I am amazed when I see the subjective admiration for somebody based on pure attraction; it boggles my mind
This woman recites lines, there is nothing behind the words that she says.
She made it based on her looks and self-confidence.
This message has been deleted by an administrator
shareThis message has been deleted by an administrator
shareThis message has been deleted by an administrator
shareand good for her! I love her, always have.
shareI agree. I have always loved Raquel Welch and think she is an icon of the screen, but my fondness for her has never clouded my knowledge that this incredibly beautiful (and surprisingly funny and self-effacing) woman is in no way an actress. She has tried very hard in several films and plays but the nuances of the craft seem to elude her. I get the feeling that she never had any really solid acting training that taught her to do more than "indicate" the surface emotions. She is a stunner, nevertheless.
shareI saw her in Woman of the Year, after seeing Lauren Bacall in it. She can act, and sing and dance (in fact her singing and dancing were better than Ms Bacall's.)
Is she a versatile actress capable of handling extremely complex roles? No.
But very very few people are. Most of the film and TV stars today could not act their way out of a Shalkespeare plastic bag (and that is one of the requirements to be a truly skilled actor/actress.)
Hey but she is still around and looks as good as ever!
And her books are really well written and give some great advice!
I love her!
People should stop judging Raquel's ability to act based on "can she do Shakespeare" or "can she be Kate Hepburn" which is what the whole "she can't act" argument seems to boil down to. That's just absurd because while yes, she can't do that kind of stuff, what she is capable of doing is projecting a larger than life quality on-screen (it's still surprising that she isn't as tall as you'd think) that simply wasn't used to max advantage during her prime. Lynda Carter was no great thespian either but she was *believable* as Wonder Woman and people consider it a great performance in that you were made to believe a comic book character had come to life. That's the quality Raquel was capable of projecting and if they'd let her be a kick-ass action heroine who didn't need to be bailed out, she would have fared a lot better. Instead, in a film like "Fathom" she isn't allowed to take charge, and ditto in "100 Rifles" or "Hannie Caulder" where she has great moments but it seems like they always had to have some male lead bail her out of trouble when she could have easily done it all by herself.
Raquel also would have been quite capable of doing the kind of light comedy films that Jane Fonda did in the early 60s, but by the time Raquel was in her prime those films were out of favor. So she was a victim of timing in that sense. And while I was not able to see her in Woman Of The Year, I've heard an audio tape of her perfomrance and for the life of me I can't envision Bacall in the part at all. Raquel just on voice and delivery perfectly embodies what the part is described as and that has to take *some* kind of talent. It may not be the kind of talen the most acclaimed thespians have, but talent it is in another way and that's why the "she can't act" argument is one I never take seriously. If Raquel were a body only who couldn't generate additional qualities beyond that, her career would have ended long ago like all other starlets of the 60s who were her contemporaries when she started out.