By Thomas Willett
As everyone knows, I love this time of year. Since I last left you, I have been catching up on the Oscar nominees. I still argue some things didn’t deserve recognition, but I’m growing humble towards the subject. In fact, the only particular title I loathe ever seeing is Albert Nobbs, even with some good actors like Mia Wasikowska and Aaron Johnson on display. Besides that, I am mostly ready to be a mature commentator as it happens (no guarantee on avoiding last year’s freak, expletive-laced rant when it seemed eminent what would win as Tom Hooper gave his acceptance speech).
Like I said, I am trying to be mature this time. I’ve slowly come around to not just calling the movie garbage because I don’t like the director. I’m trying to use an analytical approach to justify what venom I would spray. Beside the point, this is not particularly a strong year. There are front runners, but the choices seem so diverse and differ in overall quality that it’s hard to really justify anything being snubbed. Thematically, there’s a lot of tradition in the choices and very little is surprising. Do I wish Drive was up there? Yes, but the more I analyze history, the less I’m shocked.
During a recent dinner with my mother, another issue came up. While I was able to elaborate on the entire gambit, one thing bothered me. We could talk about The Descendants and The Artist with fair consistency. Even The Tree of Life rolled off the tongue naturally. It was the most recent movie that we saw that kept choking me up. In fact, it’s been one I’ve tried to shorten to avoid awkward phrasing. At no point in conversation was it easy to use repeatedly to make valid points. I actually really enjoyed this movie and would recommend it, but in average conversation, I just feel awkward saying it. I’m sure that you do too…
Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close
There is so much that annoys me about that title that I didn’t realize until conversations began to spring up. The obvious is that the title features ten syllables and would probably fit an entire marquee as opposed to the traditional 1-2 lines. This isn’t a subtitle like Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, this is the legitimate title. Most of all, what does it say about the product? Does it roll off the tongue and have a catchy flow that makes you want to see it?
I’m not saying that every title should be catchy. I’m just saying that it should be succinct and to the point. Even a title as stupid as Jeff Who Lives at Home gets the concept across without making you dyslexic. Your title doesn’t necessarily have to be short, one word with three syllables, but they should be able to grab you without making you trip up over the wording.
For example, at 11 syllables, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button has an alliterative, smooth flow to it. The combination of double consonants just makes it stick to the tongue better. It has a whimsical sense that fits the movie without resorting to making you feel stupid with a cheap rhyming gimmick like the 12 syllable title Mr. Magorium’s Wonder Emporium. You shouldn’t feel stupid saying the title, and Benjamin Button rarely feels long-winded. The best part is that it gets the concept across without beating it over your head. For bonus points, it wins on the merit that it can be shortened to either Curious Case or Benjamin Button without too much confusion.
I feel it’s important to be able to have titles that can be shortened if you’re over 8 syllables. It’s rare in the average conversation for anyone to cite a title repeatedly if it cuts into too many seconds. For starters, once the title is established, it should be able to be referenced casually without speaking those 8 syllables. One of my favorite movies, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, is on the borderline and a prime example of risking the endurance factor. It needs to be moved into something short and snappy. Like a good title, it should have a word or phrase that can be used. In most cases, the best ones are 3-5 syllables. For this one, it clocks in at 3 syllables with Cuckoo’s Nest. If anything, it makes you sound hip.
I will get into shorter titles later on in this entry, but right now I would like to establish what the big issue with this Stephen Daldry movie title is. To remind you, it’s Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close.
While I love the inclusion of ampersands, it doesn’t feel like its connecting two things that are important. It can easily be assumed what is loud and close, but how is this going to grab you? Has a title ever lacked nouns and been memorable? They have, but rarely do they stretch out too long. Titles like Up are hard to come by, and even then in casual conversations, it’s hard to reference Up without some lead in at first. The reason that Up works is because it’s short and sweet. If you just begin throwing random adverbs and adjectives in front of titles, you’ll find you look a little crazy after the fourth word.
Also, while adverbs can be used effectively, they shouldn’t overpower your title. They rarely are direct descriptions of your movie and only should be used to state something strange. For example, 8 syllable title Desperately Seeking Susan features an adverb, but is more used to set the mood for what is to come. If you remove the word, do we know what Susan is, or what this person is seeking in her? It creates a descriptor that helps to clarify how we should see our protagonist. Most of all, it’s used as a lead in to the subject at the end of the title.
