Tweet A different sort of photo mystery...

I got this photo on a search a while ago, and while it's obvious who is in the photo, and I can tell approximately when it was shot and know the source (an online European archive), does anyone else notice something, er, unusual about the photo? I'll leave it at that for now.

FS_PA234013.jpg (26.23 KiB) Viewed 890 times

the fake antlers?

[Danny Burk]

That it's a White-tailed (or Mule?) deer and not a Reindeer?

That the actress' left foot seems to be hanging down a lot farther than it should be?

Someone's nicked the sleigh ???

Oh dear, perhaps some of you need to squint. Of course it's a stuffed prop animal and as such, unimportant. Anyhow, due to the rather unfortunate pose, doesn't it appear as though Santa's little helper is carrying an extra special package under the red velvet? Or as a female friend I showed the photo to put it more bluntly, "She looks pregnant".

I'm quite surprised the (unnamed) studio photographer took and printed that shot.

Oh dear, perhaps some of you need to squint. Of course it's a stuffed prop animal and as such, unimportant. Anyhow, due to the rather unfortunate pose, doesn't it appear as though Santa's little helper is carrying an extra special package under the red velvet? Or as a female friend I showed the photo to put it more bluntly, "She looks pregnant".

I'm quite surprised the (unnamed) studio photographer took and printed that shot.

I can't see the photo very well, I can't even ID the actress, but that was my first thought--who's the pregnant chick?

It's Mary Brian.

Oh dear, perhaps some of you need to squint. Of course it's a stuffed prop animal and as such, unimportant. Anyhow, due to the rather unfortunate pose, doesn't it appear as though Santa's little helper is carrying an extra special package under the red velvet? Or as a female friend I showed the photo to put it more bluntly, "She looks pregnant".

I'm quite surprised the (unnamed) studio photographer took and printed that shot.

I can't see the photo very well, I can't even ID the actress, but that was my first thought--who's the pregnant chick?

It's funny how women spot this at once, and men don't. I sure didn't. It's Mary Brian, which is why I was rather surprised when I realized what I was looking at. I doubt Paramount (it looks Paramount era to me) would want to release such a photo considering she wasn't married. She did a lot of gag photos at Paramount, but this one is a bit much. If this weren't from a European archive (that's the claim, anyhow), I'd wonder if it wasn't photoshopped.

I can't see the photo very well, I can't even ID the actress, but that was my first thought--who's the pregnant chick?

It's funny how women spot this at once, and men don't. I sure didn't. It's Mary Brian, which is why I was rather surprised when I realized what I was looking at. I doubt Paramount (it looks Paramount era to me) would want to release such a photo considering she wasn't married. She did a lot of gag photos at Paramount, but this one is a bit much. If this weren't from a European archive (that's the claim, anyhow), I'd wonder if it wasn't photoshopped.

Or it might be that the outfit she's wearing was loose in the abdomen and had draped in the wrong way for this particular pose. But yeah, it was the first thing I noticed. Those differences in gender focus are always interesting, aren't they? I'm not at all sure what they mean, but they're interesting.

I look like that after every Christmas.

I can't see the photo very well, I can't even ID the actress, but that was my first thought--who's the pregnant chick?

It's funny how women spot this at once, and men don't. I sure didn't. It's Mary Brian, which is why I was rather surprised when I realized what I was looking at. I doubt Paramount (it looks Paramount era to me) would want to release such a photo considering she wasn't married. She did a lot of gag photos at Paramount, but this one is a bit much. If this weren't from a European archive (that's the claim, anyhow), I'd wonder if it wasn't photoshopped.

Or it might be that the outfit she's wearing was loose in the abdomen and had draped in the wrong way for this particular pose. But yeah, it was the first thing I noticed. Those differences in gender focus are always interesting, aren't they? I'm not at all sure what they mean, but they're interesting.

It's the first thing i noticed, too!

greta

I can't see the photo very well, I can't even ID the actress, but that was my first thought--who's the pregnant chick?

It's funny how women spot this at once, and men don't. I sure didn't. It's Mary Brian, which is why I was rather surprised when I realized what I was looking at. I doubt Paramount (it looks Paramount era to me) would want to release such a photo considering she wasn't married. She did a lot of gag photos at Paramount, but this one is a bit much. If this weren't from a European archive (that's the claim, anyhow), I'd wonder if it wasn't photoshopped.

Or it might be that the outfit she's wearing was loose in the abdomen and had draped in the wrong way for this particular pose. But yeah, it was the first thing I noticed. Those differences in gender focus are always interesting, aren't they? I'm not at all sure what they mean, but they're interesting.

It is interesting, which is why I'm happy to see women (especially some in the profession) here! I suspect there's a perfectly reasonable explanation, one that may not have required a visit to the Kay Francis clinic. If the photo was scanned at a better resolution we might have an answer, but that's the biggest/most detailed one they slapped up online.

That was the last thing I noticed, after mndean told all.
I need stronger glasses.

