The Consensus Of Meaning & Value
Part III: Building A New Consensus of Mutual Benefit
In Part I of this series, we looked at landscape of the major Western film festivals through the lens of Cannes as a way to examine how a festival’s stature is built by creating consensus within the film industry around the commercial and artistic value in participation in and attendance at the festival. This consensus drives public perception through media coverage and acquisitions deals, film launches and reviews, red carpets and celebrity attendance, which in turn shape the public imagination about what a film festival can and should be. This creates a self-perpetuating gravity that allows Cannes to maintain its position as the premiere global film festival.
In Part II, we explored the rise of Sundance and how the proliferation of the American film festivals it inspired created a new landscape of relative value, where the myth of curatorial choice and the perception of film festivals disguised the reality of programming, whereby individual film festivals worked to build their own value in the eyes of industry stakeholders and audiences through collaboration and negotiation, with none coming close to emulating the power granted by the consensus of meaning & value enjoyed by the biggest festivals in Western culture.
In Part III, the final piece in this series, we’ll look at how the convergence of streaming and the pandemic blew all of this up and how we can build a better future by embracing the reality of how things really work instead of going back to where we were.
The convergence of the COVID-19 pandemic with the tail end of an industry-wide investment in building consolidated streaming platforms and relative divestment from theatrical film exhibition (and thus moviegoing) has had a devastating impact on how we imagine and sustain a vibrant culture of filmgoing in America.
The future of filmgoing and film festivals must include a true reckoning with this fact.
Other writers and thinkers across the industry have written ad nauseam about “the death of film” and “the death of cinema” and “the death of movie theaters” and also about how “the movie industry is dying”—I could go on, but you already know the story. For a few years now, even prior to the pandemic, the in-person cinematic experience has been written off as a casualty of the shift to home viewing as the entire industry tried to figure out how to make more money and continue reaching audiences with movies. A lot of experimentation ensued (shorter theatrical windows, or no exclusive theatrical window at all) as companies tried to navigate the quicksand of their heavy investment in subscriber growth through film production, and watching theatrical revenue slowly swirling the drain of uncertainty about the future.
Film festivals were no stranger to this uncertainty. Over the prior decade, the industry shifted and consolidated, ushering in “day and date” festival plays and collapsing festival windows, and with film exhibition consolidating, theatrical opportunities for smaller films and distributors began an enduring contraction, driving higher demand for revenue support and festival screenings from films and filmmakers operating outside of evaporating distribution networks and spaces in which to exhibit their work.
Let’s be frank— after a couple of decades of slow divestment, COVID-19 lead to an industry wide panic, as companies hedged their bets on film exhibition and, instead of looking to balance and reimagine a sustainable festival premiere —> theatrical —> streaming lifecycle that could sustain the benefit and value of each1, decided to invest deeply to compete in the streaming space (VOD, SVOD, PVOD and all of the other letters) to the detriment of festivals and theatrical.
Mike Tyson famously said that “Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.” The film industry found out the hard way how true that was.
When COVID-19 arrived, it leveled film festivals, who had to completely re-imagine themselves. Due to the timing of the pandemic outbreak in 2020, SXSW cancelled. TriBeCa canceled. Then Cannes. By the fall, festivals all over the country had spent the summer learning how to launch virtual cinema packages (that somehow integrated with their existing business systems2) and were up and running online, with some, like my own festival, simultaneously building drive-in cinemas in abandoned parking lots3 to create space for films and audiences that required a non-streaming screening option. By January 2021, Sundance was able to launch a completely virtual festival for at-home viewing and, being Sundance4, all of the regional and local restrictions on online exhibition5 were, for the most part, withdrawn, allowing the festival to offer its complete program online6. And for the next year, as things shifted (and Omicron arrived), festivals navigated a “hybrid” of virtual and in-person screenings, with film rights holders moving more and more toward in-person only events and declining virtual opportunities. Cinemas slowly reopened to deeply diminished box office and attendance, as festivals, theaters, and film businesses received support from the government to stay afloat7.
As the impact of COVID-19 on moviegoing has moved into a waning phase, and as theatrical releases start to show signs of undeniable revival, the shift in tone has been palpable8. Suddenly, all signs seem to be pointing in the right direction. And as part of that revival, festivals have begun to slide back into their pre-existing positions without much of a change at all. To use our previous examples, Cannes stayed Cannes, Sundance remained Sundance, and the rest of the festival community9 maintained their place. So, while the industry continued to re-imagine itself, experiment, and look for new ways of delivering films to audiences, its relationship to festivals now remains pretty much the same.
Because of this relative stasis, while the film industry, and distributors of all sizes, have scrambled to re-invent the relationship between streaming revenue, theatrical revenue, and audience engagement, most festivals have seen a negative shift in their ability to participate in delivering on their value.
First, as more and more streaming services have used major film festivals as their launching pads, the marketing value of a festival premiere continues to rise (for certain films) while, strangely, the marketing value of playing multiple festivals seems to be waning. Instead of extended word of mouth festival campaigns leading up to a theatrical launch, the “festival window” remains stuck in the collapsing model of failed, short-term theatrical windowing. This problem— films doing very limited, sometimes single festival plays before premiering on streaming platforms— is driven in part by the myth of subscriber and audience acquisition being built on the exclusive availability of films. Even as subscriber growth seems to be heading toward a plateau,10 exclusivity of access to films and film libraries looks to still be a key differentiator in the minds of many in the industry who continue to treat their films like precious objects11.
But what if, instead of limiting access to films, companies instead completely overhauled the way they look at film festivals? Instead of focusing investment and value primarily on the hierarchy of consensus festivals, what if the industry, instead of seeing value as relative and exclusivity as crucial, saw mutual benefit as being a key component of the overall marketing cycle of their films and at-home services? If streamers and theatrical distributors can align to increase the reach of a film and help their bottom lines, why not utilize the broad, community-driven, and engaged existing network of film festivals and non-profits to build a sustainable culture for their films and the future of filmgoing?
I have thoughts.
Deepen film industry investment in the infrastructure of film festivals
Instead of exclusivity, distributors and filmmakers should provide even more access and more support to a range of community-based film organizations. And no, not just in posh locales where company executives enjoy vacation homes; create a thoughtful path for each and every film to utilize organizations already embedded in their communities to create an in-person touch point for your brand and your film. Send a range of team members to attend various events, get them invested in the success of these events as partners and collaborators. Instead of spending huge on insider events and awards campaigns, take some of that budget and go build momentum out in the world. Y’know, where the audiences are. Be the brand that connects with audiences in real life and use festivals as key-partners to do so.
Distributors should build festival strategies that mirror exhibition paths
If your film is planning a theatrical release in a community, there is no better way to build word of mouth than to support a film festival or non-profit community partner screening12. It is a form of in-person advertising with a partner who is plugged into and already communicating with a film loving community. When you invest in festival screenings, you are investing in community marketing13. This used to go without saying, but some seem to have forgotten the value of these screenings for their films and brands. Partner up, re-invest, expand and deepen your engagement with the people who love your films. Festivals already know who those people are-- don't re-invent the wheel. Partner.
Reset the festival “launch” timeline
Not every film is created equally, so privilege high quality films with a bigger festival run instead of a single festival launch. Instead of collapsing the “acquisition to theatrical” timeline, expand the window by establishing pre-existing relationships that you can plug into within the launch press window. One easy way to do this is to participate in festivals and with special community partner driven screenings simultaneously, instead of fanning them out over months. Not every screening needs an in-person Q&A— giveaways, brand activations, Zoom-ins, special contests, members only events; there are a ton of ways to activate without the demands of having a film essentially go on tour to build audiences one at a time. Recreate your launch to mirror your release footprint.
Product exclusivity doesn’t lead to growth, engagement does
Engage film festivals by treating them like valuable partners in the strategic lifecycle of a film. Withholding films and not playing them only hurts the bottom line. Allow for advanced screenings and festival plays that engage audiences and are not an afterthought. This is especially true for smaller distributors and undistributed filmmakers who are unable to make significant advertising spends in a wide array of markets, generate visible press, or otherwise generate meaningful awareness for their films in a landscape deeply oversaturated with consumer choice. Festivals can help by activating their audience. Partner with them to build.
Give credit where it is due
Throwing a set of laurels on a poster is not the answer. Instead, give credit to and amplify festivals within the industry. Support festivals, use targeted in-market advertising to acknowledge festival runs and in-market partners. instead of simply gatekeeping films, make partnering with festival professionals a part of your workflow and treat them as valued collaborators. It is time to acknowledge the value of the festival and non-profit film community to our collective industry.
A festival screening is NOT your theatrical window
I hear it all the time: “Well, we don’t expect this film to play in this market, so, y’know, this festival screening is essentially our theatrical.” No it isn’t. Most film festivals and film non-profits are not, in fact, exhibitors; they don’t own theaters and likely pay to rent theatrical space from an actual exhibitor, they don’t make money on concessions, they have to hire and pay technical staff to present films, they are doing marketing above and beyond what almost all for-profit exhibitors are doing by engaging with local community businesses, leaders, and organizations, and still, earned ticket revenue for a single screening typically does not come close to covering the costs of presentation. Instead of a false "exhibitor" framing, filmmakers and distributors would be better served using a festival screening to gauge market viability for your film, utilizing the event to connect with the audience, to get them invested in films, to sign them up for the company's mailing list14, and if it turns out a festival or event is not great for engagement or the audience is not right for your films? Now you know and you can reinvest elsewhere. Go find out.
Mutual benefit is, of course, not a one-way street— In order to build mutual benefit with distributors and filmmakers, festivals also need to make significant changes to how they operate.
Festival engagement must be measured to create impact for industry partners
And by measured, I mean quantified. The film industry runs on measurable, standardized data— Box office reports by theater and market, marketing spends, production budgets measured against ticket sales, audience tracking data, test screening formulas. Festivals are, by and large, in the Stone Age when it comes to providing meaningful, actionable information to filmmakers and distributors. Since most festivals can’t compete as markets or by providing broader press coverage, if festivals are going to ask to be valued partners on the march to theatrical and streaming success, we need to create meaningful, standardized, measurable data sets that our partners value. I would love to see industry & festival leaders come together to see what’s necessary.15
Festivals must deepen community engagement and build new audiences
A film festival’s greatest asset is its constituency. By building meaningful, engaged, and sustainable partnerships within constituencies, festivals and film non-profits can not only deliver audiences to industry partners, but can expand the meaning and value of filmgoing locally. Local non-profits, schools, and businesses spend all day dealing with their own need to deliver services— film can provide a different experience altogether, allowing them the opportunity to tell their own stories in a way that is unique, meaningful, and outside of their day-to-day work experience. Engage them and work with them to build audience within your community. It doesn’t have to just be through sponsorship— connect partners and communities with the films you program and sow the seeds of filmgoing.
End old tropes and build new experiences
Let me re-state something from Part I of this series: the red carpet photo call and arrival at a Cannes premiere screening at the Palais is a unique, incredible experience. It is also one that most festivals cannot replicate16. In the age of social media, personalization, and customization, how can festivals better connect filmgoing with audiences, allowing them to center themselves in the experience? In order to best connect audiences with films and distributor brands, you need more than a logo on a banner, you need to put the audience in the center of your story, deepening their connection and allowing them to amplify your work within their networks. This is where all media consumption is moving now— integrated, cross-platform, and user-centered. Build new experiences for this reality, not an old one that never delivered much value for you anyway.
Be year-round
When your film festival ends, take a breath, thank everyone (yes, everyone) who participated, and then get to work immediately to plan for year-round engagement with those exact same people. Screening events, one off panels, fundraisers, book talks, co-presentations with other organizations, school screenings, community events, outdoor summer films, workshops, and more. Year-round organizations simply draw more investment, investment you can leverage into deeper engagement for your film industry partners to connect with outside of your event window, building value for them and for your organization at the same time. And since you’re doing the year-round work anyway, always collect data on your audience at these events. Always. Encourage RSVPs, check-ins, tickets- even for free events. You can use that data to measure engagement and provide yourself and your partners an honest picture of where you are and then build a plan for where you want to go.
Festivals must drop their own demands for exclusivity
Last, if we expect distributors and filmmakers to recognize mutual benefit with film festivals, we must support one another and stop competing with one another for films, attention, and resources. For the most part, the “regional festival premiere” has fallen by the wayside, but if our goal is to provide value to our industry partners, we should not limit their strategic choices with our own demands for exclusivity. Sure, the “press value” of a screening or event may be diminished by having another screening precede our own, but if we instead focus on activating our audiences and delivering a great experience for them instead of chasing “prestige”, we can deliver on our promise by aligning audience experience with the goals of our industry partners.
Each one of these ideas comes from a deep belief that, in order to improve the landscape of filmgoing for all, the process must shift from a perception of consensus for some (and relative value for the rest) to a deeper, more engaged relationship of mutual benefit and support for all. I would never suggest that all festivals are the same and should be treated as equals17, but that all festivals should receive more engagement from distributors and filmmakers in order to build upon and expand our collective culture of filmgoing and that, in exchange, all festivals should create more meaningful partnerships with industry stakeholders, giving them a professional experience and sharing the data they need, similar to how festivals currently work to create value for audiences and sponsors.
What the entire industry needs now, more than ever, is to find unity in purpose and specificity in function. Working together to help each other not only survive in a shifting landscape, but to re-imagine how we work together and to use that new paradigm to build a thriving environment for filmgoing, we can overhaul the old systems and the ineffective status quo, neither of which have been adequately challenged by our collective innovation. And while the consensus of meaning and value is likely to endure for the institutions that have built and earned it, there is an entire universe of opportunity standing alongside it, ready to be utilized to create a sustainable new way of re-connecting audiences and institutions with the shared promise of the cinema. And if we don’t come together to capitalize on that opportunity and promise, how will we all survive whatever may be coming next?
I mean, theaters were closed and people were in quarantine and life as we know it was deeply disrupted. I’m not saying panic wasn’t justified, just that it was, in fact, panic.
Eternal thanks to companies like Eventive and a few, select others who helped festivals survive in 2021 and 2022. Without them, we would have lost an unimaginable number of American film festivals.
And making sure the cars were spaced six feet apart, per regulations.
Industry hierarchies built around the consensus of meaning and value even replicate themselves in the middle of a pandemic. Go figure.
Also known as “geofencing”, a phrase I hope to never have to type again. #PTSD
We may have forgotten the reality, but Apple TV+ acquired the film CODA during the fully virtual 2021 Sundance, and from there, it went on to win Best Picture which— it’s the only Sundance film ever to win Best Picture. Am I crazy or is it amazing that no one ever talks about this? The film premiered at the “online only” Sundance and won Best Picture, making my living room one of a distributed network of home theaters that hosted the film’s premiere on the road to its Academy Award. You’re welcome, CODA.
PPP & Shuttered Venue Operating Grants Forever. ❤️
Money quote: “Not long ago, some were predicting more and more films would be diverted from theaters and sent straight into homes. Moviegoing was destined to die, they said. Not only has that forecast fallen flat, the opposite is happening in some cases. Companies like Amazon and Apple are sprinting into multiplexes, taking a distinctly different approach to the staunchly streaming-focused Netflix. Launched on 3,507 screens, “Air” was the biggest release ever by a streamer — and it's just the start. Amazon Studios, led by Jennifer Salke, is planning to release 12-15 movies theatrically every year. Apple is set to spend $1 billion a year on movies that will land in cinemas before streaming. Movie theaters and (most) streaming services are turning out to be fast friends, after all.”
Those that survived, anyway. Many closed their doors forever.
Whenever I need a reminder of the fleeting nature of festival screening exclusivity, I like to peruse the DVD sales bin at any given truck stop along any given highway. There, invariably, I will find a film that I, as a festival programmer, begged and pleaded to show, one I was able to program, which now sits in a pile of $2.99 movies for sale to no one. Humbling and invaluable perspective.
As someone who both operates a cinema and programs a film festival, I can tell you: films that play the festival, especially with talent attending, do exponentially better at our theatrical box office than most of those that do not. That’s because the marketing in the community we do at the festival we do drives awareness, interest, and word of mouth for films that might otherwise not be able to spend meaningfully in our market on theatrical.
And not just in big cities, please. I see “free preview screening” emails and alerts ALL THE TIME in NYC which, when it is for a film that has done almost no festival engagement, makes me confused. Why not partner with grassroots organizations on the ground and find an audience that way instead of chasing it in an oversaturated media landscape?
Also, have a consumer mailing list?
Again, I have thoughts, like changing and standardizing how we gather and report audience award data, for example. But that’s for another time.
Oh, the sad parade of poorly photographed step-and-repeats and old, ragged carpets!
Because they are not even close and should not be.
I jumped out of my chair when reading: "filmmakers should provide even more access and more support to a range of community-based film organizations". It is so unfair to put that on the back of filmmakers while we know that film festivals work for themselves rather than for the filmmakers.
Regional film festivals are answering their constituents first. They are often struggling with local politics that have nothing to do with cinema. As you wrote, they are UNABLE to provide filmmakers with either press coverage or distribution opportunities.
A lot of NYC filmmakers I know shared their frustration about regional festivals during private talks. For the anecdote, I've experienced this odd feeling of talking at a regional festival with the crowd vanishing once the buffet opened next room. So much for the 'community of film-lovers'. And did I mention films selected because the lead actress is gorgeous and will look good at private receptions? Sometimes you wonder if the films selected aren't just based on the cast to create a young and glitzy enough 'scene' that will keep sponsors entertained and pay for the next year festival. It is an economy but somehow an economy that serves filmmakers last.
Something else has to be created.
You've provided a great service over these three articles on the current film festival leg of the film ecosystem, how we got here, and where we have to go. I love the dive into solutions. Keep it up!