First: Sorry for the long reply!

My profession has something to do with design and creative work and I think there's nothing more sublime than looking at classic films. I think part of the charm has something to do with the fact that those kinds of people, the way they talk, dress, the way they're limited of the things they do and say on screen - those sort of movement in film are over. I kind of admire that sort of innocence and nostalgia.

I think in terms of visual grandeur, the next best thing (for me) would be The Night of The Hunter. I think that film was way ahead of its time in terms of storytelling, art direction, storyboard and the concept. There's a documentary about TNOTH on youtube and it discusses the techniques used by Charles Laughton and his art director for the film. For me, I like that it combines German expressionism with its play of lights and shadows as well as how most of the scenes in the film are trying to represent a change of perspective, allusions to what is good, evil, salvation, desperation and there's always more than what meets the eye. The visual narrative tells the story in a very smooth pace and the visuals are not done for the sake of making it look good, but rather to tell what the characters feel without blatantly showing it by dialogue or ham acting. I think the three directors who can tell a story with a good sense of visual direction and timing are Orson Welles, Fritz Lang, and Charles Laughton. It's too bad that Charles Laughton never made another film as TNOTH was a flop in the box-office.

I haven't researched much on the marketing of films but I think if we look back to the beginnings of film, it was too new for filmmakers to consider it as a multimillion-dollar industry. Back then, looking at moving pictures was considered more of a circus-like attraction compared to what it has evolved over the decades. Marketing for films were pretty stagnant back then and they werent marketed individually as films but rather more on the machines they were run on. Starting when talking pictures came, the changes were pretty drastic but it was ok because at that point, silent films were already making a lot of money and they did have a proper storyline. I think at the Golden Age of Cinema, the five filmmaking corporations back in the 30s started taking film marketing more seriously. Marketing for films have changed ever since with respect to factors that affect the economy, mass psychology/trends, and technology. There was a TV show back in the 50s, I think it was around 1954? where Peter Lorre was a guest star in a TV show called "What's my Line" and he was promoting a film that uses scent in order to tell a story. I think the name of the film was A Scent of Mystery or The Scent of Mystery. It was on a theatre that uses a technology called Smell-o-vision. I think the film flopped because it was the first and last film that was used under that platform.

I haven't heard of Hay's code, I'm sorry but I think going back to Classic Film marketing, the use of posters involving suggestive portrayal of women and taglines, I think it has to do with the overall male-dominated/machismo thing that was ominous back in the olden days, where the place of a woman was either in the kitchen or on the bed. I wouldnt be surprised if the executives in a filmmaking corporation were all men. I think back then it worked in the suggestive fashion as the posters were painted on a lithograph but if we do that today as photographs, not only will it look badly produced but combined with the latter, it would look as if we are selling a b-grade smut. As for the trailers with weird introductions from directors, I could be wrong but I think it goes back to the trend back then in advertising where the main selling point of something is the product itself and in the case of classic films, the actors/actresses and or the directors - and sadly, not much of the story. It may have been done that way due to traditional market research or traditional market understanding.

When the Internet went mainstream, everything changed including the way films are marketed. I dont think I need to explain thoroughly how this was so but I think my point is that marketing strategy for everything changes depending on those three factors. Presently, a lot of films and most of those in the entertainment business has used new technology to market their products. I think 2003-2007 and I think up to 2009 was the time when most of promotion for movies were "experiential" and was shown online as it was easier to distribute. Websites starting from Identity, Red Dragon, Requiem for a Dream, etc were the pioneers of this practice. I think in the rise of the social-media - the smarter advertising agencies - shifted marketing films from personal to conversational. To me, some of the best marketing campaigns for films in this decade so far are the ones from Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises. Where the agency collaborated with fans from around the world to contribute in a chant that was used later in the film, as well as revealing a promotional picture using participation from Twitter. Flash mob campaign rally for Harvey Dent in NYC etc. I think these are smart advertising campaigns because they don't sell you the film but the actual experience of (being inside) the film.

I think the most interesting way is that Hollywood still works more or less back then but with a different technology/trends/insights but they more or less run the same. I think only a few companies market their film correctly for example Warner Bros and its agency who did the aforementioned campaigns, I never worked with WB before and their agency, but I worked on some of their competing agencies. I think a good film corporation should rethink their marketing strategy - not necessarily in the business model but the collaboration with their agency. I think that they need to remember that they are selling a story, an experience - rather than product. Most of the films today are rehash of old literature, remakes of old remakes, there's very few of those who write for film. There's a good documentary called "Everything is a Remix" on vimeo about this.

As for The Man Who Knew Too Much, yes I have seen both versions. I saw the 1950s version several years back and while it was a remake of the first version, was superior in visual narration. However, in terms of performance, I still prefer the 1934 version. Peter Lorre is really a great actor and it was I think one of his best roles after M, the rest had poor directors and poorly written dialogue.