Martie

That was the last thing I noticed, after mndean told all.
I need stronger glasses.

Martie

You're probably one of the youngest here (or so I've read hereabouts), so that may have something to do with it. I've seen enough stills of Mary Brian to know on sight approximately when a photo was taken and still I missed it completely the first time I looked at it. I guess knowing she didn't get married until the '40s and never had kids could have been an influence on me. Second time through I thought something was up (as it were) with that costume and the friend I sent it to mentioned it at once without even so much as a hint from me.

That was the last thing I noticed, after mndean told all.
I need stronger glasses.

Martie

You're probably one of the youngest here (or so I've read hereabouts), so that may have something to do with it. I've seen enough stills of Mary Brian to know on sight approximately when a photo was taken and still I missed it completely the first time I looked at it. I guess knowing she didn't get married until the '40s and never had kids could have been an influence on me. Second time through I thought something was up (as it were) with that costume and the friend I sent it to mentioned it at once without even so much as a hint from me.

Pregnant women in those days didn't get photographed, though, and the more pregnant a woman was, the less likely she was to be seen in public. You went into Pregnancy Purdah. I don't think I remember ever seeing a photo of a visibly pregnant silent/early film actress, although I'm sure there might be adventurous family candids floating around. This didn't apply solely to actresses, either, if you stop and think about how many older photos you've seen in your life, you'll probably come up with buptkes for photos of pregnant women. Lucille Ball was quite the pioneer in that respect, continuing to film her television show while she was extremely pregnant (generating a lot of moral wailing). Which is why I think that abdominal bulge on Ms. Brian is probably just a problem with the cut of the costume.

Pregnant women in those days didn't get photographed, though, and the more pregnant a woman was, the less likely she was to be seen in public. You went into Pregnancy Purdah. I don't think I remember ever seeing a photo of a visibly pregnant silent/early film actress, although I'm sure there might be adventurous family candids floating around. This didn't apply solely to actresses, either, if you stop and think about how many older photos you've seen in your life, you'll probably come up with buptkes for photos of pregnant women. Lucille Ball was quite the pioneer in that respect, continuing to film her television show while she was extremely pregnant (generating a lot of moral wailing). Which is why I think that abdominal bulge on Ms. Brian is probably just a problem with the cut of the costume.

Agreed. Costume designers were very savvy about disguising pregnancies, and, if necessary, directors and cameraman got creative, such as putting laundry and ironing boards in front of Joan Blondell in Dames. They would have never dreamed of releasing a publicity still of any visibly pregnant woman, much less one of an unmarried contract player.

They probably got this costume off the rack and weren't careful about arranging and fitting it.

greta

Agreed. Costume designers were very savvy about disguising pregnancies, and, if necessary, directors and cameraman got creative, such as putting laundry and ironing boards in front of Joan Blondell in Dames. They would have never dreamed of releasing a publicity still of any visibly pregnant woman, much less one of an unmarried contract player.greta

Jumping to the sound era, if you want to see some brilliant -pregnancy-covering-costuming, check out Shirley Jones in THE MUSIC MAN.

Pregnant women in those days didn't get photographed, though, and the more pregnant a woman was, the less likely she was to be seen in public. You went into Pregnancy Purdah. I don't think I remember ever seeing a photo of a visibly pregnant silent/early film actress, although I'm sure there might be adventurous family candids floating around. This didn't apply solely to actresses, either, if you stop and think about how many older photos you've seen in your life, you'll probably come up with buptkes for photos of pregnant women. Lucille Ball was quite the pioneer in that respect, continuing to film her television show while she was extremely pregnant (generating a lot of moral wailing). Which is why I think that abdominal bulge on Ms. Brian is probably just a problem with the cut of the costume.

Agreed. Costume designers were very savvy about disguising pregnancies, and, if necessary, directors and cameraman got creative, such as putting laundry and ironing boards in front of Joan Blondell in Dames. They would have never dreamed of releasing a publicity still of any visibly pregnant woman, much less one of an unmarried contract player.

They probably got this costume off the rack and weren't careful about arranging and fitting it.

greta

Yes, that was the first thing I considered, the studio would use specially designed costumes to hide a real pregnancy while the actress was working on a film (kinda like Veronica Lake in Sullivan's Travels), and never take any full-body publicity photos that might suggest a pregnancy, especially an unmarried featured player whose romantic life was billed as "available". That she looked pregnant was the photographer's fault, but I don't know who it was (Richee?).

The "Kay Francis clinic" line was just a small joke, I hope no one took it seriously.

[silentfilm]

When I saw Stagecoach for the first time in college, I was shocked that character Lucy Mallory had a baby, since she was as slim as could be for most of the film. Was there a Production Code rule against showing pregnant women on screen?

When I saw Stagecoach for the first time in college, I was shocked that character Lucy Mallory had a baby, since she was as slim as could be for most of the film. Was there a Production Code rule against showing pregnant women on screen?

