A Talk With Directors Rejected by Sundance Festival

Tom Roston, writing for the New York Times:

Career highlights may await filmmakers whose movies have been accepted at the Sundance Film Festival, which begins Thursday in Park City, Utah. But more common is the hurt, frustration and fallback strategizing that occupies the thousands of directors whose dreams have been dashed. Of more than 12,000 films submitted to this year’s Sundance, only 193 landed slots.

This is further compounded by the perception that there are only a handful of festivals that "matter" – as if anything but the most stellar of festival runs invalidates one's existence as a filmmaker. 

No question, it's great to play Sundance. Or Tribeca. Or South by Southwest. But plenty of filmmakers have has fulfilling festival runs playing smaller festivals like Sidewalk and Newport Beach and IFF Boston. Some made incredible careers for themselves without playing a single festival. It's a big world of moving pictures out there, and festivals represent one corner of it. 

Economy, venue losses impact film festivals

A trio of articles crossed my desk this week that highlight the obstacles many small festivals face on the road to putting on a show.

The first is about the Vancouver International Film Festival, which will lose its main venue (a cineplex) in the coming year.

“When you have that really lovely centre of gravity and the dynamism around that, it makes it a pretty appealing event,” said [festival director Alan] Franey. “Whether we can find some magical way to create that energy, I have my doubts about that given available venues, so that’s a real loss.”

The second details similar venue woes for the Hot Springs Documentary Festival:

The event is being held at the Arlington Hotel this time around. That's because the Malco Theatre -- the festival's usual venue -- was damaged by a storm in August. Before that, Arvest Bank had filed a foreclosure suit on the theater.

Making matters worse, the festival board owes $20,000 in local taxes. But, the festival is bouncing back in style.

Finally and most disappointingly, the Lake Arrowhead Film Festival is suspending operations altogether, pending a financial comeback.

The festival, which had grown and evolved over the years, started to experience reduced funding in 2009 in the tanking economy.

"We so completely depend on our sponsors, and funding was cut way down," [festival director Mary] Dippell said.

The nonprofit had been turned down on about 50 grants and the effect was accumulative, she said.

"In 2012, we just had a fraction of the donations we usually have," Dippell said.

The festival scheduled for October 2013 has been called off.

Occasionally I hear from a filmmaker who assumes that festivals are universally rolling in dough from filmmaker submissions fees, or from someone who wants to start a festival, assuming that there isn't much to it. The reality differs from both of these perceptions – running a festival is serious business, and one shouldn't confuse "non-profit" with "doesn't need to make money."

On the festival venue front, I wonder how many small theaters will call it quits because they can't afford to make the jump from 35mm film to digital projection, and how many film festivals will lose their venues as a result. 

The trials of being a film festival judge

Dave Garthmin, writing for Elgin Courier News:

We asked [the festival director] whether we should discuss what we just saw. He said he would prefer that we just fill out our ballots, with 5 points for the best film and 1 point for the worst. “There was one year when the discussion among the judges got a little confrontational down here,” he explained.

So we began poring silently over our ballots like six teenagers taking the SAT test.

Every festival is different – some encourage those lengthy discussions, others prefer to get things done as efficiently as possible. It's always nice to get a peek behind the judging curtain at a particular festival, though.

Richard Pena retires as programming director of the New York Film Festival

Jake Coyle, writing for the Associated Press:

"I'd be really pleased to be known as the person who kept the — what I think — extremely high level of the festival constant," Pena said in a recent interview in Lincoln Center's Walter Reade Theater. "That indeed I was given a trust in 1988 and I didn't screw up."

Most would give him far more credit than that. Pena has overseen film at Lincoln Center through a tumultuous period that's seen the graying of art house audiences, the birth of digital filmmaking and distribution, the exponential growth of film festivals and the shift of the art film's epicenter away from Europe and toward the Middle East, Asia and South America.

Film festival fare: No big budget, just big entertainment

Michael C. Moore, writing for the Kitsap Sun:

Even the fans of big-budget shoot-'em-ups and special effects bonanzas should do the festival thing, to see how a great story is told without a $200 million budget, a bank of computers that could land a probe on Mars and two or three of Hollywood's most marketable stars (who, incidentally, eat up a huge chunk of that $200 million before a single frame has been shot).

A nice recap of some films at the Port Townsend Film Fest.

Interview with Scott & Sean Cross, creators of the Vail Film Festival

Cathryne Keller, writing for Men's Health:

"If you have an idea that you really believe in and you're willing to work really hard," says Scott, "you can get people or companies to put money into it and believe in your vision." One of the keys to garnering outside support—financial or otherwise—is to show people what's in it for them. "If you can map out the idea and really show value," he says, "people will respond."

My standard answer to people who say they want to start a film festival is "Don't." There are too many festivals out there struggling as it is, and the reality is a far cry from the starry-eyed vision that such would-be festival directors have in their heads.

People do it anyway, though, and these guys seem to be making it work. I especially like their mantra "Do the thing, and get the courage later."

Atheist Film Fest believes in you

Speaking of film festivals in San Francisco, Chris Hall at SF Weekly writes about the fourth annual Atheist Film Festival.

Ironically, it's easy to look at the festival's name and expect to be preached at, a reaction that Fitzgerald says he gets a lot. "One thing I loved this year especially is that we realized there's a lot of atheist films out there, and we don't have to accept them if they're preachy and boring. It doesn't matter if their hearts are in the right place if they make bad movies."

Producer Ted Hope to run SF Film Society

Pam Grady, writing for the San Francisco Chronicle:

Ted Hope, an independent film master from New York who has produced nearly 70 feature films, has been appointed the new executive director of the San Francisco Film Society. He succeeds Bingham Ray, who passed away in January after only 10 weeks in the position, and will take the reins from interim Executive Director Melanie Blum on Sept. 1.

The SF Film Society is the parent organization of the San Francisco International Film Festival. This is a smart move for both parties. Best of luck, Ted.

A 15-year veteran reveals his training tips for film buffs getting buff for MIFF

David Weir, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald with tips on how to prepare for the Melbourne International Film Festival:

A haircut is mandatory for tall competitors, to reduce air resistance and avoid friction with spectators seated behind. The final preparation involves a shopping trip and making a two-week supply of sandwiches.

Funny stuff, and not as facetious as you might think. Every festival veteran has a personal set of rituals that makes a marathon event bearable. I really do have a friend who gets what he calls his "festival haircut" a few days before his favorite fest.

15 Film Festival Darlings That Would Have Been Better as TV Series

Evan Shapiro, writing for The Huffington Post back in January during Sundance:

Each year, there are a few great films that get Park City buzz, only to disappear into a sea of megaplexes and blockbusters. These are tweeners -- terrific stories, with great direction and unique characters that for various reasons are difficult to categorize and tricky to market. I submit that many of these would have fared better on TV. Would they have been better pieces of art? I cannot say. But with the reach and influence of cable TV right now, I can say they would have had a better chance of reaching an audience and influencing the culture, and their directors and producers may have seen a bigger return on their efforts.

It's an interesting read but it mostly makes me think of all of the independent filmmakers who bypass film festivals and go straight to their audiences with short serial content online. In years past these would be people who would have made films and submitted them to film festivals (and some of them still do, I'm sure), but now there's a generation of filmmakers being trained on YouTube instead of on the festival circuit. 

Social Change Film Festival looking for films by indigenous filmmakers

The 2nd annual Social Change Film Festival takes place in December, and it's looking for submissions.

First Peoples Worldwide (FPW) and the Social Change Film Festival and Institute (SCFFI) are seeking films by Indigenous filmmakers for the second annual Social Change Film Festival & Institute, November 28 – December 2, 2012 in New Orleans, LA USA. SCFFI & FPW will also hold a special panel at the festival.

Films must be created by an Indigenous filmmaker(s) and have a strong social message. We celebrate the independent spirit of excellent film making and creative storytelling. We are looking for films that generate dialogue, spark policy change, and/or activate communities around key social issues of our times. Selected films will represent a diversity of perspectives from all over the world. SCFFI seeks to promote the ability of film to inspire action. We favor films that offer solutions and/or drive community activism on an issue.

There don't appear to be submissions fees for this part of the fest, so if you fit the qualifications above, check it out.

Atlanta Film Festival keeps filmmakers in the loop

When discussing the film submissions process with festival programmers, I often ask how those programmers keep their submitting filmmakers informed of how the screening process is going. Sometimes they'll tell me that they send out regular updates, but more often I'll get a blank look. With all the work of processing the incoming films, ensuring that those films are watched and graded, and then whittling the better films down to the ones that will actually play the festival, film fest staffers often forget that there are hundreds (sometimes thousands) of people waiting to hear whether their film is one of the lucky few. 

The result is a frustrated filmmaker populace that waits months (during which they receive no communication from the festival) only to be rejected – and then sometimes the festival will hit them up to buy a festival pass. Every festival programmer has stories of the angry emails they receive from rejected filmmakers, and it's not difficult to see why that happens. Uncertainty sucks, and uncertainty followed by rejection is even worse.

The antidote, it seems to me, is a series of "weather reports" from the festival. Nothing special, just little updates every few weeks that let the filmmakers know that yes, indeed, their films are being watched, and that their film is up against X number of other films, and that there are actual human beings working hard at the festival to put together the best program possible. The less that filmmakers perceive your event as a black hole into which they threw their film and their money, the better.

One of the programmers who recently took this notion seriously is Charles Judson at the Atlanta Film Festival. His first update went out this past week and it's a doozy.

As the Head of Programming for ATLFF one of my driving missions is to make the submission process less mysterious and more transparent. Since 1976, when ATLFF's parent organization IMAGE Film & Video (renamed to Atlanta Film Festival 365) was founded, we've been a resource for filmmakers. In that spirit, we want to upend the traditional "submit and wait for your acceptance or non-acceptance" mode of communication to give you occasional glimpses into how things are going, things we're seeing and some of our general thoughts.

Admittedly, this is still going to be fairly broad and won't feature specifics about your film, but we're hoping that the four to five updates we'll send between now and Final Selections will be helpful.

Charles could probably have written about 300 words and called it a day, but instead he wrote whole sections on how their judging process works, how many screeners see each film, and the tough decisions programmers make. 

The reactions from filmmakers were, predictably, quite positive.

This actually encouraged me to submit my film "The Learning Curve" that I had already decided I would not submit to AFF. My films are known for being dark . . . it's refreshing to hear that films that push the limits are welcomed!

It’s not every day that you hear from festivals trying to keep us in the loop. Messages like yours [go] a long way.

It is heartening to know that the ATLFF is so thorough and rigorous with its viewing/selection process.

For a programmer to get such positive vibes from filmmakers before their films have been selected is pretty rare. It remains to be seen whether Judson's efforts will reduce the level of venom from disappointed directors at rejection time, but I'm betting it will. The Atlanta Film Festival's 2013 event will be held in March - their early deadline is this coming Friday.

Steven Moffat talks about how to get your big break

Matthew Bell, interviewing one of my favorite writers, Steven Moffat (Sherlock, Doctor Who, Coupling) for BAFTA Guru:

His advice to would-be scriptwriters is “just write. The big break is easy if you’re good enough. I hear people saying, ‘I’m desperate to write – I’ve written this script.’ And I want to say: ‘Why haven’t you written 50 scripts?’

“The first 50 will be shit and so will the next 50 and probably the 50 after that,” he continues. “You have to write all the time and not worry so much about going to the right parties or the contacts you have in the business – they’re completely irrelevant. And stop badgering people for advice because there almost is none – If you write a truly brilliant script, it will get on the telly.”

The same is basically true for getting your film into festivals – if you've made a truly brilliant film, festivals will play it.

Notes from a Festival Programmer: You Should Program More [Insert Genre/Niche/Culture/Country] Films

Atlanta Film Festival programmer Charles Judson, writing for CinemATL.com:

. . . filmmakers have to realize that any film festival worth a damn is always juggling several goals and missions. That a festival’s curatorial mission is more than just subjectively selecting the “best” films. That diversity doesn’t just extend to who are the leads and who is behind the camera.

It also encompasses the genres being programmed, the different categories the festival includes and representing the myriad of styles and approaches filmmakers have tackled in their work. It’s being aware of the conversations and real world events taking place globally and locally when thinking about what films to select for the documentaries. It’s knowing what the festival has screened the last few years and balancing keeping the festival fresh, current,  forward thinking and respectful of our cinematic heritage, all at the same time.

Judson's words come in response to criticism from the local filmmaking community that the festival doesn't support their work. If you want to learn more about the thought processes of a programmers and the pressures they often work under, read this.

Cannes: 5 Major Scandals Through The Years

Justine Ashley Costanza, writing for The International Business Times.

The Cannes Film Festival -- indisputably one of the most anticipated film events of the year -- is associated with glamour, prestige, and artistic brilliance. The seaside festival is also famous for serving up numerous scandals and controversies.

Calling these "major scandals" is a bit much, but it's a nice reminder of the festival's occasional rocky times and entertaining kerfluffles. I love the characterization of the Cannes audience as "artsy progressives." Not that I think the description is wrong, necessarily, but it's questionable journalism.

