In the 1924 Lon Chaney Sr. film "He Who Gets Slapped", it is alleged that Bela Lugosi was an extra in that film, appearing in clown make-up. Here is a scan of a still I acquired a few years ago, before I realized that Lugosi is possibly one of the clowns.
(http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/9951/blhe1.jpg) (http://img14.imageshack.us/my.php?image=blhe1.jpg)
(http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/blhe1.jpg/1/w1469.png) (http://g.imageshack.us/img14/blhe1.jpg/1/)
Here is a closer look at the clown on the left...
(http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/8228/blhe2.jpg)
I tried using Photoshop to compare this image with a screengrab I took of Lugosi in "The Midnight Girl", from 1925. Check out these comparisons:
(http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/5017/blmg1.jpg)
(http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/6649/ublcomp2.jpg)
(http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/7972/blcomp.jpg)
Tell me what you guys think...IS THIS LUGOSI OR NOT?
I think it is.........
Hmmm? Maybe? Kinda hard to find another pic where all the angles match, but the features look pretty close, considering.
(http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/954/lugosiani.gif)
The Internet Movie database confirms it:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0014972/fullcredits#cast (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0014972/fullcredits#cast)
Great job! I never knew that. Where did you first hear about him being in that film?
Mike
Quote from: Illoman on February 27, 2009, 08:07:08 PM
The Internet Movie database confirms it:
Although, they confirm a lot of things that aren't true.
Fibber, scholarship by Gary Don Rhodes says it's possible, schedule-wise - but there's absolutely no proof he was in the film.
Bela and friends talked a lot; it's odd that there's no mention by any of them, anywhere, of Lugosi meeting Chaney.
But you never know!
-Craig W.
I was not aware of this fact, but it actually looks like our Hungarian friend.
Identification of a face is usually made from the distance between the eyebrows, between the eyes, between the nose and the mouth and between the mouth and the chin.
Quote from: Wich2 on February 27, 2009, 09:09:47 PM
Fibber, scholarship by Gary Don Rhodes says it's possible, schedule-wise - but there's absolutely no proof he was in the film.
Bela and friends talked a lot; it's odd that there's no mention by any of them, anywhere, of Lugosi meeting Chaney.
But you never know!
-Craig W.
Craig, from the impression I get of his ego, he probably wouldn't have considered Chaney that big of a deal. Or how long had he been in the States at that point? Maybe he didn't understand the magnitude of Chaney's talent.
Mike
Quote from: Wich2 on February 27, 2009, 09:09:47 PM
Fibber, scholarship by Gary Don Rhodes says it's possible, schedule-wise - but there's absolutely no proof he was in the film.
Bela and friends talked a lot; it's odd that there's no mention by any of them, anywhere, of Lugosi meeting Chaney.
But you never know!
-Craig W.
Maybe if Bela was "just an extra" and maybe his English wasn't quite sufficient for conversation, chatting might not have been likely. It would be interesting to ask Bela Jr. if he knows anything about it.
Rob
Mike-
Bela had been here several years, already made several American movies.
And he was never shy later, talking about Karloff, Clara Bow, other movie & stage stars he'd known, etc.
(Both of Rhodes' books are The Real Deal - well researched, and highly readable.)
-Craig
Quote from: Mike Scott on February 27, 2009, 07:47:21 PM
Hmmm? Maybe? Kinda hard to find another pic where all the angles match, but the features look pretty close, considering.
(http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/954/lugosiani.gif)
These two faces do appear to be very similar. Notice that Bela's EYE is very slightly higher than the clown's EYE, and that Bela's EAR is slightly lower than the clown's. Those two misallignments make sense once you consider the very slight difference in the angles.
BUT then shouldn't there be more misallignment of the NOSES and the CHINS? Shouldn't Bela's CHIN and NOSE be slightly higher than the clown's? And shouldn't Bela's MOUTH be slightly higher than the clown's, just as his EYE is?
And does anybody think the clown's face is too broad to be Bela in 1924? That's a pic' of Bela ten years later, ain't it?
I'm inclined to think it's not Bela as the clown.
Quote from: Illoman on February 27, 2009, 08:07:08 PM
The Internet Movie database confirms it:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0014972/fullcredits#cast (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0014972/fullcredits#cast)
Great job! I never knew that. Where did you first hear about him being in that film?
Mike
Well, Mike, I actually spend a lot of time cataloging my film collection using the IMBd and that is where I first heard about this. But, unfortunately, IMDb is a lot like Wikipedia and users are allowed to submit corrections. I've submitted several pieces of information in the last few years and they have correctly refused some of my submissions, so I know that they try to be as accurate as possible. But I still wanted more proof than their say-so. That's why I put it up for debate here, to see what this forum thought.
Quote from: Mike Scott on February 27, 2009, 07:47:21 PM
Hmmm? Maybe? Kinda hard to find another pic where all the angles match, but the features look pretty close, considering.
(http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/954/lugosiani.gif)
Mike-
What an awesome comparison job! I think yours is much better than mine. I chose that screen grab from "The Midnight Girl" because it was filmed at roughly the same time as "He Who Gets Slapped", but unfortunately, both roles used a pretty heavy make-up, so in both cases some of the facial features are partially obscured. Your gif shows a much closer resemblance.
I didn't want to taint the jury pool with my initial post, but my take on the picture comparison is that the ears look right (notice that the clown cap pushes down on the actor's left ear), the nose shape looks right, the distance between the nose and lips looks right, .. but on the clown the dimple is missing (perhaps due to make-up?) and within the eyes, the iris appears to be dark, while most Lugosi close-ups show a lighter colored iris surrounding the pupil. But since this was not a close-up picture, I suspect that catching the iris shade isn't possible and I tend to think that the clown on the left IS Lugosi.
I still want to hear more opinions on this matter though. So everybody please still comment on what you think and why.
-fibbermac-
I think Grape made a very good point: the heavier, thicker Bela face (from MARK OF THE VAMPIRE, 1935?) would not really be the same as the 1924 face?
To me, there's ALMOST no evidence for this to be Bela; EXCEPT for the fact, that I believe it's Richard Sheffield, his friend, who said a copy of the pic was in Bela's collection.
That's not conclusive, either, though - maybe he just liked Chaney, or the film, or knew someone else in the pic, or...
"Bricks, Watson - I must have more bricks with which to build!"
-Craig
Well, I can only judge by my gut instinct since I don't know much about the subject but when I first looked at the photo I thought is was a photo of Bela, then I read the post and immediately went to the photo of the clown on the left so my instincts tell me its him and from reading what others have written I am inclined to think it is really him in the photo. As for the difference in the chubbiness in the face between the two photos actors gain and loose weight all the time for a variety of reasons. It would not surprise me if it is him.
The official Bela Lugosi web site lists him as being in the film.
Mike
Guys, I'm all for it, in cool "maybes" like this!
But I need stronger evidence than a desire for it to be so...
Best,
-Craig
Quote from: Wich2 on February 28, 2009, 12:59:15 PM
Guys, I'm all for it, in cool "maybes" like this!
But I need stronger evidence than a desire for it to be so...
Best,
-Craig
Craig-
I wish more folks like you had been on the O.J. jury. ;D
-fibbermac-
(*grin*)
I just noticed another similarity which might influence skeptics like Craig.
Take a look at any Lugosi photo where you can clearly see both of his eyes and compare his left eye to his right eye. What do you notice? Using my screen grab from "The Midnight Girl" as an example, you can clearly see that his right eye is slightly narrower (squintier) than his left eye. I just did a Google search for Lugosi images and noticed the same thing in nearly all of his photos throughout his career. Its one of the things that makes Lugosi's appearance distinctive.
Its subtle, but I can make out the same trait in the clown picture.
Am I just imagining this or can others see this too?
-fibbermac-
Fibber, just to be clear: I'm not a skeptic! I just need EVIDENCE to be convinced of something, beyond just the "but it would be so COOL if it was true!" wish. (Remember, back in the FM days, how sure everyone was that Lon Chaney Sr. would've starred in both Dracula and Frankenstein if he'd lived? How cool! Except that, with modern scholarship by David Skal and others, we know know that both of those thiings were very, very, VERY unlikely.)
I forward, by his permission, this info from Gary Don Rhodes:
I think Lugosi and HE WHO GETS SLAPPED is something I'm asked about more often than most other Lugosi-related topics. To begin, the listings on Imdb and other internet sites just stem from folks years ago typing what they read in Michael Blake's second Chaney book and my first Lugosi book. No "hard" data exists on this topic, and Blake's source (and mine) was Richard Sheffield. In fact, we were all three together talking about this at an FM in the early-to-mid nineties as I recall.
Richard found at least one, perhaps two HE WHO GETS SLAPPED stills among Lugosi's own photo collection in the 1950s while Lugosi was still alive. I have no doubt that he did. And when he and I were at Forry Ackerman's once upon a time (mid-nineties, probably), he found the very still from HE that has recently been posted on the Army, as well as one other that looks very much like Bela (which is published in my latest Lugosi book, DREAMS AND NIGHTMARES). We also watched HE with Bob Shomer (another of Lugosi's friends from the 1950s), and we all spotted a clown in it that closely resembles Lugosi.
In terms of visuals, I agree that it looks like Bela. Whether or not he looks a little older/younger/etc. than he "should" is for me personally not a credible guide. If he was a clown, he's under a lot of makeup that (along with lighting) could easily over-accentuate eyebrows or a nose, or etc. I think on that front the most we have is that there is a clown in the film that looks like him.
Then we have the fact that Richard found those photographs in Bela's scrapbooks/photo archive, and Lugosi did not generally keep movie stills from any films other than his own.
