Art and Photography

Films, TV shows, and books of the 'modern' era
User avatar
JackFavell
Posts: 11926
Joined: April 20th, 2009, 9:56 am

Art and Photography

Post by JackFavell »

Sometimes I am really captured by a photograph or a piece of artwork that I've found on the net. Usually, of course they are entertainment or classic movie related, but occasionally I step outside that jurisdiction. Here is a thread where we can post and discuss items that can be, but aren't necessarily related to classic film.

Often I want to ask others' opinion of a piece of artwork I've found that I don't understand or have questions about. So this can also be a place where art or artists can be discussed, it's not just a gallery thread. In other words, it's an open forum for art. If someone has art or photographs that they have created, they can post here as well.

I will kick things off with a photo I found at a wonderful place to explore, the Victoria and Albert Museum website -

http://www.vam.ac.uk/

Hosting one of the most fascinating art collections on the web, the V&A makes thousands of photographs, paintings, posters, textiles, and any number of other types of art available to look at from your home computer. I was looking for really nothing at all, a list of Victorian and Edwardian stage actors, when I came across this photograph, staring out at me from beyond time, which held me completely spellbound:

Image


Meet John Martin Harvey, the Edwardian actor-manager who got his start in Henry Irving's company around 1882. His most famous role was as Sidney Carton in an adaptation of A Tale of Two Cities called The Only Way. As you see, he is the very character himself, brought to life. He seems to have led quite a happy, normal life for an actor, making his own way, first as a handsome leading man and then later as a married character actor and manager. He was the last in a long line of romantic types, modeling his style on Irving's own flamboyant and fervent approach to theatre. He toured the provinces and Canada with much more popular success than the theatre district in London, probably because his style was becoming outmoded by the early 1900's - appearing in less good plays where the focus was on the star rather than on the play itself. During the Great War, he raised funds for Britain's first nursing school, and in 1921, he received a knighthood. He lived to be 80, almost 81 and died at his home with his family.

ImageImageImageImageImageImage
ImageImageImage
ImageImage


One can certainly see how those provincial girls would have responded to him...he reminds me a little of Errol Flynn for dash, or perhaps a metal-head rocker from just a few years back, the kind who might leap into the audience at a moment's notice or sing a heavy-on-the-bass ballad for the ladies. There is a very modern look to him, a deep sense of the power of the camera. An old fashioned Hamlet-like thoughtfulness and intensity radiates from his photos. Obviously, he was the fascinating, doomed Carton completely in looks, but we can never really know what his acting was like, except from these photos. He's even mentioned in Ulysses:
"His eyes burned into her as thought they would search her through and through, read her very soul. Wonderful eyes they were, superbly expressive, but could you trust them? People were so queer. She could see at once by his dark eyes and pale intellectual face that he was a foreigner, the image of the photo she had of Martin Harvey, the matinee idol, only for the moustache which she preferred, not being stage struck like Winny Rippingham..."
So forgive me if I'm swayed by this Byronic, Victorian era 'rock star', a pretty face from out of the past.... I simply couldn't help it, for I am the spiritual descendant of a long line of stage struck Winny Rippinghams. :D
User avatar
MissGoddess
Posts: 5072
Joined: April 17th, 2007, 10:01 am
Contact:

Re: Art and Photography

Post by MissGoddess »

hi, winnie! i mean wendy! :D

martin is a striking looking actor...and seems made for the camera. Each of those photos captures a distinct look and character!

If he'd been around for cinema I can see him being cast in lots of possibly villainous or horror roles due to the intensity of his eyes and wildness of his aspect. He really does have a Dickensian look to him, and I can even see as much Artful Dodger in his youthful face as Carton. And yes, very modern, too.

You know what old time actor I've always read about but I don't know if I have ever seen a photograph....Edward Beerbom Tree (hope I spelled that right). They always talk about him in the books about plays in England and how he was so celebrated so I wondered what he looked like. The Vic&Al might just solve the mystery for me.

It's funny you start an art thread today when I was just gazing at a bunch of paintings and drawings at Pinterest!
"There's only one thing that can kill the movies, and that's education."
-- Will Rogers
User avatar
JackFavell
Posts: 11926
Joined: April 20th, 2009, 9:56 am

Re: Art and Photography

Post by JackFavell »

You know what's even weirder? I was looking at a photo of Beerbohm Tree today, and decided that he bore enough of a resemblance to David Tree to be related. Here's the photo:

Image

But I'd only ever seen any other photos of him with a beard, looking very imposing. For years, I thought he was a big man with a black beard. Apparently, he was more of a master of disguise:

Image

As Richard II:
Image

Looking very Rembrandtian as Hamlet:
Image
Image

As Shylock:
Image

Here's Beerbohm Tree's son Max Beerbohm, who was a writer:

Image

And here is Beerbohm Tree's grandson David Tree, who played Freddie in the 1938 film Pygmalion with Leslie Howard:

Image

His story at wikipedia today completely freaked me out!

He only made 8 films, and I have seen a few of them. I always paid attention to him because I liked him as an actor, he usually plays silly twits or young soldiers or flyers who get killed. Apparently, in real life, he blew his hand off in WWII (it made me gasp to learn this), and quit acting, but become a happy farmer. here's his full story:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Tree
Last edited by JackFavell on October 22nd, 2012, 4:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
MissGoddess
Posts: 5072
Joined: April 17th, 2007, 10:01 am
Contact:

Re: Art and Photography

Post by MissGoddess »

Thank you for finding those! I think I saw the bearded photo, too, anyway that's the hazy image I had of him! It's beginning to appear to me that actors in this period had really wild-looking eyes...I mean really intense. I guess that was how they held their audiences. You can see some of that handed down to the Barrymores.

Look at Connie Collier there, she always looked so witchy to me, ha. But wasn't she Kate Hepburn's idea of the greatest actress ever? (I'm wrong, it was Laurette Taylor).

Good for Tree, able to rebuild a life growing pretty things. I can't remember his role in Don't Look Now, but I do remember the house and pond and it interestingly connects the Trees to another acting-literary dynasty, the Du Mauriers.
"There's only one thing that can kill the movies, and that's education."
-- Will Rogers
User avatar
JackFavell
Posts: 11926
Joined: April 20th, 2009, 9:56 am

Re: Art and Photography

Post by JackFavell »

Yes, isn't Constance Collier stunning there, looking all young and with such full red (I assume) lips?

I think part of the wild eyed look was that sense of focus that those great actor-directors had, and part of it was sheer theatricality and flamboyance. You wanted to see those emotions on your favorite actor's face. I think up through Lionel and John Barrymore, it was a quality to be cultivated. I love the flourish, the relish of it all. Passions were volcanic, and emotions were deeply felt. It's that romantic period we talked about before (in relation to Pappy). Feeling was expressed in the makeup and facial expressions of the actor so much more so than now. In some ways we progressed, but I think we lose something too, the further away from that era we get. We hide things in modern acting, which is interesting, but lately it seems we turn emotions into everyday, mundane things. Everything must appear natural, even if that means that we take all the drama and excitement out of it. A gulp is the most we get from screen actors today. No reveling in nature, no grand passion, no poetic intensity. Now we go to the movies and see our own boring existence played out for a couple of hours. But at the turn of the century, it seems life was still exciting. In some ways, John Barrymore was the last in a long line of intense, Byronic star-actors, those who could create a glorious impression just by the way they lifted a hand, or tilted an eyebrow.

Barrymore did bring an unexpected and exciting modernity to his performances. I got mad today because I read on that same V&A website that Laurence Olivier brought a new spin to Hamlet by adding an Oedipal subtext to the role.... well, Barrymore did it long before Olivier played the part, in 1922 to be exact, the year after John Martin Harvey was awarded a knighthood, just to put it into context.

If you ever get a chance, there's a bio of Laurette Taylor that's very good, it got me fascinated with the woman, so much so that my sister gave me a couple of Laurette Taylor's pressbooks - scrapbooks of her stage appearances, articles written about her, etc. that a secretary might have put together, but that Taylor could possibly have scanned through or added to herself. They are just great for poring over on a rainy day. I have a Maude Adams one as well, but the paper from that is disintegrating so rapidly that I only looked at it once then stored it away. I should probably try to scan them but I'm afraid I will cause further damage. They are treasured possessions.

I am going to have to watch Don't Look Now. Fascinating how you connected the Du Mauriers to the Tree dynasty!

I have a picture saved of Daphne that I just love:

Image
Last edited by JackFavell on October 22nd, 2012, 5:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Rita Hayworth
Posts: 10068
Joined: February 6th, 2011, 4:01 pm

Re: Art and Photography

Post by Rita Hayworth »

I just love all these photos on this thread ... its so wonderful to see old images of the past - Thanks for posting it JF!
User avatar
JackFavell
Posts: 11926
Joined: April 20th, 2009, 9:56 am

Re: Art and Photography

Post by JackFavell »

Thanks, kingme.
User avatar
knitwit45
Posts: 4689
Joined: May 4th, 2007, 9:33 pm
Location: Gardner, KS

Re: Art and Photography

Post by knitwit45 »

Jacks, the pictures you've posted could have been taken last year. In fact,when I saw the first one, I was wondering who the new guy was. The one of him as an older guy REALLY got my attention
:oops: :oops: :D :D
"Life is not the way it's supposed to be.. It's the way it is..
The way we cope with it, is what makes the difference." ~ Virginia Satir
""Most people pursue pleasure with such breathless haste that they hurry past it." ~ Soren Kierkegaard
User avatar
JackFavell
Posts: 11926
Joined: April 20th, 2009, 9:56 am

Re: Art and Photography

Post by JackFavell »

he aged well, no? :lol: :oops: :lol:
User avatar
MissGoddess
Posts: 5072
Joined: April 17th, 2007, 10:01 am
Contact:

Re: Art and Photography

Post by MissGoddess »

JackFavell wrote:Passions were volcanic, and emotions were deeply felt. It's that romantic period we talked about before (in relation to Pappy). Feeling was expressed in the makeup and facial expressions of the actor so much more so than now. In some ways we progressed, but I think we lose something too, the further away from that era we get. We hide things in modern acting, which is interesting, but lately it seems we turn emotions into everyday, mundane things. Everything must appear natural, even if that means that we take all the drama and excitement out of it. A gulp is the most we get from screen actors today. No reveling in nature, no grand passion, no poetic intensity. Now we go to the movies and see our own boring existence played out for a couple of hours. But at the turn of the century, it seems life was still exciting.


I completely agree with you. Especially about the blandness of emotion in modern drama. It's a monotone world, isn't it? The only emotion I see or hear anymore is yelling. Or else things go to a wacky extreme, taking all the humanity out and turning everything into a sideshow or set desiger's (or computer graphic artist's) showcase.

I want the theater to be larger than life, but still human-scale, if that makes sense. The Romantics definitely understood this right down to their fingertips. It's in their painting, poetry, literature and theater.

In some ways, John Barrymore was the last in a long line of intense, Byronic star-actors, those who could create a glorious impression just by the way they lifted a hand, or tilted an eyebrow. [/b]


did you know Byron was the first poet I ever read and recognized? before him, poetry was just a word to me.

Barrymore did bring an unexpected and exciting modernity to his performances. I got mad today because I read on that same V&A website that Laurence Olivier brought a new spin to Hamlet by adding an Oedipal subtext to the role.... well, Barrymore did it long before Olivier played the part, in 1922 to be exact, the year after John Martin Harvey was awarded a knighthood, just to put it into context.


You're a fountain of knowledge on this, I admit I only recollect a little from years ago when I read a ton of books on the romantics and early 20th century theatre. It was a fascinating time, lots of euphoria and little care for money except to recklessly spend it as fast as you can.

If you ever get a chance, there's a bio of Laurette Taylor that's very good, it got me fascinated with the woman, so much so that my sister gave me a couple of Laurette Taylor's pressbooks - scrapbooks of her stage appearances, articles written about her, etc. that a secretary might have put together, but that Taylor could possibly have scanned through or added to herself. They are just great for poring over on a rainy day. I have a Maude Adams one as well, but the paper from that is disintegrating so rapidly that I only looked at it once then stored it away. I should probably try to scan them but I'm afraid I will cause further damage. They are treasured possessions.


What lovely things to have! And that would make a great project for you one day, Wendy, to scan or preserve those things.

I am going to have to watch Don't Look Now. Fascinating how you connected the Du Mauriers to the Tree dynasty!
[/quote]

I found it a difficult watch. It's both scary and damply depressing. But there are some fascinating shots.

I wonder what that is behind Daphne...an old shipwreck? It could have inspired one of her stories.
"There's only one thing that can kill the movies, and that's education."
-- Will Rogers
User avatar
JackFavell
Posts: 11926
Joined: April 20th, 2009, 9:56 am

Re: Art and Photography

Post by JackFavell »

I thought it looked like a shipwreck... Woman on the Beach... :D
User avatar
MissGoddess
Posts: 5072
Joined: April 17th, 2007, 10:01 am
Contact:

Re: Art and Photography

Post by MissGoddess »

Totally! Now where's Robert Ryan on his valiant steed... :D
"There's only one thing that can kill the movies, and that's education."
-- Will Rogers
User avatar
charliechaplinfan
Posts: 9040
Joined: January 15th, 2008, 9:49 am

Re: Art and Photography

Post by charliechaplinfan »

I think some of the pictures of Harvey look quite modern, he's an arresting looking actor, that's for sure. I hadn't seen a picture of Beerbohm Tree without a beard either.

I love old photographs, how methods of photography changed and how it became an art. I only know that I know what I like but I can't quite quantify it.

A while ago I started this thread, on the photographer at MGM 1925 - 1930, I'm not sure the images were ever bettered, I love the ethereal like quality some of them have.

http://silverscreenoasis.com/oasis3/vie ... iet+louise
Failure is unimportant. It takes courage to make a fool of yourself - Charlie Chaplin
User avatar
JackFavell
Posts: 11926
Joined: April 20th, 2009, 9:56 am

Re: Art and Photography

Post by JackFavell »

Did you start that thread? I looked at it a long time ago and went on a binge, hunting down all the photos by Ruth Harriet Louise I could find! I think she was possibly the best overall Hollywood photographer, there is not a photo of hers I don't like. There may be a few portraits by others that strike me in a big way, but every one of hers is worth staring at for hours.

I wonder if old photos were like old film, the silver nitrate made it look so incredible I always like looking at movies that used that film stock. Are photos made of the same stuff? Probably not.
User avatar
charliechaplinfan
Posts: 9040
Joined: January 15th, 2008, 9:49 am

Re: Art and Photography

Post by charliechaplinfan »

I bought this book, which is one of the best boos on Hollywood photographers that I've seen



I was quite sorry for her, she seemed to just dissappear once Hurrell came on to the scene, I love Hurrell's portraits too but he doesn't have that supernatural quality that Louise seemed to possess.

This is also a good book



This has samples by lots of different photographers, starting with the silent photographers. Both these books I got for far cheaper than listed on Amazon.co.uk or you could check your library catalogue.
Failure is unimportant. It takes courage to make a fool of yourself - Charlie Chaplin
Post Reply