Screen Guilds Magazine (June 1936)

Actresses Can Look Like People TLJT OWEVER, there is one depart- JL ment that in my opinion is still on the other side of the fence—the phony side, the gingerbread side. Actresses still don’t look like people. The blame for that can be spread widely and thinly. The actresses themselves share in it. So do the costume designer, the make-up staff, and the front office, and the director.” —Bette Davis, writing in the April issue of the Screen Guilds’ Magazine. It was high time that an actress of Miss Davis’ rank and importance had something to say on the inconsistency of the attire worn on the screen. It couldn’t have come first from someone like me, a designer. The same sentiments, voiced by a person in my position, would have made it appear that he had an axe to grind and, hence, his views would have lacked weight. But since Miss Davis has spoken, I feel that I can safely follow in her wake. I agree with her that actresses, at least for the most part, still don’t look like people. Why is this? What is the explana¬ tion for it? The chief reason for it is psychologi¬ cal It is due, in the main, to the sad fact that actresses dress improperly, strangely and, at times, even grotesquely as a typical expression of an inferiority complex. Her attire has nothing to do with screen technique or acting. It is dictated by no peculiar requirement of the film industry. It prevails because an actress is not sure about herself. She lacks confidence in her ability, her personality and even her beauty. So, feeling inferior, she tries to make it up with clothes. She has heard, perhaps, that every¬ thing in pictures is just make-up and publicity after all, and so she attempts the cheapest and what seems to her the easiest way of fooling an audience. She fools only herself. She puts on ridiculous dresses, thinking that her outlandish attire has made her beautiful or has given her personality or that the audience will regard her as an outstand¬ ing actress. U nfortunately, the same often holds true for very good actresses. I am tempted to say that this is the funniest part of it, but the tragedy in the situation outweighs the humor, and so I must say it’s the saddest part. If a mediocre actress looks ridiculous it doesn’t mean so much. Her lack of talent plus her strange attire are enough to paint a picture of her at a proper low level, but if a good actress looks ridiculous because turmoil in her sub¬ conscious causes her to use poor taste in dress, it is a pity for several reasons. Most important, from the standpoint of the picture business as a whole, is that she spoils the enjoyment of the audience. Everybody is hypnotized by her tremendous white lapels—very often used in combination with tremendous, terrific checks—and nobody is able to follow the story, to say nothing of being able to note whether the actress is giv¬ ing a fine performance. From the actress’ own standpoint this is very bad because if I, hypnotized or distracted by dress, am not jable to watch her acting, then I am not able to judge it. But she needs my judgment because I, as a member of the audience, am the man who makes her reputation. Despite studio publicity, which tries to make me believe and think only as it wants me to believe and think about her, I have to, and I will as a matter of course, make my own decisions and form my own opinion of her. M UCH is said and much is written about costuming. It is made a great problem. But, as a matter of fact, there are only three kinds of dress, no more and no less. First, mod¬ ern attire. Personally, I would prefer to select a beautiful gown such as you find everywhere in good shops. But if something different is desired, then I would advise the producer and director (and also the designer, but he very often has nothing to say) to never¬ theless respect fashion law, to stay at least somewhat within the limits of current style trends, instead of using an ash tray or a lamp shade for a hat. By Ernst Bryden ... A noted European fashion creator who tells us that strange dress worn by actresses is the product of an inferiority complex. How much simpler it would be to buy a $3 hat; much cheaper, much less trouble, a wide assortment to select from—and the result would be some¬ thing far more, in vogue than can ever be turned out in a studio workroom. The second type is the period dress. You have to be authentic—that’s all. If you are a producer with money and ambition, then you employ one of a few designers—a real artist in his line —whose knowledge, culture, education and taste equip him for the task, and then let him do the job. If your money and ambitions are limited, then just go to the world’s most famous costume company, here in Hol¬ lywood, and it will supply you with ex^ cellent costumes. Napoleon will look like Napoleon and Marie Antoinette— she will smell of the guillotine. The third type is the so-called fantasy dress. The term applied to this kind of attire is something of a misnomer. It is likely to trip up the film industry, for unless care is exercised, from the producer to the designer, fantasy be¬ comes fantastic. The costumes become too imaginative. They go beyond the bounds of possibility and tend, through their lack of realness, to detract from the picture. Fantasy dress doesn’t require so much fantasy as one would think. Even at the risk of talking about my&elf a bit, I want to use the picture, “Lost Hori¬ zon,” as a point of illustration. It in¬ volves the use of fantasy dress and since I designed the costumes, I am familiar (Continued on Page 28) ££ There are only three kinds of dress, no more and no less. First, modern at¬ tire. . . . The second type is the period dress. . . .The third type is the so-called fantasy dress. ^ 11 • June, 1936