Dating the Casablanca Daybill

David · June 2014

I can only ever find this poster referred to as an R40s poster

I believe we can now confidently narrow it down to R49, the first re-release season I have found in Australia started in July of 1949 and ran through to around November that same year in various states. Here's an advert from September that year:

Charlie · June 2014

What does the fine print read? I can look it up on LAMP.

David · June 2014

Charlie · June 2014

No luck. They don't show one with "Limited" un-abbreviated...

Charlie · June 2014

Here is one listed as 1949 with "Limited" spelled out...

http://movieposters.ha.com/itm/romance/my-own-true-love-paramount-1949-australian-daybill-13-x-30-romance/a/59011-51259.s

Charlie · June 2014

I think the 1949 claim is solid. In all I could find before & after 1949 "Limited" was abbreviated...

David · June 2014

Charlie said:

I think the 1949 claim is solid. In all I could find before & after 1949 "Limited" was abbreviated...

What were you looking at/for with the Limited/Ltd?

Charlie · June 2014

The fine print at the bottom. It is just an indication not proof.

[Deleted User] · June 2014

The example you posted Charlie is a Richardson studio poster for Paramount but yes it's the same printer.

Casablanca is obviously Warner Bros.

Also David, interesting in your newspaper ad that the rating is noted as "For General Exhibition" whereas on the poster it's "Not Suitable For Children"...

I have seen it listed as a R46 release. Then again someone found one in a lot of posters under the floor that all dated from 1944-48 so it could very well slot in there somewhere.

David · June 2014

Re: the Censor rating. That is interesting @CSM, I'd have to see if I can find some other adverts to see if it was a advertising error.

I couldn't find evidence of an earlier release of the movie, July 1949 was the earliest I found after the initial release.

I'll see what else I can find...

David · June 2014

Best I can find at this time:

So given Casablanca was released in Australia in June/July 1944 and was still being seen for the first time in some theatres/states as late as Feb 1945 I'd certainly doubt that there would have been re-release in 1946.

Here is an article from Feb 1948 stating that not only a lack of copies but the fact the film had been withdrawn to await a future re-release date (see above).

And here's an advert from October 1944 showing the film as "Not Suitable..." this matches the original release poster and the re-release poster (above), so my guess is the advert (above, Paramount Theatre) is a advertising error.

Also, posters after 1971 list the movie as NRC (Not Recommended For Children), which again perhaps bears out the advertisers error.

[Deleted User] · June 2014

Interesting info David

[Deleted User] · June 2014

Just thinking...if Casablanca wasn't released until 1944 in Australia, why didn't the original release daybill mention the Academy Awards?

David · June 2014

Dunno.

I found a reference to Casablanca in March 1944 as a means to get people along to watch the (new) release of the movie Sahara which was (released a year earlier in the USA),"Award winning star of Casablanca Humphrey Bogart...which will open its Dubbo Season...Sahara..."

It was certainly mentioned as an Academy Award winning film in the Sydney Morning Herald's review of 'New Films' on 12 June 1944. There is also a number of adverts in 1944 that promote the film as the 1943 Academy Award winner etc

As to why no mention on the poster, no idea.

[Deleted User] · June 2014

Went a bit batty trying to assist, but gave up. Here are some links I came across that may be helpful:

Australian Feature Film Poster Printers 1897+ (possibly 1946)

Josef Lebovic (possibly 1947)

Newspaper Clippings

David · June 2014

Thanks Steve...

Australian Feature Film Poster Printers - website says 1946 (for the re-release) but does not say how they come up with that info; whose to say their info is correct?
Lebovic bases their info entirely on other collector/dealer info and not actually anything they have researched.
Newspaper clipping don't show a earlier that 1949 re-release (that I could find).

I am not saying I am right, more than happy to be shown I am not; I am saying that the information I have assembled points to different dates than what we have been lead to believe by hand-me-down information. I posted this (and others) so we all can hopefully get closer to the truth/facts and be better informed.

[Deleted User] · June 2014

Gave it one more shot... Here are some other stated re-release clippings I found:

1949:

^ link

1952:

^ link

1953 in a national magazine:

^Page link

Also 1953 (regional newspaper):

^ link

[Deleted User] · June 2014

Great work chaps

David · June 2014

Ahhh great!

Well the 1949 would perhaps would confirm my thoughts that the above poster is 1949, and Chris, note the censorship, so I think that advert was an incorrect print.

Matt · June 2014

CSM said:

Great work chaps

What he said. :-bd

Mark · June 2014

The National Library has an archive for The Film Weekly cinema trade magazine which was printed in Sydney. You would find references to the original and re-release there.

I have some earlier copies when it was titled Everyones (changed name around 1934 I think).

A few examples:

http://stores.ebay.com.au/Back-To-The-Flicks-Movie-Posters/Press-Sheets-Miscellaneous-/_i.html?_fsub=6427023014&_sid=193249614&_trksid=p4634.c0.m322

Bruce · June 2014

I have an insane collection of U.S. exhibitor magazines, but only a tiny number of non-U.S. ones. I don't have any "Everyones"

Mark · June 2014

eMoviePoster said:

I have an insane collection of U.S. exhibitor magazines, but only a tiny number of non-U.S. ones. I don't have any "Everyones"

They're hard to come by.

NLA has a complete archive, so all release info can be found. Maybe one day they'll scan it and make available for easy download.

http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/2581721

sjl · January 2015

On the topic of the censorship rating, this may be of interest.

I have a copy of what appears to be the original Casablanca daybill. The rating on it is 'Not Suitable for General Exhibition' but a triangular 'For General Exhibition' rating (now mostly torn off) had been stuck over the top at some stage. Given the context that this poster was found in, it is likely to date to the 40s.

David · January 2015

Interesting - got pictures?

[Deleted User] · January 2015

Is that you Sharon? If so welcome aboard! If not - welcome SJL.

It does seem like the original release was reused later on at some point in the later 1940s in certain areas with the altered censorship snipe. Perhaps if the supply was low the 2nd release one discussed here noting the Academy Awards was then printed...

sjl · January 2015

Hi Chris.

Yes, it is Sharon. Thanks for the welcome.

Cheers

David · January 2015

Try that image again - can't see it.

sjl · January 2015

Sorry - I've been having some trouble uploading the photo.
Might be my internet connection, which is a little slow.

I've posted it to the facebook page.

Charlie · January 2015

David · January 2015

ok. wow. 8->

Yes - original. Be careful - I can hear the vultures circling...

What are you going to do with it, get it cleaned up?

Dating the Casablanca Daybill

Comments

Contact us

Get In Touch