"She was five feet two and had difficult proportions: high waist, large bosom, short arms, no behind, and wide hips. I was not awed by her."
Readers, Sharaff was talking about Elizabeth Taylor. Can you imagine?!
My first thought: If Taylor had "difficult proportions," the rest of us are screwed. It's sad to read a quote like that--I mistakenly assume that Hollywood had more realistic expectations of stars in the 50s and 60s, when a more womanly figure was in fashion.
On the other hand, it's kind of nice to read a designer's candor about the challenges of obtaining Hollywood perfection, even for an hourglass figure like Taylor. Obviously, even female costumers are not immune from the pressures of creating a perfect screen-ready body at any cost.
Sharaff won the Oscar for her designs for Cleopatra in 1963. Despite Sharaff being underwhelmed by Taylor, they must have been on good terms. Sharaff designed the dress Liz wore for her first wedding to Richard Burton.
Sharaff seems to have been known for her bitchy quips. Of working with Faye Dunaway on Mommie Dearest, Sharaff said: "Yes, you may enter Miss Dunaway's dressing room, but first you must throw a raw steak in--to divert her attention."
Sharaff, like Edith Head, had an idiosyncratic sense of style. She wore super heavy eyeliner, a dramatic up-do, and lots of black.
Ha ha Ms Taylor was not a model she was a force of nature. And so she knew how to use what she had, I dare say this description would only have amused her. And how close that description is to my own body, exactly the same except I do have a behind (and a half). no wonder I think I was born to wear vintage. Cinching the waist and show the hips - It's the only thing that works for a body like ours.
ReplyDeleteI can only imagine that working in fashion every day would make one want to wear the most boring, bland "uniform" one could find. How can you personally measure up to your creations? Don't even try! Now, where can I learn to do my hair like that initial photo of Sharaff?
ReplyDeleteStacey, I believe those 60s 'dos were created with false hairpieces known as 'falls', plus a lot of backcombing etc. A modern prop that might help is the hair donut...it sure does look awesome! There must be a tutorial on Youtube :-)
DeleteI've read that Hollywood costume designers found working with Bette Davis challenging as well because of her hips. I recall one of their tricks for taking publicity stills for her was to pose her against statuary, furniture, doorways and so on so that she could lean in and hide 6-8" of her hips.
ReplyDelete26,000 costumes - I wonder how many were basically the same costume with minor variations like a different color or scarf worn a bit differently. I read comments by someone similarly pointing out all Sophia Loren's "flaws". But wow, put all those flaws together and magic happened.
ReplyDeleteExcellent point! Everyone looks better when their clothing fits well, no matter what their size or shape.
DeleteBusty, no behind, plenty of hip....hmmmm, I think that's me! Well, no wonder modern fashions just don't fit. Love this post!
ReplyDeleteWhat a legend, can't decide if she's the sort of person you'd want to be friends with or not? (I feel similarly about Peggy Guggenheim)...probably wonderful in smaller doses!
ReplyDeleteIt also proves what a well-designed, well-tailored, and well-fitted garment can do for anyone's body shape. Liz Taylor always looked amazing and that's because her clothing fit her like a glove and accentuated her positives while drawing the eye away from her "negatives." It truly is a lesson to us all that modern clothing absolutely needs tailoring to fit perfectly.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting! Proving yet again that the body images/types idealized by the media are NEVER easy to achieve. Despite it being ok to not be rail thin, it is just as difficult to attain the very structured, perfect hourglass (which was still sought after on a petite frame and not a more zaftig build) idealized by mid-century fashion as it is to maintain the androgynous, stick figure look that models are sporting now.
ReplyDeleteWow. That's a harsh thing to say, but isn't it reassuring to know that everyone's body, even the one's we hold the highest, have it's quirks, whether positive or negative. As petite as Audrey Hepburn was, she had unusually large feet, and felt very self conscience about it.
ReplyDeleteI guess one way to look at the Elizabeth Taylor comment, is that despite these 'flaws', she still looked and dressed fabulously. Who would have know that she had these 'problems'?? There is clearly hope for us all!
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't say that this comment, coming from this specific person, is body snarking. Whether a body is beautiful or not does not determine whether it is easy to find/create beautiful, flattering clothing for the person. She did speak with a highly professional background when she said that she was not awed. I know musicians who are incapable to enjoy the best musical performance because they are trained to hear variations in rhythm or simply in style we don't hear. That does not mean the performance in itself wasn't amazing. I guess/hope this is a similar situation. But then, I'm german, and thus not trained to sugarcoat... Thank you Gertie for writing on such good topics! I always enjoy reading your posts on body image etc.
