*** Official GRAN TORINO Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Brett_M]

LOL. Nice.

What matters is people love the cinema and love to talk about movies. My opinion doesn't matter.

 

[mattCR]

I do say, I loved that Benicio Del Toro recently gave an interview I've read where he says Slumdog Millionaire was good, but overhyped.

I really enjoyed it, but also found it to be overhyped. Even for as good as it is, it's not as good as the hype.

Gran Torino is a very good film, but maybe I admire it more because it is better then it's own hype.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Define "hype".

First define it generally. Then specify what Gran Torino's "hype" is. (The latter should be easy, since you're able to make the judgment that the film is better than its particular "hype".)

 

[mattCR]

Hype are multiple TV / Radio etc. programs constantly talking up how "great" anything is. For the last month, I've heard almost incessent hype of "Slumdog" on at least 12 different radio / TV nets and shows who have at times dwelled on how great the thing is.

This isn't to say it's underserved, just saying I heard a lot of it.

In regards to Gran Torino, the "talking heads" as I refer to those who do the TV hosting rounds, etc. and speak of the film, generally speak of it as a great performance for Clint.. and that's about it. The film itself often gets a pass, but not a lot of credit.

Meanwhile, I've listened to CNN anchors refer to Slumdog Millionaire as the equivelent of a modern Charles Dickens.

 

[Michael Reuben]

OK, I can work with that definition. Except that I think it's missing something, and it's a point I touched on above. What's missing is the element of timing.

Some films are relentlessly talked up before anyone (other than industry people) ever sees them. Obvious examples would be Bond flicks, franchise pictures such as the Harry Potter series, and major summer tentpoles like Iron Man or The Dark Knight. It's this kind of advance word that I tend to think of as "hype".

Sometimes this advance treatment is also applied to "prestige" pictures positioned for Oscar season. Examples this season would include Frost/Nixon and Revolutionary Road; the latter got a cover story from Entertainment Weekly weeks before any prints ever arrived in theaters.

Now, when a film has been talked up endlessly in advance of any release, then I think it makes sense to say that it doesn't "live up" to its hype.

Then there are films which no one knows much about. They get a limited release and do great business with big per-theater averages. The reviews are strong, or at least respectful. It's hard to call that a "hyped" or otherwise manufactured response, because there hasn't been a major marketing push. This is the audience spontaneously discovering a film. Then, as a result of that discovery -- and only because of that -- the film starts to be noticed by the entertainment press, and it gets talked about.

Is that "hype"? To someone who hasn't yet seen the film, it probably looks like it. But it's not something a marketing department can put together unless audiences respond to the film in the first place. That, to me, is the key difference -- not between films that do or don't live up to their "hype" (which will always be a matter of personal taste), but between reputations which are driven by audience responses instead of marketing departments.

Slumdog Millionaire was first released in November, two days before Quantum of Solace. That's when I saw it, and I knew nothing about it other than that it was Danny Boyle's latest film and that it was set in India. I thought it was one of the finest films I'd seen all year, and I still do. No award-winning film in recent memory ever snuck into theaters with less "hype" to win it friends.

Gran Torino was released the same weekend as The Day the Earth Stood Still, and Warner released it just as they did Million Dollar Baby: a few theaters, very little advance word other than the trailer (on which I've previously commented). Being a Clint Eastwood film, it already had a certain "brand" recognition, but the reaction happened to be hugely favorable, which is not guaranteed with Eastwood's films (consider Changeling or Blood Work). I think the box office from the film's first weekend of wide distribution is testament both to the quality of the film and to the audience's pent-up desire to see Eastwood on screen after an absence of some years. Here again, it's the audience that decided.

IMO, movie fans today (and I include myself) spend far too much time listening to talking heads, reading internet postings, viewing EPKs and/or reading articles generated by marketing departments and press agents. What we should be doing is watching movies, instead of letting a bunch of PR flacks get between us and the viewing experience.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Part of what's driving the reaction to the film is its lack of hype. It's an Oscar-caliber film, but it's not a critical darling: people are discovering the film for themselves. Because it's a simple story told through straightforward, unstylized filmmaking, it flies more under the radar than something like No Country for Old Men.

