On Film Festivals and how the game is played these days

[kylevant]

I’ll try to make this less of a rant and more of a conversation starter. Maybe we can try and get an insightful discussion going here.

I’ve been “playing” the festival “game” with my most recent short film “Incoherent” and it hasn’t picked up any awards so far – in fact the selections are becoming rather slim now (when we started off it had 3 selections on top of each other). Anyway, I keep a close eye on the festivals I enter, as well as the films that pick up the awards, and I’ve realized three things (this is obviously my own opinion):

1. Selections and winnings seem to be incredibly subjective. It really does feel similar to gambling when entering your film into these festivals.

2. The short films that are winning usually have a very high production value that’s put in place through extensive (and often ridiculous) budgets and professional crew and cast members with no guerrilla filmmaking techniques being made use of. Since I’m not a film student, in an official manner at least, I have to compete with these “professionals”. To be quite honest, I find this rather unfair – then again, no one said life was fair.

3. The films that are winning don’t usually seem original. In fact, to me, they seem rather mainstream. Have the judges of these festivals watched enough original or indie film to actually qualify? It does seem like these small to medium sized festivals have a preconceived idea of what indie film should be and what kind of storyline it should typically follow (Mostly overdone human drama).

Have these small-medium sized festivals (4 to 8 years in the running) gone commercial under the true indie filmmakers spot light? Do they look for “generic” art house films with a great budget (with that production value that guerrillas can’t reach)?

Don’t get me wrong – I’m proud that my film has been officially selected by a few U.S. festivals so far. I’m just worried about the state and direction that film is taking at the moment. Commercial cinema is enough to worry about, but now we need to start worrying about the film festivals - where the real progress in story and original content should be made.

I’ll leave you with a quote that so many filmmakers (and even festivals for that matter) should take to heart, from the legend himself, Alfred Hitchcock…

“Eventually everything becomes avoiding the cliché. Your own cliché as well as everyone else’s. It’s not just what you’ve done. It’s what everyone else has done and done and done. I pity the poor people in the future.”

 

[Chris Adler]

I totally agree with you. My short is close to finishing its festival life. We had what you'd refer to as a ridiculous budget (over $50K) and finished a high production value piece, but with a 23 minute running time we ran into a ton of rejections as well. We've won some awards, made official selection to a half dozen festivals, but it really hasn't delivered much payoff.

One thing that really irks me is the standard rejection emails that all of the festivals use. If I didn't know better I'd assume there's a service out there like Mailchimp that everyone that runs a festival uses and they send all rejection letters. They were all "Thanks for entering and giving us the privilige of screening your film xxx. Sorry but you didn't make it. But take heart that this year we received a record number of submissions!"

So many festivals seem totally disorganized and thrown together at the last minute.

I'm all for some kind of new festival revolution...

 

[Josh Bass]

I'll chime in. I've done quite a few shorts by this point, and only really starting pushing hard (i.e. submitting to 40+ fests) at the fest thing on the last two. I sent my last movie to around 50, got into about 17 (starting to lose count), won three awards. Most were what I'd consider low-end fests, and this was done intentionally to see if I could get in anywhere since I'd had bad luck in the past, even with films that were well-liked by regular human beings. This newer film, around the same number of fests, fewer acceptances so far (won't have a final tally 'til I'm done submitting), but this time I aimed high on fest quality.

So, what I've learned--and this is my opinion and experience only, so take it with a grain of salt--is that, yes, Virginia, there is a lot of nonsense, BS and general WTF moments involved in the festival circuit. You may find your (have not seen it so I'm assuming) reasonably well made short/feature playing alongside the worst garbage ever to be produced by the anus of the filmmaking population. You will find yourself asking "is this how s**tty my movie is to everyone but me?" You will lose in the relevant categories to movies that are objectively inferior, instead of being beaten by movies where you could at least understand where the judges were coming from by picking those films over yours.

