32 Weeks To Oscar: Toronto, Telluride, and Collateral Damage
I was completely comfortable with the decision by TIFF to set a rule that if a film chooses to go to Telluride, it can’t have an opening weekend slot at TIFF.
Simply, the inspiration to make an official rule was the increasing issue of major fall releases agreeing to premiere at TIFF, then “TBAing” themselves into Telluride. (TBA meaning, to go on the schedule as a “To Be Announced,” or what was once a surprise screening.)
The choice to play that game with the media—which is what all of this is about—was not without its problems. A decade ago, media at Telluride were, mostly, a non-issue. The trades, indieWIRE, maybe someone from the LA Times (not critics), and a couple internet types. No New York Times, no Wall Street Journal, no TV, etc.
The media tone at Telluride started to change after the 2006 TBA of Capote and the 2007 TBA of Juno. Two eventual Oscar nominees. Two opportunities to get first access to talent, some of whom are a little press shy.
It was also the first year that A.O. Scott attended the festival… the first year, since the very early years, in which the NYT covered the festival.
In 2008, there was a movie that WB had designated for direct-to-DVD got picked up by Fox Searchlight. It TBAed Telluride and then premiered at Toronto. Then Slumdog Millionaire won the Oscar.
It was the first movie in the entire history of Telluride (starting the summer of 1974) in which the eventual Oscar winner played the festival.
The media heat was on and ‘Telluride is the first stop of the Oscar season” started. And with it—and coincidentally, the blogging explosion—the growth of media as a part of Telluride had begun.
It started a remarkable run of six years in which the eventual Oscar-winner premiered as a TBA at Telluride two times… another Oscar-winner slid in as a tribute film… and a fourth launched in North America after premiering at Cannes. Not only were there more journalists heading to the very expensive festival (4 days in Telluride and 10 days in Toronto cost about the same amount) to see movies early, enjoy the amazing location, and bathe in movie first-ism, but the urge to double-dip by bigger studios increased.
2009 – Up In The Air
2010 – The King’s Speech, 127 Hours, Black Swan
2011 – The Artist, The Descendants
2012 – Argo, Amour
2013 – 12 Years A Slave, Gravity
And here’s the problem for Toronto. Half of of these ten films (plus Slumdog Millionaire, Capote, and Juno) were presented as World Premieres at TIFF… and all eight had TBAed at Telluride. Two of the other five films had been at Cannes (The Artist & Amour). Two more were back-doored in as tributes to George Clooney and Colin Firth. And Gravity just booked Telluride and went on to suck up a lot of oxygen at Toronto.
This brings up another issue that TIFF must be feeling. A movie like Gravity used TIFF as its bigger diving board with 10x+ the media at the festival, as well as the base for junketing the movie (which would be virtually impossible at Telluride), taking attention away from actual TIFF premieres. God bless Warner Bros. They had an 800-lb gorilla and it could sit wherever it wanted with great success.
This was good for the City of Toronto, good for the hotel that WB took over for days, a good association for the festival, and good for the media, which has some one-stop shopping for the fall movie season. But does it fit the mission of the festival? Personally, I saw Gravity (and was blown away) in a makeshift hotel screening room WB set up, honoring my commitment whatever other film was World Premiering in the same slot in a big theater. But how many people blew whatever it was off for the hot title with flying buzz out of Telluride? And while it didn’t ultimately matter how I saw Gravity, was it best for the film for me to feel compelled to see it in a tiny room in a hotel?
And would it have hurt Gravity in the slightest had it pushed to Monday or Tuesday at Toronto?
Whatever corner was turned by Telluride and by distributors, make no mistake… Telluride is now in the “me first” Oscar race game. After 33 years of not having a single Oscar nominee for Best Picture premiere at the festival, suddenly they were cranking out at least 1 a year. There is no one more passionate about film—and the best of film—than Tom Luddy. But this kind of thing just doesn’t happen like the breeze shifting directions.
And again, most of these films “officially” premiered at Toronto. So TIFF made claims to being the first stop for Oscar as well. And TIFF’s pedigree in this regard started 7 years earlier than Telluride… 1999… with American Beauty. And they’ve had 8 Oscar winners in 13 years. And 3 Audience Award winners winning Best Picture in the last 6 years.
Regardless, in an era of media obsessed with FIRST and with journalists forever trying to make excessive spending on festivals seem critically important to their editors who approve such budgets, there was and is a big push to prioritize Telluride in the media. And the noise was never so loud as it was last September.
So this last off-season, TIFF made a proclamation. If you show your film at Telluride or anywhere else in North America, you can’t show your film at TIFF on opening weekend (Thursday-Sunday).
Because of the obsessive push over the last decade to put any film with serious sales or awards aspirations into opening weekend at TIFF, the festival has—for media—become a five- or four-day festival. So this rule seems, to many distributors and filmmakers looking for a buyer, like a threatening, trouble-making edict.
My immediate reaction was to see some good in the forced expansion of the festival. Suddenly, media that has routinely left Monday night or Tuesday might feel compelled to stay until Thursday. And in doing so, won’t only see the bigger films that chose a Telluride premiere, but other films they would not have seen… potentially finding gems or creating publicity for rising talent.
I still feel this way.
However…
There are arguments against this edict to be made—and are being made—by distributors of smaller indies, docs (a sliver of the Telluride schedule), and foreign-language films that feel compelled to play at Telluride to take advantage of multiple benefits… which include 1. The pool of Oscar voters at the festival; 2. Smaller pond allows smaller films to be bigger fish; 3. Getting some attention for smaller titles before Toronto offers a better chance at generating attention during the TIFF onslaught.
These are films that are, unlike some of the Oscar chasers, a true part of the history of the Telluride Film Festival, which was founded to honor silent film, but as the stars of that era have died off, has become more and more about great foreign-language and small indie films and filmmakers. But these films at the heart of the festival also have smaller marketing and publicity budgets than most of those taking advantage of the TBA game.
As one distributor mentioned to me, the way things were is that you could bring in a foreign director or actor, go to Telluride on Thursday or Friday, head to Toronto on Tuesday or Wednesday, and be done with TIFF by Monday… a 10-day trip. Now, with this rule, that 10 days becomes 14 or 15 days. And not only is it more expensive, but the talent has no driving purpose for the down week between the two festivals.
An extra 5 days can mean thousands of dollars (it’s not just a hotel room for the talent, but handlers as well) and can create intensified scheduling problems. I am sympathetic to this.
I will say, it also occurs to me that a small film that is willing to screen for me (and others, obviously) before TIFF (under embargo) could reap a real benefit in wide open time for interviews and the like before their TIFF premiere. I can only speak for myself, but it is a hell of a lot easier to book me for a DP/30 on Thursday or Friday than it is on Sat-Tues, when I shoot as many as 10 half-hours a day.
It has also been suggested that the payoff for films that obey TIFF and skip Telluride is not enough to make said skipping an overall win. Smaller films are not really in a financial position to get slots in the big venues (RTH, Elgin, Princess of Wales, Lightbox… or even the Ryerson at night) on opening weekend at TIFF. So if they give up Telluride, what is the payoff in Toronto? Less attention? More trouble breaking through?
Still… I do think it is absolutely fair for TIFF to make an absolute rule for TBAs appearing at Telluride and to hold distributors who have made commitments to North American and World Premieres to their word. I think it’s also fair to ask a company like Warner Bros or Fox Searchlight to make the choice between two high-profile North American festivals that screen within days of each other. Maybe some companies will choose to skip Toronto and junket elsewhere. Maybe others will not care about waiting until Monday or Tuesday to premiere… perhaps even pleased to be fighting less hard for air. TIFF is taking that risk. There is nothing shocking or unusual about a business decision in the world of theatrical releases. It is much more horrifying that any of these companies continue to fund Carlos de Abreau’s made-up personal award show… coming to network TV this October like a leftover episode of “The Bachelor” featuring The Situation’s grandfather as your host.
But for the smaller films that are officially on the Telluride schedule, perhaps a variation in the rule should be allowed, as every film screening in Toronto on opening weekend is not and has never been a World Premiere or a North American premiere. Maybe a new designation that highlights films with talent coming from a distance as unique events. Maybe bridge the gap between Telluride and Toronto with a Wednesday or Thursday program specifically intended to create media opportunities for smaller films that have played Telluride.
As with current arguments about VOD… what works for real indies would likely be a disaster for studio releases and vice versa.
A solution is not so easy. As we all might guess, whatever seam Toronto allows in the rule will surely be exploited by distributors and producers and sales companies as quickly and cleverly as possible. But there is a long history of quality indies and foreign-language films playing both festivals… no harm, no foul. It would be good to see TIFF figure out a way to make that opportunity open up again.
David,
I’d love a pundit or critic to write a piece regarding an issue I’ve come across as a fan of sites like these over the years. Some pundits are not listing Boyhood in their top 10 (or so) contenders for Best Picture, because IFC is not a studio known for Oscar campaigning. However, I think that if pundits DON’T list Boyhood on their prediction lists, it makes it that much easier for voters to dismiss such fare in favor of more obvious Oscar bait. To that, some will say that Oscar predicting is about deciding what WILL happen, not what you WANT to happen. However, I think that many voters refer to these pundits and their lists to determine what they should focus on seeing before submitting their ballots.
Boyhood is currently at 100% on RT, even after 102 (or so) reviews. It has a stunning 9.4/10 average, and a making-of backstory that is phenomenal. The first weekend grosses were staggering, and audiences of many demographics are being incredibly moved by it. All of this and Linklater’s track record, not to mention the sad fact that he’s been overlooked for decades, makes it clear that this is a film that should be all over the Oscar pundit sites. If you build it, they will come.
So tell me, what are your thought so the connection between pundits and voters? Is it a chicken and egg situation? Personally, I think it’s perverse to be putting unseen films like Unbroken high on prediction lists and leaving Boyhood off altogether, because it sends the wrong message. “This is not what you should vote for, but this is.”
I suppose this particular instance tiles me more than usual, because Linklater has never been nominated for Best Director, and even when He delivers a film like Before Midnight that tops numerous year-end polls, his film isn’t even nominated among a field of 9 BP nominees. And Bernie should/could have been a huge sleeper hit, but it wasn’t even promoted at all. Jack Black, McConaughey, Shirley Maclane, and a moving and hilarious script that audiences love. There was no earthly reason that it should have been dropped unceremoniously into theaters with absolutely no fanfare. Why do studios give up on Linklater, despite the fact that his consistency and propensity for masterpieces is higher than most famous auteurs? Is it because he’s from Texas? Are studios giving up on their films before they even try for crossover success? If the mainstream public knew the backstory of Boyhood and saw the innumerable accolades, it could EASILY be a sleeper hit this summer. But it’s like they’re unwilling to do any minor marketing to take it to the level it could certainly reach.
Anyway, thoughts?
curious….. what actual harm was TIFF suffering from Telluride?
Not asking because I have a position on the question at hand, just curious. Was TIFF beginning to make less money, or having trouble getting the films it wanted? Less press attention?
Or was it ego? Jealousy of Colorado cool?
Seems to me that this could set up a Telluride vs TIFF bit where some contenders premier at one place and some at the other. Telluride has gotten big enough that it can launch a successful campaign. Contenders might choose to skip TIFF just as easily as they would choose to skip TIFF.
Which is to say that I don’t think the rule will work out the way TIFF hopes.
I think the questions you are offering suggest that do have a position on the question at hand.
Telluride isn’t big enough to launch a successful campaign. I love the festival, but it’s a very narrow swath of voices coming off the mountain, even with growth in the media numbers. (I found out last night that they are actually doing press accreditation now. Oy.) I believe there is more press in Toronto than there is total attendance at Telluride, which has already run into problems/complaints with expanding to its current size.
Every vote counts and there is an Academy reach at Telluride. That is the value proposition for being there. It’s also a great festival experience. Much better for talent than any festival the size of Toronto or Cannes could ever be. Media coverage at Telluride is almost all inside baseball. But it does have an effect on media coverage when the films land at Toronto… some good, some bad.
I don’t see anyone actually skipping Toronto in this situation. It would be cutting off your nose to spite your face. But it could make TIFF more complicated and less valuable, especially for the little films. This is the great irony of the whole conflict. The films that don’t need Telluride at all, but want to feel the ego boost of being accepted and loved at the more arty festival, are the ones getting in the way of the small films… at least as the TIFF rule now stands.
Or you can blame Toronto. Your call. Lots of different perspectives here.
If you look at it from TIFF’s side, I think you’d see that they just don’t want to get undercut. Especially on opening weekend, choices are being made between films and slots. As much as distributors would like to have it both ways – no sin in that – the more perceived importance that a Telluride appearance brings, the more it takes away from the TIFF premiere.
If there are films that choose to play Telluride instead of Toronto, I imagine TIFF would be disappointed… but TIFF has, what, 10x the number of films? Life will go on up north. Even if, say, 10% of press newly decided they wanted to cover Telluride instead of Toronto, it could not happen, just as a matter of space and seats.
Honestly, I think this could be great for TIFF, forcing the spread of the festival from 4 to 7 or 8 “must see” days after years of front-loading the festival because everything has to play on opening weekend.
Finally, a little perspective. Can you imagine a festival popping up in Paris the week before Cannes where 1/4 of the competition schedule screens for media? How did Sundance react to Slamdance as a relatively little side festival? What would happen if Sundance films suddenly decided to premiere openly at a Slamdance event the week before Sundance. There are many problems that can come from this edict by TIFF… especially for smaller films that have worked the 2 festival idea for many years now. But Telluride isn’t a virgin at the party either. Turf wars require two to tango. And it’s always easier to root for the (apparent) underdog.
I remember when Telluride was the festival for true cineastes–the place to go if you wanted to see Andrei Tarkovski films or Abel Gance’s “Napoleon” on a huge outdoor screen. Now it sounds like it’s turning into just another Oscar Whore. Sigh.
Thanks – I really don’t care much one way or the other…. as you suggest this might help prevent Telluride from becoming an annoying crush.
TIFF does come off as a bully from doing this (about number one billion on my list of worries) but, I am still curious. Telluride has enjoyed a big run, in part with films that went on to premier at TIFF. Has TIFF suffered actual harm? Or is this alpha dog stuff?
You are quite right to make small films the chief concern. IMO.
Does a Telluride “TBA” screening hurt TIFF?
Yes it does, the same way it hurts the Venice Film Festival, whose dates partially overlap with Toronto (and Telluride) each year.
First of all, it’s a matter of “moral conduct”: Venice and Toronto each year “share” the movies available, with some of them premiering on one side of the Ocean, some others on the other side. AND in both cases, those festivals are marketing and presenting them as “world premiere”, if they are; having “surprise screenings” in advance in Telluride ruins that “balance”.
On top of that, quite simply, Venice, as a rule, screens only world premieres in competition; filmmakers agreeing to compete know that rule very well, and should simply stick to it.
In 2013, “Under the Skin” was one of the most awaited titles in Venice. It showed, unannounced, in Telluride the day before the Venice screening. And the internet was flooded with reviews from Telluride, and the ones coming from Venice seemed already “outdated”. It doesn’t take an expert to see the damage that can do to a festival.
(Under the Skin was completely ignored by the Venice jury; maybe they simply didn’t like it, but I wouldn’t be surprised in finding out that they were maybe asked to “ignore” it, it not being a world premiere anymore)
In response to marco70go:
“Under the Skin” was announced at Telluride in the main program line-up – it was not a TBA. Whether or not Venice knew it was showing, I can’t say, but “Under the Skin” was definitely not a surprise TBA showing.
David, I think you’ve provided some really good coverage on this issue and really appreciate that you have taken the time to look at it from multiple points of view (Telluride, TIFF, Big Distributors, Smaller Films and the Press). I will be interested to see where this goes.
That said I do have a couple of corrections and comments to offer. You wrote, “Whatever corner was turned by Telluride and by distributors, make no mistake… Telluride is now in the “me first” Oscar race game. After 33 years of not having a single Oscar nominee for Best Picture, suddenly they were cranking out at least 1 a year.”
That’s not correct. Did you mean not a single BP winner or was this a reference to TBAs? Because aside from Capote (in the 32nd festival not 33rd, 2005) Brokeback Mountain showed there in 2005 as well. Prior to that previous Best Picture nominees at Telluride include Finding Neverland (2004), Lost in Translation (2003), Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000), Secrets and Lies (1996), The Piano (1993), The Crying Game (1992), and My Left Foot (1989).
This doesn’t include the 29 acting nominations (10 wins), 14 directing nominations (1 win) and 14 screenplay nominations (5 wins) in the period between 1987-2005. If you want to date the point at which Telluride became a launching pad for the Oscars I think the years 1989 and 1990 are more accurate with back to back best actor awards for Daniel Day-Lewis in My Left Foot and Reversal of Fortune.
To suggest that Telluride has only recently had an impact on the Oscars is not supported by the record.
That said, I also think the expansion of the field from 5 pictures to up to 10 has skewed the impression of the importance of Telluride somewhat. Three nominations out of a field of 9 or 10 is equal 1 or 2 in the previous field limit.
Daniella, They still show a lot of older classic films and they still have the outdoor screen in the Park which is open to the public.
Marco, Under the Skin hurt Under the Skin with the Jury in Venice.
Oh, one more thing…”docs (a sliver of the Telluride schedule),”
A sliver? There were at least 14 docs among the 56 features last year, including Particle Fever, the Unknown Known, Salinger, Tim’s Vermeer, Milius and Jodorosky’s Dune.
That’s a quarter of the festival.
Patrick… my apologies for the change in specifics that came in editing. I will adjust. Not premiering at. Telluride and becoming an Oscar nominee.
All of those films premiered elsewhere
However, I am told that The Conversation premiered at Telluride. So that is a distinct error.
David, SPC has probably been the most vocal studio out there about TIFF’s new policy. Do you see them totally snubbing TIFF this year, as in not bringing their big guns— Foxcatcher and Mr. Turner?