Jornal da Mostra

Subscribe here the 'Jornal da Mostra'

AMERICAN PRESS ANALYZES SUNDANCE FILM FESTIVAL

The traditional Sundance Film Festival, dedicated to the independent movie production, is seen in different ways by The New York Times, USA Today and Time Magazine

Drawn to a close on January 28th, the 2007 Sundance Film Festival still holds the status of being one of the most respected scenarios of the so called independent production. So much is discussed about what the selection criteria for the festival have been throughout the years, and also about what an indie movie really is nowadays. But the opinion of the American press, represented by three of the most widely-read means of communication in the country – The New York Times, USA Today and Time Magazine – diverge about the importance of this event, founded in 1981 by the actor and moviemaker Robert Redford.

Manohla Dargis, The New York Times’ film critic, has covered the festival since 1993 when the event was “exhilarating, a blast… also small.” Today, Sundance has turned into a brand, according to her. It is a media circus that works as an adjunct of Hollywood. The increasing presence of famous stars and celebrities is a two-way street: the festival needs them for the media, and they use Sundance to be in the media. Dargis argues that it is not the movie selection or the award itself that matters to the media or the public opinion. Sundance has become news itself. The critic even identifies some good pieces of work in the selection this year, but “who cares?” According to her, Sundance has become a very big machine in which – contrary to the original principle of Sundance Institute – it is increasingly difficult for modestly scaled films to attract attention in the middle of this whole circus. “Sundance is hot!”

Now, USA Today, according to Anthony Breznican, points out that Sundance has turned into a dramatic paradise for the ordinary people, people like us. While Hollywood concentrates on “superheroes, spies and pirates, the 2007 Sundance Film Festival offerings highlight extraordinary drama in the everyday lives of restaurant workers and store managers,” he says. He believes that this affinity with the working class is due to the fact that many of the moviemakers in the festival had to struggle, save money and work multiple jobs to get their movies finished. He mentions two feature films: “Snow Angels” by David Gordon Green, starring Kate Beckinsale as a small town waitress and “Grace Is Gone” by James C. Strouse, in which John Cusack plays a father who takes his daughters on a cross-country trip rather than tell them their military-enlisted mother has died in Iraq. Breznican considers these movies two of the best ones shown at Sundance.

In an acid text in his column The Big Picture, in Time Magazine, Richard Corliss, the renowned film critic, states his opinion clearly in the very title: Sundance Films Are Bad for You! Referring to the festival as “fat and soft”, Corliss argues that it is meant to show “non-Hollywood movie form for smart people”, such as ‘Little Miss Sunshine’, the big hit from Sundance 2006 that has been nominated for a Best Picture Academy Award nomination. He also adds that the event has become “the crucial farm system for the major studios” in the sense that it will grow fruits that will feed the system tomorrow. The formula is clear, according to him: “Sundance movies have devolved into a genre. The style is spare and naturalistic. The theme is relationships, beginning in angst and ending in reconciliation. The focus is often on a dysfunctional family (there are no functional ones in indie movies) that strives to reconnect.” He regrets the predictability of the recent indie productions and, consequently, of Sundance itself that started selecting “just a different sort of the same.”