SlamDunk's Cabot Orton

The digital revolution has come to Park City. Whether you are a moviemaker, a distributor, or an innocent bystander; whether you are slamming, dunking, or dancing; it will be virtually impossible to do anything in this mountain ski resort without winding up smack in the middle of a digital snowstorm. Seventeen digital filmmakers have staked a claim at the Sundance Film Festival. Twelve of them will screen their work via DVD projection and five will project on film. Over at Slamdance, nearly one-third of all of their submissions were on digital. No Dance already bills itself as the all-digital alt-fest, and this year they will include a multimedia lounge along with their one-day marathon of DVD screenings. SlamDunk, yet another upstart on the Park City stage, is all but proclaiming itself as ground zero for a meeting of the minds between the Internet, cable, and filmmaking worlds. And Sundance, possibly sensing that this trio of Cinderella sisters was looking like the belle of the digital ball, has decided not to wait any longer to join the party.

For the first time, Sundance is outfitting their venues with DVD projectors and offering filmmakers the choice of whether to screen their work digitally or on film. Two digital features are in the Dramatic Competition, one of which, Chuck and Buck, was directed and produced by the team that brought Star Maps to Sundance in 1997. The other, Everything Put Together, stars Radha Mitchell (High Art), who was also a producer on the project. For Sundance co-director Geoff Gilmore and co-founder Ian Calderon, adding the digital option to their programming was the logical next step in accommodating these and other moviemakers (see David Geffner’s companion piece—ed.). But to the independent world and to other festivals, Sundance’s de facto acknowledgement that the digital age is here to stay seems more like a giant leap forward.

“It was a major victory for indie film that Sundance finally accepted DV as a legitimate format,” says Jim Boyd, founder and director of the No Dance Film and Multimedia Festival. The festival offers four days of screenings

Boyd started No Dance three years ago after his film, The New Gods, was rejected by Sundance and Slamdance. “I hustled up to the mountain, found some other indie orphans, and created No Dance—Year One.” Financed through sponsorships, application fees, and credit cards, Boyd has literally moved his operation to the center of the festival scene by securing headquarters on Park City’s historic Main Street. While always on the lookout for a breakout hit, he’ll be the first to tell you that theatrical acquisition, although desirable, is unlikely at his festival. “Any filmmakers looking for a lucrative payday are going to be disappointed. The main thing is to provide exposure for indie films and celebrate the alternative digital culture.” He believes that Sundance’s decision to go digital is simply a response “to pressure from the digital underground.”

The underground is going over the top at SlamDunk, another three-year-old alternative festival that boasts a 500-seat nightclub and screening room, a 30,000-watt surround system, and a heady mission statement: to redefine the notion of what a film festival can do for the participants. Executive Director Cabot Orton says the six-day bash, held at Harry O’s (“the best venue in town,” he says proudly), features panels, music, parties, DJs, and a slew of screenings. “Our whole slant at SlamDunk this year is that we’re going to provide a place where the Internet world, the web-casting industry and the entertainment industry can come together and develop new synergies.”

Orton and original partner Keith Spiegel started the festival after struggling to build a buzz for their unfinished indie a few years ago. Last year, their second in existence, they scored a coup by screening Nick Broomfield’s controversial documentary Kurt and Courtney, which was spurned by Sundance. The hubbub surrounding the showing guaranteed an audience for the film and respectability for SlamDunk. This year, they’re flexing their muscles.

“We felt this was an opportunity to create a new niche at Sundance,” says Orton, “where the entertainment world can suddenly look at the Internet industries and the webcasting world and see them in a new light.” SlamDunk has invited so-called “opinion makers” from Sun Microsystems, Broadcast.com, Yahoo, Showbiz Data.com, and Warner Bros., among other companies, to discuss entertainment issues and webcasting possibilities. Organizers are also outfitting a filmmaker’s lounge where they will showcase the latest digital technology, including cameras, editing software, and video streaming capabilities. They’ll offer cyber-kiosks, smart cards, and live Internet broadcasts. Four pro-DV camera crews will cover events at Harry O’s. And at night a six-thousand square-foot house in Deer Valley will morph into an underground rave scene, with DJs spinning until dawn.

