I suppose I can’t actually prove that this soldier, who appears to wear the uniform of a British soldier in the Victorian era, is somehow demonic, but there’s something about the way this soldier is portrayed that certainly feels hellish. I mean, look at the color palette, the brushwork, the imposing, almost inhuman manner which the soldier looms, ready to summon the minions of hell to get you to buy a Chrysler.
The Chryslers in question here are 1963 models, a Windsor, Saratoga, and New Yorker. Of these three, in 1963 the Windsor and Saratoga were Canada-only nameplates, for maple-soaked reasons I can’t even guess at. In the US, the equivalent was the Chrysler Newport, and then there was the New Yorker looming above them all, but I’ll be honest, Chrysler’s arcane nomenclature for their tiers of trim levels has always sort of baffled me.
But that’s not why we’re here! We’re here to ponder the strange illustrations in this 1963 brochure!
Why are there British soldiers around, exactly? Those there with the tall black furry hat look like what are commonly called Beefeaters, but are technically known as Yeoman Warders. Chrysler is an American company, as as far as I know has never enjoyed the services of any Beefeaters, since no Chrysler has ever ascended to any position of royalty in the UK.
Some of the other soldiers are other kinds of Victorian-era British soldiers, but all are painted in such a way that suggests they’re completely surrounded by flames and a general inferno.
Also, look at that dashboard, because it has one of my favorite Chrysler details:
The squircle wheel! Other carmakers have played with these not-quite-round wheels, but I think Chrysler was one of the first. It’s subtle but unmistakable, and I perversely like it.
Look at this soldier here; what do they want? They’re in some deeply crimson hellfire there, riding, it seems, right towards us, unflinchingly, expressionless and terrifying.
I’m not sure how this advancing demonic old British soldier is convincing me to buy a car, but it does make em divert my eyes from fear and notice some interesting details on that New Yorker wagon:
Look at the little rubber stops on the tailgate, designed to rest on the bumper; and what’s going on with those other strange little rubber wedges on either side of the bumper? They seem far too small to be actual bumper guards or even steps, so what the hell are they?
I do like what I think are optional reverse lamps in those big wide oblongs on the bumper. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen them just metal, too, but those look like clear lenses there, I think?
Is it just me? Those soldiers seem strangely imposing and demonic, don’t they? The illustrations are beautifully done, but the color and style was a definite choice, a choice that’s frankly confusing, Why soldiers? Why British? Why paint it to look like a conflagration?
Oh well. I guess I don’t understand the nuances of midcentury advertising.
Your equation of british army and the bearskins raised some very fuzzy (hah) childhood memory. Quick search, and yes, some detachments of the RCA do include bearskin head gear in their ceremonial dress.
And it’s not unheard of elsewhere: a great grandfather claimed that he was only turned down for the Danish Royal Guard for being 6″, when the minimum requirement was 6’1″ at time (pre-great war), and some childlike soul responded to the story by asking why they couldn’t make the hat an inch taller?
(and the chryslers are nice too. is this post-exner?)
This Is Spinal Tap
For quite a while Canada had a whole bunch of renamed american cars due to legal reasons. For example a friend of mine had a Mercury truck, my uncle has an Acaidian, and another friend is restoring an old Beaumont. Those three were rebadges of the Ford f150, Chevy Nova, and Chevelle respectively. Honestly if I could get my hands on an Acadian or Beaumont of my own I’d be ecstatic.
The YJ and TJ Jeeps were never called “Wrangler” here in Canada because GM had a trademark on “Wrangler” as an S-10 trim level. I guess they gave it up when the JK came out.
It wasn’t legal reasons, exactly, as we got the normal versions of all those models. Some of it was to keep the dealer networks happy so that they weren’t losing sales to the Ford or Chev dealer down the street (see any number of cheap Pontiacs right up to the Wave/G3 rebadge of the Aveo right before the brand was shuttered entirely).There was some legal requirement for Canadian production pre-Auto Pact, but that didn’t necessarily have much to do with branding (perhaps except inadvertently, to make the marketing of Canadian-made vehicles more obvious).
Whaddya know, there was actually some precedent for the official portrait of His Majesty King Charles III?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5b/Charles_III_by_Jonathan_Yeo.jpg?20240628000122
I’ve been working as a graphic designer/creative director for 25 years. I LOVE looking at older advertising like this. I can’t help but feel sometimes designers had a little more fun back in the day. These days most of the ad work I do consists of meaningless, throwaway copy with equally meaningless stock photos of people casually busy in an office environment. But this? Let’s show a bunch of weird-ass, strangely styled paintings of British gaurds. Why the fuck not?
