FILMS GONE WILD: Filmmakers Should Definitely Consider Screening Their Films in Virtual Film Festivals

Do not give into the “run for the hills with your DCP on fire” attitude regarding screening your film in a virtual film festival from the recent Brian Newman piece in IndieWire.

You just need to be smart about what you are doing.

I almost don’t know where to start with this…

As someone that works with close to 20 film festivals across the country, as well as the Film Festival Alliance, consults and does PR for films, writes about and talks about film and films as a journalist and has made films myself, there is so much that was just unnecessarily dismissive about the prospects and regional film festivals in general, that it inspired me to do a reply.

Now, I understand that Newman is trying to find a way forward for filmmakers based on his conversations with clients of his and he is well-versed in the regional film festival space. I’m reading into it that he’s frustrated with the state of communication on all sides and he’s in the arena so it’s not as if he’s coming out of nowhere with his opinion piece, but that also makes it kind of infuriating unless you’re a distribution dinosaur nodding along in concert while being upset that his yearly routine at Cannes has been disrupted this year.

I also recognize that IndieWire slapped a hysteria-styled click-baity title on it. I’m sure that was not his doing.

The fact that it appeared in IndieWire, which I have long said is now a classic SNL Linda Richman Coffee Talk joke: “IndieWire is neither ‘indie’, nor ‘wire’, discuss..” is all too appropriate. IndieWire believes film doesn’t exist or is legitimate unless it was at Cannes, Venice, Berlin, or another European fest that Eric Kohn attended, Sundance, Telluride, SXSW, Toronto, Tribeca, or something that was at Lincoln Center. Their blind spot for the discovery work and momentum builds for film and filmmakers on the regional film festival circuit is an embarrassment for them. If it’s on the Upper West Side, you’re in business as far as they are concerned, but the rest of the country’s map is disdained as though it were even rougher terrain than Middle Earth. And much like a lot of the old Hollywood structure and way of doing business, they are being left behind by the reality of filmmaking beyond what is being done in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, or some old lions that routinely get their latest opus a safe and guaranteed screening spot at Alice Tully Hall.

The irony is that the majority of film-going consumers in the rest of the country have no idea, nor any care what is happening in that particular backyard, so IndieWire is playing and reporting to an audience that is more or less just reading about itself. Yes, filmmakers are still tuning in because there is still a brass ring to grasp, but it’s just as likely that they are tempted by another listicle story that keeps so many film sites going these days.

Enter Brian Newman’s article, who is hell-bent on scaring any filmmakers from considering having their films screened in the many virtual versions of the fests that are being presented right now since we can’t set foot in theaters yet. In fairness to him, he does state that those filmmakers should ask pertinent questions – which of course they should. Of course they should. However, the tone and through line isn’t just skeptical, it’s like a parent telling their kid they need to get that business degree and forget those silly dreams they had of being an artist. But there is a serious flaw in the idea that you have one and only one avenue toward getting your film seen by people and that is if John Sloss or someone like him deems it worthy.

To boil down his argument, it’s basically this: Allow your film to screen in a virtual fest and no distributor will ever consider it. You’re damaged goods. It’s over. They won’t even look at you in the eye because of where you’ve been! Those film festival people will have had their way with you and allowed just anybody to see your film like you’re some kind of filmmaking whore! I mean, what would your mother, I mean,…producer, think?! It is fear based on their trusted gatekeeping and the idea that the virtual space can’t be effectively controlled – at least by their standards.

It’s the old guard thinking. It’s the people that wouldn’t lift up the velvet rope for you anyway, being all stern and shit so they can do things exactly as they have been with no hiccups. Well, there is a huge hiccup and it’s called COVID-19 and if you want to wait until Newman says it’s okay to dip your toe into a theater again, then pack it up for quite a while longer. Because here is some reality: Theaters may begin opening again in a month or so at 25% capacity. That’s being optimistic. Going forward through the rest of this year it will take a lot of creativity and tender love and care and handling to begin having in-person versions of our film festivals. And here is some more news: Those film festivals are almost all going to shrink in the immediate, if not for quite some time afterward because the sponsors have other concerns to spend their money on right now and for the near future. Add this: there was already a strain being felt prior to any of this happening with film festivals having extended runs beyond four days or so – and that’s just based on the expense of “putting on a show” for that many consecutive days combined with audiences’ limited attention spans and desire to keep getting off the sofa and jumping in the car to go back out to see films. That sincerely has become a real struggle with most fests, with an economic model worn at the edges.