The fact that he did not mention working with Chaney to anyone is not strange to me, one way or the other. The interviews he did do were usually brief... those from fan magazines often are as much studio hype (that he was bitten by a real vampire, etc) as anything else. And while he did do a very lengthy interview with a would-be biographer in the fifties, the notes from it have disappeared. Plus, Richard never asked Lugosi about Chaney after seeing the HE stills in his collection.
As for "hard" facts at MGM etc. I searched and searched and came up with nothing. Nothing in any of the trade publications that said Bela was cast in that film. Nothing from 1924 that I saw after research proves that he was in the film. BUT, I also came across no list of extras used in the film either. In other words, unless it is buried somewhere not yet found by Michael Blake or myself or anyone else, there seems to be no proof one way or the other in studio materials or trade publications or etc.
Then you get to Bela's own schedule, and there is something interesting to note. He was in a play in Chicago called THE WEREWOLF that summer of 1924. The one review that mentioned him (it was a small role) gave him a good notice. And then, inexplicably, he disappears from the play, with an understudy taking over his role. Where he goes, we don't know. Why he goes, we don't know. But his disappearance from Chicago came shortly before HE was filmed on the West Coast.
Could have Lugosi gone back to New York at that moment? Possibly, but around the time he went to Chicago, he was sued in NY for some money he owed. To quit a paying job in Chicago to go back to a city where he had no job and plenty of debt was something he could have done, but it seems unlikely to me.
It also seems unlikely, ridiculous even, that he would have quit a paying job in Chicago to travel to the West Coast to appear as an extra in a film. Its difficult to see that as logical. BUT, I would submit that it certainly is possible that he was offered a larger role in HE or in some other film on the West Coast ... that he quit THE WEREWOLF, ended up in LA for a film role (or even a screen test) that didn't materialize... that he did one of more extra jobs (inc. as a clown in HE) before leaving to return to NYC. (After all, Lugosi had already had a major role in SILENT COMMAND in 1923, so its not impossible he was considered for another film role)
But this is only surmise.
What I know for sure is that Richard found one or two HE photos among Lugosi's collection featuring a clown that looks like Lugosi... and I know for sure that his schedule in the summer of 1924 would have allowed him to be on the West Coast while HE was filmed, and that he did disappear for reasons unknown from THE WEREWOLF in Chicago after getting a good review in a play that continued on without him.
What I don't know is whether or not Lugosi was in HE WHO GETS SLAPPED. And until some hard evidence shows up, none of us really know for sure. Even though its fun to think about.
Having just spent a whole lot of time studying Bela's face in order to sculpt it, I have to say I'm sold on that being Bela under the clown makeup -- the facial landmarks are all there....
Quote from: Scary Terry on March 02, 2009, 12:54:12 PM
Having just spent a whole lot of time studying Bela's face in order to sculpt it, I have to say I'm sold on that being Bela under the clown makeup -- the facial landmarks are all there....
Terry-
Yup. I've come to the same conclusion. The clincher for me was the facial landmark I mentioned in my last post. In these two pictures, compare Bela's left eye to his right eye.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Bela_Lugosi_01.jpg)
(http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/5017/blmg1.jpg)
Notice that the eyelid over his left eye follows a semi-circular pattern over the eyeball, but the eyelid over his right eye cuts across the eyeball in almost a straight line. This can be seen (to varying degrees, depending upon the camera angle) in most Lugosi pics throughout his career. Looking at the clown picture from HWGS using extreme magnification on my PC, the right eye shows the same straight line characteristic.
Craig's scholarly contributions are greatly appreciated as the kind of solid info I knew I count on from this group. Adding up the photographic evidence with the experts Craig sites which say that its possible (from a schedule standpoint), plus the fact that Lugosi kept a copy of this still in his personal collection...it all tells me that I've got a Chaney/Lugosi still in my collection. (Woohoo!)
I admit that its not as good as finding Lugosi's name on a comprehensive list of extras from that film, but until someone finds such a list or some other relevant documentation, I suppose Bela will be in the eye of the beholder.
-fibbermac-
You're welcome, Fibber - the thanks really got to Gary, though.
And good eye on that eye thing - do you work in Forensics?
-Craig
Quote from: Wich2 on March 03, 2009, 11:14:53 AM
You're welcome, Fibber - the thanks really got to Gary, though.
And good eye on that eye thing - do you work in Forensics?
-Craig
At the moment, I'm not working at all. But when I did have a job, I was a Medical Technologist... which is sorta, kinda, almost, but not really a forensics gig. :D
-fibbermac-
The 'eyes' have it. I agree, those look like Lugosi's eyes to me, too.
(http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g107/backlotcharlie/lugosiclown2.jpg)
Quote
Here is a closer look at the clown on the left...
(http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/8228/blhe2.jpg)
That is FORD STERLING.
Quote from: LonChaney on April 25, 2009, 07:18:27 AM
That is FORD STERLING.
Let's have a look.......
