Rene Zellweger's appearance - Miss Potter (2007) Discussion

[–] Cienna 17 years ago

"I have no idea at all what the real Beatrix Potter looked like"

That's obvious. Let's say she wasn't anyone's idea of an oil painting.

http://www.literarytraveler.com/authors/beatrix_potter.aspx

As a child, Beatrix Potter suffered from many illnesses including rheumatic fever. It left her with a weakened heart and a *bald* spot. She took to wearing hats to cover it up. So she didn't have great head of hair.

You know it amazes me when so-called fans of a certain actor/actress put them down for trying to maintain as much realism to the person that are depicting as they can. Perhaps you are only a fan of glamour?

reply

[–] anika1 17 years ago

Her social-climbing mother wasn't a cliche, she was a reality.

The Dude abides.

reply

[–] dragon9466 17 years ago

I didn't really think Renee looked like herself. Okay, flat out? She didn't look good at all. But if that's how Beatrix looked, then fine. It was realistic.

What I REALLY didn't like were her mannerisms. She always had this pained expression on her face, as though she was about to cry. She kept squinting her eyes and speaking in a very squealing voice. Correct me if I'm wrong, but THAT doesn't seem natural or realistic. It was a pretty fake appearance, if you ask me.

reply

[–] Darkfalz1979 16 years ago

Er, that's how Miss squinty looks. The only time I've ever found her somewhat attractive is in Cindarella Man where she's got little to no makeup. When she tries to look pretty, the results are underwhelming.

reply

[–] littlekaren 16 years ago

Cinderella only has one 'a':)) Doesn't matter what she looks like, which is so true in real life. Matters what she 'acts' like -- and she's a terrif actress except for Down With Love, also with Ewan MacG.

reply

[–] maytloo 16 years ago

I saw this movie recently and I agree about Miss Zellweger's appearance . Her tight facial expressions were distracting at times. It seemed the William Heelis character wasn't developed at all. I know supposedly he and Beatrix knew each other as children, but his appearance at the end seemed kind of rushed. Also, is it just me, or did the bridge Beatrix travelled over look like the one from the Harry Potter movies?

reply

[–] Torian06 17 years ago

Here's another link that has bigger pictures of Helen Beatrix Potter. It includes the one where she's standing by the door of her house, further down on the page, there's a bigger picture of her together with William Heelis as engaged and another one as married couple .
http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~schmid/arber/BPotter_pics.html

They're all in black and white though, and the only one that's in color is a painting of her when she was in her early 70's.

I think Renée managed to look as nearly as she can with the real Beatrix, who may not look glamorous by today’s standards. However, Beatrix has a gracious and refined beauty as revealed in her pictures. It does look like she hasn't got a thick mop of hair. And she looks plump in the pictures, not fat, just pleasantly rounded. Beatrix looked very real, there’s a certain shyness in her smile, nevertheless it is appealing which I think Renee exuded very well in portraying Beatrix.

There are a number of websites about Beatrix Potter and it seems the producers faithfully reproduced her real life story in the movie. Her parents disapprove of her first marriage proposal and they did too with the second, looking down on William as unworthy being just a solicitor; but just like in the first instance, Beatrix asserted her will in defiance of Victorian traditions and married Heelis.

Renée, as far as this poster is concerned, captured Beatrix spunk and spirit that lies beneath the gracious and genteel exterior.

The only gripe I have of this movie is that William Heelis's character was not given enough development, so he came off in the movie as somewhat extraneous in Beatrix's life. The movie could have been more satisfying if this part of her life has been given more ample time and the ending would not then have the feel of being rushed.

I think Miss Potter is an elegant movie with a classic story of one woman's successful attempt to develop her potentials to the fullest and to free herself from the stultifying constraints of society.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Truth has an inscrutable,inexorable way of seeking out and revealing Itself into the Light.

reply

[–] sekhmet622 17 years ago

I agree about her expressions. For the most part it seemed as if she was just smiling a tight smile and squinting her eyes throughout the entire film. I looked at the back of the dvd case and every picture had the same exact expression. When I looked at the front of the case I was just thinking they must have told her 'remember keep the eyes open, open, just a little more...now quick take it while they are open.'

