Movie 43: The Bomb

Bomb. That's the one word that keeps popping up when discussing the bizarre comedy film, Movie 43. Let me start off by saying that this article is not going to critically examine the movie. I'm not writing this because I want to persuade you to like it or hate it.Why I am writing this pertains to the notion that Movie 43, in theory, should be a hit. All the parts are moving correctly. Like a well oiled machine, the film has parts that, when put together, should produce a massive hit. However, that does not seem to be the case. Let's examine these parts from a social point of view and try to figure out why the makeup of the movie has failed thus far. The first concept you should understand about Movie 43 its its narrative structure. The film is comprised of 12 shorts. Most films that contain multiple shorts connect them together. Known as an anthology, these films tell their story through small segments. Sometimes, the anthology is connected not by a continual story, but by theme. One such example is New York Stories (1989), an anthology about (you guessed it): New York. These types of films are not new and date back to as early as 1932 (Grand Hotel and If I Had a Million. The narrative outline that connects the stories in this particular film is a crazy man (played by Dennis Quaid), who is trying to pitch his nonsensical movie to a Hollywood producer. Now, since this film does consist of 12 shorts, doesn't it make sense that audiences should like it in this day and age? Research has already shown that our attention spans have shortened dramatically over the last 15 years. Youtube is a prime example of this. The link dealing with attention span calls to our attention (pun intended) that we can't concentrate for a sustained amount of time. According to the article, a tad over 50% of people click out of a video after the first minute. That's half the audience! Half of the audience is gone after the first minute. So, when applied to movies (which last an average of 90 minutes), shouldn't it make sense that anthologies would keep people's attention more than one long narrative? Movie 43 acts just like Youtube. A bunch of random skits played back-to-back-to-back. In theory, the movie should keep our attention better than a film that focuses soley on one narrative. We are used to the jumps from skit to skit via YouTube. Secondly, the humor associated with Movie 43 is that of shock humor and slapstick. Let's be honest with ourselves: Most of the videos we watch online are stupid people doing something stupid. This is exactly what Movie 43 entails. Actors acting stupid and silly. The shock humor can be likened to that of the popular website Reddit. My friend and I even joked that Movie 43 is a film version of Reddit. Though Reddit may not be for everyone, it is ranked among the top 100 sites in the U.S. (currently ranked #65) and is slowly rising. While shock videos have always been around, they are prevalent and extremely popular today (via YouTube and many other sites). Take, for instance, the monumental popularity of 2 Girls 1 Cup. While being extremely disgusting, the video has been seen millions of times by people all over the world. Now, mix this type of shock value and humor with short segments starring Hollywood's biggest stars, and you should have success. However, this has yet to be the case. So, I now turn to you. Why hasn't this formula worked? Or, did it work for you personally?