Speaking with my distribution hat on, we often receive calls from filmmakers who express bitterness that we tend to look primarily at films that come out of major festivals, the big three being Cannes, Sundance, and Toronto, and for us, also Berlin, Venice, and Rotterdam.

They usually act as though it was an affront that we were trying to be ‘exclusive’ and keep their populist movie out of the distribution game. Then there are industry analysts who suggest that these festivals are essential because the programmers weed out the dross and show us “an initial signal of a film’s quality.”

To me, it’s much more basic. Most arthouse/independent distributors don’t have huge marketing budgets. If a film is at one of the major festivals, it means it’s on the radar of a lot of press, theatre owners and industry, and even the public, all for free. If it gets good buzz, or especially an award, that is money in the bank. It’s not some kind of conspiracy to keep The People out but it is a business.

Can this be generated more affordably and in a less elitist way with online tools? Can you replicate the kind of excitement and engagement a large, expensive festival can produce? Or is the whole system outdated?

• DISCUSS THIS Post in discussion

• BROWSE / IN TIMELINE
• « Tease and Screen is a new funding idea
• » Crowdsourcing’s Jeff Howe explains the concept

• BROWSE / IN film festivals
• « Tease and Screen is a new funding idea
• » Toronto bound? New distribution at TIFF