I chalk this up to a lot of generally bad taste out there in the judging world. Obviously that sound biased 'cause you're thinking "of course you think your movies are awesome; you made them!" But seriously, there are movies I could understand losing to, and there are those that make me say "are you poo pooing kidding me?", and I more of the latter than the former. Also, what seems to happen a lot is that the cast/crew of each film comes to support their film, and since it's a film fest, few other folks do. So when it's voting time (if there's an audience award), guess what? The film that had 30 people involved wins over the film with 5 people involved 'cause those 30 people came and voted for their movie. If you do win an audience award, that can be the biggest compliment because that is a (hopefully) large group of REAL ACTUAL PEOPLE telling you you're awesome, as opposed to 3 judges.

Now, to address your concern that movies with high production values get selected/win over those without high values, yes, often. BUT, that is because there is a very high correlation between the production values in a movie and its overall level of quality. Usually pro cinematography, sound, etc. go along with pro acting/writing/story/editing. USUALLY. It does happen that something lower end on the tech side is just as well put together, but it's not the norm so you don't see it as often. Documentaries are the only things that really seem to get away with this. . .look at the many of the fest websites, and see if they have screen shots of previous selections from previous years--you'll see almost all polished looking films, EXCEPT THE DOCUMENTARIES, which often look like home movies.

You also mentioned how it was unfair that these high dollar movies existed and you had to compete with them. I don't want to get into the whole "blah blah blah, life is unfair" thing, but that's what it comes down to. Also, to hear most of these filmmakers tell it, they actually didn't have ridiculous budgets. A lot of favor trading/borrowing/begging goes on once you know some folks, and suddenly, you're able to get that Red camera and that pro DP and Crew, and do it for very little or free. Or, as with a guy I was in a short film block with when my movie got into Slamdance, you spend two summers chopping down trees and risking your life to earn the money yourself to pay for all that. So there are ways.

Anyway. . .that's all I got.

 

[kylevant]

One thing that really irks me is the standard rejection emails that all of the festivals use. If I didn't know better I'd assume there's a service out there like Mailchimp that everyone that runs a festival uses and they send all rejection letters. They were all "Thanks for entering and giving us the privilige of screening your film xxx. Sorry but you didn't make it. But take heart that this year we received a record number of submissions!"

So many festivals seem totally disorganized and thrown together at the last minute.

Yeah, the standard rejection letters really have become rather clichéd. A couple of those "disorganized and thrown together at the last minute" festivals never even sent me a rejection email, I only find out on Withoutabox.

Another thing I've noticed is that Short films are often a side-show, and we're often in the lime-light when compared to the features. Probably best to enter shorts-only festivals.

I'll chime in. I've done quite a few shorts by this point, and only really starting pushing hard (i.e. submitting to 40+ fests) at the fest thing on the last two. I sent my last movie to around 50, got into about 17 (starting to lose count), won three awards. Most were what I'd consider low-end fests, and this was done intentionally to see if I could get in anywhere since I'd had bad luck in the past, even with films that were well-liked by regular human beings. This newer film, around the same number of fests, fewer acceptances so far (won't have a final tally 'til I'm done submitting), but this time I aimed high on fest quality.

I like your transparency - I think that's one thing that's missing in the indie film world. Numbers like that are often kept secret.

It really seems like the "shotgun" approach is becoming a rather standard approach these days. The other day I noticed a film on the same selection list as mine - the same film that screened with mine at a previous festival. Shows you how, for many filmmakers, it's really become a game of numbers and percentages. I'd go as far as saying that some films are even engineered for festivals.

So, what I've learned--and this is my opinion and experience only, so take it with a grain of salt--is that, yes, Virginia, there is a lot of nonsense, BS and general WTF moments involved in the festival circuit. You may find your (have not seen it so I'm assuming) reasonably well made short/feature playing alongside the worst garbage ever to be produced by the anus of the filmmaking population. You will find yourself asking "is this how s**tty my movie is to everyone but me?" You will lose in the relevant categories to movies that are objectively inferior, instead of being beaten by movies where you could at least understand where the judges were coming from by picking those films over yours.

I chalk this up to a lot of generally bad taste out there in the judging world. Obviously that sound biased 'cause you're thinking "of course you think your movies are awesome; you made them!" But seriously, there are movies I could understand losing to, and there are those that make me say "are you poo pooing kidding me?", and I more of the latter than the former. Also, what seems to happen a lot is that the cast/crew of each film comes to support their film, and since it's a film fest, few other folks do. So when it's voting time (if there's an audience award), guess what? The film that had 30 people involved wins over the film with 5 people involved 'cause those 30 people came and voted for their movie. If you do win an audience award, that can be the biggest compliment because that is a (hopefully) large group of REAL ACTUAL PEOPLE telling you you're awesome, as opposed to 3 judges.

Yeah, many of the selections and winnings often seem incredibly illogical.

Now, to address your concern that movies with high production values get selected/win over those without high values, yes, often. BUT, that is because there is a very high correlation between the production values in a movie and its overall level of quality. Usually pro cinematography, sound, etc. go along with pro acting/writing/story/editing. USUALLY. It does happen that something lower end on the tech side is just as well put together, but it's not the norm so you don't see it as often. Documentaries are the only things that really seem to get away with this. . .look at the many of the fest websites, and see if they have screen shots of previous selections from previous years--you'll see almost all polished looking films, EXCEPT THE DOCUMENTARIES, which often look like home movies.

You also mentioned how it was unfair that these high dollar movies existed and you had to compete with them. I don't want to get into the whole "blah blah blah, life is unfair" thing, but that's what it comes down to. Also, to hear most of these filmmakers tell it, they actually didn't have ridiculous budgets. A lot of favor trading/borrowing/begging goes on once you know some folks, and suddenly, you're able to get that Red camera and that pro DP and Crew, and do it for very little or free. Or, as with a guy I was in a short film block with when my movie got into Slamdance, you spend two summers chopping down trees and risking your life to earn the money yourself to pay for all that. So there are ways.

Yeah - I understand where you coming from. I suppose another issue is where I'm located. I realized that one of my biggest disadvantages is that I competing with American films that have the advantage of a highly evolved filmmaking industry. You wouldn't believe what I made my film with and on what budget.

 

[randin]

Everything that's been said here rings true for me and I could add many more stories and gripes, but I think another question to ask these days is, "why play the festival game with a short at all?" I'm not sure what the goal is. Oddly enough, it was at a panel at a festival last year that I heard an ex studio exec say something like, "I don't get what the point of festivals are. I guess if you don't have another marketing plan in place, at least some other filmmakers might see your film." That's a bit extreme of course, as there are deals being made, mostly at higher end festivals - and mostly for features, but it is something to think about. It seems to me that these days you've got a better chance of bigger success by just putting a good short online for everyone to see, rather than spending all your money applying to and going to the multitude of b-grade festivals that are out there. It feels to me like the festival circuit is seen by many filmmakers starting out as an end to itself. People want to get into fests and win awards there, but don't think beyond that.

For me as a composer, I've paid submission fees for films and gone to festivals just to go and network with filmmakers, but I've never felt like the festival was a significant stepping stone for the film or the filmmakers I worked with, whether awards were won or not. Even friends who have had shorts at Sundance haven't found it to help much. After a couple of years going to a bunch of fests, if I was a writer, director or producer, I personally wouldn't really bother with anything but the top level fests, and only if it was realistic that I actually had a shot at getting in.

I'm not being rhetorical here, but really want to know - does anyone have stories of shorts screening at festivals, particularly the mass of b-level fests, leading somewhere? What do you hope to gain from having your short on the festival circuit?

 

[Sol M.]

I'm with Randin, in that I'm curious what the goal of trying to get into festivals these days is (especially for shorts)?

IMHO, much more exposure can be attained more quickly and cheaply by distribution via the internet (Vimeo, etc.).

As far as deal-making goes, is there a hidden society of distribution deals being made for short films that I'm unaware of? Surely features get distribution deals at festivals like Cannes, but the best you could hope to get for a short is a DVD distribution where you get pennies (e.g. very little chance of ever recouping your production costs) in exchange for giving up almost all ownership of your film or perhaps a development deal. However, I've heard of more development deals springing out of shorts making waves on the internet as of late, so this seems like a better option if a development deal is the goal.

On top of that, festivals are a very niche thing, so while it might have been the only way to get a decent number of eyes on your short in the past, it's definitely not the best these days.

Goals for a short:

• Get people to see it: Internet
• Development deal: Internet
• Getting to wear a badge on a lanyard and feel like a d-list celebrity for a day or two: Festival (though you could do this at home with enough imagination)

And yes, most festivals (especially the smaller, more "indie" ones) that I've been involved with have been thoroughly disorganized and subjective. Frustration is the main reason I don't waste my time with festivals anymore, except to see foreign flicks that I'll have little to no chance of ever seeing on DVD.

 

[Josh Bass]

Yeah, I've wondered what the point is myself. My answer is "cause that's what you do" (just like how some people go to college after high school for the same reason). For features, duh. . .build fanbase, network, hope distributor sees it (if it's a major festival--many of the ones I've been in, even if I had a feature, wouldn't have mattered cause those folks don't attend), etc. For short. . who knows? I have to say though, I have a friend who's had extraordinary luck with his short at fests, and must be getting into all the right ones 'cause he's won CASH prizes and free filmstock and all kinds of stuff. I myself won some Vegas software I decided to sell (I'm on a Mac), so you could even say I "made money on my short" in that sense. Maybe you have one of those films and if you look up all the fests and find out who has prizes worth trying for. . .

Oh yeah, and, one thing about the higher end fests (your sundances, slamdances, all those) is, they have high end PARTIES. . .where often PEOPLE WITH MONEY AND POWER hang out. If you can get into those parties and connect with them in some meaningful way, you never know what might happen.

One nice thing about fests vs. online is that from what I've heard, the online audience has an EXTREMELY short attention span. That means, if you have even if a 15 minute short (considered the max recommended length by some, TOO LONG by others), you probably won't get many viewers cause the people who watch a gopher turning around on youtube aren't going to stick around for 15 minutes to watch your quality, professionally produced movie (unless it has a recognizable star). So now you're limited to nothing but super short short shorts, which is pretty limiting. Even then it's almost always the dumbest s**t that goes viral (girl falls off table she's standing on. Really?). BUT, on the other hand, you never know when Andy Samberg or God knows who will stumble across if it it's just out there for everyone to see.

One thing I'm going to try when the film I'm currently circulating in fests is "done," is, in addition to youtube and the rest, submitting it to every comedy, animation, film, etc. blog/site I can find and seeing if they'll host it. Any site/entity that vets the submissions they get, as opposed to taking anything like youtube, etc., at least gives you a little bit of distinction for being chosen, and if that site/entity has its own fan base, you can maybe siphon off that.

Now, there ARE short film distribution companies, or at least distribution companies that distribute short films. Just google those terms. Granted, these seem to be more of the high production value stuff vs lower. There are also many (I have a film on several) online companies offering split revenue/pay per download deals with filmmakers where you upload a movie and they pay you a percentage of what they charge per view. Have I made jack squat off these? No. Am I, however, the worst marketer and networker possibly in the world? Yes. Why is this any better than simply trying to sell the short on itunes/Amazon createspace/etc.? Not sure. . .I guess the hook with the online ppv distributors is probably that they do the marketing/have the fan base, at least to some degree. Point is, there ARE licensing fees to be made, if you can get to the right folks and they like your work. I've made a few pennies here and there over the years.

There are also companies that acquire content for distribution (for pay) across various devices - iphone, etc.

