Saskia Wilson-Brown

I'm an independent media advocate and producer-at-large, cum strategist. It all depends on the day. I agree with Thomas Jefferson's theories on idea ownership.

How small festivals are the future of meatspace film distribution: Thought 3 of 5

In January, I attended the Slamdance / Sundance extravaganza in Park City, Utah, helping produce the Slamdance, WorkBook Project & Open Video Alliance Filmmaker Summit.  While there, I participated in and listened to a lot of conversations about the shifting role of film festivals, particularly as those shifts apply to a mid to high-level independent festival such as Slamdance. What follows here is the third of 5 thoughts that came to me about the functionality of film festivals (and in no particular discursive order).

3. What festivals should do to better serve their communities.

The motivations that guide independent film festivals vary wildly: Whereas some were founded solely to develop industry in a second-city environment, others take radical stances against the industry altogether, shifting their focus towards serving their local creatives instead. Others, still, strive to function as arts-based businesses, leveraging sponsorships and ticket sales in an attempt at joining the ranks of corporatized culture-hawkers.

It is hard to generally classify the purpose of pre-existing film festivals, then, as their needs and motivations are often so divergent. One can nonetheless begin to make an attempt at creating a sort of style guide outlining some pragmatic ways that festivals can better serve independent filmmakers and artists, their contradictory purposes notwithstanding.

Based on several conversations had with such luminaries as Lance Weiler, Brian Newman, Paul Rachman, Peter Baxter, Lisa Vandever, Roger Mayer and others, here is the beginning of a list of how festivals can better help independent filmmakers.

NB. I see the following 5 points as responsibilities, not suggestions. I believe that arts organizations, due to their very nature of being the cynosure of dialogue and thought, have the responsibility to guide that discussion in the correct, honest direction.

I. Manage Filmmaker Expectation (No dangling carrots)

Too often festivals obliquely play into a system based on false promises and permission-based access. In this, they encourage and fail to manage filmmaker expectations, and inevitably end up with some seriously disappointed filmmakers on their hands.

It is crucial for independent filmmakers to understand how the system actually works, and to understand, also, that there are alternatives. It is therefore crucial for a festival to actually explain what they are to expect – from an industry point of view- from inclusion in the festival.

Action point: Clarify what will and probably won’t happen at the festival with your filmmakers along every step of the way, from the call for submissions to the acceptance letter.

II. Be transparent:

If a filmmaker, however naively assuming that his independent festival of choice has scads of dollars to throw at promoting his screening, throws up his hands and lets the festival do all the work, imagine the shock and dismay he may feel when finds his big premiere empty. Conversely, if a filmmaker is aware that the festival has no marketing budget, he might be inclined to engage in a little marketing of his own, and in so-doing will support the festival’s efforts (with the happy accident of helping ticket sales, to boot).

My point is this: Anyone who’s worked a festival knows that they are damn hard to run, and are often on the verge of collapse. BUT: Most filmmakers and attendees do not realize this. In order to – again – temper expectations and ensure a good experience for all, it is simply a question of a festival engaging in a little transparency in its affairs. Open books and open access (within reason, of course) can be positive for several reasons, most saliently in helping people know what to expect of you- what you are capable of providing as a festival. It also allows a community to help where they see problems or deficiencies.

Action point: Clarify and publish your budgets, be clear about shortcomings and explain how your community (including your filmmakers) can help fill them.

III. Educate:

With transparency in festival affairs and transparency about the reality of what to expect, festivals also have a responsibility to provide their filmmakers with information about alternative solutions for independent film. This can be done simply by shifting the focus away from old-industry panels towards realistic, functional and educational seminars centering both on the ‘art’ side of the filmmaking process and, of course, the business.

There are several areas that are drastically changing with the advent of new(ish) technologies:

  • New fundraising stratagems (crowdsourced)
  • New storytelling techniques (transmedia)
  • New production processes (crowdsourced)
  • New distribution strategies (online, VOD, etc)
  • Open culture

Action Point: Taking a cue from The WorkBook Project’s DIY Days, and Slamdance/WorkBook Project/ Open Video Alliance Filmmaker Summit, create open access educational seminars around the new models in distribution and fundraising. Make the information available online.

