Retirement reared its ugly head for Elizabeth as early as 1949. She was briefly engaged to the son of an affluent Miami family, William Pawley. Upon their engagement, Pawley announced that Elizabeth would retire from films once they married. They would live happily ever after in Florida. She was 17 at the time. As she realized that Pawley was not the man she loved, she ducked out of that relationship by accepting a role in the George Steven’s directed “A Place in the Sun”…with the excuse that this would be the role of a lifetime. Pawley soon believed that Elizabeth  had no intention of retiring. Nor did her mother want this. Sarah was on the MGM payroll for many years, as well. After she married Wilding, she immediately got pregnant and immediately bought a house…and was immediately placed on suspicion. She had no money coming in. To compensate for this, she had to work like a dog for years if she wanted to afford her home and children. Clearly, Wilding wasn’t bringing in the big bucks. Elizabeth had no choice but to be bread winner in THAT family so when Todd came along, she finally thought that she could realistically retire. But Todd died and really hadn’t left her a wealthy woman. She had to return to films (again). She worked in order to satisfy her MGM contract, so she could receive a million dollars for Cleopatra. If she had to work for a living, then she might as well demand top dollar. After ‘Cleopatra’, her career was (then) centered around Burton. She wanted him to rise to fame, thus, they started their own string of films. And, in order to live the lifestyle that they were living…The Burtons HAD to work. They spent as much money as they made during the 1960’s and, by then, retirement was out of the question.

     Elizabeth Taylor has been a very supportive wife to all of her husbands, though her stardom had eclipsed their accomplishments each and every time. A trip down memory lane:  Nick Hilton (1950), she was much too young to get a grasp on the concept of marriage as she really only wanted to escape from her protective parents (especially Sarah, her mother). As soon as she realized that she was, indeed, out of her parents jurisdiction…she ended that marriage. Michael Wilding (1952), she had every intention of staying in London after they married and support his thriving career while raising a family. It was MGM who intervened, offering Wilding an MGM contact for the safe return of their precious commodity. Wilding accepted the contract and Elizabeth followed. Mike Todd (1957) it was clearly known that “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof” would be her last studio venture. She planned to retire and dedicate whatever career that she had to Mike and his projects… to Mike’s wishes. Eddie Fisher (1959), she dutifully sat in the front row of all of his Vegas engagements, realizing that the scandal of their affair had all but destroyed his career. She knew that she would ‘draw’ an audience to see Fisher. She, also, insisted that he be given a role in “Butterfield Eight”.  She did the same thing with Richard Burton (1964) with his theatrical performance of “Hamlet”, in the audience night after night. She continued to pick film role after film role with the notion that he would receive an Academy Award…putting herself second and taking a number of film sabbaticals so she could devote her time to support him during his film proects. She repeated this in 1977 with John Warner…knowing her fame would insure senatorial votes. She was the ultimate support for Warner, though quickly cast aside once he won the election. To a lesser degree, she did the same thing with Fortensky (1992), supporting his decision to remain as a construction worker (however brief) after they married. If these husbands ‘did’ spoil her, well…they all had a vested interest as well. Liz, your article on Elizabeth Taylor is superb and it all really boils down to (as you have stated): Elizabeth Taylor lived/lives a pampered life of luxury and privilege as she has never know any other way to live and all of her actions, thoughts and philosophies are realistically based on that premise.

  Baby Snooks, after reviewing many of the histories of celebrities who have gone through addiction and rehab, Whitney Houston seems to be the exception to the rule. The term, “when in Rome, do as the Romans do” more applies to the celebrities who have conquered their addictions and spoke truthfully about them, shying away from being the victim. Elizabeth Taylor included. Most accept their responsibility /accountability for their addictions and are not looking for someone else to blame. Most recently, Mackenzie Phillips. Putting the molestation issue aside (though she claimed to be an active participant), she has never blamed her addiction on anyone except the bad judgment that she continued to make. Discussing circumstances and assigning blame are two different things. Her relapse last year (with the airport incident) was simply stated as fact without endless explanations of cause and fault. She accepted it, rectified it and moved forward. As an Addictions Counselor, I see that this is ‘typical’ of the recovery process. Ms Houston was a bit glib and still wavering in her ability to accept her own responsibility in contributing to her own addiction. This is not necessarily a ‘negative’ thing. It just means that, perhaps, she has a bit more work to do with self-realization…and if she continues to remain on the path to recovery, it is my hope that she will eventually arrive. Recovery is a very private thing and diluting it with countless public explanations defeats the purpose. It is the reason why most celebrities do not do a ‘tell all’ for the press. Some do write books, but I think that it is more cathartic for them than done for publicity reasons. It is a onetime deal, which is encouraged in the process of recovery.  Ms Houston is at the place in her recovery where she is. More will be revealed to her (internally) as time passes the farther away from active addiction that she is.

      Well said Belinda & Mr WOW. In terms of Madonna’s personal life, I think that she (like Elizabeth Taylor) has always believed that she’s never had to explain anything to anyone; that she was accountable only to herself and  to the loved ones in her life. Absent were exaggerated publicity stunts generated for the sole purpose of satisfying her need for staying in the public eye. She has never had to resort to that. If her beliefs were controversial, then so be it. And if Kabbalah (now) brings her some comfort and joy, filling in some of the blanks in her life, then I think that there is nothing wrong with that. But it has been her professional life, especially in the past dozen years or so, that has been a bit stale and nondescript.  In the 1980’s/1990’s, the arc of her career rose progressively. It seemed to have leveled off right around the time of “Evita”. At that time, he had received critical acclaim (professionally) when she lost her squeaky pop-star voice and was able to successfully handle more difficult vocal material. Her career could have risen to phenomenal heights.  But, most likely due to the fact that she had been overlooked by the Academy, she slipped back into her much more familiar ‘dance music’. Don’t get me wrong. I love her dance music but in twenty-five years, there hasn’t been a lot of progression. She career simply did not improve when it was supposed to. Yes, she has reinvented herself ‘physically’ over the years by has done very little in evolving ‘professionally’. After ‘Evita’, it was stated that Madonna was returning to her….roots. Dance music. In other words, there came a point in her career where she could have excelled (as is the case with most of the very talented ones in the industry), but she regressed. Much of her hype now is not so much for the new ground that she has broken, but more for her past controversial reputation. And that is the aspect of her life that troubles me. She embraced the philosophical practices of Kabbalah directly after the ‘Evita” phase of her life. Maybe it was needed then as a cushion to soften the blow of a career that had started to arc (sadly) downward.