Liv Tyler, 38, talks aging: ‘It’s not fun when you see things start to change’

MORE October 2015 Cover_edited-1
The lovely Liv Tyler covers More Magazine, which typically features older celebrities. This reminds me that Tyler is 38 now. She has a kind of perpetual naivety that makes her look so young. Livtalks to More about aging in Hollywood. She almost says that the roles have dried up but then seems to realize that she sounds ungrateful and hedges a bit, calling the roles she’s offered now “interesting” despite the fact that she also calls them “second class.”

Liv is promoting season two of The Leftovers on HBO. (I’m sorry to say it’s one of the few shows I couldn’t watch past the first episode. It was just too slow-paced and depressing for me, although the reviews are mostly positive.) Her costar, Justin Theroux, has some nice things to say about Liv that confirm the impression I’ve always had of her – that she’s a positive, genuine person. Here’s some what she told More, with more of their interview at the source and in the print edition:

On valuing her role as mom over her professional career:
“I didn’t see how I could go away for three months to make a film and be the mother I wanted to be.”

On what she loves most about being a mom:
“My favorite thing about being a parent is that I learn so much from the push-and-pull dynamic of mother and child. Having children, I learned about my own strength.”

On what it’s like to juggle her career, relationship and kids:
“I feel like I’m conducting a giant orchestra, because there’s so many moving parts. It’s like, ‘Over there, you guys do that!’ And then, ‘Over there, you do this! All together now!’ It’s kind of what it feels like to be a mom, isn’t it? In the modern world?”

On aging in Hollywood:
“38 is a crazy number. It’s not fun when you see things start to change. When you’re in your teens or twenties, there is an abundance of ingénue parts which are exciting to play. But at [my age], you’re usually the wife or the girlfriend, a sort of second-class citizen. There are more interesting roles for women when they get a bit older.”

On taking on serial television for the first time with The Leftovers:
“With a film, you have the script, and you know the beginning, middle and end. With TV, they write as they go. I have no idea what my character is going to be doing … which is frustrating. Part of me loves it, and part of me hates it, having no control. Being comfortable in the unknown is hard for humans; even if we don’t really know what’s going to happen, we kind of trick ourselves into thinking we have a plan. This latest career move has been an exercise in letting go.”

Justin Theroux, Liv’s Leftovers costar, on her positivity:
“You’d think someone who has experienced what she has might become jaded or cynical. And she’s neither of those things. She’s sunny-side up, not sunny-side down. Liv carries this incredible optimism in life. There’s a wonder to her. She’s a seeker. She’s looking for the next most interesting experience in life, in love, in everything.”

On her relationship philosophy:
“I had this philosophy that you should only get married once. But then, of course, that changes. I definitely believe we have lessons we learn through our relationships. You’re meant to work through and mirror each other. It’s the thing in someone that drives you the most crazy that is maybe a part of yourself somewhere.”

On what’s more important to her today than it was 20 years ago:
“Not being perfect, my girlfriends, and a glass of wine at the end of the day.”

[From More Magazine received via e-mail]

In terms of seeing things change, I’m 42 and I’ve only recently noticed that I have these scowl lines around my mouth. I’m trying to make an effort to correct my resting bitch face, because my default is to slightly frown. (There’s no way I’m getting injectables after seeing some of the results. I’ll just have to deal.) Otherwise I’m cool with aging as I’ve noticed I give less f*ks the more time passes. Plus there’s always makeup. It must be hard in Hollywood though because women like Liv, with her big eyes and gorgeous looks, are no longer picked in their late 30s for the roles they would typically fill. There just aren’t parts for older women. The men age but the women keep getting replaced. Liv may have wanted to say as much, but she’s too nice to sound ungrateful.

The editorial is well done and somewhat haunting. When Liv looks at the camera, all you want to do is put a blanket around her and give her a cup of hot cocoa. Even when she closes her eyes, there’s something vulnerable and sweet about her. It’s like the photographer wanted to test this. She doesn’t lose her charisma when her eyes are closed, you’re just waiting for it to hit you full force.

Liv Tyler 4_edited-1

Liv Tyler 3_edited-1

Liv Tyler 2_edited-1

photo credit: ©Jan Welters/MORE Magazine used by permission

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

101 Responses to “Liv Tyler, 38, talks aging: ‘It’s not fun when you see things start to change’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Sunsetsnow says:

    It is partly her fault. She really stepped back from acting to raise a family and never seemed interested in being a star. She went years without a movie appearance and you have to keep Hollywood interested. The field is so competitive. If she had wanted to, she could have combined the two, like Nicole Kidman, Cate Blanchett, and many others that were/are in her position. Rachel Weisz and Kate Winslet also comes to mind.

    • RJ says:

      Good for her. She grew up a wealthy celebrity daughter so perhaps never hungered for the spotlight the way other actresses do. She’s always seemed super chill & seems to have her head on straight, and I like that about her. She’s amazing in The Leftovers.

    • serena says:

      +1 exactly, but then good for her if that’s what she wanted.

    • perplexed says:

      >> She… never seemed interested in being a star.

      I actually think this attitude makes more sense to have. I can understand wanting better roles or having a better career, but the desire to actually be a star has always struck me as kind of weird — in the sense, that I think being a “star” is a bit of an illusion. It’s sort of like wanting to be the most popular person in high school – I don’t get what kind of gratification that aspiration is supposed to give you. The only advantage to being a star that I can see is that you’d be up for more parts, but I’m not sure if that’s how the system actually works — otherwise, J-Lo should have a better career or be up for better parts. She’s a “star”, but her filmography is kind of funny to look at. Ditto for Gwyneth and the other ones who are in your face all the time, but who aren’t getting the roles Kate Winslet gets.

