self-absorbed vain egotistical buffoons, I'd be roundly criticized. This should receive the same, because it's just as stupid.

Neither the author nor I are talking about machismo or masculinity - and as the article notes, charm is something both men and women can possess. While the article addresses men primarily, in my comment, I included women. Again, your response is an example of the article's point that charmless people cannot really listen (or in the case of participating in a thread, read). And it's not a generational thing - it's a societal thing. People at a certain level of class, education and financial security in Europe are still charming.

last night I attempted to be my charming self by engaging with a young man whose child was in the pool with my grandchild and 3 dozen other kids. I smiled and made what I thought was a light and amusing comment on the chilly weather and maybe the kids wouldn't be swimming very long.....and this guy was EXACTLY LIKE THIS from the article:

"Even in the most casual conversation, men are too often self-absorbed or mono-focused or—more commonly—guarded, distracted, and disengaged to an almost Aspergerian degree. Men consistently fail to meet the sort of obvious standards set by guides to etiquette and to the art of conversation common 50 years ago."

He was exactly like this. First, he acted startled, then wary, as if my comment was a total surprise or, possibly, an unwanted intrusion into whatever was going on in his head. Then he made some sort of mumbled response when he saw I wasn't going to attack him with an axe or something. As a 60-yr-old woman, I can remember that even 30 years ago I would not have gotten that sort of response from ANYONE in a mixed social gathering of adults. Then, people knew how to respond to and continue casual conversation in a social setting. You just gotta wonder whether his poor wife gets the same treatment when she wants to discuss something.

"Men don’t indulge in the easy shared confidences and nonsexual flirtations that lubricate social exchange among women."

This would be explained re the kind of man who only relates to women as sexual objects and projects that attitude upon women. It is often commented upon that men "friends" do not share feelings or discuss sensitive topics with other men. It's all shallow discussion of sports, cars, etc. A European couple who are dear friends of mine, and emigrated to the US after World War II, have recently moved into an assisted living facility. He's a retired university professor with international standing in his field. She is an extremely cultured and refined person - both are charming people. Most of the other people there are single - whether widowed, divorced or never married. And there are far more women than men. My friends (in their late 80's but mentally alert) are very isolated. The few men who are there have nothing to talk about except cars, sports or their investments. Current events (other than what they hear & take as gospel truth from Limbaugh), let alone the arts, travel, the environment, recent scientific discoveries, etc., are not topics of discussion. Too bad there is not a retirement home just for academics.

Not all men are so guarded or quick to misinterpret a simple friendly comment - but I see more of that in the US than in Europe. If I, traveling alone, strike up a conversation with a single woman sitting next to me in a plane, or at the next table in a restaurant - she does not start leering at me and asking me if I'm involved with anyone or for my address or phone number, which has happened to me far too often in the US - to the point that I ignore men in those situations. On the other hand, last year, I sat next to a fellow from London when I was at a play in Edinburgh. We had delightful conversation about the theatre and political developments in our respective counties before the play and during intermission. At the end of play we exchanged "nice chatting with you" and went on our respective ways without ever exchanging any personal info other than first names. Life is so much more civilized like that.

I think some women are partly responsible for that. The 3rd wave feminism has been more about embracing sexuality and reversing\equalizing that pattern rather than opposing it.

The popularity of Sex in The City for example, has opened the door for some women to behave as seeing men as sexual objects.

Because when men and women primarily see each other as sexual objects, we're little better than the apes from whom we descended. I'd like to believe we're capable of relationships based on qualities like admiration, respect, intellectual stimulation.

I just think it has become a part of our culture. I think we do still have interactions you described that fo beyond apes.

That is SO true, in so many settings - At work, when volunteering, dating, social settings.

I dated (for many years) a guy who was widowed with 2 teenage sons. One of them had serious behavioral problems and his dad really needed someone with whom to share his stressful experiences, get some feedback, etc. So nearly every day - whether in person, by email or by phone, I listened patiently to the soap opera that was his son's life, gave encouragement, support, feed-back etc. After about 3 months, I pointed out to the guy that while I had occasionally mentioned news about my 3 grown kids (for whom I was a single parent), he had never ONCE asked about them, or how they were doing with problems in their lives. He was shocked to have this brought to his attention and at first denied it vociferously, but upon reflection admitted I was correct. And he did make an effort after that to occasionally ask how they were. My women friends, in contrast, always, always, always inquire about my kids, my Mom, etc., as I do with them.

In a nutshell.

You can write that in *any* year and people will nod their heads and agree. This "charm" piece take a while to get around to the "less manly" thing, but it eventually got there.

Same as it ever was, only more so!

Boyhidey, did he!

and it starts with TV programming marketed to children and movies marketed to teens.

I'm convinced that it's part of the reason we have an educational gender gap. It's not that schools are too strict for boys--the schools that existed when only boys were educated beyond the basics were like Marine boot camp, cf. 19th century British boarding schools--it's that there aren't enough role models for intelligence, kindness, and non-boorish humor. This effect is multiplied if a boy has no role models in real life who aren't mean and dumb.

Many American men have lost the knack of being masculine without being macho. It's all part of the growing fascist tendencies in American culture.

not carrying on after Mr. Whipple passed away!

I'm sure many actors now could "do" charming if that's how the part was written. They used to write parts that way, but they don't anymore. If an actor had done a number of movies where they played someone charming, they'd be considered charming, even if they're not in real life.

Those sorts only existed in make believe.

Slapping women was very common in those movies. I don't think it's a coincidence that domestic violence very painfully hidden but common until women finally called attention to it. The first movie about it was not produced until the mid - 80s I think.

Joe Biden, Denzel Washington, John Stewart, David Boreanaz, Snoop Dog

programned to be hypermasculinized to the point they are drooling, knuckle dragging Neanderthals but it is equally mind manipulating to expect them to be as perfect in real life as actors are on screen where their every line and movement has been pre-planned and plotted out in great detail, as well as the reactions of the women on screen with them. It presents the false narrative that there is only one way to be a good and desirable man, and not only that, unless you're a trained actor surrounded by women who equally are acting, it's virtually impossible to replicate such personalities and performances in real life. So I don't think it's an accident that the only examples the writer of this article gives (and I read the whole thing) of charmers were actors.

This country is just so obsessed with movies and entertainment it leads to these kind of unrealistic comparisons - either overmasculinized or unerringly civilized -and, as men and women, it leads us to be constantly disappointed when we don't get what we see on a screen in real life. Well, duh. We shouldn't be surprised when we buy into a fantasy.

Go away.

Forgive me if I'm somewhat cynical.

Most of Humanity. Better?

Maybe you should consider moving.

My view of humanity must be highly skewed toward cynicism. I'm probably not getting an accurate view of people based on certain starting points in my life.

Personally, in my experience, the further East one goes in this country the more rigid, uptight and codified stuff becomes. YMMV, of course.

You sound mean and very misanthropic as well as sexist as the day is long.

I'm just very cynical of humanity but I wouldn't be mean to someone individually. I do see an excessive amount of dysfunction being allowed to dominant in many areas of society and I suppose that influenced my comments. I mean, if the good people in any given area outnumber the bad, then why do so many problems not get fixed? Ever. They just go on and on.

Love him dearly, but he was British.

Then I remembered he was British!

At least in most of his roles, I think he is a charmer. Even as Hannibal in a wierd way.

I don't consider any of those guys in the poster in the OP as charming. Or attractive or anything like that. Maybe Rockford because he was a different sort of guy for tv of the time. He seemed like a good guy without much of that ManBaggage most insist on lugging around with them, or their producers insist they do.

have printed this dreck.

a Jewish immigrant from Egypt who was the father of a good friend of mine. He was polite, witty, and like the article said, listened and paid attention to women without making you feel at all uncomfortable. He was delightful to be around.

" . . .polite, witty, and like the article said, listened and paid attention to women without making you feel at all uncomfortable."

You kids get off my lawn.

I blame Bisphenol-A.

That's a tough one.

and Michael Shannon.

I looked him up on IMDB and figured out he plays the FBI agent. He looks much better out of character. Some roles render people unattractive. Nikolaj Coster-Waldau while playing Jaime Lannister has little appeal, whereas in Blackthorn as the young Butch Cassidy

I did not see Blackthorn. May have to netflix it.

Yes, I'm actually being serious here. I don't get it. I never got it. And I'm starting to think that it's all bullshit. If George Clooney was a bus driver, I don't think anybody would call him handsome or charming or any of the other things women seem to drool over about him. He's rich and famous, and that's all there is to it.

Other than that, the rest of this article is complete bullshit too.

conduct himself in ANY social situation.

He's attractive, has a steady, sexy voice, and can wear a suit (or sport coat) like nobody's business.

He's on the right (er, left) side politically, and engaged in a number of humanitarian projects (and not just for photo-ops).

He comes across as someone who will look you in the eye when you speak, and take genuine interest in what you are saying (similar to what's been said of Bill Clinton).

I'm guessing he's a winker, but not in a creepy way. And he comes across as someone who uses just the right amount of touch, unlike, say, massage-happy George W. Bush.

Gay or straight, the man's got it going ON.

socially inept, just like the article says.

made my saturday!

Who'da thunk it?



My own preference is for the socially inept, it's too damn hard figuring out the agendas of those who are socially ept.

and unlike Cary Grant, he didn't have dashing looks to lean on (don't get me wrong, I love Cary Grant). Powell's appeal was his charm.

He's too aware of his media image, but then again I've never met him. Thus, I think he should spend some time with me, posthaste.

LOL. I think I posted that pic on DU1 about 6 years ago.

Where did you meet him?

modern American men are less charming.

Everyone I know who has met him says he's charming. Polite, kind, easy on the eyes, too.

Plus, he appears to be devoted to his wife and family.

[link:|

I'm watching the last two episodes of Merlin that airs on the SyFy channel. The actors who play King Arthur, Merlin and the Knights of the Round table, a combination of Brit and Irish actors, are soooo handsome and charming, those accents and all, honestly, I don't really see what was so special about Clooney and our present batch of hot American actors. These guys make ours look pretty pedestrian.

Grant was a very interesting man, who by his own admission was verbally and physically abusive to women until he underwent therapy and changes he attributed to his use of LSD having taught him a few things.
So the real man Grant was hitting women while his on screen performances were being made which this article uses to say actual men are not charming.
Grant later spoke at length about these things, which really is charming in that he was honest about how he'd been and the importance of personal growth even when one his handsome, famous, rich and given constant praise. He was fairly amazing really.
I find it odd how many in the tread and this author confuse actors and their roles.

World war 2 brought us the Hell's Angels and boys who went to war and came back damaged .Charm dies with wars .

which makes you quite charming, yes yes.

Arnold Ziffell. I thought of Arnie Swartzenasshole right off.

I welcome auditions for a leading man though.