Lastly, I recall a while ago NBC had some kind of thing where you could pitch a show (maybe I have that wrong) via submissions. Look for those kinds of things too with various networks. . .I mean, jeez, there's so much programming and the need for it with the billions of channels everywhere, there's got a be a place for us plebes.

 

[kylevant]

Just like Josh, I too am asking myself that question. I think for the most part festivals are attractive to filmmakers in three ways:

1. Awards
2. Networking
3. Some delusion of an audience

And since awards are becoming harder to come by as each day goes past I'm inclined to think that the only real attraction for someone like me would be the networking. Meeting other filmmakers and possible collaborators. And since I can't attend any of the festivals my film screens at I'm starting to see no real point in submitting. Now on point 3, I've heard that most shorts screening at festivals would end up with something like 10 people (at most) in the theater. I'm not sure how true that it is, but it's starting to look quite likely considering how shorts are always placed in such a lime-light. Maybe one of you knows what the real numbers are like...

The Internet's concentration span must be more like 5 minutes (at least averaging). I don't find the Internet an attractive outlet anymore for my films but, like Josh says, the "cause that's what you do" mentality usually forces me to place the film online . High quality longer intellectual short cinema is not sought after online. I'd like to refer to the must watch documentary PressPausePlay (freely downloadable actually) at http://www.presspauseplay.com/ where Andrew Keen sums up so many of my thoughts with what he has to say. Here's some of that:

I don't think a young Fassbinder, a young Hitchcock, a young Scorsese...they wouldn't make it in this business. Slap up their early stuff on Facebook or on YouTube. It would get lost, it would get lost in the ocean of garbage...

...For a serious young filmmaker these are very depressing times. When you leave everything to the crowd, when everything becomes democratized, where everything is determined by the number of clicks - you're by definition undermining the seriousness of the artistic endeavor.

Seriously, this documentary is a must watch for everyone on this thread. Here's one of the trailers:

Now this brings me to another concern: If the Internet and film festivals aren't a viable route for short filmmakers to take, what is? Back in the day shorts used to play before features at cinemas, that was attractive to filmmakers, but greed destroyed that. It just feels like the modern day filmmaker realizes this and pushes to make features because "no one cares" about the shorts. Which is sad because the short film can be such a powerful form of storytelling.

In the future (not anytime soon) I want to start a festival with a very different structure. It wont be "locked in" to the ways other festivals have run for decades. I can't say it will succeed, but at least I will have tried and known that I had a shot at revolutionizing the way film festivals operate and show films to the world.

 

[Sol M.]

I don't want to call it "whining" because tone is hard to tell from text, but anyone complaining about how "things are so hard now, what with all the easy access to millions of viewers" is just not seeing the potential.

Yes, there is a sea of garbage out there (and there always has been), but real talent will always punch through and rise to the top. Saying that "Hitchcock had it so easy" is a cop-out.

People who go to festivals to see unknown films were always a niche audience and a minority. That niche audience is still out there (regardless of a festival's schedule), and will still sit through a 15 minute short on the internet-- if it's good. Now though, you also have millions of other potential viewers, most of which with admittedly short attention spans, but there will also some who would never find themselves at a festival (due to location, schedule, budget, etc.) but will be able to see your short thanks to the internet.

There is definitely an audience for shorts, but it depends on what you want your short to accomplish that will determine how you distribute it. Personally, I think the future (and the present) is self-distribution and spontaneous festivals via the internet, and not location-specific festivals acting as gatekeepers between your film and its potential audience.

 

[kylevant]

Jive, I'd say watch the doc. There's more to it then "whinning" about the garbage. It also explores a democratized mediocrity. Sure, you'll get the films that rise to the top but even I've come across the stuff that just remains hidden - never allowed to rise.

 

[NVentive]

Just Curious -- I'm running a first-year festival for our city, and I'm very late sending rejection letters. The reason is that I'm at a loss for what to say. "Your film was rejected because it was just utterly dreadful" doesn't seem appropriate for someone who obviously spent a ton of time, money, and effort on it.
Have any of you received letters that were....helpful?

