Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Merry Christmas!


Altered Film Classifications On Posters In Australia

HONDOHONDO Member, Wizard of Aus Posters Posts: 8,198 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector
                                                            Title # 1. Sergeant York  ( 1941 ). Altered on daybill from Not Suitable For Children to For General Exhibition for unknown reason.                                                             
Lawrence
«1

Comments

  • theartofmovieposterstheartofmovieposters Member Posts: 4,032 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector
    Oh I have some of these...will check them out when I get home and can access my pics easily...
  • HONDOHONDO Member, Wizard of Aus Posters Posts: 8,198 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector
    edited November 2016
                   Title # 2. True As A Turtle ( 1957 ). Altered on daybill from Not Suitable For Children to For General Exhibition, again for unknown reason.
    Lawrence
  • theartofmovieposterstheartofmovieposters Member Posts: 4,032 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector
  • HONDOHONDO Member, Wizard of Aus Posters Posts: 8,198 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector
    Casablanca?

    Yes and will be next to show,
    Lawrence
  • HONDOHONDO Member, Wizard of Aus Posters Posts: 8,198 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector
    edited November 2016

       Title # 3, Casablanca ( 1942 ).        

    Top two daybill images from the original Australian first release in Australia in 1944.

    Colour daybill just above ( left ) is from the 1949 Australian re-release.

    Duotone daybill  just above ( right )  is from a 1980's re-release. 

    Almost everything points to Casablanca  having been originally classified Not Suitable For General Exhibition, then followed in 1949 as Not Suitable For Children and in the early 1980's as NRC.

    I have checked countless newspaper advertisements over the years that  Casablanca was screened in Australia and the vast majority concur with the ratings just mentioned. I only found one stating For General Exhibition placed by a small cinema  and some without ratings which in that particular period of time, unless marked with a code were meant to be For General Exhibition films. Human error in not adding the Not Suitable For General Exhibition code a strong possibility I believe.

    A question now to Bruce who has six of the original release daybills sold in past auctions. 5 of the daybills have the For General Exhibition snipe attached and the remaining one has no classification rating at all, My question to Bruce is did  the 5 with stickers attached  all come to you from the one seller ?

       

    Lawrence
  • BruceBruce Member, Captain Movie Poster Posts: 914 ✭✭✭ Daybiller
    HONDO said:

    A question now to Bruce who has six of the original release daybills sold in past auctions. 5 of the daybills have the For General Exhibition snipe attached and the remaining one has no classification rating at all, My question to Bruce is did  the 5 with stickers attached  all come to you from the one seller ?   

    If even TWO came from the same person I did not realize it at the time. But not only is that possible, but also one or more may be a case of one of the buyers re-consigning the poster later on.
    We (eMoviePoster.com) hold 3,000 auctions a week, 138,000 a year.
    See all of our current auctions in one gallery here: http://www.emovieposter.com/agallery/all.html
  • CSM_2_Point_0CSM_2_Point_0 Member, Super Sleuth Posts: 1,097 ✭✭✭✭ Three-Sheeter
    -Chris

    There's a street of lights

    A long dark night
    Restaurant scenes
    And dark machines...

  • HONDOHONDO Member, Wizard of Aus Posters Posts: 8,198 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector

     Thanks for bringing Johnny O'clock ( 1947 ) to our attention.. Let's make it title # 4. No other example, as far as I know is available of any other censorship rating applying for this film on any other poster. I would think either an incorrect censorship rating or even perhaps a wrong spelling was originally printed on the poster by mistake and before the posters were sent out the mistake was officially corrected by the overprinted Suitable Only For Adults censorship rating. 

    Lawrence
  • theartofmovieposterstheartofmovieposters Member Posts: 4,032 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector

    Bitter Victory

    Law of The Tropics

    Hercules - though I suspect they just left the rating off the original printed poster

  • theartofmovieposterstheartofmovieposters Member Posts: 4,032 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector
  • HONDOHONDO Member, Wizard of Aus Posters Posts: 8,198 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector

    Thanks Ves for the four images, I will number them as follows -

    Bitter Victory # 5

    Law Of The Tropics # 6.

    Hercules # 7.

    Plunder Of The Sun # 8.

    Comments on each one to follow.


    Lawrence
  • HONDOHONDO Member, Wizard of Aus Posters Posts: 8,198 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector
     # 5. Bitter Victory  ( 1957 ). I believe this film was never anything but rated Suitable Only For Adults.                   
    Lawrence
  • MarkMark Member Posts: 628 ✭✭✭ Daybiller
    Don't forget Commando (Arnie). Phil told me they tried to pre-empt the censor and had to add R stickers to all the daybills. I do have a one sheet printed with the correct R rating.
  • HONDOHONDO Member, Wizard of Aus Posters Posts: 8,198 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector
    edited November 2016

                                                         # 6. Law Of The Tropics ( 1943 ).

    I think someone playing around with ratings for something to do or perhaps a theatre owner altering the poster for a children's matinee. It would be interesting to see another image of another daybill, if actually one exists, to see if it has been altered or not.

    Lawrence
  • HONDOHONDO Member, Wizard of Aus Posters Posts: 8,198 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector
    Mark said:
    Don't forget Commando (Arnie). Phil told me they tried to pre-empt the censor and had to add R stickers to all the daybills. I do have a one sheet printed with the correct R rating.

    Let's make Commando # 9. I will comment on this film in due course.
    Lawrence
  • MarkMark Member Posts: 628 ✭✭✭ Daybiller
    Saturday Night Fever has a story, including several daybill versions.
  • HONDOHONDO Member, Wizard of Aus Posters Posts: 8,198 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector
    Mark said:
    Saturday Night Fever has a story, including several daybill versions.

    With this thread I had originally intended it for alterations to ratings that happened on the same poster. With Saturday Night Fever two different posters were printed with separate ratings applying to each poster and the  different versions of the film.
    Lawrence
  • HONDOHONDO Member, Wizard of Aus Posters Posts: 8,198 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector
     # 7. Hercules ( 1997 ). I don't believe an alteration happened here with a censorship rating. I think most likely the censorship rating had been accidently left off when the poster had been printed and the G rating snipe was added post printing.
    Lawrence
  • CSM_2_Point_0CSM_2_Point_0 Member, Super Sleuth Posts: 1,097 ✭✭✭✭ Three-Sheeter
    HONDO said:

     Thanks for bringing Johnny O'clock ( 1947 ) to our attention.. Let's make it title # 4. No other example, as far as I know is available of any other censorship rating applying for this film on any other poster. I would think either an incorrect censorship rating or even perhaps a wrong spelling was originally printed on the poster by mistake and before the posters were sent out the mistake was officially corrected by the overprinted Suitable Only For Adults censorship rating. 

    It is an interesting occurrence as the "Suitable Only For Adults" is printed in heavy ink right on the poster overtop of the original printed classification of "Not Suitable For General Exhibition"
    -Chris

    There's a street of lights

    A long dark night
    Restaurant scenes
    And dark machines...

  • CSM_2_Point_0CSM_2_Point_0 Member, Super Sleuth Posts: 1,097 ✭✭✭✭ Three-Sheeter


    Another interesting one.  To the right of the legible small "Not Suitable For Children" is the ghost of a larger "Suitable Only For Adults" which has been almost completely printed over.
    -Chris

    There's a street of lights

    A long dark night
    Restaurant scenes
    And dark machines...

  • HONDOHONDO Member, Wizard of Aus Posters Posts: 8,198 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector
    edited November 2016
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   # 8. Plunder Of The Sun ( 1953 ). Incorrectly shown as Plunder In The Sun in the newspaper advertisement above. All newspaper advertisements I have located have the film rated Not Suitable for Children. It would be interesting to see an original full colour daybill to see the rating that would have been printed on it.
    Lawrence
  • HONDOHONDO Member, Wizard of Aus Posters Posts: 8,198 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector


    Another interesting one.  To the right of the legible small "Not Suitable For Children" is the ghost of a larger "Suitable Only For Adults" which has been almost completely printed over.
    Let's call Jet Over The Atlantic ( 1959 ) # 10 and I will comment on it a little later on.
    Lawrence
  • HONDOHONDO Member, Wizard of Aus Posters Posts: 8,198 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector
      # 11. San Demetrio London ( 1943 ). Thanks David for bringing this one to our attention. Interestingly the daybill has the original Not Suitable For Children rating unchanged. Newspaper advertisements for the film appear to be a selection of both classifications. I am starting to discover newspaper advertisements on numerous occasions printed incorrect classifications and an good example of this  is Tarzan Triumphs. As per the daybill image this is a definite For General Exhibition film if I ever saw one, but is rated Not Suitable For Children in the classified advertisement.
    Lawrence
  • DavidDavid Member Posts: 10,291 admin
    edited November 2016
    In my opinion and perhaps as a general rule I don't think newspaper printed adverts with incorrect classifications, I think the error lies with the film censor or more to the point as a result of the film censor and perhaps/possibly due to the a change of rating which may differ from the ad sheets the distributor may have originally supplied.

