Name three ways in which the publishers of the book and the producers of the film worked together to promote Jaws. How did they know that their logo for Jaws was successful? [Include names/companies in your answer.]
The publishers of the book (Doubleday as hardcover, Bantam Books winning the bid for softcover) and the producers of the movie (Universal Pictures, headed at the time by Richard Zanuck and David Brown) worked in conjunction to heavily promote the movie Jaws, knowing that it would help both angles of the media. The book had already been worked up by the press, and was receiving a lot of attention and publicity. So when they decided to make a film about it (Universal Pictures only winning the bid after successfully convincing the author, and first-draft screenwriter Peter Benchley that they could make the best film in the least amount of time) Zanuck and Brown knew that hyping the book was the fore-runner to a successful movie. First off, they intended to be able to release the movie shortly after the book (and during the beach season), hoping that the books popularity would spark more excitement over the film, and that the film would, in return, keep the books flying off the shelf long after its release. The two companies (Bantam and Universal) worked together to create one promotional image, settling on the underwater picture of the shark headed for a lone female swimmer (with some heavily sexual undertones.) Zanuck and Brown also kept hype up of the idea (as opposed to only the book or the movie form) by sending out thousands of paperback copies of the book for free to people "who talk to people," such as waiters and cabdrivers. Bantam Books also sponsored a nationwide publicity of Zanuck and Brown, in which they promoted the book and the movie. By working together, these companies were able to reach thousands and thousands more people than they ever could have individually. And one reason they knew this logo pitch was so successful was due firstly, to the hype of the book before it was even released, secondly, the popularity and sales of the book once it was on (and quickly flying off) the shelves, and thirdly, the demand for the movie known thru sneak previews and such.
What is “blind bidding”? Why did exhibitors object to the proposed blind bidding for Jaws? Why was the blind bidding for Jaws called off?
Blind bidding is essentially when exhibitors are offered the chance to show the film by the distributor, with specific guidelines and regulations, but not in advance necessarily knowing how their profits will turn out, and with never having seen the film. Exhibitors objected the proposed blind bidding for Jaws because the amount of money being asked (read: demanded) by Universal was so incredibly high. These exhibitors, whom were not hugely wealthy corporations, but rather the opposite, knew little to nothing about the film and were very weary of spending so much money on something that would either break them or make them. According to the Justice Departments regulations (and as mentioned earlier) exhibitors are not allowed to see the picture before blind bidding. In March of 1975, a sneak preview of the film played in Dallas, and due to this "unfair advantage" to gauge the film of those exhibitors over others who had not seen the sneak preview, all previous bids were void, and new bidding began once more. Instead of blind bidding now, and much more confident in their product, Universal provided sneak previews across the country for all exhibitors to see, and then upped the price of their bid. And from what many recall, it was very cut or dry, you take it or you don't, no negotiation.
How was the saturation booking and marketing of Jaws different than other Universal films (or earlier blockbusters such as The Godfather)?
The marketing of Jaws began as early as promotion for the book, and ran heavily all the way thru the three-day run of television spots immediately prior to the films opening. Even these TV spots were incredibly planned, marketing different commercials to different groups and at different times or programs. There were also advertisements put into newspapers and magazines such as TV Guide, the Readers Digest, and Playboy. Obviously, the studio took much care (and spent much money) to make sure that as many people as absolutely possibly saw the ad for Jaws just previous to the opening of the movie. In addition, the exhibitors were required to pay for certain parts of this advertising technique, which was unprecedented.
Concerning saturation, this movie behaved differently than any ever before. Typically, a movie was release in one or two theaters in New York and one or two theaters in Los Angeles, and based on those reactions, the studios let the media reviews do the work and then they went from there, typically hitting approximately 125-150 theatres nationwide (for a blockbuster). The Godfather had such a huge demand for it, that it went nationwide from almost the very beginning, but still with only a typical number of theaters. The hype for Jaws was so big, that Universal decided to open with 464 theaters nationwide, and throughout the summer, that number only grew, amounting to being in almost 700 theaters within six weekends of it running.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Monday, September 22, 2008
week six - the allusion of the future of nashville
Which of Altman's stylistic techniques does Sawhill associate with "inclusiveness"?
Altman had a very unique style of directing, which included using multiple camera placements so the actors couldn't "direct" their performance toward one or another (promoting truth), allowing the actors to use instinct and impulse before and during their performance (choosing their own costumes, writing/performing their own songs, writing their own dialogue, etc...). Techniques such as these are consistent with Altman's desire (and capability) to keep the lines between fact and fiction blurry, therefore drawing the audience in and virtually consuming them, and keeping the actors accessible.
What does Sawhill suggest are the functions of the recurring "wires, phones, intercoms, cameras, mikes, speakers" throughout the film?
Sawhill suggests that the functions of these recurring "technological advancements" are to highlight both their purpose, and their parallels to our humanistic society. We live in an age full of an ever-increasing amount of technology, and just like the stardom that "future celebrities" were seeking in Nashville, the abundance of technology is self-serving and caught up in it's own madness. Throughout the movie, the recurring motifs of technology remind us that society is headed in the same direction... commercialism, consumerism, and more technology.
What does Sawhill mean when he suggests that Altman "was making nonlinear multimedia before the form existed," and that Nashville "doesn't suffer from the fragmenting effects of stop-and-start, at-home viewing"?
Altman used certain techniques to imply specific things before they became "mainstream" or "normal." By keeping the cameras moving (often times in random patterns) and using cross cutting and other such things, the audience is brought to a point to where they don't have to watch every single frame to understand the story, but instead they can "rove around" the screen and take in what they choose to. This mimics life. It isn't your conventional experience of "Ok, I'm watching a movie, this is fictitious, [insert movie here], that was good...." Instead, Altman's style makes you think "maybe he just set a camera up and let people wander around the screen..." because the distinctions between fact and fiction are so transcendental.
Monday, September 15, 2008
week five - the godfather part II
How were young filmmakers in the late 1960s and early 1970s different from previous generations of filmmakers in terms of the following: how they broke into commercial filmmaking, how their films were financed, and who was in charge of the studios?
young filmmakers in the late 1960s and early 1970s were different than previous generation of filmmakers mainly due to the fact that they were college graduates who had actually studied film. and, they were young. due to the successes of bonnie and clyde and the graduate, studios began to realize the potential of using the young filmmaker to connect to the younger audience. and, it worked. they also realized that spending tons of money didn't make tons of money. easy rider, for instance, was made on a shoe string budget and was a huge hit, grossing $19 million. so once this formula for success was put together and understood, the studios capitalized and began hiring fresh, young, educated people to come in and make movies cheaply. corporate conglomeration! (thats who was in charge of the studios)
Give two specific examples of how Part II disappoints the viewer (according to Berliner) and how these disappointments “work” for the film.
according to berliner, two specific examples of how part II disappoints the viewer are the murders and the new godfather. marlon brando's absence is looming throughout the whole movie, so the audience, much like the family, is missing his presence, and michael is just not a fulfilling substitute. the murders, berliner says, are also a bit of a disappointment, since they are portrayed so non-chalantly and therefore seem less important.
berliner suggests that these disappointments were calculated and purposeful, using its role as a sequel as an end to the means that no sequel is ever quite as good as the original. instead of giving you more of the same of what you loved in the original, this one leaves you hanging and desperately craving the novelty that is long gone.
maybe it was a plot to get you to appreciate the first one more. who knows?
young filmmakers in the late 1960s and early 1970s were different than previous generation of filmmakers mainly due to the fact that they were college graduates who had actually studied film. and, they were young. due to the successes of bonnie and clyde and the graduate, studios began to realize the potential of using the young filmmaker to connect to the younger audience. and, it worked. they also realized that spending tons of money didn't make tons of money. easy rider, for instance, was made on a shoe string budget and was a huge hit, grossing $19 million. so once this formula for success was put together and understood, the studios capitalized and began hiring fresh, young, educated people to come in and make movies cheaply. corporate conglomeration! (thats who was in charge of the studios)
Give two specific examples of how Part II disappoints the viewer (according to Berliner) and how these disappointments “work” for the film.
according to berliner, two specific examples of how part II disappoints the viewer are the murders and the new godfather. marlon brando's absence is looming throughout the whole movie, so the audience, much like the family, is missing his presence, and michael is just not a fulfilling substitute. the murders, berliner says, are also a bit of a disappointment, since they are portrayed so non-chalantly and therefore seem less important.
berliner suggests that these disappointments were calculated and purposeful, using its role as a sequel as an end to the means that no sequel is ever quite as good as the original. instead of giving you more of the same of what you loved in the original, this one leaves you hanging and desperately craving the novelty that is long gone.
maybe it was a plot to get you to appreciate the first one more. who knows?