  2. Bluebell says:

    Well I’m 27 and I already noticed some changes. :-(

    Liv is beautiful, I agree.

    • LadyMTL says:

      Heh, I’m going to be 39 in about 2 weeks and I noticed signs of aging in my mid-twenties. Thankfully it seems to be a very slow process in my case, but yeah…it isn’t easy.

      And Liv is beautiful indeed. I’ve always found her to be really lovely, in a slightly off-beat way.

    • PinaColada says:

      +1 by 25, I realized that I had very light lines around my eyes. And also a few grey hairs!!! SOB. But I’m 32 now and it has been a very slow process- I really don’t have anything deep yet, but it’s there. 😔

      • crtb says:

        as you age the process is n longer slow and increases with each passing year. I look in the mirror and do not recognize the old woman who looks back at me. In my eyes mind I still look like I did 30 years ago.

    • Val says:

      I’m 27 and it’s so stressful!! I’ve been lucky, but it makes me paranoid.

      I’m really tired of seeing on EVERY magazine cover “How to look younger!” “New anti-aging cream/food/app/whatever!” can we please lay off the anti-aging? EVERYONE AGES and it can’t be reversed or stopped! So tired of being told that I should:
      - use $1000s worth of creams/skincare/laser/surgery
      - eat only certain foods, avoid others like the plague
      - sleep only on silk pillows
      - avoid airplanes, sun, pollution, stress, not sleeping, too much sports, screens, squinting, frowning, and whatever else

      And on top of that be effortlessly chic, beautiful, successful, loving friends, lovingly married, kids, career, travel, culture, general perfection, charming, funny, not-naggy, not desperate, be the right amount of affectionate without suffocating, intelligent, submissive but not too much, ambitious but not too much, etc etc etc.

      Can I please just live? Thanks.

      • Shambles says:

        *hugs Val*

        It’s rough. It’s exhausting. It’s overwhelming. So many standards and ideals and expectations thrown at us on a daily basis.
        It can make you want to scream.

        You live, girl. You LIVE.

      • renee says:

        OMG. THIS!!!!!!!!!!!

      • Tulip says:

        Spot on! I can get over the “you look like a hag, quick buy this eye cream” bs from the advertisers. It’s the crap from other people in my own life that I hate the most. “Be great in your career, but not too great because I still want grandchildren.” Or “Really give it your all at work, but not too much, because then you’ll be better than me and I’ll do everything I can to undermine you during the holidays”. Youth is power in this culture but a LOT of people forget how much youth are made to pay and pay and PAY for being young. There are perks to being younger but they are drowned out by bitter b-tches, often relatives. Nobody ever wins.

      • Kelly says:

        Sad to say that the way you look at aging at 27 is far different than at 50-something. Menopause and hypothyroid hit me within two years, and losing weight is almost a thing of the past. You feel like your body is betraying you so the aging process is emotional as well as physical.

        I have one friend who would be a plastic surgery nightmare if she had the money, and another that obsesses about getting/looking older. Her mom is a mom is a total bombshell at 70. It’s hard to be around that kind of mentality when you are trying to accept the process while still battle it with reasonable measures.

        On the practical side, SPF is literally the best defense. That, no smoking, exercise and water.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Oh, Val, you have the secret right in your own words – just live. They are just trying to sell you stuff. Please listen to me now if you never did before and never do again – I have one regret in my life – one – that I wasted time and energy worrying about my weight and aging when I was young. You are beautiful and you always will be. You will age, but as you do, you will grow and expand your mind and it.will.be. Ok. I promise. I like the lines around my eyes, and I just accept myself for what’s beautiful now, inside and out, and try to work on what’s not. But don’t let it scare you. I have truly never been happier, lines and all. You will age. And it will be great. You will be great. Just live.

      • EN says:

        This is the best post of the week!
        This is how most of us feel. Why are we made to feel that we have to be perfect and have it all?
        And if we are not, we get judged by other women around us, who actually feel the same?
        And we keep on struggling like fish out of the water to fulfill other people’s ideas of perfection.

      • Val says:

        *hugs everyone*
        And thank you GNAT.

        The pressure is incredibly frustrating and unfair, and we’re all so indoctrinated to think like society does; I do also catch myself judging others sometimes and then have to give myself an internal slap.

        I think if we slowly let go of some things ourselves and just LIVE like GNAT says, and don’t care about what people or society thinks…only then can we start to become free. And hopefully inspire others to do so as well.

      • Pandy says:

        Kelly – YES to all! I’m just a continuous sweaty hot flashing mess these last few years. Tedious!!! And try sleeping! so that added bonus of exhaustion.

      • JenniferJustice says:

        Is it society and the world that pressures us to be perfect or is ourselves? I kinda think we do it to ourselves. I realized when my son was a toddler that I was driving myself crazy trying to keep my house spotless, have a well-balanced home-cooked meal on the table at 6:00 pm every evening, etc. I seriously thought if I didnt’ have everything perfect, I was a failure. I was running myself ragged and I started asking myself why. Nobody was telling me to do these things. I realized it was all me – I held myself to this ridiculously impossible standard and I have no idea why. I eased up on my expectations of myself. Slacking off periodically has made me so much more relaxed and I’m alot happier for it. Pretty sure my family is happier for it too.

