Not To Be Confused With Film Funnies...

As mentioned yesterday, we're jumping back a full 100 years today to the February 1917 issue of Film Fun. Early 20th century Hollywood and pre-Tinsel Town is a territory we've visited briefly in the past, and to which we'll return a fair bit over time.

The public fascination with stars started early, and publishers were lining up to take advantage of that. In addition to Film Fun, there were magazines like Silverscreen, Picture-Play, Screenland, Movie Pictorial, Photoplay, Movie Weekly, Pantomime, and certainly more. (But those are the titles i can see while sitting here, and i'm too lazy to go looking for others just now.)

There's also the "Other" Film Fun, the comic magazine featuring strips starring film actors. Not surprisingly, Laurel & Hardy and Abbot & Costello translated well to that format. We'll take a look at those, along with Radio Fun and TV Fun.

There is one other Movie/Comics intersection standing by - Non-Comics from old magazines like Miss America, wherein we can find comic strip adaptations of Hollywood films like Magic Town, with Jimmy Stewart. (A personal favorite old look at social psychology)

But, by this point, you're probably starting to think (and not unrightly) that i'm stalling and avoiding the subject of that cover up there, and yesterday's ponderable - wtf is going on there?

None of the options i suggested yesterday was the actual story, but that's probably no surprise. And while there's no Inter-Species Romance happening here, there is a bit of Love.
You see, the cover painting ties to a two-page spread on stars and their beloved pets:

Things really haven't changed much in a century in this regard. Stars still sometimes have odd pets, and fans still give a pet's ass want to know what they share their lives with.

Now that we've solved that mystery, let's return to the beginning, and the Masthead & Editorial page:
(Go ahead. Take as long as you like absorbing the imagery in that Film Fun title cartoon.)

Definitely some big changes in things on those text pieces. Smaller changes on the masthead.
The President goes out to a motion picture show to help popularize the notion.
No part of that sentence makes sense in today's world. Here they're still trying to convince the public that movies are valid entertainment. Air Conditioning made things so much easier for them when that came along.
And look - no boys/men want to become movie stars. They didn't want to do the job while being paid less than the opposite sex. Who'da thunk it?

Of course, that kind of leads to something that hasn't much changed in 100 years:

Those illustrations come from the first part of a serialized article that would still be quite timely today. In the same issue, the previous serialization was coming to an end - a piece on D.W. Griffith written by his wife, Linda. Bit of a tonal shift there.

One feature reflected a big cultural change over the last 100 years:

It's very hard to picture this spread running in a modern film magazine, and even harder to imagine the stars willing to pose in furs in the age of internet rage. I can hear the cries of "Throw her to the casting directors!"

Of course, they had the usual spotlight features with the stars of the day. How many names can you recognize a century later?

I find it interesting to remember that something simple like the white blended image of Dorothy Love Clark on the page above actually required physically cutting the photograph to remove the parts unwanted for the layout. That held true until recent decades. So much more work involved in the simplest things back then.

The big surprise find for me in this issue was a feature on Helen Gibson.
"Who?" some, no doubt, are asking.
Besides being a performer in movies, vaudeville, and radio, Helen Gibson was also a film producer, rodeo & trick rider, and, more to the point here, she was the first Stunt Woman.
They gave her a photo feature page:

A totally unexpected delight to discover here. I wonder what else is hiding in these piles?
Hmm...
That also leads me to wonder how many are familiar with Kane Richmond? Once again, a topic for another time.

I'll leave you with a final text piece from Film Fun.

I wonder if anything ever came of William Fox's "Cinema" notion?

pages from Film Fun #335 (1917)

Premature Speculation

Tomorrow we'll be journeying back a century to the dawn of the motion picture age.
I invite you to spend the interim pondering the nature of this cover:

Avian Passion?
A tease for a new horror film?
Health Craze - eating pre-chewed food from birds?
Exchanging Souls?
A new Musical Act?

Just what is the story with this cover?

Out Of The Darkness, It Is Crawling

Crawling back up out of the darkness. Going to ramble a bit on a personal level before posting any images i brought back with me from the dark. Who knows. I might even not delete most of it. Fortunately, what family i have remaining do not read this blog, so i can try to ramble openly.

I talk at times of being a hermit. That's not just a cute character descriptor - it's a reflection of inherent sociopathic tendencies. (Don't panic - that's a wide spectrum. Not all sociopaths live next to psychopathy.) Those tendencies have become more pronounced with age. Probably, in no small part from simply watching the slow train-wreck of social collapse as we march, stumble, and dance our way into tyranny. Or maybe it was the rise of reality television and the shocking awareness of how many people consider those programs to be "entertainment". Or perhaps discovering the existence of prolapsed rectums of humanity who have bought ownership of phrases like "I die" (Fuck that Shakespeare guy anyway) or fruit names like "banana". I can't even conceive of how deeply, truly inferior one has to feel in one's core to even consider such tragically pathetic validation.

Of course, it certainly doesn't help living in a time when the current regime in my country inspires slogans like "T-rump: America Gets The D!" or "Putting The TWIT Back In Twitter".
One of the funniest things i heard recently was "What happened to respect for the office of the President?"
I concur. Somebody should force Mr. Trump to answer that question.

Anyway - that Hermit thing. On a practical level, what that translates to is that i generally go days without seeing another human being; weeks without contact more substantial than a nod in passing. I typically make two trips into town per month - one grocery shopping, one monthly errands and letting the med team play with their subject. The woman i love lives on the diagonal opposite of the country from me, some 2500+ miles away. The only family i've seen in years is my elder son, whom i see a few times a year. My younger son i have driven away with my antisocial episodes creating barriers between us, combined with my physical inability to travel these days. He just wrapped up a 3-4 year starring run in Vegas, and i was never able to get down there to see him. Those kinds of things added up over time tend to alienate people and drive them away. The last time i saw him was a complete surprise. Christopher Lloyd was ill and someone had to replace him for a show up this way. They turned to my son to fill in, and he showed up out of nowhere. I was, at that point, in a heavy withdrawal phase, but living in close quarters, sharing kitchen & bath with other tenants and when he showed up, i was overwhelmed and effectively shut down on the emotional level. I tried to hide in my last big project, and couldn't bring myself to go out into the city with he and his brother.
He couldn't understand - he's only been around me back when i was able to tap into that part of sociopathy that enable politicians to be commanding in public and use that as a shield. He only knows that when he came up to visit, i wasn't here for him. With everything else over the years, i think that was probably too much for him. And i can't blame him - and don't. I know where the fault lives.
I'm all too aware of how my nature has created breaks and barriers constantly around me. And, too often, i'll even intentionally create the break when i find myself feeling the effort/reward ratio to be ... draining at best.

Let's skip that ramble on earlier days and energy flows that i started typing and come back to the now.

While it suits my nature to be alone, and i'm very rarely lonely in that aloneness, it does come with a cost that's probably quite obvious to most. That disconnect from humanity in particular, no matter how bound i might feel to humanity in general.
Typically on the holidays, i'm a big cook - i'll go nuts with a turkey and a ham and much fixings, even if i'm the only one to eat. (You gots to have all the fixings for the leftovers to make proper Thanksgiving Soup!)
But this year, i just didn't feel like it. Or anything. I can't even tell you what i ate that day. Chicken maybe? Doesn't matter.

Technical issues have killed most of my painting cycles this year - the only real painting of any sort that i produced all year was the Jack Kirby portrait. The paintings that were building for release were cut off by a hardware upgrade that killed half of my tools. I'm still waiting on one last component for the system that will let me change some of that software and hopefully not lose a library that's measured in the hundreds of gigs of data. Suffice it to say, without that release my internal mental/emotional state is somewhat undermined. My art keeps me healthy in a very literal way.

My father, with whom i haven't communicated in over a decade, died a few weeks ago. He set new longevity records for men in my family, hopefully fairly happy in that last decade. I doubt my siblings have any clue that i keep an awareness, though they're fairly invisible to me way up here. So, naturally enough, my thoughts had tended to be drawn into that emotional void this past weekend, memories and contemplations pulling me deeper into myself.

Here's a funny thing - you can suffer the symptoms of clinical depression without feeling "depressed" in any real way. But, it puts a weight on you that affects everything, even when you're not aware of it. It's also possible to confront and control some effects simply by identifying what they are.
An example - several years ago i was suffering acute pains in my arms and joints for which i couldn't find a cause. Once i learned that depression could cause pain and confronted my Self on the issue, the pains stopped an have never returned.
NOTE: I'm not saying that anyone can "wish away" depression symptoms or anything foolish like that. I'm merely saying that with awareness can come power. After that, things vary by situation, manifestation, self-awareness, and practice/experience. My own bodily control and awareness was developed over long periods of meditation and practice after early years living in parts of Asia, which would certainly give me an advantage over many. That said, my focus is shattered these days - i can't actively remember the last time i even tried to meditate.

So, that's where i've been for the last few days, down in those internal shadows.  It's inevitable at times, and even necessary. But not much gets done at those times.

I've made mention in the past of this blog being something of lifeline/connection to the world outside my cave. There's literal truth in that statement, if not absolute truth. Working on the blog forces me to move my mind outside the cave. Writing it reinforces my connection to those who dwell in the world with me. I believe that holds true even when no one reads it, in the same way that letters are written, never meaning to send. The recipient(s) are still present in the mind during composition, yes? Not to mention, it provides a place to rant and vent. I should have had it up much earlier when certain movies came out. (I still want to do a piece on my problems with MOS/BvS - but that means sitting through them again to get it right. Haven't managed to do that. Got halfway, almost.)
Monologues are a good thing in this regard. Dialogues*, however, are certainly better.
(Hey, Commenters! You're therapeutic! Can you write that off in your taxes?)

Still here?
Okay - i promised images brought back with me, right?

Okay, moving toward the light...
Remember D. Bruce Berry, whose inks we used to see gracing Jack Kirby's work in the 70s?

Hmm...
still a little bleak, huh?
Okay, here's a bit of levity and a spot of colour to wrap things up for today. (And, don't worry - i made sure i was back before putting this in the cue. We're covered through the weekend, with new quiz for Friday, not one pulled from a book or magazine)
 

wanna know where a pic is from? ask. if i haven't replaced this with real info by the time you read

===

*(Yes, it's still a dialogue if there's three or more involved. The root is dia (across), not di (two))

Meanwhile

No Movie Matinee or even Sunday Funnies today.
Here's 3 Frank Frazetta illustrations for Movies to hold you over.
I'll be back in a couple days.

After The Fox:

What's New Pussycat?

Yours, Mine And Ours:

Saturday Funky Solutions (019)

Let's jump straight into the answers to yesterday's Friday Fun & Games:

While scoring, remember to note how many points correct answers are worth in each section.

*(Whiteman's was the first to popularize jazz in 1924; but that was at the Aeolian Hall. Maybe Dad remembers!)
**(Kenny was an MJQ'er; Conneie succeeded him on the skins ... Who's Tony Jackson? A noted 88'er of the New Orleans school. (No relation to MJQ vibist Milt))
***(Louie took some highly publicized blasts at bop, but the distinguished author of this one was Condon ... and, tis said (why disbelieve it), he immediately proved his point!)
****(now, you do get it, don't you?)
*****(no, not Father O'Connor!)

The footnotes above are a part of the original answers in the magazine. The (1959) by the answer to #4 in the first section reflects their own acknowledgement that the answer was "as of this date, that is" and the number might be higher for them now.

Have you totaled your points?
Let's see how much better you scored than i did:

I cannot even claim to be Oblong. (Maybe oblong with an equatorial bulge)
So tragically eligible for hermitage.

This quiz comes from the same place as the final ad (for the Gartier Watch) in yesterday's Ad-On Post, the May '59 issue of The Dude. Almost 60 years ago, but they had a fair lock on modern life today for their cover image:

Sure, the tech isn't timely, but if they're on the phone to each other (ages before even radio-telephones were a thing in cars) as it seems, it really is a fairly prescient cover.

Funky? from The Dude v.03 #05 (1959)

Friday Ad-On Post

While engaging in my usual Comic Archeology digs (Quick Question: Who was Dryasdust?), i frequently see odd and interesting advertisements from the last 150 years or so. Sometimes, on rare occasions, i'm even clever enough to toss a copy into pile for later reference.

I'm betting most of you already know where this is going, huh?

Yep, let's look at some ads.
Some are very much a product of their time. For example, did it ever occur to you that there was a time when they had to advertise to convince people to buy canned food?

And you get a bonus quiz for entertainment, but i'm not hiding the answers, even if it is Friday.

And then there are products that seem to have faded away - like Yeast Foam? Do they skim an active batch or what?

Sure looks yummy, but that's the artist at work. That's a fascinating looking Yeast Foam block in the package. I'm curious now.

Looking at those old adverts also turns up odd little questions, like...

Is that where the expression "Mum's The Word" comes from, or did they take advantage of a previously existing phrase? There's precedent for both variations, but i am, at this point, wholly ignorant in this regard.
There must be a website.

Meanwhile...
Other products have simply become impossible in today's world-

Yeah. Like they'll ever make a car that can be completely maintained at home again. Much less be able to repair all the previous cars on the road that require major computer diagnostic tools to even evaluate. This is an artifact of a time now gone, for sure.

Other ads are clearly a product of another time for more ... social reasons...

"How Does Your Child Measure Up?"
Nope. This one would never get approved for use these days. Odds are, the person who suggested it would be working somewhere else soon after.

HEY!
Remember when they cured baldness back in the 1950s?

Oh, yeah. St. Helens. We must have lost this knowledge when the volcano erupted.
Ah, well.

But, y'know - There's one thing we can always count on in advertising... Comics!

From pyramids to space craft to advertising - comics is everywhere.

Of course, there's one other thing always to be found in adverts - Sex!
Like the elegant Gartier Watch:

Amazingly, this ad is from the 50s, not the 70s.

adverts from Action, Cavalcade, Confidential, Farmer's Wife, Saturday Evening Post, and The Dude (1932-1959)

Friday Funky Games

Since yesterday's post was on a loss of Groovy, today we'll check your Funk. While the real bloggers are off fighting Friday Night Fights, we'll chill with a bit of mid-20th Century music today on

Our quiz today comes from 1959, back around the dawn of the Hermit age. Groovy was on the horizon, but we're checking on your Jazz levels today - Are You

A reminder, these questions are from 1959:

I'd say that Jazz music comprises about 1/3 of my listening these days. That said...
This quiz kicked my ass. (I'll blame the nature of Jazz radio in the 20th Century for keeping me ignorant. It wasn't until internet that i was finally able to learn what i liked)

Hopefully, you can do better.

quiz source tomorrow with the answers

A World Less Groovy

You've likely already heard that we lost another comics star - David Cassidy.

Granted, you might not think of him as a comics star. But lest we forget...

...and not just any comic - the GROOVIEST!

Okay. Maybe you don't count The Partridge Family comic books, saying they were merely a tv product tie-in and not true "comics". (I'd disagree with you, but you might say that)
But he also had his own title...

...and not just in the USA...

How's your Dutch? They gave David & the family about 100 pages - lots to read!

But, that is still with The Partridge Family, so maybe doubts linger. Very well, then. Let's skip over to Britain and an old title of which i'm rather fond, we've gone there before and we'll go there again - Look-In. In late 1972, David popped up with his own ongoing strip, and took the cover while doing so:

As mentioned previously, these comics were generally short installments, only two pages per chapter. Here's the first 3 issues worth:

You might be wondering what happens next. As am i. My collection is spotty, at best, and i'm missing the first few issues of 1973. However, we do have a complete short tale here from the Look-In 1973 Holiday Special for you, that you might find a little closure of sorts:

It's also worth noting that when David Cassidy gets together with the boys, he drives-

There you have it - bona fide comic star.
And yet, in the internet age, there are always those doubters in the back of the digital room. So let's drive a stake through the heart of that, shall we?

David Cassidy also played one of the classic Rogue's Gallery villains on The Flash - Sam Scudder, the Mirror Master:

David Cassidy - Comics Star, any way you want to look at him.

Sadly, he did.

He'll be missed by a lot of fans of other media, but comic book fans should remember him, too.
So long, David. I'll always be a fan...

images from indicated titles, top image from David Cassidy en de Partridge Familie, bottom image from Look-In 1973 Holiday Special