First, take the now iconic one sheet designed by Neil Kellerhouse for David Fincher’s Facebook drama.
Then replace the font with Trajan and place the text over a picture of Chris Hemsworth as the nordic God, in keeping with the current poster trend of text-over-face.
But it became hugely popular with movie poster designers, as this video by Kirby Ferguson demonstrates.
But check out this slideshow to get some idea of how ubiquitous it has become:
The easy answer as to its success is that it has been used in popular movies, but I think there is a deeper reason as to why it became so popular.
Maybe the old-style classiness projects an image of authority, which might also explain why politicians love it.
This is actually important for upscale mainstream films such as Titanic which are looking for that veneer of class to distinguish themselves from rival fare at the multiplex.
In a sense the font has come to represent a hybrid of commercial success and cultural importance, even if the films using it have neither.
Maybe after the phenomenon of Titanic, it spread like a virus amongst movie marketing departments because they wanted to emulate that elusive holy grail of box office dollars and worthy prestige.
There hasn’t been any official word yet from UK distributor Icon about their release plans, but it seems staggering that it would open at UK cinemas and completely scupper the possibility of what would be one of the most anticipated Cannes screenings in years.
The idea that a high profile festival premiere, featuring Brad Pitt and Sean Penn on the red carpet alongside Malick, would be sacrificed so UK audiences and critics could see the film a week earlier is fairly mind boggling.
It has already been announced that the film will screen there, but whether it will show in competition won’t be officially confirmed until April 14th when Thierry Fremaux announces the full lineup.
One of the most striking film posters this year was for The American, but what made it so distinctive?
When LA-basedย Mojohouse released the first one sheet for Anton Corbijn’s film, about an enigmatic American lying low in Italy, there was a lot of talk about the retro design.
With its two-color printing, its high-contrast photographs, its monochrome rectangle of color and its billing block within a white frame, it could be a lost object from that era.
Rod Steiger’s The Sergeant (1968) appears to be a particularly strong influence, both in the look and billing of the star.
It is also worth comparing how the lead actor is depicted on the poster: note the similarities between the black and white image of Clooney and Steve McQueen on the poster forย Bullitt (1968).
Another trend of the late 1960s they appeared to have picked up on is the placing of a small photo, or drawing, next to the title and credits.
Finally, a recent Danish film, Everything Will Be Fine (2010), has a very similar poster: notice the eye, which forms part of an orange backdrop to which a character is running from.
You may notice that the poster you saw in your local cinema (on the above left) is notably different from the cover of the disc you will buy or rent (on the above right).
The cinema poster – designed by BLTย Associates – is fairly conceptual. It depicts the three main characters of the film (Clooney in the middle, flanked by Anna Kendrick on the left and Vera Farmiga on the right) but they are distant, inย silhouette and made to look small by the airport glass and plane outside.
The Helvetica fontย and colour scheme (cool blues, mixed with whites and blacks) are very reminiscent of an airport and the overall effect is neat as it captures both the bittersweet mood and basic themes of the film.
Reitman recently said that he got the basic idea for the poster by taking a similar photo whilst filming on location at an airport but that some folks at Paramount marketing (the studio that funded the film) were keen on getting a little more of Clooney in the image.
After all, if you have paid a considerable amount for a star, you want to get your money’s worth even if he’s working at a reduced rate on a prestige, Oscar-candidate project like this.
But now the DVD and Blu-ray has come out in the US (that would be on the above right), you can see the difference.
Althought they have inverted the colour scheme of the theatrical poster, the main image features a much more prominent Clooney (laughing) alongside Vera Farmiga, with them both laughing at a bar.
The combined effect emphasises the comedy/feel-good aspect of the film alongside the romance and downplays the more serious themes of recession, job firings and isolation that crop up eslewhere in the story.
Personally, I think it looks horrible and doesn’t do justice to the quality of the film, but – even for a home entertainment release – it also looks pretty ropey, as if an intern was asked to do it on Photoshop on his lunch break.
So, what to make of all this?
Firstly, movie posters come out of a tradition where they are seen at cinemas, bus stops and various outdoor displays which mean they have to be larger in size. In comparison, DVD and Blu-rays are smaller so they have less space to grab your attention, often resulting in a face shot of the actors.
