Just realized the Bride's wig is in the Museum Of The Moving Image's collection.
Here's a pic from Sunday.
(http://i773.photobucket.com/albums/yy16/2260841/bride.jpg)
Cool! Neat to see it in color! Wish the pic was better lit.
They have a no flash policy and it was behind plexi.
Sadly, their online directory of what is in the collection is far from complete, as I am sure they would have a better pic.
That is interesting. It has got to be the 4th wig I have seen attributed to Elsa. Whats interesting is that Elsa gave a pretty detailed account of the hair process, where she stated that they placed her own hair into a cage, then did the streaks. Is there a detailed history on the wig, and how it was obtained? It certainly does not match the hair pattern from the Karloff Bride picture. Perhaps "Young Frankenstein" or some 70's Bride remake?
Museum is in NY.
There was a detailed account, but sadly I was unable to photograph the text.
It day however say that Max Factor was involved and they do claim it is an original.
That is very cool-I never realized the Bride was a redhead!
That is not the hair that appeared in the film. Of course I wasn't on the set, but everything I've read about the film indicates that they used her real hair. And even if those stories were incorrect, this wig does not look like the hair in the film. The white streaks in the film are asymmetrical.
Quote from: raycastile on February 02, 2011, 01:50:16 AM
That is not the hair that appeared in the film. Of course I wasn't on the set, but everything I've read about the film indicates that they used her real hair. And even if those stories were incorrect, this wig does not look like the hair in the film. The white streaks in the film are asymmetrical.
I agree, but I am not going to say that the wig is a fake. Max Factor did absorb the Hollywood History Museum's collection which included many incredible pieces, and the only known color photo of the original Frankenstein 1931. The wig may have been
used in "Frankenstein", but I seriously doubt it had any on screen time. All accounts have stated that Pierce used Elsa's actual hair (auburn red in color), as opposed to a wig. The only avenue in which I could see this being used was as a stand In's wig, and/ or a stand by wig in case something should happen. That would account for the same hair color as Elsa as opposed to your typical black version in most other films. I am going to contact the museum today and see if they would be willing to give some additional info. I will post the results here.
PS: Here is the link to the Max Factor auction from last year:
http://www.icollector.com/auctionprint.aspx?as=17854 (http://www.icollector.com/auctionprint.aspx?as=17854)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2453/4096556173_2816699ed2.jpg)
Here's abetter pic from someone else.
Quote from: Gillfan on February 02, 2011, 10:20:31 AM
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2453/4096556173_2816699ed2.jpg)
Here's abetter pic from someone else.
This looks to me, without a reference, to look more like Madeline Kahn's hair from Young Frankenstein?
Quick update. I called the Museums Archives Dept, and left a message. So if I don't hear from them by tommarrow I will call again. I don't expect too much info. I am sure it will be a rehas of whatever the plaque reads. But its worth a try.
Gillman, I appreciate your posting this topic. Do you happen to know the whereabouts of The Bride's dress??Is it still around? I would like to see that along with any surviving costumes from that film and "Frankenstein". This year marks the 80th anniversary of the film "Frankenstein".
Dear "Most". I'm pretty sure that most costumes, from FRANKENSTEIN at least, were the actor's own "kit". The film was made in the depth of the depressing DEPRESSION, and "BIG U" probably had a much smaller budget than places like WB or PARAMOUNT. The Wedding suits were probably rented, with Mae's wedding gown being made for her. (I seem to remember there being "ballyhoo" about winning a copy of the wedding gown) Fritz's rags, the lab smocks, Waldman's ancient frock coat and The Baron's smoking jacket probably came from the dark, back alleys of the wardrobe department.
As to the BRIDE'S HAIR...Elsa described her own hair being fluffed out, and then being combed over the cage...after that, switches of artificial hair were added to fill out, and cover the rest of the cage. Lastly, the white streaks were added. NO WIG.
Boris's black suit had to be custom made too, I think. No wardrobe department would have garb for a 7 foot tall, 300 pound manster!
Happy 80th Anniversary!!
"E"
Who is"Most" & "E"? Whom ever wrote that is incorrect on the wardrobe portion.
More revisionist history . . . very disappointing.
I happen to own the yak-haired mask that Lon Chaney Jr wore in "The Wolfman". Don't believe those crazy stories by Lon and Jack Pierce. It was just a full mask. Took 3 minutes to apply each morning. Who ya gonna believe, me or those 2 guys??
Quote from: EP1972 on February 04, 2011, 06:10:18 AM
Who is"Most" & "E"? Whom ever wrote that is incorrect on the wardrobe portion.
"Most" is Most Horrible...that is me. I was just curious if anyone might know if Elsa Lanchester's "Bride of.." costume was still in existence.
:)
Ok, visited the museum again on Sunday for a great talk about karate films for Black History Month (just go with it).
Inquired about the wig and here's the lowdown:
The wig was recreated by Max Factory Co in 1991 for the museum.
They say that Max Factor Co had Josephine Turner and Leland Crawford recreate the wig using the original specifications from when
Josephine Turner created the original wig for the film.
So, the wig display is a recreation BUT they also claim a wig was used in the film.
So its a bit like one step forward and two steps back.
My only thought, and this is a bit of a reach, is that a wig was created for the film but never used.
But is that were the case, one would think the original wig would have been displayed by Max Factor
http://www.hollywoodhair.com/moviestar-hairpieces.php (http://www.hollywoodhair.com/moviestar-hairpieces.php)
Quote from: Gillfan on February 06, 2011, 09:42:35 PM
Ok, visited the museum again on Sunday for a great talk about karate films for Black History Month (just go with it).
Inquired about the wig and here's the lowdown:
The wig was recreated by Max Factory Co in 1991 for the museum.
They say that Max Factor Co had Josephine Turner and Leland Crawford recreate the wig using the original specifications from when
Josephine Turner created the original wig for the film.
So, the wig display is a recreation BUT they also claim a wig was used in the film.
So its a bit like one step forward and two steps back.
My only thought, and this is a bit of a reach, is that a wig was created for the film but never used.
But is that were the case, one would think the original wig would have been displayed by Max Factor
http://www.hollywoodhair.com/moviestar-hairpieces.php (http://www.hollywoodhair.com/moviestar-hairpieces.php)
ORRRRRRRRR............they're simply full of crap. Let's see, they advertise it as the original wig, then admit it was created in 1991 as a reproduction of the actual wig which no one can confirm (and most deny) was ever used in TBOF and for which they can provide no contemporaneous documentation or provenance.
Color me cynical, but I'm calling BS on this one.
What baffles me is the Max Factor Co and Josephine Turner involvement.
I can't really see what they would gain by being less than truthful.
Quote from: Gillfan on February 27, 2011, 07:19:47 PM
What baffles me is the Max Factor Co and Josephine Turner involvement.
I can't really see what they would gain by being less than truthful.
I've been to and enjoyed the museum several times. A terrific place to visit. But it IS an attraction for which admission is charged, and therefore the museum gains visibility by such claims as "We have the original TBOF wig!! Come and see it for $15 per adult,$12 for seniors and students with ID. $5 for children under 5!!"
Gillfan, thanks for staring this thread and bringing the piece to our attention. My comments to follow are NOT directed at any one who commented on this thread or as I remember anyone who shares on this board.
So, these things are always hard to take in because , in our collective minds, a Museum wouldn't lie. Sadly, that is not always the case. We used to have great respect for auction houses, lately we have learned that they too can alter or change the truth.
My patience has grown so short lately for misinformation and our hobby is full of it. We constantly hear from experts in film making who have never set foot on an actual set. Don't get me wrong, there are countless wonderful writers and commentators who get it right through power of conjecture and study, but there are many who do not. The simple fact is that there is nothing like the movie business which has always been unique to itself.
Clearly this wig is not a film used wig from the BRIDE, by the museum's own account. Elsa's first person account of the process negates a wig in her costume so it's not hers BUT a wig could have most certainly been created in the day for a Stunt Double. The end of the film is quite climatic and doubles could have been filmed in the scene and the footage discarded.
That is a possibility.
Max Factor certainly had a hand in creating the other wigs for Frankenstein. There was a life size figure of Karloff from that movie on display in Los Angeles at an Exposition of some sort, perhaps they created an Bride (wigged), as well but no photographs have survived. The Karloff in the picture appears to be wearing a film used costume. That figure may be the one that ended up at the Museum in England.
By the way, when it comes to costumes there is ALMOST ALWAYS more then one.
Quote from: gracebuster on February 28, 2011, 12:41:38 PM
Gillfan, thanks for staring this thread and bringing the piece to our attention. My comments to follow are NOT directed at any one who commented on this thread or as I remember anyone who shares on this board.
So, these things are always hard to take in because , in our collective minds, a Museum wouldn't lie. Sadly, that is not always the case. We used to have great respect for auction houses, lately we have learned that they too can alter or change the truth.
