Festival Scams

[Lune12]

Is this the film festivals dirty little secret...get thousands of indie filmmakers to pay $40+ to submit a film...review maybe 10% of the screeners ... then send a mass email thanking everyone for their contribution & better luck next time.

As an independent filmmaker, it's frustrating to research fests, send in applications, w/fees (and often promotional materials) ... only to have an insider reveal that most fests don't even watch the bulk of the screeners that are received.

Obviously it's the applications that pay for the festivals' operating costs ... but isn't it simple courtesy for festivals to at least have a lousy volunteer watch a required minimum of 2 minutes of each “application paid” screener?

I'd like ONE festival to step up and demonstrate how they are able to review all the submissions. I bet they can't. Do the math.

So once again...how is a struggling nobody supposed to get to the top of the heap?

Just wondering....

Jane
www.brosgrimsideshow.com

[Whitegrl]

Then there are the fests that only take shorts done by the children, spouses or siblings of famous people... And the fests that solicit mountains of entries when they are only going to run six shorts during the entire fest... And the fests that all seem to take the same five films...

[Lune12]

I've noticed that too.... All I'm asking for is to be reviewed for 2 minutes. I don't think it's that much to expect that my film be watched ever so briefly for a $40, $50 and $60 submission fee. (What IS the submission fee paying for anyway? Throwing a sticker with a film's ID number on my vhs can not possibly cost more than $10 bucks.)

And why aren't organizations like the IFP advocating for basic festival guidelines & standards? This would be SO helpful. Any fest with a submission fee over $10 should have enough staff to review each submission. And if each submission does NOT include a minimal review, then the festival should be required to state that not all submissions will be reviewed.

Is basic honesty and disclosure too much to ask? I know I would appreciate a little accountability on this.

[Good Ole Flopp]

:)
decent rant, i'd give it a 7/10.
could've been more angry and less reasonable.

;)
overall 6/10 since you didn't put it in the rant section, lol

[Lune12]

Point taken. I'll have to work on my rant.

[Rory L. Aronsky]

overall 6/10 since you didn't put it in the rant section, lol

Since this topic deals with a film festival issue, it's fine in this section of the forums and I see no reason why it needs to be moved to the "Rant" section.

[Good Ole Flopp]

:)
unless someone here runs a film festival, this thread is singing to the choir.

;)
sounds like ranting to me

[GiGi]

This might make you feel better.

Ok, imagine you are running a big time, or even small time film fest. You have a staff of volunteers and are flooded with 500 or even 5,000 submissions. You have about 6 weeks to watch all these, narrow down finalist, before announcements. Bottom line, our precious work is forgotten.

I'm not saying this is right, it really sucks, but I can understand it. Most certainly, just sending it in won't always get it noticed. Chris Gore has a well written festival book, with insider info, on tips to getting your submission noticed. I suggest you check it out. Also, go the extra mile and hire a publicist to do some campaigning for the festival(s) you want to get into. "Primer", the Cinderalla film made for 7 grand that swept Sundance didn't just send their film in. I read an article where the filmmaker hired a publicist to get it a little well deserved attention, and look what happened! :)

I do think it sucks that the Indy Film festivals are flooded with movies that have even 5 million dollar budgets and a-list stars. But, I guess from their end they are trying to draw attention to their festival to sustain it.

good luck to you and don't give up. Just try new stategies and I bet you are surprised! :)

[sonnyboo]

A film festival is a business.

If someone submits a film that has a name star, or a film that the public has a chance of hering of (IE George Lucas in Love or 405 the Movie) - then the film festival directors will probably pick that movie over an obscure DV short by someone from Iowa.

There is a better chance of selling tickets to the more famous stuff. It looks better in the print ads - all of which cost money.


I get rejected ALL THE TIME. Do I think that they do not watch screeners? Yes, sometimes, but then there are festival (like INDEPENDENT PICTURES in Cleveland Ohio) that religiously watch every tape submitted and write a PERSONAL reject letter with some kind of note on their particular movie.

It's hit & miss. Yeah, some fests never even get to putting the tape in the VCR. Others do, and you might still get rejected. Get used to it. Keep at it.

To me a bigger rant is a first time film festival with no prizes or affiliations with anything major charging over $25 for an entry fee. What kind of crap is that?

[Lune12]

Hmmm. It's kinda hard to complain about 5000 submissions at an average of $50each. ($200,000)

Is it that impossible to get volunteers to watch 2 minutes of each film and rate them on a slip of paper (multiple choice) in five categories? In fact festivals should be GRATEFUL for the heaps of piece of crap submissions that pay the bills and that they barely have to watch.

I think a minimum viewing requirement would address the situation ... and might even overturn a shiny little diamond or two in the sun, so to speak. That's what I'm sayin'.

I'd like to invite interested parities go to http://www.brosgrimsideshow.com and watch the on-line trailer for my doc on an authentic 1920s circus sideshow. I've love for you to email me and tell me whether it would be worth 2 lousy minutes of your time and $50 to review...

I'll throw in one of my sideshow postcards to anyone who responds. Sound fair?


Jane

http://www.brosgrimsideshow.com/movie.html

[FilmDallas]

While I can understand taking some short-cuts in making festival selections, if a festival doesn't review a submission at all, they should refund the money to those who didn't get reviewed.

Keeping the money without reviewing the film at all would be taking the money under fraudulent circumstances. Having to prove such a thing from the filmmakers' standpoint would be extremely difficult, but if the people running the festival are honorable, they should return the money on their own.

[sonnyboo]

I'll continue to play Devil's (Robert Redford's) advocate here.

SUNDANCE FILM FESTIVAL, arguably the largest and most submitted to film festival in the world only recieved a total of 3,389 submissions (2,532 American and 857 international), to participate in this year’s Festival and they only charged $35 entry fees.


Most of these other festivals do NOT get 5,000 submissions, especially not the ones who charge $50 per submission.


Which film festivals did your insider tell you did not even watch the entries? I'd like to know who to avoid. You're going off on a rant, but not even helpig to WARN any other filmmakers. Make a difference - HELP the situation and not just complain. What festival was it?

[GiGi]

Ok doodes, don't take it so literally! :D I was just throwing some numbers out there, I do not know for certain. Ok, something to consider (just playing devils advocate here)

3389 films x 2 hours viewing time = 6778 hours of film.
100 volunteers could watch 33.39 movies in roughly 6 weeks.

So, it's do-able, but that's a lot of viewing time. Does anyone know how many people they have at Sundance to screen movies? This is in additon to whatever sorting system they have, notifications, looking at press info, reviewing of films for final selection, eek. So THAT I can understand.

But, true, a festival that only gets a couple hundred films, everyone should be viewed. I read somewhere you can ask to get festival fees waived. Might try it, just a suggestion! :)

[Lune12]

Ok. The Ann Arbor Film Festival did not watch my film. $30 early deadline fee. I am not miffed because my doc wasn't programmed. I feel ripped off because it wasn't even reviewed. That's the gist of it.

[Lune12]

And in the notice for the Ann Arbor Film Festoval, they said there was something like 3000+ entries. Fees range from $30 to $40.

Not trying to rip on all fests, btw. I know programmers try their best, and that the fest are great forums for indie films to be seen.

But I think it's time forn reasonable practices and standards to be set. Do any of the newly elected IFP officers have anything to say about this?

[sonnyboo]

ANN ARBOUR!

no wonder.


I find it hard to believe they recieved "3,000" films.

MY ASS.


Never liked that fest.

[Lune12]

You are funny ... but this is more amusing: I am FROM Ann Arbor and grew up GOING to the A2 film fest! My numberous skipped school days hanging out at the Michigan Theatre contributed to my fondness for classic and experimental cinema.

I only applied to the Ann Arbor fest for nostalgic reasons cuz you know there aren't any industry connections to be made in Ann Arbor even *if* my film were to be programmed. As it happens, it wasn't even looked at.

So that's my sad story. Rejected by my hometown fest. Must move forward tho...


Jane/Lune12

www.brosgrimsideshow.com

[Mark Bell]

Originally posted by GiGi
Ok, imagine you are running a big time, or even small time film fest. You have a staff of volunteers and are flooded with 500 or even 5,000 submissions. You have about 6 weeks to watch all these, narrow down finalist, before announcements. Bottom line, our precious work is forgotten.Not necessarily so. And keep in mind I'm going to be speaking from the Slamdance perspective, but it is important to know that Slamdance is as indie as they come, with a primarily volunteer staff AND they get upwards of 3,000 submissions so I think my insight might apply here. All submissions to Slamdance get viewed TWICE. Seriously. The programmers go house when the tapes start coming in, and final programming has to be one of the most intense experiences the festival puts itself through annually (we're talking 1 step short of violence sometimes). I do not know of one film entered to Slamdance that did not get its due twice. Nobody's precious work was forgotten. It just wasn't chosen, you know.
Also, go the extra mile and hire a publicist to do some campaigning for the festival(s) you want to get into. "Primer", the Cinderalla film made for 7 grand that swept Sundance didn't just send their film in. I read an article where the filmmaker hired a publicist to get it a little well deserved attention, and look what happened! :)Save your money, festivals don't give a shit. Seriously. Those fancy folders and sweet-ass promotional materials folks send along with their submissions... they get the trash (unless they're really sweet, then a volunteer might keep them but it won't get your film into the festival, or get you extra attention, honestly). A publicist is nothing but an annoyance to a bunch of programmers trying to view submissions. If you must get a publicist, get one after you get into a festival, to help you promote your film.

As for Gore's fest book, the 3rd edition is coming out in July and it is going to be SWEET!
I do think it sucks that the Indy Film festivals are flooded with movies that have even 5 million dollar budgets and a-list stars. But, I guess from their end they are trying to draw attention to their festival to sustain it.
Once again, speaking from the Slamdance perspective, but we got the A-list entries too, the ones where a name actor'll even call the office to try and sway favor for the film and... it doesn't work. The film has to be good. I understand many filmmakers' feelings of anger when their film gets rejected, and I understand, being a filmmaker myself, why you would want to cry foul of festivals in general BUT I wholeheartedly maintain that quality films will make it in. If your film is constantly getting rejected, take a step back and instead of saying "this festival and that festival is corrupt", look at your film. As hard as it is to stomach, maybe it's not that good. Out of the 3,000+ films Slamdance gets, 75-80 get programmed. The battle for those 75-80 slots is intense, but really, at most, only (based on the number of programmers) 300 films make it through to the battle for the final spots. So basically there were 2,700 films that weren't good enough right out of the gate.

And in regards to a festival giving you personal feedback on why your film is or isn't good, keep in mind that films take time to watch. With Slamdance, they're being watched twice so a huge amount of time is spent actually watching movies, and then it's time to put on the festival. There is not enough time to give every film the attention it deserves AND give a detailed personal review. If you want your film reviewed, send it to Film Threat. If you want your film seen, send it to a festival. Remember, you are paying for your film to be considered for a screening NOT for a personal review. Unless a festival says otherwise, this is how it is.
Originally posted by Lune12
Hmmm. It's kinda hard to complain about 5000 submissions at an average of $50each. ($200,000) What do you think this money is being spent on? You have to pay a staff to put on the festival, you have to rent venue space, you have to rent all the necessary production equipment, for bare minimums. Then, if you want to entertain the audience beyond films, you have to rent venues and equipment for parties. Believe me, the numbers get WAY up there and for a legitimate fest (I'm not speaking for them all, but the big names are pretty obvious) it winds up being submissions paying for operating costs. You don't want to pay the submission fee, don't submit. But without that fee, there is no festival, and your film doesn't get seen anyway.

Many European festivals are sans submission fees, but that's because they are financed by local governments. So submit to them, but you'll still wind up paying for the plane ticket.

And honestly, we're all poor filmmakers, right, but if we could raise the money to make a $5,000-$500,000 feature, we can go that extra $50 to attempt to get into a festival that could seriously help us sell our film OR at least get our film seen. Does a $5,000 film that nobody sees really exist?

Some festivals will waive fees, but most won't. Some need the fees, some don't, but that's part of your research when you make your festival strategy. If you don't want to pay a fee, don't submit. Save yourself and some poor volunteer that you're going to bitch out on the phone the grief.

Originally posted by sonnyboo
If someone submits a film that has a name star, or a film that the public has a chance of hering of (IE George Lucas in Love or 405 the Movie) - then the film festival directors will probably pick that movie over an obscure DV short by someone from Iowa.Some festivals will but overall a film has to be good. Quality really does mean something.
To me a bigger rant is a first time film festival with no prizes or affiliations with anything major charging over $25 for an entry fee. What kind of crap is that?That's operating costs. A new festival can't afford to give away the big prizes and chances are can't afford their venues. The submission fee, I guarantee, goes right into operating costs. No profit, just a love for film and an effort to give the world another festival so someone might possibly see your film.

Listen, I'm not saying all festivals are good, and I'm not saying that some festivals don't rip you off. Really, those fests exist (New York International Independent Film & Video Festival comes to mind) but you have to have a good film, and you have to understand that most festivals do not exist to make a profit for their founders, but to show films that otherwise would not be seen. The festivals exist for the filmmakers and the audiences, and very few festival operations are what I'd call profitable in the sense that their submission fees are unreasonable.

I hope I've offered some perspective from the other side.

[Rory L. Aronsky]

Wow. That was probably the most useful post in this thread.

[GiGi]

Yes, good post. :)

My observations are general though, from what I have read and heard from 1st hand accounts of people who have attempted to get into or have gotten into prime fests. And as far as publicists? It worked for Shane Carruth. Sometimes someone who knows someone who knows someone might get your film looked at, where as it might get a couple minute glance and be filed in a place none of us want to think too closely about. You suggested to save the money, which might be a'ight, but for the people who aren't getting noticed by festivals they really want to get into, I personally would want to go with a publicist rather than getting nothing. Again, this is what people who have actually gotten in have suggested.

Check this link out...

Shane Carruth Interview (http://www.dallasobserver.com/issues/2004-02-12/stuff.html/1/index.html)

Now, he would know! :)

[Mark Bell]

Originally posted by GiGi
Sometimes someone who knows someone who knows someone might get your film looked at, where as it might get a couple minute glance and be filed in a place none of us want to think too closely aboutYeah, but where does that person have to be a publicist? Seriously, a friendship with John Sloss'll help you get into Sundance, you know.

I'm not saying it didn't work for Shane Carruth. I am saying that, from personal experience, publicists prior to a film festival's acceptance are a waste of your money because they generally just annoy the programmers and organizers IF they even do their jobs and call in the first place. Most press material prior to a film's acceptance is thrown away. Shane Carruth is the exception, not the rule, I'm afraid. You're welcome to take your chances, I'm just saying that with my experience a publicist is not worth the money until after your film is accepted...

[GiGi]

I think what I'm trying to say...and maybe you are too, that each festival is different. :) It really truly seems that way, and for some...sadly there is a game you have to play.

I wouldn't hire one unless it was for Sundance, which is a big dream of mine, and then I'd prostitute myself to do whatever necessary to get it in! LOL Wouldn't we all though...

Interesting thread!

[Mark Bell]

Originally posted by GiGi
It really truly seems that way, and for some...sadly there is a game you have to play.No doubt. Some fests do play games with their filmmakers but, and I feel this is the main feeling I am trying to impart, quality means something, if not everything. Your film has to be good (and in most cases, great). Sure, a connection might get you in the door but what's the point of playing Sundance if your film sucks? Eventually a film has to stand on its own merits, and no amount of agents, publicists, or managers will save it. Shane Carruth's publicist got him an agent and his agent got in touch with Geoff Gilmore. That may've made sure his film got a little extra attention, but I guarantee that if the film was insanely awful it wouldn't have made it further. Even Sundance (and I'm loathe to admit it) has standards.

Besides, Primer might've been accepted anyway, and it could be a coincidence that his agent placed a call. The two events might not be related. Sundance is more likely to be swayed by Miramax's personal agenda then a lone agent's.

[sonnyboo]

>>>New York International Independent Film & Video Festival


$300-$3,000 for submission fees? Can it be more clear they are a scam? I've been to this first hadn with a feature I was involved with. It IS a total scam. They promise the moon and deliver a toilet.

[Lune12]

Hampster69 -- thanks for taking the time to offer your perspective. Much appreciated. So…

*Publicist $$ is best used to promote a film’s screening.

*Submitting does not mean that your film will be watched becuz…..

*For most fests, submitting means that someone will *consider* watching your screener. Good to know that. I still believe fests that do not necessarily watch all vhs' (unlike Slamdance) should disclose that fact. Cuz $50 for "considering viewing" your vhs...is bullshit. I still have a prob with that if it's not made perfectly clear to applicants. Bet that would make people think twice abouit submitting.

*The submissions fees pay for operating costs. Fair—fests gotta pay the bills.

*Just wondering how much actual tickets sales contribute to a fests’s budget?

*Glad that I started this thread…much more “in the know” now. Chip on the shoulder has shrunken quite a bit. Thanks…I’ll go and have a fab day now. Hope you, and all others on the thread, do the same.


P.S. are you sure you’re not a gerbil?

[sonnyboo]

Originally posted by Lune12

*For most fests, submitting means that someone will *consider* watching your screener. Good to know that. I still believe fests that do not necessarily watch all vhs' (unlike Slamdance) should disclose that fact. Cuz $50 for "considering viewing" your vhs...is bullshit. I still have a prob with that if it's not made perfectly clear to applicants. Bet that would make people think twice abouit submitting.



You completely misread the guy. He said "you are paying $50 for consideration for a screening".

Screening meaning the festival screening IF you get accepted. It has nothing to do with the screening process for getting into a festival.

[Lune12]

This is exactly why clarification should be required for all fests re: whether or not each submission is viewed. How difficult would it be to disclose in one sentence that either:

a) Each vhs will be viewed, in it's entirely, by a staff/volunteer for programming consideration.

b) Each vhs will be viewed at least 5 mins. by a staff/volunteer for programming consideration.

b) Each vhs may or may not be viewed at all.


For the record, option (b) is fine with me.


Again, if the submission fees are donations to film festivals, filmmakers need to know that. We need to know that it’s us, and not ticket sales & sponsors who are payin’ for the festival?

And I don’t think it’s going too far to think that submitting a film means that someone from the festival will watch at least part. At that point its fair to decide it’s for them—or not. How else would they know?

And you’re right. I don’t have to submit to a festival—especially ones that don’t have a policy to watch at least part of each film submitted. Think about it: Why WOULD I submit if I didn’t think it would be viewed and considered? I wouldn’t.

It may be a pain to watch every film submitted…but heavy is the head that wears the crown. If you’re not going to watch submissions, then say it. And it doesn’t take $50 to receive mail.

[GiGi]

Hey Lune, overall Id get Chris Gore's book, The Ultimate Guide to Film Fest. Not only has he probably been to every festival you could imagine, he has all kinds of insight and info. It is my bible now and his advice is the one I believe in. :)

[Lune12]

Actually I've had his book since last year--2nd ed. It is awesome. The Ult. FF Guide, withoutabox.com and the internet have been my main ways of researching fests so far. In fact... one of the writers at Film Threat even did a review of my film & web site back in January in the news section. Very nice poeple here it seems! Also I appreciate your posts and other's who have taken the time to respond to this thread.


But I have a day gig that begs (BEGS!) and the weekend starts in a mere 4 hours.... will cq back later.

[Mark Bell]

Originally posted by sonnyboo
You completely misread the guy. He said "you are paying $50 for consideration for a screening".

Screening meaning the festival screening IF you get accepted. It has nothing to do with the screening process for getting into a festival. Exactly. I meant a screening AT the festival IF you get accepted.
Originally posted by Lune12
This is exactly why clarification should be required for all fests re: whether or not each submission is viewed. How difficult would it be to disclose in one sentence that either:

a) Each vhs will be viewed, in it's entirely, by a staff/volunteer for programming consideration.
I truly, firmly believe that this is the norm, and that is why it is not mentioned. It's one of those obvious things, and I wonder why so many filmmakers just assume that if their film didn't get in then it's because it wasn't seen. That's ego, folks, your film might not be good. Rejection is as telling a barometer as acceptance.
b) Each vhs will be viewed at least 5 mins. by a staff/volunteer for programming consideration.
See, I would never send to a festival that said that, that's just bullshit. And the fests that do act that way would never put that out there because they know people wouldn't submit to them. But we're talking a minority here people.
b) Each vhs may or may not be viewed at all.
Then they're curating and not accepting open submissions because for a film to not be seen at all is ridiculous. Where has this happened? This seems to be the kind of caveat that would be included with a late late after-deadline submission, if at all, when programming time is really running out.
For the record, option (b) is fine with me.The first b or the second b? Honestly, neither should be fine with you as a filmmaker and neither are everyday practices at legitimate festivals. But do your research.
Again, if the submission fees are donations to film festivals, filmmakers need to know that. We need to know that it’s us, and not ticket sales & sponsors who are payin’ for the festival?Why do filmmakers need to know where their submission money goes? Festivals are offering screening space so that your film may be seen in public. They are offering you a service, get me? You, filmmaker, pay submission fee, festival reviews tape, does or does not accept your film. If they accept your film, your film plays the festival. You're paying for the consideration to show at a festival, and the festivals are offering that opportunity. Think of festivals as a service to you, the filmmaker. If you don't want to pay for that service, don't. But don't condemn the festivals for not giving you an accounting summary.
And I don’t think it’s going too far to think that submitting a film means that someone from the festival will watch at least part. At that point its fair to decide it’s for them—or not. How else would they know?I 100% agree with you. What festivals accept submissions but don't watch them? How do you know this?
And you’re right. I don’t have to submit to a festival—especially ones that don’t have a policy to watch at least part of each film submitted. Think about it: Why WOULD I submit if I didn’t think it would be viewed and considered? I wouldn’t.Exactly, but as I said, where are these dubious festivals that don't watch any films? They are NOT the norm.
It may be a pain to watch every film submitted…but heavy is the head that wears the crown. If you’re not going to watch submissions, then say it. And it doesn’t take $50 to receive mail.I agree, but I also have not heard festivals complain about the films they have to watch. I only ever hear filmmakers complain about how much festivals suck because of this reason or that reason and... I'm just offering perspective from the side that is not represented very often in these diatribes. Film festivals, normally, exist to screen films that otherwise would not be seen, to bring a bit of cinema to communities that otherwise would not have it, and to give a venue for filmmakers to show their work. Some fests grow really big and have other considerations that come into play (advertising, sponsoring, etc) but who suffers more from a lack of festivals, the festival organizers or the filmmakers. Ultimately, the filmmakers. Seriously, festivals are not a very profitable enterprise. Do most filmmakers care? Some do, some don't, and even more feel entitled to show their film whether it is good or not.

At the end of the day, is your film good? This is the most important criteria. If you keep getting rejected, ask yourself why, and after you're done blaming the festivals, look at your film.

Just wondering how much actual tickets sales contribute to a fests’s budget?Depends, a lot of the time this money goes towards any sudden problems that may arise during the fest that wasn't originally budgeted for. But, in all honesty, this is where a festival MIGHT find a profit. I know that any money that comes in during Slamdance goes towards keeping Slamdance running year-round so that they can offer other screenings and workshops and such and employ two or three core staff. For a small festival starting out, this could be the only profit they make (if it doesn't go to operating costs as well). Once again, do your research because some fests that don't have submission fees also offer half the box office to screening filmmakers (which makes sense, if they don't need submission fees for operating costs, then they don't need ticket sales for operating costs either... these festivals are being paid for, usually, by a university or local government).
Originally posted by GiGi
Hey Lune, overall Id get Chris Gore's book, The Ultimate Guide to Film Fest. Not only has he probably been to every festival you could imagine, he has all kinds of insight and info. It is my bible now and his advice is the one I believe in.The 3rd Edition comes out in July and it is going to rock (and I know, I personally researched over a 1,000 festivals for it). Hopefully, when Chris gets back from Wisconsin, he'll drop by and offer his thoughts here as well.

[rrfrankie]

How can anybody think it’s justifiable for any fest to charge a submission fee? If the fest can’t get the sponsorship to cover their expenses then fuck `em - they shouldn’t be running a fest. Simple as that. And most festivals shouldn’t be operating. They’re formed as vanity projects by whoever the fest director is. Most don’t get any kind of attendance or press coverage. Absolute scams – and the filmmakers who willingly submit like sheep to these fests are asking to be screwed.

[Mark Bell]

Originally posted by rrfrankie
How can anybody think it’s justifiable for any fest to charge a submission fee? If the fest can’t get the sponsorship to cover their expenses then fuck `em - they shouldn’t be running a fest.Then you explain to all the filmmakers out there who didn't get into the major festivals (Cannes, Toronto, Sundance, etc.) why their film won't be showing at any other fests, mainly because those fests don't exist anymore. If the festival world operated the way you suggest it should then there'd be a handful of festivals and a multitude of forgotten films. Is $50 that much more important to you then your film actually being seen?
Simple as that. And most festivals shouldn’t be operating. They’re formed as vanity projects by whoever the fest director is.Yeah, back that comment up with some examples, please. Like anyone outside of the festival circuit knows who most of the festival directors are. It seems like you're aiming at all festivals while mentally focusing on Sundance (ie Redford's vanity project when, really, Geoff Gilmore runs the fest).
Most don’t get any kind of attendance or press coverage. Absolute scams – and the filmmakers who willingly submit like sheep to these fests are asking to be screwed. That's where research comes in. Many regional fests get huge local attendence and coverage, but barely register on the "industry" map. It's about what your goals are, and what fest is right for you. If you just want to have your film seen by an appreciative audience, there are certain festivals that are great for that. If you want your film to get buzz in the industry, there are other festivals for that. It's all in the research. But to condemn the whole festival system in general because of submission fees...

