The Hollywood machine itself is regularly subject to accusations of creating stories that play into generic, sterile, stereotypes, and the story itself ends up suffering from poverty of ‘both content and form,’ according to Robert McKee, the expert on screenplays and story crafting. Archetypes, on the other hand, rely on much deeper foundations which have the ability to transcend cultures. The origins of the term ‘archetype’ is taken from the Greek word ‘archien,’ which translates to ‘original’ and ‘typos’ which translates to ‘pattern,’ – both of which combined means ‘original pattern.’ In marketing, archetypes can be used strategically as a person or brand can act as a personification of people’s unconscious beliefs. Global SVP for Marketing at the conglomerate Unilever, Marc Mathieu notes how marketing has evolved from simply assigning a myth to a brand and selling it, towards today’s approach of ‘finding a truth and sharing it.’ A narrative which harnesses the truth of a film’s true message or the personal story of an actor, is a way in which strategists can communicate to voters a form of shorthand in marketing that story. With Demi Moore, in her role in The Substance capturing the public’s attention in such a visceral way through the body horror that makes astute observations on fame and aging, her awards momentum is further bolstered as life imitates art.
Academy Archetypes: Narratives and the utilisation of ‘archetypes’
While press and publicity tactics such as industry screenings, press events and photocalls are the typical external markers of an Oscar campaign, there exists a foundational strategy element that underpins each of these communication avenues. A campaign with a carefully crafted ‘narrative’ that goes beyond the movie is a method deployed by strategists that gives a Best Picture nominee a human face, or indeed enables a Best Actor or Best Actress nominee to easily connect with the voting base. It is not that an actor or a film necessarily directly epouses a specific ideology or belief, it is that they embody a universal archetype, and which is simply waiting to find symbolic expression by projecting these subconscious views and narratives onto that person or film. Such ‘narratives’ have rightly been likened to political campaigns, with some analysts exaggerating but simultaneously warning that the costs of winning an Oscar is double that of winning a seat in Congress.
But life doesn’t just imitate art without a bit of strategy. As strict as the Academy is with its promotional guidelines, it is even more rigid with the preservation of the Oscars copyright, in order to respect the honour of the award by limiting ‘references to the annual Academy Awards presentation in promotions and advertising.’ In the early days of Academy Awards campaigning, ads were very direct with an MGM trade ad in 1931 declaring ‘Take it, again, Norma,’ referencing Norma Shearer’s turn in Strangers May Kiss, and the advert included an image of an Oscar statue. The direct reference to the Oscars in any form is absolutely out of the question now in modern times. For this reason, modern campaigning has had to be more strategic, less direct and more discreet by campaigning on a strangely subconscious level. Archetypal narratives, as demonstrated, are of a uniquely subconscious nature that lends itself to the campaigning process and can fly under the radar of Academy guidelines. As in politics, the same is true in film, as there is a subconscious dimension to voting choice, such as how the voter relates to the candidate. Archetypes of course cannot be policed as they are seen as being authentic and a reflection of an actor or the message of a film, and tool deployed for Oscar campaigning.
When narratives are counter-productive
The degree to which narratives are seamlessly communicated in all instances is not clear cut, as there are infamous narrative campaigns that do not resonate with the voting base and actively alienate audiences, and crucially voters. One such example is Bradley Cooper who quietly transformed from a mainstream actor into the trifecta of actor, writer and director. Despite Maestro’s evidential command of its craft, Cooper’s extraordinary professional feat of practising conducting for six years in order to play Leonard Bernstein, and the extensive promotional activities that followed, it appeared that it was precisely the manufactured, inauthentic nature that alienated voters that ‘seems to be trying too hard.’ For an actor/writer/director to be nominated for Best Picture, it is a triumphant result in itself and in theory should archetypically inspire people to view Cooper as someone they find motivating and inspiring but instead it backfired and was seen as a blatant, overly ambitious attempt to triumph at the awards. It could be seen that as important as it is to have a nominee to support, it is equally important to have someone to root against, and Maestro may have acted as such that year. It also underscores the irony of what the Academy voting base is drawn to, and that they will likely reward Cooper for something less predictable in the future. The Maestro example is unique in that it suffered from over-bloated financial backing from Netflix that simply could not overcome the backlash when Cooper’s archetype backfired. It shows that despite financial resources, archetypes that backfire have the potential to take the film out of the game, and no amount of money can compensate for that intangible counter productive narrative.
Demi Moore and the Comeback Kid
A tale as old as time and a tale that Hollywood has been rehashing for decades is the story of the comeback narrative. This archetype creates an interesting dynamic which sees an actor carry their fabric of narratives, generally intertwining their acting chops with their career, personality and how they handle themselves in public. Brendan Fraser’s Best Actor win two years ago played into this redemptive archetype, similar to Demi Moore, he had an atypical movie CV, filled with B movies and straight to TV films. It’s not the traditional arc for the Oscar-worthy actors, and the Academy loves to reward a step change they didn’t see coming. Indeed, his nominated film The Whale, came largely out of nowhere, similar to The Substance. Demi Moore’s Golden Globe speech mentioned how 30 years ago a producer had told her she was a ‘popcorn actress,’ unable to partake in movies that were genuinely successful in a prestige sense. Voters will identify with her career plight in that she was pigeonholed for years, and her role in The Substance as an aging actress grappling with the pressures of the industry is perhaps the closest you’re likely to get to a pitch perfect archetype. Her Golden Globes speech was the starter, and the main course is set to be the Oscars stage.
FILM FOR THOUGHT 