Over Marketed

funnygames_01.jpg

I’ve been looking for an excuse to post an image of this poster since I first saw it over on Daniel Grey’s Binky blog [binkythedoormat.wordpress.com]. It’s possibly one of the best film posters that’s come along in some time. Even the copy is spot on (“You must admit you bought this on yourself”), giving the viewer an impression of the film without explicitly stating anything about the plot or what it might contain apart from the facts that it’s sinister and Naomi Watts gets quite upset (having been too wary to see the original Funny Games [iMDB], I’m guessing this is a bit of an understatement). Crew Creative [crewcreative.com] have been a bit clever too in crafting an intelligently designed poster that still puts the big name star up front, ticking off the first rule of modern movie marketing.
 
Now here’s the rub. Apparently, according to the bright sparks marketing Funny Games in the U.K., British audiences aren’t sophisticated enough to understand the sinister intrigue that permeates in this poster. They have issued a new version based on the image in the poster shown at the bottom of this post (click to enlarge)… only with vivid red blood instead of black, a clunky over emphasised line of copy and a kind of scattershot typography that attempts to give the star names, copyline and film title equal billing (though the film title is in red, natch).
 
Everyone is saying it. Film posters are shite these days. This special U.K. revision of the Funny Games poster exemplifies the reason why. It’s ‘over-marketed’. The film industry has reached a point where the type of marketing they use has bottomed out and become a hollow ’style’ which they apply liberally to most of their output. In an attempt to ‘catch all’ they have missed to point of targeting distinctive markets and instead constantly aim for the Lowest Common Denominator. So, instead of a poster that will intrigue, unsettle and make you want to seek it out to find out more about this film you get a poster that condescends to all, bar people with the most base of intelligence who are happy to have culture prescribed to them rather than trying to work out things for themselves, and although we often like to believe otherwise, surely this is actually targeting the minority.
 
funnygames_02.jpg

First published: March 9th, 2008
Filed under: Cinephile, Graphic Design, Rants
Posted by: Boicozine

6 Comments

It’s rather ace, isn’t it? It has pride of place in my living room, so I get to see giant Naomi crying every time I have my tea. Which is perhaps a bit weird. That other poster looks pants though – it just looks like another Saw-esque movie, which I’m pretty sure this won’t be (also, in case anyone cares, Binky has now be relocated/rebooted/recombobulated here: [binkythedoormat.com] — after too much Wordpress-wrangling I defected to Typepad).

Daniel — Mar 09 08 at 11:53 am

I couldn’t find an image of the actual U.K. version of the poster. It’s woeful. The poster at the end there is actually stylish by comparison, still not a patch on Naomi’s big messy head. :) As a sideline, Adam & Joe have just been talking about how crap movie posters are these days, especially the one for Uma Therman’s latest flop.

Michael — Mar 09 08 at 12:07 pm

Maybe we’re witnessing a shift towards quality in mainstream graphic design… probably not, but I’d like to think so.

I wonder what Photoshop trick they used on the image, it looks like it was painted by Chuck Close.

Tim — Mar 09 08 at 1:49 pm

the poster with Naomi’s face is without the slightest doubt the superior one. It’s stylish and it gives the lead actress and character the proper publicity that they deserve and are entitled to.

steandric — Mar 09 08 at 2:05 pm

The poster of the first (“european”) version of the movie pictured the kid, tied to a chair with a bag over his head. I think (yet another) beautiful woman crying / being tortured is more palatable in the US.

I wonder also if it is an ironic way to relate the movie to the pile of cinematographic dung that is torture porn.

Haneke is supposed to have remade the movie to clear up the misunderstanding that surrounds the first version, which has gained a cult status among some amateurs of ultra-violent “almost as good as snuff” films. Therefore missing the point entirely, as far as Haneke’s discourse on the representation of violence goes.

Maybe going for a poster that looks like the ones used for the kind of movies Haneke loathes with a passion was a tongue-in-cheeks comment from the director ? Or from whoever chose the poster.

Also, the picture of the kid with the bag on his head ? Maybe it is nowadays too much alike the iconic image of the man from Abu Ghraib to be used with ease.

SigVib — Mar 20 08 at 6:13 pm

I now have a problem – as much as I love the poster, the film is apparently crap. Do I keep the poster up? Is it okay to love it as a piece of art in its own right, or should it reflect some kind of cinematic taste? Aargh.

Daniel — Jun 12 08 at 10:17 am




Go on. Knock yerself out...