Sunday, September 7, 2008
week four - bonnie and clyde
Kramer argues that 'newness' was not actually the main characteristic of the bulk of Hollywood-centered film criticism in the 1960s. Instead it was devoted to a "systematic critical re-evaluation and close analysis of the work of a small group of directors." Funnily enough, most of this critical re-evaluation and analysis had to do with the "newness" and "uniqueness" that they could provide come time to bump America back up into the running of countries making things happen in the cinema.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kael’s critique of art cinema and the New American Cinema was that they were using trash, and creating buzz around it to promote it to the status of "true art." Concerning the New American Cineman, Kael says that there was a full rejection of "craftsmanship," (i.e. the writing, directing, acting and producing sucked,) and that their standard was set so low that anything on film could be considered good. She also criticized the art house audience, saying that they accept "lack of clarity as complexity... and confusion as 'ambiguity' and as style."
When Bonnie and Clyde came out, Pauline Kael glorified it, calling it the "most excitingly American American movie" in half a decade. This is because of the connection and spark it had with the audience, electrifying people back into good cinema. She also said that concurrent with the "true art" that America was capable of creating, it fell back into line with the good classical cinema, while remaining true to it's own 'new wave' era (since many people saw Bonnie and Clyde as marking the beginning of the American film renaissance.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which critics were on opposing sides of the debate over Bonnie and Clyde, and why?
Bosley Crowther, Variety magazine and Page Cook all lamented the movie, saying it was trash. Crowther was by far the most scathing, calling the movie lazy, indulgent, and reckless. His review set the stage, and from then on was essentially the starting point for most other reviews. Page Cook said it was "incompetent" in all areas, and was using a faux idea (sociopathology) and disguising it as art.
On the other side of the fence, William Wolf, Jacob Suskind, Wilfred Sheed, and Andrew Sarris all gave it thumbs up, although the latter mainly used his review to chastise Crowther. Wolf judged it as authentic and a "major artistic achievement." Suskind wrote that he felt as though he was witnessing history through the lens of a documentary camera. Sheed called it a "mural of the thirties," and even the National Catholic Office for Motion Pictures gave it a good review, despite the overt violence.
And then there are people like Joseph Morgenstern, who hated it the first time around (influence abroad?) and then changed his opinion after a second viewing.
Why were these people on opposite sides of the fence? I have no idea. I guess because thats how movie reviews tend to go... some people love em', some people hate em'. And hopefully, you write what's true to you ---> hence, opposing outcomes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kael’s critique of art cinema and the New American Cinema was that they were using trash, and creating buzz around it to promote it to the status of "true art." Concerning the New American Cineman, Kael says that there was a full rejection of "craftsmanship," (i.e. the writing, directing, acting and producing sucked,) and that their standard was set so low that anything on film could be considered good. She also criticized the art house audience, saying that they accept "lack of clarity as complexity... and confusion as 'ambiguity' and as style."
When Bonnie and Clyde came out, Pauline Kael glorified it, calling it the "most excitingly American American movie" in half a decade. This is because of the connection and spark it had with the audience, electrifying people back into good cinema. She also said that concurrent with the "true art" that America was capable of creating, it fell back into line with the good classical cinema, while remaining true to it's own 'new wave' era (since many people saw Bonnie and Clyde as marking the beginning of the American film renaissance.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which critics were on opposing sides of the debate over Bonnie and Clyde, and why?
Bosley Crowther, Variety magazine and Page Cook all lamented the movie, saying it was trash. Crowther was by far the most scathing, calling the movie lazy, indulgent, and reckless. His review set the stage, and from then on was essentially the starting point for most other reviews. Page Cook said it was "incompetent" in all areas, and was using a faux idea (sociopathology) and disguising it as art.
On the other side of the fence, William Wolf, Jacob Suskind, Wilfred Sheed, and Andrew Sarris all gave it thumbs up, although the latter mainly used his review to chastise Crowther. Wolf judged it as authentic and a "major artistic achievement." Suskind wrote that he felt as though he was witnessing history through the lens of a documentary camera. Sheed called it a "mural of the thirties," and even the National Catholic Office for Motion Pictures gave it a good review, despite the overt violence.
And then there are people like Joseph Morgenstern, who hated it the first time around (influence abroad?) and then changed his opinion after a second viewing.
Why were these people on opposite sides of the fence? I have no idea. I guess because thats how movie reviews tend to go... some people love em', some people hate em'. And hopefully, you write what's true to you ---> hence, opposing outcomes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