As for her looks I was glad they didnt' try and pretty her up if the real Potter wasn't a looker. Good for her. However I don't think the overly uglied her up either (other then the hair) so it really makes me be amazed about how the right hair and makeup can make someone so beautiful as she looks at award shows.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dottie70438 16 years ago

I thank you so much for the pictures of Miss Potter. I have just seen the movie twice. Such a charming and beautiful story. I am glad she found love again after Norman died. Such a strong woman and she left us Peter Rabbit to hand down for generations.

reply

[–] MajorSplash 16 years ago

Many thanks to those who posted the websites. To those of you critical of the actress and movie; it is just for entertainment purposes; nothing can be created without some fiction. I loved it and loved it and loved it.

reply

[–] bryandanek 17 years ago

I respect people's opinions but I could not disagree more.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] deja-blues 16 years ago

An English woman who spent a lot of time outdoors, in a time before creams and foundations, would probably look very much like Ms. Zellweger did while portraying Beatrix Potter - a ruddy and uneven complexion. Indeed, a proper Victorian woman would never have worn makeup.

Ms. Zellweger isn't afraid to let herself get uglified for a role.

reply

[–] androula 16 years ago

Exactly - I am all for the natural look with ruddy cheeks in faithful portrayal of the outdoorsy Englishwoman with possible rosacea. But the makeup department could have eliminated the glaring foundation line along her jaw. It looked like when a teenager applies makeup for the first time and forgets to blend. I couldn't decide if they were trying to (unsubtly) define Beatrix's jawline out of Renee's face - but whatever the case, it distracted me and could have been subtler.

Apart from that and her painful squinting, I could honestly see the joyful radiance that Mr Warne would have appreciated.

reply

[–] linda303 16 years ago

Well I've had rosacea my whole life and I am sooo happy to see an actress/character with it also! For once, someone in a film who looks like me! I don't wear any makeup and I was so happy to see the natural look appreciated and celebrated. My hunky husband fell in love me partly due to my naturally rosy cheeks and shiny forehead. Up with love, down with makeup.

reply

[–] robofleeds1992 16 years ago

That maybe so, but the similarity lies in the excellence of portrayal of an english character by a texan actress. I find her accent flawless and her mannerisms charming. There's a certain stuffiness it seems to me about english audiences when looking at the work of such as Ms Zellwegger, maybe they think it would have been more appropriate - more "real" to cast an english artiste. Hats off to Renee, say I, she's brilliant as Bridget AND Beatrice. And I'm not having a go at english actresses, I'm english and I've always been proud of Vivienne Leigh for taking Scarlett from under the noses of some hopeful yanks and making such a damn fine job of her.

reply

[–] jamietalon 16 years ago

Why don't you go back there and watch your old, rusty Doctor Zhivago then, Mr. ematersowhatshisname?
Leave those films you hate alone.

reply

[–] bg_a07 16 years ago

A good actress makes a good role her own. Vivien and Renee are good examples.

reply

[–] Adler-99 16 years ago

I liked the movie OK but was disenchanted by RZ's appearance for a totally different reason. I have no problem with Edwardian women appearing with blotchy skin, etc., because "ladies" did not wear makeup then, only actresses and other "loose" women did. No, I was horribly distracted throughout the entire film by RZ's cheeks. My gosh, every time she smiled I expected those huge cheek implants to come bursting out. She didn't used to look like this, but now her huge cheeks cause her eyes to look like slits whenever she smiles. Ugh. Not believable as Beatrix Potter for me at all, unfortunately.

See http://www.cynical-c.com/archives/bloggraphics/Renee-Zellweger.jpg for what I'm talking about. She used to have normal cheeks and eyes.

reply

[–] just_teasin-1 16 years ago

I loved the movie, and the only thing that I was slightly distracted by was indeed, the tight cheeks! I too expected her face to break everytime she smiled too hard! And it did make her eyes look like slits...it wasn't a problem...I just got a little sidetracked by that from time to time...