And the other thing too is that this was made right in the middle of the paste-up era where you had to cut it all out including the copy. So someone spent a lot of time putting that together. Sometimes I wish I was older and got to see what that was like versus shoving shit around on a screen.
Nothing demonic going on, however, that squircle wheel is an abomination amalgamation of the golden ratio and brings chaos to the dynamical systems theory.
It was a warning of what you can expect if you buy a Chrysler. No matter when you read this.
“Why is there a soldier from hell selling Chryslters?” is one of the least far-fetched questions I’ve seen on this site. I’ve been to a Chrysler dealership.
I’m reminded of those dudes who hung out with Palpatine and Vader. You have to believe that this ad got stuck in Lucas’ head when he was younger.
If you want to see a film with the all ‘new’ 1960 Chrysler Corporation convertibles – watch “Bachelor in Paradise” – starring Bob Hope and Lana Turner.
You won’t regret it.
Bob Hope- so relevant in 1970, so forgotten now.
Unfortunate about him seeming to be so forgotten now, as Hope set a pretty good example as a fairly staunch conservative who came around on gay rights and gun control issues despite being friends with Anita Bryant, the Reagans, & other prominent conservatives of the day; he ended up being somewhat if not outright ostracized by some of those people despite their friendship.
https://www.newspapers.com/article/philadelphia-daily-news-05201981-bh-ph/102705868/
https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/hope-for-america/blurringlines/controversy/Assets/bhp0142_enlarge.jpg
And when he made some jokes that were quite problematic (including the use of homophobic slurs) he apologized rather than doubling down; in fact, after such an incident he actually made a PSA at his own expense for GLAAD despite being 85 and presumably pretty set in his ways: https://youtu.be/pDO34rXZJg4?si=2jxWg4BNPaCmUdGc
And he co-hosted a benefit with Liz Taylor to raise funds for AIDS research in 1986 despite the massive anti-AIDS hysteria of that period (yeah, it’s hard for young ‘uns to fathom just how viciously virulent such sentiments were back then.)
So, yeah, he may be largely forgotten but he still has some relevance today as an example of someone willing to change their mind on issues of human rights rather than just doubling down.
I just remember as a kid he was everywhere, but I’m pretty sure my kids have no idea who he was. I was shocked that my 21 year-old knew who Sam Elliott was.
I did not know anything about Bob Hope’s progress on these issues or that PSA, which apparently wasn’t aired widely despite his appearance in it. (And had he. not been in it, it probably would have been limited to breaks in the more bizarre shows on public access channels, which is also something da kidz should learn about.)
Canada was officially a self-governing British colony until 1982 when its constitution was completed. That status was granted in 1867. It became a British commonwealth in 1949 with the dissolution of the British Empire. Notionally, it was British when those Chryslers were produced, though not practically. Incidentally, New York, Saratoga and Windsor were battle sites, the first two from the American Revolution and the latter from the weird Patriot War that ranged from Michigan to Canada in the mid 19th century. That color palette suggests that the British Empire was burning down.
Came here to make sure this was noted, leaving satisfied.
“ Those there with the tall black furry hat look like what are commonly called Beefeaters, but are technically known as Yeoman Warders. ”
The big tall hat is a bearskin, worn as dress uniform by parts of the British army. Often seen standing very still four hours on end outside Buckingham Palace, anyone wearing one is a soldier.
A beefeater wears a cloth hat and tries not to get cross with tourists at the Tower of London. They are former servicemen/women/persons.
I just googled and bearskins are still made of actual bears!
Like silly dress-up hats couldn’t be made of anything else or be changed to not look like a massive merkin. Urgh, it’s so embarrassing being British.
Still infinitely better than the Greek Presidential Guards, who wear Victorian nightgowns with tassels on their ankles and pompoms on their feet. And a march that seems like the Ministry of Silly Walks was commissioned to come up with it
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Guard_(Greece)
I think being a Yeoman Warder still considered an active duty posting?
And yes, their uniforms are very different from the ones in the ad. For one, their uniforms have the current Regent’s Latin initials on them (currently “CR III”, for “Carolus Rex III”)
Wait, his name is Carol?
So embarrassing.
The pillarless look in that wagon kind of messes with my brain, Escher-like. Did the artist mess up the perspective a little, or is that how it really looked from that angle?
They really looked like that:
https://www.autoevolution.com/news/1963-chrysler-town-country-is-not-a-minivan-but-a-rare-9-passenger-wagon-205044.html
Wow, that is a weird looking thing.
I kinda love these things. They’re pretty much all either really well preserved and expensive or they’re rotted out. But if you could find one in decent-ish shape they could make a great project car. Plenty of room to add or subract anything, engine swap, you name it. And they’re massive inside, so they would be a great road trip vehicle