Dave and Maya

Last night, my husband and I, tired of the the exploits of political idiots on The Daily Show (most days it's funny, but some days I find the stupidity and hypocrisy downright depressing) caught Sundance Channel's Iconoclasts. This smart show pairs up two unlikely figures and let's them just talk, debate and get to know each other. Pairings have included people like Ashley Judd + Madeline Albright; skater Tony Hawk + director/actor Jon Favreau; activist Desmond Tutu + entrepreneur Richard Branson.

We watched as comedian Dave Chapelle met with poet, activist, and general inspiration Dr. Maya Angelou. What a pairing! It was a poignant meeting of a wise older soul passing life lessons onto a 30-something man who has been through a lot but is still on his journey. As some of you may know, Dave walked away from his hit TV show and $50 million dollar contract at Comedy Central a few years ago just to get away from it all and save his soul. Maya seemed to understand this act, while many others have not.


You could see in Dave's eyes he wanted to just soak up as much knowledge and insight from this woman as was humanly possible. And she was eager to share, teach, praise and comfort. It was just awe-inspiring to watch so much love pass between two souls right in front of your eyes.


I am a huge lover of independent film and adore many of the selections on the Sundance Channel. Having attended the Sundance Film Festival 5 years in a row (2009 was the first year I'd missed it in a while), I love the energy of storytelling and community that permeates Park City for 10 days out of the year. But I often have a hard time with some indie film that is avant-garde for the sake of being avant-garde, rather than in pursuit of the story. Sometimes shocking is just shocking and it doesn't work. I will never forget an interview I saw back when Melanie Griffith was promoting the film Working Girl in 1988 (not that I would ever confuse that film with an arthouse classic, but bear with me on this point...). She was justifying a scene where she is vacumming the house topless because she's in a rush as "central to the story and what my character would do" or something like that. Seriously? That was pivotal to the entire plotline to have you vacuum topless and was not just a shameless attempt to sex up a late 80's film? I love non-cerebral entertainment just as much as the next guy, but let's call a spade and spade, shall we?


But I digress. Often Sundance Channel carries over some of the best films from the festival, ones that never got full distribution in the light of day. And original, smart, compelling, and eye-opening series like Iconoclasts actually help me regain some of my brain cells back from shows like I wrote about last time. True, honest, insightful storytelling is why I love film so much and showcases its potential to change minds, hearts and the world.

Hollywood and the Web

Sorry, dear readers, for the way overdue promised summary of "Webolution! Hollywood Adapts to the Web" panel from the Sundance Film Festival '08. As mentioned, Kara Swisher did a great job filming and summarizing this panel on All Things D. But here are my notes and thoughts on this hot topic.

Let me preface by saying I have never understood why the monolithic music and production companies get their panties in a bunch about their trailers or song snippets circling the web. Yes, yes, I am not so stupid as to overlook the copyright and piracy issues where millions of dollars are at stake. I'm talking about folks like Viacom who take down clips from YouTube in the name of copyright protection. As a marketer, I want to hit them over the head with a frying pan, "Don't you know how much this branding and press is worth in the long run? It will help drive viewership, paid downloads, album sales, etc. if you give people a taste and a tease." It is SO frustrating to me. I did ask this question and the panel basically said, "Those that get it, will win. Those that don't will fall behind." OK...I guess. But a young filmmaker in the audience did say that her trailer on YouTube kept up steady DVD sales - until she got into the Tribeca Film Festival who made her take the trailer down for the duration of their festival. Her DVD sales ground to a halt. I'm not saying....I'm just saying.

But I digress. The panel:

• Ted Sarandos, Netflix (in charge of a lot of their subscription service for original content, as well as DVD's)
• Dmitry Shaprio, Veoh.com (a site that offers a one stop shop portal for content. The content is still streamed from Veoh, no matter where it's linked, so viewership can be tracked)
• Dan Glickman, CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA)
• Jason Kilar, Hulu.com (another content network; a News Corp and NBC Universal joint venture)
• Mike Volpi, Joost.com
• Erik Flanagan, Digital Media, MTV Networks/Comedy Central/Southpark Studios (he is helping the South Park guys with their digital strategy - they are one of the view content providers in tradition media actually putting thought into giving access and monetizing this new media)
• Phil Lelyveld, Entertainment Technology Strategic Advisor (read: consultant. Also was a big wig at Disney)

If I could sum up the main theme of how Hollywood is embracing the web it would be "trial and error." Studios and traditional media do get that they need to embrace all these new distribution channels, but they are just not sure how to do it responsibly and quite frankly, in the way that makes them the most money. Fair enough. The monetization issue came up in question after question. Some of the panelists see people trying different things in this new Wild West. They all had various opinions about which model will win out: ad supported (the most popular one that they feel Google is making more efficient), premium subscription based (a la Netflix). There was no argument among the panelists that any model needs good, relevant content to succeed no matter what. Nice to see they are keeping their eyes on the ball here.

