Sundance a seller’s market

Buyers at the Sundance Film Festival have a mantra: Don’t get caught up in festival fever. In other words, don’t let an enthusiastic reception here seduce you into paying a lot of money for a film that won’t play anywhere else. A second caveat might be in order: Don’t shop on an empty stomach. You’ll come home with more than you want or need.

This year, many observers believe, one or both of these injunctions have been violated. They say that Miramax/Fox Searchlight spent too much ($5 million) on Zach Braff’s “Garden State,” a romantic comedy that one critic described as “overly sedated”; that Fox Searchlight lavished too much money (estimates range between $3 million and $4.75 million) on Jared Hess’ “Napoleon Dynamite,” a film about an adolescent nerd in rural Idaho that many have described as funny but slight; and that Focus Features overpaid ($4 million) for Walter Salles’ “The Motorcycle Diaries,” a Spanish-language film about the on-the-road education of the revolutionary Che Guevara.

“The numbers are very high, as high as the mountains of Utah,” says Think Film’s Mark Urman.

“Some of the numbers seem a little aggressive,” says Tom Ortenberg, whose company, Lions Gate, purchased the thriller “Open Water” for $2.5 million. Last year, a festival favorite such as “The Station Agent” went for $1.5 million. “Thirteen,” another hot title, went for $2 million.

The rise in prices being paid for films this year is attributable to very poor markets at Cannes and Toronto, according to Ortenberg, a view that is shared by many buyers here. By the time many distributors showed up at Sundance, the cupboard was bare, so there was pressure to shop aggressively. This pressure was exacerbated by what some see as front-loading at this year’s festival: The most eagerly anticipated films were shown early. (Arguably the most difficult film in competition, “The Woodsman,” a sympathetic look at a pedophile, was shown last.)

Ortenberg says he put together an offer for “Open Water” after the first screening with the understanding that the filmmakers had until the second screening the next day to accept it -- which they did. So the film was sold before some distributors had a chance to see it. Front-loading and the kind of deal-making that goes with it also have the effect of freezing out the press and word of mouth, so that early reviews and views that could hurt a film’s marketability don’t have time to surface.

Urman thinks that the festival did this deliberately. “It has been around for 20 years, and they’ve figured it out,” he says. He adds that he couldn’t screen a film of his, “Bright Young Things,” until late in the festival because the films without distribution had to be seen first. In other words, the festival is not about seeing and appreciating films, it’s about selling them.

John Sloss of Cinetic Media, who brokers a lot of these deals representing filmmakers, naturally views this somewhat differently. He says a film will disappear if it isn’t shown early -- by Monday at the very latest (the festival begins on a Thursday). He says that several years ago a film he was representing was damaged when it premiered on Tuesday.

For Sloss, the hot house of early screenings doesn’t explain this year’s prices. Nor does he believe that the films are necessarily any better than in other years -- but he does think the market for them is. There are more buyers, there are new revenue streams (particularly DVDs), and there might be a sort of spillover from the resurgent economy.

“I think Sundance has become a psychological market,” he adds. “People come here with their checkbooks open.”

And that’s precisely the problem, according to Urman. The numbers this year might be dramatic, but they’re in line with his belief that year in, year out, distributors pay too much. When reminded of last year’s sales, Urman cites “Pieces of April,” which sold for $4 million but made only $3 million.

What clearly nettles Urman is that Think Film is being priced out of the market by the larger players -- Miramax, Fox Searchlight, Focus Features and others -- that have big-studio backing.

“It’s not healthy for anybody -- for the audiences, for the filmmakers,” he says. “It changes what the film is.”

In other words, if a film is expected to recoup a large investment, then the director might play it safe creatively while making it. Certainly that’s been the case with the casts, which are filled with familiar faces.

The money being spent also creates expectations and a backlash if those expectations aren’t met. The injured party is almost always the filmmaker, who is considered a sellout for taking what’s offered. It can hurt a career, as Sloss is well aware.

“It’s possible to sell for too much,” he says. “If the film creates too much demand, I shift it [the fees] to the back end” -- so the headline-grabbing upfront figure is lower.

Asked if he thinks that too much money is being spent on films this year, Sloss, whose clients clearly benefit from a seller’s market, says, “I don’t think I’m the person to ask.”