Is Sundance '26 a Turning Point for the Fest?
If Sundance's next chapter is bigger and buzzier, what does that mean for discoveries?
This past weekend, I saw The Testament of Ann Lee — an ambitious swing that’s impressively executed, but that unfortunately doesn’t really work. I don’t write a lot of criticism through this newsletter — least of all of original films that are earnestly conceived and aiming high — but I think this movie is emblematic of bigger problems in what you might call modern ~prestige~ cinema.
The problem is this: Everything is taking itself sooooo seriously.
If you’re not familiar with the film, it’s a musical-ish1 biopic about Ann Lee (an ultra-committed Amanda Seyfried), the founding leader of the Shakers, a small 18th century religious movement that emphasized chastity, song and dance, and handsome furniture. (There are two remaining Shakers today.)
Ann Lee’s life is filled with tragedy — she lost four children, each before the age of one; late in life, her congregation was brutally attacked by an angry mob on the grounds that they were practicing witchcraft — but between the dancing and the chastity and all the talk of mother god, it’s also a little wacky.
There are a few moments of levity in the film, but overall director Mona Fastvoldt approaches her subject very earnestly. Ann Lee is shot on film, with striking dark, moody cinematography, creating a brooding tone. The moments of song and dance capture the ecstasy that the Shakers must’ve felt, but Fastvoldt never questions or complicates their faith. The most puzzling character in the film is Ann’s brother, William (played by the great Lewis Pullman). The film briefly alludes to William being gay, but never wrestles with his path to Shakerism. Did he really love his sister so much that he would readily submit to a life of abstinence? Is he a true believer? Does he have zero internal conflict? Does everyone other than Ann’s troubling husband (Christopher Abbott) really rid themselves of lust? Does no one in this lot question how humanity will survive if everyone stops having sex?
I wanted greater attention to character dynamics and more friction between and within those characters. But what I really wanted was a little camp! For a while, I’ve been feeling like so many contemporary films are eager to get weird in an increasingly exhausted surreal horror or cringe comedy style. But these days, getting weird rarely means being a little silly or letting actors go for broke in a big, messy way. And a musical about the Shakers certainly seems like as good an opportunity as any.
Am I the only one feeling this way? What do you think?
Here’s what else is going on this week:
Yoko Kohmoto is hosting a meetup for her WOC+ group at Sundance and looking to gather donations for food and drinks. The goal is an intimate space that centers women and nonbinary filmmakers of color and provides an opportunity to connect. If you know someone attending who would want to join, email kohmotofilm@gmail.com. And send donations to @middleofanegg on Venmo.
If you’re attending Sundance, send nothingbogus1@gmail.com a voice note with brief(!) impressions of the fest — standout films, funny interactions, notable moments, etc. I’ll include in a future newsletter.
Hollywood Reporter put together a round up of parties, events, and panels.
Most everything seems to be sold out at this year’s Sundance, but festival vets tell me nothing’s ever really sold out.
Erick Rehbiel is ISO graphic designers for multiple upcoming paid freelance gigs. DM @erickrehbiel on IG.
Ari Cagan is looking for a clips editor and strategist. Full time position. DM @aricagan on IG.
Ditchers Eddy is seeking a small, weird space to host a screening. Email ditcherseddy@gmail.com.
More industry jobs here, courtesy of The Anonymous Production Assistant.
Lots of grants, contests, and awards to apply to here.
If you would like to list in a future issue, either A) post in the Nothing Bogus chat thread, or B) email nothingbogus1@gmail.com with the subject “Listing.” (It’s FREE!) Include your email and all relevant details (price, dates, etc.)
THE FEATURE PRESENTATION
What Does a Bigger, Buzzier Sundance Mean for Discoveries?
On Park City’s swan song.
Sundance ‘26 begins this Thursday. When this year’s lineup was unveiled, my initial reaction was that it seemed more starry than usual. Nearly every American narrative feature in this year’s lineup has prominent cast, an established director, or both. Whereas the past few years featured a bunch of ultra scrappy low budget indies (films like Obex, Dead Lover, Good One, Stress Positions, Strawberry Mansion, We’re All Going to the World’s Fair, etc.), this year those films were few and far between.
I’m hearing that that was a conscious decision on the part of the festival. There are a few potential reasons for the shift towards bigger and buzzier fare.
This is the last year in Park City, and the festival higher-ups want to send the mountain out with a bang.
This year is a direct response to last year’s critical press coverage and subpar sales numbers.
This year’s lineup is indicative of a long-gestating shift in the festival’s priorities, position, and role.
It’s also notable that the lineup has shrunk post-COVID. This year, there are 90 features and seven episodic projects. That’s more than last year, when there were 87 features and 6 episodic projects, but down significantly from 2020, when there were 118 features in the program. Simply put, there’s less room for gambles.
Sundance currently describes its mission as follows:
The Sundance Institute is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the discovery and development of independent artists and audiences. Through its programs, the Institute seeks to discover, support, and inspire independent film and media artists from the United States and around the world, and to introduce audiences to their new work.
The word “discover(y)” appears twice there, and I genuinely am curious how the festival is thinking about what it means and should entail going forward. Can an A24 movie with celebrities and a solid budget be a discovery? How about Olivia Wilde’s star-studded third directorial feature?
I’m sympathetic as to why Sundance feels compelled to include splashy marquee titles. Theoretically, they attract attention, which trickles down to smaller films, and which also helps Sundance pay the bills. And often times, these films need distribution too.
It’s also natural for a now-42-year-old festival to grow and evolve.
But if getting into Sundance either means coming up through its labs, being an established voice, or having big name actors and/or EPs on a project, what does that mean for everyone else? Can other festivals fill that void? Or maybe labs and initiatives created by established auteurs? Or is it simply up to all filmmakers to become masters of internet marketing?
Of course, though Sundance remains the most important American festival, alums will tell you that playing there doesn’t necessarily mean anything. It’s not a surefire ticket to power or money or even the beginnings of a sustainable career. Likewise, there have been plenty of low budget indies that didn’t play Sundance but did become sensations.
I was curious how Sundance has fared this decade in discovering new independent voices so I put together two lists: one of debut features that premiered at the festival and went on to acclaim2; and one of exciting debut features from that period that the festival missed. These lists are not meant to be comprehensive or definitive, so don’t get mad at me for what I did or did not include. Discussion and input is welcome though! How do you think Sundance is faring when it comes to discovery these days?
True discoveries
Notable debut narrative features of the 2020s that did premiere at Sundance:
