Lana Turner Day

Today is the Lana Turner Blog-a-thon – if you didn’t know already.

Definitely go check out all of these well-written insightful essays – I’ve been having a lot of fun reading them.

Here is Flickhead’s post. I liked this part:

If the Postman delivered anything, it was Lana inconceivably cast as a roadhouse hash slinger (!), radiant in open-toed shoes, white blouse and shorts, her beautiful bare legs held in awe by the lens, and those vacant, faraway eyes framed by a turban. Indeed, her introductory shot in that picture stands among the supreme and least plausible of all Hollywood glamour images. The great riddle — what madman cast the warm and fuzzy Cecil Kellaway as the husband? — went unanswered, but no one really cared. Lana had, as they say, ‘arrived.’

Here is Greenbriar Picture Shows post (that site is my new addiction, by the way – thank you SO much Hank for the link!) Read the whole post, and make sure to check out the picture of the absolute MOB scene beneath the marquee with her name. It’s a really interesting take on Lana, on how in her heyday – there was nobody bigger. And yet it’s hard to see, now, what all the fuss was about. But it would be a huge mistake to just blow off that Lana Mania as “Well, they just didn’t know what was good”. No, no. Let’s look at her in the context of her time.

One excerpt:

The ones who could tell us all about Lana Turner and what she meant to her once wildly enthusiastic fan base are a dwindling lot of world war veterans — the men who served and worshipped Lana, and the women who crowded her movies stateside and lived vicariously through her romances, both onscreen and off. It’s easy for our generation to regard her as a studio manufactured joke, for we never experienced the anxieties that a star like Lana was there to alleviate. She was comfort food with a brief shelf life, but like strawberries fresh from the market, she had an intoxicating flavor that just can’t be experienced so many years after the initial purchase, and a movie like Marriage Is A Private Affair can give but the barest hint of what it must have been like to taste Lana in her prime. She would certainly make better pictures (The Postman Always Rings Twice, The Bad and The Beautiful, Imitation Of Life), but none that summon up her essential appeal like this one.

And I so agree with John (who wrote that) that her films are “fascinating time capsules” for those of us who love the movies. Go read his whole post, though – and definitely scroll around his unbelievable site. I am DROOLING over some of the images.

A beautiful articulate post by one of my favorite bloggers – the Self-Styled Siren. REALLY cool insights there about Lana’s beauty – and how she used it, and knew she had to use it.

In The Postman Always Rings Twice, probably the peak of Lana’s looks if not her talent, the power turns to desperation. See her clinging to John Garfield, throwing every bit of her allure at him like a spear. Can’t he see, for God’s sake? Lana knows, she knows she’s never going to get more beautiful and she sure as hell isn’t going to get any smarter. She has to get away from Cecil Kellaway (Flickhead is right, that casting was bizarre), and Garfield’s feckless character is unfortunately the only way out. When what she wants is murder, even Lana has to put some muscle into it. The result is that Lana’s scenes of persuasion with Garfield are not subtle, but they are entirely true to a woman actually having to work on a man for the first time, after years of having them roll over and play dead.

Wow. SO true. Go read the whole post.

Here is a post by The Evening Class. It makes me NEED to see Imitation of Life again, in order to watch that one moment.

Coffee, coffee, and more coffee does a post about The Sea Chase – a film I have not seen with John Wayne and Lana. Excerpt:

It may have been part of her contract, but Turner first appears wearing a fur coat. Later she is seen wearing some form fitting sweaters, a reminder of what made her a star in the first place. While the ship’s crew gets grubbier as the film progresses, Turner remains her glamorous self no matter how primitive the conditions around her.

Those were the days.

Here’s John Garfield and Lana in Postman. I have a postcard of this image on my fridge. There’s just something about it.

Lana Turner died on this day, in 1995.

Her star has faded a bit – she is now seen as a symbol of other things – but I’ve got to believe that someone whose career lasted that long – (she may not have done a gazillion movies a year – but she worked steadily) had a hell of a lot of moxie, ambition, and … maybe not smarts (uhm … 7 husbands, Lana? Johnny Stomponato? Uhm … Lana?) … but survival skills. She started out as the “It Girl” because of how she looked in a sweater. “It Girls” are a dime a dozen. If you want to last beyond your big season of being the “It Girl”, you need to have more going on than just looks, or luck. Will we ever have a Sienna Miller Blog-a-Thon day? Time will tell.

I am not saying I think Lana Turner is under-rated. I don’t. I’m not saying she’s an unsung Great Actress. But she has her damn fine moments – when she is used well – when a director “gets” her – and I celebrate that part of her. I really like watching her act. It’s a bunch of hoo-hah, really – breathy sleepy-eyed hoo-hah – and a relic from another time – but that’s part of why I like it.

This entry was posted in Actors and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Lana Turner Day

  1. Nightfly says:

    I am not saying I think Lana Turner is under-rated. I don’t. I’m not saying she’s an unsung Great Actress. But she has her damn fine moments – when she is used well – when a director “gets” her – and I celebrate that part of her.

    One of the things that makes us hoi polloi roll our eyes (unfairly) at those in “the craft” is actually something that never comes from actors themselves, and you’ve just described it, Sheila. It’s the tendency of the attendant publicity machine to make everyone a great star and an unsung talent.

    It’s their job – but it also means that we get to hear about how brilliant such-and-so really is if you get into his performance, when Such-and-so is really just a workaday actor at heart, good but not special, getting the right role at the right time and becoming part of something greater than any individual.

    There’s nothing wrong at ALL with simply being good at what you do; not everything has to be “simply amazing, a tour-de-force, stunning!” all the time. (Stinkin’ reviewers, heheheheh.) I agree with you perfectly. Let Lana BE Lana! Let us just like watching certain people act without turning it into a mystical journey!

  2. red says:

    And in the context of the time – Lana Turner was totally over-hyped. She was a complete creation by a publicity machine. It’s just that her appeal kind of “stuck” . So often those kinds of creations don’t “stick” – look at what happened to Gretchen Mol 10 years ago – she had to disappear before she would be allowed to come back and prove that she was WORTH all that attention. Lana was always more famous for her love life than her acting – but she was also SO pushed into the limelight – in the same way that Mischa Barton is over-hyped, and Sienna Miller is over-hyped. Again – time will tell if those girls have the chops to last. (Wait. I’ve seen The OC. Mischa Barton does not have the chops. She should enjoy her time in the sun. It’s almost over.) But Lana was not always good – because her talent was not up to the challenge. She had almost NO range. But in the context of the time – the publicity machine surrounding her “It Girl” moment was inTENSE.

    But watch Postman again. It’s kind of a fearless performance, in its way. Breathlessly vain, and self-centered, and … kinda perfect, actually.

  3. red says:

    Also, we cannot underestimate the power of the pin-up industry – and the loving adoration of GIs overseas during WWII. They are pretty much the only reason Betty Grable is remembered – they ADORED her – she was their girl – and her career was basically over once the war ended – but I would bet there are still a few doddering old veterans out there who have Betty Grable postcards shoved in an old scrapbook somewhere. Those girls really meant something to a huge generation of people – and those guys are the most loyal of fans. The Green Briar essay is right on the money with that one.

    Again, there were a gazillion other B-level starlets who the studios TRIED to make famous and failed. We just don’t know their names. Women like Lana, or Rita or whatever – they “stuck”.

  4. red says:

    Oh, and I particularly loved the story in Self-styled Siren’s post about how Minnelli got one of Lana’s best performances in Bad and the Beautiful.

    I love stories about intuitive directors like that, directors who can sense what an actor needs (if the actor needs help, I mean) – because everyone is different.

    And obviously it paid off in that case.

