Welcome To My Book Blog

A place to update and discuss facts surrounding the controversial, tragic death of legendary Hollywood film actress, wife and mother, Natalie Wood who drowned mysteriously Nov. 29, 1981 off Catalina Island. Thank you for visiting.

Sunday, February 20, 2011

A Hauntingly Gorgeous Photo of Natalie Wood


Does anyone know anything about this photo? I love it! I would have loved it for the book cover.
Today is the first I've ever seen it. She's wearing the same earrings as on cover of Goodbye Natalie. This photo appears screened.

78 comments:

  1. All of those pics with the gold hoops, yellow sweater, leather pants were taken as publicity shots for BCTA along with the shots of her in the print mini-dress.

    ReplyDelete
  2. There is a load of photos (like 100's of them) from this era / shoot floating around online. Without a doubt she looked her best then, with this hairstyle. There are a lot of photos from other shoots that in my opinion look terrible, such as the one Suzanne Finstad used for the cover of her book.

    ReplyDelete
  3. That's because you don't like the 50s era hair and makeup. You seem to like only long hair styles but Natalie looked beautiful with shorter styles as well, That's the way it was in the 50's but IMO she looked stunning on the Finstad cover.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi Marti, I have seen this one and others in this series, I have been working with a artist who does pastels and she is doing one of Natalie for me from this series, this was one of the ones in the pickings. I will email the one I picked. Thanks, Pam

    ReplyDelete
  5. xs3 Courtney of the bigoted bunch is that you slamming our Natalie AGAIN? How dare you! Go back to your favorite Priscilla Presley look of this same era and then we will talk about horrendous styles!
    Natalie was GORGEOUS in any era!

    ReplyDelete
  6. I knew it! The second I read that about the Finstad cover I said XS3 from IMDB!

    ReplyDelete
  7. On Finstad's book (taken in '55 or '56) she was age 17 styled way too old. Can't stand that look on her.

    1968-1972, she was perfect.

    I start to notice difference in 1973 when she cuts her hair very short.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Her face looked ravishing on the Finstad cover, flawless. That was the style the women wore at that time. Her face could not have looked more beautiful. That photo was taken in 1956.
    What difference did you notice, are you saying she did not look beautiful anymore because she cut her hair? Her perfection ceased when she cut her hair?

    ReplyDelete
  9. She looked beautiful no matter how she wore her hair.

    ReplyDelete
  10. No, I think the person is referring to the makeup. Natalie toned down the makeup starting in the early 60's. She looked much more beautiful with less of that studio-makeup look. Plus, her hair was much more becoming when she wore it longer and straight. No matter what length, straight hair brought out Natalie's features.

    ReplyDelete
  11. She referring to her hair. She has a thing for long hair.

    Natalie's make-up and hair began to change in 1960. She was doing Splendor in the Grass. BJ Jiras did her makeup on that film. He worked with a lighter hand. Previously, her makeup and hair was done by the Warner's makeup supervisor , Gordon Bau who was very heavy handed with makeup. Hairstyles changed drastically as the 60s approached. She wore a wig for the longer style in Splendor in the Grass, the shorter, chin length was her actual hair length at that time.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I liked her hair in Sex and the Single Girl and This Property is Condemned.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "1968-1972, she was perfect."
    She was perfect from the second she took her first breath and in our eyes, the eyes of her REAL fans she will always remain PERFECT no matter what the style period of her outward appearance may be.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Everyone's makeup and hair was severe in the 50's. It was the style on screen and off! Natalie was gorgeous.
    Don't get me started on her beauty or I assure you xs3, Marti will have to step in here.
    Why not peruse one of your Sarah Palin, Dr. Laura Schlessinger scrapbooks and leave Natalie to her real fans.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Natalie was gorgeous no matter what. As I said in my earlier post of the 60s fashion pic of her she could wear any clothing/hairstyle. She's timeless.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Natalie realized she looked better without all of that makeup and tight hair. That's why she never went back to that overdone look.

    ReplyDelete
  17. During Natalie's leisure time on Splendour family cruises, she went sans make-up, according to Dennis. He was in her company, up close and personal, many times; at her home parites, private screenings, as she might be going out on the town, on party cruises with high-profile guests (many hairstyles through the 7 years), and then on many of the personal cruises she truly relaxed and lounged in comfortable clothes wearing no make-up. Here's what Dennis has always said: Natalie always, always looked beautiful and simply perfect. She was a true beauty, inside and out, no "props" needed.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I don't think she went back to it because to the overdone look because it was very passe. The look of most young women became more natural as the 60s came to be. She did the teased look with the bangs for a while in the early 60s, she followed that with a shoulder length bob with angled bangs. That was her signature look that she kept for years and then let it grow longer. In 1973 she cut it back into the bob, she followed that with a very short haircut. In the next few years, until her death, she wore her hair many different ways, different lengths. In the last years I liked her hair best in From Here To Eternity, shoulder length, casual. free and easy.

