(Disclaimer: I fully realize that there is some layer of irony in this post. I just want to say that it's not intended to be the kitschy sort-of irony like when I proudly wear my Fast and the Furious 3: Tokyo Drift shirt to screenings of French New Wave films or listen to celebrity-made music. A friend once accused me of getting to the point where I don't know whether I legitimately enjoy something or enjoy it ironically. I assure you, this is not one of those instances. Really.)

(Disclaimer 2: The video described in this post was deleted pretty much as I was uploading this. Follow-up at the bottom)

So, I'm not even a month into the revamped blog here, and I already have to retract a statement. I'm not sure whether to be proud of that, or not. But in my last post I claimed that fighting was awesome, and that it brought a level of excitement to film fests that I felt was positive.

Well, I was wrong.

Today my twitter feed was all abuzz about slashfilm's reporting of the escalation of a feud between Chud's Devin Faraci and FirstShowing's Alex Billington. The two have had a "feud" (not really sure you can call it that) since Billington published a piece on how the new Batman movie was "revolutionary", Faraci did not agree. For those of you wondering, yes, this is a feud lamer than the Soulja Boy/Ice-T YouTube video wars of 08.

(For full disclosure: Here's my relations - I read slashfilm, I've met Faraci briefly at Fantastic Fest, and never really heard of Billington)

Slashfilm posted a video of the culmination of the feud - a somewhat drunken bitchfest between the two (I'll save you some time and tell you not to click it, but if you're bored [which shouldn't be an excuse] scroll down all the way). (Update: Video was removed)

This is what people are talking about today.

Meanwhile, Sundance has just wrapped up with not one of the award winners securing US distribution.

Let me repeat that.

At the premiere US Film Festival for discovery and purchasing of independent feature films, not one of the major award winners has secured US distribution rights. Not one. Shouldn't that be worthy of analysis? Is it because people aren’t buying? Did the films cost too much? Are there just too many good films out there?

Maybe we should be talking about the films that did secure distribution?

But that's not the topic of conversation today.

This lame argument is.

People are describing it as "epic" and "something that lives up to the Sundance hype". Today, I've seen more about this than a lot of films that I was interested in hearing about from the dance.

Now, let me take a moment and clear up why the previous fight is good and this fight is bad. In the fight involving Dowd and Anderson, the dispute was centered around a film at the festival and it brings up all sorts of interesting debates like the place of criticism at a festival and the power that it can hold and whether it's too much, etc. This fight takes a quibble from the internet and brings it to real life where it just makes it embarrassing for all parties involved - including the watchers.

I feel bad for the other internet-based journalists, this looks bad for everyone that this can attract so much attention over real topics.

In this fast-paced world of film, the internet has become a vital tool in getting the news and information fast and easily. Naturally the intersection of computers and movies attracts geeks (which I don't use as a pejorative) of all types, which has helped create some new superpowers in the film world (Aint it Cool), and a lot of resources (Cinematical), and venues (Hulu). However, with it comes the rest of the internet.

The debate at hand has a discourse at the level of YouTube comments. It's juvenile and anti-climatic, and petty. In other words, it's everything that an internet debate is (except that it doesn’t ever go into George W. Bush for no reason). Overly-long insults of a sexual nature that ends when somebody gets distracted.

Here, the sword of instant information comes back to cut us.

With no real news cycle, we're getting information as it happens. Unfortunately, sometimes, even at Sundance, nothing is happening. Behind every headline is weeks and months of preparation and build-up. When's nothing's announced, we get other things, some are fun, some encourage discussion, some are easily forgettable. That's fine. Sometimes the non-stories grow to insane proportions, like the Roger Ebert jacket-debacle of a few years ago. We're now treated to every step of a story that would never have been allowed in newspapers a decade ago. Reporting in this way quickly becomes petty.

And soon things become too incestuous. The internet allows us all some level of self-importance, and it's certainly not a foreign concept to the film sites. It allows for accountability, recognition and reliability. None of which are bad things. Sites recognize each other for good reporting and bad, helping us to filter out information. Then these things start to take precedence, as they have here. If the feud was between two nameless bloggers the story wouldn't have gathered any steam. But because of the established nature of the people involved... we get this. As the recognition of the people and their personalities grow, soon the focus is no longer on the films.

So, while this fight is super-lame and not worth talking about, the problems it suggests are: The film world, and independent film world especially, are semi-closed circles. Go to a film festival in New England and one in LA and you'll see a number of the same people, follow the news and you'll see a number of names that pop up time after time. With near-instant reporting on the goings on with these people, can we rely on our specialized media to remain reporters instead of gossips?

Not to say that gossip isn't a part of Hollywood, Variety has long-covered feuds within the industry. However, when it's Robert Evans and Francis Ford Coppola going at it ending with the re-editing of The Godfather, it's news, it's affecting a product. It's big players with consequences for a lot of people. This just keeps people on the internet posting comments over which site is better. Is this really where we're going? Will this sort of noise override the real stories?

So, there you go - a post on the internet complaining about people posting on the internet, and, a lot of words and focus on something that I say should be ignored. Yeah. That's right.

