Does Sundance Still Matter?

by

2025 at the Sundance Film Festival, there were films sparking quite a stir with their talk-worthy elements and critical acclaim. However, none ignited as much discussion as the festival itself did this year. The buzz surrounded topics such as where it might relocate in 2027 (Cincinnati or Boulder? Rumors are swirling towards Cincinnati now), and more profoundly, whether Sundance – a festival that reshaped cinema’s terrain in the ’90s – could maintain its influence into the 21st century. Can it continue to stay relevant amidst the ever-evolving landscape of film? That’s the question on everyone’s mind.

There’s a lot of debate about it, but Sundance continues to create buzz and attract attention, with a few movies that could potentially make a difference. However, despite my belief in Sundance, the festival seems to be losing some of its magic under a cloud of self-congratulatory promotion.

OR

The general consensus is unclear about it, but Sundance still manages to generate interest and headlines, along with a select number of films that might leave an impression. Yet, despite my faith in Sundance, the festival appears to be veiled in a haze of self-praise, which feels more like “We’re still around!”

OR

Opinions are divided on this matter, but Sundance continues to spark interest and make news, with only a few films having the potential to stand out. Nevertheless, I remain hopeful about Sundance, but its charm seems to be fading under a wave of self-celebration that comes off as “We’re still here!”

OR

The verdict is up in the air on this point, yet Sundance persists in generating enthusiasm and coverage, with only a few films that could potentially make an impact. However, despite my conviction in Sundance, its allure seems to be diminishing under a barrage of self-admiration, giving off a “We’re still around!” vibe.

The reasons behind Sundance’s decision to leave Park City are not entirely clear to many. After four decades, some residents of Park City have become tired of the annual festival. Furthermore, the luxury skiing industry, which attracts the wealthy, is now financially competing with Sundance. However, the narrative that keeps surfacing in articles about Sundance is that it has “outgrown” Park City. To me, this sounds more like a fantasy than a reality. And if Sundance has outgrown Park City, it’s hard to tell from the lackluster atmosphere at the festival this year.

2023 marked the resumption of Sundance as an in-person event following the pandemic, but it wasn’t the bustling spectacle it once was – more like a pared-down, toned-down version. The energy that used to fill Main Street, the gridlock on Park City streets during the opening weekend, which I remember vividly from the ’90s and 2000s, was absent. Instead, due to the pandemic, the festival shifted online, making films accessible digitally. This practice has continued in a revised format, with an online Sundance film showcase starting midweek. As a result, one can now enjoy Sundance from the comfort of their own home without physically attending it.

This year, I caught multiple highly-discussed movies from the festival on my computer after getting back home, which was indeed convenient. However, what surprised me, considering my strong affinity for the cinema experience, was how perfectly it resonated with me. Most of the 100 or so films shown at Sundance this year will undoubtedly be watched by people at home. It turns out that most of these films are surprisingly well-suited to a smaller screen.

Interestingly, in this era of streaming, it’s remarkable that even critically acclaimed independent American films, such as “The Brutalist” and “Anora”, which often garner numerous Oscar nominations, struggle to draw a decent-sized theater audience, requiring extraordinary effort. As a result, today there are more than ever two Sundance Film Festivals. One is the traditional event in Park City, where each film is received as if it’s a life-altering experience (with standing ovations, reverence, and grandeur). The other is the one that exists beyond this bubble, where these movies will venture out into the world and… essentially compete for their survival as forms of entertainment.

For years, I’ve been a devoted follower of the Sundance Film Festival, and my dedication stems from my belief that the most impactful films that emerge from this festival have a unique ability to resonate with the real world. Last year, for instance, we witnessed this with “A Real Pain,” Jesse Eisenberg’s enlightening buddy movie. In this year’s lineup, there were moments when I felt the familiar Sundance excitement, as I watched movies so extraordinary that I thought, “This film must succeed in the real world. Its quality is too remarkable to be overlooked.

Among the infrequent gems shown at Sundance, there’s the film “Twinless,” a captivating narrative about an unconventional bromance evolving into a love triangle, wrapped in humor so witty, vibrant, and playful that each scene seems like a treasure. The movie’s creator, James Sweeney, who pens, directs, and co-stars, demonstrates remarkable talent with his knack for keeping viewers on their toes. Dylan O’Brien, portraying both a charismatic gay Casanova and his brutish heterosexual twin brother, showcases his versatility and star quality. Aisling Franciosi also shines as the unexpected romantic interest in the story. With the right backing, Sweeney could craft a rom-com that would have mainstream audiences eagerly awaiting its release. It’s possible that “Twinless” has already fulfilled this role.

Three additional captivating aspects stood out: “Lurker,” Alex Russell’s mesmerizing story about a tech-savvy individual who gains access to a popular star’s inner circle, is a film built upon the allure of destructive actions. The main character, portrayed by Théodore Pellerin, is a modern-day pest who goes to great lengths to remain connected with stardom. “Lurker” is intense and suspensefully engaging, serving as a compelling fable about celebrity aspirations in the era of social media.

Three more striking elements caught my attention: “Lurker,” by Alex Russell, is a movie centered on the irresistible pull of questionable actions, with Theodore Pellerin playing the lead role as a contemporary troublemaker who goes to any extent to maintain his proximity to fame. This film is powerfully gripping and brimming with suspense, offering an intriguing portrayal of celebrity fantasies in today’s social media-driven world.

As a cinema enthusiast, I’ve recently come across two captivating films that have left an indelible impression on me. The first one is “Ricky,” directed with raw authenticity by Rashad Frett. This movie follows the story of Stephan James, a young man from East Hartford who emerges from prison after serving half his life behind bars. It’s been a long time since I’ve seen such a gripping portrayal of an ex-convict struggling to stay on the right path, reminiscent of Dustin Hoffman in “Straight Time.”

The second film is “Peter Hujar’s Day,” directed by Ira Sachs. This movie offers a minimalist yet magical journey back to the gritty bohemian haven of art, dialogue, and introspection devoid of modern technology. It’s a time-capsule leap that I found enchanting and thought-provoking.

However, let’s revisit my belief that these films are too remarkable to be disregarded: Are they factual, aspirational, or simply an elaborate fantasy? The iconic films of the 1970s, which in many ways were continuations of the independent film revolution, were breathtaking masterpieces, yet they weren’t “message movies.” They portrayed a social perspective without sermonizing. This characteristic is also evident in what I consider to be the great Sundance films: “Reservoir Dogs,” “Memento,” “In the Bedroom,” “The Blair Witch Project,” “Welcome to the Dollhouse,” “Big Night,” “Chuck & Buck,” “I Shot Andy Warhol,” “Secretary,” “Whiplash,” and “Manchester by the Sea.” These films didn’t make viewers feel obligated to be model citizens while watching them.

Many Sundance films today seem to emphasize their main message too heavily, which weakens the tension and suspense they could otherwise create. Instead of inviting debate and exploration, they tend to preach to a choir of social justice advocates, resulting in a tone that feels overly sincere and narrow-minded. The programming decision for “Kiss of the Spider Woman,” directed by Bill Condon, a big-budget adaptation of the 1992 stage musical based on Manuel Puig’s novel, seems to reflect Sundance’s own uncertainty about this trend. I found myself with conflicting feelings towards this film. On one hand, it boasts excellent acting performances from Diego Luna and Tonatiuh, as well as stylish neo-1950s musical numbers featuring Jennifer Lopez. However, its latter half becomes bogged down in an unending confusion that detracts from the overall experience.

The main point here is: Why was “Kiss of the Spider Woman” shown at Sundance? Given an estimated budget over $50 million, it likely cost 12 times more than most films screened there. Essentially, it seems to be a film designed for awards consideration. However, its presence at Sundance served a different purpose – to highlight the festival’s own significance. It was indeed an exception that validated the rule.

In its role as a platform for debuting indie films, Sundance continues to be the elegant machine it has always been, and I don’t anticipate this changing when it relocates to a new city. Initially, I expressed some reservations about this move, but now, at least a portion of me feels that it could breathe fresh life into Sundance. However, I will certainly miss the delicious thin-crust pizza from Davanza’s. As we look ahead, if Sundance is to maintain its prominence, both the films selected and the programming must acknowledge a fact: modern audiences crave excitement over enlightenment, but these experiences don’t have to be mutually exclusive. For Sundance to flourish in the future, it can’t just focus on showcasing movies that are good for you but are rarely watched by many.

Read More

2025-02-02 21:48