But I laughed, cried, clapped my hands, and loved the movie.

reply

[–] lbship16 16 years ago

i thought renee gave a great performance...as for looks, i think she actually paid compliment to the real miss potter, who herself was no raving beauty...

see here for yourself:
http://www.heliograph.com/trmgs/trmgs4/beatrix.jpg
http://www.mirefoot.co.uk/images/Beatrix_Potter/beatrix_potter_hill_to p.jpg

i have heard they did a fair amount of research for this movie, so i would say the blotchy skin and boring hair are most likely authentic. as far as the animation-i agree. it was just too cutesy. and honestly, it was meant to make her look imaginative and whimsical, but it really left me thinking that beatrix potter had to be something of a nutjob. especially talking about little rabbits being able to afford her books-seriously? this is a grown woman of 36 years-i'm thinking she was a little detached from reality.

it was the party of a mutual friend-was it? wasn't it? was it? wasn't it? yeahhh...i thought so.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] movie80 16 years ago

I love Renee in BJD 1. I can't praise her enough. She is excellent and perfect. I am a huge fan of the movie and of Bridget Renee.
But other than that, I can't stand her, in movies or not. When she talks she does things with her eyes, chin, and mouth that are very annoying.

reply

[–] lornaross 16 years ago

Renee gets those big cheeks and squinty eyes from her mother. She is Norwegian and a descent of sami origin. She can't help what she looks like, i think she looks fine. As for portraying Beatrix Potter, she said she had padding to make her look bigger and dowdier and i think her cheeks were rouged with blusher.

reply

[–] crawhitham 16 years ago

i heartily agree with the original poster. this film was utterly disappointing, to say the least. the plot line jumped sporadically from one potentially key event to another, leaving no room for build-up, dramatic tension, development or resolution. of course the story is biographical, and arguably a real person's life isn't always all flash and entertainment. but when you string together a clumsy collection of events, begin with an inexcusable cliche on the first line of the script and repeat the same banality in the end for tie-up effect, you have not produced a respectable film. i think the form of this silly flick is a result of either incompetence or high hopes of earning fame through the cunning use of cheap tricks like bright colours, hallmark cliches and dabs of melancholy to simulate dramatic effect.

i wouldn't put the blame on the actors at all. miss potter was simply the victim of incompetent direction. that paired off nicely with a CONTEMPTIBLE script where every scene ended before it had begun. the balcony conversation between millie and beatrix at the potters' christmas party is a representative example of this perpetuated error: after millie's character had barely had time to be introduced, she was granted two lines in this scene to discard everything she had seemed to believe in so strongly just moments before. one day she stands strong for a single woman's happiness in independence, and the next she tramples all over it because her best friend has had a proposal. millie accompanies this with a "cute" self-deprecating confession that she is in truth a lonely woman who consoles her old-maid frustrations with blather about personal freedom. i can only guess that the writers despaired to get to "the good part" (the climax of the story that never came because there was no story to begin with), so they slapped onto the page the quickest, most efficient phrases they had gleaned from hallmark greetings. there was no humanity, no appeal to psychology or honesty in this script whatsoever.

the lovers' dance in beatrix's room at that same party fell through similarly because the conversation was also brief and lacking of any emotional tension or development. everything happened as quickly and stupidly as warne's untimely death. he showed NO signs of illness whatsoever throughout the entire film (truly, even a few subtle suggestions in the background would have sufficed!); then one day...he died! we don't know how, we don't know why, but i'll be damned!

a truly awful production. what on earth possessed the makers of this film?

------------------------------
I *know* Oprah was made in the Pentagon!

reply

[–] nocompassneeded 16 years ago

As many posters have noted on this thread, Zellweger's appearance was certainly ridiculous. For one, that bizarre cringe-like grin that was ceaselessly strapped on her flaming magma of a face for the entire film proved to be a huge distraction, which may ironically turn out to be a good thing given other aspects of this film. After some time I started to wonder if this wasn't supposed to imply some sort of meta-fictional construct. Maybe she was supposed to look like a badly drawn cartoon character whose sole purpose in life was to draw reasonably "cute" cartoon characters in a bid for self-justification and happiness. Regardless of this or other theories, I must say that she has eclipsed the level of obnoxiousness that she displayed in Cold Mountain by a long shot. Somewhere Tim Burton is building a film around her.

reply

[–] Torian06 16 years ago

From the OP: "The lakes district was exquisite."

