Cannes Film Festival 2013

Can we all just stop piling on Lindsay Lohan and 'Liz & Dick

It's a friggin' Lifetime TV movie, remember?

"Liz & Dick"

"Liz & Dick"

Credit: Lifetime

In the weeks before "Liz & Dick" was released, I'll admit I was looking forward to it. It was going to be Lindsay Lohan's comeback! And if not that, the casting was very meta. Lohan's career could hardly be called a mirror image of Taylor's, unless bounced off a cracked, tarnished and very small rear view mirror. Yes, they were both child stars, chased by paparazzi and troubled by bad press, but let's face it -- Liz Taylor was the sex symbol of her generation and a two-time Oscar winner to boot. Lindsay Lohan... well, she was good in "Mean Girls."

Still, when the reviews started pouring I gave up any faint glimmer of hope that this might be La Lohan’s comeback. Critics pounced on "Liz & Dick" with a zest usually reserved for Guy Fieri's New York restaurant. The project was "wildly graceless," a “peculiar, drab, damp little TV movie. It was “so terrible, you’ll need to ice your face when it’s over to ease the pain of wincing for two hours.” Lohan was “fascinating and terrible,” she was “frozen faced,” a “14-year-old boy in drag.”

Of course after all that, I really wanted to see it. It was going to be “Showgirls!” A camp classic! Something to create drinking games around!

So, tonight, like plenty of other people, I watched it.

And my reaction? It wasn’t good, but it wasn’t a sign of the coming apocalypse, either. I’m not saying that because all of the really funny insults have already been written. But, as usually happens, if everyone says a movie is the Best Movie of the Year, you’re pretty sure to be disappointed. And if it’s the worst? You might be, if not pleasantly surprised, a little relieved you don’t have an overwhelming need to bash your head against the nearest wall until you sustain enough damage to forget what you’ve seen.

One thought I couldn’t shake watching the movie was… did anyone remember this was on Lifetime? I mean, Lifetime? Not HBO, not even AMC or TNT. Lifetime. We knew it was going to be a little (or a lot) tawdry, and there would be few pauses for subtlety, emotion or good acting. This biopic was going to hurtle through plot points like a cheap crime novel, spitting them out like rotten teeth.

And while I can think of countless reasons for the filmmakers to cast Lohan, I’m not quite sure why she wanted (and allegedly fought doggedly for) the role. She could only hope to fail. Taylor was a legend. Heck, they’re still selling White Diamonds with the deceased star in the ads. Even in death, she casts a mighty shadow. And, as anyone can tell you, her on-again, off-again relationship with Richard Burton was a love affair for the ages.

But why? I'm not being glib. While "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" should cement Burton and Taylor in our consciousness forever, their relationship wasn't exactly happy ever after. As even this biopic suggests, these two messed-up narcissists gave into impulse to be with one another, not caring how it affected their families, their jobs ("Cleopatra" went $42 million over budget -- and this was in 1963) or anyone but themselves. They spent money stupidly, which forced them to take crappy acting gigs which only served to tarnish their careers. Then, there was the fighting, the drinking (a lot of drinking) and the fact that these two seemed to need constant validation. Under different circumstances, they would have been the couple friends you knew in college, got stuck driving home after parties, and who'd ruin a night out by getting into a fight, breaking up, then having make-up sex in the back of your car. Lots of drama, certainly, but is it really a love affair that must be held in such high esteem? If anything, it's a perfect fit for Lifetime -- tawdry, sad, a little campy. Just the thing for stunt casting.

Yes, Lohan made a lot of mistakes in portraying Taylor. Why she vamped through Taylor's "pudgy" years without even bothering to put on some padding (which is sorely missing in the badly re-created scenes of "Woolf?") boggles the mind. Just to make Lohan -- a freckle-faced, fair-haired girl -- pass for Taylor, the filmmakers had to have her slathered with foundation (not to mention a series of bad wigs), turning the whole endeavor into cheap costume. And then there's Lohan herself. The plastic surgery, the trout pout, the fact that very few women in the world could ever convincingly pass for Taylor and she just isn't one of them -- Lohan knowingly walked into a car wreck, and I can't help but feel sorry for her.

She stretched, and she failed. Is she screamingly bad? No. She muddles through, and given the material, given the venue, given her moderate talent, I'm not sure anyone could have expected much more. Yes, her on-screen glass smashing tantrums and her ridiculous suicide attempt play as if she's a pouting teenager, but I'm not sure if the reality was any different -- this was hardly the great romance people seem to want it to be. Lohan's voice lacks Taylor's lilt, she is often wooden, but there are moments that show real emotion and maturity. They're few and far between, granted, but did I need to ice my face to recover from two hours of wincing? No.

In the end, Lohan is yet again the tragic figure, the butt of the joke, the washed-up child star who just won't go away. Given how the critics tore her apart, I'm not sure if the (I'm guessing high) ratings for this TV movie will help her turn her career around. But even though she's someone who's gotten a lot of second (and third, and possibly more) chances, I would hope this wasn't her final strike. Taylor had more natural gifts, granted, but she got away with plenty of stinkers (including, yes, "Cleopatra") and a thump on the knuckles from the Pope for "erotic vagrancy" with Burton. I'd like to think, no matter what she thought of the subpar biopic, she'd still want us all to shaddup and give the kid a bleepin' break.

Did you see "Liz & Dick"?


 

Liane-bonin-starr-sm
Liane Bonin Starr is an author, screenwriter and former writer for EW.com. Her byline has appeared in the Los Angeles Times, Variety and a lot of other places. Her last book was called "a scandalously catty, guilty pleasure" by Jane magazine. Expect the same from Starr Raving.
Trending Now on HitFix Boards

Comments

  • Option 1

    Comment instantly as a guest Guest
  • Option 2

    Connect
  • Option 3

    Login or create a HitFix account Login Signup
  • Default-avatar

    guest

    I watched the movie twice. I loved the movie. Lindsay Lohan was fantastic. It is a Lifetime movie that should have been 4 hours instead of two. The jewelry and wardrobe were great. I loved the live twitter to Lindsay. Grant was atrocious. His hairpiece was ridiculous and distracting.

    November 26, 2012 at 3:45AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Diane

    For someone who hasn't had a lead role in 5 years, who had a 20 day shoot, i think she did really well. could it be better, sure, but it wasn't close to what the reviews were saying. the movie itself could have been better. The lack of padding wasn't lohan's fault, the writing wasn't lohan's fault, the editing wasn't lohan's fault. i disagree with the wigs, i think they did a great job making her look like liz throughout the movie and while there were times she was close to taylor's lilt, there were other times she was off the mark but you wonder if she had more time for the shoot and it was done over 3 months instead of less than one, how much better the lilt might have been and maybe even how much better the performance could be. i think if the ratings are good, than it's a solid step on that ladder for a comeback and she still has another movie coming out and hopefully many more after to work on her acting.

    November 26, 2012 at 3:58AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Diane

    For someone who hasn't had a lead role in 5 years, who had a 20 day shoot, i think she did really well. could it be better, sure, but it wasn't close to what the reviews were saying. the movie itself could have been better. The lack of padding wasn't lohan's fault, the writing wasn't lohan's fault, the editing wasn't lohan's fault. i disagree with the wigs, i think they did a great job making her look like liz throughout the movie and while there were times she was close to taylor's lilt, there were other times she was off the mark but you wonder if she had more time for the shoot and it was done over 3 months instead of less than one, how much better the lilt might have been and maybe even how much better the performance could be. i think if the ratings are good, than it's a solid step on that ladder for a comeback and she still has another movie coming out and hopefully many more after to work on her acting.

    November 26, 2012 at 3:58AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Ange It was pretty much a lifetime movie, and Lindsay did well with the script and direction given...myself I think it could have been more romantic and ideallic just to show the fun they probably "Liz and Richard" did have between fights and played that down just for the sake of entertainment. I mean Liz was married like 7-8 times. A nice slice of life would have flowed better, just for star quality.

      November 26, 2012 at 5:13AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Christine

    Still can't stop laughing.

    November 26, 2012 at 5:18AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Ben

    Lianne, I dont know about this. The fact is we keep hearing for years that Lohan is so talented and if she could just get clean again and make that comeback. From what i saw of this movie showed her to be a very unsophisticated and flat actress, She lacks technique, she has a limited range, she often rushes her lines, she appeared to not have done any character study whatsoever. I feel like if lohan respected her craft she would have made an attempt to transform at least her voice and posture. She was thourougly contemporary and very lindsay lohan through the whole movie. To me its seems she was more in love with idea of the icon and glamerous movie star Taylor than the process of acting i.e finding the human being behind the icon. That said there is no doubt she is the butt of everyones jokes and some of those reviews were quite cruel. But the question is why doesnt she go away and lay low for a while and work at becoming a better actress? All in all i dont buy her as being sincere about wanting to be an actor, it appears like she is in it for the glamour and not willing to do the work. I reminded of Keira Knightley who when she broke through i would considered a lot less talented than Lohan and yet today she is by far the more accomplished actress because she has studied her craft. And Lianne, James Francos breakthrough came in a lifetime production so Lifetime can offer opportunities for people who work hard. I hope lindsay focuses and gets down to work because the only thing that will change people opinions at this stage is if she really starts pulling her weight and shows she is serious about something. I wish the best for her but i think she needs to grow up and take responsibility.