If this all sounds like some kind of cyber-cinema orgy, with digi-philes milling about in various states of gigabyte and hard-drive induced arousal, not many Park City players seem willing to dispell that notion. But will these opportunities result in better films being made? Or will digital films become mere product to populate the infinite online universe? Given the fast and cheap mechanics of digital moviemaking, is there a danger the new medium could careen out of control?

“Just because you can film it for eight pennies doesn’t mean it needs to be film

No Dance creator Jim Boyd

“Digital projection will allow filmmakers the opportunity to have an audience, critics, and distributors react to their movie before they spend even more money to make a 35mm print,” says Peter Broderick, president of Next Wave Films, a company of the Independent Film Channel. He believes that filmmakers who shoot on digital can first test the waters for a theatrical release before going broke with the high cost of a film transfer.

Broderick is somewhat of a guru to low-budget filmmakers, encouraging them to submit their projects to his company to track their progress, and offering practical advice on how to shoot on video. He thinks the decision by Sundance to allow digital projection sends a message to filmmakers and other festivals that digital is now a viable and accepted format. It’s democratizing the art of filmmaking.

Broderick’s optimistic passion for the artistic merit of the digital medium is infectious and, if he’s right, we’ll all benefit. Hemingway wrote The Sun Also Rises in poverty; Jackson Pollock needed only paint cans and a floor to create “Autumn Rhythm;” Bob Dylan didn’t have to max out his credit cards to write “Like A Rolling Stone.” If nothing else, Broderick and others on the vanguard of the digital age agree that at least the price of genius has gone way down. “Everybody wins,” adds Broderick. “More talented filmmakers are going to have the chance to make movies and get their work seen. More careers will be launched.”

Ray Carney, (see feature article, pg. 58—ed.) professor of Film and American Studies at Boston University and the author of books on John Cassavetes, Carl Dreyer, and Mike Leigh, believes that the technology itself is “value neutral,” that no matter what the tools, art is borne from the human heart. He points to the popularity of 8mm film in the ’60s as an example of a cheap medium that offered great possibilities for both the American avant-garde and for pornographers. “If the new technology results in 10,000 exploitation knock-offs and 100 works of genius,” says Carney, who has always been a bit of a Scrooge in his opinion of mainstream movies, “then I’ll see the works of genius.”

This new affordability, of course, doesn’t guarantee works of genius, or even art, but Broderick believes there will be more great films just by virtue of arithmetic. “If five percent of a thousand films are exceptional, then in a couple of years we’ll have two thousand films, and five percent of those will be exceptional. We will not drown in a sea of digital mediocrity.”

Peter Baxter and Dan Mirvish started Slamdance precisely because they felt that a rejection by

“Slamdance has always welcomed these entries,” says Henry Turner, Slamdance’s Filmmaker Relations Liaison. “We’ve always had some screenings on video in addition to traditional film projection. This has allowed greater flexibility for the low-budget filmmaker who may not be able to afford video-to-film transfers, as well as accommodating those who edit their films on non-linear digital systems and can’t afford an answer print or a Super 16 blowup. And with digital video projection we’re even going to be able to screen right off someone’s hard drive, if need be.”

Baxter, executive director of Slamdance, says that for the low-budget filmmaker, the best defense against what he calls “the bankruptcy factor” is shooting on video. “You make a film on video, see it, screen it, decide if it’s successful, then do the transfer to film. I’ve seen lots of filmmakers who go hell for leather and bankrupt themselves and they don’t get the chance to make another film.” Baxter says “it’s about time” Sundance is giving filmmakers the choice to project digitally. No Dance’s Boyd agrees: “They had to go digital or risk further embarrassment.”

Sundance must also be aware that Hollywood companies are forming powerful alliances with websites dedicated to seeking and broadcasting films from aspiring filmmakers. Dreamworks SKG and Imagine Entertainment are tying in with Pop.com, a website backed with money from billionaire Paul Allen, and headed up by Kenneth Wong, former president of Walt Disney Imagineering. According to an interview in The Hollywood Reporter, Wong believes the Internet is “the dawn of a new medium in storytelling.”

Seattle-based AtomFilms, one of the leaders in digital online entertainment, counts among its investors Warner Brothers Online, Arts Alliance, and Frank Biondi, Jr., former chairman of Universal. “Everyone in Hollywood is trying to figure out what to do about the Internet,” says Biondi, who sits on the board of AtomFilms. Digital Entertainment Network (DEN) and Shockwave. com are two other high-profile online companies buying and producing their own films for the Internet. Independent production companies entrenched in the mainstream system, such as Jersey Films and Working Title, are investigating the potential of digitally-made movies, not necessarily to provide product for the web, but just to make films without busting their budgets. Indie veterans with down-and-dirty digital experience may soon find themselves being courted by this New Hollywood.

The irony of what’s happening in Park City this year couldn’t be more obvious. In this first month of the 21st Century, freelancing bands of moviemakers and organizers are taking over the town, trumpeting the digital revolution, going head to head with the film festival that in many ways launched the American independent movement in the first place. Even though Sundance is still the pre-eminent festival for filmmakers toting around their 35mm prints and looking for a theatrical release, what the alternative festivals are saying is, “Save your money and screen your film with us on DVD.” It’s an attractive option, especially considering that now even more shot-on-digital movies will get shut out of the few slots available at Sundance.

Whether or not Sundance is simply capitulating to technological inevitabilities or truly embracing and encouraging digital filmmakers remains to be seen. But one thing is certain: the revolution is happening, and it will indeed be televised. MM

The Big Deal - Sundance Goes Digital
By David Geffner

Radha Mitchell in Everything Put Together

When Miguel Arteta brought his debut indie feature to Sundance in 1997, the words digital filmmaking and Sundance were complete strangers. Arteta, along with his producer, Matthew Greenfield, had labored for four long years to get the shot-on-film Star Maps in the can. The results were pretty spectacular—a spot in American Spectrum, followed by a deal from a proven U.S. distributor and a seven-figure payoff. Three years later, Arteta and Greenfield are back at Sundance with Chuck and Buck, screening in the coveted Dramatic Competition. Shot on DV and transferred to 35mm for exhibition, Chuck and Buck was finished in a little over four months, not years. And Arteta and Greenfield are just two of 17 digital filmmakers screening at Sundance 2000.

Sundance going digital is big news, of course. But the biggest kid on the block may be late to the game, at least by Park City standards. Screenings, facilities, and an exposure to Internet distribution vary from festival to festival, with Sundance still lagging behind the upstart spin-off fests for a wider spectrum. One reason is that Sundance has always been about theatrical distribution. As producer Sean Furst, whose DV film Everything Put Together is screening on 35mm in Sundance’s Dramatic Competition, explains:

“We made our movie in DV because we wanted to create something unique and intimate, yet also have the flexibility and ease of mobility that a small video crew and budget allows. However, this film was conceived as a theatrical release, and screening on video would limit our ability to distribute the film without a print.”

Furst and company, much like the creators of Chuck and Buck, planned from the outset of their production to travel the same road as the most critically lauded DV feature to date, The Celebration. Shooting in DV PAL, the Sundance entries both used the Switzerland-based transfer house, Swiss FX, for their tape-to-film transfer. Swiss FX maintains a full-time New York contact specifically to help digital indies whose ultimate goal is theatrical exhibition, i.e., a 35mm print, as opposed to a cable, DVD, or even an Internet-only release.

Radha Mitchell, star of one of 1998’s Sundance favorites,

High Art, stars in and associate produced Everything Put Together. The Australian-born actress calls working in the DV format fast, fun, and furious, on a creative level, but is unwilling to draw much meaningful distinction between celluloid or digital video come festival time.

“I was in Park City with my first film, Love and Other Catastrophes,” Mitchell notes, “and there was hardly a peep going on about digital movies. Things have obviously taken off this year, our movie included. And that’s a great sign. Digital movies decentralize the power base and leave filmmakers free to tell the stories they want without worrying about spending massive amounts of money. But the digital video element is not going to determine how well our film is received at Sundance. That still comes down to the basics—story, acting, and direction—as it always will.”

Chuck and Buck’s creators are equally reluctant to attach too much importance to the digital boom at Sundance this year, yet see clear parallels to indie revolutions in years past. “DV is not all that different from when independents broke away from 35mm color to use 16mm, Super 16mm, and black and white” notes Chuck and

Chuck and Buck

“All those other revolutionaries Matthew mentioned,” continues Arteta, “did it for much the same reasons we shot digitally: it was cheaper, the cameras are lighter and more mobile, the studios aren’t doing it so we’re exploring fresh new ground, and it allowed us much more flexibility with our actors. If we’re part of a revolution at Sundance because this is the first year the festival is accepting DV movies, that’s a great thing. But, let’s not sell Sundance short: the festival has always screened cutting-edge projects that were made on film. Did anyone make a big deal when those films were made on Super 8 or Super 16, instead of 35mm? No, they were focused on the films’ content, period.”

Jason Kliot, founder of Open City Films and its all-digital spin-off division, Blow Up Pictures, was the executive producer, along with Joana Vicente, of Chuck and Buck. The pair swept through Sundance last year with the much-lauded Tony Bui picture, Three Seasons, the first film ever to win the Audience Award, the Cinematography Award and the Grand Prize in the Dramatic Competition at Sundance in the same year.

As Kliot notes about working in the new format: “I don’t accept the premise that digital filmmaking is automatically synonymous with cutting-edge work,” Kliot notes. “New image formats can often be the bastion of artists who have failed at more traditional formats—you see that in the proliferation of mediocre CD-ROMS, websites, and even digital filmmaking. Clearly, the construct of working in a new format can be exciting from a creative standpoint. But to extend that argument and suggest, as some people have, that Sundance has lost its edge because they are just now introducing digital films is crazy. This has been the preeminent American independent film festival for the last 10 years because of the great films they show, not because they’re screening every digital movie that comes down the pike.”

Kliot goes on to observe that Sundance has always served a very specific audience, and that to play up competition between other, more digitally oriented festivals, is missing the point.

“I’m a big fan of an all-digital festival like RESFest,” Kliot exclaims. “But to compare that to Sundance is off-base, in my opinion. Sundance showcases independent feature films, most of which are seeking theatrical exhibition first and foremost. The reason a festival like Sundance still matters so much is because, for the majority of people in this country, going out to see a movie in a theater still matters. If films are just shown to a rarefied few on the web, then we no longer have an independent film culture. We have an alternative film culture. Nothing wrong with that, of course, except we’ve had

Geoff Gilmore - A decade at Sundance

Because Sundance casts such a large shadow over Park City, indeed the entire independent world, the festival is always under a microscope. A simple addition like video projection can result in a slew of media buzz (this article included). Is it a landmark moment for the digital revolution? When in doubt, it’s best to steer clear of the rumor mill and head straight for the source. MovieMaker spoke with Sundance’s Co-Director/Director of Film Programming, Geoffrey Gilmore, now entering his tenth year with the festival, and Ian Calderon, one of the original founders of the Sundance Institute and now a senior consultant for new media and technology initiatives, to get the real deal on all things digital at Sundance. Is it a life-altering event for struggling indies or just a smaller palette to watch the latest Miramax Euro-sap on? Plug in, boot up, and decide for yourself.

David Geffner (MM): What prompted the addition of digital video to the fest?

Geoffrey Gilmore (GG): The advancement in projection systems is what prompted the change. What we’re doing this year is offering HD (high-definition) projection in every section of the festival. We’ve had some digital screenings in the past, and now the digital format is a professional enough format, like 35mm or 16mm, to present movies in. We’re not arguing that this is the future, something which may edge out celluloid. And, we’re definitely not announcing that Sundance is now a video festival geared toward television work. All we’re saying, by offering video projection this year, is that the technology has caught up, and it’s completely up to the filmmakers to decide how they want to present their work. I’m literally, as this interview is going on, still waiting to hear from four or five films in the festival and whether they’ll deliver a 35mm print or go with video projection.

MM: What about the charge that Sundance is late to the game. That you could have, and should have, been offering digital filmmakers a forum in past festivals?

GG: Wow, I don’t feel that’s true at all. We’ve been working with Betacam in our labs for 15 years. If someone can tell me that high-quality digital projection has existed for the last few years and Sundance has somehow been ignoring the technology, I’d love to see the evidence. Also, remember that it’s only recently that we’ve even had a decent amount of digital features to select from. We still didn’t get all that many digital submissions this year; nowhere near the numbers people would think, given all the coverage the so-called digital revolution has received.

MM: So, has the digital revolution reached Sundance?

GG: Well, I see this revolution taking place incrementally. Not in one big wave as the press portrays it. It may eventually come in one big wave but, no, it’s not here yet. Not in any meaningful numbers.

Ian Calderon (IC): And bear in mind that Sundance has always selected films based on quality, not format. Way back in 1980, when we were using video as a practical tool in our labs, we never dreamed that the medium would one day become a mainstream tool for filmmakers to work in. Fast-forward 20 years and we now have superior projection systems, high-quality formats like DV, and more video content than in the past. The planets have all aligned for Sundance to offer the very best in what’s out there digitally. If it’s a revolution it may be more in the hearts and minds of the audience, who ultimately do not care what format they’re watching as long as the stories are engaging.

GG: I can put forth an argument that illustrates exactly what Ian is talking about. When Blair Witch came out of the festival last year a lot of people, including me, didn’t think the image quality of that film

Cinematographer Robert Schaefer and Director Mark Forster with Radha Mitchell

MM: Hence, a bias by distributors against releasing DV?

GG: I think so. Many distributors are still locked into this idea that a film has to be a perfect and pristine 35mm look, even though you find a whole range of aesthetic looks within 35mm film. By offering digital projection, Sundance is helping to create a comfort zone for some of these companies. They need to understand that it’s more about aesthetic choices and groundbreaking themes, not about what format’s up on the screen. Blair Witch proved the audience is receptive to all kinds of formats. Why should distributors care if people are watching 35mm or digital video if the film’s capable of making an impact?

Everything Put Together

MM: Your video projection systems are all high-definition; does that create a burden for the independent to bump up to a format which might be cost prohibitive, i.e., like trying to make a 35mm print they can’t afford?

IC: Actually, I think only one film came to us on the HD format. All the others originated on film or DV and are bumping up to the HD format, because of the high-resolution and stability of image. It’s actually profoundly less expensive than bumping up to 35mm, which is what filmmakers in the past would have to do to screen in this festival.
GG: We’ve been told by several different sources that the cost to bump up to HDcam is in the neighborhood of $700 dollars, as opposed to $40,000 dollars to transfer over to 35mm.

IC: And the filmmakers can do color correction on their camera original as they bump up to HD.

GG: Can I just interject something here?

MM: Sure, go ahead.

GG: A lot of questions surrounding this digital revolution center on the technical presentation. But I want to make a few comments about the digital aesthetic, which has yet to be fully explored.

MM: Explain what you mean by that.

GG: When Harmony Korine shoots Julian Donkey-Boy and degrades the image in a specific way, that’s an aesthetic choice. When the filmmakers who made Chuck and Buck, which is screening in the Dramatic Competition this year, say they are going to present that film in 35mm, even though it was shot in DV, that’s another aesthetic choice. We know we are going to see a lot of experimentation with the digital aesthetic in the coming years, and I don’t think any of us have enough experience in that area yet to fully understand those changes. That’s what I mean about the digital revolution being incremental rather than one huge wave.

MM: I want to get back to this idea about a special digital section. Many other festivals make that distinction, between work done on film and work done on video. Why didn’t Sundance go that way? You’ve got a documentary section, you’ve got Spectrum, the Competition, etc.

GG: The answer is right there in your question. To split our digital submissions off into a separate category marginalizes the work. We’re trying to mainstream digital work within the festival by including it in every single section. Ian and I had this conversation last summer when we were contemplating including video, and we agreed not to split off the DV work, as if it were somehow less persuasive than film.

IC: We knew that, historically, other festivals have always created boutique portions where all the video people would go, and we definitely wanted to avoid that. The digital format should be a transparent thing that blends into the rest of the festival. Again, Sundance is about good films, not technical formats.

MM: Do you think we’re all making too much of DV? Maybe, as in the case of films like Blair Witch or Celebration, the revolution is one of content, not form.

GG: Well, this goes back to your question about distribution. When Celebration first came out, October Films ignored the fact it was DV in their initial campaign because they wanted audiences to consider it as a movie first. All of the attention the film got for being shot on a one-chip DV camera came after it had been recognized for its story and content.

MM: So does that mean it’s really no big deal Sundance went digital?

GG: Yes and no. I don’t think it is a revolution of form, yet. We’re going to find that aesthetic as we get more into it. If we can talk about streaming off a computer screen as a justifiable image for film, then we are certainly altering our perceptions of a format that will continue to evolve and change. Sundance is not becoming a video festival just because we are offering a new format to our filmmakers. But, if by big deal you’re talking about those hype artists who insist the digital revolution, i.e. Sundance including video projection, will, literally, push film off the screen, then absolutely not. I just don’t see that happening—at festivals or in movie theaters.

MM: If someone were to accuse Sundance of selecting a movie just because it is a digital film, how would you respond?

GG: (laughs) Not well. We haven’t done that in the past and we aren’t likely to do that in the future. If the format contributes to the aesthetic, as I mentioned earlier, then we might very well choose a film that has a great deal of digital experimentation. Throughout the history of this festival, we have screened many films because they have pushed the aesthetic. But not solely because of a technical format. Never.

Director Mark Forster and Producer Sean Furst of Everything Put Together

IC: I agree totally with Geoff. When sound was added to film, many people were upset and railed that it would never work. Gradually, it worked its way into the industry and became part of the language. Remember, also, that with video, you have a moving target. Just like the processors on your PC, by the time you get it home, there’s a new and better one coming out. Will video ever look better than film? I think there will come a point where you can’t tell the difference. But economics drives this industry, and the filmmakers who screen at Sundance are always going to take advantage of the most cost-effective ways to get their ideas across. That’s why they’re independent!

MM: We’ve talked a lot about the presentation aspect of this revolution. What about the production side?

GG: I think a few years ago finances dictated the kind of image choices independents made. But now it’s more about aesthetic choices and how modes of production can serve the image. Yes, we saw more experimentation in our submissions this year than last, but not nearly in the kinds of numbers that would convince you the digital revolution has arrived. Quite honestly, I’d love to see more experimentation happening on film, irrespective of what’s happening on video.

MM: Ian, do you have a final take on that?

IC: Well, I feel like the economics of doing things electronically is just a huge leap forward. Filmmakers can make their movies faster, cheaper, and on a desktop computer. It’s obvious there’s a bigger push going on towards electronic filmmaking because of economics and the work this year at Sundance is a reflection of that. I remember an experience back in 1982, when I had the first HD camera brought over from Japan. I asked Bob Redford to shoot a couple of scenes with it. One of those scenes was an interior in very low light. The engineer came over and said to me: “Ian, if there’s such low light, the picture will appear electronically noisy.” I turned to him and said: “To you, it’s noise. To Bob Redford, it’s just extra grain.” That’s what this revolution is all about. Bringing two different communities together to find a common vocabulary. MM