Short stories – for a quick break

2017-05-02 By aenigma

Aenigma is all about images from the the worlds of fashion and the movies and the stories behind them.

Short stories is a good place to come if you don’t have time for one of the longer pieces. Below you’ll find a selection of shots that illustrate the range of subjects covered by aenigma. It’s a deliberately eclectic mix with, hopefully, something for everybody.

Use the filter buttons to home in on topics that might interest you, and then the Read more button to go to the whole story.

A L “Whitey” Schafer – the art of the portrait

2017-04-20 By aenigma

Janet Blair by A L "Whitey" Schafer — 1941. Janet Blair wrapped in cellophane. Photo by A L “Whitey” Schafer. Read more.

A L “Whitey” Schafer was a leading stills photographer in Hollywood during the 1930s and ’40s. In 1941 he published Portraiture Simplified, a book in which he argues that “…portraiture’s purpose is the realization of character realistically.” It provides an insight into his approach and techniques.

To help promote the book, he wrote wrote an article for amateur photographers in the February 1943 issue of Popular Science. It makes a nice counterpoint to some of his studio shots. A transcript follows, but it’s worth taking a look at the original (there’s a link to it at the end of this article), both for the photos that illustrate it and for his advice on equipment, which do not appear here.

After the transcript, you will find a few reflections on A L “Whitey” Schafer’s Hollywood portraits followed by his career timeline.

Explore your home for pictures in pattern

By A. L. (WHITEY) SCHAFER Portrait Photographer, Paramount Studios “Whitey” Schafer is a pioneer among Hollywood’s still photographers. Starting 22 years ago as a laboratory worker at Paramount, he was for ten years in charge of portrait, publicity, advertising and production still photography for Columbia Pictures. Now he is back at Paramount, in charge of all still photography and directing the work of the same laboratory where he started as a boy. He specializes in “pattern pictures” such as the accompanying ones of Ann Rooney and Lynda Gray.

The man behind the lens, whether he be a professional or an amateur, sees life in terms of pictures. Since many of us are going to spend more time at home from now on, more of our pictures will have home settings. Why not make the best of the situation by getting interesting home patterns into your photographs? If you follow the suggestions I’ve found valuable in my studio work, you can build a collection of pictures that will not only portray your family and friends more interestingly, but will, in their settings, afford intimate glimpses of your home as well.

Vera Zorina by A L “Whitey” Schafer. — 1942. Vera Zorina, star of ballets, stage and film musicals. Photo by A L “Whitey” Schafer. Read more.

Any background other than a blank wall resolves itself into a pattern of lines or masses. Where in the home will you find interesting patterns? In the woodwork of a door, and its framework; in the brick sidewalk and the flagstones of your patio; in floor coverings, particularly rugs with strong markings; in chairs and lamp standards and iron grill work; in the grape arbor, a shade tree, the picket fence. Two simple rules will serve as your guide:

1. Look for interesting line.

2. Do not shoot into “open” background, such as a plain wall.

Both rhythm and contradiction will provide interest. For example, lower the camera and you elongate a full-length figure. Have your subject lean away from the perpendicular when the design is rectangular to break up parallel lines, and so get a contradictory line between the center of attraction and the background. These points are well illustrated in the accompanying pictures.

There is one important exception to the second rule. You may safely photograph a girl in a pretty costume against a plain wall, for here interest centers in the girl and her garb. In general, though, it is the background that makes your pictures.

Any feminine wardrobe will include more than one costume with interesting pattern – a peasant dress, for example. Have your subject stand against the wall, hold or pin the dress up by the hem so as to frame her head and shoulders like a fan, turn one shoulder toward the camera, and you’ll get a picture to be cherished. Unless you have a portrait attachment, you must be content with a waist figure. In enlarging, though, bleed the dress off the edges of the print, thus creating a feeling of endless design.

How should you shoot for close-ups, medium figures or long shots? Does a door call for a medium figure and the mantel a full figure? Which odd corner holds promise of a beautiful composition?

Suppose we examine some concrete cases. The ideas they suggest undoubtedly will point the way to parallel possibilities in your own home.

Barbara Stanwyck by A L “Whitey” Schafer — 1943. Barbara Stanwyck in Double Indemnity. Photo by A L “Whitey” Schafer. Read more.

Consider the front door, or perhaps the dining-room door. It may be paneled, or perfectly plain with handsomely grained wood. You’ll agree, I am sure, that the form and pattern of the door are interesting; they’re doubly so when sister or mother consents to pose. Again let us ask your subject to stand with one shoulder turned toward the camera. (If she stands straight on, her head will appear disproportionately small.) Place the camera at shoulder level – certainly no lower than the bust line.