(http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/8228/blhe2.jpg) (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/22/FordSterling.jpg)
Look to your heart's content. However, the two supporting actors in the photograph are FORD STERLING and CLYDE COOK, both of whom were Keystone Kops.
BELA LUGOSI was cast as background talent.
Ford Sterling
(http://www.goldensilents.com/comedy/fordsterling.jpg)
Quote from: LonChaney on April 25, 2009, 08:36:18 AM
Look to your heart's content. However, the two supporting actors in the photograph are FORD STERLING and CLYDE COOK, both of whom were Keystone Kops.
BELA LUGOSI was cast as background talent.
I'm well aware of who Ford Sterling was, and his role in the Keystone Kops.
You don't mind if I actually post a picture for those here who may have never laid eyes upon the man, do you?? I'll be sure to ask everyone to let me know when their eyes are content with looking, and get back to you. Thanks. ::)
Ford was born in 1883, and "He Who Gets Slapped" was filmed in 1924, which would make him about 41 during filming. With that in consideration, this image would be a more accurate representation of how Ford would have looked during filming.
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/findagrave/photos/2002/223/6682240_1029195650.jpg)(http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/8228/blhe2.jpg)
(http://www.geocities.com/drummersmoll/image001.jpg)
Quote from: Scatter on April 25, 2009, 08:47:30 AM
I'm well aware of who Ford Sterling was, and his role in the Keystone Kops...
Then you don't mind if I mention his cast affiliation for those here who may never have heard of the man, do you? You're welcome. ::)
Mr. Lugosi is highlighted:(http://lh6.ggpht.com/_6YZKyVJq1YM/SfMy3W4xIDI/AAAAAAAAAEw/xoBt1VJbuFI/s800/Bela%20in%20HE.jpg)
Great CHANEY film that had Bela as an extra. David
I'm the original poster of this thread and I'm just looking for the truth (aren't we all?).
Lon, what source gave you the names of the two clowns beside Chaney and the identity of Lugosi as the background clown you indicated in the photo you posted? Are these just faces you recognized in the stills or is there documentation?
My goal, if possible, would be to move this issue from the realm of opinions to documented/established knowledge.
-fibbermac-
Forward from Gary Don Rhodes:
"The photo that is said to be of Sterling may well in fact not be the photo that Richard Sheffield saw in Lugosi's private collection. He has only ever said that he saw Lugosi as a clown in a picture with Chaney from HE WHO GETS SLAPPED... it could well have been another image.
There is a photo in my book BELA LUGOSI, DREAMS AND NIGHTMARES that shows someone (not in clown makeup) who very much looks like Lugosi and not at all like Sterling.
However, the image posted here with many clowns behind Chaney and one that is highlighted actually does not at all look like Lugosi to me, for whatever that's worth.
At any rate, I'd underscore once more that, while I'm hopeful that Lugosi was in HE just because of the interesting connection it makes between him and Chaney, the ONLY proof we have are some images that kinda look like him and Richard Sheffield's fifty year old memory of a photo that he saw... neither of which is conclusive proof, by any means.
You can find various websites and so forth claiming that BL was cast as background talent, but those have simply borrowed from either Michael Blake's second book on Chaney or my first book on Lugosi (in which I clearly suggest that his appearance in HE has not been verified).
In short, no evidence exists from the period that has yet been found. Perhaps he was in the film... it is certainly possible... but perhaps he was not. This remains a mystery, regrettably."
This thread reminds me of the start of a 200-page thing about Frankenstein stuntmen on the CHFB ... except not as warm.
Quote from: depressedlarrytalbot on April 25, 2009, 08:31:21 PM
This thread reminds me of the start of a 200-page thing about Frankenstein stuntmen on the CHFB ... except not as warm.
Let's hope this one doesnt go to those extremes..lol
WELL, I AM THOROUGHLY CONVINCED...
that I'll be having freaky clown nightmares tonight, after reading through these posts!!
Quote from: fibbermac on April 25, 2009, 04:21:44 PM
I'm the original poster of this thread and I'm just looking for the truth (aren't we all?).
Lon, what source gave you the names of the two clowns beside Chaney and the identity of Lugosi as the background clown you indicated in the photo you posted? Are these just faces you recognized in the stills or is there documentation?
I do not have any documentation nor a source other than myself. Sorry.
Quote from: depressedlarrytalbot on April 25, 2009, 08:31:21 PM
This thread reminds me of the start of a 200-page thing about Frankenstein stuntmen on the CHFB ... except not as warm.
You mean that's
Eddie Parker in the clown make-up??
.
No, man, it's Gil Perkins fer sure.
You wanna punch about it??
Quote from: The Spangler on April 25, 2009, 11:59:16 PM
WELL, I AM THOROUGHLY CONVINCED...
that I'll be having freaky clown nightmares tonight, after reading through these posts!!
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3580/3294686003_c7cd0e784d.jpg?v=0)
Sweet dreams, Spangler ;)
George
......
