The fact that Carson isn’t in the photo makes me think it was a candid photo snapped during a break when Carson had stepped out. It doesn’t look like a professional photo.
Either that, or it’s a video still.
Journalism photos were in black and white then-- except for a few magazines, journals printed in B&W. I can’t think of a paper that printed color photos in 1970. This photo is blurry, and the lighting is bad, so I think it may be a video still, or else something an audience member snapped without permission. A real publicity photo would look much better.
Why? Because it’s something that people do on the Internet. Some people post faked content to get attention/stir up emotion/make a name for themselves. Do you really want to claim that this doesn’t occur? Seriously?
The repeated attempts to equate a call for evidence (as opposed to simply accepting things without examination), with a belief in “a conspiracy,” are disappointing. That’s the sort of ham-handed effort to discredit reasonable inquiry that one would expect to find at sites that are much less reputable than straightdope.com. (I won’t name any examples, as their regulars tend to troll the Internet looking for mentions; one wouldn’t want to gratify them. And, of course, that is the sort of conduct that is often seen in company with feverishly over-reaching *“you’re claiming conspiracy!!!11!!” *attacks.)
But let’s assume that the majority of readers of this thread don’t care to abandon logic to that extent, and really do want to know what’s behind the photo. On that assumption, a few notes:
***Yes, it’s important evidence if television listings that agree are found in every source we can reasonably (meaning, without having to fork over cash to get behind a paywall) examine. Agreement among listings increases the chances that the photo is genuine.
***Have we forgotten that it’s well-established that people do, sometimes, post untrue things on the Internet? That discussion came up a few pages back, and examples were posted. But perhaps this has been forgotten by some, so some additional examples may be helpful:
[ul]
[li]FAKE WEBSITES: a list put together by British former librarian Phil Bradley is at http://www.philb.com/fakesites.htm[/li]This wikipedia article ( Website spoofing - Wikipedia ) also has a lot of information on the profusion of faked sites that have been put up (and how relatively easy it is to make a site that has an address that looks real). Clearly many people have found it worth their time to falsify and fake sites, photos on those sites, lists on those sites, etc. Why? That would surely require a separate thread (on human psychology). But it would be foolish to simply deny that many people do, quite simply, enjoy fooling others.
[li]FAKED DOCUMENTS: Many of these have actually affected historical events (e.g. the Zinoviev Letter, a 1924 fake that contributed to a turnover in UK government: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/1999/feb/04/uk.politicalnews6[/li]Other well-known examples: the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” and the 1983 Hitler Diaries. In some cases, a motive for the hoax can be seen to be political power (or at least persuasion). In others, the hoaxing seems to be “just to see people get upset”…a classic definition of trolling.
Why do people post faked things on the Internet? Clearly the answers differ, hoax by hoax and person by person. But denying that people do these things is an exercise in futility–such denials ring very hollow.
Noting that people do sometimes post faked things on the Internet does not constitute a participation or belief in “conspiracy theories”-----because it’s so-well documented that people do post faked things.
As for the “1970 Photoplay Awards”…it would appear that we’ve arrived at an admission that there was no ceremony that the Photo people were coming from (or going to). We seem to have consensus that the best that Photoplay ever did in the arena of getting publicity for their awards—the results of votes by magazine readers, by the way—was to get them mentioned on talk shows. Only daytime talk shows, sometimes. So: not a Big Prestige situation.
Several sources indicate that the regular “Photoplay Awards” were three in number (Gold Medal movie, Most Popular Actor, and Most Popular Actress)–and ended in 1968.
So a 1970 set of awards (presumably in recognition of fifty years since the Photoplay Awards were first voted on by readers of the magazine) would have been notable. As has been mentioned, the publicists of several of the Photo people would surely have gotten items placed in publications such as the Hollywood Reporter, Variety, and so on. It would be helpful to find something like that. (The “encyclopedia.com” page with the Brolin information* found by choie is nice to see, but surely Brolin’s publicist would have gotten this information into some publications that uploaded their archives. Paywalls might be a problem for some, but surely not for all.)
Not really. It’s like the debate over when the 21st Century began.
The headlinesaid “Photoplay Awards Mark 50th Year.” It seems to me that means they’ve been giving the awards for 50 years.
When you host the first of a series of annual events, the clock starts there. The 2nd annual event marks its 1st anniversary. The 3rd annual event marks the 2nd anniversary. And so on.
So the 50th annual Photoplay Awards were presented in 1970. And the 51st annual Photoplay Awards in 1971 would mark the event’s 50th year.
