Re: We Need A New Thread About Lon Chaney
Tor_J...@msn.com
bigsil...@aol.com
interested in "The Phantom", but my first real study of Lon Chaney's
work was "Flesh & Blood", the story of a man wrongly convicted of fraud
who excapes from jail. The very moving story teaches that there are
much more important things in life than revenge and in the end, he
returns to prison a free man (or something like that).
In this film, there was none of the trademark makeup, and I saw for
the very first time (especially in the lingering closeups) that
Chaney's face certainly wasn't handsome IMO.
But the story and the acting in that one hour film was fantastic. I
would watch it while exercising, so to say that I've seen it dozens of
times is certainly true.
I sold my copy years ago, but in my mind, I can replay it when ever
I want. I've studied many of his other films and have even read the
book, "The Miracle Man" because the film is lost.
He is one of my favorites and I've enjoyed learning as much as I can.
Cagney's "Man of a Thousand Faces" and the documentaries have really
helped me appreciate the master. That plus the fact that we have
Michael Blake looking in here at AMS is a plus too.
Rich Wagner
michae...@sbcglobal.net
I have a special place in my heart for FLESH & BLOOD, as it was one of
the first Chaney films I saw at the old Silent Movie Theatre when
Hampton owned it.
I was really impressed with the sparseness of the storyline and how it
got right to the "meat" of things.
Plus, in the print Hampton owned, there was a shot of showing Chaney
going down a street in downtown LA (in his cripple disguise) and a man
passes by and looks at him. I thought it really added to the scene and
was an example of how some filmmakers grabbed shots off the streets.
To a budding filmmaker of 16, I was impressed with that shot.
Plus, I was able to have lunch a week later with Jack Mulhall and ask
him questions about working with Lon. :o)
Michael F. Blake
FredT
> the first Chaney films I saw at the old Silent Movie Theatre when
> Hampton owned it.
> Plus, I was able to have lunch a week later with Jack Mulhall and ask
> him questions about working with Lon. :o)
>
> Michael F. Blake
There really is no substitute for L.A. I wish I moved here much earlier
(got here in 92) when a lot more people I'd like to have met were still
alive (I got here just in time for Hal Roach's funeral). But even so, I've
gotten to meet an awful lot of people whose work I admire. As one example,
back in 93 I spotted Ray Harryhausen at Universal Studios' City Walk. We'd
both just come from the cast & crew screenings of Jurassic Park but I didn't
know he was there because there were so many people that they had it on two
screens and he wasn't at mine. I spotted him as I was walking to a
restaurant afterwards and got to get his opinion about the dinosaur effects
while the impact was still fresh. He enjoyed the film and was very
impressed with the effects. His main comment was: "I never really paid
much attention to computers before, but they're really quite wonderful."
I also ran into visual effects pioneer Linwood Dunn (King Kong, Citizen
Kane, very etc.) and we talked about the effects in Citizen Kane. He
commented on how huge a task that film was; that there were a lot more
effects than people realized, and remarked that he and Robert Wise were the
only ones left alive who actually knew all of the effects shots.
Unfortunately, being a little star struck at the moment, I foolishly didn't
ask for an example of an effect shot that no one was aware of. (I've been
interested in visual effects for 30 years and have been doing them in
Hollywood for 13 years and still can't figure out how he did some of that
stuff.) Also, even though he was around 93 at the time he was still
involved with the industry, working on some modifications of the new High
Definition TV format.
Fred
bigsil...@aol.com
many of Chaney's films is the elaborate special effects that were
created and only seen briefly. In "The Penalty", I was blown away by
the secret passageway that led from the fireplace down into the
catacomb where an arsenal was being stored to overthrow the city.
Here was a huge burning fireplace that somehow magically raised up
exposing the stairway. The undercover woman police officer (probably
another first) discovers the hidden switch that makes the fire pit
rise, and after investigating, she comes back up and we watch as the
fire pit returns back to the hearth. Just imagine what was required to
handle just the smoke in order to make this special effect. That must
have been an expensive prop.
Then there's the elaborate signaling system in "The Phantom" aa
well as the amazing makeup Chaney wore that could withstand the water
when Chaney travels underwater to attack the intruders.
Amazing stuff that would probably never have been missed, but I'm so
glad that it's there to marvel at.
