What do you honestly think of Elizabeth Taylor TALENT-wise?

This message has been deleted by an administrator

This message has been deleted by an administrator

I think that she was a very talented actress

Talented, but not a transcendent talent. Very natural and "normal" in her early films. Later became more mannered and quirky--which I happen to enjoy.

She was talented, but her own opinion of her talent was pretty humorous, down-to-earth and not-serious. She knew she lasted so long as a star because of the constant frenzy over the "private" life, not her acting skills. She was more interested in having fun than working on her "craft."

Taylor displayed a remarkable focus and lack of self-consciousness as a child actress, blossomed effortlessly into ingenue roles and then adulthood with a startlingly perfect beauty and ethereal screen presence during the 1950s, peaking in the '60s during her regal vulgarian period (both on screen and off).

But while Elizabeth Taylor could be inconsistent and occasionally shrill on screen, she could also bring a depth and a gravity to her roles; in fact, at her finest, few people could match Taylor's capacity for determined heartbreak... One poster in another thread pointed out that Taylor could do sililoquy better than almost anybody.

Even Kate Hepburn offered the reluctant compliment that Taylor "seems more interested in being a movie star than an actress --- but make no mistake: she is a brilliant actress!" while Joan Crawford remarked in 1966 that Taylor had in recent years "given some of the finest performances I have ever seen."

So Taylor was hit-and-miss. But when she hit it was sometimes a home run.

--

Non-sequiturs are delicious.

Her greatest moments in "Virginia Woolf" were the quiet passages--the screen door scene, for example. The rest was vivid but kind of a stunt--see Elizabeth Taylor fat! (Tho she'd been running that way for years.)

But she didn't even WANT the role until she knew other actresses were so hot for it, and it was yet another opportunity to work w Burton.

I liked her better in "X Y and Zee"---I felt all of it--her crazy stuff and the vulnerability--was most convincing.

She was never less than adequate and professional, tho often quite a bit more--especially in her early pre-Burton days before she picked up a lot of those quirky, amusing mannerisms and vocal ticks.

I'm never one for branding anybody "The greatest" anything--beauty, actress, whatever. It's so subjective. But she had more talent than she was given credit for, and certainly more than she gave herself credit for. Her easy attitude about her work and her looks (until she embarked on her ten-year plastic surgery adventure) were appealing qualities. One of her best performances is very little known--a TV movie in 1978 titled "Return Engagement" where she was actually plausible and poignant as a college professor (one of the few working women she ever played in her long career.) Physically, she is bigger than ever (It was Warner-time) but somehow she makes it work for the character.

She was like Denis said never less than adequate and professional but I'd say there were a lot better actress's. Meryl Streep for one and maybe Vivien Leigh from the old school of actor's. Everyone always seemed more obsessed with her weight and looks in her later films but although bigger she was probably never overweight from a medical point of view. The only performance where she was a genuine 'big' girl was Return Engagement, and like Denis said, she gives a very good performance.