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.

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

FEATURES ARCHIVE