So, those in-person fests will likely be truncated “showcases” when they come back. Think much, much, much tinier versions of the fests, fewer films, fewer filmmakers invited on the fest’s dime to attend (if the filmmakers feel safe enough to do so). It’s also abundantly clear that the people running our country and several states are fine with a shit ton of people dying, so the film festivals will be forced to police themselves and likely (at least the ones I work with) will be much more exacting with attendees and distancing policies, cleaning, protocols, etc. That’s in a “perfect world” scenario for the film fest, without more complications due to liability issues and costs that will now ratchet up exponentially due to the risks on all sides. This is all new or greatly enhanced territory in that respect. All of that will invariably mean film festivals will have – by design – fewer people in the house, so to speak. Therefore, if you think the curtain just lifts, like a bad nightmare, when 2020 hands the baton off to 2021…well, you’re just being adorable.

So, you wait if you want, and tell yourself that you can just hold onto that film and save it for next year. You go do that. Or, you can think about what I’m about to suggest:

Approach your regional film festival tour exactly as you would if all things were business as usual, BUT with much more management and care over your film. (And frankly, you should have been doing this anyway, but no one’s giving you side eye here so carry on…)

What does that mean, really? It means, apply to the film festivals that you think would offer good platforms for you and your film, fests that routinely spark to your kind of film, fests that champion their filmmakers via their curation and presentation, fests that have something to offer in terms of their voice, their location, their image, their experience. As I consult filmmakers regarding their fest tours, I’m always emphasizing that you need to know your reason for applying to a specific film festival. I’m assuming you don’t have unlimited funds for submission fees so you can’t just throw shit at the wall to see what sticks. Be specific. Be precise. Have intent.

Of course, that reasoning is going to be thrown for a huge loop since its all online for awhile and then partially online after that and then let’s cross our fingers and hope for a big screen and a theater after that. Those fests whose calling card were their parties…? That’s a tough one. The ones that were great at putting you in the same room with awesome and influential people you would want to meet and connect with or other filmmakers that might become a resource for you – and you for them – well, wait just a moment.. Maybe it’s on a big Zoom meeting or Q&A, but maybe a virtual facsimile of that is still in the cards. It’s worth looking into, and trust me as a publicist, if a film festival has something cool to offer you as the filmmaker or even you as the audience member, in the virtual space, they (a lot of times me/we) are going to be bragging about it, underlining it, bolding it, pointing big neon fucking arrows at it. (If they aren’t, they can reach out to me because, seriously..)

Anyway, let’s address a key wrinkle about the virtual film festival scenario that Newman doesn’t seem to consider: The virtual space should duplicate as much of the film festival experience as the in-person version would have and one of those is that you need to be geographically “present” to attend. For example, last year if you wanted to see a film at the Women Texas Film Festival then you would obviously need to be in Dallas because that’s where the theaters were. If you wanted to see what the San Luis Obispo International Film Festival had on tap, then you needed to get your ass to the Central Coast. Oxford Film Festival, head to land of William Faulkner.

Well, in the same way, the virtual versions of the fests should have some kind of geographical lock, as well as pass holder privileges, etc. in order to control that access – UNLESS the filmmaker is fine with allowing wider access. A month ago, Chris Hansen’s SEVEN SHORT FILMS ABOUT (OUR) MARRIAGE was the Opening Night selection for the Dallas Video Fest’s virtual presentation of it’s alt-fiction edition. They put a geo-limit for the state of Texas on the one-night-only screening and limited tickets to 200 viewers. The film sold out (there’s some bragging rights) and didn’t jeopardize future screenings at other fests or audience for its eventual VOD release because the filmmaker worked with Bart Weiss, the head of Dallas Video Fest, to have some control over that presentation. Based on that experience, the film is taking a similar tact with other fests that have selected it. The ones that are willing to work closely with Hansen on the geo-limits, ticket/access limits, and ability to answer security concerns are the ones he is moving forward with, and the others he is respectfully passing on.   

The approach is as basic as it gets, yet it isn’t one size fits all. Another filmmaker I am working with chose to screen with a fest that appeals to the art world audience. So, a strict geo-limit would not make sense for them. However, since that very niche audience is what this filmmaker hopes to court with future appearances combining film with subject and that subject’s work in the future in a gallery setting – it makes sense in that case.

Emily Best at Seed & Spark has been weighing in on the same story with just as much passion as I have, talking about the courage and leadership needed to find our way forward during this time. In fact, Seed & Spark drafted a set of guidelines as part of a pledge for film festivals to take to help ensure fewer “bad actors” during this time which would penalize filmmakers for not playing duck and cover as Newman suggests they should. I have also seen a couple instances on Facebook discussion threads in film festival groups where someone has spoken of hearing punitive actions or threats by a film festival from a filmmaker submitting to their fest due to premiere restrictions they want to impose and the response is pretty immediate in wanting to call out that particular film festival and make sure the filmmaker is taken care of.