    For instance in the case of San Demetrio London (1943), as you can see by the newspaper clipping (22 March 1944) the film was bloody re-rated once the bloody word was deleted which is why the bloody sticker would have been bloody applied.

    I suspect any adverts for the film before the above date would show the old/original rating and after that date with the new rating - bear in mind news did not travel by email back then, so it may not have been immediate.

    So I think there are probably any number of reasons for the daybill NOT having the new censorship rating, such as:

    1.   It was never added and the only logical reason it was never added (because a lesser rating would surely bring in more bums on seats) was the film had already had its season at the picture theatre from where the film had been shown.

    2. It never made it to a picture theatre for display and was lining the floor of a house somewhere (improbable I know, but I hear it happens).

    3.   It was removed when it was placed on linen 60 or so years later prior to being sold at auction.

    4.   We will never know.
    David
  • HONDOHONDO Member, Wizard of Aus Posters Posts: 8,198 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector
    edited November 2016

     David says ''We will never know''.  A # 5 reason is I believe what follows it what actually happened. All original posters were printed with the Commonwealth Censors censorship rating of Not Suitable For Children. The Australian one sheet with the snipe was added for the Victorian release and the example above of the classified newspaper advertisement with the For General Exhibition classification is for the New Seaford Theatre which is in Victoria.

    I don't believe the Tarzan Triumphs newspaper advertisement had anything to do with censorship  in any form and was just a case of an error being made.

    Post edited by HONDO on
    Lawrence
  • DavidDavid Member Posts: 10,291 admin
    Tarzan Triumphs was a anti-nazi film banned in some sympathetic countries as a result, I still wonder if there was an original rating that was overturned on or during its release
    David
  • HONDOHONDO Member, Wizard of Aus Posters Posts: 8,198 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector
    David said:
    Tarzan Triumphs was a anti-nazi film banned in some sympathetic countries as a result, I still wonder if there was an original rating that was overturned on or during its release

    Tarzan Triumphs was released in the USA on 19th February 1943 and was  followed by a release in Australia on  the 23rd of  December 1943. In the early 1940's  Australian troops engaged enemy forces in combat in North Africa and the Mediterranean for the first time, so by the time Tarzan Triumphs was released in Australia many years had elapsed and atter long fighting the Nazis we were not one of the sympathetic countries. For the record I am in no way suggesting David meant to include Australia in the sympathetic countries as I know he didn't. All I am saying is to rule out this information as being a reason for a banning.  If there had been an early banning, it would I feel have had to be because of violence but there is no record of any banning in any newspapers that I can see, and in that particular period of time this sort of information was relayed to the general public through newspapers. Apart from the one classified advertisement I found and displayed earlier with the ( A ) appearing on it and after searching again no other advertisements have I been able to locate with a not suitable for children rating applied throughout the release, so I believe this was just a mistake in human error with a incorrect rating being used in the advertisement.   
    Lawrence
  • HONDOHONDO Member, Wizard of Aus Posters Posts: 8,198 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector
    HONDO said:


    Another interesting one.  To the right of the legible small "Not Suitable For Children" is the ghost of a larger "Suitable Only For Adults" which has been almost completely printed over.
    Let's call Jet Over The Atlantic ( 1959 ) # 10 and I will comment on it a little later on.
    I cannot find out anything for the reason behind the alteration to the rating.
    Lawrence
  • HONDOHONDO Member, Wizard of Aus Posters Posts: 8,198 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector
    HONDO said:
    Mark said:
    Don't forget Commando (Arnie). Phil told me they tried to pre-empt the censor and had to add R stickers to all the daybills. I do have a one sheet printed with the correct R rating.

    Let's make Commando # 9. I will comment on this film in due course.
    Commando ( 1985 ) I have nothing additional to comment on except it was classified R and released as R so Phil's explanation sounds good. I would be interested in seeing the image of the one sheet printed with the R certificate Matt. I wonder if it was a second printing then ?
    Lawrence
Sign In or Register to comment.