Classic Ernst Lubitsch Film Poster Angel Up For Sale With An Incorrect Copyright Date
An original U.S.A. ''Angel'' one sheet copyrighted and released in 1937.
A similar Australian one sheet ( with Herbert Marshall's pose altered ) released in Australia in 1937.
This Australian one sheet poster is included in the Heritage Auctions Movie Poster auction set down for July 28-29, 2018.
I have emailed Heritage Auctions regarding this matter and I am awaiting a reply.
Something I haven't mentioned to Heritage is that they credit the artwork to being Hans Flato. Is it just me but shouldn't the Australian artwork which isn't Hans Flato's original artwork, but a copied and altered version, be credited as '' artwork adapted from original artwork designed by Hans Flato'' ?
0
Get In Touch
Comments
Shocking!!!
Totally agree with you on the artwork...in the style of AT BEST.
So what are you saying Heritage need to disclose?
The poster has been mounted on linen and touchup was applied to the folds, pinholes, and to a few spots in the black background. There is a small reattached chip in the right border. Unaddressed wear includes small border tears, a dust shadow at the lower right edge, and a scratch to the upper right. Very Fine- on Linen.
What am I missing? In the past they usually mention if the borders are replaced...
This vibrant stone litho image is most certainly a standout piece among the few advertisements still remaining ninety years after the film's release, and has had professional restoration to address missing paper at the imprint area and along the bottom border, including copyright information. It has also replaced part of the left and right borders and a very small part of the right image just into the skyline. The majority of Bragg's beautiful artwork is still completely intact with no touchup applied.
Out of interest another Paramount Pictures Australian one sheet printing error from the late 1930's. Wells Fargo was copyrighted and released in the U.S.A in 1937. The Australian one sheet has copyright 1938 printed on it.
IF the border had been replaced, then yes this needs to be disclosed.
Would it be nice? Yes it would. Is it necessary? I'm not sure I agree.
Is it Melvyn Douglas or Marshall depicted? Looks like MD to me.
Weird ...
Australia decided to go with the lover and not the husband then.
In the 1930's there are numerous examples of Australian film posters minus the censorship rating from all distributors. If you were to take a look at Bruce, John and Ves's sites this will be confirmed. I have had an extensive look at my stored images, so then let's concentrate on the year 1937 and the distributor Paramount Pictures that are currently being discussed with the Angel one sheet. As an example the majority of daybill images from 1937 printed for Paramount Pictures do not have an Australian censorship rating appearing on them. If one were to say that these daybills were printed for New Zealand, I would then reply that not a one of them has any N.Z. Censorship rating snipes or stamping appearing on them. The earliest example of Australian censorship appearing on an Australian daybill that I have located is a WB title from 1930, and that could well be a re-release poster. It appears to me that they didn't take too seriously to applying censorship ratings on all Australian film posters until the latter part of the 1930's.
Ves has some Everyone's mags from the early 1930s with articles on Aussie and NZ censorship.
Angel ( 1937 ) Australian one sheet copyright, distributor & printer's credits details.
I think it was a simple case of a mistake being made by Hackett Offset Print with the incorrect year printed on the poster. They also made a similar error with their Wells Fargo ( 1937 ) printed Paramount one sheet appearing being printed as 1938. One error you can forgive, but two mistakes around the same period of time is below par, and the sub-standard hand printing of the bottom line credits leaves a lot to be desired.
The Richardson Studio / W.E.Smith Paramount daybills designed and printed around this time appeared not to include the copyright date. One can just compare the following 1937 Richardson daybill details from Waikiki Wedding ( 1937 ) to see how professional they were at that time with the overall daybill presentation.
Exactly correct in your comment regarding the Angel one sheet 1937 copyright date. Firstly this thread was commenced to highlight this discrepancy. When I first introduced this thread on July 12 the subject matter was solely to do with the film Angel. I only mentioned the other example of Wells Fargo yesterday the 17th, and only starting with ''Out of interest'' regarding about this other poster. I don't believe it is a moot point at all. The film was copyrighted in the U.S.A. the country of origin in 1937. To print copyright 1938, the year it was released in Australia is still a discrepancy in my eyes. The only reason that I mentioned Wells Fargo again tonight was mainly to point out the artistic difference between the Hackett Offset Print one sheets and the Richardson Studio / W.E.Smith daybill printer's, etc. credits. presentation at the bottom of the posters.
It doesn't look like the same copy, can't be sure...understandably they are not able to share a higher res image, but have helpfully sent this:
Same incorrect date...now that doesn't mean that it's NOT the same poster...but there are differences that can be spotted in the two images...again can't say for sure...thoughts?