...George DeNormand ?
This is embarrassing, but I now think that Lon is right. This is Ford Sterling. This is how I came to this conclusion:
I checked the IMDB and found that Sterling is listed as a cast member who plays the character Tricaud. I decided to watch the movie and find him by finding the character Tricaud and either prove or disprove that this was him. [Here comes the embarrassing part] I never tried watching the film to determine this clown's identity before because I knew that the resolution of my still photo was superior to that of my copy of this film. When I watched the film last night, this is what I found...
Here is the title card introducing Sterling...
(http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/7888/he1p.jpg)
Then you see Sterling (in polka-dots) and Chaney (in the dark solid) as they put on their clown make-up...
(http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/305/he2.jpg)
Later, we see this description of the clown act (in a program held by a member of the audience)...
(http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/5083/he3.jpg)
Now look at the whole clown ensemble in the still that Lon posted...notice that Tricaud is the only clown dressed in a polka-dot costume. ALL OTHER 60 CLOWNS ARE DRESSED IDENTICALLY IN MOSTLY PLAIN WHITE COSTUMES.
Quote from: LonChaney on April 25, 2009, 11:03:40 AM
Mr. Lugosi is highlighted:
(http://lh6.ggpht.com/_6YZKyVJq1YM/SfMy3W4xIDI/AAAAAAAAAEw/xoBt1VJbuFI/s800/Bela%20in%20HE.jpg)
Here are a few more screen grabs I took trying to see the faces better...
(http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/489/he5.jpg)
(http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/622/he7.jpg)
and here is the best image I can get of the clown Lon thought was Lugosi (seen here on the far right)...
(http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/2162/he6.jpg)
This leads me to the unhappy conclusion that my original still resembles Lugosi, but in fact is Sterling. Also, there seems to be no satisfactory photographic evidence that Lugosi appears as a clown in this film.
Thanks to all who gave me their 2 cents worth on this topic. I wasn't sure that I would get a definitive answer to my question when I first asked. You guys gave me more than I ever could've hoped for.
-fibbermac-
This guy looks like Lugosi as much as anybody...at least more than the guy on the right does...
(http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g107/backlotcharlie/clown2.jpg)
O ye of little faith...
(http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g107/backlotcharlie/clown2222.jpg)
You can see Mr. Lugosi here between HE and Mr. Sterling:(http://c2.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/9/l_b4f20432dd1d4a0d96bc5e3b656243f5.jpg)
In the picture above, don't go by height because the floor is not level. Here is another with Sterling and Cook:(http://c2.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/75/l_2979368f05707090e46737bfb2157089.jpg)
If you don't believe that Mr. Lugosi is the joey whom I've identified, I don't know what else to tell you. I sincerely hope that you find the proof you're looking for.
Lon, Thank you kindly for the fantastic pictures. It is always a pleasure to see pictures of one of my favorite actors. David
You are saying this guy is Lugosi?
(http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g107/backlotcharlie/o.jpg)
Out of curiosity, where did you get the information?
Boy, do I ever have egg on my face!
Someone with a far better memory and keener eye than mine (my wife) has informed me that I'm full of beans and that the following is, in fact, Mr. Lugosi:(http://lh4.ggpht.com/_6YZKyVJq1YM/SfTPiMarAiI/AAAAAAAAAFQ/NJbuINz6XZQ/s800/Bela%20in%20HE2.jpg)
It is on her authority that I now present to you (embarrassedly) this new information. (And I advise strongly against arguing with her.) Mr. Lugosi is in the film, however.
I still say it's the first clown.
Quote from: LonChaney on April 25, 2009, 09:37:31 AM
Then you don't mind if I mention his cast affiliation for those here who may never have heard of the man, do you? You're welcome. ::)
Not at all..........you could have done so in a less smarmy and offensive manner, couldn't you?? I posted a pic because you offered
nothing to which we could compare the clown pic.
So, I thought I would HELP YOU and the others who follow the thread by doing what you had failed to do.Offer a means of comparison. My only words were "Let's have a look" as I posted side-by-side photos.
You're welcome.
Maybe it's just me but the bigger text seems kinda shouty. No offense.
My words were not meant to be insulting. It's just that I know with certainty who the performers in the group of three are and I did not want anyone to spend their time needlessly trying to figure it out after I wrote it. Also, when I'm in a hurry, I'm brief.
The size of my text is because, for some reason, I have difficulty reading this message board. I write using the larger font so that I can see it better in preview. I don't have that problem with the Classic Horror Film Board and, again, I have no idea why. Also, I don't find this board as easy to navigate.
Finally, I'm the new kid on the block. Sadly, it's been my experience that, no matter what or how I write, as the newbie, there's always going to be some regular who is hasty to judge, comes forward and finds a bone to pick. This time, you're it. Next time, in another forum, it will be someone else. I don't care anymore.
