The Politics of "The Avengers"; Or, Can Clean ...
The Next "Inconvenient Truth"? Jeremy Irons ...
Van Sant and Damon Attack Fracking with "The ...
In Defense of "Compliance," Sundance's Most ...
A Certain Tendency of the Documentary Ci ...
Iran's Movie Diplomacy: How Can We Attack ...
The Top 11 Political Movies of 2011Bass Ackwards and the YouTube/Sundance Experiment
Today, I plunked down $3.99 to watch Linas Philips's "Bass Ackwards," premiering in Sundance's NEXT section, on YouTube. This is the first time I've ever paid money to watch something online -- notwithstanding my Netflix subscription -- so I'd say this is a major coup for the publicity and filmmaking team behind the movie. "Bass Ackwards" producer Thomas Woodrow is a persuasive sort, and when he vigorously argued to me that they would treat "Sundance itself as the theatrical campaign" and make the movie simultaneously available on all platforms, I bought the pitch, literally. (Since I talked to Woodrow and wrote about the film for Filmmaker Magazine (When Does Plan B Become Plan A? Few Sundance Filmmakers Brave Alternative Distribution Paths), I was probably more invested than your average movie-consumer, but so be it. Last I checked, the movie had 63 views after being available for about three-quarters of a day.
I have little doubt that this approach is the best commercially for the film--the decidedly lo-fi, offbeat, rambling road-trip story of a slacker looking for direction in his life would not fare well in theaters.
But I still have my doubts about the cinema experience of watching a movie streaming on my computer. There's too many potential distractions and I had a number of brief streaming pauses--visual hiccups (what's the 21st century terminology for this?). Also, comedy doesn't translate as well at home verses a theater with a bunch of people. There's an early sequence that shows the protagonist working briefly at an Alpaca farm--for my money, one of the movie's best scenes. And while I snickered out loud during a moment where the character asks for love from a hungry alpaca, I suspect this bit gets big laughs in a theater--which would have been far more satisfying, not just for the audience, but the filmmakers, as well.
3 Comments
jl | February 9, 2010 5:17 AM
I think film loses some of its intimacy without the cinematic experience - watching in the theater and sharing the thrills, chills, laughs, tears with fellow movie goers (even if they are rude enough to answer their cell phones) However, I do value the convenience of watching on a computer, but it's too damn distracting (an email here, an IM there, pause, buffering, tweets) and we lose the commitment to the film. I love movies. I love convenience. One day we'll find a happy medium.
BRIAN | January 31, 2010 7:47 AM
I Personally, feel cheated. I watched "Strays" for free on you tube because I was not interested in it enough to pay for it. However when its free I figured what the hell, and turns out it wasn't half bad. I would of never payed even $1.00 for pauses and the other idiosyncrasies involved in streaming. To me this is the cost of free movies.
Bryan Land | January 23, 2010 7:52 AM
Watching a movie on a laptop with a decently sized screen and headphones is an intimate experience. I think it's more immersive than the big cinema screen. Better yet, portable. DVD technology helped usher in quality viewing at home. Now its just getting better. Going to see a ninety minute film at the theater can take most of your day somehow. Now you have streaming and digital downloads. Convenient and sharp. Love it.