Chris Thilk

IMBINGE: 1/31/12

CThilk — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 22:53:25 +0000

Me: #thilksonit

Him: You just referred to yourself in the third person with a hashtag

Me: Yes…and it was magnificent

Hashtags in Super Bowl ads (Video)

CThilk — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:11:33 +0000

Trying something new and recorded a video with my thoughts about including hashtags in advertising and marketing efforts. This is very much an experiment right now so there’s no editing that’s gone into it. If this continues I may try to pretty it up a little but for now just wanted to see how it felt.

CES 2012

CThilk — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 23:28:13 +0000

Last week I had the experience of attending the International Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, my first time at CES. I was there assisting a client who had a major presence there with their live publishing from the show floor to their blog, Twitter and Facebook platforms. Client responsibilities meant I didn’t have a chance to check out much – really any – of the rest of the show outside of one of the main hallways which I used to get from Point A to Point B and which contained a Sbarro’s that served as my lunch stop two of the three days I was on the ground.

My impression of CES is that it’s extremely well organized, with lots of big booths that are assembled in the convention center that still provide for halfway decent foot traffic patterns. While the two Comic-Cons I’ve been to (in support of a different client’s similar activities) have a similar number of large-scale booths it’s the foot traffic that kills you. Maybe my perceptions are skewed since I did far more walking around at Comic-Con than I did here but it seems like things just flowed better.

Speaking of Comic-Con the other big impression I got was that the business-to-pleasure ratio among the attendees was flipped. Where at Comic-Con it’s probably 80% of folks who are there just for entertainment and because their fans with 20% then there to transact some sort of business it was, at CES, likely 80% business-oriented attendees and 20% people just there because their technology and gadget enthusiasts. This is based largely on the dress of the people I saw walking around, with most of the women in some sort of business attire and most of the men in suits with or without ties.

While my aching feet would certainly disagree with this statement I also found CES to be a lot less stressful. That’s due largely to the fact that, unlike when rendering similar services at Comic-Con, there weren’t nearly as many events/panels that happened off the main show floor. So while I didn’t feel quite as much like I was running around with my hair on fire at any given moment it also means there wasn’t quite the adrenaline rush that kept me going the entire time.

So there was good, there was bad (you have to tip *everyone* in Vegas apparently) but all in all I think the event went off as smoothly as it could have. And, at least to the best of my knowledge, we came away with a happy client. That’s the true measure of success in a situation like this.

“Who am I, Haslam?”

CThilk — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 17:03:15 +0000

My response to Voce’s Matt Podboy when asked whether I knew which movie he was quoting.

Piling On

CThilk — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 23:30:41 +0000

The other day Gini Dietrich was wondering if more harm than good is done when writers regurgitate someone’s latest failings in the realm of public relations in general and social media public relations specifically.

I’m going to come down very much in the “harm” column on this topic. There are lessons to be learned by looking at someone’s failures (mostly by the person that failed assuming they’re not a massively un-self-aware sociopath) but more often than not the posts, columns and other diatribes that result from a public misstep aren’t so much about those lessons and more about one or more of three other topics:

How someone as wise as the writer would never do such a thing. Because the assumption always is that the writer believes they hold the keys to true wisdom and would never in a thousand years be guilty of accidentally CCing a press list on an internal email, of advising the client to create a commercial that is blatantly offensive to motherhood or managing a Facebook page in such a closed manner. These assumptions are, of course, naive since we all make mistakes, have lapses in judgement or otherwise slip up.
How if only the company had read their book/blog post from 2009 this never would have happened. There’s more than a little hubris behind this particular focus and, again, is designed mainly to make the writer appear to be all-knowing and someone who can lead the injured company back to the arms of a public that feels scorned.
How the failure represents a failure to “listen.” I’m fairly certain that in what’s now 2012 very few companies – particularly not those of any size – actually need to be convinced to have a conversation monitoring program in place. So I’d hazard a guess that “listening” isn’t the problem. It’s the next step of acting on what has been heard that sometimes trips companies up. Even then it’s not tone deafness that’s usually behind the fact that a company isn’t immediately rushing to fix the relationship, it’s that there likely other, more pressing reasons for *not* doing exactly what the angry mob wants done. But that doesn’t make for such emotional headlines and feelings of self-righteousness.