  3. mom2two says:

    Liv is absolutely beautiful. She always comes across so down to earth and positive. I believe what Justin said about her is what the LoTR cast said about her too.
    I wish she spoke more about the challenges of being actress who gets older in Hollywood. At one time she was “the it girl”. I just don’t think Liv is the type of person who would publicly slam the establishment which is why she backtracked on her comments a little there.
    As for the Leftovers, it is a hard show to get into and Liv is really good in it, except she is criminally underused. Hopefully season 2 rectifies that.

  4. Nancy says:

    She’s pretty. It gets tiring hearing the younger woman, she, as well Anne Hathaway come to mind how difficult it is getting old. Sit down and chat with actresses in their 50′s and 60′s. Wasn’t she always a wife or girlfriend anyway. Oh well Hollywood…..in real life, there are secretaries, nurses, hairdressers, lawyers and the list goes on and on of women who only wish they were still 38. She’ll see.

    • Naya says:

      Yikes. You clearly don’t get it. Even actresses who get career reboots in their later years (usually 60 and over, by the way) note there’s a career death that happens when the actress is straddling bangable (TM Amy Schumer) and sage age. Meaty roles decline and you are reduced to being a plot device that services male characters ie the supportive wife, the nagging wife and such. The problem isn’t that they are playing wives and mothers, its that that’s the ONLY thing the character is. So then you have a tonne of actresses fighting for Blue Jasmine because everything else is awful and a bunch of naive people claiming that Blue Jasmine is conclusive evidence that the actress career death is a myth. To paraphrase Tina and Amy’s Golden Globe monologue, all that proves is that there are still rolls for Care Blanchettes over 40.

      • Nancy says:

        I do get it. Unfortunately this is the way the world is….in the movies anyway. You probably won’t like me for this either, but I still think of her as Steven Tyler’s daughter more than an actress….I never followed her so don’t know any of her roles. I do understand the feeling of being a late 30 something mom with 40 right in front of you. It is a weird feeling as she says, but one in which, like any other age, when you look back seems like a baby. Gotta run, have a happy hump day!

      • JWQ says:

        Not that I don’ t agree with you on some level, but you said “Meaty roles decline and you are reduced to being a plot device that services male characters ie the supportive wife, the nagging wife and such. The problem isn’t that they are playing wives and mothers, its that that’s the ONLY thing the character is.”. This is true for women of all ages, except that when you are younger than 35, the only roles you can play are the girlfriend and the damsel in distress, while after you can only play wives and mother. I’ m not exactly sure there’ s a big change. Roles for women are basically nonexistent unless they are revolving around male characters no matter how old you are.

      • Desi says:

        @Jwq

        Roles for women are indeed problematic but lets be clear that it gets significantly worse as the actress ages. Yes, most of her younger roles were probably supporting the male character but those roles usually had some dimension to them. I mean, in blockbuster films, the female love interest will get some screen time and character development because she has to be a “worthy prize” for the hero. And young actresses can always shoot for roles intended to titilate the boys (action, erotic thrillers et cetera) and those with a girl-next-door sensibility can dip into the romance genre where THEY are the lead. Its terrible, I know, but it’s still more work than you see once they cast you as wife/mother. The most screen time you see once that line is crossed is when you are soothing your love sick child or being filled in by your husband on what hijinx he has been up to for three quarters of the movie (which your character will of course initially be too stupid to grasp).

      • JWQ says:

        @Desi

        Oh, I know it’ s more difficult with age, I wasn’ t imply anything different, and I wasn’ t saying that ageism isn’ t a thing. i apologize if it came out like that because it’ s really not what I think.

        It’ s just that I don’ t see all this characterization you talk about, not even the smallest, in movies with female actress younger than 35.
        There are exceptions, of course, but most female characters are female stereotypes without goals, dreams, or a life of their own, whose only reason of existing is to revolve around the Man.
        Yes, there are more roles for young hot actresses in action movies where they can show up kicking some ass in a skintight suit that leaves nothing to the imagination, but is that a character or a walking rack? Is that really a much better thing than playing a mother? Both are sexist depictions, as if a woman can only play one or the other. And the same can be said for girls next door: they don’ t have characterization per se, they have quirks and traits that make them desiderable to male viewers, or, at the very least, that make female viewers believe that if those “normal” characters can have a relationship with a guy, so can they.
        And in blockbusters love interests don’ t need to be a prize for the hero, the only important thing is that the male lead gets some because otherwise the whole thing would be too gay (can you imagine the horror? snort!). Alternatively, they are there because since blockbusters are things for boys, producers try to lure girls by including the only thing they can possibly be interested in: romance.

        I’ m just saying that the only thing that changes between female roles in movies and tv shows is how bangable you are. If you are young and hot, you can play the sex kitten, if you are not, then be the wife. Both are not things that I would look forward.

      • Desi says:

        Yeah I wasn’t implying that young actresses have it good, just better. I’m not sure which blockbusters you are thinking of but aside from Michael Bay crap, most of the love interests in those films do have to be “earn” the heros attention. Shagging a random waitress will not constitute true conquest, unless the heroes name is Bond obviously. So the girls get some backstory and a bit of a personality, not too much of course but enough that Emma Stone or Amy Adams are on screen for longer than just the “conquest”. Like I said, it’s TERRIBLE but still more substance than 40 year old actresses get. And yes, I also hate what happened to female action driven films post Sigourney Weaver but once again, we are playing a relative game. Its like how roles for black actors are offensive supporting roles but its still a hell of a lot more than female black actresses of any age will ever see. In (white) womens case, being bangable will get you screen time, more character than you’ll see later in your career and even more importantly for an out of work actress, a paycheck.

