i see this quoted in the synopsis - rhoda/valerie harper? an, "overweight, ugly duckling"? by whose reckoning? she always was and still is gorgeous! i used to watch this show when i was a little girl (i was 5 when the series started, but, being in the uk, we got it a little bit later), an i wanted to grow up to be rhoda! but i grew into the overweight, ugly duckling, i think.....(!)
shareAre you kidding? I have to read the synopsis again. If Rhoda was overweight, anorexia has reached a new definition. Next, Rhoda was GORGEOUS! In fact, it was well known and accepted in the late 70's and 80's that Valerie Harper was a beauty.
Lastly, I always thought Valerie Harper was much prettier than MTM.
Jack's not dead! Jack would never die without telling me, first!
When the writers first created the character of Rhoda for MTMS, they wanted her to be the opposite of pretty, slender Mary for comedic purposes - so they wrote her as 'fat, unattractive' Rhoda. However, they cast Harper for the role once she auditioned (perfect timing, perfect chemistry, etc) even though she didn't fit the physical character.
In the first episodes of MTMS, we see Harper dressed in over-sized baggy clothing and sweatshirts - to give the impression that she is 'big' (to me, it's unconvincing). They also left her hair unkempt and little make-up - again, a failure to make her 'unattractive' since she was so beautiful.
So then the story changed (as did her wardrobe, hair and makeup) as the show progressed, they made her look more like herself - and she referred to herself as 'fat and an ugly duckling' while growing up and in high school. She did this for the rest of the run in MTMS and then again on RHODA - she referred to her unhappy fat days in high school.
During the summer break of 1977, Harper and Kavner both accomplished a dramatic weight loss - Harper was skeletal looking (as you can see in the opening credits, as well). Some of the opening credits had to be re-shot, because the original ones made Harper look too gaunt and scary from the lighting and cameras used. They even did a show on it when Ida returned - she mentioned how thin her daughter looked and asked if it was because of her divorce. The show was supposed to be in response to all the critical attention she was receiving in the media.
I think after that episode ran, they never mentioned her weight again.
I prefer fantasy over reality TV - like Fox News. - B.Streisand
Thank you, pvd295 your replies on this board are filled with a wealth of information; I love reading them.
I do remember the opening episode of Rhoda, season 3. Both Valerie and Julie had lost a lot of weight, and Valerie did look way too thin, and Julie was almost too thin, as well.
Even by late 1970's standards, they were both so thin.
Jack's not dead! Jack would never die without telling me, first!
70's standard are no different than today. The 1960's is when it was different. Harper was indeed overweight or should would not had gone on Weight Watchers to lose 20 lbs for her own sake.
What is this denial that she was overweight? she was 140 lbs. Is a slight to Harper to admit it? She admits it. And they never said "ugly" once on the entire series.
[deleted]
what is this word "fat" everybody is using? It's not "fat" but OVERWEIGHT. Why do ppl use these extreme words.
If Harper was not overweight, she would not had gone on Weight Watchers to lose 20 lbs, and would have looked too thin after she lost the weight, but she didn't. She look just right after losing 20 lbs on the MTM 3rd season. Simple arithmetic would tell people this. (also, if Cher is 5' 8" and used to weigh 105 lbs, why doesn't she get criticized, when she was skinnier than Harper? I realize bone-structure is a factor, however)
It sounds like people don't want Harper to be in-shape and weighing what she should, for some odd reason.
Marilyn Monroe was a different story; she was gauged by 60's standards when women did have that fuller look, along with her bone-structure. SIZE is more telling than weight; it depends on what size MM was wearing. If she was a size 2, then I would say she was too thin. If she was a size 8, that's not too thin. We never saw her in a bikini at 116 lbs to really know.
[deleted]
-I don't care about links. and I just wrote a 3 paragraph reply.
IN GENERAL, can you, personally, ever write any more than a 4 word reply, or more than 2 sentences at one time?
Pass
[deleted]
70's standard are no different than today.
Standards for healthy weight and beauty are constantly changing. It used to be attractive for women to carry a little extra zoftig, now it's anathema to be anything other than a stick with breasts. If you don't believe that, google photos of famous women who were considered the beauties of their day over the past century or so, and you can see for yourself. Even a legendary goddess like Marilyn Monroe would be considered unattractively overweight if she were held rigidly to current standards.
share' Seriously?'
---------------------------
Yes, my Barbra Streisand-obsessed man, people bitched about the trend being too thin then, and they bitch about it now. Doesn't sound "different" to me. Nobody is speaking about the Dept of Health rulings, but the trend. I love when cock-sure people who were in diapers tell me what things were like then,when I was actually living & breathing it.
And Ms Harper, admittedly, was overweight (contrary to your analysis)as I justified using common sense. Is that what you're really angry about? I never said she didn't look acceptable or unhealthy
I love when cock-sure people who were in diapers tell me what things were like then,when I was actually living & breathing it.
[deleted]
Harper too, is 5'6". As another poster mentioned, she was 140 when she went to Weight Watchers to lose weight (I honestly don't remember reading that Harper was 140 pounds before going to Weight Watchers.). She lost 30 pounds, not 20, which would make her 110 pounds, which is emaciated in person, and even thin for the cameras.
I agree with you about Marilyn Monroe. And Inherently Yours has no idea what they are talking about. "Thin" was DEFINITELY the trend in the 70's, and what is considered thin in the 70's and thin today, are two entirely different concepts.
Jack's not dead! Jack would never die without telling me, first!
I know that. Cher has always been 5' 7 1.2". I didn't say she was 5' 8". Why did you delete your post?
And if Harper was never overweight (not obese), then she lost 20 lbs in 1973 just for kicks. That make sense! If she was not overweight, then should would had looked too skinny after losing that weight. Do you comprehend? I was there to recall what happened. Where you?
[deleted]
LOL, you said Cher was 5'8", and she's not 5'7.5" either. Cher said in the 70's, she was 5'6". (also, if Cher is 5' 8" and used to weigh 105 lbs, why doesn't she get criticized, when she was skinnier than Harper? I realize bone-structure is a factor, however)
She did, ALL THE TIME! Like you said, where were you?
Where was I? I was a kid in Kindergarten and grammar school when Rhoda aired 1970-1975.
Harper was 5'6" (or is) and weighed 155 pounds when she played Rhoda, when MTM aired in September of 1970. She lost 30 (not 20) pounds when she went on Weight Watchers. She got down to 119 pounds when she did Rhoda but preferred to stay at 126. I happened to think Harper never looked overweight.
You say you don't do links but to hell with you,
here are my sources (as opposed to your "I was there" comment.)
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1129&dat=19780311&id=4IBIAAAAIBAJ&sjid=MW0DAAAAIBAJ&pg=2735,3157202&hl=en
http://www.goretro.com/2013/03/the-valerie-harper-blog-thon-how-rhoda.html
Like another poster said, you're hostile and nasty. I have NEVER read a post of your's that wasn't riddled with insults, and derogatory comments.
Why did you delete your post?
You can't figure that one out? Because I didn't want to engage in another mud slinging match with you, which you no doubt instigate almost every time you post on IMDB.
And yet, here I am slinging mud!
Time to block, AGAIN!
Jack's not dead! Jack would never die without telling me, first!