Filmmaker Magazine | Sundance Features

SUNDANCE FEATURES

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

PROGRAM DIRECTOR TREVOR GROTH INTRODUCES US TO NEXT |
By Alicia Van Couvering

One of the biggest premieres at Sundance this year doesn’t involve a star-studded premiere party or the unspooling of a glossy 35mm print: it’s an entirely new section of programming: <=>, pronounced “Next” by those not brave enough to type or say the symbol. Director of programming Trevor Groth has been involved with the festival for 25 years, and points out that the symbol actually means “Less Than Equals Greater Than,” which alludes to the fact that all Next films were made for very small budgets — at least under $500,000 but in most cases much, much less than that.

Based on description alone, the eight films in the section seem to be variations on the beloved themes of American independent film: a road movie, a sex comedy, an examination of a little-known subculture, an outcast boy gets unlikely girl. Films just like them, with equally small budgets, are programmed in Competition and Spotlight; films just like them with multi-million dollar budgets will have their days in the Park City sun as well. So what is a Next film?

Below, Groth explains all the reasoning behind the symbol, and says that the point isn’t exactly to create a special “low budget” section, but rather to highlight the complex achievements of filmmakers pursuing personal, human stories outside of what has, in the 25 years of the festival, become a new institutional film system, the one populated by movie stars and studios that still calls itself “Independent Film.” Advancements in digital format and a rising tide of new distribution possibilities make the delineation a timely new line in the Sundance sand.

Filmmaker: What’s the story behind the creation of this new section?

Groth: There were a lot of factors – it started with the submissions we received, which had grown so much not just in quantity but also in quality. Our decisions were getting much more difficult because the films being submitted were getting better and better. A lot of the films making it in were films that we loved, but that also tended to have a higher profile in terms of name talent and so on. We always kept some space for smaller films, but they tended not to get the attention they deserved when competing with these bigger names that got all the press. So we felt that by giving these films their own section, they might collectively get more attention than they would standing alone alongside the other features. We want to represent with this selection of films a spectrum of what’s happening in this part of the industry right now. There are certainly low-budget films in Competition that we considered for Next; for us, when a film went into the Next section, it wasn’t 2nd place – especially this first year, I think these films are going to get even more attention by being in Next than they would if they were in Competition.

Filmmaker: It’s a tricky thing, singling films out based on their budget, because the budget of a film dictates its casting, the coverage, the format — everything. It might be hard for these films to be judged alongside films that had much greater resources. But likewise I don’t feel like films should be excused for their faults because of their lack of money, or get a break from the audience because they didn’t have all the money they needed.

Groth: That’s right, [the film] has to work, and we truly feel that all these films work despite their limited resources to tell their stories. We found the films [for this section] that we thought really represent the ‘less than equals greater than’ spirit. We don’t want the audience to forgive these films for what they don’t have. We want people to react without thinking what the budget was.

Filmmaker: What do they share besides budget?

Groth: Along the budget lines, people have asked, you know, what’s the [cut-off budget] number, and we didn’t have a hard number. In general, we said that anything under $500,000 could be considered for this section. That being said however, I think the films making it into this section are much lower than that. They all come from very different places and very different voices, but I do think they share similar qualities. They are all focused on the writing, they are all sharply conceived and written, and they’re all capturing a specific aesthetic with what limited resources they have to work with.

Filmmaker: They do all seem to be narrative and character-driven, not playing rough with format or pushing formal boundaries in major ways.

Groth: The films that are pushing boundaries are what New Frontiers is all about. We’d noticed in that last few years that there were a lot of films going into New Frontiers that weren’t necessarily formally experimental or avant-garde in any specific way, but that had this spirit of utilizing minimal resources and being inventive and creative with storytelling. So that’s another reason that we wanted to create Next, to showcase films that weren’t necessarily breaking any rules about aesthetic and story but were just very well-executed and funny — character-driven films that we think work regardless of budget.

Filmmaker: In terms of the sales landscape, the prevailing wisdom is that filmmakers should not come into the festival expecting that magical six-figure deal that makes their dreams come true. How does this section fit into these new business realities?

Groth: Definitely, we wanted to reflect what was happening in the industry. The old track of, “OK we’re going to make this film, come to Sundance and sell it to a distributor,” that really only happens for a small percentage of films these days. The ones that it does happen to are ones that have more obviously marketable components to them. What I love about the films in the Next section is that they’re not coming in with that dream. If you look at Bass Ackwards and One Too Many Mornings, they’re coming in with a complete plan for distribution. They’re utilizing the attention that they’re going to get by being in Sundance to get out there as widely and as quickly as they can. I think that is going to happen more and more in the future, and this is the year it’s breaking out. People are shifting their agendas as to what the path of their film can be. We’re going to pay very close attention to those specific examples of what the new experience of taking a film to Sundance is going to be.

Filmmaker: I wonder how it’s going to play out, because some of these films don’t seem particularly internet-friendly, or have the obviously marketable elements you’re referring to.

Groth: One thing I’m hoping is that film festivals aren’t put off by a film that’s trying to distribute itself right away, via DVD’s and downloads and other platforms. Film Festivals are the film’s theatrical distribution in this model, and hopefully there’s going to be a shift [towards accepting that.] It’s like what happened with short films a few years ago, when the big festivals refused to show short films that had played online — Sundance was one of the first to break that rule. The same thing will happen with how people think about [films that are] accessible in VOD or online — they are still worth showing theatrically at a festival. We’re doing a thing this year with the Sundance channel where three films (Daddy Longlegs, 7 Days and Shock Doctrine) will be available for VOD during the festival. A film like 7 Days would have had some options to do other things [with its distribution] because it’s a genre film, but they’re willing to roll the dice by doing VOD right out of the gate, which is great. During the 10 days of the festival is when most of these films will have the most eyes on them, so why not utilize that momentum to reach as broad an audience as possible? Whatever we can do to connect films with audiences is a positive thing.

# posted by Jason Guerrasio @ 5:02 PM Comments (0)

WHEN DOES PLAN B BECOME PLAN A? |
By Anthony Kaufman

This is Anthony Kaufman's Industry Beat column from our 2010 Winter issue.

Old distribution models die hard.

Everyone knows about the passing of that once-established indie film paradigm: Make a movie, show it at a festival, sell it to a distributor, get it booked in theaters, watch it find a home on DVD and cable — and then somewhere down the line, after all the release expenses are recovered, maybe even rake in a few bucks.

And yet, when talking to filmmakers and sales reps heading into this year’s Sundance, it’s shocking how few are following new distribution strategies.

Submarine Entertainment’s Josh Braun says that a few of the filmmakers he’s repping have discussed some form of alternative path. “However,” he explains, “we are going on the Sundance ride to see how things unfold. Last year we had a bidding war and sold Humpday during Sundance, and I don’t think those days are gone yet. Certain movies will still trigger strong interest from distributors who don’t want to risk losing a great film.”

This might come as a surprise from Braun, who helped orchestrate the hugely successful DIY release for Valentino: The Last Emperor. After distribution offers were deemed inadequate following its Toronto fest ’08 premiere, the team eventually formed a partnership with Truly Indie and Vitagraph Films, and the self-styled release went onto become one of 2009’s highest-grossing docs. But Braun says that was a particular case of the filmmakers’ eagerness to experiment. “For certain films, it’s a great opportunity,” he says, further noting that films, particularly documentaries with a TV partner already in place, can take advantage of the theatrical window between a festival premiere and broadcast date.

Citing the “broken down” theatrical distribution market, Cinetic Media’s Digital Rights guru Matt Dentler believes there is a greater willingness now among filmmakers to embrace alternative distrib routes. “For the right film, which didn’t cost a ton of money and where there’s a specific audience, you can use the momentum of a festival and [with digital distribution] tap into people around the country who are hearing about the film and don’t have a way to see it,” he says. Dentler adds that Cinetic’s strategy to self-release Chris Smith’s Collapse on VOD and theaters shortly after its Toronto ’09 premiere was always the plan for the film. But it’s too soon to determine whether the strategy paid off. While the film attracted an impressive amount of publicity, by publication it has only grossed $50,000.

Regardless, the fact is most reps and filmmakers won’t go on record with non-conventional distribution plans because both still want to attract big buyers. Filmmakers want the distribution and marketing muscle a conventional distributor can provide, and most reps work off commissions, incentivizing them to aim first for large advances and quick sales. For all the talk of new models, few filmmakers want to give up on the old dream. As Dentler says, “When filmmakers get into Sundance, their distribution expectations skyrocket, even in this market.”

So when does reality set in?

For Michael Mohan, writer-director of One Too Many Mornings, playing in Sundance’s new low-budget Next section, the cruel truths of the sales climate hit home while he was making his movie. “We were looking at other films of similar scale; half were coming out, half weren’t, so we thought. ‘What’s the most responsible thing to do?’”

He and his team soon decided it made the most sense to make their indie comedy available for sale off their Web site (onetoomanymornings.com) through download and DVD immediately after the movie’s Sundance premiere. They enlisted the help of TopSpin Media, a technology and marketing firm that has previously helped music acts reach their audiences directly through the Web.

One Too Many Mornings producer Anthony Deptula acknowledges that the film’s low budget allowed them to try a more “hybrid” approach. “If you have a $400,000 or $600,000 movie, you can’t really mess around,” he admits. But with a low-budget, low-stakes production, Mohan and Deptula are motivated just as much by a financial incentive as a creative one. “Our goal is not to sell the film,” says Mohan, “but get it seen by as many people as possible.”

Likewise, Thomas Woodrow, producer of Sundance Next selection Bass Ackwards (pictured above), was fed up with the traditional distribution model — which he sardonically calls “stealing” (“a company taking a movie and then paying their bills by selling it and giving nothing back to the filmmaker,” he explains). Instead the Bass Ackwards filmmakers are planning “to treat Sundance itself as the theatrical campaign,” says Woodrow. Partnering with former New Line exec Marion Koltai-Levine’s Zipline Entertainment and indie distributor New Video, Woodrow hopes to get the film out “on every single platform as we can — DVD, iTunes, Amazon, Netflix, and maybe even in theaters. When someone asks, ‘How can I see your movie?’ The answer will be ‘anyway you want.’ When? February 1.”

While Mohan and Woodrow are embracing the future, diving headlong into post-Sundance digitally-driven launches, many filmmakers still want to emphasize a theatrical release as their first line of fire, with or without an established distributor. As Vanessa Hope, a producer of the Sundance competition picture The Imperialists are Still Alive!, states, “If we end up needing to go directly to the theater chains ourselves in order to get the film out there, we will do it.” She believes the Internet is key to the film’s promotion, but she feels that Imperialists is akin to indies from the ’60s and ’70s “that audiences above 25 years old will want to experience in theaters.”

Like many producers and filmmakers heading into Sundance, Hope is already strategizing for public consumption no matter what happens in Park City: getting that Facebook page polished, seeking out celebrity endorsements and cultivating fans online. But she sums up the aims of many by saying, “Plan A is a buyer.”

# posted by Jason Guerrasio @ 5:01 PM Comments (0)

SUNDANCE DIRECTOR JOHN COOPER TALKS 2010 FEST & BEYOND |
By Scott Macaulay

When filmmakers heard that the Sundance Film Festival’s longstanding Director, Geoffrey Gilmore, was leaving, they wondered if his departure would signify a major change in direction at an institution that more than any other has defined the world of American independent film. When, a couple of weeks later, John Cooper, Sundance’s Director of Programming, was elevated to the Director position, they breathed a sigh of relief. As Holly Willis wrote in Filmmaker in 2006 about the 20-year veteran of the festival, “Funny, self-deprecating and entirely approachable, Cooper is known to thousands of American filmmakers as the guy who calls with really excellent news. For the festival, he’s integral, the armature that supports everything.”

But Cooper’s (and he is always known by just his last name) ascension has not meant business as usual in Park City and at the festival’s offices in Santa Monica, California. As he discusses below, Cooper is eager to put his own stamp on the festival. “This is the renewed rebellion. This is Sundance reminded,” proclaims this year’s program book, and in our talk Cooper is eager to align the festival not just with the acquisitions departments of the mini-majors but directly with the hustling DIY filmmakers struggling to execute their own more modest distribution strategies. We talked by phone a few days before the premiere of this year’s festival.

Filmmaker: So, you’ve been at Sundance for 20 years, but now you are the Director. How does it feel? What’s different now?

Cooper: Well, I can move fast, and that feels good. When we thought about putting in the new section for low-and-no-budget films, I thought, I can just do this. I can just make this happen. Of course, I still had to check with the administrative staff to make sure we could get it done. You know, behind us programmers there is an army who sets up the theaters and does all of that stuff.

Filmmaker: How about in terms of individual film selections? You have a team of programmers, and I’m not sure how it worked before, but do you have a different relationship to the individual films?

Cooper: [In the past there have been] films that split both audiences and programming teams, like Old Joy. I remember arguing for it — I was not going to give up [on having it in the festival]. It didn’t make it into the Dramatic Competition, but it should have. I have the power now to fine tune the placement of those films. I have veto power and final decision power. So I have been looking back and rethinking decisions I would have made [if I had been in this position]. Most of it has been very fun.

Filmmaker: How has the day-to-day aspect of the job changed for you? And how did you prepare for it?

Cooper: I decided that stress in general was overrated, and that this should be a fun experience. But what I really had to do in terms of structure was, I had to listen more to my staff. My staff is seasoned, and I’m glad I didn’t lose any of them. I am sitting in a good position [because my staff and I] know each other well. I moved, though, from a position of being the most seasoned person in the room with a voice to the other side where I wanted to hear what they had to say. Where was their passion around a film? What films did they love? “It’s important” – those are key words that mean [the programmers] didn’t love it. There are enough films that we do love, so let’s find those first. We still have to find 120 films in the end, but I want them to be films that have true passion behind them. Films that also have an audience — there might be a smaller audience, but there is an audience.

Filmmaker: What were the thoughts and ideas that guided you in terms of the changes you have implemented?

Cooper: My own interpretation of what the film community needs. [When I got the job] — I talked to a lot of people and asked, “What do you want from us?” And not just filmmakers. I talked to a lot of press people, publicists, some friends, and even our own audiences. I asked people to email and tell me whatever they wanted to about the festival, and I got 200 emails, some of them long and passionate. The heart of all of them was: “Please remain pure; please stay the course. Don’t blow it.” You realize that people are invested in this [festival]. They want to believe that we are mission-driven and ethical in our selection process, which we are. Yes, we are fickle, but we are also ethical. People are watching, after that big wave of scared responsibility, I felt a really nice feeling of support. I also knew that I wanted to do one thing that would capture the imagination that would be bigger and flashier, and that’s how the Sundance Film Festival USA came about. We’re doing it very brick and mortar, going out to eight cities [with films following their Sundance premieres], working with art houses and having fun with it.

Filmmaker: Tell me about the filmmakers participating in the Sundance Film Festival USA program. Did they have to be convinced to hit the road with their films instead of staying in Park City?

Cooper: It took explaining, and the filmmakers had to think about what it would mean to their lives to be leaving Sundance on Thursday, the 28th, in the middle of winter, and going to Madison, Ann Arbor, or Chicago. But independent filmmakers are at their core so resilient. The first eight filmmakers we asked said they would do it. I didn’t expect to get as many premieres in the program. The program was conceived so that, in theory, a Competition film could leave and come back, but it’s hard to find three days when [Sundance filmmakers] are not doing anything at the festival. Our filmmakers work hard.

Filmmaker: Who are some of the filmmakers taking part in the program?

Cooper: A lot of these films are premiering the first half the festival. There are filmmakers doing it like Jay and Mark Duplasse [Cyrus], who are in it for the fun of it. There’s John Wells [The Company Man]. There’s HOWL and also Daddy Longlegs, which is now doing video-on-demand after the festival too. Daddy Longlegs is directed by the Safdies, and they are going home to Brooklyn [to screen their film at BAM]. Philip Seymour Hoffman happens to be starring in a play in Chicago, so he can’t stay at the festival anyway. [His film, Jack Goes Boating, will screen at the Music Box Theatre]. But we’re experimenting all over the place at this festival in terms of alternative distribution. Bass Ackwards and One Too Many Mornings are going [into distribution] right from the festival. I think back to [Ballast director] Lance Hammer and one thing he kept saying at Sundance — that he wished he could have capitalized more on the energy coming out of the festival.

Filmmaker: So there may be a different narrative coming out of this year’s festival than the usual story of the big first weekend sale?

Cooper: I hope some great new mythology comes out of this. We hope these things become a phenomenon. I want filmmakers to make their money back and to continue to make films, because that’s what sustains what I do.

Filmmaker: Do you think filmmakers traveling to Sundance have reconciled themselves with the different state of the industry today?

Cooper: I have noticed a shift. There are more filmmakers now who just want to sustain their careers. They are clear about not getting the big break. They want to make movies. It used to be, “Get the deal, get set up at a studio.”

Filmmaker: To be honest, I thought there would be more filmmakers using Sundance as a DIY launch platform this year.

Cooper: It’s hard. There is so much they have to learn, such a learning curve. It was the only films that were finished in time. I didn’t know if any of them would have the nerve to do it this year.

Filmmaker: Do you think this will be the beginning of a trend?

Cooper: I think Sundance could get almost half and half — half films going out to the marketplace and half bigger. I am not afraid to have that split. I told my staff, “We are not going to program for commercial possibility, even in alternative platforms. Just find the most creative and excellent filmmakers, and the rest will sort itself out.” Films that are really good land places, although they don’t always make money.

Filmmaker: What would you tell our readers specifically to look out for at this year’s festival?

Cooper: Make sure you check out the NEXT section. There’s a real passion and vitality there. Jack Goes Boating is such a wonderful occurrence. Philip Seymour Hoffman directed, and he’s in it, and it comes from a play he did. It has all the credentials but then it hits its mark. He did an amazing job. And I love The Company Man, directed by John Wells. I like when people who have another career [make features]. John is a TV producer, but he has real filmmaking passion, and his is not a flashy film. The new Spotlight section is for films we love. They are programmed for no other reason. I love I Am Love and 8: The Mormon Proposition, which I found so interesting that it came out so quickly. I expected it to be more hyped-out, flashy, and built around argument and passion, but the research that went into it is amazing. And then there is Blue Valentine, HOWL, and Hesher, which is a really wonderful film. Douchebag — that could have played in the NEXT section. It’s a nearly perfect film for its budget.

Filmmaker: You say Douchebag could have played in NEXT. Why establish a section devoted to low-to-no-budget films when those films could play in other sections and not be defined there by their budgets?

Cooper: We found in the past that films like these were being shoehorned into other programs, like New Frontier or Midnight even though they weren’t, for example, midnight films, or cult-y or genre films. There was a lot of play this year between films in the Competition and NEXT, but we felt we had to carve out a section this year [for these films specifically] and hold onto it. We wanted to find six to eight films in this no-to-low budget range. We had to give this part of our community the respect it deserves. So we held eight slots.

Filmmaker: So is what links these films their budgets, or do they represent some kind of specific aesthetic?

Cooper: I think it’s an aesthetic too. These films are being conceived of as low budget, but they have an energy that is addictive. I feel it, and when I meet the filmmakers, I like their energy. I want them at the festival. They feel a little renegade to me. I would hope that if a [future] John Waters walks into the door that I could recognize him and say, “You deserve a place here.”

# posted by Jason Guerrasio @ 5:00 PM Comments (0)