The Godfather (1972) A Still Trailer for a Kinetic Epic (1 of 2 posts)

$135 Million at the box office in 1972; three Oscars; 11 nominations; and consistently ranked in the top ten of critics picks for the best films of all times. Everyone remembers the Godfather. But who remembers the theatrical trailer that introduced audiences to the film that established Francis Ford Coppola’s as an A-list director and an acclaimed cinematic auteur? The 60’s and the 70’s were a time of great creative ferment and experimentation in audio-visual movie marketing, as well as a time when the science of market research was first applied to the studio films that obtained wide release domestically and internationally. This 3:37 theatrical trailer, however, is extraordinary by any measure, both for its formal choices and for its personal, emotional, lyrical, idiosyncratic –and, I think—undeniably faithful representation of the film it heralds.

Let’s take a look. This is a longish feature film trailer produced to play in theaters some months ahead of the release of the film. Nearly four minutes, it features something like 7 different movements, each one introduced by distinct (if not entirely different) music cues. What is, perhaps, most striking about the trailer on first viewing as well as repeated consumption, is its use of still photography, rather than live action, to tell the epic story of an Italian-American organized crime family. There is only one live-action segment, occurring near the end of the trailer and lasting no more than 15 seconds. That lyrical, sun-dappled, interlude of a boy and his grandfather ends in freeze frame on the exhausted old man in his garden) succeeded by the image of a brutalist bronze head of Brando’s character rotating into front view.

Still photography is a bold marketing decision for such a sprawling, big budget, highly anticipated, visually dynamic and narratively complicated film like the Godfather. Forty years later, it’s seems impossible to say whether a more traditional trailer would have sold more tickets during the opening weekend. Such “likely” viewers would probably have bought tickets weeks later, based on the overwhelmingly enthusiastic word of mouth.

I have not been able to determine what the trailer making community thought of it when it premiered. (I do know that it was included in a “greatest hits” compilation put together by the Hollywood Reporter, presenters of the Key Art Awards for excellence in a/v and print movie marketing.) I have it, however, on good authority that the trailer direction was given by Coppola, who resisted efforts of Paramount to use live action footage (apart from the brief, 15 second penultimate act). Believing, as was not then uncommon, that the best way to appeal to an audience’s curiosity was not to satisfy it explicitly, Coppola asked editor Jeff Kanew (whose Utopia Films was one of the first and finest trailer houses) to cut a trailer from stills. It is testimony to Kanew’s skill that he was able to cut such an emotionally stirring, representative and dramatic trailer from photographs.

Some of the credit resides with the music cues, taken presumably from the score, featuring instrumentation of accordions, strings, piano, drums, and horns. To this evocative, Sicilian folk music, the stills succeed one another in quick dissolve and hard cut, the timing corresponding to the rhythm, visual drama and emotion visible in the image.

Despite the use of stills, most “shots” feature movement into the image, or away from the image, typically inflected horizontally (whether right or left) or diagonally. In the opening act or segment, a Wedding at Don Corleone’s house, a melancholy waltz, brightened by the oom pah pah of the organ grinder, conveys the music of the Sicily and lyricism of Italy. We see faces and happy celebrants at a wedding. We see Brando and his guests in joyful circumstance, but from time to time the burden of the music resolves into a minor key and the sound of alarums is heard in the bowing of the strings and the blare of the horn.

The music is a waltz and the editing rhythm captures a waltzes 3 beat rhythm, with an emphasis on the first note. The images dance and they breath, expanding and contracting, drawing our eye from one to the next, a succession of images of beauty, aggression, emotion, and terror. Portraits of murder victims conclude and punctuate at least 3 of the acts.

The score re-arranged and re-orchestrated provides the music for 6 of 7 acts. The third act, by my count, takes us to Vegas, where a big-band/rat-pack/lounge act overture interposes. We know it’s Vegas from the Marquees and the shots, but also from the music and the outfits. This interlude is anomalous, relative to the rest of the images and music, but suggests an episode away from New York or Sicily, where the other acts are set. Vegas—the desert redoubt of gambling and organized crime, figures as yet another American landscape colonized by the family, but one whose sensibility, lighting and sensibility are as far from Sicily as you can imagine.

(To read more, check out The Godfather (1972) Post 2 of 2)

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

THOR: When your only tool is a hammer….

This trailer, with all its noise, violence and spectacle, makes me suspect that the movie isn’t very good, although until its release, I must withhold final judgment. I base my opinion not just on intuition, but on the failure of this plodding, confounding trailer to answer my questions or compel my interest, whether in the story, its hero, his conflict, his character or his ability. I don’t know why he’s on earth or why he’s fighting a robot. And when he’s back home in Asgaard, I don’t know why he’s fighting and who his monstrous adversaries are.

This trailer poses a question in the first act, which it neglects to answer meaningfully thereafter. But then it also neglects to explain the relations obtaining among its deliberate presentation of parts. Generally, we see that Thor has been cast out of heaven and found himself misunderstood on earth, where he faces rather than a mythological foe, a science fiction one. I guess, from the few direct clues and the implicit generic ones that he will redeem his godly honor, glory and power in an act of nobility, crushing those in Asgaard who’ve plotted against him, as well as the horrible monsters his misbehavior has, somehow, released. Apart from the Robots, this is a common enough action plot for a mythological hero who requires schooling in adversity to become worthy of his power and destiny. But the particular qualities or details that might make me care about this Thor from this Valhalla are only stereotypical, when not accidental or idiosyncratic, qualities that render him an object of lust and curiosity, but not, regrettably, a subject for awe.

As I “read” this film text, I discern the following movements: Act I, introduces Thor being questioned by a smooth US intelligence type whose review of Thor’s behavior since being captures culminates in the relevant question: “who are you?” These scenes of Thor in various attitudes of a WWF icon, employ a dark, blue/black palette, are shot a night and feature diagonal graphic elements and camera angles, as if there’s something crooked or off-kilter about this god in these circumstances.

Between Act I and II, serving for provenance and transition, the Marvel logo comes into visibility out of a stuttering quick-cut montage of cartoon/comic book images, presumably from the Thor series. The logo and images are reddish, orange and animated, in striking contrast to the live action action scenes that precede.

In Act II, we return (flashback, presumably) to the landscape and temple of Asgaard where Odin (King of the God’s, Anthony Hopkins playing Thor’s disappointed, critical father) excoriates Thor for his errors, revokes his power and casts him out of heaven. The color palette, as if inspired by the Marvel logo, is suddenly golden (reddish, orange, with metallic overtones) and the action occurs primarily in natural light. The graphic patterns and camera angels are symmetrical and straight on, as befits divine architecture. The context is a convocation of the Gods in which Odin repudiates his son, deprives him of his hammer, and casts him out of heaven. Thor answer defiantly, but impotently.

Act III sees Thor cast to earth, awaking to the opening bass chords of a rock anthem and Natalie Portman’s sepia toned and wide-eyed solicitude. Natalie and her snarky sidekick want to know whence he came, although for reasons less of national security than feminine curiosity and undisguised desire. Thor genially attempts to explain, describing his home as a place where science and magic are one and the same, a provocative if ultimately unintelligible and irrelevant assertion. As he speaks and the musical line emerges, three very simple cards appear, white against black and blue thunder clouds and lightning, providing an epic and generic sell that is almost devoid of story information, apart from the already obvious: This May/ Two Worlds/ One Hero.

What the cards introduce is attitude, a testosterone laden attitude, conveyed by parallel, hyper- kinetically edited montages of battles to be fought and won. In the first, on Earth, Thor faces a giant, murderous Robot (whose origin and object are not remotely explained); in the second series of shots, in Asgaard, Thor fights fellow gods as well as some mythological monsters somehow unleashed.

In a reversal that I assume to be meaningful, his fights on earth take place outdoors in day time and use a sepia, golden and red palette. In heaven, the time of action is indoors or at nighttime and a black and blue and gold palette predominates, with Thor’s red cape providing one of the few splashes of “hot” color. Graphic patterns and camera angles are as likely to be diagonal and off kilter as they are rectilinear and straight.

The sound design, while tight, loud and predictable, is neither catchy, exhilarating nor emotionally inspiring. I don’t mean to deprecate the skill of the discontinuity editing, the sound design, the match cutting, the rhythmic phrasing, the visual spectacle and the crescendoing tension. They are perfectly serviceable but not transporting or inspiriting. The problem may be the wooden performance, the unclear story line and the clichéd structure. If we knew more or cared more, perhaps the music and sound would matter.

The copy promises that this May, the Battle will come to earth, insofar as Two Worlds are straddled by one Hero. This is both an announcement of the film’s immanent arrival as well as a threatening alarm; a vicarious thrill is promised along with the advent of the event, courtesy of Marvel and Paramount.

But apart from Thor’s rippling abs, I don’t really know why I should care. I am not a Marvel Comic reader, although I am familiar with outlines of Norse Mythology and enjoy comic-book inspired spectacle along with millions of other Summer movie goers. I just like to have a story to relate to (or discern) or Characters in whom to invest. What I bemoan in this trailer is the decision by the marketers and trailer makers not to tell me enough of the story.

They make precious little use of the extra-diegetic resources of copy (whether cards or V.O.) to make connections that are not available diegetically or visually. Had additional information (whether motivation, conflict, objective or intrigue) been offered, it might have obviated the regrettable lack of (or failure by the trailer makers to put their hands on) footage worthy of the film’s budget, directing talent and cast. Chemistry, atmosphere, charm are noticeably absent, despite the elements marshaled by the trailermakers to sell spectacle. Instead of unique story, we get generic tropes; instead of conversation and character, there are phrases and types.

There is beefcake (Thor) and academy award talent (Hopkins and Portman); war in heaven and war on earth. There are topical references and mythological ones, a hoary legend seeking contemporary relevance, despite the fact that the hero/God’s bildungroman is as old as time. Rebellion, retribution, scorn and respect, love, sacrifice, cataclysm and triumph, these are what one can expect, but in what order, by what agency, to what purpose?

Or is it that there is too much? Not only must Thor fight to return to Valhalla, betraying his earthly love and newly discovered humanity, but he must fight a robotic menace here on earth, as well as a prehistoric monster whose slumbers he has interrupted. Which story line is it, I wonder, that is the hook and the book? The trailer in its current plenitude of event, action, character and stakes, seems rather disjoint and baggy, delivering enough entertainment for more than one film, though not enough information to interest a viewer in any.

[Note: the film did boffo Box Office business. Maybe the trailer did it’s job of keeping out the pointed headed audiences, like myself, who would not have been able to enjoy the film. In which case, it must have been a great trailer.]

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

The Shining: Marketing Minimalism

Warner Bros., 1979.   1:31

In contrast to the hyperkinetic trailers to which we have grown accustomed, this memorable trailer for one of the most highly regarded horror films of all times, consists of one scene, one shot, one camera and no actors.   The action consists of a seeping, then a gushing, then a surging quantity of red fluid, presumably blood, that washes over the lens and sweeps away the furnishings.   In this conceptual trailer, made, presumably before principal photography was completed (or indeed, started) a simple idea, set to music and captioned with scrolling cards presenting title, cast, and provenance, tells us plainly that this much anticipated movie, by one of the most distinguished post-war directors, based on a best-selling novel by an acclaimed writer, featuring one of the most celebrated and popular “stars” of the contemporary era, will be a blood bath.  It’s a cliché, in fact, of the genre, here literalized in great earnest, revealing nothing of the film audiences will clamor to see, but promising the gory satisfaction that Kubrick plus Nicholson plus King will surely deliver.

Here briefly is what we see, hear and read.

A medium shot from a still camera, positioned somewhere around knee level, frames a two car elevator bank at the end of a rectangular lobby. The dated, faded, but tidy elevator entrance is furnished with flanking upholstered chairs in an unattractive plaid. The elevator doors are red. The walls, above brown wainscoting are white. The floor is waxed, worn, golden-beige linoleum.   During the entire 1:28, a single piece of music plays, beginning with drums and a low droning, following by chimes and a saw-like buzzing. Cellos provide a rising, repetitive, crescendo-ing “tune” punctuated by bells whose rhythm and pitch evoke the sound of a train crossing. This is the music of madness, of mental static and aural distortion.

As for verbal cues, it is the copy scrolling down during the first 50 seconds that offers the only dynamic or moving element in this first section of the trailer.  We see, in order, “The Shining,” “A Stanley Kubrick Film,” then the Cast Run,  followed by reference to the best-selling Author whose master-piece of horror inspired this film. Next the screenwriters are listed, after which the title again appears, followed by the director’s credit.  There is no narrative, no tagline and no exhortation offered.

As the words scroll up and out of sight, red liquid, presumably blood, begins to mist and then to spray from the left hand side of the left elevator, quickly becoming a gush, and then a torrent that covers the floors, splashes against the furniture, rolls along the floor and washes up and over the camera whose view is momentarily blotted out by red and then black, before “sight” is restored, albeit filtered now through the reddish liquid that covers the lens.  We see the heavy wood-framed chairs and side tables pushed diagonally across the frame and past the camera by the tidal surge of blood, as we cut to black.

In terms of graphic design, the only relevant choice was font, in this case utterly plain, perfectly legible and sans serif.

The audience presumed by this trailer is one familiar with Mr. Kubrick, Mr. King and Mr. Nicholson, comprising both cineastes as well as general audiences, horror buffs, and readers of best-sellers.  This is a project with built in audiences, significant advance publicity and widespread anticipation appealing to specialized as well as mass-market audiences.   The film, as we know in hindsight delivered on its promise, but given the recipe, this appears to have been a film that would have opened well, even in the event of negative critical response.

It had everything, including, I suggest, a smart marketing campaign (at least, as evidenced by this teaser) that gave nothing of the story away, while foregrounding all the most promising attributes.  Given the generic qualities of horror, with surprise a requisite feature, showing the scares can be risky.  Given the success of the book, whose plot was widely known and disseminated even to non-readers, there wasn’t really a compelling need to repeat this information.  Audiences had a good idea what they were getting, although it was useful to remind them, via obvious visual metaphor, what to anticipate.

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), Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment