Sounds like an urban myth, but one of the sisters that I worked with last night actually asked "Snakes on a plane.....What IS that all about?".........Some of the younger staff replied collectively "duh!"..........And that got me thinking of the 1950 cleverness and marketing of this 2006 B movie.The publicity machine at New Line Cinema productions will be hugging themselves! , as they astutely picked a cool black actor, a vintage cheesy title and wisely made sure that no previews were aired of this potentially routine but scary comedy thriller. Word of mouth, bouncing around the internet has made it the exciting cinema phenomenon of 2006, and has insured its box office success where blockbusters such as Poseidon have failed, even before the film is actually released.
Historically a movie's money making ability has often relied on its ability to catch the public's imagination. Word-of-mouth catapulted The Blair Witch Project, to fame , well before it was released. Video rentals made The Shawshank Redemption trendy, and the original Poseidon Adventure burst forth to fame as 1972 audiences were hungry for a glossy old fashioned epic rather than dour "real life" dramas.
Will I go and see it? you are darn right I will?...and I will probably enjoy 30% of it....hey but all that really matters is that I have paid £ 5.95 for the ticket!
I think there is an interesting debate to be had here about the shift in cinema culture you’re describing. There has been much discussion elsewhere about the movement of the audience from ‘lean back’ (as it ‘lean back and enjoy’ passive recipients of content, e.g. TV/cinema) to ‘lean to’ (as in ‘lean towards’ whatever you’re using - interactive, web-based, etc.) methodologies of entertainment.
ReplyDeleteI think the movie studios need to be very careful, however. By adopting the approach they are (for example) for ‘Snakes on a Plane’ (SOAP), they’re in effect attempting to mimic the emerging music industry model, i.e. breed it fast and cheap on the web, attempt to invoke self-promotion wherever possible, let the new ‘lean to’ generation of audience do your promotional work for you.
However, I think it’s a little more complicated than this, and this is where I think the movie studios need to be very careful. The music industry has been (since the 1950s) traditionally a ‘lean back’ industry, although now increasingly located within a ‘lean to’ economic model. The Internet is now the primary location in which music (e.g. iTunes) and musical marketing (e.g. MySpace) is transacted.
But (and it’s a big ‘but’), the profits gained by the record companies have now shifted to …guess where… yes, live performances. Once, touring (loss-making) was used to promote record sales (profit-making). Now it is the reverse, with live performances bringing in the cash. Hence, whilst I agree that the industry has become orientated towards ‘lean to’ methodologies of delivery, the instruments of financial gain are increasingly (and paradoxically) situated in the live performance.
Now, try to apply this model (as the SOAP studio is doing) to the movie industry. Yes, they’re hoping that a narrow promotional narrative/values will bring audiences and hence money. And, of course, there’s merchandising to consider, too. But whilst this model may likely be successful for (let’s face it) disposable trash like SOAP, where is the progressive, directoral or artist-centred contribution to their cultural industry? It’s certainly not on Google Video, or YouTube.
Cynically, you may say that the movie studios will not care, as long as the cash keeps flowing in. But this, I believe, is where they must be very careful. For music, long-term profitability resides within the individual artists’ music portfolio (presented as EP/LP, download or live performance), and this is what the music studios aim to cultivate. By appealing to the ‘lean to’ generation, and failing to engage equally with the vital ‘lean back’ element of experience, the movie studios will creatively starve themselves. They really ought to look at (ahem) the whole picture.