Color photography - both motion picture film and still photography - has had a long and fascinating history. And some of the most important technical advancements happened during the 1930s. Though Hollywood had been toying with various versions of Technicolor motion picture film for almost twenty years, there really wasn't much in the way of color portraiture until the middle of the Thirties. And at least at first, most of it seems to have been produced for use on magazine covers and in advertisements. If I understand correctly, in the early and mid-Thirties most color photographs were taken using the Carbro process, Kodachrome only becoming commercially available in 1938. (In fact, I "understand" just about nothing of the history or technology of color photography, so I'll have to leave it at that one spare sentence.) Though black and white studio portraits remained the norm well into the Sixties, after the early Forties color portraiture would become quite common in Hollywood. The images I've shared here are examples of that early, transitional period.
 |
| This portrait of Dietrich is an example of something I've encountered more frequently in vintage Hollywood color photographs than in black and white images of the same period: they're often reversed. This seems to be the most frequently seen version of the shot, but I believe it to be reversed. If for no other reason than that her hats always leaned the other way. But both orientations were printed and she happily signed both versions. |
 |
| Another portrait from the same sitting, but printed, I believe, in the correct orientation. (And while the cover reads "Natural Color Photo", there's obviously nothing at all "natural" about the heavily retouched final image.) |
When speaking of color portraiture from the golden age of Hollywood, one has to bring up the ugly topic of "colorization." The 1970s and '80s saw a wave of colorizing classic black and white films, an appalling development which brought on an immediate and righteous outcry against it. The arguments were aesthetic - the technology was crude, the resulting images looked really bad; the original design of the films was calculated for black and white and looked wrong with color overlaid - and ethical - no one has the right to make such sweeping "improvements" to someone else's work of art; it's like drawing eyebrows on the Mona Lisa. But now, with great advances in the technology, it's all started again. I haven't seen so much of a renewed attack on classic film, but one more directed at archival documentary footage. The argument made for these alterations is that it makes the old images more accessible to a modern audience; "it brings the past to life!" (Apparently, we modern folks possess a rather limited ability to imagine.)
 |
| I didn't crop this portrait of Freddie Bartholomew as the layers of color separation can be seen at the edges. |
Considering the above paragraphs, my tirade against vile colorization, I must make assurances that I've tried - very - hard to only share photographs that I know to have been genuinely, originally shot in color. Including those where the color was "genuinely, originally" very much retouched, in the same way black and white studio portraits were always retouched at the time. But if I've been duped by any clever imposters, I sincerely hope someone will alert me to the fact.
 |
| This portrait of Ginger Rogers looks to be another example of a reversed image being printed - and signed anyway. |
 |
| I'm fairly certain that this is the actual orientation of the photograph. |
*
Since I've found it impossible to give attribution to all of the images here or definitively determine the dates they were taken, I'm resorting to a crude list. The photographers here include: James N. Doolittle, Paul Hesse, George Hurrell, Nickolas Muray, Harry Warnecke, Clarence Sinclair Bull, Anton Bruehl, Scotty Welbourne, Herbert Dorfman, Jack Shallit & Barker Davis, and (probably) others.
Good Evening,
ReplyDeleteYou are 100% right about the use of colorization usually I can tell if a photograph has been retouched or not. Here's some history on Kodachrome: Imagine seeing your favorite movie star come to life as a flesh-and-blood human being it was an experience for many moviegoers. Now you can experience it for the first time, discovering the beauty of Gene Tierney's flawless complexion or Rita Hayworth's auburn hair. From the 1930's onward contract actors and actresses if they not appearing before the camera would spend hours having their photograph taken usually for publicity purposes. Photographs were usually in black-and-white while color photography was rarely used that is until April 15, 1935, when the new Kodachrome process was first offered to the public. Kodachrome was a spectacular film stock that soon became synonymous with sharp detail and brilliant color. Images were crisp and had minimal grain. There were some challenges in using Kodachrome the transparencies could not be retouched so easily skin imperfections had to be dealt with before the photo was taken. So the cosmetic industry responded by creating new innovations like: Max Factor's Pan-Cake and Elizabeth Arden's "N" Technicolor Series of cosmetics. A few actresses had foundations created just for them which gave their complexion a smooth, even finish. A handful of actresses became so adept at lighting techniques, camera angles, that they could tell if one Klieg light was casting a shadow on their face. A number of actresses could even retouch their own photographs better then some of the professionals. In addition, lights had to be three times as bright to register on Kodachrome thus complicating make-up by producing shiny foreheads, sweaty underarms and running mascara.
Hollywood knew that Kodachrome was going to biggest thing since film learned to talk, but it wasn't until the development of the three-strip Technicolor process that color film became practical to use. And so it went that motion pictures that were filmed in brilliant color needed brilliant color still photography to promote them.
By the end of the 1930's, the three major powers responsible for photographing Hollywood: the movie studios, the movie magazines and the advertisers thoroughly embraced color.
Hollywood liked the extra publicity for their films, while advertisers wanted that star power for endorsements, and the magazines wanted photos of movie stars so they could increase their circulation. Vivid color ads made products more enticing, especially if accompanied by a glamours actress or handsome actor, which helped sell more magazines, which then helped publicize Hollywood movies. These prospects proved to be advantageous to all.
Though black-and-white still dominated, the Hollywood studios quickly incorporated Kodachrome into their publicity campaigns, creating thousands of photos of their stars for placement in magazines and newspapers. These would include: portraits, "behind-the-scenes" photos on movie sets, posed candid photos of the stars at home with their families, playing tennis or relaxing by the pool.
Hollywood liked the extra publicity for their films, while advertisers wanted that star power for endorsements, and the magazines wanted photos of movie stars so they could increase their circulation. Vivid color ads made products more enticing, especially if accompanied by a glamours actress or handsome actor, which helped sell more magazines, which then helped publicize Hollywood movies. These prospects proved to be advantageous to all.
ReplyDeleteThough black-and-white still dominated, the Hollywood studios quickly incorporated Kodachrome into their publicity campaigns, creating thousands of photos of their stars for placement in magazines and newspapers. These would include: portraits, "behind-the-scenes" photos on movie sets, posed candid photos of the stars at home with their families, playing tennis or relaxing by the pool.
During World War II female stars paid tribute either by dressing in military garb or posing with the American flag. The output was staggering: between 1940 and 1954, for instance 20th Century-Fox distributed over 1,550 portraits and posed candid shots of contract star Gene Tierney alone. Each studio would create a persona for each star they had under contract. So Ava Gardner was "The World's Most Beautiful Animal," Ann Sheridan over at Warner Brothers became "The Oomph Girl" while Lauren Bacall was known as "The Look" and fellow Noir actress Lizabeth Scott was given the moniker "The Treat." Before Howard Hughes released The Outlaw his discovery Jane Russell was already a star since being promoted with photos and tag lines that left almost nothing to the imagination, "How would you like to Tussle with Russell" or "Mean!, Moody!, Magnificent!"
Color photography added a whole new dimension to actors' images. They no longer looked like marble statues in black-and-white, but with color now they looked like human beings. Color photography did wonders for the careers of red-heads like Maureen O'Hara, Eleanor Parker, Arlene Dahl, Susan Hayward and the most famous red head of them all Lucille Ball. When Ball signed with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer in the early 1940's MGM decided to give Ball a glamorous makeover and to capitalize on her unique red hair, electric blue eyes and peaches-and-cream complexion. After chief hairstylist Sidney Guilaroff dyed Ball's hair a shade of red called "Tango Red" she was cast in two glossy musicals Du Barry Was A Lady (1943) and Ziegfeld Follies (1944). Her outstanding features which were so radiant onscreen that MGM quickly dubbed Lucy, "Technicolor Tessie."
ReplyDeleteThe power and marketing influence of movie magazines can not be underestimated. The first movie magazine, Motion Picture, published in 1911 and was a huge success with the public. Before long the market was flooded with dozens of publications with similar names like: Photoplay, Screenland, Modern Screen, Movie Life, Movie Mirror, Silver Screen, Movie Story, Screen Guide, Movie Stars Parade, Screen Stars, and Screen Stories. The demand for photos to fill magazine pages was tremendous, with each publication clamoring for "exclusive" material. The single-portrait cover remained a stable for decades. The most inspired pairing between Madison Avenue and Hollywood was that female stars and cosmetic products. Rather than simply stating the virtues of creams, lipsticks and blush, the ads would show the cosmetics on a fabulous face and in eye-popping color.
But the love affair between Hollywood and Kodchrome was short-lived. In 1946, Kodak introduced Ektachrome which captured detail in a low-light and could be developed just by anybody now. No longing would you send it back to Kodak for processing and in 1951 Kodak discontinued all color still film except 35mm. Unfortunately, one of the drawbacks to Ektachrome is that it fades severely (twenty times faster then Kodachrome). On June 22, 2009, just one year shy of its Diamond Jubilee Kodak announced the discontinuation of Kodachrome. Also public taste was changing the classic style of portraiture was seen as "old hat" and perhaps maybe the ideals of beauty also might have changed. The poised elegance of a Greer Garson, Hedy Lamarr or Rhonda Fleming has given way to more overtly sexual or an immature presence that Hollywood aspires to today. We are consistently looking back for inspiration rather then forward, while this perhaps might wise, we do find great comfort in our nostalgia. For this reason, the gods and goddess of the "Silver Screen" continue to reach out to us from the printed image - not always just as idols of worship but often as familiar friends we long to know.
Thank you so much for all of the above! About all I can add is... yup! I really appreciate your contribution here. : )
Delete