The Circuit

As many of you are aware, the grim economy finally came knocking yesterday, taking many journalists off the roster and shuttering The Circuit. 

It was a great run and I thank everyone for their support and sentiments.  Your emails have been overwhelming and very moving.

On the plane back from Park City I sat next to a former exec, also now without a company desk.  The conversation moved to the economy, and we both commented on how easily it did.

The blossoming depression is now an inevitable part of all small talk.  Hard to even call the talk small.  Yet in the wake of a 70,000-plus job loss yesterday, the magnitude of what the country faces threatens to make the individual story smaller.  It's important to remember the stories above this drone of newspaper statistics and bad news avalanche.  The news will get worse.  We'll rely on filmmakers and artists to make some sense of it all, or to at least shift our gaze.  Which is frankly just as good.
 
And that task is the film festival's job -- to put up stories in that great black box, on that giant screen, with that enveloping sound system, and under the influence of a room full of moody strangers.  All without a pause button.  Film festivals are cinema's art gallery and in an economic crisis it is a cheap temple to worship at.  For me, it's the best worship around.

Find me on Facebook and reach out.  Or look for me in those moldy seats, or combing through the fest's pocket schedule.  And if there's time between screenings, let's go outside.  We'll be stunned at how much of the day we've spent in the dark.  And then we'll argue about what we just saw, who will buy it, or who will market it better. 

But let's not take long arguing, because there is probably a bar across the street. 

And you're buying.

indieWIRE's new site is noteworthy for the flag it plants, as well as how it plants it.   Launched today, the site is slick and brimming -- a big jump from their blog-entry model of old.  Yet while it doesn't look like a blog anymore, it is.  Kinda.

The new site and the press release that proceeded it stress aggregation as their new model.  In fact, "recommended" and "recent" news feeds (from Spout, Variety, HR, etc.) are given prime real estate in a big box, right next to their headlining article, which today happens to be a first-person piece by Sundance topper Geoff Gilmore.

On TV, news orgs boast of their "expanded coverage" by listing their go-getting correspondents stationed in all corners of the globe.  Christiane Amanpour never sleeps.  Brian Williams waited for Katrina, cameras rolling.  Anderson Cooper's airline miles could feed the same small nations he visits.  Doppler Storm MAX 3000 knows when you're watering your lawn. 

Yet on the web, some news sites are "expanding" their coverage by grabbing stuff from other news sites -- so a brower's bookmarks are, in fact, bookmarks themselves.   (The good ones like iW mix in their own original content.) 

While aggregation is nothing new, iW's move is unique in that the 12-year-old news org is weaving it so thoroughly into their new business plan. 

For those confused about all the "Watchmen" hype -- nevermind the confusion on who owns the rights -- MySpace put up a very good primer on Zack Synder's adaptation of Alan Moore's landmark work. 

Here, Synder breaks it down without giving away the store, which moved Matt Goldberg at Collider to write:

"...after seeing it, you should be reminded of why people are freaking out a bit over the whole legal situation."

Watchmen Exclusive

Well-timed for Sundance rejects, Calabasas-based Media Bella is offering a 4-wall package for DIY distributors that includes four screenings during Friday and Saturday at Laemmle Monica 4-Plex.  

They also get TV airtime -- a 30-second trailer will run for two weeks prior on five networks, chosen from a list that includes E!, Bravo, USA, Sci-Fi, Cartoon Network, TBS, and Comedy Central. 

The TV spots are ROS, though, which means "run of schedule," which really means the network choses if the trailer runs within "The Daily Show" or preceding a late-night Soloflex infomercial.  We're betting the latter.

Filmmakers keep 100% of the gate.  The cost -- $15 grand.

Worth it? 

Update:  An informal poll of filmmakers who've done it before raised some skepticism. 

• Randy Miller, who contracted Freestyle Releasing to take out "Bottle Shock" (which had a successful run) wasn't sure about it:  "Sounds a little thin." 

• Lance Hammer, who released "Ballast" on his own, put it more bluntly: "This makes no sense to me."

George W. Bush's White House departure is sparking count-down lists and parties across the nation.  But there will be no celebrations for some in Crawford, TX, who will surely be running into the ex-prez at the local Piggly Wiggly. 

For those featured in David Modigliani's docu on Bush's adopted home-town "Crawford," that moment in Aisle #4 may be a bit awkward.  Awkward enough to move Dub to buy his near-beer somewhere else.

B-Side and Modigliani are teaming for "Host Your Own Farewell to W."  It's much like the promo B-Side did for the pot-infused docu "Super High Me" -- where they sent DVDs to anyone wanting to host a screening.  Organized with Netflix (via the talents of former Red Envelope/Netflix exec Liesl Copland), the screenings fueled rentals.  B-Side booked 1,576 screenings in 975 markets, they say.

This time they're doing it without Netflix and asking hosts to buy five DVDs for 50 bucks.  Hosts can then screen the pic and sell the remaining DVDs for whatever they want, keeping 100% of the profits.  Info here.


Photo: The Alamo Drafthouse's Rolling Roadshow, unspooling "Crawford" in Crawford.

And falling in threes. 

This week saw First Look, Peace Arch, and now the Yari Film Group -- all hit by declining fortunes and, in two cases, lawsuits. 

The Yari Film Group, while not having the kind of library of the other two, is perhaps the highest profile of the group.  The "Crash" producer hasn't able to catch another wave.  After famously losing his Oscar lawsuit, Bob Yari (pictured) has reached again and again for awards respect.  Despite the company's troubles he's pushing two longshots this season -- "What Doesn't Kill You" and "Nothing But the Truth." 

And even as he closes YFG he still seems hell-bent on getting in the winner's circle by keeping the production arm going.  (Though the two films they have -- Joe Carnahan's "Killing Pablo" and the Jennifer Lopez romantic comedy "The Governess" -- may not get him there.)

“Our goal is to aggressively work towards reorganizing our debt so that we can become a stronger company,” Yari said. “In the meantime, our production arms are distinct entities with separate financing which remain unaffected by the legal proceedings. We will go on functioning, making new films, covering our payroll and paying for employee benefits.”

While none of the three companies could have been called big hunters in the indie film market, their hobbling is yet another somber reminder that indie film may have a long way to go before it hits bottom -- and just as the season turns to Sundance.

No sooner had we published our look at the wave of disparate Prop 8 protests -- where we stated there seemed to be no cohesive movement -- than we got an email from Justin Green.

I just read your article "Same-Sex Activists Target Sundance," and was dismayed to read that "no organized effort has yet materialized" targeting Cinemark theaters.  There are in fact two, a general "Boycott Cinemark" movement, and a specific boycott of Gus Van Sant's new film "Milk" (which you mention in the article) that I am organizing.

We were confused.  There wasn't a mention of boycotting "Milk" -- Gus Van Sant's film on gay activist Harvey Milk -- in the article. 

The email goes on to explain a growing Facebook movement and letters sent to William Morris and Focus Features, without mentioning the most important question -- why?  Green is particularly proud of his growing Facebook group membership:

4439 as of this writing; in comparison the general "Boycott Cinemark" group has 1234 and the only group solely promoting "Milk" has a mere 119 members.

At the end, he finally reveals the purpose of the protest, yet only within his website address:  www.nomilkforcinemark.com.

Justin is boycotting Cinemark because its CEO gave money to the gay marriage ban, Prop 8.  By extension, he's saying we should boycott "Milk" at Cinemark.

Okay, we finally got it. 

However, we enter into the common moral dilemma of boycotts -- Who do you really hurt in a boycott?  And who do you teach?

Say the boycott works, and Cinemark makes no money from "Milk."  Cinemark has openings of "Australia" and "Four Christmases" to compensate.  They'll do okay that weekend, with or without "Milk."

The deeper problem is -- people vote with their ticket stubs to keep films in theaters.  In The Circuit's opinion, the message of "Milk" needs the votes more.  If the Cinemark boycott campaign hurts "Milk's" receipts, and if the pic is taken off a few screens, and if it's not included in the weekend box office wraps of journos, then what will have been gained?

And I hate to break it to the protesters, but it's not going to hurt Cinemark to have empty seats in "Milk," which is starting with a limited run anyway. 

Limited run = testing the waters. 

In the end, if the Prop 8-supporting CEO of Cinemark sees a bad weekend for "Milk," what will he really think?  I'd venture that it'd just add fuel to his belief -- that no one cares enough about GLBT rights to see a movie about it.

Yet what if he saw an incredible weekend for "Milk" on his Monday morning report?  More incredible than any other opener that weekend?   Granted, that's a long shot.  But if the protesters believe they can effectively boycott a movie, then the reverse should be believed, too.

People need to buy a ticket to see "Milk," no matter where it's playing.


UPDATE:  A vital companion to the film is Rob Epstein's Oscar winning doc "The Life and Times of Harvery Milk."  Watch it here for only 2 bucks!

Killer Films, the indie film shingle of Christine Vachon and Pamela Koffler, has sold a 50% equity stake to GC Corporation, a New York-based VC fund.

Principles say the cash injection will dramatically change the kinds of projects the company does, while keeping the Killer brand intact.  Vachon and Koffler's company has been responsible for many indie darlings like "Boys Don't Cry," "Far From Heaven," and "Hedwig and the Angry Inch."

GC Corp's Joseph Grinkorn and Adi Cohen will join Killer's board, along with former ThinkFilm senior vp Randy Manis, who has been tapped as the shingle's new CEO. 

Vachon confirmed that they are looking at much bigger canvases for future projects. "Yes, it's a big change," she said.

"The average Killer movie has been anywhere between $6 to $15 million," said GC Corp's Adi Cohen,  "We'll seek to increase those budgets to $40 to $50 million."

Cohen wouldn't comment on the buyout's amount, only describing it as "significant."  He said GC Corp is capitalized north of $100 million.  Cohen's partner, Joseph Grinkorn, is a major real estate and mortgage banking investor.

"Killer will be the platform through which GC Corporation does all our movie business," said Joseph Grinkorn. "Studio work is definitely the goal, but Killer will not stop doing indie movies."

"There is not much good news in the paper these days," said Koffler.  "So this is a gift.  It's a great opportunity for us to turn a corner."

The announcement comes weeks after Killer inked a deal with GC to co-produce "William the Conqueror" (Variety, Oct. 27), a big-budget, period actioner that is currently out to directors.  Cohen said GC has committed coin for half of "William's" budget.

Cohen explained they are committed to a five year business plan with Killer.  "We want Killer to compete," said Cohen, who said he envisions the company becoming as big a player as Miramax or Fox Searchlight.

"Killer is an undervalued asset," said Manis. "We're repositioning it by bringing in a proper infrastructure and development funds to move to the next level.  It'll take us some time to ramp up, but nothing will be too big for Killer."

Manis helped orchestrate the deal with CAA.  His history with Vachon and Koffler goes back to Killer's deal with ThinkFilm.

"The deal with ThinkFilm had its ups and downs," said Vachon, "but one of the best things was a meeting of the minds with Randy."

TV producer John Wells, who has long supported Killer's overhead and is an exec producer on many projects, will remain involved though how exactly remains unclear.  Vachon would only say that he is still very committed to the company.

Days after the election of Barack Obama, HBO has paid a low seven figures for U.S. TV rights to Amy Rice and Alicia Sams' untitled docu on the Senator's presidential run. 

Rice brought the idea to Edward Norton and his Class 5 Films banner in 2006.  Norton secured cooperation with Senator Obama and has had cameras rolling ever since, capturing the Senator's 2006 trip to Africa and his 2007 presidential announcement (Variety, March 11).  The production has had close access to Obama, his family and friends, and campaign staff and volunteers.

Shooting will continue through the inauguration.  Sam Pollard, who cut HBO's "When the Levees Broke" and "4 Little Girls" will keep editing for a 2009 preem. 

"We believe this film will capture a tipping point in American history," said Norton, "when a new generation of leadership emerged and old prejudices were finally vaulted over."  

"This is one of the most fascinating personal and political narratives in American history and we're thrilled to be a part of sharing it with our viewers", said Richard Plepler, co-president, HBO.

Pic is being produced by Norton, Stuart Blumberg, and Bill Migliore with financing by GOOD, Green Film Company, Citi Productions and Class 5 Films. Endeavor Independent head Graham Taylor and Andrew Hurwitz negotiated with HBO on behalf of the filmmakers and are seeking a theatrical distrib.

Mike Rossmassler apparently loves Obama, Optimus Prime, and animating gifs.  Like the country, the stars aligned for him last night:

Magnolia's "Man On Wire" finally stepped over "Toy Story" as the best reviewed film of all time, according to Rotten Tomatoes. 

James Marsh's doc on World Trade Center tightrope walker Philippe Petit has now racked up 129 positive reviews, edging out the 125 raves of Pixar's pic. 

In that spirit, we've trolled internetland for quotes on what it feels like coming in second for Pix (aside from kissing your sister):

"Coming in second is like coming in second in a gun fight."

"Coming in second is like being first among losers."

"Coming in second is like coming in fourth."

And for a short visual, there's this:

Ted Hope has published a series of posts about having a film festival plan -- vital reading for anyone getting into the circuit.  I particularly like his take on making fests work for you:

Festivals are a great place to sell DVDs of your film, but will the Festival let you? It's probably a good idea to inquire in advance. Will you be able to set up a table outside the theater? Will you need to have a website in order to sell them? Will you need to have some one do the fulfillment? Figure this out before you show up.

More here.

Thanks to Filmmaker Mag for the find.

The Film Society of Lincoln Center will offer 11 reasons for not having children.  In short, they'll kill you.

"Problem Child: A Cinematic Display of Bad Behavior" will unspool eleven films starring brats that kill November 28-30.  One puzzlement, however, is the opener -- "Mommie Dearest," perhaps programmed as an example of how to handle brats before their eyes turn white. 

They'll be new prints of "The Other" and "The Fury," introduced by actress Amy Irving.  Other evil kid pics include "The Bad Seed," "The Children's Hour," "Compulsion," "The Exorcist," and, of course, "Village of the Damned." 

Cinetic, John Sloss' digital rights venture headed by Matt Dentler, has launched its own pad in Internetland at Joost.  The space has trailers of upcoming pics and full length features of "Hoop Dreams" and "Metropolitan."

Check it out here.

The newly-named Sonoma International Film Festival has a new look and new co-chairs.  Steve Kyle and Kurt Krauthamer, two Sonoma Valley art patrons will co-chair the board of directors.

Aspen Film has hired Natalie McMenemy as their new Managing Director to oversea the org's business affairs and operations.  McMenemy was previously Managing Director of the AFI FEST.

Hot Docs announced Elizabeth Radshaw will replace Michaelle McLean as new director of the Toronto Documentary Forum, the fest's international market event.  Radshaw hails from TVF International Television in London, where she was head of acquisitions.

The Academy Foundation of the AMPAS has doled out $450,000 to twenty-four U.S. film festivals.  Producer Gale Anne Hurd, who chairs the foundations's fest committee, announced the grants, which encourage festivals to make their events more publically accessible.

The coin comes as financially strapped corporations slim down their sponsorship roles, forcing many fests to tighten their belts.  Jackson Hole Film Festival shuttered this month, citing the economic downtown.

Though for some, it may be a small drop in the bucket, compared to the gap they need to fill.

Two big winners, Nashville and New Orleans film festivals, will each get $75,000 over a three-year period.   San Francisco Intl. Film Festival will collect $50,000 while Chicago Intl., Heartland, Mill Valley, Sarasota, and Seattle Intl. will pocket $30,000 each.  Roger Ebert's Film Festival in Urbana, IL, gets $20,000.

The Academy Foundation grants over $1 million to scholars, orgs, and fests.  Since 1999, its Festival Grant Program has awarded 198 grants totaling $3.5 million. 

Full list:

$50,000
San Francisco International Film Festival

$30,000
Chicago International Film Festival
Heartland Film Festival (Indianapolis, IN)
Mill Valley Film Festival (San Rafael, CA)
Sarasota Film Festival (FL)
Seattle International Film Festival

$25,000
Full Frame Documentary Film Festival (Durham, NC)
Nashville Film Festival
New Orleans Film Festival
Virginia Film Festival (Charlottesville)

$20,000
Portland International Film Festival
Native American Film & Video Festival (New York City)
Roger Ebert’s Film Festival (Urbana, IL)
Sidewalk Moving Picture Festival (Birmingham, AL)
Woodstock Film Festival (NY)

$10,000
Asian American International Film Festival (New York City)

$5,000
Arizona International Film Festival (Tucson)
BAMKids Film Festival (Brooklyn, NY)
Flagstaff Mountain Film Festival (AZ)
Jackson Hole Wildlife Film Festival (WY)
Olympia Film Festival (WA)
Rocky Mountain Women’s Film Festival (Colorado Springs)
San Francisco Black Film Festival
Washington Jewish Film Festival (D.C.)

For Weekly Variety, we asked if the financial crisis is hitting U.S. fests.  Answer: yes, it is.  Along with the closing of Jackson Hole fest, events across the U.S. are getting hit by vacating sponsors.

"Fest financing is hand-to-mouth," says fest vet Christian Gaines, now director of festivals for the web resource Withoutabox. "While you have to appear optimistic and forward-thinking, the thought of raising money keeps you up at night.  It's completely unpredictable."

Gaines warns that the financial crisis could shake other smaller events out of the crowded fest calendar entirely, a notion echoed by event overseers.

Yet the picture overseas seems entirely rosier:

Sponsors continue to see film fests as a great value for their money across Eastern Europe, where there is little sign of an economic downturn so far. And a slew of upcoming fests in Europe and the Mideast actually boast, in some cases, stronger-than-usual commercial support.

Check out the full piece here.

Chris Holland, who runs fest operations for B-Side and has the Film Festival Secrets blog, has come out with a book, Film Festival Secrets: A Handbook for Independent Filmmakers. 

It has loads of useful info, including a peek into the sorrowful life of a fest screener. 

Festival screeners have seen hundreds upon hundreds of independent films, most of them by young, first-time filmmakers who have made a lot of the same minor mistakes. My friend Linda (who screens films for a festival she’d rather not identify here) loves independent films, but after seeing a significant number she wrote this “Checklist for Art Film Viewing,” where “Art Film” is not a complimentary term.

If your film has a number of these rookie moves, you run the risk of rejection – or at least not being taken very seriously. Below is Linda’s original list, with a few editorial comments by festival staffers included in italics.

This is necessarily an incomplete list, but after two or three checked boxes you know you are onto something.

• Someone is rudely awakened by an alarm or outside noise or knocking. Preferably the person is twenty-something and looks like they have shouldered the world’s troubles…or just drunk too much last night. Sometimes the film goes on to chronicle the subject’s entire morning routine – a cliché that simply should be skipped most of the time.


• Someone says ‘shut the fuck up.’


• People walk down a sidewalk with a backdrop of colorful graffiti.


• A scene in a convenience store switches to security camera footage.


• Someone sits at a bar smoking and drinking shots or martinis while a worldly-wise bartender waits on them. Extra points if the bartender is wiping down the bar with a rag.


• Someone points a gun at someone. Preferably while saying ‘shut the fuck up.’


• Someone takes a leak. Preferably outdoors. Points if urine stream goes astray.


• Someone answers a phone only to be hung up on.


• Someone tosses a portable phone or cell phone in disgust at the call received. Points for throwing it out the window of a moving car.


• A profound quote is displayed on the screen.


• Someone takes a shower or brushes teeth. Preferably while someone else uses the toilet. Someone vomits, particularly as a precursor to finding out she is pregnant.


• Camera pans up into trees to denote passing of time or space.


• Camera pans down to shoes to denote passing of time or space. Preferably shoes are Chuck Taylors.


• We realize it was all a dream.


• Someone goes to a party only to retreat outside in a funk while everyone else gets completely drunk.


• Someone tries on different outfits in front of a mirror while also trying out dance moves for the party to come.


• Someone sits in a cube farm pretending to work. Points for abuse of office supplies.

Buy the book here.

Wonder where our Facebook group is? 

So do we. 

Stay tuned.  We're working on it.

On the faith-based front, the NY Times writes today about the Christian-themed "Fireproof" starring Kirk Cameron, which has pocketed a whopping $12.5 million.  It costs $500 grand to produce.

How did writer/director Alex Kendrick come up with the idea?

“We’re not trained and smart enough to make successful movies and write best-selling books,” he said. “The only way that this could happen is if after we prayed, God really answered those prayers.”

Full piece here.

The Reeler is back, he says.  Stu VanAirsdale, Gotham's cine-know-it-all, actually never left if you've been keeping up with STV's posts on Defamer.  What got him back on his server?  Some former contributor threw some disrespect on Lincoln Center, so Stu hulked up:

I deeply, unambiguously love the Film Society of Lincoln Center, whose programs I've nevertheless second-guessed sometimes and with whose leadership I've quarreled on more than one occasion. It's like any relationship, and I think it's mutual. Which is kind of the point: This blog aside, the Film Society loves me back...

by Steven Rosen
As the $100,000 winner of the inaugural Doorpost Film Project contest - one of a growing number of websites using film-festival techniques to spur growth and interest - John Gray is a shocked and happy man.

After all, his winning short film “Before I Wake,” a sobering look at a man confronting his family’s tragic past in search of hope and healing, is only the second the Atlanta resident ever made. “When this opportunity arose, I decided to go for it,” Gray said. “I was thrust into this, and said if I drown I drown, but I’ll see if I can swim.”

Gray’s first film, “Freedom to Live,” made him one of the Doorpost contest’s 15 finalists from among 300 short-film submissions. They then had to make a second film in one weekend, helped by $17,500 in cash and equipment provided by Doorpost. The winner, along with $30,000 and $20,000 runner-ups, was announced this month in Nashville. The three were chosen through a weighted system that included online voters and a panel of judges.

Gray is an entertainer as well as youth/singles minister and youth choir director at his Baptist church. Raised in Cincinnati, he once toured with gospel performer Kirk Franklin and also worked for Tyler Perry Productions - Latisha Fortune, who has worked for Perry as a production/personal assistant, served as his producer. As part of his prize, Gray will get to meet with studio development executives. On his own, he’s also hoping for a meeting with Perry.

While it’s still a developing trend, Doorpost and such sites as Babelgum, Crackle, and HaydenFilms have been sponsoring shorts contests/festivals to boost exposure, elicit emerging filmmakers and acquire content.

Doorpost, which is funded by donors wishing to remain anonymous, aims to support an emerging community of “visionary” filmmakers. Its project director, Nathan Elliott, explains “visionary” as those who can “look inwardly through fresh eyes and ask, ‘Why am I a filmmaker? Why am I doing this?’” Doorpost’s online mission statement says it’s out to “aid the seeking of truth.” There will be another contest in 2009.

Babelgum, the European-based, advertising-supported free Internet TV site, this month had Spike Lee announce its second, 2009 Online Film Festival for shorts and medium-form films. For the first, online viewers voted for 10 finalists among 1,012 entries - a professional jury headed by Lee then selected winners from that shortlist. For the 2009 fest, there will be just four entry categories with individual awards, plus a 20,000 Euro Spike Lee Award, a 20,000 Euro Looking for Genius Award and a Professional Jury Award with an as-yet undetermined cash award.

Meanwhile an established organization, the Paley Center for Media, is coupling with MTV sketch-comedy team Human Giant on a contest for two-minute (or less) comedy shorts. Human Giant will judge the entries and the winners will by shown on Paley’s website during the Nov. 5-9 New York Comedy Festival.

Is all this activity good for shorts? Not everyone is sure. “It is important to remember that sometimes films that look ‘ok’ online do not hold up when presented on the big screen,” says Gloria Campbell, shorts curator for November’s Denver International Film Festival, in an E-mail. “There will always be the need to create films that are designed for the theater screen rather than the computer monitor. One concern is that often the online outlets appear to attract the ‘one-trick’ and/or surprise-ending stories rather than some of the more thoughtful, or longer length, shorts.”  

Going a different route in terms of using film-festival techniques is the new SnagFilms, founded by entrepreneur/filmmaker Ted Leonsis (“Nanking”) to offer documentary filmmakers an ad-supported online site to distribute their feature films. It is coupling with next month’s Hamptons International Film Festival to simultaneously premiere the Robin Wright Penn-narrated “Haze,” about a fraternity death in Colorado.

And on Oct. 21, just after the conclusion of the Oct. 15-19 Hamptons festival, SnagFilms will stream one of its documentaries “The End of America,” based on Naomi Wolf’s book. SnagFilms is also offering a Hamptons Extra component online - presenting several of the documentaries that just missed the festival’s cut because it didn’t have slots or theaters to show them.

“The notion is that a festival has to work with a limited number of physical sites for screening,” says SnagFilms’ CEO, Rick Allen. “Also, people can’t come from all over to see the films they do show, so the audience is limited. Online provides the best answer.”

Marc Abraham's "Flash of Genius" wins the Sloan Award from the Hamptons fest.  James Franco, Sally Hawkins, "Wall-E" and "Ironman" win at the Hollywood Film Festival.  The Gothams will honor Penelope Cruz.  "Slumdog Millionaire" wins Toronto's audience award.  Outfest will laud "Milk" producer Bruce Cohen.

We woke up this morning to find that awards season has begun.  The race to be one of the first to announce moves it up every year.  In the next few months, journos will be inudated with pressers, bloggers will keep score, camera crews from E! will bathe in overtime, celebs will shower in gifting suites.  It is a dark and strange time of year, when the only persons notable among the avalanche of statues are the ones who didn't get one.

Fests lucky enough to unspool in the fall and winter take every advantage of the season, throwing awards, honors, and tributes like Mardi Gras beads.  Just wait for the Santa Barbara vs. Palm Springs bout.  Always a bruiser.

But Outfest's honor, to benefit the LGBT film preservation, shows that even if your fest dates are in the summer, you can still get some of the action.  Look for that trend to continue.

What's "Towelhead" producer Ted Hope doing at 2am?  Updating one of his five blogs:

Bowl of Noses
"My curating for kids 6+ site."

Hammer to Nail
"Building a home for ambitious film."

Info Wants to be Free
"The creation and distribution of content must have equal access for all."

The Next Good Idea
"Innovation, inspiration, and common sense for all!"

These Are Those Things
"That inspire, that I like, and that I hope you feel the same about."

For The Circuit's first anniversary, we continue our look at the State of the Fest. 

In part one, festival vet Christian Gaines said fests are the only way many art films get seen as their makers intended: on the big screen.  Yet there's no financial upside.  With part two, he's got a modest proposal for how to make it work econonically.

For filmmakers traveling the circuit – sometimes for a few years, attending dozens of festivals with a single film – the outcome in this process is now foggier than ever.

In the old days, filmmakers could build anticipation for an eventual theatrical run, or for the eventual DVD release, garnering kudos along the way. Film festivals served a specific curatorial function, elevating work worthy of special attention. Hopefully, sales agents and distributors would take notice, and this work would move into actual theatrical distribution, transitioning from a cycle of cultural celebration to commercial redemption.

No longer.

Nowadays, the majority of filmmakers – with or without sales agents – will see their films on the big screen only at film festivals. Film festivals have largely become the theatrical distribution platform for most independent films. But it’s never long before lucky filmmakers, gratified to be receiving dozens of festival invitations across a span of several months, start to gripe about the cost of servicing these engagements – shipping, promotional materials, time spent coordinating prints and schedules – it adds up.

Not surprisingly, film festivals are reluctant to take the lead on this issue. Many sales agents, indifferent to whether or not their film is accepted into any but a handful of major international festivals (read: the ones where the buyers are), are now asking for screening fees of $1,000 or more from most fests, if the chances for a US theatrical pick-up have dimmed.

Reactions from film festivals range from careful consideration to mild disgust. Some festivals feel their prestige precedes the demand for screening fees; many simply couldn’t afford it, or both. Film festivals are cultural events, their budgets tight, and new expenses, regardless of merit, are met with reluctance.

Nevertheless, sales agents are deluged with literally hundreds of film festival invitations and see screening fees as the only way to at least covering the costs associated with honoring them. This stop-gap situation is really just that: sales agents trying to find a way to make it work for fests, and indifferent if it doesn’t.

More and more, film festivals are populating their schedules less with the latest work from the more established international film masters (usually represented by sales agents), and more with submissions that have come over the transom. There’s been much speculation on whether this has been a blessing or a bane to the artist and the audience. There’s no doubt that it increases the curatorial responsibility on film festivals, and brings back to the forefront the role of film festivals in discovering new filmmakers. With that comes the welcome added pressure to provide a truly satisfying filmmaker experience, and any festival that’s doing less than constantly thinking about the filmmaker experience will not compete for too long in the crowded festival scene.

The bottom line is that if the theatrical film festival experience – still so desirable to audiences and filmmakers – exists almost solely in the context of film festivals, then a scaleable, economic model which benefits both festivals and filmmakers will eventually emerge. It won’t be long before the waves created by the demise of traditional theatrical distribution will wash over film festivals, changing yet again the way the game is played.

Consider this scenario from the not-too distant future: you scan the trades one morning and learn that a film – say the recently acclaimed work from an international master, fresh from a successful debut in official competition at the Cannes Film Festival – Atom Egoyan, Chen Kaige, Eric Khoo or Jean-Luc and Pierre Dardenne – has been “acquired for film festival distribution.” This film, one of several official selections also represented in the Cannes Market, has seen some brisk territorial theatrical acquisition but once again, the sales agent in question has found no distributor in the United States willing to take on this rewarding but challenging masterpiece.

Meanwhile, shortly after Cannes, the sales agent representing the film receives dozens, perhaps hundreds, of invitations from film festivals around the world, each with an eager built-in audience. In the old days, sales agents would cherry pick what in their estimation was the most practically relevant group of festivals.

In the new “Festival Acquisition” model a sales agent or producer might send a film on a six to ten month tour of sixty to eighty North American film festivals. Absent of commercial venues, if film festivals have become the ad hoc distribution infrastructure for these films - and the film in question might see 250 screenings - then a formal business proposition will emerge, one in which rights holders and film festivals each acknowledge the other’s challenges.

In this proposition, several things could start to happen: smaller and mid-size festivals that have previously been shut out of the possibility of securing quality international fare are suddenly back in the game. Quality goes up and regional U.S. audiences have a shot at seeing new works by the masters. Rights holders request a minimum guarantee versus a % of ticket sales (already nothing new), and festivals must weigh up their screening slots and total number of seats and figure out if the proposition makes economic sense.

It’s possible that ten to twenty films in the festival may be in “festival distribution” status; other films find their way into the festival because filmmakers are happy for the exposure, or distributors are developing word-of-mouth for a picture before the release.

This model encourages rights holders and film festivals to actually go into business with each other, for the sake of getting a great film seen by the audience that wants to see it. Getting hit with a screening fee following a formal invitation does not feel like a business proposition to festivals.

All kinds of variables would factor, including tracking, prints, marketing, publicity and filmmaker travel. It’s pretty obvious that this is more of a call to action than a blueprint, and no one’s claiming to have run the numbers.

But with a coordinated film festival effort, is it possible that many of today’s specialty films could have grossed more over time, cost less to release and been given time to really find and grow its audience?

If an anticipated new film by one of the worlds’ great masters can find another viable avenue within a “film festival distribution” infrastructure – then larger audiences will see the films they care about in the best screening environment; filmmakers will reach their audiences, and quality films will be offered the treasured dignity of being presented theatrically to their most appreciative and devoted adopters.

Christian Gaines (pictured left of helmer Alex Holdridge at AFI FEST) has worked on film festivals for over twenty years. After eight years as Director of Festivals at the American Film Institute, Christian recently joined Withoutabox, a division of IMDb.

 

 

 

For The Circuit's first anniversary, we asked film festival vet Christian Gaines to ruminate on the State of Fests.  In a two-part series, he looks at the unifying factor that makes them important and the different agendas that complicate them.

It’s no secret that the future of the theatrical distribution of independent film is uncertain. Today, only a tiny fraction of North America’s commercial movie screens will present films outside of the studio system. Instead, event-style films dominate the multiplex, and smaller films riding out a theatrical release on a smattering of screens must rely on marginalized marketing methods to get the word out.

Mind you, this is nothing new – smaller, independent distributors have been dealing with this basic problem for years – but strong reviews, good word of mouth, some creative counter-programming and a little luck were enough to generate some break-out hits across the board to keep acquisitions relatively brisk, and the distribution prospects risky, but still tempting.

Yet, with the shuttering of prestige distrib outfits, and with sparse acquisitions news coming out of the major fests, independent filmmakers are feeling that the chance for a theatrical release – something that statistically has always been a long shot – is more elusive than ever.  Paradoxically, the current economic reality in theatrical distribution hasn’t slowed the steady stream of artists completing their first film, nor has it dampened industry-wide speculation and excitement about the newest distribution avenues for the growing consumer appetite for independent cinema.

Of course, today’s filmmakers have a variety of ways to reach audiences, almost all of them web-based. Dozens of downloading or streaming options exist offering a range of revenue generating schemes, leaving it up to the rights owner to evaluate the opportunities. While the method of distribution is now more in the hands of the artists than before, they have little or no control over the ultimate method of exhibition. 

Are audiences watching films on a PDA, in a four-inch browser window, on a laptop with poor resolution, or syncing the film to a big-screen TV?  Are films being watched uninterrupted from beginning to end, or is it being paused numerous times, watched in bits and pieces?

Does this way of presenting the film give the filmmakers the chance to properly contextualize the film?

It seems that today’s independent filmmakers work so hard to maintain control of the entire creative process, only to let go of the way audiences will actually see the final work.

In the pantheon of viable choices for getting your film seen, film festivals continue to thrive (seems there’s a new one born every minute, right?), and that’s because, putting aside economic factors for the moment, film festivals still provide the perfect environment for the cultural, communal celebration of cinema, where films can be presented in context, with optimal picture and sound, and where audiences can yield, uninterrupted, to the original experience created by the artist.

As commercial exhibition prospects for independent filmmakers diminish, the more traditional path – from festival circuit to theatrical run to DVD release to a comfy spot on the Blockbuster shelf, adorned in festival laurels – has sharply changed direction. Only the festival circuit still seems like a constant part of the equation, with thousands of filmmakers steadily submitting their films to thousands of film festivals around the world each year.

It’s important to remember that film festivals serve lots of different constituents. Filmmakers and audiences are the most critical participants in the process of course, but even they desire very different outcomes from the film festival experience. Throw in the international film industry, the gathered media (local outlets, celebrity news, traditional critics, bloggers) as well as corporate sponsors (upon which most U.S. film festivals now heavily depend), and you have a heady convergence of expectations that more often seem at odds with one another.

Imbalances typically occur: film festivals quickly learn that sponsorship success is heavily influenced by media coverage, in turn dependent on celebrity attendance. Overly emphasized it can be all sizzle, no steak and independent filmmakers feel like an after thought in the program.

Festival audiences like to catch glimpses of famous people as much as anyone, but they are really there for the movies, and expect quality, both in the programming and in the overall festival experience.  Filmmakers desire a great screening environment – technically well-equipped houses full of enthusiastic people excited to take a chance on something new.

Consequently, film festivals now have a range of different ideas of what success looks like, and not all of them include a satisfied filmmaker: seats filled, media impressions, celebrity attendance, US and World Premieres, total numbers of films, festival longevity, financial stability – all of these festival success markers range from greatly relevant to completely irrelevant, depending on what role you play at a film festival.

Coming up in Part 2:  For festivals to move ahead, the rules will have to change.

Christian Gaines has worked on film festivals for over twenty years. After eight years as Director of Festivals at the American Film Institute, Christian recently joined Withoutabox, a division of IMDb.

IndiePix Studios has picked five films to invest over $700,000 in.  The online distributor's first forays into production will be Samantha Buck's "21 Below," Nicole Quinn's "Slap and Tickle," Paola Mendoza and Gloria Lamorte's "Entres Nos," Gabriel Noble and Marjan Tehrani's "P Star's Redemption," and Annie Sundberg and Ricki Sterns new docu "The End of America." 

Sundberg and Sterns previously directed "The Trials of Daryl Hunt," which won the Sundance Grand Jury Prize in 2006.

"IndiePix Studios plans on premiering all of these titles during the 2009 world festival circuit - with the intent on selling all of their rights to leading distributors. This will enable us to continue investing in future projects out there that deserve to be made," said Ryan Harrington, Head of IndiePix Studios. "Our goal is to get as many eyes on these films - in as many markets and platforms - as possible.

"The fact that we have our own distribution entity, IndiePix Films, that we can use in conjunction with other distribution companies to help support the life of our films, is an important additional factor for these titles."

This is That producer Ted Hope's appropriately named blog, These Are Those Things, linked to a nifty series in the making from "I'm a Sex Addict" director Caveh Zahedi. 

Here's a teaser of the pilot called "Tripping with Caveh," where the helmer takes shrooms with Will Oldham.

Anthony Kaufman pointed to an interesting post by Scott Kirsner on how to get your indie film on iTunes. 

It's not easy.

Apple doesn’t make things any easier by supplying absolutely no official information to filmmakers who’d like to sell their work on iTunes. (By contrast, here’s CreateSpace’s crystal clear explanation of how to sell your work on Amazon Unbox – the best non-iTunes option that exists today.)

Here’s the scoop: Apple’s strategy thus far has been to only work with aggregators, or services that will collect a number of indie films and then deliver them to iTunes. They don’t want to work directly with filmmakers. But there is no aggregator yet that will take just any finished film and deliver it to iTunes, in the same way CreateSpace (which is owned by Amazon) will take any finished film and sell it on Amazon Unbox.

Patrick Goldstein's recent post ponders the release stategy behind Charlie Kaufman's (pictured) hard-to-pronounce "Synecdoche, New York."  He even linked to our popular "Synecdoche, New York" video -- where we asked Cannes-goers to pronounce the word for us. 

And then the commenters started. 

Anyone using blog comments as social barometers would think the entire world knows the meaning of the word "syncedoche."

"I think I first learned what a synecdoche was in the seventh grade. And I went to public school."

"Any English major worth his salt should now [sic] how to pronounce synechdoche."

"Oh please, it's not that hard to pronounce."

"You've never heard of the term "synecdoche", and you're (supposedly) writers?"

It reminds us that the great public forum that are blogs sometimes fall far short.  Anyone who runs them knows that manners and intelligence yield to a kind of pseudo high-minded scolding.  In blog comments, there's an easy way to be the smartest guy in the room -- by simply calling the writer an idiot. 

Peter Bart regularly gets hosed by shallow commenters, the by-product of having a high-profile blog. In his post on whether celebs help or hurt candidates, he quips that since "politics has become more Hollywood than Hollywood" that "the presence of the true stars may remind voters that, in politics as in the arts, reality and unreality are constantly colliding." 

That sparked a mouthful from someone named "jimbunny":

"Don't be a dummy Peter. You live in a vacuous and vainglorious little community that is isolated and protected from the rest of the country as well as the world. I enoy [sic] your take on the 'biz' -- let's keep it to that, before you wade in too far over your melon."

Nevermind that Peter did, in fact, "keep it to that."  As the editor-in-chief of a entertainment industry paper many would believe that he's perfectly qualified to write on celebs and politics.  He would be the first to acknowledge his opinions are open to debate, but Mr. Bunny bypassed that. 

Like most angry commenters on blogs worldwide, Bunny couldn't conceptualize an argument.  He could only kick sand.  It probably gave him the opportunity to email the link to his like-minded friends - "look how I stuck it to that idiot. LOL!"

In another Peter Bart post, at least one commenter seems to find it entertaining:

"I'm not sure which I find more entertaining, Peter Bart's reviews or the rabid fan boy rebuttals that inevitably follow each and every one. This is some Hate-Club Peter's got going on here."

Every blog has its own hate-club.  I know many bloggers who don't even look at the comments, much less respond to them.  Who wants to join a club that would have them as a member?