MovieChat Forums > Adventures of Superman (1952) Discussion > Significance of hair parting

Significance of hair parting

posted 8 years ago by pt100
11 replies | jump to latest

Nearly all men part their hair on the left, even if they are left handed; and this widely is thought to suggest masculinity and assertiveness. Following this dictum, in the Superman movies Chris Reeve parted his hair on the left when in the Superman character, but on the right when in the Clark Kent character. George Reeves just had his hair combed back on both sides with no clear part when playing both Superman and Kent. His natural widow's peak added to the symmetry.

This partless style appears to have been Reeves's natural hairstyle and one he maintained in various roles as well as when not acting:

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&tbs=rimg%3ACT3ByISaJM5eIjj3_1VBDsBkPX42vRlQDxJe_1lcATvLdRn_1L-inLXnSxk0VYrGfbmX_1wikUjllbNRvbxGa8aIKKiU7ioSCff9UEOwGQ9fEYTOUc9tGDFrKhIJja9GVAPEl78Rx9Ieh7L_1_1mIqEgmVwBO8t1Gf8hGWHJla4HHEryoSCf6KctedLGTREfK0mRJ35eR3KhIJVisZ9uZf_1CIRnuaV3QkQUyoqEgmRSOWVs1G9vBHLKfORKdsXWSoSCUZrxogoqJTuEdoaJsExNbYn&q&bih=734&biw=1440&ved=0ahUKEwjHxtGLi8DOAhVCzWMKHZm-CN8Q9C8ICQ&dpr=1

The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine.–J.B. Haldane

[–] grizzledgeezer 8 years ago

I never noticed the difference in Christopher Reeves' parting. But Dean Cain reversed the traditional "Clark is slicked back, Superman has a spit curl". It looked very odd.

[–] ZurichGnome 8 years ago

Good catch! I didn't notice the Chris Reeve hairstyle switch either, but now that I've viewed stills from the movies, I do see it. And the part on the left does somehow look stronger and more assertive. Weird but true.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. - Arthur C. Clarke

[–] movieghoul 8 years ago

In the comics of the time, Superman wore a prominent part with a curl in front, while Clark's hair was combed back.

[–] Moon_Doggie 8 years ago

I believe it depended on the artist to some extent. I've seen comics from that era that had no part (most typical), just slicked back. I've even seen one that had the part on the right.

A person's a person, no matter how small. -- Dr. Seuss

[–] SixtiesHoldout 8 years ago

Here's an article that lays out the hair-part theory and also notes the Chris Reeve hair part issue:
http://www.truemirror.com/theory01.asp

Although I'm left handed, I have always parted my hair on the left, ever since I was a child. Not sure if that got started by my earliest barber, but I've been told that I have a double cowlick and could part on either side.

Just recently, however, I got tired of parting my hair and decided to try no part, just combing it back on both sides (like George Reeves). I just got a haircut and told the haircutter what I was going to do, so she cut it to allow for no part, but said it might take at least a couple of weeks before it is easy to comb, because the left side has to grow out a bit more than usual. It already looks pretty good, but after a couple of weeks it should look even better.

❇ If you can remember the '60s, then you probably weren't there. ❇

[–] ZurichGnome 7 years ago

I have noticed that many men in TV in the 1950s/'60s did not part their hair; e.g., in many episodes of Perry Mason, etc. In that series, Mason, Drake and Burger do not part their hair, and neither do many male supporting actors. This happens a lot in other shows also.

I don't recall this was a style in the general population. Maybe it was a style used to create a symmetric appearance and perhaps eliminate the photographic "bad side" that so many actors worry about.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. - Arthur C. Clarke

[–] pt100 7 years ago

Yes, I've also noticed the prevalence of non-parted hair in TV shows from that era. (Although, as I recall, during some seasons Raymond Burr had no part; in others he had a left part; and in still others he had a very short cut--almost a buzz cut--with no part.)

I think your theory may be correct, but I haven't been able to find much about it. I did find the following page, that confirms that nearly all of us have a photographic "bad side":
http://www.lostateminor.com/2014/02/21/photography-series-showing-good-bad-sides-peoples-portraits/

The picture at the top of that page shows what a difference it makes when a mirror-image photograph is made of the right vs. left side of the face. To me, the picture on the left looks much better.

So maybe not parting the hair but just sweeping it back symmetrically creates greater overall facial symmetry and helps to reduce, if not eliminate, the "bad side" effect as far as it is possible to do so with just hairstyle.

The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine.–J.B. Haldane

[–] liscarkat (16543) 3 years ago

It was common in the 1950s and before for men to comb their hair straight back with no part. My dad always did it that way, until he didn't have enough hair left to bother.

[–] Moonglum9 (10713) 3 years ago

Christopher Reeve had to change the side his hair was parted on from Clark Kent so that no one would recognize him. Simply taking off a pair of glasses wouldn't fool anyone.

[–] roreyking (558) 5 months ago

Parting your hair on the left is "widely thought" to suggest masculinity & assertiveness? Where do you get that ridiculous notion?

[–] andersonb85 (1588) 2 months ago

Does it really matter what side you part your hair? My hair naturally seemed to part left before I buzzed it short all around.