International photographer (Jan-Dec 1941)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

"(NECESSARy EVil" QETS his fJRST bllEAli A letter to International Photographer anent First Annual Salon of the Still Photographers of the Motion Pieture Studios of Hollywood Since the writer appears to be more or less well known to the membership of Local 659 and prefers to speak his alleged mind without fear or favor, let or hindrance, and will in all probability take a few candid shots at his friends WHO HAVE MADE THIS SHOW', we have promised Jim Doolittle that this letter will be published anonymously. — Editor. Dear Sirs: The other day while giving my desk a long threatened cleaning I came across the announcement of Hollywood Studios' Still Photography Show. "Phooey," phooied I, in my open minded manner, just a bunch of production shots, the hold-it-for-a-still stuff that retards schedules, makes a deficit in the budget, gives the assistant director one more excuse for an intense hatred of mankind, and finds its way into some trade journal that nobody reads! Calling the City Engineer's Office I found that Gordon Street is a tributary to Hollywood Boulevard and so neatly concealed on the map I had a feeling it was just the proper place to hide a flock of motion picture stills! Arming myself, figuratively, of course, with a hammer and a couple of fistfuls of adobe, I set out to do some scientific knocking and slinging. In fact, as I drove along, I developed the impulse to outfiddle Fidler and out-wince Winchell. Thus you can sense the largeness of my purpose. Finally I arrived at 1455 Gordon Street and entered the portals of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. So, figuratively, of course, I reached for my hammer and took a quick squint at the catalog to see whom should I take the first poke at. Nice-looking piece of printing, was my first impression of the guide book; big numbers just like on the prints and the photographers' names spelled right out loud with credits for the studios and production. Looks funny to see a still photographer getting top billing with the stars' names in teeny-weeny letters! A bit of bravery on the part of the Academy to try and sell catalogs, I thought, when all the dope is pasted on the photographs themselves ! To give the works a quick once-over seemed the thing to do in order to get a sort of perspective. Half an hour of this and I had the feeling that while there were no high spots, neither were there any chuck-holes. A good, level bunch of taking and picking, as much a credit almost to the judges as to the photographers. But I thought the Board much too big-hearted in hanging about twice as many prints as International Photographer for May, 1941 rather cramped quarters would accommodate. It's my idea that an exhibition piece needs what we call "carrying quality." Ihere's a whole lot of difference between the effect of a shot seen at arm's length and the same one viewed from across the room. Therefore simplicity is the thing. On the other hand, I realize that most production stills necessarily contain a mass of detail essential to the story that cannot be rubbed out just to make the shot "arty." Cliff Maupin gets pretty close to my tastes along this line of reasoning with his backstage shot of Alice Faye as "Lillian Bussell." Before I got down to looking at the prize winners, I thought, "Here's my chance to conk the judges with my little hammer!" But to my amazement I had no trouble in perfect agreement with their award to Emmet Schoenbaum for his portrait of John Carradine. And I would have been glad if he'd gotten something for his "Man in the Moon" with Charley Grapewin making some lunar observations through a ventilator of the "little house." I could easily have gotten into a tangle with the committee on classifications. John Ellis' "Assassination Scene" is listed as a posed production shot and has about as much action as I've ever seen. Number 269, by Eric Carpenter, is called an action portrait and shows Judy Garland comfortably resting in a lawn chair! Number 256, by Hal McAlpine, has a nice lot of swing, pleasing decorative quality which Miss Virginia Dale couldn't have spoiled if she'd tried. She's carrying too much shrubbery and underbrush in her arms, however, to give the shot desirable simplicity. James Manatt's action portrait of Igrid Bergman stopped at the proper instant, for had his shutter faltered I should have felt it my duty to march right over to the Hays' office! Doesn't Ann Sheridan own any wardrobe? Some day I'm going to run across a picture of her all dressed up. Maybe I have and didn't recognize her. Schuyler Crail picks up where George Hurrell left off and does all right by her, too. If "gamma" is the Latin for "gams" I'm going to brush up on my mathematics and would like nothing better than to do it the way Gaston Longet goes about it in his arrangement of highly adequate hosiery filling from a scene in "No, No, Nanette." Anna Neagle doesn't take a thing away from the picture either. Alexander Kahle's "Campaign Speech," with Orson Welles, has everything, but the print isn't being helped any by being mounted cock-eyed and all gowed up with penciled "art-work" ( ? ) Lucille Ball is practically "gone with the wind" in Kahle's shots of her standing over an up-draft. Gene Bichee didn't miss a point in his portrait of Claudette Colbert. Entirely free from the conventions of theatrical photography, he has photographed Claudette just as she is and as we are accustomed to seeing her from the loges. Lazlo Willinger could have had little trouble in merely photographing Bosalind Russell as she is. To a susceptible mind, she requires few of the artifices of the camera. Background's a bit too messed up, though, for simplicity. The most compelling exhibits were in the color section. Though not in competition, they represented the only advance since the beginning of the cinematographic calendar. Ray Jones' shots of Irene Dunn and Peggy Moran, while not offered in competition, ought to get more recognition than these few words of intended commendation. Over CINEX Light Testers — Polishers used by all Major Studios. We are the sole Manufacturers and Distributors. Manufacturer of 16mm and 35mm Recording Heads, Developing Machines, Bipack Color and Black and White Printers, Rewinds. Special Machinery built to order. CINEMA ARTS-CRAFTS 914 No. Fairfax HE 1984 Hollywood, Calif. Cable Address: "CINEBARSAM" Efficient Courteous Service m EVERYTHING PHOTOGRAPHIC Professional and Amateur ■ New and Used Equipment Bought, Sold and Rented ■ ART REEVES Camera Supply Co. 1515 North Cahuenga Boulevard HOLLYWOOD CALIFORNIA Cable Address: "CAMERAS"