19 thoughts on “SNARK WEEK: Men’s Facial Hair

  1. Oddly enough, what is generally believed to be the first portrait of an English king from life (Richard II https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/The_Westminster_Portrait_of_Richard_II_of_England_%281390s%29.jpg) does actually seem to have the wimpy, barely-there beard and ‘tache. Succeeding copies of the portrait give him more and more facial hair, as if trying to make him more manly.

    Many plaudits for your correct invective against Mr Bennett’s half-arsed unshaven look in the (spit!) 2005 film. One of many reasons to despise that performance and, indeed, that film.

    1. In all fairness, Mr Bennett is defined – in the book and film – with a strong element of “Oh well, if you must” indifference, so it’s hardly out of the question for him to go longer between shaves than is desirable (Especially if Mrs Bennett is too busy scheming ahead to give her Mister marching orders).

      Also, I feel morally obligated to recommend ‘If you’ve only got a moustache’ from A MILLION WAYS TO DIE IN THE WEST – can’t recommend the film (which has it’s moments, but truly erred in making Mr Seth Meyers it’s leading man and not having his character shot dead) – but this is a catchy, catchy ditty and a fine reminder to COWARDS who refuse to wear decent facial hair for a Wild West picture.

      1. ‘Seth Macfarlane’ that should be – my indifference to the man apparently extends to his actual surname and not just 90% of his works.

      2. “Indifference” in Austen’s time did not translate into “transgressing all social standards & complete propriety.” The look Mr. Bennet was given in the 2005 movie is that of a poor slovenly farmhand in the 1790s!

  2. I think the reason that older “know” actors like John Rhys-Davies (aka Gimli in The Lord of the Rings) & Donald Sutherland are sporting “beards” when they should be clean shaven is: they probably have/had too much “power” in the Hair & Wig Department. They just didn’t wanted to shave (their well known features/”trademarks”). And the production team didn’t dare to disagree/argue with their Stars?
    It’s like it was with famous female Movie stars, in “costume”/
    historical movies, who always wore the wrong kind and amount of (“trademark”) make-up…and demanded their bosoms were on show – in pointy bras.✌🏻🤷🏼‍♀️

  3. Zulu (1964) is one of my favourite movies of all time. It’s not one that FF needs to bother with, being all military and such! But despite my love for it, handsome, clean-shaven Michael Caine and Stanley Barker (and most of the other actors, too) are missing the magnificent facial hair of the real men they portrayed.

  4. I absolutely hated the stubble look on Theo James and whoever the Pillsbury doughboy second leading man on Sanditon was supposed to be. Makes me crazy to see that, because no gentleman would have been caught dead looking that way in public, as if he’d just rolled out of bed. I do want to point out that in Richard Lester’s exquisitely costumed version of The Three Musketeers, Simon Ward playing the Duke of Buckingham looked as if he was posing for one of George Villiers’ real life portraits. Beard, mustache, hair, costumes. They nailed it.

    1. The men in that wonderful movie were HOT (I had a crush on Richard Chamberlain for years), and Simon Ward had Buckingham to a T, but I hadn’t considered how physically accurate he looked until you pointed it out!

  5. There’s some very nice facial hair in Miss Potter. Even Ewan McGregor as the love interest gets a big moustache, and her father has great Piccadilly weepers. I think the prize for my favourite ever muttonchops would go to Harry Goodsir in The Terror, played by Paul Ready.

  6. I suppose the problem with getting facial hair Just Right is that one either has to grow the stuff (which is a fairly serious commitment most cinematic productions simply don’t allow the time for) or endure a significant amount of extra make-up work (with no guarantee that the outcome will be up to standard).

    It’s also worth pointing out that the wrong facial hair can actually cost actors jobs, so it’s
    perhaps unsurprising that quite a lot of them prefer to keep their options open rather than worry about getting the look Just Right.

    All of which in no way justifies or excuses all those wretched fellows with five o’clock shadow trying to pretend it’s ’designer stubble’, who absolutely deserve to be condemned to a spell in the stocks.

    No, not the dashing 18th century gentleman’s neckwear, the ones associated with being pelted by rotten fruit and having the contempt of the community also thrown at you.

    1. It’s no harder than getting hair (on the head) right with decent wigs. I’d argue it’s easier than a full wig in that faux facial hair is smaller & quicker to apply than to style & apply a full wig, having done both (on myself, for the same costume even ;) ). Like anything with historical costume onscreen, it’s a matter of time / budget & the filmmaker’s “vision” of what historical accuracy means.

      1. Just so long as we can all agree that ‘designer stubble’ is a red flag for the Sin of Sloth, rather than a valid fashion statement.

      2. On a more serious note, given the number of duffer wigs in various period dramas (Quite a few of them lampooned on this very site) it’s easy to understand why actors don’t like their odds…

  7. I blame Son of the Morning Star for my love for a facial hair. Specially William Cooke. Young (25-30 years old) man with such impressive beard made me appreciate good, accurate and for someone even wierd styles. I was so happy when full beard came in fashion again! I love them. I love mustaches, I love whiskers!

Feel the love

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.