Indestructible spelt incorrectly. I hadn't previously spotted that, so thanks for pointing the mistake out. It is just one of many made by Australian poster printers that can be added to a growing list of Australian printed posters that contained errors of one type or another,
A ban on any new horror films being allowed into Australia was introduced in 1948. Previously released horror films were exempt from this horror ban
In the 1950's midnight screenings of horror films were a regular occurance and the above newspaper advertisements advertised on 12 April 1952 in Adelaide, SA for screenings of mainly horror films is a good example of this practice.. Films included some great old Universal titles including Bride of Frankenstein,The Old Dark House, The Mad Ghoul and She Wolf Of London. One has to wonder if any duotone posters were ever printed for any of the older titles?
Yes, very good indeed. It's fortunate that so many Australian posters in the 20's and 30's came with a signature, which wasn't the case in the U.S. where anonymity was the rule. Wynne Davies name appears on many daybills in the 1920's, but as far as I know he only had one poster with his signature from his work in the U.S. Davies, Frank Tyler and Fred Brodrick I'd rank as the top 3.
Thanking you also for your kind words.
Yes the three artists you mentioned also rank highly with me, but let's not forget Fred Powis ( The Cat And The Canary ) and Bernie Bragg ( Metropolis ) as well.
I intend to cover the five mentioned artists at some time or another when time allows me to do this.
In the case of Wynne W. Davies U.S. poster work I have images of four signed film posters that he designed there. I will include images of these titles when I compile his coverage here on this thread.
I had credited Fred Powis above as being the artist of The Cat And The Canary. The daybill poster actually was designed by the hands of a different Fred, with the artist being Fred Brodrick,
( John )
Ben Hur horizontal daybill from Fred Powis. One day I hope to include him in my series of Australian movie poster artists. He hopefully will be the next artist I include here.
This image just sent to me by Wil. This image is from an MGM 1927 exhibitor's book that was printed for Australian and New Zealand usage. Size is listed as being 10'' x 12.5''. You will notice that the pillars on the right hand side of the poster show six pillars on one image but only four on the other.
With a screening date on the poster in question and the difference in size I am thinking it is a horizontal poster.
Would be also be good to hear from John with his thoughts, as he was the person who originally posted the image on the 8th of February of this year on the forum.
One of the campaign books sold recently at auction and had the same fold-out. Pretty sure I emailed Ves when I saw the auction. Could have been Bill Collins. From memory either NFSA or another Aussie gov institution also has a copy on their site. I think Keith had the poster, which was mounted on board. He was asking $5K about 7 or 8 years ago. Personally, I was never convinced that was a daybill. Just doesn't add up when all the display cases were set up for 15 x 40 vertical posters. There was some delay with Ben Hur being shown in Aust.
One of the campaign books sold recently at auction and had the same fold-out. Pretty sure I emailed Ves when I saw the auction. Could have been Bill Collins. From memory either NFSA or another Aussie gov institution also has a copy on their site. I think Keith had the poster, which was mounted on board. He was asking $5K about 7 or 8 years ago. Personally, I was never convinced that was a daybill. Just doesn't add up when all the display cases were set up for 15 x 40 vertical posters. There was some delay with Ben Hur being shown in Aust.
It had certainly crossed my mind about the theatre display cases being made for advertising 15 x 40 vertical posters.
You will notice though that the poster in question, as well as having a little extra image on it, has a Metro Goldwyn Mayer credit printed on it, On the other hand the exhibitor's book is minus an MGM credit. This certainly proves that the two examples are different printings.
Another thing I would like to add to what I have already mentioned, is that another film Congogorilla ( 1932 ) is credited as being a horizonral daybill. This means then that horizontal daybill posters, although rare, were printed and distributed here in Australia.
I was going to mention the E, Brown connection on my intended inclusion of Fred Powis on my Australian movie poster artisrs series sometime in the future, but I will mention it here now.
Across To Singapore ( 1928 ) & Annie Laurie ( 1927 ) Australian daybills signed E. Brown, when in fact the artist would appear to have been Fred Powis. More details can be found on the link supplied by Mark.
I remember when Keith listed it on ebay as a horiz daybill, but that doesn't make it one! They issued updated versions of the campaign books. I have the MGM 1928 season, which has different pages and content to one Bruce auctioned recently. The covers are identical, but turns out Bruce had an earlier printing than mine. Was discussed in another thread. I think it's the finalised artwork for the fold-out, and was never intended for public display. That's why there are no credits etc. Congorilla could be any size. Renwick Pride were printers of smaller items and I don't see much evidence that poster is a daybill. Nice to find anomalies and mp collectors love a myth, but you need evidence to back it up.
I remember when Keith listed it on ebay as a horiz daybill, but that doesn't make it one! They issued updated versions of the campaign books. I have the MGM 1928 season, which has different pages and content to one Bruce auctioned recently. The covers are identical, but turns out Bruce had an earlier printing than mine. Was discussed in another thread. I think it's the finalised artwork for the fold-out, and was never intended for public display. That's why there are no credits etc. Congorilla could be any size. Renwick Pride were printers of smaller items and I don't see much evidence that poster is a daybill. Nice to find anomalies and mp collectors love a myth, but you need evidence to back it up.
You have certainly come up with some valid points, but as you say you need evidence to back up your claim. In my eyes there just isn't enough of this to definitely prove that it isn't a daybill, and it is as you believe finalised artwork for a fold-out.
Renwick Pride were as you mentionted certainly printers of smaller sized items, but not exclusively. They did print 15'' x 40'' long daybills in the 1920s. Two examples appear below.
The Woman Of Bronze ( 1923 ) and The Lullaby ( 1924 ) Renwick Pride Melb. printed 15'' x 40'' daybills
What is interesting is that Ben Hur was released in Australia in 1927 with the hand written date on the poster being Saturday November 10. The only year that tallies exactly with this date is 1929.
"That's a horizontal daybill!" "How do you know?" "So & So said it was!"
As a hobby, I thought we had moved on from this sort of speculation. Also, drawing a long bow between early 1920s & 1932 when Congorilla dates from. Even if Congo is a db, it is from years later and not MGM, so wouldn't support Ben Hur in any way.
Let's stick to the facts and what we actually know for certain. 1. The owner of that piece wasn't around in 1928. 2. Powis had creative control, or at least major influence, over the 1927 MGM season campaign book. All of his other artwork appears complete and in full colour. Reference - https://ausreprints.net/issue/14072 3. There is no doubt the artwork originates from the 1927 campaign book, and appears unfinished compared to the other examples as per 2. 4. The lack of credits is not typical of Australian daybills of the time.
By my logic, there is actually no evidence - other than hearsay - to support it being a daybill. Who agrees?
I would also like to hear from other members on their thoughts also.
The facts I know about the following poster..
1 It has a printers credit, most likely Simmons Ltd. Litho Sydney who were printing MGM daybills around this period.
2 This poster as mentioned earlier has some extra image on the right hand design of pillars compared to the other campaign book image.
3 There is a black outlined border around this poster similar to the previously posted MGM daybills from that period of time Across To Singapore and Annie Laurie. I don't believe the campaign book entries normally used this border presentation.
4 The handwritten date on the poster would indicate to me that it may have been used by a cinema to promote Ben Hur on that date.
The only way we will most likely know for sure the poster style is the find out the size of this poster.
Anyway I have said all that I had to say and hopefully we can hear now on what others think.
When you factor in the fold-out, the width of paper would be quite long, bound down the centre when the page is folded up. Who better to print a long lithograph than Simmons, already on your accounts? If you didn't have a daybill handy in 1929, you might just cut that out and stick it up. Black border is Powis style, and we are not debating the artist, only that the work is incomplete in the available campaign books. We know MGM revised them. Could also be a poster of the final artwork, printed by Simmons, for MGM executives. Everyone can now make their own minds up, and I am happy to be proven wrong. Just doesn't cut it as a daybill for me.
I think definitely a poster, and probably a daybill, given it has no folds in it - consistent with most long daybills. Obviously there's no wide border for screening date as that would need to be very wide to be read properly hence the writing in the body. It could have been trimmed off but I doubt it, it would look weird in this format. Ben Hur was a major release, the type of film that would have had special format or irregular size posters (like King Kong for example) and spectacular ones that wouldn't necessarily have or need credits, the name alone sells this movie. Campaign books often had their exact art used for posters and the art here only fits a horizontal format not vertical, so that's how they printed it. It's not very likely that this is a poster done just to show executives what another 'concept' piece in a campaign book will be like, proof art like that was usually distributed in photo format, with annotations where the copy goes and printed in b&w. I've owned such things and they never had a printers name attached to it - unnecessary as the company knows who they're dealing with. Note that the campaign book foldout doesn't have MGM on it but the poster does, that fits with the order that they would have been generated.- more details are added along the way. Also I don't see how a poster for MGM executives makes its way to a cinema, which this one has. An exchange wouldn't send such a thing out. That handwriting on this poster, I've spotted that many times on daybills from the 20's. There has to be a good reason why the owner described it as a daybill, I mean he did have it in his hands - that has to count quite a bit.
Hopefully John will come back with something possitive to report. I am also thinking an original Australian press sheet would come in handy. Any one have one?
