August 27, 2006
simple viruses are best
Dear David,
This image above got me thinking... or at least, my thinking got me this image.
I was telling this young college girl who I know, all about Hallam Foe.
"Coming of age" yada yada yada...
"Interesting, exhilerating, fucked up, with darkly humorous Freudian themes" yada yada yada....
It was only when I mentioned that the famous young actor, Jamie Bell is in it, that he appears in some really juicy sex scenes with his kit off, did her eyes light up.
Naked Jamie Bell in horny situations? Now THAT got her interest.
I'm not saying this is the "virus" [the thing which people tell their friends, that allows our idea to spread] that we have to use. I am saying, the virus probably doesn't need to be any more complicated than that. In the same way, the "secret" plot twist in The Crying Game wasn't very complicated either. But it was EXTREMELY viral.
I am confident the virus will make itself known to us eventually, before we hit General Release. The question is, will we be smart enough at the time to recognise it? And more importantly, once we recognise it, will we be smart enough TO GET OUT OF THE WAY?
Just a thought.
Best,
Hugh
[UPDATE:] gapingvoid is already the Number 2 Hallam Foe search result on Google. Heh.
Of course the girls want to see him naked. He's a County Durham lad done well.
How can they resist?!
:-)
Posted by: Stephen Davies at August 27, 2006 6:03 PMDoes there have to be only one virus? Who cares how they're infected as long as they buy a ticket - declare wholesale biological warfare!
P.S. Funny how you thought of The Crying Game - it had crossed my mind too that Miramax made a story out of telling critics not to reveal the ending (but having worked with Harvey Weinstein before he became a behemoth it was no surprise). He was all about selling the movie even at script development stage.
Past word of mouth hits have seemed to focus on the twist in the tale (e.g. Shawshank Redemption, Usual Suspects both of which received word of mouth long after release), violence (Reservoir Dogs and various video nasties) or sex. If none of these apply to Hallam Foe, is there any chance of some pick-up scenes being shot?
Posted by: John Dodds at August 27, 2006 6:24 PMDoes there have to be only one virus? Who cares how they're infected as long as they buy a ticket - declare wholesale biological warfare!"
Most movies try this, John. Most movies fail at the box office.
Posted by: Hugh MacLeod at August 27, 2006 7:19 PMDudes, lots of people check out the IMDb - it seems as at this writing that Hallam Foe has yet to gather more than five votes or even emerge from post-production. Yet I already know from reading the blogs that more than 5 people are legible to vote ... just test screenings? Is the edit locked? Is it finished yet?
Posted by: Mike Peter Reed at August 27, 2006 7:33 PMMPR, it isn't finished. I just saw a rough cut last week.
Final edit is still a month or two away....
Posted by: Hugh MacLeod at August 27, 2006 8:01 PMI disagree Hugh, I think most movies have one line of attack - it's evident in all the marketing and the PR junkets that direct the line of questioning. It's single subject push marketing to my eyes - why do you think this isn't the case?
Posted by: John Dodds at August 27, 2006 8:20 PMI'm not sure if I agree with the singularity you speak of, John...
A lot happens to a movie's marketing before it's made, while it's made, after it's made, once it hits general release, once it goes to DVD etc etc.
Events influence further events. Fractal, Baby!
Posted by: Hugh MacLeod at August 28, 2006 12:17 AMidea: You're making it sound like a movie with sex that doesn't assume the audience is stupid. In general, sex in a movie is filling up for some creativity that isn't there.
That was exactly what I felt about Young Adam: it's a confusing movie because just for once, there's loads of sex on a clever movie.
Posted by: Nia at August 28, 2006 8:25 AMIf you have a minute check this.
Posted by: cheap soma at December 7, 2006 6:49 PMngekrsPlease forgive me
Posted by: lexapro0505 at January 30, 2007 3:16 AM