John August writes:
Ten of the 80 short films featured this week at the Sundance Film Festival are available free on iTunes until January 25th. It’s a great way to see some work you’d almost certainly never catch.
…
I’m happy to see shorts featured this way, and hope it expands to features in coming years. By offering movies for a limited window, Sundance and Apple can give exposure to films and filmmakers far beyond Park City, Utah.
And according to the Hollywood Reporter, we’re also seeing a lot of low money deals happen again this year.
With those two pieces of info and with this being the 20th Anniversary of the sale of sex, lies, and videotape, the film that made Sundance into a place where dreams come true, here’s what I would do.
Distribute films immediately after the Festival closes. VOD, web, DVD, everything. For most of these films, doing well at Sundance is going to be the high point of their lifecycle and there are millions of film fans that can’t make it to the actual festival and the films should be available to audiences when they are front of mind.
This would change everything and it’s sorta crazy to even talk about it. But, but, but, hear me out. This is the Sundance Mission statement:
Sundance Institute is a non-profit organization dedicated to the discovery and development of independent artists and audiences. Through its programs, the Institute seeks to discover, support, and inspire independent film and theatre artists from the United States and around the world, and to introduce audiences to their new work.
No where does it state that it’s going to be a film market and officials over the years have explicitly denied that being a film market is its intended purpose.
But wouldn’t that erode the theatrical market even further and take incentives away from distributors to buy films from the festival.
YES! But, films already have a bazillion production companies at the head of the flick, what’s one more? It would really winnow away the poseurs from the ones that want an original voice to find it’s way to audiences.
And this deal wouldn’t be outright ownership, just a small percentage that would allow Sundance to put the film into immediate circulation after the Festival (launch them a week after the fest closes for the films that don’t sign separate distro deals).
Those that don’t want to cut Redford and Co. in on their sweet, sweet, high-six figure action could go showcase somewhere else, they obviously dont need a stage like Sundance to make their way in the world.
So why would anyone go for this? Filmmakers giving up an added percentage of their gross! Sundance adding to their already massive workflow by having everything ready for distribution by the time of the festival! Insanity!
But look at this Sundance experience from last year. I heard from a friend that Baghead was great. Awesome, cool, let’s check that out. Wait, it’s not out yet. Okay cool. Months go by and I remember about Baghead, it was bought by Netflix and did a tour around the US. Which I missed the tiny window it played in LA — LA! Film captial of the world, and then sorta forgot about. Wash, rinse, repeat every few months. Until finally right before Christmas I got fed up and got it through alternate means. The DVD hit shelves Dec. 27th.
And that was a movie I really, really wanted to see.
So right now I’m sitting here in LA reading all of the reviews of the Sundance movies. Most of which I will never see. And I love films. And I know there are others out there like me — millions of others.
The problem is like everything else in this digital realm. The money. I think it’ll work out with the Freemium model — charging for the best and commercial free access and streaming with commercials for free. Also the DVDs should be fairly barebones, films only no extras, only invest in more special features, etc. if the film warrants.
This is the way that Sundance can grow into the future and become something more than it already is.
6 Comments
January 21, 2009 at 12:40 am
What you’re saying makes a lot of sense to me, especially if, in this scenario, Sundance can develop enough savvy to take festival buzz and leverage it into online buzz with distribution deals positioned as the creme de la creme of new media film distribution.
I can already hear filmmakers saying, “But if I send it out online, I can never get wide theatrical distribution (and thusly get paid what I want).” This old school mindset will be tough to break unless filmmakers are making a living online.
But to that filmmaker I would ask them what other ideas they have planned, whether this is the only one they have, and what kind of value they feel having, say, 300,000 people see, versus 300 in a tiny theater in Utah.
Long term.
January 21, 2009 at 5:38 am
I bet Sundance would hire you on as an advisor.
I think a lot of filmmakers see that the distribution model is broken, and would be willing to take a risk with this instant distribution option (or at least a window that expires).
I’m going to forward this to indieWire and Cinetic Rights Management. If you’re not already a part of Cinetic’s Facebook group, you should join as they seem to be the most savvy group with technology brokering deals with Hulu, Amazon & IMDB.
January 21, 2009 at 11:58 am
Great post. Logical. It’s headed this way, they should plan for it. Also, it’s a strategic opening for a smaller fest with a good name to step up and take the lead on this if Sundance doesn’t.
January 22, 2009 at 7:05 am
I guess this is why you, Steve and I are stuck in LA this year and not in Park City living the good life.
It would be nice if your utopian film lover’s wet dream would come true but the film business doesn’t work that way.
Sundance doesn’t own the films that show at the Sundance Film Festival. Sundance doesn’t control the distribution of those films. Could they? Maybe.
They could make it part of the paperwork submission legal mumbo jumbo but every filmmaker’s baby that he or she thought might get theatrical distribution would not want to give that dream up by entering a film festival that would take you out of the running to become an over night Quentin Tarantino.
For the last 20 years Sundance has been a dream. A false dream for many. Countless independent filmmakers think that they can just make a film, get it into Sundance and then their lives will change forever.
The truth is that they make their film it doesn’t get into Sundance but their life does change forever. They have a film that no one will ever pay to see and credit card debt that they will never be able to repay.
I think it would be great to see these films right after Sundance but there has to be a business model or the promise of a business model to make that happen and I don’t think the wheels of Sundance are going to get pimped anytime soon.
Could a new festival be set up this way?
I think so.
January 28, 2009 at 9:35 am
[...] First story: Kent Nichols’ on Sundance and iTunes [...]
February 3, 2009 at 8:12 am
Great article. I think with so much of an appetite for content and so many venues, a creative sea change is happening. If a person can produce a film, they’re more than likely curious enough to figure out how to sell it. Festivals are nice, but using cloud tech can move product amazingly fast. If you’re screened in a festival, by all means go for it and use the hype. There are so many small truly independent FFs that really appreciate and serve their niches so well that you can still theatrically screen after the DVD/ digital release, within reason of course. DIY all the way. For years the tail has been wagging the dog, creators are about to get their economic justice. Bringing a film to market is not an easy accomplishment by any means, but filmmakers have more than a battling chance to recoup their costs and maybe profit from their genius.