Symian on                Lynn-Holly Johnson
 

Lynn Holly JohnsonIf you want immortality, become a Bond Girl.

  Lynn-Holly Johnson was not a great actress, and in fact she wasn't even really a very good actress. What she was was, simply and firmly, a nice looking bit of stuff. She was pretty, she was cute, she had a tight little body on her, she had that blond hair, and had that girl-woman kind of overall look that makes men growl from the deepest part of the throat. It comes from the back of the brain, deep inside of that barely confined caveman chained up in our genetic past. It is the "She pretty. Me want!" vocalization of a hereditary trait that calls for men to desire to play with something shiny and pretty... and then have sex with it.

Lynn-Holly Johnson skipping around the screen in For Your Eyes Only gave rise to, umm, a lot of growls.

 

  "Men! That's all you men think about! Teenage girls!" is something a few women have commented to me over the years. Lynn-Holly Johnson was 22 or 23 when she did the Bond movie, but that doesn't seem to count in the eyes of some people. If it looks like a teen, and you are attracted to it, then you are attracted to teens. I sort of believe that myself, on a case-by-case basis, coming to that personal opinion after many years of watching how "people" behave on the Internet.

    I was in a community self-photo posting forum not too long ago where a girl posted a photo of herself standing by a door. The girl was not scantily clad, she was not standing in a provocative pose, she was not doing anything in the photo other than simply standing there. She was definitely a pretty girl, no doubt about that, and the photo itself was a good looking photo. The fact that she was good looking prompted a fellow to make the comment that she was sexy. That comment set off a firestorm of angry debate that rose to hundreds of posts. One person responded to the "sexy" comment with "Kids are sexy, eh? You are a pedophile!"

  That debate went on for many hundreds of posts and cross-posts, eventually causing the whole section to get locked down by the community administrators. A great part of the debate was on what theLynn-Holly Johnson legal age of consent was in the locality where the girl lived. The debate essentially ended when it was determined that the girl was old enough to consent (for sex) in the State where she lived. She wasn't 18, so no-no on any nude photo, but legal to have sex even without parental permission. Apparently a lot of people believe that age of consent is all that matters when it comes to the sexiness of a young-looking person.

    I laughed my ass off during that whole posting war because the photo was so non-sexual. The war began because a guy thought the girl looked sexy and another guy thought that she looked too young to be sexy. It ended because of the determination of "legal age of consent."

        Yes, Lynn-Holly Johnson looked like a teeny-bopper in that James Bond film, looked it, acted it, and sounded it too, and for her I'll admit that I had more wood back then than Tiger Woods has now. I'll also admit to that weakness on my part for Olivia D'Abo in Conan The Destroyer, as well as for her role in Bolero. The difference between these two actresses in those roles is that Lynn-Holly was totally legal and Olivia D'Abo was not even close to being legal. But then again, Olivia D'Abo is a special case. *sigh*

        The reason I wrote all of that is because Lynn-Holly Johnson had that same young look for all of her film career. She did mature a little bit, but at the same time she could make herself look much younger. That squeaky voice of hers never did mature, however, so she was a dream-teen for many years for many men.

    Why did we keep watching Lynn-Holly's acting projects even though she was not such a good actress? I think we watched because we hoped that she'd eventually do a nude scene, something she never did do in any of her films, and always said she would never do. It might have been a good thing that she never did a nude scene though, because I have found over long years of watching nudity in film that in some cases the person in question looks much better dressed than they ever will in the nude.

    So why did we really keep watching? I truly do believe that it is what I wrote at the beginning of this commentary: "She pretty. Me want!" It's that simple.

    I know that someone out there will not agree with me on this, making note of her acclaimed role in Ice Castles, but one role does not a career make. I guess in some cases it does for too many actors these days, but in my book the sum total of a career makes or breaks with the skill and performance of the total acting package... and with a nude scene here or there.

*wink*

 

Where is she now: (as of  02/08/2009)
 

From 1993 to 1996 she went to Mexico and Guatemala as a medical missionary.

She also got married to a wealthy guy, has a big house, is now a full-time wife and mother, and shows up at James Bond conventions from time to time. She is still in shape, still blond, still cute and pretty, and still looks younger than her current age of 50.

Yes... 50.

She still pretty. Me still want.

;).

BACK TO MAIN LFD PAGE


Visit Symian on Livejournal