The 'Humpday' DVD Cover Has Been De-Gayed
Filed under: Magnolia, Home Entertainment, Movie Marketing, Posters
Ask anyone who has seen Humpday, the low-budget indie comedy that's been getting rave reviews since Sundance, and they'll tell you it's NOT a gay movie. They will tell you this because otherwise it really sounds like it is: It's about two straight male friends who decide to video themselves having sex as a sort of artistic expression. But what it's really about is how heterosexual male friendships work in the 21st century, and its portrayal of those relationships is hilariously, insightfully dead-on. That's why so many straight people who wouldn't enjoy a "gay movie" are enjoying this one -- because it's about straightness.But convincing people to see the film has been a hard sell all year long, and to be honest, the poster wasn't helping. The movie is called Humpday. Its tagline -- "Some loves are meant to be. This one, not so much" -- and its scruffy stars suggest a gay hipster romantic comedy. The title hides their guts, makes them look thinner than they are. The poster is pink, for crying out loud. Once you've seen the movie, the poster feels perfect for it -- masculine, with a hint of irony about how obsessed we are with being masculine. (The flowery wallpaper is a nice touch.) But without having seen the movie, the poster just looks ... well, gay. Which the movie isn't.
It seems like the people at Magnolia might have been thinking along these same lines, because the DVD cover -- which only seems to be posted at Amazon so far -- changes the color scheme to blue and shoves a wife between the two man friends. Here it is, after the jump:
(That's Alycia Delmore, who plays Mark Duplass' wife. The other actor is Joshua Leonard.) They've skewed the spacing in the title, to play up the humor some more, relieve some of that sexual tension. The guys' bellies are showing now, too, and those are definitely some guts designed for comedy. Knowing nothing about the film, you might even think the plot is about these two men fighting over this woman. (Why are they in their underwear? Who knows! Maybe it comes from one of the film's wackiest scenes!) My first impression whenever something about a film is changed for the DVD is that they're backpedaling on something, or overplaying one element over another to boost sales -- I'm skeptical, in other words. But I think this change actually serves the movie better. The story is centered on the two men, but the one guy's relationship with his wife is a key secondary component, and the wife figures very prominently in the film. It's not misleading at all to put her on the DVD cover. It more accurately conveys the complexities of the movie -- which is, as I said, not a gay movie. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Jeremy Renner Wants To Be An Avenger
Directors We Love: Jim Jarmusch
Indie Roundup: 'Sweetgrass,' 'Clarkworld,' 'Broken Embraces'
Shelf Life: Fight Club_thumbnail.jpg)
Watch: Famous 'Matrix' Scene Re-Created with LEGOs
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
8-26-2009 @ 2:39PM
Jeremy said...
The same thing happened ironically with another film starring Duplass, Joe Swanberg's "Hannah Takes the Stairs." Why are distribution companies taking it upon themselves to ruin cover art? I realize that they're trying to market the film to a wider audience but maybe Magnolia should take a page out of Benten Films http://www.bentenfilms.com book and give DVD collectors something to appreciate especially on a film with such limited release?
Reply
8-26-2009 @ 12:00PM
NP said...
"But I think this change actually serves the movie better."
Or else the change (and you, no matter how you try to justify it) are playing right into the thinly veiled homophobia that prevented a critically acclaimed comedy from becoming a success. Now the cover basically looks like every other disposable rom com.
Reply
8-26-2009 @ 12:12PM
Scott Nye said...
Honestly, if it gets more people to see it, I could care less if the DVD cover a) accurately represents the film, or b) plays into any sort of national homophobia (which I've never found to be thinly veiled). I'm a big fan of great poster/DVD cover art, but this is a film that plays very well to the masses, if only the masses would show up to see it. The more you can make this look like a Paul Rudd/Jason Segel buddy comedy, the better, because it plays a lot like a better version of I Love You, Man (a movie I liked a lot, as it happens).
Reply
8-26-2009 @ 11:10PM
Nick said...
"That's why so many straight people who wouldn't enjoy a "gay movie" are enjoying this one -- because it's about straightness."
Yeah no straight person could enjoy a "gay movie," and conversly no gay person could enjoy a "straight movie." Man it must suck being a gay film fan, having so few movies to choose from, "Annie Hall? No, too fucking straight...The Godfather? Ugh, more straight people...Oh I know, Humpday! That looks like a 'gay movie' What's that? Eric Snider says it's NOT a gay movie...well shucks! I suppose I wouldn't enjoy that then..."
Must have been only gay people who saw Brokeback Mountain.
Reply
11-15-2009 @ 4:39PM
Thomas said...
Nick you are speaking for everybody and it wouldn't be so bad if you were correct but you're not. I am a straight male and I can watch a gay film depending on how far it goes and what the movie is really about and how good the movie actually is.
Everybody wants to talk about Brokeback Mountain. Brokeback Mountain was decent but it wasn't the phenomenal piece that people were making it out to be. I watched the movie for that reason and was disappointed.
Jake Gyllanhaul and Heath Ledger were straight and it was obvious. This movie portrayed two friends that maybe just got a little too close. I didn't even believe they were in love. A female I watched it with wasn't that impressed with it either and thought the movie might have been better if it was two gay actors playing the roles. I think I have to agree.
Now another movie A Home At The End of the World, Colin Farrell completely transformed himself for this movie. It touched on somewhat of the same issues and a much better film but isn't widely known.
The 24th Day with James Marsdan is a really good film as well that dealt with a one night stand between a gay guy and straight guy. It was well done and really dialogue based film. But it stopped about being about gay sex and more about responsibility, lies, and morals.
My point is, Straight people can like gay films, and gay people can like straight films. That second sentence I wholeheartedly disagreed with cause I know a lot of gay people that watch straight movies all the time.
8-27-2009 @ 1:04AM
Rulother said...
lol Nick my thoughts exactly.
Reply
8-27-2009 @ 1:57AM
David Cornelius said...
The new art also seems to emphasize Joshua Leonard's character's arm tattoos. Very macho.
(The real travesty isn't so much the un-gaying, but the lousy Photoshopping. Now it looks like just another crummy paste-up.)
Reply
8-27-2009 @ 6:25PM
CW said...
Nick and Rulother: Time for some grammatical nitpicking. Here's what Eric wrote:
"That's why so many straight people who wouldn't enjoy a "gay movie" are enjoying this one -- because it's about straightness."
That is NOT the same thing as:
"That's why so many straight people, who wouldn't enjoy a "gay movie," are enjoying this one -- because it's about straightness."
(Notice the commas!)
The second sentence (the one Eric didn't write) would imply that all straight people dislike gay movies. But the first sentence (the real sentence from the article) means that there is a subset of straight people who don't enjoy gay movies and thus would be scared off by the pink poster. That strikes me as a true and inoffensive statement.
Reply
8-28-2009 @ 3:33PM
Nick said...
Except that the very idea is offensive, and Snider's comments about it's normalcy are aswell.
9-01-2009 @ 5:53PM
Jonathan Kuhn said...
How is the idea that people don't like gay movies offensive? Is it offensive if someone doesn't like period pieces?
9-02-2009 @ 12:56AM
CW said...
What I meant by "true and inoffensive" was this: You may find it offensive that some people don't like gay movies, but simply SAYING that some people don't like gay movies isn't offensive. As another example, the Nazis killing 6 million Jews was horribly offensive, but *saying* that the Nazis killed 6 million Jews is not offensive. It's a fact. It's also a fact that some consumers aren't interested in movies with gay themes.