Threaded Order Chronological Order
| The show's logo | |
| Posted by: Amiens 10:15 pm EST 12/26/22 | |
| In reply to: The Apartment vs Promises, Promises (longish). - Delvino 10:45 am EST 12/26/22 | |
|
|
|
| Thinking of the original production's two memorable and infamous logos, the first, a group of young women in skimpy nighties and scanty rompers (who certainly didn't invoke secretaries and receptionists) hanging off of a big phallic key, and the second (well into the run), a cartoonish young woman who seems to be wearing nothing but black stockings and gloves falling backwards on her behind, it would seem that the show was always intended to be something of the "tired businessman's delight" or whatever that genre of mindless sex romp was called. So it doesn't surprise me that Fran Kubelik's inner turmoil or yearnings were anybody's priority in creating the show. Of course, the production, with its sophisticated and contemporary Bacharach score and Michael Bennett's inventive choreography, not to mention Simon's astute libretto, turned out much more artful than David Merrick or (perhaps) even the creators ever intended. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: The show's logo | |
| Last Edit: Delvino 05:37 pm EST 12/27/22 | |
| Posted by: Delvino 05:35 pm EST 12/27/22 | |
| In reply to: The show's logo - Amiens 10:15 pm EST 12/26/22 | |
|
|
|
| Thank you. I discussed the logos for Promises in a Twitter thread on The Apartment. That first poster with the negligée-clad women marketed the show thru the prism of the philandering execs, objectifying the women exploited in the workplace to suggest a “sexy” post Hefner entertainment. (Remember when “sexy” was a common descriptor?). That second logo - which at best looks like a Can Can design - is less real but even more unsettling if you pause to consider what’s suggested. Your comment is spot on, and makes the case. It has less to do with Simon and David and more to say about what constituted “sophisticated adult” fare at the end of the sixties. The very topic of The Apartment’s story was ignored: the show was marketed to entice with straight white male prism - the tired businessman seeking a show about tired businessmen who misbehave. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: The show's logo | |
| Posted by: singleticket 12:33 am EST 12/27/22 | |
| In reply to: The show's logo - Amiens 10:15 pm EST 12/26/22 | |
|
|
|
| ...it would seem that the show was always intended to be something of the "tired businessman's delight" or whatever that genre of mindless sex romp was called. ... 1968 Times Square was still an adult entertainment district. Even HAIR had a bit of nudie come-on to it... exploitation mixed with revolution. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The show's logo | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 03:06 am EST 12/27/22 | |
| In reply to: re: The show's logo - singleticket 12:33 am EST 12/27/22 | |
|
|
|
| There's 1 very short section with nudity. It's as if it was part of the marketing like Oh Calcutta. And I think it's silly to call it exploitation at all. The brief nudity in Hair is about freedom, expression, sexual freedom, non-conformity, fighting the status quo, etc. It's not to titillate audiences with sex or sexual acts or teasing. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The show's logo | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 09:27 pm EST 12/27/22 | |
| In reply to: re: The show's logo - Chazwaza 03:06 am EST 12/27/22 | |
|
|
|
| As the nudity was not in the show at the Public, I rather think it was added for publicity value more than anything else. And it worked. It got a massive amount of publicity, and I have little doubt it was part of the reason that the show was such a hit. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Hair | |
| Posted by: Amiens 08:59 am EST 12/27/22 | |
| In reply to: re: The show's logo - Chazwaza 03:06 am EST 12/27/22 | |
|
|
|
| While I might agree with you that the nudity in Hair could be considered a part of the story-telling of its characters, such as they are, I think it's a bit disingenuous to think that the nudity wasn't a huge selling point for the production. It may have been more word of mouth than advertising, but it was certainly mentioned in every article (and probably every review) written about the show. Everybody was talking about it. A very similar comparison to Take Me Out, the original production and the revival. Exploitation? I'm not so sure. But getting back to those Promises, Promises logos, I think they were definitely created to titillate, whether the show actually delivered in that way or not. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Hair | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 06:19 pm EST 12/27/22 | |
| In reply to: Hair - Amiens 08:59 am EST 12/27/22 | |
|
|
|
| Unless we're calling all nudity on stage exploitation, I don't think any that are part of the concept of the play can be called that. Though for what it's worth, both Hair and Take Me Out can be done without the nudity, but I think for both it is inherent to the show and it's worth doing. However it is MUCH more present and visible in Take Me Out. And while of course people are going to mention and write about the nudity in any show with nudity... the show didn't market itself as sexual or nude at all. But yes totally agree the Promises Promises logos were 100% trying to sell that aspect of the show... in a misleading way... it doesn't really reflect the actual show. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Take Me Out | |
| Posted by: Amiens 06:50 pm EST 12/27/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Hair - Chazwaza 06:19 pm EST 12/27/22 | |
|
|
|
| How can you do Take Me Out without the nudity? There are 2 scenes that specifically take place in a locker room shower. Though I agree with you that the nudity there is integral to the script and thus not exploitive. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Take Me Out | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 08:07 pm EST 12/27/22 | |
| In reply to: Take Me Out - Amiens 06:50 pm EST 12/27/22 | |
|
|
|
| I mean i guess that it could be altered to not need them nude in the shower, it could be in the locker room with towels or underwear (couldn't it in theory? I don't remember what happens in those scenes tbh)... but maybe not. And that isn't doing the play as written. But the play was conceived for it to have the nudity. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Hair | |
| Last Edit: singleticket 12:05 pm EST 12/27/22 | |
| Posted by: singleticket 11:58 am EST 12/27/22 | |
| In reply to: Hair - Amiens 08:59 am EST 12/27/22 | |
|
|
|
| A very similar comparison to Take Me Out, the original production and the revival. Exploitation? I'm not so sure. If there was nudity in TAKE ME OUT, I didn't notice it. I was too excited by the breakthrough in representation by centering LGBT experience in American sports. :) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The show's logo | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 11:15 pm EST 12/26/22 | |
| In reply to: The show's logo - Amiens 10:15 pm EST 12/26/22 | |
|
|
|
| The first one you describe was on the cover of playbills during the first tryout engagement in Boston. By some point during the D.C. run that followed, it became the second, which was used on Broadway for the whole run as far as I can tell. The tryout souvenir program cover used the first, but the Broadway cover used the second. Of course, the cast recording used the first. I suppose the second might be regarded as conveying a certain darkness and social commentary, even in 1968. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The show's logo | |
| Posted by: Amiens 09:11 am EST 12/27/22 | |
| In reply to: re: The show's logo - AlanScott 11:15 pm EST 12/26/22 | |
|
|
|
| Alan, thanks for the details on those logos. I only saw the show in its Boston tryout and owned the album, so that first logo always seemed to represent the show for me. I remember thinking at the time that it evoked some kind of In Like Flint or Matt Helm movie. I'm actually surprised to hear the second one was in use by the Broadway opening, I thought it came about much later in the run. Have to say though that I don't see the darkness or social commentary you do in it. To me it presents the show as a raunchy farce. Though both of the logos may have sold the show, I don't think either represented it well at all. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The show's logo | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 09:36 pm EST 12/27/22 | |
| In reply to: re: The show's logo - Amiens 09:11 am EST 12/27/22 | |
|
|
|
| Well, to reiterate, I wrote something much more speculative rather than certain about about the possibility of social commentary (which would be about the exploitation of women, if indeed that was any part of the thought behind it): "I suppose the second might be regarded as conveying a certain darkness and social commentary, even in 1968." So possibly, just possibly, but not even probably. Raunchy is a good word for it, and anyone who looked at it might think that maybe this was not a show for the family, not even if the youngest kid was 15 or 16. So while the show was a big hit, I wonder if it really was good marketing. The show really was not daring or shocking for 1968. So I find it odd that they got rid of the original logo, which made the show seem sexy but not vulgar and smutty. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.076208 seconds.