“Four walls do not a prison make,” but four sides of the door casing certainly will imprison your subject. So, either on the negative or when enlarging, crop so that the casing does not frame the picture. Let the panel bleed off the edges.

That’s not an inflexible rule, of course. Some doors have interesting moldings or casings. When including this framework, to avoid the feeling of imprisonment, tip the camera opposite to the line of your subject’s figure. If she leans to the right, tilt the camera to the left. By this means, the normally horizontal and perpendicular lines of the doorway will both frame the center of interest at an interesting angle and enhance the line of the figure.

Have you ever thought of a wall, a simple, unadorned expanse of plaster, as part of your home worth photographing? It can be, if you add interesting shadows. Some of the most effective portraits I have taken are medium shots photographed against such a background. Place your subject directly against the wall, turn one shoulder toward the camera and arrange a single key light high enough to cast a butterfly shadow under the nose so long as almost to reach the lip. No matter which way he or she faces, to avoid the illusion of a crooked nose the light must be cast to run the shadow directly down, and not even a trifle side-ways. The single-source light will cast shadows along the wall, bringing out the relief that makes the picture. No back light is needed here.

Rugs, particularly those bearing a single predominant figure against an open or lightly figured field, offer interesting opportunities. They may be hung against a wall or left on the floor. In the first case, be sure to place the figure high enough so it doesn’t conflict with the head of your subject. It’s a good plan to make this a medium shot, placing the subject in one lower corner, with the figure running out of the opposite upper corner. If you wish to avoid an unsightly shadow and focus attention upon the subject, place her about three feet in front of the rug. Thus, the background will be slightly out of focus.

A slightly different procedure applies when the rug is left on the floor. Now you’ll shoot down from an elevation of about 5’, tilting the camera so that the figure comes diagonally across the plate. Make sure your subject’s head is closer to the camera than her feet.

Mary Lou Dix by A L “Whitey” Schafer — 1935. Mary Lou Dix, the epitome of the svelte Art Deco look. Photo by A L “Whitey” Schafer. Read more.

Remember my warning not to shoot into open background. That means, simply, that with such exceptions as costumes against bare walls, the background pattern and foreground objects should balance the picture both as to width and depth. Virtually any piece of furniture may be used in the foreground, such as a sofa or an upended chair. These natural props not only solve the problem of the straying hand by giving it a resting place; they also keep the resulting picture out of the stereo-typed class.

Lean an occasional table on its side, for example, and frame a head in the center of the top. Use a low setup, shooting up to get a feeling of distance. The possibilities with furniture are limitless. A few trials will show you the way.

What may you find of interest outdoors? Lattice work, vines, tree branches … pictures are everywhere. Let’s make them different. The latticed arbor, for instance. Don’t simply take a straight shot, but angle the lattice to the boundaries of the negative. If the sun is shining directly through the lattice, try for a silhouette, making sure none of the rays strike the lens.

A human figure will improve the picture, and yet preserve the pattern. In this case, while the lattice will give you a bolder pattern as a result of contrast, you should expose for the subject rather than for the background.

I have left until last the most prized and usually the most poorly conceived picture of all. That’s the family portrait. Don’t stand all your subjects in a single row, some in shadow and some in the sun, say “look at the camera,” and shoot. Do take time to arrange them against an interesting background, perhaps the climbing rose against the living room. Break the straight line by having some sit and others stand, one turned right and another left, some slightly farther from the camera than others. Get them to talk until they relax, and when they seem to be interested in each other rather than in that box at your finger, press the trigger.

A L “Whitey” Schafer – Hollywood portraits

These days, the likes of George Hurrell and Clarence Sinclair Bull garner most of the attention. A L “Whitey” Schafer, by contrast, is a name unfamiliar to all but the cognoscenti. He barely gets a mention in John Kobal’s book The Art of the Great Hollywood Photographers. One reason for the neglect could be the relative brevity of his career, curtailed by his early death

Dolly Haas

1936. Dolly Haas made her movie debut age 10 in Germany, the country of her birth. With the rise of...

Dolores del Rio

1937. Dolores del Rio was one of Hollywood's most important silent-movie actresses and one of its first Latin stars. Her...

Doris Nolan

1938. Doris Nolan’s career as an actress oscillated between the stage and screen. Her most notable movie appearance was as...

