I know what you're thinking: "Why did he put up this picture of Monroe (above)? It's well done but everybody's familiar with it already!" Well yes it is familiar and that's exactly why it's worth writing about.
The picture is by Philipe Halsman. Halsman took the classic, most seen pictures of dozens of Hollywood celebrities. He knew how to flatter the subject, how to distill the essence of what they want to project to the public, and get it on film. For comparison here's a picture of Marilyn taken by somebody else (below).
What a difference! The color picture is sultry, pure and simple. The black & white Halsman begins with sultry but adds innocent, feminine and makes Monroe look young. Boy, Halsman gave his clients their money's worth! Plain old sultry just wasn't good enough!
Here (above) is Halsman's Jimmy Durante. Compare it to the picture done by someone else, below. Again, a big difference! Halsman gets across the idea that Jimmy is an entertainer, that he has a big nose and that he's a nice guy. He looks old but it doesn't seem to matter. You find yourself thinking that it's amazing that he can project so much energy at his age.
Here (above) is the other guy's picture of Durante. The smile is forced and the impression you get is of that of an old man who's to be pitied for his age.
What a difference! The color picture is sultry, pure and simple. The black & white Halsman begins with sultry but adds innocent, feminine and makes Monroe look young. Boy, Halsman gave his clients their money's worth! Plain old sultry just wasn't good enough!
Here (above) is Halsman's Jimmy Durante. Compare it to the picture done by someone else, below. Again, a big difference! Halsman gets across the idea that Jimmy is an entertainer, that he has a big nose and that he's a nice guy. He looks old but it doesn't seem to matter. You find yourself thinking that it's amazing that he can project so much energy at his age.Here (above) is the other guy's picture of Durante. The smile is forced and the impression you get is of that of an old man who's to be pitied for his age.
The lesson I draw from this is that planning means everything when you take a picture. You have to know what it is that you want to emphasize and, equally important, know what you want to de-emphasize. Of course Halsman is a genius and it never hurts to have a genius behind the lens.
I thought you might like to see some of the pictures Halsman took when he was young. In those days he was interested in making bold, expressionist statements. These are great pictures and if Halsman had never done anything else he'd still be worth remembering. The amazing thing is that he went on to even greater achievement with the celebrity portraits.
Who'd have thought that a back could be so interesting? The back BTW, belongs to Winston Churchill.
I wonder who this (above) is? The picture has a great expressionist quality.
These (above) are almost surreal! Ahh! refreshed at the fountain of Halsman!
I thought you might like to see some of the pictures Halsman took when he was young. In those days he was interested in making bold, expressionist statements. These are great pictures and if Halsman had never done anything else he'd still be worth remembering. The amazing thing is that he went on to even greater achievement with the celebrity portraits. 
Who'd have thought that a back could be so interesting? The back BTW, belongs to Winston Churchill.
I wonder who this (above) is? The picture has a great expressionist quality.
These (above) are almost surreal! Ahh! refreshed at the fountain of Halsman!
15 comments:
It happened to be Marilyn's birthday yesterday too.
These are wonderful pictures... I'm only just getting into photography (after having been a PA on a filmset, and was asked to help take production stills), and it's amazing how subtle yet extreme (if that makes sense) differences between pictures can be.
That beautifully illustrates why it's so important for actors to find a quality photographer for their headshots!
The color picture of Marilyn is actually an illustration (for a U.S. postage stamp) by Michael Deas.
Halsman was born in 1906, so he wasn't young when he took the fifties photos. ; )
I looked up his age because the lower photos are plainly from the early 1930s, and so I figured those were by the truly young man. But in any case--I love his work.
It's justly celebrated. The Monroe shots are still as great as ever, whether you're looking at them for the first time or the 100th. But, I do think it's not a fair comparison to put a master like Halsman's work next to a studio-generated portrait still--in color--taken on a stage from "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes", and compare them. One was probably taken by a generically skilled studio employee, and it was certainly taken for all the attendant publicity--to be adapted and used in posters, in ad art, press kits, etc.
Halsman, who was a true artiste, respected as such--a keystone for Life magazine--took photos with all kinds of non-glamor lighting--either sharp, defining light, or cinema verite style, as here. For this shot of Monroe he was just having her stand up against a door in her apartment. He never expected it to be as WOW as it is...that's just the allure of Monroe's face and demeanor coming through, thanks to his skill in letting it come through.
What I'm saying is that the two photos have two different aims and functions, really. Halsman is simply shooting Marilyn--HE isn't out to make her "sexy", but shotting what's there. The other, anonymous color photographer(that image you posted is heavily photoshopped or something from the orignal btw)is trying to light and shoot for maximum glitz effect, as per the studio intent. One is doing an intimate, human shot--the other is shooting a 'thing'.
Anyway, more Halsman! I'd love to see his photos of Einstein again--apparently he was also a family friend of the Halsmans!
Oh, okay, Major Pepperidge-thanks. I thought it was photoshopped, and I guess it is. It's taken from a series of sound stage photographs for "Blondes", though--I'm sure the illustrator worked directly over an original.
(As an aside: it seems all those celebrity postage stamp designs never use original photos, but have someone do a version of photographs illustratively instead. I wonder why?)
"planning means everything when you take a picture." That was George Hurrell's technique! He said most photographers these days take a gazillion photos, hoping one of them might per chance come out interesting. He on the other hand took only two or three; but a lot of time was put into preparing the subject, setting up the lights, the mood, etc. And he was one of the very best. :)
Jenny: Thanks for the background on the pictures!
Mariana: Hurrell was great! There's more than one Hurrell book out there and one is superior to all the others. I wish I could remember the name.
Great post Eddie! I also love Richard Avadon's work
Jimmy looks like hes running from the boogie man in the other guys pickcha! Hot Cha Cha!
How much of OUR image of the person, is based on those most popular images, being the most popular images?
I think it is funny, to compare, the head shots that end up in IMDB profiles sometimes... occasionally a star is NOT photogenic. But most of the time, they are. Or maybe those shots do not get used.
But the IMDB shots are often papparazzi stuff, it is interesting to see those glimpses of the stars standard smile, actually being a forced fake smile.
Is stardom based on how natural your fake smile appears?
Halsman was a true artist,his photographs are incredibly capitvating and deeply expressive.
very few photograpers can convey all the subtle nuances and complex layered personal emotions,yet he did so seemingly with ease.
An already glamorous actress such as Maryiln became that much more dazzling when seen through his lens.
Ryan: Avadon is great but his work is reproduced poorly in a couple of books, no doubt causing some readers to wonder what the fuss was about.
That ad for Parmesan cheese that the guy is standing in front of is a great work of art all by itself. I think of it every time I eat Parmesan.
Interesting observation about Avedon... Many popular pieces of art, have been reproduced so often that many of us are probably seeing third or fourth generation copies of the image. And just writing that, I wonder if that is part of what Warhol was trying to say.
Has anyone seeing the mona lisa in a book or magazine, come close to seeing the quality of the image?
I am always amazed how much better art looks in person. The best reproduction I have seen of any Van Gogh, which really needs to be seen in person if you can, is in Kurosawa's Dreams. Well Projected on a large screen. You might think Jackson Pollock is a crock, but if you see his stuff in person, you appreciate it much more, than if you see it in some magazine or coffee Table book.
Just an observation regarding the "poor" picture of Jimmy Durante...
It's also possible that whoever published the picture (or perhaps the photographer) didn't like Jimmy Durante and wanted him to look bad. There are many bad pictures that never make it to print, think of all the drawings that you've made in sketchbooks which you would *never* show to anyone.
Post a Comment