[Lune12]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simple as that. And most festivals shouldn’t be operating. They’re formed as vanity projects by whoever the fest director is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, back that comment up with some examples, please.


OK. Here's an example. The "Big Sky" film Festival in Montana. A woman named Gita Saedi is on the staff & apprears to be a founder of this new fest. Funny ... the film "The American Experience" (for which she was a producer) was programmed. Imagine that. AND... the company she used to work for in Chicago is called Kartempqin. As it ALSO happends... Kartempquin's film "Stevie" also was screened.

Talk about film festival incest.

[Mark Bell]

Originally posted by Lune12
Yeah, back that comment up with some examples, please.

OK. Here's an example. The "Big Sky" film Festival in Montana. A woman named Gita Saedi is on the staff & apprears to be a founder of this new fest. Funny ... the film "The American Experience" (for which she was a producer) was programmed. Imagine that. AND... the company she used to work for in Chicago is called Kartempqin. As it ALSO happends... Kartempquin's film "Stevie" also was screened.

Talk about film festival incest. What are we talking about here, really? One minute it's all about submissions fee being so awful they shouldn't exist, and damn any festival that dare charge them. Then we're talking about festivals only being created as vanity projects and I'm given an example of a festival founder screening their own films during a festival. So what!?! Did the festival ONLY screen their films?

Early days of Slamdance: handful of filmmakers don't get into Sundance, decide they still want to play Park City, so they form a festival, and invite their friends to apply for the fest as well. They charge some money for operating costs, and the first Slamdance festival is born. The festival was, initially, born so that a handful of rejected films could get seen. It was completely a personal agenda of the founders and the friends or filmmakers they programmed that first year. Now, ten years down the road, where is the festival? It routinely maintains the #2 spot of Park City festivals with a level of notoriety and indie cred deserving of the films in which it continues to champion. Slamdance films get distribution, get seen, and all because a handful of filmmakers decided they wanted to have their own festival. There is nothing wrong with the impetus behind forming a festival being a personal one to get your film seen, especially if the festival programs other films and continues to program year-in and year-out.

But still, how does your saying the Big Sky Festival is incestuous and my saying Slamdance was formed under a personal agenda equate to "And most festivals shouldn’t be operating. They’re formed as vanity projects by whoever the fest director is."? Most festivals AREN'T vanity projects by the fest director. Some are.

This is where your research comes in. If you don't like that the Big Sky Festival has programmed films related to the festival founder in the past, then don't apply. It's your call. It's very possible the Big Sky Festival could be screening incredible indie works beyond the one or two nepotistic selections, but whatever, it's your decision.

In the end, oh upset filmmakers decrying the existence of film festivals as evil, is your film any good? Is it worth seeing? Do you really think that a filmmaker that gets into the Big Sky festival is upset that a film related to the founder is playing? Nope, it's only the rejected, but it is very possible that the film was not good enough, and I think that's what hurts most. Not the submission fee, not the festival's character, but the idea that you can be so high-and-mighty about a festival and have them turn you down. How dare they, right? They charged me too much to say "No" without explaining why, right? They'll play a film by such-and-such founder but they won't screen MY film, right?

If your film is good, it'll play. If it's bad, quit whining and be happy that, thanks to all the festivals out there, it'll still probably play somewhere. Or, hope that all those smaller fests disappear, and then still not play and really be optionless.

[Rory L. Aronsky]

Imagine that. AND... the company she used to work for in Chicago is called Kartempqin.

First off, just a correction. The company is called Kartemquin.

Secondly, Gita apparently is still a part of Kartemquin. "The New Americans", a documentary mini-series made by the company, bears her name as "Series Producer". I reviewed all 3 parts of that documentary for this site and with that many times, you can't really forget a name like that, especially with the quality of the documentary. And she's still listed as part of the Kartemquin group.

[GiGi]

Frankie, festivals are totally justified charging fees to submit IMHO. The amount is the only thing debatable to me. Not that I have put on a fest, but did some fundraisers and it is so expensive you can not even believe. Yes, advertising alone is crazy. it would be nice to have some private sponsership, yes indeed. And the goverment fund it? haha. The arts get screwed a lot. That's what happened in film school, while our LOSER university football team got all kinds of new crap, over in the film school...we were getting into fist fights over the one last working projector at 3am before the final film of the semester was due at 8am. It's not FAIR, but then it never has been.

It is hard, it does suck, but I guess it's part of paying dues. Good luck everyone!

[Whitegrl]

Everyone has to pay the rent. Submission fees are part of the business/crap shoot. They don't call it "show-friends " it's show business. I truly believe many fests are ethical and that they do watch the movies. They don't last if they don't - it's bad business. Even with research into fests, you never know - different things are hot at different times, it reminds the programmer of his ex-wife - whatever. It could be the film and it could be some other weird thing you would never think of. For shorts, everything is too long (can't put 25 min. before a feature) and for features - I don't know - I do shorts. The rejections I have had lately while devastatingly numerous, have made me take a look at what I do & how I do it - I even take the illiterate feedback I got from one fest (I truly wasn't sure what movie they were watching or if this person had ever seen a movie before and I am really used to stupid feedback as I went to film school) into consideration. Movies are useless unless someone sees them and you have to make people want to see them. I just keep going. As someone said to me the other day when I told them that my film after a couple of awards and fests just sank, "Maybe it's time to move on?" and I am. I am by no means abandoning my film but as I make movies because I have to not because I want to, I am just going to make another film. I ramble but it's my birthday so I feel a peculiar sense of entitlement...

[Lune12]

Mr. Gerbil, Hampster or whoever -- I think you've been drinking one too many cups of the film festival Kool-Aide.

I haven't decried festivals as evil. And my gripe is NOT about being programing choices. It's about festivals CHARGING $50 and NOT even reviewing the film. And nepotism. You asked for an example, and I gave you one. Now do me a favor since you've been to something like 1000 festivals for Chris Gore's book.

Answer in a direct and reasonable way:

(1) Why a fest needs to charge more than $10 to accept submissions.

(2) How can anyone (or any team of people) watch more than 3000 films.

And I find it hard to believe you've been to even one festival and have not noticed the incestuous relations. I've been to many as a journalist and it was fairly obvious.

(On a more positive note...happy birthday to whitegrl :) )

[Lune12]

Originally posted by Rory L. Aronsky
First off, just a correction. The company is called Kartemquin.

Secondly, Gita apparently is still a part of Kartemquin. "The New Americans", a documentary mini-series made by the company, bears her name as "Series Producer". I reviewed all 3 parts of that documentary for this site and with that many times, you can't really forget a name like that, especially with the quality of the documentary. And she's still listed as part of the Kartemquin group.

And she was on the selection committee for the Big Sky Doc Fest. Go ahead and check it out. I only brought it up because the hampster guy asked for an example. Also... I didn't apply to the Big Sky Fest,. I simply noticed the neoptism when I read about it. I'm sure it's just one example.

Hampster guy--- you have the floor. Go for it.

[GiGi]

Lune, I have a suggestion, how about this? :) Why don't you write to the festivals and ask them where your money goes? Then, write a story about it...because it would TOTALLY be interesting :) And a lot of people's questions would be solved.
Perhaps maybe ask to see a copy of an old budget with fee submission projections and so forth. I certainly would be interested in taking a gander.

Yes, happy Bday Whitegurl!

[Mark Bell]

Originally posted by Lune12
It's about festivals CHARGING $50 and NOT even reviewing the film.When did this happen? How did you know? What does "reviewing" mean to you? My definition is a festival gets a film, they watch it, and then they decide whether it gets in or not. If a festival charges $50 and doesn't watch the film, then, yes, that is bullshit. If you expect a festival to send you a lengthy "review" or feedback after they reject your film, that's being slightly unreasonable, given the programming time crunch, which I'll get into below.

If you submit to a festival, don't get in, and then just assume that they didn't see your film, well that's just being egotistical. Your film might suck.
Now do me a favor since you've been to something like 1000 festivals for Chris Gore's book.I love sarcasm. By the by, I researched over a 1,000 festivals, not been to. But I have worked for two big fests, Slamdance and Seattle International and been around and within the festival circuit for the last 5 years in various capacities.
(1) Why a fest needs to charge more than $10 to accept submissions.Using the 3,000 submissions as our base number, a festival would bring in $30,000 through submissions. Projection equipment rental, venues, etc. is, on the low-end, an expenditure of $50,000. So, already a festival is in the hole $20,000. Now, let's say they get theater space donated, so they don't have to rent a 35mm projector. If they show video, like most fests do now, they have to rent the necessary video equipment, when all is said and done for a 10-day fest, about $25,000 for three screening rooms (so a festival can show about 70 films). That leaves $5,000, right. You've got to have licenses for putting on a festival, liquor licenses if you have a party, insurance, hotel and travel for staff if the fest isn't local... you're going to break even, maybe. The numbers work out, really, and I don't think $50-$60 for a feature is unreasonable for a quality festival. The more money a festival has, the better (and larger) venue they can get, the more parties, the better equipment, the more staff they can pay (as opposed to working volunteers to an early grave)... all to pull off the best festival for the filmmakers and audience. When you're breaking the $100 submission fee range, that's when you're paying for a festival's name more than for your film.
(2) How can anyone (or any team of people) watch more than 3000 films.Once again, numbers. Out of that 3,000, about a 1,000 are features that are around 2 hours long. 2,000 hours. The shorts vary, but let's go with the high number and say a 1/2 hour running time, giving about 1,000 hours for 2,000 shorts. Okay 3, 000 hours total divided by 24 hours equals about 125 days. Most fests start watching submissions as soon as they start coming in over a 4-5 month span (Slamdance, for example, starts accepting around June, has a deadline until Mid-October and doesn't make the final decision until right before they announce in December, allowing for six months of viewing time). Divide that 125 days by about 40 programmers, and each programmer watches, out of 4-5 months, 72 hours worth of programming (for Slamdance, since each films is watched by two different programmers, give it 6 days per programmer). It is very do-able, and it gets done, but it is a time crunch. Luckily most shorts average about 10 minutes, most features an hour and a half, so the overall time is actually much lower.
And I find it hard to believe you've been to even one festival and have not noticed the incestuous relations. I've been to many as a journalist and it was fairly obvious.I never said I didn't notice (I offered up the Slamdance origin, remember) but I don't think that it matters. If I'm worried about nepotism crap, I don't submit, that simple. But it's the height of ego on my part to submit, get rejected, and then point the finger at the festival and say "see, they ONLY accept films by their staff" as opposed to pointing the finger at myself and saying "I may not have made a very good film". I'm still waiting for someone to tell me that the Big Sky Festival only screened films that had an attachment to the founder. So far I've heard two films mentioned, what else did they screen? If the answer is "other filmmakers' films" then what is the big deal? So two slots were unavailable, why didn't a film get into the remaining ones? Nepotism?

Listen, this is getting tiring. I offered my perspective as someone who actually can offer answers for some of the questions in a very honest and, I feel, relevant way. You don't have to like the answers, you don't have to agree with them, but I'm not making shit up here. I don't work for any festivals currently, I have no agenda.
I haven't decried festivals as evil.
I know, my comments in that direction were more in response to rrfrankie's post then yours, but you back one of his sentiments up ("Simple as that. And most festivals shouldn’t be operating. They’re formed as vanity projects by whoever the fest director is.") leading me to believe that you shared the sentiment that "most festivals shouldn't be operating", which I wholeheartedly disagree with. I also disagree that most festivals are vanity projects, though some may have been, I don't think that's the majority answer.

[Lune12]

Hampster -- I think we share more common ground than it appears, but I feel I must advocate from the independent filmmaker's perspective based on some of the experiences that I've had . And I totally appreciate the time that you've taken to shed light from the festival point of view. (This thread has gotten so long in such a short time prob because there's some healthy, fruitful discussion going on...)

So I wrote the original post because I tagged my tape for the Ann Arbor film fest (i.e you can open the cassette, put a small piece of paper about 12" after the leader...when the tape rolls... the tab falls out inside the cassette etc. etc.) And I paid for the return of my tape. It came back un-watched. You can imagine that I felt robbed. EVERY filmmaker who COMPLETES a film no matter what kind of piece of shit it is (believe it or not) has probably poured a lot of heart & soul into that film. To pay $35 bucks to the Ann Arbor Film Festival ...and for them to take the $$ and not watch my film is a rip off that nears fraud. If they can cash the check then they can f*cking watch my film. End of story. How WOULD they know if it's crap or not unless they watch it?

And I have personally sat through dozens of horrible films at many fests, including Toronto. Sometime 3-4 sophomoric, ridiculously far-fetched and indulgent ones in a single day. But that comes with the territory cuz I love films prob as much as you do.

I hope that the lionshare of festivals are watching the films that are entered. I’m also finding additional ways to reach distributors and interested parties…that don’t involve film festivals. (There are ways, you know ;) But they often involve sucking a lot of dick … just kidding! Geeze! ) Any way, film festivals are one of a couple ways to reach the people that you need to build an audience.

I’m thinking that I am a gerbil owner, so that’s maybe where we got off track. Unfortunately my 40-lb boa liked my last hamster a bit too much...Another sad story that there’s (fortunately!) no time for….

Peace to you.



And I have personally sat through dozens of horrible films at many fests, including Toronto. But I enjoy movies of all kinds, of all intensities

[GiGi]

Don't get mad Hamster! :) It's just a good ol debate. Hey, I have learned something...so it's all good. I think there is a lot of personal ties to this debate...involving people submitting their own films...their BABiES! to fest. So there is always passion and deep feelings involved.

Thankee Hamster.

And Thankee Lune! Now, let's all have a big group hug.:D

[Mark Bell]

Originally posted by Lune12
So I wrote the original post because I tagged my tape for the Ann Arbor film fest (i.e you can open the cassette, put a small piece of paper about 12" after the leader...when the tape rolls... the tab falls out inside the cassette etc. etc.) And I paid for the return of my tape. It came back un-watched. You can imagine that I felt robbed. EVERY filmmaker who COMPLETES a film no matter what kind of piece of shit it is (believe it or not) has probably poured a lot of heart & soul into that film. To pay $35 bucks to the Ann Arbor Film Festival ...and for them to take the $$ and not watch my film is a rip off that nears fraud. If they can cash the check then they can f*cking watch my film. End of story. How WOULD they know if it's crap or not unless they watch it?See, this is why I kept asking because, yes, if I submitted a film, paid the money, and then had proof that they never watched my film (as you do), I'd be absolutely pissed about it because that is not cool. If they cash the check, they can watch your film, absolutely, and that sucks that they did that.

One question, when you rig a tape like that does it always play? I only ask because I used to cut and re-thread tapes right after a program ended (say a 1 hour 20 minute program on a 2 hour tape) when I would send them to friends and every once in a while a VCR would have nothing to do with the tape at all. I'm not saying this is the case with Ann Arbor, I'm just wondering if opening the tapes has caused problems in the past, because that would be my only reason for not doing it, fear that a festival tried to watch it but couldn't because I rigged it.
And I have personally sat through dozens of horrible films at many fests, including Toronto. Sometime 3-4 sophomoric, ridiculously far-fetched and indulgent ones in a single day. But that comes with the territory cuz I love films prob as much as you do.Yeah, I agree, I've been at a festival and seen a film I was less than impressed with, but I like to think "if this got in, imagine what they had to watch that didn't get in". Because, honestly, the lion's share that comes in is really, really shitty. I'm amazed with the program that the Seattle International Film Festival routinely has, because they go on for about a month and a majority of their films are pretty good. Even the ones I dislike, I understand why somebody might like them (I hated Ginger Snaps and Lost and Delirious when they played SIFF, but both films have a huge cult following now so... different strokes, I guess). But yes, I have seen films I deemed awful in festivals I've deemed quality.
Any way, film festivals are one of a couple ways to reach the people that you need to build an audience.I agree. Festivals are great for getting your film out there and seen with a minimum of hassle (usually). They aren't the only option (you can always tri self-distibuting your film theatrically, for one).
Peace to you.Same to you.

I just want to say I wasn't mad at anyone, if I came across that way. Seriously, I didn't walk away from my computer yesterday thinking how much everyone here sucks or something like that, I was just, literally, tired of typing up huge responses. And I went to see Hellboy.

[Lune12]

I'm cool with all that. I've always liked the "mystery bag" nature of film festivals...the awful films are often as memorable as the amazing ones. Now may I talk about myself for a minute ( :) ) ?

My piece has awesome production quality (shot on HD with 2 fab cameramen etc. etc.) but the content... is ...let's just say it gets either a "loved it! bring on more of that freaky circus vibe!" or "hated every minute of this grotesque, repulsive, offensive to all that's wholesome" type of reaction. It's entertaining but hardly elevating--and definately not for the meek (features fire eating.... performers walking on glass...a snake enchantress touching tongues w/her boa constrictor that kind of stuff.)

Rejection is not a prob for me because my doc about these circus sideshow performers has a wicked wierdness that isn't always popular with the "save-the-worls thru docs" crowd (I'll say that teenagers in NJ can't seem to get enough of it tho--I have more than 4000 subscribers to my web site from that state alone!)

So I have chosen my festivals wisely (I think????) I just want to keep casting my net because I'm convinced that at some point the right person will put my tape in their vhs. That's why I'm a bit of a lunatic about fests watching the tape if I apply -- and it looks like we've gone over that rap throroughly in this thread.

So good luck to you and check out my doc & web site when you have a moment at

www.brosgrimsideshow.com


Lune12

[joeswanberg]

OK, maybe I have something of value to contribute here.

I have worked for two festivals, "The Big Muddy Film Festival" and the "Chicago International Film Festival." These fests are opposite ends of the spectrum. One is a 26 year old student run festival that takes place in and around the small college town of Carbondale, IL, and the other is a 40 year old festival that's one of the major US fests.

The Big Muddy Film Festival charges between $35 and $45 depending on the length of the film. Some of the money that it takes to run the festival comes from the Illinois Arts Council, but a lot of it comes from submission money. The fest gets between 200-300 submissions, mostly shorts, mostly documentary and experimental. This fest is a great showcase for documentary and experimental work, and I can guarantee that every tape gets watched, because I was part of the pre-screening comittee for 3 years, and I was in charge of it for one of those years. If you submit, your film gets watched by 4 people who not only watch it and score it, but also talk about it afterward. These scores go to the festival director, who makes the final selections.

The Chicago International Film Festival gets way more submissions, but they are also all watched. Since the number of submissions is so much higher, and they are mostly features, there can't be 4 people watching all of them and discussing them afterward, but they are all screened by totally capable people, and once again the programmer and the director have the final say on what gets in, based on the comments of the pre-screeners.

For the Big Muddy Film Festival, which has a very small budget, the submission money really helps the festival run, and cash prizes are split up between winners, based on the judges decisions. The festival makes just enough money from submissions, ticket prices, and Illinois Art's Council grants to keep running every year, and the staff is all voulenteer. Festivals are just plain expensive, but thanks to submission money and everything else, the fest has survived for 26 years.

Chicago International has a much bigger budger (in the millions of dollars), so the submission money is only part of the funding. But keep in mind that they fly filmmakers from all over the world to Chicago, keep them in nice hotels, and entertain them every night. The audience benefits, because they get discussions with the filmmakers afterwards, and the filmmakers benefit, because they get to go to the fest and have fun. The festival has sponsors, which offsets some of the cost, but they also have to pay a huge crew to work the theatres, drive people around, arrange the flights and hotel accomodations, take phone calls in the office, and every other job that needs to get done. This ain't cheap. Therefore, it costs more to submit to the festival, because you know if you get in you are going to be treated to something on a larger scale.

In the end, both festivals need money from submission to keep going. Both festivals are not-for-profit, and both festivals exist to put exciting films in front of a receptive audience. Neither are trying to screw you, and both watch every single submission. Your oddss of getting in The Big Muddy Film Festival are much better than your odds of getting in the Chicago International, but Big Muddy won't bring you to Carbondale or put you up in a hotel if you are accepted. But, Big Muddy offers cash prizes (not much, but money is money) and Chicago doesn't.

I dont think very many fests are out to get people. If you looked behind the scenes, you would see a group of dedicated people who are working for little or no money, who are just excited to be part of a festival, and who hope to make a small profit so that next year's festival can be a little bit better. You just have to enter the fest that's right for your film

[GiGi]

Doode, what happened to the Big Muddy this year? Zero features? Hello from a Carbondalian.

[Lune12]

Originally posted by joeswanberg

I dont think very many fests are out to get people. If you looked behind the scenes, you would see a group of dedicated people who are working for little or no money, who are just excited to be part of a festival, and who hope to make a small profit so that next year's festival can be a little bit better. You just have to enter the fest that's right for your film

I agree... indie filmmakers and festival programmers are dedicated alike to building an audience for films of all kinds, types, genres, natures. It's a bit too easy to forget that when applying to what seems like dozens of festivals. But thanks Hampster & joeswanberg for putting a thoughtful, friendly, film-lovin' face to the application process.

Gotta go. Glad to have had a forum to go over these things... hear both sides... vent... moan... bitch .... cha cha cha and what not....

[Lune12]

For the record .. the Ann Arbor film Fest got back with me. They definately watched the film. I think my tab system was foiled by static electricity. Of course you could put a tiny sliver of tape over the front flap on the cassette. When the vcr plays the casette, it flips the flap up... and that breaks the tape. But it's prob not a good idea to put foreign objects in a vcr... just a thought.

[Whitegrl]

Or you can just cue the tape about 5-10 secs. from the beginning (I write a note saying the tape is cued) which is what I do as my film starts in black which confuses a surprisingly large amount of people. If you get the tape back and it's still cued to that space, then they probably didn't watch. I must say though that everyone of my tapes has been watched by the fests I have entered. Good luck.

[joeswanberg]

GiGi, this is the first year that I didn't work the Big Muddy (I graduated last year), but I am positive that they showed as many features this year as they have in the past. You can look at the scedule online http://www.bigmuddyfilm.com

They showed retrospective screenings of "Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory" and "The Wizzard of Oz," as well as, "Nine Queens," "The Day I Became A Woman," "Rivers and Tides," "Manufacturing Consent," "East of Eden," and "My Architect," along with some other documentary features and all the shorts that they played.

You in film school there? I loved that school.

[sonnyboo]

Originally posted by Lune12
For the record .. the Ann Arbor film Fest got back with me.

Was it becuase of this thread & forum?

That would go a long way to proving the power of this board.

[GiGi]

Hey Joe,

I went to school there, wouldnt it be funny if we knew each other? Or I bet you know some of the people I knew. :)
The festival was pretty sad this year. Retrospectives don't count! ;)

I saw 2 documentaries that were under feature length but longer than the shorts. What am I missing?

[joeswanberg]

GiGi, like I said, you must have missed "Nine Queens," "The Day I Became A Woman," "Rivers and Tides," "Manufacturing Consent," "East of Eden," and "My Architect," which were all feature and which all played as part of the Big Muddy Film Festival this year. "My Architect" was even up for an Oscar this year.

Big Muddy is a weird festival, which really only focuses on documentary and experimental. Very well made narratives definitely get in, but they are not the focus. I really loved working for the festival, and I hope my own films play there someday.

I bet we do have friends in common in Carbondale, and maybe we even know each other. Send me an email at joe at filmbrats dot com and we can clear it up once and for all : )

[GiGi]

Ok, who was your 356 teacher and when were you in that class! LOL

Doode, on the schedule I have, swear to GOD no features are listed. Only shorts and 2 semi close to feature documentaries. I even grumbled earlier about it this year somewhere on this board! And you know what? It could be a very awesome fest with some more funds and elbow grease.

Did you ever accidently call Mr. Cocking/Mr. Cockring? LOL

Message me!

[anniegirl]

A festival took the time to watch my film in focus. I submitted to the Carolina Film and Video Festival, which is in my hometown of Greensboro, North Carolina. I understand that they got a Whopping 200 submissions. OOOH, but when I got the evaluations back, they all indicated the film was out of focus. My film had many other things that could be criticized, but it was NOT out of focus. Let me repeat. It was NOT out of focus. And they are the first ones to ever say same. I had a top-notch cinematographer. My father was press photographer. I had a bad-ass professor looking at it who never said it was out of focus. The only thing I can imagine is that it was projected out of focus. Oddly enough, the same reviewers praised the cinematography. I don't think any cinematographer would accept an award if his/her film was out of focus.

My point, finally. My fear is less that my film is not being screenedsd than that it is being screened by people who don't know what the hell they're doing.

[Harry323]

I was asked to be a screener to select films for the Silverlake Film festival here in LA because I had a film accepted there the previous year. I was told that I would be helping other independents. So I looked at (in their entirity) about 25 films, both features and shorts mixed.

