ART DAY! Hammer Films 1966 Movie Poster painting

[Terry Doyle]

Here's a new addition that arrived today, Tom Chantrells's prototype painting (a highly detailed preliminary submitted for approval to the movie studios) for the 1964 UK drama, THIS IS MY STREET.

 

"Battersea housewife Margery (June Ritchie) lives a life of drudgery in a working class terrace with her less husband (Mike Pratt) and her small daughter. Lodging next door with her mother is Harry (Ian Hendry), a flashy salesman and nightclub owner who repeatedly attempts to seduce Marge. At first showing little interest, Marge finally gives in after he helps find her missing daughter. Harry eventually tires of Marge, and turns his attentions to her younger, educated sister, Jinny (Annette Andre). Marge though, is infatuated, and when she discovers Harry plans to marry her sister, she attempts to kill herself – leaving a suicide note exposing her affair with Harry."

 

 

Here's how the (repainted) finished version looked:

 

 

As you can see, differences between the prototype and finished paintings are negligible! With a little tightening-up of the prototype painting's detail, Tom could have saved himself a lot of time and effort in re-doing it all again . . .

 

[Terry Doyle]

Here's an example of what happened to one of Tom Chantrell's original movie poster paintings for Hammer Films:

 

 

Original printed poster for the 1969 movie, Frankenstein Must be Destroyed

 

 

Re-released movie double-bill movie poster (teamed with Sons of Satan)

 

 

Chantrell's (remaining) cannibalised artwork for the re-released double-bill poster

 

The surviving portion of Chantrell's original artwork sold within the past few years. Makes me wonder how many of Tom's original paintings survived in their full-size glory as quite a few of those Hammer films got re-released as a double-bill presentations . . .

 

All images in this thread courtesy of chantrellposter.com.

[Bronty]

Are you saying they physically trimmed the painting? Why would that be necessary when they could just crop the photo?

[Terry Doyle]

Are you saying they physically trimmed the painting? Why would that be necessary when they could just crop the photo?

 

Yes the painting was physically trimmed, as my third photograph should clearly show.

 

Back in the day, the artist would often cannibalise his own originasl if it would help expedite a new assignment (e.g. the double-bill posters used for re-released material). I guess the mindset would have been "Why take photos when I can directly re-use my old art?"

 

Only reason my Rasputin art likely escaped being cannibalised was that the artist had no option but with work with re-sized (reduced) photographic images.

[delekkerste]

All images in this thread courtesy of chantrellposter.com.

 

That unpublished "Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires" poster is

[Terry Doyle]

All images in this thread courtesy of chantrellposter.com.

 

That unpublished "Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires" poster is

 

Yeah, that's a nicely designed prototype (prelim) that was used to raise finance for the (then) proposed movie.

 

[Terry Doyle]

Mike Bloomfield (guy who runs Chantrellposters) also has a sister site also carrying a smaller selection of movie poster artworks by other artists:

 

www.moviepostermem.com

 

You'll have to do a site search under 'Poster Type' for the 'Art' option.

 

As it stands I currently have one more Chantrell poster original to purchase (presently on hold for me) and then I'll be happy with my representative selection of his works.

 

 

[buyatari]

Are you saying they physically trimmed the painting? Why would that be necessary when they could just crop the photo?

 

Perhaps he cut it down to fit into a box for shipping?

 

I do this sometimes when I have to ship paintings to Canada.

[Terry Doyle]

 

Are you saying they physically trimmed the painting? Why would that be necessary when they could just crop the photo?

 

Perhaps he cut it down to fit into a box for shipping?

 

I do this sometimes when I have to ship paintings to Canada.

 

You could always try folding the art?

[Eric Seffinga]

Or shipping it in cardboard with a stamp on it, and let the USPS fold it for you.

[Matches_Malone]

So many nice-looking things in Tom Chantrell site that I was force to get one. The itch that needed to be scratch is partially relieved.

 

The film poster original art always attracted me, but I did not know where to look. Thank you Terry.

So cheap in comparison to comic OA

 

[Bronty]

Are you saying they physically trimmed the painting? Why would that be necessary when they could just crop the photo?

 

Yes the painting was physically trimmed, as my third photograph should clearly show.

 

Back in the day, the artist would often cannibalise his own originasl if it would help expedite a new assignment (e.g. the double-bill posters used for re-released material). I guess the mindset would have been "Why take photos when I can directly re-use my old art?"

 

Only reason my Rasputin art likely escaped being cannibalised was that the artist had no option but with work with re-sized (reduced) photographic images.

 

I guess but my point was there would have been existing film. Bizarre to trim the painting. I've never heard of that elsewhere in similar situations of reuse.

[Bronty]

Are you saying they physically trimmed the painting? Why would that be necessary when they could just crop the photo?

 

Perhaps he cut it down to fit into a box for shipping?

 

I do this sometimes when I have to ship paintings to Canada.

 

You never ship paintings only school projects

[Terry Doyle]

So many nice-looking things in Tom Chantrell site that I was force to get one. The itch that needed to be scratch is partially relieved.

 

The film poster original art always attracted me, but I did not know where to look. Thank you Terry.

So cheap in comparison to comic OA

 

Unless you live in the UK, I'd recommend you speak to (or e-mail) Mike Bloomfield before confirming any purchase. Overseas shipping (assuming he does it) is likely to be expensive as most poster originals are quite large.

[Terry Doyle]

Are you saying they physically trimmed the painting? Why would that be necessary when they could just crop the photo?

 

Yes the painting was physically trimmed, as my third photograph should clearly show.

 

Back in the day, the artist would often cannibalise his own originasl if it would help expedite a new assignment (e.g. the double-bill posters used for re-released material). I guess the mindset would have been "Why take photos when I can directly re-use my old art?"

 

Only reason my Rasputin art likely escaped being cannibalised was that the artist had no option but with work with re-sized (reduced) photographic images.

 

I guess but my point was there would have been existing film. Bizarre to trim the painting. I've never heard of that elsewhere in similar situations of reuse.

 

Existing film? Not necessarily.

 

A lot of the time Chantrell was working to beat deadlines. Each finished movie poster artwork was the result of several prototypes being submitted for approval before a final design was given the go-ahead. Also, from what I understand, it was not uncommon for him to be juggling several other poster assignments at the same time.

 

In the comic-book field, I know of other instances where original artwork was cannibalised (cut-apart) for reprint editions (at least here in the UK).

[Bronty]

Are you saying they physically trimmed the painting? Why would that be necessary when they could just crop the photo?

 

Yes the painting was physically trimmed, as my third photograph should clearly show.

 

Back in the day, the artist would often cannibalise his own originasl if it would help expedite a new assignment (e.g. the double-bill posters used for re-released material). I guess the mindset would have been "Why take photos when I can directly re-use my old art?"

 

Only reason my Rasputin art likely escaped being cannibalised was that the artist had no option but with work with re-sized (reduced) photographic images.

 

I guess but my point was there would have been existing film. Bizarre to trim the painting. I've never heard of that elsewhere in similar situations of reuse.

 

Existing film? Not necessarily.

 

A lot of the time Chantrell was working to beat deadlines. Each finished movie poster artwork was the result of several prototypes being submitted for approval before a final design was given the go-ahead. Also, from what I understand, it was not uncommon for him to be juggling several other poster assignments at the same time.

 

In the comic-book field, I know of other instances where original artwork was cannibalised (cut-apart) for reprint editions (at least here in the UK).

 

Deadlines, yes. No different than any other commercial illustrator. That's the way the entire industry operated. All nighters, unreasonable demands. What else ya got?

 

You said he was hired by a production company. Normally the middlemen/agencies keep film. Often the artist kept film. Not pulling that out of my arse as commercial illustrations I have a lot of.

 

Still bizarre any way you slice it. To me, somebody somewhere if not several somebodies was lazy for this to be the common practice. Don't doubt you at all saying it happened all the time but collecting as material as I do which isn't so different from this, it doesn't make a ton of sense.

 

Not to mention that if as you suggest no film existed than fresh film would need to be taken. Why not crop at that step? I can't think of a rational reason to trim the art apart from just not giving a damn to a prodigious degree . I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it was something as dumb as cutting them down to make them easier to mail. Adam said that in jest but I could see it being fact

 

Regardless of whatever baffling process decisions were made, they are very nice paintings either way. Nice moody atmosphere to them

 

 

[Terry Doyle]

Are you saying they physically trimmed the painting? Why would that be necessary when they could just crop the photo?

 

Yes the painting was physically trimmed, as my third photograph should clearly show.

 

Back in the day, the artist would often cannibalise his own originasl if it would help expedite a new assignment (e.g. the double-bill posters used for re-released material). I guess the mindset would have been "Why take photos when I can directly re-use my old art?"

 

Only reason my Rasputin art likely escaped being cannibalised was that the artist had no option but with work with re-sized (reduced) photographic images.

 

I guess but my point was there would have been existing film. Bizarre to trim the painting. I've never heard of that elsewhere in similar situations of reuse.

 

Existing film? Not necessarily.

 

A lot of the time Chantrell was working to beat deadlines. Each finished movie poster artwork was the result of several prototypes being submitted for approval before a final design was given the go-ahead. Also, from what I understand, it was not uncommon for him to be juggling several other poster assignments at the same time.

 

In the comic-book field, I know of other instances where original artwork was cannibalised (cut-apart) for reprint editions (at least here in the UK).

 

Deadlines, yes. No different than any other commercial illustrator. That's the way the entire industry operated. All nighters, unreasonable demands. What else ya got?

 

You said he was hired by a production company. Normally the middlemen/agencies keep film. Often the artist kept film. Not pulling that out of my arse as commercial illustrations I have a lot of.

 

Still bizarre any way you slice it. To me, somebody somewhere if not several somebodies was lazy for this to be the common practice. Don't doubt you at all saying it happened all the time but collecting as material as I do which isn't so different from this, it doesn't make a ton of sense.

 

Not to mention that if as you suggest no film existed than fresh film would need to be taken. Why not crop at that step? I can't think of a rational reason to trim the art apart from just not giving a damn to a prodigious degree . I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it was something as dumb as cutting them down to make them easier to mail. Adam said that in jest but I could see it being fact

 

Regardless of whatever baffling process decisions were made, they are very nice paintings either way. Nice moody atmosphere to them

 

 

If Tom Chantrell was still alive, I'm sure he'd be the person to answer your questions. I'm not here to defend his practices, merely to say that's what happened and I do know that he didn't have any qualms about cutting apart old artwork to re-format new assignments of double-bill poster campaigns (for re-released material). He said as such during interviews conducted with him during the time he was alive.

 

Cutting apart poster originals for mailing purposes? I don't think so. All the surviving one-shot poster campaign originals remain untrimmed. Hammer studios, from what I understand, were situated nearby the agency Chantrell worked at.

[Bronty]

Just an example of the sort of dumb reason it would likely be, IMO. Not saying it was that reason in particular necessarily... what I am saying is that was totally unnecessary as far as I can see and that's a shame

[Terry Doyle]

As a quick P.S. to my earlier response to Matches Malone, if anyone here is looking to buy any movie poster artworks from Mike Bloomfield at the Chantrell poster site, I'd recommend you enquire if shipping overseas from the UK is an option and, if so, also the charges involved. As I say, these are mostly large pieces.

 

Also carefully read the description affixed to each image. Not every artwork is the finished art that was used directly for the movie poster campaigns. A lot of the available art is a mixture of pencil designs, roughs, prototypes (detailed prelims), photographic montages and the like. Lots of good stuff, but know what it is you're looking to buy up-front. Mike's a good guy and will readily reply to all enquiries.

[Terry Doyle]

Just an example of the sort of dumb reason it would likely be, IMO. Not saying it was that reason in particular necessarily.

 

If it's any consolation, it horrifies me to think that (for whatever reason) such practices happened!