I’m going to keep this short.
Sparse like the illustration that this whole post is about.
With all of the Chrysler Imperial goodness that has been featured in recent weeks on CC, I have found myself going down various rabbit holes related to this magnificent yet relatively short-lived marque. Within one of those tunnels I found this ad.
The full ad reveals the typically mid-century expectations (that would now be from the previous century, as I’ll remind those of us who have as many feet in the previous century as we do in the current one) that viewers would actually read all of those things…we call them words, you call them stuff you can’t visualize on your tiny screen…under the picture. But yeah, being the 21st Century guy that I suppose I should be, I’ll just ignore all of that and instead focus as I should on the lede picture.
To someone who lived either in, or adjacent to that time, this illustration is simply perfect.
The male subject’s sun glasses.
The pack of cigarettes on the blanket…from just before “we” all acknowledged what we already knew about how those things would lead to an unfortunately early death.
The sexy swimsuit and pose on the female subject that somehow made its point despite the fact that she’s substantially more covered than might be the case in more modern illustrations. What is she looking at? I don’t know.
Maybe it was her future.
And mostly the kid in the car. Who now might be 70 years old.
I know exactly what he’s doing, because I did it maybe about 7 years later. He’s going Zoom-Zoom and pushing the Imperial’s push button transmission buttons. Come on…you know it. And you can hear it in your own 8 year old mind.
Fortunately, his dad’s car is on a flat surface and can’t roll down a hill and crash into the garage as a result of his enthusiasm. So his dad can doze. His mom can look expectantly down the beach at something better (or at least more conscious). And everyone at this very specific moment could enjoy a perfect Long Island summer.
Before the rest of history happened.
Related Content:
Stephen Pellegrino’s post notes that an Imperial exactly like this was once owned by Lauren Bacall. I could see that. And would have loved to see her in the ad. She’d probably have been down with the smokes on the blanket too.
This also begs a Tom Halter post on vintage car advertising tropes. Ads featuring cars on beaches are not uncommon, although few seem to be as sexy and languid as this.
If anyone here knows more about who was the illustrator for this Imperial ad, I’d love to hear about that in the comments!
Alternative Ad Title: “The Ennui of Success” 🙂
Now that most advertising has sound and movement, we miss the mood, which means we miss out on all the small things that you’ve touched on. Of course, the less is more approach of advertising illustration can also lead to wild speculation about the subjects, such as the woman’s frame of mind in this ad. In a way, her pose sends the wrong message about “the good life,” and I have to imagine that the advertisers were aware of that. So many questions.
Still, the ’57 is my favorite Imperial because of the dashboard and its gigantic gauge receptacles, as if your car is looking back at you through binoculars.
Excellent points, and I love your alternative title!
One of the things I find fascinating about this particular ad is how it combines the less-is-more approach with the traditional lengthy text that was common at the time. I think it was quite bold for the ad agency to approve that combination, probably just as you say. And maybe that’s why we don’t see a lot of ads and combinations quite this striking.
The problem in lots of modern advertising, IMO, is that it’s all less is more and is trying to convey a mood…it’s just that it never actually does. So instead we get the same simplistic pictures (nearly always photos and not illustrations) over and over again that simply bludgeon you with a single emotion (frequently, unbounded child-like “joy” over something that I’d be hard-pressed to find joy in).
This illustration can mean so many things, and therefore invites the viewer to think as well as feel.
Recall that in these days that when the weather was nice, people usually left their parked cars with all the windows down. Especially true of hardtops, as the pillarless look was considered quite cool.
When I was seven or so I recall a visitor to a neighbor arriving in her new Olds hardtop. Parked it with all the windows down, of course. I inspected it thoroughly from the outside, but couldn’t resist reaching inside to play with the power window controls.
A remarkable illustration to feature. You’re right, it is a perfect representation of summer, and a piece of the American Dream. It goes beyond automotive art. It would look beautiful, presented in an office or den. Or wall-sized, in a studio.
For an illustrator to have this piece, in their 1957-’58 portfolio, would be a tremendous source of pride, and inspiration. And would ensure them lots of work at leading ad agencies. Even as this Imperial’s styling became out-of-date, the quality of the illustration and composition, would still get the artist employment a decade later.
Flying seagulls, are somewhat of a trope. To lend depth, and the illusion of sky. To this day, architects add seagulls, to make renderings more interesting.
The opened doors, and corresponding shadows on the sand, create the impression of a racing scull. With its oars, in the water.
