This thread is becoming more fascinating by the minute. Your dating has certainly thrown a spanner into the works Peter.
Have a think about the above. There were numerous screenings in Australia in 1935, including only a few examples that are shown above for the Bright Eyes and Smoky double bill.
Do you think that if 1941 is the year the daybill in question was printed, that the same 1935 double bill of one 1934 with one 1933 film would be programmed together again six years later?
By the way I find something a little out of the ordinary with the Tarzan And His Mate poster also. Maybe it's just me though.
I am interested if anybody has any images of Australian daybills, most likely from the period 1929 -1941, that have the Holland's Talkies name printed on the top of the poster, as it appears following below?
If anyone has any examples, I would appreciate images of them being posted here on this thread.
Just in case there that there may have been some people that originally missed seeing the above request, I have decided to include it here once more.
It would appear an additional Australian daybill was printed for Holland's Talkies, which included their name and in some cases included additional programming details as well.
I will include two Simmons printed daybill examples here in the future.
I dont have anything printed with Hollands, but do have a few for other theatres
Here are the few Temple posters I have for around the same period. The Dimples Long Daybill is a 20th Century Fox release, while the other two are Fox Pictures.
I dont have many stock daybills from the period to compare but the white space to the right, does lend me to think perhaps it was a stock poster.
Before going any further, I would want to know exactly what the dimensions are of the two "posters".
Unfortunately this poster, along with the Tarzan And His Mate daybill poster, were auctioned and sold in a small Auction many years ago. and no dimensions are available now.
Seeing THOUGH that they were printed by Victory Publicity and Offset Printing Co,, have the blank section at the top and certainly look like long 15''X 40'' size daybills I assume then that that they are this format.
Here are the few Temple posters I have for around the same period. The Dimples Long Daybill is a 20th Century Fox release, while the other two are Fox Pictures.
I dont have many stock daybills from the period to compare but the white space to the right, does lend me to think perhaps it was a stock poster
I have a different Fox Shirley Temple titled film's long daybill image from 1935 that I will submit shortly in my argument for the Bright Eyes poster not being a stock poster.
It is interesting that only 2 hours and 4 minutes after I had posted the following paragraph a different version of the Our little Girl daybill that I referred to, without mentioning it's title turns up.
I have a different Fox Shirley Temple Fox titled film's long daybill image from 1935 that I will submit shortly in my argument for the Bright Eyes poster not being a stock poster.
An image of the alternative daybill version that i have will be published by me soon.
Two styles of Our Little Girl ( 1935 ) daybill. Both posters are fox Films released just prior to the merger. The newly displayed image appearing on the right features Shirley Temple's image only. Images of her co-stars Rosemary Ames and Joel McCrea are absent from this version..
I am wondering if the date on the Bright Eyes poster may be have been recorded incorrectly by the person who wrote the date on the poster. 1941 ties in best with the above date, but for the reasons i had mentioned by me previously this double bill programme would seem unlikely to have been screened at that later period of time.The 1935 Australian release often screened Bright Eyes and Smoky together, particularly for travelling screenings. More about this form of exhibition to come.
By mid to late 1941 long daybill were mostly discontinued being printed in this format and the Fox logo finished up being used on posters in 1935.
One other point I would like to briefly touch upon is that the printer of the Bright Eyes daybill is not the normal Fox printer used by them. during the 1930s. More about Holland Talkies and who they were, and the poster in the future. You will also notice overprinted at the bottom of the poster the words Geo. Holland., who just happened to be the proprietor of Holland.s Talkies.
In 1935 July 25 was a Thursday. Does it look as though the word THURS has had something else underneath that was obscured by a dark smudge painted over it? Perhaps it originally said "Wed July 24th" which happened in 1935, then was reused later on?
In 1935 July 25 was a Thursday. Does it look as though the word THURS has had something else underneath that was obscured by a dark smudge painted over it? Perhaps it originally said "Wed July 24th" which happened in 1935, then was reused later on?
i do appreciate your continual thoughts and participation in this thread Peter.
