Filmmakers face some pretty rough treatment in this business, but usually no one wants to talk about it. I've been holding this story for the past month, but now I think it's finally time to publish it. This all started with a subtly worded threat I received from SXSW (specifically from whomever sends email as film@sxsw.com).
In the email, SXSW suggested that two panel ideas I had proposed would not be included in SXSW 2009 because of a comment I posted to
IndieWire regarding the New World of online film distribution. I'll let you read the comment and decide for yourself if it deserves retaliation:
Great article! I would only take point with the usefulness of film festivals in the New World. The idea that a single gatekeeper can decide if your film should be screened or not (and that you would actually pay for this decision making step via an entrance fee) is ludicrous. It's safe to say there is a glut of film festivals at present, which seem to exist mainly for the mining of entrance fees. Because of this most of the money spent on entrance fees by filmmakers is wasted. For those few that are accepted the audience is limited (compared to online distribution).
The biggest crime to date is the introduction of the online film festival. Your sponsor (SXSW) tried this out this year, and it was great for them. They got to keep oodles of entrance fee money, and all they had to do was post a couple videos online. The temptation to rip off filmmakers in this manner is strong, but eventually fewer filmmakers will fall prey to this scam.
Somewhat harsh words, but you have to consider that SXSW had just taken something like $50 from me as an "entrance fee" for an online film festival that only put six films online. So at the time the idea of charging me a bunch of money for
not putting my video online seemed like a scam. Come to think of it, it still sounds like a scam. YouTube posts your video and doesn't ask for a cent, while SXSW asks for your money and then doesn't post your video. Years from now we'll look back on this business model and have a good chuckle.
Anyway, minutes after posting this comment I received an email from film@sxsw.com suggesting that the panels I had proposed for the SXSW 2009 conference (which had made it to the short list) were now in trouble. Here is the subtly worded threat:
your comment on IW
From: SXSW (film@sxsw.com)
Sent: Wed 9/17/08 9:59 AM
Thanks for the kind words about our online film festival. I'm glad you are such a fan. Good luck with your panel proposals this year!
Sure enough, when the panel ideas were selected for 2009 my ideas were not on the list. Here is the rejection letter from SXSW:
Dear Jimbo,
Greetings from the South by Southwest Interactive Festival headquarters in Austin.
We wanted to inform you that a list of the first batch of "accepted" panels for the 2009 event was posted on the SXSW Interactive website earlier today.
See http://2009.sxsw.com/node/402
If you are receiving this e-mail, then the programming idea (or ideas) that you submitted for the 2009 SXSW Interactive Festival is probably NOT a part of this list...
Best regards,
Hugh Forrest
SXSW Interactive Festival
March 13-17, 2009
Austin, TX
http://www.sxsw.com/interactive
The ironic thing is that SXSW tried to make the panel selection process appear democratic this year. Panel selection was supposedly based on votes registered at
panelpicker.sxsw.com. But since I was notified of my fate before the votes were in it's a safe bet the election was rigged. The odd thing is that
none of the competing panels in the category I submitted under (digital filmmaking) were included in the first round of
panels for SXSW 2009. The category doesn't even show up in the results page.
I tried to get some information from Hugh Forrest, the organizer, and this was the email exchange we had:
Jim: I am really interested to know if there was interest in my ideas.
Hugh: Yes, yes -- definitely lots of interest in your ideas . . .
Could it be that my panel ideas actually had the votes needed to be selected? They weren't uniquely brilliant, but I think I could have done pretty well had I not poked SXSW in the eye. Of course SXSW could put this whole issue to bed by posting the results from the vote, proving that they only randomly send sardonic email to filmmakers (as opposed to tipping over the ballot box to silence dissent). But SXSW refuses to post the vote tally.
For anyone that's worked a day behind the gates this kind of treatment should come as no surprise. There's only a few employers in this industry and there's literally an endless supply of applicants. Once you get on the revenue side of that equation the temptation to abuse the applicants is incredible. Where else are applicants charged $50 for absolutely nothing in return?
For those that are starting out in the industry the lesson here is that powerful organizations like SXSW don't have to tolerate dissent. Once they have a large enough audience they can do what they want and no one is going to call them on it. Like rig an election, or send subtly threatening email to a filmmaker. And if you feel the need to speak out you can pretty much forget about doing business with that organization. It's all part of the business and in this business you're going to take a few lumps. That's why they call it hardball.
