C L A U D E Posted March 14, 2014 Report Share Posted March 14, 2014 If there is anybody out there who could solve a riddle for me. We all remember that kid who said that to Lucy and Lucy was so upset that she could not stay young for her fans, the way they had seen her on I Love Lucy was no longer the way she looked. Some of you have told me over the years that LIGHTING has a lot to do with a star looking their best. I also know of special filters they can put on camera lenses to take away the wrinkles and the years. And of course, we all know about Lucy's lift contraption, that came from the Gene Hibbs make up and thanks to Irma added years to Lucy's career. But I want to know why Lucy looked great on her show, but always had bags under her eyes on Carson. I also want to know why she looked perfect at the Academy awards OUTSIDE, but just so so on camera INSIDE doing her shtick with Bob Hope. Her hair especially, she looks like she's wearing a horrible wig inside but it looks natural and perfect OUTSIDE. Why did she look sensational on the opening of the Bob Hope Cultural Centre but looked so old at the Variety Clubs tribute and the Hall of Fame but looked better at the Kennedy Center honors when all those appearances were about the same time period of her life, what do YOU think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brock Posted March 14, 2014 Report Share Posted March 14, 2014 She was fickle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C L A U D E Posted March 14, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2014 I also know of that trick where they have these older stars sitting in a living room setting with just a lamp next to them so I assume that's the lighting trick. I remember Barbra Streisand driving Mike Wallace crazy for her interview by wanting to control everything about the setting and lighting. I also remember that Mame had Philip Lathrop doing his magic on her face for the movie, he was well known in the industry for being able to keep any legend looking beautiful with his special gifts for photography. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C L A U D E Posted March 14, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2014 Oh Brock please, I respect everything you say and you are so knowledgeable about everything, you can surely do better than going for the easy joke here. Besides, going for easy is MY job! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C L A U D E Posted March 14, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2014 While the response to this thread has been just amazing, I find it hard to find the time to read all the replies. But I want you all to know that this is not a critical thread designed to point out Lucy's faults but rather I want to know what tricks are used or what methods are employed to make people look better on film or in photos. If you want another example of what I'm talking about, Bruce Springsteen is not exactly a gorgeous movie star but in that video shot by Brian De Palma of him performing DANCING IN THE DARK and Courtney Cox comes on at the end, well he looks so incredible it's hard for me to believe it's him. That's how well it was shot. Again, how do they make him look so great? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irene Kampen Tripp Posted March 14, 2014 Report Share Posted March 14, 2014 U know ILL was filmed with gauze on the lense.. Even THEN tricks were used. I think the Carson show.had video cameras used.without a filter and poor lighting (for Lucille). I dont get why Lucille looked poorly on camera at the Oscars... Especially when outdoor shots flatter her... I would think indoor would work in Lucille's favor...go figure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C L A U D E Posted March 14, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2014 I agree, if any show should be kind to the older stars' faces, it would be the Oscars. Maybe the lights made her squint? I think I've asked this before but did BOTOX exist in Lucy's day? And could she have used it sometimes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeySanJoaquin Posted March 14, 2014 Report Share Posted March 14, 2014 U know ILL was filmed with gauze on the lense.. Even THEN tricks were used. I think the Carson show.had video cameras used.without a filter and poor lighting (for Lucille). I dont get why Lucille looked poorly on camera at the Oscars... Especially when outdoor shots flatter her... I would think indoor would work in Lucille's favor...go figure I don't believe that's factual, unless you're referring to the early-on close-ups/pick-ups Freund did which were fairly quickly abandoned because it was a nightmare to match the shots in editing with what was picked up by the 3 cameras during the "regular" filming. He definitely lit those close-ups differently to flatter our star as much as possible (remember, she was already 40 when ILL began!) as compared to the flat lighting used for the majority of the production. Makes a huge difference! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irene Kampen Tripp Posted March 15, 2014 Report Share Posted March 15, 2014 Karl told Desi... Lucy's no chicken, I will have to use special lighting and put a scrim over the lense.... When Desi aapproached Karl about filming the series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C L A U D E Posted March 15, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2014 What does FLAT lighting mean Neil? I always though the lighting came from up above all around the set. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luvsbway Posted March 15, 2014 Report Share Posted March 15, 2014 Yes on that placement. Therefore it was uniform thus meaning flat. You didn't directional point a light and craft artistic shadows. What I learned in basic tv lighting for a studio is an overhead grid. With that you use three point lighting called backlight, key lighting and fill. This is what interviews use. Someone can correct me on this as lighting was not my best subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irene Kampen Tripp Posted March 15, 2014 Report Share Posted March 15, 2014 Aeen't lights mounted on both sides of the camera also? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luvsbway Posted March 15, 2014 Report Share Posted March 15, 2014 No, never saw a set up like this. In still photography there is something called a ring flash, but it's fairly new and used most in fashion photography. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mmadluv7 Posted March 15, 2014 Report Share Posted March 15, 2014 If there is anybody out there who could solve a riddle for me. We all remember that kid who said that to Lucy and Lucy was so upset that she could not stay young for her fans, the way they had seen her on I Love Lucy was no longer the way she looked. Some of you have told me over the years that LIGHTING has a lot to do with a star looking their best. I also know of special filters they can put on camera lenses to take away the wrinkles and the years. And of course, we all know about Lucy's lift contraption, that came from the Gene Hibbs make up and thanks to Irma added years to Lucy's career. But I want to know why Lucy looked great on her show, but always had bags under her eyes on Carson. I also want to know why she looked perfect at the Academy awards OUTSIDE, but just so so on camera INSIDE doing her shtick with Bob Hope. Her hair especially, she looks like she's wearing a horrible wig inside but it looks natural and perfect OUTSIDE. Why did she look sensational on the opening of the Bob Hope Cultural Centre but looked so old at the Variety Clubs tribute and the Hall of Fame but looked better at the Kennedy Center honors when all those appearances were about the same time period of her life, what do YOU think? I think there are a lot of reasons for the change of look- First, Make up application- Make up will always be applied, but differently every time, with older women, any change is noticeable. For instance, if Kim Kardasian put her eyebrows up a few centimeters ,no one would really tell, but Lucy- at that older age, putting the brow line higher or lower made her face noticeably different. If the eye brows were applied too low, she looked angry and if they were too high, she looked surprised, and it also gave the eyes a "washed and plucked chicken" look lol so every time you see her, its a bit different, because of the make up. Sometimes, we see Lucy with a little powder, a little eye make up, and no wig contraption- and then there are times that the lose skin is literally pulled in back and her make up is applied by an artist and not by her self-- Considering all of that- its safe to say, she's going to look different depending on the engagement or event-ESPECIALLY when putting on actual concealer, lip stick, and "stage make up" because Make up reflects differently depending on the lighting and angle. Also, pictures may be worth a thousand words, but they also LIE lol. Sometimes, a picture can look one way, and in reality, look nothing like that captured image. Lucy could photograph well with a lot of make up on, in the right angle, with the right lighting-one snap- and theres Lucille Ball- If you take it any other way, you may see Mrs Morton. Lighting, as you said, is important- if a light shines UNDER Lucys face, the light will cast a show at the crease of the wrinkles- and pronounce them more- if the light is shining above or directly at her, you have all of the wrinkles washed away by the shine of the light. And just because its there on the pic, doesn't mean it was that noticeable in person unless you looked at it up close and with shades lol Some may notice this when taking a picture with a performer who wears make up in their performance. On stage and in person, they looked perfectly normal, and then you see the picture and it picks up every bit of make up they have on.- so a lot of these pictures were just pictures, and not as telling of her face as they seem..they come close though. Heres a pic, showing how there can be differences with just one photo based on how its developed and not only on how nice she looks. Heres a sample of how lighting and tones play a part. The middle picture is the actual picture from the transparency. It picks up wrinkles, but not as much as the others Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C L A U D E Posted March 15, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2014 O M G you certainly proved how color can make a huge difference in every photo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mmadluv7 Posted March 15, 2014 Report Share Posted March 15, 2014 O M G you certainly proved how color can make a huge difference in every photo. Not only color, but lighting, hues, and even focus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luvsbway Posted March 15, 2014 Report Share Posted March 15, 2014 That was a wonderful description. Lucy had the ability to transform her look over the decades that sometimes I wonder if its the sasme girl. Then there are times you look at a photo or watch her and see a shade of another decade. That first photo you posted is pretty. Looking at it with her hair nicely curled hair, the sweet smile and lashes you see Lucy Ricardo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C L A U D E Posted March 15, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2014 I'll never forget, when I was nineteen, this guy I worked with, who was older, said that you can always tell a woman's real age from her hands, certainly true in that second shot. We were working with a lady who was pretending to be ten years younger than she actually was by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luvsbway Posted March 15, 2014 Report Share Posted March 15, 2014 Yes the hands are a give away. Even in her 30s you can see the age in Lucy's hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C L A U D E Posted March 15, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2014 In that first shot, Lucy's got a little Bette Davis in her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irene Kampen Tripp Posted March 15, 2014 Report Share Posted March 15, 2014 My mom would always say ..Look at the neck and hands... Always disillusioning me with Miss Ball... She also used to say...If I'd a known THIS would happen, I NEVER would have sat you down in front of THAT SHOW!! Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C L A U D E Posted March 15, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2014 LOL! That's funny. Mine also was a bit sick of her and her shows by the time she died. Of course she'd been watching her since the very beginning and had to live through my infatuation with her also. She used to think she was the most beautiful actress, especially in the forties and fifties. But she just hated the fact that she kept fiddling with herself and her clothes all through interviews, LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irene Kampen Tripp Posted March 16, 2014 Report Share Posted March 16, 2014 Oh yeah!! That is the only big issue I have.with Lucille... Durring.interviews and sometimes in character I wanna scream ... Lucille for god's sake leave your face/hair/necklace/dress ALONE!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luvsbway Posted March 16, 2014 Report Share Posted March 16, 2014 She's mostly good about it in her acting, but if you watch her hands in scenes where she's just talking she is very fiddigy with them but it's not overly districting, just over the years a studying her I 've noticed it. With the wigs she does plump her hair more than she did on ILL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C L A U D E Posted March 16, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2014 Well, I certainly understand that in interviews, it's just nerves, lots of people do that when they're stressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.