I've had a lot of requests to talk about my longtime friend, Farrah Fawcett, leading up to last week's airing of the documentary about her heartbreaking and inspiring battle to beat cancer.
She is so closely associated with my husband's show, Charlie's Angels, that it's difficult to believe she was only on the show for its first year, in 1976.
Inevitably, the reminiscing and reflecting include references to "that hair" and "the poster." Aaron and I used to get more questions about Farrah's hair (the stylist was Armando of Teddy and Armando in Beverly Hills) than any other subject -- at least until Dynasty premiered, when people asked if Krystle was me, or I was Krystle. (Neither.)
I don't know if the renewed interest in Farrah's hair and how she changed fashion made me pay more attention to references to hair in movie reviews or not. But, I was stopped in my tracks when I read:
"...well-coiffed Tom Hanks" in a photo caption; and "Tom Hanks is back with much better hair...," in a movie review in the Los Angeles Times.
When I got to the review in Thursday's USA Today, the headline was: "'Angels, Demons' does not translate: But Tom Hanks' hair does look better."
Entertainment Weekly went in a different direction in its review: "Let others sermonize about 'Angels & Demons'....Let voices rise on matters of...old hairdo versus new coif in Tom Hanks' portrayal...."
Variety's review included an observation that Tom Hanks' character was in "fitter condition" than the last time he played the role, and: "He's also clearly changed hairdressers, a good move."
I doubt Ron Howard will get many questions about Tom's hairline, but there may be some trade ads being planned already for awards season.
I guess it is still all about the hair -- but at least with a more gender equality.