Brad Warner and Erik Proulx say “no thanks” to festival audiences and instead take their films to where their fans are
I’ve been working for the Espoo Ciné international film festival this week, and on Wednesday I got the chance to catch Brad Warner’s Q&A session after the screening of his documentary “Cleveland’s Screaming!“. Among the many Q’s and A’s Brad answered the question whether the film has been well received elsewhere and if it has toured many festivals in the States.
He said that after mailing lots of applications to festivals, each with 20 or so dollars attached, only to have them rejected, he gave up on the idea as a waste of money. One of the most important screenings for him had been in an Ohio punk club, where the people were genuinely interested in the film and knew how to appreciate it.
Lemonade for the laid-off
Brad’s answer reminded me of the comment that Erik Proulx, the director of the upcoming documentary “Lemonade“, made in FastCompany. Proulx used to work in advertising, but after being handed the pink slip for the third time in less than ten years, he decided he wanted to do something else. He found out about others like him and decided to make a documentary about laid-off advertising people and their new lives (for the whole story go here).
Proulx plans to make his documentary available for free download, thereby making it non-eligible for most festivals. However, in the article Proulx says:
“I’d rather have a million laid-off viewers than 500 at a film festival.”
Film makers set their own rules
Now, there are two ways to argue about film makers taking this approach. One way would be to say that the films maybe are of mediocre quality (I personally have seen neither, so this is only for the sake of argument) and wouldn’t make it onto the programmes of large festivals. Most of the US festivals also charge the above mentioned fees just to preview and consider a film for the programme. It could be said that the film makers aren’t confident enough to make this kind of “investment”.
The other way is to see this as a possible new trend enhanced by social media and the idea of sharing. Instead of making their films available only to film buffs and professionals (the gatekeepers and inner circle of the artform) via festivals, they choose internet distribution and highly targeted screenings to reach their audiences.
Personally I find the second argument both more credible and more interesting. It speaks of a well defined and very niche target audience (which is essential for the success of any film), the embracing of new technologies and trends like the long tail, as well as an own definition of success, not set by peers or gatekeepers but by the film makers themselves, as it should be.
Bottom line
What this means to the whole filmmaking community is that old structures are challenged and new values compete with traditional ones. The new, potentially huge audiences outside the festival circuit will invariably cherish different aspects of the films than the traditionalist film buffs. They might even be interested in donating to the film makers, something that is both unusual and very difficult to arrange at festival screenings.
What are your thoughts, is this just an old story of non-talented outsiders making a virtue out of neccessity, or will downloads and social media severely challenge the festival institution?
