Film Festival Realities

[Josh Bass]

I can post links to the movies, if y'all (yes, from Texas) want. They're not that "slick," but they're at least competent, I think especially for miniDV movies that I essentially lit/DPd alone while trying to direct and get everyone out of there as quickly as possible. The one that got the most acclaim is claymation, anyway, and flatly lit to give it "cartoony" look, rather than something Tim Burton-esque or something. Plus, I didn't know ass about lighting back then, so I figured flat and decent was better than attempted artful and crappy.

 

As far as the cable outlets. . .any names, specifically? I think'd it be cool to say, "yeah, fool, my shizzle aired on cable," even if I don't get paid for it. Public access doesn't count--I was thinking maybe there were some networks/shows that showcased shorts that I may not be aware of 'cause I only get basic cable.

[Matt Pacini]

I'm in no way saying this is universal to all festivals, but I had a couple experiences you may want to consider.

 

I called a couple festivals about their deadlines (which shall remain nameless, but one of them starts with the initials NEWPORT BEACH FILM FESTIVAL!) about trying to slip in right at the last minute, and was told (off the record, of course) that I should not waste my money - the festival had already picked the entries to be shown (MONTHS earlier in one case), and that they were just depositing checks and tossing the tapes into the trash!

 

So my advice is to not bother submitting to any festival unless you can do it early on, because otherwise your film is probably not even getting watched by anyone but the garbage collector.

When you think about how much money they make on entry fees, it doesn't surprise me that this goes on.

Moral of the story:

It may not be either quality, or even the judges personal bias that determines whether your film gets in.

As usual, it helps if you know somebody involved with the festival, which irritates me, because supposedly festivals are all about breaking new talent, but it's really not.

 

Matt Pacini

[Alvin Pingol]

...and was told (off the record, of course) that I should not waste my money - the festival had already picked the entries to be shown (MONTHS earlier in one case), and that they were just depositing checks and tossing the tapes into the trash!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ugh! I never knew stuff like that went on. It makes me sick! :angry: People put so much time into their works...

 

But as you mentioned, they must make a load of money from entry fees. I'd imagine that to them tossing tapes is like throwing away junkmail.

[Guest dpforum1968]

Thanks to Matt Pacini for that posting. I'm sure that will be a startling revelation to many people, and add a bit of evidence to what I'm saying at least.

 

I have a feeling some thing like this will come out one day from a major festival and it will taint the entire festival circuit. I have made a rule to not submit to any festivals charging over $30.00 for a short film.

 

It's probably also a good idea to stick with the festivals that have been around for a while in the major cities. Some of these new start ups may just be cash grabs.

 

DC

[Brad Grimmett]

What would be ideal is if some one buys out a theatre in Park City Utah for the duration of Sundance and then simply sells the screening spots to the highest bidders.  After all if you just spent 10 million on a feature why let some snot nose programmer at Sundance keep your film from screening?  If you had to spend $20,000.00 for a spot to get a screening it would be worth it.  Then also sell a block of time to short film makers as well.

 

I can just see the steam rising off the heads of the Sundance folks as films they rejected get seen by audiences attending Sundance any way.  And then...horror...SOLD!

 

I predict that as always the free market will rule supreme, and if there's enough demand for people to get their films screened no matter what, then it will happen.  A competing festival to Sundance will come along and start to draw off dollars and audiences away from Sundance.  People will look for ways around the Sundance programmers and they'll find it.

 

DC

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I guess you haven't realized this, but there are MANY other film festivals happening in Park City at the same time as Sundance. Slamdance is the biggest I believe, and they do quite well. I saw a film or two at Slamdance when I was at Sundace a few years ago. These other festivals are basically just taking advantage of the fact that there are already so many people in town for Sundance during that time. I don't think that these other festivals have affected Sundance in the least, and I doubt the programmers at Sundance really care. Renting out a theater would be impossible though, as all the theaters in town are used for Sundance. Some films are even shown in Salt Lake City because of the lack of theater space. All the other festivals just create screening rooms out of whatever space they have.

[Guest dpforum1968]

No problem. I'll just hook up a big screen TV sticking out of the trunk of my car and power it with the car battery. Then I'll drive up and down the main drag while my film screens.

 

Ha! In your face Sundance programmers you can't stop me from doing that!!!

 

DC

[Nate Downes]

I'll do one better and use my projector to put it on the side of the largest white building I can find.

[Guest dpforum1968]

Finally! Some one out here who thinks the way I do.

 

Yes that sounds like a good idea.

 

DC

[Josh Hill]

Matt and others --

 

I don't think selecting the films months in advance is really something that should be so demonized. Think about how many entries some of these film festival ares getting. I'm sure some festivals are just like a lot of colleges with rolling admission, which is why its always better to get your stuff in WAY early instead of closer to the deadlines.

 

Also, when people see what they want in the festival, they're going to pick it. With the extreme number of entries that are coming in to some of these festivals it would be ludicrous to expect them to hold onto all of the entires until the end of the deadline and then go through them all. It would take weeks, if not months, in some cases for the person or group of persons to sit down and watch all the entries and make decisions based on the group as a WHOLE.

 

What I learned from my class where we adjudicated a made up festival is that each tape is judged based on that tape alone. If everyone sees something they want in, its going to be in regardless of what they have seen before or what will come later. They either like it or they don't.

 

Don't judge these people so harshly. Do you know how hard it is to watch tapes day in, day out, especially when most of them turn out to be tripe? Its a horrible job, and I've never heard anyone say they like doing it (I know some people who have been interning for some local festivals here in Austin and they hate that part of the job). Its just like script readers, usually only one in twenty or thirty scripts is of any actual quality.

 

I don't think anything "coming out" about the adjudication process of these big festivals is going to have any major impact. The world is not going to suddenly go: "Oh my god! They've been doing THAT!?" and suddenly stop caring. Look at Matt's story ... he asked about getting his film in close to the deadline and they were honest with him, they weren't trying to HIDE the fact that their selections were already chosen. If more people would call or write ahead and ask if they're still taking submissions there wouldn't be tapes getting thrown in the trash.

 

And these application fees aren't whats really paying for the festival. If it were SXSW tickets for full access wouldn't be 300 or 400 dollars (with student discount). Festivals are still making their money of merchandise, advertisements, and audience. Just like colleges don't make their money off the application fees, they make the money off of the tuition. The reason for application fees is because someone is sitting down and watching these tapes, there are all kinds of things going on before the festival that need to be taken care of. There are all kinds of internal processes that are churning, and that is what the application fees are for.

 

Yeah, people are having bad experiences, but thats not the festivals fault. Its no ones fault. The people who make it, successfully, into festivals and then find themselves great fame and fortune are rare. Think of how many people are submitting their tapes for just a few precious slots. By submitting to most festivals that have any kind of reputation, you should assume the odds are against you. By being accepted, you have one. You have already beaten the odds.

 

I understand the disappointment of not being accepted (I've had poetry rejected, recently, from several poetry magazines), but you should be thankful that people are actually giving you the simple OPPORTUNITY to MAYBE have your work shown. Of course there are going to be more bad experiences than good. Of course you're not going to agree with any policies that affect your film getting into the festival. But at least there are festivals there, and at least someone's work is getting shown. You should really be commending these people for giving their time to showing films that might not otherwise get shown, regardless if your film is one of them or not.

[Nate Yolles]

Apocalypse Now won the Palme D'or at Cannes, so I think that makes it more than festival fair, heh.

 

As a side note, Apocalypse Now was a "co-winner" tying with great film known as The Tin Drum (Die Blechtrommel, 1979).

[Guest dpforum1968]

Ok back to me, since I started this whole deal :-)

 

Our film has now been accepted into two more festivals, officially. I will be flying down this week to attend one of them. I don't expect a big "break" as a result, but it's in a major US city so I thought the experience of being there will at least have value.

 

I'd like to post links here for our film as it is featured on the festival web sites now, complete with production stills. BUT, the programmers of those festivals probably wouldn't be too thrilled with my earlier comments regarding the film festivals. It would only be a matter of time before they read these posts or had them passed onto them by other folks here.

 

Keeping the title of the film out of my postings does allow me to speak freely, and not worry about reprisals from the festival programmers.

 

To Josh Hill, I do think the festivals owe a great deal to the various film makers who submit their work. Especially when people are paying a fee to simply have their work reviewed. The "we get so many entries" argument simply can't hold up. The festival organizers voluntarily set up the festival and invite people to submit their work. If screening all the tapes is such a brutal job, then don't have a festival and certainly don't take peoples money. No one is forcing any one to have a film festival.

 

I was asked to be a judge for the Telly Awards one year, and oh boy what a crap fest that was. By crap fest I mean that the vast majority of the work submitted was sub-standard, compared to the few exceptional pieces I gave awards to. It took several days to go through the entries, but watch every one of them I did! I made the choice to be a judge of my own free will, so I owed the various producers my time for full consideration of their work. (FYI, I've won six Tellys which is why they asked me to be a judge).

 

One thing I have started doing is e-mailing the festivals before I submit and ask them to view my trailer on-line. If I get a positive response back from them, ie they say "yeah that looks a genre we'd be interested in programming." I proceed with filling out the forms, paying for FedEx, and the submission fee. If they say, "no we don't program films like that" I just skip them and move onto the next.

 

If they don't reply at all either way, then I skip them as well. If the festival organizers don't take or return phone calls, I skip them. It seems to me that the festivals that respond to e-mails and take phone calls are much better organized than those that don't. Sundance of course would be the exception since they never respond to e-mails or take phone calls, yet I have read postings from attendees that say they are well organized.

 

So basically, yes, I have read and applied many of the pieces of advice that have been posted here.

 

DC

[Matt Pacini]

Matt and others --

 

I don't think selecting the films months in advance is really something that should be so demonized....

 

.... it would be ludicrous to expect them to hold onto all of the entires until the end of the deadline and then go through them all. It would take weeks, if not months, in some cases for the person or group of persons to sit down and watch all the entries and make decisions based on the group as a WHOLE.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't expect them to not watch any movies until the deadline.

What I expect, is for them to either give themselves enough time from the deadline to the festival, to be able to watch all the films, or to announce that entires are closed if they have already picked and are not watching any more films.

 

At the very least, if they are done considering entries, and are not going to watch your film, they should just return the package without taking your money.

After all, that's what you're paying for - to have someone consider your film for the festival.

 

It's totally dishonest to have someone sit there ripping open packages, taking the checks out to be deposited, and tossing your package into the garbage, and there's nothing anyone can say that will ever make me think that's somehow OK.

 

They already get tons of money from sponsors & the like.

Doing this to filmmakers who are PAYING THEM to supply the product that the festivals are making money from, is just fradulent and disrespectful of those that they are pretending to honor by putting on the festivals in the first place.

 

Matt Pacini

[Guest dpforum1968]

Right on Matt!!

 

DC

[Greg Gross]

Please post your film if you can! Would love to see it!

You forgot to add "The Big Fish" to your list.

 

Greg Gross, Professional Photographer

Student Cinematographer

[Guest dpforum1968]

Ok well...I just got an e-mail informing me that we won first prize at a festival which has the shorts screening on October 16th. It's not a bad size fest, it takes place over four days.

(for some reason they announce the winners prior to the festival, maybe to get audiences more interested in seeing those films)

 

As a result we have been invited into the World Wide Short Film Festival June 14-19, 2005, started by Norman Jewison.

 

Our first real test will be Saturday when we make our USA premiere at a festival in a major US city. I'll be there, flying out tonight.

 

So wish us luck, maybe the fests aren't so bad after all? Maybe we had a real run of bad luck in the start and now we're seeing a reversal of fortunes? Gee this must be the film industry :-)

 

Looks like we'll have that three picture deal within say another 2-3 weeks?

 

Nothing can stop us now :-)

 

DC

[Tylerg6]

the only thing that can stop dpforum1968 is the fact that is film is unoriginal redundant crap.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

Making a film festival work is tough. Programmers have to put on an entertaining and memorable show. They often go looking for films - they don't just wait for the tapes to come in the mail.

 

Actually, a good festival programmer should have their prime pieces in place months before the festival shows. It's a bit unnerving if you're sitting there with only a few weeks or days to go and you still have undecided, empty slots. It's almost like having no script ready a few days before a shoot. Having a ready program in advance is a great help in promotion and planning. So I can't blame festival programmers and directors for trying to secure their slate of films as in advance as possible.

 

Late submissions are to them a "what if" situation, i.e. "What if at the last minute we get a terrific undiscovered film that can really score points with the audience and get us good press?", "What if one of our selections gets pulled because it got into Sundance/Toronto/Berlin and needs to preserve its premiere status, how do we fill the slot?". It's not "Let's be nice to all those filmmakers who are just finishing now so we can give everyone a fair chance." The latter is often what it is interpreted as, and that's not really correct. Your chances ARE better the earlier you submit.

 

Let's face it, if the film isn't ready because you simply can't meet the schedule (not because you were simply procrastinating with getting your package together), that's not really your fault nor the festival's. Things happen on their own momentum sometimes and you have to accept that. Wait for next year, and try your hand at other festivals.

 

What concerns program selection, YES, it is TOTALLY up to what the programmers want. They are putting up films that fit their festival's image (in their minds). If your film promotes an issue or a subject matter that strikes a chord with the programmers, you have an upper advantage. If it doesn't, or if it happens to offend the programmers, you are obviously in a disadvantage compared to the others. There is no federal or state mandate that forces film festivals to be equally considerate to all genres and subject matters (nor would that be practical or even ethical).

 

Also, there are a LOT of politics involved, as with many things in life. Whenever 'other people's money' is involved that is the case. It's like the old Russian expression, "The one who pays is the one who orders the music (to be played by the band)".

 

- G.

Edited February 6, 2005 by GeorgeSelinsky

[Landon D. Parks]

I guess for a short, a film festival would be fine. but if your product was a feature and the type of short your saying you have made, then by all means bring on a producer who can get studio meetings, reshoot the thing for feature length and try to sale it directly to a studio.

 

Attaching a name star to the project wont hurt your odds either.

 

In my experiance with festivals (from an observers point!), they want, just like others here have said, more art films, indie films type. Not some mainstream flicks (Not to say they wont accept these though!, cause I'v seen'em).

Edited February 6, 2005 by Landon D. Parks

[Marco Leavitt]

"No problem. I'll just hook up a big screen TV sticking out of the trunk of my car and power it with the car battery."

 

Some time back Roger Ebert wrote that during one year at Sundance he was accosted by a man in a trench coat. When the man opened his coat he had a video screen and speakers playing his movie! Now that's grass roots promotion.

[Matt Pacini]

.... "What if at the last minute we get a terrific undiscovered film...

- G.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

See,this is why I have a huge problem with festivals.

 

This "last minute" time frame, is by THEIR OWN STATED DEADLINE for people to submit films.

 

If they can't chose their program between the time of the submission deadline, to when the festival starts, then they need to change their deadlines to be fair to everyone.

 

And it's really "rigged" if you ask me, for them to go out and find films to fill the program, NOT from the submissions, and use the excuse that they don't have enough time because the deadline is too close to the festival.

They are in control of all of this, and IF this is true, then they should simply move the deadline to an earlier date.

 

I don't think it's fair for them to consider THEIR OWN DEADLINE as some oppressive situation that justifies them chucking people's tapes in the trash and cashing their checks.

 

And even if you think this situation is OK, then surely you would agree that they should publicly disclose this, so masses of people are not being lied to.

 

Matt Pacini

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

One problem I have always found is that people get tired towards the end of the showings, so they aren't paying nearly as much attention as they were with the beginning films.

 

I used to go to a film society and they had annual film festivals, and man did they pump out some crap. What is it with the world using interlaced? I actually stood up and asked them all why they shot it interlaced, I said that interlaced creates a fast paced and more amateurish look. They all disagreed with me and said the idea of it is to capture motion sharper. Yeh, at the expense of a half descent film look, these films look more like soap operas and news broadcasts to me.

 

Naturally none of them would take my opinion, I see what they were saying by it captures motion better but it IS at the expense of a rich film look.

 

Interlaced has it's place with tv soaps, news broadcasts and some dramas, but it doesn't give the atmosphere that progressive does.

 

And the worst thing was that EVERY film in the show was interlaced.

[Guest Frank Gossimier]

One thing is for sure, The Sundance Festival folks will never get another dollar out me, or cause me to spend another 10 seconds filling out their stupid forms!!

 

Yeah yeah, I'm bitter because they never accept any of my films, whatever.

 

Thankfully I've had excellent luck at many other festivals in major US and Canadian cities.

Sundance can continue to spiral down the "irrelevant" and "hi-jacked by Hollywood" tubes.

 

I'd love to see those snobbish programmers knocked down a few pegs! I'm praying for a "payola" scandal to hit the Sundance Fest, oh how I will laugh my ass off then :D

 

Frank

[GeorgeSelinsky]

I don't think it's fair for them to consider THEIR OWN DEADLINE as some oppressive situation that justifies them chucking people's tapes in the trash and cashing their checks.

 

And even if you think this situation is OK, then surely you would agree that they should publicly disclose this, so masses of people are not being lied to.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, put yourself in the position of the festival director. Your job is to put on a fun and good show. You have to find films that are going to score with the audience and support the image of the festival. One way of going about this is asking for submissions, another way is to go to other festivals and markets and go seek.

 

Film festivals are not major money earners, believe me - there are many expenses associated with them. Their key value to the organizers is usually in networking and publicity.

 

Admissions fees are a way of paying for the time a person/people needs to process your application and view your film. I'm sorry, but if you see what gets sent in most of the time, you will understand why you'd want to get paid something to watch someone else's film (esp. a feature film) and give it a fair chance. Many of them are so bad that after the first 20 minutes you want to chuck the tape into the trash. It makes you feel like Alexander Delage at the Ludovico Center's lidlock cinema.

 

The admission fees also help cover the cost of advertising and publicity (part of which goes to covering their "Call for submissions" ads). This sort of stuff isn't cheap, it's not just the ad space but someone has to make up a nice ad, etc.

 

When a festival has an extended deadline (as is the case sometimes), it's a two way street where the filmmaker and the festival may benefit. The festival is saying "Look, you couldn't complete your film on time and therefore we couldn't give it priority consideration - but you still stand a chance of getting in if you give it a shot."

 

If instead the festival said "Stop, we're not taking any more tapes" they'd have to 1) put out a notice about this, which costs advertising money, 2) have a staff that will have to answer each submission and return it saying that the festival has been booked, and 3) what if one or more of your films gets pulled, or the print never makes it? By allowing an extended deadline you're benefitting both the late filmmakers (giving them a chance, albeit smaller but not shutting the door) and your festival. It's up to the filmmaker if they want to take that chance, and I don't think there's anything to disclose, it's fairly common sense. Of course, there's also always the chance that your film may really blow the socks off of the competition to the point where a programmer makes a strong case for it to be included somehow. But it's hard to upset the balance once a certain slate of programming is put together, you have all these arrangements, publicity, logistics (including flying over the filmmakers which some big festivals do), etc.

 

If the festival said "Okay, since we're not giving you priority consideration you can submit for less or for free" then what would happen is most people would simply wait till the last minute to submit. There would be less incentive to submit on time, and the staff would be mobbed at the last minute with a load of tapes. Also, it would attract a lot more trash, too. If you could submit your tape to Sundance late for $10, some Joe who is playing with a camcorder in his basement will say "Ah, why not give it a shot?". At this rate festival programmers would have to content with a lot more junk at a time when the workload is getting heavier in all departments, and the festival would make less money from it.

 

The bottom line is this - the early bird gets the worm. That's the way it is with college applications and many other things. There are human factors to consider as well as the practical side of things.

 

The primary goal of film festivals is to show a certain type of programming to an audience. When you keep that in mind I think many festivals are pretty honest with their admission fees and policies.

 

By the way, for the record I do think it is immoral to cash a filmmaker's check and NOT view their film. That is outright unethical.

 

- G.

Edited February 8, 2005 by GeorgeSelinsky

[Matt Pacini]

Oh, I agree with you, it must be hell to have to sit there viewing bad films, and I'm sure 98% are really horrible.

I also don't believe for a second, that they watch the whole thing if it doesn't grab them in the first few minutes.

I'm sure there are lots of films (maybe most) that are chucked after 90 seconds of viewing.

 

My biggest problem is with them cashing EVERY CHECK that comes in, whether or not they watch the film.

And from what I've heard, it's absolutely commonplace, and this is not an urban legend.

I've heard it from at least one person who worked at a festival, which shall remain nameless, but the first initials of this festival is NEWPORT BEACH FILM FESTIVAL.

 

MP

[GeorgeSelinsky]

Festival programmers have an ethical obligation to view each film that pays to come in as a submission. They DON'T have to view the whole thing, of course (and that would be a waste of time in some cases) but they do, in my view, have to give each submission a reasonable chance. Otherwise they are cheating themselves.

 

- G.