What are the major challenges with video over the Web today? Answers ranged from "availability of good content" to "finding the right niche" to "protecting intellectual property" (care of the MPAA) to "monetizing the new viewing habits" as mentioned above. The interesting note on this discussion was that much of the uncertainty has been justified in the name of "artist protection" but the panel got to the heart of it and said monetization was more of a real concern that the altruistic positions. That was refreshing.

Many felt access to the good content is the main issue in consumer choice, whether it's through poorly regulated broadband access (a side discussion ensued about how the US lags behind other countries like Japan in universal high-speed Internet from the government vs. what competition has done in this country to slow us down) or finding a single place to aggregate relevant content. Think beyond YouTube, which shows actual short films with videos of Johnny's cat playing poker. That's like having one TV channel and expecting to appeal to the History Channel and G4 audiences all at the same time. How can advertisiers expect to get behind that kind of scattershot ad model? They can't, so until there are niche avenues for content, the advertisers might wait.

The other tangent this took us down was advertising on the web in general. Interestingly enough, these new media are showing actual viewers, length of time viewed, traffic sources - basically data that is not available in traditional media. The old guard has often priced advertising based on algorithmic extrapolations and padded assumptions (for example, the pass along statistics magazines cite to pump up their ad costs) and they were never questioned. Now the Web comes along with trackable metrics and the numbers are appalling in some cases, but usually REAL. So maybe it's not that web advertising doesn't work, but that advertising measurement in general was always flawed and now the curtain has been pulled back. Discuss.

Most talent is not really thinking about their digital distribution strategy, except for the South Park guys. They have created a whole web property where users can take parts of their content and then augment it and virally distribute it. This is a bold move with all the piracy concerns, but as we see from You Tube and social sites like Facebook and MySpace, user-generated and customized content is the name of the game. You have to give a little to get a little and very few artists embrace this philosophy because it requires a lot of trust and connection with your audience.

Everyone generally felt "movie screens would never die out" but the new media has indeed impacted the traditional distribution windows by which the film industry has lived and died. "Windows" are like when a movie is released and only in theatres for a while; then it goes to cable; then to DVD and never the windows shall overlap. Until now. 2929 Entertainment did some experimentation with concurrent windows on some of their films ("Syriana", I believe). And HBO and Netflix did a deal with "Pan's Labrynth" to have the DVD window open the same time as the cable window - as the Netflix guy so aptly stated, "And the sky didn't fall and we all got paid well." So seems those willing to structure win-win deals and take the chance can meet their objectives.

Finally, the other main point was that content producers need to not just see the Web as another distribution channel, where they simply take their content from one media and port it directly to your browser. Thought needs to go up the value chain so that content can be created distinctly for these multiple channels. Anything that succeeds on the web is highly specialized, and soon specific skills for Internet or Cell Phone fimmakers will be in demand from a creative perspective. For example, panoramic shots may work well in a movie theatre or on your 62" Flat Screen but not on small square of video on your laptop or on your iPhone. Also, to the point made earlier, viewers may want to interact with that content in a new way and add self-generated content, recommend to friends and a whole host of other personalization options. One panelist noted, "If there is a free flow of content, piracy goes away because you have eliminated the friction."

Some companies to watch that may help push this digital envelope are Facebook, Google, and ironically some of the folks on this panel.

The panel was great. I was concerned at how they'd balance all the speakers, but they were all to the point and brief, and the conversation was lively. Kara pulls no punches and inserts her own opinions, often challening panelists on their answers to go beyond the PR-approved sound bit. Well done.

The overall relevance for Indie film makers is clear: the distribution opportunities are increasing and this is good news. Especially for short films. For example, in the old world, short films could only aspire to film festivals like Sundance and then there was no mass market for them. Now they can get picked up for distribution on Netflix, iTunes and......wait for it.....XBOX Live. Yes the same evil box that sucks your spouse into Halo 3 has a service to offer short films for download. And bingo, there's a whole new market and channel for the filmmaker's voice.

The next few years should be very exciting on this front. And it also inspired me to maybe produce my short film idea this year after all. But of course, that is always the effect Sundance has on me. Hey, does anyone have stats showing a spike in sales of HD cameras and Final Cut software right after the festival? Hmmmmm.....

Sundance '08: "I totally admire, like, musicians, and stuff."

Sundance '08 brought me home with the memory of Quentin Tarantino bumping into me (literally) in my hotel lobby and a stomach bug. Enjoying a shorter stay than in years past, I ate, drank, and celeb-spotted by way up and down Main Street for only 2 days and 3 nights.

This year, the festival tipped the scales at about 50,000 - up about 10k from last year according to the word on the street. I only started going 5 years ago, but I have never seen it this crowded or crazy. Time was, you could easily get individual film tickets online beforehand (even though that system is as painful as a sharp stick in the eye - Silicon Valley, please hook these guys up....) or just wait a bit in the Wait List line and 4 out of 5 times you were golden. Not the case this year. First off, not everyone registered even received an online ticket buying window (my partner in crime being one of them) and us "lucky" few who did were met with most everything being already sold on when we logged in, leaving the scraps - to which you couldn't even get THOSE tickets. Once you clicked to buy, you got an error message that it was indeed not available. Headache.

We managed to get into 2 films on the waitlist, and a panel so all was not lost. First up was "Good Dick" written, directed by and starring Marianna Palka, an adorable Scottish lass with some weighty ties in Hollywood. While this was her first script, she got her friend Jason Ritter on board, who in turn got Charles Durning in for a cameo (not too shabby) and she also snagged Tom Arnold for the role of her abusive father. I totally admire that she pretty much did this film as a resume piece - she admitted to writing it with all intents of starring in it - and that is good, since the odd dysfunctional and provocative premise of the film leaves little room for mass distribution. But the art is the thing, right? The movie centers around a sexually damaged woman who rents erotica every day from her local video store. Jason Ritter is the adorable puppy dog/whipping post who decides to reach out (in almost stalker like proportions) to this girl, thus creating one of the most disturbing and dysfunctional relationships since Brian the Dog's infatuation with Lois on "The Family Guy." Not sure the characters were likeable enough for me, but I appreciated the moments of black humor and the idea that humans can and must find love in the most unorthodox ways. Palka stated the film cost about $1M to make, which surprised me based on what I saw, but she also chose to film in L.A. which never helps.

We tried to get into some other films, but ended up lucking into "Chronic Town" instead. This isolated tale of a flawed cab driver in Fairbanks, Alaska follows his quest to find friendship and connection after he is dumped by his girlfriend. The desolate, "nothing changes here" locale was perfect for the film's mood and the director, Tom Hines, thanked his producers (which include his now wife) profusely for supporting his desire that they could not film anywhere else. The film starts JR Bourne, a very attractive model-type who they tried to "scruff up" for the role of Truman, an alcoholic, pot smoking mess of a guy. Watch for this guy, I think he'll go far. He managed to make his character wholly likeable while being a complete loser. The acting and production of this film was stellar, but again as with "Good Dick" I felt like the character arc was little plodding.

We wanted to see such films as "The Last Word" about a guy who writes suicide notes for a living; and"Sunshine Cleaning" starring Amy Adams and Emily Blunt, two of my fave actresses, as sisters who start a bioharzard crime scene clean up service. But alas, we took what we could.

For more info on other Sundance films, click here for an alphabetical list.

The panel was called "Webolution! Hollywood Adapts to the Web" and was moderated by Kara Swisher of All Things D. This killer panel was small (we were lucky to get in) and had a great group of industry heavies, ranging from the CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America, to the heads of Joost, Vioh and HuLu to the guy who does emerging media content distribution for Comedy Central, Spike and other MTV properties. Check out Kara's site for her video of the panel (and her celeb/friend guide Jane Lynch who I also saw - loved her in Best in Show and 40 Year Old Virgin) and I'll write more on another post. This panel was the perfect blend of my high-tech experience and love for the entertainment industry. Hmmmm, maybe I need to make that leap after all......

Celebs spotted this year: Marcia Gay Harden (who looks about a size 0 and 10 years younger than she does on screen), Colin Farrell, ("He's very short and has a big head" says Carrie) David Boreanaz (from Angel and Bones - sat drinking next to him at Bar Boheme), Stanley Tucci (as he impressively naivigated the Main Street sidewalk while doing an interview), Dylan Walsh of "Nip/Tuck" (dining a few tables over at Cafe Terigo), Tom Arnold, Jason Ritter, Rachel Hunter (who doesn't really look all that tall but is still stunning), Dennis Quaid (with a posse he was having as much luck getting into the Queer Lounge party as me and Carrie had, which made us not feel so bad), Marc Jacobs (I have to give this one to Carrie, since I had no clue), Jane Lynch (once on the street, graciously having fun taking pics with people and then again at the Web panel), Harvey Weinstein (with a bevy of blond assistants - they looked like duckings, all huddled around him as they walked). And as mentioned at this post's start, Quentin Tarantino in the lobby of my hotel. We smiled and said hello, but I just didn't have it in me to be "that girl" and say "I love your work. Here's my card. Call me if Uma is not available." Damn it! Then he ran into me when he came back in to the lobby. He's kind of like that clumsy lovable friend you had in High School who is scared of girls. I love that the man who can dream up Lucy Liu's character in Kill Bill is really just a goofy guy. Classic.

I also met a key fundraiser for the Seattle Film Festival in my airport shuttle, so watch this space on how I might get involved with that this year.

So overall: more crowds, less films for me to get into, more celebs spotted (this happens when you go towards the beginning of the festival rather than towards the end), typical inane artistic conversations and loud cell phone conversations about deals and PR. "We need to go through him to get her and I think that would be a win, so let's just offer her what she wants."

Viva la independent film.