Titles can be tricky things. Both to arrive at, and then for the general populace to figure out whether they appeal to them, which ultimately should lead to commercial success. Anyone who has had the experience of trying to come up with a title (no matter for how trivial a subject) in a group setting is likely familiar with the process whereby people start volunteering names at a steady clip, then there is a lull as it dawns on everyone that this might be harder than it seems, and then there is a period where, after agreement, people start tossing out names that descend into complete silliness, before everyone reorganizes and finally picks a winner.
To mix mediums here, novelist Peter Benchley had a devil of a time coming up with what ultimately became “Jaws,” which everyone he talked to hated, but at least could reach some sort of consensus on. Benchley Sr. suggested, presumably with tongue firmly in cheek, the title, “What Dat’s Noshin’ on My Laig?” The matter of movie names involves certain factors, but in the end may boil down to whatever is considered the least objectionable.
Naming your movie after the subject if it’s a person may work but only if it’s a relatively non-famous individual. Otherwise the name has probably already been taken, but it’s possible to get away with duplicates. Still, it’s better to be clear if you can. “J. Edgar,” the biopic with Leonardo DiCaprio was allegedly named that because the director feared “Hoover” would evoke the vacuum cleaner. Or the former president.
Speaking of presidents, there lately seems to be a spate of misleadingly named movies coming out that aren’t actually biopics about well-known people but sure sound as if they could be. These include “Lady Bird,” which is not about the former Mrs. Lyndon Johnson, and “Mr. Roosevelt,” which concerns neither Theodore nor Franklin but is the name of the main character’s cat. Now “Lady Bird,” is currently in the top ten box office-wise and being heavily advertised, so I may go to see it, but I can’t help wondering why they didn’t choose a less-misleading title. Fall is a ripe time for Oscar-courting biopics (example: “LBJ”), so it might have been wise.
Another recent misleading title is “The Limehouse Golem,” which when I first heard of it, sent shivers down my spine. However, I grew excited too soon because:
1. Wherever the movie was released, it’s nowhere near me, including the closest cities which usually snag the indies and potential Oscar-baits. That in itself is no tragedy because waiting a few months to view it is hardly a hardship. However, there’s a second snag which is:
2. According to one critic luckier than I, who’s actually seen the film, no actual golem makes an appearance.
Scratch that then. (Although I expect there is a real limehouse, unless that’s purely a metaphor, too.)
Length is (or should be) a key factor in choosing a film title, too. Sometimes a movie parodying a certain genre will wind up with a long title in order to include as many targets as possible by name. Example: “Don’t Be a Menace to South Central While Drinking Your Juice in the Hood.” Another is “The 41 Year Old Virgin That Knocked Up Sarah Marshall And Felt Superbad About It.” Including the author of the novel on which the movie is based also stretches the title out. Out of curiosity, I googled “longest movie title ever” and came up with this whopper:
“Night of the Day of the Dawn of the Son of the Bride of the Return of the Revenge of the Terror of the Attack of the Evil, Mutant, Hellbound, Flesh-Eating Subhumanoid Zombified Living Dead, Part 2: In Shocking 2-D.” James Riffel, 1991.
While I commend Mr. Riffel on his accomplishment, the fact remains that only a fraction of that title could be squeezed onto movie billboards with the likely result that the full impact was somewhat diminished when people drove by the theater or checked media outlets for currently playing films. The 1995 Hugh Grant movie “The Englishman Who Went Up a Hill But Came Down a Mountain,” did not survive its title being unmolested by media outlets or theater billboards, although at the time simply calling it “the latest Hugh Grant movie” was enough of a draw for his fans.
Here’s how my local paper shrunk the title in its listings due to space restrictions: “The Englishman Who Went Up.” One can imagine the confusion for those unfamiliar with the movie plot. On the plus side, however, the film might sound more appealing shortened, regardless of the reasons and thus result in a more lucrative box office tally.
Thus it pays to be extra careful when choosing a film title. This year, there seems to be a spate of movies with “Wonder” in the title, perhaps coincidence, perhaps not. Next year, who knows?
Popcorn on My Knee: Movie Reviews and Reminiscences 