It’s in Ed Harris’ Britain’s Forgotten Film Factory: The Story Of Isleworth Studios. 2012. And also Derek Threadgall’s 1994 British Film Institute publication, Shepperton studios: an independent view.
Which Ed Harris may have got it from. Just spotted, thanks to that humongous Third Man quad image, that it does show a censor rating in the tiny disc on the right. Whether or not I knew it and forgot, the recognised Brit 1-sht also has it, as does the 3-sheet. You can see why they replaced that way of doing it. Once you see it. Got the one I consigned to Heritage off Choko in France, I think sometime mid to late 90s. He also had a 3-sht, as did Reel Poster Gallery at the same time. Bob Brooks was selling a copy of the disputed International back in 2004. He's in Canada, whether or not that's where he found it. Never seen quad for sale, only had an image of it on a BFI postcard. I need to read through everything again, I just have serious difficulty believing a post 55 RR International 1-sht would have that quality of printing and be so close to the 49 domestic 1-sht. Though I suppose there are instances, like that Invaders From Mars 1-sht. Sent from my iPhone > On 23 Jun 2015, at 19:27, Paul Gerrard > <00000060c3f9be9c-dmarc-requ...@listserv.american.edu> wrote: > > Under London Films International for the 1st release (an offshoot of London > Films who owned British Lion), according to the Sydney Herald article that > David posted. > > I originally had the same sort of doubts as you, and that’s why I researched > backwards to try and find if the Lion International name had been used before > 1955 (not just in US). After all, if British Lion could be re-born, why not a > company called Lion International? That's also why I only had *slight* > reservations at the beginning – I knew The Third Man was distributed by > British Lion in the UK, so it was more than reasonable there might be a > similarly-named company called Lion International (or even British Lion > International) for international distribution. BUT, as I said previously, I > could find no trace of that name, only London Films International. > > As Wim says, I think the absence of the London logo is also significant in > this case. You were right about credits on posters seemingly not always > conforming to logic, but the London Films logo on British one sheets does > seem ruthlessly consistent. > > Helmut is quite right, Korda set up Deutsche London Film for distribution in > Germany … which may reveal his naming preferences for international > companies! > > Having said all this, I’m obviously very happy to be proved wrong if the > evidence is there! What accounts of IFD appear to have them utilising Lion > International from 1950? Anything that looks contemporary? > > Paul > www.movieposterstudio.com > > > > In a message dated 23/06/2015 17:14:32 GMT Daylight Time, evan...@mac.com > writes: > According to chap at Canal relating to Third Man, "British Lion distributed > internationally." (Under what name?) > > And accounts of Woolf's IFD have them utilising Lion International from 1950. > > Since Lion didn't distribute in the USA prior to 55, then presumably, once > they started to in 55 after the reformation of the company, they would have > to form a new company there to do so. > > I'm not convinced that when the company was reformed, and they launched > distribution in the US they couldn't have reused a previously used name, one > never used in the US. > > Unless of course there's evidence of their prior international distribution > being done under a different name. > > To unsubscribe from the MoPo-L list, click the following link: > https://listserv.american.edu/scripts/wa-american.exe?SUBED1=MoPo-L&A=1 Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___________________________________________________________________ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: lists...@listserv.american.edu In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