 

[Michael Reuben]

If you read my follow-up, you'll see that's exactly where I was heading.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Talk about hitting the proverbial "nail on the head". At times, you can even see it here on the forum. Furthermore, I can't tell you how many films I watched and enjoyed over the years that critics and talking heads dismissed as not good. I read reviews whether here or from other sources as a way to get a sense of a new film, however, if I'm interested in a film despite some negative comments, I usually go forward in my plans to see that film and more times than not, I come away enjoying my film viewing experience.




Crawdaddy

 

[Robert Crawford]

One more note, it's nice to see a very active discussion about a new film that doesn't have a super hero in it.






Crawdaddy

 

[Brett_M]

I must say that I felt a swell of pride at the end of the credits when it said it was filmed in the state of Michigan. In fact, there was applause in the theater. There are several films in production around our state right now. Besides Clint filming GT here, Michael Cera was filming in Royal Oak a few months ago, Sean Astin filmed some outdoor scenes next door to the high school I teach in and there is a film in production featuring Adrien Brody in Howell which is 20 minutes from my house. Michigan has tried to lure Hollywood with tax breaks and the like.

 

[Jeff_Standley]

This is why I try to avoid any and all discussion until I see the movie. I hate having anything ruined for me before I go to see it. I only then venture into the forums to see what everyone else thought afterwords.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Only because of the audience response. See my discussion of timing above.

 

[Holadem]

The amount of jury prizes in a trailer is as bizarre a measure of hype as I've ever come across.

--
H

 

[Michael Reuben]

Agreed. That's why I asked for a definition of "hype". It was obvious that no distinction was being drawn between marketing and genuine appreciation for a film.

It's a not-so-subtle method for diminishing the opinion of someone whose favorable evaluation of a film the speaker doesn't share. It suggests that you didn't really like the film; you've just been snookered by the hype. (The speaker, of course, is smart enough to have seen though it all.)

 

[Jeff_Standley]

I'm speaking of the trailers out now. Like I stated before, I only saw a few trailers before I saw the movie too.

I would like to point out also that I did not see any of the praise trailers before seeing it. I saw 4 or 5 of the basic ones and went very interested.

 

[Holadem]

No, it's called marketing and every single release is accompanied by some form of the same.



--
H

 

[Jeff_Standley]

Just wanted to point out that non of what I say is meant negatively or in a harsh tone. I mean all of this in the best and clear tone. I think this is a good discussion.

I understand that it's marketing, but to see the movie trailers that are out now stating that it is one of the "best movies out this year", "Clint Eastwods finest performance", no matter who it's by industry or random BS publications, I tend to think of that as hype. This type of marketing gets people excited to see a movie, they are "hyping" it up for the masses that may not venture to see it. This movie had none of that "marketing" when it came out back in December. It was released in a very limited release, and then it started to gather praise from various respected sources. That's when marketing stepped in and filled the trailer with marketing hype.

I didn't need any of this hype, It's an Eastwood film, enough said for me

I guess our definitions of "hype" are very different. But when someone talks up the movie in any form whether it be marketing or genuine praise, that in my book is a form of hype for the product. Whether or not people fall victim to that hype is another discussion.

 

[Holadem]

Probably. I would crudely define hype as positive word by anyone outside of those involved with the film.

The people behind the film of course have a very real stake in promoting the hell out of it, I can't exactly fault them for saying it's the best thing since indoor plumbing. That also means that their predictably superlative assessement of their product is utterly useless.

I guess I just have a hard time understanding why 1- anyone would use that as a benchmark for their expectations and 2- how GT differs in that regard from every film released in the last 100 years, or any consumer product for that matter.

--
H

 

[Jeff_Standley]

I think a lot of people take advice from sources that they shouldn't. That's why the marketing teams put "two thumbs up" and other things like jury prizes on the trailers, because people listen to certain critics,publications etc. and go watch a movie based on that recommendation and end up going to see a movie that they may have overlooked otherwise.

I don't usually listen to praise put onto a film unless it's one I wasn't prepared to watch. But if a movie that I wasn't going to see starts to advertise praise from something like "Cannes", "Oscars", respected reviewers, then I may check it out because I trust their opinions. I guess that would be the only reason why I personally would use that as a bench mark.


And GT is no different than any other movie or product in history. Hype is hype.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Yeah, and celluloid is celluloid. But I'd rather watch Eastwood's celluloid than Ed Wood's. (Change a few letters -- what a difference!

)