Not sure, Bruce; I know there were strictures against showing teen and unwed pregnancy, but I think the reluctance to show a big ol' pregnant woman stems more from a cultural norm rather than any hard and fast code ruling. I could be way wrong about that. Melanie Hamilton and Cathy Earnshaw also have surprise babies. Mary Astor's pregnancy in The Great Lie is as a significant plot point, but Astor remains remarkably slim through the process.

Wardrobe malfunction? Wonder what Mary Brian thought of this photo? She had to of noticed the bulge.



Cheers,
Maureen

When I saw Stagecoach for the first time in college, I was shocked that character Lucy Mallory had a baby, since she was as slim as could be for most of the film. Was there a Production Code rule against showing pregnant women on screen?

Not sure, Bruce; I know there were strictures against showing teen and unwed pregnancy, but I think the reluctance to show a big ol' pregnant woman stems more from a cultural norm rather than any hard and fast code ruling. I could be way wrong about that. Melanie Hamilton and Cathy Earnshaw also have surprise babies. Mary Astor's pregnancy in The Great Lie is as a significant plot point, but Astor remains remarkably slim through the process.

And of course, Clara Bow looks nothing like pregnant in Call Her Savage.

Wardrobe malfunction? Wonder what Mary Brian thought of this photo? She had to of noticed the bulge.



Cheers,
Maureen

I doubt she'd want to make it her Christmas photo, but she seemed to have a pretty good sense of humor. It may not have perturbed too much. I have a copy of a photo of her singing "It Had To Be You" with Chester Conklin, which some people might consider more disturbing than this wardrobe malfunction.

Wardrobe malfunction? Wonder what Mary Brian thought of this photo? She had to of noticed the bulge.

Cheers,
Maureen

I doubt she'd want to make it her Christmas photo, but she seemed to have a pretty good sense of humor. It may not have perturbed too much. I have a copy of a photo of her singing "It Had To Be You" with Chester Conklin, which some people might consider more disturbing than this wardrobe malfunction.

I wonder if she even saw it? If this was a studio publicity shot, she might not have had any say in what got released and what didn't.

mndean:

you're sure it's Mary Brian. I'd say more Norma Shearer, during her Paramount period. I don't see her pregnant but the coat seems to be transparent. The very odd thing I see is that someone seems to have moved her breasts from her thorax(chest) to where her waist or beltline would normally be.

It's always possible she didn't see it, especially if it wasn't a standard publicity photo to fans and friends.

I have fooled people with a couple of shots of Mary into thinking she was Norma Shearer (there's also one that makes MB look a lot like Ann Dvorak!), but this shot wouldn't be one of them. It's ID'ed as MB online and it sure looks like MB to me. As for the look, well, Mary didn't exactly have a balcony you could do Shakespeare off of, and Paramount did their best to keep her looking the flapper ideal, if you get my drift.

Link for those who wish to confirm:http://bilddatenbank.khm.at/viewArtefact?id=328252

Pregnant women in those days didn't get photographed, though, and the more pregnant a woman was, the less likely she was to be seen in public. You went into Pregnancy Purdah. I don't think I remember ever seeing a photo of a visibly pregnant silent/early film actress, although I'm sure there might be adventurous family candids floating around. This didn't apply solely to actresses, either, if you stop and think about how many older photos you've seen in your life, you'll probably come up with buptkes for photos of pregnant women. Lucille Ball was quite the pioneer in that respect, continuing to film her television show while she was extremely pregnant (generating a lot of moral wailing). Which is why I think that abdominal bulge on Ms. Brian is probably just a problem with the cut of the costume.

I know of two vintage photographs of pregnant women. One is my grandmother in 1931. It's a shapshot at a picnic & my grandfather is rather gleefully hugging her. She's partially hidden by him but definitely pregnant.

The other is an odd one. A man in Cincinnati named Walter Cotton was a freelance photographer & sold a number of his family scenes to the Keystone View Co. in the late 20's. The family is gathered for an outdoor picnic, Mr. Cotton is hiding the shutter release under the table, and Mrs. Cotton is pregnant- and holding a watermelon (!) doesn't quite conceal it.

I doubt Paramount (it looks Paramount era to me) would want to release such a photo considering she wasn't married.

Regarding any question about this being a Paramount shot, there IS a Paramount logo clearly visible in the lower left corner of the picture.

I doubt Paramount (it looks Paramount era to me) would want to release such a photo considering she wasn't married.

Regarding any question about this being a Paramount shot, there IS a Paramount logo clearly visible in the lower left corner of the picture.

Sometimes I forget that not all of us look at a lot of stills of a single actress, and although the resolution of the photo isn't great it looked like the Paramount logo to me, but since I wasn't 100% certain I didn't want to commit to the ID. Richard likely has much more experience here, so I take his word for it. I date it as being somewhere between the years 1929-30. I can date MB photos fairly well, as there are some details that are obvious, especially after her contract wasn't renewed at Paramount.