She weighs 105lbs...

[likelysuspect]

The film Angel Face - Robert Mitchum and Jean Simmons 1952

During the start he is describing his girlfriend and mentions she is 105lbs

I thought I'd misheard and maybe it was 125lbs but no, 105lbs

Thats 7 and a half stone.

Seems very tiny but AI tells me that is the usual sort of frame and weight to height ratio for actresses in those days. The actress playing the girlfriend was 5'4 apparently. So slight frame but not underweight

I was a bit surprised it was so low a weight.

No I mean people are not able to identify underweight actresses either- most famous actresses are underweight.

you have orthorexics on mumsnet insisting people like Victoria Beckham or Ariana grande aren’t underweight

We have adjusted our ideas about weight & size so much in the last 4-5 decades. I have old clothes of my great-Aunt and Granny. They dressed beautifully and both women were slim but not exceptionally so. I recently tried some of my great-Aunt's dresses from the 1960s which are noted as being a Size 14. I very comfortably fit into a Size 10 in UK shops and can even wear an Size 8 in M&S, but I can only just fit into the Size 14 dresses from the 1960s! I also buy vintage clothes and anything I get from 1980s to 2000, I get in a size 12.

I'm not at all surprised to hear that Jean Simmons was only 7.5 stone.

I’m exactly the same height & weight am late sixties I don’t think I look underweight or unwell I’ve got a small frame have never existed on coffee fags or benzos.

The wrist thing makes sense. I’m 5’2 been 10 stone at my biggest post pregnancy, currently about 7 stone 7.
whatever weight, and despite 30f boobs, I’ve got tiny wrists and ankles, can get thumb and little finger round wrists. Size 3 feet

height and build really do impact because I do not look remotely underweight

Its not Jean Simmons being discussed, its the girlfriend in the film. Jean Simmons is the 'other woman'.

Although she too is tiny.

Ooops, thank you @likelysuspect !

I’m 5ft 5 and weigh 8 stone exactly. I’m a size 10 top, size 8 bottoms.

So no, it doesn’t surprise me that someone working as a Hollywood actress, aware of the camera adding ten pounds would weigh that little.

In the late 90’s I was 5”7 and 7.5 stone.

I was underweight.

Im same height and a LOT heavier now 😂

I would think for 5”4 that’s about right.

I've heard of them obviously but wouldn't recognise them on the street.

However, I think it's pointless to debate someone's weight if you're not seeing them in person. Seeing someone close up, walking and talking with no photo filters, is a lot more accurate. (Similarly, identifying someone's sex.) If those two look underweight in photos, all that tells you is they look underweight in photos.

Sorry, just checked the NHS calculator and my BMI is actually 18.7 so (just) not underweight. However 7 stone 7lbs definitely is!

These actresses tended to have hour glass figures with tiny waists and bigger hips and bust, which prevented them from looking straight up and down skinny. They were also softer and less toned which looks 'plumper' so could be very light indeed without looking too thin.

7 stone is very small. Obviously it varies according to body type, but the NHS BMI calculator has anything below 7 st 10 as underweight. And 7 stone is about 10% below 7 stone 10, so quite signficicant.

I'm 5 ft 4 and dipped down to 7 stone 10 briefly when I had two pre-school aged children and working full time and run ragged. I agree that for me it was borderline underweight.

I am 5ft4 and 107 lbs. I have a broad ribcage and shoulders but narrow hips. I have far from skeletal. Slim yes but not bony.

This! I have lost count of the number of times I’ve explained to people that this was the entire point!

But back then she did look fat, and even now I’d say she was well-covered. My family and I are quite slim and we just find ourselves constantly amazed at the size of so many people these days. Fat has become normal.

I was this in my 20s and I was a size 8-10 but this was the 90s , it was a normal weight back then

Agree.

There weren't the aisles and aisles of snack foods or ready made frozen items in the shops back then, even in the US. In the UK, supermarkets were new and still sold the basic ingredients of meals you would cook at home.

If we all stopped snacking and had just our three meals a day we'd start looking like many 1950s and 60s people did.

In a similar vein, I remember an advert from a similar time (possibly for jeans?) where a woman stood on some scales which span round to 8 stone, which she was happy with and which set in my teen mind that 8 stone was the weight I should aim for. I am quite tall so this was a daft target!

Im 5.1" and have weighed 100lbs on and off - Im fat now though.

I'd say that you and your family need to get out more. So many cool things to be amazed about, music, art, nature and your family choose fat people 😖

It wasn’t back then. It was green BMI!

Are we talking underweight or lower than average weight? Those are two different things.

4'10 is very very different from 5'4. Height makes a big difference to health weight range. Minimum healthy weight according to NHS BMI is 6 stone 4 at 4'10. Whereas it is 7 stone 10 at 5'4. And 9 stone 3 at 5'10.

I think many actresses now weigh that or much less. But they don't exactly publicize their exact weight.

It's one person, mentioned in a movie. There are people who weigh less than her and people who weigh more. Both then and now. I really don't understand the post.

I was 9st 2 in my skinny 20s - I'm 5' 7. I was very, very slim indeed. That was achieved by eating almost nothing, because it’s not a natural weight for my frame. It was only much later that I realised how messed up my relationship to food and body-image was.