Analysis of the the Greatest Ever Sold - Movie Review Example

?I. Summary of the reaction of the film “The Greatest Movie Ever Sold” During the initial phase of the movie “The Greatest Movie Ever Sold” I thoughtthat Morgan Spulock cannot pull it off to convince big companies to be a part of his movie and really pay for it. My initial assessment of the movie was, since it was premised on exposing how pervasive brands are to the point it invades the movies, the film will just show how impossible it is to get the cooperation of big brands to be featured and actually pay for the film that illustrates how pervasive they are. But Morgan Spurlock pulled it off. It was a very daring movie to actually document the entire process of getting company pay for a movie that will show how they invade our everyday lives that they literally assaults us from the day we wake up until we sleep. It was more daring when Spurlock actually asked for these companies to pay for the movie and show how they negotiated in the raw. The expected reaction of advertising firms was also documented in the raw when he negotiated or tried to up-sell the concept of his film. There in the negotiations, it was articulated the fear of the advertisers of the unknown that they did not want to be a part of the film that may put them in a bad light. Spurlock however was not discouraged by this initial failure. He went around asking people on how he could make companies to pay for his film. He eventually did when he initially struck an interim agreement with Ban deodorant that the company would be in if there are 15 other brands who would join him. Personally, my impression was it was a typical success story on how one will succeed if only he or she will try hard enough as what Spurlock did in the movie The Greatest Movie Ever Sold. In a way, the movie or documentary can be considered as a learning material. Very subtlely, marketing concepts such as as brand collateral was explained in a manner that will be very easy to understand. I had difficulty discerning what really it was all about but after watching the film, I learned that it simply meant what do you offer to your consumers or what are bringing on the table? I also learned that people’s personality can be considered as brands too. During the first part of the film where Morgan Spurlock was having difficulty getting companies to pay for his film, he came upon an Analyst who explained to him that his personality is playful and risk taker. It was explained that it is more likely that brands who share his personality will be the ones who are likely to support him. In a way, the movie “exposed” the science of marketing. After explaining the nature of his personality, Spurlock was able to strike deals with companies. The biggest of which was with POM wonderful who was even excited to be the brand X of the film to make the film entitled “POM Wonderful Presents: The Greatest Movie Ever Sold”. It was at a hefty price of $1 million dollars with others agreeing to pay between $25,000 to $50,000. At one point in the film, Sheetz even have to fly him in their private jet just to have a meeting with him. The company agreed to be a part of the film. I was really aghast with this “success” part of the film because it showed that with a right idea and right persistence, one can actually convince companies to pay for a film that “exposes” them. I was even surprise that even Mane n Tail actually paid for the film even if Morgan Spurlock poked fun of its product saying “there is an instruction for human” and there is another instruction for the horse. I remarked watching the film “wow, he really pulled it off in style!” There is one part of the film that made me think. There was a conversation after Morgan Spurlock showed the contents of his contracts that he can only drink, eat, and drive this and that. Basically the stipulations of his contract. He raised issues such as the companies might insist too much on placing in their products in the film that it will diminish his influence as a filmaker. Basically, the concern was that since there are too many companies in the film, it might become overcommercialized to the point of defeating its artistic value. I thought, “that’s what you wanted to happen, right?” “You went through all these things just to have them in your film and now you worry?” But watching the movie between the lines, this anxiety of Spurlock was in fact to illustrate and raise the dilemma between the artistic expression of filmakers and the ones “who hold the carrots”. How do you strike the balance? The issue was articulated with his interview with other directors who also explained how far these brands would intervene in the film making process to have their products placed. When Quentin Tarantino, one of my favorite directors was interviewed, I thought that this film is really “big”. Despite of the intention to “expose” or to show how pervasive or ubiquitous marketing messages are in our daily lives, the film did not in any way demean the products who were placed in the film. Maybe except on one instance when he poked fun at Mane n Tail but I think the company was open minded enough to realize that their product is really “unusual” and Spurlock’s poking fun was just consistent to this concept. The film was instructional yet not boring like other documentary films. It was able to explain heavy marketing concepts such as “neuro marketing” in a manner that is easily understood by students like me. II. Four instance of product placement not mentioned in the movie There were many products placed in the movie that was not part of the 15 companies who paid for their products to be placed. Initially, I was taking notes about the movie but it prevented me from enjoying it. So I watched it and enjoyed myself because it was equally entertaining as it was informative. The four products that I can recall that was placed but not mentioned in the fim was Subway sandwich, Audi Car, the TV series Chuck (I remember because I am a fan of the TV series) and Volkswagen. I readily remembered subway sandwich because it was frequently placed in the TV series Chuck which I happened to watch also. This explains why I had “Chuck” included because it was flashed in the movie with the usual Subway sandwich frequently shown in the series itself. I was thinking that Subway should have paid Morgan Spurlock because it was doing an overkill of its product placement in TV series and now includes movies. Sometimes Subway sandwich’s product placement can be offensive because it was just too obvious. The movie “Iron Man” was mentioned several times but his car was not. It was there running in its automobile beauty that made me wish I had enough money to buy one for myself. I would like to add Vokswagen because it was prominently placed in the movie yet it did not pay. At some point, its faxed message had to be read in the movie for a good 30 seconds only to deny Spurlock. My reaction? If I had the money, I will buy Audi than Volkswagen. Read More