Not Nominated: Movie Posters (The Illustrated History of Movies Through Posters Series) [Paperback]

Richard Allen (Editor), Bruce Hershenson (Editor)

Product Details

• Paperback: 80 pages
• Publisher: Bruce Hershenson (March 2001)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 188789344X
• ISBN-13: 978-1887893442
• Product Dimensions: 11 x 8.8 x 0.4 inches
• Shipping Weight: 15.8 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 5.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (1 customer review)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,157,334 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

10 of 10 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A vital reference of the great films that LOST!, May 4, 2001

By 

David Kusumoto (San Diego, CA United States) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Not Nominated: Movie Posters (The Illustrated History of Movies Through Posters Series) (Paperback)

After a long delay, the latest volume in the Hershenson-Allen behemoth series of movie poster books, "Not Nominated," is finally here.

This latest enterprise, in my mind, can truly be called, without apologies, a "reference" volume, possessing qualities consistent with what I associate to be the purest definition of what this word is supposed to mean.

The critical aspects are these: Beyond printing each "year" on the vertical edges of each page, this volume isn't all about images. It lists Oscar winners. It lists every film that was nominated for Best Picture. It illustrates, in wonderful color, posters of films that in most cases, were ROBBED of a Best Picture nomination. But the editors keep going. They list "honorable mentions," a concession that the panelists on its selection committee (for which I was honored to be a member), did not always agree with the choices that ended up in your book.

I'm conceited when it comes to Oscar. I'm a professional writer who happens to be an amateur film historian, who, in 1972, was a winner in the San Diego Union-Tribune's Academy Award history contest, having studied this subject obsessively, watching every Oscar telecast since 1962. So it's obvious why I would disagree with my fellow panelists on a number of selections, and in such cases, why it was a lousy feeling to see some of my choices "overruled" and put into the "Honorable Mention" category, or worse, not even listed at all. Yet the selection process was completely fair.

Some choices were obvious and expected, e.g., "Singin' in the Rain," "The Third Man," "The General," "Queen Christina," "City Lights," "Pinocchio," "North by Northwest," "Rear Window," "Some Like it Hot," "Breakfast at Tiffany's," "A Hard Day's Night" and "2001."

But some choices were baffling. How can anyone, for example, leave off films like "The Seven Year Itch (1955)," "Duck Soup (1933)," "National Velvet (1944)," "A Tree Grows in Brooklyn (1945)," "Black Narcissus (1947)," "Key Largo (1948)," "The Miracle Worker (1962)," "Two for the Road (1967)," "A Man and A Woman (1966)," "Glory (1989)," "The Commitments (1992)," "Fearless (1993)," "Dead Man Walking (1995)" or "Three Kings (1999)?"

And some selections, forgive me, were overrated. What's a film like "Dracula" doing in there? "Frankenstein," yes, but has anyone tried to sit through "Dracula" in its original, un-musically scored version without unintentionally laughing? A film that stands the test of time does so without falling back on the post of the technical limitations of any era. Is the monetary value of the film's poster and/or its standing as an iconic title greater than the merits of good old-fashioned story telling? Dracula is a classic, but a Best Picture nominee it wasn't, nor should it have been, any more than "Blazing Saddles," despite my tremendous affection for the latter.

What about "Journey to the Center of the Earth" over "Pillow Talk?" "How to Murder Your Wife" over "The Flight of the Phoenix" or even "Cat Ballou?" "A Funny Thing Happened to the Way to the Forum" over Billy Wilder's "The Fortune Cookie?" Perhaps the worst was seeing the ponderous "Far From the Madding Crowd" selected over Stanley Donen's underrated "Two for the Road" and "The Day of the Jackal" knocking off Bogdanovich's enchanting, "Paper Moon." And the panelists who, in apparently sufficient numbers, were responsible for putting garbage like "Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls" even on the "Honorable Mention" list deserve 50 lashes with an well-oiled, leather whip.

Debating cinema as art (as opposed to posters) makes for great fun, and this is why this book is worth buying and talking about. But I was most happy with four selections in particular that were associated with the agonizing process the editors' chose to make this book historically credible.

The first was Ernst Lubitsch's "The Shop Around the Corner (1940)," that wall-to-wall Margaret Sullavan-James Stewart howler that still holds up as being done one of the greatest romantic comedy films from Hollywood's Golden Age. The second was "Say Anything (1989)," writer Cameron Crowe's first directorial effort. The third was Terence Malick's haunting "Days of Heaven (1978)." But the fourth, the one that brought the most joy, was the panel's selection of David Lean's wonderful 1945-46 collaboration with Noel Coward, "Brief Encounter (1946)." I can only count on one hand the number of people I know out here on the West Coast who have seen this near perfect 86-minute film. Yes, I disagreed with some of the choices, but this particular selection confirmed that the editors did their homework in their efforts to create a credible cross section of non-Hollywood industry historians to join their "jury." I applaud them for selecting this movie despite the higher profile titles released the same year, such as "Gilda," which even though was among my selections, I was only mildly disappointed to see "missing the cut." The latter is high grade "B" material compared to "Brief Encounter."

Moreover, I applaud the editors for assembling one of the finest pictorial books ever published about Oscar history, featuring posters associated with films that were shamefully overlooked by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Admittedly, not all of the posters feature great art, but the point is to document history. I hope there will be a second volume featuring the films that at least made "honorable mention." For this first volume (which no one in publishing history has ever done in terms of subject matter), panelists were limited to listing just five "losing" films each year. But we know that some years it was feast or famine in terms of quality.

Combining great images with great history, if Hershenson and Allen continue to keep the quality as great as this, they'll be publishing forever, and not just to the narrow band of hard core movie poster collectors who DON'T make up the greater body of book buyers in America.