MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

SD7 – Humped Over

A Hounddog mini-review will hit the Sundance page of MCN shortly.
Quieter today. Hollywood checked out, for the most part, in the last two days.
But that also means more chances to get to the movies.
Let’s have a conversation about how many of you are turned on, turned off, or disinterested in the notion of a “Sundance film,” as so many – for so little money – are going to come to a theater and a DVD store near you in the next year.

Be Sociable, Share!

25 Responses to “SD7 – Humped Over”

  1. Me says:

    I love getting Sundance movies throughout the year. I can’t tell you what a breath of fresh air LMS and the Illusionist were in the middle of the summer as everything the studios put in theaters was god-awful. And if it is a really good Sundance movie that shows up in the fall/winter to compete for Oscar, they’re usually big budget enough that I wouldn’t notice the difference. And it’s nice to be able to see some little gems on DVD that show up thanks to Netflix that may not have been good enough to pay theater prices for. It’ll be a shame if we don’t get at least a good 4-5 this next year.

  2. Me says:

    Then again, the dependents have gotten pretty good at creating good content that is similar to “Sundance movies,” that sometimes I can’t tell the difference there, either.

  3. jeffmcm says:

    I think I saw all of 4-5 movies this year that had been at Sundance a year ago, so I guess my vote is ‘disinterested’.

  4. anghus says:

    the post put up the Hounddog review. Easily the best quote:
    “The new film simply isn’t good enough to sustain any sort of outrage.”

  5. Szasa says:

    I know the gist of what “Sundance Film” means, but I still feel that these labels are useless to me. I really just care whether a film is worth my while or entertaining or illuminating or not. The problem with the label is that it can change the expectation and transform the experience.
    I think Little MIss Sunshine would have been an entertaining diversion in any year. It was an entertaining diversion. The Sundance label allowed it to become something else. Now it’s one of the most over-hyped films of recent memory with a lot of people responding to the hype over the actual work. (The BP nom label only makes that worse.)
    I can think of too many movies to name that I loved to varying degrees that came through Sundance and I can think of many I hated. I love festivals for their ability to uncover something new and worth my time – Behind the Mask being a good example from the past year- a film I would have missed without festivals.
    Bring ’em on. Bring ’em all on. I love seeing new and compelling films and, while you very often have to wade through a sea of nothing-specials at any festival- Sundance has more than proven its ability to uncover one or a few worthwhile titles a year.

  6. Wrecktum says:

    anghus, now that the reviews are out, what’s your new take on Hounddog? Although I know you were never outraged about the project, your interest has been very, very strong for months. Is it still newsworthy or has it jumped the shark?

  7. Blackcloud says:

    “Sundance film.” There’s a meaningless label for you. Sundance is so 1994. I couldn’t tell you how many Sundance films I’ve seen, though I’m sure I’ve seen a few. It simply doesn’t mean anything to me. Given the average level of box office success of Sundance films, that goes for the vast majority of the American movie going public.
    Given this year’s Oscar nominations, that’s probably true of the Oscars as well. Maybe a better question is, Which is more irrelevant to the American movie audience, Sundance or the Oscars?
    I’d much rather see a movie. I’m off to see “Curse of the Golden Flower.” Later.

  8. anghus says:

    wrecktum, i was hoping the film would be better than i was being told, and that the end product would justify all the sexual content. I never want to root against a film, so i was hoping the reviews would be kinder, and the opinions of people i know who have seen it have been quite unkind. According to them, it plays out just like the script read with the controversial sexual aspects being more shocking than educational, and all this stuff about ‘the film being an opportunity for healing’ is just a line to try and quiet the controversy. I think it’ll be newsworthy until the sale. I think the number is dropping by the hour. Every hour another mediocre review goes up, and all the hype and controversy is going to be buried beneath a deep layer of crummy press. I do think that it’s a few days of really strong press before it totally burns out. All the hype is frontloaded. By the time the film is released, it’ll be an afterthought.

  9. Wrecktum says:

    I agree.

  10. This post topic ties in nicely with my finishing of “Rebels on the Backlot.” “Independent FIlm” was clearly co-opted long, long ago…at least in the Sundance/ “big” indie container that we’re talking about here. Sundance is like….a really big name restraunt in L.A. or New York that everyone (simpletons, stars, hangers on, big time producers) know about and name drop, but the real cool and hip restraunt is some other place around town.
    All the hullaballoo surrounding Sundance isn’t all Sundances fault. They don’t take over the bars and restraunts around Park City and make them the “________ Lounge.” Individual companies PR departments do that. BUT…by programming stuff (like LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE)that really isn’t all that “Independent” makes these corporate vultures flock there. I mean…do you guys really think LMS wouldn’t have got picked up if not for Sundance? Steve Carel is in it for chrissake. If Sudnance and Redford really cared about it being a film festival and not a market, they’d grow a pair and program some solid, off the wall fare and blow off the stars and big names for a year or three. You simply can’t have it both ways.
    There’s just so many better film fests out there, like SXSW. Festivals that don’t need to book undeserving movies that have “stars!” in them just to draw a buzz. It’s all cyclical and Sundance isn’t what it was. Maybe it’ll come back but now, there’s just better opportuinities to see great films at great film festivals. As soon as Hollywood figures that out, you’ll hear about those fests too.

  11. anghus says:

    have you read Spike, Mike, Slackers and Dykes?

  12. I started reading it a few times and have trouble digging it. Which is weird, but true…
    “Rebels” is cool but a little too gossipy…I still like finding out things about Fincher and Jonze that I didn’t know…and PT Anderson.

  13. Lota says:

    ‘Sundance Film’
    liked these winners:
    Welcome to the Dollhouse (1995) is good but but Big Night was the best in the competition, then second best was Freeway.
    Ruby in Paradise (1993)
    Blood Simple. (1984) best Sundance winner ever. I love M. Emmet Walsh
    like other fest-fare better than Sundance.

  14. anghus says:

    Spike, Mike, Slackers, and Dykes is my favorite book on the subject of film. It makes me want to go to Sundance, but i promised myself i wouldn’t go until i had a reason to, i.e. a film of mine that was playing there.
    One day….

  15. I’m interested in the couple of Aussie features that have shown there, but that’s not because they’re Sundance titles. A lot of time we don’t even get the titles you guys do, so it’s really sorta a moot point for me.

  16. ployp says:

    A film is a film to me. Coming from a festival, even winning, makes no difference.

  17. The Carpetmuncher says:

    I love sxsw as much as the next guy, but its crazy to say its better than Sundance. The quality of films at sxsw is weak at best. The fact is that every film that premieres at south by does so only b/c they failed to get into Sundance or Berlin and have no chance at Cannes. There’s no comparrson b/w the 2 fesivals if you’re actuaually interested in the quality of the films…
    Snow Angels is another great film this year, from a major filmmaker getting better and better…

  18. anghus says:

    i read this morning on Fox News that Hounddog was being passed on by distributors, and that it may even come out of the festival without a sale.
    of course, it is Fox News, so who knows if that’s true, though they did mention First Look, IFC, and Weinstein Company by name.

  19. Stella's Boy says:

    That is great news Carpetmuncher. I am a huge, huge David Gordon Green fan.

  20. SXSW is better because…
    SXSW has films that are fresh and exciting and truly indie. Like last year I saw “LOL,” “The Cassidy Kids,” “Gretchen,” and “Jam.” All amazing, all indie.
    I also saw PREMIERES of SLITHER, A SCANNER DARKLY and PRARIE HOME COMPANION. From a “film festival” POV, that’s how movies that already have homes should be presented…as a premiere, not taking a 3 hour block from a real independent film.
    Not only that but SXSW still feels small, like a community. Journos like me from smaller outlets have equal access. Sundnace is all about “us” and “them.” Sure, there’s more prestige at Sundance, but who gives a shit. I just want to see some good movies. And drink beer and eat BBQ.

  21. James Leer says:

    There are plenty of insanely indie films at Sundance. It’s just that the big films get all the press. It IS irritating when people complain about the quality of films there when they cherry-picking films because, “Oh! This one stars John Cusack!”

  22. EDouglas says:

    “There are plenty of insanely indie films at Sundance. ”
    “Once” and “Great World of Sound” are two of the better ones…and though Son of Rambow was bought for a lot of money by a major, it was made independently (and took about five years to get off the ground). I’m really glad I went. I’ve spent past years waiting and waiting for all the movies I heard about at Sundance to show up here (movies like Little Miss Sunshine, Hustle and Flow, Me and You and Everyone We Know, etc) and it’s nice to get to see them early… makes me even more excited now to get to see them again once they get a theatrical release.

  23. James Leer says:

    I adored “Son of Rambow.” I know DP is skeptical of it because it’s his role as a contrarian (he has played the same role in nearly every big Sundance sale I can remember) but I really think it will at least make its money back, and it’s virtually a must-add to every collection of anyone who loves film. So much fun, I’d like to play it on a permanent loop.

  24. The Carpetmuncher says:

    Rambow was great but if Poland is questioning the seven million price tag I have to agree with him. Paramount is gonna have to spend a grip on p&a to get enough butts in the seats to justify the pick up cost… And as much as I loved the film, I just dont see the upside. It just seems like huge overreaching…

  25. The Carpetmuncher says:

    Rambow was great but if Poland is questioning the seven million price tag I have to agree with him. Paramount is gonna have to spend a grip on p&a to get enough butts in the seats to justify the pick up cost… And as much as I loved the film, I just dont see the upside. It just seems like huge overreaching…

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon