 
|
|||||||||
              
|
On The Arts: In Hollywood, they put their money where their hype is
Sunday, May 30, 1999 By Ron Weiskind, Post-Gazette Movie Editor
Let's get one thing straight: Hype did not sell "Star Wars: Episode I -- The Phantom Menace." It was the other way around.
From the moment "Star Wars" creator George Lucas completed production on the first of three planned prequels to his blockbuster space opera, it was clear that neither Imperial Walkers nor Sith Lords nor the Death Star itself would stay the movie from its appointed destiny as box-office behemoth. Sure, it grossed slightly less than some had predicted in its opening weekend, but it still made more than $105 million in its first five days. Not too shabby.
The lukewarm reviews have bounced off the film like pebbles thrown at a tank. The merchandising mania has only further fueled the frenzy.
And if the whole stinking media had come down with a simultaneous case of galactic brainlock and treated "Phantom Menace" as just another movie, worth no more or no less coverage than, say, "Entrapment," filmgoers still would have flocked to see it.
In our hearts, we who make up the journalistic hordes understood this to be true. That's why we covered the movie as if Anakin Skywalker joining the Jedi Knights was somehow comparable to the Second Coming. Then again, that's about the way Lucas wrote it.
In other words, the movie sold the hype. If we were correct about this being "the most anticipated movie of the millennium," we certainly couldn't play it below the fold. Talk about your self-fulfilling prophecies.
These days, you just can't escape the hype -- any hype. As a result, people have become not just blasé but even impatient with it. But I'm old enough to remember when smart publicists (the ones who create real hype, as opposed to mere media overkill masquerading as same) could manufacture the kind of excitement necessary to make something out of nothing.
In January 1966, a midseason replacement series debuted on ABC. It aired twice a week, which was unusual but not unprecedented -- the first successful prime-time soap, "Peyton Place," had been doing so since 1964. In that age of westerns, rural comedies and variety hours, this show was something different -- daring to be hip by flaunting its comic-book origins. You guessed it: "Batman."
As I recall, the promos running in advance of the first episode didn't give too much away. We'd see shots of the Batmobile speeding by, maybe a "Biff!" or a "Pow!" and a snatch of Neil Hefti's simple but insistent theme song. We certainly didn't see Adam West's paunch or hear any of Burt Ward's "Holy Swiss cheese, Batman!" puns.
On the day of the premiere, my high-school buddies and I were so pumped that we would have camped out in front of the TV all day if not for the fact that our parents would have walloped us. Somehow, we made it through school. When we finally saw "Batman," we were not disappointed.
Of course, the novelty wore off after a while when we discovered that the emperor's clothes in fact consisted of a bad-fitting bodysuit.
But it's a funny thing how some movies become smash hits while flying below the radar of the hype generators. Everyone knew "There's Something About Mary" was gross. No one in or out of Hollywood thought it would gross to the tune of $176 million. Hype played no part in it, just incessant TV ads and good word of mouth.
Some movies still become hits the old-fashioned way, by manufacturing their own hype. Remember how you just had to see "Independence Day" once you saw the trailer? All it showed was a humongous flying saucer hovering over the White House and blowing it to smithereens. Cut to the movie's title and opening date. Less is more.
It worked for "The Matrix," too, which teased you with eye-popping special effects and sat back to collect its $145 million and counting.
Then there's "The Full Monty." It grossed $46 million in North America, most of that sum accumulating before the movie got its Oscar nomination for best picture. That's a tidy sum for a low-budget British import that played chiefly at alternative cinemas for much of its run. People found this one entirely on their own -- movies made for $3.5 million don't get advertised on television.
That bugs me, big time. Heavy TV advertising doesn't guarantee that a movie will become a hit. But try to get there without it.
Unfortunately, Hollywood mindsets follow a vicious circle. Studio executives think the mass audience only wants to see movies that have either a) lots of special effects; b) one or more big stars; or c) teen-agers, at least until the next big fad comes along.
So even when they do make a smaller, character-driven movie, they don't "waste" a lot of money advertising it. Neither do the specialty labels, with the singular exception of Miramax (more about them later).
We're back to self-fulfilling prophecies. Without sufficient promotion, the smaller movies don't draw as well as the big, heavily advertised special-effects extravaganzas. Ergo, it must mean people don't want to see them. So why should we advertise them? And around and around we go.
The people who found it did want to see "The Full Monty." How much more would it have grossed if it had gotten even a fraction of the promotion enjoyed by a movie like "Armageddon"?
Speaking of which, do you think it's a coincidence that most of the specialty films you have heard of -- whether via advertising, Academy Award nominations or well-oiled hype -- sport the Miramax label?
Studio chief Harvey Weinstein was accused of buying the Best Picture Oscar for "Shakespeare in Love" by spending big bucks to promote the film to Academy voters.
After this year's Oscar ceremony, Weinstein defended himself by saying, "I believe in supporting films. People in my movies work so hard. ... I think you should get in trouble in this town for not supporting movies. That's the problem with a lot of these places. Something that's eccentric, idealistic and different doesn't get supported."
Or hyped. Weinstein may be the king of hype. But he speaks the truth. And he puts his money where his mouth is. That's the most valuable hype of all.
Ron Weiskind is the Post-Gazette movie editor.
|
||||||||