    • Alex says:

      Another thing to note is that it seems the ONLY older actresses that get significant work are the ones who are phenomenally talented actresses, i.e. Helen Mirren, Judi Dench, Meryl Streep, Maggie Smith, Vanessa Redgrave, etc. Once the f*&ability factor comes into play only the talented women with track records get any work whereas hot, younger actresses, regardless of talent, can get by on their attraction. Unfair but true.

  5. Kristen says:

    I don’t think she was hedging when she said the “interesting” line. If you read carefully, what she’s saying is age 38 is like a middle ground where the parts suck. You’re not an ingenue, and you’re not in cool interesting older lady roles. You’re just doing the in-between-age wife and girlfriend stuff. She’s saying when she ages a bit more, she thinks there will be interesting parts to play again.

    • BendyWindy says:

      That’s how I read it as well. I don’t even think she’s talking about the physical signs of aging at all.

      • Esmom says:

        Yeah, the headline of this post made me think she was talking about physical aging so I was surprised that she wasn’t talking about that at all. I liked what she had to say and I think she looks more beautiful now than when she was younger.

        I also liked hearing her thoughts on film vs TV and how much you have to let go of control in TV since you have no idea what may be coming. Interesting, and I like her perspective and attitude about it.

    • Kitten says:

      Yup. That’s exactly how I read it too.

  6. lisa2 says:

    I always wonder why all these women are so silent when they are younger. I very seldom see younger women talking about this.. It only becomes and issue when the change starts to affect them. It is the next talking point. Every interview I have seen this is what is being talked about. But again only because NOW they are not getting the roles they want. I think more women in Hollywood need to start being more proactive earlier. Develop your own projects. Produce more.. get other women involved. But I don’t see a lot of them doing that at an early age. By the time you hit your late 30′s or 40′s it is almost too late.. You haven’t established that POWER to make change.

    • mom2two says:

      I think they don’t realize it until it starts happening to them. Like Anne Hathaway is starting to realize it. Maggie Gyllenhall realized it as she got older and Liv is too (plus as a poster mentioned upthread, she did take considerable time off to raise her family).
      Drew Barrymore got involved in producing and directing for a while, I don’t know how much of it she does these days as she seems to be more involved with her beauty line and wine making.

    • perplexed says:

      Although you might sort of “see” what’s going on around you, would you really know that at 22 things will start drying up for you roles-wise from 32 onwards? The age gap between a 22 year old and a 32 year old isn’t really vast — it’s only 10 years. I’m just wondering if at 22 I would realize how things might change for me in only a decade (well, if I were an actress anyway). I don’t know if the changes are really that dramatic for regular people. You see it on tv when you see a 32 year old playing a mom to a 17 year old, but in real life I don’t think you’d consider a 32 year old ready to put her career to rest. In real life I don’t hear often of a 38 year old referred to as “older” if they look like Liv Tyler — unless it’s by a 19 year old who thinks anyone over the age of 23 is old, and even they’d be going “WTF, she’s 38? No way! She looks much younger..” As long as you’re not sporting helmet hair and you’re traditionally thin, it’s funny how 19 year olds react to anyone over the age of, well, 22. Young people seem to be fairly complimentary to older women (or guys) if they look like Liv Tyler (or the male equivalent of her who still looks conventionally good-looking). It’s only Hollywood that acts like you should be put out to pasture EVEN when you’re not anywhere near ugly or old-looking (if you’re a woman anyway)…

    • Imo says:

      Lisa2
      I understand your points but power doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Younger starlets/ingenues etc don’t have the power or authority to finance projects or challenge the status quo. And the actresses who have gained influence and staying power are either fighting for good roles themselves or are too fulfilled outside of Hollywood to do the heavy lifting of change.
      And no disrespect but I think your stance puts the burden on those who are the actual victims of Hollywood misogyny. Every actress combined < a handful of male Hollywood executives.

    • BendyWindy says:

      Not many young actresses have the power/clout to make that change while they’re young. Those years in their twenties are spent building a name/career/brand in the hopes of becoming a power player later. The only young actress I can think of who would even begin to have enough juice in her 20s is Jennifer Lawrence and if she developed a project and it flopped, she’d probably never get another opportunity.

    • Naya says:

      Obviously it would be great to develop behind the scenes skills while you are on top but people really over estimate how much difference that would make. The problem here is that stories about middle aged women aren’t viewed as financially lucrative, in the same way that black helmed movies aren’t viewed as money makers. Once in awhile the industry makes room for a Denzel or Will Smith but generally will require all other black actors to be accompanied by a “markettable” white lead. An actress/ producer still wont win a greenlight for a film about a demographic that studios don’t think will bring in box office receipts. I really detested Drew Barrymores films but it would be nice if she was still a player. I suspect the reason she isn’t is because studios wont greenlight her stuff precisely because of the age bracket she is now in.

      So while I want to see marginalised groups behind the scenes, nothing will get financed until studios get in their heads that the risk is manageable.

  7. Lindy says:

    I couldn’t love her more. We’re the same age and though I’m far from being a Hollywood star the things she’s said here about being a mom and juggling that with your career and getting divorced and coming to terms with the small signs of aging really resonated with me. I like her attitude. Like her, I’m incredibly grateful for the good things in my life but this is a weird age to be. It feels like a kind of limbo. The way she articulates that discomfort is very honest but not ungrateful.

    • Kelly says:

      She is adorable. The perfect Arwen.

    • Joaneu says:

      @Lindy – I’m also around Liv’s age and have always loved her too. She was (and still is) so beautiful. I envied her in the video “Crazy”. I could never pull-off being the wild brunette babe!
      Her acting is honest (no ego, no campaigning) and she has remained a really grounded person. I don’t think she ever dreamed about becoming a mega star. She’s a genuinely sweet person but not sickeningly so.

      “Onegin” was a weak film altogether but she got to work with Ralph …. major swoon.

    • carol says:

      She always comes across in interviews as being very reasonable, very grounded. Which is remarkable given her background and the industry she works in.

  8. Bethie says:

    The age thing is so weird to me. None of the 25-30 year old actresses I can think of right are any where as unique or beautiful as people like Liv but still get more roles. I think it’s just proof that Hollywood isn’t as obsessed with beauty as it is with young women…

    • hmph says:

      Of course it’s not about beauty. Jennifer Lawrence isn’t some great beauty let’s be honest, she’s average at best, so is Emma Stone and Emma Watson etc most of them are relatable to your average girl and that’s sort of the point…This is also white privilege, the fact that an average girl like Emma Watson can be hailed as some great beauty on magazines. It’s about youth, being skinny, and white and of course non threatening looking. Meaning, girls can still dig you and young, often geeky, guys will think “hey I could get her”.

      • perplexed says:

        Jennifer Lawrence and Emma Stone have their whiteness working as an advantage for them (I wouldn’t dispute that), but I think they might be genuinely more talented than Liv Tyler is (who is also white).

        Emma Watson’s success is a bit baffling in terms of being seen as talented (I think she’s pretty enough so I won’t question her looks) but the Harry Potter stuff probably helps.

  9. Cam says:

    She’s a very stunning lady but I always remember her in Onegin, where she couldn’t quite muster the emotional depth for the character. In LOTR, she was more strong, silent, ethereal, so it wasn’t as difficult. I do think that even if she hadn’t chosen motherhood over her career, she still wouldn’t have matched someone like Meryl Streep or Mia Wasikowska in the acting stakes. I just don’t see her being a great actor, but I could be wrong, obviously.

    • Jayna says:

      I agree.

    • Celebitchy says:

      Obviously I missed the angle of her acting, but she’s a decent actress. She’s not sublime but I think she can act better than say, Jennifer Garner. She just doesn’t hustle like Garner and she took time off to be a mom.

    • Micki says:

      That Onegin was a very weak film, which I forced myself to watch only for Ralf Fiennes.
      Apart from LOTR, where she hasn’t that may lines she hasn’t impressed me so far. Her beauty matched her role and that was it. If that goes under decent than she is a decent actress.

    • Franca says:

      I think she’s a pretty awful actress. I didn’t even like her in LOTR. She came as far as she did beacuse she looks like she does.

  10. Eleonor says:

    Aging sucks, I know. BUT.
    I love my face, my body more now I’m 34 going-35 than I used to in my ’20s.
    I feel more confident for a lot of things, I take care of my skin, I’m pretty serious, because I like it: I wash my face every night, I moisturize before sleeping and in the morning, I don’t smoke, and use sunscreen, all I do. I accept I can’t stop time, but I want to look the best I can.
    The most important thing for me is being healthy, the rest does matter up to a certain point.

    • perplexed says:

      Hollywood is the only place on earth where everything is handed to you on a silver platter at 22 (if you’re one of the lucky ones to achieve success).

      In real life, success comes more incrementally. 22 in real life kind of stinks. The only real advantage of being 22 is having good skin. But for everything else, I think you have to prove yourself less as you get older (assuming you might have achieved half of what you hoped you’d achieve when you’re dreaming of the good life when you were 22 and living paycheque to paycheque while studying hard and paying high tuition). I think aging only tends to be really disappointing when you have certain regrets (i.e a bad divorce, certain wrong turns in one’s career, a death of a parent, illness in children, etc). But if you got what you hoped you’d have (i.e a good income, a fairly good career that isn’t the kind of shift work you were doing at 22), aging in real life probably looks quite different in real life than it does in Hollywood. The disappointments in real life with respect to aging are probably more about real-life disasters (which Liv Tyler seemed to be alluding to on some level) rather than what Kristen Scott Thomas discusses about being ignored as an older beautiful woman (which, well, I didn’t know what to think when she said that since I was never beautiful like she was when she was 22. I was like, well, at least you were actually paid attention to!).

    • EN says:

      > was like, well, at least you were actually paid attention to

      May be that is it. For truly beautiful, one in a million women aging must be really hard because they go from being almost goddesses to just average women. Something the rest of us will never really know.
      But I know it is hard to give up good things in life, comforts. It is much harder to give them up, then never know them. This is probably similar.

      • Pandy says:

        Not that I’m comparing myself to a goddess – but I used to pose for hair shoots(truly my hair was the best) and was voted best looking at this major city newspaper I used to work at. Of course I never saw it and was never interested in sex for better pay etc. LOL. And now I’m 18 years older than those days (mid 30s were my height of power ha ha). Dye my hair to cover the greys every 3 weeks (it used to be for fun!), botox to keep everything a bit tighter, my nails break instead of grow and there are weird growths to laser off because I like to be outside. Oh yeah, and constant hot flashes and a body that has gotten thick (back fat wtf) and does not want to lose weight. I’m not going to lie, I’m finding my 50s really difficult. I don’t really recognize myself in the mirror anymore.

  11. ShinyGrenade says:

    The last picture reminds me of Arwen mourning Aragorn.
    She is stunning.

  12. Jayna says:

    I’ve never found her to be very compelling as an actress.

    I did read and enjoy her interview in Town & Country regarding the country home she bought outside of Hudson, New York. She really came across grounded, kind, thoughtful, and unpretentious, just a lovely person.

    • Betti says:

      ^^ Agree – she’s a passable actress and did well in LoTR’s as she wasn’t required to do much ‘acting’ other than look other worldly (which she kinda does anyway).

      I like her because she comes across as a genuinely nice person who has her head screwed on properly.

  13. Saywhatwhen says:

    Wife. Girlfriend. “Second Class”? What is she on about?

    • vauvert says:

      That at her age all you are offered are the GF or wife part, which is mostly a support role – so second class.

    • Anne says:

      Yeah. she means flat characters that are defined only by their relationship to someone else. So it’s not “the live of a woman who is a wife,” it’s just “the wife”.

  14. GoodNamesAllTaken says:

    I do feel for women in Hollywood because I think they experience aging in an amplified way, like athletes. Their careers are just youth oriented. I think we all think “that’s not going to happen to me” and then it does, as far as the little lines and mother’s hands, but for many of them, that’s it. We all have to figure out the next chapter, but many of them have to find a new career. It’s fine to say you know that going in, but it still must stink.

  15. Mrs. Darcy says:

    I like Liv but kind of agree with those saying that her lack of acting gravitas is maybe keeping her from quality mature roles as much as the ageing thing. Her breakthrough role was based entirely around her looks, Bertolucci completely fetishized her youthful beauty in Stealing Beauty, she played up to the ingenue thing in her Dad’s videos too. I’m not much older than her so I can sympathize to some extent, but I don’t think supporting roles are beneath her either as I don’t think she’s really given her all to her career up to this point – which is fine, she’s a Mom, she put that first, but she can’t blame it all on ageism in this instance.

    • perplexed says:

      I think her voice might be a bit of a hindrance. Doesn’t she have a bit of a lisp? She looks like a woman, but sounds like a girl.

  16. sauvage says:

    I honestly think that she’s getting more radiant every year, and I really like that she pairs her beauty with a kind heart and insight. I think she will be insanely beautiful in her fourties. Don’t you ever mess with your face, Liv!

    • captain says:

      Yes, exactly! Exquisite. The same type Monica Belucci is, imo. But so lovely and innocent, whilst Belucci is cardinally different.
      And wonderful actress, she just needs a good director. Some of her roles, even when she was very young, are quite deep. I imagine now she could do so much more, because of the life and acting experience.

  17. Ronda says:

    “On valuing her role as mom over her professional career:
    “I didn’t see how I could go away for three months to make a film and be the mother I wanted to be.””

    so how do way more successful actresses do it? it sounds a lot like shade.

    and its also BS, then hire a help, find a man who stays at home. attitudes like hers are really holding women back. children dont need you around every little second of the day and they will profit from see their mom being successful and happy. they wont disappear when you are gone for 90 days.
    i cant 100% fault her though because there is obviously a lot of social pressure to not put your career before your children and we see a lot of high achieving women paying lipservice because they know they can say otherwise.
    Cate Blanchett and Merly Streep the most recognized actresses both have multiple children and they dont say stuff like that.

    • perplexed says:

      I didn’t think she was shading anyone — I just thought for herself she felt it was better to not go away for 3 months to do what she felt was personally right for her. Everyone has a different way of managing life, and this method works better for her.

      I think going away on location for a film is a little different than, say, taking the subway to go to a job that’s 45 minutes away though. A lot of male actors like Michael Douglas went away a lot from home when younger during their careers, and you can tell it affected how their kids in the first marriages turned out.

      Even the top actresses like Michelle Pfeiffer said they’ll only take on a role if it’s really worth it to leave their children for the time being. I don’t find Liv Tyler’s answer particularly weird, odd, or out of line. Meryl Streep gets the best parts, so when she goes away for a role, at least there’s some level of worth in the part she’s taking on to make a certain sacrifice at the family level also. It also probably helps that has a husband willing to take on a different dimension in the household (wasn’t Liv Tyler divorced at some point? That changes things a bit, I’m sure). For someone like Liv Tyler who most likely isn’t getting the parts that Cate Blanchett’s or Meryl Streep get , I can see why she’d say “Forget it. I’m staying at home and taking care of my kids myself. Playing Kate Hudson’s BFF where Kate Hudson is chasing Matthew McConaughey isn’t worth it.” Everyone’s life trajectory is so different.

      Anyway, I think Meryl Streep also said she was only getting parts for witches (or something to that effect) at 40, so even Meryl Streep had some tough going at 40 too. Even the great Meryl Streep had to wait the period out in intervals until better parts came along. During that time, she too was probably spending time with her family like Liv Tyler is now at 38 since she too probably thought it wasn’t worth it to go on location to play Wife X to Great Role for Male Actor Y. And now that her children are fully grown, she can go full force at her career because, well, she’s Meryl Streep (you know, because pretty much all the parts for older women are going to her).

      • Ronda says:

        of course there is a difference in the parts, which is fair considering the vastly different talents. the time though is the same. None of these actresses have a problem spending most of their time away from the children, filming, preparing, promoting, awards season etc. and why would they? men do that too.

        Michelle Pfeiffers career is where exactly? she was a good actress but you cant come back when you take so much time off and make your children a priority, a career does not wait, other people will fill your spot.

        i still think there was a bit of shade. she makes it sound like spending three months away (or more) would be bad for her children while others have no problem doing that. to me it sounds like she is shading that. she is also only mentioning mothers. how often does Matt Damon see his kids? exactly. its just about women daring to make their career the priority and not child caring.
        there are several studies showing that children are better adjusted with a succesful working mother.

      • perplexed says:

        I just feel everybody’s life trajectory is different, and if she feels this is the best way for her to be the kind of mother she’d like to be, then why not take it? She can certainly afford to…

        “there are several studies showing that children are better adjusted with a succesful working moth”

        It’s not as if she’s not working at all though. She’s on the cover of this magazine talking about her career so I figure she must be working at some level — okay, not Cate Blanchett’s level, but it doesn’t sound like she’s unemployed either. She appears to have some kind of career — it’s just a different kind of career than what Meryl Streep has. And maybe she’s not someone who needs to be at the very top anyway. You can still be a career person but not necessarily aspire to be Steve Jobs since it takes a certain personality type and temperament to do that kind of job well. I’m never going to be the CEO of Yahoo like the current woman head of the company, but that doesn’t mean I don’t have ambition either or that I don’t have a career (or aspire to one).

        I still think a Hollywood actress taking time away is a little different than the rest of us taking time away to merely drive a somewhat long distance every day to work. The Hollywood children who turn out maladjusted are usually the ones who had parental figures that were away a lot. If you’re in that PARTICULAR INDUSTRY, I can see why you’d be more reluctant to shoot on location somewhere else. Clearly, the marriages can’t survive the toll if we go by the number of celebrity divorces that happen weekly, so who knows how the kids would turn out either. I don’t have kids, but you asked me if I would be willing to risk them turning out Michael Douglas’s kid or Ryan O’Neal’s daughter, no way would I want to take that risk if I were in Hollywood.

        I really don’t see her commenting on others though. Seems like she feels this is the best choice for her. Her childhood has probably influenced her decision too. She and Drew Barrymore had more unconventional childhoods, and both of them seem to want to take a different approach to what they experienced.

      • perplexed says:

        “of course there is a difference in the parts, which is fair considering the vastly different talents. the time though is the same. None of these actresses have a problem spending most of their time away from the children, filming, preparing, promoting, awards season etc. and why would they”

        Also, with respect to this particular point, what I was trying to say is that I can see why an actress might be willing to take that time away for an EXCELLENT part which would help her progress but not necessarily see the point in taking the time away if the part is kind of ridiculous and won’t help her career in the long term any way. The time spent away is the same, but the outcome is different. Meryl will be able to elevate herself with the parts she gets by winning an Oscar or getting a nomination whereas Liv might be stuck in the same place as she originally was so the sacrifice of time probably isn't worth it in the latter case.

    • sofia says:

      Why should she be like the actresses you mentioned? Maybe she can’t deal with things like them, maybe she didn’t want to hire anyone to help her? She is talking about the kind of mother she wanted to be, her personal goal and that’s not the same for every woman who wants to be a mother, or is it? And her baby even had so many problems after birth, so I understand completely wanting to enjoy her kid as much as possible.
      And that idea of finding a man who stays at home? Is it really something you can always choose?

    • EN says:

      I have some perspective on this. I really wanted to stay home longer with my kids. I could afford to. But the issue is that in the US working women come back to work 3-4 months after birth, no matter what. There is no protection for their jobs and also that is the expectation of everyone.
      If you don’t, you lose your job and then coming back into workforce 2-3 years later in a professional capacity is practically impossible. So, everyone who wants to keep working is forced to keep working.
      So you see how the society and the industry influence our personal choices.

      Whereas in countries with longer maternity leaves women tend to stay home longer, about 1 year, with their kids. And when everyone else is doing it, then it is not a problem because the society adjusts to it.

      Because of those external factors we often feel that we are put in a situation where we have no choice, and it really is hard to deal with it. Having to do something you don’t want to do, or having to sacrifice something when you understand that the sacrifice wouldn’t even have been necessary if the society was more work-life balance friendly.

  18. Kate says:

    It doesn’t help that the parts written for women her age now go to Jennifer Lawrence. Hollywood is a weird and evil place.

    • Mrs. Darcy says:

      Yeah, I really wish they’d stop giving her parts meant for 35-40 years olds, its pretty insulting and sorry no matter how good of an actress she is it just doesn’t work. I keep waiting for the backlash where people just say “Urgh enough already” but they keep nominating her for awards and she keeps taking the parts so I don’t see it happening. I just think when she’s actually 40 she’s going to think “Damn I should’ve played a few more characters my actual age when I had the chance”

  19. Delta Juliet says:

    I like the way she said “I couldn’t be the kind of mom *I want to be*”. She stated it perfectly. No judgment to others, just a statement on how she does things.

    I relate to that totally. I need a second job. I need to make more money. But at this point I feel like the kids come first and we can skate by just a bit longer, so I can be the kind of mom I want to be, the kind my kids need.

  20. EN says:

    I don’t think Liv is that great of an actress, she is average.
    But her looks are so striking.

    There are two actresses – her and Angelina Jolie who have such looks (for me).
    I could watch them on screen doing whatever, and just marveling at them.

  21. Elizabeth says:

    Liv’s career never took off because she’s not that good of an actress. She only got famous for being in her dad’s videos. Sandra Bullock won an Oscar at 45 and Cate Blanchett won one at 44 so there are some good parts for older actresses!

  22. meme says:

    Liv is a terrible actress which is why she doesn’t get offered any roles. Perhaps if all these women stop talking about how awful it is to get a few wrinkles and/or looking their age, they wouldn’t be scrutinized so much. And enough with photoshop.

    • perplexed says:

      I don’t think she’s a great actress either, and I wouldn’t go out of my way to see her in a movie,, but it didn’t seem like she was talking about wrinkles. Sounded like she was talking about 38 being a weird limbo age where you’re not really young enough for the ingenue parts or old enough for the actually interesting parts. She never mentioned anything about being scrutinized looks-wise.

  23. JudyK says:

    Ridiculous to talk about “aging” at the age of 38. I still looked like a kid at 38.