Joan Perry

1938. Joan Perry was a model when, dancing with an escort in New York's Central Park Casino, she caught the...

Fay Wray

1940. Fay Wray screamed her way into movie history as the apple of King Kong's eye. Although she made about...

Ann Miller

1941. Ann Miller was the leading female tap dancer in Hollywood musicals of the 1940s and ’50s, with a reputed...

Veronica Lake

1944. Veronica Lake’s trademark peek-a-boo hair-do (a cascade of golden tresses that fell forward to obscure one heavy-lidded eye) motivated...

Ann Savage

1944. Ann Savage was best known for her role as Vera, one of the most hellish femmes fatales in the...

Ann Richards

1946. Shirley Ann Richards kicked off her career in a series of 1930s Australian films before moving to Hollywood to...

Dorothy Lamour

1947. Dorothy Lamour was one of the four most popular pin-ups of World War II (along with Betty Grable, Lana...

Looking at the images on this page, his most distinctive trait seems to be the tilt at which he regularly puts his camera. Even when he’s not employing that technique, there’s often a strong diagonal element to the composition achieved via the lighting or the pose of his sitter. And as his article suggests, he’s not afraid to use backgrounds to add drama and interest, whether via props or projection.

Does he succeed in realistically capturing his sitters’ characters? Well, that was probably a tall order, given the studios’ requirement for glamour rather than personality. The closest he comes here is probably the portrait of Doris Nolan – the hint of a smile that plays around her eyes and lips suggests a mischievous sense of humour.

At his best, as in the photos of Rita Hayworth, Mary Lou Dix, Janet Blair, Dolly Haas, Joan Perry, Fay Wray and Ann Miller, A L “Whitey” Schafer proved a master of his profession, well up to the task of helping his employers turn aspiring actresses into movie icons.

Rita Hayworth by A L “Whitey” Schafer — 1942. Rita Hayworth vamps it up. Photo by A L “Whitey” Schafer. Read more.

A L “Whitey” Schafer – career timeline

1902. Born in Salt Lake City.

Around 1917. Moves with his family to Hollywood.

1921. Joins Famous Players-Lasky to work in the stills laboratory, processing prints.

1923. Joins the Thomas Ince Studio, where he shoots stills and occasionally appears in movies. In a 1948 Popular Photography article he recalls, “That was in the days when everybody on the lot was called on to act at times. When we weren’t shooting pictures, we were doing “walk-ons.”

1932. Moves to Columbia.

1935. Succeeds William Fraker (father of “Bud” Fraker) as head of Columbia’s stills photography department.

1941. Replaces Eugene Robert Richee as head of Paramount’s stills photography department.

1951. Dies, age 49, when a stove aboard a yacht explodes as he tries to help the owner light it.

Want to know more about A L “Whitey” Schafer?

The best source of information I’ve found is Mary Mallory / Hollywood Heights — A. L. “Whitey” Schafer Simplifies Portraits. For more photos by A L “Whitey” Schafer, take a look at The Red List. The full article in Popular Science is available via Google Books (you’ll find it on pages 144f).

Unsafe sex – the starlet’s dilemma

2017-04-11 By aenigma

Around 1950. A photo inscribed to Dr Irving Ress by Janis Paige. Read more.

In the aftermath of World War II, unmarried women faced a hard dilemma when it came to sex. Damned if they did, and damned if they didn’t.

In the words of a 16-year-old girl quoted by Michael Phillips in his article Women and the Sexual Double Standard of the 1950s:

How are you supposed to know what they want? You hold out for a long time and then when you give in to them and give your body they laugh at you afterwards and say they would never marry a slut, and that they didn’t love you but were testing because they only plan to marry a virgin and wanted to see if you would go all the way.

The pressures could be especially intense in the torrid and ultra-competitive world of the Hollywood studios, where the casting couch cast a long shadow and having a flexible attitude to sex could be the route to stardom or the road to perdition.

The inspiration for this piece is a collection of photos given to Dr Irving Ress by his clients. Dr Ress was an obstetrician who worked in Hollywood. Among the women who came to him for advice on pregnancy and childbirth were a number of movie stars and actresses. Perhaps they dedicated their photos to him spontaneously. More likely he was susceptible to their charms and asked them to contribute to his collection. Flattered by the request, they were happy to do so.

The predicaments and concerns they confided in him we can only imagine. But that’s not difficult in the context both the time (the 1940s and early ’50s) and the place (Hollywood).

Betty Grable by Frank Powolny — 1943. Weapons of mass seduction. The image that made Betty Grable the number one pin-up girl of the World War II era. Read more.