My best guess is that the photograph was taken by a photographer for Photoplay to document the event, and that it occurred off-air. After all, if you’re a magazine called ‘Photoplay’ that’s highly dependent on visual imagery, and you’re giving out awards to movie and TV stars, I’m pretty sure you’d want some photos of the event.
And given that it looks like there was no separate awards ceremony, then being on the show is the ceremony. That would explain why everyone is in a tux, including Ed and the MM. It’s a ‘very special show’.
Next, you’d have to ask who would be in the special guest chair. If you ask me, it would have to be either the winner of the top award (who we’d know), or the guy presenting the awards and/or representing the magazine.
So that’s my best guess as of now - our MM is a representative for Photoplay, or he’s an actor who’s been asked to MC the giving of the awards. The most likely answer is that he’s a rep for the magazine, and probably high up - maybe the editor or publisher or something. He could even be the marketing manager in charge of the promotion.
So, what can we find out about the management of Photoplay in 1970?
Yeah, I suppose. It seems a marginally strange distinction, but it would also be a good way to have two ‘50th year’ celebrations. Good marketing. So you’re probably right.
I believe the consensus is that it’s Peter Mark Richman, who was there with his band “Death Ray” to sing “Marianas Trench,” a 20 minute song which happened to be the inspiration for “Rio” by Duran Duran.
Why not? It may be a longshot, but hell, everyone else on the planet has been guessed.
Look at the chin, the nose, and the shape of the ears. Also, while it’s hard to tell on such an old photo it appears there may be some red in his hair.
Please calm the heck down. Faked content, yes. A naked Marilyn Monroe with RFK, sure. Adding Bert from Sesame Street to a wide shot of the UN Assembly where Colin Powell gave evidence for WMDs, absolutely. But adding some unknown dude to a marginal group of B- and C-list celebrities from an actual Tonight Show appearance, one that would require finding a shot with all the celebrities in a group and one empty first chair (which was, to put it mildly, unusual on the Tonight Show)? And then uploading it and causing an “uproar” on some extremely minor sites, all with a goal “to make a name for himself,” you say? This isn’t exactly a puzzle gripping the entire internet a la “That’s the beauty of it, it doesn’t do anything!” The only place I’m seeing this discussion is here and on a few FB groups.
If it came from SomethingAwful or eBaumsworld or 4chan or whatever, it would have spread faaaaaar wider than some Facebook groups and the SDMB, not to sully the SDMB by implying it’s not one of the hugest most awesome forums in the world, but… it ain’t.
BECAUSE WE *HAVE *EVIDENCE. The only reason it’s so freaking frustrating is because nothing is good enough for you. First a dozen newspapers dating back to 11/1970 are found with that exact grouping (minus Wayne and Davis and MM). But no, that’s not good enough, these pay-walled archives can somehow be faked. Then Lamia finds a New York Times reference, but that’s still not good enough (you don’t bother mentioning it because it doesn’t fit your pet theory–and yes, someone who pushes away all logical cites is indeed coming across like a chemtrail/faked moon-landing CTer, that’s their M.O.).
Ooookay. Yeah. I’ve been doing solid research in finding those newspaper listings and now you’re accusing me of not wanting to know what’s behind the photo? Nice.
Cool, so you DO acknowledge that these are legit sources and the agreements are increasing the likelihood that this is real? Good, welcome back to logictown.
I’ve been on the internet for twenty years. Please don’t condescend. (I’ve certainly been around long enough to know not to underline text when trying to emphasize stuff.)
Who’s this “we,” kemosabe? Noooo, we don’t have that “admission.” Where is that from? They probably went to a party or dinner afterwards. It’s Hollywood, you think they’re gonna miss a chance at an event? Think of it like the People’s Choice Awards.
What daytime talk shows? *The Joey Bishop Show * (which, btw, I see announced the Photoplay award winners in both 1968 and 1969–the 46th and 47th annual awards, acc. to the IMDB) was on opposite The Tonight Show; so was The Merv Griffin Show at that time. The Glen Campbell Goodtime Hour special was on at 7:30pm, same as a first-run episode of Ironside.
So, cite about the daytime talk shows, please?
And several sources say otherwise, including JohnWayne.com and all the newspapers we’re finding. There were also Most Promising Newcomer awards (Marlo Thomas and James Brolin were once winners of those).
Tell me how someone fakes a newspaper, no, dozens of newspapers, behind paywalls. How they fake Google News archives. How they fake the New York Times.
Damn! I’m not saying it’s impossible that the photo is a hoax, but to me, the things that are not in dispute that you keep trying to brush aside are the facts that Photoplay had awards that year and they gave them to each of the people in that photo, possibly excluding MM or somehow involving him in a producer/backstage capacity.
