The thing I like about film posters is that they are the most honest and informative form of advertising. Granted, that’s a bit like being the least annoying Scouting For Girls song, but still, it does mitigate their hideousness somewhat.
It’s not always clear at first, but there are subtle clues in most promotional materials for new films. In case you’re not familiar with these, allow me to walk you through it.
So, for example, if Will Ferrel, Colin Farrell, Jennifer Aniston, Owen Wilson, Katherine Heigl, Seth Rogen, Jonah Hill, Ice Cube, Katy Holmes, Brendan Fraser, Will Smith or Kate Hudson are on the poster, we can be reasonably sure the film is shit (allowing for the fact that one or two on that list have made maybe one good film each, but that you’ve probably never seen a poster on a bus for their very slim non-shite output*).
[Interesting sub-clause: If Jim Carrey is on the poster, it might require a full scan; if he’s pulling a funny face, it’s shit.]
If, on the other hand, Adam Sandler or Ben Stiller are on the poster, that’s a cast-iron guarantee of shitness. Case closed.
In fact, if there’s a poster on a bus for a film, it’s almost certainly shit. You need waste no more time on it.
If a pithy quote from any British tabloid appears anywhere on the poster, it’s complete and utter shite.
If the word “Oscar”** appears anywhere on the poster, in any context, there’s a good chance the film is pretentious, massively over-rated, or both.
In a similar fashion, movie advertising posing as news*** makes the quality of films quite clear, as follows:
If a film gets a mention on BBC3, at any time, on any programme, or on any “Entertainment News” segment on any channel, there is a strong chance it’s shit.
Equally, if “everybody’s talking about it”, it’s likely to be shit. Because the “everybody” in this formulation is actually everybody who is paid to talk about shite films, the unfortunate wretches. In some cases, this does spill over into being discussed by lots of people who are not paid to do so, but they will mostly be regurgitating the opinions of those who are.
If it’s based on a book which is badly-written even according to those who liked the book, it’s going to be shit.
If it’s “controversial”****, this probably means its’ politics are questionable at best and horrible at worst. It might well mean that women characters are treated horrendously (more often by writers and directors than by other characters). And almost definitely means it’s shit.
Trailers are the most common form of film advertising, and usually considered the most entertaining. The trailer is a short version of the film, and most comedy productions put the best joke from the film in the trailer, so there’s little point in watching the whole thing unless it actually is any good.
This is the only area of life where I feel fully justified in judging the book by its cover. (Other than books, of course, which I also judge by the cover. Because that’s where the title and author are printed.) I like to use my own judgment on all matters, but there is so much stuff available that it will help to filter things just a bit, so I take my cues where they are found.
In other areas, this is an approach with mixed results at best, but if a film fulfils any or all of the criteria above, it really is shit and I might as well save myself two hours and a few quid. We need only read the subtle pointers film promotion is giving us to determine whether it is likely to be worth watching. This method is not absolutely reliable; the failure rate for the above criteria is around 0.3%, meaning that once in your life you might miss a half-decent film because the poster made it look awful. A small price to pay for avoiding all that shite, I think you will agree.
And there is a useful corrective: If a film already judged and dismissed really is any good, someone you know will tell you and you can suspend disbelief momentarily. If you can maintain that, watch it, and conclude either that you are too small-minded and quick to judge – or that the person who told you it was good is a fool whose opinion will never be trusted again.
Sometimes it’s best to trust instinct.
So, I could write a review of the ubiquitous film of the week, but to do a proper one I’d have to watch it, so…
I’ve got plans for the weekend, and none of them involve watching Hollywood tip-toe around an “issue” and come up with a soft-core consumer-porn film aimed at middle-aged women.
Middle-aged women have probably got better things to do as well, but will make their own choices. (Peer pressure does not end at the school gates, kids: you’ll need to watch out for it for a long time yet.)
I’ve probably spent longer thinking about it than I would have spent watching the film. And definitely more time writing this than I’ve ever spent looking at movie posters.
Time well spent, I reckon.
*(In case you’re wondering, these include: Ice Cube in Boyz ‘N’ The Hood and Will Smith in Ali)
** The Oscars is a chance for the shrinking violets of the US film business to get together and subtly remind themselves of the great exceptional vitality of their humble service, which they really just do out of altruism….and every once in a while, somebody makes a speech extolling the glories of this industry and its leading lights, who, in their quiet dedication to their craft, are an example to us all.
In a typically low-key, self-effacing assessment of Hollywood’s achievements, coffee machine salesman George Clooney averred at the 2006 ceremony: “We talked about AIDS when it wasn’t fashionable – we gave an Oscar to a black woman, before black people were cool…Ooooh, look at us! What are we liiiiiike?!”
***(This is sometimes euphemistically called “Entertainment news”, as if it had anything to do with either News or Entertainment in the literal sense. Further proof of the covert honesty of film advertising.)
****Adj. 1. (Technical jargon) A sensationalistic exaggeration of the importance of a particular piece of popular entertainment. 2. A pig-shite boring film.
No comments:
Post a Comment