Motography (Jul-Sep 1916)

WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE NICKELODEON Vol. XVI CHICAGO, SEPTEMBER 23, 1916 No. 13 Grave Faults in Pictures BY CAPTAIN LESLIE T. PEACOCKE (Editorial Note: Exhibitors, as 'well as patrons, often express a keen desire for the improvement of screen make-up, particularly for the elimination of the over-accentuation of features which is prevalent even in some of the best producing companies. Captain Peacocke's article is timely and drives the critical knife into the sore spot where the operation is needed.) IT appears astounding to the majority of the millions who daily view productions on the screens why the same palpable faults should be made day after day by both producing directors and actors, and no steps, apparently, taken to remedy them. I am alluding to the glaring enormities that invariably greet the eye in film productions. Enormities that even children point out, and that can be so easily remedied. Do the ladies and gentlemen who pose for the benefit and pleasure of the world at large never see their efforts on the screen, or do they merely consult the mirrors in their dressing rooms, and each others' countenances beneath the glaring lights in the studios ? I take up the cudgels on behalf of a long-suffering multitude, and throw a little ink at a subject that needs immediate attention. It is — the use and abuse of make-up! Why do actors and actresses smother their faces thickly with grease-paint, so that they look like plaster masks, expressionless and scarcely human ? Why thickly rim the eyes with black, and under the eye-brows with blue, giving slightly the effect of having played a losing bout with Jess Willard? Why "bead" the eye-lashes with a thick, black mess that even chorus girls facing the calcium lights in a big theater would hesitate in employing? Why smear the lips with red paint and cosmetic that can only photograph deadly black, and distort what is supposed to be a human mouth into a dark cavern, unpleasant to the sight ? Why is all this ? Who is at fault ? Is it the directors, or is it the actors themselves? Are they like children in the nursery, and find it difficult to "act" unless partially disguised by a mask — or whiskers? Is it that the directors realize their limitations and are forced to humor them ? Or is it that actors hope to escape recognition by their friends ; or can it be that they have committed deadly crimes and fear to be too easily identified? Patrons Sneer at Bad Make-up I am not trying to suggest, for a moment, that actors should not employ make-up whilst enacting roles before the camera. It is the abuse of make-up that I am inveighing against. It is such a grave evil that daily one hears audiences in theaters audibly protesting against it, and the cause of sneers in sometimes most dramatic scenes. Theatrical make-up of various sorts is often essential, but judicial care should be employed in its application. Many things should be taken into consideration, which are practically ignored by even some directors who are drawing salaries bigger than that of the president of the United States. In deciding upon the make-up to be used, often little or no attention is paid by the directors to the "lighting conditions," and actors and actresses are directed to make up either heavily or lightly (as pleases the director) and then employed in a studio scene under heavy arti1 ficial lights ; and then some exterior scenes have to be filmed, and the actors are rushed from the studio into automobiles and driven off to some outdoor location, and forced to face the camera in the searching rays of the sun, with the same mess of grease-paint on their faces as was employed especially to meet the conditions of studio lighting! The lay mind will question the veracity of this. It will ask, "Can such ignorance be possible ?" But I have seen it myself — time and time again, in some of the biggest studios in the country — and I have marvelled. The public sees the results on the screen, and — the public sneers. In studio work it is, of course, essential that judicious make-up be employed, and at a certain distance the effects are nearly always natural and pleasing; but when the actor, or actress, is drawn to a close-up to the camera (where even the minutest blemish on the skin is magnified to an enormity) — why, in heaven's name, is the same mess of make-up allowed to mar the face, that was solely placed there to meet the lighting conditions of the more distant scenes? Why is not a different make-up employed more often for the close-up scenes ? Why do so many of the leading players, of both sexes, allow themselves to be depicted as veritable scarecrows? Are they blind? Don't they ever seen themselves on the screen? And if they do, are they satisfied? If so, thespians must be more devoid of vanity than the public gives them credit for ! But ninety-nine cases out of a hundred it is not the actors' fault. They have no voice in the matter. They are being "directed!" Our prominent stage stars, who essay roles in film productions for the first time are, naturally, ignorant of the proper make-up necessary to meet, to them, the new conditions ; and appeal for information to the gentleman who is directing the production. Well, I have heard instructions given ; usixally like this : "Why, you know how to make-up, don't you? Yes, of course; a 'straight make-up,' same as I've seen you use in your stage productions. Any of the fellows (or girls) who have been