  5. Emily says:

    I apologize if it was mentioned elsewhere, since I haven’t had a chance to work my way through all the posts, but just a little bit of Lana trivia – she dated Judge Wapner when she was in high school (before he was a judge, obviously). I don’t know why I find that so funny, but I do.

  6. Emily says:

    Hahaha. True, but then again I’m sure the men she dated throughout her life actually outnumber the ones she didn’t.

  7. red says:

    Yeah, really.

    I wonder if, on low days, when Judge Wapner was toiling in obscurity, or feeling bad about himself, he would say to himself to cheer himself up: “At least I dated Lana Turner.”

    Or maybe during a bender at a dive bar – he would regale the sad drunks about taking Lana to a movie 60 years before. And they would all roll their eyes, having heard it 20 times before.

    “Yeah, we know. You felt up Lana Turner. Yeah, we know.”

  8. DBW says:

    I made love to Margaret Trudeau….AND Judge Wapner. Yeah, I know–an obscure reference.

  9. JFH says:

    To be blunt, I’ve always thought of Lana Turner as the Madonna of her era:

    Slutty and overrated as an actor and singer (respectively, please, let’s not even get into Madonna as an actor) and, most importantly, overrated as beautiful women… neither come close to the best looking women in their profession, even in their age group, let alone all time…

  10. red says:

    I think you’d be hard-pressed, JFH, to find anyone who over-rates her as an actress.

    Also, “slutty”? Who gives a shit if she was “slutty”? What on earth does that have to do with anything? I hate that word. Also … her looks are of course relevant but not crazy about you rating her looks. she’s very good in so many movies – bad and the beuatiful, postman, imitation of life.

    Please don’t talk that way on my site again. Not my thing and not at all the vibe I want here.

    — sincerely yours, a slut

  11. Nightfly says:

    Emily – Judge Wapner dated Lana Turner? No wonder he was always so grumpy on People’s Court. “Jackasses… I dated Lana #$!^%@$ Turner and now this bong-water all-star is telling me what’s what? Screw him. Verdict for the plaintiff, full damages!”

  12. red says:

    hahahahahahahahaha

    I am seeing Judge Wapner in a whole new light now!

    Thank goodness Lana’s daughter didn’t stab HIM!

  13. Emily says:

    Lana did get nominated for an Oscar for her role in Peyton Place. If she was such a terrible actress, blame her peers for recognizing her as such.

  14. red says:

    Turner is, like I said, a relic of another world, another kind of acting, and another kind of show business – that no longer exists. The studio system. She was a creation of the studio. But a lot of people who were studio creations are now considered myths. They used that system for all it was worth. They dominated it. Joan Crawford. Marilyn Monroe. Elizabeth Taylor. These people erected edifices of fantasy around themselves – which exist to this day. Greta Garbo. All those people.

    Lana’s life was a TRAINWRECK. The acting was just PART of the job to Lana – where it was the entire POINT to people like Davis and Dunne.

    But still – she has her great moments.

    I don’t see things as black or white, JFH. You write her off. Your comment about her being “slutty” tips me off that something else might be forming your opinion – and frankly, I don’t respect it or you for saying it. All I care about is: … can she act?

    The mix of public and private in Lana’s life has always interested me – since I read her lurid autobiography at age 14. She lived her life in the tabloids. She was tormented. Selfish. Vain. But I don’t judge her for those things. I actually find her more interesting because of these things.

    Her “performance” on the witness stand at the trial of her daughter is, indeed, like many of the bloggers I linked to above – her best work (if you want to call it that). I’ve seen it. If you Google it, it might be online. It shows, in vivid detail, why this woman so captured the public eye. Seriously. It was like a car accident – it always was – but she is nothing less than riveting.

    Now some might be turned off by all of that drama. But I’m not. I never have been. Actors are my peeps. I am always inclined to find them, in all their failings, as interesting (even if I hate them).

