The new movie starring Sarah Jessica Parker – called Family Stone<\/i> has been getting a HUGE advertisement push. It’s all been featuring Sarah Jessica as well – with a couple of interesting shots of the wonderful Rachel McAdams (gotta keep an eye on that girl – she’s very very good). As a matter of fact, the commercials I’ve seen have all ENDED with a line from the Rachel McAdams character – instead of Sarah Jessica. All of this MEANS something: nothing is accidental in these advertisements. Sarah Jessica, because of Sex and the City<\/i> probably has more clout than McAdams does – it’s just the way it goes. That is changing – as we speak – but this is where we are at now. It’s a Sarah Jessica Parker vehicle and so the first draft of the commercials have focused all on her. It’s not about making a star out of Rachel McAdams, it’s about getting the Sarah Jessica Parker fans into the theatre. But obviously, things don’t always work out the way they’re supposed to. Girl Interrupted<\/i> is the perfect example. Winona Ryder was a way bigger star than Angelina Jolie at that time – which is hard to believe now – but it was true then. Ryder produced that movie. Unfortunately for Winona but luckily for all of us – Angelina Jolie WAS cast – and who got the Oscar? Who does everyone remember from that film? It didn’t MATTER that Winona had more “power”, in terms of star power and negotiating power. Jolie was better. Period. She acted Winona Ryder off the screen. <\/p>\n
It’s obvious, to me, from the amount of time she is given in the commercial that Rachel McAdams is pretty great in this film – and the powers-that-be want to make sure that we GET that before going in. They assume that Sarah Jessica has huge brand-name recognition – so there’s lots of shots of her – but the commercial is cluttered with cameos of other people. A big “ensemble” drama.<\/p>\n
I immediately thought: Well, I like Rachel McAdams – but … I’ll probably pass on this one.<\/p>\n
The commercial – that first version of it – just didn’t appeal to me. It looked kind of dumb and while I am a mild fan of Sarah Jessica (When I was a kid – I saw her as Little Orphan Annie on Broadway – she was 12 years old – so she has my love and loyalty forever!! Not to mention Square Pegs<\/i>) – but it looked like a dumb conventional premise with a lot of shots of Sarah Jessica running around being awkward, clumsy, and over-eager. Now she does all of that stuff REALLY well – but it can get tiresome. The commercials seemed to be all about her – with a tiny smidgeon of the wonderful McAdams – so I thought: Whatever. No thanks.<\/p>\n
But, in the last couple of days, they have released a new batch of trailers. <\/p>\n
I I saw the commercial and felt a bolt of excitement: “Diane Keaton has a new movie out?”<\/p>\n
Diane Keaton was barely in <\/i>the first run of the commercials for the film and now – it is all about her – with a voiceover saying stuff like: “Critics agree: Diane Keaton is God’s gift to acting” or whatever it says. Like – her NAME is mentioned. This is a huge shift.<\/p>\n
Sarah Jessica has now almost completely disappeared from the commercials and Rachel McAdams is still there, slightly, but now the commercials are ALL ABOUT Diane Keaton. Obviously the test audiences raved about Keaton. So they cut out Sarah Jessica – and pushed Diane to the foreground. And we get articles like this<\/a>. I’ve seen a couple of them. NOTHING on Sarah Jessica. Or – nothing good anyway.<\/p>\n When you get right down to it: the whole thing is Darwinian. May the best actor win. It’s not “fair”. What would be “fair” (in the world of the people who make such decisions – and the army of publicists hired by Sarah Jessica Parker) is that Parker would have a huge triumph with her first post-Sex and the City<\/i> job. That she would be embraced by a larger audience. Now – I loved Sex and the City<\/i> and watched it religiously – but do I think that means she can be a movie star? Actually, no – I think her talent is pretty much a small-screen talent. This is in NO WAY an insult. I could see her doing fabulous work on sit-coms until she was an old lady. That, to me, is her sensibility. But what would be “fair” – would be her having a huge hit in this film. But audiences, in their infinite wisdom, know best. They don’t do what advertising execs tell them to do. They don’t say, “Sarah Jessica was the best” just because advertising execs WANT them to. They say, “Diane Keaton was so good!!!” Now audiences are stupid a lot of the time as well – but for the most part? When it comes to truth onscreen? They know. Audiences know when they are being lied to, pandered, manipulated. They LOVE it when a movie (or an actor) doesn’t do that. This seems to be one of those cases.<\/p>\n As a massive Diane Keaton fan from … the dawn of time … I am really happy she’s getting such accolades. She deserves it. But then again – if she sat down and read the phone book to me in a monotone voice, I would give her a standing ovation.<\/p>\n So now actually I am thinking of going to see it. All because they re-cut the commercial, to let me know who was REALLY doing well in the film. I would never gone to see it just for Parker. But now? With the reviews Keaton is getting? One of my favorite actresses? (Ahem<\/a>.) A national treasure? Sure. I want to see it now.<\/p>\n I find the whole preview-audience and test-run commercial thing SO fascinating – especially when I catch the changes. It’s really interesting.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The new movie starring Sarah Jessica Parker – called Family Stone has been getting a HUGE advertisement push. It’s all been featuring Sarah Jessica as well – with a couple of interesting shots of the wonderful Rachel McAdams (gotta keep … Continue reading