Brides and Grooms Part One

Hi ya, strangers!!

I've got a billion excuses as to why I haven't posted in a blue moon. Two of these reasons are summed up in the two pictures below.

1) I just finished the EXCELLENT Possessed: The Life of Joan Crawford by Donald Spoto, and I have to say, while I admire his scholarship, I'm deeply depressed at the thought that he's written the (spot-on) Crawford apologists' biography I'd always secretly hoped to pen (see my mile long love letter to early JC on this very blog, here). If wishes were fishes, folks! I should have known, in reading his other, also fine biographies, that this one would be a keeper. In spite of the tragic circumstances, it was nice to read, for once, exactly what I wanted to read about my favorite 30's movie star, with all the unkind gossip excised and the emphasis put on the correct portions of her extraordinary life. Wrongs righted, cruel generalizations cleared up... all that jazz. I couldn't be more pleased with the book, whether or not it snatched from my bosom the hopes that I would someday be on an early morning chat show in a new pair of pumps extolling the various virtues of her 20's and 30's tenure at MGM. But ah well. To the left, Joan, ever the provocateuse, in a snake-shaped wedding gown pose. To the right, our same Joan in a more demure pose with real life as well as screen husband Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. Was it ever possible they were both so young! Speaking of weddings, though...

2) I've recently started concretely trying to plan my wedding. That's right, that life changing event that involves both a) dressing to the nines while everyone takes photos and b) putting together a social event will be memorable enough to live on the memories for at least fifty years. I mean, don't throw me in the briar patch? But do. Plus I have this really great Bab to stand up at the altar with (parenthetically speaking). We're really excited about putting together the hoopla to end all hooplas... but....!



To say the least, I've found myself a little out of my depth in trying to even figure out a schedule of responsibilities in order to plan for this, the biggest of big days. Where did I start? I got a stack of "how to plan your wedding on a budget" books from the library, and started trawling Google image search for inspiration. I love that I have no set ideas about when, where, or how, but gee haven't I got opinions on how neat it would be to have a tiered display of crullers instead of a traditional cake. Don't I just sigh over the idea of these large, glass beverage containers full of garnished lemonade? I have plenty of opinions, but none of them seem to be useful on the "big ideas" of wedding planning. I'll get serious eventually...but in the meantime, I've been flipping through your family's online photo albums to see just what kind of results "wedding 1962" draw up, and marvelling at how "[insert vintage celebrity name here] wedding" brings unexpected, felicitous snaps from days gone by. The first (family photos from the internet), I'll post today-- the second (1920's-1960's celebrity weddings), I hope I'll get to soon.

Without further ado....brides.

Do you ever look at pictures of your mom and dad either when they got married or before and just think, "How were these people ever so young and G-L-A-M-O-R-O-U-S?" Well, if you don't (though I'm sure you do, all my readers had to get their stunning good looks from somewhere), these people's kids certainly should. The hair, the clothes, the expressions... the gal on the left is actually a bridesmaid, but this would more than enough swank and swagger for any lady on "Her Special Day". While the hoopskirt aspect of the dress on the right confounds my better judgement, I really like the hair and corsage on that bride, and isn't it neat to do something different that isn't too, too far off the norm.

The bride on the left is from a country somewhere in Europe, I didn't take down the details, but please note that her Tyrolean hairstyle (props to the Tyrolean hair!) is garnished with the same flower decorations as her neckline, and how sweet the pale gauzy veil looks with her darker dress. The woman on the right isn't pictured on her wedding day, but I'm so pie-eyed for her flapper frock I don't know quite what to do with myself. Look at your shoe heels, my dear woman! And the fringe ball embellished straps at your upper arm! I want to be like you.

Wedding thought #1 (well, after the krullers and lemonade brainstorm, which, honestly, when typed together, doesn't sound as palatable as it is visually appealing)... spend entire photography budget on awesome oil painting of self (alone, sans future husband). Doesn't the lady above look GREAT? I'd copy this exact, carefree, toothpaste ad kind of insouciance in my expression and posture for my own portrait, which I would hang directly over the TV. So everyone could see it. Everyday. I would be my own Laura! Except delete: "mysterious murder" and replace: "wedding". I do not need to remember what the mister-to-be and I could have looked like leaping across a brook or lovingly handing each other pieces of cake at the reception, as long as I had this totally boss full-size portrait of myself to hand down to future generations, in respect of my own (now eternal) awesomeness.

The contrast on this bride's dress between the white lace overlay and the coffee colored underpinnings , as well as the boatneck-with-hourglass silhouette, is killing me. Maybe this was a second marriage, hence the not-all-white palette? Or maybe it was just a neat stylistic choice? Or maybe the dress was on sale at Neiman Marcus's and fit like a glove...whatever the case, she makes a beautiful bride. I like the flower-laden cake, too.

Two different takes on the wedding clothes...the lady on the left looks like a painting in her voluminous white gown, while the lady on the right does a smart number on wedding chic in a simple suit, to-die-for hat, corsage, and...medal? Maybe she was WAC, I don't know. She looks very Hollywood à la Frances Farmer, pre-crackup, and brisk in this photograph. I briefly thought about a 40's looking suit as the answer to my wedding dress decision, decked out in a corsage and with an outrageous hat, of course, but I haven't met a pencil skirt yet that I liked (tragically pear shaped, no matter how lean, this girl), so I might leave unto the Bacalls of the World the things that are Bacalls'. Did anyone ever looks so smart in a ladies' suit? I should think not.

Next up, photos of the wedding couples together. Get ready!

This bespectacled couple is too cute. TOO CUTE. Look at the cats-eye frames on the girl in question? This fly away, poufed out short veil is one of my favorites. I'd love to wear a dress with a teacup-shaped skirt with this, just as she's done. Don't much like the gent's suit, but who's looking at the groom in wedding photos?



Answer: YOU are, because THESE GUYS make it look easy to steal the bride's sartorial thunder.

Dear Bride at Left: Thank you for being taller than your groom. Also, you look FANTASTIC. Also, I applaud your choice of mustachioed future husband, as well as HIS choice of a jaunty bow-tie and suit combo. You both look like a million dollars cash. Love, Lisa.

What about the white dinner jacket and black bow-tie on the groom to the right? It's like you can be a secret agent by putting on two pieces of clothing. I love to think of my dark-haired, wide shouldered fiancé in this look, he would be adorable. I mean handsome! I mean adorable.

More great looking couples above and below. Can you believe how perfect the gal on the left's hair looks (above)? Plus, the guy in the picture on the right is a dead ringer for some 1930's top male box office draw. I might have to convince Bab to wear an all white suit with white buckskin shoes and a contrasting dark tie. Cos this guy looks 100% movie star.

Left: a PICTURE BOOK 1940's wedding. Wow. To the left, a sharply dressed couple in that three tone sepia-ish color that I love so dear. I wonder what it would take to have your photos taken in black and white and hand-tinted? Doesn't it make for a staggering, un-real difference?

Again with the ladies' dresses/suits that aren't all out, wedding gown affairs. I love the girl's hat and sporty dress on the left, and the lady's pretty shoes and corsage to the right. The guy's suit at left isn't bad, either. My grandmother wore a suit to her wedding in the mid 1940's, but it isn't around anymore...which is a pity for me, seeing as she was also six feet tall. Vintage tall sizes are practically impossible to find for any kind of a reasonable price! More on this, as it pertains to vintage wedding dresses, at a later date.



Aw! This couple looks so modern for some reason! Like modern day people in 20's dressup. I think it has something to do with the clarity of the photo.

Over the threshold we go! The long hair and Bettie Page bangs on the woman to the right make the tiara look desirable to me for the first time since starting all this searching.

Great dresses, great bouquets, great couples. Ten out of ten!

I hope you enjoyed this, probably the first of many, vintage wedding posts as my little head spins around with a million ideas about how to make my big day even more "period appropriate". Do any of you guys out there have great vintage wedding resource suggestions? I would love to hear them. Meanwhile, I'll keep pillaging online family albums for great old-time style. If any of these are your grandparents... tell them for me how great they looked!

"A Statement of Purpose and Policy" (1920)

Digging once again through the prodigious holdings of the Internet Archive, I discovered this title explainin' and exploitin' the formation of "Associated Exhibitors Inc", a company consisting of almost 200 motion picture exhibitors. Formed in 1920 to look out for the interests of both movie house owners and their patrons, the main "statement and purpose" of the company was to discourage monopolies held by the movie production companies. "Vertical integration" is the micro economic term we were taught in film history class that pretty much meant any given movie company (say... MGM, for example) could (and sometimes did) own the means of production and exhibition right down the line... from the writing of the film and producing of the film to its premiere to its last screening, every aspect of production and exhibition would be owned by MGM. Which was a system that made those multi-year contracts, back in the day, so iron clad, and one in which anyone with aspirations towards working outside the studio was just soooo out of luck. But anyway.

I found two, same year clippings from the New York Times mentioning the corporation's inception, here and here-- one quote from the first article reads: "every exhibitor affiliated with the organization will be assured productions of the highest class and will not be left at the mercy of those who are endeavoring to obtain a monopoly on the production and distribution of motion pictures". Don't you love the high-falutin' oratory skills of whomsoever was the spokesperson for the company at the time? I'd like to be the man on the horn giving speeches about movie revenues that make me sound like a Tinseltown Abe Lincoln. The second one had to do with the comedian Harold Lloyd signing some kind of million dollar contract with them... it's pretty nuts-and-bolts, so I'm not exactly sure how it works. But I digress. The book.

The opening section of "A Statement of Purpose and Policy" is a ten page spread extolling the various merits of this "association for protection and profit, based on mutual confidence and justice for all". The illustrations heading sections with titles like "What it Means to Producers", "What it Means to Stars", and "What it Means to Exhibitors" are just gorgeous. The (unnamed) artist's choice of bold colors and dramatic compositions remind me a little of the illustrations of N.C. Wyeth or Howard Pyle. These alone were enough to draw me into the slim, e-volume.

But soft! What about after the "explanation of benefits"? The second half of the pamphlet is made up of advertisements for upcoming attractions. Oh, neat! Vintage 1920's movie promotional material, hurray!

Ummmm... did anyone catch this title? Louise Glaum in...."Sex"? Really, guys? Really? (as a side note, sneak a peek at the clothes in the righthand page...just my style. Oh, let me be mistaken for Norma Desmond at all turns, sir... there will be an unusual number of naked peacocks in the great Southeast due to my wardrobe choices.)

This piece of pre-Hays code marvelment and wonder is indeed the actual promotional advertisement for a 1920 melodrama entitled "Sex". I know. My ears are burning. Please, as always, click on any of the images for a supersized version. Why? Because you CAN'T resist ad copy like this:

S is for Sorrow and Suffering, that are the lot of all women. E is for Experience that refines the Soul of all women. X is the great unknown in the fascinating game of life.

SEX is not merely powerful and techincally fine-- it is commercially sure-fire and artistically amazing. And in treatment, it is as wholesome and genuine as a mother's embrace.

Good to know! Because, I guess I'm a little off base here, but you'd think with a title like "SEX" in all caps, there might...and I do say might...be something slightly less wholesome than a mother's embrace there. Otherwise...um, how do you embrace YOUR mother?

The exotically coiffed, and unexotically named, Louise Glaum was an early "vamp", a contemporary of Theda Bara (Miss "Arab Death" herself!) who came from the stage and began in ingenue roles before graduating to "woman of the world" parts. Glaum played a number of femme fatales before leaving motion pictures in 1921 (only a year after this pamphlet describes her as "the screen's greatest and most successful emotional star"... go figure) to hit the vaudeville circuit. She opened her own theater in 1935 and continued to be active in the arts for the rest of her (total) 82 years.

