What was the big deal about Anita Ekberg?

She was a great beauty OP.

What happened to her? Booze, cigarettes & sun.

........

Fellini loved her......

Yes, she was a great beauty, but her best features weren't on her face.

middle aged.......

She came along at a period of time when straight men were fixated on big boobs, and didn't seem to care much about the rest of the woman. She was the perfect starlet for her time, offering what straight men wanted and willing to share it.

The rest of her looks pretty nice, although very... soft by today's standards.

She also appears to have developed a thyroid condition, hence the bulging eyes in OP’s picture.

She was quite the beauty in her youth. She got old. Get over it. It happens to most people. She didn't age well.

She died 3 yrs ago at 83.....the picture in the OP was about 1 yr before she died

Looks like 1 yr after death to me.

Britt dear......have you looked in a mirror lately ?

I love the name of one of her early movies - The Screaming Mimi.

Not nice OP

She looks like Ethel Rapehole

I'm not quite sure what's going on in this photo.

Anita far outclassed Audrey Hepburn in the looks department in War and Peace.

Another from War and Peace

One more with Audrey

R18, I do hope that Audrey was meant to be playing the drab little mouse, and didn't come out looking that way accidentally?

R18 Anita looks like a mature, beautiful woman while Audrey looks school-girlish and almost plain.

She looks like Rodney Dangerfield in drag

Audrey was mean to be playing an extremely pretty teen girl who was the irresistible belle of that ball in the photo. Anita's role was that of the older society minx who led Audrey to corruption by man-whore (see male third party). Anita of course pwned Audrey nonetheless because people have eyes.

How can anyone even THINK to say Anita's face wasn't utmost beautiful when young? She was just the right amount of chiseled without becoming square or manly. Old Anita got bad surgeries and so that doesn't count.

Kerstin Anita Marianne Ekberg; Born: 29 September 1931; Malmö, Sweden

Died: 11 January 2015 (aged 83); Rocca di Papa, Italy

Graves Disease will ruin anyone’s looks. It ruins your skin, your eyes, your nails, hair, everything.

Surgery can be performed in order to correct the bulging eyes. I’m not sure if it can happen again after surgery, but I’m assuming it can, since Grave’s is usually a lifetime conditioned once diagnosed.

Well, first of all, there were two "big deals" about her:

Even ignoring her incredible face and chest, she was tall and well-proportioned. A beauty queen in every way back in her prime.

She was a stunning woman all the way around. And everything was real and natural, except the platinum blonde hair.

I would classify her as the blonde Ava Gardner.

R14...who is Ethel Rapehole?

Anita Ekberg was beautiful and talented but she shot to stardom mainly because of her big jugs as shown in the photo. Back in her day big breasted blond women were in vogue.

Poor Audrey, R18.

Regency gowns just aren't kind to women with her body type. They were intended to show off the bosom, and all she can show off is collarbones.

r31 That that the middle-part Regency formal updos emphasized Audrey's hard square face. The contrast between Audrey and Anita is dramatic in that film.

She should have died young like Marilyn monroe

OP, she was voluptuous, which straight movie viewers and directors appreciated, and she,was in the unforgetable fountain scene in La Dolce Vita.

Now you know why Anita Ekberg was a big deal.

Blonde women don't come more beautiful than her.

What a horrid pic, Op. She looks like a bulldog.

R37, have you ever seen people with Graves Disease? They all look like Pugs or Bulldogs.

It’s one of those disorders that will completely change the way you look, physically, regardless of your age. And the worst part was that there wasn’t much anyone could do about it, either. Surgery for the bulging eyes is relatively new in the horizon.

Ekberg fucked every major leading man of the time, from Frank Sinatra to Gary Cooper, in her quest for stardom.

She was not a “me too “ kind of gal.

She was the quintessential blonde bombshell, even more so than Marilyn but even though one can't see it in these photos, she got chubby. The dress she wore in La Dolce Vita was designed to hide her chubbiness. One NYT reviewer even wrote in his review of SIGN OF THE GLADIATOR:

And so will the hefty Miss Ekberg if she doesn't start easing up on contemporary bread and potatoes.

Young Anita pre-fat was just as hour glass as MM, only with longer neck and legs.

Two piece capable young Anita.

Anita circa 1960

when she was a sex god in the sixtys her tittys were milked by some of the hottesst studs in the business, and by many escorts and young hot fukkers who knew how to treat a womans big fat tits...and perky long fat nipples.

her knockers belong in the Tit Museum of NYC

OP what a troll you are.

Does Bridget Bardot have the same disease? Does it only effect European bombshells?

What disease do you trolling trolls have?

Older Anita posing beside a photo of younger Anita in one of her most famous films.

DL expects 80 year olds to look as beautiful and sexy as they were in their 20s and 30s. Perfectly reasonable.

R49 Sure they can! I'm 89 and don't look a day over 45.

I think Audrey has more classic beauty in those photos.

Anita is just too overdone, too much. Gaudy, blousy, overblown.

Especially the last.

Yeah R51 Anita was a real dog.

It a dog, just overdone. Too much. Still an attractive woman, but not a classic beauty.

Russ Meyer who knew something about big breasts said Anita had the best set he had ever seen.

r51 Please, Audrey can't even look good in Regency costume, how 'classic' can her beauty be? Audrey is a chic Givenchy clothes horse but those big nose and jaws don't make the grade. Anita looked good in both 50s and Regency clothes. Anita for the win all the way.

[quote]What was the big deal about Anita Ekberg?

Tits.

Those aren’t breasts; that’s a cantilevered shelf.

Audrey was cute and gamine. Her face is mesmerizing. Anita was a blonde bombshell. They're apples and oranges. Why compare these two? Both beauties in their own way.

Oh god. I am so sick of the inevitable, soul-crushing combination of the name Audrey Hepburn with the word gamine.

Audrey before Hollywood makeup is far less gamine or whatever you call it.

This may be strange to dataloungers, but some people prefer the look of others their age to those who look much younger. There is an attraction to contemporaries. People don't always prefer younger beauties.

She was beyond beautiful in la dolce vita

"Please, Audrey can't even look good in Regency costume, how 'classic' can her beauty be? "

Audrey Hepburn wasn't actually beautiful, but she was so charming and stylish and that hardly anyone realizes it! She was pretty and striking in addition to being so charming, and her big brown doe eyes were amazing, but her bone structure was kind of odd, with her square jaw and small chin.

Make her the female lead and surround her with men, and she seems lovely. Put a classically beautiful woman next to her, though... well, she didn't make many films with classically beautiful female co-stars.

Rod Taylor was dating Anita when she worked in Italy

That recessed lighting makes it look like she has a tiny halo, but she looks like pure evil.

r63 "Put a classically beautiful woman next to her, though... "

Here we have another classically beautiful woman next to Audrey at1954 Oscars:

Shut your fucking hateful mouths about Anita Eckberg, ignorant swine. And stop showing those pictures of her. You'll get old and die too, cunts, and you won't look so hot. Only you won't have done--or been--anything.

R65 She looks much worse because of her bad makeup and harsh styling.

EKBERG definitely looked better as a blonde.