Directors Jonathan Parker and Marlo McKenzie’s documentary, “Carol Doda Topless at the Condor”, begins streaming on May 17. The film chronicles Carol’s life as dancer, starting in San Francisco in 1964, when she “became a tourist attraction second only to the Golden Gate Bridge.”
Jonathan and Marlo arrived in Phoenix for a Harkins Theatres Shea 14 (in Scottsdale, Ariz.) “Carol Doda Topless at the Condor” screening, and the Phoenix Film Festival sat down with them for an interview. They discussed their project’s origin, Carol’s mark as an authentic San Franciscan, technical and scope choices, and much more.
PFF: Jonathan, you knew Carol, so how does it feel to get this project on the big screen? Marlo, can you add your thoughts?
JP: It’s a pretty amazing feeling. I knew Carol when she retired from dancing. (She) opened her lingerie store on Union St. in San Francisco. My office at that time, (and) this was in the late ‘90s, overlooked her courtyard where her store was (located). She’s famous in San Francisco, so I met her and started hanging out with her. I was an aspiring filmmaker at the time, (and) I started talking with her about (making) a movie (about) her life story. I had written a bunch of material. It wasn’t going to be a documentary. It was going to be a narrative, but ultimately, the project didn’t come together. I had a lot of material that I put into a drawer in the office. Twenty years later, Marlo and I were working together on a different project, and she found the file in my office and was intrigued.
MM: I found the file, and it happened around the time of Me Too, but a little bit after that. That was in my brain when I saw the file. At first, I didn’t know who (Carol) was, but when I looked her up, it was amazing to learn that she was the first topless dancer in the U.S., and (I) really (wanted) to know about her. How does someone become Carol Doda? Did she feel empowered? Was she exploited? How did she decide to get (silicone) injections? How did that happen? There are these (ideas) that explode in your mind. I was already arguing inside of myself. When that happens, I know (that I have) an interesting story. So, we reopened (Carol’s story).
PFF: As you mentioned, Carol used silicone to enhance her figure. The movie reveals the origins of silicone implants dating back to WWII. Were you surprised by the origins?
MM: I was surprised (to learn) about the whole history. It goes back even further than that (when) women (tried) to inject strange things, like paraffin, into their breasts. I didn’t realize it had been a thing; the idea that silicone was stored in vats, and then doctors thought it was safe. (Looking back,) how is that possible? I kept thinking that your gut would know (that it’s not safe). (However,) it was important for (Carol and other dancers) to have the body they wanted. So, I understand why they would choose to (have silicone injections).
PFF: Was Carol empowered but also a victim?
JP: There are elements of both. Carol was very proud of her career. She absolutely did not consider herself a victim in any way. Although, if you look at the situation objectively, you could draw that conclusion because (silicon injections were) a risky thing, and she did suffer negative consequences from it. But she was very proud of her career. One of the things that I really liked about (Carol) is she was very entrepreneurial. She was always on her own. Nobody (helped) her out. She didn’t have a partner until much later in life.
PFF: I read that San Francisco is known for championing artists who push boundaries and stay true to themselves. Does Carol fit that mold?
MM: Yeah, she definitely fits that mold. There’s a book by Betty Friedan, “The Feminine Mystique”, and the thesis is that women would like to have agency over their lives and not just be relegated to the home. This was the big conversation at the time. You have to keep that in mind when you think of Carol; for her, at that time and in that context, to decide to do what she did. “I’m going to perform on the stage nude.” That’s a huge, massive, courageous thing to do at that time, so she was pushing boundaries. It’s amazing that she defined herself this way and said, “I’m going to do this no matter what people think of me.”
JP: She really wanted to be a nightclub entertainer. Her idol was Frank Sinatra. She was not part of the hippie scene at all. She was before that (era), coming out of the Rat Pack culture. San Francisco at that time was the Off-Season Vegas. Carol’s career came about in a very organic way. If you opened the newspaper for the want ads (at that time), there was “Help Wanted – Female” listed. That’s the way (these ads) were written. The opportunities for women were (as a secretary), receptionist, shop clerk, (and) these kinds of things. She starts as a cocktail waitress, but she’s entertaining the crowd. She’s dancing all over the club, and she says in the movie, “I was entertaining them, but I was serving them drinks.” Once she starts dancing on the piano, (her) drink-serving days (were) over. (She was) now (the) featured entertainment attraction.
So, she was just a very natural performer, following her dream. (To answer your question,) she absolutely is the poster girl for San Francisco’s contribution in that way.
MM: She took the idea of fantasy and sexuality and added comedy to it. That was part of her performance. That was something that made her stand out from all the dancers. She had (a) personality that was very special.
JP: (Carol’s act) was very different from a burlesque scene where burlesque was all about the tease. Removing a garment (and) removing a garment, but there is no audience interaction with burlesque, typically. With Carol, she was more like, “I’m going to stand here. I’m going to be topless and say, ‘Hey, where are you guys from?’” She was very candid, and she had a great sense of humor. That is a very unusual situation: the (candid) quality of her performance and the audience engagement.
PFF: I was amazed by all the footage, photos, and B-roll you found for the film. Can you talk about the process of collecting this data?
MM: It was a team. Jen Petrucelli was our archival producer, and she’s amazing. Jonathan and I helped. Jennifer (Mayer), our editor, helped. We had two other archival researchers (who worked with us for) five years. The movie (took) six years, and five were when we started looking for things. So, all of that together was an amazing effort.
PFF: The movie also has journalists and scholars who look at Carol’s career through a sociological lens. Can you talk about their inclusion in the film?
JP: We both felt that Carol’s story needed to be contextualized. She wasn’t just this stripper. She was in a place and a time and the advent of the topless bathing suit. The Republican Convention was coming to San Francisco. There was a lot of stuff in the air. The free-speech movement started at Berkeley. We felt strongly that it was important to (ask), “What do contemporary cultural critics and sociologists interpret what Carol had done?” It is very different looking at (her career) from today’s perspective compared to looking at it from 1964. You can tell how much things have changed. In 1964, the Republican Party selected San Francisco to host their convention. That’s how much things have changed.
PFF: How should Carol be remembered?
MM: She did achieve her dream. I think of it in terms of creative expression. She was very brave to express herself creatively in a way that (many) women want to express themselves. She did open the doors that way.
JP: She was a shining example of what it meant – as one of our experts says – “to be a subversive San Franciscan in the 1960s.” For better or worse, San Francisco was blazing a trail at that point. She’s just a great San Franciscan. That’s a good way to remember her.
