Okay...this topic is wearing me out.
It is my opinion (humble, modest, worth exactly what you paid for it) that most people here who are criticizing Judy's looks thru STAR are reacting, more than anything else, to her weight. Even the guy who defends the OP by mentioning how much better she looks in her 60's TV series is semi-skating over the fact that she was roughly 50 pounds lighter by then (and, in my opinion, looked her absolute best, despite being on black-and-white television and 41 years old instead of 32). People always think a thin star looks better than a meatier one. (Notice I didn't say 'regular person,' I said a 'star.' It's the way we expect them all to look, especially women. And this woman in particular had a tiny frame. At 4'11", 10 extra pounds will be noticeable, let alone 50.) I don't defend Judy because of her addiction problems- I defend her because by the mid-50's she was a free agent, free from MGM, and one of the first things she did was indulge in eating all the things the studio forbade her to do for fifteen years. She put on weight. That's all there is to it. And some (or most) of STAR's makeup and costume choices simply didn't cover it up very well. I think that's what's bothering you all. The orange dress and tiara in the dinner party sequence is gross. (Among other things, it's simply too tight.) But the Oscar sequence in the dark blue gown and especially 'Melancholy Baby' in the lavender-and-gray are, I think, quite beautiful. Obviously not the way she looked in 'The Clock,' but beautiful nonetheless.
After STAR, she actually became heavier and was more or less obese by 1958-59. She also had excessive edema (so I've read), which was medically treated going into the 1960's. By the time of 'The Judy Garland Show,' she had slimmed down (by pills or otherwise) to about 100 pounds and now had Bob Mackie and Ray Aghayan designing her TV wardrobe. The results, suffice it to say, were much, much better.
reply
share