An interesting daybill that isn't straight forward enough in it's appearance to be able to able to 100% identify it's exact origin. I notice at least six problems with the details on the poster.
I have my thoughts about when it was printed and used. Before I do comment though would anyone else like to comment on anything at all regarding this poster?
As no one wishes to comment, I will now then detail my updated thoughts regarding this Australian daybill's printing details.
The poster is obviously a re-release stock poster issued solely for this film.
There are at least three layers of added supporting film details attached later to the poster.
Interestingly I cannot locate any details regarding on any film compilations that were released with this title of Keystone Comics.
Keystone Comics was released in Australia in 1949 . The daybill under scrutiny supporting attraction The Kid From Kokomo , called Kid From Kokomo on the poster has Jane Wyman top billed when she wasn't even credited at all on the original 1939 Australian daybill. The incorrect credited For General Exhibition classification has been covered over with a Not Suitable For General Exhibition censorship snipe. This is the out of date classification version. They should have applied the post 1948 Not Suitable For Children classification version snipe instead.
This Keystone Comics program also appears to have had at least one follow up compilation released as well soon after. I am uncertain is any more compilations followed after this. The same stock daybill would have been used for all the different versions that were released
It might be a trick question and the one on the right is first before the better full-colour image (which is new to me)
Normally a full colour daybill would indicate a first release over a duotone verssion.
In this case though it would certainly appear the blue version was the Australian first release daybill. The film was submitted to the film censor by Lestrig Trading Co, and classified for 35mm release 01 June 1978. This limited colour usage was the norm for this distributor.
When the more colourful Seven Keys poster was printed would be anyones guess.
My thoughts on the printing order of the two daybills to follow, but why stop there with two versions when there are three in total that are similar in design.
( Wil )
The above daybill image has just been sent to me by Wil . He pointed out the different colouring of the rocket on this version compared to the other yellow version.
All posters were printed by Robert Burton and have some small differences as mentioned by Peter and Wil. One most noticeable difference appears in the For General Exhibition censorship triangle presentations, two have a blue background colour, while the other has a white shading background. Any differences unfortunately don't provide any clues in helping us solve this query.
This rare original Australian one sheet printed with a different arranged, though similar design, provides me with the closest explanation that I can suggest may provide an answer.The two yellow versions would appear to be the slightly higher in quality daybill versions. Seeing that the the one sheet also has nice artwork, and also the same censorship colour presentation as the yellow daybills, my thoughts regarding the three daybill designs are as follows.
The above two daybill versions and the one sheet I believe are strong candidates for likely having been printed for the original 1968 Australian first release.
This daybill was possibly printed as a later follow up version, sometime before November 1971 when this Australian censorship classification changed to the following presentation. To the best of my knowledge 2001 wasn't re-releaed in Australia pre November 1971.
Finally you may want to have a think about the following rare Australian one sheet as well, and have a think about when it would have tied in with Australian screenings.
,
A funny one here from NZ. A trimmed One Sheet (25" x 37.25") that has the same feel as Aussie paper (and upper tagline text), yet a sharper title and completely different artwork from John's & HA's one sheets.
A great designed extremely rare 2001: A Space Odyssey one sheet find Wil.
My thoughts are that it isn't of Australian origin. The superior style of artwork to the other Australian 2001 posters, along with all Australian poster artwork from other film posters of that period would lead me to believe this. There is also to take into account the colour presentation of the MGM logo, no Australian censorship rating or a printer's credit appearing on the poster.
Although no sighting of another copy of this poster anywhere to be found, I do believe the poster was printed overseas, whether in the U.S.A, or elsewhere. New Zealand was extremely well known for importing posters from overseas countries other than Australia for their film releases.
My thoughts are that it isn't of Australian origin. The superior style of artwork to the other Australian 2001 posters, along with all Australian poster artwork from other film posters of that period would lead me to believe this. There is also to take into account the colour presentation of the MGM logo, no Australian censorship rating or a printer's credit appearing on the poster.
Although no sighting of another copy of this poster anywhere to be found, I do believe the poster was printed overseas, whether in the U.S.A, or elsewhere. New Zealand was extremely well known for importing posters from overseas countries other than Australia for their film releases.
Unfortunately the printing info has been removed with the trimmed borders. That said, the paper (when compared to US & UK One Sheets of the same year) is completely different and of the much thinner, almost transparent Aussie daybill type. Certainly too sharp to be of kiwi origin
It certainly has more detailed artwork than appears on any of the known Australian posters of 2001: A Space Odyssey. This has me thinking that it isn't Australian, although I have no definite proof at all to support this.
Curious to know the thoughts of anyone else regarding the country of origin of this poster. Is it Australian or imported?
My guess not Australian, the colours look too dull for the period.
My poor lighting didn't do it justice Rick. Although the sharpness of the title text compared to the Aussie is notably different. Althougg strange that the upper tagline matching the Aussie and paper feel lean back to Aussie or non northern hemisphere.
My guess not Australian, the colours look too dull for the period.
My poor lighting didn't do it justice Rick. Although the sharpness of the title text compared to the Aussie is notably different. Althougg strange that the upper tagline matching the Aussie and paper feel lean back to Aussie or non northern hemisphere.
Even with the poor lighting and lightness of the above poster in question, this poster has more detail in the artwork that the top pictured Australian one sheet version.
Any chance Wil of seeing another new clearer image of the mystery origin poster?
Any chance Wil of seeing another new clearer image of the mystery origin poster?
As requested Lawrence.
I'm assuming it must have been used multiple times to need the original border trimming (albeit rather poorly) and then have additional staple marks around the new edges.
Certainly a barebone produced Australian daybill poster.
No censorship, distributor credit, printer's credit or anything else, apart from pushing the French star Martine Carol being the film's main character.
Is it an original release poster or a later printed one? Any thoughts?
I'd say that being a French film it was probably a small distributor and the posters were produced on the cheap as a small run. It's quite likely no thought was given to including the distributor name, or someone just forgot, it's happened on some major studio posters too.
I'd say that being a French film it was probably a small distributor and the posters were produced on the cheap as a small run. It's quite likely no thought was given to including the distributor name, or someone just forgot, it's happened on some major studio posters too.
Good thinking, but I do believe in this case that this poster isn't first release.
Caroline Cherrie ( 1953 ) is a French film that was released in Australia in 1955. The Australian distributor was Blake Films who were at this time not long in the film distributing business. The following Italian poster of the film would indicate a mainstream French film.
The reason I believe that the poster in question wasn't printed the 1950s is that the style of artwork isn't from that decade.
The first release daybill should have been printed for Blake Films by F. Cunninghame in colour. All the 1950s Blake daybills I am aware of were printed by F. Cunninghame in some form of colour
. A selection of 1950s Blake Films Australian released film daybill examples appear below.
The following Australian daybill in question is drawn in the style of a sexploitation film, and in my mind this took place and was produced in the 1960s or 1970s. Whether the distributor was still Blake Films or the Australian film rights were by then in the hands of another small independent distributor is unknown.
Comments
The poster is obviously a re-release stock poster issued solely for this film.
There are at least three layers of added supporting film details attached later to the poster.
Interestingly I cannot locate any details regarding on any film compilations that were released with this title of Keystone Comics.
Keystone Comics was released in Australia in 1949 . The daybill under scrutiny supporting attraction The Kid From Kokomo , called Kid From Kokomo on the poster has Jane Wyman top billed when she wasn't even credited at all on the original 1939 Australian daybill. The incorrect credited For General Exhibition classification has been covered over with a Not Suitable For General Exhibition censorship snipe. This is the out of date classification version. They should have applied the post 1948 Not Suitable For Children classification version snipe instead.
This Keystone Comics program also appears to have had at least one follow up compilation released as well soon after. I am uncertain is any more compilations followed after this. The same stock daybill would have been used for all the different versions that were released
Peter
Who's on first? Any thoughts as to which of the above posters was the first release printed daybill?_
Peter
In this case though it would certainly appear the blue version was the Australian first release daybill. The film was submitted to the film censor by Lestrig Trading Co, and classified for 35mm release 01 June 1978. This limited colour usage was the norm for this distributor.
When the more colourful Seven Keys poster was printed would be anyones guess.
Partial NZ 'Y' (pre 76) ratings stamp remains.
My thoughts are that it isn't of Australian origin. The superior style of artwork to the other Australian 2001 posters, along with all Australian poster artwork from other film posters of that period would lead me to believe this. There is also to take into account the colour presentation of the MGM logo, no Australian censorship rating or a printer's credit appearing on the poster.
Although no sighting of another copy of this poster anywhere to be found, I do believe the poster was printed overseas, whether in the U.S.A, or elsewhere. New Zealand was extremely well known for importing posters from overseas countries other than Australia for their film releases.
Curious to know the thoughts of anyone else regarding the country of origin of this poster. Is it Australian or imported?
Even with the poor lighting and lightness of the above poster in question, this poster has more detail in the artwork that the top pictured Australian one sheet version.
Any chance Wil of seeing another new clearer image of the mystery origin poster?
I'm assuming it must have been used multiple times to need the original border trimming (albeit rather poorly) and then have additional staple marks around the new edges.
Unfortunately no more light has been thrown on the subject to change my opinion in that I do not believe the poster to be Australian printed.
This is my thinking only and I could be wrong.
Certainly a barebone produced Australian daybill poster.
No censorship, distributor credit, printer's credit or anything else, apart from pushing the French star Martine Carol being the film's main character.
Is it an original release poster or a later printed one? Any thoughts?
Peter
Caroline Cherrie ( 1953 ) is a French film that was released in Australia in 1955. The Australian distributor was Blake Films who were at this time not long in the film distributing business. The following Italian poster of the film would indicate a mainstream French film.
The reason I believe that the poster in question wasn't printed the 1950s is that the style of artwork isn't from that decade.
The first release daybill should have been printed for Blake Films by F. Cunninghame in colour. All the 1950s Blake daybills I am aware of were printed by F. Cunninghame in some form of colour
. A selection of 1950s Blake Films Australian released film daybill examples appear below.
The following Australian daybill in question is drawn in the style of a sexploitation film, and in my mind this took place and was produced in the 1960s or 1970s. Whether the distributor was still Blake Films or the Australian film rights were by then in the hands of another small independent distributor is unknown.
The above image is of a U.S.A. insert poster of The Touchables, a 1968 film that was released in the U.S, by 20th Century Fox.
The film was released in Australia by 20th Century Fox in 1969.
If anyone has a copy of this daybill poster I would appreciate if they would please post an image of it here .
Peter