#Here We Go Round the Mulberry Bush

[cannedbluesblog]

Here We Go Round the Mulberry Bush (1968)

[hibiscusbabyboy]

1968 - the Year that shaped a Generation

[schlock-luster-video]

On June 8, 1968, Here We Go Round the Mullberry Bush debuted in France.

[picturebookshelf]

Here We Go Round The Mulberry Bush (1994)

Art: Tracey Moroney

[horneboy]

she's gorgeous... and bigger then expected tbh

[sayburgundy]

recently, in reds and oranges and so forth 🍊🍅

[hailsatanacab]

Happy to share! Tbh I don't think it was funny capitalism just yet then, but partially actual environmental concern too, but yeah, capitalism ruins everything.

I have an ex(still a friend, it was a 'to long distance' break up) in the UK that would talk about it and my mulberry loving ass still wants to try blackcurrant gdi

yeah for sure, introducing a plant that contains a fungus that is KNOWN to decimate a local tree population isn't a great move lbr

but still. Fuck capitalism. Blackcurrants are delicious.

[bavanisblog]

"Here We Go Round Mulberry Bush & Sixpence | Kids Nursery Rhyme#youtube...

[angelo-chuck-wagon]

*Chuck's thoughts: Back into the void again. Alone. Possibly forever. Forgotten. Rotten. Unlovable. Maybe I should give up? Just die here. End it. Nothing matters. It doesn't matter how sorry I am. Doesn't matter what I do. God made me to suffer. Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over... If it doesn't matter why should I try so hard?*

*Chuck's thoughts: I GIVE UP. I GIVE UP. I GIVE UP. I GIVE UP. No more lunch through a straw. Either I die or Lucifer does! I can't live like this anymore!*

@morningbloodystar @tujhse-raabta

[missjaneasher]

Jane Asher and fiancé Paul McCartney arriving at the London Pavilion for the world premiere of “Here we go round, the mulberry bush”. January 4th, 1968. ❤️

[cannedbluesblog]

New Town Stevenage in the 1960s & 70s. They filmed the 1968 movie "Here We Go Round The Mulberry Bush" here (Film still last photo)

[randomfoggytiger]

Kibbe Body Types, Part 2: David Duchovny

Gillian Anderson's Kibbe analysis here; beginner's guide here.

Okay.

So.

We're going to have to do this analysis a little differently.

David Kibbe has a thorough quiz to type your body correctly... if you're a woman. So... I'm going to have to go around the mulberry bush a bit to arrive at David Duchovny's Kibbe Type.

...Why don't you tag along with me? We'll find out together.

(Spoiler: I already know his Type.)

KIBBE BODY TYPES-- BUT FOR MEN

(**Note**: You can skip this section if extra reading isn't your thing.)

Kibbe identifies female bodies through their height, their hips, their chest, their waist, and their shoulders. However, male bodies are a whole different ballgame: width is the key measure-- of greater importance even than height-- as well as the softness or "fleshiness" of the frame.

THANKFULLY, Aly Art's got my back with this video.

Now: we must identify the yin-- soft, delicate, short, light-- qualities and separate them from the yang-- strong, tall, lean, vertical, angular, sharp-- qualities. Everybody has a blend of those two traits slapped on their skeletons; but Kibbe tried (tries) to keep it as simple as possible.

There are five basic body types; and those five types are divided into yang (sharp) and yin (soft) variants.

Dramatics-- 100% yang energy: tall, lean, strong, hard. They look angular and heavy. Typically have smaller eyes, prominent nose and chin, and thin lips.

Benedict Cumberbatch, Sean Connery, Charlton Heston, Ricardo Montalban, Errol Flyn, Daniel Craig

Soft Dramatics-- predominant yang energy with some yin added: softness and fleshiness added to their sharp, angular frame.

Dean Martin, Christian Bale, Matthew McConoughy, John Travolta, Nicholas Cage, Clark Gable

Flamboyant Naturals-- strong and hard, but with wide, blunted edges. They appear sporty or athletic: moderate to tall height, wider shoulders, and slimmer waists and hips.

