Low Sales. No Standouts. Slow Sundance. Where Does Independent Film Go From Here? 

PARK CITY – On Sunday, a group of smart, experienced and passionate film lovers gathered at the Sundance Film Festival to confront an issue that has become overwhelmingly obvious: Independent film does not currently have a viable business model. 

The producers, financiers, current and former studio chiefs who came together for an off-the-record conversation about solutions to the current crisis agreed on the stakes at hand. There are filmmakers who passionately want to make films. There are sources of financing to get them made (notably wealthy folks). But there is no longer a robust distribution system either of studios or streamers and their downstream partners like home entertainment that are hungry for the kind of offbeat, seat-of-the-pants, high-stakes storytelling that drives the creative energy of the entire entertainment business. 

Let’s underscore that last point: The withering of independent film has a knock-on effect — and not a good one — on the entire entertainment ecosystem. Arthouse film festivals like Sundance are the proving ground for a new generation of artists and where mainstream Hollywood goes to find new sources of ideas, filmmaking styles and distinctive voices.

When that ecosystem is shaky, the creative dynamism of the entire industry trembles. 

Among those who were at the discussion were Keri Putnam, the former CEO of the Sundance Institute, who spearheaded a study on independent film at Harvard’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy in November. 

The study concluded that, yes, independent film is in trouble. 

“Distinctive personal films — like ‘The Farewell, ‘Lady Bird’ or ‘Moonlight’ — open our hearts and launch culture-defining talent,” she wrote. “But independent film in the U.S. is at risk.”

After nearly a decade of tiptoeing around the problem, hoping that a single film like  a “Moonlight” or a “CODA” would reverse the downward trend, there is widespread agreement on the current state of decline. But there is no consensus on what to do about it.

That decline is reflected in the relative desert of film sales at independent film festivals like this year’s Sundance and the ever-shrinking arthouse box office, always with notable exceptions. At the time of this writing, the body horror film “Together,” starring Alison Brie and Dave Franco, was the only Sundance sale, to Neon. Neon’s biggest win last year at the box office was the horror film “Longlegs,” which made $74 million.  

Others in the conversation who spoke up with concern included Josh Sapan, the former CEO of AMC Networks who now runs Sapan Studios; David Linde, the former CEO of Participant; producer Maria Zuckerman; investor Vinay Singh; former Starz chief Kathryn Busby; and Gersh packaging agent Julien Levesque, among others. 

Participant, founded by billionaire Jeff Skoll, is a good example of the trend. He shuttered the company a year ago after 20 years in business, saying that the model had run its course. 

The study was not a bad point of departure for the conversation. Based on a national survey of 14,000 respondents, Putnam concluded that there is a much larger audience for independent film than is currently being served. Out of those surveyed, 41% said they would “see more independent films and documentaries if available.” 

That made a gap of some 40 million people, compared to the current 30 million or so who currently consume this content – features and docs included. That potential audience, she found, is both young and diverse. 

But where are the distributors? The discussion on Sunday pointed to one of the most significant issues: the lack of a “Pay One” window for independent film, meaning where a post-theatrical license drives additional revenue from home video, TV or digital distribution. 

As one leading agent who did not attend Sundance for the first time in many years told me: “There isn’t a model right now. We need to bring back the studio system and get away from the streamers because the streamers just don’t care. If streamers only want big commercial movies, if they don’t want independent movies – how do you make money? 

“Independent film has to become movies that audiences want to see in theaters. There has to be a separation between what you can watch on a streaming platform and in a theater. People are going to see ‘Anora.’ But no one is making the films.”  

It used to be different. We all remember exciting moments of festivals past: “Beasts of the Southern Wild.” “Little Miss Sunshine.” “Garden State.” “CODA.” 

But by 2025 we are facing year after year of moribund sales at Sundance and other festivals, decreasing interest from streamers, and by now – a gap in daring, risky films that challenge audiences. 

And yes, while “Anora” by Sean Baker won the Palme d’Or and is up for Best Picture at the Oscars, it is just not the norm. This year, Sundance’s splashiest film was a remake of the 40-year-old “Kiss of the Spider Woman” starring a too-needy pop star and featuring a $60 million price tag. 

So what can be done? One bold suggestion involved the small arthouse distributors sharing their data to expand their audiences. Another was the notion of rolling up the smaller distributors to create a larger and thus more stable method of getting films out there. 

One thing seemed clear: The streamers that now dominate the entertainment business, mostly Netflix, are part of the problem.

Filmmakers are worried, too, even when they are sometimes the exception to the tough times. Bao Nguyen, whose 2024 documentary “The Greatest Night in Pop” – the kind of feel-good entertainment that was widespread at this year’s festivals – was released by Netflix, took part in the conversation on Sunday, too. His new documentary, “The Stringer,” a much more controversial film challenging the authorship of a famous war photo, was said to be close to a deal. 

The post Low Sales. No Standouts. Slow Sundance. Where Does Independent Film Go From Here?  appeared first on TheWrap.