Unsafe sex – the sexual revolution of the 1940s

20 years before the permissive society of the 1960s, a sexual revolution is taking place in the US in the 1940s.

The war years have already seen the flowering of the pin-up, perfected by the Hollywood studios and designed both to market their product and to boost morale by presenting an all-American view of the sweetheart waiting back home for the soldiers and sailors — the girls worth fighting for. As the GIs return, they also bring with them pornography from Europe and Asia.

In the late-1940s “camera clubs” are formed to get around laws restricting the production of nude photos. The clubs claim they exist to promote “artistic photography”, but in reality… The years 1952 through 1957 see Bettie Page posing for Irving Klaw, who distributes his pin-up and bondage shots by mail-order. And in 1953 Hugh Heffner publishes the first issue of Playboy.

At the same time, researchers are taking a new, more scientific interest in sex and sexuality. In 1948 the Kinsey Report, Sexual Behaviors in the Human Male and Sexual Behaviors in the Human Female, is published, shining a light on topics that have hitherto been taboo. Around this time, courses on human sexuality begin to appear on college campuses.

Sex is in the air. And in this context and after 15 years of depression and war, it’s hardly surprising that young people are less inclined than their parents to defer to traditional restraints on their behavior. Between 1941 and 1953, the overall rate of single motherhood more than doubles. But it’s not a straightforward matter of celebration, liberation and hedonism holding sway.

The post-World War II years bring with them a new period of economic and sexual anxiety. The US faces a major housing crisis. Juvenile delinquency supposedly reaches epic proportions. Both Republicans and Democrats go after Alfred Kinsey and comic books (Batman and Wonder Woman are accused of promoting homosexuality and lesbianism). The mood is one of pride and depression, valour and self-doubt, stoicism and vulnerability. Welcome to the heyday of film noir.

Unsafe sex – damned if she does, damned if she doesn’t

Barbara Stanwyck in The Two Mrs Carrolls. — 1947. In The Two Mrs Carrolls, Barbara Stanwyck is a victim of her husband. But his portrait of her seems to reflect the period’s underlying ambivalence and paranoia about women.

Meanwhile, women face a tricky dilemma. Leaving aside social attitudes to women having sex outside marriage (boys will be boys so that’s okay), contraceptive techniques are crude and unreliable. So women in relationships are playing with fire – always susceptible to getting pregnant or picking up a sexually transmitted disease.

It’s no wonder that women are strongly motivated to get married at the first opportunity (during the 1950s, the average age of women at marriage is 20). But there’s always the chance that they’ll make a bad choice and end up with a violent and abusive partner. And guess what? Domestic violence is rarely punished and there are no laws against rape in marriage. Which is hardly surprising given that police forces have no special domestic-violence units or policies.

The alternative – walking out – is unlikely to be a bed of roses. Single mothers and divorcees don’t have the same rights to state aid as widows with children so money is a problem. If they can get a job, it’s likely to be menial and low-paid. In other words, there’s a good chance those women end up ostracized and impoverished.

Marilyn Monroe by Frank Powolny — 1950. Like most Hollywood actresses, Marilyn Monroe is a manufactured product. Read more. Photo by Frank Powolny.

Unsafe sex – the honey trap

Pretty girls are drawn to Hollywood like gazelles to a watering hole, where the lions and hyenas lie in wait. Some wannabes, such as Judy Garland, arrive under the influence of ambitious and domineering parents. Most are talent-spotted – Ava Gardner via a portrait photo in a New York photographer’s studio window, Lana Turner at a soda fountain – or so the story goes. Models (like Hazel Brooks) and theatre actresses (like Ella Raines) are popular prey.When they arrive in Tinseltown, they are young and innocent. And, like lambs to slaughter, onto the production conveyor-belt they go. Each is given a name (Frances Ethel Gumm becomes Judy Garland, Betty Joan Perske is rechristened Lauren Bacall ), a more or less fanciful back-story, a makeover and a contract.

What next for our aspiring starlet? A series of photo sessions with plenty of cheesecake shots and, if she’s lucky, a few bit parts. Her fate is down to a combination of factors, not the least of which is the relationships she manages to establish. Which brings us, or rather her, to the casting couch. Three of Hollywood’s foremost lechers in the 1940s are Harry Cohn, Darryl F Zanuck and Howard Hughes.

Harry Cohn, head of Columbia Pictures, is a blustering, foul-mouthed, abrasive taskmaster and acts like a tyrant. His office contains an enormous desk for him, and small seats for his visitors, enabling him to tower over them. On his desk is a photo of Benito Mussolini, whom he greatly admires. He also has ties to organized crime and is friendly with mobsters such as Chicago gangster John Roselli. Cohn enjoys using concealed microphones to eavesdrop on employees’ conversations, such as those of Glenn Ford and Rita Hayworth during the filming of Gilda. Rita, Joan Crawford and Kim Novak are three of the better-known actresses who manage to build careers for themselves in spite of rejecting his advances.

1938. Bette Davis with predator Howard Hughes. Read more.

Darryl F Zanuck, Cohn’s counterpart at 20^th Century-Fox, is widely credited with inventing the “casting couch”. He is famously “in conference” with an endless succession of aspiring actresses between 16:00 and 16:30 every day. He’s a busy man who doesn’t have time to hang about: according to gossip, one would-be actress shown into his office finds him already naked from the waist down and primed for action.

Howard Hughes is not just a film producer and the owner of RKO Pictures; he is a business tycoon, engineer and pioneering aviator. He has a “secret” house near his LA home where he “interviews” would-be starlets. Rumour has it that he’s had affairs with a host of young actresses including Bette Davis, Jean Harlow, Ava Gardner, Carole Lombard and Ginger Rogers. Jane Greer’s career hits the buffers when she rejects his advances.

It’s not just the studio heads and producers who are in on the act. Agents, actors, publicists and others are all circling.

But back to our aspiring starlet… Assuming she makes it onto the big screen, the studio, fan magazines and gossip columnists work together to paint an attractive picture of her. By providing details of her domestic life, the studio enables fans to feel as if they can get close to the real person. Articles and photos of her home, her clothes, the events and parties she attends and so on, add grist to the mill. As does the slightest suggestion of romance – but only if our starlet is single.

It’s essential that there’s no hint of scandal. To that end, the studio enlists “fixers” to clean up potential embarrassments such as a drug addiction or an extra-marital affair. That is why it’s important for our starlet to tow the line and keep on the right side of her bosses. Otherwise they could hang her out to dry.

Jane Greer by Ernest A Bachrach — 1945. Jane Greer, a talented actress as well as a beautiful woman, has her career wrecked by Howard Hughes, whose advances she rejects. Photo by Ernest A Bachrach.

The trouble is that temptation is everywhere. If you want to get a sense of the corrupt and corrupting forces that are rife, just read the novels of Raymond Chandler. Carmen Sternwood, for example, Lauren Bacall’s wild, drug-addicted younger sister exploited by pornographers and blackmailers in The Big Sleep, is an object lesson in what can become of a girl who gets in with the wrong crowd. In My Adventures in Hollywood and the Secret Sex Lives of the Stars, Scotty Bowers, an ex-Marine who works as a bartender at Hollywood parties, paints a picture of the LAPD vice squad prowling the hills in their patrol cars, looking for parties and opportunities to arrest the participants.

Even big stars are vulnerable to scandal. Ingrid Bergman is one of the most-loved stars in America but all that changes overnight when, in spite of having a husband and a daughter, she gets pregnant by Italian director Roberto Rossellini. Colorado Senator Edwin C Johnson takes to the floor of the Senate to denounce her as “a powerful influence for evil.”

And if our starlet fails to make the grade? She might be relegated to the stock character pool, kept around to “pleasure” visiting executives, or just spat out.

Unsafe sex –and what of Dr Ress and his clients?

It is in this glittering and sleazy environment laced with opportunity and danger that some at least of Dr Ress’s clients seek to make their way.

Of the twelve young women who dedicate photos to Dr Ress, seven taste a modicum of success, meet and romance a few of the ‘beautiful people’ and come through (relatively) unscathed, as far as we can tell. “Tommye” Adams crashes and burns – hers is a cautionary tale if ever there was one. Virginia Walker dies tragically young. The other three are mysteries.

Angela Greene

Mid-1940s. Inscribed "For Doctor Ress With sincere thanks and appreciation – Always, Angela."

Angela Greene is born in 1921, grows up in Flushing, New York,...

Constance Dowling

Mid-1940s. Inscribed "To Dear Dr. Ress – I hope this was worth waiting for – Love, Connie Dowling".

Constance Dowling has come to Hollywood via...

Doris Dowling

Mid-1940s. Inscribed "To Dr. Ress. With great affection and appreciation. Doris Dowling (yr. new daughter)".

Doris Dowling has followed her sister, Constance, from Broadway to...