I will admit to writing some blog posts that are based on some sort of failing in the social media or PR worlds. But I hope that those posts come across as taking a broader view and offering more universal and constructive advice as opposed to just gleefully pouring salt on an open wound. I’d rather stay silent on an issue than come across as simply mean, largely because should I be the one behind the next foul-up I don’t want people edging their way toward the front with stones in hand, ready to strike. But that’s just me.

I’m all for open minds and discussions of the issues around what happened. We all learn from our own mistakes as well as those of others. But too often these conversations devolve into “well they made a mistake because they’re not as smart as I am” territory and the overall topic is not well served when things veer into that territory.

Closing the book on MMM

CThilk — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 16:43:43 +0000

After doing some thinking about priorities, time available and generally what I want to be spending my time on I’ve decided to, for all intents and purposes, mothball and shut down Movie Marketing Madness. Sometime in March moviemarketingmadness.com will simply cease to be (a stark reminder of how transient web content truly is) and I will more or less be closing the book on writing material that would have been published there.

The material I’ve published over the course of the almost eight year existence of MMM will be archived here at CT.WP for posterity’s sake. This is both because I didn’t want to let it completely disappear and because it nicely achieves the goal of consolidating more of what I’ve written online into one handy place, something that appeals to my organizational tendencies.

Over the course of the last few months my schedule has been simply too busy to keep up with MMM as I thought I wanted to. Between the every day responsibilities of a job that I absolutely love, the fact that I was unwilling to sacrifice time on the weekends that would otherwise be spent with my family to write for it, a busy travel schedule that took big chunks of time out and more, MMM was getting back-burnered more often than not. And I slowly came to realize that not only was trying to publish there starting to feel very much like a job but that it wasn’t even that fun of a job anymore. So I’ve made the decision to essentially kill it as an ongoing effort.

That means this site will, combined with Voce Nation, become my main online writing outlet. So look for more here and there as I take the opportunity to reboot the system and make some changes to how things go down in the new year.

Movie Marketing Madness: We Bought a Zoo

CThilk — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 23:00:59 +0000

“Pick yourself up, dust yourself off and start all over again” is a phrase that’s familiar to most parents. It’s usually recited after a toddler falls and skins their knee or has something similarly tragic happen to them and are in need of a bit of encouragement. It’s meant to convey in simple terms the same sentiment behind it not being our failures that define us but the way that we recover from those failures and move on with our lives.

We Bought a Zoo, the new movie from writer/director Cameron Crowe, is about just that kind of turning moment in a character’s life. Faced with the struggles of being a single dad after the death of his wife to a young daughter and teenage son Benjamin Mee (Matt Damon) uproots the family and buys a rural house in the middle of nowhere. But upon buying it he finds there’s a zoo attached to it that’s facing hard times. The remaining staff, led by Kelly Foster (Scarlett Johanson), though is very loyal and Mee and his family decide to make a go of running it themselves, a process that proves cathartic for all of them and has other unexpected (to everyone but the audience) consequences as well.

The Posters

You know what’s kind of fantastic? The first poster for the movie. Instead of using the very safe and predictable option of using the heads of the cast what is here instead is a tree that has as its leaves green versions of different animal’s paw prints, with a red kite floating above it. It’s original, it’s artistic, it’s creative and it works to convey what is hopefully the spirit of the movie and it’s attitude instead of just promising some attractive looking people doing something or another. Great stuff.

The second poster was markedly less awesome, showing heavily Photoshopped images of Damon with the little girl who plays his daughter on his shoulders and Johansson off to the side, all of them staring off blankly toward some middle distance object while the zoo’s sign is in the background. The top of the poster plays up the fact that it comes “From the director of Jerry Maguire” so it’s clear which part of the Crowe-knowledgable audience this one’s being aimed at.

There was also a poster featuring just a zebra with a bow around its neck that was released to make it clear to everyone that this was a Christmas release.

