As anyone knows nowadays, going to a movie fresh has become an all but impossible task. What with script leaks, movie leaks, or bloggers revealing too much in their movie posts (Hell, I'm guilty of this but I generally write about movies that were made before I was born, so I think the statute of limitations is on my side), we can give detailed descriptions of movies before even seeing them. Sometimes, however, studios are to blame when they reveal too much information in the trailers they make. This is the first entry in a continuing series in which I examine trailers that are guilty of this crime.
[Warning: Major Spoiler's Ahead]
The preview for Jacob's Ladder is one of the most blatant examples of a trailer revealing too much. Tim Robbins plays Jacob Singer, a Vietnam Vet who experiences horrific flashbacks and demonic visions, the results of not only his combat experience but also of an experimental psychedelic drug that the military tested on his platoon (or so we think). By the film's conclusion, it is revealed that he is already dead (or, more accurately, in the process of dying). After being dealt a fatal wound in combat, as he tries to hold onto his life, his brain creates a continuation of his life in which he moves back to New York after being released from Vietnam. Eventually, he lets go and dies. Unfortunately, the trailer makes this only too abundantly clear, showing a couple instances of characters telling Jacob, "You're already dead." This was, no doubt, a factor in the movie's meager box office returns. Why would viewers at the time want to pay to see a movie whose ending they already knew.
Although this film's ending is not necessarily shocking to anyone who's read Ambrose Bierce's "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge" or seen the French film based on it, Carnival of Souls, or half a dozen "Twilght Zone" episodes; it is nevertheless irksome to know beforehand that this is where the movie is going. Fortunately, this movie has enough going for it that, knowing its ending, will not take away from its power. Several viewings of this movie still have not lessened its ability to shock and unsettle me. Unlike some movies, whose entertainment value hinges on an "ain't I so clever twist" (I'm looking at you, The Usual Suspects and the works of M. Night Shyamalamading-dong.), this movie is more about the journey than the destination. It would still be nice, however, if the trailer manged to leave the destination somewhat mysterious.
(Incidentally, I found this fan made trailer/music video that, although showing more, does a better job of leaving the movie mysterious.)
2 comments:
"meager box office returns"
I don't know about that. I went to see this opening night and the house was packed, so I did a little research. The movie opened at #1 and ended with $26,118,851 against a $25M budget - not a blockbuster but not a "meager" take in 1990, IMO.
(I was 16 then, and this was my first favorite "grown-up" movie, keeping that title until The Crying Game two years later.)
-a fellow movie geek
Touche. It's been a long time since I wrote this piece but I think I wrote that it had "meager box office returns" because it just squeaked by, in terms of a return on investment. Regardless, meager was a wrong word choice. That would imply that the movie didn't even break even. I should have written "merely adequate" or even that it "squeaked by".
Of course, none of this really matters because I don't even know that I still necessarily agree with my original assertion. I really don't know if a trailer revealing too much will actually deter people from watching the movie.
Also, box-office returns is something that I don't really care too much or follow. I don't know why I made a point of mentioning that in my piece.
Moral of the story: Rereading my old writing is kind of painful for me. Yes, it was only a couple years ago, but it still feels like looking at old high school yearbook pictures.
Thanks for the comment. Glad you checked out my blog. Sorry for the unnecessarily long-winded reply.
Post a Comment