 

[kylevant]

Just Curious -- I'm running a first-year festival for our city, and I'm very late sending rejection letters. The reason is that I'm at a loss for what to say. "Your film was rejected because it was just utterly dreadful" doesn't seem appropriate for someone who obviously spent a ton of time, money, and effort on it.
Have any of you received letters that were....helpful?

Obviously no one likes rejection and I think, no matter how you write it, filmmakers will usually take a quick view over the letter to get straight to the good or bad news. If it's bad news I move on.

Most letters say the same thing really. Something along the lines of: We liked all your films (that's obviously a lie) and that made the choice hard. It's all subjective. Please submit in the future.

I suppose the better letters actually reveal how many films were submitted and how many were chosen (that's a nice statistic for filmmakers to use). So think: Get to the point quickly, give them numbers. If you can customize the letters it would obviously be a lot more informative, telling the filmmaker why you never accepted it and what good points it had.

 

[arniepix]

Just Curious -- I'm running a first-year festival for our city, and I'm very late sending rejection letters. The reason is that I'm at a loss for what to say. "Your film was rejected because it was just utterly dreadful" doesn't seem appropriate for someone who obviously spent a ton of time, money, and effort on it.
Have any of you received letters that were....helpful?

Two things:
1- You are not required to send letters to the rejects.
2- You are not required to tell them why they were rejected.

And the third of my two things, here's my suggestion for your rejection letter:
"Thanks for applying to the <your city name here> Film Festival. We had many more applications than we could ever hope to accommodate in the competition or screenings. Even though your film didn't make the cut this year, we wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors."

 

[Josh Bass]

Ok, can I just say that NOT sending a letter is incredibly douchey? The least you can do, after I've spent my $50 sending you a doorstop is take twelve seconds to email me, no matter how generic, a letter that tells me I didn't make it into the fest. Otherwise I have keep checking the fest site or wait for them to announce the lineup and find my film's name missing to learn that I didn't make it in. It always gives me the impression a fest is kinda low end/poorly put together/just not very good altogether when I never hear back from them, and I'm unlikely to submit again because of that. Rejections vs acceptances can help you track statistics and see what kind of fests your film makes it into and whatnot. Kind of like the "experiment" I'm running now. I know from screenings audiences like my movie, but fest judges apparently often don't. The rejection letters help me track my acceptances vs rejections to see if this whole thing is worth doing again or if I'd better off on youtube.

That said, there is actually a festival called "Zerofest" out of NY or LA (or maybe they have one in each) that, for a rather ridiculous entry fee ($200), will critique your film as well as letting you know whether you didn't make it in. This info might be worth the price for some folks. Maybe that could be an idea for your fest? Charge a higher fee to give feedback on an entry. Or maybe have whoever views the films take notes and the rejections at least get a few quick words (maybe have it be a form letter with a "donut" for a few critical sentences tailored to each individual film) about why they were rejected. You can tell the truth/state your opinion without being mean.

 

[kylevant]

I completely agree. It just shouts "unprofessional" when a festival doesn't send out letters. I hate going on those escapades to Withoutabox or somewhere on the Internet searching for a confirmation of rejection from festivals.

 

[adamr316]

If only we lived in a world with more substance... People in the art community are so scared to give bad criticism to folks and I think it only hurts them.

 

[Curtis Mack]

Several years ago, I volunteered at SXSW. There are buyers there looking for commercial-grade features - one stopped me in line and asked for recommendations. I saw several features, and I liked two, neither of which won any prize or got distribution. It's a crap shoot. I saw every short. Most of them were decent. The least memorable short film was shot in 35mm by an obviously professional crew. That's the only thing I remember about it. The worst dog was there only because Jeff Goldblum was in it.
Good film festivals are fun, and I intend to submit to them just for that. Bad ones, like the one I attended in New York last year, are an embarrassment.
It seems axiomatic that no one makes money on short films. As a matter of fact the number of people who make money on any film is statistically insignificant. It's just that the tiny number who do make all the money. I intend to make films to say something that can't be said in any other medium. I think there's an audience out there for that. I sure hope so.

 

[NVentive]

Okay -- thanks. Another question....what would make a festival 'perfect?' I realize (obviously) that there is no such thing, but for the sake of instructive argument -- what would you really like to see? We lived thru year 1, we are starting to look at year 2.....

 

[kylevant]

Firstly - I'd like to congratulate you on your first year. They say that breaking through your first year is one of the biggest hurdles.

If you can take anything from this thread I'd say it would have to be the following:

1. It's all in the judges. Make sure you have judges that have a passion for film as well as an intense knowledge of the history behind narrative cinema. They should be able to choose original films with story's that avoid clichés and commercial elements. If people want commercial they'll go to the cinema or pick up Iron Man 2 at the local DVD store. Look at the films Sundance selects, usually a fantastic selection of original cinema. And human-drama can be as unoriginal and clichéd as an action movie, so keep an eye out.
2. Don't undermine shorts, in fact, promote them and have them playing in good time slots. The short film medium can be just as powerful as a feature.
3. You could possibly have a category for innovative, DIY or guerrilla filmmakers, since some filmmakers enter just a short with a $50 000 budget. It becomes almost impossible for us innovative ones to compete. Possibly base the categories on budget.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents.

 

[john threat]

Here is a little faq list I believe to be correct:

1. lots of film festivals at the top let in their friends and people they like into the festival. A director of a film festival and everyone under that person who has influence will get all their friends and aquaintences and people they admire in first - that can knock out tons of slots that seem "availible" - but are not. These deals are done with phone calls - and a lot of time they dont have to pay a frigging dime to get their film in and sometimes even their travel is covered.

2. Obviously everyones eye is subjective - interns sitting watching the films may knock your film out before it even gets to see a program director - also sometimes maybe your short sucks.

3. Submitting a film and not going is probably dumb. Its a relationship business. Its wasting your time and the festival and audiences time. I at one time did that with my first bad film (which was great! but sucked) send it to every festival for $40 and wound up broke. Boy that was dumb. I had more success just screening it locally with small screenings and I believe i got laid and drank for free.

4. You can get a deal from a short. You just have to show it to the right people - there are people that got jobs directing TV shows from crappy shorts at festivals or commercials ideas. Right place - right time. If you don't - chalk it up and if you really want to do film - come up with another short. If you want to sell something - make a feature.

5. Festivals are great! For getting drunk and getting laid and stuffing your wallet with business cards of people you will never see again - and getting your ego stroked. If you have a film and you get into competition - you'll notice a big difference and your lanyard will open doors and lead you to lunch dates you can only dream about. oh yeah! I personally dont see why one would go to a festival as a director if you dont have a film in it other than to get inspired. People only want to meet directors who have films in the festival. Everyone can direct! or at least think they can - eh - everyone can - dont fool yourself.

6. you can get a deal online too - but you have to just have the right peice at the right place at the right time - and you'll have to sneeze on a few people usually to get it to go viral. Sometimes you even have to know the right person to email to show it to after you rack up the numbers.

7. Me and a friend from film school went to the IFP here in NY to see a film and it SUCKED. It was like in 3d and Ed Koch was in it - fun - but sucked. The party after the screening the investors were there with sheepish grins on their faces like "what have we wrought" - one investor came up to us and found out we were film students and asked what we were working on. I was about to say a script about an interesting subject and my friend blurts out "nothing" and she smiled and walked away. Maybe nothing would have come from it - but i was kinda a dick and told him never to do that again. My point? You better be working on your follow up in case they say we love it! we dont want to buy it what else do you have?

okay - so - now throw this Faq out - it isnt worth jack s**te!