Has anyone seen....

[gargoyle67]

Drew: The Man Behind the Poster docu ? looks amazing>

[CSM]

Drew: The Man Behind the Poster docu ? looks amazing>

Yep it's a good one!

Was actually going to post this so thanks to you

[erik1925]

Was mentioned here too, in July   :

http://www.allposterforum.com/index.php/topic,6524.0.html

Looks like a great docu, too.

 

[gargoyle67]

Thought it might have been, Just watched the 1st 5 mins, Seems very well done 

[erik1925]

I know... it is definitely on my 'to watch' list, too.

[CSM]

I know... it is definitely on my 'to watch' list, too.

Drew seems to be a very interesting character...learned some things I never would have expected.

[gargoyle67]

Yeah, Pretty stunning that his parents didn't love\want him, Why have a kid if you don't want one 

[jedgerley]

Heres the full movie:

Drew: The Man Behind The Poster (2013)

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/X2CM6sfU3m4" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/X2CM6sfU3m4</a>

[Simes]

Thanks for posting this; the fact it is on Netflix US, but not Netflix UK was a source of frustration.

That said, having seen it, I must admit to thinking it was a little saccharin and sychophantic.  After the 382nd time of being told how 'Struzan just nailed it', I was looking for some more facts outside of JUST a glossing over of his family life and a similarly glossing over of the business deal that he was taken for a ride on.

The piece came across as an hour and a half's worth of EPK video short to promote a movie by telling everyone how wonderful everyone else was.  To be sure, Struzan seems like the easiest going and friendliest guy on the planet, but I was hoping for more insight into the introductions, the choices, the processes, the trials and errors.  This 'Aw shucks' approach could have been just as adequately covered in 30 minutes.

5/10

[monocle]

They're very good graphic images and the characters are all realistically portrayed within the various montages. I'm sure they sold their respective films brilliantly but to go off on a tangent, I'm not totally sure whether they would stretch to the stage of being described as poster 'art'. That's not to denigrate them because they surely achieved their purpose and convey the 'energy' of their respective movies but do they go beyond being strong representational images? Just got me musing...

[CSM]

They're very good graphic images and the characters are all realistically portrayed within the various montages. I'm sure they sold their respective films brilliantly but to go off on a tangent, I'm not totally sure whether they would stretch to the stage of being described as poster 'art'. That's not to denigrate them because they surely achieved their purpose and convey the 'energy' of their respective movies but do they go beyond being strong representational images? Just got me musing...

One thing is for certain they are a hell of a lot more inspired than the usual main-stars-giant-head-photo-montage on many, many posters...

[erik1925]

They're very good graphic images and the characters are all realistically portrayed within the various montages. I'm sure they sold their respective films brilliantly but to go off on a tangent, I'm not totally sure whether they would stretch to the stage of being described as poster 'art'. That's not to denigrate them because they surely achieved their purpose and convey the 'energy' of their respective movies but do they go beyond being strong representational images? Just got me musing...

I would suggest that just because the images are strong likenesses of the characters in the films, (and are very much like oil portraits that were painted in centuries past -- and are these not considered pieces of "fine art," today?), Struzan's work is true "art" in that each was created on board or canvas, by his own hand with paint, brush, airbrushes, water color pencils, etc).

None of his posters are cobbled, cut and pasted photo images or digital creations as is so often done today. 

[monocle]

It's a question that has always interested me. Does the ability to create portraits which are almost hyperrealistic ultimately mean that you are producing a work which could easily mistaken for and therefore replaced by a photographic collage? In other words , where is the creatively human - rather than, say, reproductive - element of the image?

[erik1925]

I believe it lies in the fact that Struzan, like many other talented artists, can create portraiture for film posters if that was what the producers wanted. But he can paint anything (any image, not just faces). If you look at some of his other works, he can paint ships, battles, fighter craft, and create energy and emotion with those elements as well.

The painted images are not quite like photos.. they actually have something more, as both he and many of his clients (Lucas, Spielberg) mention in the documentary. Struzan captures "something," that might have been lacking, had a photo of the same image or actor been used on the poster.