Compelling Imagery

Desconstrucion and analysis of artwork and photos, book covers, film posters, magazine illustrations, adverts, etc., created for a persuasive purpose. My name is Dave Wilt and my mission is to inform and entertain.

        Two-Faced Woman (“Something About Midnight,” 1951 and Angel, 1984)

            Although I wouldn’t want to necessarily characterise it as “frequent,” the “before and after” visual motif should be familiar to most consumers of pop culture.  In its most basic form, it may literally display “before” and “after” images of the same person—if the purpose is to sell a product, “before” is usually weak, unhappy, fat, skinny, ugly, etc., and “after” is the opposite.  Occasionally we see the reverse, with a happy, healthy “before” and a sickly, degenerate “after” (after using drugs, getting old, smoking, viewing pornography, whatever).  There’s also what I call the “Jekyll and Hyde” variant, showing two aspects of the same person’s personality, physically incarnated (this could also apply to superhero-secret identity dualities, and so on). 

            The two examples here fall into the latter category, since they depict a young woman who is, apparently, both the Madonna and the Whore archetype at the same time (and not a decent person who subsequently turned to streetwalking as a profession).

            “Something About Midnight” was published by Pocket Books in 1951 (it had been originally published in hardback the year before).  The author, “D.B. Olsen,” was actually Dolores Hitchens, who wrote under a number of pseudonyms as well as her actual name.  The novel, whose contents we won’t go into because we’re chiefly interested in the message the cover conveys to potential readers, was part of a series featuring the meek Professor Pennyfeather (who naturally doesn’t appear and isn’t even mentioned on the cover because…sex sells).   Well, here’s a little bit about the story:

But Ernestine was stranger than Freddy thought. During the day, she was an alert and proper college student. At night, she liked to go out and pick up sailors. And shortly after Ernestine met Freddy, she disappeared. A few days later, her body was found, horribly mutilated.

The cover of “Something About Midnight” was painted by Victor Kalin (1919-1991).  Kalin was a prolific commercial artist who did paperback covers, magazine illustrations, record album covers, colouring book covers, etc. (he is even credited on a couple of comic book covers, although whether these are originals or reprints is not known).  For more information about Kalin, who had a long career and worked in a dazzling array of eclectic styles, see:

http://noirwhale.com/tag/victor-kalin/

http://www.illustration-magazine.com/Illustration_Magazine_Site/43.html

https://victorkalin.shutterfly.com/

Kalin’s art for “Something About Midnight” is an excellent example of the Jekyll-Hyde motif, but before analysing the graphic design and images of the cover, let’s briefly examine the cover text.  Pocket Books was the “original” publisher of cheap paperbacks in the USA (at least, it was the company that popularised the medium there), and so “A Genuine Pocket Book Mystery” and the kangaroo logo are “branding” efforts.  Not sure how important that would have been to consumers in 1951, but…it might have been?  “Complete and unabridged” informs the reader that we’re going to get the whole book, not one of those “specially revised for this edition” (i.e., truncated) versions.  The tagline “Ernestine led two lives—and LOST THEM BOTH!” tells us that the two women are the same person (and not identical twins or something), and that she’s going to become a murder victim.  Also—“Ernestine?” 

Not to poke fun at anyone’s given name, but obviously there are names which have passed out of style today.  “Ernestine,” the feminine version of “Ernest” I suppose (I’m not certain how many Ernests are around today, either, but most likely there are more of them than Ernestines), sounds funny to modern ears.  Even as early as the late Sixties and early Seventies, Lily Tomlin’s acerbic telephone operator “Ernestine” was supposed to be funny and had a funny name.  Again, begging the pardon of those who are named or had loved ones with such names, but Ernestine falls into the category of Myrtle, Gladys, Ethel, and so on—once commonplace, now hopelessly old-fashioned and thus in danger of provoking amusement.  But I digress…

Kalin’s cover is deceptively simple: two images of the same young woman, in the same pose, but wearing different clothing and accessories.  On the left, against a bright red background, the “alert and proper college student” Ernestine; on the right, against a black background, the Ernestine who “likes to go out and pick up sailors.”  Let’s call them Ernestine #1 and Ernestine #2.   Ernestine #1 is sweet, attractive, but demure.  Her sweater, although form-fitting, exposes no flesh below the modestly-high neckline.  She’s carrying books and a pencil, signifying “student.”  Hair tied back with a scarf, suggesting she didn’t spend a lot of time styling it, opting for convenience and comfort.  Her head is cocked inquisitively to the side, as if she’s listening, or thinking. 

Ernestine #2, what a difference!  Shoulder and cleavage-baring gown (red) which is also “gathered” to outline her breasts.  Jewelry—earrings and bracelet—whereas Ernestine #1 wore neither.  More makeup on the eyes and eyebrows.  A clutch purse in place of schoolbooks, some sort of gold tiara instead of a simple blue scarf.  And that dangling cigarette—it might as well be a sign reading “Loose Woman!”  Yes, a much larger percentage of the population smoked cigarettes in those days, but Ernestine #1—if she smoked at all—wouldn’t walk around in public with a cigarette hanging out of the corner of her mouth. She’d smoke in a refined fashion, carefully tipping the ashes into an ashtray. Ernestine #2 has an attitude, and the cigarette is its punctuation mark.  Interestingly enough, Ernestine #2’s ensemble doesn’t overtly scream “Whore!” and in another context might simply be evening-wear worn by a perfectly decent young woman, but her pose, gaze, and that slutty cigarette indicate she’s not setting out for cocktails at the Ritz tonight…

The beauty of this cover is that it’s not just artwork of a young woman dressed differently, but that Kalin conveys the sense that Ernestine almost literally changes her personality with her costume.  Is she playing a role or is she inherently two people in the same body? 

Another version of the same motif appeared as the poster for the 1984 film Angel.  This time, the student-prostitute is in high school rather than university—as the classic taglines point out, “High School Honor Student by Day. Hollywood Hooker by Night.”  I don’t know if the graphic artist who created this poster had a copy of “Something About Midnight” in his/her possession, but the dichotomous visual aspects are remarkably similar. 

Once again, the good-girl (Molly) is on the left, and the bad-girl (Angel) is on the right side.  Identical poses, different outfits.  Molly, like Ernestine #1, wears a sweater that covers everything (in fact, Ernestine’s was tight, but Molly’s is bulky), and she’s carrying her schoolbooks.  Hair in pigtails versus Ernestine #1’s scarf, but it’s the same idea: quick and comfy hairstyle, nothing elaborate.  We didn’t get to see the lower half of Ernestine’s body on the paperback book’s cover, but here we’re given a full-body image of our protagonist.  Molly’s skirt—not too short, not too tight—knee socks, and saddle shoes (a sign of juvenile, female innocence and consequently a fetish for those attracted to this concept) are all conservative  (it’s not a Catholic schoolgirl outfit, but it’s leaning in that direction).  The background is a bright, day-time shot of the outside of a school building.  Molly’s facial expression is neutral: she’s smiling tentatively, not provocatively.

But oh, that Angel (ironic name, eh?)! Red, spike-heeled shoes. Bare legs, red leather hot-pants (I wouldn’t think these would be very convenient attire for a hooker, given the difficulty in getting them on and off, but my experience in this area is sadly quite limited), black top showing off her bare shoulders(and cleavage also visible), as in Ernestine #2’s image.  Gold, beaded purse instead of schoolbooks?  Yep.  Earrings and necklace?  Check.  Hair styled, teased, and sprayed in an ‘80s manner?  Correct!  Sultry gaze directed at the audience? Absolutely.  Background image of a street (good place for a streetwalker, amirite?) at night?  Got it. 

So, the lesson to be learned is: if you are a prostitute, dress in bright colours, show lots of skin, accessorise, and look like you want to have sex.  If you’re a student, dress in basic, drab colours, don’t expose your bare shoulders or arms or the tops of your breasts, don’t wear jewelry, and carry textbooks instead of a purse, while carefully maintaining a noncommital expression at all times.  Repress those sexual feelings, repress them deep!

The socio-psychological implications of this artwork are interestingly complex.  It’s not so much an issue of a double standard when it comes to female sexuality as it is a bunch of confusing and contradictory ideas. 

Explicated by Freud as the “Madonna-whore complex,” some men romantically idealise their partners to the extent that they cannot view them as sexual creatures, which can lead to dysfunctional relationships and/or infidelity (“sex with my wife, whom I love, is only for procreation, so I need a mistress to take care of my carnal desires”).  To be fair, this is the man’s problem, and not the fault of his wife, but society has a way of imposing the attitudes of the majority (or at least, the dominant class) on everyone else, so generations of women may have potentially been coerced into repressing their feelings in order to “fit in.”  If males cannot reconcile romantic love and sexual activity, women have to choose between being “decent” wives with no interest in sex, or “indecent” mistresses and whores.  One would hope things have changed already and will continue to change, but…who knows?

Both of the individuals in the examples cited here put themselves in mortal danger (in the novel and film whose images we’re deconstructing, Ernestine #2 is murdered and Angel narrowly avoids this fate) while in their “sexy” persona.  Is this a way of externalising societal attitudes: women should hide their sexuality, and expressing it is not only “un-ladylike,” but potentially dangerous?  If not literally, then at least metaphorically?  Nice girls don’t get murdered?

So…maybe the best thing would be to fall in love with a mentally-unbalanced college student who is “alert and proper” (I don’t exactly get the “alert” part, but I suppose it would be nice if she wasn’t always dozing off while we were talking) during the day, but “likes to go out and pick up sailors” at night?  No, wait, that doesn’t sound like an ideal marriage, either.  “I want a woman who’s a lady in the living room, and a freak in the sheets” might appeal, in theory, but just make sure she’s a freak in the sheets only with you, and not with the aforementioned random sailors. 

“She looks like a flower but she stings like a bee, like every girl in history”—the dual nature of women is an endlessly fascinating topic (for men, at least), as these two pieces of pop culture art illustrate.

           Make Men Obey You with Science! (Or Possibly, Magic!)  
Writing advertising copy takes a special kind of talent, and it’s kind of sad the men and women who help sell the world countless products usually labour anonymously, unsung and unappreciated.  It would, for instance, be wonderful to know the identity of the man or woman who wrote this epic ad entitled “WIN POWER OVER MEN with these COMPELLING PERFUMES!”  Seriously, this is the “War and Peace” or “Remembrance of Things Past” or “Gone With the Wind” of advertisements, comic book category.  Hopefully the reproduction is good enough for you to read and enjoy every word, but I’ve selected a handful of the best parts for closer examination and admiration.  
 [This particular version comes from My Story: Real Romances in Pictures 12 (August 1950).  Slightly-revised versions can also be seen in Fox romance-genre comics of this era, such as My Desire: Intimate Confessions and My Secret Story.]
 The general layout of the ad is curious, as if it’s 8 different little ads meant to be scattered throughout a publication (which was more common in pulp magazines than comics), but instead are stacked up into a full-page of hyperbolic hilarity.  Each different perfume has a tiny piece of artwork, mostly representations of women (or women and men), although “CHEZ-ELLE” in the upper left-hand position features a “Asian” symbol (which may very well be completely bogus, or possibly randomly lifted from a Chinese newspaper or something).  The colour scheme isn’t really significant, but it is interesting to see that some level of care was exercised by the publisher and printer: the main headings (and a few symbols, arrows, and other graphic bits) are red, each of the little drawings has several colours applied, and the yellow background sets the (exceptionally small) text off nicely.
 But the true power of this ad is in the text.  Some of the other versions of this ad have a different layout, 9 perfumes instead of 8, and omit most of the artwork, but they do identify the purported “author” of the text as “David J. Trulove.”  (I’m thinking of adopting this as a pseudonym myself)  Well, Mr. Trulove—if that is indeed your name—I tip my hat to you.  From the headlines to the fine print, this is gold, Jerry, gold!  
 Six of the 8 red headlines pose questions to the reader (who, given that this ad appeared in “romance” comics and is for perfume, one might reasonably assume would be female).  Do You Want to Make Men OBEY YOU? (Yes!) Do YOU want DOUBLE POWER? (For sure!)  Do YOU want to MARRY NOW? (You betcha!) Can YOU Make STRONG Men WEAK? (No, but I’d like to!) Do People Talk About YOU? (Yes, those dirty rats!) Are  YOU Unhappy?  (Why do you ask?  Do I seem unhappy?  Did my mother put you up to this?)   The other two headers are impressively declarative statements: “DRAW MEN to YOU with the CHARM of TRYST” (so, it’s like a man-magnet?) and “FURY commands and no man can refuse!” (and why would he?)
 But it is the text proper of each section which exhibits true copy-writing genius.  All eight of the sections have a very chatty, personal tone—four of them actually begin with the salutation “DEAR FRIEND”—as if David J. Trulove was a genial (possibly gay, since he seems to empathise so well with women) acquaintance of the reader.  However, don’t be fooled by his air of informality, DJT knows when to turn on the hard sell.  I’m particularly enamoured of his use of ALL CAPITALS for emphasis (I’d do it if I could conceivably get away with it, but instead I’m forced to utilise italics and other, weaker methods).
 Some examples of Mr. Trulove’s mastery of the sales pitch:  “Do you want to make him love you wildly, fiercely? Do you want to make him say, ‘Darling, I adore you. I worship you. I’ll do ANYTHING for YOU!’ Do you want to make him OBEY your every command?”  Or how about: “If YOU want to DRAW MEN to you and BEND them to YOUR will…”  Or this:  “YOU should USE YOUR POWER to MAKE HIM MARRY YOU!”  
 In addition to the names of the various perfumes (CHEZ-ELLE, TRYST, DIABLO, FURY, LOVESCENT, BLUE PASSION, GOSSIP, and MANTAP), which are always capitalised, the following words are used in ALL CAPS for special emphasis (note that they fall into several categories)—
 Sales-oriented: GUARANTEE, NOW, RUSH
 Reader-directed:  YOU, YOUR, YOURSELF, YOURS, USE YOUR POWER, THRILLED, LEARN HOW
 Product description: POWERFUL, POWER, COMPELLING
           Results-oriented: DRAW MEN, BEND (them to YOUR will), SUCCESS, TRUE LOVER, POWER OVER MEN, BRING TOGETHER, MAKE HIM MARRY YOU, FOREVER
 I like to imagine David J. Trulove dictating the ad copy to a stenographer and literally SHOUTING the words and phrases in all caps.  “Do YOU dream of THRILLING moments of LOVE and ECSTASY?”  (Yes! Yes! Yes!)
 The mini-ad for “FURY commands and no man can refuse!” reads like a precursor of the “J. Peterman” clothing catalog, spoofed so effectively on “Seinfeld”—
 “DEAR FRIEND: It was in a cafe in Singapore that I first met FURY. She was the most beautiful and exotic woman I have ever known.  Men killed each other just for her favors. And when she beckoned, men leaped to obey. For this was the POWER OF FURY, and no man dared to refuse her.”
 Wow!  Trulove subsequently blended a perfume in honour of this paragon of savage womanhood: “I called it FURY because it captures the great POWER OVER MEN that FURY had.  And like that exotic dancer, Fury [what, no CAPS?] commands, and men leap to obey because they fear FURY.”  He adds, later: “Please use FURY carefully.  It is very powerful.”  Thanks for the warning!
 Several of the other ad-lets contain snippets of back-story, but nothing as detailed as FURY.  TRYST: “You must have heard of that wonderful perfume of Delilah that was ever greater than the strength of Samson.”  Why yes, I believe I did hear about that, possibly in church on Sunday.  DIABLO (aka DOUBLE POWER): “The same Double Power was used when she [I guess “Diablo”?] took a husband away from his wife or a sweetheart away from the arms of his loved one.” So be sure to purchase and use this perfume if you want to break up marriages or romances.  By the way, “you don’t have to ask for more than 2 bottles because it lasts a Long Time and is SO POWERFUL.”  How powerful is it?  SO POWERFUL. 
Some of the text hints at heart-break among the readers of this romance comic book, women whose love lives might not be…quite…fulfilling.  I know, shocking, right?  CHEZ-ELLE: “Another woman told us that she blesses the day she first used CHEZ-ELLE, because now her husband comes home at night to help her.”  Aww…. Or “An unhappy girl I know told me how wonderful life is since she started using Friendly GOSSIP.  She’s not alone and unhappy any more!”  “Don’t YOU be the unhappy girl they talk about.”  Yes, there are sad and lonely women out there, but their lives can be changed by simply investing a few dollars in perfume.
But, you may ask, how can mere perfume perform such miracles?  Oh ye of little faith.  “YOU must have heard of certain perfumes that have an almost MAGIC-like POWER OVER MEN?”  For legal reasons we’re not definitely saying it is magic, mind you, but… “A happily married woman once told me: ‘All my life I dreamed that someday I would find a perfume that could raise a man’s ardor.  I wanted a passionate, pulse-stirring, maddening perfume that would make him pull me into his arms and say to me over and over again, ‘I love you, I love only YOU!’ I searched everywhere for this wicked perfume because I knew it would be hard to find.  I found that perfume when I first found MANTRAP and I have been happy ever since.”  
One might feel David J. Trulove’s claims for his perfumes are exaggerated and just a means to lure potential customers into shelling out $2 or $3 for TRYST, FURY, BLUE PASSION, etc., but he does offer an iron-clad GUARANTEE in every case: “If you are not delighted…if you don’t think that it is exactly what you want…If you do not Bless Me for sending it to you, I’ll send your $2 right back…If you are not completely satisfied…If you don’t agree that CHEZ-ELLE is the most POWERFUL perfume you every used, return it and I’ll send your $2 right back.”  You can’t lose!
I wouldn’t characterise this as a “perfect” advert, though.  The text, although brilliant, is too densely packed.  The sub-headings do a good job of directing the reader to each section, but eight separate perfumes, each carefully described, are probably too many for one comic book page.  But this doesn’t detract from the extremely high entertainment value it continues to provide, more than 60 years after these perfumes have long since evaporated.  In fact…
There probably haven’t been any scientific studies (yet) that could prove it, but I’d be willing to wager that Trulove’s perfumes were a major contributor to the “baby boom” in the United States in the Fifties.  And to think, it all started with a simple advertisement in the back pages of a romance-genre comic book. 

