Man, what an interesting thread (and one that has lasted for three-and-a-half years, now!) Honestly, I had never given much thought to Garland's appearance in this film, before coming across this discussion.
But what the heck, I'll add my own two cents here. Now that I think of it, she didn't appear at her best throughout much of this picture. So, what was the problem? I really don't think it was her weight. After all, in "Summer Stock" Judy was heavier than in about ANY of her other MGM pictures, and I thought she looked absolutely gorgeous in that film... In this film, it's only in the "Born in a Trunk" sequence that I thought she looked very heavy; I believe this was filmed near the end of the shooting schedule, when her weight was on an upswing again.
So, if her weight wasn't the major factor, what was... It comes down to three things: cinematography, hair/make-up, and wardrobe. I think the new cinemascope lenses did cause some distortion, which didn't do any of the actors any favours. That was a problem right off the bat.
Also, her make-up didn't seem to be very flattering in this picture. Plus, the extremely short hair-styles that were popular in the 1950's didn't suit Judy's face at all, in my opinion. I think that more care with make-up/hair would have made a big difference.
Finally, a number of the costumes were simply terrible. Oh, she had some fine outfits---off the top of my head, she looked great in the opening scene tux, the Oscar gown, and the Melancholy Baby dress. (Heck, even the red outfit she was wearing when she was first signed to the studio was fun.) But these are off-set by some truly terrible choices, like the dress she was wearing at her party. (And her main outfit for Born in a Trunk didn't do her any favours either; neither did the rather orange-hued make-up.) A LOT more care should have been taken with her costuming; it makes a big difference. For instance, while she was quite thin in "Easter Parade," she was given one absolutely dreadful dress after another to wear in that picture; she was not at all at her best there either. While in contrast, she was heavier in "Summer Stock," but she looked stunning in her "Friendly Star" dress, with the star/snowflake designs....
All right, enough of this! I do enjoy this film, and have seen it numerous times over the years. Still hoping they'll find more of the footage; who knows?
reply
share
Doghouse-6
16 years ago
Well, I've got two cents as well, so I'll throw in, too.
There's a lot in what you say, october, and I'd add that, from the first shooting day to the last, Judy was on this picture for something like nine months. Given the constant fluctuations of both her weight and her health, she was bound to have some "bad-hair-face-body days," especially since they had to catch her at those times when she was ready to perform - which likely didn't always coincide with when she was looking her best.
I agree about some of the costumes, too, particularly that God-Awful, pink "screen-test" one. In the shot just after the dissolve, when Norman has finished re-doing her makeup, that's - for those few seconds - just about the best she looked in the entire film; then he takes the makeup towel off, and that hideous dress ruins the effect. She looked better in the towel!
Have you ever seen the B side supplements on the DVD - specifically, the alternate "The Man That Got Away" takes (the so-called "beige dress" versions)? I think she looks particularly good in the last one (shot mostly in medium close-up). I suppose this shouldn't be surprising, inasmuch as they were done fairly early in production. I actually prefer this version to the one finally used (sacrilege?) in every way: photography, staging, lighting, appearance and performance (I know; same audio track...but her "visual" interpretation is somewhat different, too).
Poe! You are...avenged!
reply
share
tpcorless
16 years ago
Wow, what a thread.
I don't think Judy looks terrible in this movie, but there were points in the film you could see the effects of her personal life seeping into the finished product and on her face/body. I also attribute a lot of it to the fact that she had shorter hair in this movie; I think with longer hair it made her look more feminine and softer.
But it takes nothing away from the performance.
reply
share
octobercountry-2
15 years ago
I think Judy looked better overall in the "beige" version of "The Man that Got Away." She was noticeably thinner in that take than she was in the final version, and I think her hairstyle was more flattering as well. I liked her rendition of the song better also. While of course she was singing along to the same pre-recorded track in all the filmed takes, in the "beige" version she doesn't smile as much as she did in the final cut---she looks more melancholy, which really fits the lyrics of the song.
However, I will say that the brown dress she was wearing was NOT very flattering---didn't do her any favours---and the set overall looked very drab, so I can see why they didn't end up using this take in the finished film. Still, in some ways I think it's superior to the final version.
reply
share
maxeythecat
15 years ago
I think part of the problems with Judy's look in this film is partly due the hideous hair and makeup styles that were in fashion during that period. Between that heavy handed triple whammy of pancake powder, liquid foundation so thick you could repair the holes in an aircraft carrier with it and lack of variety when it came to lipstick color (everybody could wear red, right?) it's a wonder that ANYONE much less Judy could ever look pretty in it. That put-on-with-a-trowel appearance aged her so much that it made her look almost matronly instead of a woman just out of her 20s. Too bad too, cos during the scene with the cosmeticians you can see how youthful her bare skinned face really was despite her severe chemical dependancy. As for the clods who designed the rest of her look for the film...wholly merde! That hairstyle... again, I know it was the fashion back then to tame unruly locks with industrial strength hairsprays, pomades and setting lotion,but what they did to Judy...EEEK! Especially in the "Someone" mock production number when she's running her fingers thru her bangs....every time I see it, I think of the "hair gel" bit from "Something about Mary"...ick!
reply
share
mrsmel-140-231890
9 years ago
I totally agree. There's no question that Lana Turner was a gorgeous woman, whether she's to one's taste or not is a different matter, but all of her soft sexuality was just ruined in "Imitation Of Life" with the hard-edged 50s style makeup. Off the top of my head, the only actress I can recall who really got away with that look somehow was Elizabeth Taylor. I know there were others who managed it, but she comes quickly to mind (ie, Cat On A Hot Tin Roof). Oh, and Grace Kelly looked good in it, but she kept her hair in the soft waves anyway, rather than the hard stiff 50s styles. I could surely think of more actresses who managed it if I looked them up. Joan Crawford was not one of them, lol, and I thought she was quite attractive in her 30s films. My beloved Norma Shearer even didn't quite manage it-I've seen pics of her from the late 40s and 50s when this more consciously made-up "glamour" started becoming the vogue, and the stiffer, puffier hair didn't suit her face at all. Although that may also have been a function of just sheer age, the jawline and all.
But Judy had gorgeous legs, and she knew it, hence all the top halves of black tie costuming. Somehow a lot of short-waisted women seem to have beautiful legs.
What we're dealing with here... is a complete lack of respect for the law.
reply
share
gbennett5
15 years ago
I agree - Garland looked the best in the second version. Her hair, her
makeup and her weight were far more attractive (she looks the worst in
the first version). She also looks much younger in the beige version
and I also agree her facial expressions are far more intriguing. However,
there's no denying the stunning lighting in the final version. So much
care went into the making of this film. Truly remarkable that Garland
would shoot this three times. Warner's and Cukor really respected her
genius, at least (in Warner's case) in the beginning.
reply
share
movibuf1962
11 years ago
There is a FANTASTIC write-up on YouTube on this sequence, suggesting that the three takes of "Man" with the various costumes, hair styles, and lighting evoke atmosphere attributed to three different singers: Take #1 (pink blouse, day lighting) evokes Patsy Cline. Take 2 (brown dress, serving coffee) evokes Edith Piaf, and take #3 (final one, dark dress, background in muted red hues) evokes Billie Holiday. Oddly enough, I couldn't disagree with any of those choices!!
reply
share
Gubbio
11 years ago
Take #1 (pink blouse, day lighting) evokes Patsy Cline. Take 2 (brown dress, serving coffee) evokes Edith Piaf, and take #3 (final one, dark dress, background in muted red hues) evokes Billie Holiday. Oddly enough, I couldn't disagree with any of those choices!!
Can't say that I see it.
The vocal track is the same throughout. The only things that change are the lighting, costumes, and staging.
The different looks
didn't evoke
anything to me. It was all Judy.
Overall comparisons to Piaf are reasonable. The two ladies had a lot in common, in their physicality, art, and life.
But, I never think of Patsy Cline and Judy in the same breath.
Holiday is also in a class of her own.
reply
share