Borrowed art - so which came first?
Hi guys,
Two daybills with the same unfortunate lass on them:
So who 'borrowed' from whom? 'The Haunted House of Horror' AKA 'Horror House' is a 1969 film and predates 'Scream and Scream Again' by a year, but as we well know, that means very little when it comes to daybill release dates.
Two daybills with the same unfortunate lass on them:
So who 'borrowed' from whom? 'The Haunted House of Horror' AKA 'Horror House' is a 1969 film and predates 'Scream and Scream Again' by a year, but as we well know, that means very little when it comes to daybill release dates.
0
Get In Touch
Comments
Oh my goodness...so many examples of this over the years...I wish I kept all the pictures
Here is one example I actually have pictures of...
Bendix isn't even in Close up!
The Haunted House Of Horror came first then some of the artwork was borrowed to use on Scream And Scream Again.
I am going out shortly and as time is limited and I know you will wish to know the details behind this statement I will give more details later today along with some thoughts on the Cover Up / Close-Up posters.
You're getting forgetful in your old age!
I have found some interesting material on Cover Up which I will post on the ''We Want It Scary ... But Not TOO Scary'' thread probably tomorrow.
I also hope to post on this thread regarding Scream And Scream Again / The Haunted House Of Horror tomorrow as well.
Where to start?
The Haunted House Of Horror was released in 1969 under the title Horror House in the U.S.A. The film with the new title of The Haunted House Of Horror was released in Sydney, Australia on 4 / 3/ 1971.
Scream And Scream Again ( 1970 ) has a bit of history behind it. The film was originally banned by the Australian censor in June 1970 then a submitted reconstructed version was also banned in September 1970. An appeal against the rejection was dismissed by the Review Board in December 1970. Finally a reconstructed version was passed for exhibition after 04:26 was removed with the SOA certificate in July 1971. The original running time sourced from the IMDB site lists the film's running time as being 95 minutes. The final running time for the Australian print was 87:52 which meant Australian audiences viewed a version missing 07:08 in running time.
This now proves The Haunted House Of Horror was first and the woman's image on this poster was borrowed to use on Scream And Scream Again. The reason for this is I believe is because the original U.S. poster image shows a normal live woman's body going under water with a skeleton head attached which was frowned upon by the Australian Censor and couldn't be used. I'm thinking some bright spark at Roadshow the distributor of these two films having to find a replacement image and thought why not use a current image from another film and nobody will notice the girl doesn't appear in the film we are promoting. If you think the couple running is also borrowed from the earlier film you are mistaken as the couple on Scream And Scream Again is a completely different couple running in the other direction as they appear on the U.S. Scream And Scream Again insert poster.
Try as I might, I can't seem to locate the source of the girl on the daybill. She doesn't appear on any other paper for Rue Morgue that I'm aware of, so I can only assume the censors deemed the original legs too scandalous perhaps and substituted another girl in? Anyone able to suggest where she's from?
Check the bracelets on her wrists - It's her alright!
Well spotted.
Trunk To Cairo was released in the U.S.A, in 1966. Out of interest Trunk To Cairo didn't receive a theatrical release in Australia. The image of the girl in question then appeared on the Horror House, ( aka The Haunted House Of Horror in Australia ), U.S. poster artwork in 1970. Both films distributed in the U.S.A. by American International Pictures ( AIP ), who also distributed Scream and Scream Again, where the image once more appears on the Australian daybill of this title. I have previously discussed this daybill earlier on in this thread.
Keep searching.
Firstly thank you.
Appears to be an extra by looking at the trailer playing someone who happens to be at the beach when the explosion occurs. Have a look at the You Tube trailer of the film yourself and see what you think.
The Haunted House Of Horror Australian daybill and a U.S.A. one sheet titled Horror House when it was originally released there. You will notice the artwork images are exactly the same on the two posters. This film was released in Australian before Scream And Scream Again was.
Now to cover Scream And Scream Again
Scream and Scream Again Australian daybill and an original U.S.A. insert poster. My opinion regarding the changed artwork applied on the Australian daybill is due to Australian censorship guidelines being enforced. The added Vincent Price image appearing on the daybill was copied from the image appearing below. The running couple also featured on the daybill is what was included on the U.SA., insert.
This only leaves us with why was the frightened woman image used on The Haunted House Of Horror daybill instead of the original falling skeleton woman image? I believe I have the answer.The Australian film censor appears to have had a set against the usage of Skeletons, and particularly threatening ones on film posters and publicity material. As the U.S. used skeleton woman image wasn't within the censorship guidelines, the space this image would have taken up had to be filled up with another image. which just happened to have been chosen to be from another current film's artwork.
Following are poster examples where censorship guidelines came into play in Australia and show various ways the distributor handled the situation.
Skeleton o.k. as long as it isn't hanging a woman, and a severed head a no no as well.
No skeleton allowed, along with a graveyard scene as well.
No skeleton bride, along with a female being strangled in a bathtub allowed.
Only a modified skull image ended up being substituted and allowed.
A couple more rare skeleton images of interest.
A non threatening skeleton allowed .but the dog attack had to go.
This A.I.P. film was either banned or just most likely not picked up for Australian distribution. Had the film been released here the mind boggles as to what the Australian poster artwork would have looked like.