           Make Men Obey You with Science! (Or Possibly, Magic!)  

Writing advertising copy takes a special kind of talent, and it’s kind of sad the men and women who help sell the world countless products usually labour anonymously, unsung and unappreciated.  It would, for instance, be wonderful to know the identity of the man or woman who wrote this epic ad entitled “WIN POWER OVER MEN with these COMPELLING PERFUMES!”  Seriously, this is the “War and Peace” or “Remembrance of Things Past” or “Gone With the Wind” of advertisements, comic book category.  Hopefully the reproduction is good enough for you to read and enjoy every word, but I’ve selected a handful of the best parts for closer examination and admiration.  

[This particular version comes from My Story: Real Romances in Pictures 12 (August 1950).  Slightly-revised versions can also be seen in Fox romance-genre comics of this era, such as My Desire: Intimate Confessions and My Secret Story.]

The general layout of the ad is curious, as if it’s 8 different little ads meant to be scattered throughout a publication (which was more common in pulp magazines than comics), but instead are stacked up into a full-page of hyperbolic hilarity.  Each different perfume has a tiny piece of artwork, mostly representations of women (or women and men), although “CHEZ-ELLE” in the upper left-hand position features a “Asian” symbol (which may very well be completely bogus, or possibly randomly lifted from a Chinese newspaper or something).  The colour scheme isn’t really significant, but it is interesting to see that some level of care was exercised by the publisher and printer: the main headings (and a few symbols, arrows, and other graphic bits) are red, each of the little drawings has several colours applied, and the yellow background sets the (exceptionally small) text off nicely.

But the true power of this ad is in the text.  Some of the other versions of this ad have a different layout, 9 perfumes instead of 8, and omit most of the artwork, but they do identify the purported “author” of the text as “David J. Trulove.”  (I’m thinking of adopting this as a pseudonym myself)  Well, Mr. Trulove—if that is indeed your name—I tip my hat to you.  From the headlines to the fine print, this is gold, Jerry, gold!  

Six of the 8 red headlines pose questions to the reader (who, given that this ad appeared in “romance” comics and is for perfume, one might reasonably assume would be female).  Do You Want to Make Men OBEY YOU? (Yes!) Do YOU want DOUBLE POWER? (For sure!)  Do YOU want to MARRY NOW? (You betcha!) Can YOU Make STRONG Men WEAK? (No, but I’d like to!) Do People Talk About YOU? (Yes, those dirty rats!) Are  YOU Unhappy?  (Why do you ask?  Do I seem unhappy?  Did my mother put you up to this?)   The other two headers are impressively declarative statements: “DRAW MEN to YOU with the CHARM of TRYST” (so, it’s like a man-magnet?) and “FURY commands and no man can refuse!” (and why would he?)

But it is the text proper of each section which exhibits true copy-writing genius.  All eight of the sections have a very chatty, personal tone—four of them actually begin with the salutation “DEAR FRIEND”—as if David J. Trulove was a genial (possibly gay, since he seems to empathise so well with women) acquaintance of the reader.  However, don’t be fooled by his air of informality, DJT knows when to turn on the hard sell.  I’m particularly enamoured of his use of ALL CAPITALS for emphasis (I’d do it if I could conceivably get away with it, but instead I’m forced to utilise italics and other, weaker methods).

Some examples of Mr. Trulove’s mastery of the sales pitch:  “Do you want to make him love you wildly, fiercely? Do you want to make him say, ‘Darling, I adore you. I worship you. I’ll do ANYTHING for YOU!’ Do you want to make him OBEY your every command?”  Or how about: “If YOU want to DRAW MEN to you and BEND them to YOUR will…”  Or this:  “YOU should USE YOUR POWER to MAKE HIM MARRY YOU!”  

In addition to the names of the various perfumes (CHEZ-ELLE, TRYST, DIABLO, FURY, LOVESCENT, BLUE PASSION, GOSSIP, and MANTAP), which are always capitalised, the following words are used in ALL CAPS for special emphasis (note that they fall into several categories)—

Sales-oriented: GUARANTEE, NOW, RUSH

Reader-directed:  YOU, YOUR, YOURSELF, YOURS, USE YOUR POWER, THRILLED, LEARN HOW

Product description: POWERFUL, POWER, COMPELLING

          Results-oriented: DRAW MEN, BEND (them to YOUR will), SUCCESS, TRUE LOVER, POWER OVER MEN, BRING TOGETHER, MAKE HIM MARRY YOU, FOREVER

I like to imagine David J. Trulove dictating the ad copy to a stenographer and literally SHOUTING the words and phrases in all caps.  “Do YOU dream of THRILLING moments of LOVE and ECSTASY?”  (Yes! Yes! Yes!)

The mini-ad for “FURY commands and no man can refuse!” reads like a precursor of the “J. Peterman” clothing catalog, spoofed so effectively on “Seinfeld”—

“DEAR FRIEND: It was in a cafe in Singapore that I first met FURY. She was the most beautiful and exotic woman I have ever known.  Men killed each other just for her favors. And when she beckoned, men leaped to obey. For this was the POWER OF FURY, and no man dared to refuse her.”

Wow!  Trulove subsequently blended a perfume in honour of this paragon of savage womanhood: “I called it FURY because it captures the great POWER OVER MEN that FURY had.  And like that exotic dancer, Fury [what, no CAPS?] commands, and men leap to obey because they fear FURY.”  He adds, later: “Please use FURY carefully.  It is very powerful.”  Thanks for the warning!

Several of the other ad-lets contain snippets of back-story, but nothing as detailed as FURY.  TRYST: “You must have heard of that wonderful perfume of Delilah that was ever greater than the strength of Samson.”  Why yes, I believe I did hear about that, possibly in church on Sunday.  DIABLO (aka DOUBLE POWER): “The same Double Power was used when she [I guess “Diablo”?] took a husband away from his wife or a sweetheart away from the arms of his loved one.” So be sure to purchase and use this perfume if you want to break up marriages or romances.  By the way, “you don’t have to ask for more than 2 bottles because it lasts a Long Time and is SO POWERFUL.”  How powerful is it?  SO POWERFUL. 

Some of the text hints at heart-break among the readers of this romance comic book, women whose love lives might not be…quite…fulfilling.  I know, shocking, right?  CHEZ-ELLE: “Another woman told us that she blesses the day she first used CHEZ-ELLE, because now her husband comes home at night to help her.”  Aww…. Or “An unhappy girl I know told me how wonderful life is since she started using Friendly GOSSIP.  She’s not alone and unhappy any more!”  “Don’t YOU be the unhappy girl they talk about.”  Yes, there are sad and lonely women out there, but their lives can be changed by simply investing a few dollars in perfume.

But, you may ask, how can mere perfume perform such miracles?  Oh ye of little faith.  “YOU must have heard of certain perfumes that have an almost MAGIC-like POWER OVER MEN?”  For legal reasons we’re not definitely saying it is magic, mind you, but… “A happily married woman once told me: ‘All my life I dreamed that someday I would find a perfume that could raise a man’s ardor.  I wanted a passionate, pulse-stirring, maddening perfume that would make him pull me into his arms and say to me over and over again, ‘I love you, I love only YOU!’ I searched everywhere for this wicked perfume because I knew it would be hard to find.  I found that perfume when I first found MANTRAP and I have been happy ever since.”  

One might feel David J. Trulove’s claims for his perfumes are exaggerated and just a means to lure potential customers into shelling out $2 or $3 for TRYST, FURY, BLUE PASSION, etc., but he does offer an iron-clad GUARANTEE in every case: “If you are not delighted…if you don’t think that it is exactly what you want…If you do not Bless Me for sending it to you, I’ll send your $2 right back…If you are not completely satisfied…If you don’t agree that CHEZ-ELLE is the most POWERFUL perfume you every used, return it and I’ll send your $2 right back.”  You can’t lose!

I wouldn’t characterise this as a “perfect” advert, though.  The text, although brilliant, is too densely packed.  The sub-headings do a good job of directing the reader to each section, but eight separate perfumes, each carefully described, are probably too many for one comic book page.  But this doesn’t detract from the extremely high entertainment value it continues to provide, more than 60 years after these perfumes have long since evaporated.  In fact…

There probably haven’t been any scientific studies (yet) that could prove it, but I’d be willing to wager that Trulove’s perfumes were a major contributor to the “baby boom” in the United States in the Fifties.  And to think, it all started with a simple advertisement in the back pages of a romance-genre comic book. 

                      Public Display of Non-Affection: Exotic Romances 26  

     It has been a while since I mocked romance comic book covers (although in my other blog, I frequently post isolated panels from romance comic stories), but I’d singled out this cover for snarky commentary some time back.  

     The cover of Exotic Romances 26 (1956) illustrates the story “Rejected Proposal.”  The splash panel of the interior story features basically the same scene as the cover, but with some subtle changes that have a radical impact on the meaning.  The cover and inside story were done by different artists, but each man’s interpretation of the identical set-up (and very similar dialogue) is quite different.  In fact, in many ways they are diametrically opposed to each other, as we’ll see.

     Exotic Romances (formerly titled True War Romances—from the examples I’ve seen, not many of the romances depicted in this comic book were very “exotic,” but I suppose that depends on your point of view), was published by Quality, a company that would shortly go out of business—-its last issues were dated December 1956—but had a history of excellent artwork and some memorable characters (like “Blackhawk” and “Plastic Man”) dating back to the Forties.  Sadly, the identities of the artists who worked on this cover/story are unknown. [Note: two of the other stories in this issue were reprints from earlier Quality romance comics, so it’s possible “Rejected Proposal” was also a re-run.]  

     Both the cover and the splash panel depict Susan rejecting Randy’s marriage proposal, in favour of “a boy back home.”  The caption asks, “will the time come” when Susan will “shed tears over” turning down Randy “Just Call Me Bird in the Hand” for Handsome Harry Home-boy?  [Hint: yes.]

     On the cover, Randy’s proposal and Susan’s rejection take place in a typical Fifties soda fountain, soda shop, drugstore, malt shop, or ice cream parlour (milk bar for our Aussie friends).  Randy, staring glumly into his soft drink as if he’s spotted a bug in there, mumbles something about Susan marrying him and then the two of them having a “perfect life together,” but his enthusiasm level certainly seems low.  Make eye contact!  Get down on one knee or something, Randy!  One could erase the existing text from his word balloon and replace it with “Susan, I’ve lost my job and my dog just died,” and you wouldn’t have to change his facial expression or body language at all.   

     Is it any wonder Susan is rejecting Randy for her Hometown Beau (his name is Jack, by the way)?  Compare the two of them: Randy, bland and depressed-looking, wearing a sweater vest, his shirt-sleeves rolled up, drinking Coca-Cola with NO ICE (and no straw—or as we used to call it, a “sissy stick”).  Kind of looks like Arthur Kennedy or Van Heflin, good actors but hardly heart-throbs.  Jack in the thought bubble, on the other hand, is clad in a suit and tie, and he’s smiling in a confident, friendly manner.  “Yeah, I know you love me, Susan: tell Randy that your heart is stamped ‘Property of Jack’!” 

      The splash panel of the story inside the comic book changes almost everything other than the basic premise.  Gone is the malt shop: now Susan and Randy are sitting at a table in a swanky, apparently Irish-themed nightclub (note the green table-cloth and shamrock wallpaper), listening to smooth jazz played by a classy saxophone-violin combo.  (The “celebrity” caricatures on the wall are a nice touch, too. Only really swanky New York and Hollywood joints have those!)  Randy is dressed up for the occasion, and this time it’s Jack who’s casually attired.  Curiously, the characters’ gazes are directed differently than on the cover: Randy, seeming slightly more confident and cheerful, is looking at Susan (rather than down at his drink) as he’s proposing, and Jack is the one staring off into the distance.  

     Susan herself—holding her cocktail glass in a rather precarious manner—is avoiding eye contact with the importunate Randy (on the cover she was at least looking at him as she turned him down).  “You and your foolish infatuation are not important, Randy,” she thinks, “I’m busy fantasizing about my blonde hunk Jack.  He’s so dreamy!”  Either that, or that’s not the first cocktail she’s sucked down tonight, which also might explain her glazed facial expression.   She’s exchanged her sensible brown blouse and teeny wristwatch for a flaming red dress with a Vampirella collar and a gaudy bracelet, and is even showing a few inches of her frilly petticoats, the hussy!  

     Although nearly identical, the dialogue of the cover version and the interior story do vary slightly but significantly.  On the cover, Randy makes the rather improbable promise that “We can have a perfect life together!”  Sure, what are the odds of that?  Randy must have a pretty high opinion of himself if he thinks merely being married to him would automatically  result in a perfect life.  Meanwhile, inside the comic book, he simply vows “I’ll do everything in the world to make you happy!”  No guarantees of perfection or even happiness, just a statement that he will make an effort to make her happy.    

     For her part, cover-Susan tells Randy “I like you a lot,” while her interior counterpart makes a more ambiguous statement: “I think a lot of you.”  Yes, saying you “think a lot” of someone is generally accepted to have a positive connotation, but it’s not as unequivocal as “I like you a lot.”  It might mean “I think a lot of you, particularly when I want to go out to a fancy nightclub and dine and dance and have you pay for it, but I never have to make any emotional commitment because I already have a boyfriend in my home town!”  Notice that inside-Susan has a smug little half-smile playing on her lips, whereas cover-Susan has the decency to appear mildly distressed as she gives Randy the old heave-ho.  

      One thing both the cover and splash panel have in common is that Randy makes his proposal to Susan in a public venue.  Having never proposed marriage to anyone (sad, isn’t it?), I don’t know the real-life protocol for such things.  Although you do frequently see mentions in the media about “the guy who proposed to his girlfriend via the Jumbotron screen at the Big Sporting Event,” or “the guy who had a singing clown approach her and pop the question as they ate lunch at a sidewalk café,” and so on.  I don’t know how prevalent this is, honestly.  It certainly gives both people a great story to tell their grandchildren, but I think the man (even in the 21st century, it’s still chiefly the man who does the asking) would have to be darn confident of a positive response before he arranged one of these very public marriage proposals.  If I were doing it, I’d make sure we had complete privacy, just in case…heck, if I could get away with it, I’d propose via e-mail.  That would give her plenty of time to compose a thoughtful response, pro or con.  

     Otherwise, you risk falling into Randy’s shoes: he’s not only been told “no, I won’t marry you,” he’s also basically been informed that Susan’s been stringing him along the whole time, spending his money and wasting his time while she’s been secretly thinking about Smilin’ Jack back in Smallville.  One would hardly blame Randy for breaking down in tears right there in the drugstore or nightclub, another reason to avoid public marriage proposals.   

The “alternate” versions of Randy’s Humiliation in Exotic Romances 26 make this an interesting case study in comic art desconstruction.  But either way you look at it…she said no.

The Staggering Truth Fearlessly Told: The Red Kimono (1925)
 I’ve written before about images of the Devil in popular culture, and will probably do so again.  Are they supposed to be scary, funny or a little of both?  This (re-release?) ad (or poster, it’s hard to tell) for The Red Kimono features a cheery, rather effeminate-looking Satan casting his spell over a shamed, half-nude young woman.  Wouldn’t have the message been more powerful if the Demonic One was a bit more…fearsome?  The crude printing process used here probably didn’t allow for a lot of detail, but this particular Satan would be more appropriate for a can of devilled ham or a box of “Red-Hots” candy, as opposed to a serious exploitation film about prostitution. The Red Kimono (sometimes called The Red Kimona, under which title it has been released on DVD) was produced in 1925 by “Mrs. Wallace Reid.”  Although the name means nothing to most of us today, at the time it was equivalent to “Mrs. George Clooney,” i.e., the wife (actually, the widow) of a popular star.  Wallace Reid married actress Dorothy Davenport in 1913; after his death—the result of medically-contracted drug addiction—in 1923, Mrs. Reid began a very public crusade against drugs, and later expanded this to other social ills, including prostitution. 
                [Interestingly enough, the poster for Mrs. Reid’s first film, the anti-drug Human Wreckage (1923), also included an image of the Devil.] 
               The Red Kimono was based on a screen story by Adela Rogers St. Johns, and adapted to the screen by Dorothy Arzner, who would soon become one of the few female directors in Hollywood in this era (although this particular film was directed by Walter Lang; Dorothy Davenport would herself also receive directorial credit on a handful of pictures).  The film’s story was based on a notorious true crime from 1915, in which prostitute Gabrielle Darley shot her pimp, the man she blamed for her downfall (in the movie version—in real life, she shot him out of jealousy).  Unfortunately for Mrs. Wallace Reid, Gabrielle Darley Melvin (as the movie showed, she later reformed and married an honest man) was still alive and in a litigious mood, eventually (on appeal in 1931) winning an undisclosed amount of money for this appropriation of her life story. [Ironically, it appears she had not actually reformed and may have still been working as a prostitute when she brought the lawsuit, but the sympathetic judges were unaware of this.  The film’s depiction of her precipitous slide from maidenhood to the profession of soiled dove was also largely fictional.] 

           The film industry apparently didn’t learn its lesson, because MGM was sued after making Rasputin and the Empress (1932), and only after that would films routinely contain the disclaimer “All characters appearing in this work are fictitious.  Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.”  Given that The Red Kimono not only used Darley’s well-known story, but also her full name, it’s hard to imagine this disclaimer would have helped.  What were they thinking?  “Oh, she’ll never notice this feature film based on a sensational murder case in which she was the defendant?  Why bother to change the protagonist’s name?”  [While the original publicity for the movie trumpeted Gabrielle Darley’s name, hoping to cash in on the case’s notoriety, note that this particular piece—produced at some later date— does not mention her or the “true story” basis of the plot at all.]
                The movie depicts the seduction of innocent Gabrielle (Priscilla Bonner) by a sleazy cad who “turns her out” as a whore to support him, then goes shopping for a wedding ring for another woman!  Gabrielle kills the two-timing rotter and is tried for murder, but acquitted.  However, she finds it difficult to regain admission to polite society, and is on the cusp of returning to life in a brothel when rescued by the love of a good man.  Mrs. Wallace Reid appears at the beginning and end of the film to deliver a moral message, but doesn’t have a dramatic role otherwise. 
                Mordaunt Hall’s New York Times review wasn’t exactly favourable: “There have been a number of wretched pictures on Broadway during the last year, but none seem to have quite reached the low level of “The Red Kimono,” a production evidently intended to cause weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth. Possibly it might accomplish its purpose if the theatre doors were locked, but so long as one knows one can get out of the building, it is another matter.”  
              Despite critical distaste, The Red Kimono was reportedly quite popular, combining exploitation and moralising.  It’s difficult to criticise Mrs. Wallace Reid’s motives: a former actress and a widow with two young children, she had a living to make and motion pictures were what she knew best, yet her real-life tragedy seems to have given her an actual social conscience that she utilised in her productions (at least in the beginning—she eventually moved into mainstream subject matter).

                Original posters for The Red Kimono are tasteful and boring.  “A Daring Subject Delicately Handled”—wait, who wants to see that?!  We want sleaze, or at least the promise of sleaze.  The poster/advert (it’s hard to tell which) examined here is much better in a marketing sense (although artistically it’s quite a few steps below the lovely stone-litho original).  SLAVES OF SATAN is a nice tagline (even if the Satan pictured looks fey and amiable rather than evil and cruel), but the interesting thing about the rest of the text content is that much of it is phrased in form of questions: 
               “Can they [the aforementioned SLAVES OF SATAN] ever return from the depths?”  “Does White Slavery Really Exist?”  “Is it an Actual Menace to American Girlhood?”  I suppose the answer to all of these is “Yes” (the poster does promise the viewer can “SEE THE ANSWER” to the first question—at least—if they watch the film).  If the answer to any of these was “No,” that would be a bummer.
                The other taglines are also impressive: “SEE THE STAGGERING TRUTH Fearlessly Told” and “A Mighty Message to Wayward Girls.”  The first one is self-explanatory, but the second suggests the film is not aimed at “good girls” (to warn them about the dangers of falling for a slick guy who’ll turn you into a prostitute) but rather wants to encourage “Wayward Girls,” affirming that they can get out of The Life, if they merely (a) murder their pimp, (b) get acquitted by the court, and (c) find a good man to marry.  It’s so simple, any whore could do it!  
                This is somewhat at odds with the standard exploitation “warn your children” pitch, whereby audiences were informed they could forestall family tragedy (drug addiction, pre-marital pregnancy, contracting venereal diseases) by seeing these films and avoiding the pitfalls the unwary protagonists weren’t smart enough to avoid. 
           The poster for The Red Kimono shown here appears to be a silk-screen print or some other, cheaper means of mass-production of posters, rather than a stone-litho or offset press process.  This, as noted earlier, limits the reproduction of detail, usually allows for only or two primary colours, and forces the use of a very simple graphic design.  Still, the imagery and text combine here for a fairly effective and entertaining piece of exploitation advertising. 
 

The Staggering Truth Fearlessly Told: The Red Kimono (1925)

 I’ve written before about images of the Devil in popular culture, and will probably do so again.  Are they supposed to be scary, funny or a little of both?  This (re-release?) ad (or poster, it’s hard to tell) for The Red Kimono features a cheery, rather effeminate-looking Satan casting his spell over a shamed, half-nude young woman.  Wouldn’t have the message been more powerful if the Demonic One was a bit more…fearsome?  The crude printing process used here probably didn’t allow for a lot of detail, but this particular Satan would be more appropriate for a can of devilled ham or a box of “Red-Hots” candy, as opposed to a serious exploitation film about prostitution. The Red Kimono (sometimes called The Red Kimona, under which title it has been released on DVD) was produced in 1925 by “Mrs. Wallace Reid.”  Although the name means nothing to most of us today, at the time it was equivalent to “Mrs. George Clooney,” i.e., the wife (actually, the widow) of a popular star.  Wallace Reid married actress Dorothy Davenport in 1913; after his death—the result of medically-contracted drug addiction—in 1923, Mrs. Reid began a very public crusade against drugs, and later expanded this to other social ills, including prostitution. 

                [Interestingly enough, the poster for Mrs. Reid’s first film, the anti-drug Human Wreckage (1923), also included an image of the Devil.] 

               The Red Kimono was based on a screen story by Adela Rogers St. Johns, and adapted to the screen by Dorothy Arzner, who would soon become one of the few female directors in Hollywood in this era (although this particular film was directed by Walter Lang; Dorothy Davenport would herself also receive directorial credit on a handful of pictures).  The film’s story was based on a notorious true crime from 1915, in which prostitute Gabrielle Darley shot her pimp, the man she blamed for her downfall (in the movie version—in real life, she shot him out of jealousy).  Unfortunately for Mrs. Wallace Reid, Gabrielle Darley Melvin (as the movie showed, she later reformed and married an honest man) was still alive and in a litigious mood, eventually (on appeal in 1931) winning an undisclosed amount of money for this appropriation of her life story. [Ironically, it appears she had not actually reformed and may have still been working as a prostitute when she brought the lawsuit, but the sympathetic judges were unaware of this.  The film’s depiction of her precipitous slide from maidenhood to the profession of soiled dove was also largely fictional.] 

           The film industry apparently didn’t learn its lesson, because MGM was sued after making Rasputin and the Empress (1932), and only after that would films routinely contain the disclaimer “All characters appearing in this work are fictitious.  Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.”  Given that The Red Kimono not only used Darley’s well-known story, but also her full name, it’s hard to imagine this disclaimer would have helped.  What were they thinking?  “Oh, she’ll never notice this feature film based on a sensational murder case in which she was the defendant?  Why bother to change the protagonist’s name?”  [While the original publicity for the movie trumpeted Gabrielle Darley’s name, hoping to cash in on the case’s notoriety, note that this particular piece—produced at some later date— does not mention her or the “true story” basis of the plot at all.]

                The movie depicts the seduction of innocent Gabrielle (Priscilla Bonner) by a sleazy cad who “turns her out” as a whore to support him, then goes shopping for a wedding ring for another woman!  Gabrielle kills the two-timing rotter and is tried for murder, but acquitted.  However, she finds it difficult to regain admission to polite society, and is on the cusp of returning to life in a brothel when rescued by the love of a good man.  Mrs. Wallace Reid appears at the beginning and end of the film to deliver a moral message, but doesn’t have a dramatic role otherwise. 

                Mordaunt Hall’s New York Times review wasn’t exactly favourable: “There have been a number of wretched pictures on Broadway during the last year, but none seem to have quite reached the low level of “The Red Kimono,” a production evidently intended to cause weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth. Possibly it might accomplish its purpose if the theatre doors were locked, but so long as one knows one can get out of the building, it is another matter.”  

              Despite critical distaste, The Red Kimono was reportedly quite popular, combining exploitation and moralising.  It’s difficult to criticise Mrs. Wallace Reid’s motives: a former actress and a widow with two young children, she had a living to make and motion pictures were what she knew best, yet her real-life tragedy seems to have given her an actual social conscience that she utilised in her productions (at least in the beginning—she eventually moved into mainstream subject matter).

                Original posters for The Red Kimono are tasteful and boring.  “A Daring Subject Delicately Handled”—wait, who wants to see that?!  We want sleaze, or at least the promise of sleaze.  The poster/advert (it’s hard to tell which) examined here is much better in a marketing sense (although artistically it’s quite a few steps below the lovely stone-litho original).  SLAVES OF SATAN is a nice tagline (even if the Satan pictured looks fey and amiable rather than evil and cruel), but the interesting thing about the rest of the text content is that much of it is phrased in form of questions: 

               “Can they [the aforementioned SLAVES OF SATAN] ever return from the depths?”  “Does White Slavery Really Exist?”  “Is it an Actual Menace to American Girlhood?”  I suppose the answer to all of these is “Yes” (the poster does promise the viewer can “SEE THE ANSWER” to the first question—at least—if they watch the film).  If the answer to any of these was “No,” that would be a bummer.

                The other taglines are also impressive: “SEE THE STAGGERING TRUTH Fearlessly Told” and “A Mighty Message to Wayward Girls.”  The first one is self-explanatory, but the second suggests the film is not aimed at “good girls” (to warn them about the dangers of falling for a slick guy who’ll turn you into a prostitute) but rather wants to encourage “Wayward Girls,” affirming that they can get out of The Life, if they merely (a) murder their pimp, (b) get acquitted by the court, and (c) find a good man to marry.  It’s so simple, any whore could do it!  

                This is somewhat at odds with the standard exploitation “warn your children” pitch, whereby audiences were informed they could forestall family tragedy (drug addiction, pre-marital pregnancy, contracting venereal diseases) by seeing these films and avoiding the pitfalls the unwary protagonists weren’t smart enough to avoid. 

           The poster for The Red Kimono shown here appears to be a silk-screen print or some other, cheaper means of mass-production of posters, rather than a stone-litho or offset press process.  This, as noted earlier, limits the reproduction of detail, usually allows for only or two primary colours, and forces the use of a very simple graphic design.  Still, the imagery and text combine here for a fairly effective and entertaining piece of exploitation advertising. 

