Skip to content

Same Poster Different Censorship

                                                                                                                                            This type of censorship rating change on Australian posters has been mentioned before from time to time. During my years of film poster research I have noticed some examples, particularly during the 1950s, but I never kept a record of them. I intend to start compiling a list of examples as I look back through my poster image files but if anyone has any images they would like to share it would be appreciated.
«1

Comments

  • I'm guessing this change was due to appeal?
  • David said:
    I'm guessing this change was due to appeal?

    Most likely the case although newspaper advertising in some cases continued promoting the films release at various cinemas using the Not Suitable For Children classification.
  • Matt said:

    This is an interesting example. I have only ever seen the For General Exhibition rating used on any original Australian posters for The Great Escape and never the Not Suitable For Children rating. It appears as if the poster example you have provided here was altered from For General Exhibition to the Not Suitable For Children rating which would appear odd. All later printings of the poster including re-releases I have sighted either had For General Exhibition  or G in a triangle on them. Newspaper advertising at the time were advertising it as For Gereral Exhibition or ( G ) for short.


  • David said:
    I'm guessing this change was due to appeal?

    Along with possible incorrect information supplied to printers from distributors or even human error at printers.
  • There is of course the example of Fear In The Night ( 1947 ) also. There is an  original Paramount release daybill showing Not Suitable For General Exhibition and the same poster re-released by Ray Films in the early 1950s having a Suitable Only For Adults snipe placed over the original rating. A detailed run down and images available to see on my previous Ray Films thread. There is also a Ray Films re-release Australian one sheet with a Suitable Only For Adults snipe covering the original rating as well.
  •                                                                                                                                                                                     True As A Turtle was released in Sydney on the 19 / 12 / 1957 and the above newspaper classified is from The Canberra Timers newspaper, advertising the screening of True As A Turtle at the Star Theatre , Queanbeyan on the 4th & 5th of June, 1958 , five and a half months after the Sydney release and still using apparently unaltered original material with the Not Suitable For Children classification on it. 

                                                                                                                                                                               

  • So what was the classification for True as Turtle?
  • David said:
    So what was the classification for True as Turtle?

    I don't know for sure except the image of the poster with the For General Exhibition snipe attached, available to view  at the start of this thread, and all the remaining Cinema screening newspaper advertisements I have found  all have the  ( G ) rating appearing on them. As I said I don't know the reason for the two classifications but it is possible an appeal  against the original classification was successful and original printed daybills where possible were altered with a snipe attached with the new For General Exhibition rating on them. In the case of the Queanbeyan screening there could have been an oversight in not altering the rating on the advertising. 
  • edited November 2015
                                                                                          All proof I can find in four examples is that it was originally classified with the Not Suitable For General Exhibition rating and appeared in newspaper advertising in 1942, 1946, 1948 and 1950 with this classification and in the abbreviated form of ( A ).  Did a Theatre owner alter the one sheet  perhaps to screen it at a Saturday children's matinee? The advertisement above was for a screening on the 13th of February, 1942 in its second week of first Australian release at the Metro Theatre in Brisbane, Queensland.
  • I've seen quite a lot of Australian posters with changed censorship. When a cinema owner passed away, his children were left with a lot of posters to sell. The son told me that his father used to regularly change the censorship because he could get more people in with a "For General Exhibition" rating than a "Not Suitable" rating. He used to cut up posters and keep the "For General Exhibition" ratings and stick them on to posters to change the rating. I guess he didn't worry about getting caught - probably just be a slap on the wrist.
  • I shudder to think which posters were cut up as years ago as film titles were not valued as they are today. I was recently told by a lady that a large number of the first Mad Max poster were given away free to promote the film around the time of the first film was released in Australia at a country NSW theatre. Of course not realising how valuable they would turn out to be decades later. Getting back to the censorship change if one has an example in their keeping you wouldn't know if to leave it or remove the snipe then. As mentioned before I would love to hear of any more titles with changes on them than we can list them here and hopefully in some cases throw some light on the reasons for the changes.

  • I think I like it more now :)
  • John said:
    I've seen quite a lot of Australian posters with changed censorship. When a cinema owner passed away, his children were left with a lot of posters to sell. The son told me that his father used to regularly change the censorship because he could get more people in with a "For General Exhibition" rating than a "Not Suitable" rating. He used to cut up posters and keep the "For General Exhibition" ratings and stick them on to posters to change the rating. I guess he didn't worry about getting caught - probably just be a slap on the wrist.

    And there's another explanation....didn't expect that one!
  • Great story john!!
  • edited November 2015
    I recently saw this one In person! Well to me it was such an experience!


  • ^ that is the one that it was sold for £26K last week. 
  • Very nice but have I missed something here?
  • Uhm... what do u mean? One is the US censored version and the other is the Dutch censored version... :D
  • Very nice Rosa, love the differences in color! And is there more dress on main dancers' thigh on the Dutch one?
  • Mirosae said:
    Uhm... what do u mean? One is the US censored version and the other is the Dutch censored version... :D

    Sorry, but what has been censored ? Have you more details to share ? They both just look like two countries slightly different designs to me.
  • Ah.. sorry ..yes...here is the uncensored poster .

    As you can see the girl/girls had very little clothing.

    Above is the US censored and the one with the green dress is the Dutch.

    Does this help?
  • Thanks! Yes. That is the Dutch version (ugly green dress). Glad u like too. I find these censored posters rather odd and interesting at the same time!!
    Very nice Rosa, love the differences in color! And is there more dress on main dancers' thigh on the Dutch one?

  • Excellent. Today I prefer the slightly unclad images
  • Mirosae said:
    Ah.. sorry ..yes...here is the uncensored poster .

    As you can see the girl/girls had very little clothing.

    Above is the US censored and the one with the green dress is the Dutch.

    Does this help?
    Yes it does and thank you for the original information and image. Do you know the history behind the usage of the U.S. posters  and when the censorship happened and the circulation of the two ? The original uncensored poster surely would be worth a lot more than the censored one although it also would be worth a considerable amount in the marketplace ?
  • Hi Lawrence, thanks. And that is a very good Q!. I think this film was caught during the transition onto the full implementation of the Hayes Code. Film was premiered in Dec 1933. In 1934 Hayes Code comes into force. So, posters showed in Dec 1933 "survived" as pre code. Posters distributed in 1934 had to be painted all over. The film was a huge success so many posters received the Hayes makeover.

    Sorry, sorry if this is a bit long...ooooooops


    HONDO said:
    Mirosae said:
    Ah.. sorry ..yes...here is the uncensored poster .

    As you can see the girl/girls had very little clothing.

    Above is the US censored and the one with the green dress is the Dutch.

    Does this help?
    Yes it does and thank you for the original information and image. Do you know the history behind the usage of the U.S. posters  and when the censorship happened and the circulation of the two ? The original uncensored poster surely would be worth a lot more than the censored one although it also would be worth a considerable amount in the marketplace ?

  • Thanks for that information.
  •                                                                                                                         RKO again with Down To Their Last Yacht re-titled Hawaiian Nights for the Australian release. The U.S. poster censored  with the emphasis changing and now focusing on the I assume Americans on the yacht and not the local Hawaiians Note the topless girl on the Australian daybill. Code or no code at the time it is amazing that particial nudity was allowed on the poster in 1934. The Australian daybill artwork leaves the U.S. Window Card left in its wake. 
Sign In or Register to comment.






Logo

For movie poster collectors who know...

@ 2021 Vintage Movie Posters Forum, All rights reserved.

Contact us

info@vintagemoviepostersforum.com

Get In Touch