This is a title. What does that mean?

Have you ever been talking to someone and they mention a movie, but they get the title wrong? Does that give you the impression that maybe it isn't the most memorable movie? The LA Times profiles a small company called "Title Doctors," which tries to come up with memorable movie titles. They use as an example a movie called "Pride and Glory." The studio was trying to come up with a better name. Good call - I think that's a terrible name for a movie. One of the suggestions was "One of Our Own," which I think is almost as bad. The problem with both is that they are generic. "Pride" and "glory" are abstractions, and can apply to lots and lots of people or situations. "One of Our Own" is only marginally better. It has a specific object - "One." But who is the group who is defining themselves as "our own?" We don't know.

The best movie titles, at least as I think of them, refer to something very specific. Consider these great titles:

The Godfather
Ocean's Eleven
Erin Brockovich
Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure
Reservoir Dogs
The Wizard of Oz
A Fish Called Wanda
Thelma & Louise
The Thomas Crown Affair
The Blair Witch Project
The Rocky Horror Picture Show
To Kill A Mockingbird

If you've seen those movies, you can visualize them immediately. But what about "Catch and Release." Any clue? If you haven't seen it, you probably can't guess from the title that it's a Jennifer Garner romantic comedy. Might very well be about fishing, who knows? Two verbs, no noun, nothing specific. "13 Going on 30," another Jennifer Garner romcom, on the other hand, isn't too bad.

There are even memorable titles for movies that may not be that good:

Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay
Dude, Where's My Car?
Snakes on a Plane

I am planning on going to see the Harold & Kumar movie just because of the title. Somebody had the guts to make that the title of a movie. I have a lot of respect for that.

What makes the great titles great is that they refer to something that no other movie could possibly be about. There is only one movie about a fish called Wanda. There are lots of movies with dogs in them, but no one ever thot to put canines together with reservoirs until Quentin Tarantino came along. There is only one Wizard of Oz. There is one Forrest Gump.

Names are good. A name in a title refers to a specific individual, and lets the audience know that this person, or persons, is so fascinating that they deserve a movie about them. Lawrence of Arabia.

Interestingly, one actor has played the title character in several Oscar-nominated movies. Matt Damon. Here's the list:

Good Will Hunting
Saving Private Ryan
The Talented Mr. Ripley
And all the Bourne movies

What's even better than a name is a name attached to a verb:

Waking Ned Devine
Saving Private Ryan
The Devil Wears Prada

These automatically generate questions in the audience's mind. Who is Ned Devine, and why does he need to be woken up? Who is Private Ryan, and why does he need saving? The devil does not literally wear Prada, so maybe someone is being compared to the devil.

A somewhat generic title can become a great title if it's the title of a great movie. "Star Wars" is actually somewhat generic - there are lots of stars, and there are lots of wars. But it's a great title because the movie is such a cultural touchstone. Same thing with "Pulp Fiction." Talk about generic - it refers to an entire genre of literature! And it doesn't really have anything to do with the movie - I think the only thing anyone in that movie reads is a menu. But it's still a great title.

Some movies are so good, or so clearly reference what the movie is about, that even a one-word title works brilliantly.

Jaws
Big
Batman
Superman
Titanic
Gladiator

Another approach that works well, if it works, is to play with the language and create multiple meanings from the fewest possible words:

Grosse Pointe Blank
Good Will Hunting

The article uses "The Shawshank Redemption" as an example of a movie that flopped at the box office because of a clunky title. But, even though I've never seen it, I can tell you from memory that it's based on a Stephen King novel, it stars Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman, and it takes place in a prison. It has become a cultural touchstone, in part, I think, because it has a very unusual title. The title almost makes you think - "redemption" means that someone is being redeemed, which means that they committed some grevious sin, and are now seeking to atone for it. There's a chunk of plot just in that one word.

Sometimes movies have to change their titles because another movie has a similar name, and whoever decides these things decides that one has to be different. Easily the most egregious, and unfortunate, example of this is a movie called "Playing by Heart." About the most generic name for a movie possible. Could refer to just about anything. It's a decent movie with a great cast - Sean Connery, Gena Rowlands, Angelina Jolie, Gillian Anderson, Jon Stewart. It didn't do well and has largely disappeared from our cultural consciousness. What's sad about this is that the original title was brilliant. It was "Dancing About Architecture," based on the idea that talking about love is like dancing about architecture - it's basically impossible. Great title, because it's already a conversation starter - what does it mean? But another movie came out about the same time called "Dancing at Lughnasa," and the powers that be decided that the names were too similar. So a solid movie with a great title was burdened with an absolutely horrible title.

Finally, I'd like to point out that, ideally, the title of this blog raises questions. What exactly is a talented earthquake? You know what? We will never really know.