MovieChat Forums > Judy Garland Discussion > UGLY duckling? Um, no.

UGLY duckling? Um, no.


I couldn't believe the quote that the casting director or whoever the heck the peanut said was about Judy. He said she was the ugly duckling of MGM studious. Now, I suppose it depends on your view on looks, but I think ugly is a wildly inaccurate stretch of a term -- profoundly overused to describe even the slightest distaste. I mean how often have you said it about someone who probably wasn't THAT awful looking?

I'm just tired of that word in general. But to see someone as radiant and beautiful as Judy Garland considered to be "ugly", is absolutely dispiriting and disheartening. No wonder she battled for so long. I mean, it's absolutely spirit crushing to be put down in general, but to be put down in an industry where looks come above everything else (and you can deny it to the nth degree, but it hasn't changed in the film industry), it must be soul destroying. You never hear it about Marilyn Monroe, who in my humble opinion, was nowhere near as pretty as Garland. Don't get me wrong, they were both attractive women even by today's standards, but there was something extra special about Judy.

reply

This message has been deleted by an administrator

reply

This message has been deleted by an administrator

reply

This message has been deleted by an administrator

reply

This message has been deleted by an administrator

reply

This message has been deleted by an administrator

reply

This message has been deleted by an administrator

reply

Personally, I've always felt JG was...I don't know...average/plain, maybe? I've seen plenty of still shots where she's pretty, but whenever I see her in a film, I find her to be rather unattractive physically.

That's no bearing on her personality, which was very bubbly and infectious, I'm sure, or whether she was a nice/good person. Physically attractive, though; I've never really thought that about her. Her teeth/mouth were inordinately large and she, early on, began to look puffy/bloated at times (I know, pills & alcohol).

reply

I think it depends on what people FOCUS on. And her looks changed a lot.
She was a beautiful baby, a cute kid, and a plain adolescent.
Starting with "Oz", she began to blossom into a lovely - not beautiful -
sweet-faced teenager. Around 1942, at the time of the release
of "Babes on Broadway", her face matured, she slimmed down and went
through, to me, a really beautiful period. I don't think she looked
good in "A Star is Born", as she was badly made up, poorly costumed for
the most part, and her years of pill (and alcohol - yes, ALCOHOL) usage
caught up with her at age 30 or so. I think her worst period is the
mid-to-late 1950s, and even very early '60's. But on her TV series, she
lost all the weight, wore gorgeous gowns, and often looked luminous.

Her strengths: Her incredible eyes, which is what always seems to
save people. In Judy's case, they were large, soulful, haunted and
searching. Her smile, so warm and endearing, with the dimple on the
side. Her cheekbones were lovely, and she possessed great femininity.
She also had terrific legs, no disputing that.

Her weaknesses: She was just too short. Being under five feet isn't
attractive, but this rarely affected her films, as she was carefully
lit and directed, as well as costumed (high heels under her nightgowns,
no doubt). Her nose: Yeah, it sloped too much, although it looked
fine when she wasn't smiling; dipped in too much when she was. Very
noticeable in profile. Finally, her teeth, which also varied,
depending on WHICH set of portable caps she was wearing, or if she
was even wearing them at all. She should've had them permanently capped.

I think, on balance, she could be extremely attractive. And, to me,
she was much technically prettier than both Bette Davis and Barbara
Stanwyck.

To me, she was as beautiful as she needed to be.

reply