Why J.J. Abrams is a Better Marketer Than a Filmmaker

Scene from 10 Cloverfield Lane
There was a certain point a few weeks ago when the world lost their mind over the first trailer for 10 Cloverfield Lane. In an age where films are announced years in advanced, why would anyone care about a sequel/spin-off/reboot/whatever to Cloverfield almost 10 years later? To a large degree, this comes down to one name: J.J. Abrams. Having been preoccupied with Star Wars: The Force Awakens, it is easy to think that he wouldn't have time to produce any other work. Yet, much like Joss Whedon in 2012 with The Avengers and Much Ado About Nothing, the unexpected happened and now Friday comes with one of the most curious movies of 2016. It is here that I make a suggestion: Abrams is a better marketer than a filmmaker. If I had to summarize in one sentence, it's because he makes you care without knowing too much.
The truth is that the modern world of trailers is both a godsend and a curse. While the average trailer is made to sell to the viewer who doesn't know about various properties, there's still the sense that trailers give too much away. Of course, there are films like The Avengers and X-Men franchises that technically don't need trailers. You'll see them anyways. However, they still proceed to give new battle sequences and protagonists brooding off in the corner. Speaking as this is predominantly a blockbuster movie problem, it almost feels like an insecure measure to sell the obvious. True, trailers aren't technically art in the same ways that movies are. They are obsolescent tools that will be forgotten in a year. However, I'd argue that it is an art form at its core that is devalued due to not selling anything of value most times.
Then there's Abrams. I will get the obvious out of the way first. He is not a great filmmaker. At most, he is one of the many who is skilled in directing franchise films such as Star Trek and Mission: Impossible III. His few diversions into original content, such as Super 8, has greatly been maligned as being subpar. To say the least, he is definitely a strong entity in film and to have his name on your project is important. However, Abrams the director is hardly as lasting as that producer credit - often through his Bad Robot production company. It is here that he becomes what he's truly best at: being a salesman.
As I mentioned, trailers are an inferior art form. Nobody will remember it as more than an informational brochure. However, I want to briefly talk about Alfred Hitchcock, who I'd argue revolutionized the trailer in ways that many have played with, but few have altered beyond conveying mystery without a heavy focus on plot. In 1960, Hitchcock released what is his most popular/iconic film Psycho. In today's world, it is hard not to know the twists, of which have been lampooned to death. Yet there was something to the selling of Psycho that remains just as incredible to its legacy. Hitchcock was a showman as well as a skilled filmmaker. His silhouette was even iconic. What he did wasn't just make good movies. He got you interested in seeing them.
For Psycho, he toured the back lot of Universal Studios where the film was shot. With the actors gone, he explored the sets and elaborated on the mystery. He would point out Norman Bates' house and hint at brutal events. Considering that he was so persnickety about Psycho that he famously bought every last copy of the original book to keep them from circulating and revealing the ending, he made sure to be playfully coy with what he gave away. He even created hype by suggesting that nobody would be seated after Psycho started. It's a bold move, but one that a man with Hitchcock's authority could pull off. It's a marketing campaign so well known that Anthony Hopkins once starred as Hitchcock in a film of the same name.
What does this have to do with Abrams? Quite simple. Hitchcock raised awareness for Psycho by connecting with his audience. While the "trailer" would more likely be an EPK behind the scenes tool today, it still managed to reveal more mystery than answers. You were left wanting more. To say the least, Abrams has become accused of overusing this tool in what is commonly referenced as "the mystery box." The most famous time came in the lead up to Star Trek Into Darkness and he denied Benedict Cumberbatch playing famous villain Khan. This turned out to be true and just showed how eager people were to pick holes in his process.
Cliche or not, Abrams is an auteur at making you interested in a film, no matter how interesting it actually is. For instance, he managed to help invent ceremonies for Star Wars in 2015 so that audiences could slowly get more information about The Force Awakens. True, that film didn't need an ounce of marketing, but the fascinating thing is that the company sustained interest through marketing for well over a year by dropping breadcrumbs that gave viewers something new to analyze. In a sense, this is what Abrams did best. The best part was that, much like in the past, he didn't give away all that much information about the plot - thus leaving viewers to wonder what was really going on.
While this can easily be applied to Abrams' directorial films, he has made an art form out of it thanks to Bad Robot productions. He made an elusive, Spielbergian trailer for Super 8 that showed little more than a train crash. He showed glimpses into the Star Trek world through brief, unintelligible glimpses. However, one of his first major achievements in marketing came for the original Cloverfield: a film that nobody saw coming and featured some of the most inventive uses of found footage techniques in the format's existence. It came out the summer prior as a chaotic video of then unknown actors attending a party only to have it bombarded by an attack outside. We see a glimpse of the monster, but we're more in line with the danger happening around them. 
The big difference between Hitchcock and Abrams merely amounts to 40 years of advancements. Hitchcock couldn't drop URL's into the background of trailers (if he could, nobody could pause and look it up for a variety of reasons). He merely had the cineplex to work with. Abrams has the internet and a knowing audience to deal with. He has to make Star Trek and Star Wars appealing to an audience who already knows the old films by heart. Part of his charm comes on nostalgia and trust. However, it mostly comes from his "mystery box," of which is just as effective as it is cliche. Much like his TV series Lost, the fun is in discussing the film online and trying to understand what was just seen. Abrams is like Hitchcock for the computer age, even if his films aren't as great.
The reason that 10 Cloverfield Lane is so exciting despite being unknown as little as four months ago is because of marketing and awareness. Abrams produced the film and gave the first trailer all of the urgency by which the original Cloverfield came during its initial trailer release. Nobody saw it coming and while the name would strike glee from the audience, there was still this sense that it was something new. After all, the cast wasn't the same. The location wasn't the same. Even the choice to feature a soundtrack wasn't the same. It helps that "I Think We're Alone Now" is perfectly summarized as a cry for help to subvert the song's expectations. By the end, there's an Alien-esque mystery to it all and the questions are back up.
There have been several trailers since to only expand  upon the film's potential subject matter. True, the mystery isn't as mysterious as the first - but what exactly connects this if at all to the original? Is it just the monster? If that's the case, why are they in a bunker and going mad? There's plenty of great questions and it perpetuates something that The Avengers films can't: unpredictability. While the final film is to be judged on its own credit, the trailers manage to convey something exciting about cinema and makes the viewer WANT to see the movie. If you compare to any other horror trailer of the past year (with limited exceptions), you'll always get the jump scares and understanding that makes the film almost entirely ruined before the release date pops up on screen. 
If nothing, I am willing to accept that Abrams is an auteur or marketing film, even if you can argue that the products he's selling aren't that great. One could easily find clues in those original teasers that aren't disingenuous, but also not just giving away a plot. There's a value to what Abrams does to trailers, and you saw it this year in 10 Cloverfield Lane. He even knew how to surprise audiences with the sudden release of a trailer during Michael Bay's 13 Hours movie. There's an art form towards getting people to care, and it's hard to usually tell when franchises already have a dominant presence in culture. Abrams at least tries to make it fun like Hitchcock did, and that is enough to make him relevant as a producer.

Comments