SEAN PENN
 Sean
Penn was born in Santa Monica, California. He bong-hit to
stardom in 1982 as Jeff Spicoli in ‘Fast Times At Ridgemont
High’. The dominance of his character over others in the
film is demonstrated by the fact that the US-1 Sheet Style A
is centred on Spicoli. This kind of dominance was just a
taste of things to come from Penn; he took the stereotype of
a pot-smoking teen and made it his own, and this while
banging on his head with his own sneaker.
He went on to excel as an actor in several other films, such
as ‘Shanghai Surprise’ and ‘I Am Sam’. Perhaps his most
effective role came in 2003 in Alejandro González Iñárritu’s
hard-hitting ’21 Grams.’ Yet, he received the ‘Best Actor’
Oscar that same year for his performance as Jimmy Markum in
‘Mystic River.’
 His
Oscar success has given him more artistic freedom and
allowed him to concentrate more on directing; his films up
until today have been received with mixed reviews. His most
recent, 2007’s ‘Into The Wild’ is certainly worth seeing.
Promoting Punk Cinema:
The Movie Posters Of Punk Films
An Essay By Bruno Nouril
The question I wish to
address in this essay is whether or not the movie posters of
punk films can ever be punk themselves, given their money
making purpose of attracting people to the cinema. I am
going to use the rough guidelines of what makes a film punk
that we have thus far encountered in this course, to
evaluate the poster’s aesthetic and utilitarian value, to
conclude whether or not the posters are ‘punk’.
In New Punk Cinema
Stacy Thompson writes about the conflict between making
money and making art, before rather reductively concluding
that “it is impossible to rage against the machine when you
are a part of it; you only make it stronger.” (Rombes 37)
His approach suggests that anything that has the end of
making money can’t be truly punk, because of punk’s
anti-capitalist, anti-establishment attitude. Although I
find this approach reductive and far too general, his
central point is interesting in evaluating movie posters. As
tools of advertisement they have the clear purpose of
attracting people to see the film, but this does not
necessarily mean that they are directly concerned with
making money, if, for example, the film’s main purpose is
something external to making money. In that instance the
poster seeks to reel people in to the film so that the
purpose of the film can be achieved. However, it is still
hard to see the posters as ‘punk’ themselves when they are
tools of advertisement, and thus symbols of capitalism.
Surely Thompson would have to argue that they could never be
punk, though the question still remains what for him (if
anything?) is punk: “Within the logic of punk, the proper
attitude toward capitalism, by itself, unattached to an
anti-capitalist economics, will never suffice to render a
cultural production authentically punk.” (Rombes 37)
I would like to argue for
some of the posters as punk, either in their artistic
content or political message. This I feel I can do because
although they do all share the primary purpose of making
money, I disagree that that takes away the possibility of
labeling them as ‘punk’, as Thompson would have us believe.
“Too often, Hollywood has pitted commerce against art, as
mongoose
against cobra. Consider the highly specialized arena of movie poster
advertising: few who confused ‘Is it art?’ with ‘Will it
sell tickets?’ held jobs long enough to find out the
answer.” (Rebello 13) This quote demonstrates why I feel
that a poster can both be punk and make money, and would
suggest it as the best retort to Thompson’s narrow reading
of punk cinema. Or, perhaps to add some authority I could
quote Adolph Zukor to rebut Thompson, who says “It is
generally agreed…that what is good art is good advertising
and that the most satisfactory design will sell the product
best.” (Rebello 13) This is the approach I want to take in
evaluating these posters, to consider that although the
production houses clearly made the posters to get people to
the film, they could still make them aesthetically punk and
achieve that main goal.
 So to the movie posters, and I will start by analyzing two
posters made for Alex Cox’s Sid and Nancy (1986). The red
French poster could be labeled as ‘punk’ in that it uses
Jamie Reed’s collage effect, showing Sid and Nancy through
broken up boxes. This is an archetypal ‘punk art’ style and
method, as it was created by Reed and is closely associated
with the Sex Pistols (perhaps the most common symbol of
punk). Yet, the poster was not designed by Reed, and it does
not portray Sid and Nancy, rather Oldman and Webb. This is
perhaps why it is questionably punk, because it invokes
Reed’s style in order to entice the same people who like the
Pistols. The punk imagery and language is there, as you can
see the slogans ‘no future’ or ‘come see what you’re
missing’, but it appears to be trying to legitimize itself
as a film by using other people’s imagery and language.
The American poster shows an
undeniably punk scene with garbage-infested streets, and yet
also shows something that is far from being punk, romantic
love. The couple could be taken out of this context and not
look out of place in a romantic film poster (except perhaps
for their fashion sense). Romantic love in punk cinema is
rarely seen and is usually replaced by dirty, sordid,
misogynistic scenes of sex, yet this poster clearly shows
romantic love, albeit in a non-romantic setting. Perhaps it
is the presence of romance in the poster that makes me
slightly hesitant to label them as punk.
Next, to David Lynch’s Blue
Velvet (1986) and a continuation of our discussion of
romantic love. The poster shows a women bent over a pool
table, readied for
a raping. This is more like the kind of love we have
encountered in these films: nasty, brutish and short. This
is also why we can label this specific poster as punk,
simply put because of its graphic content. It may also be
interesting to note that the American posters for this film
make more of a deal about the film’s cast, and are clearly
trying to appeal to a widespread audience. This, on the
other hand, gives us a specific idea as to what the film is
about (or at least going to contain); and I would conclude
that this honesty is punk in itself, as it is more about
shocking than increasing ticket sales.
“That’s the kind of
advertising I like. Just the facts. No
 exaggeration.”
(Rebello 13) The above was said by Samuel Goldwyn, and is
particularly applicable to the point I just made about the
honest Blue Velvet poster, and also to the next poster I am
going to discuss. The American poster for Stanley Kubrick’s
A Clockwork Orange (1971) is about as brutally honest as you
can get. It not only shows a menacing McDowell brandishing a
knife, but also contains the tagline, “Being the adventures
of a young man whose principal interests are rape,
ultra-violence and Beethoven.” This is an accurate
description of the filmic content, and it also shares the
exclusivity of the Velvet poster, in that only those
interested in seeing rape and ultra-violence are being
appealed to, and not the masses. Rather than hiding them
away, the poster lays all the actions bare, letting the
passer-by decide whether or not they want to enter this
world. Perhaps the blatant honesty of the tagline for this
poster is enough to argue for it as an item of ‘punk art’.
 Next,
to the poster for Richard O’Brien and Jim Sharman’s The
Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975) which also contains a punk
tagline, but for different reasons than the Clockwork one.
“A different set of jaws” is a play on a contemporary
blockbuster (Jaws) and uses the socially external violence
in that film to legitimate the human violence in this film.
This is marking its place in the world of cinema as ‘the
other’, and reveling in its cult value and the fact that it
is not a moneymaking blockbuster. It is appealing to people
who are tired of seeing continuous cycles of the same types
of films, and in doing so finds a place amongst cult films
and the label of ‘punk’.
 Russ
Meyer’s Super Vixens (1975) has one of the most recognizable
images of X-Rated movie posters ever released. It is also an
image that does not scream romantic love; it is rather, and
in every way, sexual. This is how it can be argued for as a
punk film, and it is clearly for the specific passer-by who
happens to really want to ‘feast on it’. This is a film that
glorifies sex and other such things that come from the red
light part of town that is the scene for so much punk
activity. Yet, although this poster revels in actions that
are associated with punk, it is clearly still more about
sexual enticement than political statement, which eventually
leads to its being labeled as ‘X-Rated’ rather than ‘punk’.
The poster for Danny Boyle’s
Trainspotting (1996) contains one of the most punk taglines
in
 movie
poster history: “Choose life. Choose a job. Choose a starter
home. Choose dental insurance, leisure wear and matching
luggage. Choose your future. But why would you want to do a
thing like that?” This highlights the social norms, before
identifying itself as exactly the opposite. The people in
this film are ‘the others’, and they are certainly punk in
their drug habits, relationships, and accommodation. The
poster puts them out there, one shivering wet, one swearing,
and one aiming his hand at the camera like a gun. This group
is what the future holds for the children from the beginning
of The Decline Of Western Civilization. The poster not only
portrays them in all their scummy glory, but also through a
line of unconventional overlapping photographs that create
the punk effect of collage. The poster is a punk poster
because it identifies it heroes and heroines as punks, and
invites like-minded people to come and see them. Again, its
tagline is not trying to appeal to the masses (like, for
example ‘The best comedy of the summer’, would be) but is
trying to appeal to anyone who likes the attitude expressed
in the quote. This specifying of audience, and the attitude
portrayed in the quote are what allow me to conclude that
this is a punk movie poster.
 The
next poster might well be the least punk of all the posters
thus far discussed. William Friedkind’s Cruising (1980) has
a one sheet that centralizes the film’s famed star Pacino in
an attempt to use his popularity to attract masses of
viewers. This is the most common approach of modern movie
posters. Perhaps, the only aspect of the poster that is punk
is the deceptive nature of the poster: any passer-by would
simply relate Pacino’s face with a run-of-the-mill Pacino
film and would not conjure up the images in their heads,
which are eventually produced in the film. Yet, it is more
believable that the studio is scavenging off the popularity
of Pacino than trying to deceive its potential audience by
giving false preconceptions. Essentially, there is nothing
visually punk about the content of the poster, despite the
numerous visually punk aspects of the film.
 The
British Quad for Julien Temple’s The Great Rock ‘N’ Roll
Swindle (1977-80) is visually punk in its content and style.
It not only has Reed’s ‘ransom-letter’ style of wording, but
also contains the abstract animation of the film. The cast
is caught in a collection of mug shots along the bottom,
perhaps in a paradoxical invocation of classic film posters
with Clark Gable and Audrey Hepburn in the same passport
photo style. I would, however, have to make the argument
that the poster’s tagline makes it less punk: “The film that
incriminates its audience.” This seems to go along the
pattern of the film that sought to invite the masses into
the closed historical event that was the Sex Pistols. Given
my previous arguments for the inclusive nature of punk, it
would be hypocritical for me to not highlight this
invitation as an aspect that is not often present in punk
cinema. Therefore, although the poster is clearly of punk
design and filled with punk content, I feel its message is
closer to sophisticated advertising than political
statement.
 Disenfranchisement
from society is the punk theme I feel at play in both the
Martin Scorsese movie Taxi Driver (1976) and the style B
poster for it. The tagline, “On every street there’s a
nobody who dreams of being somebody. He’s a lonely forgotten
man desperate to prove that he’s alive,” speaks of the
desperation of being noticed in such a disenfranchising
society. The poster shows De Niro alone walking the streets
with adult movie houses in the background. The setting is
punk, and the combination of dull purple and black adds to
the depressing mood and the political message of
estrangement. Despite having such a recognizable face at the
poster’s heart I would argue that the studio is not aiming
primarily to play off De Niro’s success, like in the
Cruising poster. It is more concerned with portraying an
individual lonely figure in order to amplifying its desired
mood and message.
The final poster I am going
to analyze most certainly does primarily use its lead male
to entice the masses to come and see the film. James Dean’s
body is so central to the poster for Nicholas Ray’s Rebel
Without A Cause (1955) that it impossible not to
 see
him as a sex symbol being used to lure both men and women
alike with his rebellious attitude. The poster’s tagline
also seeks to entice the masses with its sensationalism:
“Jim Stark – a kid from a good family – what makes him
tick…like a bomb!” This is just one of many similar
‘exposing’ taglines of 1950’s ‘teen-wave’ films designed to
shock their audience. This may be seen as a punk method of
filmmaking, but considering the close relationship between
the reaction it got from the public and the increase in
ticket sales it resulted in, makes me hesitant to label the
poster as punk. In fact, it seems closer to the slick
advertising model of Swindle. The content seems to be more
in line with sexual enticement than anything, and the only
clear punk aspect is the implication that the film contains
‘social-problems’; otherwise, there is not much punk value
to this poster.
Therefore in conclusion we
can see that most of the films of punk cinema have at least
some elements of ‘punk’ in their posters, be it in artistic
content or political message. It is clear that there is the
possibility to have the spirit of punk in a tool of
capitalism, contrary to the argument put forth by Thompson.
These posters have an attitude and aesthetic value that
closely tie them to the ‘punk’ movement.
Works Cited:
1. Rombes, Nicholas. New Punk Cinema. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press, 2005.
2. Rebello, S. & Allen, R. Reel Art: Great Posters From The
Golden Age Of Silver Screen. New York: Abbeville Press,
1988.
3. All images courtesy of
www.mpagallery.com
|
