Percy Reeve’s Movy-Dols

Percy Reeve’s Movy-Dols depict four different film stars of the silver-screens: Mary Pickford, Elsie Ferguson, Norma Talmadge and Charlie Chaplin. These ‘Dols’ consist of one complete body, with the description of the actor's name, then three different costumes from a variety of different films, an extra head with three out of four of the dolls having a pet alongside them. 

The ‘Movy-Dols’, show little change from what Field sees to be the inception of Paper Dolls in ‘1809’ (36), describing these initial paper dolls as ‘more aptly referred to dresses that are headed and beheaded, since the clothes wear the heads, rather than the other way around.’ (Field 36). Although, Reeve’s dolls have one complete body, each of the other detached outfits, is an entire body simply missing a head, suggesting that the production of Paper Dolls has progressed little in nearly hundred years since their initial inception. Field describes that ‘[t]he status of the fashion doll, of which the paper doll is one type, as a trend-carrier.’ (40), suggesting that these dolls are utilised to depict current trends, especially in these instances, such as the clothing of the famous that the owner cannot access themselves. Marcus, while discussing both dolls and fashion plates, suggests that they ‘[link] visual pleasure to tactile enjoyment, making the desire to become fashionable as inseparable from an erotics of looking and touching as the plates make looking and touching inseparable from each other.’ (127), yet, these fashion dolls push this tactile desire even further, as it allows the readers themselves to touch and handle them. Marcus also argues that ‘[f]ashion as a sensual pleasure independent of procreation and reproduction, but nevertheless “essentially the same” as erotic pleasure.’ (115), the erotic desire for these dolls, in the fact that they can be dressed and undressed, gives into this erotic desire. However, these doll is never really in any state of undress, where Marcus states that ‘feminists argue that all three [dolls, pornography and magazines] turn women into narcissistic, passive objects to be looked at by men.’ (112), these fashion dolls do not provide a masculine level of desire, but are instead intended for women's desire, as it is not the women's bodies that are being objectified but instead their clothes. As three out of four of these dolls are women, it expresses this desire for women to gaze at others like them. Similarly, the male doll within this set is Charlie Chaplin, as a comedian, whose character does not feed into the idea of the masculine hero. It, therefore, falls upon the women who are being gazed upon. This can also be seen through the fact that the women’s dress options contain only one clear ‘costume’ outfit, while Chaplin’s consists of three costumes and only one as the ‘actor’ Chaplin. This suggests that the actresses represent a desiring object, either through a desire to be like them or an erotic desire, while Chaplin reflects more of a plaything. 

Similarly, the original Paper Dolls were often made as promotional material to accompany the sale of storybooks with their initial company ‘packaging the paper doll and storybook together and hence the doll’s status as an illustration to the narrative.’ (Field 39), However, these Movy-Dols were used as promotional material not for a storybook, but instead for the Photoplay Magazine. Although the role of the Paper Doll here has not largely changed, it portrays a change in the importance of story narratives, with actors and actresses replacing the fairytale character in their position of a desire to act out the stories of fairy tales initially, and the stories of their favourite movie stars later. 

Reeve’s ‘Movy-Dols’ came as an insert in Photoplay Magazine which appeared in the editions between June and September 1919. However, the Movy-Dols archived here do not appear to be from these magazines. This is because three of the dolls (Ferguson, Talmadge and Chaplin), all exist on a single folded piece of paper, something that would not be possible as they were published in separate magazines. Nevertheless, this could still mean that Pickford's paper could have come from the magazine, as it is separated from the other three. However, these papers bear the publishing detail of “Published by Percy Reeves” while those that can be found within Photoplay Magazine have “Published by Photoplay” instead. This, therefore, suggests that these dolls were published separately by the artist Percy Reeves. Similarly, there also exists a Movy-Dols Painting Book which contains an extra four celebrities but replicates the cut-out dolls. This suggests that Reeve’s ‘Movy-dols’ were popular enough to warrant two different kinds of republication. 

The Photoplay Magazine was ‘[o]ne of the first two periodicals devoted to followers of American cinema, the monthly Photoplay Magazine was launched in 1911.’ (Podnieks 579), suggesting that these dolls are a part of the early creation of the star system. Although, Shail implies that the star system began with the attachment to serial character actors, such as the likes of Chaplin, the other three dolls are based on actresses rather than a character that repeatedly appears in a film series. The presence of actresses rather than character implies this is part of the transition from enjoyment of fictional characters to attachments to the stars themselves, epitomised by the creation of the “IT Girl’ with Clara Bow just a few years later. Shail sees this to be an attraction to the fact that ‘performers use their real-world bodies and faces to constitute their characters’ (341), suggesting an interest in the fact that the actors can embody both the character and be an entirely different person off-screen. The focus on actors and their personal lives is exemplified by the inclusion of the pets of both Pickford and Talmadge, which are referred to as ‘her favourite’ for Talmadge’s dog. This suggests not only a desire for the readers of Photoplay Magazine to know about the personal lives of the actors but also a prior awareness of details of the actors personal lives. By not naming the dog but instead positioning it as ‘her favourite’ suggests that the audience already has an knowledge of Talmadge’s pet. This distinction between persona and personal life is seen through the inclusion of Charlie Chaplin. Shail suggests that ‘[r]eflecting this partial naming of Chaplin’s series character ‘Charlie’, in many commentaries the name ‘Charlie’ or ‘Charlie Chaplin’ popularity denotes both a fictional series character and a performer.’ (339), suggesting that the two are similar. However, through Chaplin’s doll, there appears to be a separation between Chaplin’s character and Chaplin as a person. This is due to the difference between the headless characters from Chaplin's films are dressed in dirty and oversized clothes befitting of his films. However, the full figure is labelled, ‘Charlie Chaplin, himself’, where he is dressed in a smart, fashionable suit and is notably, without a moustache. Instead, the paper presents a moustache that the reader can cut and insert. This suggests that there is a separation between the celebrity figure of Chaplin and that of his characters. Chaplin’s moustache is reflected in the difference between Chaplin the character, and Chaplin the actor. In the Photoplay Article “How the Pictures Found Charlie Chaplin.”, the article displays two different photos on either side of the double-page spread, one shows Chaplin in ‘the latest portrait.’ (Biby 70), where Chaplin similarly to that of the clean-shaven doll, while the other page shows the moustached, tousled hair of Chaplin the character. The interest in Chaplin compared to the interest in the three female actors suggests a changing time between the interest in the serial characters being portrayed, Shail suggests with Chaplin, to the actors and actresses behind them. This fascination is exemplified by this combination of dolls on display for Chaplin, of his actor and persona. Where the women mark an erotic fantasy, to possess the women, clothes or fame, Chaplin marks a familiarity with the character he plays, but also an interest in the difference between that character and the actor behind it.

However, little is known about the illustrator Percy Reeves. Although his name is prominent in these papers, suggesting that he was a popular illustrator at the time, little is known about him besides these dolls, suggesting that these are his most famous creations.

Due to the delicacy and age of these objects, the pages were unable to be photographed and therefore can be seen on request from the Bill Douglas Cinema Museum. 

Works Cited

Biby, Edward Allen. “How Pictures Found Charlie Chaplin.” Photoplay Magazine, edited by Julian Johnson, Vol. 15, No. 4, 1919, pp. 70-71.

Field, Hannah. “‘A Story, Exemplified in a Series of Figured’: Paper Dolls versus Moral Tale in the Nineteenth Century.” Deconstructing Dolls: Girlhoods and the Meanings of Play, edited by Miriam Forman-Brunell, Berghahn Books, 2021, pp.35-54. 

Marcus, Sharon. Between Women: Friendship, Desire, and Marriage in the Victorian Era. Princeton University Press, 2009.

Podnieks, Elizabeth. “Maternal Stars of the Silent Screen: Gender, Genre and Photoplay Magazine.” a/b: Auto/Biography Studies, Vol. 33, No.3, 2018, pp. 578-587. 

Reeves, Percy. Reeves, Percy. “Movy-Dols: Mary Pickford.” Photoplay Magazine, Vol 15, No. 6, 1919, pp. 91.

—. “Movy-Dols: Elsie Ferguson.” Photoplay Magazine, Vol 16, No. 1, 1919, pp. 125.

—. “Movy-Dols: Norma Talmadge.” Photoplay Magazine, Vol 16, No. 3, 1919, pp. 123.

—. “Movy-Dols: Charlie Chaplin.” Photoplay Magazine, Vol 16, No. 4, 1919, pp. 123.

—. Movy-Dols Painting Book 1. Stanton and Van Vliet Co, 1919.