Each day this week, Christopher Campbell will take a look back at a “classic” film that played the Sundance Film Festival. Today’s installment: Valerie Faris and Jonathan Dayton’s Little Miss Sunshine (2006).

If you’ve ever wondered why there are so many big-budget films with all-star casts at Sundance in recent years, here’s why: the Little Miss Sunshine scenario. While this particular film is not the cause nor was it the first studio-like movie to arrive in Park City sans distribution, it is perhaps the most exemplary of a situation that’s currently very familiar at the festival. Sometimes a film can come out the worse for the scenario, as in the case of last year’s What Just Happened? But sometimes it can create a “Cinderella story,” as it did for Little Miss Sunshine.
…Read more

Getting ready for the Sundance Film Festival can be very exciting. As we await the event’s Thursday opening, we can’t stop wondering what will be the next big thing. Will this year’s hit be the highly-anticipated Michael Cera project Paper Hearts, or will it be something that we as of yet know nothing about?

It’s easy to forget, however, that oftentimes the next big thing is also the next lamest thing. Sundance sensations, those films that are much-buzzed-about, that sell for a lot of money, that go on to be marketed like crazy and ultimately receive Oscar recognition, tend to lend themselves most easily to backlashes. Usually such derision is deserved, as in the case of the following ten films, each of which made a big splash at Sundance despite being bad.
…Read more

“What is indie cinema?” asks Richard Vine at The Guardian. He runs though a brief history of Indiewood, notes that the London Film Festival put Azazel Jacobs, Barry Jenkins and Joe Swanberg on a panel promoting a new wave of truly independent filmmaking, and then rhetorically wonders if his initial question is irrelevant:

But is indie a meaningful term anymore, or is it just shorthand for “cool”, “edgy” or “offbeat”? Does it matter if the so-called faux-indie production methods result in decent films such as Juno and Little Miss Sunshine that play at easy-to-access multiplexes alongside the CGI sequels and threequels?

To answer the three questions posed in the above paragraph: Yes, no, yes. What follows is essentially the same argument I’ve made one thousand times over the past three years, but apparently there are still some people who need to hear it.

…Read more

This Hollywood Reporter story about Magnolia/Magnet’s acquistition of the Michael Rappaport psycho-pharma superhero comedy Special has a major inaccuracy: Gregg Goldstein says the film “premiered last month at Sundance,” but actually, it premiered two years ago at Sundance, where alongside Wristcutters: A Love Story, it was the subject of much “WTF? If THAT sold, why didn’t THIS sell?” buzz in the wake of the massive Little Miss Sunshine deal. The fan boy sites were, predictably, all over it, but it also earned glowing praise from international publications, and from director Jason Reitman, who was at the festival with his own Thank You For Smoking.

So what made Magnolia suddenly interested now? Goldstein says it’s finally getting picked up because Rappaport has a TV show and co-star Josh Peck is expected to break out via a film that *did* premiere at Sundance 2008, The Wackness. I’d say the latter probably has more to do with it than the former, but then, I thought The War at Home had been canceled like five years ago. But I guess this means we can expect a Special release somewhere on the calendar near Peck’s other film, in order to capitalize on The Wackness‘ Sony Classics-footed publicity budget.

You can watch Special’s circa-Sundance 2006 trailer here.

Our regular guest writer, Dodd (moviedodd at spout.com), tells us what’s the latest in movie rating news, and shares his mixed feelings about the proposed changes. Dodd is finishing up a Master’s degree in Film Studies at Ohio University.

Recently, there has been a lot of discussion about the current film rating system implemented by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). Filmmakers have raised hell about it all on their own for the past few years, but now the documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated has served as an expose on the selective standards of MPAA members. The film seems to have had an affect already. Since its release, MPAA head honcho Dan Glickman has admitted to the organization’s vague guidelines for what sets an R picture apart from an NC-17 one, and that proper actions would be taken to fix that problem.

It seems that Glickman was not just throwing words around for publicity purposes. According to a recent Variety article, Dan Glickman has announced that the MPAA is developing a “hard R” rating, which is not to be confused with the original “soft R.” In other words, films like Little Miss Sunshine, with its occasional F-bomb and sex joke, will be branded with a regular R. However, movies with blood-spurting decapitations, hardcore sex scenes, and f**k thrown into every sentence will be awarded the new, hard R rating.

Not only will there be a new R-rating, but the NC-17 rating may be eliminated. The hardcore rating limits film distribution and advertising on television, so the organization wishes to lump anything that is extremely graphic in nature under the new hard R-rating, with hopes that audiences, exhibitors, and advertisers will embrace it more than the much-feared NC-17.

I feel a little torn on this issue. Apparently, the new hard R-rating is the result of parents complaining that their children are being exposed to graphic content in R films. First off, the film is rated R, which means that the content is not appropriate for those under 17. Parents who choose to allow minors to watch these films have been warned to be cautious. Secondly, R-ratings currently contain little descriptions indicting the nature of the content–anything from drug use to angry sex to graphic conversations. Finally, if these descriptors prove to be too vague, there is a wealth of information about the graphic content of movies on the Internet, from movie reviews to the MPAA’s website to Yahoo’s Movie Mom. Therefore, my question is whether or not a new R-rating will stop parents from complaining. Teens will be teens, and they will always figure out ways to see hardcore content. While the rating system is useful, it will never magically babysit kids.

On the other hand, I am happy to see the elimination of the NC-17 system. Yes, it can be affiliated with the cult disaster known only as Showgirls, but the rating has also sunk potential pictures like a rock for miniscule details. It has also locked its sights on unconventional sex rather than violence. It will be nice to see art house gems such as Bad Education not being ostracized like a sleazy snuff film.

What do you think? Does the MPAA need a new R categorization, or will people complain about it anyway? Are you ready to see NC-17 get tossed aside, or does it still serve a useful purpose?

Oh, I’m so naive to be shocked by this:

Movie studios traditionally spend up to $25 million a year per nominated film in an attempt to secure Hollywood’s highest honor. This time around, Fox Searchlight (”Little Miss Sunshine,” “The Last King of Scotland”) and Paramount (”Babel,” “Dreamgirls”) are leading the pack. With marketing budgets commonly running around $40 million to $50 million for high-profile films, that extra $25 million smarts. But many studios feel it’s worth it.

The above is from an article in yesterday’s Daily News, called “The business of Oscar.” It seemed like a fitting, albeit depressing, follow up to Monday’s post about the push to get Half Nelson star Ryan Gosling a best actor nomination. No wonder our “who-we-think-should-win” and “who-we-think-will-win” lists rarely line up.

I went to see Little Miss Sunshine over the weekend. For some reason I went in expecting to chuckle and smile, but not to belly laugh. I expected the film to be a bit over the top, a tad too gimmicky, and generally another Napoleon Dynamite wannabe (as I suggested in a recent post about formulaic films).

Going into a film with realistic-sized expectations always helps, but I think even if my expectations had been on steroids I would have been thoroughly pleased with Sunshine. Each character, while conceptually over the top (with the exception of the mom), was played perfectly. Similarly, even though many of the plot’s premises are over the top, they work. You don’t sit there thinking “That wouldn’t happen.” You sit there laughing like a fool.

So back to formulas. Obviously, some things really make a good story, a good film, and those things should be paid attention to and learned from. (It’s not like Sunshine is the first road trip film ever created, or the first with an overly angst-ridden teenager.) And even though legitimate formulas can be traced between successes like Sunshine and Napoleon, I still think the “anti-formula” has to be at the heart of a film like this if it’s going to make it. It has to be fresh. I think Sunshine perfectly balanced what works with what’s fresh.

As IndieWire blogger Eugene Hernandez just said in a post yesterday, Little Miss Sunshine seems to have hit on a formula that was first proven wildly successful by Napoleon Dynamite. That formula, as Hernandez’s industry friend put it, is this:

Quirky comedy + funny dance number at end + premiere at Sundance + Cinetic = big sell to Fox Searchlight.

I completely resist the idea that formulas work in the film industry (or in any creative field, for that matter), but Hernandez’s friend seems to be right about Napoleon and Sunshine. Sigh.

At least this formula is a bit more involved than the one several Slamdance films apparently tried last year: goofy protagonist + outcast friends = hilarious + endearing hit. (See Paul’s post for more on this.)

So what’s with the formulas? When Napoleon first came out, it was the freshness of the film’s approach that made it work. It embodied the Anti-Formula. Obviously, trying to repeat freshness defeats the purpose. (How many times can you successfully repurpose a baby greens salad?) Anyway, I’m planning to see Sunshine tomorrow–I’m curious to see if it hits some version of a true “Napoleon Formula”–the anti-formula that isn’t stale.