If you’ve clicked through in the vein hope of finding my next post on why ‘relationship marketing matters to brands’ then sorry, not today. Today is about something else.
Relationships matter.
Your relationships matter. Your family. Your friends. Your loved ones. Your other half. Your soul-mate. The relationships you have with the people that matter, matter.
I would’ve quit my job last year if it would’ve meant saving my relationship. Alas, for me, it was too late. I heard a story today of someone else going through a break up because of work and just last night someone else told let me that, after a particularly bad period, they introduced a work veto; if at any point work gets too much, and has a negative impact on their lives together, then it stops. The work, the fighting. Everything.
Life is too short, too damn complicated and far too sweet to spend it working every God-given day and night on something that – if it really doesn’t make a difference to life or death – really isn’t worth it.
He’s been popping his head up a fair bit recently; first (after many a recommendation) I finally sat down to watch MILK, the true life story of California’s first openly gay elected official, Harvey Milk. Anyone who knows this film will be aware that it is indeed a rather awesome Sean Penn flick but, unless you’ve actually seen it, what you might now know is that James Franco puts in a best-supporting-actor-worthy turn as Harvey’s long time partner and supporter, Scott Smith.
Milk is wonderful.
Dealing with the liberation of homosexuality in 1970′s San Francisco, the film opens with a love scene. Note; a love scene. Not gratuitous sex scene, but love. Two men, loving each other. For a film telling the story of how to overcome the bigotry and phobias associated with that time, the best way to bring your audience on side is to show them the one thing that everyone was fighting for: the freedom to love. Forget how the story unfolds or how well Harvey’s tale is told, for want of a better turn of phrase – this opener nails it. If you haven’t seen it, seek it out. At once.
I guess at this point it might be worth nothing that my hitherto experience of James Franco had only been through his fairly basic turns in Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man films. If you’re reading this in the future, I’m talking about the Toby McGuire ones, not the Andrew Garfield one(s). The trilogy in question is worth a separate post on its own (but if you’re interested in the short version they rate in this order, 2 then 1 and finally, the worst, 3). Franco is… good… but not exactly stand-out. Admittedly with not much to go on, he masters father/son angst quite well. Alas, that’s pretty much all he has to go on. Well, that and murderous revenge, but they’re kinda the same thing anyway.
The point being: I’m only now exploring Franco’s filmography. So forgive me if this is old ground for some of you.
Moving on.
The day before seeing Milk, I turned the TV on to discover James Franco appearing on ‘Inside the Actor’s Studio‘. If you’ve never seen the show, it’s basically kick-ass Hollywood superstars being interviewed in front of a group of theatre/film/acting students.
It’s a bit Parky, but actually – as the subject matter is mainly about the film(s) that said star has been a part of – it’s actually quite watchable.
Franco comes across as warm, funny and intelligent. Not that he wouldn’t be, but still – it’s nice to see. If you have the opportunity to see it all, then do so. Like I said, he’s very funny [his story about how he nearly lost the part in 127 HOURS - which I am yet to see - because director, Danny Boyle, thought he was stoned is a key highlight] and evidence of this can be found in his frankly hilarious ‘Acting with James Franco‘ series on Funny or Die.
I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked, .
dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix, .
angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machinery of night, .
— Excerpt from Howl, Alan Ginsberg
Howl, if you’re unaware, is a poem by Alan Ginsberg and I’ll be honest, before reading about the film of the same name, I had never actually heard of it before. Which, when you think about it, isn’t that great and – even though I was happy to go in cold as it were – I left the cinema wishing that I had actually done my research on the piece beforehand and, if you’re making plans to see it yourself, then I’d recommend you read it too.
Hell, even if you’re not planning on seeing the film, just read the damn poem.
That aside, onwards to the film.
Created in documentary style and based upon both courtroom notes and actual recordings with Ginsberg himself, the film flits between interviews with the poet discussing HOWL and the obscenity trial that surrounded it. The film-makers originally set out to make just that: a documentary.
But they didn’t actually want to make just another documentary, hence the dramatisation element. HOWEVER, it’s super important to know [so important in fact, that you're told before the film even starts] that all of the scenes are based upon actual events. The interplay in the courtroom is based upon the actual courtroom notes, the interviews with Ginsberg are taken from actual recordings and the whole thing comes together with a fantastic sense of authenticity and truth that it’s quite hard not to be captivated by it all.
Something that has divided critics so far however is the use of animation throughout the film. Obviously a whole film dedicated to one particular poem would be a bit weird if it didn’t actually include the poem itself. While some parts of it are recited by Franco channelling Ginsberg in full-blown beatnik, 1955-Californian laid-back angry mode [see image above, right], the main parts are shown through animation.
Not just any animation, admittedly. This work is based upon illustrations by Eric Drooker that appeared in his ”Illuminated Poems” collaboration with Ginsberg from the late 90s. So, worthy of the attention, right?
I’ll be honest with you, while watching the film I wasn’t actually that stimulated by them and actually, kind of wished they weren’t there. I’ve already said that this was my first experience of Howl and so, I guess I just wanted to interpret the words for myself – to create my own images and my own visuals, not watch someone else’s.
But, my mind was changed before my feet even left the cinema.
I caught Howl at The Gate Picturehouse in Notting Hill. A lovely little cinema and actually, the perfect venue for a film like this [sidenote: don't see Howl at the Odeon] and, in their endless awesomeness, they’d organised a Q&A after the film with one of Ginsberg’s contemporaries, Michael Horovitz.
Mad as a bag of badgers and delightful with it, Horovitz spent the 45mins after the credits rolled telling stories about Ginsberg’s birthday parties [only half The Beatles came, not all of them] and how censorship is unevenly spread across different mediums such as radio vs film vs publications etc.
Insightful? Probably.
Hilarious? Definitely.
One thing he also touched upon though was how he felt about the animated parts film and he made a fantastic point when he said:
“The animation is superb. Not because it visualises the work, not at all. But because it shows one thing that films like this often miss out on; and that is the journey of creation. Normally you’ll see the artist, the creator of work, just sat at his desk and then the next thing you know, the words – or the art – is there. The animation in this film really brings that burning inspiration to life — what it’s actually like to have those words flow through you from inception to ink. For that, I think they stand up well.”
Like I said, it completely changed my mind on it. If/when you see HOWL, consider the animated parts in that light and I guarantee you’ll enjoy them much, much more. I know I will.
In closing -
Franco is great. Understated, poignant and gentle.
The film deserves an arthouse cinema [there's that point about the Odeon]. Read it first.
I spotted the above ad on the tube just over a week ago…
You may have seen one like it yourself.
I knew exactly what it was for, instantly. But that’s me; I read film blogs, subscribe to Total Film magazine, I write about the films I’ve seen – basically, I’m into my film.
The other 2.6m people using the London Underground every day however might not all be self-confessed movie geeks and may not have jumped to the same immediate conclusion, and that’s no bad thing. Allow me to explain:
If you are one of those people then let’s quickly get this out of the way; that there above – believe it or not – is a rather awesome advert for the new Bradley Cooper film, LIMITLESS. The film is about what happens to a guy when he’s given the chance to become more than who he is. To become the best he could ever be. All achieved simply by using the full potential of his brain. A potential that’s unlocked thanks to the swallowing of a daily pill.
A clear pill.
It looks good right?
I thought so too when I first saw the trailer. However, what they’re doing with their marketing campaign is fantastic. This film could’ve easily just slipped out without anyone noticing and before you know it, it would’ve come and gone by Easter. But with this whole ‘NZT‘ drive, they [the studio, the agency behind the campaign, everyone involved etc] are onto a winner.
Reasons why this works:
Bradley Cooper’s most recent ‘hit’ was The A-Team, however he’s probably known to most for his leading turn in the epic post-bachelor party comedy, The Hangover. Those films aside, he’s only ever really played supporting roles which means for a very short time – to the public at least – he has one of those faces.
You know he’s famous but you can’t quite place him. Just the sort of celebrity face you’d see adorned on a piece of two-bit above the line advertising. A point proven just yesterday when someone in my office held up the equivalent advertisement in her copy of Metro and asked “Hey, wasn’t he in The Hangover? He can’t be doing too well [if he's doing ads like this].” -
The advert itself is brilliantly written. It is just like one of those shoddy medical ads that you would see on the tube. The call to action, while completely nullified as it asks you to SEND AN SMS WHILE YOU ARE UNDER THE GROUND is AWESOME as it ASKS YOU TO TAKE A PHOTO OF THE AD TO REMEMBER and, that itself is actually quite compelling because the copy and the thought behind it keep you thinking long after you are outside and above ground – your interest is piqued enough to genuinely follow through on it. -
It’s a word of mouth, dare I say it – ‘viral’ marketing campaign, that genuinely inspires conversation. How? By offering up a point of entry to a story that you don’t know exists yet. This is not your average movie poster, oh no. In fact the only clue that this might not actually be what you think it is is the URL ‘showfilmfirst‘ which is a site set up to offer early screening tickets to [from the looks of things] films that don’t have the traditionally large studio backing. However, what you take away is THE CLEAR PILL. -
Google that and what you get?
That URL (or that call to action for that matter) isn’t anywhere on the ad, but still people are sharing it -
In fact, if I was writing the wrap up document for this campaign say in about a month or so from now (after the film has hit and the numbers have come in), I’d include that very screen grab.
Bam! Sale! Job done! Cheque please!
Go spend some time poking around the clear pill website, my favourite part so far is the epic ‘we don’t give a stuff about you’ small print.
I’m off to buy my ticket for Limitless. Like I said, it looks pretty good.
–
Minor addendum; the plot reminds me of the short story Flowers for Algernon, by Daniel Keyes. That’s worth a look too.