    ReplyDelete
  19. It was Kazan's instructions during SITG that Natalie wear very little makeup and her hair was to be straight (with a fall added in the early part of the film). Natalie was very nervous and unsure of what Kazan wanted. When she saw herself on screen, she is said to have liked the way she looked. From that movie on, Natalie's appearance changed for the better.

    She was a petite woman with delicate features...heavy makeup concealed her natural beauty. She always thought she had a double chin, but her chin (from the front) gave her a beautifully shaped face.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I mentioned Natalie's chin because it is one example of how all of that heavy pancake makeup can alter one's appearance (and not for the better). The natural line of Natalie's face was concealed with heavier makeup. The makeup alters the way the light reflects off of the face. That's why I say that her natural beauty comes through with less...you can appreciate the beautful lines of her face.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Natalie was BEAUTIFUL! Know matter how she wore her hair or make-up, I like what Dennis says "She was a true beauty, inside and out, no "props" needed". Thank you Marti for sharing that with us.
    You said it Kevinr, she was a natural beauty.
    Thanks all. Pam

    ReplyDelete
  22. Let's remember that Natalie came from an era where an actress and even actors never stepped out of their front door without looking as though they were ready to go on set.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Her hair was already straight, before she began Splendor in the Grass. She had cut her hair very short in 1959. By the time she did SITG. it had grown to chin length and the tight wave of the 50s was gone.
    She had begun to go lighter on her makeup at that point, even before Jiras worked on her in SITG.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I see a big difference between "All the Fine Young Cannibals" (released in 1960) and SITG (1961). To me, it is like watching a different actress. She is radiant in her look and in her performance.

    ReplyDelete
  25. To me, understanding her beauty regardless of makeup, two of her most beautiful poses were in films.

    1) When she meets Tony Curtis for the first time in Sex and the Single Girl. That stunned look with those big brown eyes literally make me melt.

    2) When she's waiting for Robert Redford during his lunch in This Property Is Condemned. That floral summer dress...'sigh'.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Maybe the difference is you are watching an actress projecting two entirely different characters in two completely different movies. Of course the make up and hair will be different and if the actress is as great as Natalie was you will be caught up in the character and not what number foundation she is wearing.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Yes, I've thought of that. Also consider that (I think) pictures of Natalie, sans make up, are rare, or at least uncommon.

    Also, in terms of the two examples: It was her eyes that had captured the moment. It was also the 'way' she looked...the make up and everything else was secondary!

    ReplyDelete
  28. That's so true. On the Finstad cover, her eyes are what draws you. I plan on sending Marti my suggestion for the cover of her next book if she goes in that direction.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I see xs3 is here. Always giving Natalie a back handed compliment. Just check the IMDB Natalie Wood board for further proof that she is NOT a Natalie Wood fan.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Yes, she is spamming the boards with the same message. Definitely not a fan.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I've noticed so many people post on here with such an authoritive tone about their knowledge on all things Natalie. I'm not arguing any distinct points with anyone but I have read many errors in the reporting. I was just wondering if people would mind telling us honestly, how long they have been a fan of hers and where their vast knowledge comes from.
    I have no problem going first.
    I became a fan of Natalie Wood on November 11, 1962 and since that evening I have read everything I could get my hands on about her and I can not begin to tell you how many times I have seen some of her films and interviews. I also saw her three times in person and I was an acquaintance of one of her closest friends and I was also extremely close to someone who worked with her (off screen) in her pre teen years. I rarely read anything about Robert Wagner unless it is directly related to Natalie as I fully admit, I can not stand the man and it goes much farther than his part in Natalie's demise.
    I fully admit that I do not know every single detail of her 43 brief years on this planet. Why do many of you profess otherwise?

    Marti, Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Anon 9:02

    I'm tempted to delete your post, but instead I will answer it. Please have more respect for the blog members here. They do not have to explain where their vast knowledge of Natalie stems from. Some became fans later, some are fans of the book, GNGS, and the truth they longed for that's in it. I just don't want this blog to be considered a place for a competition on Natalie Wood knowledge. It's for all who admired her, and for those who recognized they were duped by the official explanation of her death. My book is not a Natalie biography. It is an account from an eyewitness of the circumstances surrounding her death, and it is in defense of the lies and misinformation previously out there about her untimely death. I do not profess to know every single thing about Natalie's life although I became an avid fan in 1962 also. I did not collect everything ever written about her. It would have come in handy years later when I became directly involved with her death but it wasn't necessary as my research revolved around someone who spent 7 wonderful years in her company, and who witnessed the situation surrounded her last weekend.

    Those here who post with "authoritive tone" know what they are talking about. I've learned a lot from them. I do not appreciate you insinating they are not my friends.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Well, I believe you have misinterpeted my post. I was not stating anything about your book which I believe 150% nor you. You have always been completely honest in everything you have said here and elsewhere.
    I was referring to people who will argue the fact on which way she curled her eyelashes and they, in truth have no knowledge of which way. You have one person on here, possibly two at most who can bury everyone in their Natalie knowledge but they do not. All I was stating was how absurd it is for people to set each other's teeth on edge over a 1950's look or a 1960's look or the length of her hair in 1956 as opposed to 1969. I also stated very clearly that I do not know everything about her no matter how long I've been a fan.
    Now you may delete my posts as you choose but I said nothing wrong and it is true that people on here have read a book or two, seen a film or two and they automatically become experts.
    It has nothing to do with your book which in my opinion is top notch and I have never kissed butt in my life unlike some on here.

    ReplyDelete
  34. No, she got your number right the first time. You remind me of the person who thinks they know everything about Natalie and the rest of us are just "fans of her death" as the poster so crassly puts it. I don't know if you are the same poster but you are DEFINITELY the one who calls us all butt-kissers on the forum. As usual, you bring nothing to the conversation but rancor. You bring the same message every time you show up here to no avail. This time it was couched in Natalie knowledge. No one needs to give their Natalie credentials to you. If someone just discovered her yesterday and loves and appreciates her talent, then they are just as valid to me as someone who has been scrapbooking her forever. Levels of Natalie worthiness? Don't be ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Anon 12:00 PM
    I am sorry if I misinterpreted anything. Sometimes when the person who was scamming me (who professes to know so many ridiculous things) comments in another post, I usually find him elsewhere, so I was on guard this morning, and also rushing. I re-read your original comment, and you are right, there is nothing wrong with it, but as you've noticed, there is someone else here who has been identified as a shallow Natalie fan (and a bigot and racist if I'm not mistaken), and I see you may have been addressing that person. But, Anon 12:24 makes a good point, too. There are many NEW Nat fans, but they don't go around talking about how she curled her eyelashes as you so adeptly point out is how ridiculous some can get.

    I admire those who know so much more than I do. I do learn from all of your here who share Natalie information that is interesting and unknown. Please don't stop.

    I do like the suggestion to tell when we individually became Nat fans. I was watching Gypsy at a movie theater, when I wanted to know so much more about her.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Marti, you were right the first time about Anon 9:02. That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I understand what 9:02 and 12:00 was trying to say.

    We become very defensive, Marti included, when the troll invades as he did this morning in another thread. Marti deleted that post. Whenever this person appears, trouble follows. Let's all take a deep breath and go back to discussing justice for Natalie.

    ReplyDelete
  38. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I am updated. Sorry for my nerves.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Don't worry about it, Marti.

    ReplyDelete
  41. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  42. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Marti,
    I will ignore the diatribes by the people who do not know the facts and push forward with my reason for posting.
    I was asked by the person who posted and was misinterpreted this AM to claify. If you have received their personal correspondence by now you know why I was asked to post as they are unable to right now. As you can clearly see that person was not referring to you or the bulk of the people who post on here in any way whatsoever but one or two in particular. The person did ask me to be very specific and to sign off as they would, "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer" and you will understand perfectly what they were referring to this morning.
    By the way, I want you to know that I received Kindle for Valentine's Day from your friend and mine and the first two books I ordered was yours and Ann Rule's In The Still of the Night. As I'd already read yours twice in hardback I read Ann's first. Wonderful and engrossing. Now for GNGS's third time around for me.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I, for one, like reading all of the different opinions about what look people like the most. I don't see anything wrong with it. They are just opinions.

    ReplyDelete
  45. If someone misstated something why can't you just correct the person? Why such a cryptic post? I find it distasteful.

    ReplyDelete
  46. I know who the person is that wrote that post and he doesn't need anyone to defend him but he is right. As for crypic and distasteful, your thin skin is showing again. Was he correcting you?
    The last time someone made an honest attempt to correct someone on here people went wild with their assumptions and lies. Maybe people are getting a little bit tired of two faced posters, stalkers, kids and so called "historians" who are here to cause friction only.
    Unless you are one of that small guilty crowd I see no reason for your affront.

