March
12
Bond 22's Quantum of Solace Is a Bad Title
What's in a movie title? Well, according to guest essayist Jack Lechner, a New York-based author, producer and music theater maven, a great deal. Inspired by what he considers to be a terrible title for Bond 22, Quantum of Solace, Lechner argues that bad titles can kill good movies. While I agree with Jack on just about everything he says in this piece--a bad title didn't help, for example, A Mighty Heart--I suspect that even a godawful title like this can't sink the Bond franchise. After all, Star Wars survived even Episode 1--The Phantom Menace.
QUANTUM OF CINDERELLA By Jack LechnerIt’s official: The next James Bond film will be called Quantum of Solace. This announcement has already caused much head-scratching throughout the world – or at least the part of the world that cares about James Bond, which is a significant fraction of same. Apparently, Quantum of Solace is the title of a short story by Bond creator Ian Fleming, and after 21 movies, the Bond producers have used every other Fleming title except for his non-fiction books Thrilling Cities and The Diamond Smugglers. Either of which, by the way, would be a better title for a James Bond movie than Quantum of Solace.
I used to work for the director Alan Parker, who once told me that “A good title is the title of a successful movie.” His point was that if the movie works, it carries the title along with it. Of course, he made this point while explaining why he wouldn’t change the title of his film Come See The Paradise, despite the fact that it had only a vague connection to the story. Did the title keep the movie from connecting with its audience? Sir Alan may still disagree, but I think it did.
What makes a title bad? It’s usually one of these factors:
1) It’s incomprehensible until you see the movie – but not intriguing enough to make you want to see it. Examples: A Stir Of Echoes, The Astronaut Farmer -- and, alas, Come See The Paradise. This strikes me as the trap for Quantum of Solace as well. Like most of the bad titles in this category, it aims for poetry, but settles for awkward prose.
2) It sends a misleading signal about tone or content. The classic example here is Cinderella Man. Back in 2005, there were all kinds of theories about why this textbook crowd-pleaser didn’t perform up to expectations. Was it too serious for a summer release? Perhaps the audience had no further appetite for boxing movies after seeing Million Dollar Baby? Or did Russell Crowe alienate America when he hurled a telephone at a concierge?
To my amazement, nobody mentioned the title. Maybe it’s because I have a young daughter, but I can’t be the only person for whom the title Cinderella Man evoked the image of Russell Crowe in a frilly pink dress with sparkly glass slippers. My take is that men thought it was a chick flick, while women preferred their Cinderellas in more traditional ballroom attire.
Of course, the producers and studio executives never thought to blame the title, because it had become invisible to them. The project was in development for years, and it was called Cinderella Man from the beginning. Everyone involved with it had long since forgotten that the title actually meant something to people who hadn’t seen the film -- that it had overtones, connotations, baggage. Even Humpty Dumpty’s mother thought his name sounded like music.
3) It's just boring. Which is why, despite great reviews and numerous Oscar nominations, Michael Clayton has stubbornly refused to cross the $50 million mark at the box office. Having seen and loved the film, I'm convinced it would have done considerably better with a title like The Price of Death, or even (with apologies to Bernard Malamud) The Fixer. The title Michael Clayton tells you nothing useful about the movie -- unlike other full-name titles like Annie Hall (Woody Allen makes his first movie about real people!) or Erin Brockovich (Julia Roberts plays an unconventional character!). All Michael Clayton tells you is that George Clooney is playing ... some guy. Some enticement.
4) It’s Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever.
Despite the ever-increasing reach of the Hollywood marketing machine, many people still go to the movies without knowing much about what they’re going to see. They may or may not know the star; they may or may not know the premise; but they always know the title before they buy a ticket. If the title turns them off, it doesn’t matter how drastically you adjust the campaign after the opening weekend -- you’ve already lost them.But why settle for a bad title at all? Sure, not every movie can have a mellifluous attention-grabber like Raiders of the Lost Ark or -- to cite only one of the catchy Ian Fleming titles that preceded Quantum of Solace -- Live and Let Die. But even a romantic comedy can be Four Weddings and a Funeral or There's Something About Mary; even a serious drama can be Sex, Lies, & Videotape or Dog Day Afternoon; and even an action thriller, in a genre cursed with more generic titles than any other, can be Speed or Con Air instead of Executive Decision or Striking Distance. All it takes is imagination, high standards, and a willingness to think outside the box. (Personally, I'd like to see a comeback for memorable, evocative long titles, like Two or Three Things I Know About Her or Jonah Who Will Be 25 in the Year 2000.)
The catch, to the despair of market researchers everywhere, is that titling is an art rather than a science. I know this firsthand. Years ago, I worked on a film called The Soldier’s Wife. I thought it was a great title, especially since it helped support a plot twist in the second act. So I was distraught when director Neil Jordan decided to retitle the film at the last minute, naming it after an old song (much like his earlier hit Mona Lisa). “It sounds like a weepy TV movie!” I told producer Steve Woolley. “Nobody is going to want to see The Crying Game!” I don’t need to tell you how wrong I was -- but I bet my Soldier’s Wife T-shirt could be worth a lot on eBay now.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
Well put. Roger Corman always thought that a title should tell you what the movie is about & be an adjective to the movie's noun.