Secondly, one of the time honoured traditions in Hollywood is for everyone to blame the marketing if a film doesn’t do well at the box office. Although Up in the Air was by no means a flop – especially given itsย relativelyย lean budget – maybe Paramount felt they could dupe new audiences into thinking it is some kind of romantic comedy.
Thirdly, given that the (literal) shelf life of a film is longer in the shop than it is at cinemas, you would think that more time and effort would be spent on getting it right, rather than just reacting to what happened on the theatrical release.
Finally, it seems that the UK DVD & Blu-ray release of Up in the Air has exactly the same design as the theatrical poster, which could mean that: a) We have better taste over here b) Paramount UK couldn’t be bothered to change it or c) None of the above applies.
In the the 2008 documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, the prosecutor Roger Gunson commented on the recurring themes of the director’s work:
“Every Roman Polanski movie has the theme [of] corruption meeting innocence over water”
The infamous events of March 1977 could be interpreted in these terms: Polanski (corruption) met Samantha Geimer (innocence) over water (Jack Nicholson’s jacuzzi).
But do the posters of his films shed any light on the unfolding drama?
Some of them are ironic, to say the least.
Repulsion (1965) had one poster with two hands touching a woman’s body:
Another had the tagline:
“The nightmare world of a Virgin’s dreams becomes the screen’s shocking reality!”
The Fearless Vampire Killers (1967) has the image of a vampire about to sink his fangs into a half naked woman in water and, for good measure, carries the warning:
“Not suitable for children”
What?(1972) had a poster which is almost certain to give any card-carrying feminists pause for thought – a buxom woman is pictured bending over the top of the grinning mouth of a man.
I saw the new new Liam Neeson thriller Taken last night – which is actually very entertaining – and on the way out of the cinema I caught a glimpse of the UK poster.
The story is about an ex-CIA agent (Neeson) who goes after his kidnapped daughter in Paris.
It reminded me of something….
An ex-CIA agent who wreaks havoc against shady people in Europe and a poster with a mean and moody character, gun and long dark jacket.
Sound familiar?
To be fair there are some differences between the films, but the poster designs are strikingly similar.
However, it has been pre-sold to several major territories such as France (Warner Bros.), the U.K. (Optimum), Scandinavia (Scanbox) and Italy (Bim Distribuzione) and will it will be shown at the upcoming New York and Toronto film festivals. In the latter will screen as one whole film, as well as in two parts.
Variety reported back in February that three US distributors (one of whom must surely be The Weinstein Company) were ‘circling’ before Cannes – perhaps they are waiting until it screens at these festivals before taking the plunge. But given that this looks and feels like an award season contender – albeit a left field one – then it may be leaving it a little late to drum up buzz and resultant box office.
My guess is that who ever ends up with the film in the States should screen the 4 hour version in a platform release (i.e. just New York and LA) and then roll it out as two films in order to recoup costs.
A four hour film of this nature in wide release just looks like commercial suicide. Whatever happens, lets just hope that it does actually secure get a US theatrical release and doesn’t end up premiering as a 6 part mini-series on HBO.
Here in the UK The Argentine opens on January 2nd whilst Guerilla follows on February 20th.
When it was announced that Oliver Stone was to make a feature film about George W. Bush simply called W. my first reaction was that it was too soon.
Surely some distance and perspective was needed on a film about one of the most divisive Presidents in US history?
Plus, the schedule for the film seemed rather ambitious – it started shooting in May for a November release, which by current Hollywood standards seemed rather quick.
However, I have to admit that the cast he has assembled is impressive:
Plus, the early leaked trailer that surfaced recently looked much more promising than I had expected.
Now, two more teaser posters have been released which seem to hint at a savvy marketing campaign from Lionsgate and their agency Crew Creative.
Plus, Access Hollywood has just released some footage of Josh Brolin as the 43rd President – it appears to be B-roll footage shot on the set which is why the green screen backdrop is visible.
After the critical mauling of Alexander and the restrained sorrow of World Trade Centre, I imagine Oliver Stone is hungry to return to the fire and energy of his earlier films.
Could this be the film to return him to former glories?
We shall find out on November 7th, when it opens in the US and UK.
These two posters accurately reflect the frustration of anyone who has legally bought a DVD and put it in the player only to be confronted with a patronising advert (that you can’t skip!) which informs you that piracy (the very thing you just haven’t done) is both bad and wrong.
‘
