Last night, K was telling me about a chat she was reading over at the Washington Post's website, part of which was a poll of readers re: what aspect of a movie's advertising has the most sway in getting you to see or not see it. So, if you could only know ONE thing about a movie to get you to see it, what would it be? The director? Lead actor? Studio? Genre?
For me, and for most of the chatters, the answer was The Director. (Unsurprisingly, "quotes from critics" was deemed the most useless.) I've had many a boring sounding movie instantly perk up when I heard a good director was attached, and many a good looking movie suddenly look less appealing when I see that Joel Schumacher directed it.
The new Spike Lee movie (Miracle at St. Anna) is a good example. I've seen the preview a few times, and kinda forget the movie each time. Generally, about 90 seconds into the preview, I've decided that this looks like another boring Oscar Bait military historical drama, yawn, and wait for another preview. And then they flash Spike Lee's name, and I think "Hmmm... maybe that DOES look interesting!" I'm by no mean a big Spike Lee fan, but he certainly brings an interesting variable to the table. I probably still won't see it, but I'm more inclined to check it out on video.
Another interesting example, the new horrible looking neighbor cop horror drama "Lakeview Terrace." I've seen the preview two or three times, and it look like complete crap. Samuel L. Jackson appears in pretty much anything these days, and there's not much else to recommend it. Both K and I asked "Didn't Ray Liotta make this movie a few years ago?", but if he did, I can't pick the name out of his resume. But it seems like the kind of movie Ray Liotta would star in, and that's not a good thing these days. I didn't notice the director in the preview.
Then this morning, I saw Roger Ebert's 4 star review and saw that it was directed by Neil LaBute, a director who in a very twisted way is like Spike Lee's less focused but more antagonistic cousin. I'm a big LaBute fan. And Ebert (along with the Washington Post's Stephen Hunter) is one of the very few critics I trust implicitly. So I've gone from having zero interest in the movie, to considering trying to catch it opening weekend. Ebert's review was just icing on the cake. I try to catch all of LaBute's movies.
Movie marketing is odd, and I know I'm not the target audience for anything other than Coen Brother movies. But those are two interesting examples: for Miracle at St. Anna they figured out the hook to almost pull me in, and for Lakeview Terrace, they completely ignored the only real hook that would have dragged me in.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
For me, I would say it is more about the lead actor/actress. I also do read what the critics have to say (esp Ebert--love him). I was so surprised by the good reviews I've been reading about Lakeview Terrace. It looks AWFUL! I can't say I have a must see director, though.
I probably only have a few MUST SEE directors: The Coens, David Lynch, Wes Anderson, Woody Allen (to some degree)...
But the list of directors who make me significantly more likely to see a movie is a whole lot longer.
And I'll give almost anything a try if Ebert gives it 4 stars.
Neil LaBute has taught me to be afraid of Neil LaBute. Because Neil LaBute is human, and Neil LaBute's work makes it very clear that humans are terrible creatures.
But yeah, it's gotta be director with writer(s) a close second.
I mostly enjoy LaBute because he helps me to realize that I am not the worst person in the world, despite my evil thoughts in the dark hours.
LaBute has shown me that Aaron Eckhart is actually the worst person in the world.
I have a secret fantasy that Neil LuBute and David Mamet will write a play together, and that play will drive anyone who sees it to kill everyone they know.
But I would still see the play.
Post a Comment