Who says he did Lugosi's make-up?
I remember first reading this claim some time in the late 60s or even early 70s, and accepting it, but now I'm not sure it makes sense. It now sounds to me like ex post facto fanboy/ film historian supposition-- like the baseless argument that Pierce was fired in 1946 because Universal wanted to use monster make-up techniques which were faster. (That's a load of clams.)
About White Zombie:
1) When it was shot, 1932, Pierce had become the chief make-up artist at Universal. I think he'd held that position since MAN WHO LAUGHS; I'm sure Perry or somebody can give day and date. Why would someone who was fully employed risk angering the studio by moonlighting on an independent picture?
2) "Lugosi thought his ideas were better than anybody else's," so quoth Jack Pierce in his late in life interview. This seems to indicate he didn't get along with him. So why would Lugosi (or the Halperins) go out of their way to hire Pierce anyway?
3) White Zombie was only partially shot on the Universal lot, as far as I have read (again, my betters will correct me if I'm wrong.) People say (wrongly) that it was shot on leftover Dracula sets, but come on, what in this movie looks a bit like anything in Dracula? Nothing. The exteriors in the hills on the backlot of Universal City, perhaps, but is there any documentation that the interiors were shot there?
4) The make-up itself: I find the craftsmanship of the Legendre make-up quite non-Pierce-ian. Those goofy crepe-hair eyebrows-- sort of cross-eyed-- eh. There's a precision and symmetry to most of Pierce's other character faces, which isn't here in Legendre. Compare this to Karloff's devil face in The Black Cat just a couple years later.
5) The make-up, redux: it's not all that creative. It's essentially a Mephistopheles variation, with a pointed widow's peak and those off-center, asymetrical phony eyebrows, the yucky little goatee. Any make-up artist could have come up with this simple design. Lugosi may've done it himself (If he applied his own make-up in Dracula, as Pierce apparently intimated, and he "thought his ideas were better than anyone else's," why not?)
Here's my theory: some well-meaning film historian put 1 and 2 together and added it up to 4. Ah! They shot White Zombie at Universal! Oh! Pierce was the make-up artist at Universal! Whoa! That means Pierce did Lugosi's make up!
Since there is no credited artist on the film, that's no help. And the assumption has been repeated ad infinitum for years, like the old Eddie Parker wheeze, so know it's "accepted fact."
But other than repeating 2nd hand rumors, is there any factual indication at all that this was the case?
I remember first reading this claim some time in the late 60s or even early 70s, and accepting it, but now I'm not sure it makes sense. It now sounds to me like ex post facto fanboy/ film historian supposition-- like the baseless argument that Pierce was fired in 1946 because Universal wanted to use monster make-up techniques which were faster. (That's a load of clams.)
About White Zombie:
1) When it was shot, 1932, Pierce had become the chief make-up artist at Universal. I think he'd held that position since MAN WHO LAUGHS; I'm sure Perry or somebody can give day and date. Why would someone who was fully employed risk angering the studio by moonlighting on an independent picture?
2) "Lugosi thought his ideas were better than anybody else's," so quoth Jack Pierce in his late in life interview. This seems to indicate he didn't get along with him. So why would Lugosi (or the Halperins) go out of their way to hire Pierce anyway?
3) White Zombie was only partially shot on the Universal lot, as far as I have read (again, my betters will correct me if I'm wrong.) People say (wrongly) that it was shot on leftover Dracula sets, but come on, what in this movie looks a bit like anything in Dracula? Nothing. The exteriors in the hills on the backlot of Universal City, perhaps, but is there any documentation that the interiors were shot there?
4) The make-up itself: I find the craftsmanship of the Legendre make-up quite non-Pierce-ian. Those goofy crepe-hair eyebrows-- sort of cross-eyed-- eh. There's a precision and symmetry to most of Pierce's other character faces, which isn't here in Legendre. Compare this to Karloff's devil face in The Black Cat just a couple years later.
5) The make-up, redux: it's not all that creative. It's essentially a Mephistopheles variation, with a pointed widow's peak and those off-center, asymetrical phony eyebrows, the yucky little goatee. Any make-up artist could have come up with this simple design. Lugosi may've done it himself (If he applied his own make-up in Dracula, as Pierce apparently intimated, and he "thought his ideas were better than anyone else's," why not?)
Here's my theory: some well-meaning film historian put 1 and 2 together and added it up to 4. Ah! They shot White Zombie at Universal! Oh! Pierce was the make-up artist at Universal! Whoa! That means Pierce did Lugosi's make up!
Since there is no credited artist on the film, that's no help. And the assumption has been repeated ad infinitum for years, like the old Eddie Parker wheeze, so know it's "accepted fact."
But other than repeating 2nd hand rumors, is there any factual indication at all that this was the case?
