Sundance projections

email this story
read comments (7)
post a comment

On the L.A.-to-Salt Lake City plane today, a critic passed along a starting-to-sound-familiar observation, which is that Sundance '07 is looking more and more like an off year. A friend of the critic has seen 20 of the films being shown here and so far he's saying "naaah"....flat, so-so, nothing to write home about material...a couple of almost-but-not-quite- as-good-as-Half Nelson flicks, and apparently nothing even close to a Little Miss Sunshine-type breakout waiting to happen. "Apparently," I say.

On top of which I talked to a guy who said he'd seen and didn't care for Tommy O'Haver's An American Crime...just that kind of year, they all seem to be saying. (I heard the same damn thing from two big-time buyers in Manhattan a couple of weeks ago.)

That said, USA's Today's Anthony Breznican has come up with six possibly hot Sundance films showing over the next few days, blah, blah.

Foreign Nominee short list<< previous | next >>Secondary medium?

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on January 17, 2007 at 11:46 PM

comment #1

JD says ...

I liked Little Miss Sunshine as much as the next guy, but it's hardly a great work of art. I like the sound of this year's Sundance because many of the films sound like genuinely personal, unusual, character-driven works that don't aggressively pander to commercial tastes. But it sounds like Jeff views this as a weakness. Since when does commercial viability have anything to do with the quality of a Sundance film? There's more to the movie business than money and awards.

Posted by JD at January 18, 2007 6:53 AM

comment #2

gruver1 says ...

Wells to JD: It's not about money or awards, but festival juice -- a feeling of communal excitement, a kind of explosion in the room. If you've been to a Sundance screening in which this has happened, you know what I'm talking about. They're delicious, these moments -- they make the whole slog worth doing. Oh, and JD? "Little Miss Sunshine" is, of course, a genuinely personal, (somewhat) unusual, character driven work.

Posted by gruver1 at January 18, 2007 8:04 AM

comment #3

erniesouchak says ...

Despite the Sundance hyperbole, I would submit that every film is a personal film. Yes, even Michael Bay crapola -- he's just THAT kind of person. If someone gives a year or more of his life to an endeavor, it is definitely personal.

Posted by erniesouchak at January 18, 2007 8:21 AM

comment #4

p.Vice says ...

Does anyone remember a brilliant movie called "Design" that played sundance maybe four or five years ago? Nothing happened to it, despite it being a near-masterpiece... no awards, no distribution, nothing.

Just a way of saying that don't judge your film festivals by USA Today standards. A bad commercial year can easily mean a great artistic year by contemporary standards, so the more people that pooh-pooh the movies gets me more excited. Not that any of us will ever have the chance to see half of them, but oh well!

Posted by p.Vice at January 18, 2007 8:23 AM

comment #5

Craig Kennedy says ...

Jesus, where is the joy of living when a festival's success or failure is determined before you've even touched ground? Where is the sense of discovery? I'm not saying Jeff is wrong, but how depressing.

A movie's fate is decided by tracking data before the movie is released and now festivals are getting the same treatment.

Posted by Craig Kennedy at January 18, 2007 11:07 AM

comment #6

Hallick says ...

"Jesus, where is the joy of living when a festival's success or failure is determined before you've even touched ground?"

Wrapped around each other in the bathroom?

But to address the "ho-hum"dance issue, low buzz is ALWAYS better for one's sense of discovery than high expectations. Anybody who reads the catalog (much less, a film festival catalog, which god almighty, is to tantalization what V.D. photos are to eroticism) and thinks they got the whole kit and kaboodle pegged is just a silly twat.

Don't tell me Sundance '07 sucks when you haven't even gotten off the plane. Tell me it sucks when you're getting back on.

Posted by Hallick at January 18, 2007 4:49 PM

comment #7