MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING TRAILER: Marketing a Joss Whedon-Shakespeare Adaptation

Posted on September 14, 2013 by Frederick Greene

Assuming that revered filmmaker Joss Whedon approved the trailer for his latest challenge and achievement– adapting the Bard’s

    Much Ado About Nothing

to a contemporary setting and medium– I was interested to examine the marketing decisions he authorized. That the trailer made at least one critics “best of” list for 2013 further cemented my interest.

At 1:43, the trailer (in black and white, like its feature) is a dense little film that utilizes a variety of formulae and appeals in order to deliver information and elicit interest. While it is in no wise “experimental” nor cutting edge in style or content, it does skillfully tease audience interest by satisfying certain expectations while deferring others, indicating further filmic pleasures and storylines to be enjoyed apart from those explicitly disclosed.

Let’s begin with structure. The trailer uses one music cue, St. Germain‘s acid-jazzy, house jam, Rose Rouge, with which hipsters and chill-out enthusiasts will be familiar. Playing beneath the entire trailer, its emotional and tonal ambivalence parallels that in Shakespeare’s Comedy, with its urban sophistication giving edge to the suburban idyll of Whedon’s adaptation.

Moreover, the vocal line, “I want you to get together,” which concludes the trailer, and is repeated, hypnotically, describes the P.O.V. of Leonato (Governor of Messina, in the original–merely a rich bastard in the adaptation), host of the festivities, relative to the sparring Beatrice and Benedick, whose romance the play explores.

A driving beat emerges from the insinuatingly cool vibe toward the end of the trailer to punctuate the 3 blasts of copy, 12 words appearing one by one- in groups of four– on screen to distill and convey the subjects and the stakes underlying the vexed frenzy of matchmaking:
Obsession/ Hatred/ Friendship/ Love;
Loyalty/ Power / Deceit / Truth;
Sex/ Dishonesty/ Devotion / Deception.
The subject matters of the play and its cinematic adaptation are mostly there, with Love, Truth and Deception, the terminal words of each cadence, carrying the burden of the film’s thematic.

Beyond music cue and graphic cards, the trailer–after cards from distributor Lionsgate and producer Roadside Attractions— employs a line from the play, “the course of true love never did run smooth” to herald the conflict and tragic-comic detours en route to the marriage that concludes the action. If you must have a epigram for your trailer, Shakespeare is as good as any, and in this instance, it’s doubly relevant.

After expository shots of a maid placing flowers and setting table, dialogue follows the epigram, in which Leonato expresses his desire to see Beatrice “one day fitted with a husband.” She retorts, “not until God makes men of some other metal than earth,” delineating the situation the movie will develop. Immediately upon that initiating information, the trailer presents what is, perhaps, its strongest advertisement: “A film by Joss Whedon.” He is the only creative talent identified, a nod to his fan mobilizing reputation.

Next, the Toronto Film Festival laurels appear, to reassure viewers of the film’s aesthetic aspirations and quality. Then, between further plot developing dialogue from the film, blurbs from two online film critics make varying cases for the film. “Whedon has created a Shakespeare adaptation / That will please just about everyone,” opines Christopher Schobert of Indiewire, dampening the anxiety that Shakespeare adaptations may not appeal to all four quadrants of the movie-going audience. As praise go, “pleasing” is tepid; so is “just about everyone.” It’s hard to believe that better lines weren’t available at Whedon’s command. Tom Clift, of Moviedex, does shows what it possible with, “Joss Whedon and Shakespeare are a match made in heaven,” which, though cliched, is at effusive.

It’s interesting to note that neither reviewer nor publication is what you might call mainstream, “name brand” or traditional, yet another indication that Whedon’s core audience is online, socially networked and unimpressed by marquee “old media” outlets and their familiar film reviewers (Travers, Scott, Turan, Morganstern etc. etc.)

The shots selected for the trailer, are, almost without exception medium and kinetic, the black and white cinematography warmed by sunspots, bubbles and flares of light (sunlight or otherwise), that in a home movie we would contemn as amateurish, but here seem intentional, constituents of a dazzling, blinding leitmotif (no pun intended). All the cards, in fact, use out-of-focus, kaleidoscopic-like shots as backdrops, the blurred effects of light on film providing a gorgeous alternative to the black card and its film grammatical operation as ending and separation.

The trailer concludes on the words, “I want you to get together,” sung over the sound of what is, I think, diegetically, a watermelon being sliced open, an effect, which also, and darkly, is equally evocative of a knife to the gut or an axe to the head. Given the shot of a cocked handgun and house guests entering a bedroom, intent on violence, this final sound cue develops the sense of danger, if not menace, conveyed in the music and increasingly kinetic visuals. As I was reminded by the synopsis, Much Ado has murderous and tragic subtexts, qualities that emerge, suggestively, in the trailer.

All in all, or there seems to be much ado about something in the preview of Joss Whedon’s latest coming attraction.

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

Posted in Readings | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

BEST AND WORST MARKETED MOVIES OF 2013? — Easy to say; hard to prove

Posted on September 9, 2013 by Frederick Greene


COULD THIS TRAILER (#4) HAVE CHANGED THE OPENING WEEKEND OF THE LONE RANGER?

Scott Mendelson, a Forbes.com entertainment marketing blogger, recently posted his assessment of the best and worst marketed films of 2013. (See article here.) It’s the kind of piece that appeals to me, given its claims about movie marketing in general and trailers specifically; I find best and worst lists irresistible in terms of provocation and entertainment, albeit suspect in terms of methodology and analytical rigor.

But before I engage with his interpretation of the data (with numbers courtesy of Box Office Mojo), I wanted to share some of the insights Mr. Mendelson offers relative to “marketing campaigns for the various major releases between May and August.”

    Overall Worst

: Mendelson faults the marketing campaign of Star Trek: Into Darkness for meddling by the director and production company (Bad Robot). Even though it made lots of money, he considers the decisions to hype plot and character details while concealing others to have detracted from the audience experience and ticket sales. How he measures such qualitative phenomena, I do not know, nor does Mendelson say.

    Overall Best

: The Great Gatsby gets the nod. Warner Bros. is praised for positioning a mediocre, period costume drama, released on an inauspicious weekend as a summer blockbuster. That the saturation campaign worked was due, Mendelson thinks, to the lavish marketing budget and the aggressive media buys rather than for the creative talent behind the trailers, posters and web designs (my interest). Still, the suits who decide what to spend and how to position took a financial risk, made decisions creatively (if not creative decisions) and won big.

By Box Office Results:

    Worst

: Fast and Furious was a huge hit for Universal, notes Mendelson, but he faults the marketers for releasing too many trailers. By the time viewers saw the movie, they had seen all the spectacle and had their enjoyment of story development spoiled.

    Best

: Man of Steel was not an acclaimed movie (by fans or critics) and yet the beautifully crafted materials sold the film for its cinematic quality, its dramatic seriousness (as much as can be said for a comic Book inspired film) and its distinguished cast. The trailers and teasers made it look like the Superman film we’ve long awaited. Mendelson calls it a successful fraud, an unkept promise, but hey, the marketing department did its job of getting audiences into seats on opening weekend, and isn’t that the unvarnished reality behind trailers qua trailers?. The a/v and print materials teased rather than revealed, a marketing quality for which Mendelson has a marked preference.

    Worst

: White House Down was expensive to make and did not recoup its budget. Not an uncommon event in Hollywood, even for what in Mendelson’s opinion was an excellent film with a stellar cast. Nonetheless, he blames the marketers for a lack of nerve, since they sold cinematic quality like a mediocre, by-the-numbers, exploitation actioner. In this case, Sony had a juicy goose which they dressed like a turkey. Apparently, the adult audience and their interest in complexity and nuance as sauce for fights, chases and explosions were overlooked. The 16-24 year old man-boy demographic was pitched, but they didn’t swing for the bleachers or even with zeal.

    Best

: – World War Z, was a huge hit, domestically and internationally for Paramount, which majesterially ignored bad press, production delays and problems, preferring to believe that audiences would turn out for Mr. Pitt on the run from hordes of hungry, sprinting Zombies. It was Pitt’s best theatrical showing EVER (!!), courtesy of Paramount’s skillful campaign, launch and press management. The trailers weren’t bad either, nor the key art, but Mendelson doesn’t dwell on such creative specifics.

    Worst

: Lone Ranger. No surprise here that the biggest bomb of the year (190M write down) for Disney and Johnny Depp makes the list. But Mendelson thinks the marketing shares the blame with a “not all that bad, really” film. The problem was, that there were 4 trailers (counting the Superbowl Teaser), but only the fourth, in his estimation, hit the right tone. But audiences don’t know which trailer is the right one. They decide based on the one (or ones) they see, which is a point as obvious as it is profound.

    Best

: Lastly, Mendelson reserves praise for the film and the marketing of Iron Man 3, calling it the best popcorn film of the year. The genius of the campaign was in hiding the actual film while ostensibly revealing it in the trailers. Whereas audiences probably thought they knew just what they were getting (and didn’t mind), once in the theater they learned that they’d been pleasantly misled. “What’s great about the marketing campaign is how it too subverted our expectations by seemingly indulging in the very worst kind of no-stone-unturned marketing. We expect these marketing campaigns to basically give away the store, so we took what we saw at face value.” And, “for using the oft-derided saturation marketing techniques as a giant smokescreen, Disney’s Iron Man 3 wins the unofficial prize for best marketing campaign of the year.”

As I mentioned above, best and worst of lists make for eye-catching, link-clicking content. In addition to interesting claims made about familiar films and brand-name stars, directors and studios, Mr. Mendelson also appears to have well placed sources, although he is too savvy to expose them by name or attribution. However, while the list ranges across the various components (advertising, media buying, press and publicity) and levels of feature marketing (from the studio suites to the editing bays), there is no apparent methodology to the analysis, apart from a few gimlet-eyed glances at the box office grosses relative to production and marketing expenditures.

The evaluation is conducted on a subjective basis (i.e. Mr. Mendelson’s preference) informed by industry gossip, rather than polls of audiences or surveys of expert observers, and vice versa. Coincidentally, it’s a failure all to common to reporting and commentary on the business of entertainment in Los Angeles. Research data exists at a granular level for the marketing of thousands of films, going back 35 years (to Apocalypse Now, in 1979), but there is very little (or almost none) that examines films and their marketing relative to each other as determined by interviews with, polls of or surveys completed by the end consumer, the audience. In their absence, opinion (informed or not) and taste (educated or not) run riot. It’ not that I disagree with Mendelson’s claims or dispute his evidence, per se, but that I don’t have access to his evidence or his method.

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

Posted in Articles and Interviews, Observations and Provocations | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

YOU’RE NEXT TRAILER: Irony, Mystery, Interpellation

Posted on August 22, 2013 by Frederick Greene

Made in 2011 and screened for festival audiences that year, You’re Next, directed by Adam Wingard from a script by Simon Barrett, is that rare, lucky horror film, plucked from obscurity and given a big-budget, full-press campaign by major studio, in this case Lionsgate.

It was the posters I noticed first. Grainy, sepia toned images of an ominous animal headed villain/antagonist with the words “You’re next” in barely legible chicken scratch font” (this is not the official name). I wondered whether that was the copy line or The title? Amidst the visual clutter of Hollywood and the fierce competition among one sheets and movie posters, these stood out for their understated and unpolished creepiness. I was inspired to watch and analyze the trailer.