Cannes Diary: Festival opens to controversy over lack of female-directed films

Milos Stehlik, writing for The BEZ about a provocative open letter written by French feminist group "La Barbe":

In presenting only films by male filmmakers, the writers said, the festival "show(s) once again that men love depth in women, but only in their cleavage.” Festival Director Thierry Fremaux responded by saying he agrees women lack opportunities to make films; however, he said, the problem exists year-round, not just during the ten days of the festival. Cannes could not, he said, start choosing films based strictly on the gender of the filmmaker. Undoubtedly this will not be the last word on the issue.

Undoubtedly.

The Frustrated Users of Withoutabox

Anthony Kaufman, writing for Indiewire:

in emails Withoutabox threatened participating Indee.tv festivals to "deactivate all third party submission services in order to avoid disruption to your Withoutabox service." And 10 festivals dropped the new service.

Reddy calls Withoutabox's exclusivity claims "ridiculous." "The tech industry would NEVER stand for this," he said, in an email. "Imagine Hotmail threatening to block access to your emails if you tried Gmail. The tech world will chew them to bits. Amazon knows this, but somehow feel like they can get away with bullying small festivals outside the tech world. They have a lousy product and rather than work on building a better one they stoop to these exclusivity clauses."

There are some interesting quotes from festival directors here about the problems they have with Withoutabox (WAB), the automated submissions system for filmmakers sending their films to film festivals. 

As DC Shorts director Jon Gann points out in the article, this situation is unlikely to change until someone steps up to "challenge the goliaths." In this case, I think that means that a handful of prominent festivals (with typical annual submissions numbers upwards of 2000) would have to commit to using a different system. This will be accompanied by a blow to the number of submissions they receive, but introducing competition to the world of festival submissions might be worth it to them in the long run. The hard part of WAB's business to copy is its access to a large number of filmmakers with films ready to submit to fests. But if the only way to submit to some of the larger festivals were through an alternative solution, even that database of filmmaker prospects could be replicated over time.

(As an aside, I suspect that number of "400,000" filmmakers is mostly bogus. There may be 400,000 registered emails in the WAB system, but the chances that all – or even most – of those people are still actively submitting films to festivals is, in my humble estimation, pretty unlikely. It would have been nice to hear from a filmmaker or two in this article, since they are the people ultimately paying the bills.)

I think it's important to say here that, other than those emails enforcing the exclusivity clause, Withoutabox (WAB) isn't behaving in a particularly evil way.  The people who work there are generally terrific and the service is the backbone of the film judging process. Unfortunately, WAB is a cog in the great Amazon/IMDb machine. Amazon is perfectly content to let that cog continue spinning as it has always spun, feeding other parts of Amazon's business. And without competition to threaten the way that cog spins, there is very little incentive to devote development resources to improving WAB's software, service, or pricing.

Regardless, festival staffers will likely continue their love/hate relationship with Withoutabox for some years to come. Here's one of my favorite rants from the festival perspective: the criminally under-watched "Bitch Fest" from Project Twenty1.

Awesome film fest flowchart from Lower East Side Film Fest

This tongue-in-cheek flow chart is one of the cleverer ways I've seen of communicating a film programming ethos. There are plenty of "joke" dead-ends here (I especially like the hackneyed-but-still-funny thrashing of the Comic Sans typeface), but also a serious path through to festival acceptance that reveals the qualities in a film that these programmers want. 

The creators of the Lower East Side Film Festival (often shortened, somewhat misleadingly, as LESFilmFest) seem to have done a great job in their inaugural year of creating an identity for their festival. I also see some interesting experiments going on here (like the "QuickSubmit" tool that allows filmmakers with private screening videos on YouTube or Vimeo to bypass the usual submissions process).

I'm looking forward to seeing what they do in 2013.

Film Festicles 3: Submission

More from filmmakers Mark Potts & Brand Rackley on how not to do well on the film festival circuit. See also Film Festicles episodes 1 and 2.

Potts' newest feature Cinema Six (co-starring Rackley), just premiered at the Dallas IFF.

The Oxford Film Festival, and What It Says About Other Small Fests

Eric Snider, writing for Film.com:

You see, these lesser-known film festivals are the hidden gems of the movie world. I’m not going to claim that the overall roster of movies at Oxford is as good as the lineup at a typical Sundance, but the difference between them isn’t as great as you might think, either. If you’re a film buff who can’t afford to travel to the top festivals, you would do well to check out whatever is happening in your own backyard.

The Oxford, Mississippi film fest has been one of my personal favorites for a few years now. The festival's focus on bringing great independent films to an underserved audience – regardless of the pedigree of those films – never waivers.