We Live In Public: Irony
// September 1st, 2009 // No Comments » // Musings
I sense We Live In Public has failed on a grand scale to capitalize on the massive amounts of publicity it has received over the last few months. Here is a movie owned not by the major motion picture houses, but by an independent individual capable of doing what she pleases with the documentary. What is driving her to keep this movie from the public? I read today that a movie must be shown for 60 days in both LA and New York before being considered for any awards from the academy. Ok, but why would Ondi choose to follow this path? It doesn’t make sense given the opportunity costs of not choosing her other options.
“Art is not for profit”… Ok, let’s say Ondi Timoner created the film not to get rich, but to tell a story. This may be a bit too idealistic for some to swallow, but let’s run with it for a second. If the documentary was created to tell the story of Josh Harris then why not distribute it over the internet to world? Ondi’s not looking to make a pile of cash in this scenario. She just wants people to see her work and appreciate it. The internet can facilitate this goal like no other distribution channel can. Bandwidth is cheap and online payment technology has advance to the point where the mainstream feels comfortable making purchases over the internet. She could charge a minimal amount of money to cover her costs while opening the door for thousands of individuals to view and appreciate her work.
“Art is how I make a living”… If Ondi views her documentaries as a way to make a living then she would recognize that the incredible publicity she has received has created an opportunity for her to capitalize on her work in a major way. How many startups would kill for the kind of attention We Live In Public has received. If these startups had this kind of publicity would they simply put up a teaser website and tell people they weren’t taking any orders? No way, not in a million years! We Live In Public reminds me of the worst salesmen. The ones who talk up the product, convince the customer they need it, and then forget to ask for the sale. There is a crowd standing at the door waving their money around asking for the product, but no one will take their money. By the time the film is released will this pent up demand still exist or will the crowd have moved on? Last I checked the attention span of the internet was getting shorter, not longer.
“Art is for the creator”… The only way I can justify Ondi holding We Live In Public so close to her chest is because she needs the affirmation of the academy in order to feel like We Live In Public lived up to its potential. As I typed the previous sentence I failed to believe it at my core because the movie documents how someone went against the grain and paved the way for how we view the internet and media today. I think the real reason Ondi is playing to the academy is because she believes it is the best path to take for the film to reach her audience. In reality wouldn’t the Sundance Grand Jury winner who turned their back on the academy, rewrote the rules of the game, and catered to the people for whom the film was made make far more of a splash?
In the end its true that I’m simply upset the movie which documented a maverick is being held captive by the very people it was aimed to break free of. Don’t blame me when I download We Live In Public off bit torrent. I would have paid for it if there was an option.
I don’t think the business model is very hard for a movie like We Live In Public. It received massive amounts of publicity and traffic. It simply forgot to ask for my credit card number.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XSTwfdFwIY&hl=en&fs=1&]