When I later went to the festival offices to collect the freebie tickets I had been awarded for this good deed I noticed a couple of familiar looking boxes sitting in a corner. I took a look. Yep. There were the films I had been asked to screen. And there, also was the sealed and unopened envelope containing the questionaires I had so carefully filled out.

Now let's work that out. 25 films at, say, about $30 each average? = $750. And that doesn't include several evenings of my time viewing them.

I would advise against trying for Silverlake.

[filmish]

Speaking from the other side of the fence, and as someone who has programmed at a number of Festivals over the course of many years, I can tell you that your complaint is bogus. None of the four festivals I've worked with has ever NOT watched a single entry submitted to them; programmers have a lot more sense of responsibility (not to mention conscience) and kinship with filmmakers to pull that shit.

That said, as someone who programs for a living, I'm not going to feel obligated to watch an hour and a half of shitty filmmaking if it's obvious within the first 20 minutes or so that the directing, writing, camerawork, acting and editing (or any combination of those elements) is just plain awful.

I can tell you that out of the hundreds of feature films that get submitted to most festivals, the vast majority of those submissions are NOT GOOD FILMMAKING. I'm constantly astonished at the money and resources that are squandered on making awful films, and wonder in many cases what made the filmmaker involved ever think that they had the talent or capabilities to make a film that would actually interest anyone in playing it.

Bad writing, direction and/or acting are the most typical causes for rejecting a film; an experimental format, rough camerawork and obvious budget limitations have never gotten in the way of my booking a film for a festival, if the filmmaker has clear or original talent and the writing/storyline is compelling or successful.

So before you turn your hurt feelings on "those festivals" that rejected your work and assume that noone on the programming team ever bothered to watch it, please consider the possibility that maybe the film just really was not good.

Granted, the form letter response from festivals is not pleasant, but if you were a programmer, you'd realize that most reputable film festivals today get hit with upwards of 500 to 1,000 submissions, you'd realize that the mere time it takes to respond to each submission personally with a critique of their movie is an impossible task -- especially given that typically, the vast majority of the entries come in less than 2-3 months before the event, making watching all the films a daunting enough task in and of itself. Can you imagine the time it takes to personalize 1,300 responses to filmmakers who submitted their films? And what a soul-crushing job it is just to reject all of those entries personally, which by it's nature invites many the rejected filmmakers to respond to you, demanding more details of why you didn't like the film? I've been there; believe me, it happens. Imagine the time involved.

Or how about the reverse scam: all of the filmmakers who contact you asking you to waive the fees, ignoring the fact that the Festival has to deal with all of the cataloguing, paperwork, storage and administration of managing that number of entries, not to mention paying the programmers who suffer through the 90% of submitted films which are NOT GOOD? Why the fuck should you be allowed to submit for free when the vast majority of submitting filmmakers DO pay a submission fee? You think you're any poorer than anyone else involved? If so, how did you get the money to make the damn film in the first place?

So enough kvetching from disgruntled bad filmmakers who can't handle rejection by a festival. No doubt some festivals are unethical, or run by assholes who take the money and run. But I can assure you that the vast majority couldn't get through the work involved without a submission fee being paid, and if nothing else, it weeds out the idiots who would just as soon send you ten pieces of homemade video shit on the chance one of them will be booked as send you one that might actually stand a chance of being selected.

[GiGi]

C'mon man, it's just us. How do you REALLY feel?:D


A point of order, Doode, I have read places that some festivals will wave the entry fee if you ask. I have read that in more than one place! OOPS. Now, I won't ask. :)

[Mark Bell]

Originally posted by GiGi
A point of order, Doode, I have read places that some festivals will wave the entry fee if you ask. I have read that in more than one place! OOPS. Now, I won't ask. :) You can ask, some festivals will waive the entry fee, just don't be pissed if they don't waive it, and be respectful. If a festival can afford to waive a fee, they might. But most fests have the fees for a reason, and since most filmmakers have the same excuse when they need a fee waived, it's pretty much a "if I do it for you I have to do it for everybody" situation that most festivals just cannot afford to get into.

[GiGi]

Totally. I think people too often forget their manners in anything. If I was running a fest and someone was an asshole to me over something, Id either not give the film a second thought or it would find its way to a trashcan. hehe

[Whitegrl]

Quote:

"So before you turn your hurt feelings on "those festivals" that rejected your work and assume that noone on the programming team ever bothered to watch it, please consider the possibility that maybe the film just really was not good."

I think someone needs a new job. My heart bleeds for you that you get paid to watch movies...Yeah, there is a lot of crap out there. Sometimes I think my cats are the only ones who haven't written a screenplay but geez, do filmmakers have to get blamed for everything? Programming is an art and not everything fits with a particular festival. I think most of us understand that. If people don't understand that, they need to. It's very hard not to take rejection personally (I struggle with it daily) but you have to learn that not everyone will love what you are doing 100% of the time. That's part of being an artist. But I digress. For someone to say that everything that doesn't get into festivals is shytte is overly simplistic and destructive. I mean, we should all just give up already, right? Although I believe most fests have watched my film and it just wasn't their proverbial cup of tea, I have also had such illiterate feed back from fests (well, one in particular) that I had to wonder what movie they were watching and if the person grading two years of my work had finished eighth grade considering their spelling and sentence construction. I have also sent films in on the deadline and the fest announces the line up the day after that said deadline...Gee, I bet they watched my film...All filmmakers are asking is to be treated justly and fairly. If you are all so tired of watching our "homemade video shit" go work for the DMV or a bank.

[Mark Bell]

Originally posted by Whitegrl
My heart bleeds for you that you get paid to watch movies...Yeah, there is a lot of crap out there.Wait, you mean to tell me that there are festivals that PAY their programmers? What the Hell have I been doing?

In defense of filmish's statement quoted above, I think the main point was that many filmmakers (particularly the ones who will call you and curse you out on the phone OR make a public spectacle when their film does not get in) usually forget that their film has to be good, and, honestly, a majority of the films that get submitted to festivals are not good. I'm a filmmaker, and I know what goes into making a film, I know the passion that drives any film through to completion. I know how personal the whole experience is to begin with, and how much more intense it can get. For those reasons I understand and sympathize with any filmmaker who makes a film because it ain't easy. But as the years have gone on, I have noticed that just being a passionate filmmaker with a dream does not make one a good filmmaker, and that broke my heart, because, seriously, every film that gets submitted had a passionate voice behind it. And out of 3,000 submissions, maybe 150 are actually really good. Does that mean the other 2,850 filmmakers didn't work as hard? No, not at all. But working hard and having a dream, sadly, does not necessarily equate to making a qualty film, and that's a hard life lesson to swallow.
For someone to say that everything that doesn't get into festivals is shytte is overly simplistic and destructive.I agree. Just from the other perspective, though, we folks who have worked behind the scenes at film festivals always hear about how we're charging exorbitant entry fees for no reason, and, from the irate filmmakers, how we couldn't possibly have watched their film and still rejected it. I think both sides are guilty of getting overly simplistic and destructive. For me, personally, a majority of the submitted films aren't good but that doesn't mean that every one of them deserves to be burned. I still maintain that personal taste is involved, and even if I judged on a soley technical merit, a film can be technically sound and still tell an awful story so... it depends on the fest, it depends on the programmers, but if your film is repeatedly rejected from festival after festival I don't think it is too much to expect the filmmaker to take an honest look at their own film to see if it could possibly warrant such continued rejection.
All filmmakers are asking is to be treated justly and fairly.And that is exactly how a filmmaker should be treated. In my experience, a majority of the festivals take the time to do that. Some don't, but they are a minority. Do your research, ask other filmmakers, and find out what fests are worth submitting to. That should lessen the amount of shitty festival experiences that could occur.
If you are all so tired of watching our "homemade video shit" go work for the DMV or a bank. The only problem with this statement is that someone could turn around and say "if you're so sick of submitting to festivals why don't you give up already". Angry responses to whiny sentiments, both, you know, when really without the programmers, filmmakers don't get their films in the festival and without the filmmakers, programmers got nothing to show. Two groups of people working for each others mutual benefit, trying the best they can. I just know that half the time a filmmaker goes off on a tirade against festivals, they usually don't have any clue how a festival is really run and when a festival programmer goes off on a filmmaker, they usually have no clue what it takes to make a film. I think this thread has come a long way towards educating both sides. In the end, a filmmaker wants to make a good film that gets seen, and a festival wants to show a good film. Same goals.

[Lune12]

wow this thread live on... ok I've had a chance to step away from the controversy for a bit. In these situations I find it's best to separate the emotion from the facts. Here's where we seem to be at ....

*Filmmakers have poured a lot of $$, time, heart & soul into their films.

*Festival staff pour a lot of $$, time, heart & soul into organizing their fests.

* We all love film and are seeking to make a living in film.

*Indie directors/producer make bad movies (maybe 1-4 really good ones a year)

*Hollywood makes the same ratio of bad movies. (about 1 - 4 really good ones a year)

*Good festivals watch EVERY entry cause the $40-$60 fee is paying the fests' overhead. (PERSONAL OPINION: this practice is why so many filmmakers feel entitled. Attention Festival Flks: you may want to re-think this practice and start making sponsorships and ticket sales cover your costs.)

*There are bad film festivals that cash the check and dump the casettes in the garbage. (tsk tsk shame on you.)

*Where does all the $$ for high-budget, lame films come from? I WANT TO KNOW!!!! Let me re-phase that, "Who do I need to talk to?" The Canadian Film Board? (I've been to Toronto one too many times...)

That's my take. Also whitgrl makes more and more sense as this thread continues. Hampster--you go mr. rodent impressively holding your own for the festival camp. And thanks Gigi for playing the role of the diplomat.

[indiefilmpage]

Sorry to hear about your experience. At my Coney Island Film Festival I can assure you that we watch every entry that comes in. I couldn't even imagine not doing that. I take a complete hands on approach to every aspect of the festival. For me it's a labor of love. It certainly isn't profitable and any profit that comes in goes to the non profit arts organization Coney Island USA.

I've read most of this thread and there's a lot of great input. I don't have a lot to add to the thread but if there's a festival director out there who can direct me to companies that actually want to sponsor with cash please let me know. Barter seems to be the order of the day with a festival popping up every day.

Rob Leddy
Festival Director
Coney Island Film Festival

Originally posted by Lune12
Is this the film festivals dirty little secret...get thousands of indie filmmakers to pay $40+ to submit a film...review maybe 10% of the screeners ... then send a mass email thanking everyone for their contribution & better luck next time.

[Lune12]

So true...we're all in it for the same reasons. And Rob's fest only charges a very fair and reasonable $25 to sumbit. Apreciate that, and that carnival midway decadance that is Coney Island...

[indiefilmpage]

Originally posted by Lune12
So true...we're all in it for the same reasons. And Rob's fest only charges a very fair and reasonable $25 to sumbit. Apreciate that, and that carnival midway decadance that is Coney Island...

only $20 if you get it in early!

[Lune12]

Update. I'm actually having luck directly contacting distribution companies and sending a screener copy. No fees to pay and only interested acquisition types have responded anyway. Alls you need are the names, emails and tel # ...which you can find if you know the "secret sauce" :)

So for now I'm going to skip the time & expense of this cottage industry known as "film festivals" and go straight to the source.

Will let you know how it works out.

[Lune12]

by the way ... I just got an email from IFP/NY saying how great it is to apply (for $40) to their market in September. But it costs $200 if you get accepted ....

[GiGi]

Lune! You are still on your conquest...hehe. You will make it, chiquita. Keep at it! I think your idea to try out distribution companies is cool :)

[Whitegrl]

Interestingly enough, I just got some "feedback" from a fest and it was so obvious that they had only watched the first 5 min. of my film...They really should cover their behinds better especially when you have a surprise ending. And I thought all people were good at heart...oh well.

[Lune12]

So sorry to hear that Whtgrl. That is such a rip off. Any fest charging more than $15 for entries should watch the whole piece AND return the vhs. I held back from mentioning that but I definately think it's b.s. for festivals to whine and discourage filmmakers from requesting their tapes back--even when a SASE is provided at the filmmakers expense. Once again were back to the same question...

WHY DOES a fest need to charge anything over $10 to recieve submissions?

As much as I'd love to, I am personally not in a position to make a donation to film festivals. It's called TICKET SALES folks. If you can 't program a fest to bring a substantial audience to the theatre then you are ripping filmmakers off w/ entrance fee gauging. IFP of course does nothing to address this issue because they do the exact same thing w/ their $40 application fee.

[Mark Bell]

Originally posted by Lune12
WHY DOES a fest need to charge anything over $10 to recieve submissions?This thread has touched on this question many, many times with many, many answers. Obviously, they're not good enough for you, but this is overkill already...

As much as I'd love to, I am personally not in a position to make a donation to film festivals. It's called TICKET SALES folks. If you can 't program a fest to bring a substantial audience to the theatre then you are ripping filmmakers off w/ entrance fee gauging. Having your film seen by an audience is not good enough, obviously. Go rent a theater, do all the promotion yourself, get an audience to show, and tell me if it cost you more than $10. Chances are even the more high-minded entry fees are cheaper than doing the above.

In the end, why are you STILL griping about all this? Stop submitting already if this is so obnoxious to you.

[Lune12]

hmmmm... why are you still reading the thread if you're tired of the debate? I was just responding to Whitegrrls post, saying she thought it was a raw deal that her film wasn't watched by the fest.

Hampster you're a part of the film fest cottage industry so this whole discussion is prob no big deal to you. (btw did you notice that this category/thread "festival madness" was moved near the bottom of the message boards when it started gathering hundreds (now thousands!) of views....)

The facts are that this topic has touched a nerve. I have no idea if you've ever made a film, submitted a film to a fest or what not...but I think there are more scam festivals than legit ones--IFP included. That organization does nothing for me as an inde filmmaker except ask me for membership dues.

My gut feeling is that 90% of the programming slots for the legit fests have already been taken before the call for entries goes out to the public. I know people who have been invited and scheduled to fests more than half a year before it's promoted. The not so suprising revelation is that you have to KNOW SOMEONE PERSONALLY to get in the fest. Submitting with the hundreds and thousands of other mooks who've gladly written a check for $40 is not going to work. Better off spending the $$ on a vacation to vegas.

[Mark Bell]

Originally posted by Lune12
hmmmm... why are you still reading the thread if you're tired of the debate?Because for a while there the debate WAS finished and I like to see what's been going on.
Hampster you're a part of the film fest cottage industry so this whole discussion is prob no big deal to you.I WAS a part of the film fest side of things, but I'm not anymore, being neither a paid employee or volunteer for any film festival since I separated with Slamdance in January.
(btw did you notice that this category/thread "festival madness" was moved near the bottom of the message boards when it started gathering hundreds (now thousands!) of views....)Eric is re-configuring a lot of things in the Back Talk sections, adding new regions and such, and in his shuffling this got kicked to the bottom as, really, the film festival section wasn't as popular as the other sections overall (save for this particular thread).
The facts are that this topic has touched a nerve. I have no idea if you've ever made a film, submitted a film to a fest or what not...but I think there are more scam festivals than legit ones--IFP included.I have directed my own feature, a number of shorts, and I've worked on many other films in various capacities (most recently pulling post production supervisor duties on two films that are currently enjoying their festival runs). A short I co-directed is playing the Maryland Film Festival this weekend as well. Beyond my experiences as a filmmaker, I also have experience as a film festivaler (both audience and staff) and I still disagree that a majority of film festivals are scams. You've had bad experiences, I've had good experiences, I don't know what to tell you. For me, the film festival system works, and I'm sure the directors of Super-Size Me and Napoleon Dynamite (whose Jared Hess had his short Peluca screen at Slamdance the year before his feature version, ND, screened Sundance and sold), for example, woukld agree.
That organization does nothing for me as an inde filmmaker except ask me for membership dues.They offer many resources, classes, and reduced rates for several services but, if you're not taking advantage of that, then I can see how they can be seen as being useless. I don't think the organization is disreputable, and I'd love to read the e-mail they sent you about the $40 fee followed by the $200 fee, because I'm curious as to what that's all about. That's more of a New York International Independent Film & Video Festival thing (and they ARE a scam), but I don't know because I'm taking your filtered explanation and, if I remember correctly, this whole thread was started because you submitted a film to Ann Arbor and had proof that they didn't watch it, only to find out later that they had watched it and that you were wrong. Could you possibly be mis-interpreting what was sent to you? Post the e-mail here so we ALL can experience and learn from it.
My gut feeling is that 90% of the programming slots for the legit fests have already been taken before the call for entries goes out to the public. I know people who have been invited and scheduled to fests more than half a year before it's promoted. The not so suprising revelation is that you have to KNOW SOMEONE PERSONALLY to get in the fest.No, no no no no. Are there pre-selected films for some legitimate fests? Yes. Many European fests have film curators going around selecting films from other festivals, but those films were usually prospects of open submission, just to another festival (it all starts somewhere). Will knowing someone on the festival staff help you get in? No, it'll make sure your film gets seen immediately, but if your film sucks...

It's like anything with the film industry, knowing someone will get your foot in the door, but then you have to keep yourself in, either with talent or skill. Knowing someone at a film festival will get your film flagged for programmer review sooner rather than later, but then it is judged like all the rest. Most programmers I've worked with actually despise films that get in front of them that way, and in many cases, it hinders their viewing of the film. They tend to err more towards over-negative then over-positive.
Submitting with the hundreds and thousands of other mooks who've gladly written a check for $40 is not going to work. Better off spending the $$ on a vacation to vegas. If that is truly how you feel then please, take your own advice, because before I understood your motivation (anger out of submitting a film that wasn't reviewed (though that turned out to be wrong), wanting to know why this happened, angry with the film festival system) but now I just see it as you coming back and repeating yourself for no reason. You have many negative personal truisms about getting accepted into film festivals (like "have to KNOW SOMEONE PERSONALLY" and "Submitting with the hundreds and thousands of other mooks who've gladly written a check for $40 is not going to work.") that you share with us, but if they're so right, so dead-on accurate, how come you're not playing more festivals? Why aren't you taking advantage of these theories of yours? What is the REAL problem here? The festivals... or your film?

Let's hear about your film already. What's it about? What format, how long, genre, etc? What fests has it played, when was it filmed? I'm curious, and it'll allow this thread to look at a different aspect for a change.

[Lune12]

As it happens I've been having some luck side-stepping the fests all together. It is possible, if you do your research, to contact acquisition folks directly via e-mail and phone. Even WMA. I started taking my own advice and doing just that. For far, I've had two requests for screeners... I chatted briefly with on acqui. director and to an agent's assistant at WMA. Not bad. Hasn't cost me more than postage and the phone call so far.

At the end of the day, I don't just want a screening--I want to sell the rights to a distributor. It's hard to believe that there are many acquisition execs. going to the Akron Intl. Film Festival or whatever. Or the Ann Arbor Film Festival. And the major fests seem to alrerady have their picks. That's all I'm saying.

So here's the link to my docu web site. Since October 2003 (with no promotion)more than 4000+ visitors have opted-in w/thier emails to recieve notice about screenings/showtimes. That kind of response that tells me there's a gap between what programming directors program...and what audiences want. Maybe that's why ticket sales don't support film fests. That's all I'm saying.

www.brosgrimsideshow.com/movie.html There's a trailer online.

And I hope you're not taking this thread so personally. It really is just a discussion, vent place for indies who have started to question the whole film festival cottage industry. That's all.

[Mark Bell]

Originally posted by Lune12
At the end of the day, I don't just want a screening--I want to sell the rights to a distributor. It's hard to believe that there are many acquisition execs. going to the Akron Intl. Film Festival or whatever. Or the Ann Arbor Film Festival. And the major fests seem to alrerady have their picks. That's all I'm saying.See, that's festival planning on your part to 1) know exactly what you want to get out of the festival circuit and 2) know which fests may or may not help you achieve those ends. That's smart, and I agree with any reluctance you might have personally towards submitting to a festival you don't feel will bring in a distributor for you. I still think it's defeatist to assume the major festivals already have most of their slots selected, though, because they're going to be the fests that'll be most helpful towards helping with acquistion, so don't give up on them.

And it's important, I feel, to point out something that I haven't mentioned yet, and nobody else has brought up, which is the film festival circuit as a community. Any given year a slew of filmmakers tour the world attending film festivals, and the festival circuit becomes not only a place to exhibit, and hopefully sell, your film, but a huge networking possibility. The big secret is that most films don't sell AT festivals, but months later, when the filmmakers contact that acquisitions guy they met during such-and-such fest who seemd interested in their film. Festivals can be so wonderful for networking that I actually advise folks to go to Park City during Sundance even if they didn't get in, because you never know who you're going to meet or what's going to come of it. Likewise, filmmakers on the circuit that become friendly with each other wind up helping each other down the road. Maybe an agent passed on their film but seems right for yours, they'll pass on the info. Film festivals are an invaluable networking opportunity among other things.

Plus, if you still feel that the big fests pre-select their films, you should notice that the films that SEEM pre-selected did play another fest first, usually, and sometimes that's an easy way to get yourself caught into the circuit. Festival founders talk to each other, and when that curator from another fest asks their advice on a film, they offer it. So, maybe Ann Arbor won't have the acquisitions exec there, but maybe the Ann Arbor executive director is in tight with the Toronto director (which wouldn't be odd) and, when asked by the Toronto folks what films they thought were good, might offer up a recommendation or two of your film, which'll have Toronto looking at it, which could lead to a major festival screening followed by a distribution deal. It not only could happen, it does happen. You never know which festival you pass over as being useless could actually be helpful... if you get in. At the end of the day, you still have to get in somewhere... unless you skip the fests altogether, which seems to be working for you, so keep at it.
That kind of response that tells me there's a gap between what programming directors program...and what audiences want. Maybe that's why ticket sales don't support film fests. That's all I'm saying.See, this is the kind of thing I'd be more interested in exploring. Are festival programmers giving festival audiences what they want? What is the criteria for a festival film? I think the questions are important to ask, but I think the fact that 4,000 folks are interested in your film isn't an indication of any one festival failing in its programming duties, if those 4,000 people are split up amongst the whole world. I mean, if 30 people in NYC want to see your film, and only 2 in Ann Arbor want to see the film, then I wouldn't get upset at the Ann Arbor programming group, you know what I mean?

I think the broader question about festivals is this: are the festivals there to support the filmmakers, or the audience? If a festival were to pass on a number of great films in order to satisfy an audience demographic (those festivals exist, known as genre festivals), would that be okay? Likewise, if a festival ignores audience preferences and just programs great films (as many try to do), is that okay? I'd prefer festivals being supportive of the filmmakers, because we have studios and Hollywood to think about mass-marketed entertainment for a fickle audience. Then again, there are so many festivals now, and so many opportunities for both the filmmakers and the audience to find what they want, that I think it eventually all evens out. I think just as a filmmaker needs to select the festival that is right for their film, so too does an audience need to find a festival that is right for their tastes, if their tastes are too specific.
And I hope you're not taking this thread so personally. It really is just a discussion, vent place for indies who have started to question the whole film festival cottage industry. That's all. I'm not taking it personally, I just tend to get annoyed when the same questions get asked again and again without bringing anything new to the discussion. This post by you brought some new angles, so it's interesting to explore and think about. But to keep bringing up the question about submission fees when it's been answered so many times... I don't understand the motivation...

[Lune12]

Ok ok for Hampster....

So isn't it interesting that the new Mary Kate & Ashley movie has its world premier at the Tribeca Film Festival. Need I say more?

[Whitegrl]

And Ashton Kutcher (sp?) triumphed at Sundance...so tired...

Good for you Lune...I am happy for you. Keep going... And don't do IFP...too many needy people and no one's buying. "Clerks" was the exception not the rule.

[Mark Bell]

Originally posted by Lune12
So isn't it interesting that the new Mary Kate & Ashley movie has its world premier at the Tribeca Film Festival. Need I say more? Yes, you do need to say more: Is it in competition, or a special screening? I'm trying to figure out, if it's not in competition, how the new Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen movie could've stopped some filmmaker from getting in, especially if it was a special screening, and thus be worth griping about? Festivals have special screenings all the time, but most in-competition films come from submissions or curator's selections. Tribeca generally shows around 250 films, 65 of which are in competition. So, if we count the Mary Kate movie, there were 249 open slots available... DAMN YOU TRIBECA!!!

Whitegrl: Ashton hardly triumphed at Sundance. The film was savaged by critics during the fest, as was the fest for playing it. But once again, quoting numbers, Sundance shows about 200 films so... ignore The Butterfly Effect, there's still 199 open slots at one of the most prestigious film festivals in the world...

[Lune12]

Originally posted by Hamster69
... ignore The Butterfly Effect, there's still 199 open slots at one of the most prestigious film festivals in the world...


come on Hampster ... I find it hard to believe that you can support the Mary Kate & Ashley movie at Tribeca. (Then again maybe you have a fetish of some kind??) So geeze I'm sure glad I paid $40 to submit to Tribeca...to support all those shi shi artsy, challenging "cant find em anywhere else" kinds of films.

Seriously I just know hampster you're a smart enough guy to dig the irony in that. You won't poof and dissapear if you admit the Tribeca thing is wacked.
;)

[Mark Bell]

Originally posted by Lune12
come on Hampster ... I find it hard to believe that you can support the Mary Kate & Ashley movie at Tribeca. (Then again maybe you have a fetish of some kind??)I'm not supporting it so much as saying that it doesn't prove your argument about 90% of the films in major festivals being pre-selected, because it's 1 out of 250, and it also doesn't prove, being one film, that it's not worth it to submit to Tribeca.
So geeze I'm sure glad I paid $40 to submit to Tribeca...to support all those shi shi artsy, challenging "cant find em anywhere else" kinds of films.My personal feeling on Tribeca, in all honesty, is that it was started with noble enough intentions but has grown too big too fast (it was started in 2002), and has been, of late, playing itself with a modicum of snobbery behind-the-scenes. In other words, this Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen thing could be the start of something worse, or it could be an aberration because the movie is set in New York and, as we know, Tribeca is all about celebrating New York and the films that film there (which is really why it was created, indie-wood/Hollywood politics be damned). The inaugural Tribeca fest did premiere Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones, About A Boy, Insomnia, and Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood, so mainstream is not out of character.

However, Tribeca is a festival powerhouse right now, no two ways about it, and it only helps your film's chances of distribution if you play the festival because it's not only got massive media exposure, but it also allows your film to screen in a high-end theater at a major event in one of the most well-known cities in all the world, NYC. I think the benefit of submitting to Tribeca and getting accepted is worth the $40, even if they flex their celebrity and throw a studio movie or two into the mix, so my opinion doesn't change in that regard. I'm disappointed in some of the selections, yes, but I still feel that unknown voices are getting wonderful exposure at the event, even if the programming is starting to err more towards the mainstream (though competition is still primarily indie).

A major festival is a major festival, and the benefits usually far outweigh the submission price if you get accepted. If you drop $40 and get into Tribeca and then get a distribution deal, it was more than worth the $40. I think the possibility is worth the entry fee, and if people feel differently then they should not submit.
Seriously I just know hampster you're a smart enough guy to dig the irony in that. You won't poof and dissapear if you admit the Tribeca thing is wacked. ;) I have my own personal reservations about Tribeca, as mentioned above, but I can't throw the baby out with the bathwater because Tribeca is still helping indie filmmakers, and gets more and more capable of offering more as it grows. Despite showing more mainstream films, the festival also, due to the number of films and venues it screens at, shows more indie and international films then it has in the past. It also brings in over 200,000 festival-goers per year, so you know your screening is going to get seen. Its benefits outnumber its transgressions.

All that being said, if I were in NYC, would I see the Mary Kate and Ashley movie? No, not really into that. But it is called New York Minute so... I guess it makes some sense to play in a festival all about New York.

[Whitegrl]

Whitegrl: Ashton hardly triumphed at Sundance. The film was savaged by critics during the fest, as was the fest for playing it. But once again, quoting numbers, Sundance shows about 200 films so... ignore The Butterfly Effect, there's still 199 open slots at one of the most prestigious film festivals in the world...


This is why I live in the city so nice they named it twice - we are not irony-challenged.

[Mark Bell]

Originally posted by Whitegrl
This why I live in the city so nice they named it twice - we are not irony-challenged. Damn, I'm sorry, I totally missed that one. I thought you were offering another example a la the Mary Kate debacle. Re-reading what you wrote... yeah, sorry about that.

[Lune12]

Ok Hampster and everyone else...you do whatever you think will work best for you. I’ve got my own formula—and it’s about a lot more than just trying to get into a film festival.

All I’m saying is that it's been my observation that you need a PERSONAL CONTACT w/ someone at the fest to have consideration for the handful of open slots that are open. The odds of getting into a fest by merely applying and paying (what I consider) exorbitant fees of $40+ are slim to none. All I’m saying is that submitting to a dozen or more fest will probably get you no where. Just one of those facts, that’s all.

[filmguy1]

lune you seem very bitter. i'd like to make a few observations. I'd like to preface with some background. I did some work on the documentary "Sideshow" as well as the follow up "The New Sideshow".

You have made a film that is extremely hard to sell. Sideshows aren't exactly a money making venture. It's an art form that has pretty much died. You state on your website that Bros. Grim is
" the only authentic show of its kind currently in existence". I would think that Ward Hall, John Strong, Jim Rose, Bobby Reynolds, The Bindlestiffs and especially the folks at Coney Island would disagree. Bros. Grim has also gone out of business. That can't help any pitch for it.

I did not find your trailer to be particularly captivating. It's too long and not particularly shot well.

Your rant just rubbed me the wrong way. You're doing a disservice to film festivals by saying it's a dirty little secret and a scam. Most festivals are on the up and up. They wouldn't last more than a year or so if they weren't. Submitting is just part of the game. You can't expect that anything great will happen for you. You should go in with the attitude that it's cool to see your film with an audience and anything else is gravy. Even films that win awards at the big fests often never get sold. Fests don't owe anyone anything. All of us have the ability to submit or not submit.
Most breaks in the biz are just luck anyway.

[Lune12]

Filmguy -- first ... thanks for going to the web site and checking out the trailer. No prob if you don't like the trailer. I think it's quite captivating...so do more than 4000+ subscribers since last October...but as you say sideshows are an underground thing and not for everyone.

But I agree that an actual documentary going inside the world of sideshow performers is a REALLY hard sell. Initially the 3-4 requests from indie distributors like ThinkFILM (who checked out the trailer/web site, thought it was cool and asked for a screener btw...) had me optimistic. But as you know, some of the material is too intense for a mainstream audience.

As for this thread...you prob just scanned through it (I would have too...) but I'll give you the nutshell version. It's about my opinion that

*Most fests (but NOT Coney Island--and anyway I'm happy to contribute to their fest 'cause of my interest in their history and sideshow legacy...) charge exorbitant entrance fees. I have a problem w/indie filmmakers financially supporting the festival costs..not ticket sales or sponsors.

*The bulk of slots are taken anyway by the organizers and their friend's films (it's all in the thread if you read it.)

*I was only one of MANY people who responded to the thread who questioned whether their tape had even been watched.

Disagree w/ me if you like. That's your and my prerogative.

OK...for the sideshows...one last thing

Actually Bros Grim was the only authentic 1920s sideshow--not just the acts (sword swallowing, fire eating etc.) but the costumes, stage, music, museum etc. No dis intended to Jim Rose , Ward Hall, Coney Island, Bindlestiffs etc. AT ALL. I think they have GREAT shows too. (The one thing I've noticed is that all the performers are so competitive w/eachother its kinda nutty...) Anyway, yep it looks like the Bros Grim has disbanded ... but I captured that wickedly weird moment in time last summer on the Jersey Boardwalk.

That's all.

[Paff]

I'm a little late coming to this thread, but felt I had to post. First of all, I too am a film festival programmer (San Diego Asian Film Festival), although it's my first year in the programming department. I think the FF point of view has already been discussed quite well, but I have a couple of things to add.

First of all, on the subject of screener tapes not getting viewed: I can't speak for any FF other than ours, but I can guarantee that that does NOT happen with us. We have volunteer screeners and we hold "screening parties", where we get together for four or more hours at a clip and watch as many submitted entries as possible. We require at least two programmers to be at every one of these meetings, and the programming staff also has to watch the movies they miss on their own time. Again, I don't know what happens at other film festivals, but if you submit a movie to the SDAFF, it WILL get watched, and you can probably discuss it with any of the programming staff if it gets rejected.

Entry fees: Oh, you can bet I hear about that all the time, from filmmakers who request a waiver of entry fees. Now, I can actually empathize with the filmmakers here. Sure, it's "just 25-50 bucks", but multiply that "just 25-50 bucks" times every FF they want to enter, and it becomes a significant chunk of change.

HOWEVER, the one thing that I don't think the filmmakers realize is that holding a film festival is NOT a couple of weeks work. We do not just suddenly get together right before the festival, select the films, run the fest, then say goodbye until next year. Film Festivals are literally a year-round job, all working towards those few days or weeks of the actual festival. Sometimes, you're working on next year's festival even before the current one ends.
And doing this requires office space. That office requires furniture, electricity, phones, computers, the works. And that is but one aspect of the overhead required. There's also that nice glossy program that is handed out to all the patrons. There's the promotion to get people to actually come attend. You know, about the only argument I can see for eliminating submission fees, is that it's such a drop in the bucket compared to all of the other fund-raising we have to do.
There have been some suggestions that a FF can survive on sponsors and ticket sales alone. Do you REALLY want that? Think about it, if FFs were run that way, then the sponsors and attendees would dictate the content. In other words, they'd have to go mainstream, to appeal to the largest audience. I love expermental and challenging films, but I'm usually not in a packed theater to see 'em, if ya know what I mean. When filmmakers are the ones helping pay to keep a FF alive, we can then make a FF that caters to filmmakers as well. Even then, we still need a few "crowd pleasers", because some of those stranger movies, no matter how well they're made, simply appeal to a limited audience. If we're gonna go by ticket sales alone, guess which movies get the axe first?

Finally, about the nepotism. Yes, any film festival will certainly have "friends". Does that dictate content? No, because I've already screened entries for the 2004 SDAFF that some of our "friends" have been involved with, and have zero chance of making the cut. Also, I've seen entries from people we've never heard of, that are shoe-ins for 2004, because they're just that good.

But if you believe that you need to be a "friend" to get your movie screened, here's a novel concept: become a friend! Every film festival needs volunteers. Show up, even if your film is not accepted (and especially if it IS accepted...you'd be surprised how many showings we have where the filmmakers can't make it. If you can do a Q and A, participate in a panel, etc, it certainly can't hurt). Talk to the programmers, get a feel for the FF's "attitude". Maybe you'll see that it's not necessarily quality of the film, but that it simply wouldn't work well in the context of the FF. Show 'em that you don't harbor a grudge over a rejection (even if you do). If you're civil, maybe you can even explain to a programmer how he/she didn't understand your film at all. Like, the poor lighting showed the darkness of the main character's heart, or the terrible acting was meant to distance the film from reality. I dunno. Make up something. But talk to the people. If you get to know the staff, and find out that they're all real assholes, as well as the patrons, would you have even wanted to be included in the first place?

But I think you'll find that most people who put on film festivals truly do love the art of film, and really aren't "just out for a buck", "only helping out their friends", or whatever. Film Festivals are nothing without filmmakers, and unless your name is Spielberg or Bruckheimer, filmmakers need film festivals to have some chance of having their work showcased. The last people that should be fighting one another are FF organizers and filmmakers.

If there are indeed scams out there, by all means point 'em out. Just remember that just because you paid the entry fee and still got rejected does not necessarily indicate a "scam".

[Lune12]

wow cool, your words of wisdom resonate. At the end of the day we are all all film lovers looking for art that is outside the mainstream Cineplex. I appreciate what you contributed to the thread! I have had a change of heart even tho I was the starter of all this...just venting over some temporary frustration on the message boards. (Didn't know it would taken on a life of its own really...) But I like what you say about "be a friend." True that...

[cvallone]

Ok. I have read most of the posts on this site in regards to Film Festivals. I have gone through many of the horrors that you guys have gone through. I have submitted to many of the top festivals only to get a rejection letter.

So this is what I DID! Some festivals will actually return your tapes if you tell them to, of course with additional fees. So I decided along with my rep who agreed to send to IFP Los Angeles film fest and have the tapes returned. So before I sent em out, I played a lil trick and marked my tape in a way to see if they actually watched my film. I get the rejection letter, and my tapes back. First off, 10.00 additional fee was added to have my tapes returned. Meanwhile the postage label only cost a 1.80, so there's another rip. Anyway I got my tapes returned, and my lil trick showed that my tapes were not even put into the VCR, so my film was never watched! There went $72.50!!

I called IFP, and nicely I asked if I could get some feedback as to why my film was rejected. There response "oh no we can't do that, we get so many submissions, it would just be too difficult to repond to everyone." I said " oh really, that's funny, I know you guys never watched my film in the 1st place." "Oh yes we did, yes we did, we would never do that." I said "really? My tapes show they were never put into your VCR, I marked em!" I was immediately put on hold for about 5 min. Girl came back and said, "yes I found the 2 people who reviewed your film and I have your review sheets in front of me." OK LETS HEAR IT! I said. "Oh no we can't do that." WELL WHAT THE HELL LADY!! She went on and on about festival policies, it sounded as if she was reading from a book, very nervous by the way. You know why? CAUSE I CAUGHT THEM!!

And the great thing about paying festivals with credit cards, YOU CAN DISPUTE EM. (of course only the ones that don't watch your films and take your money)

Just gotta stand up for yourself, be firm, AND YOU CAN CATCH EM TOO.

Rock on! I'm out!

Chris V.

my web page WWW.VTVIDEOS.COM See what I am all about

[SkippytheMarine]

I submitted my film for Slamdance this year, and we didn't get in. But a festival programmer did an amazing thing, he submitted us to the Sonoma Valley FF for free. He said he really liked it, and waived all of the fees. As far as the screenings of my film go, we have been in 4 festivals so far this year and we have only submitted to one of them.

So I say Slamdance, Dances with Films, Annapolis Reel Cinema Festival, The Freedom Festival, and the Ocean City Film Festival rules!.

[Paul Kersey]

This is not sour grapes. I know what filmmakers go through to make a movie and get it into a festival. The L.A. Shorts Fest bills itself as the "Worlds largest short film festival." Big red flag right there – its all about submission fees. Screening was a total joke. Crass, vulgar exploitation. The guy's a con man. Watch your back.

[joeswanberg]

I don't think most fests are a scam, and like I said earlier, having sat on a pre-screening committee, most films are really terrible. It's sad but true. I am a filmmaker myself, and I appreciate the work that goes into the films, but the end product is all that matters to an audience, and more often than not, the end product is disappointing.

BUT, I'm actually a big advocate of people posting about bad festival experiences and festivals to watch out for. I think it's a valuable service to others. I am happy to see programmers defending their festivals, and filmmakers exposing those festivals that they feel are crooked in any way.

Of course in the end it's the filmmaker's decision to submit or not, but we should all look out for each other.

I'm not sure I buy this business about marking films though.

[movieman]

Originally posted by Paul Kersey
This is not sour grapes. I know what filmmakers go through to make a movie and get it into a festival. The L.A. Shorts Fest bills itself as the "Worlds largest short film festival." Big red flag right there – its all about submission fees. Screening was a total joke. Crass, vulgar exploitation. The guy's a con man. Watch your back.

I've heard good and bad. The have Acadmey accredidation too, which only 40 fests have. Tell me more. My film is in it. I'm wondering if I should go to LA or not. Thanks

[Ian Gamazon]

I'm sorry to tell you folks who are bashing on film festivals but i applied at the south by southwest film festival and the los angeles film festival and my feature film was selected without any contacts whatsoever. nothing. Believe me when i tell you this. All i did was send the videotape in and a few weeks later the festival programmer at sxsw called and accepted the film. a few weeks later after that laff called and accepted the film. There is no conspiracy. Your film has to stand out from the rest. That's all. If you don't believe me look up Freud's 2nd Law at the IMDB website. Turn in your film to festivals and hope for the best. Hope you made an interesting film.

Although Freud's 2nd Law didn't get a distribution deal we are still trying. Here's our website www.cavitemovie.com (http://www.cavitemovie.com). This is actually our fourth film and if you love filmmaking then nothing can stop you from continuing on. Read our Production Notes and you'll know what we're all about.

[joeswanberg]

Good for you, Ian. But your film getting into festivals does not disprove that it helps to know someone, and the playing field is not level.

If everything that got submitted was rejected, people would catch on very quickly. Your film was obviously better than most, and it got in. I agree with you that if the film is good, it will get in. Festivals want good films. That's the bottom line.

But it still helps to know someone. It doesn't guarantee anything, but it helps.

[JeffRoss]

We watch every tape that comes in at the SF IndieFest. We get maybe 700 entries, about 2/3 shorts, and have a committee that makes sure every tape is watched. You have no idea how difficult a challenge it is to program a good festival. and no, its not about how many "names" you in the film. We've passed up tons of films with recognizable names becuase the films were crap.

also, before i started the SF IndieFest i worked at the SF International Festival. They have admited in print (in gore's book actually) that they program very few unsolicted entries. but I can tell you for a fact that someone over there watches every single tape that is sent in to them.

there may be some festivals that dont, i dont know, but it seems unlikely. i mean, that unwatched tape could be fucking brilliant and really make your fest stand out this year for all you know. so, we watch everything.

regarding fees, well, every festival is organized differently. we are a very grass roots fest, no big corporate sponsors (except the ppl who donate booze, ya goota have booze, not very festive without it). we get by on a small local grant and ticket sales and yes entry fees. which are low: $20-30. We couldnt put on this fest without the grant, or without the entry fees, which i personally Hate charging, but cant see how to do it otherwise. all four of us that put on this thing earn small stipends, not salaries and all of us have other jobs to survive (much like the makers who submit to us no doubt).

[Seventh_Samurai]

Ian, great website. Your project looks very promising. Hopefully one day I'll get to see it!

[Lune12]

wow--this thread is still around months later... I stopped submitting to fests back in June and have been pitching directly to broadcast and film company aqui directors with luck. Two interested parties for broadcast rights (...both would be something like at 2am on a channel in the 600s but what the hey). So I'm prob taking the best one (duh) since I didn't spend much $$ on this project (relatively speaking, that is...) and I might even break even with some change and throw another bullet on my resume that reads "producer/director." Kinda excited about that actually.

So that's the end of my story...let the thread live on for those who need it to exchange info about film fests, which ones were legit and decent and all that.

:)

[Lune12]

Just got word that "Bros Grim" has been selected to screen at the Coney Island Film Fest. the weekend of Oct. 2 & 3...very excited (!) I can't imagine a better place to screen the doc about an eccentric circus collector and his 1920s sideshow on the Jersery Boardwalk. Come visit when you can...

www.brosgrimsideshow.com (http://www.brosgrimsideshow.com)

[Seventh_Samurai]

Has anyone on here made it into a major film festival (other than Ian)?

Sundance? Cannes? Toronto? If so, did you do anything different to get in other than submitting your film?

[Todfilm]

Okay, here is my opinion as someone who has a. worked for film festivals, b. had my film play in festivals, and c. worked in acquisitions for a distributor:

Do your homework! Before you send your tape off to every festival in the known world, do research! Does the festival screen films similar to yours? I wouldn't hesitate to contact the programmer or programmers via email or telephone (hopefully long before the deadline) and ask them if your film is something they would be interested in seeing. And if you are strapped for cash, ask if they will waive the submission fee. You may be surprised! But don't be offended if they say your film doesn't sound like it is right for the festival. Most likely they will say to go ahead and send it anyway even if it doesn't sound like a good fit. But don't be surprised when they pass on it. But when you talk to the programmer, be really nice and tell them the title of your film, so when it comes in, they'll keep an eye out for it and will be more likely to look at it right away.

I think the important thing is to talk to the programmers and found out what kind of stuff they are looking for. However, I think it sucks that festivals don't give filmmakers any kind of feedback on their films. I think festivals should give you something to work with, so that if your film lacks a good story or has poor production values, you can go and work on it so your next film will be better. Without feedback, it is hard to grow as a filmmaker. However, all you filmmakers out there need to be more receptive to feedback. I've had filmmakers insist that their film is better than whatever $100 million movie is out in the theaters. Well, unless you spent millions of dollars on your film, you shouldn't even compare it. It's like comparing apples and oranges.

Lastly, the thing that pisses me off as a filmmaker is going to a festival and seeing bad films. That upsets me as a filmmaker. It makes me think of the filmmaker out there whose film is good and entertaining that lost its spot in the festival to some artsy piece of crap that nobody likes.

[kidboston]

Well, I've been reading alot of the posts on this thread and just wanted to let everyone know about a festival that I am the Program Director for. It is called the Independent Film Festival of Boston (http://www.iffboston.org) and our call for entries has just started. We have discounted entry fees for a little while. I guarantee we watch each and every entry and accept our films solely based what we think are good, quality films. No one gets their film into our festival because they're a friend. I work in film for a living and each year I have to reject dozens of friends films. And I also have experience on the other side of things, submitting a film I made to festivals, so I understand about the costs of submitting to multiple fests and the dissapointment of rejections.

A little about the fest:

- named "the premier festival in Boston" by Chris Gore's Ultimate Film Festival Survival Guide (3rd Edition)

- had 15,000 in attendance in 2004 with 37 sold-out shows

- we provide luxury hotel rooms to all accepted filmmakers

- we provide free flights to as many accepted filmmakers as possible

- we have nightly parties with open bar and an awards ceremony where Grand Jury and Special Jury prizes are handed out. Audience Awards are announced after the festival.

- we have Q&A's after both shorts and features and also hold a number of panel discussions

- we have very accomplished film industry professionals on our prize juries who decide the award winners (see the website)

- we are still a young festival so each year we are expanding to new venues and increasing the number of accepted films. We will not program over 100 films at our festival, because quite frankly, that would significantly lower the overall quality of what we are showing. We have very high standards for what we screen and don't want to just pack the program with as much as possible for the sake of having more tickets sold. In 2003 we screened 40 films. In 2004 we screened 48 films. In 2005 we will screen somewhere between 55-60 films.

- our festival staff is completely volunteer so this is a huge labor of love for all of us and we work on it year round to make the best festival possible once a year. Most of our big-name sponsors are not giving cash, but are giving some kind of in-kind service, so our submission fees are a huge part of being able to put on our festival.


I hope you all will take a look at our festival and consider submitting your films. We look forward to seeing them and hopefully seeing you at the festival April 21-24. http://www.iffboston.org

[nathanmcginty]

Well, kids, from someone who's been all over the map on this, I just wanted to throw in my .02. (Plus work is boring).

First of all - yes, Boston IFF rules. Apply.

I made a movie. I thought it was funny. I applied to my hometown film festival. I didn't get in. So I started my own film festival. I showed my movie, as well as a bunch of others. We didn't charge an entry fee. I made some more movies. I got into more festivals.

Finally I made a movie I thought was pretty good. I plunked down the $30 for Sundance. I got in. And, no, I didn't know anyone. I did - however - spend some time putting together a nice press kit. I don't know if that made any difference.

Did you make a low-budget-apocolyptic-zombie-horror-movie? If so, don't bother applying to festivals that HAVE NEVER SHOWN THOSE TYPE OF MOVIES. Look around for horror film festivals. Your money will be much better spent applying there. Did you make an arty movie? DON'T APPLY TO HORROR festivals.

Sundance was great and I was honored to be there. The best thing that came out of it? Festivals started coming to me and ASKING for the film - entry fee waived, of course. So then I just started asking every festival to waive the fee and - in 80% of the cases - they did. Revenge was sweet.

As far as the film fest entry fee thing is concerned - yeah I did think that some of it is a scam. The majority of festivals could operate on no entry fees - maybe not the smaller ones.

Someone brought up the point of the equipment that festivals have to rent - the majority of festivals that I've attended project the films/videos in theatres - places that ALREADY HAVE the equipment. Also, these festivals are staffed by VOLUNTEERS (ie: free labor) and have SPONSORS (ie: businesses giving them free/discounted goods/services). Let's not forget who gets to keep the admissions for the theatre (the festival) and the sales of "express passes" and "festival no stand in line" passes that usually range around $200+.

But I'm not gonna rail against fests, they've done nothing but help us out. I'm sure there are some unscrupulous ones out there (I remember getting a call from the NYIFVF), but the majority of the people working at fests are doing it for the love of the art.

It's really easy to sit around and bitch and not do anything.

Go pick up a copy of Chris' book.

[Paff]

I have another story that many of you filmmakers may find interesting.

In our screening for this year's SDAFF, one film got really mixed reviews. A few very positive, a few very negative, most middle of the road. It went into our "bubble" category. We watched it again (side note: If you make a film that requires repeated viewings to really appreciate, don't be surprised if it gets rejected more than it should. While we do watch every film submitted, it's a little much to ask that we watch every film at least twice).

Anyway, after much discussing, we took it off the bubble and put it in (needless to say, I'm not at liberty to reveal the title of the film here). It went to our Festival Jury, and unanimously won it's category!!
So, the difference between rejection and award winning can really be that close.

[dancavey]

As one of the organizers for the Hilo Film Festival in San Francisco, I can personally vouch that we watch all of the submissions. Two years ago I had my first chance to particiapte on the Jury. Just before the January submission deadline I got really ill and was in bed or actually on the couch for three weeks. I was potentially contagious, so Marc, the other organizer, would drop off a bin of tapes at my door, for my wife to retrieve. I was super nervous about judging films on the first pass, I didn't want anyone to get nixed just because I didn't like their like. But I quickly realised that it wasn't hard to separate my tastes from those of the festival's mission, high concept/low budget. I watched about 250+ movies and had a great time. Some were terrible, others were sweet, half the fun of putting the event together was seeing what other filmmakers were doing, whether we'd decided to program their film or not. If there are festivals out there skipping over their submissions, they are missing out on some of the best parts of running an independent film festival. For Hilo, without the submission fees, the festival wouldn't happen; so we try to keep the cost down for the smaller films. Check out www.hilofilmfestival.com We have an open Call for Submissions right now.

[dancavey]

My short film, dear XXX, was accepted to SXSW in 2002 and a bunch of other festivals after that and I still don't have any inside contacts. I just sent in the tape and application. The right film stands out from the submissions pile, and works with a program based on other submissions that get accepted.