With Wikipedia noting positive anticipation by fans and early favorable reaction by critics, referring especially to the films “refreshing tone,” (whatever that might be), I watched (and re-watched) the trailer for indications of how this refreshment might manifest. The film, a low budget, modest production, was the kind of project we preferred at the horror film production company I used to do work for: a contained situation requiring modest production expenditures enlivened by a novel generic twist.

In You’re Next (a provocative and engaging title) the plot involves an affluent, apparently happy extended family gathered to celebrate an anniversary at a remote, luxurious manor house, who are stalked and murdered by three animal-mask wearing assailants. According to Wikipedia, at least one member of the household has an unexpected ability to respond in kind to the ferocious violence, which is, presumably, the reason for the attack and the promise that at least one (or some) will survive.

The trailer and its poster benefit significantly from the title, which both interpellates the viewer (the direct address mood of “you”–as in “hey you!” or “you’re next” is invariably heard and understood as “who me?”) into the action and threatens him or her with the presumed fate of the protagonists. The poster copy, “Did you remember to lock the door” turns a mundane precaution into an issue of existential dread. Once again “you” are implicated in the events of the film, your own choices and behavior inviting extinction; your carelessness or forgetfulness operating as an index of vulnerability.

For all the clever, linguistic and visual appeal of the poster, the trailer itself is rather unremarkable, apart from the expenditure incurred for the marquee Lou Reed song, Perfect Day. (Gotta by 6 figures for that cue alone!) At 2:13, the trailer is traditionally structured: At a large, rural tudor mansion, a family arrives for an anniversary celebration. They gather to the lugubrious strains of Perfect Day.
“The perfect weekend
The perfect family
But in one moment
Everything will change,” the copy cards advise as the music fades out.

Inside at the dinner table, all is comfort and cheer and affluence and affection, until, at the peak of the celebratory feast, the assault by animal masked killers armed with bows and arrows and axes and knives begins. Terror ensues as family members lock doors, bar windows and move furniture to prevent entry. Dialogue among the victimized indicates (so far as they are credible and authoritative) that the terror is not random but motivated and organized.

The music cue returns for the final 40 seconds (or so) as the action on screen plays counterpoint to the music and lyrics, with scenes of violence edited to the beat, the cue distorted by a roaring sound effect. “This August…The Animals…Will Hunt…You” explains the copy, as the ballet of killers and killed concludes in a quick-cut montage (frenzy) of horror, before the reveal of the title, a trickle of blood painting the “X” of “Next.” Within the trailer, the words “You’re next” appear in blood on the walls of victim’s rooms, re-iterating the threat of the title and the the plot, and inspiring the dripping “X” in the title graphic.

This trailer, though skillfully and rhythmically edited, is notable not so much for innovation as for irony. The cue, an already ironic rock ballad, is, in this circumstance, taunting and sadistic vis a vis the events depicted. (Is this the refreshing tone, referred to in Wikipedia?) Or is the perfection of the day instead the Point of View of the antagonists, for whom a captive family of victims is ideal?

Masked assailants are, of course, concealed ones, with secret identities that typically find a counterpart in their victims. But why the Lamb, the Tiger and the Fox as the chosen “masks” apart from their fate as targets of human predation and exploitation? This trailer is not a tell-all, in that such expository or explanatory details are omitted. There is very little “why” and rather more “what.” The house, in this trailer, stands in (as it commonly does) for the vulnerabilities of the body, its doors and windows sites of penetration and weakness to be defended or surrendered. Nonetheless, a few scenes of terror take place outside, on the grounds of the property, accent the trailer.

“You’re Next” as a title and a warning, implies a plan and an order, intention not randomness, as the victim’s dialogue confirms. But what that plan might be, or the intentionality of the killers, the trailer does not approach or hint, which is, I think, a mistake given that such a suggestion or indication would highlight the twist, turn or surprise responsible for the attention and praise this film has received.

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