For those of you who love Vera Francis, here’s another vintage photograph of the nearly forgotten & neglected African-American actress.
From the 1950s, this photo features Francis in what is called “a Southeast Asian view” of costuming.
Publicity from MGM’s 1955 film The Prodigal, in which Vera played an “Indian Girl.”
Measures 10″ x 8,” on a single weight glossy paper stock.
Have you seen Subway’s latest ad ~ the one with the woman who reminds us to “Eat Fresh!” and stay healthy & slim so we can fit into our sexy Halloween costumes?
http://youtu.be/y4lMFiV1sec
Jezebel did. And out came the requisite rant. (Have I mentioned I’m getting tired of that?) Of course others had their rants too.
But come on now, let’s face reality. Aren’t all the Halloween costumes for women sexy now? The fact that Subway knows they are shouldn’t really be a surprise. Because just who hasn’t noticed this? There’s a name for it: Slutoween. And, right or wrong, there’s a history behind it. (And, in fact, Hallowe’en began as a holiday for rowdy, bawdy adults, not children.) Whether or not you want to don such sexy apparel is up to you; but stop denying that they are popular. Guess what, $1.4 billion will be spent on adult Halloween costumes. The free-market has dictated that sexy does sell when it comes to Halloween costumes.
With so much money being spent on the costumes, is it any wonder Subway would latch onto our vain desire to look better in those costumes? If our cultural definition of “better looking” is thin (or at least “thinner”), it makes dollars and cents to pull that marketing string. And if you want to cry out in body image outrage (apparently not seeing the shirtless man in the Viking costume at the table, as well as the humor of the commercial itself), go ahead. I’ll cynically counter with the point that Subway also wants us to be alive next year ~ if only to be customers. Having a business that’s all about eating healthier really is a great business model; it really does cost more to acquire new customers than to retain existing customers, you know.
Anyway, I think the negative response to this Subway commercial is itself sexist.
Where were the complaints about men having to slim down so they didn’t have to wear those huge pants?
The collective “we” saw that as a healthy move. There was no out-cry then.
But a woman wants to be sexy? A woman who dares to admit she wants to be sexy?
Oh hell no! We simply can’t have any of that!
Meanwhile, Natalie Mitchell, the actress in the ad who models all the sexy costumes (complete with “Foxy Fullback”), is keeping mum until this latest, mainly feminist, frenzy passes. Keep an eye on her Tumblr page for comment.
A very short silent film from 1923 featuring the sophomoric fun in Cambridge, Cambridgeshire. The title card reads:
The “Pram” Rag. Undergraduate “Mothers” with “Brawny Babies” in race organised by Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Undergraduates.
Watch this Pathe film:
Because few things are as “funny” as a man dressing like a woman…
Looks like a “hula skirt” made of crepe paper or toilet paper and I am not sure what that bra or bikini top is…
So much to absorb here… A sexist display of Native American stereotypes, awesome funky neon signs that appear to highlight the pinup on parade here (“Stump” Hardware, the heat of the Holland Furnace Company, and a V.F.W. post), a big ol’ tuba and an even bigger car… And does that sign mean this display was to promote voting for a senator?
(Vintage photo via Lynnstudios.)
There was this Chinese Princess costume and mask by Ben Cooper.
OK, so maybe she’s not exactly a dead-ringer for Princess Jasmine. And so what if I get more of an Indonesian-vibe than a Chinese one; we could debate such things all day. But not debatable is the fact that this princess is very fair. I also have the vintage Ben Cooper Yogi Bear costume and mask (I also have it up at auction on eBay), which is, if not the same shade, a bit darker.
Picture the scene… It’s 1974 and those women’s libbers are everywhere. Before you know it, those damn women will have screwed up everything. Hell, we won’t even be able to tell the boys from the girls. Oh my gawd, what about the children?! How do you combat it? Big Fluttery Lashes.
The amazingly-trademarked Big Fluttery Lashes were copyrighted in 1974, by Imagineering Inc., Phoenix, Arizona (but made in Hong Kong). The lashes sold for 39 cents and they were safe & non-toxic (unless you’re under the age of three).
And good news, boys; if you were caught with one on your upper lip (or simply caught with the package), you could simply say it was a mustache — the package even says so!
Image via Tiki Ranch.