Rich Wagner
Borzz
bigsil...@aol.com wrote:
> Then there's the elaborate signaling system in "The Phantom" aa
> well as the amazing makeup Chaney wore that could withstand the water
> when Chaney travels underwater to attack the intruders.
>
> Amazing stuff that would probably never have been missed, but I'm so
> glad that it's there to marvel at.
One thing that has always puzzled me about "The Phantom", was the
seemingly amazing LACK of close up footage in the movie of the make-up.
My introduction to Chaney was from magically grotesque still photos
(which never actually appear as scenes in the film). The unmasking is
fantastic - but the pointing scene that follows is filmed out of focus
(for some sort of dramatic dreamy effect, I'm guessing) that could've
really shown off all the nooks and crannies we see in the stills!
After seeing "The Passion of Joan of Ark", I almost cried wishing *some*
of that filming technique would've been used in portions of "TPOTO".
The make-up was just too good, to see as little of it as we do.
--
....Borzz
bigsil...@aol.com
Posting about that fireplace got me thinking and I believe I've
figured out how it was done. The fireplace was really on the opposite
wall and what we see in the film is it's reflection in a mirror. As
the fireplace begins to rise, it is simply the reflection in a mirror
that tilts forward just slightly while it rises to keep the burning
fire in full view until it rises out of sight.
When it returns, the mirror simply descends and straightens out to
a vertical position. This would be much simpler than what would have
been required to really move a burning fireplace up and then down
again. Still, it's very clever.
That's my guess.
Rich
>
> Rich Wagner
James Roots
I can't remember if it was Snub in IT'S A GIFT or Buster in ... was
it THE NAVIGATOR? ... who opened his film with the gag about him
sitting in bed and using a bunch of pulleys to serve himself breakfast,
get dressed, make up the bed, etc. One of the pulleys brought down
a burning fireplace next to the bed. And you can tell they didn't
do it with mirrors, because the mantel around the fireplace was
scorched and the smoke popped out in a black cloud.
Now how did they do THAT without burning down the set?!
Jim
haub...@yahoo.com
asbestos!
Brent Walker
bigsil...@aol.com
>
> Posting about that fireplace got me thinking and I believe I've
> figured out how it was done. The fireplace was really on the opposite
> wall and what we see in the film is it's reflection in a mirror. As
> the fireplace begins to rise, it is simply the reflection in a mirror
> that tilts forward just slightly while it rises to keep the burning
> fire in full view until it rises out of sight.
> When it returns, the mirror simply descends and straightens out to
> a vertical position. This would be much simpler than what would have
> been required to really move a burning fireplace up and then down
> again. Still, it's very clever.
>
> That's my guess.
>
> >
> > Rich Wagner
Well, I watched the film tonight and now I know that the above
posting is not correct. It's obvious when you watch carefully that
it's the old double exposure trick. While it looks real, at times, the
fireplace is shaking even though the rest of the room is not. Still,
next to Chaney's stumps, this is the most memorable part of "Penalty".
And:
Whose idea was it to place the nude woman in the film? Did they copy
the same idea in Valentino's "Four Horsemen" a year later? Seems like
most all films from this period have at least one brief nude scene.
Rich Wagner
bigsil...@aol.com
a small cottage together. They use a system of pulleys to make their
small room usable.
It really is quite funny.
Rich
Mister Levity
I would imagine the fireplace was gas and prop men under the floor set
ignited the fire just before it was pull up into place.
Mister Levity
Jim Beaver
<haub...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128645854.5...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> That was Snub Pollard in IT'S A GIFT. Probably done with a lot of
> asbestos!
Well, they did asbestos they could.
Jim Beaver
WWW
"Mister Levity" .googlegroups.com...
> Regarding Snub Pollard's IT'S A GIFT.
> I would imagine the fireplace was gas and prop men under the floor set
> ignited the fire just before it was pull up into place.
Thank goodness it wasn't directed by Henry Lehrman then!
WWW
R H Draney
>
>Whose idea was it to place the nude woman in the film? Did they copy
>the same idea in Valentino's "Four Horsemen" a year later? Seems like
>most all films from this period have at least one brief nude scene.
Even if they had to use Max Davidson....r
James Roots
It was pulled DOWN into place, not up. And you can actually see
that the fire is going right from the start of the pull-down.
Somehow they had it burning while the prop fireplace was
horizontal and out of sight.
Jim