I can imagine ‘Tivoli-Melodie’ (Calcutta), from 1958, playing on the Imperial’s radio.
You’re right! That is an excellent soundtrack for this image. That reminds me of the sort of things that my parents played on the large, vaguely “Scandinavian design” Kenmore console stereo. Some of my earliest memories, not that far removed from the time of this ad.
I definitely would hang this image as artwork.
‘Calcutta’, was a big hit for Lawrence Welk in 1961. My dad used to play this ‘easy listening’ music in his ’69 Ranch Wagon, when I was a kid. I used to beg him to play rock n’ roll. I would have happily accepted The Carpenters. lol This may have been heard in the Imperial as well.
There were so many of these ‘easy listening’ songs that still charted in the late 50’s & early 60’s. I can still remember the sense of existential boredom in the back seat when one of these songs would come on the radio after a rock’n’roll record. 🙂
We had that Percy Faith album…and several more. Not to mention The 101 Strings ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/101_Strings)
I have to say that my parents were huge fans of easy listening. Aside from playing records of it on the console, they also tuned into early FM stations (not that many people had FM receivers in the early/mid-1960s) that played nothing but, as the announcers referred to it, “Beautiful Music”.
A typical day around the house when I was 5 or 6 sounded as if we lived in an elevator or dentist’s office.
This was particularly odd since it was my mom who picked the stations/records, and she was a high school student during the peak of late 1950s rock and roll. That stuff was all around 6 or 7 years later when I am recalling listening to easy listening, but my mom hated it. All rock. Even the Beatles were forbidden in my house.
If it were Sears it would have been a “Silvertone”.
The site for classic console stereo lovers: http://www.classichificare.com
It absolutely was a Silvertone 🙂
If not on the radio, maybe on the factory record player?
Yes!
I’ll submit “Chanson D’Amour” by Art and Dottie Todd. Very much of the time.
That works too.
The “each time I hear…” line seems to stir some deep, deep, memories.
…..”What is she looking at? I don’t know.
Maybe it was her future…..”
Looks like it could be an interracial couple to me. Guess it was the future!
No, that was Madison Avenues idea of what a tan looked like as they weren’t forward thinking in 1957. Man facing sun with woman’s back to sun.
Future? She’s looking in the opposite direction the car is pointing and that the kid is heading to. Naw, she’s looking at her past.
The lady “presumably” has more time to “sun bath, tan” then the man. He labors in an “air conditioned”, office 40 plus hours a week.
Add in the commute there/home too.
The coloured Canson-like paper, compliments the illustration. And contributes to the oceanside feel. White, is achieved using paint.
https://en.canson.com/fine-art/mi-teintesr
Compared to my overall sense of period Cadillac-Lincoln-Imperial ads I’ve seen, I guess I’m struck mostly by the informality (or lack of an obviously “prestige” setting), plus the appearance of a young child (and not “well-dressed,” at that). Fun to see this today–what magazine was it in?
I really don’t know what magazine it was in as I’ve only found the ad as a standalone file (and Google Image Search didn’t turn up any connections for me as to the original publication). I think someone here can figure it out 🙂
If I were to guess, based on the format, and the fact that it was for a luxury product, I’m going to guess something like Look or maybe even the Saturday Evening Post. One of the lifestyle mags – like House Beautiful – is also a possibility.
Daniel M.: Perfect musical selection to go with this!
Jeff Sun: Thank you for pointing out all the little details that show us what a great work of art this is! The man has the JFK look down pat–you can see why 3 years later Kennedy would win the presidency and not Nixon. This is adult, sophisticated “cool”.
When thinking of illustrations of this generation of Imperial, this one comes to mind from the 1958 brochure: It looks heavenly and otherworldly. The sharp-focus, elaborately wrought details of the grille and quad headlights project forcefully ahead, while the finely dressed couple appear in the mist. Pure genius, I say!
Absolutely. I think you’ve also hit on the enduring popularity of mid-century modern design. It evokes, even for those whose lives were not rooted physically in that time a sense of cool, sophisticated, optimism that was the national vibe and aspiration (aspiration, since there were many many people – just as now – who did not live “cool” lives IRL) for a while. That’s what I was getting at in my last line.
Although the illustration shows the rare 1957 stopgap single headlights.
