How Movies Set Us Up To Want
If you, like me, find yourself more interested in movie characters’ real estate or wardrobes than the plots or story line, you’ll appreciate this post over at Escape Brooklyn.
In it, she cites a recent MSN Money article that points out the discrepancies between what movie/tv characters have and what they supposedly do for a living.
Among the examples are Eva Mendes’s character in Hitch, a gossip columnist with a $5,000/month-rent New York Loft and Ann Hathaway’s Andi in The Devil Wears Prada, who gets loads of free designer clothes at work.
I’d add the following:
Gilmore Girls: A beautiful Victorian house, all meals ordered or eaten out & gorgeous, new clothes every season… all on an innkeeper’s salary? OK, they couldn’t pay for Yale, but even still!
27 Dresses: Katherine Heigel’s character lives in a beautiful, vintage apartment in NYC. Her sister visits and calls it “cute.” I think we all know that had to cost a pretty penny. And she’s someone’s assistant.
The truth is, as a manager in the Chicago area making a mid-level salary, I can’t even afford a two-bedroom condo in my area. So do you think movies set us up to want more so that we’ll spend? Or is allowing us to pretend we can afford X, Y & Z part of a movie’s magic?
Filed under buying/renting, economy, questions, the everyday |
5 Responses to “How Movies Set Us Up To Want”
Leave a Reply
One thing I see over and over again is product placement. They do it to show you famous people you associate favor/coolness/status with wearing their stuff. Even on shows like Last Iron Chef Caught Standing [or whatever its called] they show the chefs drinking Evian water, changing the trash with Glad bags that I have never seen at the store, and driving in certain vehicles from one place to another.
Another thing to consider is that by having the lifestyle look lavish you get the sense that the tension in the person’s life is focused. If the person was living in the projects on an assistant’s salary, like might happen in real life, then there would be other potential plot tensions. Thinking isn’t what they want you to do, so they just thrust them into an otherwise perfect world so you’ll be concerned about the romance or the crime planning
In a classic moment in cinematic history I was about to watch “Minority Report” when a trailer for some Arnold Schwartzenwhatever movie came on and when it was over a guy behind me said, “I don’t like his movies, they’re so unrealistic.” Hollywood’s plan is not for reality, its for entertainment (99% of the time it seems), and so if they can pitch you something and get the budget subsidized by some company, all the more money to be made at the box office.
Great comment, Randy. I think it’s interesting that, although movies are obviously for entertainment like 99% of the time, we watchers want to make it reality. Do you know what I mean?
I’ll accept that Ben on LOST can move the island by turning a freaky wheel in the Arctic because, well, that makes sense in LOST world. But if that happened on The Office or real life, it’d be different.
It’s a fine line movies walk, not real but close to it. If they get too far-fetched, we’ll lose focus and not be drawn in. So they have to be at least based on reality, or maybe on a reality that’s better/desirable to us.
And I so get what you mean about product placement. Gosh, advertising!!!
Thanks for the link! I’ve got 27 Dresses in my Netflix queue and can’t wait to see it, but I suspect it’s going to tick me off. Ah, the NYC fantasy life…
And Lost just makes me so MAD lately! I hated that finale so much I don’t even think I’m going to watch it anymore!
Escape Brooklyn: No, don’t give up on LOST!! Then again, even if you do, you’ll have until January to come around. I hate the long waits!
What about “Friends”? I never could figure out how that crew was able to afford to eat, let along have sweet apartments.