Movie marketing, without the marketing.
Seems a bit contradictory, no? And yet...
“Why am l peeing like l was up all night having sex?!”
I am so jealous right now. In a good way. Studio Ghibli announced that they are releasing the final movie from director Hayao Miyazaki (Spirited Away, My Neighbor Totoro) with no trailer and no promotional materials (outside of a veeery simple already released poster and previous note’s that the movie is based on a 1937 novel). From the studio’s producer, Toshio Suzuki…
“As part of company operations, over the years Ghibli has wanted people to come see the movies we’ve made. So we’ve thought about that and done a lot of different things for that purpose — but this time we were like, ‘Eh, we don’t need to do that.'”
He added: “Doing the same thing you’ve done before, over and over, you get tired of it. So we wanted to do something different.”
Hah! The audacity and mettle to literally say “eh” to marketing your movie - which is obviously very much in and of itself marketing your movie - is impressive. But I’m more obsessed with their clear disdain of boredom and the rote. I worked on over 100 movies during my time at Paramount and I can name very few which took any substantial risk in their presentation to audiences. A big one that did was the original Cloverfield. It was released with a trailer that was actually just a scene from the movie (albeit a good one) and *key* ended with no title, just a date. People went fucking ballistic. I know because I was “the search / social guy” (i.e. handled the Google ads and reading of The Twitter) and remember literally running to my boss’ office saying we needed to spend tens of thousands more dollars ASAP to capture the interest.
Now I’m not going to say every movie should do something like what Studio Ghibli is trying, because of course the context matters. The last movie from a famed and very loved director is kind of the perfect time for this version of “trying something.” But imagine if this had been done with a movie from a big Hollywood director like Steven Spielberg or maybe even better, Christopher Nolan, at peak popularity? How curious would you be to see a movie you know nothing about, but have incredible trust in the person creating it? I’d be pretty friggen’ curious (and I am!).
And maybe it’s not no promotional materials, but something different. I’ve talked in the past about how Hitchcock created trailers that were not trailers as we know them, but simply him describing his movies, and man did they work (imo). Maybe because he was good at being a bit creepy1.
People will argue with me (and they have before), but I generally think trailers and movie marketing campaigns are all basically the same. Yes they’re for different movies, and yes they have different tactical elements, but when you can make this fake trailer that is the beat by beat description of dozens of real trailers? Yeah, that’s kinda bad. Because it’s boring. And sure it works, but there’s potential for it to work better. And this is coming from a guy who truly does love trailers!
I will forever rage on about not simply showing your product as always the best advertisement for your product. Why not try and make me feel how I’m going to feel when I watch your movie. Because if you think about it, Ghibli is kind of doing that with their plan. It’s all in the implication. They’re telling audiences that this movie, and its story, matters. Because this director matters. “Remember all those times he made you feel like this and like that? Don’t you want him to do that again? Make you feel like you haven’t felt in a while? Then you should probably go see his next movie, his last movie.”
And they can do all that by doing nothing, or almost nothing. Because sometimes, doing nothing, is still something.
NEWSY BITS 👾
Lionel Messi May Receive Cut of Apple TV's MLS Season Pass Revenue [if you’re unaware (i.e. an American) Messi is one of the greatest soccer players ever. And this is fascinating because it shows a) the draw of Messi, but b) the massive desire for viewership from even someone like Apple who is still an upstart in the content world] - MacRumors
EXTRA CREDIT MOVIE(S) 📝
Blue Jean - an 80’s set British drama about a gym teacher that’s lesbian, who encounters a student who is as well, in the kind of story that looks oh so personal, and yet universal in the human side of it. The reviews are very good, in part because critics say the themes still hit today, even if the story is set so long ago. Playing in Limited Theaters Friday
Whenever somebody offers up the query of “is [insert title] a good movie?” it is never in a vacuum. Mostly because they’re way too loud for cinematic discussions, full of dirt and would never fit humans. 🙃
My jokes may be silly (editor’s note: and bad!), but the point I’m trying to get across isn’t, because it applies to any evaluation we’re trying to make and especially with the media we consume. In large part because it goes well beyond the mere (subjective) quality of a movie. It’s about the context too (there’s that word again!).
So when I present you with another Transformers, I can’t simply dish out the ol’ it’s A) a hot stinky lump of poo or B) a donut so tasty you’d battle a thousand cockroaches to eat it. Because, for starters, when you’re the seventh movie in a franchise that a friend of mine described as a “a series that I thought was done, but is apparently still happening??” - which is obviously his personal context, but I bet applies to a lot of other potential moviegoers - you have some ‘splainin and reframing to do with your audience. Especially the part about how this is a 90’s set sequel to Bumblebee, the 80’s set series prequel that came out five years ago - which, hilariously - because it was the first not to be directed by Michael Bay, received (by far) the highest critical praise, and yet, also hilariously (in a dark way), saw the lowest box office outcome of any in the franchise.
But it’s not just the films themselves the studio (Paramount) is battling, even if they did milk that creative cow dryer than the mouth of someone embattled in the fated saltine cracker challenge. It’s the larger context of movies.
