Bob Peak - Father of the Modern Movie Poster

I can't go since I'm stuck in Tokyo at the moment, but I hope someone catches this since this is a one day shot.

Bob Peak exemplifies everything that is good and important about what an artist or illustrator brings to the movie poster. When movie posters could still be considered coveted illustration art and not photoshopped fashion photos----Bob Peak revolutionized what we know as the Hollywood movie poster. Bob Peak is to the modern Hollywood movie poster is what J.C. Leyendecker is to modern illustration.

His work didn't just advertise the movie but it arguably made and artistic statement about the concept, theme and energy of the film.

The Society of Illustrators is having special event today to honor Bob Peak. It would behoove anyone who still appreciates illustration and taste to go. ONE day only.

http://www.societyillustrators.org/Events-and-Programs/Lectures/2011/Bob-Peak/An-Evening-with-Tom-Peak-honoring-Bob-Peak--Father-of-the-Modern-Hollywood-Movie-Poster.aspx

The Future Not So Long Ago

July 2, 1964, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson. Legislation which outlawed blatant discrimination against African-Americans and other minorities, including women.

Two years later, September 1966, Star Trek aired on NBC, with a clear agenda to show racial diversity and tolerance was the future. The show featured a relative mosaic of ethnic characters ranging from European, African, Asian and mixed heritage, prime-time on a major television network.

This was considered somewhat "pushing the envelope" amongst television producers who in the mid-1960's were still apprehensive if Mr. and Mrs. Mainstream America (non-ethnic America) was ready to have "colored-faces" regularly appearing in their living rooms. Star Trek's writers frequently touched on themes that even today are still considered "touchy". Emotional conflicts of being a mixed or bi-racial child and even allegories of the deep rooted racism between white and black Americans (Star Trek: Let That Be Your Last Battlefield, Jan. 1969).

The look of the original Star Trek may look dated or at best, vintage fashion (still dig the super-miniskirts, bring that back, man) but the shifting of a new mindset towards racial diversity and equality was not that long ago.

This 4th of July weekend, despite being in Tokyo, it's good to reflect that when I return home, rights such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 safeguard diversity in daily life, and thusly promoting it other walks of life such as media and entertainment. At the risk of sounding didactic (as I usually do) ---- this shouldn't be an issue, but it shouldn't be forgotten or trivialized either.

Found a feature article in Ebony Magazine dated Jan. 1967, with a cover story on actress Nichelle Nichols' role as Lt. Uhura on Star Trek. Fun stuff.

Too bad the idea of pushing the envelope on social issues has been conspicuously absent from Star Trek since the sixties. Funny rather than thinking towards the future, the franchise has been thinking backwards. Just my two cents.

In a Big Rush To Go...where?

iPhones. iPads. iMovies. iMmediacy.

Looking at the iPad (which looks great...I want one), I thought of ALL the features that are to supposedly "free up" and maximize our time....ebooks, infinite and instant music access, email, downloadable movies....just what are we doing with all this extra time we're supposed to be getting?

When was the last time you actually wrote a letter to someone? With pen and paper...? I saw an exhibition of the works of Pierre-Auguste Renoir and his sons Pierre and Jean here in Tokyo. The last piece was a handwritten letter written by one of his sons. The letter was nothing more than, "Hello papa, I'm taking a walk with my son today and I'm thinking of you." Simple, poignant, and most of all tangible because it was written with his own hand. A precious moment (now historical because of these two great artists) that we had the the privilege to share.

Imagine what would have been lost if that was sent as a text message.

Filmmaker Ken Burns noted the things that we appreciate most....accrue in duration. "The things we have given our best attention to.....the human eye can receive an image in a fraction of a second, MTV tells us that all the time. But what does that mean? Does it have meaning at all? I'm suggesting it doesn't."

People are not being allowed to really to digest. To fully taste.

That magic you feel when you give your FULL attention to a film you're watching has been lost to stopping it anytime you want, uploading it to your iPhone or iPad and watching the rest on the way to work. Think of your favorite movie going experience. (Do people have these anymore??) During that time you were a "captive" for those two hours. No pause. No fast forward.

If you had stories read to you as a child. It was somewhat magical in a way. Because you couldn't stop the story or fast forward it. You had to take it in and listen. And we did so very willingly.

I predict at some point people and the way they decide to receive media HAS to slow down.

I wonder if this is contributing to the fact that movies are so superficial these days. Are filmmakers developing their films with the mindset that ultimately their works will be reduced to iTunes content? Bad movie or not, even I don't think J.J. Abrams wanted people's first experience with "Star Trek" to be on an iPod, much less an iPad.

That was one brilliant thing about Disney (can't seem to make a blog post without mentioning Disney) re-releasing films only once every seven years created a sense of "magic". The fact you had to wait until the next time came to theaters made people's anticipations higher and their memory of the film even greater. Reducing it to a 700MB. file gives people kind of "disposable ownership". And it's easily disregarded.

Anyway, next time you come away hyped from the last movie trailer you just saw, or fast cut movie --- try asking, "What did all that mean?"

"No, no, don't cut (away)....look. Hold...hold. The meaning accrues in duration."

- Ken Burns

So Basically it's about....what?

Remember that old gag on Seinfeld where they said the show they were selling was basically about "nothing"?

In light of shows like Lost, Heroes and movies like The Hurt Locker (which I really liked), I'm wondering if this is the future of American narrative and storytelling in film.

After watching the season opening of Lost's final season....(which recapped the entire 104 episodes of the series)....I couldn't help rolling my eyes (apologies if I sound insincere). But about 20 minutes into this "Lost cram session", it became grossly obvious that the story or plot (if you can call it that) was completely convoluted, incoherent, and sometimes laughable because there has been no plot.

What makes Lost work is one thing only: the relationships between the characters. Like the show or not, the relationships have been compelling.

J.J. Abrams brought this same type of "narrative" to Star Trek (2009). Paper thin, swiss-cheese plot....very well developed relationships between characters. Maybe that's why it was a disappointment for me. In my desperate childlike nostalgia for the original Star Trek, I have been addicted to the melodramatic, but clear plots, a touch of social allegory and the relationships (despite being strong, clear and consistent) were really sugar frosting for the original series. But now that is all in reverse.


The Hurt Locker came off to me as another virtual docu-drama with no "Point A to Point B" linear plot. It was structured with situations to stage character relationships, and "stream of consciousness" experiences. Virginia Woolf would have fit in this age well if she were a filmmaker.


It's not a criticism, just a question of is this the future of narrative in movies and television. In an age of docu-tainment, reality show and shakey-cam (my bane)....are people less interested in the magic and escape of a well told story?