HOME | MAIN BOARD | TWITTER | LOGIN | REGISTER | SEARCH | FLAT MODE

not logged in

re: Was Jim Nude Too?

Posted by:
Klasien 02:31 pm UTC 08/01/13
In reply to: Was Jim Nude Too? - steven_stuart 03:35 am UTC 08/01/13

He was probably glad he got an excuse to ban something he didn't like but couldn't stop??

-K-

> Wow. Well found. It's not just the photos that are
> interesting. The write up is very interesting. I see that
> Jim himself played the main character Baal and that there
> were problems with the nudity in the show. Was Jim nude
> too? According to the write up, he wasn't very happy when
> they had to cover up with bathing suits.
>
> From the write up:
>
> "But Steinman’s play encountered much bigger problems for
> another reason. It called for some of the actors to appear
> nude in the final scenes (collectively called “The
> Revolution in Words and Music”).  Apparently, the first
> three performances at Amherst’s Kirby Theater, as well as
> the first performance at Mount Holyoke College the
> following week, featured the nudity; there were no formal
> complaints. Only on May 4, 1969, the final night of
> performance at Mount Holyoke, did South Hadley’s Chief of
> Police feel compelled to investigate. According to news
> reports in the Amherst Student (see below), it appears
> that the police didn’t ban the nudity outright or threaten
> to shut down the performance; but simply by inquiring into
> the nature of the nudity (“They say that if it’s art, it’s
> alright. Is this an art show?”), the president of the
> Mount Holyoke Dramatics Club (which was sponsoring the
> performance) was induced to urge the actors to wear
> bathing suits instead."
>
> Hee hee.


reply |

Previous: Was Jim Nude Too? - steven_stuart 03:35 am UTC 08/01/13
Next: re: Was Jim Nude Too? - steven_stuart 12:07 am UTC 08/02/13

Thread:



HOME | MAIN BOARD | LOG OFF | START A NEW THREAD | EDIT PROFILE | SEARCH | FLAT MODE