What in the World is Going on with Film Festivals at the Moment & What "Survive 'Til 25" Really Means For Independent Filmmakers Who Have, Let's Face it, Always Been Forging Their Own Paths.
Mass exodus at HotDocs, Joanna Vicente leaving Sundance after 2 years, shuttering of the Human Rights Festival: the future of indie film festivals & film is plunging into uncertain waters. What to do?
“Sundance is an idea, and it is holding up a space in the sector that is under incredible duress.” Former Sundance executive
Except this idea became fundamentally flawed for indie film and is crumbling before our eyes. Getting into Sundance ain’t what it used to be.
You’re not imagining it: the landscape for independent film is shifting under your feet like sand. Across the board, major festivals are undergoing tremendous upheaval: with ten programmers leaving HotDocs citing a “toxic work environment”, Joanna Vicente leaving Sundance after less than two years as director and the shuttering of The Human Rights Film Festival, the future of larger film festivals is plunging into uncertain waters.
As an indie filmmaker, I want to say “welcome to the party, pals”, but in reality what’s happening here is a seismic shift taking us further away from the norm (ie: the pre-COVID, pre-streaming landscape of film and tv) and we’re seeing tell-tale signs that things are not going back to the way they once were and that innovation and ideas are desperately needed.
Independent film, and especially its distribution model, is broken.
But according to this article in IndieWire about the reboot of the Blair Witch Project, this kind of lunacy regarding indie film has been going on for some time and indie filmmakers have been left holding the bag for a while. I’ll not split hairs here about what makes a “true” indie filmmaker and leave that to the many sub Reddits and Facebook groups to do that for me.
But you, presumed indie filmmaker reading this, you probably know this already as you’ve been on the outskirts for a while and probably didn’t screen at one of the more prestigious film festivals, which we all also now know aren’t the model anymore for independent film distribution, as the less than 1% of films submitted lucky enough (or connected enough) to get in aren’t selling post their debuts at the volume they once were.
Getting into one of these top tier festivals is still potentially extremely good for your career and your film, but it no longer means a golden elevator ride to the top or a guaranteed sale.
Excerpt from the above article published in March of 2023 in Filmmaker Magazine: “Week after week, we listen as filmmakers earnestly explain to us how they believe making a film for “as little as $250,000” makes it a near certainty that they’ll recoup their investors’ money. “CODA sold to Apple for $25 million,” they say with straight faces, “and my film is also a coming-of-age.” We ache for these filmmakers: We, too, have been suckered into these illusions. But seeing the actual financial state of independent film as clearly as we now both do, it feels increasingly critical that we confront how dire a situation the field faces. We say this not because we wish to discourage anyone, but rather because we care so passionately about a brighter future for independent film.”
In short, the dog days are over.
At the time of this writing, in 2024 Sundance accepted 83 feature films (from a pool of 4410 submissions according to Forbes), down from 100 selects the year prior and only a dozen or so films were purchased, and none of them by the main streamers.
If there are changes, these numbers will be updated here via an article on IndieWire.
“If you expect Sundance to continue to be a place where films get bought at an 85% buy rate for a lot of money, you haven’t talked to those streamers,” said a former Sundance executive. “They are not interested in independent films.”
The streamers are not interested in independent films.
That’s devastating to hear, because so many of us taking the risk to make these films are coldly and cruelly learning that there may not be a home for them.
Think about this: if the films that screen at Sundance can’t get decent distribution deals, what does that mean for your independent film with its probably no name cast and no name director?
At the beginning of this article, there is a pull-quote that talks about Sundance being an “idea”. What idea is that exactly?
I think that it’s the idea that film is a meritocracy, that the best of the best will rise to the top and those artists and filmmakers will find a built-in audience and platform merely by being associated with such a lauded organization.
I think it’s the idea that Sundance is a golden ticket: for your film, for your career, for your financiers and the idea that if you do everything right, your film will find success in the marketplace.
Except… it’s not like that now. Not any more. And maybe it never was and especially not now, not when the landscape is dominated by algorithms and soulless McKinsey ghouls dressed in mid tier mens and women’s suits guaranteed to make them the main villain of Derek Guy’s Die Work Wear X-feed for the day, which we all know, the goal is to never be the Main Character on X.
Sundance and prestige indie film, like the rest of us, is being eaten alive by current streaming models.
While I can’t argue that the gatekeeping has been frustrating for filmmakers for a long time, the dismantling of these institutions poses a greater threat to the very nature of independent filmmaking as well: without the guarantee of a sale or acquisition and the potential to make their money back, financiers will quite simply stop investing in independent films.
And even smaller independent films, those made for under $500,000, ie-those suckered into the $250,000 model, will grow to be in shorter supply than ever because, let’s face it, who wants throw half a million or a quarter of a million dollars away with no possibility of recouping it when you have bills to pay, families to take care of and an increasingly uncertain future in the face of AI?
If this post is making you catch your breath and think twice, read on.
Critically, in almost every case we’ve witnessed, a project gets their ticket onto the elevator before—often well before—the film is actually even made.
Read the article in full here, even though that elevator is no longer stopping at the top floor.
There’s even a doubt as to whether or not the Sundance Film Festival will stay in Park City. Their contract expires in 2026, but without inspiring donors, their revenue continues to plunge.
Read this letter drafted by Sundance to Park City officials asking to extend the contract renewal deadline from March 1 to October of 2024 and they just launched an RFP to ask other locations to make a bid on hosting the event.
In an effort to combat financial losses, they're “franchising” the festival and setting up satellite festivals at various locations around the globe, starting with the Sundance Film Festival CDMX April 25–28, 2024 in Mexico after already expanding internationally in London and Taipei, Taiwan.
Essentially, they’re taking a page out of Ray Kroc’s McDonald’s business model and capitalizing on their brand name. It’s a creative strategy, but what exactly does it mean for those filmmakers who get to slap the Sundance-lite logo on their laurels?
It makes me think of Syndrome’s quote from The Incredibles: “And when everyone’s Super, no one will be.”
By setting up these “satellite” festivals, they’re using their brand to take money out of the pockets of filmmakers and vendors to keep their own institutions alive, without the promise of anything in return because if they can’t even sell films at their main festival, what in the world are filmmakers going to get out of these ancillary ones where people and filmmakers are still paying to play? What’s the incentive for savvy filmmakers here? I genuinely don’t see one.
And I wrote this before I saw Ted Hope’s missive about the state of film festivals and how they are complicit but boy am I glad that someone like Ted is saying the same thing. Read his post here.
“The ecosystem has changed. The festival doesn’t exist as a catalyst for sales.” Current Sundance executive
It pains me to write this - I don’t like witnessing the collapse of institutions that at one point were the mile-markers for innovation and creativity in the film business. But that’s what we’re seeing: even the very cornerstones, the bedrock, the foundations independent films were built on and the pinnacle of what indie films aspire to be, are not built to survive the streaming model.
And the streaming model does not want to support auteurs or take a chance on material that could lead to an executive’s firing.
Here’s two super recent examples to illustrate my point:
If you think they’re going to pick your indie film for an acquisition given everything out there and what they have slated under their own production banners, you better think again.
And you better have a back up plan to BUILD YOUR OWN AUDIENCE.
What Survive ‘Til 25 Really Means for Indie Filmmakers
So if the top 1% of indie filmmakers can’t even rely on acceptance into a top-tier festival as a means to an end anymore, what then is the solution?
I think many of you reading this already knew that getting into one of these festivals was a long shot, and now, they’re finding themselves scrambling around looking for scraps like the rest of us trying to get their films out into the world.
It’s scary: if they’re struggling, what about the rest of us?
This producer noted that the big buyers no longer needed to come in person, as the films are available online. “They need to add more commercial films and stop this lunacy of putting the movie online which lets buyers not have to come and creates no bidding wars which was really the excitement of being there.” - Excerpt from an article published by The Wrap
The need for systemic change has many people casting wide nets for solutions including everything from blockchain-backed platforms to decentralized models of distribution that allow filmmakers more ownership over their products and revenue streams via models like Substack and Only Fans.
But maybe it’s simpler than that.
Maybe it’s just doing the actual hard work of finding and building an audience. Everyone claims to want bite-sized solutions delivered instantly, but do they really? After all, we’re still human (for now anyway, until AI takes us all) and we watch movies at home or in the theater to feel something, see ourselves on screen or just disappear for a bit into an escapist world.
