For many filmmakers, creating a film that represents a specific point in time is a dangerous game. The film can be seen as incredibly dated shortly after its release, and they run the risk of offending an entire generation of filmgoers if depicted in a negative light. Fortunately for any connoisseurs of great cinema, neither Gary Ross nor David Fincher and Aaron Sorkin were afraid to take these risks when they created Pleasantville and The Social Network, respectively. Each film revels in social commentary as they take an unapologetic look at particularly notable eras in American history (the 1950’s and the mid 2000’s), and portray them as a representation of opposing states of mind: the blissful ignorance of conformity vs. the ruthlessness of individuality.

Drink the Kool-Aid, or Steal the Recipe?

The world of Pleasantville is initially depicted as a paradise, with everything always going as planned. The basketball team is incapable of missing a shot, people maintain a perfect figure despite eating massive quantities of unhealthy food, and everyone is completely content with their role in society – be it as a firefighter repeating the same task everyday or a housewife who never thinks about herself. Or as Michael O’Sullivan so eloquently puts it, “an entire, make-believe world whose very existence depends on rigorous adherence to a fanciful premise”. However, it is the nature of their happiness deriving from a perpetual routine that reveals this world for what is truly is: a bubble of ignorance. As noted by Roger Ebert in his review of the film, this facade of pleasantness only exists so long as the people of this world are never challenged, and any attempt to introduce change is seen as “scary and dangerous”.  This world is the embodiment of blissful ignorance through conformity, and was a clear (and effective) satire of the similarly-minded 1950’s society.

But while we may mock the antiquated ideologies of the past, an equally harsh criticism of our modern society’s emphasis on the individual can be made. The world of The Social Network is depicted as the polar opposite of Pleasantville: people are free and independent from a very early age, but they quickly become consumed by their own ambition and greed. Everyone is out for themselves, and as Peter Bradshaw notes, will destroy each other for something as petty as jealousy of another person’s “marginally superior social status”. In fact, the entire premise of the film is a reflection of how greed-driven society has become, entertainingly described as “a story where young millionaires sue each other for more money feels like really high stakes” by the comedic Youtube series “Honest Trailers”

Fincher and Sorkin expertly crafted a satire of a society on the other extreme of the spectrum – one that sacrifices any semblance of empathy or community in exchange for the freedom to pursue individual goals at any cost. Both Pleasantville and The Social Network were remarkably well thought-out social commentaries for blockbuster-budgeted films, but what is particularly interesting is how completely different their reception from the public was.

The Power of Marketing

Much like how their worlds were the antithesis of one another, Pleasantville and The Social Network each saw entirely opposing financial success at the box office. While The Social Network saw a mammoth $224M return against a $40M budget, Pleasantville was an enormous flop, losing $10M against its budget. But why? Both films had impressive visuals from their directors, witty dialogue, and received critical praise across the board. So what made one such a massive financial success while the other became every producer’s nightmare? In one word; marketing. The marketing campaign for The Social Network was brilliantly done, as the poster alone successfully advertises the combination of Aaron Sorkin’s sharply-crafted writing with David Fincher’s bleak, enthralling visual style.

With such an effective marketing campaign behind it, The Social Network was able to draw in crowds from the get-go, which could then snowball into word-of-mouth success due to the film’s particularly high quality.

The marketing behind Pleasantville, however, left much to be desired. Most notably in its trailer.

Going from the content of the trailer alone, a viewer who may have been interested in a clever satire about 1950’s society are instead given the impression that the film is a quirky, corny comedy with an overemphasis on whimsy. And while it deters that demographic of potential viewers from showing up, it also draws in the wrong audience – one who expected a corny, whimsical comedy, and left disappointed with no intent of spreading positive word-of-mouth. All of these failings brought on by a mere trailer, which in no way represents the actual quality of the film itself. It is an unpleasant reminder that the film industry requires competence from not only the filmmakers, but from those in charge of distributing it as well.

Pleasantville and The Social Network are prime examples of both clever social commentary, and the importance of advertising for a film’s success. And rather fittingly, the film centered around a greed-driven society found the most commercial success, while Pleasantville’s downfall came as a result of a trailer that was completely out of touch.