How Far Should You Take an Inside Joke When You're Naming a Movie?
Filed under: Casting
The lovely Sally Hawkins, who stole hearts in Happy-Go-Lucky, has lined up a new gig. In fact, it's one that could end up rivaling the likes of Sex and the City, at least as far as titles go. Variety reports that she's signed on for a new film called We Want Sex. But I warn you now: It's NOT that kind of movie.In fact, this could do the exact opposite of taking "Porno" out of Zack and Miri Make a Porno, making many a sex-loving viewer a wee bit disappointed. See, the film will focus on a 1968 Ford car plant strike when 850 female workers walked out to protest sexual discrimination -- and ultimately helped the movement to get equal pay for women in the workplace.
I know, that's not really a sexy sort of theme. So, how does the title come into play? It's a reference to a banner carried during one of their marches. It should've said: "We Want Sex Equality," but it "was only later that they realized the last word had gone missing." One: How do you not notice the absence of the word "equality"? Two: How does no one else notice and bring down the banner? Three: How many moviegoers will get the joke?
This is said to be a "very funny" project, so at least people won't be misguided into dramatic fare, but I still think this could be quite a surprise for many.
Just how far should a film take an inside joke, especially when they're scheming up a title?
Indie Roundup: 'Sweetgrass,' 'Clarkworld,' 'Broken Embraces'
Shelf Life: Fight Club_thumbnail.jpg)
Watch: Famous 'Matrix' Scene Re-Created with LEGOs
Peter Jackson Says Spielberg's 'Tintin' is Done Filming, but...
Interracial Harmony: 'Ninja Assassin' vs. 'Blind Side'
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
2-05-2009 @ 8:46PM
Tucker said...
Hey, why the heck not? If you're stupid enough not to do the most very basic research before seeing a film (i.e. what is this remotely about?) then you deserve to be "put off" when it turns out reading *just a title* doesn't really prepare you for the movie you're about to see.
On the other hand, I think this will bring in more viewers... I know I wouldn't particularly be interested in a hard drama about this subject, I am more intrigued knowing there will be a bit of a sense of humor built in.
It doesn't reconcile in my mind to on the one hand advocate 'smarter' cinema, and then on the other question filmmakers for for going above the heads of the lowest common denominator. I say good on them for making people do a double take and then learn more about what they're really putting on screen!
Reply
2-06-2009 @ 2:37AM
SOS said...
A lot of very sound research has been published about how to create titles and their importance. Titles comes into play very early in a projects success, they can be very important, they can make a huge difference in the success or failure of a movie. (One) When humor is involved the difficulty of any project gets tougher rapidly.
A few problems exist with the premise at this point: there’s no sex involved -- it‘s gender -- not sex that’s at issue; using sex when gender is at issue is part of the humor problem. (Two) Using sex, when gender is at issue, is a big problem at this point.
It isn’t difficult to notice the absence of the word … equality … when it isn’t there; it’s impossible. No moviegoers can make an impossible jump; moviegoers won’t have a chance to “get the joke” if it requires an impossible jump. (Three) Very few people are going to make the jump from -- sex -- to gender equality.
I don’t know how, at this point, no one else brings down the banner; but -- how -- has to be somewhere in the setup. Maybe they’re all a bunch of (think Laurel and Hardy here) klutzes. Klutzes often make humor work, but the klutzes must be introduced and handled properly for moviegoers to get a joke involving klutzes.
A lot of moviegoers will get the joke if it’s handled properly; I understand the joke you are asking about even though it isn’t all there in what you‘ve written. Handling humor for the masses is more difficult. (1) Not everyone is going to get all jokes, not me and not you. (2) Writers have to arbitrarily choose how many moviegoers or readers to include at all times. (3) Writers must tell enough to keep viewers interested, but writers can’t tell all too early or suspense disappears from the narrative. (Four) What to tell and what to hold back in a project where action and suspense are involved is always difficult; humor, further complicates the task.
Expecting moviegoers to deduce things from vague clues is an unreasonable expectation. How far a writer takes an inside joke when brainstorming a title is a judgment call. Generally, the more obvious the joke is, the more chance there is for moviegoers to get the joke. (Five) The idea is to be subtle in the setup (all jokes need a setup); don’t hit moviegoers over the head with information and don’t obfuscate the information either. What you want to do in the setup is hide things in plain sight for the moviegoers, making the information needed to understand the joke available, so the information will be there for the moviegoers to get the joke.
Reply
2-06-2009 @ 12:52PM
Astin said...
1.- Sex is the issue, not gender. Gender is a grammatical term, sex is a biological one. So a noun can have a gender, but a person has a sex. The PC era has confused the terms because people were afraid to say "sex".
2.- I think the poster was talking about the fact that someone missed the word "equality" on the original poster the movie title is based on. The point is valid, since one would assume the banner would be seen by SOMEONE who would know what it was supposed to say. Obviously nobody will know the word is missing in the title of the movie though.
3.- It's The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas all over again!
2-06-2009 @ 4:12PM
SOS said...
Astin,
Monika wrote: “equal pay for women in the workplace.” For more than one hundred years “Equal pay for women in the workplace” has been called “gender equality.”
Go check out how many times the term “gender equality” is used when writing about “equal pay for women in the workplace” at the aflcio website here:
http://www.aflcio.org/mediacenter/prsptm/pr03072008a.cfm
I’m going to have to go with what Monika and the aflcio say on this one: K?
Perhaps you saw a movie, with Demi Moore, called G.I.Jane? G.I.Jane is a movie about GENDER EQUALITY and GENDER-NORMING. The term GENDER-NORMING is used in the movie by one of Demi Moore’s instructors; during this scene, just before a door is slamed in Demi’s face an instructor says to her: “If I want your opinion, I’ll give it to you.” That’s my favorite scene.
Reply