Since the last time we saw Optimus Prime in 2018, there have been twelve more Marvel movies. And even that franchise is struggling a bit recently (although it’s still relative) which may be in part due to audience’s increasing boredom with an impressive CGI-fest with a less compelling story. Which was kind of Transformers’ thing - you didn’t need to care about the humans, cuz the transforming was just so damn cool. But culture shifts, preferences change, attention gets distracted.
Which kinda puts Transformers: Rise of the Beasts in an awkward position. Have people moved on? Are too many people gonna be like my friend and say “they’re still making those??” And thus are they just going to go see Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse (again) this weekend, a movie whose incredible freshness in style, voice, inclusion might make Rise of the Beasts feel old, and not just because its set 30 years in the past.
Which, is the teeniest tiniest of a bummer, not because the movie is getting incredible reviews or anything - although there are a decent amount of critics who feel it’s fun enough, if nothing novel - but because it is nice when movies get to stand on their own, without the weight of expectations or baggage. But again, lack of vacuums here.
So yeah, it’s another Transformers movie, one that has a bit more of an interesting cast (Hamilton’s Anthony Ramos, Pete Davidson as a Transformer and Judas and the Black Messiah’s Dominique Fishback) than Mark Wahlberg or a tongue-wagging Shia LaBeouf, and one that does have the Maximals (the animal Transformers), but in the end, its still another Transformers movie. Which may be all the context you need. 🤷♂️
Out: Thursday
Where: Theaters
2 hrs 7 mins | PG-13 | 🍅: 54%
Sports announcers, mothers, motivational speakers, even random dudes flashing you on the street will often say, “everybody loves an underdog story.” Which, even if it’s kind of a cliche, and good god do I loathe cliches, it’s kinda true. Sure, Patriots fans loved rooting for Tom Brady post ring four. Everyone else…? But the real question at hand here is, does everybody care if that underdog story is true? Because while I don’t mean to be servin’ up that hatorade (I swear!), I’d be remiss not to mention that this “based on a true story” movie, per the film’s marketing material, might just be dependent on whose truth you’re living.
See, this heartwarming tale is based on the personal story of Mexican-American Richard Montañez, a now retired Frito-Lay exec (and *ahem* active motivational speaker) who says he invented the Flamin’ Hot Cheeto - which, if you’ve ever perused a snack aisle, is a big fucking deal - when he was just a janitor. He says that event propelled him and his career, leading him to become an exec at the company after a seemingly inauspicious start. Montañez’s rise to suit is documented and verified, his Cheetos claim on the other hand, is not. In fact, after this movie was announced, the LA Times dug into it and basically called the dude a liar. Why they decided to do an investigative piece on this issue? Um, dunno, but it exists and thus I feel compelled to mention it.
But I’m also compelled to remind you of the above Transformers overview, which you’ll remember (because you just read it two minutes ago… right?!) that mentions how important context is. Because when the LA Times published their piece, some people got piiiiiissed, especially Mexican-Americans. They questioned the motivation of The Times and it caused a hullabaloo. It brought down someone people had looked up to, which is never fun. Another LA Times employee (also Mexican-American) dug even further into the cultural aspects of the situation, and pointed out the why’s of an emotional situation, even as he defended the original investigative piece.
But need I remind you, and maybe myself at this point, the context that this is a movie. And movies aren’t real! Even if we want them to be. Ah! Cognitive dissonance! What do we do?!? Well, (first time) director Eva Longoria was asked about it and simply said…
“We never set out to tell the history of the Cheeto,” she contended. “We are telling Richard Montañez’s story and we’re telling his truth.” - Flamin’ Hot director Eva Longoria on the movie
Obviously one can read that as a defense or as an avoidance, but I see it as a storyteller trying to say, look, it’s a good story, and people like good stories, so like, just (frito) lay off would you? Plus, she made what enough critics are saying is a fairly light and breezy feel good movie that you may too.
Personally, I understand Longoria’s position2 but the larger context I’d add is, if you’re treating movies as your source of historical fact, you should stop. Because just like all the thousands of movies “based on a true story” before Flamin’ Hot, the words “based on” were always being used more liberally than Axe body spray in frat house bathrooms circa 2006. Hell, people took The Social Network as if it were fucking gospel and so much of that story is made up it’s faker than The Bible. And that shit faaaaaaake.
So yeah, that was obviously way too in-depth for a movie that most people will give 15 second consideration to, but regardless, go live your truth and watch this movie however you wanna watch it. Or don’t.
Either way, at least you have the context.
Out: Friday
Where: Hulu
2 hrs 9 mins | PG-13 | 🍅: 66%
We’re back to fun and weird looking “unknown” movies. Which is always kinda cool because then you get to do some exploring.
Talk to Me - can’t say how many Australian horror movies I’ve seen, but this one sure looks like it might be my first!
Bottoms - this is gonna be someone’s favorite movie this year. Probably not yours, but then, maybe!
Sympathy for the Devil - I just wanted you to see Nic Cage hasn’t lost his penchant to do weird movies where he gets to act like a fucking lunatic. Yay!
Bird Box Barcelona - the first one was kind of a thing, wasn’t it? Has it been too long? Do people still care?
even if I can take some issue with the notion of the phrase “his truth”