The sweet irony of Paul Osborne's documentary, Official Rejection, a backstage tell-all of American film festival culture, is that the film has gone on to be something of a fest favorite around the country. I first reviewed the film at last year's Deadcenter Film Festival in Oklahoma City, where Paul and I agreed we would find time for an interview. Finally, we have come together to chat about his film, which is still running the festival circuit, and movies in general. As Sundance 2010 begins, we thought it would be a perfect time to discuss what festivals represent in the dreams of filmmakers and what they really are. Believe it or not, a lot has changed since Paul made the film, so listen in as he explains where we stand today. Other points of interest: my own bitching about Blu-Ray, the films Paul is most excited to see, and the two of us compare war stories on both sides of the critic-filmmaker lines.
Right-Click to Download • Subscribe in iTunes
Ed. Note: My microphone suffered some fits of serious crackling for this one. I've been trying to scrub it out but I'm finding it impossible. I'll fix the problem by the next Candlercast. Sorry for the ear-strain.
Related posts:
Very interesting, guys. Did you see this article from today? http://bit.ly/8fW9nu
I’m not as knowledgeable about the film industry as you two are, so maybe this is a stupid question. But why does Sundance even bother to maintain the façade of being about indie film at this point? To stretch an analogy within an inch of its life, Sundance is the arty district in your city that has been gentrified — at some point they will have to embrace the high-income residents and let the cycle start over with another neighborhood.
Why is that not in their best interest?
Sundance has been perpetuating this myth every year, and every year it’s less and less true. “We’ve gone back to our roots, now we’re truly indie once again.”
The answer as to why is because Sundance survives by defining itself as this mecca of the true indie film spirit. Submissions were down this year because so many ground-level indie filmmakers believed — and rightly so — that there was little point in sending in their movies. In order to goose submissions, which earn the festival hundreds of thousands of dollars, they created this “Next” section. (The fact that they had to make this “ghetto” to find a home for the kinds of films that, during its heyday of discovery, would have gotten into the competition catagory, is truly sad, and extremely indicative of how far they’ve fallen.)
Now, Sundance could, and SHOULD, rebrand itself. Cannes never claims to be an indie festival — rather, they consider themselves a collection of the best of world cinema, period. But by dropping their alleged “indie” mission statement, they fear it would call their very identity, and relevance, into question.
To play the rebranding scenario out, if Sundance joins Cannes and TIFF, who becomes what Sundance used to be? And how many times can the cycle repeat before the top-tier is saturated?
I’m not trying to challenge your assertion that Sundance is irrelevant, just bored at work and interested in this as thought experiment.
Paul has a good point. It wouldn’t be a huge shift for Sundance to re-brand itself as simply the top film festival in the world. It doesn’t mean that they have to become Comic-Con. This would have the by-product of lending more credibility to the “next” category.
And I’d say that SXSW is already what Sundance used to be, and has managed to do so while still holding huge Hollywood premieres. I think one of the keys to that is their branding themselves as a festival that loves film, indie or otherwise.
But really, it’s the money that makes it all happen. The sales agents and buyers made Sundance what it is today. Once significant buys come during festivals like SXSW or Tribeca on a regular basis, a festival starts to become a market. It’s inevitable.