 

Stop Staring at My Forehead! (Startling Stories, September 1941)            
Startling Stories was “A Thrilling Publication” published by Standard Magazines from 1939 until 1955.  A science fiction pulp magazine, Startling later featured some fantasy stories, as the “witch” cover discussed here illustrates.  But in the early years, most of the  magazine’s covers focused on space opera-style scenes, with stalwart heroes, sexy heroines, and threatening monsters.  Although Earle Bergey is the cover artist most associated with Startling, this particular cover is by his friend Rudolph Belarski. 
            Belarski (1900-1983) was not a science-fiction specialist, working in a wide variety of genres during the pulp era (and on paperbacks and men’s adventure magazines afterwards).  If anything, he’s perhaps best-known for his crime, war, and adventure illustrations.  Belarski’s artwork for Startling Stories September 1941 was re-used for the cover of several paperbacks reprinting pulp stories by author-artist John Coleman Burroughs, his brother Hulbert Burroughs (sons of “Tarzan” creator Edgar Rice Burroughs), and Jane Ralston Burroughs (J.C. Burroughs’ wife)—“The Lightning Men and Other Stories” (2005) and  “The Bottom of the World and Other Stories” (2009). 
            Not the greatest or even the campiest of science-fiction pulp covers—and in fact this is one of the less exciting and action-packed Startling Stories covers, which otherwise tended towards flamboyant, cheesecake-infused scenes of human-alien combat— I nonetheless chose to discuss this one for three reasons: (a) the bizarre aliens; (b) the “Flash Gordon” serial homage; and (c) the evocation (perhaps unintentional) of the various, famous historical works of art depicting  “Christopher Columbus landing in the New World.” 
            The aliens on the cover of Startling Stories 9/41 are green-skinned, humanoid lizard-men (who carry simple daggers and are thus understandably awed by the ray-guns wielded by the new arrivals), but the prehensile, phallic, third-eye stalk growing from their foreheads is their most notable physical attribute.  Snails (in reality) have eye-stalks, as do various bug-eyed monsters (only in fiction, hopefully), but these usually represent their (two) main eyes, and the inclusion of an “extra” eye-stalk makes these particular aliens stand out.  [I mean, I’m assuming these are intended to be eye-stalks and not forehead-penises.  Although the artwork is ambiguous…] 
            The concept of a “third eye” is usually metaphorical rather than literal, referring to a person’s special insight or higher consciousness.  Theosophists believed human beings did at one point have a literal third eye, but it eventually atrophied and became more of a mental thing, albeit in some way related to the pineal gland in the brain.  A character’s enlarged pineal gland erupts from his forehead in From Beyond (1986), which results in a close visual approximation of these creatures in the Startling Stories painting.  Although not specifically an eye-stalk, the protagonist of Dr. Alien (1989) sports a fleshy appendage from the top of his head, which serves to attract and arouse females in his immediate vicinity, and there are other pop culture examples as well. 
            Having a protuberant third eye on one’s forehead might have some advantages—again, assuming this is an organ of vision, it presumably could be used like a periscope, to see around corners, or to look behind you—but I’d imagine it’d also be somewhat inconvenient at times.  Is it retractable?  If not, is it always “erect?”  Otherwise, it might droop down onto your face,  rather like an elephant’s trunk.  It would also seem to be very vulnerable to attack: an assailant could grab it or slice it off with a sword (in From Beyond, the pineal-stalk is bitten off, ouch).  Wearing a hat might also be difficult.  And good luck finding a pair of eyeglasses (maybe you could buy a pair of glasses and a monocle).

            Of course, if this isn’t an actual eye­-stalk, then…well, let’s not go there.  Except to say I can’t think of any particular advantage to possessing a forehead-penis, and the list of potential disadvantages is pretty obvious.
            The second fascinating aspect of Belarski’s cover for Startling Stories is the unbilled appearance of Dale Arden and Ming the Merciless from the 1936 Flash Gordon film serial (as opposed to Alex Raymond’s original comic strip).  Do a simple Google Image search on “Jean Rogers” and “Flash Gordon” and you’ll find numerous photos of the actress in her iconic costume, faithfully reproduced by the artist on this pulp magazine cover.  The costume and facial features of Ming the Merciless (Charles Middleton in the serials) are also clearly recognisable.  Unlike this painting, however, Ming in the comics didn’t have green skin, nor did he in the movie, as far as one can tell—the film was shot in black-and-white but Middleton’s skin is not darkened by makeup; if anything, he looks Asian (the covers of some recent DVD cases depict him with green skin, but that’s pure revisionism).
            Interestingly enough, the other two male humans on the cover don’t especially resemble Flash Gordon.  True, the guy in the yellow jumpsuit looks heroic & stalwart while his companion has a dumb-sidekick face, but  the costumes aren’t Flash Gordon-y (or Flashy, heh)—especially given the dorky helmets, which don’t appear to serve any outer space-related function, having no face-plates or other protective or breathing apparatus—and the main hero may or may not have Flash’s iconic blonde hair.  It almost feels as if Belarski deliberately stayed away from making these men look like Flash Gordon characters, perhaps fearing that would push homage too far.
            The “story” of the cover isn’t too clear: are Dale Arden and Ming inhabitants of the Planet of the Eye-Stalked Lizard Men, or did they arrive on the rocket (in the background, although it more closely resembles a submarine) with not-Flash and his pal?  Are the Lizard Men surrendering?  Are they bowing to Emperor Ming?  What’s Dale looking at?  Is Ming going to conk one of our heroes on the helmet with his branding iron (sorry, his sceptre)? 
            This provides a convenient segue into this cover’s thematic connection to the aforementioned art of Columbus landing in the New World.  A large number of historical paintings, engravings, drawings, etc. depict this event and most of them have common elements: Columbus, his men, a cross and/or a flag borne by Columbus or an aide, his ship, and “natives.”  Many of these images also show various characters kneeling; I thought I remembered indigenous people kneeling before the new arrival, but based on the images which pop up in an online search (hey, I already promoted Google once), it looks like most such artwork shows Columbus’s own men doing the kneeling (thanking God they finally reached land, most likely), while the native peoples stand and gawk.

            Still, Belarski’s Startling Stories cover contains almost all of the elements of the traditional “Columbus landing” motif: “natives,” people kneeling, ship, crucifix/flag substitute (Ming’s sceptre), multiple outsiders arriving in a new land.  Coincidence?  I think not.  Well, I don’t know if the artist deliberately said “I’m going to recreate the landing of Columbus in the New World as a science-fiction pulp magazine cover,” but I have to think Belarski at least subconsciously based his painting on the Columbus images, as the similarities are…startling (as in Startling Stories, hey-o!).  

Stop Staring at My Forehead! (Startling Stories, September 1941)            

Startling Stories was “A Thrilling Publication” published by Standard Magazines from 1939 until 1955.  A science fiction pulp magazine, Startling later featured some fantasy stories, as the “witch” cover discussed here illustrates.  But in the early years, most of the  magazine’s covers focused on space opera-style scenes, with stalwart heroes, sexy heroines, and threatening monsters.  Although Earle Bergey is the cover artist most associated with Startling, this particular cover is by his friend Rudolph Belarski. 

            Belarski (1900-1983) was not a science-fiction specialist, working in a wide variety of genres during the pulp era (and on paperbacks and men’s adventure magazines afterwards).  If anything, he’s perhaps best-known for his crime, war, and adventure illustrations.  Belarski’s artwork for Startling Stories September 1941 was re-used for the cover of several paperbacks reprinting pulp stories by author-artist John Coleman Burroughs, his brother Hulbert Burroughs (sons of “Tarzan” creator Edgar Rice Burroughs), and Jane Ralston Burroughs (J.C. Burroughs’ wife)—“The Lightning Men and Other Stories” (2005) and  “The Bottom of the World and Other Stories” (2009). 

            Not the greatest or even the campiest of science-fiction pulp covers—and in fact this is one of the less exciting and action-packed Startling Stories covers, which otherwise tended towards flamboyant, cheesecake-infused scenes of human-alien combat— I nonetheless chose to discuss this one for three reasons: (a) the bizarre aliens; (b) the “Flash Gordon” serial homage; and (c) the evocation (perhaps unintentional) of the various, famous historical works of art depicting  “Christopher Columbus landing in the New World.” 

            The aliens on the cover of Startling Stories 9/41 are green-skinned, humanoid lizard-men (who carry simple daggers and are thus understandably awed by the ray-guns wielded by the new arrivals), but the prehensile, phallic, third-eye stalk growing from their foreheads is their most notable physical attribute.  Snails (in reality) have eye-stalks, as do various bug-eyed monsters (only in fiction, hopefully), but these usually represent their (two) main eyes, and the inclusion of an “extra” eye-stalk makes these particular aliens stand out.  [I mean, I’m assuming these are intended to be eye-stalks and not forehead-penises.  Although the artwork is ambiguous…] 

            The concept of a “third eye” is usually metaphorical rather than literal, referring to a person’s special insight or higher consciousness.  Theosophists believed human beings did at one point have a literal third eye, but it eventually atrophied and became more of a mental thing, albeit in some way related to the pineal gland in the brain.  A character’s enlarged pineal gland erupts from his forehead in From Beyond (1986), which results in a close visual approximation of these creatures in the Startling Stories painting.  Although not specifically an eye-stalk, the protagonist of Dr. Alien (1989) sports a fleshy appendage from the top of his head, which serves to attract and arouse females in his immediate vicinity, and there are other pop culture examples as well. 

            Having a protuberant third eye on one’s forehead might have some advantages—again, assuming this is an organ of vision, it presumably could be used like a periscope, to see around corners, or to look behind you—but I’d imagine it’d also be somewhat inconvenient at times.  Is it retractable?  If not, is it always “erect?”  Otherwise, it might droop down onto your face,  rather like an elephant’s trunk.  It would also seem to be very vulnerable to attack: an assailant could grab it or slice it off with a sword (in From Beyond, the pineal-stalk is bitten off, ouch).  Wearing a hat might also be difficult.  And good luck finding a pair of eyeglasses (maybe you could buy a pair of glasses and a monocle).

            Of course, if this isn’t an actual eye­-stalk, then…well, let’s not go there.  Except to say I can’t think of any particular advantage to possessing a forehead-penis, and the list of potential disadvantages is pretty obvious.

            The second fascinating aspect of Belarski’s cover for Startling Stories is the unbilled appearance of Dale Arden and Ming the Merciless from the 1936 Flash Gordon film serial (as opposed to Alex Raymond’s original comic strip).  Do a simple Google Image search on “Jean Rogers” and “Flash Gordon” and you’ll find numerous photos of the actress in her iconic costume, faithfully reproduced by the artist on this pulp magazine cover.  The costume and facial features of Ming the Merciless (Charles Middleton in the serials) are also clearly recognisable.  Unlike this painting, however, Ming in the comics didn’t have green skin, nor did he in the movie, as far as one can tell—the film was shot in black-and-white but Middleton’s skin is not darkened by makeup; if anything, he looks Asian (the covers of some recent DVD cases depict him with green skin, but that’s pure revisionism).

            Interestingly enough, the other two male humans on the cover don’t especially resemble Flash Gordon.  True, the guy in the yellow jumpsuit looks heroic & stalwart while his companion has a dumb-sidekick face, but  the costumes aren’t Flash Gordon-y (or Flashy, heh)—especially given the dorky helmets, which don’t appear to serve any outer space-related function, having no face-plates or other protective or breathing apparatus—and the main hero may or may not have Flash’s iconic blonde hair.  It almost feels as if Belarski deliberately stayed away from making these men look like Flash Gordon characters, perhaps fearing that would push homage too far.

            The “story” of the cover isn’t too clear: are Dale Arden and Ming inhabitants of the Planet of the Eye-Stalked Lizard Men, or did they arrive on the rocket (in the background, although it more closely resembles a submarine) with not-Flash and his pal?  Are the Lizard Men surrendering?  Are they bowing to Emperor Ming?  What’s Dale looking at?  Is Ming going to conk one of our heroes on the helmet with his branding iron (sorry, his sceptre)? 

            This provides a convenient segue into this cover’s thematic connection to the aforementioned art of Columbus landing in the New World.  A large number of historical paintings, engravings, drawings, etc. depict this event and most of them have common elements: Columbus, his men, a cross and/or a flag borne by Columbus or an aide, his ship, and “natives.”  Many of these images also show various characters kneeling; I thought I remembered indigenous people kneeling before the new arrival, but based on the images which pop up in an online search (hey, I already promoted Google once), it looks like most such artwork shows Columbus’s own men doing the kneeling (thanking God they finally reached land, most likely), while the native peoples stand and gawk.

            Still, Belarski’s Startling Stories cover contains almost all of the elements of the traditional “Columbus landing” motif: “natives,” people kneeling, ship, crucifix/flag substitute (Ming’s sceptre), multiple outsiders arriving in a new land.  Coincidence?  I think not.  Well, I don’t know if the artist deliberately said “I’m going to recreate the landing of Columbus in the New World as a science-fiction pulp magazine cover,” but I have to think Belarski at least subconsciously based his painting on the Columbus images, as the similarities are…startling (as in Startling Stories, hey-o!).  

The Mystery Half-Wit Has the Girls All Agog! (comic book ad, 1940s)  Tired of your own face?  Want to behave in an uninhibited manner without risking censure (or arrest)?  Feel like accosting women at parties “all in fun?”  Yes, purchase one or more of these Amazing Life-Like RUBBER MASKS and your secret life is safe with us!
            This advertisement appeared in the back of a comic book (title and issue forgotten, sorry) in the late 1940s or early 1950s, but I remember seeing similar ads for years afterwards.  The Don Post Studios sold latex “monster masks” via mail-order for decades—these were the Cadillacs of the mask world, but cheaper versions were also available during the heyday of monster magazines (the Sixties and Seventies). 
Of course, these later monster-character masks were chiefly aimed at horror movie fans and the advert here comes from an earlier era, so the selection is tamer (and doesn’t include any designs that would need to be licensed, such as the Universal versions of the Frankenstein Monster, the Wolfman, the Creature from the Black Lagoon, etc.): we can choose from The Monkey, Satan, Old Man, Old Lady, SANTA CLAUS, Clown, and…IDIOT (I’m not sure why some mask names are in all-caps and others are not).  Ah yes, the IDIOT.  But before we take a closer look at our leering, lecherous, dim-witted friend, what about the other masks in the ad?  “All masks guaranteed perfect,”  by the way. 
The Monkey: not just a monkey, but The Monkey.  Frankly, it doesn’t much resemble a monkey to me, with its pink, hairless skin and buzz-cut hair.  The ad makes a “Monkey-Shines” pun which suggests The Monkey is their star attraction, then discards the silly simian for the much more interesting IDIOT.  Gorilla masks later became popular in the “horror” era, but those masks often had “real” hair attached (“real” meaning “not rubber”) to heighten the verisimilitude.  So, sadly, I’d have to say The Monkey is not my first choice for Rubber Mask hilarity.
Satan: now that’s more like it.  Although I’d have preferred a bit more red in the skin tone (it’s possible that the actual masks were painted more elaborately, and the comic book ad had a limited colour palette to work with), this is a traditional devil figure.  Bald, horns, pointy moustache and goatee, arched eye-brows, evil leer.  One thumbs-up for Satan!
Old Man and Old Lady:  why not Old Gentleman and Old Lady or Old Man and Old Woman?  I detect a double-standard in Rubber-for-Molds’ naming convention.  However, I will admit that “Old Lady” is more dignified than later masks, which were often dubbed “Old Witch” and “Old Hag.” On the other hand, Old Lady looks pretty butch here, I’d have had a difficult time identifying her as female based on the art.  Old Man is balding, so his gender is clear, but in my opinion, Old Lady resembles actor Lyle Waggoner…
SANTA CLAUS: who doesn’t know what Santa Claus looks like?!  We’re not going to waste any valuable space in our ad on an image of him!  Rest assured, however, that this is a Special mask, because it costs $4.95 as opposed to the $2.95 we’re asking for the others.

Clown: this has to be the most horrifying image of a clown I’ve seen today.  No hair.  Pink skin.  Blank eyes.  Pink nose.  Painted-on grin.  *shudders*
IDIOT (or, as he’s referred to by his friends and victims, “Halfwit in all his goofiness”) :  yes, the pièce-de-résistance, the triumph of the rubber-mask-makers’ art.  From our perspective in 2013, the resemblance to (the not-yet-existing) Mad magazine’s “Alfred E. Neuman” (and, perhaps, to former president George W. Bush) is uncanny (except for the blonde, bowl-cut hair).  The story of Mad’s mascot is well-known: the “grinning idiot” image dates back to the 19th-century and by the second or third decade of the 20th century it was being used for advertisements, gag postcards, and other pop culture elements, so this is yet another pre-Mad example of the character. 
“People howl with laughter when you put on this life-like mask.” Sure they do.  That woman in the cartoon doesn’t seem to be howling with laughter.  She looks freaking terrified.  And the woman behind her seems to be shrieking in horror.  Nothing says “having a good time at a party” like “being molested by a cross-eyed Halfwit,” I always say.  The other male guests snidely agree: “These skimpy domino-style masks don’t completely hide our real faces, and thus we can’t grope the female party-goers with impunity, darn it!  I sure wish I had thought of wearing an identity-concealing over-the-head rubber mask!” (that “pulls over the head like a diver’s helmet”)  ”Girls All Agog,” indeed.
“The mouth moves with your lips…you breathe…smoke..talk…even eat thru it.” Fortunately, “Sanitary laws prohibit return of worn masks.”  Because as Canadian writer André Berthiaume pointed out (probably in another context, but who knows?) “We all wear masks, and the time comes when we cannot remove them without removing some of our own skin.”   
Send No Money!  What a deal, I can afford that!  Oh, wait, if I choose that option, I have to pay for the mask and C.O.D. charges to the postman?  Never mind, I’ll send cash instead and let Rubber-For-Molds, Inc. pay the postage charges.  Sadly, “George [unreadable]” from “427 6th St, Niagara Falls NY” apparently didn’t finish filling out the coupon, so we’ll never know which mask he would have chosen. 


“No man, for any considerable period, can wear one face to himself and another to the multitude, without finally getting bewildered as to which may be the true.”  You’re absolutely right, Nathaniel Hawthorne.  If I purchase the “guaranteed perfect” Mystery Half-Wit rubber mask and wear it to “every dress-up occasion,” savouring the freedom from social constraints that it bestows upon me…will I eventually…become the Mystery Half-Wit?    

The Mystery Half-Wit Has the Girls All Agog! (comic book ad, 1940s)  Tired of your own face?  Want to behave in an uninhibited manner without risking censure (or arrest)?  Feel like accosting women at parties “all in fun?”  Yes, purchase one or more of these Amazing Life-Like RUBBER MASKS and your secret life is safe with us!

            This advertisement appeared in the back of a comic book (title and issue forgotten, sorry) in the late 1940s or early 1950s, but I remember seeing similar ads for years afterwards.  The Don Post Studios sold latex “monster masks” via mail-order for decades—these were the Cadillacs of the mask world, but cheaper versions were also available during the heyday of monster magazines (the Sixties and Seventies). 

Of course, these later monster-character masks were chiefly aimed at horror movie fans and the advert here comes from an earlier era, so the selection is tamer (and doesn’t include any designs that would need to be licensed, such as the Universal versions of the Frankenstein Monster, the Wolfman, the Creature from the Black Lagoon, etc.): we can choose from The Monkey, Satan, Old Man, Old Lady, SANTA CLAUS, Clown, and…IDIOT (I’m not sure why some mask names are in all-caps and others are not).  Ah yes, the IDIOT.  But before we take a closer look at our leering, lecherous, dim-witted friend, what about the other masks in the ad?  “All masks guaranteed perfect,”  by the way. 

The Monkey: not just a monkey, but The Monkey.  Frankly, it doesn’t much resemble a monkey to me, with its pink, hairless skin and buzz-cut hair.  The ad makes a “Monkey-Shines” pun which suggests The Monkey is their star attraction, then discards the silly simian for the much more interesting IDIOT.  Gorilla masks later became popular in the “horror” era, but those masks often had “real” hair attached (“real” meaning “not rubber”) to heighten the verisimilitude.  So, sadly, I’d have to say The Monkey is not my first choice for Rubber Mask hilarity.

Satan: now that’s more like it.  Although I’d have preferred a bit more red in the skin tone (it’s possible that the actual masks were painted more elaborately, and the comic book ad had a limited colour palette to work with), this is a traditional devil figure.  Bald, horns, pointy moustache and goatee, arched eye-brows, evil leer.  One thumbs-up for Satan!

Old Man and Old Lady:  why not Old Gentleman and Old Lady or Old Man and Old Woman?  I detect a double-standard in Rubber-for-Molds’ naming convention.  However, I will admit that “Old Lady” is more dignified than later masks, which were often dubbed “Old Witch” and “Old Hag.” On the other hand, Old Lady looks pretty butch here, I’d have had a difficult time identifying her as female based on the art.  Old Man is balding, so his gender is clear, but in my opinion, Old Lady resembles actor Lyle Waggoner

SANTA CLAUS: who doesn’t know what Santa Claus looks like?!  We’re not going to waste any valuable space in our ad on an image of him!  Rest assured, however, that this is a Special mask, because it costs $4.95 as opposed to the $2.95 we’re asking for the others.

Clown: this has to be the most horrifying image of a clown I’ve seen today.  No hair.  Pink skin.  Blank eyes.  Pink nose.  Painted-on grin.  *shudders*

IDIOT (or, as he’s referred to by his friends and victims, “Halfwit in all his goofiness”) :  yes, the pièce-de-résistance, the triumph of the rubber-mask-makers’ art.  From our perspective in 2013, the resemblance to (the not-yet-existing) Mad magazine’s “Alfred E. Neuman” (and, perhaps, to former president George W. Bush) is uncanny (except for the blonde, bowl-cut hair).  The story of Mad’s mascot is well-known: the “grinning idiot” image dates back to the 19th-century and by the second or third decade of the 20th century it was being used for advertisements, gag postcards, and other pop culture elements, so this is yet another pre-Mad example of the character. 

“People howl with laughter when you put on this life-like mask.” Sure they do.  That woman in the cartoon doesn’t seem to be howling with laughter.  She looks freaking terrified.  And the woman behind her seems to be shrieking in horror.  Nothing says “having a good time at a party” like “being molested by a cross-eyed Halfwit,” I always say.  The other male guests snidely agree: “These skimpy domino-style masks don’t completely hide our real faces, and thus we can’t grope the female party-goers with impunity, darn it!  I sure wish I had thought of wearing an identity-concealing over-the-head rubber mask!” (that “pulls over the head like a diver’s helmet”)  ”Girls All Agog,” indeed.

“The mouth moves with your lips…you breathe…smoke..talk…even eat thru it.” Fortunately, “Sanitary laws prohibit return of worn masks.”  Because as Canadian writer André Berthiaume pointed out (probably in another context, but who knows?) “We all wear masks, and the time comes when we cannot remove them without removing some of our own skin.”  

Send No Money!  What a deal, I can afford that!  Oh, wait, if I choose that option, I have to pay for the mask and C.O.D. charges to the postman?  Never mind, I’ll send cash instead and let Rubber-For-Molds, Inc. pay the postage charges.  Sadly, “George [unreadable]” from “427 6th St, Niagara Falls NY” apparently didn’t finish filling out the coupon, so we’ll never know which mask he would have chosen. 

“No man, for any considerable period, can wear one face to himself and another to the multitude, without finally getting bewildered as to which may be the true.”  You’re absolutely right, Nathaniel Hawthorne.  If I purchase the “guaranteed perfect” Mystery Half-Wit rubber mask and wear it to “every dress-up occasion,” savouring the freedom from social constraints that it bestows upon me…will I eventually…become the Mystery Half-Wit?    

              Rampacked!  The Sadist poster (1963) Although Arch Hall Jr.’s film career is more often cited for its campy, bad-movie value (Eegah!, Wild Guitar) than for its inherent quality, The Sadist is generally considered his best, most “legitimate” picture.  Perhaps not coincidentally, the poster for The Sadist is also the most distinctive and well-designed Arch Hall Jr.-movie poster (although to be honest, none of the posters for his films is really poor).  The excellent graphic design is slightly offset by the odd text, which is not only nonsensical at times but is also confused in terms of grammar and punctuation.

            Still, the poster as a whole is quite effective.  The yellow-tinted photographic (I think, although it’s been re-touched) inset of Hall’s crazy eyes is deliberately too large for the silhouette behind it.  If it had been sized to fit the head, the impact wouldn’t have been quite so strong (and if the silhouette had been larger, the whole balance of the poster would’ve been off).  The black silhouette and the purple background are a nice match, both dark but different enough to distinguish one from the other.  The mix of photos (eyes, Hall Jr.’s figure) and art (the silhouette, the blonde victim) is interesting: not to over-think it (but hey, isn’t that what deconstruction is?), but making the Sadist himself more real (by using photographs) adds an extra dimension of threat, more than mere artwork of the character would have done. 
            The illustration of the terrified blonde is, for a change, not just “artistic license” or hyperbole, since The Sadist does include scenes in which one of the titular character’s victims (schoolteacher Doris, played by Arch Hall Jr.’s cousin, Helen Hovey, in her only film appearance) falls on the ground, has her clothing ripped, and looks terrified.  The “fallen female victim” motif is ubiquitous in pop culture, featuring prominently on pulp magazine covers, movie posters, comic book covers, paperback books, and so on, over many many years.  It’s nice to see that the artist matched up the gazes of fallen-Doris and psycho-Sadist: he stares evilly and lustily at her, and she looks back fearfully and suspiciously. 
            This is essentially a two-colour poster (purple and yellow), with the yellow reserved for the major points of impact—the eyes, the title-word SADIST—as well as the tag-line at the bottom (probably in yellow to balance the composition, with yellow elements at the top, in the middle and at the bottom). 
            The text of the poster doesn’t reach the same heights of effectiveness as the graphic elements, but it has its own charms (and flaws).  “A human volcano of unpredictable terror!” isn’t a bad tag-line (and is also used in the theatrical trailer for the movie, available on YouTube), but whoever printed the poster added an inexplicable period:  A HUMAN. VOLCANO OF UNPREDICTABLE TERROR!  Usually, poster text could use extra punctuation to break up run-on sentences, but in this case someone got a bit over-zealous (or maybe that “period” is just a printing flaw, since it doesn’t seem to appear on every version of this poster that can be seen online—I actually own an original copy of this one-sheet, but don’t have time to track it down and check to see if the dot is on it, sorry).
            The next line has attracted a bit of attention: “Never before a motion picture RAMPACKED with…suspense…terror…sudden shock, as THE SADIST.”  First, this isn’t really a sentence.  It should have been something along the lines of “Never before has there been a motion picture so RAMPACKED…[etc.]” 
            Also: RAMPACKED?  This appears to be a neologism combining “jam-packed,” “rampage,” “crammed,” and/or “rammed.”  Aside from the fact that “rampacked” sounds like the title of a gay porn movie, one wonders why a real word like “packed” wasn’t good enough.   Ad agency writer:  “It’s crammed with suspense…hmm…not strong enough.  It’s packed with suspense?  No…it’s jam-packed with suspense…not quite right…Wait! I’ve got it: it’s rampacked with suspense!”  His colleague: “Rampacked?”  Ad agency writer: “What?  It’s a perfectly cromulent word.”
            The rest of the poster copy is fairly routine, although “A Fairway International IMPACT Picture!” (to distinguish it from “A Fairway International ROUTINE Picture!” I would guess) is clever enough.  The tag-line at the bottom of the poster is filled with buzzwords relating to the film’s title:  a guy called The Sadist is of course filled with fiendish passion, and has to “torment, torture, kill.” 
            As an aside, the title of The Sadist is one of a number of ‘60s movies whose mentally-disturbed/sexual deviance-word titles seem to have been inspired by the success of Psycho (1960):  The Psychopath (1966), Teenage Psycho Meets Bloody Mary (1964), Anatomy of a Psycho (1961), Confessions of a Psycho-Cat (1968), Psycho a Go-Go (1964), Satan’s Sadists (1969), The Torture Chamber of Dr. Sadism (1967), Psychedelic Sexualis (1966), etc.
            The one-sheet poster for The Sadist is a surprisingly nice piece from a graphic-design standpoint.  The layout, images, and colour work well together to convey a sense of danger, mental instability, and tension.  The text is satisfactory, neither ludicrously overblown nor understated.  So one might say this poster is RAMPACKED with effectiveness!

              Rampacked!  The Sadist poster (1963) Although Arch Hall Jr.’s film career is more often cited for its campy, bad-movie value (Eegah!, Wild Guitar) than for its inherent quality, The Sadist is generally considered his best, most “legitimate” picture.  Perhaps not coincidentally, the poster for The Sadist is also the most distinctive and well-designed Arch Hall Jr.-movie poster (although to be honest, none of the posters for his films is really poor).  The excellent graphic design is slightly offset by the odd text, which is not only nonsensical at times but is also confused in terms of grammar and punctuation.

            Still, the poster as a whole is quite effective.  The yellow-tinted photographic (I think, although it’s been re-touched) inset of Hall’s crazy eyes is deliberately too large for the silhouette behind it.  If it had been sized to fit the head, the impact wouldn’t have been quite so strong (and if the silhouette had been larger, the whole balance of the poster would’ve been off).  The black silhouette and the purple background are a nice match, both dark but different enough to distinguish one from the other.  The mix of photos (eyes, Hall Jr.’s figure) and art (the silhouette, the blonde victim) is interesting: not to over-think it (but hey, isn’t that what deconstruction is?), but making the Sadist himself more real (by using photographs) adds an extra dimension of threat, more than mere artwork of the character would have done. 

            The illustration of the terrified blonde is, for a change, not just “artistic license” or hyperbole, since The Sadist does include scenes in which one of the titular character’s victims (schoolteacher Doris, played by Arch Hall Jr.’s cousin, Helen Hovey, in her only film appearance) falls on the ground, has her clothing ripped, and looks terrified.  The “fallen female victim” motif is ubiquitous in pop culture, featuring prominently on pulp magazine covers, movie posters, comic book covers, paperback books, and so on, over many many years.  It’s nice to see that the artist matched up the gazes of fallen-Doris and psycho-Sadist: he stares evilly and lustily at her, and she looks back fearfully and suspiciously. 

            This is essentially a two-colour poster (purple and yellow), with the yellow reserved for the major points of impact—the eyes, the title-word SADIST—as well as the tag-line at the bottom (probably in yellow to balance the composition, with yellow elements at the top, in the middle and at the bottom). 

            The text of the poster doesn’t reach the same heights of effectiveness as the graphic elements, but it has its own charms (and flaws).  “A human volcano of unpredictable terror!” isn’t a bad tag-line (and is also used in the theatrical trailer for the movie, available on YouTube), but whoever printed the poster added an inexplicable period:  A HUMAN. VOLCANO OF UNPREDICTABLE TERROR!  Usually, poster text could use extra punctuation to break up run-on sentences, but in this case someone got a bit over-zealous (or maybe that “period” is just a printing flaw, since it doesn’t seem to appear on every version of this poster that can be seen online—I actually own an original copy of this one-sheet, but don’t have time to track it down and check to see if the dot is on it, sorry).

            The next line has attracted a bit of attention: “Never before a motion picture RAMPACKED with…suspense…terror…sudden shock, as THE SADIST.”  First, this isn’t really a sentence.  It should have been something along the lines of “Never before has there been a motion picture so RAMPACKED…[etc.]” 

            Also: RAMPACKED?  This appears to be a neologism combining “jam-packed,” “rampage,” “crammed,” and/or “rammed.”  Aside from the fact that “rampacked” sounds like the title of a gay porn movie, one wonders why a real word like “packed” wasn’t good enough.   Ad agency writer:  “It’s crammed with suspense…hmm…not strong enough.  It’s packed with suspense?  No…it’s jam-packed with suspense…not quite right…Wait! I’ve got it: it’s rampacked with suspense!”  His colleague: “Rampacked?”  Ad agency writer: “What?  It’s a perfectly cromulent word.”

            The rest of the poster copy is fairly routine, although “A Fairway International IMPACT Picture!” (to distinguish it from “A Fairway International ROUTINE Picture!” I would guess) is clever enough.  The tag-line at the bottom of the poster is filled with buzzwords relating to the film’s title:  a guy called The Sadist is of course filled with fiendish passion, and has to “torment, torture, kill.” 

            As an aside, the title of The Sadist is one of a number of ‘60s movies whose mentally-disturbed/sexual deviance-word titles seem to have been inspired by the success of Psycho (1960):  The Psychopath (1966), Teenage Psycho Meets Bloody Mary (1964), Anatomy of a Psycho (1961), Confessions of a Psycho-Cat (1968), Psycho a Go-Go (1964), Satan’s Sadists (1969), The Torture Chamber of Dr. Sadism (1967), Psychedelic Sexualis (1966), etc.

            The one-sheet poster for The Sadist is a surprisingly nice piece from a graphic-design standpoint.  The layout, images, and colour work well together to convey a sense of danger, mental instability, and tension.  The text is satisfactory, neither ludicrously overblown nor understated.  So one might say this poster is RAMPACKED with effectiveness!

No, I haven’t given up…

but some serious family-health issues have taken me away from the Internetz (at least, serious Internetzing) for the past month.  Hope to return soon with more deconstruction of pop culture art!

“Leave No Space Unfilled!”  Ugly Ugly Comic Book Covers (Men’s Adventures 4 & Western Outlaws and Sheriffs 62, 1950)   Artistic quality isn’t a requirement for the inclusions on this page, but I can’t say the two comic book covers discussed this time—Men’s Adventures 4 (August 1950) and Western Outlaws and Sheriffs 62 (June 1950)—are eye-pleasing at all.  In fact, the design (as opposed to the actual artwork, which is acceptable if uninspired, at least on one of the two covers shown here) is…horrible.  Scads of word balloons and text captions, multiple panels, bland colour and a crowded layout result in two very ugly comic book covers.  But somebody thought (for a brief time) this design was a good idea.

            “Busy” comic book covers are not inherently bad art.  During the Second World War, Alex Schomburg drew many spectacular covers that were densely packed with information, both visual and textual.  Marvel Mystery Comics no. 36 is a good example: it’s a detailed diagram of a Nazi invasion of New York City, complete with little text labels “explaining” the action.  Readers could pore over this type of cover for hours, picking out each interesting tid-bit in the artwork. 

            Even Schomburg covers without significant text content often contain dozens of figures, pieces of equipment, topographical details, and so forth, as the cover for All Winners number 7 illustratesBut there’s a difference between Schomburg’s covers and the Atlas abominations, which epitomise the “too much information” tag.

            These comics were published by Atlas, the 1950s brand formerly known as Timely and which later became Marvel Comics.  In the 1948-51 period, the company’s  lineup of comic book titles underwent repeated changes, both in form and content.  Superheroes were phased out, and romance comics and western comics (as well as western-romance comics like Cowboy Romances) were in, then these were discarded for fantasy, crime, and adventure (although there wasn’t a wholesale changeover at any time, and some titles and genres survived the various purges). Cindy Smith became Crime Can’t Win, Joker metamorphosed into Adventures into Terror, and Cowboy Romances was re-named Young Men

            It’s also interesting to see changes in editorial policy regarding cover design in this era.  Many titles switched from drawn covers to photo covers in 1949, then changed back to drawn covers in 1950.  Photo covers have been discussed here before and were primarily used on crime and romance comics, although Atlas also featured photo covers on its Western comics in this era.  The experiment was a short-lived one, and in mid-late 1950, the company reverted to drawn artwork. 

The “busy” cover design (lots of text, multiple images) had been used as early as 1948 by the company (although it was not ubiquitous), and returned with a vengeance in 1950.  On Men’s Adventures, this cover style lasted almost exactly 2 years: a more conventional, single-image cover appeared on issue #15 (August 1952), and the majority of the rest of the title’s run featured this style (in May 1954 Men’s Adventures participated in the “Timely superheroes revival” and the last two issues of the comic had multi-panel covers of the Human Torch in action).  Western Outlaws and Sheriffs dropped the “too much information” style even earlier, switching to traditional single-image covers in October 1951.

In some ways, I am a “purist” when it comes to comic book covers: I don’t like dialogue balloons covering up the artwork, although occasionally the text is amusing.  A closer examination of these two covers reveals that while these are darned ugly from an artistic and design standpoint, they do contain a lot of information and are even entertaining novelties after a fashion.  Post-war, post-superhero era comics seemed to fall into several vague categories: those aimed at young children (funny animals), adolescents (“Archie”-clones for teens), generic (horror, fantasy, Western), and comics we might characterise as “adult-oriented” (crime, romance).  Under the title Men’s Adventures, this publication was, respectively, an “action/adventure” (5 issues), a “war” (20 issues), and a “horror/sci-fi/fantasy” comic (6 issues), before briefly switching to the aforementioned superhero-revival format.  Its sister (brother?) publications were Man Comics and Young Men, which followed essentially the same format and trajectory.  The titles themselves suggested these comics were aimed at adult male readers, and Men’s Adventures had a cover blurb reinforcing this: “Stories for MEN.”  Not boys, not girls, not “everyone,” but MEN. Manly MEN.  Don’t read these comics if you are not a MAN.   Also, these are “True Life Thrills and Drama!” which is comic-book speak for “non-fantasy.”  At the moment (August 1950), fantasy was “out,” so the editors wanted to reassure readers that no UNrealistic stories would sneak into the comic.

            Men’s Adventures #4 (the first issue with this title) contained a variety of genre stories, including jungle, crime, teen/action, and a “boy and his dog” tale.  Four of the stories are represented on the cover by small thumb-nail illustrations and their titles, giving reasonable hints about the tone and content (although I’m still not sure about “The One Who Was Trapped”—it appears to be about a government agent held prisoner by a slovenly, overweight counterfeiter, but I can’t be sure).  The main illustration, attributed to Syd Shores, is for the “white hunter” story “He Called Me a Coward!”

            The art for this cover isn’t bad at all, although it’s relatively style-less (because, remember, these are “True Life Thrills and Drama” and should be rendered in realistic fashion).  A big, irate-looking gorilla is one-arm-hugging a senior citizen, as his pith-helmeted son, a spindly African “native” wearing a red Speedo, and a red-gowned blonde look on, horrified.  What makes this cover amusing are the dialogue balloons, which are not only incredibly verbose, but also ridiculously florid in tone. 

A gorilla is crushing me, so I’ll shout for help…that makes sense.  But I also (rather inadvisedly) insult the only person nearby who has a rifle, calling him a “miserable yellow-bellied coward!” and a “spineless weakling!”  Yes, that will inspire my son to buck up and save my life, alright.  I also have time to say “He’s c-crushing me!!!” and “ARGHHHH!”  (Now, I wonder why “He’s c-crushing me” has three exclamation points and “ARGHHHH” has only one?  You’d think the cry of pain would be more urgent…but perhaps the gorilla’s grip is cutting off my air supply…)

Ronald, the “miserable, yellow-bellied coward,” takes the passive-aggressive approach, telling his father “I warned you…but you wouldn’t listen!”  and rather smugly says “you’ll never have a chance to call me a coward again!”  He also goes into detail about his physiological reaction to danger: “My hands feel as though they’re frozen stiff!”  For Ronald, it’s all about him, his problems, his feelings, and he’s not shy about revealing them in excruciating detail, even though his father is being treated like a human tube of toothpaste.

The other two characters are merely decorative, with the “native” tossing in time-wasting “Bwanas” before everyone’s proper name.  Bwana Ronald this, Bwana Elliott that.  However, since he dispenses with a number of other words—“Before it’s too late” becomes “Before too late”—I guess he figured it all balanced out.  The fallen  blonde has the most concise and direct dialogue of the bunch, although she apparently felt it was necessary to say “Ronald” twice, so he’d know she was talking to him (to be fair, she’s not looking at him, so maybe she thought it was necessary).  Her presence brings up a couple of questions about the the story’s plot (which we can’t answer, because I don’t have a copy of the comic to read): is she married to cowardly but young Bwana Ronald or is she the trophy wife of elderly Bwana Elliot (see what I did there?  Because Elliot is a big-game hunter who collects trophies…)?  There might be a romantic triangle going on here, which would give Ronald a reason to let his father perish, later pleading the “frozen hands” defense and inheriting his father’s money and his sexy blonde wife. 

The cover of Western Outlaws and Sheriffs (not to be confused with Western Outlaws, which was a later, entirely separate Atlas comic, although the “Sheriffs” part of the title of this one always looks like an after-thought) #62 lacks even the redeeming virtues of Men’s Adventures. The primary illustration is crude, there’s no central character (“Curly Rapp” is apparently the tiny little figure in the orange cowboy hat and costume in the middle of the art), and the plethora of dialogue balloons don’t even contain snark-worthy text.  This cover looks like a slightly better-executed version of a comic an adolescent might doodle in the back of his spiral notebook during a lull in the school day.  “I’ll put in some dead bodies, lots of men shooting pistols, a train, a horse, and give everyone something to say, real “Western” dialogue such as “Take that you yellow dry-gulch snakes!”  The garish colour scheme doesn’t help either, with green,  yellow,  and red predominating.  

The two thumb-nails on the left-hand side of the cover are marginally better, art-wise, although there is still far too much text (both dialogue balloons and captions), and the “Bang Bang” sound effect in the upper thumb-nail is ludicrous and unnecessary (hello?! we can see the muzzle flashes of the pistols) although I do like the victim’s “Gaaaa!” with diminishing-size letters to signify decreasing volume as he dies.  And so the potential reader would know that the comic contains five different stories, two additional, wordy captions are slugged across the bottom of the cover.

Wow, this cover is really ugly.  The Atlas “busy” covers were generally ugly in a design sense, but Western Outlaws and Sheriffs #62 is the worst of a bad lot.    

Corrupted by Pop Culture: Baby Tiger Plays and Loses (1953)  “Baby Tiger joue…et perd” was published in 1953 by Editions Le Trotteur, part of their short-lived “Roman de choc” (Shock Novels) series.  Attributed to “John Ellis,” this was reportedly translated into French by author Gabriel Guignard, best-known as the author of several science-fiction novels of the era (“Pyramidopolis,” “Le rayon orange”).  I’ve been unable to determine the original publication  history of the Ellis novel (if indeed it exists), and suspect Guignard may be the actual author of the work.

            The story, as described (in French) here , apparently deals with a petulant movie star named “Baby Tiger,” who runs afoul of organised crime. 

            In a previous post, I discussed the covers of several other Euro-crime paperbacks from this era, and “Baby Tiger” shares some of the same design elements.  Rather than a realistic scene (ostensibly from the novel itself), the cover is presented as a sort of pin-up character study of (one assumes) the book’s protagonist.

            The background consists of solid blocks of colour, which frame the main illustration, that of a frightened young woman wearing a stylish taffeta dress that exposes her shoulders, back, and legs.  I particularly like the fact that the art shows the straps that hold up the dress (tied around her neck), rather than simply assuming the garment is held up by magic.  The artist (referred to in various sources as either “Nik” or “Mik,” not that I can decipher the signature in the lower-righthand corner of the art at all) has effectively given her an expression which appears to be a combination of fear and disgust.  To his credit, the face of the young woman on the cover is not conventionally pinup-pretty: she has character, and reminds me of some of the definitely-attractive but certainly…distinctive film noir actresses of the era, such as Lizbeth Scott, Audrey Totter and Gloria Grahame (Hollywood didn’t have a monopoly on such fascinating faces, French actresses of the era who fall into this category include Arletty, Simone Signoret, Michèle Morgan, and so on). 
            Another interesting thing about this cover is the assortment of objects with which Nik/Mik has surrounded Baby Tiger:
a bottle of whisky (surprisingly, it looks full; on the other hand, no drinking glass is evident so perhaps she hasn’t got started on it yet)
“Glow!” magazine (that seems to feature Baby Tiger herself on the cover)
a playing card (the ace of spades, to be precise—a bad omen?)
a photo of a man (which appears to be the kind of photo one clips from a magazine, rather than an actual photo a friend might give you)
a phonograph record
           So all we’re missing is a syringe (= drug use), a dead cop, and a pistol to approximate the famous “Thou Shalt Not” artwork illustrating forbidden topics (according to the Hays Office) in Hollywood films of the 1930s and 1940s.  
            As I’ve mentioned a few times, some Euro (and UK) pop literature of the post-WWII era liked to pass itself off as “American” in origin, and “Baby Tiger joue…et perd” does this with its title (neither “Baby” nor “Tiger” is French) and the authorship attribution to “John Ellis” (certainly Anglo, if not as blatantly Yank as “Spike Morelli” or “Mike Splane”).  Whether or not the novel was originally written in English and published in the USA is irrelevant, the important thing is that it was sold at least partly on its alleged American-ness.  The objects scattered around Baby Tiger on the cover aren’t strictly American, of course, but they tend to suggest modernity, post-war consumerism, celebrity culture, hedonism, sophistication, and glamour.  

