The Secret to Becoming Better Looking as You Age?: Become a Television Star!

Is this just another one of my conspiracy theories, or do actors and especially actresses seem to get better looking throughout the duration of a television series even as they (supposedly and logically) get older? Granted, I probably don't watch enough serialized television to do this topic justice, as I am only familiar with a few popular shows (The Office, Parks and Recreation, Seinfeld, Curb Your Enthusiasm, and The X-Files, more or less). Nor am I versed enough in aesthetics to have a debate about beauty. Still, I think there is a point to be made here.

Case #1 - Cheryl David (played by Cheryl Hines) on Curb Your Enthusiasm:

Recently, I have been rewatching Curb Your Enthusiasm, and I have slowly noticed how Cheryl seems to become better looking at the show progresses:

Cheryl, left, in the first season of Curb Your Enthusiasm

Cheryl in a later season of the show

In the top picture, from season 1 (which debuted in 2000), Cheryl is probably about 35 years old, whereas in the bottom one, she is at least 40 or older. Admittedly, I probably can't make my point across with Cheryl alone, if only because it's not her beauty that has improved so much as her surface appearance. In the bottom picture, she is, I would say, more stylish, better dressed, etc. And this pattern is one that accompanies many characters on television.

Now, I certainly don't want to give off the impression that I think a person cannot be beautiful once they reach a certain age, or even as they get older. Again, this post is not, at least for me, a discussion about an individual's beauty. Rather, it is a discussion about television, and what television tells us about the way actors and actresses age. (In fact, I should mention how difficult it was for me to find a picture of Cheryl from season 1 on the internet, even though there was no shortage of images of her from later seasons.)

Case #2 - Dana Scully (played by Gillian Anderson) on The X-Files:

As a kid, I grew up watching The X-Files, and I loved it. I thought that it was one of the best shows on television. But as I've gotten older and watched through episodes again and again, I've started to notice how Dana Scully, one of the two main characters on the show, aged throughout the television series:

Scully in an early season of X-Files

Scully in a later season of X-Files

Personally, I find Scully to be attractive in both pictures (not that it matters!), but the bottom one demonstrates how television can transform the appearances of actors and actresses (especially the latter). Look, even the color of her eyes has changed in the bottom picture! 

Admittedly, I understand that someone could object to the Scully example on these grounds: This is a show from the 90s, and the styles were just different back then. In other words, what I am calling attention to is "the trends" rather than anything significant about Scully's appearance. (Indeed, for this reason alone I have refrained from including the transformation of Elaine on Seinfeld in this post.) Whatever position you take is up to you. If you decide that Scully is not the case-in-point for this topic, then surely this next one will convince you.

Case #3 - Jim Halpert and Pam Beasley (played by John Krasinski and Jenna Fischer, respectively) on The Office:

Need I even argue this?

Jim from an early season of The Office

Jim from a later season of The Office

The early (and younger) version of Pam Beasley

The later (and older) version of Pam Beasley

It was probably the later seasons of the show that earned Jenna Fischer this modeling job

---

So, that about wraps this post up. I would like to hear thoughts from others.

A Shared Event at the Coffee Shop

It is safe to say that I spend a rather disproportionate amount of my time in coffee shops (even as I write this post, I am sitting in one!). This summer I would estimate that on average I've visited a coffee shop at least once per day, sometimes even twice. I do this not only because I enjoy the atmosphere, the internet, and, of course, the coffee, but also, and perhaps most importantly, because there is so much to be observed here. Indeed, I have observed so much in my time at coffee shops, especially this summer, that I'm beginning to think it wouldn't be unwise for me to dedicate a blog solely to reading them as public spaces.

Most of us visit coffee shops on a regular basis, but what is the purpose of this space? Just off the top of my head, I can say that I, personally, have used the coffee shop this summer as a place for: caffeine; observation; homework; learning German; reading; Facebook; internet surfing; composing e-mails; blogging; writing; socializing; meeting new people; playing board games; hanging out with friends; breakfast, lunch, & dinner; working on a children's book; etc. And this is just me! Now, most of these may sound like rather trivial, everyday tasks, but for one person to be able to accomplish -- no, to want to accomplish -- all of these tasks in a single space is so endlessly strange and interesting to me. I fear that I've reached the point where I'm more addicted to the coffee shop itself than the coffee they offer.

Still, I've yet to mention the enigmatic "shared event" that titles this post. I'm drawing the concept from Don DeLillo, an American author whose ouevre I am currently working through. DeLillo often speaks of "events" and how they "gather force." One of his characters in The Names even speaks of feeling "involved in events." The idea has always been rather interesting to me, not only because I seldom find this idea mentioned in writing or everyday life, but also because it seems totally relevant to contemporary existence.

Anyway, the point is, I tend to feel a hidden tenseness in coffee shops, as if everyone who shares these spaces, this internet, and this air, everyone who chooses to have private conversations in a public place for all of us to hear -- it's as if we all still wish to maintain a separate space, our own privacy or secrecy, despite our behavior in this space. I often wonder what can be done to break down this sense of a wall. Why, I think, is it so difficult for me, or anyone for that matter, to engage the person who sits no more than two feet away from me, the person whom I openly allow to see what I'm doing on my computer and who provides me with the same freedom?

The other day, while sitting in this very coffee shop, this tenseness was alleviated somewhat. For over an hour, I had been sitting next to the same person, a person who, I think, attends the same university that I attend and was writing a paper for school much like I was. On top of this, we were sharing the same internet, the same air, both drinking coffee. As one says in English, there was something "in common" between the two of us. Yet I still felt that there was something inaccessible there, something unbridgeable.

The solution to this proved to be no less than a power outage, which was caused by a passing thunderstorm. It wasn't our sharing of internet or air that brought us together; rather, it was a "shared event" -- a power outage, a taking away, a negative -- that reminded us of our commonality. Consequently, we were able to engage in conversation, we were able to find "common ground," able to "break the ice." But the power outage did more than this. Ironically, the loss of power proved to be a spark of another type, erupting a chain of laughter throughout the coffee shop. The event "gathered force," we might say. The whole atmosphere of the coffee shop was affected, if only for a few moments. It wasn't long, however, before the generators were signaled, the power restored, and the measurable change, the realized community, was submerged once again.

---

DeLillo, Don. The Names. New York: Vintage, 1989. Originally published in 1982. Print.