Movie titles - what's in a name?

[Dave Watterson]

The old lore was that a title should catch the audience's attention and interest. Is that still true? Recent festival winners that are intriguing include:

• In the National Interest
  The Trap
  Behind the Wire
  The Prey

but also among the winners are blander titles like:

• Mosel Gold
  Nautilus
  Life on Film
  Episode Viii
  Seeing

Unlike Hollywood, we do not have to attract people by the thousands to see our work, but glancing down timetables at a festival it seems to me audiences look first for a film-maker they know and then the next biggest choice factor is the title.

Or is that just my reaction?

Dave

[Brian Saberton]

Last week my computer decided that it didn't want to play anymore and went into a mega sulk. After much hard work by Pat Mahon, which finally involved re-installing XP, things are just about back to normal and it's good to be able to return to this forum. Regarding titles I think they are very important and should, hopefully, intrigue and tantalise the audience as to what they are going to see. I don't know if there is a formula for devising a good title, I know I find it to be quite difficult. I caught an interesting programme on ITV 3 last night profiling author Ian Rankin and I was interested to hear that he has to have the title before he can start to write his books. One text book I have suggests that a good title should stimulate the curiosity of the audience.

[ned c]

There are two parts to a title, the words and the pictures. For me the title sequence of the Sopranos is superb although it breaks a number of filmic conventions, crosses the line; out of focus shot, discontinuities. But brilliant!

Here are just a few of my favorite titles:

Apocalypse Now
The Good the Bad and the Ugly.
Breakfast at Tiffany's.
Once upon a time in the West. (long, gripping opening sequence).
Shakespeare in Love.
Six feet under.

ned c

[Graeme Webb]

I love a list Ned, being a postmodernist sort of guy.

Mine

Donald Cammell, Nicolas Roeg 'Performance' (I'll watch it with my last breakfast, yeah magic mushrooms)

Mike Hodges 'Get Carter' (if I survive the last breakfast this is the next one on the agenda, I think I walked out of the front door with no clothes on once as well)

Francis Ford Coppola 'Apocalypse Now' (nice one Ned, the Doors ...brilliant)

Ridley Scott 'Alien' (kept me awake for weeks when I was younger, has had some influence, maybe it was H.R Giger)

Michael Cuesta 'Dexter' (trying to emulate the opening sequence in an up and coming live motion film



G

For me the title sequence of the Sopranos is superb although it breaks a number of filmic conventions, crosses the line; out of focus shot, discontinuities. But brilliant!

Its vibrant Ned and creatively brilliant not many will agree

[FILM THURSO]

I think it is still the order of the day. I quite often slate songs that go straight into the title on the opening line. A song like a movie is at it's best when it works it's way toward explaining the meaning of the title.
The title should be a clue but must never give the plot away. Classic titles such as "Flooding On The North East Coast In February 1957" and "Jam Making In The Cotswolds" are dead give aways that leave little to the imagination. A good title should raise a question within the viewers mind primeraly before they enter the cinema. Intrigue within the title should draw in the customer. After viewing the film the audience should have only one question in their mind, "why didn't I think of that?" as opposed to "what was the point of that?"

[stingman]

After viewing the film the audience should have only one question in their mind, "why didn't I think of that?" as opposed to "what was the point of that?"

Because I class myself as a Filmmaker I have done this when I ave watched a film. Or I hear a piece of music and an idea comes into my mind.
But I have watched films and thought "what was the point of that?"

Be good all.........

Stingman

[Stu H]

Are people conflating title sequences with titles?

Anyway, to the list!

All the President's Men
The Cook, The Thief, His Wife & Her Lover
The Crying Game
An American Werewolf in London
A Matter of Life and Death
The Desperate Hours
Silent Running
Night of the Hunter
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon

[fraught]

Has this thread gone a little 'off-topic'? I thought the original question was about the name of a film, and its effect on the audience... rather than the title sequence itself?

What does make a gripping title to a film? Enough to make people want to watch it.

Some titles can be misleading, 'Assault on Precinct 13' is a classic example, as the film is about an assault on Precinct 9!

Some titles can be just down right silly which tends to put me off a film, but sometimes, they can be way too short to the point that they tell me nothing.

I think the title to a film is a very important part of the storytelling process, as it helps to set the scene and the expectations of the viewer. Get it wrong, and people will either not watch your film, or maybe get the wrong idea about the sort of film it is.

I'm a lover of keeping a film's title short, somewhere between 1 and 3 words at most. I seem to find anything with more words in its title, tend to be over the top comedies, or B-Movies.

[FILM THURSO]

No, we are not talking about title sequences, just the title. As said the title of of film sets the scene, it can be posative or negative. A title that blows the plot is useless but a title that gives a hint or clue get's folk interested. If the plot fails or succeeds ir may well have the audience questioning the reason for choosing the title as was, e.g. "Quatum Of Solice", which may fit the film but out of sequence with all other Bond titles.

[tom hardwick]

While we're talking about amateur films and their titles, might I make a plea for restraint? A size restraint, that is.

I've just judged the North West Region's annual film competition, and one of the things that struck me is the size and colour of the title fonts that are very often used.

When these films are watched on a big modern TV (say 46") the big, bold, red letters can be a good 6" high. That's huge. That's yelling. That's preposterous and presumptuous.

It's just as if we are still sticking magnetic letters to the fridge door, lighting it at 45 deg and filling the Super-8 frame. It's time to admit that size isn't everything.

tom.

[Dave Watterson]

I know what you mean, Tom. I guess a lot of people prepare their titles using a small monitor ...

How big is legible? I worry about that when doing subtitles - especially if I know they will be projected in a large hall.

But an interesting sidelight on title size: DVD menus need to be big and clear in certain cases. That is: when the discs are to be projected at a club or in a cinema and the projectionist is working from a small preview monitor. Titles which are quite legible on a domestic tv set can be impossible to read on a tiny screen.

A diversion from our thread topic - sorry!

Dave

[stingman]

I also think we need to plan our titles more to fit in with the film.
I discussed before about how sometimes the Paramount Logo changes colour or it`s shape etc, to reflect and fit into the following film.

I now plan my titles and just don`t `PLONK` white letter or red letters onto the screen. They now annimate and fit in with the film. I of course get ideas from films I see on Sky or at the cinema, and adapt, alter or do my own for my films.

Be good....

Stingman

[FILM THURSO]

"SPEAK LOUDLY AND SLOWLY FOR THE AUDIENCE MIGHT NOT UNDERSTAND" kind of titles are used by less the experienced (and the clueless) where the maker want's their film to stand out. With such titles this is acheived from the onset but more in a moronic way rather than artistic or entertaining unless the object was for the cheesiest opening in movie history and outdo every B-movie that came before.
They do say, "Less is more!"

[Michael Slowe]

Couldn't agree more with Tom. Some people have no idea of scale or taste for that matter. How I hate those great big letters in gaudy colours. Small, neat and legible is certainly preferable. Look at the titles of, say, Woody Allen's films. Just white letters on black, small font but laid just right.

If a background is to be used then white letters with a nice drop shadow (not too far from the letters) in a stylish font tells you a lot about what is to follow.

By the way, could someone please tell me. When replying to a post on the forum does one have to type in the original title of the first post in a thread to make sure your post remains in that thread?

[Dave Watterson]

No, Michael. Just click the "Post Reply" button at the end of the messages and what you write is appended to that thread.

Dave