I can’t help but think the kid is going to be in some trouble for running the Imperial’s battery down while playing with the power accessories (antenna, et al.) – most likely because that is what five-year old me did when my aunt and uncle arrived in summer of 55 with a new Olds four-door hardtop. I loved running that electric antenna up and down (IIRC it worked independently from the ignition switch) as it was a feature I’d never seen before.
I think ravenuer is reading too much into the non-working wife’s Coppertone tan vs. the husband’s paler office/boardroom pallor, the price you paid to afford an Imperial.
Well, of course. That’s certainly what my friend Chris and I did in about 1965 on Chris’s dad’s 1963 Dodge (it was a full size, so an 880?). First we ran down the battery, and got in trouble for that. But apparently not enough trouble, because subsequently we were out there again and that’s how we managed to roll it down the driveway into the garage door. 🙂
I’m quite sure it wasn’t an interracial couple. Just that the author’s “looking to the future” comment caught my attention!
Got it!
Here’s an interesting tidbit I ran across regarding late ’50s and 1960 Imperials. It almost sounds too weird and/or dangerous to be true:
While the 1957 Imperials used the N-D-R-2-1 pattern, the 1960 Imperials used the R-N-D-2-1 pattern.
Here’s the 1957 pattern:
Here’s the 1960 pattern:
I wonder how many drivers of push button Mopars of those vintages used the Position-Method of shifting rather than reading the letters on the buttons.
I know I did, but our 1957 Chrysler Windsor TorqueFlite buttons were also shaped and positioned differently.
1957 (regular Chrysler) TF button positions:
Buick was an even worse offender in this regard. In the late 50’s you could get either a twin-turbine or triple-turbine “Dynaflow.” The quadrants were different for each. Heaven help the household that had one of each in the garage.
Twin-Turbine:
Triple-Turbine
Unlike some transmissions, you really couldn’t hurt a Torqueflite by selecting the wrong range.
If you pushed the R button at anything above crawl speed, it shifted harmlessly into Neutral. If you pushed the 1 button at too high a speed, the transmission would only drop to 2nd until the car speed was low enough for 1st to engage without damage.
You could put that push button transmission in neutral quite easily even with the key not in the ignition. The gas station I did it in wasn’t a flat surface. Fortunately there was a solid pole just a couple of feet behind the car so it didn’t roll far.
While our ’53 Packard and ’50 Buick had PARK positions on their shift levers, our ’57 Chrysler did not.
That is one reason why I have always use the parking/emergency brake in every vehicle I drive, and when parking on hills set the steering so any first few inches of movement down hill will cause the tires to bump into the curb – or – roll in the most harmless manner possible like Salbertscc’s pole.
Earlier pushbutton Torqueflites like on this Imperial didn’t have a Park position. The car had a separate parking brake. Pushing any button wouldn’t make the car roll. You had to release the parking brake.
Later models did have a Park position and you could make the car roll by taking it out of park. However, you had to move a separate slide lever to disengage the Park position. You couldn’t just push a button to make the car roll.
https://www.allpar.com/threads/chrysler’s-brief-foray-into-pushbutton-automatics.230024/
Yep. Which is maybe why, as RLPlaut notes above, setting the parking brake has become ingrained behavior.
I am rather obsessive about it myself. Maybe that has to do with rolling that Dodge down the driveway in the early 1960s.
All I can say is back then, I spent a lot of time just mashing the heck out of the buttons on that transmission until something happened.
Recall that in these days that when the weather was nice, people usually left their parked cars with all the windows down. Especially true of hardtops, as the pillarless look was considered quite cool.
When I was seven or so I recall a visitor to a neighbor arriving in her new Olds hardtop. Parked it with all the windows down, of course. I inspected it thoroughly from the outside, but couldn’t resist reaching inside to play with the power window controls.
“Fortunately, his dad’s car is on a flat surface and can’t roll down a hill and crash into the garage as a result of his enthusiasm.”
I did that when I was three years old. Twice.
Details here:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/cars-of-a-lifetime/cars-of-a-lifetime-the-early-years/
That is turning into what appears to be something of a unifying foundational experience for CC contributors. 🙂
I’m a bit surprised to be the first one to bring it up, and maybe it says something about me, but there’s no way an ad photograph in 1957 would have shown that woman’s very barely covered private parts so blatantly on display. It suggests that the illustrator took some definite liberties here, and one that the ad agency and client were obviously quite ok with.
It’s straight out of Mad Men; only Peggy would likely have objected or expressed some qualms.
Am I really the only one to have noticed that? Hmm…
No Paul, you weren’t.
Yet I’m the only one who mentioned it?