I have spoken to the owner of the poster and he confirmed that it is indeed a long daybill. Printer is Simmons Litho Sydney and the artist is Powis. It came from a collection of other long daybills, all stuck to board and all with the same writing on them,
I have spoken to the owner of the poster and he confirmed that it is indeed a long daybill. Printer is Simmons Litho Sydney and the artist is Powis. It came from a collection of other long daybills, all stuck to board and all with the same writing on them,
Thank you John for clearing this one up. All the vision on the poster, to me anyway for all the reasons I had previously mentioned, indicated to me that it was an Australian daybill.
I remember when Keith listed it on ebay as a horiz daybill, but that doesn't make it one! They issued updated versions of the campaign books. I have the MGM 1928 season, which has different pages and content to one Bruce auctioned recently. The covers are identical, but turns out Bruce had an earlier printing than mine. Was discussed in another thread. I think it's the finalised artwork for the fold-out, and was never intended for public display. That's why there are no credits etc. Congorilla could be any size. Renwick Pride were printers of smaller items and I don't see much evidence that poster is a daybill. Nice to find anomalies and mp collectors love a myth, but you need evidence to back it up.
I agree with Mark about Congorilla. I don't see any evidence that it is a daybill. Does anyone know where the image came from that described as being a daybill?
Keith said it was a daybill before. We need to know the size. Certainly Keith knows movie posters, but if you haven't seen the campaign book, then it could be mistaken as a daybill. I have a good memory, but 7 or 8 years is stretching it. I knew it was on board, but I thought he descibed it as being shorter, like around 27 inches. I think it should have "an MGM picture" circular device or "presents" for this time period, not just Metro -GM.
The jury must be still out regarding Congorilla's status.
The above image I originally posted on another VMPF thread was discovered by me on Google in 2018 or before. Unfortunately it has since disappeared from sight. Although not being able to distingush the printer's credit myself, it was credited on the site as being printed by Renwick Pride. I cannot from memory remember who the contributor of the image was, but it clearly stated that it was a daybill poster.
Comments
Good find Lawrence
Indestructible spelt incorrectly. I hadn't previously spotted that, so thanks for pointing the mistake out. It is just one of many made by Australian poster printers that can be added to a growing list of Australian printed posters that contained errors of one type or another,
A ban on any new horror films being allowed into Australia was introduced in 1948. Previously released horror films were exempt from this horror ban
In the 1950's midnight screenings of horror films were a regular occurance and the above newspaper advertisements advertised on 12 April 1952 in Adelaide, SA for screenings of mainly horror films is a good example of this practice.. Films included some great old Universal titles including Bride of Frankenstein,The Old Dark House, The Mad Ghoul and She Wolf Of London. One has to wonder if any duotone posters were ever printed for any of the older titles?
I had credited Fred Powis above as being the artist of The Cat And The Canary. The daybill poster actually was designed by the hands of a different Fred, with the artist being Fred Brodrick,
Ben Hur horizontal daybill from Fred Powis. One day I hope to include him in my series of Australian movie poster artists. He hopefully will be the next artist I include here.
Rare Horizontal Style Daybills
John
August 2018
Here is the magnificent Ben Hur horizontal daybill. Art by Fred Powis - no censorship or cast details.
Would be good to know for certain 🕵️♂️
The disputed image.
This image just sent to me by Wil. This image is from an MGM 1927 exhibitor's book that was printed for Australian and New Zealand usage. Size is listed as being 10'' x 12.5''. You will notice that the pillars on the right hand side of the poster show six pillars on one image but only four on the other.
With a screening date on the poster in question and the difference in size I am thinking it is a horizontal poster.
Would be also be good to hear from John with his thoughts, as he was the person who originally posted the image on the 8th of February of this year on the forum.
I think Keith had the poster, which was mounted on board. He was asking $5K about 7 or 8 years ago.
Personally, I was never convinced that was a daybill. Just doesn't add up when all the display cases were set up for 15 x 40 vertical posters.
There was some delay with Ben Hur being shown in Aust.
https://ausreprints.net/article/57
You will notice though that the poster in question, as well as having a little extra image on it, has a Metro Goldwyn Mayer credit printed on it, On the other hand the exhibitor's book is minus an MGM credit. This certainly proves that the two examples are different printings.
Another thing I would like to add to what I have already mentioned, is that another film Congogorilla ( 1932 ) is credited as being a horizonral daybill. This means then that horizontal daybill posters, although rare, were printed and distributed here in Australia.
Across To Singapore ( 1928 ) & Annie Laurie ( 1927 ) Australian daybills signed E. Brown, when in fact the artist would appear to have been Fred Powis. More details can be found on the link supplied by Mark.
Pity it isn't clearer and to be able to read it clearly. The only word I can make out is the final one, which is Sydney
. Surely this must now be in favour of it being a daybill and being game, set and match.
