WILL SUCCESS SPOIL SUNDANCE?

“Oh God, will you look at that snow!” An anguished groan escaped Robert Redford as he glanced out a window at the slopes of the modest ski resort he owns, high in this Wasatch Range valley.

It was a perfect Utah skiing day--crystal-clear skies and fresh powder combining to produce air that seemed filled with sparkling diamond dust. However, on this particular morning, Redford knew that the possibility of slipping out the back door for a quick run or two was slim. He was preparing to fly to Kenya the next day for his role in director Sydney Pollack’s film version of “Out of Africa,” based on Isak Dinesen’s autobiographical work. The last-minute details appeared to be endless.

After one more yearning look, Redford, lean and fit in faded jeans, boots, blue-and-white-striped shirt and Porsche racing jacket, disappeared into his office in the ski lodge to answer yet another call from Nairobi.

Sundance is home to Redford and the prestigious Sundance Institute, which he founded in 1980 to give neophytes a chance to mingle informally with professionals in workshops, programs and conferences in film, dance and theater.

The film laboratory program has been so successful that at least four movies developed under institute guidance have already been picked up and/or released by major distributors: “The Ballad of Gregorio Cortez” (released through Embassy Pictures); “El Norte” (Island Alive); “Old Enough” (Orion Classics), and “River Rat” (Paramount). Later this year, Columbia Pictures will release “Desert Bloom,” a co-production of Carson Productions (“The Big Chill”) and Sundance, starring Jon Voigt, JoBeth Williams and Ellen Barkin.

Ironically, Redford seemed concerned that such early success could turn Sundance’s secluded mountain workshop into a hunting ground for project-hungry studio moguls or deal-starved film makers.

“It’s dangerous,” Redford stated flatly. “I wanted film makers to have a place to struggle and make mistakes. I think a focus on success won’t be fair to the film makers or the process.”

The actor/director/producer seemed relaxed during a brief break--despite the ongoing bustle--as he sipped coffee in his office, which barely accommodated a desk, couch and two chairs. Surrounded by Sundance expansion plans, which were tacked up over photograph-filled walls, Redford candidly discussed Sundance’s film program.

Each June since 1981--after the snow melts and the weather warms--the institute holds a monthlong film laboratory dedicated to independent film makers and their craft. Sundance, he said, set out to provide an environment where they could work on their projects with input and assistance--rather than the normally pervasive pressure--from major Hollywood directors, screenwriters, actors and studio executives.

Hollywood enthusiasm for the laboratory grew more quickly than he anticipated.

“It’s not exactly what we had planned,” Redford admitted. “What’s happened with the institute is that it’s grown in strength faster than I thought; I didn’t expect it to go this fast . . . and that in itself is alarming.”

Initially, Redford said, he merely wanted to promote a little variety within an industry that he saw growing increasingly narrow in its commercial focus.

“The fact was that the stakes (in movie making) were getting higher, the costs were getting higher, the tension was getting greater and so it wasn’t a very conducive atmosphere to develop new talent or give a chance to unknown people.”

In addition, Redford felt that film makers struggling to produce more individualistic movies could use some professional input: “A lot of the independent films--or so-called ‘independent’ films that I had seen--were noble, but not good enough.”

What Redford set out to do was “really something that was more modest. We wanted to create a sort of humble workplace where artists could come and work and mix with resource people who were film makers who had a lot of experience and who’d been in the business for quite a while. And the interaction would help them develop.

“I figured we would be close to five years just sort of ‘in the woods working on it,’ ” he added, never veering from his straightforward, soft-spoken delivery. “I thought it would take a few years for this thing to evolve to the point where anything got made.”

However, strong film projects brought in by those selected for the program as well interest from Hollywood representatives who attended produced quite a different result.

“On a couple of projects, the scripts were so strong, having come through this process--especially when you have people like Waldo Salt (“Serpico”) and Tom Rickman (“Coal Miner’s Daughter”) working on your script--that interest in them developed at the studios.”

Redford paused and once again underlined his main concern.

“I think that’s dangerous, obviously, because you have a new director and you have whole new elements for a film maker when a major studio becomes involved.”

Not all those elements are necessarily beneficial, Redford said, never hesitating to criticize an industry that made him a star, but from which he consistently remains aloof.

“One negative feature of major studio films is that they are just too top-heavy. . . . There is no need to have so many people on the set. For a new director or new film maker to have all those bodies around could be really confusing.”

Although Sundance Institute “resource people” (including Redford) are always available if a film maker needs help, he reiterated, “I would feel more comfortable slowing it (the process), because it makes me nervous going too fast. We are somewhat responsible to the backing source, whether it be the studio or whomever, that the film maker doesn’t go out of control and foul up because he’s had no experience making a major film.”

What about claims that one or two Hollywood participants had criticized some Sundance projects for not being commercial enough--even though commerciality was never a criterion for acceptance in the June laboratory?

Redford winced just slightly before replying: “I’d like to say that this is a place where people like that don’t come--that Sundance is a sort of Shangri-La against insensitivity. While I don’t think those (statements) were right, I think film makers should hear all sides. A lot of them are really naive; a lot are green as hell, so I think it’s important for them to hear that this is part of the mentality.

“It’s a tough business, it is not easy. . . ,” he paused, a slow smile growing across his face, as he deadpanned: “I’m not gonna say ‘It’s a jungle out there, Jane. . . . ‘ “

Rather than offer precise solutions, Redford merely said, “It’s going to take a while to work it out. I mean, nothing happens instantly, correctly. . . . It takes a while for it to be solid. And I’m more interested in the long run of this thing.”

This year, Sundance expanded its format by taking over the United States Film Festival in January, which for seven years has been showcasing work by independent film makers in Park City, Utah.

(The festival--which attracted record crowds this year--ended Jan. 27 after awarding top honors in dramatic film and documentary competition to “Blood Simple” and “Seventeen,” respectively. “Blood Simple” is a film noir- ish Texas murder mystery; “Seventeen” is the controversial segment of the six-part “Middletown” TV series that was deleted when the series aired on PBS.)

“I was never big on festivals,” Redford explained. “And when I was originally approached the first year to do this one, I said I’d be interested only if it emphasized independent film.”

The first festival failed to convince him of its dedication to independents, Redford said, so he dropped out of active participation, although his name continued to be listed as honorary chairman for the next five years.

“The way I left it was, ‘It’s not what I’m interested in; but if this thing should ever come to grief, or falter, I would be interested in taking it on only if it began to emphasize independent film and created a kind of niche for being a showcase for independent film.’ ”

Last year’s financial woes of the festival left the future uncertain and, true to his word, Redford stepped in--but not without lingering doubts.

“I knew it was going to be risky to completely emphasize independent work rather than using celebrities to draw in the public to see the independent films,” he said. “You just can’t step forward in a community that’s not that sophisticated about film--much less art in general. You’re going to run the risk of no one coming.”

Redford attended the opening-night premiere and also conducted a directing seminar when one of the participants was forced to cancel.

He appreciated the irony of his presence being a boon to ticket sales.

“I tried to stay back and not be too visible, but visible enough to know that I was there,” he said. “I didn’t want to dominate the festival. It seemed to go--in appearance--against what we’re trying to do.

“We’ll assess how it went this year and see how we want to do it next year. I’d like it to continue because I think there’s a nice connection between what we’re doing here at Sundance and creating an absolute showcase for independent film.”