I had to check myself, since it was literally the first thing my eyes went to. Was that because of my male gaze, or because it really is quite blatant? Subliminal (or not so subliminal) advertising, or just a bored and horny illustrator?
It really shows just how sexist things were back then. And frankly, our oohing and aahing over this ad without any mention of it is a bit iffy, as far as I’m concerned. Cheesecake is ok, but let’s call it what it is.
No, I noticed it too, just that my eyes went to her skin color, (or tan, as some mentioned).
All in all, an interesting ad.
Well, I didn’t mention it directly because to my mind it’s nowhere near the most important part of the ad, although I entirely agree with you that it’s definitely a factor.
As far as cheesecake goes, I believe that there’s an awful lot more blatant sexism in automotive (etc) advertising where it pretty much IS (or at least comes across as) the main point of the ad. I don’t find those ads quite as interesting.
But maybe you’ve made a similar point to Aaron’s first comment about how the ad may not have been quite as successful in its day due to its offering maybe too many messages and less than straight-forward ones.
If we really want to get crazy, we can say that this ad is a spectacular failure. If we combine her attention to something (someone?) down the beach, her posture that exposes her unmentionables, and her sleeping husband, we can argue that the perhaps unintentional implication is that the ’57 Imperial is the car for the cuckold. Jeff kind of implied that in what he wrote about her future.
Of course, you never really can tell what advertisers were and were not getting at.
I think it was an inside joke back in the day over what illustrators could get away with and slip one by the censors/proofreader. This one is pretty blatant. There were censor boards for movies and many other things in 1957. Am surprised this one got through.
It must have been okay if drawn by illustrators and not photographed. Porky Pig never wore pants at all. 🙂
You’re right Paul ;
I immediately noticed that too .
I’m sure others would have mentioned it had you given them the time .
I too also first thought “interracial couple” even though I know that wasn’t going to be in any advert then .
Hard tops look -so- nice ~ I just don’t like the rattly doors after a few years .
-Nate
I didn’t notice it at first; my first reaction was to the unattended boy in the car, something that’s verboten today (although I used to do the same as a kid). But now that you mentioned the woman’s pose and lack of covering there, it seems pretty blatant to me.
But interestingly, my wife claims it’s our male perceptions trying to make something out of nothing. I wonder if any other women would feel the same way.
I should clarify: from today’s vantage point, when women wear thong bikinis and such, of course it’s nothing (no pun intended); I was looking at it from the vantage point of 1957. It’s difficult to asses how folks reacted to it at the time, if they did at all, but having looked at a lot of period renderings and done a number of posts on them, this little detail did surprise me wee bit.
Obviously the illustrator could have put her in a number of different positions; he chose this one.
BTW, we’ve done this particular rendering here before, as I distinctly remember the debate about whether this is a bi-racial couple (obviously not), but it must have been one of a number in a post because I can’t readily find it right now.
The illustration reminds me of something my old man said after seeing a young lady in a mini-skirt … “You can see all the way to the children’s home!”
You mention Mad Men. Reminds me of episode seven of the second season when Don buys himself a Cadillac as a reward for his efforts at the ad agency.
Don, Betty, Sally, & Bobby go for a picnic in the park in the new car. I’m feel the writers of the show got some inspiration from the above Imperial ad. All that was needed was for Bobby to sit behind the wheel while Don, Sally, & Betty sat on the lawn.
As is typical of American ads, even the expensive cars were featured sans tinted glass. Ridiculous. I remember the 1954 Canadian Ford brochure in which all the models had tinted glass except the lowest price “tudor sedan.” Yes, it was an option, but in reality, America should have been showing this with the usual disclaimer at the bottom about it being an option. I love the ad and many thanks for it.
Selling a dream.
Well shared. And hilarious.
Yes, smoking was a thing back then. There were many ads where men (or women) were depicted smoking cigarettes. And men smoking pipes were pretty common to in a wide variety of print and TV ads. What does this have to do with car ads? Probably nothing other than reflecting the times. Still, a beautiful ad as were many luxury car ads of this era.
Substitute the cigarettes for a cell phone and you have the modern equivalent. Some use them out of need, some use them out of boredom, some use them just to look interesting. At least they don’t cause lung cancer. Social dysfunction yes, but no to lung cancer.
Maybe not, but I have read that Israeli medical researchers have found some evidence that prolonged use of these ubiquitous devices may cause irradiation of the brain.
So, here’s a little research. I may update the article eventually, but in some ways I’d rather just let that stand, and for those who want to know more about the story behind the illustration then they might pick that up in these comments.
This illustration apparently appeared originally in a dealer brochure for the 1957 range. Here’s a link to one version (there are apparently several versions) of that brochure from the “Imperial Web Pages” – https://www.web.imperialclub.info/Yr/1957/Foldout/index.htm#foldout
It seems that many of the images in the brochure were then used as illustrations for a series of individual ads for each of the various models. Those ads were themed around tag lines such as “Exquisitely Appointed” which were attached to each ad. The tag lines also appeared in various non-illustrated print/newspaper ads such as the one attached. So in fact, this ad was part of a coordinated campaign for 1957.
Quickly looking at the rest of the range of illustrations in the brochure, it’s not clear that they’re all by the same illustrator. None of the rest of them convey the same mood as this one.
And here’s the related ad for the 1957 convertible. It would be hard for me to believe that this is the same illustrator, but maybe I’m wrong.
Here the car is in front of what is apparently supposed to be Buckingham Fountain in Chicago’s Grant Park. Although my first thought was that the car – and the much more modestly dressed model in this picture – were at the zoo in front of the seals or something. That’s what this one evokes for me. 🙂
I’ve still not figured out what publication these ads ran in.
I agree, based upon the illustrator’s style, the beach illustration was prepared by someone else. The beach drawing shows a more casual, and creative style. More formality, in the other renderings. In fact, isolated from the car, the man and woman have a strong early to mid ’60s look, not just in their poses. But, how the drawings are rendered. This is a very talented illustrator. Not just because of their more liberated poses, but the drawing style of the beach illustration, is quite ahead of its time.
The late ’50s Imperial dates the otherwise, fresher ’60s look to the illustration. The man and woman could easily be posing for a later ’60s car. It could easily be a ’67 Camaro, and the drawing style would still be relevant for 1967. With her probably shown, in a current late ’60s bikini.
Great work Jeff, featuring this great piece!
In reply to Jeff Sun.
On page 3 the artist gets the push buttons sequence wrong; it’s neither right for 1957, nor is it right for 1960.
I’ll put my money on old car photographs rather than on a contemporary ad’s artist drawn conception.
Stephen Pellegrino’s ’57 Imperial post at https://i0.wp.com/www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/3177701.jpg?ssl=1 is further confirmation of the proper sequence.
Good point! Geeze, who approved THAT? And I wonder how many people over time might have noticed the error in that illustration.
I would have been that kid. Beach? What beach? Dad has a new car and I’m going to get my seat time while I have the chance.
Same for me. I recall when my mom first bought her 1961 Chevy Bel Air, and I demostrated to my cousins all of the neat features like the headlights including the high beams and the cigarette lighter (no cigarettes then; we were too young for that and my mom didn’t smoke).
Also, when my youngest aunt’s boyfriend (who later would become her husband) showed up at our house, I’d always check out his latest ride. He was the son of a used car dealer, so there was a wide variety. The one most deeply etched in my memory was a beautiful red 1956 Buick Special 2-door hardtop. This would have been around 1960.
The artist was attempting to show her mostly in shadow. Why her skin tone appears, like a dark tan. Perhaps, too dark. As you see bright daylight on her right foot, right shoulder, and top of her right thigh. And light poking through, and thus highlighted, elsewhere.
After looking at this multiple times today (it is compelling), I suddenly realize that the shadows under the car are nonsensical.
Beautiful, beautiful rendering. The weakest area of the composition is, as discussed, the woman seated directly in front of the man. That area is somewhat muddled by the close proximity of the two figures, and it’s therefore more difficult than it should be to distinguish the female figure. Everything else about the composition is airy and expansive… but the artist inadvertently crammed arguably the two most important elements of the rendering, practically on top of each other. Still, it’s a beautiful and evocative illustration
The female is posed in a manner which immediately draws the eye of the male viewer. It certainly drew mine! Car? What car? This also assures that the issue of this magazine was not quickly discarded. I’ll bet that the ad garnered many second, third, and forth looks.
Similar, but different, from the Seinfeld “Poke and Point” discussion between Jerry and George. We men just can’t look away.
🙂 Yes, further pointing out that George Costanza exists as a character to take the heat for the rest of his gender.
Only just now read this post.
It’s great — great illustration, fine subject and a fun discussion.
Thanks, Jeff
Thank you! The discussion is always the best part at CC.