The 'Slumdog effect' in Branding
Two people I know, who've watched Slumdog Millionaire, and whose judgement I trust, have characterised the movie as an entertaining one. No platitudes like 'superb', 'extraordinary' or similar such terms were used by them to describe the movie.
Note what Bishaka Dutta has to say about the movie, 'I loved Danny Boyle's earlier film Trainspotting. But Slumdog Millionaire just doesn't cut it for me as a film.
What didn't work for me was the treatment; three things in particular.
The episodic construction: 33 horrors and a happy ending (Shit. Acid blindings. Child prostitution. Begging. Rape. And so forth. You get the drift...)The characters: cardboard and one-dimensional. (I've never seen a film before where every single adult is uniformly nasty, if not downright evil.)
The 'garbage tourism' feel, which some have called 'poverty porn': I have no objections to porn per se - there's good porn and bad porn. It all depends on the perspective. And on the treatment. The reason this has the touristy feel (as opposed to the travel feel, which is about curiosity, exploration and discovery) is because it is so singularly uncurious. If Edmund Hillary famously said he climbed Everest because it was there, this films a garbage can because it is there. But it doesn't do anything interesting with the garbage can. Yes, we all know begging, rape and child prostitution exist, not to mention acid blindings - but surely they need some treatment beyond, "They exist so let's shoot them."
Well, if the movie ain't an extraordinary one, why all the acclaim? Just yesterday, the movie swept the Baftas winning seven categories including best film and best director.
Slumdog Millionaire has had its tipping point. A point at which the first set of people (a Western audience) so gushed about the movie, their platitudes spread viraly, thick, and fast. What followed is what I term the 'Slumdog effect'. A state achieved by a brand due to its advocacy by its first set of consumers, wherein their platitudes ensured the rest that followed parroted what they had just heard. Remember the Emperor's clothes? No one thought it fit to say that the emperor was naked, except for a li'l boy. Slumdog will be praised, even by those who think it ain't an extraordinary movie, 'cos that's what everyone's expected to say. Imagine saying otherwise. You would be branded the country bumpkin!
Once a brand acheives a 'certain status' at the behest of its first buyers, subsequent consumers will confirm that status so they can conform to what is popular belief. This despite the fact that they may not have felt that status while experiencing the brand. Now why did the people who I trust tell me what they 'really' felt? Notice the word 'trust' in my earlier sentence?
Note what Bishaka Dutta has to say about the movie, 'I loved Danny Boyle's earlier film Trainspotting. But Slumdog Millionaire just doesn't cut it for me as a film.
What didn't work for me was the treatment; three things in particular.
The episodic construction: 33 horrors and a happy ending (Shit. Acid blindings. Child prostitution. Begging. Rape. And so forth. You get the drift...)The characters: cardboard and one-dimensional. (I've never seen a film before where every single adult is uniformly nasty, if not downright evil.)
The 'garbage tourism' feel, which some have called 'poverty porn': I have no objections to porn per se - there's good porn and bad porn. It all depends on the perspective. And on the treatment. The reason this has the touristy feel (as opposed to the travel feel, which is about curiosity, exploration and discovery) is because it is so singularly uncurious. If Edmund Hillary famously said he climbed Everest because it was there, this films a garbage can because it is there. But it doesn't do anything interesting with the garbage can. Yes, we all know begging, rape and child prostitution exist, not to mention acid blindings - but surely they need some treatment beyond, "They exist so let's shoot them."
Well, if the movie ain't an extraordinary one, why all the acclaim? Just yesterday, the movie swept the Baftas winning seven categories including best film and best director.
Slumdog Millionaire has had its tipping point. A point at which the first set of people (a Western audience) so gushed about the movie, their platitudes spread viraly, thick, and fast. What followed is what I term the 'Slumdog effect'. A state achieved by a brand due to its advocacy by its first set of consumers, wherein their platitudes ensured the rest that followed parroted what they had just heard. Remember the Emperor's clothes? No one thought it fit to say that the emperor was naked, except for a li'l boy. Slumdog will be praised, even by those who think it ain't an extraordinary movie, 'cos that's what everyone's expected to say. Imagine saying otherwise. You would be branded the country bumpkin!
Once a brand acheives a 'certain status' at the behest of its first buyers, subsequent consumers will confirm that status so they can conform to what is popular belief. This despite the fact that they may not have felt that status while experiencing the brand. Now why did the people who I trust tell me what they 'really' felt? Notice the word 'trust' in my earlier sentence?
Comments
Can this behaviour be a partial explanation for why so many people were fooled by Bernard Madoff?