 |
Circa 1921.
|
 |
(This print has been noticeably retouched, probably for use in a newspaper or other publication.)
|
 |
Circa 1920.
|
 |
Circa 1925. (Four images.)
|
 |
Publicity for "The General", 1927. (Three images.)
|
 |
From "The Electric House", 1922.
|
 |
Circa 1930. (Two images.)
|
 |
Circa 1930-31.
|
 |
1930. (Two images.)
|
 |
Publicity for "Free and Easy", 1930, posing with a photograph of Lon Chaney.
|
 |
| By George Hurrell, 1930. * |
 |
| By Clarence Sinclair Bull, circa 1928. (Three images.) |
 |
Circa 1930-31. (Two images.)
|
 |
By George Hurrell, 1930.
|
*
Sadly, the only photographers I've been able to identify here are George Hurrell and Clarence Sinclair Bull. I recently saw the wonderful Hurrell profile portrait above * in a gorgeous contemporary print by author, photographer, and archivist
Mark Alan Vieira; it inspired the whole post. I have to admit that I've not seen much of Keaton's work. And like most people, I'm sure, I've always found him a bit odd-looking; that droopy "Stone Face" and protuberant eyes. But gathering these photographs - always finding far more to share than I'd planned, constitutionally unable to exclude another and yet another "fabulous" image - I began to find that odd face rather beautiful. A strange beauty, beautiful in the way
Peter Lorre could be beautiful. I'm grateful that I'm just openminded enough to still allow myself new, broader ideas of what might exemplify that overused and completely subjective word.
His face is indeed beautiful, in a "belle laide" sort of way. Do you agree ?
ReplyDeleteAll the best,
Marc
Yes, exactly that! : )
Deletethese are fabulous -and I think it's better to have an interesting face than a purely 'beautiful' one? That photo of him with the puppy in his pocket is a real style setter for me.
ReplyDeleteHe was an exceptionally talented performer who, sad to say, was not appreciated as he should have been.
ReplyDeleteThank you for this assembly...good to have an exhibition, and these work very well online!
ReplyDeleteWhat I take away first is that here is a man who understands keenly just what he looks like. I assume every actor has this capacity and skill, which results in a keen understanding of how OTHERS will see him. The humor is important, and maybe because we know this about him, we anticipate it. Stephen's presented these as he says, "deadpan", a delicious word, here. "The term deadpan first emerged as an adjective or adverb in the 1920s, as a compound word combining "dead" and "pan" (a slang term for the face)." The loving and bald closeups insist we stop (dead!) and really look, as opposed to the moving image we're more familiar with. The second takeaway: there's an intellect at work here: I can imagine he had a challenging childhood (i don't actually know...), has spent a life of the mind in many ways, and is superbly comfortable with his visage. Stylin', and in good company historically with those who also draped themselves to reflect that inner voice. jeez, what a great post. graci
Thank you for the very thoughtful response. : )
Delete"I can imagine he had a challenging childhood" ... well, he spent a lot of it being thrown around the stage by his parents in their act. He started very young - maybe 3 or 4 years old - and was literally thrown around by his folks. I don't know about the emotional effect on him (it's a long time since I read his biographies) but it certainly took it out of him physically - he broke nearly every bone in his body during his lifetime.
ReplyDeleteThe portrait of Keaton with the photo of Lon Chaney and the make-up case, must have been a memorial tribute to Chaney who died in 1930.
ReplyDelete