An open reply.

We all see the world through our own prism of personal experience. In my "rant" (I'd characterize it as a "ramble" myself) from earlier this week, I attempted to make a case that filmmakers should not view the likely non-acquisition of their work from festival screenings as a failure. There are plenty of other distribution opportunities out there, although not many of them are particularly lucrative at this moment in time. Then again, it's not really about the money, is it? Only a fool makes a movie "on spec" with the notion of some future windfall.

Given all of the public and private support for my diatribe, there are always a few folks that get into a tizzy when confronted with reality. Reality, however, is debatable. Spout's Karina Longworth, for instance, described me as the film acquisitions fellow "for GreenCine's DVD-by-mail main site." That was true about a year ago. Tom Hall's thin-skinned piece (more about that in a moment) says that I don't "seem to know much about how film festivals work." I wager it would take about 20 seconds to discover that I have something of a familiarity with festivals. I attend about 40 such events every year and I've worked for about a dozen (either directly or in-directly). This is what passes for journalism these days? Little or no research? Meanwhile, Agnes Varnum writes, "Do people really not know this information?" Unfortunately, not as many folks are familiar with these talking points as I had hoped. I'd initially intended to write a compare-and-contrast piece about the Independent Film Festival of Boston, the Tribeca Film Festival and the San Francisco International Film Festival - something of an embellishment on the already excellent coverage of these festivals on the Daily - from the relatively unique perspective of someone who attended all three. Yet, at each festival, I talked to numerous filmmakers with tales of pending acquisition just on the horizon. I've been talking these same points since my days at Amazon.com in the 1990s. It's slightly disappointing that these directors are still dreaming the dream.

To be clear, the piece was also not-so-subtly considered to be a bit of a challenge to the few theatrical acquisition establishments that are still standing. I'd be delighted to see Barry Jenkins's Medicine for Melancholy play at multiplexes across the country. Add to that about a hundred other features that I've seen over the last decade that sadly never went much of anywhere post-festival circuit. Prove me wrong! I'm still waiting.

Meanwhile, back to Tom and his response. I've never attended the Sarasota Film Festival although I've only heard great things about it. My only limited experience with Sarasota is their party at the Toronto Film Festival about two years ago. Admittedly, it's the only party that I've attended in Toronto that I have ever enjoyed. I figured, perhaps mistakenly, that if they could get that right, they probably know how to throw a good festival, too (and, for ten years, they've evidently been doing exactly that). A quick look at the programming for the most recent edition, for which Tom was largely (if not entirely) responsible, clearly demonstrates a solid event. Let's get something clear, though - "[O]ur festival featured over 220 films this year and I was proud to show each title among them." 220? You've made a decision to have a large festival and I can't argue with that choice. However, you can't expect me (or anyone) to believe that every film was good. Without calling them out, I see several dodgy ones in the list. I also see Woodpecker and the aforementioned Medicine for Melancholy. Tom's marks for independent street-cred are duly noted. Although Sarasota clearly isn't one of the festivals that exploit the filmmaker and their work, it's naïve to suggest that such festivals don't exist. In other words, I didn't have Tom and/or Sarasota in mind when I was scribbling this piece out on a flight (back from a festival, naturally). Nor True/False. Nor Ann Arbor. Nor TIE. All great events, from what I hear, that I have yet to attend.

Further along, Tom notes that "non-profit arts organizations are not structured as a replacement for traditional for-profit distribution models." I never suggested that they were. As a Board member of a non-profit arts organization that presents non-commercial films from around the world, I would never suggest anything of the sort. I believe, though, that I am largely to blame for this essential misunderstanding since the theme was picked up by Sujewa Ekanayake as well. It was not my goal to get festivals to pay filmmakers. While it is gradually becoming de rigueur for films with distribution in place to get a few dollars for the right to show these works, Tom has a vested interest to discourage such efforts. I don't blame him for that. In fact, the economics of such events don't warrant the proliferation of such a system at all (although if Sujewa can figure out how to make it happen, I'll definitely do what I can to support it).

"Each event stands alone and should be weighed on its individual merits, benefits and shortcomings." I thought that was what I was doing. "What film festivals share with distributors is that they both screen films in a theater. But does that make them the same thing?" Not at all, but therein is the crux of the issue. "Ersatz" was not a word chosen lightly. Film festivals have become an "artificial substitute" for the real thing only because the real thing has largely disappeared. Independent exhibitors are rapidly disappearing, too. The plea isn't for an end to film festivals or independent exhibitors. The plea is for every filmmaker that has shelved their work or hidden it away in a closet or basement to make it available for all to see. They should not be discouraged by the sorry state of affairs but should be, instead, encouraged by all of the new opportunities for their work to be seen - new opportunities that will ideally bring them a few dollars, Euros or Pesos as well (and perhaps, eventually, enough money to make another film if they're self-financing their own projects). Like any sensible person, I'd rather see a movie in a theater (either at a festival or in theatrical release). Like any reasonable person, I'll see a movie-of-interest any way possible. DVD? TV? On a set-top box? On a laptop? On a mobile phone? Although my Luddite side is not too fond of this last option, I'm ultimately format-agnostic.

As for "one of the most condescending ideas," I'll do you one better. About 20 years ago, David Thomas (frontman for the legendary Pere Ubu) suggested that there were far too many bands in the world. I think it's time to revive his appeal and apply it to the motion picture industry. There are far too many people making movies that have no business picking up a camera. I've said it on panels and now I'll put it in print - if you're a filmmaker and you suspect that you're not up for the challenge, please stop! We've had enough. The business of filmmaking, like the process of politics, often discourages our best and brightest. These days, the good ones generally give up on the Sisyphean hurdles and find some other practical line of work. Audiences are then regularly left with a particular personality type that continues to make films-about-nothing long after they should've stopped. If we can promote the former and deride the latter, we've done our part.

Of course, the odds of making a good movie are against us all. I've been involved in my share of mediocre efforts. For every Barry Jenkins there are a dozen Eric Schaeffers. If I can somehow contribute to an environment that makes it easier for Barry's current film to find distribution or his next to get produced, I've accomplished something. This is by no means a lofty goal. A modest proposal for the filmmaking (and film exhibiting) community? Perhaps.

- Jonathan Marlow

Update, 6/2:: Bob Alexander, President of IndiePix, argues "that the traditional models of distribution, which barely work for the major studios, do not work - at all - in some scaled down version for independent film." But "new technologies of the Internet era offer great new possibilities for the community of film fans.... Filmmakers and film-lovers alike should be excited about the evolution of our industry."

Posted by dwhudson at May 31, 2008 8:38 AM