The Bride's Wig

[Scatter]

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??

[Most Horrible]

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.

[Gillfan]

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

[Scatter]

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

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.

[Gillfan]

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.

[Scatter]

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!!"

[gracebuster]

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.

[Scatter]

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.

[Gillfan]

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

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/

and, my personal favorite, the confusion over Forrest Gump's bench:
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,297435,00.html

[westbatman]

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.



Andy

[Monster Bob]

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:



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.


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.

[Count_Zirock]

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.

[Monster Bob]

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.

[Elisabeth]

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" 

[Scatter]

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" 

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.