From: email suppressed
Date: Fri Mar 10 2006 - 13:54:02 PST
Most of your points are well taken, but I do question the degree to
which festivals lead to "higher stature" for the flimmaker. Very few
festivals are capable of doing this.
My point can be summed up thusly: Since its the filmmakers that fund
the festivals we should be asking what kind of service or benefit we
get from submitting to festivals. As it is, submitting one's work is a
form of gaming: we pay the fee based on the hope for a certain outcome.
If festivals would put some effort into serving the filmmakers rather
than themselves, I would be far less critical.
>One of the basic facts that exists for many A/G film and video makers
>(in the US and elsewhere, though not everywhere) is that they will
>never recoup the costs that are associated with their work, let alone
>turn it into a full-time profession. As such it is more accuratley
>described as a hobby, and hobbies are money-losing ventures.
the majority of all indipendent films of any genre never make any money
A/G filmmakers are not unique in this sense, except that the amounts of
money they loose are probably smaller than the amounts other people
>Cinematexas, PDX, Onion City, and others are not seen as
>culturally more valuable than Sundance in the eyes of the vast majority
>of potential financiers and donors. . .
Perceptions can be changed by rigorous intellegent marketing, if the
people marketing a festival
can't articulate the value of their festival to local businesses,
viewers, art councils, etc . . .
then the festival needs to get new leadership or it should die.
>for one so that your labor may bring down the fees for that festival.
>Write the grant proposals, talk to donors, make press releases, pass
>out flyers, get on the radio, do whatever it takes.
No, what you are suggesting are more ways for the filmmakers to serve
festivals. What we need to see are the ways in which festivals can
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.