An adoring account, but...
This "strictly unauthorized" biography has in other places also surfaced as "very unauthorized". Its first publication goes back close to twenty years and it seems that in the interim Miss Lollobrigida has not changed her attitude in connection with this book. At the time she had her lawyers inform the author that she did not approve of his intention to write her biography and requested him to refrain from doing so. And that, it appears, was the extent of Miss Lollobrigida's contribution to this book. So, in effect, it remains the attempt of an adoring fan to gather as much information as possible about his "favourite actress and goddess" to construct a deeply-subjective picture of the object of his admiration.
I fully understand Mr. Canales' adolescent infatuation with this beautiful actress, since he and I are probably close in age, and since I remember being similarly enchanted in my teens by what may well be one of the most beautiful women of the last century. However, the way he handles his subject in this book, it appears that Canales is still living in bygone times since there seem to be no traces in his account that indicate an increasingly more mature attitude towards his subject. It is one thing to remember our youthful infatuations with fondness, it is quite another to remain stuck in that groove for decades. One of the great advantages of growing older is to be able to put things of the past into perspective. That does not mean that youthful dreams should be erased, they should indeed remain things that we treasure forever, but it would appear that the passage of time should also get us to see things more realistically. Miss Lollobrigida is still with us and by now way into her seventies; though her looks have changed, she is still the same person that enthralled us on the silver screen in the 50s and 60s. A loving tribute to her, as this book aspires to be, should also contain reference to that reality.
The question remains as to why Gina never wrote her own biography or had someone write it. It is understandable, however, why she did not want Mr. Canales to write it: Although a freelance writer, he approaches his subject primarily as an adoring fan which does not necessarily make him good biographer. If Gina ever decides to seek help telling the story of her life, she no doubt will get someone eminently qualified to do so.
Mr. Canales, of course, could not be prevented form writing about Gina as long as he stuck to known or verifiable facts about his subject's life and career. Reading his account, it must remain doubtful that Gina will ever sanction his well-meant attempt to sum up her life. In my opinion, there are numerous reasons for this, and not all of them have to do with words. With a background in graphic design, my first objection arose before I even opened the book. Typography on a book cover is of the utmost importance and in most cases equally or even more important than an accompanying image. The type treatment of that cover is nothing short of a typographical nightmare. Overprinting the name "Gina" in delicate italics (thick-and-thin, slanted lettering) in red on pale-gray tall capital letters is just about as messy as typography can get.
The author tells his story with much enthusiasm and never ceases to express his adoration for his subject, an insistence that at times becomes rather tiresome. Furthermore, the book is not an easy read. The language lacks fluidity and is often hampered by awkward sentence construction and rather curious terms and phrases. A sentence that should read, "Was that really you singing?" shows up as "Was that you really singing?". Unfortunate word choices abound ("Their rapport on the set was first-class". "...she was a top-class actress.") At one time the author tells us that Gina was involved in "almost ten" lawsuits. Is there such a thing as nine-and-a-half lawsuits? In another place he refers to Gina acting "behind" the camera. That scene would certainly not make it onto film!
Canales goes out of his way to play down Gina's intentional sexual attraction and never ceases to praise her talents as an actress. His observation that "she never exploited those attributes that Mother Nature had cast upon her" warrants a closer look. One could insist that the actress indeed consistently made every effort to show off her generous endowments. In that she was by no means alone in the fifties, which was a time when everyone understood what was meant by terms like "sex bomb", "bomb shell" or "sex-appeal". A whole slew of famous actresses thrived on emphasizing their physical assets, including Sohpia Loren, Marilyn Monroe, Diana Dors, Jane Mansfield and Jane Russell, to name just some of them. And Gina certainly also was one of them. However, there were different extents to which actresses in those days would go to emphasize their assets. But Gina always remained within the boundaries of what would generally be considered good taste.
I cannot remember one of Gina's movies from the fifties where her generous curves were not one of the main attractions. That the actress, in Canales' words, "never tried to exploit sex appeal on the screen" is not a convincing stance. "Sex sells!" is not a new phrase and there can be little doubt that Gina was very much aware of it. Canales' contention that it was regrettable that reviewers all over the world "publicized" Gina's curves and ignored her talent sounds rather unconvincing as well.
It cannot be denied that Gina was an actress of considerable talent, even if her performances were not all equally good and that there were a fair number in her early career that she would probably want to forget. She really shone as Esmeralda in 1956's "The Hunchback of Notre Dame". Although the movie was never critically acclaimed, it was nevertheless the version most faithful to Victor Hugo's timeless tale. In addition, it had high production values, was filmed in gorgeous colour and featured all `round fine performances. Gina's stunning natural beauty, excellent makeup and costumes (although there were only three or four) remain a sight to behold even fifty years later.
Canales informs us that Gina said that her part in 1968's "Buona Sera Mrs. Campbell" was the one most like her of all the roles she had ever played, that she really didn't have to act but only needed to be herself. Strangely though, that did not keep him from insisting that this part was Gina's "greatest achievement of her acting career". That would, in effect, make the one part in which she didn't have to act the greatest performance of her life. This is rather questionable logic, in addition to which it would appear that the author has rather limited qualifications to assess acting talent.
The book is, however, very thorough in portraying Gina as an unusually multi-talented artist. She certainly deserves credit and admiration for not only being a fine actress, but also a gifted singer, accomplished painter, impressive sculptor and, in her later years, an accomplished photographer as well. Fate was certainly generous to her in bestowing all these artistic gifts in addition to a ravishingly beautiful physique. Small wonder that the whole world loved her and, to some extent, still does so to this day.
In summary, this book needs to be seen as an intensely personal account of the author's admiration for a beautiful woman whom he has raised to the level of goddess over the years and who seems to appear to him more admirable and radiant the further she moves into the past. Not all of us are capable of doing this, but let us not be overly critical of those who have that inclination. Although Gina did not want Canales to write her story, his simple, honest and deeply-felt devotion and and admiration in the end just might touch her somewhere deep inside.
