I haven't been on here in a while so bear with me as I comment on an older posting concerning the "10 Worst Movie Gerund Titles". I realize this is not a list, but I wondered if Matt K would provide a little clarification to his post (other comments are certainly welcome)...
Was the implication in #10 that "Being John Malkovich" was also worthy of placement in the list as a bad title? I ask because I cannot think of a title that would have been more appropriate for that film. The others, especially #'s 1, 2, 4, 5 and 8, could easily have been improved upon, #1 perhaps most (Really, who's doing what in that title?) But what else would you have called "Being John Malkovich"? The other titles read like tailer sound bytes summarizing the conflict that has to be overcome/experienced/etc and were probably thrown out at the pitch meeting, but "Malkovich" isn't about anything except being John Malkovich--there's nothing figurative, no double entendre. It would be like remaking "Elizabeth" with the camera's view representing that of the queen. Wouldn't it be fitting for such a film to be called the obvious? It almost seems like the title of "Malkovich" is purposely invoking the other films on your list so it can then play against their duplicity by being straight forward in its delivery.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Actually, I don't have a problem with "Being John Malkovich," which is a more or less straightforward description of the main action of the film. It may even be, as you say, a quietly subversive parody of the title genre. I only threw it on with Hemingway and Bobby Fischer because it does technically meet the Gerund + Famous Person formula.
Post a Comment