What are you reading?

[charliechaplinfan]

I'm still reading the Frank Borzage book whilst watching his movies, I think it will take me some time but I want to see as many of his films as I can whilst reading the text.

I've finished the book on Ruth Harriet Louise, a book I'm so glad I found, it popped up in my recommendations at Amazon and it is a lovely book both in terms of pictures and text. I would recommend the book to fellow movie lovers.

Following on from the theme of photography and seeing as Louise left MGM and was replaced by Hurrell I've started a book I've had for a while, Hurrell's Hollywood Portraits by Mark A Vieira. I can feel the makings of another thread.

I've also started Scott Eyman's book on Louis B Mayer, nothing like reading three books at one time.

[feaito]

Eyman's biography of Mayer is quite engrossing Alison. You will enjoy it. And I also own the Hurrell book you mention; the photographies included are of awesome quality. Hurrell was a true master

Since you are interested in Photography books, you should also check John Daly's book "The Hurrell Style" and "The Man Who Shot Garbo" by John Kobal & Terrence Pepper, plus all the Kobal-Dover Books: Hollywood Portraits, Hollywood Portraits of the '40s, '50s et al.

[charliechaplinfan]

I have The Man Who Shot Garbo, I have a book of Steichen photography and also The Art of Great Hollywood Portrait Photgraphers by John Kobal. I'll have to collect his other books at some point. The Kobal book I do have has made me interested in photographers like Eugene Richee, the photographer from Paramount.

I usually just casually glance through these books, immersing myself in the glamour of the photographs.

Glancing through the Louise book and then the Hurrell book, there is a distinct difference, I feel that Louise was truer to her subjects but Hurrell was more of a showman, doing more alterations and touch ups. Louise took pictures in my favorite time period the 1920's, costumes were never as glamourous as in the end of the 1910's and 1930. So I have an incredible soft spot for her.

[feaito]

Re. alteration & touch ups.

I was amazed to learn about the amount of alterations and touch ups that Hurrell had to make to some pictures: Crawford's, Damita's....that's why they looked as if they were Goddessess; without pores, flaws, freckles et al. That was major art -hand made- in itsef, not like today's photoshop. That made the stars look unattainable and incomparable, almost not-human-like...

Richee took beautiful photographs. So did Ernest Bachrach at RKO.

[knitwit45]

Feaito, I was a negative retoucher for about 5 years, and you're right, it is an art. I was just beginning to be a really good one, when the market changed dramatically. It was a great stay at home job, my children were little, and your income was limited only by how much product you could process. My mother in law taught me, she was one of the top 3 in the region.

[feaito]

How amazing Nancy. Can you share with us some tidbits about the art of retouching? I've always been intrigued by it.

[charliechaplinfan]

Nancy, that is so interesting, do shares with us some of your working practices.

Fernando in the Hurrell book the before and after shot of Joan Crawford is amazing, all those freckles disappear and the very slight lines too. I think it's a reason why I can't get into celebrities today, too many candid shots of them and not enough glamour.

[knitwit45]

In black and white photos, every thing is reversed (hence "negative".) I had an actual machine, made by Adams, that was a giant light box, with an adjustable vibration feature. there was a magnifying glass attached on a swing arm and a special felt lined holder that was centered over the lightbox. You had very sharp pencil leads (you used fine grit sand paper to sharpen, and I still have some tiny pieces of lead buried in my left forefinger). The really REALLY good retouchers didn't use the vibration feature, they could control the lead manually. Kodak made a retouching fluid, nicknamed "dope" that was extremely sticky. You very carefully smoothed on a drop or two of dope, being sure to rub out the edges smoothly.

Under bright magnification, you started at the hair line and worked down. All imperfections, large pores, pimples, freckles, shadows under the eyes, moles etc showed as light or white places on the negative. It was the retoucher's job to fill those white spots in as carefully as possible, matching the surrounding darker areas. Since skin is made up of tiny pores which are rounded, you had to keep your touch extremely light, and constantly moving in circles.

When color photography took over, the job became much more difficult. That's one of the reasons air brushing replaced the old way, it was, when done properly, much less visible than lead pencil.

[charliechaplinfan]

That's so interesting Nancy. It slots everything into place from what I can see in the Hurrell and Louise books. Thank you so much.

[feaito]

Thanks for the very interesting information Nancy.

[charliechaplinfan]

I've started this book and I'm enthralled although I would have preferred some more details as to how he got out of the slums with no education, no looks, no family connections. I have to admire a man for that, apart from being an extremely motivated and volatile man I'd still have liked to have delved in deeper. The author is pitching at an audience who doesn't necessarily want to be bogged down in the details about Mayer's rise to prominence.

I've just got to the point where MGM is formed.

[Birdy]

Nancy and all - I enjoyed your conversation about retouching; very interesting.

I just read The Times We Had by Marion Davies. It really was very fun read and ended right before WR Hearst passed away, so was the type of bio I like. I really felt like I could hear her talking. While on the surface she seemed to view the world through rose colored glasses (or, one might say, out a castle window), I think she was actually wise and realistic. She was self-deprecating about her talent (wrong) but never embarrassed of her opinions. I enjoyed it very much.
Birdy

[charliechaplinfan]

I read her biography by Fred Guiles, I couldn't help but like her and far more talented than she has been given credit for. She was treated shabbily after Hearst died.

[silentscreen]

I think what I like about Marion is her wonderful sense of humor and fun. And the fact that she was such a charitable and giving person too. From what I've read of her and seen of her films, I don't know how anyone could not like her. I'd love to see more of her films available. She was the precursor to the screwball comedienne.

[Birdy]

Stephanie Plum Novels by Janet Evanovich:

Judith and I agreed on another thread that we could see Mo'Nique as Lola. In full spandex.

So I thought I'd move over here and see if anyone else reads these. We fight over them at work - perk of being a librarian: we get them first! It only takes me a day (pizza night at our house, of course).

Many of us who read them talk about them becoming a movie, but now that there's 15 (well, more, if you count those weird holiday books with Diesel), I don't know if they could do it justice. I could see them putting the first 2 or 3 in a movie together, but I'm afraid they'd squish them together and ruin the story line. You know how it is; once you've seen the movie in your head, it better be right on film.