The art of effective and creative film posters lies in several department, all contributing to a specific aesthetic and style that says just enough about the film, without giving everything away. Surely there are many posters that bend and even break these rules (for better or worse) but evenso, the artist's interpretation of the film, what shines about it is what makes the pallet--the characters, scenery, sets, props, moments.
In a way, film posters seek to encapsulate a film's aura and project it to the everyday person, the passerby--nearly anyone, because whoever can be caught by the image for more than few seconds is a potential audience member. Of course posters have easily fallen into the gray area of mundane modern day advertising. In some ways this has caused many film posters to lack the charisma and charm, and simply aim to shove the name or the face into the public with a quick snapshot to try and sum it all up and grab their audience. I've seen this poster all too much. This is all on the shoulders of the studios, seeking to make their penny.
In this day and age that a studio's marketing department seeks to identify with today's viewer, but more specifically, today's youth, what most kids are exposed to is an extremely fast-paced culture, thriving of fast-pace images. Most people are under the impression they don't have time enough in the day to stand and gawk at art unless its hanging in a museum. Very easily a studio can release a very simple image with a popular actor and catchy title and the person on the go is subliminally transmitted to make a buzz or bring it up in conversation. Effective. Easy. Who's complaining?... Well, I guess I am.
This fast-paced advertising wave took hold, with much thanks to the internet. Since then, ads have become more boiled down. There's more pressure to either dazzle or get to the point. So, how the hell did it infect movie posters? I think it started with one film that set a bar. Sure, the task of making a very simple and noticeable image had become known since day one in advertising, and in the 90s, getting it right became a challenge.
Exec: Yeah, the napalm from Nam in the background, and maybe Jenny looking distraught in the upper right. The fishing boat coming in from the left and Tom Hanks face real big in the lower right. Somethin' like that.
Artist (?): What about the bench?
Exec: Yeah, that's boring. I don't see that fitting anywhere.
Artist: No. Just the bench.
And why not?
So how? How do studios decide what's right and what's wrong? How do they know whether to keep it simple or amp it up?
The truth is there's a huge elimination process, and I'm sure that somewhere along the way, someone may have pitched a poster just like this, but the filmmaker and the producers stepped in and knew what the film was about. A guy on a bench. Waiting... For what? That's what grabs the audience. Intrigue.
For example, the "Star Wars" theatrical poster in comparison, leaves very little to be imagined, since nearly every character from the film is there. Even the damn death star! But if you're walking down the street and you see this thing, how the hell can you ignore it??
The intrigue is drawn from the images and how they correspond with one another. The title is vague. We can see that there's a conflict, that there's a dark and mysterious villain, and very identifiable are the heroes--but it's really not enough. YOU NEED TO SEE IT!
In some ways movie posters work very much like film editing. The more or less you show really affects what the audience is left to imagine.
One of the more recent examples of a simple image poster, and one I think really motivated studios to invest less efforts in extravagant murals like "Star Wars" or "Indiana Jones" is "The 40 Year-Old Virgin". I'll focus on comedies for the time being because they tend to be an easy money-maker for studios and of course their streamline appeal makes them a perfect target.
This poster is excellent. You identify Carrell with the title and then you're on your way. It's very laughable. He looks like a virgin! It's incredible how simple it is. If the title could have been telepathically transmitted to your subconscious, you wouldn't even need the title written on the damn poster. With the success of "The 40 Year-Old Virgin" came a slew of comedies, and with them, a pitfall in their advertising. To be witty, but not bother spending a dime.
Prime examples:
Perhaps I'm making a generalization about these ads, but to compare to posters from the past, how can you? The problem with these posters is that they're nearly all the same. Nothing very artistic or clever (okay, Woodcock's balls are worth a chuckle). "The 40 Year-Old Virgin's" poster on the other hand, is actually a piece of art because it presents the conflict within an internal image, that perhaps there's something missing here--like balls. It's what the image isn't showing that makes you want to see more.
What is so special about these other posters? The whole story's being told, and they're barely showing anything. If perhaps Katherine Heigel were crying hysterically, covered in blood, while Ashton Kutcher was trying to get her to throw a body into a dumpster--then I'd be a little more intrigued. How did they meet? How did she get mixed up with him? Why's he's keeping her around? The poster for "Killers" is telling me everything and nothing at the same time. Rightfully so, the movie tanked.
"Soul Men": They don't get along and soul is (unfortunately) not as popular as in the days of Otis Redding, Tina Turner and The Temptations, but I'm sure they'll figure it. It looks like a comedy.
"The Proposal". Clearly a romantic comedy. He's not ready for commitment, but she'll change that... Well, I'm sure it has a happy ending. Why the hell do I need to go see it now?
What sets "The 40 Year-Old Virgin" aside from these posters is a shadow of doubt. Does Steve Carrell look like he's ever going to get laid? NO! Look at him! He's... ready to go... which makes the photo so brilliant. Carrell is in character. The actors in the other posters aren't. They're getting their photos taken.
Some posters have been able to take the simple snap-n-go style and take it places, by using the canvas as a portrait rather than an advertisement. For example:
Of course I'm not saying I wish actors would improvise more, Apatow Productions just clearly knows their shtick and how to sell it cleverly and creatively. Even the backgrounds of the images, though simple, create a very specific and relatable atmosphere for the film. "Pineapple Express's" poster is clouded with smoke. At first, from a far, you imagine gunsmoke since they're all carrying guns, but once you catch sight of James Franco, you tend to put two and two together.Posters like this hearken back to a classic example of characters in their element in the simple image category, "The Odd Couple". Ironically enough, even in the poster it reads, "... say no more."
Big studios looking to earn their buck at the box office have decided to turn their head away from the clever or the creative poster style and in return developed what I call "The Polaroid Syndrome"; to use what's in front of them and make a nice pose for the camera. Unfortunately all they see is the cast, sex, violence, speed, and the title--not the story.
Here are some other examples of film posters from the past decade suffering from Polaroid Syndrome:
As usual, film remains an industry and one that isn't too affected by a demand for artistic endeavors such as elaborate or impressive poster art. Is the art of posters dying because the industry is too on the move? Of course not--there even remains an art in making some of these pieces of crap, above.
But what's surprising is a new wave in poster art. Artists from the getgo who make posters, AND WHO AREN'T EVEN WORKING FOR THE FILM INDUSTRY... Of course, that is until the studios see their work. Turn to Tyler Stout.
 |
| Hell Ride, one of Stout's earliest movie poster ventures. |
 |
| Click to enlarge. |
 |
| BEST WORST MOVIE |
Stout's work resembles that of Drew Struzan with his use of collage. Small moments from the film. In a way, Stout's work is extremely chaotic in comparison, but such is its modern edge. The excellent use of color scheme and a lack of colors contributes significantly to the mood. Sometimes only two or three colors, and all the rest is lines.
A really good example of film posters with a simple and clever image is from someone like Brandon Schaefer or Jamie Bolton who cleverly use minimalism to catch your attention and present intrigue. Though of course Bolton's work sort of thrives on the fact that you've seen the movie before, they still remain to be very clever minimalist pieces.
Brandon Schaefer:
Jamie Bolton:
... Wow! That was a long first entry. I hope I don't build up your expectations too high, but then again the world of poster art is endless. There will always be more.
Until Next Time,
John Morgan