Corrupted by Pop Culture: Baby Tiger Plays and Loses (1953)  “Baby Tiger joue…et perd” was published in 1953 by Editions Le Trotteur, part of their short-lived “Roman de choc” (Shock Novels) series.  Attributed to “John Ellis,” this was reportedly translated into French by author Gabriel Guignard, best-known as the author of several science-fiction novels of the era (“Pyramidopolis,” “Le rayon orange”).  I’ve been unable to determine the original publication  history of the Ellis novel (if indeed it exists), and suspect Guignard may be the actual author of the work.

            The story, as described (in French) here , apparently deals with a petulant movie star named “Baby Tiger,” who runs afoul of organised crime. 

            In a previous post, I discussed the covers of several other Euro-crime paperbacks from this era, and “Baby Tiger” shares some of the same design elements.  Rather than a realistic scene (ostensibly from the novel itself), the cover is presented as a sort of pin-up character study of (one assumes) the book’s protagonist.

            The background consists of solid blocks of colour, which frame the main illustration, that of a frightened young woman wearing a stylish taffeta dress that exposes her shoulders, back, and legs.  I particularly like the fact that the art shows the straps that hold up the dress (tied around her neck), rather than simply assuming the garment is held up by magic.  The artist (referred to in various sources as either “Nik” or “Mik,” not that I can decipher the signature in the lower-righthand corner of the art at all) has effectively given her an expression which appears to be a combination of fear and disgust.  To his credit, the face of the young woman on the cover is not conventionally pinup-pretty: she has character, and reminds me of some of the definitely-attractive but certainly…distinctive film noir actresses of the era, such as Lizbeth Scott, Audrey Totter and Gloria Grahame (Hollywood didn’t have a monopoly on such fascinating faces, French actresses of the era who fall into this category include Arletty, Simone Signoret, Michèle Morgan, and so on). 

            Another interesting thing about this cover is the assortment of objects with which Nik/Mik has surrounded Baby Tiger:

  • a bottle of whisky (surprisingly, it looks full; on the other hand, no drinking glass is evident so perhaps she hasn’t got started on it yet)
  • “Glow!” magazine (that seems to feature Baby Tiger herself on the cover)
  • a playing card (the ace of spades, to be precise—a bad omen?)
  • a photo of a man (which appears to be the kind of photo one clips from a magazine, rather than an actual photo a friend might give you)
  • a phonograph record

           So all we’re missing is a syringe (= drug use), a dead cop, and a pistol to approximate the famous “Thou Shalt Not” artwork illustrating forbidden topics (according to the Hays Office) in Hollywood films of the 1930s and 1940s.  

            As I’ve mentioned a few times, some Euro (and UK) pop literature of the post-WWII era liked to pass itself off as “American” in origin, and “Baby Tiger joue…et perd” does this with its title (neither “Baby” nor “Tiger” is French) and the authorship attribution to “John Ellis” (certainly Anglo, if not as blatantly Yank as “Spike Morelli” or “Mike Splane”).  Whether or not the novel was originally written in English and published in the USA is irrelevant, the important thing is that it was sold at least partly on its alleged American-ness.  The objects scattered around Baby Tiger on the cover aren’t strictly American, of course, but they tend to suggest modernity, post-war consumerism, celebrity culture, hedonism, sophistication, and glamour.  

Speak Spanish, Chat Up Showgirls! (1946 comic book ad)          This comes from the inside back cover of The Fighting Yank comics #16, dated May 1946.  It shared the page with an advert for “Learn to Fight! Wrestle! Jiu-Jitsu!” books, but I thought I’d limit myself to a brief discussion of the “Speak Spanish” part only.

            Spanish is “The Language of Romance and Opportunity,” and if the scantily-clad showgirl at right is any clue, we know what sort of “opportunity” they’re talking about (wink, wink).  Let’s not quibble about the showgirl’s Carmen Miranda-esque headgear (since Miranda was Brazilian and spoke Portuguese, not Spanish), because there were plenty of dancers in other Latin countries (and in the USA for that matter) who wore similar outfits.  It’s the sentiment that counts: Romance and Opportunity (i.e., Sex and Money) can be yours if you speak Spanish.  [Note: I’m still waiting.]
            The ad copy makes a strong pitch for learning foreign languages in order to  triumph in the “postwar” world.  The period at the end of World War II saw a considerable amount of optimism about (more or less) universal peace and international cooperation, which meant business opportunities for all (but especially Americans).  Millions of people had, due to the global conflict, been introduced to foreign travel and culture, and—before those pesky things such as the Iron Curtain, the partition of India and China, the Korean War, etc., made the postwar world difficult—it looked like clear skies and fair winds all the way.  “Plan your postwar campaign now,” reads the text.  In other words, prepare yourself to take advantage of opportunities in places like Latin America (Spain isn’t mentioned, because screw Franco, that’s why).
            Spanish is highlighted but the fine folks at the Pickwick Co. also offer the chance to study French, German, Polish, and Italian, and “easily master all 5 languages without any trouble.”  “Just 10 minutes a day [for how long? 20 years?] and you’ll master the most difficult tongues.”
            French is “A language used everywhere.” Okay, “everywhere” is sort of vague, but French-speaking countries include Canada (parts of it, anyway), French Guiana, quite a few African countries, and French Indochina (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia), not to mention France itself.  Might be useful.
German is “A post war language.”  Um, I guess that means “now that we’ve defeated the Nazis and are occupying Germany, it might be a good idea to learn German so we can give the people orders and communicate with your  fraulein girlfriend.”  Now if Hitler had won, a lot more people would have been speaking German, but that’s neither here nor there.
Italian is “Fluently used every where.”  Doubtful, but not quite as doubtful as…
Polish is “Universally spoken now.”  *record scratch, double-take*  What?!  That seems a little hyperbolic to me. I’m pretty sure that, aside from various Polish enclaves in the USA, most Polish speakers (now and then) live in a relatively narrow geographical region of central Europe (it’s called Poland…well, and various neighbouring countries, to a lesser extent).  I’m not questioning the value of learning to speak Polish, per se, but if only five language courses are offered, I’m not sure I’d put Polish on the short list.  Maybe Russian or Chinese or Arabic?  Or Portuguese (then you could chat up Carmen Miranda).  The fact that the five languages offered are all Euro-centric is not surprising (and to learn Russian or Chinese or Arabic you also have to learn a new alphabet, which has always seemed daunting to me).
Still, you have to give the Pickwick Co. credit for selling in a comic book  something which—in theory at least—is useful rather than frivolous.  I’m not sure exactly how much material you’d get for $.50 per book: although at the time this ad was produced, paperback books were priced at $.25, so I’d imagine these language “courses” were fairly substantial volumes.  And there’s a money-back guarantee!
One final point of interest: this advertisement appeared, as mentioned earlier, in The Fighting Yank comic book, a superhero title (although the Yank himself mostly fought run of the mill criminals) from the Nedor line.  Most of the ads in the Nedor comics of this era were aimed at adults (“I Will Show You How to Start a Radio Service Business,” “Do You Want Longer Hair,” “Ladies’ and Men’s Rings,” and so forth), or were at least relevant to “all ages” (Baby Ruth candy bars, for instance).  This suggests that comic books were aimed at (and appealed to) a much broader demographic than one might casually assume.  In fact, the same ad appeared in the “funny-animal” title Happy Comics #13 (also May 1946), which may be because (a) Nedor sold blocks of ads in all of their publications, rather than targeting them by title, and/or (b) that Happy Comics, despite its assumed younger audience (for features such as “Little Billy Bear” and “Scamper Squirrel”), also had readers who might have an interest in learning Spanish (or, possibly, Polish).  As Fats Waller would say, one never knows, do one?

Speak Spanish, Chat Up Showgirls! (1946 comic book ad)          This comes from the inside back cover of The Fighting Yank comics #16, dated May 1946.  It shared the page with an advert for “Learn to Fight! Wrestle! Jiu-Jitsu!” books, but I thought I’d limit myself to a brief discussion of the “Speak Spanish” part only.

            Spanish is “The Language of Romance and Opportunity,” and if the scantily-clad showgirl at right is any clue, we know what sort of “opportunity” they’re talking about (wink, wink).  Let’s not quibble about the showgirl’s Carmen Miranda-esque headgear (since Miranda was Brazilian and spoke Portuguese, not Spanish), because there were plenty of dancers in other Latin countries (and in the USA for that matter) who wore similar outfits.  It’s the sentiment that counts: Romance and Opportunity (i.e., Sex and Money) can be yours if you speak Spanish.  [Note: I’m still waiting.]

            The ad copy makes a strong pitch for learning foreign languages in order to  triumph in the “postwar” world.  The period at the end of World War II saw a considerable amount of optimism about (more or less) universal peace and international cooperation, which meant business opportunities for all (but especially Americans).  Millions of people had, due to the global conflict, been introduced to foreign travel and culture, and—before those pesky things such as the Iron Curtain, the partition of India and China, the Korean War, etc., made the postwar world difficult—it looked like clear skies and fair winds all the way.  “Plan your postwar campaign now,” reads the text.  In other words, prepare yourself to take advantage of opportunities in places like Latin America (Spain isn’t mentioned, because screw Franco, that’s why).

            Spanish is highlighted but the fine folks at the Pickwick Co. also offer the chance to study French, German, Polish, and Italian, and “easily master all 5 languages without any trouble.”  “Just 10 minutes a day [for how long? 20 years?] and you’ll master the most difficult tongues.”

            French is “A language used everywhere.” Okay, “everywhere” is sort of vague, but French-speaking countries include Canada (parts of it, anyway), French Guiana, quite a few African countries, and French Indochina (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia), not to mention France itself.  Might be useful.

German is “A post war language.”  Um, I guess that means “now that we’ve defeated the Nazis and are occupying Germany, it might be a good idea to learn German so we can give the people orders and communicate with your  fraulein girlfriend.”  Now if Hitler had won, a lot more people would have been speaking German, but that’s neither here nor there.

Italian is “Fluently used every where.”  Doubtful, but not quite as doubtful as…

Polish is “Universally spoken now.”  *record scratch, double-take*  What?!  That seems a little hyperbolic to me. I’m pretty sure that, aside from various Polish enclaves in the USA, most Polish speakers (now and then) live in a relatively narrow geographical region of central Europe (it’s called Poland…well, and various neighbouring countries, to a lesser extent).  I’m not questioning the value of learning to speak Polish, per se, but if only five language courses are offered, I’m not sure I’d put Polish on the short list.  Maybe Russian or Chinese or Arabic?  Or Portuguese (then you could chat up Carmen Miranda).  The fact that the five languages offered are all Euro-centric is not surprising (and to learn Russian or Chinese or Arabic you also have to learn a new alphabet, which has always seemed daunting to me).

Still, you have to give the Pickwick Co. credit for selling in a comic book  something which—in theory at least—is useful rather than frivolous.  I’m not sure exactly how much material you’d get for $.50 per book: although at the time this ad was produced, paperback books were priced at $.25, so I’d imagine these language “courses” were fairly substantial volumes.  And there’s a money-back guarantee!

One final point of interest: this advertisement appeared, as mentioned earlier, in The Fighting Yank comic book, a superhero title (although the Yank himself mostly fought run of the mill criminals) from the Nedor line.  Most of the ads in the Nedor comics of this era were aimed at adults (“I Will Show You How to Start a Radio Service Business,” “Do You Want Longer Hair,” “Ladies’ and Men’s Rings,” and so forth), or were at least relevant to “all ages” (Baby Ruth candy bars, for instance).  This suggests that comic books were aimed at (and appealed to) a much broader demographic than one might casually assume.  In fact, the same ad appeared in the “funny-animal” title Happy Comics #13 (also May 1946), which may be because (a) Nedor sold blocks of ads in all of their publications, rather than targeting them by title, and/or (b) that Happy Comics, despite its assumed younger audience (for features such as “Little Billy Bear” and “Scamper Squirrel”), also had readers who might have an interest in learning Spanish (or, possibly, Polish).  As Fats Waller would say, one never knows, do one?

