Wetlook World Forum

Current time: Tue 16/04/24 16:46:00 GMT

Translate page FROM -> TO

Translate page TO <- FROM

Message # 19094.1.1.1.1.1.1

Subject: thanks re 1932 wet look

Date: Fri 04/11/05 22:44:44 GMT

Name: justawetfan

Email:

Website:

Report Abuse or Problem to Nigel at Minxmovies
If you enjoy this forum, then please make a small donation to help
with running costs: (you can change amount)

thanks for your answers on vintage wet look 1932, and MK im looking forward to seeing your vidio clip.did'nt know any of the movie was still about. p.s. constance cummings is still alive age 95 living in chelsea england. thanks. justawetfan

In reply to Message (19094.1.1.1.1.1)

continuity errors

By Desert Hawk - Thu 03/11/05 21:34:04 GMT

Website:

I have noticed continuity errors like that in MANY tv shows and movies over the years: someone is soaking wet in one scene and dry in the same clothes in the next scene. It probably means that the later scene was filmed before the wet scene. Films are often shot in a very different sequence than what we see in the final cut. For example, if we see someone leaving home and going out and then returning home later, most likely the leaving and returning scenes were filmed at the same time, even though the scenes of while the person was out take place in the storyline between leaving and coming home.

There is a site devoted to film errors. I forgot the url, but I'm sure a Yahoo search would find it. Someday I will take a look at it and see if a search for wet/dry yields anything. OT, there are some interesting pictures of a movie that takes place in medieval times, and power lines are visible in the background. This error did make the final cut.

In reply to Message (19094.1.1.1.1)

Re: Re: Re: Re: 1932 wet look

By MK - wamtec@compuserve.com Thu 03/11/05 18:29:28 GMT

Website:

You can find continuity errors like this in almost every Hollywood film (which is why PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE is heralded as the worst movie ever made....see the Johnny Depp's recreation in the film about director Ed Wood.....great movie).

Hollywood are the masters of continuity problems....and illusions too.....e.g. Harold Lloyd lost 2 fingers during an explosives accident early in his career and the studios created a prosthetic hand for him that was in use for most of his film career and few people knew he had lost his fingers.

You are right about that Constance Cumming scenes though...she is totally drenched when she is outside in the rain, and then a minute later when she goes indoors her dress appears to have miraculously dried off....obviously they took too long in between takes and forgot to re-wet the actress down again for the next scene. If you check the movie history books you can find pics of Director Robert Wise pouring additional watering cans over Julie Andrews during the making of SOUND OF MUSIC...and he would water the actress down again after each take. There are similar pics of Director John Ford pouring extra buckets of water over Maureen O'Hara's white dress during re-takes for THE WINGS OF EAGLES wet scene too.

But as you said....even though Constance Cummings dress is no longer wet when she appears indoors....the prior 4 minutes she is totally soaked when she is outdoors.

In reply to Message (19094.1.1.1)

Re: Re: Re: 1932 wet look

By DungeonMasterOne - wlf@gungemaster.com Thu 03/11/05 17:32:32 GMT

Website:

Is this the one with the continuity faults? Back in the 80s Channel 4 played lots and lots of Harold Lloyd, and I remember seeing a scene with a car and a woman dressed just like in the still, there's quite a longish scene outdoors with her getting utterly drenched, the action then moves indoors (or to a window?), and there are alternating camera angles from the front and behind, in all the shots one way she's still soaked, in the others, completely dry.

Not that I'm complaining, they gave her a good drenching that goes on for ages (so must have been even longer to shoot!), I just thought it's an interesting view of a more innocent Hollywood.

In reply to Message (19094.1.1)

Re: Re: 1932 wet look

By MK - wamtec@compuserve.com Thu 03/11/05 13:50:42 GMT

Website:

Thats a coincidence....cos I just created a video clip for that movie scene a couple of weeks ago...and was planning to upload it soon. This is a classic wet scene from a Harold Lloyd film...the movie studio really had the rain machine going at full blast when they shot this scene. The scene goes on for about 4 minutes.

In reply to Message (19094.1)

Re: 1932 wet look

By Victor - victor.ivanovich@mail.ru Thu 03/11/05 13:22:42 GMT

Website:

Funny! She seems to be enjoying it! Though for what I know the clothes worn at that time were less durable than modern ones and felt less confortable when wet.

In reply to Message (19094)

1932 wet look

By justawetfan - Thu 03/11/05 08:32:36 GMT

Website:

http://www.vintagewet.com/wfa/scrap2/mp/a07/v93404.jpg

found this picture of constance cummings in the the 1932 movie, movie crazy.

has anyone have any more pic's of her

Report Abuse or Problem to Nigel at Minxmovies
If you enjoy this forum, then please make a small donation to help with running costs: (you can change amount)