As a somewhat regular filmgoer, I often fall prey to the motor industry’s marketing messages. Yes, we the cinema going public are apparently gagging for a new car, strong liquor and something to treat our terrible acne (mostly recently interminably promoted by a CGI goose) – which does feel less than ideal as a combination. On the whole, the ad reel is entirely independent of the cinema or film – but I did recently discover a couple of exceptions.
- Before the Shaun the Sheep movie (U), the ad reel was really very different, nothing to dull the pain of existence or excise my spots, but full of much brighter colours and mysterious products which I presume were aimed at much younger viewers (and left me begging for strong liquor).
- In Scotland, an ad for the NatWest morphs into one for the Royal Bank of Scotland, losing the dulcet voice-over tones of Rebecca Front to be replaced by a someone with a Scottish accent and changing the corporate logo in the branch at the end (but nothing else).
But, I should return to the plot (such as it is) and the attempts by car makers to flog their wares. What I have come to realise in these visual offerings is that the vehicles always have UK licence plates, but are clearly not in the UK (and frequently admit that the model shown does not even exist in the UK). Why is it so important to maintain this flimsiest of fictions? Would the actors’ skin tones be darkened for sunnier markets as well – or have they been lightened for cloudy Britain?
More importantly, the cars are always being driven either on entirely deserted streets or in some barren wilderness (the latter is normally true if the vehicle is a 4×4). Clearly, we are being sold some entirely spurious idea of freedom which the automobile is supposed to deliver – and I suppose if we go back far enough in time, once did. However, to me it looks as though motor manufacturers are in complete denial about the existence of traffic or are hoping their clients will only wish to use their cars after the recent detonation of a neutron bomb (or perhaps in the aftermath of a zombie apocalypse). This gives all the ads a somewhat dystopian feel which seems at odds with the desire to shift product.
A few recent ads, show a “classic” car from a company’s product line and then show it driving near to its latest incarnation. Without exception (for me at least) these make the older car look much the more attractive – but that may be down to my age. However, the message seems to be: look how ugly our new car is, why not try and find a decent second-hand example from when our cars weren’t designed be a committee of accountants?
I think this demonstrates why (a) I am a poor target for advertising (I insist on taking home the wrong message) and (b) should never be hired to work in marketing – or perhaps I am the small boy pointing out the emperor’s nudity in this scenario? The ads rarely look cheap (though clearly are recycled across multiple markets) so I assume someone has checked whether they actually do any good? Still, I probably shouldn’t complain as they must be subsidising my cinema-going habit – though I must try and curb the desire to laugh (or at least splutter) at some of the more egregious examples.
In a related topic, I have noticed the frequency with which characters on both film and TV will have a conversation whilst in a moving vehicle. The only problem with this idea is the apparent difficulty of doing this in real life on both safety and continuity grounds (I would guess) means that the world outside the vehicle is usually faked. My issue is that it tends to be faked really badly – even on otherwise high-budget productions. It is usually a little better at night, but would still rarely fool anyone who has ever been in a vehicle while in possession of functioning eyes. Entire series are made leaning heavily on (often quite convincing) CGI, but somehow no-one can create a convincing backdrop for a moving car. Given this clear difficulty, surely it would make sense to hold fewer (or no) conversations in moving cars? It is not as though (in the real world) people only talk in cars, there are lots of alternatives! Is the “moving” of the vehicle supposed to distract us from some slightly dull (if plot critical) exposition? Or is it just down to a failure of the teaching in film school? Is avoiding this issue part of the allure of period drama?