It should be active, especially if you come across it as you are looking down a list of playing times. Which is another way of agreeing with you. A classic Corman title-"Eat My Dust!", or "Caged Heat", or "The Wild Angels"
Posted by: Allan Arkush | March 12, 2008 at 01:38 PM
Jack Lechner is wrong. He's wrong about Quantum of Solace being a bad title. He's wrong about it being incomprehensible. He's wrong about it being misleading. He's wrong about it being boring.
Jack seems unwilling to realize two things, or is completely unaware of them.
First, the film will be titled JAMES BOND 007 in A QUANTUM OF SOLACE. The James Bond part of the title, though usually in small print, is very important. The second is that the target audience are already fans of spy stories with bizarre names.
The Tom Clancy SPLINTER CELL series of games are hugely successful and many have very bizarre names -- I am not referring to the words SPLINTER or CELL either. I'm referring to "CHAOS THEORY" and "PANDORA TOMORROW." PANDORA TOMORROW? "Really, that's the name of a best selling video game?" you ask.
Yes. A highly successful game at that.
I'd say that outside some isolated critical community that Quantum of Solace sounds awesome, particularly following up on the last film. A quantum of solace is exactly what we might believe Bond deserves, but he's unlikely to receive one.
The title is thought provoking. The title is memorable. And the title has the benefit of franchise.
Add to this the fact that the last Bond film was the first, at least that I can remember, where the theme song wasn't a titular song. "YOU KNOW MY NAME" was an amazing anthem and even thinking about that song makes me want to rewatch the movie. We no longer have to worry what a QUANTUM OF SOLACE song would sound like, which would admittedly be weird. Instead, we can wonder at what part of Bond's psyche will be revealed in the new song.
Posted by: Christian Johnson | March 12, 2008 at 05:33 PM
Well, I can say I disagree with Jack about it being a bad title. I don't think so and from last check on popular Bond fan sites, the fans have been actually very approving of the title as they usually are when it comes to Fleming. I don't think Jack really knows what he's talking about concerning Bond here. He mentions Thrilling Cities and The Diamond Smugglers, but he fails to remember Risico, The Property of a Lady, and 007 in New York (Oh by the way Jack, 007 in New York was a James Bond short story in Thrilling Cities) - more of Fleming's short stories that have not been used by Eon Productions. Regardless even a bad title can't stop James Bond since it's James Bond that sells that movie, not the title.
The problem with Quantum of Solace is that it's different. My God! A Bond title that doesn't include death, sex, greed or some sort of precious metal? Unthinkable.
Posted by: K1Bond007 | March 12, 2008 at 08:23 PM
取一個好名字對一部電影來說的確是畫龍點睛之事
Posted by: smile.z | March 13, 2008 at 01:15 AM
May I add Children of Men to the list? I appreciate it is the title of the book on which the film is based, but it makes a roaring low-fi thriller sound like, well, I'm not sure. Don't all children come from men? It's like naming your film "Puppies of Dogs".
Posted by: Jack Malvern | March 13, 2008 at 06:22 AM
Lechner is right @ SOLACE and there are many Bond fans who agree.
My best mate Derek has read the entire canon and thought that using what was perfect as short story as a film title is bloody horrible idea.
Perhaps there's enough time that by May there will be another announcement out of cadre at Ion that they have come to their senses and re-titled it.
Posted by: CinemaPhreek | March 14, 2008 at 10:58 AM
Sorry, but Lechner is about as right as THE SOLDIER'S WIFE on regards to QUANTUM OF SOLACE.
In case to refresh everyone's memories, there has already been cases of bad titling in the James Bond series, using some of the Ian Fleming titles, and yet, nothing went wrong with it in the end. After all, the Bond series are much stronger than any weird title and the fact that Daniel Craig is back with a supertrailer with intriguing action sequences will put everyone's concerns to rest.
Come November 2008, let's see who's betting right.
PS: also, who is the dumbass who insists thinking that the title song will be QUANTUM OF SOLACE? CASINO ROYALE's was YOU KNOW MY NAME, THE SPY WHO LOVED ME was NOBODY DOES IT BETTER, while for OCTOPUSSY was ALL TIME HIGH and ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE the title song was WE HAVE ALL THE TIME IN THE WORLD. It would be more than obvious that the producers will ask David Arnold to come up with a title song different than the film title itself, just looking at the complexity of matching SOLACE with QUANTUM....
Posted by: ch2studiolab | March 15, 2008 at 11:01 AM
The Rundown is a fun movie with a TERRIBLE title.
Posted by: Kristina | March 15, 2008 at 01:41 PM
In this case the title of a James Bond movie doesn't matter. The success of Casino Royale proved that James Bond is still relevant and people really like and appreciate Daniel Craig's version of 007. It will not make as much money as CR, but it will still make enough to keep the franchise going and of course DVD sales will be strong.
Posted by: Jimmy | March 24, 2008 at 07:40 AM
well the movie is just awesome , but for making an arrangement to go and watch it i dun have that much time, but i must say the concierge service is just out standing they do all stuff for you , they really make your life easy going .
Posted by: concierge | December 23, 2008 at 09:37 PM
so good! I LOVE YOU ! YOUR POST IS GREAT,thx
Posted by: replica handbags | October 23, 2009 at 11:52 PM