Did I expect, after the shock of the full on 'SEX' of the first ad, to see another ad of similar, pre-code sentiment? I did not. Was I then surprised by a title called " Virgin of Stanboul"?

A little, yes. Look at Priscilla Dean's delciously piquant pose! Those eyes are like exclamation points.

I mean, really, what a great poster! See the tiny chameaux gallivanting around the title lettering in the sand dunes below her pretty face. Just great. And below, not only a two piece bikini slash harem outfit, not only a be-robed sultan giving the illustrated title character a smooch, but a little bit of typed information that would make me even more interested to see this picture!

Where the last production was helmed by Ben Hur (silent) director Fred Niblo, this one is directed by TOD BROWNING himself, director of Dracula, Freaks, and a number of Lon Chaney pictures. The imdb synopsis describes it so:

"Achmet Bey, a Turkish chieftain, catches one of his many wives in adultery and murders her lover. Throwing aside the cuckolding wife, he abducts an innocent girl into his harem. However, a brave American who loves her comes to her rescue."

Pretty basic melodrama material...but again, with Tod Browning in charge, and Wallace Beery playing a supporting role, it might be worth a shot if it comes up on TCM anytime soon. Besides the fact that the copy calls it a "gorgeous, glowing, mind-filling photodrama"... again, my new dream occupation is ad copywriter for the movies, circa 1920. Lemme just get my thesaurus out... annnd.....

Watch out, famous prize fighter Jack Dempsey! That guy on the cliff does not wish you any goodwill! Daredevil Jack was directed by W.S. "Woody" Van Dyke, the director behind the electric crackle of the Thin Man movies. I have no idea what's going on in the photo to the right, listed as a still from the movie on ebay, but as the UCLA film archives only has a partial, extant print of this flicker, I guess I never will. I thought... this looked like a Western? And yet their apparel just screams Beau Brummel? Who knows.

To the left, Who's Your Servant, to your right, with Lois Wilson, who in life had the enviable position of being one of my beloved Gloria Swanson's best friends. To the right, A Woman Who Understood with Bessie Barriscale, "a major star for Thomas Ince"... yes, the same Ince who was probably maybe kind of mostly you would be led to believe was shot aboard W.R. Hearst's yacht, the Oneida, over a weekend cruise. I know it's probably a just a persistent myth that covers up some other cover up, but the movie The Cat's Meow made such a compelling case of it (better than Anger's Hollywood Babylon entry, at any rate)....that I kind of want to believe. Fox Mulder style.

Sadly, I do not remember "the thrilling, breath-catching storm scenes in Should a Woman Tell". But I love the ad's affable assertion with regard to the picture they're hawking: "Well-- the ones in James A. Herne's immortal sea story Shore Acres, featuring Alice Lake, eclipse even those!" It seems that both films have storm scenes and Alice Lake, who models a fur-coat and sequins flapper ensemble very prettily in the picture to the right.

Lew Cody, star of The Butterfly Man, was married to Mack Sennett star Mabel Normand (badly portrayed by a usually wonderful Marisa Tomei in the Chaplin biopic Robert Downey Jr. did a while back) during the last four years of her life. I picked up Mabel by Betty Harper Fussell from the library in early high school, just liking the cover, and got pretty crazy into her life story, which would make a fantastic movie of its own. I don't know much about Lew Cody but that they spent a lot of time very, very drunk during the darker periods of her decline. The Bottom of the World is an early adaptation of the Ernest Shackleton story, which is anything but dull. If you'd like to see the whole pamphlet in living color, click here to visit the document on Internet Archive. I'm going to try some new search words and see what other kind of early movie ephemera I can track down!! Very exciting. Til next time.