Naw. That's fair enough. It was just the juxtaposition of text size and the slight, er, head-butting above that combined in mine head to make it seem, well, shouty. Like I said - no offense meant.
Besides, I live in freakin' Oz and I still consider myself a newbie. How more out of it can one be? Hey we all gotta start somewhere... right?
Thanks, fibbermac - nice to see evidence beyond just wishful thinking.
Lon - if I follow you, you've said that several faces are Bela's at this point? Isn't that looking for facts to to fit a theory, not building a theory from facts?
Quote from: LonChaney on April 27, 2009, 03:44:05 AM
The size of my text is because, for some reason, I have difficulty reading this message board.
Why not just use your browser's zoom feature and make the page larger for you, instead of making the text larger for everyone?
Quote from: Mike Scott on April 27, 2009, 09:29:00 AM
Why not just use your browser's zoom feature and make the page larger for you, instead of making the text larger for everyone?
I didn't know I could do that — THANKS!
Quote from: LonChaney on April 27, 2009, 10:02:21 AM
I didn't know I could do that — THANKS!
In IE or Firefox, click on "View" and under "Text Size" click on "Largest", or "Increase". Change it back and forth as needed. Newer IE also has a zoom (look for "100%" along the bottom of your screen).
Quote from: Wich2 on April 27, 2009, 09:20:23 AM
Lon - if I follow you, you've said that several faces are Bela's at this point? Isn't that looking for facts to to fit a theory, not building a theory from facts?
No, I said that one and only one clown is Mr. Lugosi, but my wife said that she feels that I'm wrong and has pointed out another which I then posted to this board for you all to look at, since it was addressed directly to me by the fellow with the chip on his shoulder that I should post
something so that comparisons can be made. (See what I mean about being damned if I do and damned if I don't?)
As I wrote, I'm sticking with my original choice. Perhaps you don't realize that the performer seated on the floor and standing between HE and Tricaud is the
same actor.
To those of you who've become my critics, let me get this straight:
1. Large fonts are shouting, even when they're
not all caps.
2. Telling someone to "look all they want, but it's still Ford Sterling and Clyde Cook" makes me "smarmy."
3. Tongue-in-cheek remarks and humor are lost on many of you.
Gee, I'm so glad that I tried to help.
You're right. It's not Ford Sterling nor Clyde Cook in the photos. In fact, it's not even Lon Chaney. It's Cate Blanchett in a time machine and rest are all CGI.
Steady on Lon; no personal attack here.
I always read your posts, here and at CHFB (I do wish you wouldn't play the game of being a long-dead icon, as I find that disrespectful; but I'd feel the same if you posed as Abraham Lincoln.)
I think the jury is still out on the HE issue; there's not a lot of tangible evidence on either side. I do tend to be leery of theories from fans though, when they have such a strong element of "but it would be SO COOL if true!" As John Kennedy said, "wishing it, predicting it, even asking for it, does not make it so."
Worthy of further study. Maybe someday, ala the MITTY Karloff Monster pics, this one can be nailed.
Best,
-Craig W.
Quote from: Wich2 on April 27, 2009, 11:00:06 AM
I always read your posts, here and at CHFB (I do wish you wouldn't play the game of being a long-dead icon, as I find that disrespectful; but I'd feel the same if you posed as Abraham Lincoln.)
Yeah, the GhostofChaneysLiver reeks of reverence.
If you put yourself in that company, name-wise, you're making my point.
I don't — Abe.
Quote from: LonChaney on April 27, 2009, 03:44:05 AM
My words were not meant to be insulting. It's just that I know with certainty who the performers in the group of three are and I did not want anyone to spend their time needlessly trying to figure it out after I wrote it. Also, when I'm in a hurry, I'm brief.
The size of my text is because, for some reason, I have difficulty reading this message board. I write using the larger font so that I can see it better in preview. I don't have that problem with the Classic Horror Film Board and, again, I have no idea why. Also, I don't find this board as easy to navigate.
Finally, I'm the new kid on the block. Sadly, it's been my experience that, no matter what or how I write, as the newbie, there's always going to be some regular who is hasty to judge, comes forward and finds a bone to pick. This time, you're it. Next time, in another forum, it will be someone else. I don't care anymore.
No problems with me mate. Let's just start fresh and not let the trivial become the insurmountable. The large text, in internet parlance, is definitely shouty.
BTW, we love newbies here, this is not the CFHB. You'll be hard pressed to find anyone here who experienced what you seem to expect to experience as a newbie. So relax, no one is looking for a bone to pick. Perhaps that expectation may color some of your perspective?? Welcome aboard, and thanks for the terrific info.
BTW, what makes you believe the clown you specified is Lugosi?? Someone asked previously but I didn't notice a response. Is it more a process of elimination, or do you see some facial characteristics that lead you to this conclusion??
Quote from: Scatter on April 27, 2009, 11:55:19 AM
BTW, what makes you believe the clown you specified is Lugosi??
The bone structure of his face and the shape of his eyes.