    November 26, 2012 at 5:24AM EST Reply to Comment
    • I wish she would lay low for a while, and definitely take some acting classes. This was not a good performance, though I wonder if she was trying not to imitate Taylor -- I honestly think playing this part was a no win for her. If she had gotten Taylor's voice down pat, critics would've called it imitation. I'm not sure she'll ever make a true comeback, but I think I'd rather take a wait-and-see than declare this as the final verdict on her abilities. Of course, maybe the upside of getting eviscerated by the critics for this will be that she will do what you said -- focus and get down to work.

      November 26, 2012 at 5:38AM EST
  • Hitfix_talkback_profile

    Ricardo

    "(...) she'd still want us all to shaddup and give the kid a bleepin' break."

    Sure, give her another break. Most people in life don't get a second chance. She's had a million and her moderate talent doesn't justify that. Why don't we just let this one go?

    November 26, 2012 at 5:50AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Jayne

    Give the kid a break? Are you serious? The "kid" spits in the face of every opportunity she's gotten. This "kid" has had more opportunities in her few years than most do in a lifetime and she squandered every one of them. I have no sympathy for Ms Lohan and as long as she continues to set herself up, I'll enjoy watching her get knocked down. This is a "kid" that needs to learn some humility and some shame for her behavior.

    November 26, 2012 at 6:16AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Marquan Did she run over your dog or something? Seriously, you will enjoy seeing her get knocked down? Dislike the movie all you want, and feel free to say she's a bad actress. But unless you know her, you might try to reserve judgement about her as a person.

      November 26, 2012 at 6:52AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Queezle Jayne's pretty much right though. She's gotten a lot more opportunities than she's entitled to and still she's making a fool of herself. It is ridiculous that she's still being victimized.

      "But unless you know her, you might try to reserve judgement about her as a person."

      What kind of an apologist statement is that to make? Just because you don't know an actress personally you should refrain from judging her as a person? Even if Jayne gets a little extreme in her hatred she's justified and entitled to it.

      November 26, 2012 at 1:39PM EST
    • Madmen_icon_talkback_profile

      LJA I'm with Jayne 100 percent. No more breaks. Emma Stone is having the career Lindsay Lohan flippantly threw away.

      November 26, 2012 at 2:00PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Arrow I keep reading about all the supposed opportunities she got after her troubles, but what are those opportunities exactly? She used to be one of the top stars of her generation and now she's fighting to get the lead in a Lifetime biopic.

      Stop pretending she's not paying for her troubles. If people didn't love hating her, nobody would even hear about her supposed "second chances".

      November 26, 2012 at 2:56PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    W

    I decided to DVR this one and watch it later this week. I did turn on about 5 minutes of it,though, and honsestly I expected much worse. Like Liane said,it's Lifetime. I mean we've all made fun of Lifetime movies,right? If this were HBO the expectations would have been much higher. That being said,the little that I saw was passable. Maybe when I watch the thing in it's entirety I'll feel differently,maybe my face will go numb and my eyes bleed,but the sampling says probably not.

    November 26, 2012 at 10:46AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    scorpion

    I thought it was a pretty decent film and Lindsay passed for Liz fairly well, I don't get why people hated it so much, it's not a great film but it's not a terrible one either, at the very least it's WAY better then most of the garbage that Lifetime usually airs. I'm rolling my eyes at all the other celebs making fun of the film, regardless of intent they still watched the film and contributed to the ratings so the jokes on them.

    November 26, 2012 at 1:42PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Merry

    There are some people in this life, that as much as LMN, HBO or Hollywood want to make movies out of, cannot be done. Elizabeth Taylor was one of those people. She was more than a legend. She was incredibly beautiful, resilient, tenacious, enormously talented.. unique... one of kind. As much as I love movies and have seen thousands, I just wish they would let some things rest in peace and respect the enormity of what was. No offense to Lindsey Lohan and she did a fair job, no one can even attempt to hold a candle to the real Elizabeth Taylor.

    November 28, 2012 at 10:20AM EST Reply to Comment

Get Instant Alerts on Breaking News

Latest Posts
More Posts
Recent Activity on Facebook
Most Popular on Facebook
Top Stories From Around the Web