Post by amirmukaddas on Mar 16, 2024 5:29:59 GMT
Marketing is everything or at least it should be. Just think of when Amica Geniale was launched on TV, enjoying unprecedented success. What do you think contributed to the success of the series? There was a nice sales funnel there too, starting from the mystery of the author of the book, to the social success that the books had once they were released. Personally I haven't read them and I didn't love the series, despite this I must admit that it was shot very well. This on TV. The same mechanism is activated in cinema, but unfortunately only in American cinema for now. Just think of the success of “The Blair Witch Project”. There it was just a question of marketing. Americans know their way around cinema marketing. They know a thing or two about making trailers that look better than the movies themselves. I recently went to see the film “The Traitor” by Marco Bellocchio. A masterpiece film. Yet they promoted it little and perhaps not even excellently. How much could this film have grossed at the box office? As much as American films, I'm sure. Instead, the films “Loro1” and “Loro2” had strong sponsorship, but I'm not surprised why, given that the story was centered on a prominent political figure. Although not actually appreciated by many, no one wanted to miss the opportunity to go and see a film entirely based on his life.
The motive? Himself and the advertising he has always done in recent years. It was impossible for the film not to hit the box office, regardless of social consensus or not. But let's go back to the target, with respect to the three films I just mentioned: why did the first garner less acclaim than the second? I didn't like Them 1 and Them 2, while I found them great in many aspects, although honestly not for the Denmark Telegram Number Data screenplay. The Traitor had a specific target, it had to target those who knew Buscetta's story or at least had heard of Cosa Nostra. And how many are aware of the story? I myself am ignorant of many aspects of the political events of those years. But I went to the cinema to see this film out of passion, one Sunday at 4.30pm with a friend of mine. Precisely for love, because here in Naples almost no one goes to the cinema at 4.30pm on a summer Sunday to see such an "intense" film. We have the sea which pleasantly distracts us. Loro 1 and Loro 2 had a completely different target and in fact they were able to interest more people, they gathered a user base that didn't necessarily have to know a particular story.
The protagonist of Loro 1 and Loro 2 was and still is part of our lives. He himself is the story, the one we all know. It wasn't necessary to go and see this film with a cultural background behind you, but in "The Traitor" you did. Marketing makes the difference in cinema or should make it, and we in Italy have not yet truly understood how. The productions rely on regional or private funding, not considering that good marketing - starting with the actors - could make this world shine even more, but above all it could return to giving value to Cinema, that of the past, when the multiplexes didn't even exist. I don't want to say that progress isn't beautiful, but there are forms of art - like cinema - that in my opinion should be helped to survive in the age of Netflix and the like.
The motive? Himself and the advertising he has always done in recent years. It was impossible for the film not to hit the box office, regardless of social consensus or not. But let's go back to the target, with respect to the three films I just mentioned: why did the first garner less acclaim than the second? I didn't like Them 1 and Them 2, while I found them great in many aspects, although honestly not for the Denmark Telegram Number Data screenplay. The Traitor had a specific target, it had to target those who knew Buscetta's story or at least had heard of Cosa Nostra. And how many are aware of the story? I myself am ignorant of many aspects of the political events of those years. But I went to the cinema to see this film out of passion, one Sunday at 4.30pm with a friend of mine. Precisely for love, because here in Naples almost no one goes to the cinema at 4.30pm on a summer Sunday to see such an "intense" film. We have the sea which pleasantly distracts us. Loro 1 and Loro 2 had a completely different target and in fact they were able to interest more people, they gathered a user base that didn't necessarily have to know a particular story.
The protagonist of Loro 1 and Loro 2 was and still is part of our lives. He himself is the story, the one we all know. It wasn't necessary to go and see this film with a cultural background behind you, but in "The Traitor" you did. Marketing makes the difference in cinema or should make it, and we in Italy have not yet truly understood how. The productions rely on regional or private funding, not considering that good marketing - starting with the actors - could make this world shine even more, but above all it could return to giving value to Cinema, that of the past, when the multiplexes didn't even exist. I don't want to say that progress isn't beautiful, but there are forms of art - like cinema - that in my opinion should be helped to survive in the age of Netflix and the like.