Snakes on a Plane

This is one of the more interesting things written of the Snakes on the a Plane (non)phenomenon. Both Henry Jenkins and Stefanie Kechayas (who is referenced in Jenkins’ blog) have more cogent arguments to make than I, so I’d suggest reading Jenkins’ blog entry before you read the stuff below.

For me, the only really interesting thing about Snakes on a Plane is the surrounding media hype/buzz/expectation that has accompanied it- by this I refer specifically to ‘traditional’ media’s embrace of the story- not its initial internet prominence.

If we strictly delineate internet communities seperate from a ‘traditional media’ audience- then within itself Snakes on a Plane is hardly a unique proposition- a film with camp sensibilities which appeals to cult audiences. That is, if internet communities are treated purely as a niche subculture that has no real ability to effect the greater mainstream.

The more I have read about Snakes on a Plane, or SoaP, the more I encounter the problem of designating an identity to those that traverse the internet (i.e. everybody- don’t argue- my mother who is almost 60 and struggles with her English, fights for internet time). So I want to state something very obvious: as with general society, it’s impossible to assign a particular identity to the heaving mass of different individuals who spend time online. However most stories I’ve read/heard/watched in traditional forms of media (including internet news) which have reported on internet phenomena often suffered from a tendency to treat the internet almost as new-fangled technology- something they couldn’t quite get their heads around. In the past two months at least, I’ve encountered reports on the Arctic Monkeys, Lily Allen, Youtube, Myspace, and of course, Snakes on a Plane. Each related story determined to unravel the secret behind their respective successes (except for the last- which has been about its relative failure). Sometimes it has felt as if I were reading about how Britney Spears could possibly have scored a hit single after being given extensive radio airplay.

It is not so much that I believe these stories to be redundant- I understand the associated fascination with a supposedly grassroots success story, and the growth of these kinds of stories given the nature of the internet- however I find it somewhat problematic that they often become framed along the lines of ‘big traditional media’ = mainstream, ‘little’ internet media, bloggers etc. = sub cultures, niche behaviour. Ok, so it’s not quite that bad, but at the very least- its often specifically considered Youth culture.

The reason I bring this up here is because of my musings from my first post about mainstream vs counterculture. In the Jenkins post, Stefanie Kechayas examines the differing expectations for Snakes on a Plane :

These websites seem to have a major issue with the way the film went from being a ‘genuine’ cybersubcultural fascination (because of subcultural manifestations of cool and knowledges about ‘good’ and ‘bad’ cinema turning the film into one big joke) to being capitalised by studios into a ‘mainstream’ marketing extravaganza (hence detracting from the film’s – and subculture’s – countercultural clout). Through this over-capitalisation and also a too long wait on the release, the film has lost its interest factor (its ‘undergroundness’) and hence underperformed, and this – according to these sites – is the studio’s fault.

Similarly, according to Defamer: “Snakes On A Plane shocks everyone when it turns out to be what it was supposed to be all along: a movie you pull out of the $2.99 bin at a Tower Clearance outlet.” [sic] -emphasis mine. This seems to be a general consensus- Snakes on a Plane was only ever meant to be a ‘niche’ movie- at best, a cult film, and the mainstream studios misunderstood the nature of its internet buzz.

While there are a lot of connections one could make about the subcultural (internet) influence on Snakes on a Planes’s (non)success- I’m most curious about the relative definitions of success placed upon the film. In the case of the Arctic Monkeys and Lily Allen, it would be easy to argue that they were easily assimilated into the ‘mainstream’ and traditional media- because they were/are easily consumable to a large demographic of people. Their internet success based on their inherent likeableness, not because they were apparently founded in the depths of the internet, which was merely another medium to gain exposure.

The same couldn’t necessarily be said of Snakes on a Plane. I would agree that even a questionable opening weekend of $15 million is an amazing feat for a film with a shaky and liminally appealing concept- not at all groomed to hit the top spot at its conception. For SoaP, its success (relative to its conjectural position without the associated press) is very much a product of fan internet communities, and the subsequent exposure in the ‘mainstream’ press.

However, if all the initial reports are to be believed, Snakes is a failure- causing as Stefanie Kechayas writes, much finger pointing. So did New Line fundamentally misread the nature of the internet buzz- was their marketing campaign overdetermined, thus ensuring a weak opening?

It’s all conjecture, but to a certain degree I agree with the fingerpointing websites- part of Allen’s and The Arctic Monkey’s success traded upon the myth of the internet as a subcultural experience- the sense of discovery and privlege associated with experiencing something others wouldn’t (or at least before others did).

On the other hand, as Jenkins articulates, for some, the worry was “that the film wouldn’t be bad enough”, an expectation which if fulfilled, would hardly spell box office success. To confuse things more however, there’s a big question mark next to its definition as ‘internet phenomena’. What was more (in)effective – the ‘viral’ marketing across the internet, or the ‘legitimising’ mainstream press? Part of the problem with unraveling all these questions is the nature of the meta-critiqueing of the ‘phenomena’ from its outset. Many have been so ready to break the story of the film which was shaped, marketed, and subsequently made successful ‘from below’ that it’s difficult to understand without the continual presence of media commentary- both internet and otherwise (example ).

My personal opinion is that the film’s failure to provide a $30 million opening weekend, is actually a failure of appropriate expectations from the studio- a result of not heeding the origins of the internet excitement. While I think that treating the internet as a whole as a subculture is inaccurate, in this case- enjoying the idea of Snakes on a Plane was very much predicated upon identification with a subcultural ideal.

I also wonder at the apparent transformative powers of perception- if Snakes is perceived to flop appropriately, will the film be re-embraced as a cult film as Kechayas argues? I guess we all have to wait and see.

*Rereading some of this again, I also want to qualify my spiel on misunderstanding internet communities by saying that I think in the case of Snakes on a Plane- its ‘community’ could be catergorized as an ambivalent and diverse group- who didn’t necessarily have any real investment in the film other than to comment upon its ridiculousness.  What I was trying to say in particular- is that New Line’s treatment of the internet as primarly ‘fan’ based was part of their problem in hoping for a huge success- BUT also that for some, ambivalence toward the film could transform itself into a favourable response on the basis of it being unsuccessful in the mainstream.

Here’s another Daily Show clip with Demetri Martin who has a segment called ‘trendspotting’. This one is on myspace: