THE ARENA (1974): Bloody & Barbaric, Corrupt & Sensuous and that’s just the trailer!

I saw Django Unchained the other night at the New Beverly, which presented the feature within a program that began with a rarely seen and frankly disturbing Looney Tunes cartoon about a hound dog and a Southern Plantation Owner, called Dog Gone South. Next a succession of exploitation trailers provided a context in which to appreciate Mr. Tarentino’s genre homage and extension. The Arena Trailer (above) led off, followed by those for Mandingo and Take a Hard Ride, which I hope to discuss in the next few weeks. While it is not uncommon for exhibitors to select trailers in keeping with the genre or audience demographic, (a summer blockbuster trailer in front of a summer blockbuster), these trailers weren’t accessory to but rather constituent of the program; they are film-historical and cultural documents that situate and frame Django’s cinematic inspiration and innovation.

Rather than describe shot by shot and word by word The Arena trailer’s wall-to-wall voice over and dialogue, I think it more instructive to imagine the audience to whom this marketing communication is addressed. From the evidence of the trailer, what are we justified in presuming their interests to be? How are they being solicited, gratified and engaged for the coming feature? In other words, who does this trailer think it is talking to and why?

Here’s what the copy asserts, repetitively, salaciously, and consistently:
“History’s most blood-thirsty entertainment was pursued by the Romans who taught the world how to fight….They enslaved the most sensuous women to titillate the perverted pleasures of the roman public….Unchained wild women, their beautiful bodies shaped into superb fighting instruments….Women stripped of their dignity, piece by piece….Romans called it sport, but the Arena was an orgy factory, spewing forth untamed desires and violence….They live as slaves, fight as gladiators and love on command…..Gladiator women who live, fight and kill to please the blood-howling mobs….Proud, defiant and ready to kill for freedom…..Bloody and barbaric, corrupt and sensuous, the ultimate spectator sport in The Arena……Savage fighters, sold into an orgy of Roman Pleasures…The Price of Freedom in the Arena, one of them must die…Driven by fear and consumed by hatred, desperate to be free…..Black slave, white slave, fighting for their lives in The Arena.”

What the excerpted scenes show is  gladiator women (Pam Grier & Margaret Markov, in particular) fighting in the coliseum against men and each other, as well as in their slave quarters among themselves. The Roman public is pictured as an undifferentiated crowd, apart from Caeser, whose appetite for this sport identifies him as the villain (as well as, it must be said, the audience surrogate.) All other male figures, whether guards, opponents or victimizers are shown from behind or partially disguised by their uniforms and helmets. The two men with whom Pam & Margaret have what appear to be gratifying sexual relations, black and white respectively, are not identified by facial appearance, but by hair and skin color alone.

The story, as far as it is discernible from the trailer, consists of the contrasting experience of two enslaved women fighting for their freedom within a system that exploits their most basic desire for freedom as a form of popular though lethal entertainment. One expects that they will forge an alliance, but that eventuality is not depicted.

Since repetition of word or image is a good indicator of emphasis in trailer making, I think it’s safe to say that the “orgiastic” promise (if not the reality) of the female gladiator spectacle is a prominent vector of the creative marketing direction. (“Orgy” is, of course, an especially fraught term.)  Blood gets three mentions (blood-thirsty, bloody and blood-howling) whereas “free,” “freedom” and “unchained wild” contribute an ethical dimension to the violent spectacle. “Sold,” “slave” and “enslaved” resonate in opposition to freedom, much as the terms “perverted,” “corrupt” and “titillation” predicated of spectators are contrasted to the dignity, pride and defiance of the gladiators.

So, who is the audience implied by the marketing address? Let’s begin with the anxious voyeur who needs (or prefers, for appearance sake) his titillation spiced with historicity (Classical Rome) and moral uplift (the quest for freedom and personal dignity of the combatants.) Let’s agree that this is the primary customer for Roger Corman‘s exploitation film. This lover of women’s fight films would appreciate the fetishistic and revealing costumes and the violent contact that the trailer delivers.

We should then mention those audience members who finds a point of identification with the strong, victimized, but self-reliant and defiant female protagonists who, rather than submit, make the most of their limited opportunities. Pam Grier is an icon for good reason, and we can assume that ticket buyers in 1974 would have admired both her beauty, physical prowess and on-screen personification of a “black-power” role.   The number of ticket buyers for whom she–or this role–is the chief draw, is not to be underestimated.

And, there is the audience who enjoys the brawling and the blood sport, whether for its campy choreography or for the girl-on-girl action. Certainly the trailer is not shy about reminding this audience of the pleasures in store for it.

None of these visual qualities are unfamiliar or shocking within the genre, or outside of it. But what sticks out to a 21st century trailer viewer is the length and repetition of both imagery and verbiage. While the excerpted scenes are strong and well-produced, costumed, staged and acted, the trailermakers do not appear to trust the power of the visual to sell the qualities emphasized. And for that, the nearly wall-to-wall copy is intended as a supplement. Looking at other exploitation trailers of the period, one notices a similar inclination toward verbal overkill.

But are we really so much better consumers of visual media that what required 3 minutes to process in 1974 takes only 2 minutes today? Are there more opportunities for viewers to learn about films (plots, actors, characterization, thematics) today than in the 70’s?  Yes, indeed, and that may be all there is to it. Or, perhaps the relative “under-selling” of contemporary film rhetoric constitutes a decades long reaction to an approach perceived as aggressive, excessive and thereby ineffective?

However you care to think about it, we can all agree that they don’t make trailers like this anymore. And, one would have to look far and wide to find a gladiator woman with the inimitable qualities of Ms. Grier. Thanks to Mr. Tarentino for reminding us of our own complicity in the marketing and consumption of images that aren’t remotely innocent, while also celebrating this classic of the exploitation genre.

Creative Commons License
movietrailers101 by Fred Greene is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Posted in Readings | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

THIS IS THE END Red Band Trailer: A very special shoot

Having spent the past 2 months writing about the earliest trailers, I figured it was high time to check in with movie marketing in its second century.

I sought inspiration from MTV which has a page that tracks the most popular trailers. While Movie 43 interests me, both for its lousy box-office reception, its scores of bankable stars and its multi-vignette, train-wreck of a concept, there was just too much to describe and not really that much to say.

But with the comedy This is the End, directed by Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg starring Rogen, James Franco, Danny McBride, Craig Robinson, Jonah Hill & Jay Baruchel as “fictional versions of themselves in the aftermath of a global apocalypse,” (thx, Wikipedia), I could once again dilate on one of my favorite trailer topics: the special shoot. (The Red-band trailer also made me laugh.)

In The NC-17 trailer, a 3+minute frankenstein in which two distinct special shoot segments are succeeded by a slick “trailer-esque” action montage seems to be what it is: cheap, simple, silly, and dude-crude improvisation, using the in-person “host” approach to compel interest and generate laughs. Without the star talent on board to exploit their fame and make fun of themselves and each other, it wouldn’t work. Note to unknown filmmakers: don’t try this approach for your low-budget, comedy.

The self-contained first segment (approximately :55), shot from a fixed commercial security camera with time code and occasional lines of distortion, captures Rogan and Franco, playing themselves, seated in Franco’s bomb shelter discussing the predicted end of the world (12-21-12) and their upcoming film, scheduled for Summer 2013 release. With distortion bars indicating the passage of time, we see the two friends addressing their boredom by sparring with sword and sauce pan (and later, a floppy dildo), smoking pot, jack-assing around with guns, sharing intimate personal details, masturbating at opposite sides of the room and quarreling before retiring, in spoon position, on the lone cot in the corner for their first night in the bunker. That’s the concept. One angle. One room; two actors who say and do things that male leads are not supposed to do and say.

This segment ends with the MPAA Red Band card, leading me to think the “teaser” was over. But not so fast. In their brief remarks about their upcoming movie, they mention that they’ve prepared a scene. And it’s that scene which provides the focus of the next, nearly 2:00 self-contained segment.

In this “act”, after establishing shots of burning hillsides and the smoking, exterior of a contemporary luxury home, we cut to Franco, brushing his teeth as he notices Danny McBride, sitting down to a groaning breakfast table in his (Franco’s) kitchen. Franco rouses his mates – Hill, Baruchel, Robinson and Rogan–to the breech of apocalypse etiquette, and they approach the table where Macbride is blithely overconsuming their precious supplies. He scorns their alarm as the effect of an as yet-to-be completed acid trip, after pointing out defects of dress and grooming, nailing Franco in particular for homosexual behavior that Franco, playing to rumors and his pretty boy looks, shrugs off well short of a denial.

Mcbride then reads Rogen and Hill for their acting in this scene (whether it’s a special shoot or not, I couldn’t say) and in recent films, before a loud battering on the front door, punctuated by Robinson’s high-pitched shriek, leads into a conventional trailer sequence of scenes from “end of the world,” in which the bros will be involved. The trailer closes with “confessional” button, shot on home video, in which Robinson admits that he has been obliged to drink his own urine, presumably to survive, but then cracks a piss-drinking smile in remarking that it tasted good. The trailer exploits the public personalities and profiles these actors have established for its humor, a humor that wouldn’t work without that “extra-diegetic” contribution.

Although there appears to be a female co-star somewhere in the film, the trailer makes plain that this is in essence a coarse, self-conscious buddy film featuring 6 talented physical comedians, among whom three have attained true stardom. Their chemistry within a situation that is ripe for banter, put-downs and improvised dialogue is what the film is selling. If you like these crude or gross out humor, if you like these actors and if you find the “set-up” promising, you will probably like the film. It might also be a hot mess of self-indulgence masquerading as comedy. But perhaps that’s entertainment enough.

Creative Commons License
movietrailers101 by Fred Greene is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Posted in Readings | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

“HANDS UP!” PROMO-TRAILER REDUX: Retraction and Reappreciation

RUTH ROLAND on the Cover of Motion Picture Magazine, promoting her latest film, HANDS UP! (1918)

[Note: I visited UCLA’s Archive Research Study Center the other night to watch again this 1918 promo in order to fill in some gaps in my handwritten notes and prior to submitting a draft of an academic paper on early trailers. I’m glad I did, because I nearly went to publication with inaccurate and indefensible claims. Here, is a revision of the post from January 15th.]

The exhibitor’s reel for Hands Up! (1918) –which, after the trailer for The Red Circle (1915) represents the oldest recognizable promotional “treasure” in UCLA’s collection—is not strictly a trailer because it is not addressed to ticket buyers but rather to the theater owners Pathe Exchange hopes will exhibit its new 15 part western series. In contemporary industry jargon, we call this a promo since it is pitched to a business audience that expects business arguments. With words, scenes and images, it tells why they should schedule this feature and shows how they can advertise it to audiences, audiences who will then reward them with full houses and brimming coffers.

A mere six years into the trailer era, this promo contains all the elements we still meet with today: titling; graphic design; copy; excerpted scenes; cast run; production credits; focused marketing appeals; genre cues; story details; and scheduling information. It opens on a title card, featuring a graphic image, the credit block and a marketing tagline.

Following that introduction, a succession of interstitial cards appear specifying various characteristics and qualities of the film such as its production team, stars, setting, plot points and visual attractions. After that extensive trailer-esque section, the promo moves into its business argument, wherein the various advertising “helps” that Pathe Exchange, the serial’s distributor, will provide are enumerated. Finally it closes with the distributor logo, a visual appeal to provenance given Pathe’s long and successful track record.

Hands Up! is described on its title card as “ A Cyclonic Western,” and on the next, as “the most ambitious Western ever filmed.” The first is fine sounding but nonsensical marketing speech; the second is hyperbole, but not absurdity. The next cards introduce us to the writer and producer, who are then shown working amicably together in an office, and to the Supervising Director, George Fitzmaurice, who is presented flanked by his production staffers among whom a motion picture camera is prominent. This production is, we are told, the first serial from the distinguished feature filmmaker.

We next meet stars Ruth Roland and George Chesebro, introduced on cards before they appear, talking and smiling at the screen. Next, their fellow players are described before being shown. First, there’s the Phantom Rider, whose mysterious identity is literally positioned as an attraction to draw the curious, episode-by-episode. Then come the villains: the Gentleman Rancher who is an outlaw ringleader by night. We see him tying a kerchief around his face. Next, the adventuress, a scheming socialite and romantic rival to Ms. Roland. We see two shots of her, eyes narrow and calculating. Then, the Incan leaders, “custodians of treasure” who repeatedly imperil our heroine, are shown in Pre-Columbian regalia.

A series of genre appeals follows. “From the start, there is love interest,” we are told before being shown an embrace between George and Ruth. Then, “Stunts and thrills galore,” are advertised, followed by the celluloid proof. George and Ruth are framed in a medium shot, side-by-side, on horseback. Ruth darts left and we cut to a rear shot of her galloping horse, heading toward a tree. She hits a branch and tumbles off. George, meanwhile, has started after, first toward the camera, then shot from behind as he approaches, dismounts and in close-up, cradles the awakening Ruth in his “manly hero” arms, as she eyes him with suspicion in an even closer shot. (They certainly did have faces and eyes, if not yet voices.)

Without transition beyond a new card, we enter a succession of scenes of imprisoned and imperiled heroines, rescued from bloodthirsty Incans by the intrepid George, pistols blazing and horse capering. The editing of the scene is fast, kinetic and skilled, as Ruth seeks shelter in a tower, slamming the door on her indigenous pursuers in close up, before a cut to her in the bell tower, preparing to climb down a rope to safety. She falls (or is pushed) from the rope into the horde below, a stunt that earned her double severe bruises along with her day’s pay. George rides to the tower, guns at the ready, and enters on horseback. We cut to the interior where, in a close-up circular optical effect, George addresses her Incan captors with a cocked pistol in each hand.

Ruth has been suspended over a fire pit as her tormentors revel in her terror. It’s a pyrotechnically involved threat, but George resolves it in their favor. She runs to him, mounts in front as they ride out, cutting to an exterior shot of them exiting, and before cutting to a longer shot of them riding away up an (adjacent?) hill.

In the next scene, Ruth has been recaptured and imprisoned in a cell over an archway. Building a human pyramid with some unidentified compatriots, George climbs the tower of flesh and helps Ruth descend. From the foregoing, an attentive exhibitor will have derived a clear idea of the picaresque story and the “cliff-hanger” hinges connecting one episode to its successor.

While its widely understood that lowly trailer (often montage) editors had to work with outtakes and scraps, these scenes are not obviously cutting room material and the kinetic, continuity editing, with its realistic management of space and time and use of optical effects and dissolves, represents a qualitative advance over The Red Circle’s very basic and visually simple trailer of a mere 3 years earlier.

The promo then turns from imperiled heroine to setting: “Here’s a sample of the rugged Western country in which Hands Up! is being filmed.” A long shot, panning upward reveals a rocky alpine waterfall. Next, the “lavish sets” and expenditure of the production is promoted. The “Throne Room of the Incas” and the “sacrificial chamber” are shown as evidence of spectacle. A nifty dissolve takes us from exterior to interior.

Now, switching into power-point mode, a card from Pathe Exchange directly addresses its audience to explain, “What we are doing to help you [the exhibitor] cash in big profits.” Specifics follow, card by card. I’ve characterized the visual evidence in parentheses.

“A nationwide Billboard campaign on ‘Hands Up!’ has been undertaken by Pathe. These stands will be posted by Pathe in upward of 500 cities.” (Key art is shown)

“Ask Pathe representatives for details of our offer of these magnificent posters absolutely free of charge.” (Three different key art posters are shown)

“’Hands Up!’ in serial form will run in the Motion Picture Magazine on sale early in August. The October cover features picture [sic?] of Ruth Roland. This story will be read by over two million people.” (The Motion Picture Magazine cover featuring a glamour shot of Ruth Roland is shown.)

Still more cards describe promotional materials available to exhibitors:
“Here is a list of the advertising helps we have prepared in order to help you cash in Big Profits with Hands Up!” On cards, 1,3 & 6 sheets are mentioned, as well as lobby photos, title cards and “Magnificent banners,” available in five colors on linen. Portraits of Ruth and one and two column “cuts with mats” of George are also available as “advertising helps,” that will deliver a week of profit for every week of the series. But perhaps the best argument is this: “Mr. Exhibitor, listen to this. By running Hands Up! at your theater you will be guaranteeing fifteen weeks of prosperity. You will be selling seats fifteen weeks in advance.”

Whereas a moviegoer in 1918 had little more than a dime and free time at risk, the potential exhibitor of Hands Up! is asked to commit significant resources and opportunity. He (or she) would have required strong, verifiable arguments. Yet, in this animated proposal, the business claims are modest relative to the aesthetics ones. Presumably, the exhibitor already knows that a good serial is a good investment. What’s critical is for the film to meet or exceed expectations and for the distributor to deliver the marketing support promised. While an exhibition contract stipulates talent, production staff, number of episodes, genre bonafides, release schedule, posters, lobby cards and a magazine tie-in, etc., the exhibitor can’t know, except from the excerpted scenes, whether the film, qua film, is any good.

Is there chemistry between the stars? Is it well shot and professionally directed? Are the stunts thrilling? Are the sets extensive and spectacular? Is the scenery interesting? Is it likely to please the audience? For answers, an exhibitor, then as now, depends on the distributor’s presentation, the central feature of which is the trailer. And, as an industry professional, the exhibitor will have learned to consume such representations with an experienced and thereby jaundiced eye.

The Hands Up! promo insists that the financial upside of the exhibitor is foremost in the mind of the distributor, whose investment in sets, staff and stars constitutes an earnest of that commitment. “Spend money to make money” the promo urges as it were, avoiding mention of any of the multiple factors that might scotch a scenario of full houses and overflowing tills. The argument from experience is trotted out as well: Roland, Chesebro, Mr. Fitzmaurice and Pathe are well known, bankable collaborators, each authorities in their own way, who have lent their imprimatur to the undertaking. Ruth’s beauty is underlined, as a source of her authority. Hands Up! must be, by rhetorical logic, not only legitimate but excellent.

Finally, whereas I earlier described this promo trailer as editorially simple in my earlier post, watching it again the other night, I was struck by how sophisticated it actually was. Although there’s no montage, cross cutting grid or quick-cutting sequence to speak of, this is an ambitious piece of filmmaking, running to 7 minutes that combines copy, graphic design, excerpted scenes and marketing insight into an involving, compelling and entertaining sales presentation. It speaks to the film lover and the businessman, using language and appeals that both can appreciate.

I’d invite you to check it out, but you’ll need a UCLA library card and completion of an online request form to watch it yourself.

Creative Commons License
movietrailers101 by Fred Greene is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Posted in Classic Readings (of classic film trailers), Readings | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment