Like many of you, we saw Quentin Tarantino's bloodstained epic "Inglourious Basterds" (2009) this summer. We've followed this movie since it was a wee little script back in 2004. Ever since its premiere at Cannes this past May, we've been subject to a promotional "blitzkrieg." Everywhere we looked we saw Brad Pitt's cheeky grin. As excited as we were, we left the theater slightly underwhelmed. Why? We felt misled. We went into the theater conditioned by all the trailers to see the Basterds kill some "Nat-sees." Instead, we only got about thirty minutes of the Basterds. All that build-up, but hardly any payoff.
These days, viewers are thirsty for details about upcoming films, and Hollywood has become overly transparent. In the good ol' days,the only way to hear about a movie was to see a trailer. Magazines like "Entertainment Weekly" and insider Web sites like aintitcoolnews.com bombard viewers with minute details about films long before the trailers are released. So, hype is built up when deals are first signed — several years before films reach theaters!
Each summer, there are films that end up imploding under their own incessant promotion. This summer was no exception: "Brüno" (2009) was expected to take the world by storm, but people stormed out, repulsed. The film's disappointing earnings proved to Sacha Baron Cohen that lightning doesn't strike twice, particularly when that lightning is phallic-shaped. To pay to see an overhyped movie is a gamble that often goes unrewarded. If we want to waste ten bucks, we'll pay Gary Coleman to make us balloon animals. We firmly believe that movies should earn their money by providing viewers with excellent entertainment.
Hype for a movie will sell tickets the first weekend of a film's release, but only truly special films will make money off of the hype they receive from critics and viewers. Two of this summer's most successful movies were not on anyone's radar originally. "The Hangover" (2009) featured relatively unknown actors and went on to gross half a billion dollars. And, oh yeah, it's still in theaters. Plus, "Hangover" did some great business for vodka companies and roofie dealers throughout North America. Come on, who doesn't want to wake up to see a tiger in his bathroom? Similarly, "District 9" (2009), Neill Blomkamp's sci-fi thriller, is reaping the pesos after a relatively unpublicized arrival to the big screen. The film stars Sharlto Copley, a man who had previously never acted in a feature film. It was made for $30 million, an eighth of the "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" (2009) budget. Plus, "District 9" didn't force-feed self-congratulatory featurettes down our throat during filming. Garnering positive reviews across the board, "District 9" deserves its success.
Perhaps the greatest cautionary tale on hype goes to James Cameron's upcoming 3D magnum opus, "Avatar." The film has been in post-production for over two years, which might help answer the question, "Why is Michelle Rodriguez still in movies?" "Avatar" is Cameron's first major film since "Titanic" (1997) and will supposedly increase the numbers of the diminishing theatergoing population.
The lack of real information and the plethora of insider talk has conjured up a messianic image for the film. Footage was finally released last month when IMAX theaters all over the world showed a 15-minute trailer during a preposterously pretentious event called "Avatar Day." The trailer's online now, and you can see for yourself how hype can destroy a movie. Here we are expecting another "Aliens" (1986), and we see cartoony blue leopards as the film's extraterrestrial protagonists.
--
Zach Drucker and Chris Poldoian are sophomores who have not yet declared majors. They can be reached at zachary.drucker@tufts.edu and christopher.poldoian@tufts.edu, respectively.