Kay Aldridge

1947. Inscribed “Irving Ress, With great appreciation, Kay Aldridge, 1947”.

Kay inscribes this photo two years after retiring. Her career began 13 years earlier –...

Janis Paige

1945. Inscribed "To Dr. Ress, My dearest thanks and appreciation for being such a wonderful friend to me. With love, “The Brat” Janis Paige"

Janis...

Lynn Merrick

Mid-1940s. Inscribed "If there’s a doctor in the house, I hope it’s DR. RESS! Best Always, Lynn Merrick"

Lynn, blonde and blue-eyed, dedicates this photo...

Charmaine du Rois

Mid-1940s. Inscribed "To my favorite Doctor and friend, sincerely always, Charmaine Du Rois".

Diane

Mid-1940s. Inscribed "For my beloved doctor – the best in the world and a dear friend – Thank you for my beautiful little girl –...

Abigail “Tommye” Adams

8 March 1944. Inscribed "To Dr. Ress:– All my deepest affection. Tommye".

In May 1944, three months after inscribing this photo to Dr Ress, Tommye...

Marta Linden

Mid-1940s. Inscribed "To Irving. On account you’re such a love! Marta".

Marta Linden doesn’t hang around for long in Hollywood. Between 1942 and 1945 she...

Liliana Chanel

Around 1950. Inscribed "A Irving, sperando di conservare per sempre la sua meravigliosa amicizia. Liliana".

A label on the back of the photo identifies the...

Virginia Walker

1945. Inscribed "For my very favorite doctor. Virginia".

This photo is issued by 20th Century-Fox to promote A Royal Scandal (1945), a film about the...

Information about the doctor himself is thin on the ground, apart from a brief entry in Wikipedia. But we do catch a tantalizing glimpse of him in Universal Horrors: The Studio’s Classic Films, 1931-1946 by Tom Weaver and Michael Brunas. They recount an incident involving Australian actress Betty Bryant, cast by Universal as the female lead in The Jungle Captive (1945).

Around 1948. A photo inscribed to Dr Irving Ress by Betty Bryant. Read more.

Australian actress Betty Bryant, recently signed by Universal to a term contract, was originally chosen to play the female lead in The Jungle Captive (1945).
On August 30, 1944, one day before production began, she appeared in the office of associate producer Morgan B. Cox and informed him that she didn’t know whether she could find a babysitter to stay with her two year old on certain nights she was scheduled to work. On the first day of shooting she was unprepared, and on the second day she arrived 40 minutes late, just in time for a reprimand from director Harold Young.
To quiet the actress’ maternal apprehensions, her physician Dr Irving L. Ress, Hollywood’s “obstetrician to the stars,” was summoned. In private, Dr. Ress emphatically told Cox that there was nothing about motion pictures or motion picture people that he could admire. According to Ress, all the men in the movie business were concerned primarily with “making” any and all women in any way connected with the industry. Bryant was drawn into the argument and Ress nearly succeeded in creating a scene.
Over the next several days this embarrassing situation continued, with Ress hanging around the set, creating disturbances, careening around the darkened lot in his car and, in the words of Cox in a 16-page September 12 memo), “acting more like a thwarted lover than a reputable doctor.” Cox concluded in his memo that Bryant, slightly ill throughout much of this ordeal and genuinely apologetic for the entire situation, was a victim of circumstances over which she had little control. Of course the boom was inevitably lowered on the hapless actress, and she was bumped. (In his September 9 Los Angeles Times column, Edwin Schallert sugar-coated the incident, reporting that Bryant had gotten ill and “has to go in the hospital for observation and treatment.”) Amelita Ward replaced her in the picture, which ran two days over schedule (wrapping on September 16), probably as the result of the turmoil created by the mysterious Dr. Ress.

Clearly the good doctor has a jaundiced view of the industry. And who, other than the studios and their stooges, could really blame him?

Want to know more?

Two important sources for this piece are a blog about Women and the Sexual Double Standard of the 1950s and “Silent” Sexual Revolution Began In 1940’s and ’50s, an article by Alan Petigny.

For the lowdown on Hollywood, Scandals of Classic Hollywood: Sex, Deviance, and Drama from the Golden Age of American Cinema by Anne Helen Petersen is a great read. Or you could take a look at Full Service: My Adventures in Hollywood and the Secret Sex Lives of the Stars by Scotty Bowers. For an online article, there’s a Daily Express article on Hollywood’s dirty little secret.

For more about the individual actresses, Wikipedia, IMDb and Glamour Girls of the Silver Screen are excellent starting points.