Bruce sold the other style daybill for Our Little Girl in 2009 and the measurements are correct for a long daybill so it looks as though two styles were printed which is not all that unusual. Not sure if that sheds any light on the origins of the Hollands Talkies Bright Eyes poster
Thanks John, but yesterday I had included another image of this poster on the thread. Did you miss seeing it, or perhaps is their something else appearing on your poster version that perhaps I have missed spotting?
Thanks John, but yesterday I had included another image of this poster on the thread. Did you miss seeing it, or perhaps is their something else appearing on your poster version that perhaps I have missed spotting?
The reason I posted Bruce's image was that it confirms the correct measurements. There was no confirmation of measurements on the image you posted.
Despite that I'm not sure how you are tying the Our Little Girl daybill in with the Bright Eyes Holland Talkies image. Could you please elaborate on that.
Thanks John, but yesterday I had included another image of this poster on the thread. Did you miss seeing it, or perhaps is their something else appearing on your poster version that perhaps I have missed spotting?
The reason I posted Bruce's image was that it confirms the correct measurements. There was no confirmation of measurements on the image you posted.
Despite that I'm not sure how you are tying the Our Little Girl daybill in with the Bright Eyes Holland Talkies image. Could you please elaborate on that.
Sorry John apparently I hadn't originally noticed at the time your explanation above the Our Little Girl image that you posted. Had I noticed it I would't have asked my question.
In response to your query about a connection between the Bright Eyes and the Our Little Girl posters, it is to do with an earlier comment from Bruce that follows below stating that the Bright Eyes poster had to be a stock poster.
I don't believe that it is a stock poster, although I can see why you would think so.
My reasoning is that this was the first time that Shirley Temple's name appeared above the film's title, and this was her breakout role. Bright Eyes was released in Australia 23/2/1935 by Fox. Later in 1935 Fox merged with 20th Century Pictures to form 20th Century Fox
Seeing the Bright Eyes daybill has a Fox credit printed on it I would rule it out it being a stock poster.. Any long daybill Shirley Temple stock posters, if any, would have been distributed by 20th Century Fox post 1935 as her fame and volume of product increased..
The Bright Eyes daybill poster is an extremely interesting one, so any more comments regarding it would be most appreciated.
I rarely disagree with experts, but I don't see ANY way it is NOT a stock poster, It says "Shirley Temple in" in one printed font, and the image of her is extremely generic, and would work for any of her movies. And the "Bright Eyes" and "Smoky" were clearly overprinted later, and at the same time.
I understand the Fox/20th Century Fox part being confusing, but I simply think they used an old template to save money.
Of course, I could be wrong!
The original Our Little Girl poster image of Shirley Temple could also be called a generic image as well perhaps when it actually isn't so. Images of just using Shirley were apparently amply sufficient to sell the film.
More on Hollands Talkies and my thoughts about their two posters sizes and printings to follow.
A question though to ask. and is it just me thinking this, but does whatever Shirley is leaning on appear a little odd in shape to you ?
Hollands Talkies, aka Olympic Talkies, was a travelling show, taking film screenings to small towns mainly in the country, George Holland was the proprietor, Numerous sound screenings were conducted in at least the Australian states of S.A, Victoria and N.S.W. during 1929 and the throughout 1930s.
The following article and theatre advertisements were taken from various 1929 and 1930 issues of Trove and details some information on Holland's Talkies operations .
The following advertisements, although not credited to be screenings from Hollands Talkies and are from from other touring companies show the double bill programming of Bright Eyes and Smoky. around the time of the original Australian releases.
Advertisements from 1935 Trove issues.
Now to the two daybills of Bright Eyes / Smoky & Tarzan And His Mate, I have no proof that these two posters are of the normal daybill size of that time, being 15'' x 40,'' that John is querying. They certainly look like they are this size. The white blank white section at the top, along with the printers being Victory Publicity ( Bright Eyes ) and Offset Printing Co., ( Tarzan And His Mate) would seal it for me that they are alternative printed 15'' x 40;'' daybills.
