As there are with other movie stars and other cultural icons, there is a fair amount of misinformation floating around the internet regarding Louise Brooks. This misinformation ranges from simple inaccuracies regarding how many films the actress appeared in (was it 24, or 25?) -- or the date of a particular film's release (Pandora's Box is sometimes listed as a 1928 film, though released in 1929), to the mistaken identification of the actress (just because the subject of a portrait or film still is wearing bobbed hair doesn't mean it is Brooks). And then there are the various fake nudes.... which I've written about in the past HERE.
With all the attention Brooks has been getting of late with the release of The Chaperone, it is important to keep the facts straight. A few articles about The Chaperone, as well as a few related Facebook postings about the PBS film, have included a bit of inaccurate information. The film itself even contains a few historical anomalies. Read more about those HERE.
The Louise Brooks Society is intent on providing accurate information -- as well as pointing out inaccurate and mistaken material. Fact matter, after all - despite all the fake news coming out of Washington.
Recently, I've come across a handful of examples of inaccurate and mistaken material regarding the actress on eBay. It is hard to say whether these sellers are simply mistaken, suffering from wishful thinking, or are intent on deception. (As Lee Israel was when she faked letters from Louise Brooks and others as depicted in the recently released film, Can You Ever Forgive Me?) You be the judge.
To me, and to most Louise Brooks fans, the above photo does NOT depict Louise Brooks, despite the fact she was a Ziegfeld girl in the 1920s and was photographed in a similar fashion by Alfred Cheney Johnston. It is not even close.
In all fairness, the seller of this photo is uncertain (hence the question mark), but still willing to mention Brooks by name in the item descriptor. [Does anyone know which film this still is from? I wasn't able to track down the identification numbers in the lower left hand corner.]
Again, just because a woman is wearing bobbed hair doesn't mean it is Brooks.To my eyes, this women looks nothing like Louise.
This one is a hoot. No, that is NOT Louise Brooks and Fred Astaire. That is Cyd Charisse (meant to look like Louise Brooks) and Gene Kelly in a scene from Singin' in the Rain. Here is a better image from the celebrated 1952 film, and in color (not colorized, but that is a whole different debate).
With all the attention Brooks has been getting of late with the release of The Chaperone, it is important to keep the facts straight. A few articles about The Chaperone, as well as a few related Facebook postings about the PBS film, have included a bit of inaccurate information. The film itself even contains a few historical anomalies. Read more about those HERE.
The Louise Brooks Society is intent on providing accurate information -- as well as pointing out inaccurate and mistaken material. Fact matter, after all - despite all the fake news coming out of Washington.
Recently, I've come across a handful of examples of inaccurate and mistaken material regarding the actress on eBay. It is hard to say whether these sellers are simply mistaken, suffering from wishful thinking, or are intent on deception. (As Lee Israel was when she faked letters from Louise Brooks and others as depicted in the recently released film, Can You Ever Forgive Me?) You be the judge.
To me, and to most Louise Brooks fans, the above photo does NOT depict Louise Brooks, despite the fact she was a Ziegfeld girl in the 1920s and was photographed in a similar fashion by Alfred Cheney Johnston. It is not even close.
Again, just because a woman is wearing bobbed hair doesn't mean it is Brooks.To my eyes, this women looks nothing like Louise.
This one is a hoot. No, that is NOT Louise Brooks and Fred Astaire. That is Cyd Charisse (meant to look like Louise Brooks) and Gene Kelly in a scene from Singin' in the Rain. Here is a better image from the celebrated 1952 film, and in color (not colorized, but that is a whole different debate).
No comments:
Post a Comment
Relevant and respectful comments are welcome. Off-topic comments and spam will be removed, and you will be disliked henceforth.