I was just watching this movie and noticed how many things seemed very 1960s (ie Streisand's hair), but when is this supposed to be taking place? I sorta got the feeling of the 1920s with the Follies but I don't know much about the real Fanny Brice so I wasn't sure.
share[deleted]
Fanny (birth name: Fania Borach) was born in 1891, married Jules W. Arndt Stein (aka: Nicky Arnstein) in 1918 and was in the Follies in the 10's, 20's & 30's. Her third marriage (see "Funny Lady") was to Billy Rose & they were married in 1929 (her first was to Frank White in 1911). She launched her own weekly radio show in 1938 which lasted until her death in 1951 and gave even more life to her most well known character - Baby Snooks (first performed during the Follies).
Also, her daughter married Ray Stark who was also the producer for both "Funny Girl" & "Funny Lady".
yep, i know what u're saying - BARBRA's make-up, and hair (esp. in the last part) are quite 60's style, and even the usage of color (lime-colored roller skates!?) is reminiscent of the 60's.....now, not to say that fashion/style isn't cyclical - lots of fashions in the last 40 years were popular in the first half of the 20th century, so unless someone knows that some 60's styles harkened to the 20's (or so), i would say that the 60's are for sure represented in FUNNY GIRL.....
sharePeriod pieces in those days and earlier often had modern touches thrown in to make them more palatable to audiences. I suppose even if not intentional it's difficult for even a talented art director to avoid some slippage of current style into a period production.
What say there, Fussy Britches? Feel like talking?
There's also a 'glamour' element at play here. When Ms Brice performed in the follies, and her (limited) film appearances, she was usually wearing comical pancake stage make-up, and not nearly as much attention in those days was paid to trendy hair, lighting, etc.
The progression of both film technology and expanded social adulation of movie stars as fashion and image trend-setters (witness the 'red carpet' at the Oscars)has changed over the years. Even for the 'comical' performers.
Barbra has always been extremely self-conscious about her appearance. Without question, she wanted her debut to be as glamorous as possible, incorporating all the latest lighting techniques, make up, hair styles, etc. If the victorian era was not particularly glamorous, you nonetheless portrayed it as if it were.
There's no way a woman would go out in public in the early 1900s (both in 'Funny Girl' & 'Hello Dolly') with heavy Egyptian eye-make up, and 2 inch fingernails. However, to eschew these trademarks would compromise Barbra as a 'glamourous movie star' in her eyes.
Hollywood films (especially older ones) that are set in earlier time periods often don't reflect the actual hairstyles, clothes, makeup, etc. of the periods. How many movies of the 30's and 40's that are set in earlier centuries have women with plucked eyebrows, marcelled/pageboy hairdos, eyeshadow/lipstick, gleaming white teeth, etc. See SIGN OF THE CROSS, THE CRUSADES, THE SONG OF BERNADETTE, SAMSON AND DELILAH, etc. There's no way Barbara Hershey would've appeared the way she did in THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST if it had been filmed circa 1950. And check out Doris Day in LOVE ME OR LEAVE ME as opposed to the "real" Ruth Etting.
shareGlenn: "There's no way a woman would go out in public in the early 1900s (both in 'Funny Girl' & 'Hello Dolly') with heavy Egyptian eye-make up, and 2 inch fingernails. However, to eschew these trademarks would compromise Barbra as a 'glamourous movie star' in her eyes. "
Which is exactly what I don't like about Barbra Striesand in films. She is a fabulous singer, she plays the roles great, but she insists on these anachronistic styles.
Period pieces in those days and earlier often had modern touches thrown in to make them more palatable to audiences. I suppose even if not intentional it's difficult for even a talented art director to avoid some slippage of current style into a period production.
I know - it had a super 60's feel to it - almost magical. That's why Funny Lady was so disappointing - all the 60's-ness was gone. Here's a joke: When Barbra had to do a scene in Up The Sandbox, she had to load a firearm in the car. They asked her if she could handle a firearm. She said: Can I handle a firearm? Can I handle a firearm? Heh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh-. Pkew! Pkew!
shareI just watched this film, and the whole time it really bugged me that Streisand's hair was 1960s style, not 1910s-20s, when the film is supposed to take place!
Somebody above wrote that she may have wanted to debut "glamorously" - well I have to say that in my opinion, the '20s hair style was pretty glamorous, and the fashion as well. Why isn't Streisand wearing e.g. a flapper dress in any scene? If it weren't for Ziegfeld and his Follies, anyone could have thought this film takes place in the '60s.
If Streisand wanted to appear glamorous '60s style, she should have done it at the premiere, not in a period piece! But I guess the director must have had something to say about it - after all, she wasn't a huge star yet then, so I don't believe she could have demanded a specific hair do and specific clothes. So I put the blame on the director (mostly).
When in doubt, I always say, wear black. You can never go wrong with black.
Same goes for Liz Taylor in 'Cleopatra'. The hair, makeup, many of the costumes, are sooooooooo 60s that it's not funny. Ridic.
myspace.com/brt374
Look at My Fair Lady. This was the era of hair pieces, wigs and coiffures ie; Alexandre de Paris. Even Barbarella couldn't escape the 60's. This is what makes these films so memorable. We have to remember that this is musical entertainment, and not a costume drama.
shareThat's what bugged me about Faye Dunaway's hair in BONNIE AND CLYDE. She looks like a '60s model, with straight shoulder-length hair (rather unkempt in some scenes), when in fact the real Bonnie (and most women of the '30s) had neat marcels/permanent waves. She's a walking anachronism throughout.
ETA: Another Barbra movie with anachronistic fashons is THE WAY WE WERE. The movie takes place from 1930s-1950s, but the clothes/hair are clearly '70s with perhaps a touch of '30s/'40s/'50s thrown in.
[deleted]
As a former Hairsylist, I, too, cringe at the inaccurate "do's" in some movies (in particular those mentioned in this thread - Funny Girl and Bonnie & Clyde). The costumes in Funny Girl, however, seemed fairly accurate to me. The large floppy hats, longer skirts, etc. But, the make-up and hair were totally 60's.
It's unfortunate when movies don't strive for authenticity because it really can make social history 'come alive' for those of us who didn't live during that time/era.
'This isn't a smile. It's the lid on a scream.' - Bet Lynch, Coronation Street
I saw some doco about the making of Bonnie and Clyde. Ironically enough, the film - once it was successful - had a massive impact on contemporary fashion. Maybe that was the idea - to have fashion in the film that audiences would relate to and want to emulate. I think it's different now. I've worked on a few costume dramas and the attention to detail (even underwear that no one sees) is very authentic
shareWhen someone goes to school for hairdressing, art direction, etc., the styles they learn are the ones of the timeframe in which they go to school. So if they went to school in the early 60's, it was hard for them not to wind up using a 60's style for the film. With being able to go on the internet today, people can download photos or paintings of people from a certain time period and make someone or something have those styles. But not then.
shareI suppose all this is true, but I get the feeling that if we watch historical films made today 40 years from now, we will feel they're terribly anachronistic. I think it seems less so at the time they are made, because you don't notice the current styles (they're just 'normal' to you). I don't really mind it. I mean, the storyline doesn't reflect accurately anything that really happened, so why should the costumes & makeup be perfectly 1920s?
share
The hair and make up of the Ziegfeld chorus girls were also very 60s. They looked no different from ladies in Valley of the Dolls or Blow Up. Ditto with other period movies made in the 60s, from Camelot and My Fair Lady to Romeo and Juliet and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.
I thought the exact same thing. Those big-bossomy girls with their lift it up bras...so 60's..and the makeup and hair to boot. I have my doubts that the Ziegfeld girls looked that trampy.
shareI also read that Jules Styne was annoyed at the "60's" type arrangement for MY MAN (let alone the fact that it was included at all, at the expense of one his own songs).
"So full of FIRE and MUSIC!!!"
The other big film musical singer of 1968 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy6iEgSnaAc
share[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
MEET ME IN ST. LOUIS is supposedly taking place in 1903. So why is everyone singing and dancing to a 1940s swing version of "Skip To My Lou"?
Talk about anachronisms!
Those bikini-clad dancers in the Ziegfeld Follies numbers screamed "Annette Funicello."
NO Broadway costumes back in the 1910s EVER featured women with so much skin exposed. Well - maybe STRIPPERS - but not on BROADWAY.
"Don't call me 'honey', mac."
"Don't call me 'mac'... HONEY!"
You're quite wrong about costumes and skin exposed in ths Zeigfeld shows.
share