The Trailers

The first trailer starts out with Damon dropping his kids of at school, embarrassing his teenage son and getting hit on by one of the moms who is doing likewise, nicely setting up the fact that he’s a single dad. He’s struggling with how well he’s doing as a dad and with some other things in his life and encouragement from a friend to start over leads him to quit his job and buy a house that, they discover, is attached to a zoo. That leads to all sorts of complications but it’s clear from the rest of the trailer that it winds up being just the kind of emotional shakeup that everyone in the family needed. There is, of course, a romantic connection at this zoo in the form of Johannson’s character and it’s shown as being generally uplifting all around.

Online

The movie’s official website opens by playing the trailer again. There’s also an invitation to enter the “20 Seconds of Courage” sweepstakes that enters you to win a vacation to the San Diego Zoo.

Moving past that and going ahead to “Enter the Site” you’re immediately prompted to connect with Facebook for some reason that I’m guessing has to do with “The Zoo of You,” the first section listed in the menu bar at the top.

After that is “About the Film” which has a Synopsis, several sections of Production Notes and some background on the Music and how Crowe worked with an artist named Jonsi on the soundtrack for the film.

“Videos” has the Trailer as well as four extended film clips, all of which you can share in various ways online. The “Photo Gallery” has about nine stills from the film and the “Cast” and “Filmmakers” sections give you information about the cast and filmmakers, respectively.

The Facebook page has photos and videos as well as more information on the sweepstakes, soundtrack and more. There was also a Twitter feed that shared with Facebook updates about the movie’s marketing and publicity.

Advertising and Cross-Promotions

I caught quite a bit of TV advertising that was done, with spots that emphasized the heart-warming nature of the story and such to make it as family friendly as was possible. The relationship between Damon and Johansson was emphasized in a couple of the commercials, most of which hit the same basic beats as the trailer.

Media and Publicity

The publicity for the film kind of started when Crowe joined Twitter and started sending out pictures from the shooting set.

The next big piece of news came when it was announced (New York Times, 11/16/11) that Fox would be doing a sneak-preview strategy to promote the film, showing it to audiences almost a month in advance of its release, likely in the hope that positive word of mouth would be generated that would be more powerful in the long run than whatever critics might say closer to release. That strategy seemed to turn out well, with most of the early reviews that resulted being pretty positive in nature.

Some more press was generated when a parody Twitter account was discovered (Los Angeles Times, 12/7/11). I’m not sure what made this one notable from the hundreds of other fake or parody accounts that surely exist for other movies, but it was eventually found that the creators of this one were fans who were excited about the movie and not anyone who was trying to take the film down in any way. That being said things did get kind of weird toward the end, there.

I’m sure the cast also make several appearances on TV talk shows to promote the film.

Overall

Well I like it but I’m more or less predisposed to like it being a Cameron Crowe fan. It might look quite a bit different from Crowe’s earlier movies – it certainly doesn’t look like a movie from the guy who brought us Singles though it does seem similar to Jerry Maguire. But the campaign is designed to make the film as attractive as possible to as broad an audience as possible and on that mark I think it succeeds rather well, even if it can’t quite complete on sheer volume with some of this week’s other releases. Quite a nice little campaign, though, for a movie that looks pretty good.

Movie Marketing Madness: Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol

CThilk — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 20:30:27 +0000

The Mission: Impossible franchise has probably at this point gone on longer than anyone originally involved could possible. What started out as a high-concept TV series has now become a film series that’s already spawned three movies that have achieved success of varying levels under the directorship of a variety of helmers. 1996’s debut film came from director Brian DePalma and was more of a drama than a straight action flick. The second entry went in the other direction with action icon John Woo behind the camera. Number 3 in 2006 had J.J. Abrams, then mostly known for his TV work at the helm. But all three starred Tom Cruise (in what’s oddly the only franchise of his career) in the role of Ethan Hunt, the top field operative in the Impossible Mission force.

Now Cruise is back with another director calling the shots, Pixar veteran Brad Bird. Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol takes Cruise as Hunt back to the role of rogue agent. After a mission in Moscow goes pear-shaped as, oddly, the Kremlin explodes in his wake. Disavowed (again) by the U.S. government he’s intent on clearing his reputation and that of his team. So he takes tech guru Benji (Simon Pegg) along with Jane (Paula Patton) and the enigmatic Brandt (Jeremy Renner) on a mission to find out who’s behind the conspiracy he finds himself and the others caught up in.

