Those F$&*@ing Young People, Again.
WHAT'S IN A NAME? Did Young People Fucking bring the new censorship debate on itself? Or is it doing what it's supposed to do?
(Or, Denis caps off a busy week by pimping his commenters as fresh content. Again.)
From the Con side, regular commenter ladycanuck:
For every one of you that is "disappointed" by the choice of the title, there will be 20 who will want to see this movie based on the title alone. Many will see this on DVD and believe me - this title sells.
The producers are smart because yes, controversy sells. It sells their movie and it sells the idea that left wingers who want to stick it to an "oppressive government who wants to censor critically acclaimed movies" needs to see this movie.
See, it builds a movement of anti-censorship and places its must-see movie directly at the center of it. It is a clarion call for people to wake up. You don't have to like the title or the movie for that matter - you just have to hate the idea and the execution of censorship.
If the title were the innocuous "Young People in Love" or something equally "oatmeal", so as not to offend anyone, then the movie would disappear into the landscape and die a well-deserved bland death. But YP FUCKING gets press. Millions and millions of dollars of free publicity that says "YOU MUST SEE THIS MOVIE. NOW."
The title is not "costing" them anything.
YOUNG PEOPLE FUCKING is a GREAT FUCKING TITLE.
It's all about choices, in the end. What's yours?
Have a good weekend.
6 rumbles:
My choice IS Young People Fucking, obviously, with "Fucking" reduced to "F***ing" if it must be. Actually, all this reminds me nostalgically of the controversy of an even sillier time: How Ontario posters blocked out the last two words of Stephen Frears' Sammy and Rosie Get Laid, making it just Sammy and Rosie.
Seconding gfiles. Tangentially, the comment reminds me of a segment I heard on NPR a while back, about written-in bleeping, with the primary example being Arrested Development, and the subversion factor of acknowledging that everyone in the audience over the age of about six knows what's being said. (More or less the same principle as made-up SF swear words. Except those can also be judiciously appropriated by savvy writers of other shows...)
Were they letting themselves in for pretty equal piles of headaches and benefits by giving it that title? Of course. But that's a PR and marketing tangle. What it has to do with whether a film should be funded by a body that exists to fund films is beyond me.
And remember folks, any non-Canadian (e.g., US) film can shoot here and access the tax credits whether or not they use any indelicate or downright raunchy word in their title or on the screen, no problem.
Can't wait for the Supreme Court case.
it's hard to argue with Bill. It probably will get more people to watch than a benign title. My personal take has nothing to do with C-10 or asking for controversy. When a movie has a title like that, my assumption is that it will suck. ( I don't know if this one does or not; I just know that title doesn't demand it be seen by me). It's like when I read that someone accused of a crime has hired Eddie Greenspan. I assume they're guilty. I shouldn't. But I do. And I assume, or at least fear, that movies with catchy titles, (or "dangerous" or "out there") have used up a lot of their catchiness (dangerousness and out thereness) in the title.
I shouldn't judge, or at least pre-judge based on that. But I do.
The ridiculous part of the arguement is that people are making decisions based on the title alone. Having seen the film three times now I can tell you the audiences, most 30 and under but many older as well, really liked it, and laughed loud and often.
Yes, it is hard to argue with me...
Post a Comment