Jump to content

Lucy Sightings!


Brock
 Share

Recommended Posts

Lucy was on the front page of the New York Time Arts section today.

13PORTRAIT-slide-DVQZ-popup.jpg

 

Adding a Colorful Gloss to a Black-and-White WorldBy NEIL GENZLINGER

WASHINGTON — Random observations upon strolling through a new exhibition at the National Portrait Gallery here:

 

¶“I Love Lucy” wouldn’t have been as funny in color.

 

¶Gen. George S. Patton wouldn’t have been as fearsome in color.

 

¶Charlie McCarthy wouldn’t have been as believable in color.

 

¶Cowboys ought always to be photographed in black and white after the age of 30.

 

The exhibition is called “In Vibrant Color: Vintage Celebrity Portraits From the Harry Warnecke Studio,” and it consists of color photographic portraits of 24 noteworthy people from the last century whom we’re more accustomed to seeing in black and white.

 

Lucille Ball is there, and Jimmy Durante, and Laurel and Hardy. An assortment of military heroes from World War II pose in uniform. Literary and sports figures are represented. Yeah, it’s true: Ted Williams’s socks really were red.

 

Warnecke, who died in 1984, was a photographer for The Daily News in New York who understood early — in the 1930s — that a newspaper with a color photograph in it would have an edge over the competition.

 

“Warnecke designed and built a one-shot camera that yielded the red, blue and green separations needed for color reproduction,” the exhibition explains, and he persuaded the newspaper to build him a studio suitable for the complex process of creating the images.

 

Though various forms of color photography had existed for decades, the Everyman color snapshot was still a ways off, and certainly a color print in a newspaper was a rarity. People expected to see images in black and white, and though movies had begun the shift to color (“The Wizard of Oz,” of course, came out in 1939), newsreels and then early television would define how the public imagined most of the people seen in this show. Many would live and work well into the color age — Durante died in 1980, Ball in 1989 after starring in several color series — but they’re forever black and white to me and others.

 

So it’s jarring to see Ball in a red, black and blue striped skirt, her orange-red hair topped by an even redder hat. The image is from 1944, when she was in her early 30s. No spit take or exaggerated pout here. In truth, this greatest of female comics looks a bit sad. And far more human than she ever did in the television show for which she is best known.

 

W. C. Fields, on the other hand, stayed in character for his photograph, made in 1938. He’s wearing three different kinds of plaid — pants, vest, suit coat — and a foam mustache, obtained from a frothy amber beverage he’s holding. Durante, too, looks just as comical in his gray-blue suit (the image is from 1948) as he does in black-and-white memory. Maybe it’s the nose.

 

It’s almost as if Fields and Durante were resisting the onset of color and the honesty it would bring, whereas Ball and others in the exhibition weren’t, or at least didn’t have their defenses up. That is certainly true of two personalities caught by Warnecke and his associates: Charlie McCarthy and Mortimer Snerd.

 

They are shown in a 1948 photograph with Edgar Bergen, the ventriloquist who gave them voice. If you watch black-and-white film of Bergen at work, especially with Charlie, it’s easy to believe that the dummy is alive. Not here. Sorry, boys, but in color you look kind of wooden.

 

That, though, is better than the fate that befalls two cowboys and one cowgirl. Roy Rogers, Gene Autry and Dale Evans are all pictured, the men in images from 1942, Evans in 1947. (No sign of Trigger.) The outfits on Rogers and Evans are cool enough: brown and red tones for him; a red western-style dress over a bright yellow shirt for her. Autry wears shiny blue pants that look as if they belonged in a disco. All three seem way too old to be doing the cowboy thing. It was acceptable somehow in black and white. In color it’s a little embarrassing.

 

And who’s that grandfatherly fellow staring out from another wall? Why it’s General Patton. What? This is Old Blood and Guts, one of the most fiery commanders in all of World War II? The image is from 1945, and Patton has colorful military decorations on his chest, but he looks like a kindly college professor. Not far away, in the 20th-Century Americans Gallery, a grainy black-and-white newsreel of Patton is on view. That guy is scary; the guy in the Warnecke exhibition could work as a department store Santa. Of all the military men on the wall — Dwight D. Eisenhower is there; so is George C. Marshall — only the aviator Claire L. Chennault looks intimidating. It may be a good thing that one important World War II battle, the public relations one, wasn’t fought in color.

 

The museum galleries were full of young scholarly types, presumably college students, earnestly taking notes as they strolled through the show, which runs through Sept. 9.

 

If I were a scholarly type, I might write a learned paper comparing the 1941 portrait of Clare Boothe Luce in the Warnecke exhibition with Jo Davidson’s 1939 terra-cotta bust of her just a few steps away. It might be possible to mine an entire thesis out of the juxtaposition of the Warnecke portraits and an early Nam June Paik work in the adjacent Smithsonian American Art Museum called “Zen for TV,” which consists of an ancient wood-cabinet television displaying only a horizontal line of light. It’s a copy of a work from 1963, when black-and-white television was at its peak but on the verge of being supplanted by color.

 

“In Paik’s hands the television set became a sculptural object with a subtly meditative surface, in which the horizon of light suggests a timeless continuum,” the display says. Sure; why not?

 

Rather than try to rediscover my inner academic, here’s one half-baked observational theory: The black-and-white era is often regarded as a purist ideal, but the Warnecke Studio’s works show that unless you had a big nose or a foam mustache, it’s color, not black and white, that revealed the real you.

 

In terms of television and film, that makes the last half-century or so, not the mid-20th century and the black-and-white TV years, the age worth venerating. Hope you enjoyed it while it lasted, because with movies drowning in computer-generated effects and other artificiality, and television headed that way, it’s now over.

 

That settled, only one question remains: What was the wistful-looking Lucy thinking when that portrait was taken?

 

 

My link

 

I disagree with his statement that I Love Lucy would have been less funny in color. It may not have been more funny, but it definitely wouldn't have been less funny. I also hate when people try to analyze a posed photo. Lucy was probably thinking, "The photographer told me to look wistful."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I disagree with his statement that I Love Lucy would have been less funny in color. It may not have been more funny, but it definitely wouldn't have been less funny. I also hate when people try to analyze a posed photo. Lucy was probably thinking, "The photographer told me to look wistful."

 

I totally agree! I read that article yesterday and thought the same thing. And the over analyzing was even worse in the comments section. One commenter wrote that this picture of Lucy is evidence of the tragic lives that most comics lead behind the scenes. Oh, b-r-o-t-h-e-r! :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I Love Lucy was just the answer to a clue on Jeopardy tonight. The category was "First Episodes" and the clue was "1951 - The Girls Want to Go to a Night Club." The first guy who buzzed in answered with "What is The Lucy Show?" :lucydaze: The next contestant got that it was I Love Lucy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I Love Lucy was just the answer to a clue on Jeopardy tonight. The category was "First Episodes" and the clue was "1951 - The Girls Want to Go to a Night Club." The first guy who buzzed in answered with "What is The Lucy Show?" :lucydaze: The next contestant got that it was I Love Lucy.

 

Just came on to post that. Very cool!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I came across a reference to a movie I've never seen, "Rat Race" with Cuba Gooding,Jr & looked it up on utube because it involved a busload of Lucy Ricardo impersonators! Here's a clip I found :marionstrong: :

 

And now i suppose you also are going to tell us you were only three when that played in theaters???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

C L A U D E

 

Posted Yesterday, 03:54 PM

 

 

 

vivfantoo*, on 11 April 2012 - 01:08 PM, said:

 

 

I came across a reference to a movie I've never seen, "Rat Race" with Cuba Gooding,Jr & looked it up on utube because it involved a busload of Lucy Ricardo impersonators! Here's a clip I found :

 

 

 

 

And now i suppose you also are going to tell us you were only three when that played in theaters???

 

Three and a half :lucycoy: (Plus a couple of decades ;) ) That clip cracked me up! I showed it to my hubby who is not a Lucy fan (his only fault :) ) & even he laughed!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Three and a half :lucycoy: (Plus a couple of decades ;) ) That clip cracked me up! I showed it to my hubby who is not a Lucy fan (his only fault :) ) & even he laughed!

You're right, it was funny. Did you that originally it was supposed to be a bunch of Elvis impersonators but they thankfully changed it to Lucys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...