Haven’t I Seen You Before?

Would you believe that there will be yet another Three Musketeers film? It’s true. This version stars Orlando Bloom and Milla Jovovich and was directed by Paul W.S. Anderson. The movie is scheduled for release on October 11, 2011. An image of the movie poster is floating around cyberspace and chatter on it is mixed. There are comments from those who like it, saying that it recalls a time when movie posters were drawn. Comments from those who don’t like it range from “Blah” and “Lame” to “Too busy for this poster. My eyes are all over the place!!!” As for me, I like the compositional style, I just don’t like the look of those in the poster. They have a going through the motions/ “I’m just here for the check” look. Below is the poster.

Moving right along, a recent story in the Times of India was about two movie posters. In particular, how a Bollywood movie poster for Murder 2 was very similar to Lars won Trier’s Antichrist. Both posters featured arms entangled in twisted branches and if there weren’t an Internet either no one would call attention to it or the attention would come much later. Anyway, below are the two posters in question.

What’s going on here? Has Hollywood’s current recycling kick spread to posters? Actually no. The reuse/repurposing of compositional and artistic styles has been going on since before the Renaissance. Both Michelangelo and Leonardo DaVinci influenced Raphael. Henri Matisse and pre-Roman Iberian sculpture influenced Picasso. A can of soup influenced Andy Warhol. I would go on but you get the idea.

So, it’s not a case of movie posters artists getting lazy, they are taking part of a long tradition of artists seeing something that they like and incorporating it. What separates art from a mere copy  is when the artist uses a technique in such a way that it becomes a part of his or her signature style. Of course, with the above-mentioned Three Musketeers poster, sometimes taking elements from the past doesn’t always work. That’s why talent is so important. No matter what the tools he or she uses, whether photography, computer generated images or acrylic paint, the true talent of an artist shines through. Think of the movie posters for Back to the Future and Mystic River (seen below and created by Drew Struzen and Bill Gold, respectively). One is drawn and one is photographed, yet they are great posters because two excellent artists created them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Therefore, if the artist is good—a movie poster is a thing of beauty. If the artist is bad, the movie poster is lambasted throughout the Internet.

Keep this in mind the next time you look at a vaguely familiar movie poster.

Sources:
http://www.flix66.com/2011/06/09/logan-lerman-and-orlando-bloom-look-awful-in-new-poster-for-the-three-musketeers/

http://www.movieweb.com/news/the-three-musketeers-poster

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-06-09/news-interviews/29637659_1_poster-mohit-suri-trier

http://www.artchive.com/artchive/R/raphael.html

http://www.artchive.com/artchive/P/picasso.html

http://www.drewstruzan.com/illustrated/portfolio/?fa=medium&gid=686&mp&gallerystart=1&pagestart=1&type=mp&gs=1

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/secrets-hollywood-s-greatest-movie-188670

Advertisement

What $106.5 Million Gets Some People

Recently, Picasso’s “Nude, Green Leaves and Bust” was sold at Christie’s for a record $106.5 Million USD. Many saw this as a sign that the recession is over, at least for art collectors. I don’t think it is that at all. Rather, it is something more simple. Works from Picasso don’t come up for auction every day or even every year. So, when they do, people with the desire and, most importantly, the means line up for these auctions and bid, bid, bid.

“Hey, wait a minute.” You must be saying now. “The auction at Christie’s didn’t feature any movie posters. Why are you writing about this?” Don’t worry, there’s a point to this entry and that is, what is it that compels some people to spend $106.5 million USD on a work of art or anything that is a collectible? I’m the kind of person where $106.5 million USD is A LOT of money.  (More money than I and a good chunk of the world’s population will make in our lifetime.) Well, here is what I think:

It’s a Picasso. Admit it, the idea of owning an original Picasso has a certain cache. It shows that you are in a select group of people who have the means to own a Picasso.

In addition to owning it because one can, it could also be that the desire to collect items, no matter what they are, is a way to exert some control in life.  So, while the value in our mutual funds dropped and people like Bernard Madoff bilked hundreds of investors with his ponzi scheme, our art collection, bottle cap collection or movie poster collection is the same place it always was—namely the last place we left it.

Sources:
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local&id=7423174

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703866704575224873880379734.html