I’m a frequent speaker on panels at film festivals and conferences. I just spoke on one at IndieMemphis and I’m about to speak on two more at the IFFS Film Festival Summit. I’ve run festivals with panels, and I’ve produced a conference of panels. So it is with full cognizance of my hypocrisy that I state – they are worthless and it’s time to kill all panels.
They are the zero-sum game of every festival and conference. Why? Because the only knowledge that can be gained from them is accidental, as in when someone accidentally says something they shouldn’t say, self-aggrandizing, as in learning that yes, indeed you are smarter than all the experts they’ve assembled on-stage, or misanthropic, as in when you lose all faith in humanity when the moderator democratically opens the mic to questions from the audience and the first question isn’t a question but rather a pitch for the film the questioner just made or some product they’re trying to sell. The best you can hope for is getting all three in one panel.
Most panels seem put together for one obvious reason – to make the festival look better. Bring in a few key industry players, put them on a panel and take photos for the catalogue and tout the educational benefits in your next grant application. Step back for one second though and ask yourself how educational these panels are? How different are these panels/conferences than the ones held at a Ramada every weekend “teaching” you how to make millions from flipping real estate? How much can I learn from a panel of five “experts” who each spend most of their time trying to talk about how great their company is at doing X thing? Especially when each “expert” has about five total minutes to say anything of value.
Okay, I’m being overly harsh here to get this started, but seriously: We need to rethink the purpose of and usefulness of these panels.I’ve met many festival staff and none that I’ve met are hucksters trying to steal your cash – really, most of them truly want to help filmmakers learn more about the business, or help audiences to learn more about the subject of the film or about the people behind or on the screens. They work hard to put these panels together, but let’s face it – most of these panels don’t work.
Ostensibly, we hold these panels to teach some audience members something they might not know. In a good panel, this remains true, and what makes a good panel is probably a sliding scale dependent upon things such as how knowledgeable is the audience in attendance. Not that I know everything, but when I went to my first film festival panel I knew a lot less about the film business than I know now, and I learned a lot more.
But, when I think back to the earliest panels I attended, I find that most of what I learned came from just one panelist – there’s usually one person telling it like it is and sharing the real knowledge that most people just gloss over. I’ve learned a lot from one on one sessions as well, where a well informed interviewer speaks with some person from the biz (though I learn less when this person is a famous actor/director…hmmm). I’ve learned a lot when the panel isn’t about film, but what’s covered in the film – where the speakers were experts on the topic and we could delve deeper. Again, however, I find that because of politics, these panels tend to have the director, two producers and one expert and I’d learn more from a good moderator and the expert alone.
You may see a theme emerging here, and it’s because I do as well: less is more. I think what we need are less panels with 4, 5 or even 15 panelists (yes, at Sundance two years ago they had that many people on stage!). We need more one on ones, more panels where two people debate (or agree) on a topic. Let’s hear just from the expert. Let’s talk just with the director. Let’s hear what the entertainment attorney thinks for one solid hour. Let’s hear what the DP learned on set for one hour. Let’s hear a talk between just two festival programmers. Sure, we might not get “well rounded” discussions, but we’ll get more in depth discussion.
I’ve participated in a couple of such panels lately, and they worked much better than the usual system. I know this is nothing new – I’ve gone to such panels at SXSW for years, for instance, but I am saying they remain the rare exception to the usual boring panel where the only value is often putting a face with a name to meet them later at the bar.
So, we need to shake up the format a bit. We also need to change how we integrate the audience. I don’t have an easy answer here, but what should be the most democratic, interesting part of the panel usually becomes the most unbearable. It’s not that the audience is dumb, but somehow, we tend to get the worst questions from the floor. I’ve attended a few panels where questions are submitted to the moderator via slips of paper, email and even Twitter and the moderator picks the best ones. This seems to work better, but while the anonymity helps some people ask better questions, I’m sure it upsets others who want their voice to be heard. Some of my favorite panel moments have been when an audience member (usually well informed) attacks a speaker and they engage in a debate, and who would want to stop that? I’m not sure how to make this part better, but if you have ideas, please suggest them in the comments.
We also need to rethink panels in light of technology. No, not just “hey, we can put these up on the web,” but how does this fundamentally change things? Like showing a film in a movie theater, panels have existed because they are the most economical way to get a lot of butts in the seats to see what has been assembled. Like watching a movie in a theater, panel attendance won’t go away entirely, but it might be time we consider whether pulling together 10-100 speakers to speak to an audience of hundreds to low thousands still makes sense?
I don’t want the monotony of presentation styles it represents, but I’d love to see a TED-like phenomenon for film. Sure, the attendees get to network (and pay a lot to do so), but the rest of us can learn a heck of a lot, from some of the smartest folks not-really-in-the-room, for free. You could duplicate this year round pretty easily and have something pretty interesting for the field. This doesn’t make sense for the small, regional fest, but it would for some others.
I would be missing one of the biggest festival problems if I didn’t also bring up – they are usually very white and very male. This one seems obvious – we need more diverse speakers up there. I don’t know what will finally change this, perhaps all white men must refuse to speak on panels unless they are more diverse. I’ve written about this before, and it’s brought up over and over, but I bring it up again here because it can’t be said enough!
I definitely don’t have all the answers here. I’m attending the IFFS Film Festival Summit next week…to speak on two panels…and I’m hoping this might spark some conversation with other attendees there. I’m hoping to hear some ideas from my (small) audience here in the comments and elsewhere. What would make a better panel? How can we better include audiences? What would a fest panel look like if we started over today?
In the middle of writing this post, I saw a tweet from Matt Dentler saying “Fact: 85% of film festival panels around the globe are a waste of time.” I retweeted that and so did a few others – it’s obviously on many people’s minds. I got one interesting response from Randy Finch: “Paradox? I know (+ respect) u from film fest panels. #wearethe15%”
I agree with Randy – I’ve met many great people as a result of these panels. So, perhaps we shouldn’t kill them. Instead the question is: How do we re-imagine them in a way that keeps the good (networking, education) and gets rid of all the bad?