My patience has grown so short lately for misinformation and our hobby is full of it. We constantly hear from experts in film making who have never set foot on an actual set. Don't get me wrong, there are countless wonderful writers and commentators who get it right through power of conjecture and study, but there are many who do not. The simple fact is that there is nothing like the movie business which has always been unique to itself.
Clearly this wig is not a film used wig from the BRIDE, by the museum's own account. Elsa's first person account of the process negates a wig in her costume so it's not hers BUT a wig could have most certainly been created in the day for a Stunt Double. The end of the film is quite climatic and doubles could have been filmed in the scene and the footage discarded.
That is a possibility.
Max Factor certainly had a hand in creating the other wigs for Frankenstein. There was a life size figure of Karloff from that movie on display in Los Angeles at an Exposition of some sort, perhaps they created an Bride (wigged), as well but no photographs have survived. The Karloff in the picture appears to be wearing a film used costume. That figure may be the one that ended up at the Museum in England.
By the way, when it comes to costumes there is ALMOST ALWAYS more then one.
Agreed Daniel......... the museum it seems DID purposely misrepresent what this wig IS and IS NOT. It is listed as a wig from "Bride" when it clearly is not, since it was made in the 1990's. There's really no way around that unless it clearly states on the display that this is NOT a wig used by ANYONE from "Bride", but merely a REPRODUCTION of a wig that MAY or MAY NEVER have been used for the film for which they can provide no provenance whatsoever.
And your point that there are multiple costumes/accessories for pretty much every screen character is indisputable, but what is equally indisputable is that this is not even a DUPLICATE created FOR "Bride". It's a modern duplicate of a duplicate they claim they created for "Bride". It's akin to Xeroxing the Declaration of Independence today and then displaying it as an original. Somehow I doubt all these facts are contained in the display description.
Sheer deception.
I have to update this again and say that the museum has begun to amend many of their informative cards next to the artifacts. Since we brought this to their attention they have updated the wig card and (unrelated) have also updated a Mrs Doubtfire display and an Annie Hall display.
Perhaps I'm being naive here, but really believe the combo excuse of "interns and volunteers mislabeled it/ we switched curators/ we meant to fix it but with so much stuff to do it kept getting pushed further down the list".
With all that said, controversy follows many famous props. The furor over the resin Maltese Falcon was very high profile
http://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/4903806 (http://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/4903806)
the debate over Indy's idol continues
http://www.originalprop.com/blog/2009/01/23/raiders-of-the-lost-ark-fetility-idols-in-the-marketplace-the-danziger-collection-elstree-film-studios/ (http://www.originalprop.com/blog/2009/01/23/raiders-of-the-lost-ark-fetility-idols-in-the-marketplace-the-danziger-collection-elstree-film-studios/)
and, my personal favorite, the confusion over Forrest Gump's bench:
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,297435,00.html (http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,297435,00.html)
Correct me if I'm wrong since I am a newbie here ... but almost every still photo I have seen the "lightning bolts" in Elsa's hair are not evenly placed, one sits lower on one side (her left). This wig has them evenly spaced.
(http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x9/blackcanary2000/horror%20movies/bride.jpg)
Andy
I don't know about this 'she didn't wear a wig' thing. There's just way too much hair here. Even at a minimum, there are huge hairpieces behind the lightning bolts on the sides of her head.
Elsa's natural hairline:
(http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g107/backlotcharlie/2638272.jpg)(http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g107/backlotcharlie/elsa-lanchester-185387.jpg)(http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g107/backlotcharlie/images-4.jpg)
(http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g107/backlotcharlie/images-7.jpg)(http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g107/backlotcharlie/729116.jpg)(http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g107/backlotcharlie/729123.jpg)(http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g107/backlotcharlie/3305111479_2aa8e820f8.jpg)
In the bottom pics especially, notice how straight her hairline is, and in the first two photos below, I detect wig "lace", a sure sign she's wearin' a full piece in these shots. Perhaps they did a little of both-her hair enhanced with clipped-in hairpieces (including the lightning bolts and the sideburns behind them), and at times a full fledged wig, like the recreation, which many of these shots suggest.
(http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g107/backlotcharlie/729117.jpg)(http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g107/backlotcharlie/Bride_of_Frankenstein.jpg)(http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g107/backlotcharlie/tumblr_lb398ve49l1qzdvhio1_r1_400.jpg)(http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g107/backlotcharlie/images-5.jpg)
Irregardless, the variations in her lightning bolts in these shots show she was 'done up' a number of different times, much more than her brief appearance in the movie would have you believe.