Going back to the syllable count, it’s also important that your words don’t feel longwinded. Incredibly and extremely are 3-4 syllables. Attach them to words that aren’t used as descriptors and you are ready to be misread. Besides both starting with similar vowel sounds, the insignificance of loud and close’s placement in that title only adds to confusion. It is impossible to use in casual conversation because of too many similar words getting jumbled up.
Because there are no descriptors, there is very little ways to shorten it. Is it possible to call this Extremely Loud and get the point across? Probably. However, it’s the longwinded feel of the adverb and the pointless nature of the adjective. It doesn’t feel right using redundant language to discuss this movie. It leaves the speaker feeling like Mr. Magorium’s Wonder Emporium is not such a bad title after all. At least that one can be shortened in three different ways.
Is it possible for two adjective assisted phrases to be combined by a conjunction? It happens quite often. Five syllable Good Night and Good Luck may sound like a poor comparison, but it does right everything that Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close does wrong. It presents an idea without making it feel too wordy. It has the descriptors. It has the conjunctions. It has a nice ring to it as well. We’re left wondering what we should be wished good luck for. Does the other movie give us that?
I think that in the long haul, the title will be what kills this movie’s legacy. While it is a good film that I feel will open gateways for better 9-11 narratives, its title is too tedious and tiresome. Also, it cannot be boiled down to a basic idea that feels authentic. Most of the time, I stumble over the title before just calling it “that 9-11 movie.” Referring to anything with that much ambiguity doesn’t make it stand out amongst other movies that could be “that 9-11 movie” like United 93 or World Trade Center. The only difference is that those titles have specificity on their side and can be easily defined. So unless something radical helps push it into the zeitgeist, like some unknown controversy, this film will fail because the title causes too much trouble to anyone who utters it.
While it’s not the necessity, I would opt for a short title that gets the point across. If anything, I feel that movies that go for brevity manage to be remembered better. If you’re able to also get across the theme with authentic wording, it may transcend time.
What do these movies have in common: Groundhog Day, Apocalypse Now, Fight Club, and The Lion King?
They all transcended time because of their simplicity. Majority of people probably haven’t seen all of these, but they are titles that can easily be recognized in casual conversation. They’re brief and to the point. Another achievement is their ability to work fairly well into puns. You know all of those comedy sketches and tragedy pieces that go: “APOCALYPSE _____!” That’s most likely based off of Francis Ford Coppola’s classic war epic. At most, Daldry’s title can be lampooned by replacing the adjectives. Even then, few will get that joke.
I want to state that I am not writing this piece to argue quality. I am simply getting down to the alliterative side of the conversation. In my opinion, this is crucial if you want your movie to have legs. I am not going to be using comparisons to films like Alvin and the Chipmunks that use puns like Chipwrecked and the Squeakquel. Those epitomize bad titles that appeal to the lowest common denominator. Those movies end up being the lowest common denominator. There is no challenge in those and because they’re terrible, they are remembered. I assure you that no one would remember those movies without those terrible puns.
I am writing this because I really liked Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close and would like to talk about it more. I just find it awkward to say regularly because sure enough no one remembers the exact order of the words. I understand that it was based off of the book by Jonathan Safran Foer, but the art of novels is not a world I feel comfortable dissecting (though as fellow writers, they should’ve realized how awkward that title was). At best, I would’ve been fine with a title that insinuated something that happened during the story, like the big reconnaissance that is repeatedly referenced. It’s not nearly as catchy, but neither is The Artist or The Descendants. A movie title doesn’t need to be flashy to be appealing. I feel that Daldry’s choice is a prime example of when it goes wrong.
If anything, I want to help you avoid ending up in an argument like this .
So when naming your movie; please make sure to not put yourself into a hole. You can make your title alliterative, brief, or distinct. Just make sure to know that you’re selling this product to viewers. Think from their perspective. If I were to blindly ask you to watch a movie either called Going My Way or the Lost Weekend, which would you choose based on title alone? They both won Best Picture, but now to general audiences they are mere titles. If it were up to me, I feel that the latter offers more surprise. Think about ways your title can withstand time. Simple language can be the difference between a curious viewer and anonymity.
You can read Thom’s blog every Wednesday and hear him on Nerd’s Eye View every Tuesday and Thursday at nevpodcast.com . Send your thoughts to nevpodcast@gmail.com. You can also read Thom’s movie reviews for Cinema Beach at cinemabeach.com .
Comments
Post a Comment