Me three. Unless new iron-clad information is found, I am solely going to say that there is much unknown about exactly when the various releases occurred and that bidders should only bid if they can accept those uncertainties.
HAS lifetime guarantees on every item - IS eMoviePoster.com HAS unrestored and unenhanced images - IS eMoviePoster.com HAS 100% honest condition descriptions - IS eMoviePoster.com HAS auctions where the winner is the higher of two real bidders - IS eMoviePoster.com HAS up to SIXTEEN weeks of "Pay and Hold" to save a fortune on shipping - IS eMoviePoster.com HAS real customer service before, during and after EVERY auction, and answers all questions - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS 25% or 26% "buyers premiums" of any kind (but especially the dreadful "$29 or $49 minimum" ones) - NOT eMoviePoster.com HAS "reserves or starts over $1 - NOT eMoviePoster.com HAS hidden bidder IDs - NOT eMoviePoster.com HAS "nosebleed" shipping charges - NOT eMoviePoster.com HAS inadequate packaging - NOT eMoviePoster.com HAS no customer service to speak of, before, during and after any auction, and answers almost no questions - NOT eMoviePoster.com
Film was released by Pizor's Imperial in Feb. '32 as a roadshow playing in NYC and possibly a showing in Chicago as well. Full color one sheet and 3 sheet with Imperial logo are from this release.
Film was sold to Columbia in late March, early April '32 to Columbia for general release. They added two reels of additional footage. In late May Columbia set an early release in Washington, DC and upstate NY to "...get a line on how to advertise and exploit the picture..." (Variety, May 17, 1932) prior to their general release in June. It played all over the country from '32 to '33. All lobbies with the Columbia logos are original and reflect two different ad campaign styles, one for exploitation audiences and one for squares.
In '33 and '34 the Production Code prevents Columbia from ever releasing the film again, particularly as they are trying to class themselves up. Like other films expunged by the Code (e.g., Convention City) not much paper survives because there was no further need for it at the studio level so it was probably destroyed with extreme prejudice. There were no further Columbia releases.
In 1942, 10 years after they sold it, rights revert to Capitol who creates the "Capitol Pictures" duo-tone one sheet. The film plays through the early '50s, but it's unlikely other posters were printed and they just used the R'42 copies.
Bruce, this is ironclad and I will be happy to send you supporting documentation. There is no '35 Pizor release, the Capitol one sheet could not have been the original release as they were not at the listed location until '42 when they did the re-release. It may appear confusing but it's really not that mysterious.
My apologies for barging in here and dragging this thread so far off the rails, but I was paged to this topic and have spoken my peace. Believe what you want.
My apologies for barging in here and dragging this thread so far off the rails, but I was paged to this topic and have spoken my peace. Believe what you want.
--Peter
Hell no! No barging seen, no apologies needed.
Love the fact you took the time to put it all down, we absolutely need detailed arguments and counter-arguments to ensure the facts are laid out for all to see and digest.
IMHO: Your summary is more ironclad than what else I have read to date.
All very interesting information and well researched, and as I am involved with a funeral today and I haven't yet finished having written all I wish to say, as soon as an opportunity presents itself I will do so.
I have had a Gallery of rare Australian movie posters for Australian films on my site for quite a few years. There are some very rare ones there. I still add images from time to time and have a lot more to come ... RARE MOVIE POSTERS FOR AUSTRALIAN MADE FILMS
This amount of research and information-digging from the most obscure sources to solve things that matter to so few people are one of my favorite form of entertainment. I fucking love it!!
Actually, the entire extra 14 minutes is probably filler since the LT footage was already in. It would be fun to try and figure out what was padded some day.
In the literature both Capital (aka Capitol) and Imperial are referenced before the sale to Columbia, with Imperial being about the 10:1 favorite. It doesn't really mater because Pizor was associated with both companies, but Imperial is clearly the dominant company when discussing the film.
More importantly, Capitol (aka Capital) Films at 723 7th Avenue doesn't appear in my research until 1942, which happily coincides with Pizor trying to get a certificate for the film to be re-released in 1942 and 1943, presumably as a part of the ethnographic film 'silver era' due to WWII creating an interest in exotic locales. Pizor, in all his corporate permutations, has a long history at 729th 7th though, most definitely during his initial distribution of the film.
If it was me, I'd rate the 2 Imperial posters as the first pre-Columbia release, while the Capitol is probably from the '40s re-release. I'd be interested in your '35 screening info, I've got a big gap between '33 and '42. Full disclosure: the 3 sheet pictured is mine.
Firstly the information regarding the 1935 and the Astor 1947 re-releases I obtained from both Wikipedia and Alchetron.com by searching for ''The Blonde Captive'' and this information appears under the heading ''Anthropological footage re-edited by Columbia Pictures''. It's authenticity I cannot vouch for though.
William H. Pizor's Imperial Pictures was wound up in 1938. Capital Film Exchange released films between 1930 and 1933. If Capitol Pictures at 723 - 7th Avenue, the address on one of ''The Blonde Captive '' posters under discussion was to re-released in the early 1940's and years after Pizor supposedly went out of independent film distribution business and years before he went to work for Screen Guild distributors and the poster was printed at an address two doors away from the old Imperial address I will ask the question, was Pizor connected or no longer connected to this film?
My apologies for barging in here and dragging this thread so far off the rails, but I was paged to this topic and have spoken my peace. Believe what you want.
--Peter
Feck No! This is all fascinating stuff. Can't contribute anything to the discussion/information, but absolutely loving it!
I have had a Gallery of rare Australian movie posters for Australian films on my site for quite a few years. There are some very rare ones there. I still add images from time to time and have a lot more to come ... RARE MOVIE POSTERS FOR AUSTRALIAN MADE FILMS
Had a quick look, some beautiful posters there. They look familiar...isn't there an old book on early aussie film posters with a handful of titles? Thin thing...I think I have it somewhere...forgot all about it!
Some of the images are from various books and many others are from posters that I have sold over the years. I'm guessing that they may have come from the NFSA. I have a lot more images to add but wish I had more time to do it.
Thanks much Peter. I will wait until Lawrence has had his entire say before adding to my site.
HAS lifetime guarantees on every item - IS eMoviePoster.com HAS unrestored and unenhanced images - IS eMoviePoster.com HAS 100% honest condition descriptions - IS eMoviePoster.com HAS auctions where the winner is the higher of two real bidders - IS eMoviePoster.com HAS up to SIXTEEN weeks of "Pay and Hold" to save a fortune on shipping - IS eMoviePoster.com HAS real customer service before, during and after EVERY auction, and answers all questions - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS 25% or 26% "buyers premiums" of any kind (but especially the dreadful "$29 or $49 minimum" ones) - NOT eMoviePoster.com HAS "reserves or starts over $1 - NOT eMoviePoster.com HAS hidden bidder IDs - NOT eMoviePoster.com HAS "nosebleed" shipping charges - NOT eMoviePoster.com HAS inadequate packaging - NOT eMoviePoster.com HAS no customer service to speak of, before, during and after any auction, and answers almost no questions - NOT eMoviePoster.com
From my copy of the book '' Copyright Registory Of Motion Pictures '' ( 1912 - 1939 ) is states "'The Blonde Captive'' 1931 6 reels copyright Herman Gluckman ( Lowell Thomas, author ) 4 Nov. 31 MP 3177. No mention of William M.Pizor, Imperial or Capitol / Capital. Just some facts for the record.
This amount of research and information-digging from the most obscure sources to solve things that matter to so few people are one of my favorite form of entertainment. I #$*^%*! love it!!
What he said, but without the South American swear words.
For anyone who has tuned in late to this thread and perhaps hasn't seen the other two threads that have recently featured The Blonde Captive you may want to visit ''How Observant Are You? '' and "'The Nude Quiz''. and have a look.
Between Peter and myself all the information researched and included on this thread regarding The Blonde Captive and the movie posters displayed here should allow one to make up their own mind as to when the various posters were printed.
Between Peter and myself all the information researched and included on this thread regarding The Blonde Captive and the movie posters displayed here should allow one to make up their own mind as to when the various posters were printed.
Are you suggesting Peter's research is not correct?
Between Peter and myself all the information researched and included on this thread regarding The Blonde Captive and the movie posters displayed here should allow one to make up their own mind as to when the various posters were printed.
Are you suggesting Peter's research is not correct?
No - not at all. I was just saying from all the information that has been provided and discussed on this thread that this should allow people to agree or disagree with the release dates of the various posters.
Between Peter and myself all the information researched and included on this thread regarding The Blonde Captive and the movie posters displayed here should allow one to make up their own mind as to when the various posters were printed.
Are you suggesting Peter's research is not correct?
No - not at all. I was just saying from all the information that has been provided and discussed on this thread that this should allow people to agree or disagree with the release dates of the various posters.
OK. Let me ask a different way. Do you agree that Peter's research is 100% accurate?
Firstly the information regarding the 1935 and the Astor 1947 re-releases I obtained from both Wikipedia and Alchetron.com by searching for ''The Blonde Captive'' and this information appears under the heading ''Anthropological footage re-edited by Columbia Pictures''. It's authenticity I cannot vouch for though.
William H. Pizor's Imperial Pictures was wound up in 1938. Capital Film Exchange released films between 1930 and 1933. If Capitol Pictures at 723 - 7th Avenue, the address on one of ''The Blonde Captive '' posters under discussion was to re-released in the early 1940's and years after Pizor supposedly went out of independent film distribution business and years before he went to work for Screen Guild distributors and the poster was printed at an address two doors away from the old Imperial address I will ask the question, was Pizor connected or no longer connected to this film?
The last time I checked (which was some time ago) the Wikipedia article was rife with incorrect information that I frankly can't be assed to fix.
Capital Film Exchange started in the early '20s and Pizor and Gluckman worked together there. In the Sept. 10, 1942 Motion Picture Daily, Pizor is identified as the "...president of Capitol Films, distributor of "Blonde Captive"...", so yes, he was still connected with the film.
Between Peter and myself all the information researched and included on this thread regarding The Blonde Captive and the movie posters displayed here should allow one to make up their own mind as to when the various posters were printed.
Are you suggesting Peter's research is not correct?
No - not at all. I was just saying from all the information that has been provided and discussed on this thread that this should allow people to agree or disagree with the release dates of the various posters.
OK. Let me ask a different way. Do you agree that Peter's research is 100% accurate?
Since I read this post and your question Peter has responded to some details I had mentioned on this thread, so I will answer you question in my reply to him shortly..
Firstly the information regarding the 1935 and the Astor 1947 re-releases I obtained from both Wikipedia and Alchetron.com by searching for ''The Blonde Captive'' and this information appears under the heading ''Anthropological footage re-edited by Columbia Pictures''. It's authenticity I cannot vouch for though.
William H. Pizor's Imperial Pictures was wound up in 1938. Capital Film Exchange released films between 1930 and 1933. If Capitol Pictures at 723 - 7th Avenue, the address on one of ''The Blonde Captive '' posters under discussion was to re-released in the early 1940's and years after Pizor supposedly went out of independent film distribution business and years before he went to work for Screen Guild distributors and the poster was printed at an address two doors away from the old Imperial address I will ask the question, was Pizor connected or no longer connected to this film?
The last time I checked (which was some time ago) the Wikipedia article was rife with incorrect information that I frankly can't be assed to fix.
Capital Film Exchange started in the early '20s and Pizor and Gluckman worked together there. In the Sept. 10, 1942 Motion Picture Daily, Pizor is identified as the "...president of Capitol Films, distributor of "Blonde Captive"...", so yes, he was still connected with the film.
I commend the time and effort Peter that you have given to your The Blonde Captive research. As a researcher myself and having even been paid at one time for doing this type of work. I fully understand the dedication that would be involved in tackling such an obscure subject, I am very curious in learning what decided you to commence on this subject in the first place? It is the type of thing that I thrive on looking into myself. In answer to David's persistent question of do I believe your research is 100% accurate I will say the following. The answer is yes but with a few very minor details yet to be explained. The three queries are -
1 ) My copyrighted information shows Herman Gluckman on the copyrighted information with no mention of Capital, as you mentioned, at all.
2 ) I still have to be convinced there weren't three different styles of Columbia Pictures lobby cards. One lobby card I posted earlier doesn't fit into either of the two styles you mentioned in the design of the card.
3 ) Do you know what roles William M. Pizor and Herman Gluckman played at Capital Film Exchange as all I have discovered is J.D.''Jack'' Trop was the man in charge of Capital ?
Lawrence, I've been working off and on (mostly off) for several years towards a book on the ethnographic films of the '20s and '30s, although primarily on the production side, not their usually convoluted distribution patterns. Blonde Captive has a particularly astonishing production history so that was one of my first deep dives.
1) There's no telling why Gluckman took the copyright. Maybe he fronted the money to Pizor, maybe he won a bar bet, probably the likeliest scenario is it was part of some sort of tax dodge or way to protect the film from the comings and goings of their various distribution entities. These exchange guys weren't known as the 40 Thieves for nothing. Even today copyright owners aren't always the distributors.
2) As noted earlier, Columbia was grappling with how to publicize the film. I suspect the different styles of lobby cards were just attempts to target different audiences or regional morals. Regardless, Columbia only actively distributed the film for a little more than a year, so I wouldn't have any hesitation calling them all 'original release.' (If one was determined to be pedantic I suppose the pre-Columbia release could be described as 'first release,' in today's terms it is probably similar to a Sundance screening poster before a film is bought by a major distributor.
3) The Capital Film Exchange was an umbrella for various Capital exchanges scattered throughout the country, such as Indianapolis, Philadelphia, Cleveland, etc. In 1920, Pizor and Gluckman were identified as the NYC buyers for the company. By 1922 they were jointly sued as Capital Productions (!!) so they have a long history of intertwined business dealings.
Lawrence, I've been working off and on (mostly off) for several years towards a book on the ethnographic films of the '20s and '30s, although primarily on the production side, not their usually convoluted distribution patterns.
It will make fascinating reading. Limited buyers but they certainly will be enthusiastic ones never the less. Hope you get it off the ground and please let us know here how to obtain a copy if and when you have completed it. Once more great work Peter and thanks for tying up the loose ends for me. An aim of mine has also been to write and publish a book about Australina daybills, but time will tell if this does eventuate or not. In the meantime I will continue to share my film knowledge here on VMPF.
Comments
HAS unrestored and unenhanced images - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS 100% honest condition descriptions - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS auctions where the winner is the higher of two real bidders - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS up to SIXTEEN weeks of "Pay and Hold" to save a fortune on shipping - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS real customer service before, during and after EVERY auction, and answers all questions - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS 25% or 26% "buyers premiums" of any kind (but especially the dreadful "$29 or $49 minimum" ones) - NOT eMoviePoster.com
HAS "reserves or starts over $1 - NOT eMoviePoster.com
HAS hidden bidder IDs - NOT eMoviePoster.com
HAS "nosebleed" shipping charges - NOT eMoviePoster.com
HAS inadequate packaging - NOT eMoviePoster.com
HAS no customer service to speak of, before, during and after any auction, and answers almost no questions - NOT eMoviePoster.com
Film was released by Pizor's Imperial in Feb. '32 as a roadshow playing in NYC and possibly a showing in Chicago as well. Full color one sheet and 3 sheet with Imperial logo are from this release.
Film was sold to Columbia in late March, early April '32 to Columbia for general release. They added two reels of additional footage. In late May Columbia set an early release in Washington, DC and upstate NY to "...get a line on how to advertise and exploit the picture..." (Variety, May 17, 1932) prior to their general release in June. It played all over the country from '32 to '33. All lobbies with the Columbia logos are original and reflect two different ad campaign styles, one for exploitation audiences and one for squares.
In '33 and '34 the Production Code prevents Columbia from ever releasing the film again, particularly as they are trying to class themselves up. Like other films expunged by the Code (e.g., Convention City) not much paper survives because there was no further need for it at the studio level so it was probably destroyed with extreme prejudice. There were no further Columbia releases.
In 1942, 10 years after they sold it, rights revert to Capitol who creates the "Capitol Pictures" duo-tone one sheet. The film plays through the early '50s, but it's unlikely other posters were printed and they just used the R'42 copies.
Bruce, this is ironclad and I will be happy to send you supporting documentation. There is no '35 Pizor release, the Capitol one sheet could not have been the original release as they were not at the listed location until '42 when they did the re-release. It may appear confusing but it's really not that mysterious.
My apologies for barging in here and dragging this thread so far off the rails, but I was paged to this topic and have spoken my peace. Believe what you want.
--Peter
Hell no! No barging seen, no apologies needed.
Love the fact you took the time to put it all down, we absolutely need detailed arguments and counter-arguments to ensure the facts are laid out for all to see and digest.
IMHO: Your summary is more ironclad than what else I have read to date.
RARE MOVIE POSTERS FOR AUSTRALIAN MADE FILMS
Firstly the information regarding the 1935 and the Astor 1947 re-releases I obtained from both Wikipedia and Alchetron.com by searching for ''The Blonde Captive'' and this information appears under the heading ''Anthropological footage re-edited by Columbia Pictures''. It's authenticity I cannot vouch for though.
William H. Pizor's Imperial Pictures was wound up in 1938. Capital Film Exchange released films between 1930 and 1933. If Capitol Pictures at 723 - 7th Avenue, the address on one of ''The Blonde Captive '' posters under discussion was to re-released in the early 1940's and years after Pizor supposedly went out of independent film distribution business and years before he went to work for Screen Guild distributors and the poster was printed at an address two doors away from the old Imperial address I will ask the question, was Pizor connected or no longer connected to this film?
Had a quick look, some beautiful posters there. They look familiar...isn't there an old book on early aussie film posters with a handful of titles? Thin thing...I think I have it somewhere...forgot all about it!
We need someone to do an updated book!
HAS unrestored and unenhanced images - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS 100% honest condition descriptions - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS auctions where the winner is the higher of two real bidders - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS up to SIXTEEN weeks of "Pay and Hold" to save a fortune on shipping - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS real customer service before, during and after EVERY auction, and answers all questions - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS 25% or 26% "buyers premiums" of any kind (but especially the dreadful "$29 or $49 minimum" ones) - NOT eMoviePoster.com
HAS "reserves or starts over $1 - NOT eMoviePoster.com
HAS hidden bidder IDs - NOT eMoviePoster.com
HAS "nosebleed" shipping charges - NOT eMoviePoster.com
HAS inadequate packaging - NOT eMoviePoster.com
HAS no customer service to speak of, before, during and after any auction, and answers almost no questions - NOT eMoviePoster.com
Well done chaps. pip pip!
Are you suggesting Peter's research is not correct?
No - not at all. I was just saying from all the information that has been provided and discussed on this thread that this should allow people to agree or disagree with the release dates of the various posters.
OK. Let me ask a different way. Do you agree that Peter's research is 100% accurate?
The last time I checked (which was some time ago) the Wikipedia article was rife with incorrect information that I frankly can't be assed to fix.
Capital Film Exchange started in the early '20s and Pizor and Gluckman worked together there. In the Sept. 10, 1942 Motion Picture Daily, Pizor is identified as the "...president of Capitol Films, distributor of "Blonde Captive"...", so yes, he was still connected with the film.
Since I read this post and your question Peter has responded to some details I had mentioned on this thread, so I will answer you question in my reply to him shortly..
I commend the time and effort Peter that you have given to your The Blonde Captive research. As a researcher myself and having even been paid at one time for doing this type of work. I fully understand the dedication that would be involved in tackling such an obscure subject, I am very curious in learning what decided you to commence on this subject in the first place? It is the type of thing that I thrive on looking into myself. In answer to David's persistent question of do I believe your research is 100% accurate I will say the following. The answer is yes but with a few very minor details yet to be explained. The three queries are -
1 ) My copyrighted information shows Herman Gluckman on the copyrighted information with no mention of Capital, as you mentioned, at all.
2 ) I still have to be convinced there weren't three different styles of Columbia Pictures lobby cards. One lobby card I posted earlier doesn't fit into either of the two styles you mentioned in the design of the card.
3 ) Do you know what roles William M. Pizor and Herman Gluckman played at Capital Film Exchange as all I have discovered is J.D.''Jack'' Trop was the man in charge of Capital ?
Again excellent work done.
1) There's no telling why Gluckman took the copyright. Maybe he fronted the money to Pizor, maybe he won a bar bet, probably the likeliest scenario is it was part of some sort of tax dodge or way to protect the film from the comings and goings of their various distribution entities. These exchange guys weren't known as the 40 Thieves for nothing. Even today copyright owners aren't always the distributors.
2) As noted earlier, Columbia was grappling with how to publicize the film. I suspect the different styles of lobby cards were just attempts to target different audiences or regional morals. Regardless, Columbia only actively distributed the film for a little more than a year, so I wouldn't have any hesitation calling them all 'original release.' (If one was determined to be pedantic I suppose the pre-Columbia release could be described as 'first release,' in today's terms it is probably similar to a Sundance screening poster before a film is bought by a major distributor.
3) The Capital Film Exchange was an umbrella for various Capital exchanges scattered throughout the country, such as Indianapolis, Philadelphia, Cleveland, etc. In 1920, Pizor and Gluckman were identified as the NYC buyers for the company. By 1922 they were jointly sued as Capital Productions (!!) so they have a long history of intertwined business dealings.
It will make fascinating reading. Limited buyers but they certainly will be enthusiastic ones never the less. Hope you get it off the ground and please let us know here how to obtain a copy if and when you have completed it. Once more great work Peter and thanks for tying up the loose ends for me. An aim of mine has also been to write and publish a book about Australina daybills, but time will tell if this does eventuate or not. In the meantime I will continue to share my film knowledge here on VMPF.