You can't go by the paint because clown makeup, when applied correctly, is designed to work with the natural movement of the underlying facial muscles, not correspond with the actual lines and distinguishing marks of the face. To open up the eyes, and especially with white face, the brow is drawn well above the natural brow, because that is where there is the most movement when the muscle is contracted. (To draw the brow over the natural brow, as was done with Mr. Sterling, makes the clown look stern; but, as boss clown, that is his character.) And the mouth is almost always exaggerated, placing the corners past the smile lines and onto the cheeks. If a performer or makeup artist does not apply the greasepaint in this fashion, movement of the face may produce the opposite of the desired result, such as the mere act of smiling turning a neutral or pleasant expression into a horrible grimace.
Let's play fair, "Mr. Chaney."
An avatar is not a persona and anyway, mine changes often.
But I've never called myself by Mr. Lincoln's name (save when in character, as an actor). And I'd never adopt the pretense of actually BEING the man, in posts.
Best,
-Craig Wichman
Quote from: Wich2 on April 28, 2009, 12:21:15 PM
Let's play fair, "Mr. Chaney."
An avatar is not a persona and anyway, mine changes often.
But I've never called myself by Mr. Lincoln's name (save when in character, as an actor). And I'd never adopt the pretense of actually BEING the man, in posts.
Best,
-Craig Wichman
Well, Mr. Wichman, first off, let me say that you have my utmost respect. I admire what you do here and at CHFB, and the fairness, diplomacy and professionalism with which you do it. Secondly, you are more than entitled to your opinion.
However, there are upwards of 2,000 people both on MySpace and Facebook who enjoy what I do immensely, and appreciate the spirit in which I do it. That number keeps growing every day and I receive messages all the time from Chaney fans who thank me for keeping Lon alive. Some of those people are Chaney family members.
Also, I cannot tell you how many people I've introduced to the Chaney films, products, books, websites and related subjects, such as motion picture preservation, silent cinema, makeup techniques, theater arts, the art of other Chaney admirers, etc.; how many questions I've answered, efforts and projects I've assisted in, creative works I've encouraged...all without taking credit for my participation and asking for nothing in return, all anonymously save for this "phantom."
So, as I said, you are more than entitled to your opinion. But, for every one who may find fault with what I do (and, believe me, I am very careful with how I do it), there are many, many more who are glad for it.
I am an actor too, Mr. Wichman, a one-man show. In this role, the internet is my stage, my screen, my medium. And, with the exception of this momentary aside, I don't break character.
Dear (_) -
I much appreciate that. And as I have always tried to make clear, I have absolutely nothing against you personally; just the opposite - you seem to be an informed, fair, and decent guy.
Our only disagreement is on principle.
I don't, in general, like cyber-masks. Too often online, they are used to cover bad behavior that the wearer would never own with their own face (much the same reason goofballs like the Klan, or Hezbolah, wear masks.)
But beyond that, I do take issue with someone claiming to be someone else - a REAL someone else, mind you. Not "Clark Kent," or "Count Dracula," but Lon F. Chaney - once a living, breathing human being. I have friends who walked the earth at the same time as he did; and he has very-much-alive descendants.
(I wonder how you would feel about this, if someone was posting as your Grandfather?)
Again, no personal offense is meant here. And it isn't even specifically about Chaney. I wonder if there's a statute of limitations on such appropriation of person: is it okay now, for instance, to pretend to be Forrest J. Ackerman? Or perhaps, Peter Cushing?
We'll just have to agree to disagree, here.
Best,
-Craig
Back OT:
(http://images.yuku.com/image/pjpeg/517254fc79cc7c74bf721619a21322f8e065e34.jpg)
THIS is an actor that Gary Rhodes thinks more likely to be Bela (if he's in the film at all) - the man I've centered, at the desk to the left of Chaney in the pic.
(To my eyes, he's a little jowly/full of face compared to the other Lugosi pics of this era; but this all gets so subjective...)
Probably not.
(http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/2419/bela2.jpg)
And, yet...
(http://images.yuku.com/image/pjpeg/111252ec66c3dc63bec2204d29c065e6071e357.jpg)
(I'm a skeptic; just sayin'...)
Quote from: Wich2 on April 29, 2009, 09:13:45 AM
I have friends who walked the earth at the same time as he did; and he has very-much-alive descendants.
Likewise. And they are among the people who've written to me to tell me how much they like what I've done on MySpace and elsewhere on behalf of their friend and ancestor who has ties to my family as well.
Quote from: Wich2 on April 29, 2009, 01:35:04 PM
And, yet...
(http://images.yuku.com/image/pjpeg/111252ec66c3dc63bec2204d29c065e6071e357.jpg)
(I'm a skeptic; just sayin'...)
It's my understanding that Mr. Lugosi was cast to play a clown.
Quote from: LonChaney on April 29, 2009, 06:31:06 PM
Likewise. And they are among the people who've written to me to tell me how much they like what I've done on MySpace and elsewhere on behalf of their friend and ancestor who has ties to my family as well.
