MovieChat Forums > Georgy Girl (1966) Discussion > Redgrave beautiful!

Redgrave beautiful!

posted 19 years ago by buxtehude99
18 replies | jump to latest

I have never seen this film, but have always read references to Lynn Redgrave's "homely" character. They must have really uglied her up, because I saw her on the street in New York in the mid 1970's. With georgeous red hair and flawless alabaster complexion, she was stunning. She was in a play called "My Fat Friend" at the time, and I saw her giving autographs to giggling teenaged girls, which I thought was very sweet of her. I have seen her on TV, but always felt that that it did not do her justice. Much more beautiful in person.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] joxerthemighty39 19 years ago

I saw the movie, and I thought she was very pretty.

[–] cookiela2001 11 years ago

I saw the movie, and I thought she was very pretty.

It's very weird seeing this film through modern eyes, because the heroine looks quite lovely. I mean, she's not glamorous, but she has beautiful skin and symmetrical features.

I guess back then all you had to do was gain 25 pounds and you were a monster.

.

[–] BillyFisher 17 years ago

Her homely appearance is all part of her character in the film.

The irony is that she actually is quite pretty and attractive - if not a classical beauty - but she has such little confidence in herself that she dresses up to make herself dowdy and unattractive.

- - - - - - - -
www.davidlrattigan.blogspot.com
www.dictionaryofhammer.com

[–] siobhan-rouse 17 years ago

Arf ! She is supposed to be an "ugly duckling" sort of character, but I didn't think she looked that way at all - quite the opposite in fact ! :)
I'm really not convinced by the rumour that her sister Vanessa was the first choice for the role - that would have been even more inappropriate !

[–] Piers1 17 years ago

Lynne Redgrave made the character her own with a kind of ditzy charm. Bizarrely eccentric was possibly not what the role called for.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] whitecrane 16 years ago

They play down her beauty in the movie though, making her look frumpy and plain. Note the black leather coat she's always wearing.... even Alan Bates puts it on making it seem more ambisexual. In real life she is nothing like the character.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rob-949 16 years ago

You should see her in Centennial. Not only does she look terrific, but it's a great part for her and quite different than how you may have seen her elsewhere, plus she goes on for multiple discs on the DVD and ages over the course of them. Quite a performance.

[–] beckeis 16 years ago

And by the way, I think that black leather coat was pretty darn cool.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] whitecrane 14 years ago

And I too, think that black leather coat was 'pretty darn cool'.

[–] namaGemo 12 years ago

I have to say I found her quite plain and nothing to look at, even if people are saying that's how her character was supposed to be. She's just not a looker, although as others have said, the jacket read actually pretty cool.

Now, when Charlotte was on the screen I actually found myself saying wow, so beautiful. Of course her character was supposed to become very ugly when we found out she had no inner beauty.

[–] SimplemindedSociety 12 years ago

I agree(and why she was cast)
As herself, I found her pretty,but not beautiful