Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Sundance Programmer ?s Filmmaker Rights - Pt 2

Continued from Part 1

Below please find the email communications between Adam and myself from yesterday, including his comments he requested I post on his behalf.

Legend: My notations, below, will be made in italics in this color (teal?). Adam's original messages as well as my initial responses will remain in black ink. My introduction and conclusion will also be in teal, but not in italics.


  • Adam Montgomery
    15 hours ago
    Adam Montgomery
    • Christine-- I have been referred to your blog post from May 3rd by a couple of filmmakers, and I have been trying to post a (rather long) comment about it, but I haven't been able to do so. Could I possibly send it to you to post?

  • Christine Scott
    15 hours ago
    Christine Scott
    • Absolutely! Is this a FB post you are referring to? If not, please send the link.

  • Adam Montgomery
    15 hours ago
    Adam Montgomery
    • I am referring to the following post, which I believe was on your blog (if that's not the case, let me know):

      http://filmfestjunkie.blogspot.com/2011/05/if-you-use-withoutabox-wab-you-have.html

      Obviously, this is your blog, and if you don't agree with me then you are under no obligation to disperse it, but I STRONGLY disagree with the original statements and I feel strongly about ensuring that filmmakers are not misled by the information. (Cool! Me, too!) I guess that, in a perfect world, it would be great if you could edit your post with my comments attached, but I would prefer not to post them directly on Facebook for personal reasons. I will send you the text of the comment I was trying to post-- I think that it won't let me because it's too long.

    • Attachment Unavailable
      The attachment source was deleted or the privacy settings on this attachment do not allow you to view it.
  • Adam Montgomery
    15 hours ago
    Adam Montgomery
    • Here are my comments-- I am open to any questions or thoughts you might have:

      I know that I am coming into this thread late, but I felt compelled to comment on this. I am the Manager of Programming for the Sundance Institute, which means that I run the entire submissions process for the Sundance Film Festival, all of which goes through Withoutabox. I am not associated or affiliated with WAB in any other way.

    • While you may claim not be associated or affiliated with WAB many at WAB are close with many at Sundance. John Cooper, for instance, is chummy with Christian Gaines who runs IMDB, if I am not mistaken. You remember Gaines, he ran the AFI Film Festival - some would say he ran the AFI Film Festival into the ground abruptly leaving for greener pastures moments before the near fatal demise of the long-running, incredibly prestigious festival. Under his leadership of either his last year or one of his last year's there, the AFI Film Festival's centerpiece film was snagged by another festival which completely left AFI hanging without enough time to replace it. BTW, the film premiered at AFI Dallas. The incident received plenty of press. No blame to AFI Dallas, it's a cut throat business and if you can get a premiere and you're smart, you run with it!

    • Don't be confused by the name. There was no direct connection between the two festivals, as I understand it. The Dallas fest leased the name from AFI which helped the newer festival build a reputation. The festival has now relinquished paying those fees and is doing quite well on its own. It was after Gaines joined WAB and, if I'm not mistaken, after Cooper took over at Sundance that Sundance began using WAB exclusively discontinuing the practice of allowing filmmakers to submit directly to Sundance. (Perhaps that's where your problem lies? Perhaps you should have continued to allow filmmakers ) So, as you can see, while you may not work for WAB there certainly does seem to be an 'affiliation' or 'association' firmly in place!

No comments:

Post a Comment