Opinion - News Analysis   

A film sparks an Internet phenomenon

Hasan Suroor

Snakes on a Plane, shaped by bloggers, shows how movies may be made in future.

MOVE OVER film critics. Bloggers have moved in and, judging from the hype over their first salvo, the fate of a film in future could be decided by cinema buffs operating in cyberspace than by a tiny elite in quality papers.

The new face of how films may be made and promoted in future was unveiled last week in the shape of a pedestrian disaster movie — David R. Ellis' Snakes on a Plane, hailed as the first Hollywood venture shaped and driven almost entirely by "blogocrats" who not only influenced its plot development but decided its title and marketing strategy.

There were no previews for mainstream critics — another decision reportedly taken in deference to the wishes of cyber critics who argued that a film, so heavily influenced by its fans, should first be shown to them. Its producers and distributors said it was a "fans' film" and therefore it was "only fair that fans get to see it first."

"These kind of movies are marketing-driven, not critic-driven. So the only thing the critics could do is hurt it. And even if the reviews are good, they wouldn't mean much," Gitesh Pandya of BoxOfficeGuru.com is stated as saying on one of the many websites spawned by the film.

The SoaP sites are buzzing with self-congratulatory chatter and promotional gimmicks such as offering "snake kits" and "visits" to the snake-infested plane in which the movie is set. There is already a book out about the Internet frenzy surrounding the film, and a host of other titles including a "novelisation" of the movie and a comic book are in the pipeline. "I really think we're on unprecedented territory," said David Waldon, author of Snakes on a Plane: The Guide to the Internet Ssssssensation.

There are sites hawking SoaP t-shirts, coffee mugs and other merchandise to cash in on the hype— and in what one fan website hailed as a departure from the "usual movie merchandise practices" the film's producers have permitted SoaP fans to become official licencees of its merchandise.

The phrase Snakes on a Plane itself has entered the Internet lexicon and is being used to refer to something "nonsensical" or "plain silly."

The film, in which a gangster lets loose hundreds of deadly snakes on a plane carrying a crucial witness to testify against him, has been described by those who have seen it as a 1970s' disaster movie with no pretensions. But such is the hype worked up by its fans that the SoaP team has its sights set on big things. Speaking at an international awards function recently, its lead actor Samuel L. Jackson said: "I'm here tonight to present the award everyone's been waiting for: best movie. Now, this award holds a special place in my heart because next year I'll be winning it for Snakes on a Plane. Now I know, I know that sounds cocky, but I don't give a damn. I am guaranteeing that Snakes on a Plane will win best movie next year. Does not matter what else is coming out... "

The film's strongest point, if any, is its simple and unprepossessing title leaving no one in doubt what it is about: Snakes on a Plane is about snakes on a plane. As The Times noted the film "does exactly what it says on the tin with an admirable lack of taste."

Critics angry

Critics are mighty cross at having been denied the privilege of a preview and forced to queue up with ordinary cine-goers to buy their ticket. The Sunday Telegraph angrily added SoaP to the "undignified list of films denied press screenings that includes such stinkers as The Scarlet Letter (1995), The Avengers (1998) and this year's The Pink Panther."

Yet not all critics have been unduly unkind. At least one critic dismissed the theory that they had been treated shabbily by SoaP producers because the film was so bad that they wanted to "conceal the truth as long as possible to pump up the opening weekend figures."

"The awful truth is that Snakes on a Plane is pretty enjoyable: an old-fashioned airborne disaster movie with a dollop of snaky horror, a distinct resemblance to Airplane, and an ending recalling the final twist to Flight of the Phoenix," wrote Peter Bradshaw in The Guardian.

Even The Times, though very annoyed by the "famous reviewing ban" and dismissive of the hype, acknowledged that at least the film did not set out to deceive. "Well, what did you expect? Citizen Kane?" its critic James Christopher asked...

According to the chatter on the Net, the original screenplay, written by a University of Pittsburgh administrator, Dalessandro, and revised three times between 1992 and 1995 was turned down by as many as 30 Hollywood studios nearly destroying Dalessandro's ambition to become a film writer. But in 1999, MTV/Paramount showed interest and then the project was taken over by New Line who had it rewritten extensively while retaining the core of Dalessandro's original version. "Once they [snakes] get on the plane, it's mine," he said.

Initially, the film's working title was Pacific Air Flight 121 but was later changed to SoaP after bloggers intervened. At what stage and how the film came to the attention of bloggers, who virtually took it over and turned into an Internet phenomenon, is not clear, but there we are. So, have film critics had their day?

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Responding to Karnataka's needs
Behind Test cricket's first forfeiture
Right to information: first principles & sound practice
A film sparks an Internet phenomenon
The new high-growth sector
The EU influx into U.K.
How lighthouse keeper saved Bismarck
Corrections and Clarifications
Telangana issue
This round to RTI
Vande Mataram row
Down but not out, leading reformist looks ahead

Copyright © 2006, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu