The Circuit

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.