Tiny 'Bubble' blows into big controversy
By ROBERT W. BUTLER
The Kansas City Star
On Friday a little actor-free movie shot on high-definition video with a running time of only 1 hour 13 minutes will open at just 20 theaters in the U.S., none of them in Kansas City.
"Bubble," an ultra-low-budget film by Oscar-winning director Steven Soderbergh ("Traffic," "Erin Brockovich," "Ocean's Eleven"), is a murder mystery set in the blue collar world of a West Virginia toy factory. A slice-of-life drama performed by non-actors, it's the sort of little production that usually would never make it onto the radar of your average moviegoer.
But whatever the film's value as cinematic art (and Roger Ebert and Richard Roeper have declared it a "masterpiece" on their syndicated movie review show), "Bubble" ushers in a brave/scary new world in film distribution.
That's because it opens simultaneously in both movie theaters and on subscription cable TV. And instead of waiting several months to buy it on DVD or VHS, the film will be released on home video on Tuesday.
It's the first of six little films Soderbergh will shoot and release in this manner.
Theater owners believe it's suicidal.
"Our position is that there's no economic case for shortening the release pattern," AMC Entertainment spokesperson Melanie Bell said earlier this week. "We haven't allowed it to happen yet and that policy will continue. We think theaters are the natural launching pad for movies, that theatrical runs create the buzz that sells videos later on."
Yes, and there's also the troubling question of whether moviegoers will stop buying tickets if they can see the same films on the same day via cable or home video
The exhibition industry is so dead set against the idea that only Landmark Theatres, a "fine arts" chain of which "Bubble" producer Mark Cuban is a partner, will be showing "Bubble." The Landmark theater closest to Kansas City is the Tivoli in St. Louis.
Cuban also operates HDNet Movies, the hi-def cable channel that will show the film twice on Friday.
Is this a one-shot aberration or the beginning of a whole new era in how we see movies?
I'm cautiously going with the second option. Here's why:
While theater owners can see no economic case for simultaneously releasing new movies in the megaplex, on home video and on pay-per-view, the movie studios have strong economic reasons for making the change. Today's films are the target of two hugely expensive marketing efforts — one leading up to the theatrical release, the other a few months later when the video is released.
By releasing a film simultaneously in all formats, the studios could cut their advertising budgets in half.
Moreover, for many movies the theatrical release is a perfunctory, money-losing proposition. But it's necessary to keep the film from being dismissed with the vaguely negative label "straight to video." (How often have you looked at a title at the local Blockbuster store and asked aloud: "Did this thing ever even play in the theaters?")
So, yeah, I think that in coming years smaller films will very likely open simultaneously in all three formats.
In fact, we don't have to wait that long. Next month "C.S.A.," the KC-area lensed mockumentary about our lives if the South had won the Civil War, will open both in theaters and through video-on-demand cable services.
On the other hand, big event movies — like "Titanic" or "King Kong" or your Pixar animated comedy — will probably be released just as they are now, spending several months exclusively in theaters before making a second run as home video and on cable.
Some movie watchers — people who are dating, kids who don't want to watch movies with their parents — undoubtedly will continue to see movies at theaters.
Those of us who are into cocooning may never again visit a megaplex.
If the "Bubble" model takes hold, I wouldn't be surprised if the number of theater screens in the U.S. is cut in half.
This could hit the exhibition industry just as hard as the introduction of TV did in the 1950s.
"Bubble" is only the beginning, though its reception should not be taken too seriously. The hype surrounding it will no doubt affect its success; subsequent films released in this way won't benefit from the same hoopla.
But once the genie is out of the bottle, it's hard to stuff the little sucker back in.