Threaded Order Chronological Order
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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: 0.018033 seconds.