They issued updated versions of the campaign books. I have the MGM 1928 season, which has different pages and content to one Bruce auctioned recently. The covers are identical, but turns out Bruce had an earlier printing than mine. Was discussed in another thread.
I think it's the finalised artwork for the fold-out, and was never intended for public display. That's why there are no credits etc.
Congorilla could be any size. Renwick Pride were printers of smaller items and I don't see much evidence that poster is a daybill.
Nice to find anomalies and mp collectors love a myth, but you need evidence to back it up.
Renwick Pride were as you mentionted certainly printers of smaller sized items, but not exclusively. They did print 15'' x 40'' long daybills in the 1920s. Two examples appear below.
The Woman Of Bronze ( 1923 ) and The Lullaby ( 1924 ) Renwick Pride Melb. printed 15'' x 40'' daybills
What is interesting is that Ben Hur was released in Australia in 1927 with the hand written date on the poster being Saturday November 10. The only year that tallies exactly with this date is 1929.
"How do you know?"
"So & So said it was!"
As a hobby, I thought we had moved on from this sort of speculation.
Also, drawing a long bow between early 1920s & 1932 when Congorilla dates from. Even if Congo is a db, it is from years later and not MGM, so wouldn't support Ben Hur in any way.
Let's stick to the facts and what we actually know for certain.
1. The owner of that piece wasn't around in 1928.
2. Powis had creative control, or at least major influence, over the 1927 MGM season campaign book. All of his other artwork appears complete and in full colour. Reference - https://ausreprints.net/issue/14072
3. There is no doubt the artwork originates from the 1927 campaign book, and appears unfinished compared to the other examples as per 2.
4. The lack of credits is not typical of Australian daybills of the time.
By my logic, there is actually no evidence - other than hearsay - to support it being a daybill.
Who agrees?
The facts I know about the following poster..
1 It has a printers credit, most likely Simmons Ltd. Litho Sydney who were printing MGM daybills around this period.
2 This poster as mentioned earlier has some extra image on the right hand design of pillars compared to the other campaign book image.
3 There is a black outlined border around this poster similar to the previously posted MGM daybills from that period of time Across To Singapore and Annie Laurie. I don't believe the campaign book entries normally used this border presentation.
4 The handwritten date on the poster would indicate to me that it may have been used by a cinema to promote Ben Hur on that date.
The only way we will most likely know for sure the poster style is the find out the size of this poster.
Anyway I have said all that I had to say and hopefully we can hear now on what others think.
If you didn't have a daybill handy in 1929, you might just cut that out and stick it up.
Black border is Powis style, and we are not debating the artist, only that the work is incomplete in the available campaign books. We know MGM revised them.
Could also be a poster of the final artwork, printed by Simmons, for MGM executives.
Everyone can now make their own minds up, and I am happy to be proven wrong. Just doesn't cut it as a daybill for me.
Ben Hur was a major release, the type of film that would have had special format or irregular size posters (like King Kong for example) and spectacular ones that wouldn't necessarily have or need credits, the name alone sells this movie. Campaign books often had their exact art used for posters and the art here only fits a horizontal format not vertical, so that's how they printed it. It's not very likely that this is a poster done just to show executives what another 'concept' piece in a campaign book will be like, proof art like that was usually distributed in photo format, with annotations where the copy goes and printed in b&w. I've owned such things and they never had a printers name attached to it - unnecessary as the company knows who they're dealing with.
Note that the campaign book foldout doesn't have MGM on it but the poster does, that fits with the order that they would have been generated.- more details are added along the way. Also I don't see how a poster for MGM executives makes its way to a cinema, which this one has. An exchange wouldn't send such a thing out. That handwriting on this poster, I've spotted that many times on daybills from the 20's.
There has to be a good reason why the owner described it as a daybill, I mean he did have it in his hands - that has to count quite a bit.
Certainly Keith knows movie posters, but if you haven't seen the campaign book, then it could be mistaken as a daybill. I have a good memory, but 7 or 8 years is stretching it. I knew it was on board, but I thought he descibed it as being shorter, like around 27 inches.
I think it should have "an MGM picture" circular device or "presents" for this time period, not just Metro -GM.
The above image I originally posted on another VMPF thread was discovered by me on Google in 2018 or before. Unfortunately it has since disappeared from sight. Although not being able to distingush the printer's credit myself, it was credited on the site as being printed by Renwick Pride. I cannot from memory remember who the contributor of the image was, but it clearly stated that it was a daybill poster.
https://www.antiquesreporter.com.au/index.cfm/lot/211893-motion-picture-poster-congorilla-the-one-and-only-talking-pictur/
Scaling roughly, the height is half the length, so not 15 x 40 horizontal. Renwick Pride bottom right, I think.