ReplyDeleteJulia
Interesting post. Back before streaming movies I loved the extras on DVD s. One Barbara Stanwyck film included a bit about how the costumer designed around Stanwyck' s figure flaws --Was it large thighs or short waist? I forget now. Who Knew?
ReplyDeleteI believe Edith Head worked quite a bit with Barbara Stanwyck, and Stanwyck said she was always grateful to Edith Head because she was able to cut for her figure flaws, which included a droopy bottom. (I might be wrong on that account).
DeleteI do find the misconception that it was fashionable for women in the 1950s to be "curvier" or more full-figured - it was not. Fashion models were very, very thin and studio heads were notorious for monitoring the diets of their female stars. The often quoted "Marilyn Monroe was a size 14" is also misinformation - she was quite small, but happened to have large breasts. She was at most a size 6 by today's standards. And of course, small waists were achieved by strict girdles. They didn't actually have larger hips, their hips were just larger by comparison.
Thanks for letting me geek out here - I'm a historian, and write quite a bit about fashion history, so this is always interesting to me!
Actually, I'd like to disagree with your interpretation of that quote. A full bust followed sharply by a narrow ribcage is challenging to fit. It's hard to get the darts right and get fabric to lay nicely over such dramatic curves! I think that quote really is about the challenges a curvy womanly figure presents to a good fit. It doesn't sound as if she is criticizing Taylor's figure. Those curves certainly look pleasing - at least I like them a lot - but are nevertheless challenging to fit.
ReplyDeleteIt certainly sounds snarky on the surface, but I guess everyone has their own ideas of “perfection."
ReplyDeleteI recall reading that Liz Taylor’s weight fluctuated dramatically during the filming of Cleopatra – I wonder if part of the frustration had to do with the constant changes that would have been necessary when the star kept gaining and losing weight? I know that would make me cranky with a person that I was designing for and might lead to a few choice words!
You say she was known for her "bitchy quips" but maeby it was just her being brutally honest. That quote about Faye Dunaway was hysterical.
ReplyDelete"She was five feet two and had difficult proportions: high waist, large bosom, short arms, no behind, and wide hips. I was not awed by her." That sounds like me! Yay - I'm Elizabeth Taylor!
ReplyDeleteI don't really understand what is wrong with the Elizabeth Taylor quote. She isn't suggesting that Taylor isn't beautiful, or that she's defective in any way. But lets be realistic "high waist, large bosom, short arms, no behind, and wide hips" really translates into "every costume required custom alterations, we had to refit everything, costuming her required more effort then costuming some of the other actresses I worked with".
ReplyDeleteIn other words this has nothing to do with "the challenges of obtaining womanly perfection" in a physical sense and everything to do with the challenges of costuming someone who required a lot of personalized alterations. Elizabeth Taylor looks fabulous in all those photos because Sharaff and other costume designers and seamstresses went out of their way to make sure everything she wore fit her perfectly, despite the fact that things probably didn't fit immediately right off the shelf.
I had the same thought: that "high waist, large bosom and short arms" would require lots of fitting adjustments and is not really a snark on her shape, attractiveness or whathaveyou.
DeleteI suspect the "I was not awed by her" is a different thought--and is a snark on her personality or charisma--rather than a dismissal of her shape as dumpy or flawed.
I worked with Irene Sharraf on the Broadway Show, 'Jerome Robbin's Broadway.' She was there to remake exact costumes from the King and I and West Side Story. Irene was quite a character and was also quite demanding. One of the costumes we made for King and I had over 1,000 handstitched gold bullion patches on it. My fingers would bleed sewing them on but she was not one to give anyone a break. We made leather thimbles so we wouldn't get blood on the costumes. (Fun fact - we had to remake these costumes because they were too heavy for the dancers!) And because gossip is fun, she was not into men -- at all (Sorry late Ms. Sharaff, but I could say alot more if I had the gumption!)
ReplyDeleteWhy? Why does "she was not into men --at all" have anything to do with this conversation? Does her sexual orientation in any way enhance or diminish her talent or abilities?
DeleteI would have been honored to have had the opportunity to work with such an amazingly talented artist. I would not be spreading gossip about her but would instead share experiences that added value to this conversation or increased the knowledge of these readers. Shame on you!
Ana
I guess it just shows that what the screen finds beautiful isnt necessarily about perfect proportions , Audrey Hepburn seemed to be perfect but she actually had some quite strange proportions ,like very large feet, wide nostrils ,even being so very thin, but something about her aura as a whole seemed to shine.
DeleteHi, Gertie
ReplyDeleteDid you know that you don't have a feedburner account set up so followers can follow you by email? I believe that feedburner is google related, so all you have to do is sign in and allow people to follow you. Here is a link: http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/myfeeds Hopefully that will take you to it. It would be like Christmas morning if you set up your blog to be followed by your readers!!! I miss a lot of your posts because I don't really use a blog reader, and just follow the ones I love by email.
Thank you so much
-karrie
ksmith8@emich.edu
I read that Edith Head wore very bland clothing when she did fittings so her clothes wouldn't be a distraction from the look of the costume itself. Plus she was one of those "jolie-laide" people whose style (with the black glasses and severe bob) superseded her looks, similar to Diana Vreeland. (Which is a great way to go, because as you get older, your style outlasts your looks.)
ReplyDeleteNow 26000 costumes! *dizzy*
ReplyDeletewww.thatssewnaija.blogspot.com
I read comments by someone similarly pointing out all Sophia Loren's flaws. But wow, put all those flaws together and magic happened.
ReplyDeleteWhat exactly does it mean when you say, "...when a more womanly figure was in fashion." This sounds a little too much like that tired saying "real women have curves". All women of all body types have womanly figures :)
ReplyDeleteP.S.-I indirectly worked with Dunaway once...wowza, she's tough.
I can tell you, all of that minus the short arms is like a description of my own physique, and having to alter commercial patterns to fit me is the greatest pain in my almost non-existent backside imaginable. It's not that I wouldn't look nice and a perfect hourglass shape in clothing that fits well, but it is the part about making it fit well that will make you want to jump out of the window while pulling your hair out. I can totally relate to the quote.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting about Ms. Sharraf; frankly, I've never heard of her! But I LOVE hearing about such people!
ReplyDeleteAnd, having to work with a figure like E. Taylor's, and to make such proportions look good on film would be the true challenge; what looks good in real life is not always the case on film! That's what is meant by the term "photogenic". Some people look ordinary in life and FABULOUS on film, and some vice versa! It's quite plain that Taylor is wearing a CORSET in that pic of her with Richard Burton! I bet until they did that, she looked like a STUMP in that scene! Large bosom with wide hips and a high waist sure spells "stumpy-looking" to ME, because the heavy bosom covers up the rib cage, and the high waist rises to meet that bosom too closely to be flattering! It's all a matter of creating the illusion of a perfect figure, and that, of course is the true genius behind "costuming"!
The comments on this post make my eyeballs twitch. It really is okay if someone else doesn't find someone else's figure attractive. The world won't implode if one designer decides to make a bitchy comment. Knowing how competitive the industry can be aesthetics wise, nobody should be surprised that catty remarks happen. It is a judgmental industry.
ReplyDeleteThe PC thing is really getting out of hand. Trying to puzzle together a dozen different meanings from a single quote from a woman widely renown not to give a damn, because god forbid someone was rude. Arguing that the word womanly is offensive, taking it entirely out of the context used. You know, we started using the term "womanly" to describe fuller figures so we could avoid making people feel bad about not sporting a 24 inch waist. Now you can't say that because that somehow implies that thin women aren't female? Except that's not true at all because, unless you live under a rock where colloquialisms ne'er reach your ears, you know exactly what is implied when someone uses the word womanly. Full-figured, curvy, plump, and the most dangerous word of all: fat. You just can't win anymore.
I guess Italians would have been better about this particular thing. I read a comment from Claudia Cardinale about being invited to Hollywood, as the beautiful European actress, and then being pestered about all the things she should change about herself, to which she replied, why then had they wanted her there in the first place if they did not like her the way she was? And she left again.
ReplyDeleteAs you can imagine, I loved that response. :-)
At the same time, I totally understand the costumer's frustration at Elisabeth Taylor's body. She looks (and sounds) as close to Barbie as it comes, and Barbie is awfully difficult to sew for! :-)