    I’m not trying to convince you, by the way, JFH. I don’t care to convince you. I’m actually sick of talking to you, in general, about such things, because there’s hostility and contempt when you talk about actors and artists. I am always more interested in context, the context surrounding someone’s success. The post I linked to above – the Greenbriar Picture Shows post – gives great context to the phenomenon of Lana Turner’s success – and where it came from at the time. You may not agree, but again, I don’t really care.)

  15. Alex says:

    Okay. I neeed to say something about “Madam X”. It is a literal cosmic and piercing performance. Turner has both barrells loaded throughout this entire film. From her glamorous beginnings, to the icy cold stare off with her power hungry Mother in Law, to the slow decline and eventual fall face first into the gutter.

    There is a scene she has with Burgess Merideth (another wonderful performance) where the two of them, drunk for days, spend a sloppy, wet, murky Christmas together. Turner’s character had it all. Wealth, fame, propriety, social stature, and then, as things fell down around her, we find her in the corner of a seedy bar, bottle in hand, singing “O Christmas Tree” with Merideth. Lana rewinds the entire first half of the movie with her voice and her eyes. There’s little dialogue here, mainly her attemtping to sing this sad Christmas song, as we see the son she’ll never know grow up assuming she died.

    It’s gut wrenching.

    It’s perfection.

    And it’s in her eyes and the mere inflection of her voice. She knew exactly what she was doing. Her acting was no mistake.

    There are no more Haywards, no more Gardners, no more lasting movie queens that could sustain a long scene and convey years of suffering or happiness in a single look. And there are no more Turners. Lana had a life that projected onto the screen and she wasn’t afraid to use it, become it, and eventually, embrace it.

    Watch Madam X, and then “The Bad, and the Beautiful” and tell me that woman isn’t a remarkable actor with an amazing hold on her craft.

    It simply isn’t true.

    Thanks for the post Sheila. It’s a brilliant tribute to one of my favorite actresses.

  16. red says:

    //There are no more Haywards, no more Gardners, no more lasting movie queens that could sustain a long scene and convey years of suffering or happiness in a single look. //

    I know. I mean, it’s become a cliche to say “they don’t make ’em like that anymore” but they just don’t. The business has changed so much. I remember being at a Thanksgiving dinner in Chicago at Jackie’s – well, actually – now I know that this needs to be a huge post in and of itself – and there were two guys there who had never met. I was friends with both of them separately. One was an afficianado of “The Method” – and is actually now teaching at the Strasberg Institute. And one was an old-movie FANATIC. And through their conversation – and they were totally opposed to one another’s viewpoint – but that’s why it was SO COOL to listen to – they argued about whether or not the studio system was a good thing.

    One was Pro, one was Con – and they got so into it that voices were raised at one point. Not in anger but in passion! They were both experts … and both VEHEMENT that they were right – I wish I had had a tape recorder. It was an awesome argument.

    I think it’s good that actors are WAY more in control of their own destinies now – they are not slaves, they can negotiate their own deals – and have some sense of agency in their own career. But there’s something about those old movies, man …

    Also, the fact that such movies could be made in a MONTH. Or 2 months! We can’t make movies like that anymore. We can’t work fast and GOOD like that anymore. Sydney Lumet makes his movies in about 6 weeks – and that’s pretty awesome – He hates to work slow, and take his time.

    But in general – the studios somehow created this atmosphere combining great technical expertise, and great artistic expression. And nobody had to LINGER over it, nobody had to take 2 years to make a movie in order for it to be considered “brilliant”. The fact that Stanley Kubrick spent 2 years making Eyes Wide Shut did NOT help the film, obviously. Time does not mean it’s going to be BETTER. What would have happened if Kubrick had been forced to make that movie in a month? Would he have been unable to operate at such speed?

  17. Maya says:

    Great post, Sheila, followed by a lively discussion! Let me know what you think of Lana Turner’s wail when Juanita Moore dies in “Imitation of Life”, once you get the chance to see it again.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.