Maybe the right answer here isn’t coming up with a quick fix solution and the key is really and truly rolling up our sleeves and doing the work the suits are too lazy to do it because they won’t pass their next performance review without showing sales projection charts.
If that’s the case, let’s please make sure they also don’t profit from the hard work.
The current mantra circling the industry right now is “survive ‘til 25”, meaning filmmakers and people employed by the industry just need to “hang on” until next year when things will potentially get better.
But truthfully, I think that’s wishful thinking because as an indie filmmaker, I’ve been “hanging on” for the next year and for “things to get better” ever since the first writers strike in 2019 when the WGA told everyone to fire their agents.
That deal finally got resolved in February of 2020, but we all know what happened next. I was literally having dinner with a studio television executive on February 25, 2020 who told me to “go enjoy my honeymoon, everything will be here when you get back!”
When I got back on March 13, 2020, we went directly into lockdown and COVID curtailed productions everywhere, causing budgets to be slashed, people to lose their jobs and a host of other bad things to happen.
We find ourselves coming out of yet another massive labor strike and the possibility of another one on the horizon potentially shutting things down yet again. On top of that, we all find ourselves dealing with the existential threat of AI.
I must note here, I do NOT blame the guilds or the unions for these shutdowns: they, like the rest of us, are trying to find ways to keep their members employed and fairly compensated at a time when it seems like the pool of funds and available projects is shrinking exponentially due to the greed of those very few at the top.
The guilds and the unions aren’t the problem.
It’s the consolidation of power at the top and the irony of those very institutions that were once enshrined to all filmmakers as being the end all be all of film finding themselves floundering around like the rest of us is at once extremely schadenfreude inducing and terrifying.
Because if THEY can’t survive, how the heck can any of the rest of us be expected to survive, let alone thrive?
Saying survive ‘til 25 to an indie filmmaker is basically tantamount to telling them to continue to spin their wheels and tread water, because we know, there’s no cavalry coming to save us.
We’ve got to save ourselves.
And I think that comes with a certain mixture of things, including an appetite for getting your hands dirty and doing a lot of the work that distributors used to do, such as P&A and audience building.
The real solution lies in carving your own path. Like this extremely weird and wonderful film to come out of the regional festival circuit, HUNDREDS OF BEAVERS.
This film, through its sheer weirdness and the determination of the filmmakers to not let themselves get screwed over by the broken model, is doing the numbers and racking up reviews, views, ticket sales and attention. I hope they do well and applaud them and also support their calls to stop the piracy of their film.
But this is what it takes: the boldness and the courage to not let someone else control the outcome of your film by signing it away for a crappy distribution deal.
As a producer, as a filmmaker, you’ve got to wear many, many more hats than you may be used to wearing… but maybe that’s not a bad thing as it can possibly protect you from becoming another Blair Witch Project casualty.
But let’s face it: festivals, especially the good mid-tier and regional ones, are still the best avenues many of us have in order to get our films out into the world at present, and the best shot you have at building an audience.
You get to connect with other filmmakers, learn the ropes and control (to an extent) the destiny of your film. But you have to be smart about it and you shouldn’t expect that screening on the festival circuit alone is going to grant you a pass. You’ve got to build a strategy and you’ve got to learn the in’s and out’s of distribution.
And you’ve still got to build your audience because let’s face it: we’ve got to recoup costs and distribution will not do that for you. Filmmaking isn’t free and you worked your butt off to get to this point and at some point along the line, you should be compensated for your hard work to cultivate an audience willing to pay for what you are selling.
If there’s one thing indie filmmakers are, it’s that they are adaptable and I think the key to “hanging on” and surviving is understanding that you’ll be involved in the lifecycle of your film longer than you possibly thought and that your audience building needs to be happening BEFORE you go into production and as Ted echoes in his post, you’ve got to have your festival and distribution strategy figured out as part of you planning BEFORE you screen. Otherwise, you’re just setting yourself up for failure.
There’s the possibility to access more eyeballs for your film than ever before thanks to social media and the Internet. But that means that you, filmmaker, must come up with the strategy on how to do it because, as we’re all brutally learning, no one is going to do it for us and as Mark Duplass said, somewhat presciently at SXSW in 2015, the cavalry isn’t coming.