In the case of the unusual Bright Eyes poster. it is interesting to know that all Fox daybills that were printed up to 1935 that I have numerous images of were all designed by the Montgomery Campbell Studio and printed by W. E. Smith and not Victory Publicity.
In the case of the Tarzan And His Mate Offset printing Co, poster, suffice to say the poster artwork is substandard for that period of time.
From my collection of MGM daybill images dating from 1930 to 1935 that were all printed by Simmons, and are beautifully designed and colourful as the small number of examples appearing below show,
( Ves )
Now that you now have all the information that I have supplied here over a period of time, along with other member's images, information and comments what do you think about the Bright Eyes and Tarzan And His Mate posters? Have you now ruled out that the Bright Eyes poster is a stock poster? Love to hear your comments?
I will stick with my original thought that the posters were printed specifically for Hollands Talkies. If you look at the top of each poster it does look like the words "Hollands Talkies" were part of the printing and not added later.
It would be very interesting to see what an original Press Book for the two films had to say about these posters. I actually doubt that there would be any reference to them in the Press Book as they did not have distribution to other theatres. So, if that was the case, then they would have to be classified in a separate category - maybe "special posters".
I still think the Shirley Temple is a stock poster, although it might have been printed just for Holland's Talkies to use as a generic poster for Shirley Temple releases. If it had been printed for Bright Eyes then the title wouldn't have been obviously overprinted in a totally different font and style.
I will stick with my original thought that the posters were printed specifically for Hollands Talkies. If you look at the top of each poster it does look like the words "Hollands Talkies" were part of the printing and not added later.
It would be very interesting to see what an original Press Book for the two films had to say about these posters. I actually doubt that there would be any reference to them in the Press Book as they did not have distribution to other theatres. So, if that was the case, then they would have to be classified in a separate category - maybe "special posters".
I agree 100% that the two posters were printed for Hollands Talkies distribution only.
What would be great would be to sight an original Montgomery Campbell W.E. Smith daybill of Bright Eyes.. Two examples of Montgomery Campbell's excellent daybill output from the 1930s produced for Fox below, along with two duotone versions. Imagine what the full colour versions of these two would look like.
I still think the Shirley Temple is a stock poster, although it might have been printed just for Holland's Talkies to use as a generic poster for Shirley Temple releases. If it had been printed for Bright Eyes then the title wouldn't have been obviously overprinted in a totally different font and style.
A question is that the area of the poster that Shirley is leaning on is perchance covering up some other original artwork? A longshot, but I needed to ask nevertheless. It just doesn't look right to me.
Comments
1930 - too early (Bright Eyes was 1934, released in Australia around the end of '34, start of '35)
next year is 1941, then 1947
It's possible they could have used an original poster for the 1941 release (which I'm assuming this is for), but I wouldn't have thought that likely.
Peter
Have a think about the above. There were numerous screenings in Australia in 1935, including only a few examples that are shown above for the Bright Eyes and Smoky double bill.
Do you think that if 1941 is the year the daybill in question was printed, that the same 1935 double bill of one 1934 with one 1933 film would be programmed together again six years later?
By the way I find something a little out of the ordinary with the Tarzan And His Mate poster also. Maybe it's just me though.
Here are the few Temple posters I have for around the same period.
The Dimples Long Daybill is a 20th Century Fox release, while the other two are Fox Pictures.
I dont have many stock daybills from the period to compare but the white space to the right, does lend me to think perhaps it was a stock poster.
Seeing THOUGH that they were printed by Victory Publicity and Offset Printing Co,, have the blank section at the top and certainly look like long 15''X 40'' size daybills I assume then that that they are this format.
It is interesting that only 2 hours and 4 minutes after I had posted the following paragraph a different version of the Our little Girl daybill that I referred to, without mentioning it's title turns up.
I have a different Fox Shirley Temple Fox titled film's long daybill image from 1935 that I will submit shortly in my argument for the Bright Eyes poster not being a stock poster.
An image of the alternative daybill version that i have will be published by me soon.
Friday Nov 6 (if I'm reading ti correctly) falls in 1931 & 1942 and 1953.
It it's Friday Nov 5 it's - 1937 & 1843
Peter
Two styles of Our Little Girl ( 1935 ) daybill. Both posters are fox Films released just prior to the merger. The newly displayed image appearing on the right features Shirley Temple's image only. Images of her co-stars Rosemary Ames and Joel McCrea are absent from this version..
Peter
I am wondering if the date on the Bright Eyes poster may be have been recorded incorrectly by the person who wrote the date on the poster. 1941 ties in best with the above date, but for the reasons i had mentioned by me previously this double bill programme would seem unlikely to have been screened at that later period of time.The 1935 Australian release often screened Bright Eyes and Smoky together, particularly for travelling screenings. More about this form of exhibition to come.
By mid to late 1941 long daybill were mostly discontinued being printed in this format and the Fox logo finished up being used on posters in 1935.
One other point I would like to briefly touch upon is that the printer of the Bright Eyes daybill is not the normal Fox printer used by them. during the 1930s. More about Holland Talkies and who they were, and the poster in the future. You will also notice overprinted at the bottom of the poster the words Geo. Holland., who just happened to be the proprietor of Holland.s Talkies.
Peter
Despite that I'm not sure how you are tying the Our Little Girl daybill in with the Bright Eyes Holland Talkies image. Could you please elaborate on that.
Sorry John apparently I hadn't originally noticed at the time your explanation above the Our Little Girl image that you posted. Had I noticed it I would't have asked my question.
In response to your query about a connection between the Bright Eyes and the Our Little Girl posters, it is to do with an earlier comment from Bruce that follows below stating that the Bright Eyes poster had to be a stock poster.
Bruce said:
The original Our Little Girl poster image of Shirley Temple could also be called a generic image as well perhaps when it actually isn't so. Images of just using Shirley were apparently amply sufficient to sell the film.
More on Hollands Talkies and my thoughts about their two posters sizes and printings to follow.
A question though to ask. and is it just me thinking this, but does whatever Shirley is leaning on appear a little odd in shape to you ?
The following article and theatre advertisements were taken from various 1929 and 1930 issues of Trove and details some information on Holland's Talkies operations .
The following advertisements, although not credited to be screenings from Hollands Talkies and are from from other touring companies show the double bill programming of Bright Eyes and Smoky. around the time of the original Australian releases.
Advertisements from 1935 Trove issues.
Now to the two daybills of Bright Eyes / Smoky & Tarzan And His Mate, I have no proof that these two posters are of the normal daybill size of that time, being 15'' x 40,'' that John is querying. They certainly look like they are this size. The white blank white section at the top, along with the printers being Victory Publicity ( Bright Eyes ) and Offset Printing Co., ( Tarzan And His Mate) would seal it for me that they are alternative printed 15'' x 40;'' daybills.
In the case of the unusual Bright Eyes poster. it is interesting to know that all Fox daybills that were printed up to 1935 that I have numerous images of were all designed by the Montgomery Campbell Studio and printed by W. E. Smith and not Victory Publicity.
In the case of the Tarzan And His Mate Offset printing Co, poster, suffice to say the poster artwork is substandard for that period of time.
From my collection of MGM daybill images dating from 1930 to 1935 that were all printed by Simmons, and are beautifully designed and colourful as the small number of examples appearing below show,
Now that you now have all the information that I have supplied here over a period of time, along with other member's images, information and comments what do you think about the Bright Eyes and Tarzan And His Mate posters? Have you now ruled out that the Bright Eyes poster is a stock poster? Love to hear your comments?
It would be very interesting to see what an original Press Book for the two films had to say about these posters. I actually doubt that there would be any reference to them in the Press Book as they did not have distribution to other theatres. So, if that was the case, then they would have to be classified in a separate category - maybe "special posters".
Peter
What would be great would be to sight an original Montgomery Campbell W.E. Smith daybill of Bright Eyes.. Two examples of Montgomery Campbell's excellent daybill output from the 1930s produced for Fox below, along with two duotone versions. Imagine what the full colour versions of these two would look like.