How nice! At least the OP found one thing that is "exquisite" about the entire movie.

Unlike the two immediately before me. As the cliche goes - "To each his own."
I'm not about to rebutt any of their points. They didn't like the movie and that's it.

But I'm glad there are other people who did.
I am not knowledgeable about filmmaking and I can only have my subjective, personal feeling about Miss Potter. I find so many beautiful elements to admire in it. Of course, there are cliches in it, it's a period film - and their expressions would have lost its freshness by now; but I certainly don't find them meaningless and unreal.

And I'm actually very thankful that Renee, as Beatrix Potter, didn't look like Roxie Hart in the dazzling Chicago movie. That would be awful in the extreme. To look like that glammed up showgirl in this movie would be absolutely ludicrous.

I'm reading Linda Lear's biography of the author: Miss Potter, A Life in Nature, (© 2007) and am more than a third through it; and the more I read about her and her life, the more I appreciate the beauty of Miss Potter, the movie.

Truth has an inscrutable,inexorable way of seeking out and revealing Itself into the Light.

reply

[–] SaintAndy 16 years ago

To the OP and the people who have so readily agreed with him/her: you are such a shallow crowd! I cannot tell you how content i was to see Renee's natural appearance, which absolutely suited the real life character she was playing, but also the times they were living in. Perhaps watching too many Hollywood films has got you accustomed to an unrealistic appearance of actors and actresses, all with perfect skin and looking great.

That is not real life, and it is exactly that sort of depiction, repeated ad nausea in films, magazines, television, and every other available media channel that makes normal women feel so embarrassed about their own appearance, although there's nothing the matter with them.
Anybody can look great after a lengthy make up session with some of the best make up artists, but the truth is we all look less than glamorous when we wake up in the morning.

I like that British films are always a lot more realistic in that respect. Actors in BBC productions look like real people, which doesn't stop them from being great actors, or charming, and I'm so glad when mainstream films take the same path.

As to Renee, she had the courage of looking natural in more than one film, and showed those contemptible Hollywood experts and their followers that the sort of artificial beauty they promote has little to do with true character and talent.

I myself have not been blessed with perfect skin, like some fortunate people, so every morning it takes me some time to put on what i call my "war paint" in order to conform to what society these days terms a presentable appearance. I get compliments for my looks and i always feel as if all my make up is just a form of forcing me to lie about myself.

If only there were more realistic productions, and less media pressure to look like a porcelain doll, perhaps then we could be more truthful to ourselves and to others, and appreciate other people for more than just their apparent beauty!

reply

[–] nocompassneeded 16 years ago

I'll grant you that some people here have tended towards shallow asessments of her looks. However, some of us obviously dislike her apperance because of your very complaint-- it isn't "realistic". I personally feel that it was so obviously contrived and exaggerated as to be distracting. The makeup artists are partially to blame, but Zellweger's choice to act anything but "natural" (ie. that ridiculous expression on her face) is also at fault.

reply

[–] Val-El 16 years ago

you folks should meet some old-time English nannies. Then, perhaps, you could understand Renee's grand success.

reply

[–] dottie70438 16 years ago

I did not think Renee unattractive. She is theway Miss Potter looked and with that mother always on her case she probably had the jitterts until she moved out on her own . She had two loves that we know and probably more. It was sad to lose Norman and she was distressed but she did the best thing she couldd do, starting Peter Rabbit. nShe became wealthy on her own from her books, bought that lovely farm and married the ex owner. A pretty good life and she never gave up her fantasy

reply

[–] jewelpandora 16 years ago

I really loved this movie and Miss Zellwegger was as usual brilliant in the role.

Miss Potter was not an attractive woman and Renee was obviously made up to look dowdy. Renee herself is not that pretty and she does squint a lot but that is Renee and she exudes so much warmth and compassion in every role she plays that i find her totally compelling in any movie and I think she is beautiful!!

reply

[–] MystMoonstruck 16 years ago

What hateful people! Do you pick your friends by their looks? You probably do. Do you judge everyone by appearance? You probably do.

