The goal of a film’s trailer is generally to make it look appealing towards its established target audience, yes? And surely most people would agree that the average trailer is successful in that regard a very good percentage of the time. The films demographic take the bait, see the film and enjoy it while the rest of the world scoffs and forgets said trailer forever. It’s a fairly routine system that appears to work most of the time (read: most of the time). But every so often, the studios prove that they have so little faith in their product that they feel the need to dress it up like some lame ass movie-of-the-week, thus dooming it to poor word of mouth from people expecting something completely different from what the got. The last major instance of this would be M. Night Shyamalan’s misunderstood masterpiece The Village, and we find ourselves with another case nearly as outrageous, this time concerning Clint Eastwood’s Hereafter.
Hereafter tells the story of three separate storylines where the protagonist of each either experiences or is faced with a situation involving death in some way. Think of the trailer for this film like if Slumdog Millionaire was advertised to look like a James Bond film. If I were to make a comparison to a now realized genre classic, I’d say this film is this generation’s The Shining. Surely if the audiences who saw The Shining back when it was first released in theaters had Facebooks, their statuses would’ve read “The girlfriend and I both hated The Shining. So boring” and “Latest Stanley Kubrick movie: S – L – O – W” etc. However, a more recent comparison would be to say that it’s this years Funny People – as in the wrong people watching it, and thus spreading negative word of mouth, where the people who would really respond to this film brush it off as exactly what the trailer made it out to be.
But what I think upset audiences the most was Hereafter’s overall position, or lack thereof, when it comes to the various theories concerning what comes after death. The film doesn’t take any concrete position on the afterlife but rather allows the viewer to reflect parts of what they believe into the material the film exposes them to. It’s not the fault of the film, nor anybody involved, for failing to provide answers to the mystery of the afterlife. Because really, anybody who think they’ll get an answer to THE question by watching movies is bound to be disappointed
So what do I think the future holds for Hereafter? Very minimal, if any awards recognition. Reasonably mild critical/public reception and doomed to be dismissed as one of Eastwood’s lesser works. Perhaps an eventual cult following will materialize in the near future, just like The Village (high five!), but it’s certainly doubtful. The point is that whatever fate has in store for this film, it’s far less than it deserves. But in a society where Scott Pilgrim vs. the World makes less money than Vampires Suck, could you really expect anything less?
