Docu-tisement? Adver-mentary?
enrico
Legend has it that one of the first times a product was intentionally placed in a film was when Groucho Marx gave Thelma Todd a Life Saver in Horse Feathers (1932). It hasn’t always been a match made in heaven. Rather than paying to have their product within the content, companies have occasionally tried to sue free spirited documentarians and even comedians for copyright infringement when their product happens to appear in a film or a television show. As Tina Fey said about a recent 30 Rock dust up, “We received no money from the McDonald’s Corporation. We were actually a little worried they might sue us. That’s just the kind of revenue-generating masterminds we are.” It’s a bumpy ride: either get paid or get sued.
Which brings me around to the topic. What do you call a short documentary with a real idea and story, but with the aim of raising awareness about, say, a great eco-friendly, fair trade product? It’s not exactly an ad because it’s too long, too involved and often not as glitzy as ads usually are. And it’s not a documentary because although it’s about life, it’s also (mainly?) about a product. It’s not even the “documercial” that became popular a few years ago because the drive to tell these stories is less cynical. From what I’ve seen, the mediamakers creating these new shorts seem to really care about the message they are sending, as much as or more than they do about the product. Stonyfield Farm has been making interesting pieces about their farmers. So there’s definitely something there. And yet, a world where people voluntarily tattoo ads on their bald pates, isn’t there a distinction to be made here, ethical or otherwise? Or is it possible that our lives have become so saturated with products that placing a for-sale thing in a film—or making a film about a for-sale thing—has become the truer story? I personally resist it, but why?
No Comments
|
| Posted on February 20, 2009
Comments