A number of film festivals are also taking concrete action to benefit filmmakers through this process. As part of the virtual version of their film festival the Dallas-based environmental-focused EarthxFilm paid screening fees to the films presented. Screening fees are routinely paid, of course, for films with big distributors and studios, but rarely-to-never for films that had been submitted independently or didn’t have representation on that level. They and others have also added donate buttons on the viewing page for the filmmakers. Other fests, like WTxFF slashed submission fee requirements since the pandemic took hold. Could more be done? Should fests be looking into the reality of refunding portions of submission fees since filmmakers had the expectation of having an in-person versus a virtual fest. Maybe. Palm Springs Short Fest recently announced they were refunding all of them. (NOTE: I initially, mistakenly attributed this to Hot Docs.) Going forward, filmmakers SHOULD be adding that to the questions they are asking/investigating before submitting: Is this for in-person or virtual, or a hybrid? What’s the film festival’s stated plan?

And I can guarantee that those discussions are happening all over the country with the heads of the fests. These film festivals and others, often led by the Film Festival Alliance (Their recent Film Festival Day event with more than 30 film festivals participating with a virtual screening of PHOENIX, OREGON was a great example that benefitted both the filmmakers and the participating film festivals.), have looked – and continue to look – for more innovative ways to benefit filmmakers, get some money to them, and make sure they are doing what they can to not damage their income-earning prospects going forward. Anyone that had any insight into what was being done elsewhere in the country beyond New York City or L.A. would know that.

There is also a good likelihood that the theatrical distribution of films is going to have a sharp change due to the repercussions of what COVID-19 has wrought. If chains like AMC or Regal or others divest themselves of screens, then there is a possibility those screens will be picked up by independents. If that happens then could we return to a time when a filmmaker could book their own tour of the film. Like a William Castle or Sam Arkoff 2.0, they could take even more control of the life of their film – from the film festivals to a theatrical run to VOD. In a sense, put the can of film in the trunk of the car and start driving from town to town. Physical or virtual. Because that VOD return is a mystery to everyone at the independent level. The sincerely independent level – not the films that are paraded onstage at the Spirit Awards save for the Cassavetes guys. You know what I’m talking about. The films and filmmakers that IndieWire or Variety or Deadline doesn’t give a damn about because they aren’t already tethered to A24, Neon, 1091, Oscilloscope, etc., let alone Amazon or Netflix. The films, whose filmmakers would almost be befuddled as to how they would spend $500K to make their movie if they somehow got that much for their budget (though they would be very happy to figure it out…). Independent film. Or as so many regional film festival programmers know, where the new film artist discoveries are actually made.

Now, will the excitement of Sundance or SXSW or Toronto bidding wars be able to be duplicated? Almost assuredly no. Maybe with a hybrid in-theater and online approach. But again, we aren’t talking about that because John Sloss is not considering your film anyway. He’s a champion of film artists, but there is a big pecking order and no one is getting pecked in the flyover states, so you’re probably not getting near him. And just because he isn’t going to doesn’t mean you should hang it up. That Sundance or nothing attitude is so tired by this point that it has as much legitimacy as the old studio system does for developing actors’ careers. You want to press your nose against the window like the little flower girl wondering what it’s like inside there, you go right ahead. Meanwhile, there are a lot of filmmakers building nice careers and getting their films made without making the trip to any of those market meccas.

A filmmaker should start looking at the promotion of their film and brand like a band. Build into their production budgets the money for the life of the film after picture lock. If a distributor has something to offer that sweetens what was already mapped out, then great. But the truth is that rare (this means like, pretty much never) is the distributor that will lift a finger to market your film or publicize it. You may even have to create your own sell-through sheet like my wife and I had to do for our film. So, if that distribution deal is really just you giving away A LOT of the money made on the film so you don’t have to load it on to those streaming platforms yourself, then maybe they aren’t offering all that much, right?

The answer in many cases, is no, they are not offering all that much. So, then you should take control of your film and your path. Use, utilize, and exploit the regional film festival tour (even a virtual one) like BATHTUBS OVER BROADWAY did to seed audiences throughout the country that then supported the film through its release, bolstering it, and promoting it based on their numerous screenings and appearances over the country before it did its domestic dance and VOD splash. Filmmakers need to channel the same inspiration and innovation that went into making the film into making sure people actually see the film. Otherwise, you’ll get cobwebs waiting for an IndieWire to give a fuck about you or the distributors that Newman was taking his cues from in his article to give you the time of day. The reality is that independent filmmakers today have already left them behind, it’s just that a lot of them haven’t realized that yet, because they’re too focused on missing out on those Rosé-laden lunches on the Croissette.