Calvin Klein, Dick Van Dyke, Harrison Ford, Clint Eastwood, Tom Selleck (maybe), Michael Landon (maybe), Joe Biden  

Soft Naturals-- like the FNs, they are wide, and blunted; but their width is softened by added fleshiness, appearing slightly less tall, less dense and more delicate. They sport plusher, softer cheeks, lips, torso, and thighs; and often appear "cuter" than FNs, Ds, and SDs.

Alan Alda, OJ Simpson, John Wayne, Robert Redford, Robert Conrad, Bing Crosby, Tom Cruise, George Clooney, Gene Kelly, Brad Pit, Gene Hackman

Dramatic Classics-- is an even, "average" mixture of yin and yang elements with a slightly more dominant yang presence. They have a very blended bone structure with tauter cheeks and more predominant facial features.

Carey Grant, John Ham

Soft Classics-- is an even, "average" mixture of yin and yang elements with a slightly more delicate yin presence. They have a very blended bone structure with softer lips and fleshier cheeks.

John Slattery, John Glenn, Gregory Peck, Bryant Gumbel

Romantics-- is 100% yin: smaller, shorter, softer, more delicate. No sharp angles. They appear gentler, less harsh, less "brutally" masculine than their Dramatic and Natural counterparts.

Colin Firth, Leonardo DiCaprio, Elijah Wood, Simon Baker, Richard Gere, Michael Jackson, Omar Shereef, Billy Dee Williams, Elvis Presley

Theatrical Romantics-- is 100% yin with a taut touch of yang to their features: narrow, delicate bones instead of fully-rounded, softly-widened angles.

David Kibbe, Orlando Bloom, Prince, Johnny Depp

Flamboyant Gamines-- an uneven mixture of yin and yang elements, with more pronounced yang in their angularity and sharpness. They have small, rectangular muscularity: angular facial bones, smaller shoulders and torso, some tautness to their physique.

Jimmy Kimmel, Frank Sinatra, Neil Patrick Harris

Soft Gamines-- an uneven mixture of yin and yang elements, with more pronounced yin in their rounded curves and softness. They appear the most "cute" of the types: an even smaller Gamine, with softer cheeks, softer noses, softer lips, bigger eyes, smaller hands, etc.

Fred Astaire, Robert Downy Jr. 

THE MAN, THE MYTH, THE MONOTONE

David's frame is dominated by prominent, long vertical lines-- dare I say, blunt edges?-- and shoulders that appear-- or are?-- wider because of his narrow waist and hips.

Using this previous post as a rough guide to map out his features, DD has pronounced yin-- softer cheeks, rounder nose, softened jawbone, softer flesh over his muscles-- but not enough to cover or dominate the long, strong bones in his frame and overall musculature.

I have my suspicions, and they swing Soft Natural (not enough T-bone shoulder to fit Flamboyant Natural); but let's put this theory to the test.

COMPARISON IS OUR REPRIEVE AND JOY

But you ask: how are we going to type the Man, the Myth, the Monotone without a handy dandy reference guide?

Easy peasy. We compare him to other body types and notate the differences.

David and Gamines

We're eliminating Gamines first because their shorter lines, shorter stature, and more angular or rounded bodies are in direct opposition to his longer, denser lines.

Compared to DD's wider shoulders, denser frame, and squarer facial features, Jimmy Kimmel and Lucy Liu (and Theatrical Romantic Gillian Anderson) appear more"weightless", angular, and narrow.

Soft Gamine Winona Ryder and Halle Berry appear weightless as well; but their angular features are tempered by an added layer of softness that corresponds with the fleshiness of David's face.

David and Romantics

We have a look-a-like for this section: Richard Gere, a pure Romantic.

Compared to DD's wide shoulders, slim torso and hips, and more defined musculature (even at his skinniest), Richard is composed of rounded curves, more delicate facial and skeletal bones, and a soft layer of flesh over his torso, arms, thighs, and legs. Even at Richard's fittest, there was still a softness present in his body that could not be chiseled away or hidden.

The two Romantic Type women below-- Drew Barrymore, pure Romantic; Gillian Anderson, Theatrical Romantic-- again highlight the density of David's structure, bringing out a "heavier" presence than the Gamines had previously.

David and Classics

Is David a Classic Type? Frankly, no-- his bones are too long and dense to be moderate and balanced; and he, even more frankly, looks terrible in very quaffed, groomed, and buttoned-up outfits.