Since everyone who would be in a position to know is dead, I doubt the issue will ever be settled 100%. Certainly, not to everyone's satisfaction. The symetrical "lightning streaks" would seem to preclude it from ever having been used onscreen. Could it have been used on a stand-in or a stunt double? I don't think we'll ever know for sure.
Count- The wig on display is a recreation- no doubt about that. The issue is did she EVER where a wig similar to the one on display, or as the common [supposed] Elsa story goes- a 'cage [apparatus] on her head, utilizing her own hair'.
While this cage tale is likely true (esp. if Elsa actually said it) memories fade, especially after 30 years. I myself am seeing a full wig in several of these shots, as suggested by the hairline, lace and sheer thickness of her Bride hair, compared to actual hair and hairline in regular shots. Is there any reason why both couldn't have existed? Or if not a complete wig, a huge hairpiece(s)?
That just is not her hairline in many of those shots above. Check out her "widow's peak" in her natural hairline.
I, too, thought she augmented her own hair with switches...in addition to the "lightening bolts", so I checked with Greg Mank. Mr. Mank knows whereof he speaks. He interviewed Elsa Lanchester extensively for his book on female Horror Stars. Elsa was as sharp as a tack (sharper, probably) when interviewed, and told GWM that it was all her own hair, except for the lightening bolts.
A: I'd go with Elsa, because SHE ought to know...and,
B: I'd go with Greg Mank, because I know his research.
"E" ededed
Quote from: Elisabeth on March 02, 2011, 01:04:03 PM
I, too, thought she augmented her own hair with switches...in addition to the "lightening bolts", so I checked with Greg Mank. Mr. Mank knows whereof he speaks. He interviewed Elsa Lanchester extensively for his book on female Horror Stars. Elsa was as sharp as a tack (sharper, probably) when interviewed, and told GWM that it was all her own hair, except for the lightening bolts.
A: I'd go with Elsa, because SHE ought to know...and,
B: I'd go with Greg Mank, because I know his research.
"E" ededed
And I'd add that it's a moot point anyway since that hair-hat on display didn't even exist until 60 years after The Bride wrapped production. I'm curious to see the description of this thing when I get back to LA. I bet they don't change a thing.
No disrespect to you E, or Mank, or anybody else, but i'm not buying it.
That is wig lace in some of those shots, and I can clearly see she did not have anything close to the straight hairline that she has in some of those close-ups, nor nearly that much hair. The light won't even shine through it in backlight in some of those shots. In a couple of the shots (like the one she is looking straight forward), that may be her hairline, but there are still added hairpieces involved behind the lightning bolts (she would have had lambchop sideburns bigger than 70's Elvis' in some of the pics).
Arrow points at the lip (lace) of the wig...
(http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g107/backlotcharlie/elsaa.jpg)
Sorry, gang, in this shot, this is definitely a wig...
(http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g107/backlotcharlie/bof729p56-1.jpg)
(http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g107/backlotcharlie/bof729p56-1-1.jpg)
---------
I got into it with Al Lewis once over whether or not he had a MUNSTERS tuxedo (actually two) that had red lapels on the series THE MUNSTERS and in the technicolor MUNSTER, GO HOME!. Al claimed he absolutely, positively, did NOT have such a tuxedo. Period. No way. No how. No argument. Then Kevin Burns pulled out this photo and set it in front of him....
(http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g107/backlotcharlie/images-10.jpg)
Big Al looked at this very photo, and even then wouldn't acknowledge it. Nope. Didn't have one. Okaaaayyyyy...so, no doubt, I have first hand experience that memories fuzz up over time in matters like this. (BTW, Al is wearing white side hairpieces and eyebrows here (not his own hair) that he did not wear on the series. This is a makeup/portrait shot from MUNSTER,GO HOME!)
That looks VERY wiggy.
(http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g107/backlotcharlie/bof729p56.jpg)
QuoteThat looks VERY wiggy.
Hey Scatter. Ya big ape! How about I pull YOUR hair and send you crying wiggy-wiggy-wiggy all the way home! Love, Buddy
Quote from: bigbud on March 02, 2011, 05:07:41 PM
Hey Scatter. Ya big ape! How about I pull YOUR hair and send you crying wiggy-wiggy-wiggy all the way home! Love, Buddy
Depends where you're pulling from.
I'm guessing Elsa's wire cage story refers to shooting film. Looks like its a wig in the publicity stills.
This may reveal way too much about my psyche, but I always thought Elsa looked hot as the Bride, but not so much when out of makeup.
Quote from: Gillfan on March 02, 2011, 11:17:08 PM
This may reveal way too much about my psyche, but I always thought Elsa looked hot as the Bride, but not so much when out of makeup.
That's because they cut out all the close-ups of her as Mary Shelley where she's practically spilling out of the top of her dress! Which was accurate to the period, but too much for the Hayes Office.
Quote from: Gillfan on March 02, 2011, 11:17:08 PM
This may reveal way too much about my psyche, but I always thought Elsa looked hot as the Bride, but not so much when out of makeup.
ditto. And I always thought Yvonne DeCarlo was way hotter done up as Lily than not.
I dig monster chicks!
Quote from: Unknown Primate on March 03, 2011, 01:08:34 PM
I dig monster chicks!
Quote from: Gillfan on March 02, 2011, 11:17:08 PM
This may reveal way too much about my psyche, but I always thought Elsa looked hot as the Bride, but not so much when out of makeup.
Same here! I like reading these investigative threads. If I could afford to buy any cool props from classic films I don't think I would, as there would always be that doubt in my mind that they aren't Kosher.
Quote from: Monster Bob on March 01, 2011, 04:29:54 PM
I don't know about this 'she didn't wear a wig' thing. There's just way too much hair here. Even at a minimum, there are huge hairpieces behind the lightning bolts on the sides of her head.
Elsa's natural hairline:
(http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g107/backlotcharlie/2638272.jpg)(http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g107/backlotcharlie/elsa-lanchester-185387.jpg)(http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g107/backlotcharlie/images-4.jpg)
(http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g107/backlotcharlie/images-7.jpg)(http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g107/backlotcharlie/729116.jpg)(http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g107/backlotcharlie/729123.jpg)(http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g107/backlotcharlie/3305111479_2aa8e820f8.jpg)
In the bottom pics especially, notice how straight her hairline is, and in the first two photos below, I detect wig "lace", a sure sign she's wearin' a full piece in these shots. Perhaps they did a little of both-her hair enhanced with clipped-in hairpieces (including the lightning bolts and the sideburns behind them), and at times a full fledged wig, like the recreation, which many of these shots suggest.
(http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g107/backlotcharlie/729117.jpg)(http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g107/backlotcharlie/Bride_of_Frankenstein.jpg)(http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g107/backlotcharlie/tumblr_lb398ve49l1qzdvhio1_r1_400.jpg)(http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g107/backlotcharlie/images-5.jpg)
Irregardless, the variations in her lightning bolts in these shots show she was 'done up' a number of different times, much more than her brief appearance in the movie would have you believe.
My opinion? Whiule this will egt you a cup of joe if you have 5o cents. I believe a wig might've been used in the shots where she was bandaged. Then her real war was combed over a chicken wire cage frame for the shots out of it.
Strait from The Brides mouth:
"I've often been asked how my hair was made to stand on end. Well, from the top of my head they made four tiny, tight braids. On these was anchored a wired horsehair cage about five inches high. Then my own hair was brushed over this structure, and two white hair pieces-one from the right temple and the other from the left cheekbone-were bunched onto the top."
Elsa Lanchester Herself by Elsa Lanchester, pg. 135
Quote from: Dr.Terror on March 02, 2011, 09:49:38 PM
I'm guessing Elsa's wire cage story refers to shooting film. Looks like its a wig in the publicity stills.
I believe this to be the case also.
I just watched the last few minutes of BRIDE last night, and honestly her appearance is so short and the editing and the shots so fast (not to mention the film is anything but sharp by today's standards), it's hard to tell anything. Even if only a cage and no formal wig was used on screen, there is added hair on Elsa's head (besides the bolts), as Lanchester's hair just isn't that thick. Alot like Lily Munster's hair on THE MUNSTERS- the base was her hair and an 'Indian wig', with added, clipped-in extensions.
Bottom line is,
a production wig was made, as is evidenced by the large portrait shots above. Whether a wig actually saw screen time really makes no difference. The enigma was-
How could a BoF wig be on display at The Museum of the Moving Image, when Elsa herself said they used her own hair/cage in the production of BoF? In the prop collecting world, production-made pieces (as opposed to screen-used pieces) are still very much valued, just less in dollars and cents. Just like "hero" (close-up/detailed), "stunt" (rubber or resin copies), and "production made but not screen-used" props. It was still made for the production, therefore it is an authentic and important artifact of the film.
The museum originally did not identify it as a recreation, presumably because they never thought they would be grilled about it (or thought your average museum goer would care or question it). But in the last few years, and especially with the different house auction prop scandals, it seems everything in Hollywood Prop-land is now questioned, and especially on the 'net.