IV. Develop access to new distribution models

In addition to educating filmmakers about new models for film production and distribution, festivals should also provide optional distribution solutions for its filmmakers in new media platforms, VOD and theatrical. These should allow filmmakers to exploit their rights piece-meal, monetize their films and gain new audiences, with the appui of the festival’s curatorial credibility behind them.

This is a hugely lengthy topic to go into, but for examples of festivals that are attempting to do this, take a look at a few examples:

  • Slamdance’s deal with Xbox (which has made money for both Slamdance and the filmmakers)
  • Sundance’s deal with YouTube (which has not made money for the filmmakers, as far as I am aware
  • Tribeca’s recent VOD deal (which is, as far as I am aware, NOT optional for the filmmakers- which if its true, totally sucks)

Action Point: Use your festival’s organization cachet to broker deals for your filmmakers, and offer those deals as optional systems to complement their distribution strategies.

V. Share resources and organize year-round community screenings

Imagine a scenario where the audience winner at Nashville FF is given a 15 city theatrical run through community screening programs run by Nashville FF partner fests.

In line with the previous point, festivals could increasingly work together to further four-wall film exhibition through year-round screenings, and by combining marketing and local resources with other festivals.

In turn, by leveraging partnerships with other arts organizations and venues worldwide, festivals can help their filmmakers reach wider audiences, and also provide them with a de facto theatrical release. Of course, the benefits of partnering reach beyond only helping filmmakers, as these sorts of partnerships can help spread a festival’s brand, vision, and curatorial voice- in turn allowing for higher levels of sponsorship or- better yet- more participants in its next crowdsourced fundraising campaign.

Action Point: Organize year-round screenings in your community. Make friends with your colleagues and organize film exchanges. Share resources and programming.

A Conclusion!

All these points, to me, demonstrate one overarching fact: In order for an independent arts community to thrive, it must take a conscious stand to stop trying to emulate a corporate business methodology of exclusion, competitiveness and opacity.

In copying a system that, really, has little to do with how we as independents actually work, festivals are unwittingly incorporating all the nasty little habits that are anathema to thriving collaboration and creativity: Status-based ranking systems for humans (‘VIP’ passes, for instance), one-way payment systems, the obsession with celebrity attendance, fearful and covetous business practices. In following this approach, of course, we effectively stop innovation and discourage the development of new collaborative systems altogether.

In servicing the arts, a festival services the arts community in all its forms – even those it sees as its competitors. One will never exist without the other.

Next installments:

  • 4 of 5: How festivals can avoid going out of business: An exercise in managing your festival director’s ego.
  • 5 of 5: Who needs branded content and sponsorship, anyways? The no-corporate film festival.

Filed under: diy distribution, film, subverting dominant paradigms, theory , , , , ,

Look, guys: I coined another term about the internet

Me-Broadcast
[mee; brawd-kast, -kahst]

  1. (n.) A public statement about oneself on a social networking website. Synonymous with ’status update’ or ‘tweet’. Usage: “Don’t compare your insides to other peoples’ me-broadcasts.”
  2. (v.) The act of frittering away time by carefully wording your numerous status updates so as to paint a picture of a carefree and incredibly jealousy-inducing life. Usage: “Your time spent me-broadcasting has resulted in a credible social persona that will no doubt land you your next amazing job or super-hot girlfriend.”

OK thank you, goodnight.

Filed under: just killing time, self-referential, words I like ,

How small festivals are the future of meatspace film distribution: Thought 2 of 5

In January, I attended the Slamdance / Sundance extravaganza in Park City, Utah, helping produce the Slamdance, WorkBook Project & Open Video Alliance Filmmaker Summit.  While there, I participated in and listened to a lot of conversations about the shifting role of film festivals, particularly as those shifts apply to a mid to high level independent festival such as Slamdance. What follows here is the second of 5 thoughts that came to me about the functionality of film festivals (and in no particular discursive order).

2. Money-making should not a successful small festival make. Culture-defining should.

When I was co-directing the Silver Lake Film Festival in Los Angeles with Greg Ptacek and Kate Marciniak, we didn’t invite host any distributors at the screenings. Those that did attend never cut a deal with any of the festival’s filmmakers. I’m pretty sure that the Cucalorus Film Festival in North Carolina has never immediately helped filmmakers pay off their credit card debts.

In these two instances, there is no commerce involved, and no one’s making any money to speak of. Are these festivals then to be seen as failures?

The answer, of course, lies in how one defines the purpose of a cultural event. I believe that if we put aside commercial functionalities for a minute, we see that though the utility (and success) of smaller festivals becomes inherently value-based, it is nonetheless inherently of value.

Here are some points, then, on the value and purpose of film festivals, above and beyond commerce:

  • To curate, provide imprimatur and thus help shape culture;
  • To create access to independent voices and new stories within specific, underserved geographic communities;
  • To educate filmmakers;
  • To grow independent film communities and foster creative collaboration;
  • To help create de facto four-wall releases for filmmakers through festival-run programs and partnerships above and beyond the event itself;
  • To assist with DIY distribution by offering access to distribution tools through festival-run partnerships with emerging content platforms

These last two functionalities are becoming more important as filmmakers and festivals realize that the old system – the permission-based system – is falling apart. So, to reitirate: Festivals should increasingly focus on helping filmmakers sustain and exhibit their work through various non-traditional methods such as digital distribution deals (see Slamdance’s recent deal with Microsoft Xbox), DIY distribution education, and, of course, festival run four-wall programs and partnerships that allow greater visibility for the participating films.

From experience I know that acknowledging an alienation from the mainstream film industry implies owning up to a radical shift away from ‘the system’, and has big repercussions for festivals and filmmakers alike. Silver Lake FF, for instance, with all its focus on working outside the system was unable to harness the sponsorships that festivals so drastically need for survival, and died a fiery financial death in 2007 (the results of which I am feeling to this day).

With that all said, it still feels successful in that it spoke to several of the points I believe to the inherent in a fruitful arts organization- points that have nothing at all to do with (immediate) economic exchange. The organization focused- largely- on what we thought should be the primary goals: Empowering a community and its artists through coherent promotion; leveraging its name to garner publicity and opportunity for our participants; facilitating radness in general– Art for art’s sake, as it were. The efforts were mostly spent on promoting and advocating for micro-communities through programming decisions, and fostering creativity and creative collaboration in our neighborhood and beyond. Mainly, though, Silver Lake FF focused on curating a very cool and forward-thinking festival (under the benevolent expertise of programming director Roger Mayer, as well as a plethora of special guest curators), the results of which are still bearing fruit in the continued existence of some of its former programs in the form of special screenings and ongoing collaborative output.

So do these artsy, community-driven, low-budget, no-commerce festivals like the still-thriving Cucalorus, Nevada City or Slamdance still have value? My conclusion would be that yes, they do. These festivals’ value (and purpose) lies in providing an imprimatur – an edge – for its filmmakers, and a strong platform for community-empowerment. This value, to me, supercedes the worth of some crappy distribution deal.

At the end of the day, sometimes being part of something amazing and cultural is worth more than being paid a grand to have your documentary air once or twice on TV.

** NB: Kate Marciniak, one of the co-directors at SLFF, makes this note: “[We] slogged many long and arduous hours for SLFF’s festivals trying to reel in distributors to attend and trying to get films with name stars to entice them. It was not through a lack of our wanting or trying [that they didn't attend].” So, I guess the rebellious stance was assigned post-fest, by me. I still think it’s cooler without the distributors. ;)

I will address the inevitable next question (the ‘how the hell do we avoid the Silver Lake debacle and sustain our arts organizations?’ question) in subsequent posts.

Next installments:

  • 3 of 5: What festivals should do to better serve their communities: An exercise in managing filmmaker expectations.
  • 4 of 5: How festivals can avoid going out of business: An exercise in managing your festival director’s ego.
  • 5 of 5: Who needs branded content and sponsorship, anyways? The no-corporate film festival.


Filed under: diy distribution, film, subverting dominant paradigms, theory , , , , , , , ,

How small festivals are the future of meatspace film distribution: Thought 1 of 5

In January, I attended the Slamdance / Sundance extravaganza in Park City, Utah, helping produce the Slamdance, WorkBook Project & Open Video Alliance Filmmaker Summit.  While there, I participated in and listened to a lot of conversations about the shifting role of film festivals, particularly as those shifts apply to a mid to high level independent festival such as Slamdance. What follows here is the first of 5 thoughts that came to me about the functionality of film festivals (and in no particular discursive order).

1. For small festivals, the ‘shifting’ purpose of film festivals is actually not shifting at all.

People seem to concur that the primary purpose of film festivals is (was?) akin to that of an art gallery: To sell art.

