Thumbing
through yesterday’s New York Times “Arts”
section on movies and performance, I stumbled upon a full-page age for the
latest Nicholas Sparks’ book adapted to film, The Lucky One, and this odd marketing maneuver to sell the film.
Disclaimer: I have never read the books nor watched the films I am about to comment
on, you tell me how much it matters with what follows? And I do enjoy films that deal with romance
and love, supposed “chick flicks,” but these specific types of films, not much
of a fan. [When Harry Met Sally, Say Anything, Eternal Sunshine, … thank you]
In big
letters at the top of the advertisement of the two leads, beautiful young people in an
embrace, was the following “It’s Dear John
meets The Vow …” [Vow is not a Sparks book].
I burst out
laughing and embarrassingly did an involuntary spit-take of water I had just
sipped. The laughter was due to the
memory that these two films were roundly criticized, I read one review that had
been forwarded by a friend for its scathing dissection. So I did a quick search, and here are a few words
and phrases used to discuss these films: a bad soap opera, mawkish, ridiculous,
tedious, concocted banality – you get the picture. I visited Rotten Tomatoes as they provide a
critic’s aggregate of most of the official reviews, each film received a 28%
favorable ruling, average of 4.4 out of 10 for Dear John and 4.9 out of 10 for The
Vow.
So back to
the choice to compare this new release to two films widely dismissed as
junk. What were the movie marketers and
their millions of dollars of budget thinking?
We can return to Rotten Tomatoes for the answer, both of the earlier
films had a 65% viewer ranking, which means these movies made money.
Our
friend M. Doughty said it best: “Gone savage for teenagers that are aesthetically
pleasing, in other words fly. Los
Angeles beckons the teenagers to come to her on buses; Los Angeles loves love.”
I think the analysis is fine if you stick to the marketing itself. Selling a film solely on the pulchritude of its stars and the promise of romance witnessed is not enough for me, but maybe it is for many others. This is a Warner's release, so maybe that tells us much of what we need to know. Maybe because I, like you, am not typically sold on this genre of film I find the marketing campaign you describe unhelpful and unmotivating; I have never seen either film mentioned in the ad and am not likely to do so. Then again, they are not likely to consider us as the likely audience anyway. Hollywood still churns out movies by the numbers, and we just do not fit in this demographic bracket. At least we can appreciate the unintended humor in their attempts to woo the audience they covet. There is a reason why most of the films I see are shown at my local Landmark Theaters--they offer something other than formula. For many people, however, the formula is what they are after. Maybe after the typical date formula--dinner, film, drinks--the film's formula can help up the chances for their own sexual formula: dinner, movie, drinks, sex. For the studio the result of the formula is riches, for the audience it might be sex or the polishing of the "one true love" myth. In either case the result is a medium of exchange to which I have doubts.
ReplyDeleteYou nor I are certainly not the audience for this film or genre of film. I was just sharing an odd interaction I had with pop media. I have not paid attention to a print ad for a film in years let alone reading the critic blurbs (often paid for I suspect) atop of the advertisement, but for some reason my eye caught this one thumbing throw the paper.
ReplyDeleteBut as you noted, the formula works, and there is a movie-going population that wants to know exactly what it is going to get when the lights go down. No surprises, just comfortable syrup (which I imagine also explain a whole host of things, Applebees, etc.)
I just marveled at the marketing, we all know that all press is good press any more, thought it was amusing to use two bad films to sell a third.
Unless, I suppose, that the "bad" films sizable audiences are the "good" intended results of this marketing campaign. What do you think of the political ads out?
ReplyDeleteWhile deceit and misinformation is nothing new to American politics, the volume and audacity this political season has so far been staggering. But we have had and continue to have a huge portion of our population that are disinterested and disengaged in not just politics but fundamental issues and decisions that shape our society. There was a recent poll that found over 60 percent of Americans could not identify Mitt Romney, how the fuck is that possible?
ReplyDeleteAnd every year polls trot out the fact that Americans hate negative campaigning, but the pols still do it every year because it appears to work on some level.
And the suppositions put forward by the majority justices in Citizens United have been proven completely wrong in relation to SuperPACS, corporations are people nonsense. We are simply a society of moneyed special interests, on both sides of the aisle.
The political ads themselves are shameless, Mitt has ads out where there exists certifiable audio AND video AND prior policy decisions that contradict these ads word-for-word. And Obama’s recent bin Laden ad is a bit bloodthirsty, but it is the first time in my lifetime that the Democrats hold the rights on who is toughest on national defense.
I am amazed most by the diabolical Rovian practice of taking an opponents’ strength away from him/her. How they were able to take away Kerry’s Vietnam record while Dubya was lounging around an Air Force base in Alabama is beyond me. And is that not the root of the teleprompter ploy Obama is faced with, among countless absurd claims?
Your comments on the current state of politics strike me as depressingly accurate.
ReplyDelete