Lon, can you post a link to your MySpace and FaceBook pages?? Or are they simply under your nom de plume??
Quote from: Wich2 on April 29, 2009, 01:35:04 PM
And, yet...
(http://images.yuku.com/image/pjpeg/111252ec66c3dc63bec2204d29c065e6071e357.jpg)
Guy #1 doesn't have the chin divot. You can even see it in the crummied up pic 2.
Quote from: Mike Scott on April 29, 2009, 11:25:18 PM
Guy #1 doesn't have the chin divot. You can even see it in the crummied up pic 2.
"Chin divot" Gracie?? LOL!!
Quote from: Scatter on April 29, 2009, 08:54:44 PM
Lon, can you post a link to your MySpace and FaceBook pages?? Or are they simply under your nom de plume??
There's really not much on Facebook, as I have difficulty using the site. However, my profile addresses are:
profile.to/lonchaney (http://profile.to/lonchaney)
profile.myspace.com/leonidas_chaney (http://profile.myspace.com/leonidas_chaney)
The latter has much more to see and read; and, if you become a friend, even more features will be made available to you. I keep adding to my profile all the time, and still have many photos to caption and blogs to upload. The next blog I will be uploading and am in the process of cleaning up and formatting now is the final project essay from a student friend's film appreciation class. I almost always put up what youngsters send me, unless it's offensive. But I have to admit that my MySpace friends have been pretty good about being respectful on my pages.
If I may respectfully repeat something that has been said before, there is absolutely no proof of any kind that Lugosi was in HE WHO GETS SLAPPED. No evidence at all... none.
The only reason that anyone has ever thought he might have been stems from a conversation I had with Dick Sheffield over 15 years ago, when Dick said he thought he remembered seeing a photo of BL and Chaney, both as clowns, both standing side-by-side in BL's own collection (Not BL crowded into a group of clowns in the background).
While he was confident that he saw what he saw, it is important to remember that Lugosi did appear as a clown in another 1920s film, PUNCHINELLO, and that photos of that film could have been in Lugosi's collection as well.
Dick told me this story, and I suggested he tell the story to Michael Blake, who was until then completely unaware of the possibility. Blake published it in his second Chaney book, and I did in my first Lugosi book. I made extremely clear in my book that there was no evidence other than Dick's memory of a photo (and even if he did see the photo as described, that still wouldn't be proof that Lugosi appeared in the film). Lugosi's schedule would have allowed him to appear in the film... that I could prove... but there is NO proof that Lugosi was in this movie.
What has happened is that some subsequent folks have taken the story and ran with it... ending up with repeated nonsense, such as the simultaneously silly and appalling IMDB and Wikipedia entries...
In recent years, Dick has been convinced that the clown described in this forum as Ford Sterling is Lugosi... and he also believes that the man sans clown makeup in the other photo posted here is Lugosi. (In fact, he provided that image to me in his quest to find the still that he saw decades ago).
If they aren't, then this means that Dick could have made the same mistake seeing a picture 50 years ago... mistaking Sterling for Lugosi.
I think the visual analysis on this forum has been fascinating, but if anything, whereas I had been 50-50 on the subject, I'd now think that there is a 70 percent chance or more that Lugosi was not in the film.
Regardless, however, I would again respectfully submit that there is no proof that Lugosi was cast as background talent or as a clown or as anything in HE WHO GETS SLAPPED. Nothing.
To be honest, I even feel embarrassed that I offered Dick's mystery to the world and so many people have wrongly reprinted it as if it were fact.
It is not fact.
THANK YOU, Gary. Much needed. And welcome to the UMA!
Mike C.
Quote from: Wich2 on April 29, 2009, 01:35:04 PM
And, yet...
(http://images.yuku.com/image/pjpeg/111252ec66c3dc63bec2204d29c065e6071e357.jpg)
(I'm a skeptic; just sayin'...)
You know, after looking at this again — and again and again and again — and with my good spectacles on, observing carefully the shape and contour of the forehead, temples, hairline, brows, cheeks, lips, eyes, nose, chin, angle and protrusion of the ear, shape of the jaw, I now have to say that that's a dead ringer for Mr. Lugosi! (No pun intended.)
It was not uncommon (and still isn't) for background actors to cross-over and play a number of parts in the same picture, and that was certainly done in "He Who Gets Slapped." The fact that the additional role's true face would be completely concealed by clown-white makes it even more likely. This film required a large cast of uncredited performers, not just for the clowns but for the audience and other parts as well. Furthermore, and as is depicted in some of the group-shot dissolves, the character of Clown HE regards his peers from his former life as Scientist Paul Beaumont as buffoons. So, if Mr. Lugosi played one, it is very likely that he played the other.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, hard proof or not, Mr. Lugosi is in this picture. I sincerely hope that more solid evidence surfaces soon.