Follow Up: The video in question was deleted as I was putting this up, which does add a nice dimension to all of this - when something like this does catch on, when it does pick up steam, and it becomes a distraction, the site can easily remove the video. Slashfilm’s Peter Sciretta pulled the video because he felt that it was not good for anyone involved. He was not pressured by anyone. I leave this post up because I think the comments on the reporting that goes on are still relevant, even if the post is not live.

Tags: Internet, Reporting, Journalism, news, fights, feuds, Debates, Lame, Sundance, Non-news

If you've been following Sundance, there's no doubt you've heard of the bizarre story about a fist fight breaking out at the fest. If not, here's Karina Longworth's chaotic retelling (really makes you feel like you're there and the middle of it.)

In this cynical world we live in, I have to get this out of the way - I believe the conflict to be legit, not staged. The people involved are all above that sort of malarky, and it's not really such a great go-out-and-tell-all-your-friends story like the Adolf Hitler birthday cake thing.

Now, taking a closer look, this is a pretty fun, pretty exciting news item for people who follow the happenings in the film world. Just look at all the elements: you have the man who is the basis for one of the more beloved characters in recent film history, you have a film critic - which brings in people's feelings of criticism and judgement, you have somebody standing up for himself, and you have random elements attached (Jackie the Joke Man). It's everything you could want in a word-of-mouth story. Without the event happening at a press-heavy event such as Sundance, it'd be sure to mutate into an absolutely insane story as the real life telephone game was played.

So, is this an instance of "No such thing as bad publicity"? Not really. If this is all sort of sham (which, again, I highly doubt), it's a poorly put together one. The story emphasizes the wrong elements (The producer of the film, rather than the film itself), hinges on the film not being great, and the story can be told without even mentioning the name of the film (see?). Everybody remembers the ad where the Gorilla plays the drums for "In the Air Tonight", nobody remembers it's an ad for milk.

So, if it's not a good promotional tool, why is it so exciting? Simple - it brings back the feelings of a time when independent film's edge wasn't just on the screen. The edge came from the people involved and it was exciting. I distinctly remember being very young and watching Harmony Korrine on Letterman talking about butts and being surprised that they could get away with going the places they did on TV. It stuck with me, I didn't know his name, but I knew that the guy who wrote Kids was absolutely nuts.



Don't get me wrong - I'm not making the tired old, "Indies have lost their edge" argument. First of all, I don't believe that it's necessarily independent film's responsibility to be edgy, second, on the screen in the past few years you've had movies ranging from Joe Swanberg's Kissing on the Mouth, to Todd Solondz's Palindromes - two films that pushed boundaries that mainstream film wouldn't. That said, the elements outside the films are nothing but edgy - Swanberg is one of the nicest people you could meet, Solondz is terribly shy and awkward. Neither one is going to leave an indelible mark on a young person's brain should they be on Letterman (and they should, but that's for a different time).

To expand, I can't really think of any sort of real craziness that has emerged in recent years. Those who are pushing boundaries in interviews are the same people from a decade ago - Korine is still telling his outlandish stories to where you're not sure what you're going to get, Larry Clark is still hanging out with some very young kids, Crispin Glover is still nuts, etc. In recent years, there hasn't been the strong personality coming from off-camera that really captures people's imaginations.

And yes, Dowd has been around for quite some time, and has let his personality show for his whole life. But the incident brings back the sort of "anything can happen" mentality that indies showcased throughout the 90s, instead of the current "studio flicks, but quirkier" image that is held by the zeitgeist now. The whole thing reminds me of the '97 incident where Quentin Tarantino beat up Don Murphy for his handling of Natural Born Killers. It allowed QT's passions to be seen extending beyond film geek minutiae and the incident quickly became legend.

Of your favorite indie filmmakers this decade, who's really standing out off-set? Which breakout filmmaker makes you say, "I want his life?" Who out there really excites you and makes you just wonder what they're going to do next?

I'm hard pressed to think of anybody.

What incident recently has made you really interested in a film - not a trailer, or still, or positive review - but something outside of the film made you interested in the independent film world?

Outside of some sale somewhere or the whole Slumdog story, nothing really stands out.

And why is this? It's hard to believe that there isn't an eccentric, outgoing filmmaker these days. There has to be crazy stuff going on out there besides this. Has the desperado element of filmmaking translated from doing whatever it takes and not giving a fuck to just making a film without money? Yes, a lot of this has to do with what is getting picked up (the Frozen Rivers over the Frownlands), and all the other issues I belabor and gripe about here... but, of what we have, should we be making it exciting?

Just a thought.

Tags: Sundance, Edge, Marketing, Publicity, fights, Indies, Interviews, Harmony Korrine, Letterman, Joe Swanberg, Todd Solondz, advertising

It's that time of the year again - people are packing up their bags and heading out to Park City, Utah for the most important festival in the United States - Sundance. I'm not headed out this year, so I get to sit on the sidelines and be jealous of my friends who are (although all of them have reported extremely high stress levels in conjuncture with the fest).

The Sundance Film Festival is seen as the forefront of American Independent Film, mainly for the headline-grabbing reports of huge sales, discovered talents, glitzy star-power and big scene that's put on. The image has mutated from being a small, but important film festival tucked away in the middle of a snowy ski retreat. The exponential growth and commercialization has attracted a number of attackers to the fest - often railing against the implied image of the festival - claiming that it's lost it's "Independent" nature.

I hear this attack often for a number of festivals - Cannes, SXSW, etc. A lot of my colleagues have subscribed to the false paradigm of film festivals being solely intended for the independent film and see any sort of studio or corporate involvement as a breach of some sort of implied social contract. Recently, I was talking with the director of a film that I was working on, discussing his festival strategy. Naturally, as anybody in film does, his inclination was to imagine the biggest, brightest, best-case scenario he could and then work his way down the ladder, working his way to more reasonable and more achievable goals (but, of course, still tossing the money towards the largest festivals - which, if you ask me, the submission fees to those are worth it just to dream about getting in). This director, who I consider a smart guy, completely shocked me when he said, "While I'm sure it'd be fun, I don't really know what the value of a Sundance premiere is anymore - didn't they play Be Kind Rewind this year?"

While Be Kind Rewind certainly gets no love from me, the assertion that a film festival is of a lesser status because of its marquee screening is downright unfair. I've heard the same accusation lobbied at Cannes for their marquee screening of Star Wars Episode 3: Revenge of the Sith - which, for the detractor, the association of the fest and that film must be particularly satisfying.

But it's not so out of place.

With Episode 3, yes, you do open yourself up for criticism, but the bemoaning from my fellow independent filmmakers is unwarranted. As cool as it is to accuse others of selling out, it's simply not the case - it's always been this way.

A quick look at the history of Cannes tells us the original intent of the festival. Born from the severe political climate that was Europe in the 30s, Cannes emerged to showcase films without bias or political censorship. In, other words - film nerds of the 30s just wanted to watch films from all over the world that they wouldn't have been able to otherwise. It's easy to take the anti-regulatory, anti-censorship nature of the statement and claim that it was in support of "alternative" cinema, but the argument doesn't really hold water. In 1945 there weren't too many filmmakers making films "outside the system". Plus, the first Cannes lineup included The Lost Weekend (Paramount), Notorious (RKO), Make Mine Music (Disney) among others.

As the film industry has evolved so has the festival, but the intent of showcasing and honoring films that might not be seen otherwise hasn't changed. However, instead of the fear of fascistic censorship, the fears are of lack of distribution and the fear of not "finding an audience" even if you do have a distributor - a fear that nobody is immune from.

Today's marquee films are a vital part of the film festival. Whether the marquee is Star Wars or from an indie darling such as Michel Gondry, it's primarily here as a promotional tool, both for the film and for the distributor. When New Line brought Be Kind Rewind (which I just noticed is a title lacking in much-needed punctuation) to Sundance, it symbiotically attracted a lot of attention to the film and to the film festival. New Line brings in the director, stars, producers, execs, etc. and makes a presence at the festival, saying that New Line cares about smaller film and independent film and might even buy your film someday. The media writes up about Jack Black or whomever being there, who he's with, how much he weighs, etc., mentioning the film and Sundance in every write-up. While it's far from the only reason that Sundance is a part of America's film-related consciousness, the annual mentions in US Weekly do help a lot to establish a sense of importance for the festival in the minds of the people - even people who would never ever be interested in going.

The other popular jab regarding the marquee is the idea that the film takes up a slot, so by virtue of the large film being at the festival somebody's small film isn't. Simply put, it doesn't work that way. Like with other categories, say a category for regional filmmakers, if you don't fit the criteria, you can't get in. No matter how good your movie is, you can't be programmed into a "Shorts from North Carolina" package if you're from and shot your movie in Oregon. Likewise, your film made for under $3,500 isn't going to premiere opening night in the largest theatre even if it is the best film that the festival has ever received. The marquee position is reserved for a movie that's friendly to the festival's audience from a distro that will put up a decent amount of money (Of course, the mental image of George Lucas burning off a DVD of Episode 3, eagerly filling out the submission forms and writing the check, sending it all off and praying to get in is amusing).

Now, while that may upset some that there are positions up for sale (at some, not all festivals), it's important to remember that the slots are very limited (mostly to prevent that amount of anger, and to focus on the other films) and it's pretty much always been this way (which, admittedly, in and of itself is not a justification, but a reminder that the pristine image of a completely free-of-outside-influence festival is an image of a festival that pretty much never existed). The money paid in isn't lining some rich programmers' pockets, either. Festivals are increasingly more expensive to put on and badges and submission fees often do not cover the cost of operations. Without marquee films, many film festival simply wouldn't exist, at least not in their modern form.

For the die-hard rebellious "fuck that man" types, here's how to look at it. When you make your film, the one that's going to take down the system, and you manage to get it into festivals - it'll be the big boys' money that's paying for the theatre rental and your free badge.

Now that's cool.

Tags: Sundance, Cannes, Be Kind Rewind, SXSW, Star Wars, Episode 3