Thick emulsion films were products of pre-WWII technology. Au contraire, Adox/Efke films were the first thin emulsion films. What we consider retro nowadays was in fact bleeding-edge in the 1950's.
At any rate, regarding the OP's question, I would suggest: get a Rolleiflex or a Hasselblad for the Zeiss lenses, and a traditional grain film with an upswept curve like Plus-X or Tri-X 320TXP. A developer like Rodinal or HC-110 would work well.
What's noticeable here is not grain/sharpness/blah whatever, but tones. Notice that the light is soft and diffused, coming from a window. The hair has some kind of brylcreem, and the skin is slightly oily. That's your highlights, and you want to keep them brilliant. Certain film/dev combinations enhance the highlights (like those I quoted above), others enhance the midtones (e.g. tri-x in xtol). So you want something that gives good highlight contrast.
Films with good highlight contrast also have less details in the shadows, which gives you nice dark shadows like that picture. In lighting your scene, you thus want to make sure that the light ratio between the illuminated side and the shadow side is not too broad, otherwise you will have a completely black background. Experimentation is key.
Interesting... does the "thick vs. thin" subject from today's point of view mean the T-grain films are super-thin? As far as I know one target of emulsion research was to save on silver, for obvious cost reasons.
Regarding the highlights, in the scan the highlights are quite burnt. This can also be an effect of the scanning process.