How Bad Buzz Can Be Good
Apparently, I irritated and/or confused a number of people with my Oscar Chart squib on Closer, suggesting that the “bad buzz” on the film was a good sign.
To clarify, not that many people have actually seen Closer. Some people claim it is locked while others talk about re-shoots as recently as two weeks ago. It is a major part of the September/early October predictions game, especially in a year in which the contenders seem to be ready to be selected off of a dart board. Everyone wants to know, so minor rumors, with little other fuel available, become “what I hear,” all over town.
In the case of Closer, the negative buzz has been pretty consistent… and pretty ignorant. The main attack is that the film is “cold.” Is that English Patient cold or Cold Mountain cold? Is that a Traffic chill or a Full Frontal wind?
But what Closer is getting that Alexander and The Aviator and Phantom of the Opera – the other right down the center major Oscar-bait movies of the season – are not is this constant sense that it is under attack already. And to me, that suggests that “they” are more scared of Closer than they are the other films. “They” also have more information, as Closer is a very well-respected stage play whose positives and negatives are very accessible to anyone with 20 bucks and a Samuel French bookstore nearby.
When people start lining up to smear a film this early… especially a film that, unlike so many, the long lead press has not had an opportunity to start backstabbing (how many times have I heard a studio claim that Outlet X loved something when people from Outlet X are telling every colleague in town that it sucks)… that film has some power. And any idiot can tell you that Mike Nichols and Julia Roberts and Jude Law and Natalie Portman are going to get all the attention they need and that the movie will run or stumble on its own merits, not what we Oscar baiters – whether a Webster like myself or “mainstream” mooks with a million readers – have to say about it.
And that is why bad buzz can be a good sign.
I see films often and every time the trailer for Closer ran I didn’t detect any reaction from the audiences. Maybe the film will be better than the trailer but right now I DO feel cold about it.
The Closer trailer really does put me out. It’s
just a creep adult swingers flick with two actresses
who have about as much warmth to their sexual personas
as on screen as Patty and Selma from the Simpsons.
They are pretty women, but they surely dont make a man
jump out of his seat while watching Portman on a pole.
Of course if Keira Knightley were on that pool; HOT DOG.
Closer just seems way too creepy, way to sexually
creepy. Hopefully Nichols pulled off a good film,
but they should put out another trailer that does
not chill the balls of the males in the audience.
I’ve seen the trailer for Closer several times and the other members of the audience seemed pretty interested in the film. Several people laughed when Natalie Portman’s character said about Julia Roberts’ character “She’s…tall.” *Many* of the males in the audience whistled when Natalie Portman was dressed as a stripper and bent over. I did hear a few groans when some people saw Julia Roberts but Jude Law recieved one very loud whistle from the woman sitting next to me. So this whole “it’s cold” business is news to me.
I just don’t understand why Nichols had to choose Natalie Portman to play a stripper. She’s been very reluctant when her kiddie movies require some minor nudity (Where the Heart Is, and such,)and for the most part has objected roles that are sexual. Now, why on earth is she taking that role, if it goes against her values? To put herself as a stripper, and on top of that require that her nude scenes are taken out of a MOVIE ABOUT SEX, doesn’t make much sense to me. I mean, either she will do the scene or she won’t, and if she won’t, she shouldn’t be in that role. Movies have nudity and nudity is always a good part of the action in sex-themed films, and viewers expect that in response to the movie’s theme, Closer is a movie which has SEX as central theme, and it’s just hard to imagine how or why a stripper appearing in that kind of movie will simply not be showing even her boobs, which is the bare minimum a stripper in real life shows. Why doesn’t Natalie refuse the role altogether to allow some other girl to do the part? I mean, there are girls who are much sexier than Natalie, so it’s not like Natalie is just “perfect” for the role,(like mentioned above, Keira Knightley, who is quite sexy and beautiful) and who would also do a great job without the additional requirements. I just don’t get these people. Picking the wrong role and trying to accomodate it to their own personal needs, instead of the other way around.. It would seem like the movie was “all about Natalie”. Not really intended for the public to enjoy, but for Natalie to act in it and be comfortable and happy. Give me a break.
well none of us have seen the movie so this is all heresay. I do think this practice of uptight chicks playing nasty girl roles has a long lineage. I mean Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman. Its a movie about a chick that sucks dudes cocks fora living and you’d think she was Mother Theresa or something based on how much skin we saw. Of course this is the director’s fault and not Natalie’s. The audience gets it though, and if it looks like the actor’s not giving it their all then everyone loses interest. A movie about a stripper that isn’t naked is pretty ridiculous. Its like that piece of crap Almost Famous saying rock stars didnt do drugs or fuck the fans. But it all comes back to the director, don’t blame the actor.
BTW, Nichols had a topless stripper 30 years ago in the Graduate. Has he gotten more conservative in his old age?