Just thinking. But isn't the incestuous, never-ending mumblecore presence at SXSW a pretty good example from the earlier post about getting into festivals via contacts...

I don't know about that. Considering two of the films there played at the decidedly un-mumbly Sundance and a third has already been picked up by IFC, I don't think that's fair. (Ask me about this again after I see Mrs. Swanberg's film, which as of now, I know very little about.)

I also doubt there will be many stylistic or thematic overlaps between the films accounted for here, so the question remains: what is mumblecore, and does it still exist in 2009? If Andrew Bujalski made a sci-fi parable for $2-million, would anyone still associate him with that word? (Sadly, maybe.) Is Medicine for Melancholy an m-core film, simply because it involves twenty-something relationships and was shot on DV? (No.) It's funny how a word that means next to nothing can be so damning to anyone within its orbit, and those who are most dismissive haven't given chances to all the individual films anyway.

Festivals need to make money from ticket sales, too, so I doubt it's in SXSW's best interest to select films based on associations to other collaborators who aren't exactly household names. If they're worthy, they're worthy.

Please.

If you want to take the sourpuss road of bitterness, be my guest. I'm keeping an open mind since I haven't yet seen the films in question.

No sourpuss. No bitterness.

But don't tell me all those guys and their inexperienced wives and girlfriends are consistently chosen because they make consistently good films.

It's a scene. That's all. Everybody knows everybody.

I agree with Fannucci, except s/he needs to go further in the critique. It's all Humpday. Dentler is gone and SXSW won't be the same. Just wait and see. Did you see the documentary line up? Pathetic. Fucking pathetic. Issue based films??? Bring Dentler back!

I disagree with Fannucci very strongly. Lots of good films and lots of bad films are submitted to festivals every year. Films from both groups are accepted and films from both groups are rejected.

Largely I think it's a matter of taste-- of whether the festival programmer(s) liked or loved the film. I think it's really as simple as that.

And let me echo Mr. Hillis's point re: how it's not in the interest of a festival to select films based on associations to others who aren't household names. Having Joe Swanberg in your film is no guarantee that you'll get into SXSW or any other festival.

I know this because Mr. Swanberg (a gentleman and a prince) was in my most recent film and it did not make it into the SXSW line-up. I think the films are judged on their own merits. Now, I might disagree with the festival's judgement about the merits of my film-- and, obviously, I do!-- but to claim that SXSW is some kind of Exclusive Mumble-Bumble Social Club that crowds out everybody else is absurd on its face.

SXSW may have been the birthplace of the m-word but it's also generally been the home of American indie cinema, well after Sundance lost that crown. Aaron rightfully states that every indie film with 20-something actors/writers/directors should not be called mumblecore. I think it's time to move on (and I think the people involved in that accidental "movement" would be happiest of all).

By the way, I've been soliciting filmmakers with films screening at SXSW to contact me early in order to get coverage. This worked pretty well last year, since once I'm actually in Austin, I find it hard to actually get to a film. :)