Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Hedy Lamarr: The Most Beautiful Star!

Recommended Posts

filmlover, I can't even find the original note anymore. I wasn't speaking to you initially, I was speaking to path, who attempted to send all of what he called 'party messages' to the Private forum.


RockyRoad, no one here could dare to understand what you, GarboManiac and TMN are going through if they haven't experienced it.


If we have lived, we have experienced loss in one fashion or another. As I said, the fact that you all have come here to share your experiences and your pain is a testament to this board.


The fact that there are those here who have dared to stifle your posts is indefensible.



Link to post
Share on other sites

> Not really, you've made 4 posts on this thread all

> attacking me or arguing with me.

> The one time you even mentioned Hedy Lamarr

> you spelled her name wrong.

> Thanks for your contributions.

> Now go put your head back up your ****.


> Message was edited by:

> Snarfie


You have way too much time on your hands, you strange, hostile little person. Your over the top fascination with Hedy Lamarrrr profiles you as textbook stalker material. Keep your posts on topic, buddy!

Link to post
Share on other sites

> Enter RR's alter-ego.

> Still get your licks in that way, eh?

> Seek professional help.


Please Snarfie no more name calling. I'm about to leave now let's just talk about Hedy like GarboManiac intended! I beg you! Gotta go now will be back Tuesday or Wednesday till then please let's treat each other with respect we are all "Gods Children" :) P.S Believe it or not Snarfie Rocky Road is a good guy. He went through three years with his wife's suffering and eventual death with no one to help him. She died on "Thanksgiving Day" ( Sorry Rocky for letting that out but I had to) :) Snarfie please forgive and try to forget you are a decent and good person God Bless You! TMN Bye till Wednesday!! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

To all of my fellow posters:


To think that I used to come to this thread to 'shoot the breeze'. This used to be a place/thread where anyone could come for some feel good 'light' conversation which always included a common rapport talking about Hedy and a little bit of everything or nothing.


That was the beauty of this thread.I'm appalled to see,that after a few days away from the same,it has turned into another "If you can't say something nice" thread which everyone turned into a battleground.


I just spent a wasted 20 minutes reading the senseless,argumentative bs that has been posted in my absence.I just can't believe it! Who has time for this?If you have an excess of time don't you think it could better be employed for anything on a positve level?


To top things off, this was all done on GARBOMANIAC'S thread,a person who has only posted intelligent,informative,witty and thoughtful posts on this thread and any other thread.To me it's the same as going into someone's house uninvited and raising havoc.


I hope that you all come to your senses.We all should have a common respect for one another, first of all just for being human beings, regardless of what we've been through or have yet to go through.


It's like any other social exchange in any other setting,there have to be rules of behavior applied.There has to be a common courtesy and exchange between all participants


Until this is done,this forum is meaningless and not worth the time and effort.


It makes me wonder if I would ever want to be a part of this anymore.......

Link to post
Share on other sites

Those old Hollywood photographers could do so much with lighting in the old days. I think that was because they used different kinds of special Hollywood studio theatrical lighting.


A regular still-photo studio usually had some basic simple light that were like floods, that lit the entire picture area and tried to avoid casting shadows. But the special Hollywood studio lights could produce amazing shadows and special spot-lighted areas in a person?s face. They also had some lights that had ?masks? that could be placed over them. I think a mask could be cut out of thin metal and shaped in various ways, so that just the light flowing through the mask would hit the subject. Also, they knew how to use back-lights, behind the subject, to make their hair seem to glow.


Plus, it looks to me like they used 8 x 10 inch sheet film on some of the very formal shots, so an 8 x 10 print would be a contact print which means the negative is the same size as the print. Very sharp. Plus, an 8 x 10 glass or film plate could be ?re-touched?. Soft pencils were used to make little soft marks on the emulsion side of the film, and that was used to cover up little blemishes in the faces.


They also sometimes used long focal length lenses for special effects, such as the photo below of her wearing the jewelry. Notice that the jewelry is a little out of focus, but her lips, chin, nose, cheeks, and eyes are in focus. Notice that her hair goes soft and out of focus. This was done with a large ?telephoto? type lens. Just slightly telephoto, and it was probably shot with an 8 x 10 camera?s lens, so the ?plane of focus? might be only 1/2 to 1 inch deep. This would also require a fairly wide f. stop.


But there are other ways to make the focus look soft on the jewelry and the hair, such as with a retouching pencil. Little short soft marks on the film can cause a slight blurring effect where ever it is wanted.


Years ago I bought some late 19th Century 8 x 10 glass negatives, and I studied the retouching pencil marks on them. One would think that a pencil line on a negative would show up looking like a pencil line on the print, but for some reason it doesn?t and I?m not sure why.


The ?when in Rome? photo is made from an inter-negative. That is a negative made from photographing a print, when the original negative is not available. That?s why it has higher contrast and a ?mottled? look to some of the skin tones and there?s no detail showing in the hair.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the informative post. I don't quite understand a bit of it,but I enjoy reading these things and trying to learn. I enjoy these technical posts as well as the fun and "chatty" posts-after all, we're all here because we love classic films-we know that from the get-go--after that,it's just having fun and passing some time being friendly and either learning new things about the films we love or about our fellow classic film lovers. So,I'm going to re-read your post and try to understand more about how these beautiful glamor shots of these beautiful Hollywood stars were accomplished :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ask me any questions you want about my post. I?m not a great expert on this subject, but I?ve read a lot about it and I?ve played around with lighting and different kinds of cameras. I never was any good at special lighting, so I never could do good artistic still photos or theatrical type films. I was pretty good with ?available light?, which is just any kind of natural light that a documentary and news cameraman has to work with on location, but there are certain tricks to using it in a way to try to make it look like real Hollywood lighting.


I always admired the Hollywood movie cameramen and the still photographers, because they were so good with lighting. That?s one reason I like ?The Third Man? so much. It is remarkable how they lit their images back in those days and the movie cameramen didn?t have much of a viewfinder back then. Just a small little box they looked through. They had to have experience plus imagine what the lighting would look like on the big screen.


I watched James Wong Howe lighting a scene for ?This Property is Condemned? down in New Orleans around 1965 or ?66. I was amazed at the amount of time it took to make one short scene of Robert Redford walking down Bourbon Street in the rain at night. The rain came from a water truck and pipes. Howe was up on scaffolding with the camera, and every light had a technician aiming it. They had a large generator truck generating the electricity for all the lights. Almost no one locally knew who Redford was at that time. Some technician told me he was ?an actor from Broadway?. Lol, I was about 24 years old back then.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read that there were some actresses who were so aware of their lighting that they could tell by "feel" what lights were on them or what lights should be-Norma Shearer and Marlene Dietrich,for two. They would be standing in place getting ready for a shot,and they could tell by feel that some baby light or something wasn't on them,or in the correct position on their face. I think that's amazing.



Your story of Robert Redford being filmed in the "rain" reminds me of the famous dance sequence with Gene Kelly from "Singing In The Rain"-I read that they had to use milk instead of water to get it to show up the way they wanted. Yuck! Can you imagine running around singing and dancing(and he looked full up at the "sky" in some shots)with milk pouring down on you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

"They also had some lights that had ?masks? that could be placed over them. I think a mask could be cut out of thin metal and shaped in various ways, so that just the light flowing through the mask would hit the subject. "


Nice post, Mr. Dobbs. I believe the mask that you're describing is a "gobo". These metal sheets could be cut in various ways to create patterns of light and shadow or to point out certain areas of the frame (Joan Crawford's eyes, for instance).


And lest we forget the key light, that helped enhance Marlene Dietrich's cheekbones...


"I've read that there were some actresses who were so aware of their lighting that they could tell by "feel" what lights were on them or what lights should be-Norma Shearer and Marlene Dietrich,for two."


Hello daddysprimadonna, This is actually a skill that most would acquire from working on stages. When I was in school, our director would have us on stage -- blindfolded -- and we were instructed to find the light. One grows accustomed to feeling the light and its main focus.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting what you said about Shearer and Dietrich. The lights were very hot and more so in the old days because of the slow ?speed? of the film. Some actresses had their own favorite cameraman and lighting technician. Sometimes their director would arrange for the special lighting just for them. It is quite possible that they felt the heat of the lights on different parts of their faces and they might have known when a light was missing or not bright enough.


Remember the scene in Gone With the Wind when Vivien Leigh pinches her cheeks while looking in a mirror, and they gradually turn rosy? I think that was done with lighting. I think two small baby spots with rose-colored filters were aimed at her cheeks, or one small spot with a mask in front of it that allowed two spots of soft light to hit her cheeks. It looks to me like someone is turning up a rheostat on that light right after she pinches her cheeks, since they not only turn rosy but they get a little bit brighter too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Scrolling down and looking at the pictures, Hedy was like a fine wine, improving with age, unusual in a woman. Don't get mad, I see myself in mirrors all the time, and I know what I'm saying.


Mr. Dobbs, what do they mean when they say they used a filter on the camera to filter out Doris Day's freckles because she hated them? and had so many.

Link to post
Share on other sites

?Mr. Dobbs, what do they mean when they say they used a filter on the camera to filter out Doris Day's freckles because she hated them? and had so many.?


Filters of a certain colors can make certain colors more dark or more light. Certain colored filters used on a lens of a camera shooting black and white negative film could reduce the darkness of Doris Day?s freckles.


Filters alone can make a person?s skin tones darker or lighter, and certain filters (I can?t remember which colors) can make the freckles not noticeable. For positive film, the negative filter is used, and for negative film the positive filter is use. For example, an orange filter is the ?negative? of a blue filter, and a red filter is the negative of a green filter. So, by manipulating the colored filters, even with black and white film, filters of certain colors can be used to subdue or exaggerate a person?s freckles. This system works best with black and white film.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
  • Create New...