MovieChat Forums > Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966) Discussion > Liz Taylor can't help being gorgeous in ...

Liz Taylor can't help being gorgeous in this...

posted 13 years ago by cookiela2001
17 replies | jump to latest

In one sense, it's so strange watching this movie today, when you think how much press and attention it got for "deglamorizing" movie star Elizabeth Taylor.

Obviously they DID go to a lot of effort...but she still looks pretty damned fantastic most of the time! She doesn't even seem terribly overweight, considering the obese proportions she took on later in her life.

There's really no reason the character of Martha shouldn't be a once-beautiful woman, or even a still-beautiful woman (though one who's been through the wringer of alcohol addiction.) It's just so funny to me that she's supposed to be this washed-up harpy, while in fact to modern eyes she looks like a quite desirable cougar type with massive cleavage and a fantastic face! I mean, maybe I'm wrong, but doesn't she?

(PS: I'm not a huge Elizabeth Taylor fan. This is one of the only movies I like her in.)
.

[–] eatmorecoffee 13 years ago

I think this was meant to be non-glamorous for her at that time. I recall her saying she put on weight for it because she was too young to play Martha really, and needed to look older and extra weight was ageing. She was probably too attractive, realistically, but she did a fine job.

[–] rtodd110 11 years ago

I think she is the most off putting woman in this

[–] Edward_de_Vere 11 years ago

Yes, Taylor was somewhat miscast for the part of a dumpy, homely, obese middle-aged woman. Even though she put on some weight for the role, it wasn't enough to make her appearance match the character's unappealing personality or description in Albee's play.

That being said, if we take "Martha" for an attractive (or at least once attractive) woman, that adds an additional dimension to the story of her bitterness and incessant nagging. She probably had dreams in her youth of becoming some rich and powerful man's trophy wife, and what she got instead was the an unambitious, milquetoast intellectual for a husband.

[–] LetThemEatCake01 10 years ago

You're right, I think even the fact that she looked beautiful in this works perfectly because it's like she knows she went beneath her station by marrying George when she could have had somebody better in her eyes.

[–] left-of-center 10 years ago

You're right, I think even the fact that she looked beautiful in this works perfectly because it's like she knows she went beneath her station by marrying George when she could have had somebody better in her eyes.

Totally agree. That added a new dimension to Martha.

Elizabeth was so beautiful that they couldn't fully ugly her up. Besides the bags beneath her eyes (which I'm sure was intentional), I thought she still looked pretty great.

[–] LetThemEatCake01 10 years ago

True, she was just so beautiful, it was impossible to make her look bad.

[–] denis-38 11 years ago

It's on now. The film was shot in sequence, and at the beginning she looks quite pretty, and almost slim. Later--later that night!--she is considerably heavier, but even with the ratty hair and sloppy sweater and QUITE big, she is still a beautiful woman.

By the way, anybody notice that Roseanne took much of her series performance from Liz and this movie?

[–] robertoahhh 10 years ago

I don't find her goodlooking at all in this.

[–] szeoke12 10 years ago

Yeah. Total nasty hosebag comes to mind.

[–] evilbastard9 10 years ago

You're crazy, I would do her!

[–] szeoke12 10 years ago

She played her role too well to be attractive to me. I am biased by the fact that I can't stand her character; I'll admit that. She nailed that role. I was hoping she'd get run down by a car.

I'd throw it into her in many of her other flicks, lol.

[–] ms-trixi 10 years ago

In one of the movies they made about Elizabeth Taylor's life the actress playing her mentions that she is wearing padding for this movie. That could be why she looks thinner in the beginning of the movie. She might of gained weight and used padding too.
I think she is one of the most beautiful women that ever lived and I am a big fan. She really had her looks downplayed in this movie. But I think she looked kind of sexy when she was dancing at the restaurant bar. Which was appropriate because she ends up in bed with Nick soon after.
Elizabeth Taylor is gorgeous in "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof" and many other films. She was also very beautiful and sexy in real life. I remember seeing great pictures of her in a white bathing suit on the covers of my mom's gossip magazines.

[–] Edward_de_Vere 10 years ago

Apparently, one of the reasons Edward Albee was unhappy with the casting was that in spite of the weight gain, Elizabeth Taylor simply wasn't convincing as a dumpy, middle-aged alcoholic housewife - she was too youthful-looking and attractive.

In my opinion, her portrayal of Martha's vile personality more than compensated for not really looking the part.

[–] maxtshea 10 years ago

There was a time in cinematic history when they cast women because they could ACT. Liz Taylor can ACT. This is why I'm against a remake. Nowadays they'd cast some vacuous bikini model as Martha.

[–] A_Friend_of_Sarah_Connor 10 years ago

I saw a stage adaptation of the play and Martha was played by a thin, physically attractive woman and I thought it worked pretty well.

"Some men are coming to kill us. We're gonna kill them first."

[–] Stirchley 9 years ago

it's so strange watching this movie today, when you think how much press and attention it got for "deglamorizing" movie star Elizabeth Taylor.

Obviously they DID go to a lot of effort...but she still looks pretty damned fantastic most of the time! She doesn't even seem terribly overweight, considering the obese proportions she took on later in her life.

I re-watched this movie yesterday and enjoyed it all over again. I was amazed to look up Taylor's age just now and see that she was only 34 in the movie - she looked at least 10 years older (as did Burton, BTW). Taylor was actually only 2 years older than Segal.

In 1966 Taylor might have played an overweight woman quite well, but, to our present-day eyes, she wasn't overweight at all. In fact, when she changed into her second outfit we could see that she still had a small waist. In our land of obesity, she was actually fairly slim.

[–] PrometheusTree64 8 years ago

It's always astounding to me how they will put a young woman in "ugly" aging make-up when she plays older, and then light her "from heaven" (as the saying goes) neutralizing much of the work of the make-up artists.

This was the case with Elizabeth in the later scenes in GIANT and in VIRGINIA WOLFE -- they light her from above, which compliments the actor.

Especially before the age of more sophisitcated prosthetics, better to apply less facial make-up to age the character, but light them "from hell" (from below) -- that will make anybody age 40 years.

Does anybody recall the scene in REBECCA when they're watching home movies and Joan Fontaine says something that ticks off Laurence Olivier, and Olivier then step in front of the projector, illuminated from below?? That's exactly how Olivier would look in 30 years!

--
LBJ's mistress on JFK:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcXeutDmuRA