[phileysmiley]

<font color="maroon">by Larry Richman </font>
<font color="gray" size="1">January 7, 2008 4:26 PM</font>

The Sundance Film Festival once was considered the premiere breeding ground for cutting-edge independent cinema. That's pretty much a given within the film community. What is also generally accepted is that the festival has now become more of a market than a showcase for new directors and visionary filmmaking. It's been a frequent topic on this blog. Just one month ago, we asked, <a href="http://www.pronetworks.org/forum/story100402.html" target="_blank">"What are film festivals REALLY all about?"</a> I've made no secret of the fact that I harbor a bit of bitterness toward the festival, despite the fact that I covered it the past few years. I did so, however, to support the filmmakers who were there and not the festival itself.

On the other side of the pond, our friends at <a href="http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,,2235919,00.html" target="_blank">The Observer</a> are not afraid to point fingers. "Sundance, which will celebrate its 30th anniversary this year, has always been about making directors feel important. But the independent film festival has also, in recent years, become an increasingly successful marketplace, attracting a cornucopia of celebrity and commercial savoir-faire," writes Elizabeth Day. "What used to be an understated showcase for offbeat independent film in a small, snowy corner of Utah has now turned into a pre-Oscars bidding jamboree between major film companies. There are now nearly 3,000 feature-length submissions a year, of which around 125 are accepted by the Sundance committee to be screened over the course of the 10-day festival."

I couldn't have said it better myself. <a href="http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,,2235919,00.html" target="_blank">This is one article</a> worth saving.