Cinematic Successes - Made by Marketing? I Think Not...

I just had to share this piece of journalistic wonder with all of you:

This week, in response to Dear John ending Avatar's seven-consecutive-week number one spot, a contributor for The Wrap, one Mr. Daniel Frankel, wrote a piece entitled, "Sex Change:  The Rise of The Female-Driven Blockbuster."

As I read, I was stunned - and almost, overwhelmingly so.

But not because he offered riveting prose or flawlessly crafted structure...

I was struck by this writer's, bottom line:  "Every No. 1 film at the domestic box office not called Avatar has been a chick movie." (Something in the tone left me assuming the next sentence might read, "And in the not too distant future we might even see the day when women are allowed to vote!"  Clearly this one wasn't winning me over from the get-go.)

Mr. Frankel goes on to say that this "estrogen-fueled year at the box office...produced hits driven almost entirely by female audience members," a result, he seems to offer, of more effectively targeting the demographic.  And then he offered real estate to several (mostly male) executives, who, in support of his thesis, put forth such comments as, "Studios are catching on that you have to make the movie for someone" and (my favorite), "It's hard to wrap your head around this because it's never happened before."

(Kudos to Mr. Frankel for allowing his sources to own the most of the truly absurd comments and opinion flaunting.)

Now, don't worry, my major gripe with this offering is not going to be the writer's subtle, yet present, chauvinistic tone.  Rather, I'm interested in addressing the notion that films like Dear John, Julie and Julia, and It's Complicated have been successful because suddenly, studio executives (mostly male), after floundering for DECADES, unable to successfully reel in a female audience, have at last discovered THE KEY to the woman's psyche.  

I stand by a two-part theory that attributes no weight to marketing mumbo-jumbo.  I believe first in good writing and second in the power of a built-in audience; and the film that weds this awesome couple is likely to score the box office gold.

A good movie is a good movie and good movies will (by and large) be well received, and therefore, well attended whether they are "targeted" at men, women, or pre-pubescent tweens.  And this has been true for all of time - even P.T. (pre-Twitter).  To address this recent example, Avatar wasn't marketed well at all - in fact there was hardly a campaign of any sort (we weren't beat over the head with Valentine's Day-esqe ads, that's for certain).  

Say what you will about James Cameron's films, the man knows how to tell a good story and craft a beautifully executed film; and the success of his newest release is owed to little other than that.  People came, they saw, they liked, they told their friends, their friends came, saw, liked...and so on.

The same goes for the aforementioned "chick flicks:"  They were good stories.  Period.

THEN their success was magnified because they all had a built-in, ready-made audience who were eager to grant the movies a warm welcome.  Fans of author Nicolas Sparks and his novels were going to see Dear John; the impressive on-line following of Julia Powell's blog that inspired the film Julie and Julia eagerly awaited its release; and romantic comedy devotees, forced to bide time with empty and painful attempts at the genre (the Katherine Heigl-led Ugly Truth, anyone?) could hardly resist a Nancy Meyers' film - she just KNOWS how to build a story that's supported by the familiar formula, without feeling she needs to beat you over the head with it.  (Bless her!)

And, who doesn't know at this point about the craze that was the Twilight series before it's characters graced the big screen.

True, these predominately reflect female-based followings, but the same "phenomenon" can also be seen with those that are male-dominated.  I don't know a guy who played with Transformers as a kid who couldn't wait for the movie to come out.

But loyal following aside, each of these films wouldn't have performed quite so well if it hadn't been for...yes, you guessed it, the good story.

Granted, there's always a healthy dose of those "well-attended, but turns out they shouldn't have been" type films, often stocked with ubiquitous "names," from which audiences leave, knowing the wasted 90 minutes is time they will never get back.  Unfortunately, these occasional missteps make for a nice-looking opening, which I'm convinced is what keeps studio execs casting choices so narrow.  But don't be fooled!  In these situations, as more people come to realize they've been mislead (i.e. Katherine Heigl does not necessarily a good story indicate), ticket sales will decline and the movie, fade away. 

Are you listening studio heads?  Tell a good story and we'll pay the good bucks whether or not George Clooney's name is bigger than the title.  Spend more money on talented writers and filmmakers rather than marketing strategists and we'll be there.  

Oh, one more thing, Mr. Frankel:  Is it really any surprise that a movie, any movie eclipsed Avatar finally?  The movie's been out for WEEKS!  There are few, if any people who haven't seen it...and those that haven't were probably never going to see it in the first place, either because they were scared away by thoughts of motion sickness brought on by an "interactive" three-dimensional environment...or because they are in grad school (ahem).