I am not sure. In the office today so can't check what I have at home. Will look tonight. I am pretty sure that is a stock daybill though - especially with the yellow bit which looks like it come blank and they just print whatever title. The images in no way tie to the movie.
My thoughts are that it is a stock poster. All Australian newspaper block ads from 1942 have Dick Powell and The Andrews Sisters heavily promoted and one of the ads has the very busy multiple characters image of A.& C., Dick Powell & The Andrews Sisters appearing that appears on the U.S. insert poster. Don't be thrown off by there appearing to be no other images of a In The Navy original as there are many other A. & C. films where no original daybill posters seem to have been sighted. Somewhere I have a list of missing A.& C. daybill titles that I will endeavour to locate. There was a re-release in 1946 in Australia of a double bill consisting of 40,000 Horsemen with In The Navy and a combined daybill was designed for this program. I am wondering if possibly John's poster version was printed for cinema owners who wanted an additional separate poster for In The Navy as well as the combined poster. The In The Navy stock poster would also be available for any future individual bookings as well.
The reason I posted an image was because I think it might be the only known copy whether it is a stock poster or not. I agree with Ves and Lawrence that it certainly looks like a stock poster. However, if it is a stock poster then you would think the image would likely have appeared on other titles. Also, in the absence of finding another In the Navy daybill with a different image, there is no way of being 100% certain. Maybe Ves will be able to find something lurking amongst her collection that will give us a clue.
The reason I posted an image was because I think it might be the only known copy whether it is a stock poster or not. I agree with Ves and Lawrence that it certainly looks like a stock poster. However, if it is a stock poster then you would think the image would likely have appeared on other titles. Also, in the absence of finding another In the Navy daybill with a different image, there is no way of being 100% certain. Maybe Ves will be able to find something lurking amongst her collection that will give us a clue.
A totally agree that it is the only, to my knowledge, seen daybill to date for In The Navy, apart from the re-release duo poster. On John's poster the credit of A Universal Picture dates it pre 1947 when Universal-International then appeared on their posters, including a new full colour Abbott And Costello stock poster, which in this format I have only ever seen one blank, without credits copy only of also. The poorly drawn duotone A. & C. versions of this design are plentiful and many 1950's film titles are available to see today.
And shouldn't Wil's giant knight be in this thread???
I'm pretty sure a saw one other example on a google search I did a couple of months back. The colours and panel alignment looked slightly off (although it was a poor image), so assume it wasn't mine.
That has to be amongst the BEST artwork for Strangers - if not THE best! Certainly puts the US paper to shame ?
Took the words out of my mouth. It does has a very minor printer's error that doesn't matter though. Anyone pick up on it ? This Hitchcock title appears to be the rarest in Australian poster availability from Hitchcock's 1950's output. Is there a daybill image around?
Took the words out of my mouth. It does has a very minor printer's error that doesn't matter though. Anyone pick up on it ?
The 'S' at the end of 'Loves' appears to have a space before it? Apart from that pass?
Yes, the U.S. artwork that the Australian printer was copying from had an apostrophe in the word loves, but they decided not to use the apostrophe here and didn't close up the space where it was going to be. I did say it was very minor.
Comments
I am pretty sure that is a stock daybill though - especially with the yellow bit which looks like it come blank and they just print whatever title. The images in no way tie to the movie.
My thoughts are that it is a stock poster. All Australian newspaper block ads from 1942 have Dick Powell and The Andrews Sisters heavily promoted and one of the ads has the very busy multiple characters image of A.& C., Dick Powell & The Andrews Sisters appearing that appears on the U.S. insert poster. Don't be thrown off by there appearing to be no other images of a In The Navy original as there are many other A. & C. films where no original daybill posters seem to have been sighted. Somewhere I have a list of missing A.& C. daybill titles that I will endeavour to locate. There was a re-release in 1946 in Australia of a double bill consisting of 40,000 Horsemen with In The Navy and a combined daybill was designed for this program. I am wondering if possibly John's poster version was printed for cinema owners who wanted an additional separate poster for In The Navy as well as the combined poster. The In The Navy stock poster would also be available for any future individual bookings as well.
A totally agree that it is the only, to my knowledge, seen daybill to date for In The Navy, apart from the re-release duo poster. On John's poster the credit of A Universal Picture dates it pre 1947 when Universal-International then appeared on their posters, including a new full colour Abbott And Costello stock poster, which in this format I have only ever seen one blank, without credits copy only of also. The poorly drawn duotone A. & C. versions of this design are plentiful and many 1950's film titles are available to see today.
That has to be amongst the BEST artwork for Strangers - if not THE best! Certainly puts the US paper to shame ?
But sometimes the waiting can be a killer!
Took the words out of my mouth. It does has a very minor printer's error that doesn't matter though. Anyone pick up on it ? This Hitchcock title appears to be the rarest in Australian poster availability from Hitchcock's 1950's output. Is there a daybill image around?
Great OKC to own and very unique, Ves!