Compared to DD's length and width, Dramatic Classics appear more proportionate, their touch of sharpness blending in with-- not rivaling-- the balance of their frames. DC Carey Grant's more balanced edges bring out the angles in DD's face, more so than the Gamines or Romantics did.

By contrast, Soft Classics' proportionate frames contain a touch of softness-- Meryl Streep's yin calls forth David's, appearing more rounded instead of angular or blunt.

David and Dramatics

Compared to David, Dramatics' structure is more elongated, narrow, and angular. Dramatic Benedict Cumberbatch has sharper, more prominent features; less width across his shoulders and torso; and barely any yin to speak of in his face.

(I also suspicion Tea Leoni as a Dramatic; so sneaked her in here.)

Soft Dramatics have the elongated sharpness of the Dramatics with a soft, fleshy padding over the tautness of their features. Compared to SD Christian Bale's sharpness-in-spite-of-his-softness, DD's softer, blunter edges become more obvious.

David and Naturals

And last but not least, we reach the native soil of David Duchovny's body type.

Flamboyant Naturals are a close but not perfect match-- their elongated, blunt width not only matches but exceeds DD's shoulders, torso, arms, legs, and facial features. FN Harrison Ford looks denser, more muscular, and even more athletic when compared to his softer brother from a different mother.

Soft Naturals: finally, David is home! Soft Naturals have the width and length of the FNs Types softened and slightly moderated by an added, pronounced yin quality. Their face, lips, arms, torso, and slim waist appear less blunt (if no less wide); and the dense musculature of their frame is less noticeable in comparison.

LINES, SILHOUETTES, AND OTHER FASHION ADVICE

Now that David's found his SN kind, I shall pack him up a little box lunch of good wardrobe advice to take with him. ...Or that was the theory, except it is notoriously hard to get my hands on Kibbe Body Type advice for men.

I shall do my best to transcribe and transform Aly Art's excerpts (here) from David Kibbe's Metamorphosis book:

"Soft Natural: it is the overall combination of the very soft yin with the yang undercurrent. Slightly soft and fleshy body type on an angular frame combined with an appealing, innocent essence.

Height: moderate.... Bone structure: slightly angular bones, slightly broad shoulders, moderate to slightly short limbs, slightly leggy look also possible. Blunt or small and irregular facial contours-- nose, cheekbones, and jawline. Hands and feet are moderate and fleshy, or slightly small and wide. Body type: slightly soft..... Facial features: full and rounded. Round eyes, round eyes, full lips, soft cheeks. Nose tends small and wide; or slightly irregular, blunt or wide. If overweight, the body tends to become extremely soft and fleshy, with the waist thickening. The upper hips, arms, and thighs tend to collect excess weight most rapidly.

"Physically, you are basically angular in bone structure-- although this is softened by a fleshy body type and full facial features.... To disperse your soft yin undercurrent..., we want to develop an appearance that could best be described as fresh and sensual....

"Shape: Asymmetric and irregular curves-- elongated ovals, wide circles, ellipticals, and so on. Relaxed geometrics with rounded edges, easy swirls. You might not look as good in sharp geometrics; in wide, chunky, and boxy shapes; in plain, symmetrical shapes; in overly ornate shapes.

"Line and silhouette: unconstructed silhouette with shaping, particularly at waist. Relaxed lines with subtle drape and flow, particularly bias cuts.

You might not look as good in wide, shapeless silhouettes; in sharp, severe silhouettes; in symmetrical silhouettes; in fitted silhouettes.

"Details: details should be loose, relaxed, delicate, slightly intricate, and very creative. Any detail that suggests a bit of antique or the earth is excellent. Shoulders should not be sharp or stiff. Necklines should be loose and soft, not closed, restricted, or fussy. Simple draped necklines; soft cowls; soft notched collars; clean lapels; shawl collars; and so on. Waist should be defined, although loosely: there can be a slightly blousy effect with the top draped over the waistline, or a slightly dropped waist as long as the silhouette is fluid. Gathers and falls should be deep, full, and soft; sleeves can be full and flowing, or gently tapered at the wrist with minimum detail.

"Trim should be delicate and antique, shearing applique, and so on. You might not look as good in sharply tailored detail, in no detail, in overly fitted and fussy detail, in animated, perky detail."

Conclusion

David Duchovny's gonna do and wear what he's gonna do and wear. And that's just fine.

Thanks for reading~

And take care of yourselves.

Enjoy!

[schlock-luster-video]

On August 2, 1968, Here We Go Round the Mulberry Bush debuted in West Germany.

[ambiguouspuzuma]

moth

here they go round the mulberry bush, as yellow follows white; the silkworms taken at fourth blush just as their skin grows tight.

they're harvested at that young age still in their larval guise, and raised until they reach the stage to metamorphosise.

as pupae, at their most exposed, they're harvested again; and this time forcibly unclothed for silk which sees them slain.

thus our own clothing is derived, over another's slaughter, bred only to be boiled alive in vats of boiling water.

and when their cousins come to stay they find our wardrobes first, eating our clothes as if to take revenge through tattered shirts.

but we refuse to take the blame for all their kin who died, and try to kill them just the same with our insecticide.

we put down mothballs, cedarwood, around the moths we hung, to keep those who reached adulthood from the skins of their young.

but these mourners are dutiful, not easily denied, and see it would be beautiful to die there by their side.

but elsewhere in our poisoned rooms we place a glowing light, and far more tempting than those tombs is martyrdom through flight.

thus, come to pay their own respects for overheated dead, the visitors likewise elect for cremation instead.

[byneddiedingo]

Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton in Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (Mike Nichols, 1966)

Cast: Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton, George Segal, Sandy Dennis. Screenplay: Ernest Lehman, based on a play by Edward Albee. Cinematography: Haskell Wexler. Production design: Richard Sylbert. Film editing: Sam O'Steen. Music: Alex North.

I don't know if Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? is a great play -- I've never seen it on stage -- but it's not a great movie, perhaps because it sticks so closely to an uncinematic source. What it does have is one great performance, Richard Burton's, and one near-great one from Elizabeth Taylor. Unfortunately, George Segal and Sandy Dennis are miscast as Nick and Honey: He's too hip and she's too rabbity for their roles to take dramatic shape. Ideally, I think, Nick and Honey should be the conventional flies lured into George and Martha's sinister web. But as Mike Nichols directs them, they don't bring enough initial squareness to their parts, so their disintegration during the game-playing of their hosts happens too swiftly. What makes Burton's performance so memorable is his ability to shift moods, from sullen to mocking, from beleaguered to triumphant, in an instant. He also quite brilliantly suggests George's only barely latent homoerotic attraction to Nick, making it clear that he's titillated by the very idea of Martha's sleeping with the younger man. Taylor falters only in letting her Martha get too shrill for too long: A slower crescendo to her shrewishness would have been welcome in many scenes. Oscars went to Taylor and Dennis, but Burton lost to Paul Scofield in A Man for All Seasons (Fred Zinnemann, 1966) and Segal to Walter Matthau in The Fortune Cookie (Billy Wilder, 1966). Oscars also went to Haskell Wexler for black-and-white cinematography, Richard Sylbert and George James Hopkins for black-and-white art direction and set decoration, and Irene Sharaff for black-and-white costuming. This was the last year in which these categories were divided into color and black-and-white. It's likely that if the color/black-and-white division had been eliminated a year earlier, the film would have missed out on some of those honors. Though he was a noted cinematographer, Wexler doesn't do his best work on Virginia Woolf, partly because Nichols, making his directing debut, called on him to do some close-up shots that not only don't hold focus but also distract from the essence of the drama, the interplay of its four characters, something easier to maintain on a stage than in a move. Nominations also went to Ernest Lehman as the film's producer and screenwriter, Nichols as director, George Groves for sound, Sam O'Steen for film editing, and Alex North for score. Oh, and if you're wondering why the title is sung to "Here We Go 'Round the Mulberry Bush" instead of "Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf?", essentially killing the joke, it's because the Disney studios, who owned the rights to the tune, wanted too much money.

[sukipotier]

English boy Ltd Models - Nick Wilson, Annie Sabroux, Suki Potier and Douglas Earle with actor Barry Evans featured in the 1968 comedy Here We Go Round The Mulberry Bush.

Credits to waybackinthe60s on Instagram