Hollywood: A celebration of American Silent film

All Darc · Post by **All Darc** » Wed May 18, 2011 2:06 pm

Enjoy ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UX06_406 ... ideo_title

Michael O'Regan · Post by **Michael O'Regan** » Thu May 19, 2011 1:53 am

Excellent.
Thanks.

All Darc · Post by **All Darc** » Thu May 19, 2011 1:23 pm

You are welcome...

Did I understood right, about Big Business (Laurel&Hardy)? Had they really destroyed the wrong house by mistake ???

Michael O'Regan wrote:Excellent.
Thanks.

drednm · Post by **drednm** » Thu May 19, 2011 1:33 pm

Jack Theakston · Post by **Jack Theakston** » Thu May 19, 2011 2:39 pm

Laurel debunked that myth. Roach was off playing golf when they filmed BIG BUSINESS and made the story up.

Post by **silentfilm** » Thu May 19, 2011 5:47 pm

Yes, Roach repeated this story up to his death, but the house belonged to a Roach employee...

<object width="480" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Y5R8zGT1FBc?fs ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Y5R8zGT1FBc?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="390" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

All Darc · Post by **All Darc** » Fri May 20, 2011 12:10 pm

Why I never saw a Ford-T really like most the ones used by Laurel&Hardy ?

I mean about the painting... The ones I see in photos, even one of a famous guys who impersonate L&H, have a painting, and so so the car look glossy and not like the metal, crude steel of Laurel&Hardy Ford-T.

Take the B&W photos, and even for other old cars. All today, even restored, look different, painted.

I would like to see a color photo of a real Ford-T with the crude steel finish, and not the pained we see in the restored models.

Frederica · Post by **Frederica** » Fri May 20, 2011 3:34 pm

All Darc wrote:Why I never saw a Ford-T really like most the ones used by Laurel&Hardy ?

I mean about the painting... The ones I see in photos, even one of a famous guys who impersonate L&H, have a painting, and so so the car look glossy and not like the metal, crude steel of Laurel&Hardy Ford-T.

Take the B&W photos, and even for other old cars. All today, even restored, look different, painted.

I would like to see a color photo of a real Ford-T with the crude steel finish, and not the pained we see in the restored models.

??? Fords were painted during the twenties and thirties--they were painted from minute one. Even T's were painted. Part of the fun of restoring a classic car is getting the paint color as close to original as is possible. From
http://www.modelt.ca/background.html

"No one really knows if Henry Ford ever said that the buying public could have Model T Fords "in any color, so long as it's black", but it is commonly attributed to him. While this saying is true for the model years after 1913, earlier cars were available in green, red, blue and grey. In fact, in the first year, Model T Fords were not available in black at all. The switch to all black cars was due to Ford's ongoing obsession with cost reduction, and not, as is commonly believed, to reduce drying time and hence increase production."

BTW, you do know that Hollywood is under copyright?

FrankFay · Post by **FrankFay** » Fri May 20, 2011 3:50 pm

All Darc wrote:Why I never saw a Ford-T really like most the ones used by Laurel&Hardy ?

I mean about the painting... The ones I see in photos, even one of a famous guys who impersonate L&H, have a painting, and so so the car look glossy and not like the metal, crude steel of Laurel&Hardy Ford-T.

Take the B&W photos, and even for other old cars. All today, even restored, look different, painted.

I would like to see a color photo of a real Ford-T with the crude steel finish, and not the pained we see in the restored models.

What you're seeing is an auto that has not been well kept. Ford sent out their cars shiny and polished as the 1923 Ford at this link will show: http://www.shorpy.com/node/9557

Phototone · Post by **Phototone** » Fri May 20, 2011 4:07 pm

It has been a common "thing" all through the history of movie making to "dull down" a shiny automobile finish so as to avoid reflections from the camera and lighting crew showing up in the finished shot. Its exactly the same philosophy as having actors with glasses, just use the frames, and not the glass lenses.

Notice how in the photo link in above post, the car is reflecting the foreground. This had to be avoided.

mndean · Post by **mndean** » Fri May 20, 2011 4:10 pm

FrankFay wrote:
All Darc wrote:Why I never saw a Ford-T really like most the ones used by Laurel&Hardy ?

I mean about the painting... The ones I see in photos, even one of a famous guys who impersonate L&H, have a painting, and so so the car look glossy and not like the metal, crude steel of Laurel&Hardy Ford-T.

Take the B&W photos, and even for other old cars. All today, even restored, look different, painted.

I would like to see a color photo of a real Ford-T with the crude steel finish, and not the pained we see in the restored models.
What you're seeing is an auto that has not been well kept. Ford sent out their cars shiny and polished as the 1923 Ford at this link will show: http://www.shorpy.com/node/9557

Being well-kept and covered was extremely important. The qualities of the paint used then would make Fords (and other brands of the era) quite prone to fading and dulling i.e. going from gloss to flat. Parking a car like that out in the sun for long periods would eventually destroy those finishes even if you polished/waxed them. They could well be mechanically sound, but still look like they were worn out. I think car manufacturers used paints like that into the '60s for solid, non-metallic colors.

FrankFay · Post by **FrankFay** » Fri May 20, 2011 5:29 pm

It was a regular thing to use a fine rubbing compound on a car to remove the faded and worn surface of the paint before applying wax. Starting in the 1960's finishes were reformulated and got a harder surface

All Darc · Post by **All Darc** » Fri May 20, 2011 5:53 pm

Ok, The original Ford-T was painted.

Laurel& Hardy's Ford-D was from 1916 to 1918, I believe....

But I would like to see a photo in color, of the Laurel & Hard car on set.

See how look in B&W, making we feel like it had no paint:

Maybe the car's surface was sandpapered.
The Keystone Cops car, and we can see in this documentary I posted, also had the same non reflexive surface. Makes sense.

Jack Theakston · Post by **Jack Theakston** » Fri May 20, 2011 5:59 pm

...or perhaps the still photographer was using orthochromatic film stock, which is less than ideal for normal photography. Because the paint is flat, it's diffusing light, usually blue since the most prevalent daylight is reflected light from the sky. And blue light shows up the lightest on ortho stock... look how Kennedy's (probably navy blue) jacket looks reflecting the key light in the first image.

But therein lies the joke. Laurel & Hardy as losers—their characters are not going to be driving a car straight off the assembly line.

All Darc · Post by **All Darc** » Fri May 20, 2011 6:07 pm

Not sure... Orthochromatic creates a different look, make even the american falg strange, with dark srips. L&H shorts, even the older, when in good copies, have a nice gray balance, too good to be orthochromatic.

Jack Theakston wrote:...or perhaps the still photographer was using orthochromatic film stock, which is less than ideal for normal photography. Because the paint is flat, it's diffusing light, usually blue since the most prevalent daylight is reflected light from the sky. And blue light shows up the lightest on ortho stock... look how Kennedy's (probably navy blue) jacket looks reflecting the key light in the first image.

But therein lies the joke. Laurel & Hardy as losers—their characters are not going to be driving a car straight off the assembly line.

Phototone · Post by **Phototone** » Fri May 20, 2011 7:15 pm

I'm tellin' you guys, the cars paint surface was specially prepared for movies, so as to not reflect. Whether it was sandpapered, or coated with something, it was dulled in some way.

I'm a photographer, I know. I still do "dulling" on products I shoot to avoid reflections.

Just pay attention to automobiles in other movies, from any decade. You'll see either full dulling, or selective dulling to avoid getting a reflection of the camera crew.

By the early 1920's, photography, and cinematography were quite advanced, and many many tricks were used to enhance the photography of even 2 reel comedies. Its easier to just dull shiney surfaces down than to restrict your camera and lighting angles to specific places that don't cast reflections.

Jack Theakston · Post by **Jack Theakston** » Fri May 20, 2011 7:23 pm

Could be the case, although look at the cars in the background (obviously not studio cars)—they're dull too. And a few instances of shiny cars in Roach shorts come to mind.

Fact is, this is intentional, for the purpose of the film, not because Ford rolled cars off of the line looking like this, which they didn't.

Not sure... Orthochromatic creates a different look, make even the american falg strange, with dark srips. L&H shorts, even the older, when in good copies, have a nice gray balance, too good to be orthochromatic.

I'm referring to the still shots, not the films themselves. Stan Laurel was insistent on using Pancro film for the motion picture stock, because with Ortho, his blue eyes didn't register. But I've seen a number of shoots in stills going into the early '30s where it's obvious they were using Ortho stock.

All Darc · Post by **All Darc** » Fri May 20, 2011 8:57 pm

Look the police officer jaket in the two different pictures I posted.

Looks different from first picture to the second.

Rodney · Post by **Rodney** » Sat May 21, 2011 7:48 am

Jack Theakston wrote:Could be the case, although look at the cars in the background (obviously not studio cars)—they're dull too.

I wouldn't be so sure. Weren't these kinds of scenes usually filmed on backlots, or at least in controlled-access areas, with all of the cars being studio cars? By this time you would have had huge crowds watching the filming if you just went out on Hollywood Blvd and filmed with any old cars in the background, and would have continuity problems if normal citizens drove their cars away between takes. I would have thought that the background cars are "studio extras" like the people walking down the sidewalk.

Phototone · Post by **Phototone** » Sat May 21, 2011 9:52 am

Rodney wrote:
Jack Theakston wrote:Could be the case, although look at the cars in the background (obviously not studio cars)—they're dull too.
I wouldn't be so sure. Weren't these kinds of scenes usually filmed on backlots, or at least in controlled-access areas, with all of the cars being studio cars? By this time you would have had huge crowds watching the filming if you just went out on Hollywood Blvd and filmed with any old cars in the background, and would have continuity problems if normal citizens drove their cars away between takes. I would have thought that the background cars are "studio extras" like the people walking down the sidewalk.

Well, comedies did regularly use real city streets, but by the time the L&H shorts were filmed, they had to block and control access, due to sound issues (I know L&H did some silents). I think the whole background dressing was studio prop cars, etc.

In modern films, it is almost universal to wet down pavement for road/street shots in medium shots, as well as selectively dull down parts of dark colored automobiles.

Jack Theakston · Post by **Jack Theakston** » Sat May 21, 2011 10:08 am

That is often the case, yes, but not in this shot. The Culver City Department Store was a real place, and these shots were taken on Main Street in downtown Culver City.

Rodney · Post by **Rodney** » Mon May 23, 2011 8:20 am

Jack Theakston wrote:That is often the case, yes, but not in this shot. The Culver City Department Store was a real place, and these shots were taken on Main Street in downtown Culver City.

I accept all that -- I have no argument with the location. But, even on a public street, I don't think it's necessarily "obvious" that these cars were not studio cars. In Kid Auto Races at Venice, sure, the cars and onlookers are not from the studio. But by the mid to late 1920s you couldn't just place a car, several comedy actors, and an entire camera crew in the middle of an uncontrolled street for what was probably at an hour of set up and shooting takes of a traffic stop. And you can't control a street while the general public's cars are parked on it. So, although I have no inside information on this particular shoot, I think the most likely scenario is that these are studio cars.

Jack Theakston · Post by **Jack Theakston** » Mon May 23, 2011 1:18 pm

Could be—we may never know!

T0m M · Post by **T0m M** » Tue May 24, 2011 6:08 am

Laurel and Hardy's characters were rarely in the money. Typically, if they even had a car, it would have been 2nd hand, in very used condition. The dull finish on the car is typical of a neglected vehicle, as are the missing windscreen, kerosene side lamps, etc. Another still from this series clearly shows the panel between the two front doors to be a replacement of a duller finish and/or different colour. All this is typical of a car that would be consistent with Laurel and Hardy's characters. Having them own a shiny, up to date vehicle would automatically set off a subconscious alarm.

Edit: I don't subscribe to the argument of the car purposely being dulled down for the photography. When a car was represented as being new, it was filmed with a shiny, reflective surface. Harold Lloyd was famous for his misadventures in new cars. The cars depicted in Get Out and Get Under, Hot Water and For Heaven's Sake all exhibit shiny, reflective surfaces, in both the films and the production stills.

The only Laurel and Hardy film I'm aware of that invloves them having a have a newer car is Two Tars. It's a rental car and as such it starts off in pretty good condition and production stills show a shiny, reflective surface. So, one can't even argue dulling the finish as being a studio specific practice.

In my opinion, Laurel and Hardy's car from Leave 'Em Laughing just has a weather beaten, painted finish, that is consistent with the status of their characters. Bare metal would be actually be very shiny unless it was corroded, in which case the finish would not be even and look patchy.