| 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: |
|