The Posters

The first teaser poster for the movie was actually a repurposing of a previously-released publicity shot, with Cruise staring at the camera with a hood drawn over his head. Random numbers appear like some sort of code around him and the familiar M:I fuse that’s burning down appears at the bottom.

The second one-sheet was one designed specifically to sell IMAX presentations. It also reused an earlier-released publicity shot, though this one was significantly more spectacular, showing Cruise in the middle of the tower-climbing sequence that was highlighted in the first trailer. It certainly sells the big scale of the movie – at least parts of it – and that makes sense for this IMAX-specific pitch.

A third poster finally got the rest of the cast some recognition as they flanked Cruise – who was still wearing his Zartan hoodie – in walking toward the camera as sparks flew around them and the whole area was apparently in the middle of sandstorm.

Next up was a series of character banners for each of the four main characters, with a different phrase for each one.

A fourth poster was specifically meant to promote the IMAX release of the film and nicely worked the image of the Dubai tower into the lit fuse that’s so associated with the M:I franchise.

The Trailers

The first trailer opens with dire intonations about the Kremlin being bombed and warnings that the incident is going to be blamed on the members of the IMF team, who will be made into scapegoats. So their mission is to find the people who are really behind the attack and clear their own names. That’s about all the exposition we get as the trailer then transitions into shot after quick shot of very beautiful people infiltrating parties, kicking other not-quite as beautiful people and, of course, a glimpse of the movie’s key action sequence with Cruise scaling a glass tower. It’s not bad but it looks pretty generic at this point.

The next trailer, which on Yahoo started with an introduction from Bird, throws us into the middle of a mission by our crack team that goes very wrong when the Kremlin blows up and the team gets disavowed. But then the team is really on their own when their boss gets killed, meaning this mission is very personal to the remaining team members. There’s some humor, there’s lots of action and more as we see how everything plays out, including the possibility that one of the members might not be playing straight with everyone else. It ends with more of the building-scaling sequence that we’ve seen elsewhere and which is obviously the focal point of the campaign.

Online

There’s a lot thrown at you when you first hit the movie’s official website. The main element is a recreation of the final poster key art but over on the right there are a bunch of small video windows that rotate through scenes from the trailer. Then just to the side of that there’s a series of prompts to play a game on Facebook, see it in IMAX and more. There’s also a Partners box that opens up, when you click on it, some invitations to find out more about the companies that were promotional partners on the film.

Over on the right is the main content menu, where the first option is “Videos.” There you’ll find both trailers, a couple of Featurettes, some TV spots and a handful of extended clips from the movie.

By my count there are about 16 stills in the “Gallery.” “About the Film” has a decent synopsis of the movie’s story.

“Cast and Crew” has career information on the stars of the movie and those who made it happen behind the camera. Finally “Downloads” has collections of Wallpapers and Buddy Icons for you to grab if you like.

The movie’s Facebook page has videos and photos along with publicity and marketing updates, many of which can also be found on the Twitter profile that’s specific to the film.

That Twitter handle was one of the first ones to get access to new tools on Twitter that allowed brand managers to keep an update at the top of the stream, in this case an update containing the movie’s trailer.

The studio also ran an effort on Twitter and Facebook that promised fans that with people using the #mission hashtag at a sufficient volume they could unlock an exciting new clip from the film.

Advertising and Cross-Promotions

TV spots like this one started running that promised the audience a rip-roaring good time. There’s lots of action sequences and lots of humor. We get the basic outline of the story – that a mission has gone so sideways that the entire IMF team has been disavowed and must now seek out the truth behind what happened – conveyed mostly through big explosions and more.

BMW signed on as a cross-promotional partner with co-branded ads running to play up the carmaker’s inclusion in the movie. Toshiba and Coke Zero were also promotional partners though their programs didn’t get quite as much press as BMW’s and less information was available on what exactly they were doing.

30- and 60-second spots were run with the NHL, another promotional partner, where it was also the leading sponsor of some special events by the league.

Media and Publicity

After all the news of casting and who would direct the movie had died down and production begun the first real bit of press came when the movie’s full title, a departure from the numeric structure of the previous sequels, was announced (Los Angeles Times, 10/28/10) though not everyone was a fan. At the press conference where that news broke Cruise said no numbers was always his goal but I’m guessing it had more to do with the overall trend of subtitled sequels that feel more like chapter installments than anything else.

It would be a little while before more press activity picked up, with marketing filling in the gap. But when it did it was in the form of interviews with Bird (LAT, 11/4/11) on how he wanted to go back to some of the spirit that the first movie had with this new entry and get some more inspired performances out of the cast.

Some decent press was generated around activities on Facebook, specifically the launch of a game there (THR, 11/21/11) that was meant to appeal to those who were no longer tied to video game consoles and the studio’s decision to make the previous three films available to rent on Facebook to appeal to those who were looking to no longer be tied to traditional rental outlets.

Brad Bird’s involvement as director generated a lot of news stories as they focused on this being a departure for the guy (NYT, 12/11/11) who usually helmed Pixar-created family friendly fare. Other stories, though, drew the line between those movies and this one in terms of Bird’s flair for visual storytelling (Wired, Dec. 2012)

When the movie opened in IMAX a week before it did in regular theaters audiences were treated to a “prologue” of footage from 2012’s The Dark Knight Rises, a promise that had some wondering of the film’s opening weekend would have a “Batman bump” (LAT, 12/19/11) from people who bought a ticket for the movie for the sole reason of seeing the Batman preview, something that would be noticable in the second week.

I’m sure the cast and crew also made sufficient rounds to the talk show circuit in the weeks before release as well.

Overall

It’s a pretty good campaign that, like the push for the last movie and even (if my memory is accurate) the one before that has zero interest in making sure the audience remembers the first one. There’s no winking at the previous installments or anything like that in the marketing that requires people to know what happened before, which is the case wiht the movies themselves in addition to the campaigns.

Everything works pretty well here. It’s nice to see Simon Pegg back in the same role from the third movie since he’s always welcome on screen. The trailers certainly make it out to be a big action movie and I like the way there’s a consistant touchpoint in the form of the sequence around the big tower break-in. That lets everyone know exactly what the movie has to offer in a clear way, marking this film as some holiday-season escapism.

Movie Marketing Madness: Sherlock Holmes – A Game of Shadows

CThilk — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 23:00:33 +0000

2009’s reimagination of Sherlock Holmes via a big-screen adaptation starring Robert Downey Jr. in the title role was something of a mixed bag for me. While I enjoyed the performance and the chemistry and banter between him and Jude Law as Dr. Watson this was certainly something far different than the Basil Rathbone classics I’d grown up with. That’s not a bad thing in and of itself but I think it took a little while for me to acclimate to this far different portrayal of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s famous detective and accept it for what it was: Something that required little of the audience but sought to entertain by any means necessary for two hours or so.

Now Downey Jr. and Law – as well as director Guy Ritchie – are back in Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows. Picking up shortly after the first movie left off this entry pits Holmes against his most formidable adversary, Professor Moriarty (Jared Harris). Holmes is on Moriarty’s trail, believing him to be at the center of a vast web of conspiracy and criminal activity but to find him he enlists the aid of a young woman (Noomi Rapace) who has secrets of her own.

The PostersThe first bit of official marketing for the movie came in the form of two teaser posters, one with an up-close picture of Downey Jr. with Harris as Moriarty in the background and the other with Law being the focus and Rapace off to the side. They effectively showed that there would be a consistency in the look and feel of both movies as well as in the marketing efforts.

The next two posters had Downey Jr. on one and Law on the other, both of them clutching weapons and in profile to the camera with France and London, respectively, in the backgrounds. They continued the brand consistent blueish gray look from all the rest of the marketing and certainly showed some expanded settings but that’s about it.

Then a series of six action-shot type of character posters were released, with one each for Downey and Law and two each for Rapace and Harris, with everyone brandishing a gun or other weapon or in some other kind of action shot.

The final theatrical poster has Holmes and Watson in a dark Paris alley, fog behind them and the imposing shadow of what we can presume to be Moriarty against the wall to the side. It continues to sell the atmosphere of the movie and what’s hoped to be the wide appeal of the two lead actors.

The Trailers

The first trailer promises those who enjoyed the first movie more of the same here. We open with Holmes getting a tarot card reading, which of course becomes more complicated. From there we see what appears to be Holmes and Watson reuniting after some time apart, with Holmes intoning that he’s on the most important case of his career as he investigates Moriarty. From there on out we’ve done away with most exposition or plot setup as we move to straight action. There are train shoot-outs, huge cannons firing and chases through the woods. We get glimpses of the same slow-motion special effects that were used in the first movie as well as lots of inventions and tools that give the movies a distinct steampunk vibe.

The second was more of the same, though with a good amount of different footage. There’s lots of explosions and gun play and lots of time devoted to the run through the forest the main characters engage in that has lots of exploding trees and bullets whizzing by. Not much more than the barest of plot outlines is given here, though, other than some menacing glances and a bit of exposition about Moriarty being Holmes’ biggest case and the most dangerous criminal mind of their time. It’s all about selling some gothic action here and not about anything resembling a plot.

The next trailer starts off with two people playing chess, which serves as a metaphor for the struggle between Holmes and Moriarty. We see a bit of the same footage we’ve seen in other trailers but with occasional short interview snippets with Ritchie, Law and Downey talking about the conflict of the characters and the story and why people will be interested in seeing it.

Online

The official website opens by playing a nearly full-screen version of the second trailer.

Once that’s done playing the first section of content is “About” which has a short but mostly decent Synopsis, Cast and Filmmaker bios and Production Notes to download.

The “Photos” section has over three dozen (at which point it became difficult to count” stills from the movie. “Videos” has both Trailers, a couple of TV spots and two behind the scenes looks at the recording of the film’s soundtrack score.

“Downloads” has Wallpapers, IM Icons, Posters and specialized wallpapers for iPhones and iPads. You can listen to samples from the score in the “Soundtrack section.

The companies that helped to promote the film are listed under “Partners” while “Sweepstakes” has information on a contest run by the Carl’s Jr. fast-food chain.

“Special Features” has a couple games for you to play as well as a Facebook app that lets you find out who from among your friends there is a your nemesis.

Advertising and Cross-Promotions

A number of TV spots were run that continued to sell the movie to the general public as a known quantity, with lots of action and humor. It’s clear this is in the same style and tone as the first movie, which was popular so the hope is this one will be likewise. Interestingly some of these spots are where we get our first look that Rachel McAdams is back but to what extent isn’t as clear.

Plenty of online and outdoor advertising was also done, mostly using the film’s key poster art and images of Downey and Law and usually also involving a picture of the train that figures into one of the movie’s key action set pieces.

Among the film’s promotional partner companies were French Connection (which displayed fashion “inspired by” the movie in store windows), Shuttle Computers, English Tea Store, Delta Airlines (which offered a contest to win tickets to the movie’s premiere), Hershey’s (which promoted theater snacks as being perfect while enjoying the film) and Hardee’s, whose Carl’s Jr. franchises have already been mentioned.

Media and Publicity

The one constant theme of the early press about the movie was “confusion.” While casting details were leaked out and reported no one involved in the production was spilling any information about the film’s story or plot (Los Angeles Times, 1/13/11), which apparently was part of the plan to keep people guessing and ramp up expectations in the audience that way. One detail that later got released was the movie’s subtitle.

Outside of that there wasn’t a whole lot that happened in the press as release day grew closer. The cast, Downey in particular, made the talk-show rounds and gave plenty of other interviews so it’s not as if there wasn’t a lot of activity happening. But there weren’t many, if any, sort of big industry stories that pegged it as an “important” picture in any regard. Or if there were they never got on my radar, which is also completely plausible.

Overall

This is one of the most clear cut cases of “If you liked the first one here’s more of the same” sequel marketing that I’ve seen. It might even beat efforts for the second Transformers movie and a couple other blatant offenders. Everything here (except the odd way Rachel McAdams barely makes an appearance…does something untoward happen to her character in this one?) is designed to make sure that the audience is completely sold on the notion that very little original will happen here. Instead it’s made clear that this is, while not recycled, certainly very familiar material that covers well-worn ground.

So if you liked the first one – and I did overall while at the same time recongnizing it was completely disposable entertainment that I barely remembered a half-hour after watching it – you should be sold on this one and will make your way to the theater. Which is fine.

Movie Marketing Madness: The Iron Lady

CThilk — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 23:00:18 +0000

I was only tangentially aware of politics for much of the 1980s. I was six when the decade started and 16 when it ended so of course I knew what was going on but didn’t really have a big stake in the comings and goings of various politicians. My most stark memories of that decade’s politics are a mix of the serious (Ronald Reagan being shot) and the comedic (Dana Carvey and Jon Lovitz doing George Bush and Michael Dukakis on “Saturday Night Live”) with a few other things mixed in here and there. In terms of international politics my awareness was even fuzzier. I knew Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister of Great Britain and knew what a big deal that was in terms of both gender and friendliness with the U.S. but that’s about it.

Thatcher is the focus of one of this week’s new movies, The Iron Lady. With Meryll Streep playing Thatcher the movie is about her rise in the political theater to the role of being the first – and to date only – woman to hold the PM position in Great Britain. The movie is told in a similar style to other biopics, with the framing device of an aged Thatcher looking back at the key moments that shaped her life. Plot descriptions make it clear that some liberties have been taken with the story, though much of it is based on fact.

The Posters

The first poster for the film puts Streep at the forefront along with the story’s setting. So the photo of her as Thatcher bleeds into an image of Buckingham Palace. Above that is the copy “Never compromise,” which nicely spells out the character and mindset of the woman Streep is portraying.

The Trailers

The first teaser trailer is primarily focused on introducing us to Streep’s incarnation of Thatcher. We see two consultants staring past the camera telling someone sitting in the camera’s POV that there things that need to be changed: Her hat, her pearls and so on. There’s also the matter of her voice, which they say lacks authority. Cut to her saying she may be willing to let go of the hat but, defiantly, says the pearls aren’t an option. And she does so in the tone of voice that she says is what’s necessary for a leader.

I’m not sure how much this teaser is representative of what’s in the film. And the cheeky little smile on Streep’s face at the end tells me the marketers are being intentionally overly clever here and, at least in my own mind, that raises questions as to the tone of the movie itself. I had thought this was a drama and not Julie & Julia & Margaret.

The second trailer starts by introducing us to a young Thatcher who is unwilling to fit into traditional roles in British society. We then follow her ascent into politics, from someone who operated on the outskirts of the government to the leader of the party. But we see that rise was not without speed bumps both personal and professional as she’s faced with various crises, putting her determination and will at the forefront to get through the various trials she faces.

This is a very good trailer that shows exactly what the audience can expect from the film. Whether or not that is something that’s interesting enough to get them to come out to the theater is a separate question (as it always is) but by highlighting Streep’s performance in this way it’s obviously hoped that the same folks who make Julie and Julia a hit will turn out for this one.

Online

The movie’s official website is a little barebones. At the top the second trailer begins playing automatically, though you can close that if you don’t want to watch it again.

Once you do so the content sections are revealed, the first of which is “About.” There you’ll find a decent description of the film and the various plot devices and storytelling liberties that you can expect when going in to the theater.

“Video” has both trailers while “Photos” has nine, by my count, stills from the film. “Cast & Crew” then has bios on the major players involved in the film and “Press” has excerpts from and links to some of the reviews of the movie.

Many of those sections are repurposed at the bottom of the page along with widgets that pull in the studio’s Twitter and Facebook feeds.

Advertising and Cross-Promotions

I don’t think I’ve seen any TV or other advertising done, certainly nothing that’s made any sort of strong impression on me.

Media and Publicity

The main source of publicity for the movie seemed to be in the form of either the release of marketing materials or speculation about Streep’s award season chances, which were deemed to be plentiful. I’m a bit surprised there wasn’t more press done in the big outlets but that’s all that I’ve seen for the film. Again, very surprising and something that leads me to believe TWC is putting its money somewhere else this fall/winter.

Overall

I’m going to fall back on to one of my usual cliches here and say that I’m a bit surprised at the apparent lack of a full-throated effort in support of this movie. It’s great that Streep is being positioned as an awards contender but what by my accounting seems to be a not much, if any, press support is a big missing component here.

Other than that the posters and trailers are good enough and, as I said above, the target audience seems to be at least in part the folks who enjoyed Streep’s other recent travels into celebrity impersonation territory (though I still think Dan Ackroyd did a better Julia Childs) along with those who enjoy a bit of historical fiction.