February 1, 2007

Park City, 2/1.

Sundance 07 "As I found out soon after driving in from Salt Lake, there are at least two Sundances, one powered by carefully managed pre-festival 'buzz' and the other by filmgoers flying by their own lights," writes Sam Adams for the Philadelphia City Paper. "The trick, or at least so reasoned this fumbling Sundance virgin, would be to sample a little of both, taking in the hype and the hypeless, star-fuelled fizzles and utter unknowns. What would a film festival be without the thrill of discovery, or the schadenfreude of watching some self-important star's pet project go down in flames?"

Via Jeffrey Wells, John Cook rants for Radar:

The Sundance Film Festival is about independent cinema in much the same way the quadrennial Republican and Democratic national conventions are about democracy. Which is to say, the Sundance Film Festival is not about independent cinema.

[...]

But the festival's arch posturing against commercialization, with Redford inveighing against the swag lounges on Main Street designed to get luxury brands onto the pages of Us Weekly, is too much to take in the face of the omnipresent logos of festival sponsors Volkswagen, Hewlett-Packard, and AOL. And the dismissive sniffing about 'celebrity coverage,' which Sundance's chief press handler, Levi Elder, accused me of contemplating when I applied for credentials, becomes petty and egregiously hypocritical when one considers the fact that the fest is programmed deliberately with films featuring stars - Winona Ryder, Heather Graham, Mandy Moore, John Cusack - who are trotted out at screenings to stand on fake, tented-off 'red carpets' to be photographed in front of backdrops festooned with those aforementioned corporate logos.

Anne Thompson lists her Sundance favorites.

Marjorie Baumgarten in the Austin Chronicle: "Again this year Austin filmmaking was well-represented at Sundance." More from Joe O'Connell.



Bookmark and Share

Posted by dwhudson at February 1, 2007 12:22 PM

Comments

John Cook's piece is well written, as Jeffrey Wells points out, but his rants about red carpet superficiality feel somewhat misleading. It seems like most of the stuff that annoys him takes place at most large media events, and yet he acts completely surprised and freshly annoyed by the abundance of corporate sponsorship and celebrity gawking. It's not like there weren't any good movies to watch...but he hardly makes any note of that fact.

Posted by: Eric at February 2, 2007 11:01 AM

Particularly as someone who's never been there, I continue to be amazed by the sheer volume of bitching about Sundance. And I can't help but think that the festival brings it on itself. They need to be honest and upfront about the ways the festival has evolved over all these years and say, "Yes, we continue to try to find fresh and innovative and truly independent talent, while at the same time, recognize that we've become a favored venue for premiering more mainstream Indiewood fare. In short, we've grown right along with the scene/genre/economic tier of the industry we helped shape."

Like you say, many of the things people are complaining about are part and parcel of the experience of Cannes, Venice or Berlin. It's just that none of those festivals claims to be untarnished by commerce, unsmitten by celebrity, etc., etc.

Posted by: David Hudson at February 2, 2007 11:15 AM