    ReplyDelete
  47. That is a silly excuse.

    ReplyDelete
  48. How do we know who he was talking about? If you have something to say than say it. Don't play games with people. People will have more respect for you if you speak your mind honestly.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Before you keep this going, perhaps you should confer with Marti over it. This person is a major Natalie Wood fan and he is also one of Marti's biggest supporters. He was quite upset over the xs3 and the Richard (anonymous) posts and that is that. Are you all now satisified? If not please speak to Marti and I am sure she will clear this up for anyone who has a question concerning this man's dedication to the truth concerning Natalie Wood. How do I know this? I know this because I am his partner and many of you who read this blog were invited to another Internet area by Marti to view this man's private devotion to Natalie and his allegiance to GNGS and to both Marti and Dennis.
    He won't say it but I will. He will bury 99.9 % of you in Natalie Wood history. Actually not only in Natalie history but American and European film history in general. Perhaps you might want to embrace someone like that instead of driving them away.

    ReplyDelete
  50. This is not a contest.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I love this picture of Natalie. She is beautiful.

    ReplyDelete
  52. I agree, she look stunning. This was the mini-skirt era and she wore them well. She also wore what were called "hot pants" at that time. Her body was made for the styles of that era.

    ReplyDelete
  53. I think she was stunning in anything and everything but have you seen "Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice"? The scene in the restaurant when she is walking through the kitchen to speak to the Maitre d' played by Lee Bergere of later "Dynasty" fame is my reference here.
    Natalie in a simple sweater and mini looks like you could drop her into any 2011 contemporary setting and all eyes would be focused on her for her spectacular beauty and cutting edge fashion sense.
    Sign me:
    "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer"

    ReplyDelete
  54. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Oh, yes! She looked as she could be of any era. I love that scene. She looked incredible in BCTA. I think that was, apart from the birth of her kids, the happiest time of her life.

    ReplyDelete
  56. The character of the Maitre d' was named "Emilio" and your point is?
    Sign me:
    Keep your friends close and your enemies closer"

    ReplyDelete
  57. LOL, we were probably all thinking, "what was his name?" I remember him on Dynasty. He was Blake Carrington's butler, Joseph.

    ReplyDelete
  58. His name was Lee Bergere.

    ReplyDelete
  59. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Marti,
    This is the guy Richard who posts and tells everyone that he is innocent and does nothing wrong and wanted to work with you. This post from imdb has been deleted about 6 times and he keeps reposting it. He calls everybody else a stalker and what is he?
    I'm fairly sure the person who posted yesterday and you mistakenly took it the wrong way was referring to him.

    AWE WHAT'S WRONG
    by - halrego on Wed Feb 23 2011 09:38:28
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    What's wrong catwoman and joker don't want Jocko to get any exposure? to late for that besides you two know all about exposure when you both commited the crime of identity theft and exposure which is still immanent. Your actions are transparent and speak volumes. I have gained three members in a day and lots more to come. You can't stop what you can't control and it is eating you alive. Now, go play in your paperdoll world inside of your house of cards.

    movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/jocko

    Thanks goodmmm your an azz but you did me and my group a favor, keep up the good work.

    In the words of your alter ego Camerstair "DELETE IT AND I WILL REPOST."

    ReplyDelete
  61. Anony 2:14

    By you posting what you just did what does that make you? Is this the place for such posting? Didn't Marti say she wanted none of this? Is this the place to air sour grapes? Marti says she has no time for this non-sense.

    ReplyDelete
  62. I just want her to see it and then she can delete it and it is non of your business anyhow.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Oops, didn't see Lee Bergere was already mentioned.

    ReplyDelete
  64. No, it's not MY business, it's the blogs business. Marti says she doesn't care about trash from other sites and does not have time for it, so why drag the trash here. All you're doing is feeding the freaks and adding fuel to the fire we all want to go away.

    ReplyDelete
  65. I just finished reading the posts I missed and I want to answer the response from ANON 10:21PM Feb. 21.
    No, I don't think so. First, when I made the comments about her makeup, I wasn't implying that the "foundation" she wore helped her give a better performance...that is rather foolish. I was implying that Natalie, in the hands of a director like Kazan, was was able to shine in her performance. I see a different actress from that point on. Understand, this is all subjective and only my opinion. Much of Natalie's work as an adult actress up until Splendour I thought was OK. However, from SITG on, I felt Natalie really found her center as an actress.
    It could have been a combination of things, and I don't think it was all due to Kazan. Natalie was maturing as a person and an actress, and Natalie was becoming more independent. I think she was willing to take more chances???

    I see a more daring actress post 1960.

