I love these posters. One day I'd like to have a whole office full of them. Where to begin? Clearly we're looking at a promotional poster for a vintage sci-fi/monster film. I love the collision of archetypes: 1. The giant, furry, ape-like creature, drawing on our fear of the primal (the Darwinist monkey/man binary);
2. The skull in place of a face, drawing on our collective terror of death;
3. The helmet with antennae, suggesting both our fascination/revulsion of the future, and also insects;
4. The idealized feminine character: young, beautiful, fainting and characteristically helpless, in the clutches of the robot monster;
5. The dinosaur head/dinosaurs to the far right, drawing on our discomfort with reptiles (Genesis archetype?);
6. The fighter jet (spacecraft?) to the far right, representing heroic progress;
7. The burning city, representing the destruction of ordinary living. Also heaven is usually portrayed as a city/war in heaven.
The language, too, is fascinating: "How can science (coded as heroic) meet the menace of astral assassins?" The color choices are conventional. Red and yellow are warm colors that suggest excitement. Green, though usually a cool, calming color, connects the woman to the dinosaur, which is unsettling. The two largest figures are the robot monster his female victim. Here are the questions it raises: 1. Is science coded as both hero and villain in this text? What might this reveal about attitudes toward science?
2. Can we locate sexual metaphors within the beast/other and idealized female collusion?
3. How does the marketing language change or enhance the meaning of the visuals?
4. This movie was made in the early 1950's, right when the moon landing was beginning to seem possible. Does this multiply interpretive options?
What immediately stood out to me in this image is the helpless female clutched in the monster's arms. Of course she would have long brown hair, a slender waist, rounded perky breasts, and white skin. Of course she would be wearing a strapless dress and high heels. She represents all our culture claims to be beautiful - her beauty, in fact, surpasses cultural bounds and even robot monsters are attracted to her. You mentioned the impact of the colors in the image...I think it's significant that the woman is wearing green. It's interesting, like you said, that she is wearing the same color as the color of the dinosaur. Why connect the woman and the dinosaur in this way? Women have been depicted as creatures in need of taming (like dinosaurs?)... Also, green is also associated with life; hence, why wouldn't a woman be associated with life/fertility/reproduction? That is, after all, all we are good for, right? (Sarcasm...)
ReplyDeletePertaining to your questions about science. I am interested by the fact that you interpreted dinosaur and monster as science. It seems that in the context of the movie, this is more of a collision between prehistory and future history. Even the monster evokes the prehistoric or primal -- primate body with skull. Writing about this stuff has me sounding like an art critic.
ReplyDeleteYour last question is the really interesting one. It has me thinking about the relationship between timeless image and dated image. The rule of thumb (so I am told) is that if something art is to be timeless, technology must be wholly removed. This isn't art. As you very nicely indicated, it's marketing. So knowing what we know now, I think we do have more liberty to interpret what this visual representation of the movie was supposed to do to get people in the seats.
In a lot of ways, science is still coded as heroic. Can science save us from an energy crisis initially created by science? I think we have a similar attitude today. We use science to discover and hope science can protect us from our discoveries sending us back to a more primitive time.
Thanks, Christine and Jacob. Christine, I didn't notice the green/fertility symbolism, but I think that's a good catch. It's interesting how many of these posters contain this same fainting female image, usually in the clutches of a monster, or a robot, or an intrepid hero. Originality (at least in this regard) was not the forte of these designers.
ReplyDeleteJacob, I'm with you about the collision between prehistory and future history, and I agree that this is marketing, but I can't go with you as far as saying this isn't art. I think Warhol and the Pop Artists worked hard to collapse the line between art and marketing in the 60's. If we say this isn't art, we have to be prepared to say that art doesn't do anything, doesn't aspire to some rhetorical purpose. But that rules out a whole lot of serious art, art that submerges its rhetorical intentions, but maintains them all the same. Maybe I'd be prepared to say that it isn't good art. But how would we decide that?
First, a question of my own: how could I NOT comment on an image that has "3D," "monster," and "robot" on it? What an interesting and bizarre image. I think, as you pointed out in your questions, that science and context play a worthy role in considering this image. Given that it comes from a 1950's film and plays into a moment when I can only assume paranoia existed on some small level that by going out into space we'd get the attention of the wrong creatures and bring back doom and destruction to Earth. Were this same image and film made today, it would be drawing on a lengthy history of similar films and may not have drawn the same intrigue. It has intrigue as a bizarre relic of the past, and its premise and title alone are wacky enough to be attention-grabbing, but, I feel as though the unknown elements of space exploration and the influence of space exploration play a role in interpreting this image. In this light, the idea of science being, as you called it, "heroic" almost feels like a taunt. Almost like a "hey, science, you dragged these monsters back with you and angered the universe, how do you plan to 'meet the menace of astral assassins'? Hmm?" I don't know that I would have found the image nearly as pressing without you prompting that idea, however, so I definitely think the impending voyage to space opens this image up to further interpretation.
ReplyDeleteI'm particularly drawn to this image because of the elements of the text's style that allow the viewer to draw conclusion on the time period it's from (or the time period the producer wants the viewer to think it's from). The use of rough paint strokes on the monster's hair, the futurist astronaunt helmet, the woman's pin-up calender girl shape body, and the obsession with 3D movies--all these give hints to 1950's. I've looked through the image and there is no indication of when this poster was actually made (I'm sure with some internet surfing we could find when), but the only indication of a time frame would be the bottom left corner with a website--but since that's obviously anachronistic to the style of the piece, we can only conclude that that addition was placed later. I just think it's interesting that even though there's a website listed at the bottom, our mind will cognitively ignore that element that doesn't match the style to make conclusions about the image.
ReplyDelete