MovieChat Forums > Viva Las Vegas (1964) Discussion > A-M's see threw black tights during danc...

A-M's see threw black tights during dance number!

posted 19 years ago by surlygreaser
22 replies | jump to latest

am i the only one that noticed that the ever luscious ann-margret was,nt wearing panties under her skin tight black dance leggings during the elvis 'come on everybody' dance number in the gym scene?
you could clearly see her delicious round fanny jiggling around in those black tights,white against the black,it was clearly visable that this was her bare bottom.
i have the dvd in widescreen and when you go frame by frame,its right there in your face,absolute ann-margret glutious perfection.

[–] KyrillD 19 years ago

I read your message I became curious, and after watching that scene on my dvd I first thought that you were right, but after closer inspection (frame by frame) You could actually see that she does have some kind of panties on - something like a thong but not that small - but the cheeks are bare alright.

My DVD collection:
http://www.intervocative.com/dvdcollection.aspx/Kyrill

[–] elainevibes 18 years ago

FOR ANYBODY WHO'S A MAJOR SEXY DANCE NUMBER IN A MUSICAL FAN............THIS ONE IS ONE OF TOP THREE OF ALL TIME!!!!! ANN MARGRET AT PEAK..........BEST .................PERFECTION. (Nothin like a hot chick in a hot leotard & pumps!!) (SLAPSTICK BOY)

[–] drk1996 17 years ago

She was SOOOO HOT in that dance sequence.

I though it then and I think it now...HOT DAMN!!!!

[–] floydianer 17 years ago

Of course we've got to thank George Sidney for that scene. He had quite a crush on her.
I'd say it's one of the sexiest scenes I've ever seen in a film.

[–] drk1996 17 years ago

Yes, it is. VERY SEXY!

[–] mikeyjj418 17 years ago

I've noticed it too. You can only imagiane my delight when I bought the DVD...

"By all means move at a glacial pace. You know how that thrills me."

[–] johnnyb94109 15 years ago

That closeup of Ann-Margret's round, firm, shapely bottom--obviously sheathed in black tights only--was downright boggling to the eye and mind.

[–] ae36 14 years ago

I think so, too and agree with the posters here.

My question is this: how did they get that scene and that outfit by the censors?

She's dancing around in just her tights.

From a modern perspective, it looks like she forgot her pants.

AE36

[–] bigtrain45 14 years ago

My understanding is that, early in her career, she was encouraged to act as sexy as possible. Check out some of her other early movies, like "Kitten with a Whip", and "The Swingers."

[–] johnnyb94109 14 years ago

Those tights are clearly too sheer to be worn alone! From any perspective, it looks like she's missing an outer-garment!

[–] thesnowleopard 8 years ago

Well, dance tights were okay back then and the ones she's wearing appear to have built-in panties that cover things up...mostly. It probably helped that the tights were black and that she was wearing a sweater (and that she was doing a modern dance number, where tights were appropriate).

Clothes designers used these kinds of tricks to get around the censors back in the day, especially on television. The wardrobe person for the original Star Trek once explained why the female aliens always seemed to have lots of holes in their costumes. The idea was that the censors would say, "You can't show this or this," so they'd make sure those bits were covered up and then design a costume that showed everything else. The result was almost more risque than if the actress were actually naked.

I think that was the intent with the sweater and the black tights that "just happened" to be see-through in the back.

Innsmouth Free Press http://www.innsmouthfreepress.com

[–] lukejbarnett2002 8 years ago

actually the fact that they are black makes them being see thru(maybe)be more dangerous because like with cars the color black makes other colored things really stand out. yeah, maybe with television and in the theater before vcrs people couldn't pause or put things in slow motion so didn't notice that she was not wearing any panties in that scene(maybe and hopefully)

[–] lukejbarnett2002 8 years ago

exactly. so amazingly sexy and ground breaking for 1963 in a Hollywood movie. I mean what was up with the close up on her ass in really tight tights? so hot.

[–] karmala2 13 years ago

It's funny that 46 years later this scene/her costume is considered risque. It didn't seem to bother anyone back then. Not bashing anyone here, its just strikes me as curious/ironic.

"I told you a million times not to talk to me when I'm doing my lashes"!

[–] ae36 12 years ago

It's funny that 46 years later this scene/her costume is considered risque. It didn't seem to bother anyone back then. Not bashing anyone here, its just strikes me as curious/ironic.

___________________________________________________

I think its a matter of perception.

"Pantyhose" first came on the market in 1959 or so but really were not embraced by women in the general public until the mid 1960's when hemlines began to rise dramatically.

Prior to this (1950's) pantyhose and its variations were generally known to be worn in show business (show girls, dancers, etc.)

So when this film came out, I believe the general impression of AM's costume in this number was "Oh, she's wearing dance tights".

It's only with a modern perspective and a knowledge of pantyhose as a common foundation garment that a viewer comes to a different conclusion.

Simply put, it looks like she's dancing around in her underwear to the modern viewer.

It's an illusion, of course, but a very effective one.

The 1956 musical "Anything Goes" contains a similar scene.

Another example where the modern eye assigns a different meaning to a costume is the one worn by Sienna Miller to the after party of the premier of her film "Factory Girl".

Edie Sedgewick is the real life character Miller played in the film. Sedgewick in her heyday had a habit of going out directly after her dance classes in just a leotard and dance tights-- with a short sweater over the top. As Sedgewick became more known, the look became iconic and people identified it with her.

As an homage to this, Miller did the same thing to a premier after party. So you had Miller in a leotard with a short top that came down to just about her waist leaving the bottom of her leotarded tush hanging out.

People and the press (perhaps deliberately because it made such a good story) completely missed the point of the costume and proclaimed that Miller decided to go around pantless wearing "granny panties". LOL.

Just another example of the modern eye seeing something and assigning a meaning based on perception.

Which brings up another interesting point-- take the Miller example for instance. Miller herself knew the reality of the costume. But if everyone else simply thought she was running around in public in her underwear, doesn't that make it the truth? perception is reality.

AE36

[–] lukejbarnett2002 8 years ago

very interesting things you explained here but panty hose were around before 1959, take Betty Page modeling in 1957. and I see women wearing panty hose in the '40s or '30s in my mind.

[–] lukejbarnett2002 8 years ago

well probably because people are more sex aware nowadays than they were back then and more sex curious and maybe more perverted nowadays than back then.

[–] eapfan69 13 years ago

All the posters on here that loved that scene should also track down "The Swinger" for another look at A-M in tights.

[–] denis-38 10 years ago

I found the yellow bathing suit she wore during "The Lady Loves Me" to be far more revealing and intimate than the tights. But the point is, A-M's body and appeal were put front and center in this movie, by a director, George Sidney, who was simply obsessed by her. He had directed "Bye, Bye Birdie" and would go on to direct her once more in the rather low-rent (but even more obsessive) "The Swinger."