    Again, this is only my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  66. That should read Anon 10:02PM not 10:21PM.

    ReplyDelete
  67. "non-sense" That tells us who 3:36 and 4:13 is.

    ReplyDelete
  68. What are you talking about? My computer is telling me that the post at 4:13 is Kevinr and there is nothing wrong there. He is talking about Natalie and Kazan.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Kevin, I agree to a point. SITG was the film that solidified Natalie's career. IMO, one of the finest performances of her or any career.
    I do think, however, that she did some good work with what she was given. She came of age in Rebel and following that, Jack Warner gave her nothing to work with, nothing that she could use to continue what she began with Rebel. She was the most popular teen actress of that time and he made money off her appeal. That was his main concern with her. After she married Wagner, she turned down many good roles because of the pact they made about being separated. It was not until SITG that she had the chance to show her true gifts as an actress. As a child actress, she was incredible.

    ReplyDelete
  70. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  71. 4:26 is Kevin, not 4:16

    ReplyDelete
  72. To Anon 5:27PM. Is that directed at me? If it is you are wrong. I had nothing to do with either of those posts.

    Anon 5:36PM. I agree 100% that Natalie was great as a child actress. I love her in those films.
    You are right when you say that she was not given much to work with as a young adult...aside from Rebel. Splendor was probably just the thing she was waiting for to come along. Once she got a good role she showed them what she could do--lucky for us.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Talking about Warner not giving Natalie much to work with. I saw "A Cry in the Night" last year on TCM. I had seen it before on tv, as a child. I couldn't believe how cheaply the sets were done on that movie. The production looked like a high school play. Even so, Natalie is wonderful in it.

    To think that she had just been nominated for an Academy Award for Rebel, and he gave her a production like that???

    Natalie was a real trooper.

    I've read that Natalie was put on suspension for refusing to do some of the films Warner wanted her to do. Maybe ACITN was his answer to Natalie's refusal???

    ReplyDelete
  74. Yes, Jack Warner was pissed because could not control her. She kept refusing the jobs he offered and he kept refusing to let her do outside work for other studios even though Warner made more money when he loaned Natalie out than Natalie did. Finally he gave in and the suspension ended and she did Cash McCall for Warners, then All the Fine Young Cannibals at MGM. When she returned to Warner's she had the contract that she wanted at that point. She wanted the right to do outside pictures of her own choosing and she got that.

    A Cry in the Night was a low budget film that Warner placed her in because he knew she had box office clout. He knew he would attract the young audience with her name. She was very good in that film.

    What is ACITN? LOL

    ReplyDelete
  75. ACITN = A Cry in the Night.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Ok, I felt I had to delete a couple of things, hope I didn't step on anyone's toes who doesn't deserve it as it sometimes gets confusing, like yesterday when I deleted a dear friend's post which there was nothing wrong with but I thought it was a message from someone else to someone else...lol, that's pretty cryptic, but I do realize why some people remain cryptic. There truly has been a "cyber problem" and I do hope it ends.

    These things happen with controversial topics, but at this blog, there's really nothing controversial and shouldn't be because we all want the same thing. I appreciate that. Those who want something else, please, you can visit somewhere else.

    There are several people I really learn a lot from as they DO know their Natalie information... I wish I had followed her career the way they had, but I still love learning more and all I can about Natalie. I NEVER want to drive them away and I don't want to allow anyone else to drive them away. It is not pompousness they bring us with their Natalie knowledge -- it's dedication to accuracy with the interesting information that wasn't even captured in the Natalie biographies.

    Kevin, I like how you observed the way Natalie evolved. That's one thing I noticed in her movies, too, on many levels. There are scenes in her movies I see today that I see in a whole different way and that's because the public in general has learned so much more about the craft over the years. I really recognize how Natalie was way ahead of her time with many fascinating scenes I took for granted years ago...or didn't know enough to recognize the acting trends she was actually setting herself.

    I have always, always admired Natalie's "look" in anything she has done. I remember when "From Here To Eternity" TV series aired -- I remember someone saying to me she didn't fit the part. I couldn't believe it and I snapped back, "She IS the part!" It turned into a laugh because that's a pretty vague retort, but what I had meant was, Natalie stole scenes, even in some scenes that were poorly written. She BECAME her characters, and if she was required to speak an ill-written line, it was still this amazing woman you were transfixed by delivering it. She sure deserves her legendary status.

    Anyhow, please disregard the bit of trouble we've had here, and please know that the cryptic posts are from good people really, really helping with a problem.

    Promise: I won't allow this blog to become infected. It's a mission-minded blog and it will stay on course. Thanks, everyone. Marti

    ReplyDelete