Did anyone else notice how unflattering the makeup and lighting were to Young's face in this film? In a way, it leant realism to her role, but on the other hand, it was kinda distracting to have her looking so drawn, and older than the character she probably was playing. I kept wondering if it was intentional or just poor old RKO just not providing the best lighting expert and makeup artist! Usually Young is so gorgeously luminous, even in later films.
shareThey intentionally detuned her for the first half of the film, then worked a nice change as she comes out of her shell after Mitchum's arrival at the cabin. The change occurs just before she begins playing the spinet and singing.
shareMaybe the unattractive make up was the 1940s equivalent to gaining/losing a lot of weight or doing extensive martial arts training. A way for an actor to transform themselves for a role from their typical glamorous image.
Even though I recognized Ms. Young's voice, it took me a while to realize she was the same woman I'd seen in Zoo in Budapest, The Bishop's Wife or Shanghai.
Life is never fair, and perhaps it is a good thing for most of us that it is not.
Loretta Young probably knew more about makeup than any other woman in Hollywood at the time. She later had her own line of makeup products, "The Loretta Young Way." I imagine the haggard, worn look of Rachel the slave was very much on purpose.
"The value of an idea has nothing to do with the honesty of the man expressing it."--Oscar Wilde
I've seen this many times - one of my little favorites. I always thought her look was on purpose. She was not only a little worn-looking, but darker complected - as if tanned from working out of doors.
share[deleted]
She was still gorgeous!
"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"