“NOW YOU SEE ME” Trailer: The Self-Conscious Magic of Movie Marketing


[Official Trailer #1]

Last weekend, a friend suggested we take in “Now You See Me” and I said, “yes” to oblige more than for any great interest in the film. Unexpectedly, we both thoroughly enjoyed it, finding it that increasingly rare species of Hollywood “popcorn” movie that entertained, providing the requisite stars, spectacle and genre satisfactions without condescension to or contempt for its audience. We exited the cinema energized, not bludgeoned or bored. I wondered how I’d missed its opening weekend, trailer, reviews or buzz, since it has done respectable business ($111M domestically; another 60 internationally) on a $75M budget (thanks B.O. MOJO!). I resolved to learn more.

Rotten Tomatoes’ critics panel panned the film, posting a 48% Freshness Score and this sour review: “Now You See Me’s thinly sketched characters and scattered plot rely on sleight of hand from the director to distract audiences.” The audiences response, at 76% was better; though not stellar, it was at least competitive with the competition.

Because I thought one of the film’s strengths was its editing pace and visual energy–it was cut with the hyper-kinetic speed and non-linearity of an action trailer– I wanted to see how the trailer shaped and positioned this tale of perception and deception, distraction and sleight of hand, of spectacle and magic, considerations germane to the production and impact of audio-visual movie marketing.

Beginning with the title, “Now you see me,” (which invites the sequel, “Now you don’t,”) the film and its trailer tweaks the traditional incantation of the stage magician: “now you see it, now you don’t.” In this proverbial utterance of the disappearing act, magic arises from the simultaneity of presence and absence, there and not there, a physical impossibility (contradictory states occupying the same space in the same time) at the Magician’s command.

A film editor enjoys an advantage over a live performer in that the “now you see it, now you don’t” trick requires neither distraction nor sleight of hand, but only an editing suture between two different pieces of film. And yet this most common type of Movie Magic is it’s own idiom, a cliche that persistently expresses our now 120 year sense of wonder at the technology and artistry of film.

In this trailer for a film about magicians who explore and expose the secrets of the craft as part of their act, inviting audiences to look closely and share in the magic, the better to distract attention from an ongoing and different “trick,” “scheme” or “plot,” formulae (dare I say, “magic”?) of trailermaking are explicitly, self-consciously and expertly marshaled to perform an analogous function with respect to selling the concept and world of the film. To position the film within the marketplace and motivate a ticket-purchase decision requires that an audience be seduced by audio-visual means into suspending disbelief, relinquishing critical perspective, forgetting the commercial context and committing to the story of the trailer, regardless of the story of the film it heralds and purportedly represents.

Let’s see how the trick is accomplished: The trailer is bookended by nearly identical voice-over narration from Thaddeus Bradley (Morgan Freeman) a professional debunker of magic and magicians. He serves both as an explicator of magical practice and lore and a consultant to the various antagonists of our four magician-protagonists.

“Come in Close because the more you think you see, the easier it’ll be to fool you” he intones as a magic trick develops on stage. Given the misdirection practiced by professional magicians, his words are warranted. Audiences of movie trailers, similarly, can learn from Freeman’s advice about trusting the evidence of your eyes, even after close and repeat viewing. Trailers operate by misdirection and re-presentation of content. By focusing on certain topics and backgrounding others in pursuit of objectives other than full disclosure or faithful representation of the film text, a commercial objective is achieved. Or, as in the magic trick, a distraction of the audience from the visible (albeit quick and subtle–assuming you know where to look) mechanism of the trick to its appearance, it’s representation, its screen.

“Look closely Because the closer you think you are the less you’ll actually see,” Thaddeus repeats himself with a twist as the trailer concludes. While the application of this advice to my own work of trailer analysis is not lost on me, the takeaway, for audiences of magicians or movie trailers, is that what’s selected and shown on screen– or revealed at the end of a magician’s wand– is determined by larger forces, subordinate to ulterior motives, and merely a part of the film and part of the act, not actually representative of it. Important business happens elsewhere.

After Freeman’s V.O. frame, Isla Fisher, one of the four magicians, explains to her interdiegetic Vegas audience, which is also, the extradiegetic trailer audience, what the magic act (and the film about a magic act) is about: “For our final trick, we are going to rob a bank.” As she counts down “1, 2, 3…” the editing matches the countdown and on 4 the trick is accomplished in a blur of on-stage machinery and cuts. This self-conscious moment, from a self-consciously “performative” film, emphasizes the multiple perspectives that editing provides, but also the rhythm on which it relies.

As magicians, entertainers and criminals, the Four Horseman (an awful name that resonates far beyond the needs of the film) also purport to be (and eventually become) social activists, modern day Robin Hood‘s, concerned with redistributive justice. This political angle is topical and popularly appealing, 5 years into the Great Recession.

We next find our antagonists in custody, where they confidently and audaciously defy bungling FBI Agent Dylan Rhodes (Mark Ruffalo) supported by his capable, lovely and intuitive French Interpol associate, Alma (Melanie Laurent). Thaddeus advises Ruffalo and offers his consultative services to rich, villainous promoter, Tressler, (Michael Caine), providing the exposition so necessary to a complicated plot like this one. The initial, on-stage bank Heist, Thaddeus explains was a distraction from the real trick (to steal Tressler’s ill-gotten gains) and ultimately from an even more elaborate and populist scheme, occupying the second half of the film

While the audience member (and the viewer) thinks she is watching the entertainment (the film), she is only just watching a representative of it, a distraction as it were, a teaser or a trailer. You might call this bait and switch, an ugly term, but one that is all too apropos of the magic moment as well as the movie marketing dynamic.

Tressler, initially the impressario behind the Four Horseman, quickly becomes their target and victim, whereupon he morphs into a co-antagonist, alongside Agent Rhodes and the law. “Expose them and destroy them” Tressler demands of Thaddeus whose exorbitant fee he is ready to pay. A shot of Fisher (in the role of escape artist Henley Reeves) chained in a Piranha filled tank provides the visual correlate to the idea of their destruction. But, as often happens in trailers, this scene is borrowed the opening sequence and has nothing to do with their endangerment. It portrays merely a “scary” moment from a brilliant escape trick.

An action sequence that then unspools, provides spoiler information for the feature film. But, because it’s a trailer and the action is quick cut and the audience probable viewed it, if at all, months prior, and it’s completely out of context, impossible to remember and thus neutered in terms of its potential for revealing how the final trick is accomplished. (For example: We see the disappearing act performed on a gigantic scale, hiding a massive safe; we see the concealing mirror shattered by a character we had seen die in a car crash.)

Here, in the trailer, as in the better magic tricks, the information you need to understand the “trick” or the plot is shown to you, only you don’t know how to make sense of it. Through trailer “sleight of hand,” key information is unassimilable or incoherent, and yet the stakes and the cleverness quotient have been significantly raised. I find these “tells” or “tell-alls” to be among the more sublime moments in the trailer brief, which in copy and shot selection imitates the logic of the film it advertises, foregrounding the very challenge that the narration delivers to the audience consuming a magic act.

Thaddeus returns to provide additional context: “Whatever this grand trick is, it was designed a long, long time ago. And I believe that what’s about to follow, is really going to amaze.” At the same time the concept/plot of the magic trick is grounded in a larger historical narrative, gaining gravitas in the process, Thaddeus’ prediction applies equally to the film we are watching AND to the trailer about the film we are being encouraged to consume. It’s a diegetic remark with extra and extra-extra-diegetic consequence. It’s dense, layered, resonating in different registers and, well, performative. Who among us can resist the authoritative voice of Morgan Freeman?

Lastly, on searching for the author of “Now you see me, Now you don’t,” I came upon boxing legend Muhammed Ali, who uttered these lines preparatory to his bout with George Foreman. “Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee. His hands can’t hit what his eyes can’t see. Now you see me, now you don’t. George thinks he will, but I know he won’t.” Apparently the pronoun “it” in the original, “now you see it, etc” didn’t engage the audience, who needed a person with whom to identify.

And, as I thought about this phrase, it struck me that the power of the formulation, derives from its repetition-mastery of one of the fundamental stages of psychological development and individuation. I mean, of course, the infant’s play of “fort…da” (literally “gone” and “there,” or not here & here, now you see it, now you don’t) described by Freud, whereby the child comes to acknowledge loss and absence (of the primary caretaker) for whom this primal trauma precipitates the now-differentiated subject into language and culture.

The game, the vocalization of here and not here, returns power to the powerless, allowing the illusion of mastery and control, where neither is present. It’s an impossibility, of course, for it to be both here and not here, visible and invisible, fulfilled and empty, but that fantasy, indeed, like the promise of the perfect film, the movie trailer, is the magic.

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

Posted in Observations and Provocations, Readings | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A SHORT HISTORY OF COMING ATTRACTIONS: Corrections, Exceptions & Affirmations

Wired Magazine recently (June 18, 2013) published a series of articles on movie trailers that was remarkable for its breadth, analysis and research. Lest these separate pieces fail to achieve adequate distribution and consideration, I wanted to do my part. In today’s post, I hope to high-spot and evaluate the article entitled “A Short History of Coming Attractions,” since having researched and written the definitive documentary history of the subject, I presume to know something about the matter myself.

The overview is broken up into the decades of the 40 and 50’s, 60’s and 70’s, 80 and 90’s and 2000’s and 2010’s, an organization approach which works better as a timeline than as history. My chief objection to this schematic is that the first 25 years of trailers are ignored, dismissed as “one-note origins in old Hollywood.” As readers of this blog are aware, that is a disservice to the sophistication, variety, innovation, and subtlety of early and classic trailers. Indeed, trailers were mini-movies from a very early period in their development, not, as the authors Palmer and Kehe would have us think, only in their later, contemporary phase. Indeed, given that the MPAA didn’t exist and didn’t constrain trailers to less than 3 minutes (now 2 is it?), one might say that early and classic trailers enjoy a stronger claim to the moniker “mini-movies” than their contemporary brethren.

It is, however, undeniably true, as Keith Johnston proved conclusively in his excellent book on trailer and technology (Coming Soon: Film Trailers and the Selling of Hollywood Technology), and as our documentary testified, that trailers are “defined by the business and artistic transformations in the industry.” It would be strange if they were not!!

In the 1940’s and 50’s, a period which Palmer and Kehe characterize as “Spectacular, Spectacular!” hyperbolic cards are said to be the engines of marketing communication: “Cards do everything in Hollywood’s early trailers: show titles, name stars, celebrate technology. But most of all, they sell the movie with outrageous superlatives—like ‘classic’ and ‘sensation.’ Hyperbole defines the era—nearly 80 percent of the trailers we watched use it in some way.” Whereas Palmer and Kehe insist on disruption and change as a characteristic of trailer development, I am persuaded that continuity and evolution are more accurate ways to consider their history.

With respect to Hyperbolic Cards, however, I should point out that while we current trailer convention has dispensed with much of the rhetorical excess of hyperbole and bombast, cards are still a critical feature of trailers, relied on for communication and impact. We use graphic cards (their visual presentation conveying the bombastic energy that today’s more prosaic copy has sacrificed to contemporary taste) for all of the same functions (title, cast, attitude, story, genre, etc.) while relying on the clever line, adage, or slightly-tweaked maxim to deliver a memorable marketing appeal.

In the 1960’s and 70’s, Palmer and Kehe celebrate “NEW VOICES, The DIRECTOR AS STAR.” In writing about the trailer for Dr. Strangelove, they write, “Trailers reflect the new director-auteurs’ idiosyncratic styles. Not only is this trailer distinctly Kubrickian—it was cut by his title-sequence designer, Pablo Ferro—it literally captures the director: Flashes of Kubrick’s mug are embedded subliminally. Other landmark directors of the time, like Alfred Hitchcock and Woody Allen, appear in their trailers as well.”

I had the chance to meet and interview Pablo Ferro, on more than one occasion, and I take exception to this characterization of his role in the making of the Dr. Strangelove Trailer. His account was widely confirmed by other advertising creatives of the era.

Ferro was, at the time that Kubrick asked him to do the main titles, a leading, Madison Avenue commercial editor and graphic designer and producer running one of the most influential agencies of the period. Kubrick brought him in because of his signature quick-cut technique and invited him to explore and re-imagine the trailer. As those who’ve seen the trailer and the film (and who hasn’t), it’s obvious that a different editorial dynamic is at work in both, testament, I think, and as Mr. Ferro asserts, to his vision, which Kubrick approved, applauded and valued.

As I’ve written elsewhere and on this blog, this is a landmark trailer. But I think credit belongs to Ferro, rather than Kubrick. (Just saying.)

For their drive by of trailers of the 80’s and 90’s, called, BLOCKBUSTERS RULE, Palmer and Kehe laud the contribution of Don LaFontaine, aka, the voice of God. True dat, however, the blockbuster era and its attendant saturation marketing and wide-release platform approach more properly belongs to the 1970’s. In describing Roland Emmerich‘s 1996 preview for Independence Day, they claim that “trailers return to their paint-by-numbers roots,” a claim I don’t exactly understand. Paint by numbers sounds dismissive and simplistic, which is, I think, inadequate to the technological and marketing magic worked by such trailers. The notion of “return” too seems inaccurate, considering the developmental arc they propose elsewhere.

For their take on the 2000s–2010’s, which they subtitle the RETURN OF THE AUTEUR, Kehe & Palmer argue that
“The accessibility of editing software expands the base of trailer editors. Boutique outlets with genre specialties emerge.” Yes, and no. Even during the 70’s and 80’s, when there were just a handful of trailer boutiques, they specialized. Kaleidoscope did blockbusters; Aspect Ratio became known for comedies; Kanew, in NYC, made its name cutting trailers for dramas and Oscar contenders. But certainly, Final Cut Pro has transformed the economics of the trailer industry, allowing scores of boutiques to enter the marketplace and compete for the work that previously only a few, well-capitalized companies could perform.

Editors, of course, have long been the key creative personnel in movie trailers, with the 1960’s auteur moment in filmmaking finding a counterpart in the trailer editing booth.

It is difficult, of course, to condense decades of creative experiment and innovation into a sentence or two. It’s the nature of the journalistic medium and heavy-handed editorial oversight to frustrate everyone involved: the writers whose subtlety and research gets short shrift; the reader whose curiosity and appetite remains unappeased; and the cranky specialist or academic who objects to the (over)generalization or simplification. Still, such an article provides an opportunity for me to offer a corrective in my own blog.

To their lasting credit, however, Palmer and Kehe have reminded us of some signal developments and landmark trailers within the periods they cover, and for that contribution, I am grateful.

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

TRAILERS GONE WIRED: A multi-part series explores the creative industry of movie marketing today!


[Wired Magazine’s choice of the Greatest Trailer EVER!]

Friends keep sending me links to Wired Magazine‘s recent informative, entertaining, extensive and well-researched series of articles on the state of the movie trailer industry today.

I’m gratified to see many of the subjects discussed in this blog explored, elaborated and updated by journalists Jason Kehe and Katie Palmer. My friend, Keith Johnston, a academic expert on trailers at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK –who I frequently mention in this space– is quoted by Palmer and Kehe and contributes his nominees for greatest trailer of all time.

Given the wealth of new content from Wired, I plan to highlight one article per post over the next few weeks. But do visit Wired to read the lead article, “The Art of the Trailer,” published June 18th.

Allow me to introduce the Tweaser, a 6 second neologism (by way of tweet/teaser/trailer) heralding a short teaser promoting a long teaser advertising the official trailer for a film. The race to brevity and share-ability may have reached a (lower?) limit with this tweetable a/v marketing tool designed for play on smart phones with poor (or non-optimal) sound quality.

There are 20 cuts in 6 seconds, and some approximation of story telling, though without the benefit of copy, whether words on screen or voice over. (And just who has time to read or listen these days?) Oh yes, it’s been inspired by the marketing campaign for Wolverine, the X-Men spin-off starring the shredded and talented Hugh Jackman in the role of the eponymous character. This 6 second avatar of things to come (all puns intended) was produced/edited by star trailer-maker Skip Chaisson (of Skip Film) and represents an experiment in marketing form.

Its chief constraints are Vine.com’s square screen and limited file size. According to Skip (who I was honored to have as a guest lecturer the first year I taught the grad seminar on trailers at UCLA), the message of this dense, visually assaulting spectacle is thus: “Wolverine is Badass!” Now here’s a sentiment that U. of Michigan fans along with X-Men Comics fans can jointly affirm and approve.

The tweaser joins the “Trailer Debut Announcement” as an example of the logic of the herald taken to its extreme (or absurd?) conclusion. As I wrote in my post of April 2012, the trailer for a trailer phenomenon was first brought to my attention by Charlize Theron’s a/v announcement of her imminent appearance in the trailer for the film Prometheus.
Although one could imagine an infinite regress of heralded movie heralds, the tweaser also constitutes a technological development that justifies its length and, well, existence.

According to KRTV3‘s Online and Tech reporting page (serving Great Falls & North Central Montana)
The word “tweaser” is a portmanteau of “Twitter” and “teaser,” and it refers to a very brief – very, very brief – video clip promoting a movie.

The arrival of tweasers is due to the growing popularity of the Vine video app, which is owned by Twitter.

The free app lets people record videos that are only 6 seconds long, and lets them create it using edits by recording only when their finger is placed on the screen of their mobile device.

The app was originally launched only for iOs users (Apple), but an Android version of the app was released several weeks ago.

You can actually squeeze quite a lot of imagery into 6 seconds, although of course it whizzes by in…well, just 6 seconds.”

The OED does not yet have an entry for the word Tweaser but no doubt, that too, is coming soon.

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, Introductory and Reference Post, Observations and Provocations | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment