Dude spin. Sundance pressure.
The last noteworthy fight out of Sundance can be read about in any book or magazine timeline that charts the fest's history. Harvey Weinstein came to blows with producer Jonathan Taplin over "Shine." That fight was about an acquisition. Harvey was pissed because someone else acquired the film.
Yesterday a new fight made the blogs -- Film rep Jeff Dowd was pissed that critic John Anderson didn't get his film.
Anderson felt that people will not respond to "Dirt!", a film Dowd was helping to push. Dowd wouldn't accept that after hearing the audience reaction. He wouldn't leave Anderson alone, pursuing him, trying to change his mind and being relentless about it. Anderson got frustrated and lashed out.
The "Shine" fight typified that year's Sundance -- sales were more, prices were bigger.
This new fight is a result of this year's event -- sales are slow, pressure is mounting. The logjam that was supposed to break an avalanche of deals after the Jim Carrey starrer "I Love You Phillip Morris" never broke.
The job of film reps and publicists at fests like Sundance is unique. They're to drum a beat for distributor/buyer interest, not necessarily for general audiences. For a film in general release there are important reviews to get, but at Sundance the trade reviews take on a particular significance because of their sales bent. And there's really only two papers doing it.
To be a Variety or HR journalist at Sundance is to be hounded by sales agents, publicists, agents and even fest programmers and filmmakers. And while Dowd's pursuit of Anderson is the extreme, it is the norm (unfortunately). I know of no reviewer or journo whose mind has been changed because of a publicist in hot pursuit, but it doesn't stop the pursuit.
News reporters are in the crosshairs, too. Several days ago, a flack pleaded with us to interview a director about their film's marketability, after a reviewer dismissed its chances in their piece.
And the spin keeps coming, yet now the focus is the fight itself. Today three emails came in, all explaining the fight from Dowd's perspective, and using it to push "Dirt." Regarding Anderson -- "ill-informed assumptions are not what is best for the planet and not in the spirit of dialogue that goes on at Sundance." (To wrap global issues into Anderson's opinion is a bit below-the-belt; like a New World Order guilt trip).
Sundance audience reaction is a dubious measurement of future success. "Slam" had a raucous audience response. So did "Happy, Texas." And so did "The Blair Witch Project." The smaller theaters are easily seeded with the film's supporters -- relatives and crew who already like it. Buyers know this. Sometimes it's mind-blowingly obvious ("Happy, Texas" case-in-point). Reviewers know it, too.
Yet what indicator can buyers really use to gauge marketability? A lone reviewer? A hired flack? A biased audience? Themselves? Heaven forbid.
Yesterday a new fight made the blogs -- Film rep Jeff Dowd was pissed that critic John Anderson didn't get his film. Anderson felt that people will not respond to "Dirt!", a film Dowd was helping to push. Dowd wouldn't accept that after hearing the audience reaction. He wouldn't leave Anderson alone, pursuing him, trying to change his mind and being relentless about it. Anderson got frustrated and lashed out.
The "Shine" fight typified that year's Sundance -- sales were more, prices were bigger.
This new fight is a result of this year's event -- sales are slow, pressure is mounting. The logjam that was supposed to break an avalanche of deals after the Jim Carrey starrer "I Love You Phillip Morris" never broke.
The job of film reps and publicists at fests like Sundance is unique. They're to drum a beat for distributor/buyer interest, not necessarily for general audiences. For a film in general release there are important reviews to get, but at Sundance the trade reviews take on a particular significance because of their sales bent. And there's really only two papers doing it.
To be a Variety or HR journalist at Sundance is to be hounded by sales agents, publicists, agents and even fest programmers and filmmakers. And while Dowd's pursuit of Anderson is the extreme, it is the norm (unfortunately). I know of no reviewer or journo whose mind has been changed because of a publicist in hot pursuit, but it doesn't stop the pursuit.
News reporters are in the crosshairs, too. Several days ago, a flack pleaded with us to interview a director about their film's marketability, after a reviewer dismissed its chances in their piece.
And the spin keeps coming, yet now the focus is the fight itself. Today three emails came in, all explaining the fight from Dowd's perspective, and using it to push "Dirt." Regarding Anderson -- "ill-informed assumptions are not what is best for the planet and not in the spirit of dialogue that goes on at Sundance." (To wrap global issues into Anderson's opinion is a bit below-the-belt; like a New World Order guilt trip).
Sundance audience reaction is a dubious measurement of future success. "Slam" had a raucous audience response. So did "Happy, Texas." And so did "The Blair Witch Project." The smaller theaters are easily seeded with the film's supporters -- relatives and crew who already like it. Buyers know this. Sometimes it's mind-blowingly obvious ("Happy, Texas" case-in-point). Reviewers know it, too.
Yet what indicator can buyers really use to gauge marketability? A lone reviewer? A hired flack? A biased audience? Themselves? Heaven forbid.
Michael Jones is the film festival editor at Variety.com. 
Great work, webmaster, nice design!
Posted by: drug interaction between ativan and tram | 11/11/2009 12:20:17 PM
Perfect work!
Posted by: physician guidelines for prescribing phe | 10/30/2009 9:43:50 PM
In searching for sites related to web hosing and specifically comparison hosting linux plan web, your site came up.
Posted by: invosotoDus | 10/11/2009 3:02:19 AM
This site is the BEST!!!
Thanks a million!
Posted by: japan | 10/1/2009 4:37:05 AM
Thank you very much, bookmarked this website! thanks!!!!
Posted by: dadboy | 9/28/2009 4:40:40 AM
Thanks so much! I've looked everywhere for this! You're amazing!
Posted by: hotmom | 9/27/2009 6:30:50 AM
thanks a lot
Posted by: movies | 9/26/2009 7:39:25 PM
Thank you very much!
Regards!!
Posted by: schoolgirl | 9/26/2009 4:32:45 AM
thx!. This one is great!!!
Posted by: teen | 9/25/2009 7:32:21 PM
AWESOME! Great job.
Posted by: shemales | 9/25/2009 4:02:12 AM
thank you soooooo much for this
Posted by: feetblog | 9/23/2009 6:08:22 AM
Thx
Posted by: femdom | 9/21/2009 8:19:54 AM
Awesome!
Posted by: gaybdsm | 9/20/2009 11:06:56 PM
It is the coolest site, keep so
Posted by: indian | 9/19/2009 8:19:49 PM
Great site. Keep doing
Posted by: bdsm | 9/19/2009 11:28:33 AM
nice job men:)
Posted by: dadies | 9/18/2009 9:13:43 AM
ohhohoho~~ it's very bombardning best.
Posted by: cartoon | 9/16/2009 7:57:08 AM
yea nice Work :D
Posted by: usedcarauction | 9/14/2009 5:06:59 AM
Thanks
Posted by: itzgerald | 9/7/2009 10:45:40 PM
Thank you!
Posted by: rosemarine | 9/5/2009 7:40:04 PM
COOL...!!!!
Posted by: dmtcoza | 9/2/2009 10:35:06 PM
lurve you bunches! Thanx!!! 'huggles'
Posted by: mediplast | 9/1/2009 4:28:24 AM
Thank youuuuu!!! =)
Posted by: taging | 8/31/2009 8:41:25 PM
Nice blog! Very interesting themes. I will allways read it. Also e-mailed on rss
Posted by: rusinox | 8/31/2009 3:37:30 AM
I congratulate, what words…, a magnificent idea!!!
Posted by: conirieti | 8/30/2009 4:01:46 AM
It is the coolest site, keep so.
Posted by: snapcl | 8/29/2009 7:54:24 PM
great!
Posted by: pope | 8/28/2009 7:40:12 PM
Thank you very much :D
Posted by: temsrl | 8/28/2009 4:16:48 AM
Very nice! Thank you so much!
Posted by: candle | 8/27/2009 7:56:21 PM
I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
Posted by: coop | 8/22/2009 6:07:29 AM
Dowd is a rep. Apologies and corrected.
Posted by: Jones | 1/29/2009 10:45:14 AM
Mike - nice piece. But right, the Dude's a rep, and at least the filmmaker can't complain he wasn't advocating for the film. Other reps should be so passionate for their clients (in my experience, most are not). As for the critic, being pursued by a rep does not seem so out of line when Variety reviews are not just reviews of the films themselves, but also explicitly written as business prognostications (ie. "odds for BO success are slim").
I've always been troubled by the trades' putting their critics in this awkward position of being both honest critics of the films they see as well as objective business analysts. In the former of those roles, a movie should probably be watched in complete isolation. In the latter of those two roles, analyzing the audience reaction at a festival is very relevant to predicting its success. It's an inherent conflict of interest, and maybe this episode will bring some light to the issue.
For filmmakers and festival organizers, it becomes a big issue - should critics see films on DVD screeners, or with a general public audience? In my opinion, a set-aside press screening (as Sundance often has) can be the worst of both worlds: A screening with a bunch of other jaded critics can sometimes unnaturally tamp down enthusiasm for a film. Maybe this episode will bring to the light the curious case of Variety reviews and their mixed agendas, but odds for that happening seem slim.
Posted by: Dan Mirvish | 1/29/2009 8:07:01 AM
Jeff is a rep, not a publicist. Therefore he has a direct economic interest in the sale of the film. I used to run a company that won top prizes at Sundance and other festivals. I acted as my own rep, and hired quiet, hard-working, dignified people as publicists. It was a successful formula for me. For other people and other films, Jeff is the right guy. No one can dispute his success. He''s your best friend one minute and your most ardent detractor the next. I guess it comes with being "bigger than life." And hey, he got a movie made about him. Never happened to me. Next time ''round, guess I''ve gotta try to make more noise.
Posted by: Gabby Cadaver | 1/23/2009 7:30:42 PM