The Hot Blog

Excellent post, Dave.

Again, it is not a reflection on the doc itself, but too many 'alternative' festivals say that they try to not be the institution Sundance is, when that is exactly what they strive for. Strictly speaking in numbers only, it is now statistically harder to get into 'alternative' Slamdance than Sundance.

Sadly 'festival type' films seems to have become a genre in and of themselves and many of the festivals that claim to be alternative do not have courage to not choose films that don't have that 'indie' or 'Sundance' stamp of approval.

Many are good, but many are also poseurs.

And yes, if I was there, I would be kinda pissed off. It would make me feel like it was just more of the same ol' same ol'.

"It was a little shocking to me that with 20something new, distributor-free films up there, the Audience Award, the Jury Award, and the $16,000 to $18,000 (more than the combined amount of the five other cash awards handed out) that go with them went to HBO Documentary Films’ The Trials of Darryl Hunt, which was also partially funded by Sundance Institute, IFP. Hugh Hefner, and is repped by Cinetic."

It's not shocking at all Dave, it probably was a very well made film (i.e. looks quality, good sound, decent scripting etc) AND they probably brought many more poeple with them (they can afford to, compared to a 3K digital entry) which does influence audience awards etc--more people to work the parties the crowds and Vote. Audience awards mean the majority of the audience liked the film. What can you do.

"But if you were someone out there fighting for any attention at all and you were thrilled to be part of a small fest like BendFilm and you hoped you had a shot, wouldn’t getting your ass kicked by a Sundance darling at a festival that really wasn’t about showing Sundance darlings kinda piss you off?"

The only solution to that is not to let "Sundance darlings" or movies past a certain budget, etc in. but that's problematic too. Small festivals are in a little of a catch-22--they need to have bigger movies (budget, known actors, publicity) to draw in any paying crowds or sponsorship from businesses.

Has nothing to do with courage Nicol D, it's money. fests aren;t cheap if you have to rent out portions of cineplexes on certain nights of the week. Complete Unknowns do not bring in the punters. Aside from that, you often have a few volunteers trying to screen thousands of entries for a couple dozen slots--putting on any festival is a killer amount of work, both thankless and pay-less. I wouldn't do it for all the coffee in Central America, and I love Central American coffee.

I've been to fests where there were 30 people in screenings and every single person in the crowd was in a movie in the fest! You need to have some known celebs there so Paying people will come and it doesn;t mean necessarily, but usually, you have to have a bigger film than the $3,000-30,000 digital entries to get people in who pay.

SO tiny fests, unless they have a tremendous (and free/donated) publicity machine or special grants(many have been cut out of state and federal budgets these last 3 years) can't necessarily limit themselves to the most cutting edge indie, since cutting edge Indie usually = no dollas.

Fests cost alot of $$$ to put on properly...somebody has to pay for it.

But -- and I'm speaking as someone who has served as a judge at film festivals -- what do you do when you're genuinely trying to give the award for Best Film to... well, the best film? I'm sorry, but if "The Trials of Darryl Hunt" really is that damn good (and I don't know, because I have not yet seen it) and it was in competition, then why the hell shouldn't the jury give it the top prize? Sorry, Dave, but what you seem to be saying is, hey, the prizes exist primarily to give publicity-challenged little films a boost, not to award genuinely worthy movies. In other words, the emphasis is charity, not quality.

And I'm actually quite surprised that Nicol appears to be supporting what seems perilously close to affirmative action.

Look, I speak from experience: A few years ago, I was on a jury at a festival where "Strictly Ballroom" was in competition. And it was, hands down, the BEST film in competition. But one of my fellow jurors bluntly said: "Hey, Miramax has already picked this one up. And Harvey gets too much free publicity already. So I'm going to vote for [obscure European film that never got a US distributor, title withheld out of respect to its director]." Sorry, but to me, that sort of mindset cheapens the award and the awarder.

the little guy/gal will almost never win if the big guys are allowed in--it's hard to make a movie with good sound and other techie aspects on a 3K budget, so it is almost a foregone conclusion that better quality movies with a lesser story might annoy an audience less than one which has a better story but not as well put together. I agree with Dave's sentiment but...it's money and exposure for the fest itself to have a couple big pics in competition.

I actually did see an Absolutely Great movie that Did cost 3K with all unknowns and decent sound and it DID get the Audience award at a small-ish fest. It actually beat out the 1 million picture that was expected to take all the prizes (and did have a couple actors that weren't complete unknowns). the 1M pic didnt get a theatrical release (will have to check again) cuz it didn;t get acclaim at fests (it wasn't crap tho) but the 3K picture hasn't been picked up either, but might get more $$$ to get 'remade' by Hollywood actors etc.

Strictly Ballroom is the Baz film I can stand. It's almost the Best in Show of the dancing world.

Good post Dave but shouldn't some of the blame be directed at the jury (e.g., Ray Pride) in addition to the festival? Was he on the jury that awarded this doc? What's his side of the story?

Couple things...

1. Joe - You are misunderstanding me by not reading everything I wrote. As you did, I also suggested that the film was worthy of an award. And I also said that there should be separate opportunities for 300 lb gorillas and the others… especially in a festival like this, where it isn’t a Best of the Fests kind of thing.

Of course a jury – speaking as someone who has served as a juror at film festivals - has to vote for the best of whatever they are given. I didn’t call the jury names. I just seems to me that if you set it up like this, there is not likely to be any other outcome.

As you are surely aware, what you are accusing me of is what happens at Sundance almost every year. And I complain about it almost every year. But at least at Sundance, everything walks in pretty equal.

2. Lota – These three films are not indie monsters, sure to boost ticket sales at the BendFest. Believe me, I know about loading fests with money movies. But you don’t generally put them in competition.

Part of my surprise is that I had no idea that this film was in competition and I hadn’t looked at the line-up and seen that it wasn’t a “Best of” kind of fest.

Also, no festival of any size can be run based on ticket sales. You maximize the income, but you need sponsor money and angels and even some cheesy awards event (some aren’t cheesy) to make your budget get anywhere near black.

I have no problem with fests using these movies to draw a crowd. But I do think the festival – especially one giving away money – should be thoughtful about this.

In fact, money was given away for the fist time in Bermuda this year and it went to a great film, but I will make a point as we get to next year’s festival to advise that we institute a rule that gives any cash prizes only to movies without distribution, even if it means giving a second award. I know that no film with distribution is coming to the fest to pick up extra cash via award, so it won’t keep any film from coming. But even if the money is well spent by a filmmaker who has distribution, it’s the point of a money award to support those who are even more challenged?

Krazy - Addressed by my next post and Joe.

No, I don't think the jury makes that call. The festival has to do it. The jury should make its best choice out of whatever they are offered.

Of course, the politics of juries can be brutal. In one case, I was on one where the movie that we gave the award to was the favorite of none of the jurors... but each of our favorites was so intensely objected to by other members that ultimately, the only way we could agree was to pick a film that was okay, but less challenging. That sucked. But such is the nature of the beast.

And of course, the primary amount of money at BendFest came for the Audience Award.

i don;t disagree Dave but some movies & personnel may not want to come to a Fest if they are not in the competition...and the small money comes from the public directly, indirectly through grants etc, but still sponsors usually want to see someone bigger or known before they plonk down $$$ don;t they? (in my ltd experience, yes). doesn;t have to be a monster Indie--just someone known or someone "behind" the movie is known.

Oh shit. A good friend from college directed Dance Party USA...I totally forgot.

This is the best thing i've ever read on this site.

This is the best thing i've ever read on this site.

I know there's some concern this year here in Dallas with the Deep Ellum Film Festival giving way to AFI Dallas Film Festival, that we'll see less locally-produced fare and more Dependent-Backed films and their ilk in the festival so as to lure more celebrities and appeal to the cocaine and boob job crowd who doesn't care anything about the movies but wants to "be seen".

Honestly, though, I can't imagine Hollywood people wanting to come to Texas twice within a month. And Dallas Cool can't really compete with Austin Cool.

I don't think it's honorable to discuss jury deliberations, but I think it's fair to note that the Bendfilm remit was ONLY to choose what the jury considered best out of the field on display, and every film but SHERRYBABY was in competition, in categories from features to docs to shorts to student shorts, along with the $10,000 best of show and the $1-per-ticket-sold of the Audience Favorite. Best director, for instance, went to the maker of an incredibly assured student short, Julie Meerschwam. There's someone with an interesting career ahead.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: