| brunettesrule |
06-06-2016 10:24 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by luke777
(Post 2226858)
Thanks for the large pic! I've always wondered about that photo. Although this would be a candid shot, Raquel Welch swears she never posed nude. It does not look like any set from Bedazzled, where she appears in two scenes as Lillian Lust -- one in a different looking bedroom, and one dancing at a party in a bikini.
Maybe someone else has some input.
|
I've been looking at this all morning, because I have a difficult time believing it, too. The body is a perfect match for how she looked in the movie. So, is the hair. And the face, for the most part. In addition, she is not really posing, but sort of standing around on set. However, I don't believe there were any nude scenes - or obscured ones - in the film (but it's been a while since I saw the movie).
The three things that make me doubtful.
1. There are at least one or two guys watching on the right side. I don't think Welch was ever this free-spirited with nudity where she would have just been walking around like that around guys.
2. The shot is fairly well exposed - back then, it was a lot more difficult to take a picture of someone surreptitiously. Basically, Welch would have known someone took the shot and been okay with it.
3. The shoes don't match. If you take a look at promo shots of Welch for "Bedazzled" she is always wearing the same pair of high-heel-shoes. They have a strap that runs vertically down the front. In every shot where I can see her feet, she is wearing that type of shoe. These shoes are not the same and I can't find any clothes shots where she is wearing these shots.
All that being said - I WANT TO BELIEVE!
|