I am one of those with small eyes. When I smile, my eyes disappear, and I've heard enough jokes about them. They aren't funny for me, but that doesn't stop people. If it's so awful, why don't I hear it about Dianne Wiest? She, too, has disappearing eyes when she smiles. She, too, "squints". Yet, I've never heard these attacks on her appearance. Not all of us have those big, wide eyes so treasured by too many filmgoers. And, not all of us have wonderfully even complexions. I doubt that all that many women really do; most of it is artifice. I chose not to go the makeup route, giving the world a face it might approve of more. Few of us are blessed with perfect skin. Mine is clear, but when I'm embarrassed, upset or uncomfortable, my skin takes on that reddish cast, too, and people have been shallow eenough to comment about it. I simply can't bring myself to put on a mask of makeup just to please the world, which likely wouldn't be anyway since I don't look like the faces in magazines and on the screens.

It would be ridiculous to give Beatrix a dewy, radiant look; she's a woman in her 30s who has spent long hours wandering about outdoors, not bothering with a parasol or even a hat to shield her, which would get in the way of sketching and painting. She looks like her pictures! What's wrong with that?!

So, go watch Jessica Alba of the changing hair/skin and other "starlets". Actresses try to bring a character to life. Alba and others like it have a long way to go in learning how to act, especially allowing their appearance to be changed to suit the role.

I'm watching this film right now, and it's brought me to tears with the sweetness of it, somehow getting through my guard. She DID talk about her creations that way, and I find it delightful and charming. I've read about her and have seen a documentary about her, AND I've read reproductions of her letters to her fans, which generally include lovely little sketches.

How sad that people would say there must be something wrong with her mind! Many writers are in touch with their characters. I know how I am about my own and have met and spoken with many other authors, none of them children's writers, yet all of us admitted to conversations with our people/characters. Dr. Seuss, Lewis Carroll and others were in touch with their creations, too. Any writer who doesn't feel this way about his/her writing, I would feel sorry for that person. Elmore Leonard has spoken of how his characters debate with him; one entered as a minor character to be killed, but, according to Leonard, he took over the novel and made it about HIM! So, if Beatrix Potter seems to have mental problems, then so do a lot of authors!

I very likely will watch this film again then again and probably will videotape it.

I LOVE the animated sequences! They remind me of a lovely series that aired some years back, also bringing her works to life. I am 57 years old, and I find this a wonderful, heartwarming, touching story that I shall suggest to others. Just as the fantasy sequences in "Finding Neverland" were delightful, so, too, are these.

I am happy that I am not one of those nasty-natured, cruel-hearted "critics" who must rip apart everything that doesn't fit into their harsh, slick world. I am naming no one because people recognize those slice-and-dicers, some of whom might claim to love films but definitely do not. I'm encountering many of these at Y!A, and I'm grateful that my mind doesn't work like theirs. I've trained it better than that!

One drawback: I definitely do not like the performance of the song over the end credits. I dislike bad singing habits such as dragging the voice and being "breathy". I didn't catch the singer's name in order to avoid her in the future. When I watch next time, I'll hit the MUTE button. They should have used Ewan's version.

~~MystMoonstruck~~

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Cienna 16 years ago

So what if she had red cheeks?

I've read that RZ decided not to use makeup (or very little) as that is not how Beatrix would've looked in the day. To get the rosy cheeked appearance apparently she just slapped them. Ouch!

Like you, I admire her dedication to her craft and the desire for realism.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Lava-Rocks 8 years ago

I have rosy red cheeks, and have had them since I was a kid.
It is an English thing. Too bad for you if you don't like that.
It is like having red hair; either you do, or you don't.

reply

[–] littlekaren 16 years ago

I've seen the second half of the movie 2x but never the whole thing. Trying now to do so. I did wonder about her face, which was so red/rough when contrasted with her neck. I think she did a fine job and the movie was really quite good. Thanks 4 posting the website.

reply