Revolutionary Indie Marketing

June 12, 2007 3:26 PM

How is a filmmaker to fund, market, and distribute his or her project in the digital age? Well, the duo behind a new film called Four Eyed Monsters posted the entire 71 minute film on youtube. In conjuction, Spout.com, a social networking/film discussion website, will donate one dollar to the filmmakers' debt fund for every new person that registers with the site. The film was posted on Friday, and as of this posting, the filmmakers have raised $16,378. The film is also for sale courtesy of B-side a pretty cool site itself that non-exclusively distributes indpenedent films by DRM-free download, or with an "uprade", by DVD.
posted by ChestnutMonkey (10 comments total)

Huh? I thought YouTube had a pretty low running time limit. Or are these people "premium" members or something?

That aside, great initiative. And the girl in the opening sequence is geekhot.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 3:35 PM on June 12, 2007

Yeah, I'm guessing they worked out a special deal. In general, there's a 10 minute time limit. You used to be able to apply for longer if you had a director's account. For no good reason I can see, they suspended this feature (bastards!), but even without the time limit, there's always been a file size limit of 100MB. Plus, the Youtube page lists the film as being available for one week only, so it must be a special deal they worked out with youtube.
posted by ChestnutMonkey at 3:42 PM on June 12, 2007

They're doing a pretty good job since that movie has been linked to twice today already.
posted by inconsequentialist at 3:53 PM on June 12, 2007

I really enjoyed the behind-the-scenes videos (the ones named "episode #") in their podcast feed. Interesting bits about acting, directing, filming, producing, promoting, and interacting with humans on a group project and on a personal level.

Later vids got a bit whiny/angsty IMO.
posted by olecranon at 4:26 PM on June 12, 2007

Very interesting subject, the insecurities and fears of young generations, definitely hot topic today , even more then before with all the tons of insecurities being unloaded over the future. The film itself is not massified..which is ok with me. Shortening it somehow would help, attention span baby :D
posted by elpapacito at 4:43 PM on June 12, 2007

Painful. The filmmakers are definitely talented, but I'd like to see them get past the Woody Allen navel-gazing. Art-school, sexual anxiety and downtown living are so 1999. That and there's a little too much filler, with the long panoramas, the former boyfriends and the diary-entries.

Next time out, they need to work a more conventional narrative. If it were Film School they'd get an 'A', but for general consumption they get a 'C'. Twentysomething angst just isn't that interesting to me as a subject.
posted by vhsiv at 5:19 PM on June 12, 2007

Great production value. Dumb script.
posted by basicchannel at 5:54 PM on June 12, 2007

Oh and what vhsiv said: they need to trim the fat. Oh, then it wouldn't be a "feature" but rather a short film.
posted by basicchannel at 5:55 PM on June 12, 2007

I'm sure there are many people out there doing this now that digital filmmaking has become so easy. I'm doing it myself, probably having bitten off more than I can chew, but it's good for learning.

That said, it really does come across as very amateur, and time-lapse shots do not a story make. Our film is a different beast, but I hope to at least attain 60's B-movie level storytelling. Someday.
posted by Poagao at 2:07 AM on June 14, 2007

It's interesting that it's a true story, which makes for the relationship on screen all that much more bizarre. I actually disagree with basicchannel. It's an interesting script...but overall, the cinematography isn't anything we haven't seen before. But I'll give credit where credit is due: overall, it's an enjoyable and interesting film. I didn't have to give any second thought to registering at their sponsor if it really does mean it'll throw them a bone.
posted by erstwhile at 1:46 AM on June 16, 2007