Caught in an atomic explosion? Laugh it off! (The Atomic Kid, 1954)     Radioactivity was discovered in the 1890s (Marie Curie coined the term), and although its adverse effects were obvious, for quite some time it was also believed to be beneficial (as opposed to harmless-but-useful, or destructive-but-useful).  The Invisible Ray (1936) features both aspects, applied to a fictional “Radium X”—this element not only heals, but also converts Boris Karloff into a man whose mere touch can kill (and who eventually bursts into flame and dies himself).  
Of course, prior to 1945, “radiation” in popular culture generally meant some variant of radium, x-rays, and so forth, with the concept of “atomic radiation” only gaining widespread traction after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  A sudden surge of “atomic” references—by no means all negative, despite the destructive power of the bombs—can be seen in pop culture beginning  in late 1945 and continuing for a number of years afterwards (there were three different comic book series published with “Atomic” in the title in 1946 alone).  This initial fascination with atomic radiation dissipated somewhat, but never totally vanished: most of the radiation-created characters familiar to us today—such as the giant monsters in Fifties cinema, as well as Spiderman, the Hulk, and so forth—come from a decade or more after the end of WWII, rather than the immediate post-war period.
In 1954, in addition to the first screen appearance of Godzilla (a prehistoric creature revived by radiation), there were several innocuous comedies dealing with the effects of radiation.  One of these was the Dean Martin-Jerry Lewis vehicle Living It Up, a remake of 1937’s Nothing Sacred.  The original film starred Carol Lombard as a young woman mistakenly diagnosed with radium poisoning she’d contracted by working in a watch factory (an actual occurrence, unfortunately—radium paint was used for “glow in the dark” numerals and the employees responsible for painting the watch faces were adversely affected).  The Fifties’ remake substitutes Jerry Lewis as a goofy guy who blunders into the Los Alamos atomic testing grounds and drives off in a car marked “Radioactive.”  So naturally, everyone thinks he’s got radiation poisoning, too.  But of course he hasn’t.  So his hair doesn’t fall out, he doesn’t vomit blood, and he doesn’t die.  That’s good, because those kinds of things would be really out of place in a comedy.
The Atomic Kid, on the other hand, deals with a guy who actually is exposed to nuclear radiation in an explosion, and comes out of it with tattered clothes, a blackened face like a cartoon character, and some magical powers (well, they’re not scientific powers, that’s for sure).  Two uranium prospectors blunder into a government testing ground, and one of them—Blix (Mickey Rooney)— is caught in a mock-up house (populated by mannequins, although counter-intuitively the pantry is stocked with real food, setting up a joke—Rooney is shown eating a sandwich as the bomb goes off, and later emerges from the rubble, still clutching the now-toasted snack) when an atomic bomb is detonated nearby.  
Blix’s “neutrons” are scrambled (which leads to two poster tag-lines, “Mickey’s flipping his neutrons!” and “Mickey, control your neutrons!”): he talks in speeded-up fashion, glows in the dark, and has strange effects on inanimate objects (slot machines pay off in his presence, for example).  I suppose it could be worse, he could’ve had all his skin blasted off and then grown into an insane giant (The Amazing Colossal Man) or metamorphosed into a bestial killer (The Beast of Yucca Flats) or at the very least become a super-powerful, perpetually angry, green humanoid monster (“The Incredible Hulk”).
It’s easy today to gawp incredulously at The Atomic Kid, which was released less than 10 years after the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, yet uses a nuclear explosion as a comic device and demonstrates one can not only live through such a blast, but survive relatively unscathed.  
There were some pop culture examples of tragic, non-atomic events having similar positive results—getting struck by lightning was a particularly frequent choice by writers—but it’s difficult to think of a more horrific event in real life than an atomic explosion that has been utilised in films for comedic effect.  In bad taste?  Well, that’s debatable.  I suppose the filmmakers could argue that The Atomic Kid deals with a bomb test, and it’s not as if Rooney’s character survived a bombing that killed thousands of other people [*cough The Wolverine cough*] and he alone emerged with “funny” super-powers.  Still…given the general impression that exists today of the Cold War and atomic panic of the early Fifties, the premise of The Atomic Kid feels odd.  The protagonist  could have been exposed to radiation in some other way, rather than an actual atom bomb blast, with similar “wacky” results, but then of course we wouldn’t have the big laugh-getting moment of blackened Mickey emerging from the rubble holding a sandwich.
A number of posters were created for The Atomic Kid.  The one we’ve chosen to examine is the “title card” in the lobby card set, essentially a mini-poster in horizontal format.  It repeats a couple of pieces of key art from the larger posters—Mickey flying through the air in an atomic explosion (complete with mushroom cloud, airborne debris, and a wrecked house), and his shocked pal Robert Strauss staring at a Geiger counter—as well as the main tag-line “An Explosion of Laughs!” (One poster spells it “Laffs,” and the Australian poster replaces this phrase with “It’s a Laugh Explosion!”)
Where the title-card differs from the one-sheet, insert, and half-sheet is in the inclusion of full-length, pin-up style art of “Elaine Davis (Mrs. Mickey Rooney).”  The other posters use a closeup of Rooney and Davis kissing, framed by a device that (in the movie) measures Blix’s atomic excitement, or something.  That reference is accurate but is a little obscure (you wouldn’t get it unless you’d already seen the film, which sort of defeats the purpose of a movie poster).  The artwork on the title-card cleverly links Mickey’s physiological and emotional reaction to his curvaceous nurse with an increased level of personal  radioactivity, as evidenced by the surprised look on Robert Strauss’s face and his comment “Mickey’s Radio Active [sic].”  All of the posters show Rooney’s hair standing on end as well, a sure-fire laugh-getter.
The artwork on the posters for this film is a combination of realism and caricature, with a dash of pure cartoonishness tossed in.  Rooney and Strauss are caricatured—the upper-left image of Rooney is what I call “puppet style,” with an overly-large head on a small body, but even the other two images of Rooney and Strauss are slightly exaggerated.  The artwork of Elaine Davis is realistic; the dog next to Rooney at top, as well as the exploded house and flying pieces of furniture are cartoony.
The Atomic Kid was a “Mickey Rooney Production” released through Republic Pictures.  After his long stint as small-town boy “Andy Hardy” (and Andy Hardy-clones) at MGM, Rooney moved into adult roles in the late 1940s and early 1950s.  Most of these films were low-budget efforts, often independently produced even if released through major studios, and a number featured Rooney in dramatic parts.  Since The Atomic Kid was his own production, Rooney presumably chose the story (by his friend Blake Edwards, an actor-turned-writer who’d written two previous Rooney vehicles and  later became famous for the “Peter Gunn” TV series and the “Pink Panther” films, among other things), approved the script, hired the director (TV veteran Leslie Martinson, making his feature-film directorial debut), and (presumably) cast his then-wife as his co-star.  
Model Elaine Davis (aka Elaine Devry) was married to Rooney from 1952 to 1959 (his fourth marriage, her second). Her billing on the poster as “Elaine Davis (Mrs. Mickey Rooney)” is an interesting bit of marketing.  I’m not sure exactly what purpose this was intended to serve: it’s sort of useless to capitalise on Rooney’s name if she’s in a movie with Rooney himself (as opposed to billing her this way to ride Rooney’s coattails in a film in which he didn’t appear).  Perhaps Rooney was just (a) bragging about how attractive his then-wife was (he’d previously been married to actresses Ava Gardner and Martha Vickers, who weren’t too bad themselves), and/or (b) staking his claim (“don’t get any ideas, fellows, she’s my wife!”).  The billing is also quite awkward.  Since “Elaine Davis” wasn’t her real name anyway (well, Elaine was her real middle name), wouldn’t “Elaine Rooney” have conveyed the same message in a less obtrusive manner?  
 [Perhaps the most egregious use of “Mrs.-billing” was that of “Mrs. Wallace Reid,” the widow of a famous silent film star.  Wallace Reid died in 1923 after suffering from medically-induced morphine addiction for several years.  Afterwards, his wife, actress Dorothy Davenport—now billed as “Mrs. Wallace Reid”—produced, directed, wrote, and occasionally acted in a number of films over the next decade.  In the mid-1930s, she began to take credit as “Dorothy Reid,” apparently desiring more personal recognition—or perhaps her late husband’s memory had faded in the public’s mind.  To be fair, Mrs. Reid’s first—and perhaps most justified—use of her husband’s name was on an anti-drug film, Human Wreckage (1923), in which she played both a fictional role and herself (in a documentary epilogue).]
 The other interesting but more conventional billing on the poster  references beagle-faced actor Robert Strauss’s break-out role in the previous year’s hit comedy Stalag 17 (another comedy film with an odd premise—humour in a prisoner of war camp).  Presumably it wasn’t felt necessary to trumpet the previous films of the other billed actors Bill Goodwin, Whit Bissell, Fay Roope, or Hal March.
 Even if one feels the concept of The Atomic Kid was in questionable taste, the posters for this film do a good job of conveying the basic idea of the movie: Mickey Rooney, caught in an atomic explosion, wacky results, attractive female co-star, shady sidekick, “an explosion of laughs!”  Potentially.  

Caught in an atomic explosion? Laugh it off! (The Atomic Kid, 1954)     Radioactivity was discovered in the 1890s (Marie Curie coined the term), and although its adverse effects were obvious, for quite some time it was also believed to be beneficial (as opposed to harmless-but-useful, or destructive-but-useful).  The Invisible Ray (1936) features both aspects, applied to a fictional “Radium X”—this element not only heals, but also converts Boris Karloff into a man whose mere touch can kill (and who eventually bursts into flame and dies himself).  

Of course, prior to 1945, “radiation” in popular culture generally meant some variant of radium, x-rays, and so forth, with the concept of “atomic radiation” only gaining widespread traction after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  A sudden surge of “atomic” references—by no means all negative, despite the destructive power of the bombs—can be seen in pop culture beginning  in late 1945 and continuing for a number of years afterwards (there were three different comic book series published with “Atomic” in the title in 1946 alone).  This initial fascination with atomic radiation dissipated somewhat, but never totally vanished: most of the radiation-created characters familiar to us today—such as the giant monsters in Fifties cinema, as well as Spiderman, the Hulk, and so forth—come from a decade or more after the end of WWII, rather than the immediate post-war period.

In 1954, in addition to the first screen appearance of Godzilla (a prehistoric creature revived by radiation), there were several innocuous comedies dealing with the effects of radiation.  One of these was the Dean Martin-Jerry Lewis vehicle Living It Up, a remake of 1937’s Nothing Sacred.  The original film starred Carol Lombard as a young woman mistakenly diagnosed with radium poisoning she’d contracted by working in a watch factory (an actual occurrence, unfortunately—radium paint was used for “glow in the dark” numerals and the employees responsible for painting the watch faces were adversely affected).  The Fifties’ remake substitutes Jerry Lewis as a goofy guy who blunders into the Los Alamos atomic testing grounds and drives off in a car marked “Radioactive.”  So naturally, everyone thinks he’s got radiation poisoning, too.  But of course he hasn’t.  So his hair doesn’t fall out, he doesn’t vomit blood, and he doesn’t die.  That’s good, because those kinds of things would be really out of place in a comedy.

The Atomic Kid, on the other hand, deals with a guy who actually is exposed to nuclear radiation in an explosion, and comes out of it with tattered clothes, a blackened face like a cartoon character, and some magical powers (well, they’re not scientific powers, that’s for sure).  Two uranium prospectors blunder into a government testing ground, and one of them—Blix (Mickey Rooney)— is caught in a mock-up house (populated by mannequins, although counter-intuitively the pantry is stocked with real food, setting up a joke—Rooney is shown eating a sandwich as the bomb goes off, and later emerges from the rubble, still clutching the now-toasted snack) when an atomic bomb is detonated nearby.  

Blix’s “neutrons” are scrambled (which leads to two poster tag-lines, “Mickey’s flipping his neutrons!” and “Mickey, control your neutrons!”): he talks in speeded-up fashion, glows in the dark, and has strange effects on inanimate objects (slot machines pay off in his presence, for example).  I suppose it could be worse, he could’ve had all his skin blasted off and then grown into an insane giant (The Amazing Colossal Man) or metamorphosed into a bestial killer (The Beast of Yucca Flats) or at the very least become a super-powerful, perpetually angry, green humanoid monster (“The Incredible Hulk”).

It’s easy today to gawp incredulously at The Atomic Kid, which was released less than 10 years after the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, yet uses a nuclear explosion as a comic device and demonstrates one can not only live through such a blast, but survive relatively unscathed.  

There were some pop culture examples of tragic, non-atomic events having similar positive results—getting struck by lightning was a particularly frequent choice by writers—but it’s difficult to think of a more horrific event in real life than an atomic explosion that has been utilised in films for comedic effect.  In bad taste?  Well, that’s debatable.  I suppose the filmmakers could argue that The Atomic Kid deals with a bomb test, and it’s not as if Rooney’s character survived a bombing that killed thousands of other people [*cough The Wolverine cough*] and he alone emerged with “funny” super-powers.  Still…given the general impression that exists today of the Cold War and atomic panic of the early Fifties, the premise of The Atomic Kid feels odd.  The protagonist  could have been exposed to radiation in some other way, rather than an actual atom bomb blast, with similar “wacky” results, but then of course we wouldn’t have the big laugh-getting moment of blackened Mickey emerging from the rubble holding a sandwich.

A number of posters were created for The Atomic Kid.  The one we’ve chosen to examine is the “title card” in the lobby card set, essentially a mini-poster in horizontal format.  It repeats a couple of pieces of key art from the larger posters—Mickey flying through the air in an atomic explosion (complete with mushroom cloud, airborne debris, and a wrecked house), and his shocked pal Robert Strauss staring at a Geiger counter—as well as the main tag-line “An Explosion of Laughs!” (One poster spells it “Laffs,” and the Australian poster replaces this phrase with “It’s a Laugh Explosion!”)

Where the title-card differs from the one-sheet, insert, and half-sheet is in the inclusion of full-length, pin-up style art of “Elaine Davis (Mrs. Mickey Rooney).”  The other posters use a closeup of Rooney and Davis kissing, framed by a device that (in the movie) measures Blix’s atomic excitement, or something.  That reference is accurate but is a little obscure (you wouldn’t get it unless you’d already seen the film, which sort of defeats the purpose of a movie poster).  The artwork on the title-card cleverly links Mickey’s physiological and emotional reaction to his curvaceous nurse with an increased level of personal  radioactivity, as evidenced by the surprised look on Robert Strauss’s face and his comment “Mickey’s Radio Active [sic].”  All of the posters show Rooney’s hair standing on end as well, a sure-fire laugh-getter.

The artwork on the posters for this film is a combination of realism and caricature, with a dash of pure cartoonishness tossed in.  Rooney and Strauss are caricatured—the upper-left image of Rooney is what I call “puppet style,” with an overly-large head on a small body, but even the other two images of Rooney and Strauss are slightly exaggerated.  The artwork of Elaine Davis is realistic; the dog next to Rooney at top, as well as the exploded house and flying pieces of furniture are cartoony.

The Atomic Kid was a “Mickey Rooney Production” released through Republic Pictures.  After his long stint as small-town boy “Andy Hardy” (and Andy Hardy-clones) at MGM, Rooney moved into adult roles in the late 1940s and early 1950s.  Most of these films were low-budget efforts, often independently produced even if released through major studios, and a number featured Rooney in dramatic parts.  Since The Atomic Kid was his own production, Rooney presumably chose the story (by his friend Blake Edwards, an actor-turned-writer who’d written two previous Rooney vehicles and  later became famous for the “Peter Gunn” TV series and the “Pink Panther” films, among other things), approved the script, hired the director (TV veteran Leslie Martinson, making his feature-film directorial debut), and (presumably) cast his then-wife as his co-star.  

Model Elaine Davis (aka Elaine Devry) was married to Rooney from 1952 to 1959 (his fourth marriage, her second). Her billing on the poster as “Elaine Davis (Mrs. Mickey Rooney)” is an interesting bit of marketing.  I’m not sure exactly what purpose this was intended to serve: it’s sort of useless to capitalise on Rooney’s name if she’s in a movie with Rooney himself (as opposed to billing her this way to ride Rooney’s coattails in a film in which he didn’t appear).  Perhaps Rooney was just (a) bragging about how attractive his then-wife was (he’d previously been married to actresses Ava Gardner and Martha Vickers, who weren’t too bad themselves), and/or (b) staking his claim (“don’t get any ideas, fellows, she’s my wife!”).  The billing is also quite awkward.  Since “Elaine Davis” wasn’t her real name anyway (well, Elaine was her real middle name), wouldn’t “Elaine Rooney” have conveyed the same message in a less obtrusive manner?  

[Perhaps the most egregious use of “Mrs.-billing” was that of “Mrs. Wallace Reid,” the widow of a famous silent film star.  Wallace Reid died in 1923 after suffering from medically-induced morphine addiction for several years.  Afterwards, his wife, actress Dorothy Davenport—now billed as “Mrs. Wallace Reid”—produced, directed, wrote, and occasionally acted in a number of films over the next decade.  In the mid-1930s, she began to take credit as “Dorothy Reid,” apparently desiring more personal recognition—or perhaps her late husband’s memory had faded in the public’s mind.  To be fair, Mrs. Reid’s first—and perhaps most justified—use of her husband’s name was on an anti-drug film, Human Wreckage (1923), in which she played both a fictional role and herself (in a documentary epilogue).]

The other interesting but more conventional billing on the poster  references beagle-faced actor Robert Strauss’s break-out role in the previous year’s hit comedy Stalag 17 (another comedy film with an odd premise—humour in a prisoner of war camp).  Presumably it wasn’t felt necessary to trumpet the previous films of the other billed actors Bill Goodwin, Whit Bissell, Fay Roope, or Hal March.

Even if one feels the concept of The Atomic Kid was in questionable taste, the posters for this film do a good job of conveying the basic idea of the movie: Mickey Rooney, caught in an atomic explosion, wacky results, attractive female co-star, shady sidekick, “an explosion of laughs!”  Potentially.