Pamela McClintock offers an interesting take on this year's potential contenders. She writes that:The specialty film class of fall 2008 includes some disturbing and bleak storylines that will need careful marketing at time when moviegoers might want to escape the real-life reality of a failing U.S. economy.
Interesting, but I'm not sure if it's correct. She mentions that these films might need "careful marketing", but for what goal? If last year is any indicator, then marketing will not be enough to encourage people to go see these films. Moreover, even with a poor economy, it takes more than careful marketing to see the type of films she speaks of. I just don't think there is much of a connection between "escaping" reality and going to see bleak films. If you really want to escape harsh reality, then why bother to check out bleak films even if the marketing is "careful". It seems that once you've reached the point of escaping reality, nothing will encourage you to see a slightly depressing film.
Posts
What isn't explained in here is that the people who pay the most attention to the economy/stock market/business generally see about one or two films a year.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that the state of the economy will deter movie goers from seeing dark/somber films. In fact, the point the author of this article is trying to make is, in my opinion, a huge overstatement.
Unfortunately, the only effect its going to have on the box office is that trash comedy flicks will get more money, and thus encourage studios to make more of them.
Hollywood isn't going to stop making dark films just because of the state of the economy. In fact, the way the author puts it makes it sound like dark films won't make any profit whatsoever and filmmakers will be forced into making nothing but happy films. This is not the case.