YoungRemy
03-14-2006, 09:32 AM
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/registration/register.jsp?fw=http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spe/2006/sxsw/film/stories/DN-expletive_0314gl.ART.State.Edition1.e36c02a.html
Dallas Morning News, March 14th
they require registration, so I copied it for you guys... it is a good article on dealing with the title of the film....
Racy titles can pose big problems for small films
SXSW MOVIES
08:47 AM CST on Tuesday, March 14, 2006
By STEPHEN BECKER / The Dallas Morning News
AUSTIN – What's in a name? A little more than what's socially acceptable for two of South by Southwest's most high-profile documentaries.
One is Awesome: I ... Shot That!, made up of footage shot by Beastie Boys fans during a show at Madison Square Garden. It at least has the ability to skirt its full title through the use of an ellipsis. The other is simply titled the mother of all bad words and is about the history and social significance of that word.
These racy titles have proved to be a double-edged sword for the filmmakers: They are attention-grabbers that help the films stand out from the dozens of other movies at festivals, but they could ultimately keep them from reaching a wider audience.
Steve Anderson, director of the one-word film, admits that he stuck with his provocative title partly for name recognition. "I'd be lying if I said we didn't consider the fact that it would stand out."
But he makes clear that the title is part of the film's message. "Really, what the film is about is how society reacts to this word," he says.
"And so the most honest thing we could do is call the film that and watch along the way how society reacts to it. I just wanted people to know what they were getting, and with this title, they will."
Mark Urman, head of theatrical distribution for Awesome distributor ThinkFilm, agrees that the titles are educational for audiences.
"It really explains not only the manner in which the film was made, but also the spirit of the film, which very much is about the democratization of the film image," he says of Awesome.
Still, honesty and marketing are sometimes at cross-purposes. Those behind each film have visions of a wider audience than just festival crowds and have taken different paths toward getting the word out on their films with unprintable words.
"For advertising, it obviously can't be called that," Mr. Urman says by phone from New York. "So the adventure is trying to figure out where to draw the line, and it really is as easy as this: Everyone has their own limits and thresholds. We don't have to tell them what to do."
For Awesome, the ellipsis appears to do the trick for those theaters and publications unwilling to go with the full title. The film will screen at close to 200 theaters nationwide on March 23 (including the AMC Grand and Cinemark Tinseltown in Plano) and later in the spring will have longer runs in some cities. Initially, though, there was a question of whether the truncated title was innocent enough.
"We were told from the outset that even an ellipsis might be problematic," Mr. Urman says of negotiations with the Motion Picture Association of America. "Visual bleeping, in a sense, is as objectionable as the word itself. But fortunately that was not the case, and we are allowed to use our three dots. Which, to the best of my knowledge, have never corrupted anyone."
Mr. Anderson has more of an uphill battle with his title, but he says he's in talks with two distributors, both of which have not shied away from the name. Advertising has been a case-by-case plan so far.
"As far as any marketing goes, distribution, newspapers, they can print whatever they want. If they want to print it with one asterisk, two asterisks, that's fine, because it gives us stuff to talk about," he says.
And, as mentioned before, that public talk is part of selling the film.
"When a movie chooses to be that, and chooses the subject matter and chooses to call 'it' that, that's part of the point," Mr. Urman says of Mr. Anderson's film, though the same could be said of his own. "You can use that notoriety as much to your advantage as you might be hobbled by it."
E-mail sbecker@dallasnews.com
Dallas Morning News, March 14th
they require registration, so I copied it for you guys... it is a good article on dealing with the title of the film....
Racy titles can pose big problems for small films
SXSW MOVIES
08:47 AM CST on Tuesday, March 14, 2006
By STEPHEN BECKER / The Dallas Morning News
AUSTIN – What's in a name? A little more than what's socially acceptable for two of South by Southwest's most high-profile documentaries.
One is Awesome: I ... Shot That!, made up of footage shot by Beastie Boys fans during a show at Madison Square Garden. It at least has the ability to skirt its full title through the use of an ellipsis. The other is simply titled the mother of all bad words and is about the history and social significance of that word.
These racy titles have proved to be a double-edged sword for the filmmakers: They are attention-grabbers that help the films stand out from the dozens of other movies at festivals, but they could ultimately keep them from reaching a wider audience.
Steve Anderson, director of the one-word film, admits that he stuck with his provocative title partly for name recognition. "I'd be lying if I said we didn't consider the fact that it would stand out."
But he makes clear that the title is part of the film's message. "Really, what the film is about is how society reacts to this word," he says.
"And so the most honest thing we could do is call the film that and watch along the way how society reacts to it. I just wanted people to know what they were getting, and with this title, they will."
Mark Urman, head of theatrical distribution for Awesome distributor ThinkFilm, agrees that the titles are educational for audiences.
"It really explains not only the manner in which the film was made, but also the spirit of the film, which very much is about the democratization of the film image," he says of Awesome.
Still, honesty and marketing are sometimes at cross-purposes. Those behind each film have visions of a wider audience than just festival crowds and have taken different paths toward getting the word out on their films with unprintable words.
"For advertising, it obviously can't be called that," Mr. Urman says by phone from New York. "So the adventure is trying to figure out where to draw the line, and it really is as easy as this: Everyone has their own limits and thresholds. We don't have to tell them what to do."
For Awesome, the ellipsis appears to do the trick for those theaters and publications unwilling to go with the full title. The film will screen at close to 200 theaters nationwide on March 23 (including the AMC Grand and Cinemark Tinseltown in Plano) and later in the spring will have longer runs in some cities. Initially, though, there was a question of whether the truncated title was innocent enough.
"We were told from the outset that even an ellipsis might be problematic," Mr. Urman says of negotiations with the Motion Picture Association of America. "Visual bleeping, in a sense, is as objectionable as the word itself. But fortunately that was not the case, and we are allowed to use our three dots. Which, to the best of my knowledge, have never corrupted anyone."
Mr. Anderson has more of an uphill battle with his title, but he says he's in talks with two distributors, both of which have not shied away from the name. Advertising has been a case-by-case plan so far.
"As far as any marketing goes, distribution, newspapers, they can print whatever they want. If they want to print it with one asterisk, two asterisks, that's fine, because it gives us stuff to talk about," he says.
And, as mentioned before, that public talk is part of selling the film.
"When a movie chooses to be that, and chooses the subject matter and chooses to call 'it' that, that's part of the point," Mr. Urman says of Mr. Anderson's film, though the same could be said of his own. "You can use that notoriety as much to your advantage as you might be hobbled by it."
E-mail sbecker@dallasnews.com