    Can’t really remember anyone who looked like they were aging at 38. Why does everyone have to be so superficial…now teenagers are getting botox and plastic surgery. What’s wrong with this world.

    • Nina says:

      Crazy isn’t it. I think she’s talking about Hollywood and how it treats aging but yes 38 is a baby.

      I’m 48 now and things get different in the late 40s while I didn’t see any signs of age at 38. I know it’ll change even more in the next few years/ decades ( ha) but oh well, part of life. Too bad we, myself included, are superficial. There’s always Botox, but I don’t really like the way it looks.

    • EN says:

      I think it always been that way, especially in entertainment.
      I remember myself in my teens and 20s and I was constantly judged on my looks.
      I remember thinking – I can’t wait to get old so that people (including my family) stop going on about the looks, because it won’t matter anymore.

      For young women it is a never ending competition – who is the prettiest of them all ( because , of course, people think that it is the looks that win you a good husband and success in life). And I knew I was never going to be the prettiest. But nobody cared that I didn’t actually want to participate in the competition.
      I think Hollywood is like that.

    • perplexed says:

      Don’t the young Jenner girls do anti-wrinkle cream commercials? I think we now live in a world where anti-wrinkle cream is being advertised to 17 year olds.

    • Mary-Alice says:

      Really? Me and all my friends significantly changed past 35. Significantly and obviously. It also depends on *kind of skin and genes* but I don’t know one person who didn’t lose majorly in the looking fresh department between 35 and 40. Past 40, without proper procedures, is already strictly down the hill.

      Why is everyone, including the writers, on this blog obssessed with Botox? You do know how many different procedures exist which don’t use needles, right? Botox is quite last season already. From where I stand, to not have professional hydration, cleansing, and peel , if you can afford it, is more irresponsibble than anything else, considering the extreme polution we live in. Doing the best for my skin is taking care of my body’s largest organ and yes,, I definitely prefer to not look as a sagging sock. I am her age too and aside from the face, let’s be honest, the rest gives up quickly too, and I am a former athlete, still exersising a lot. Grey hair showing up at places different than my head was a red signal.

      • Pinetree13 says:

        Yeah coming from someone that is 33 I have noticed major changes in everyone I know once they enter their mid 30′s. That is when the crows lines appear, the skin loses that youthful glow, and you have no hope of ever getting carded. Despite excellent skin care I’ve noticed that I look WAY older than I did even two years ago. I still look pretty I think, but I’m no longer photogenic at all. I used to look great in photos…now my eyes just look small and tired.

  24. Kym says:

    I have never felt that Liv was more than just ok as an actress.
    She seems like a nice person

  25. DarkSparkle says:

    Liv was my 90′s It Girl – She’s a gorgeous woman and passable actress, I always admired the way she just seemed to do her own low-key thing and stay relatively grounded, especially for a celebuspawn.

    I want to punch her face constantly in The Leftovers, so there’s that.

  26. Redd says:

    I think she is aging beautifully, and judging by how she looks on the Leftovers, naturally. I admire that because I don’t think I’d be brave enough to leave my face alone as an actress.

    I’m a Game of Thrones fan and she is always how I pictured Lyanna Stark.

    • Dee Kay says:

      Ooooh, I really like the “fan casting” of Liv Tyler as Lyanna Stark. In GoT, everyone says how incredibly beautiful Lyanna was and Liv Tyler has exactly that look — someone you don’t forget after you’ve seen them, a truly striking woman who would stand out in a crowd.

  27. Ayra. says:

    I’m 18 and I have slightly visible laugh lines. My mother always jokes that I’m just a very smiley person.

  28. laura in LA says:

    Celebitchy, as for aging, at 43, I’ve come to accept the lines, wrinkles and grey hairs that grow around my face as being something that gives me character and shows a life lived…

    (Part of this is seeing other women my age and older, and even men, also with these features – and looking good, too!)

    BUT I would, however, like to get rid of those two frown lines between my eyes that show my resting b*tchface, because they remind too much of all the stress of the past few years. Yet I won’t ever do injectibles, just not my thing…

    So I wonder, does anyone here know if that magical wand called a laser can erase or at least lessen them?

    • Mary-Alice says:

      The laser doesn’t erase, it’s not peeling. Thermage, which is the most popular now and the one I do, provokes the skin to reproduce the amount of collagen it used to produce when you were younger. It re-boosts the collagen production process. Naturally, with the skin becoming more plump again, the wrinkles are slightly filled to fully filled, depending on how deep they were. They are still there but just like when you’re 25, they are not that deep and obvious. It’s expensive and worth every cent, imo. And then deep hydration in a salon, series each year, saves the money for another laser for about 3 years in my case, cleans the skin and helps her stay healthy and strong.

      • laura in LA says:

        Hmm, Thermage…

        That sounds like something I could do, maybe when I can afford it again. I did laser hair removal years ago, and it was a worthwhile expense. (Learn to love the laser, I say.)

        Thanks, Mary-Alice!

  29. Snapdragon808s says:

    She’s ethereally beautiful, but c’mon Cate Blanchett roles/parts?! That ain’t ever gonna happen Liv, p’shaw….
    Sidebar: her new piece Dave Gardner (Beckham’s best friend) is quite yummy!

  30. amilue says:

    I also couldn’t make it past the first episode of “The Leftovers,” @Celebitchy. Meh.

  31. shewolf says:

    Call me crazy but all movie roles are garbage these days. What are the options for men? Quirky funny man, kind of dumb fat guy, evil man and superhero man. Women’s options are sexy woman, fat funny woman, edgy superheroine woman, and old/intelligent woman. Stop watching this shiz and they’ll stop making this shiz, and then the roles will be better.