Festivals have been acting as the gatekeepers to commercial distribution, and the standard path for a filmmaker would be simple: Make a film; get into a fest; get the film acquired for distribution (of course, if all went well).

Though this is a relevant deduction for festivals like Sundance, which were indeed functional gateways for the film system, I would argue that for the smaller festivals catering to independent or local film (and for the indie filmmakers whose work was typically programmed there) this was never a relevant model in the first place. The reason for that is simple: Distributors tended not to attend those festivals.

This commercial raison d’etre, then, has only ever been an apt assigned purpose for the bigger festivals. Further to that, this fact was sort of inherently understood by the film community: Not many filmmakers ever submitted their film, for instance, to the Tulsa Overground Film Festival, Nevada City Film Festival or Cucalorus with the intention of selling to HBO.

I think we’re assigning and bemoaning this dwindling commercial purpose to small festivals retro-actively in light of a perceived dearth of distribution deals – a dearth which, again, is only really relevant to festivals that were the hosting space for sales in the first place, and entirely irrelevant to the continued purpose of the small festivals who saw no such activity in their meeting rooms. Most annoyingly perhaps, small festivals gamely play along, trotting out their one or two success stories as bait for a system that never functioned for them or their filmmakers in the first place.

With the advent of digital media and the burgeoning (but hopeful) success stories around online/DIY distribution strategies, the purpose of the festival as a sales agent becomes even more obviously questionable. But more on that later when I publish my second thought: ‘Culture-defining, not money-making’. Probably fairly obviously from the rather literal title, it is about what I see as the ‘new’ purpose of film festivals.

For now, I leave you with a recent tweet from Ted Hope: David Brown’s Secret To His Success: “I never lived beyond my means, & therefore, I never had to be a slave to Hollywood.”

Filed under: diy distribution, film, theory , , ,

Nova Jiang & Michael Kontopoulos’ Moon Theatre at TED

Are we all in agreement that a strong projected light and a blank wall makes us want to throw down a shadow puppet or two? Sometimes despite ourselves, even — and certainly with no expertise– we attempt the ‘dog with ears and moving mouth’ shadow, or, for those less nimble fingered, the ‘butterfly attached to thick wrists’. It’s super satisfying to make such an immediately  controllable mark on a nice smooth surface.

In any case, Nova and Michael took this instrinct a step further with their Moon Theatre- allowing us shadow puppet amateurs to create elegiacal, complex, movable shadows on the moon (or at least the closest simulacrum a projector and a round bounce screen can supply).

In this video, Michael and Nova discuss their Moon Shadow Theatre, collaboration and the technology behind the shadow puppets at the Bing Innovation Lounge at TEDActive in Palm Springs.

Filed under: dispatches , , , , , , , , , ,

Flash Mob at TEDActive

Film guy and flash mob organizer Kenneth Hughes got about 50 TEDActive members together to engage in a little ‘idea spread’ via flash mob in Palm Springs- to the surprise and mixed reactions of some of the local Palm Springs residents. Be sure to watch out for the locals’ giggly, gleeful, wiggling (and in some cases begrudging and fearful) participation in the video I produced about it, here.

Footage was shot by Brooklyn’s mssng peces, Sarah Shewey (pinkcloudevents.com) with shaky backup flip-cam footage by Saskia Wilson-Brown.

Filed under: dispatches, video , , , , , , ,

Evan Grant’s Multi-Touch Sphere at TED

In this video, Evan Grant explains his multi-touch sphere on exhibition at the Bing Innovation Lounge at TED Active in Palm Springs.

Check out more of Evan’s work at seeper.com. The sphere was a collaboration between Seeper and Pufferfish. I’ll be uploading more videos from TEDActive, all week.

Filed under: dispatches, video , , , , , , , , ,

James Patten’s Audiopad at TED

In this video, James Patten explains his Audiopad project at TEDActive in Palm Springs. Look out for lots of complex hand gestures, some fancy wallpaper, and really bright guy.

Check out more about James Patten and the Audiopad, as well as other projects, at http://www.pattenstudio.com/. I’ll be uploading more videos from TEDActive, all week.

Filed under: dispatches, video , , , , , , ,

An Open Conversation about Film Festivals

“SABI Pictures presents the first of the New Breed video reports realized this year in collaboration with Filmmaker Magazine and The Workbook Project. This one’s an open discussion between Lance Weiler, Peter Baxter, Saskia Wilson-Brown, Brian Newman and Paul Rachman just prior to Slamdance and the Open Video Alliance’s Filmmaker Summit in Park City.”

See the video on Vimeo or read the article in Filmmaker Magazine here.

Filed under: diy distribution, theory, video , , , , , , , , , ,

THIS IS NOT A MANIFESTO… It’s a survival mechanism.

Published in the 2010 Slamdance Film Festival catalog for the WorkBook Project, Open Video Alliance and Slamdance Filmmaker Summit, written by moi.

Of the 3661 feature films submitted to the 2009 Sundance Film Festival, about 120 made it into the festival. Of those, 50 have no distribution as of this October. For the just about 3,500 total films submitted to Slamdance in 2008, 20 made it in to feature narrative and feature documentary competition, and 92 made it into the shorts programs. Of those features that got in, 5 got picked up for distribution. And then… What sort of distribution? Though there are some exceptions, as a general rule filmmakers are often faced with strict acquisitions deals demanding rights worldwide, across all platforms, in perpetuity… often for negligible sums of money.

The truth about the independent film world is that for the most part, the only ones that are able to sustain comfortably are the lawyers, the middle-men, and the studio execs. There are exceptions, of course, but for all the success stories that serve as models of the “what if?” there are an equivalent amount of quiet failures, films languishing in obscurity while their makers shrug and dutifully begin developing their next project.

Most filmmakers take it for granted that there is a slim chance of receiving a supported release, assuming, as artists do, that the fault is somehow theirs. In truth, this reality is more a symptom of an outdated, broken distribution system that can’t keep up with the spike in creative output than it is a testament to bad filmmaking. Though it goes without saying that some films could be better, what of the thousands of very good, relevant films that sit on the shelf? A sense of futility sets in: Since the filmmaker’s lot is to engage in public storytelling, there inevitably comes a time when we ask ourselves what the point is of spending all this money and energy creating films that end up reaching an audience of, like, 40 people. Why make films at all, if there’s such a slim chance of having them seen?

We here at Slamdance take this situation very seriously, asking ourselves a few simple and crucial questions: What role does a festival play in furthering its filmmakers’ success? In disseminating stories? In ensuring the continuation and sustenance of independent film? We suspect that if festivals have the curatorial purpose of introducing new film to new audiences, then they also need to further that by taking an active role in helping filmmakers harness audiences through new distribution and marketing methodologies — and not just by inviting acquisitions execs to the screenings. A symbiotic and self-empowered relationship needs to form in order for all to survive — one that is built firmly OUTSIDE of the permission-based system in which we currently work.

With all this in mind, this year Slamdance has teamed up with the WorkBook Project and the Open Video Alliance to present the first ever Filmmaker Summit.

From the Summit release, as drafted by Lance Weiler & Peter Baxter:

“The mission of the Filmmaker Summit is to jointly craft a new charter for filmmaking, storytelling and content distribution, with and by the global filmmaking community. Born out of reaction to an independent film industry in a state of turmoil, the summit aims to explore how a global filmmaking community can better understand new DIY distribution strategies, and work towards the democratization of new technologies, tools, story-telling techniques, and processes. We believe that sustainable independent filmmaking is no longer just about production. Instead it is about the ways in which filmmakers must expand their roles and take charge of reaching and engaging worldwide audiences, across all viewing platforms. The topics to be explored at the summit are set through crowd-sourced methodologies (topics voted on and suggested by the independent film community). During the summit itself we will be hearing from filmmakers and strategists from around the world, chiming in on new marketing and distribution techniques they have employed to get their content made and distributed.”

Slamdance believes that we need to help our filmmakers sustain by supporting the self-empowerment inherent in self-distribution. Though this emerging methodology is still, largely, theoretical, we believe that we can all find some working models, together.

And, let’s not forget our special thanks: to Scilla Andreen at Indieflix; Mike Beynart at Elephant Pilot and Micah Hahn at AutumnSeventy for their amazing design work; Ben Moskowitz and Josh Levy at Open Video Alliance; George Chriss; Flumotion and XMission; Zak Forsman and Kevin Shah at SABI;  Brian Newman, Brian Chirls and Chris Holland for their insight; and of course all our filmmakers.

Filed under: dispatches, diy distribution, self-referential , , , ,