Classic movie site with rare images, original ads, and behind-the-scenes photos, with informative and insightful commentary. We like to have fun with movies!
Archive and Links
grbrpix@aol.com
Search Index Here




Monday, June 19, 2023

Ads and Oddities #2

 


Ad/Odds: Cornered, The Paradine Case, and Chained


CORNERED (1946) --- “New” being watchword here as Dick Powell new was less accomplished fact than lately implemented one. Murder, My Sweet was first opportunity to see him hard-boiled, a screen switch that didn’t necessarily translate to stage appearances made on behalf of Murder, My Sweet. Ads in oversized magazines were close as then-enthusiasts got to owning posters for their favorite films, a lavish enough weekly good for keepsakes nearly large as a lobby card outside theatres. Very often ads were full color, depending on willingness of distributors to spend for the splash. Timing was trick for placing ads where/when they would do the most good, Cornered either at a local venue or coming soon to one. Films were sold upon pledge by companies to spend big with large circulation magazines. Print promos in newspapers, reader attention less with ads necessarily smaller, muddier than in mags, often lost amidst crowd on a daily's page, these a thicket and tax upon reader focus amidst bally for what competing venues offered. Cornered getting a LIFE or LOOK page all its own lent importance to that or any attraction, readers knowing space did not come cheap in zines reaching millions per week. Suffice to say films I saw first-run seldom got push unless it was something like Thunderball with its LIFE cover plus pages within. Color stills appeared as well in the slicks, which fans cut out and put in scrapbooks. More ads survive from weeklies than any other format, it seems. We could wonder how many of pages, film related or not, were scissored from issues and kept for someone’s posterity. I’ve seen albums dedicated just to soup ads, these at their best aesthetic worthies and who knows but what we’ve all missed a bet for not collecting them.



STARS OF THE PARADINE CASE FOR CHESTERFIELD
--- Did all six stars smoke Chesterfield, or smoke at all? Was Charles Laughton approached? I wonder what pressure was applied to make them pose for ads, not just for cigarettes, but any product. Presumably they were paid beyond studio contract terms. I’m told this came often in “swag” from the advertiser, as in Gregory Peck going out to his mailbox to find three dozen cases of Chesterfield waiting. Might he take up smoking just to avoid waste of such freebies? I’m guessing a lot got re-gifted for Christmas and birthdays. Did any star refuse cigarette ads on principle they were unsafe? That undoubtedly happened by the sixties, but 1948? Ads were exposure for celebrities, whatever dubious value of products they hawked. Earliest Hollywood color images we have derive from advertising cast members posed for. Everybody won as not only faces, but films in which they appeared, got boosted. It may be assumed that The Paradine Case needed all of help it could get. I’d like to know what “Cooler Smoking” amounts to … an admission that smoking is too often hot? We coped for years with belching clouds and smells from the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company in Winston-Salem. Any trip down was worse for stench from pollutants. Reynolds was obliged to spare the air eventually, but surely damage was done to generations living in/around Winston. Could even Kiddie Shows at the Carolina Theatre on Saturdays (non-stop Hammer and AIP horrors) have persuaded me to live amidst such contamination, Horror of Dracula, Pit and the Pendulum, and Tarantula on a virtual loop maybe worth trading a few years of life to see (but how many?).



CHAINED (1934) --- Ads once upon a Classic Era could proclaim a “Glorious Hit!” prior even to release, being confidence of a system which indeed had genius behind it. Chained like most out of Metro, in fact any studio during 1934, was calibrated precisely to audience tastes. This is something we might marvel at in modern circumstance of almost willful failure to meet expectation, movies often seeming out to alienate viewership. Chained is said in this ad to be fruit of 62,000 fans seeking encore for paired-up Clark Gable and Joan Crawford (oops, reverse that billing, as her name came first in advertising). You could let the story take care of itself, studio histories informing us that star vehicles were every bit the product of committees as anything corporately so today. Difference may be panel members in 1934 boasting the sort of talent we're less blessed with. A Hunt Stromberg producing or Clarence Brown directing was assurance that standard would be met, formula varied just enough but not so as to upset comfort level with result. Guarantee, at least hope, was that Chained would equal if not surpass Dancing Lady, a Selznick wrapped package that he called gilt-edged for crowd pleasing, this essential goal for anyone entrusted with stars and properties, or better put, stars as properties. Chained is best looked upon like a watch never a second off, featuring a cast with demonstrable appeal plus ongoing aptitude to reassert dominance of a brand proven to please, Chained factory product yes, but seeming not so for satisfaction given, still rewarding despite ninety years passed since newness.

More of Chained here.

8 Comments:

Blogger Filmfanman said...

Tobacco...
Just recently I watched the 1962 movie "Hatari", which I recalled having enjoyed once when I saw it long ago, in the 1980s; this time around, I found the pervasive tobacco use depicted in that film to affect my enjoyment of it. It was like a cigarette ad in disguise.
I read somewhere that soldiers everywhere during the Second World War received cigarettes/tobacco as part of their daily rations; and that by 1965, 50%+ of all adults in North America were tobacco smokers. That for over the forty years after that date a cancer epidemic swept through the populace is not surprising in light of what we now know about that stuff.

8:13 AM  
Blogger Jorge Finkielman said...

It's interesting that while cigarette ads were banned in television around 1971, the ads continued to be seen on TV stations in the rest of the world.

CORNERED is notable for being one of the extremely few times in which Buenos Aires was actually recreated correctly by Hollywood. The only image that was actually filmed in Argentina is a shot of subway train entering a station; the rest was staged in the studios.

12:25 PM  
Blogger DBenson said...

Ah, magazines. From 60s childhood I remember the usual ones appearing and disappearing, at home and in friends' living rooms: Saturday Evening Post, Life, Look, Time, Newsweek, McCall's, Family Circle, National Geographic, Sunset, Popular Science, Popular Mechanics, Reader's Digest, New Yorker and TV Guide, plus slightly less common Today's Health, US News and World Report, New West, Esquire, Saturday Review, and my father's slick medical magazines. Certain friends had secret caches of Playboy, which they'd show off briefly and return to hiding.

Recalling with a jolt that they tended to be thick -- American Heritage was actually hardbound -- and many published weekly. Trying to recall if many people still have colonial-style magazine racks in their living rooms; I notice that thrift stores always have them in stock. Anyway, I do remember flipping through every magazine in search of cartoons, occasionally stopping for an article or two.

Somehow I don't remember movie ads so much as gushy articles with color photos. Jack and Jill, a glossy kiddie magazine, had spreads for the Beany and Cecil show and Dale Robertson's animated feature, "The Man From Button Willow". The grownup mags would have angles like Audrey Hepburn modeling gowns from "My Fair Lady", or the guy who built the one-man copter from "You Only Live Twice". Uncle Walt got plenty of exposure, seemingly as often for the theme park as for an upcoming movie. The big color ads were mainly in the entertainment sections of the Sunday newspapers. Also recall "Jumbo" rating a half page in the Sunday comics.

4:22 PM  
Blogger Rodney said...

We still subscribe to a few magazines, both involving the classic media persuasion (Nostalgia Digest, Sperdvac's Radiogram) and more general interest (Readers Digest, and until recently, Saturday Evening Post) and we have a magazine rack in our living room. I still enjoy a proper, real, magazine that you can hold in your hands instead of staring at a screen.

10:36 AM  
Blogger Kevin K. said...

The studios might not promote as-yet unreleased movies as "hits" anymore -- that's what the internet is for. In 2016, the Huffington Post promised readers "all the reasons you'll want to see Lin-Manuel Miranda's 'In the Heights' film adaptation" -- four years before it was even filmed. I guess nobody read the piece, because it did a major flopperoo upon release. At least MGM knew they had an audience ready to be "Chained".

As for that Chesterfield ad -- I've never smoked, always thought it was a weird habit, but those old ads with celebrities shilling cigarettes continue to make me laugh. Did the tobacco companies have people thinking, "Gee, Ethel Barrymore smokes Chesterfields, they must be classy!"?

12:16 PM  
Blogger radiotelefonia said...

In the Heights was not only a big flop. But it is not even a good movie, with mediocre songs, and for a movie that pretended to be bilingual the Spanish scenes were all irrelevant where nothing important or useful was ever stated.

Movie stars endorsing cigarettes continued way after the TV ads were banned in the United States because they were not in the rest of the world. If you look for them, you will find them.

9:47 AM  
Blogger Filmfanman said...

In the country of Bhutan, the possession, use and cultivation of tobacco is prohibited by law.

3:36 PM  
Blogger John McElwee said...

Dan Mercer has, in his always inimitable way, got CHAINED all figured out:


“Chained” is like a fine watch, with a mechanism efficiently turning towards a date display already set. By the end of the show, Gable will get Crawford. In a watch movement, the Otto Kruger character would be known as a “complication.” Ironically, he is everything most women think they want. He is so intelligent and kind, so wealthy, so gentle in manner and so genuinely in love with Crawford. That is, he is so bourgeoise. As you say, he is outclassed by Gable, just because Gable is Gable, a natural aristocrat, and Kruger, dedicated and hardworking, is, as we’ve said, bourgeoise. The hallmark of the bourgeoise is to want to have the class and manners of their betters. This means that Kruger, if he really wanted to be an aristocrat and if he truly loved Crawford, should want to give her up to the man she loves. As with many aristocrats, however, Gable really has more in common with the Warren William characters in “Skyscraper Souls” and “Employees Entrance,” while Otto Kruger is more like Ronald Colman in any number of Ronald Colman pictures, except, of course, that he is Otto Kruger, not Ronald Colman, and he is the mechanical impediment between Gable getting Crawford. Gable could do the decent thing and walk away from Kruger and Crawford, but then it would be a Dan Mercer picture, not a Clark Gable one, and I don’t think the box office would be much good.

2:16 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

grbrpix@aol.com
  • December 2005
  • January 2006
  • February 2006
  • March 2006
  • April 2006
  • May 2006
  • June 2006
  • July 2006
  • August 2006
  • September 2006
  • October 2006
  • November 2006
  • December 2006
  • January 2007
  • February 2007
  • March 2007
  • April 2007
  • May 2007
  • June 2007
  • July 2007
  • August 2007
  • September 2007
  • October 2007
  • November 2007
  • December 2007
  • January 2008
  • February 2008
  • March 2008
  • April 2008
  • May 2008
  • June 2008
  • July 2008
  • August 2008
  • September 2008
  • October 2008
  • November 2008
  • December 2008
  • January 2009
  • February 2009
  • March 2009
  • April 2009
  • May 2009
  • June 2009
  • July 2009
  • August 2009
  • September 2009
  • October 2009
  • November 2009
  • December 2009
  • January 2010
  • February 2010
  • March 2010
  • April 2010
  • May 2010
  • June 2010
  • July 2010
  • August 2010
  • September 2010
  • October 2010
  • November 2010
  • December 2010
  • January 2011
  • February 2011
  • March 2011
  • April 2011
  • May 2011
  • June 2011
  • July 2011
  • August 2011
  • September 2011
  • October 2011
  • November 2011
  • December 2011
  • January 2012
  • February 2012
  • March 2012
  • April 2012
  • May 2012
  • June 2012
  • July 2012
  • August 2012
  • September 2012
  • October 2012
  • November 2012
  • December 2012
  • January 2013
  • February 2013
  • March 2013
  • April 2013
  • May 2013
  • June 2013
  • July 2013
  • August 2013
  • September 2013
  • October 2013
  • November 2013
  • December 2013
  • January 2014
  • February 2014
  • March 2014
  • April 2014
  • May 2014
  • June 2014
  • July 2014
  • August 2014
  • September 2014
  • October 2014
  • November 2014
  • December 2014
  • January 2015
  • February 2015
  • March 2015
  • April 2015
  • May 2015
  • June 2015
  • July 2015
  • August 2015
  • September 2015
  • October 2015
  • November 2015
  • December 2015
  • January 2016
  • February 2016
  • March 2016
  • April 2016
  • May 2016
  • June 2016
  • July 2016
  • August 2016
  • September 2016
  • October 2016
  • November 2016
  • December 2016
  • January 2017
  • February 2017
  • March 2017
  • April 2017
  • May 2017
  • June 2017
  • July 2017
  • August 2017
  • September 2017
  • October 2017
  • November 2017
  • December 2017
  • January 2018
  • February 2018
  • March 2018
  • April 2018
  • May 2018
  • June 2018
  • July 2018
  • August 2018
  • September 2018
  • October 2018
  • November 2018
  • December 2018
  • January 2019
  • February 2019
  • March 2019
  • April 2019
  • May 2019
  • June 2019
  • July 2019
  • August 2019
  • September 2019
  • October 2019
  • November 2019
  • December 2019
  • January 2020
  • February 2020
  • March 2020
  • April 2020
  • May 2020
  • June 2020
  • July 2020
  • August 2020
  • September 2020
  • October 2020
  • November 2020
  • December 2020
  • January 2021
  • February 2021
  • March 2021
  • April 2021
  • May 2021
  • June 2021
  • July 2021
  • August 2021
  • September 2021
  • October 2021
  • November 2021
  • December 2021
  • January 2022
  • February 2022
  • March 2022
  • April 2022
  • May 2022
  • June 2022
  • July 2022
  • August 2022
  • September 2022
  • October 2022
  • November 2022
  • December 2022
  • January 2023
  • February 2023
  • March 2023
  • April 2023
  • May 2023
  • June 2023
  • July 2023
  • August 2023
  • September 2023
  • October 2023
  • November 2023
  • December 2023
  • January 2024
  • February 2024
  • March 2024
  • April 2024
  • May 2024
  • June 2024