In Defense of SXSW & Matt Dentler

Since I've been traveling a bunch lately, I'm just catching up on a few items that I'd been wanting to cover over the past couple weeks, so forgive me in advance for coming at you like a time warp.  But I wanted to comment on Amy Taubin's recent mumblecore obit that ran in Film Comment and has drawn some pointed responses from David Hudson (which is followed by a lengthy and fascinating discussion in the comments) and Karina Longworth, among others.

Much of what Taubin wrote - and a lot of the blowback - has been focused on mumblecore poster boy Joe Swanberg and whether he necessarily must step outside of his white hetero hipster enclave and "get real" about the world in which he lives.  We covered this same ground back in August.

But I want to respond to what Taubin wrote about the SXSW Film Festival and its guru, Matt Dentler:

"The chief promoter (of mumblecore) is Matt Dentler, who heads Austin’s South by Southwest Film Festival and is also a tireless blogger on behalf of the mumblecore “movement.” The quotation marks are Dentler’s, a recent tacit acknowledgement that his claim to fame is perhaps not the cinematic upheaval he once believed it to be. sxsw is probably the biggest benefactor of the mumblecore branding. Once known as the festival of Sundance rejects—not an entirely negative identity, given Sundance’s increasing blindness with regard to new talent—it is now the birthplace of mumblecore, and as such, worthy of mention in national print publications like Rolling Stone, which allotted a full page in its ’07 “Hot Issue” to a genealogy of mumblecore’s pantheon directors: Andrew Bujalski, Aaron Katz, Joe Swanberg, and the Duplass Brothers."

First, let me stipulate - as most others seem to have - that I generally hold Taubin in high regard.  I think that, more than most, she's a good writer and I like her perspective on films, even when I diagree.  But I think that her argument here is a bit simplistic, and while neither SXSW nor Matt Dentler are in need of my manning their defenses, I think that describing Dentler as "a tireless blogger on behalf of mumblecore" misses the point.

Matt is a tireless blogger, period.  Whether it's about his basketball games, his travels, his music tastes and particularly the films that he has programmed at his festival, Matt writes about it.   The way Taubin writes it, you'd think that Matt wrote the material for the official Mumblecore fan site.  He writes about these filmmakers because he, more than anyone, has programmed their films and given them a platform from which to launch.  (Full disclosure - he's often written about my films as well - both of which screened at SXSW, and which, far as I can tell, contain neither mumbling nor core.)

Is this good for SXSW?  Sure, it is.  Because it promotes the (correct) idea that SXSW is a place that looks for new work and that supports it both at the festival and beyond.  Is that a marketing idea or is it just Matt's normal way of business?  I'd argue the latter.

But this leads me to Taubin's other remark - that SXSW "once known as the festival of Sundance rejects—not an entirely negative identity, given Sundance’s increasing blindness with regard to new talent—it is now the birthplace of mumblecore".

Again, I'd argue this is a oversimplification.

The reality is that there is a lot of work out there.  A lot of good or challenging or original work.  More than Sundance (or Toronto or Berlin) can possibly be expected to shine a spotlight on.  And it's not solely in narrative.  SXSW has - for years - been an essential contrast to Sundance in the realm of nonfiction, focusing on films like BILLY THE KID, AUDIENCE OF ONE, CAT DANCERS and HELVETICA.  Any one of these films could have screened at Sundance and not seemed out of place, but they made particular sense at SXSW.

Taubin may think that SXSW is now known as "the birthplace of mumblecore" but I think it's truer to think that it's thought of as a very democratic and open festival, one in which more experimental, more DIY, more pop film experiences are quite at home.  It makes sense that filmmakers as similar - and as different - as Swanberg, Katz, Bujalski, Duplass would thrive in that kind of environment.

And that's the central point.  Mumblecore did not birth the notion of what SXSW has become on the festival landscape.  SXSW's very essence, one that is reflected totally by Matt Dentler's blog and his presence on the festival circuit, opened the door to these films being seen.

No one should look askance at SXSW for being that festival, nor should anyone criticize Dentler for championing the films that thrive within the fertile environment he has so carefully nurtured.

Comments

[Joe Wong]

I'm sorry, but I don't believe film festival organizers should have their own blogs to tirelessly "flog" their festival, their festival films, and their "fav" filmmakers. Worse still, sites like indiewire should not host these blogs. Why aren't other blogs by festival directors hosted by indiewire?
The truth is Matt Dentler's relentless "hype" of mumblecore, esp. Joe Swamberg is now creating this backlash as more people realize "the emperor has no clothes."
What will be interesting is to find out how Dentler and his staff program the next SXSW festival...too much Swanberg and the backlash will get worse...

[tom]

I don't normally comment, but
I'm not sure why a festival programmer should be restricted from talking about the films they love/program. I don't think anyone would have looked at this set of films 5 years ago and pegged them as a slick marketing move for sxsw. rather, I think SXSW programmed what they liked, helped nurture careers and that environment has paid off for them. I was recently meeting with a programmer from a competing festival who told me - "We'd like to have our own group of filmmakers... I don't want to say like Mumblecore exactly, but something like that...." Which festival would you rather screen at - the one programming and supporting filmmakers they like, or the one trying to catch up on a trend?

What has been most troubling for me in reading the comments posted on various sites over the past few weeks is the striking out against the camaraderie of "mumblecore filmmakers" & SXSW. As a struggling filmmaker myself, I think independent film needs more of this - it's our strength. So you may not like every mumblecore film - can you at least appreciate young people striking out on their own and making films within their means about things that are important to THEM? I think that's pretty great - and the support they show each other is a rare and important thing in a landscape where so many "independent" filmmakers are clawing over each other to get some slot in LA. Admittedly, I haven't seen many of these films so far, aside from Funny Ha Ha. But I'm excited about what they're doing and the way they are going about it feels honest to me. And yes, we've heard a lot about them this year - but which one of us would not take the opportunity to make a name for ourselves and to build toward a long-term career if the moment arose? In the interviews I've read and the very few e-mail I've exchanged with Joe Swamberg, he's been humble and generous. Now folks (that I respect) are saying his films should cover x topics, look more like z, and should include more y and less w. What is independent about that?