MovieChat Forums > BUtterfield 8 (1960) Discussion > Liz not happy. . .

Liz not happy. . .

posted 19 years ago by bunny226622
11 replies | jump to latest

I heard (probably off of TCM) that Elizabeth Taylor didn't want to do this part and said something about playing the part of a "tramp" or something like that. She had to do the part to fullfill a contract. Could it be that she didn't understand the complexity of the character? or was she over-identifying with the part as she had a notorious reputation at the time and did not want to be associated with that type of character in a movie?

Oh my god, the turkeys are hitting the ground like sacks of wet cement!

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] stogster 19 years ago

On Larry King Live, she said she still hates the movie, even though she won an Oscar.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jaxla 19 years ago

She may have hated it (with good reason, since MGM was exploiting her reputation as a "scarlet woman") but she is DAMN good in it! Just watched the opening on TCM tonight. Her sultry, langorous discontent as she wakes up in a strange bed, brushes her teeth with scotch, then rips up her "payment" for the night's pleasures and steals a mink....all done without a word of dialogue. Just that stunning face, mirroring discontent, narcissisim, and finally fury. You can't help buy be mesmerized. Imagine any of today's actresses trying to pull it off. They couldn't; they don't have the charisma.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cloudyski 19 years ago

She was born for the role...

Her looks, her style, her face...

She was the perfect Gloria Wanderous.

It was a silly movie. But she made it wonderful. There was some depth. And you couldn't help think deeper about the film because she was in it.

[–] bunny226622 18 years ago

I don't understand why she hates this movie. It seems wrong to perceive the character as just some "tramp". I felt that Gloria Wanderous was more complex than that. I felt she deserved some sympathy. That character probably helped other survivors of child sexual abuse and provided insight about that issue in it's day since there weren't many movies dealing with that at the time. I don't see why she wouldn't be proud of that part.

[–] simplekid77 18 years ago

I can see why she would be trepidatious (is that even close to how you spell that word?) about playing the role, but I think she did something really great with the character through absolutely no conscious planning or intent. Loved It! BTW, I also think that the opening scene is *beep* genious. But I think the musical score really helps to emphasize her quirky/curvations. whatever that means.

[–] lovesick80 18 years ago

Exactly. I think the character of Gloria was much complex than met the eye...though I think I can see why Liz didn't like it. Yes it was a contract obligation, but I think the whole Debbie Reynolds-Eddie Fisher-Elizabeth Taylor triangle had something to do with it as well. Anything to do with that era would've soured anything good for me, if I'd been in her shoes.

But still...I hope she realizes someday that this was a great film, she played a great character and her chemistry with Laurence Harvey just sizzled.

[–] Hoohawnaynay 16 years ago

I think her animosity towards the role actually HELPED her performance. It gave her character some edge and frustration and bitterness that actually made the role even better. She may hate it but it was a good "role in the mud" movie. It is far more subtle and classy than anything they could make now. Too bad she never liked it.

[–] johnstumbris 16 years ago

well the opening scene is also better than the entire remainder of the film, which is just so so. shes great though, whether or not she enjoyed the part