12/04/2008
Sundance to Screen in Cinemark But Offer Alternatives
The Sundance Film Festival announced its line-up for 2009. They also discussed how the festival plans to deal with boycott threats and objections to screenings in Cinemark theaters owned by Alan Stock, who contributed $9,999 to the 'Yes on 8' campaign:
"Mr. Cooper [festival’s director of programming] and [festival director] Mr. Gilmore said festival officials were stepping carefully around demands that they cooperate with a boycott of businesses associated with supporters of California’s Proposition 8, banning gay marriage. The festival, for instance, will make certain that no film is screened only in the Holiday Village theater in Park City, operated by Cinemark, a chain whose chief executive, Alan Stock, donated to Proposition 8’s backers in the November election. The idea is to give anyone who has qualms about Cinemark the opportunity to see a movie somewhere else. But, given the dearth of theaters, programmers don’t intend to abandon the Holiday Village. 'We don’t have an alternative,' Mr. Gilmore said. 'If we had another theater we could walk down the street to, we might be thinking about that.'"
So, yes they're screening in Cinemark, and no, they're not choosing to show any solidarity with the millions of Californians who had their civil rights taken from them except offering them another choice. Separate but equal.
Sphere: Related ContentPosted 1:19 PM EST by Andy in California, Film, Gay Marriage, Mormon, News, Proposition 8, Utah | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Piss on Cinemark and Sundance.
Posted by: ggreen | Dec 4, 2008 1:33:36 PM
There are Gay folks in the Hollywood film industry from what I hear, and there are Gay folk that makes indie films from what I hear. If those Gay folks don't take a stand what's to motivate those of us that are just spectators from taking a stronger stand? The best we can do is not watch the films and NOT TALK about the films. Dead Silence.
Posted by: Sargon Bighorn | Dec 4, 2008 1:41:28 PM
This festival is now dead to me. Not going, not going to see any of the films that win awards here, too bad.
Posted by: christopher | Dec 4, 2008 1:49:31 PM
boycott sundance? sounds like a good notion...
Posted by: brett | Dec 4, 2008 1:54:07 PM
I'm sick to death of the boycott talk and the threats. There are far more productive ways to make our point. We called it blackmail when the Yes On 8 people listed companies who donated to the No campaign and theatened consquences. Now that we've lost, it makes it seem like we want to be the goose but not the gander.
Posted by: Jay | Dec 4, 2008 2:01:25 PM
Move it out of state and rebrand it Moondance. It's not a boycott, it's just choosing to do business where the environment is friendlier.
Posted by: Scott B. | Dec 4, 2008 2:11:25 PM
"'If we had another theater we could walk down the street to, we might be thinking about that.'"
might?!? Geoff Gilmore is about to learn that he just fucked himself and the festival.
Posted by: JohnInManhattan | Dec 4, 2008 2:11:52 PM
Hells Bells, just boycotting Sundance because it turned into a cluster fuck of shitty film long ago would be enough.
As for Hollywood Fags, might you mean all those rich industry queens who didn't give a dime to fight Prop H8TE, or "Gods & Monsters," "Chicago," "Dreamgirls" Bill Condon who had a hissy fit over the pressure put on LA Film Festival Mormon Asshat Director Richard Raddon to resign after it was discovered he gave money to PASS Prop H8TE. Condon bizarrely defended Raddon's action as "privately held religious beliefs."
PS: two of the LAFF board members who also defended Raddon and initally refused to accept his resignation were Don Cheadle and Forrest Whitaker whom we have a hard time believing would have sprung so quickly to Raddon's defense had he given money to the KKK.
Posted by: Leland Frances | Dec 4, 2008 2:12:51 PM
Nice GOP talking points Jay. Nice try.
No gay man would say "now that we've lost" because he knows it's a continuing struggle.
Posted by: Chris | Dec 4, 2008 2:17:58 PM
So, what's Robert Redford's position in this? Is he anti-civil-rights too?
Posted by: Chris | Dec 4, 2008 2:21:42 PM
JAY, I'm sick to death of the false equivalent argument. "Aren't we being just as bad as them? Waaaaaaa..." STFU and go goose your van pelt.
Posted by: JohnInManhattan | Dec 4, 2008 2:21:56 PM
I'm a GOP plant, Chris? Good try. I marched, I donated, I talked and still talk to everyone I know about why Prop 8 was/is wrong - made for some uncomfortable times. But WE lost the fight on Prop 8. For many reasons. But to what end is boycotting Sundance going to adavnce the cause of equality? Hyperbole is a distraction. We need real talk and new approaches.
Posted by: Jay | Dec 4, 2008 2:28:39 PM
John, if we don't hold ourselves acountable and to a higher standard, why should anyone listen or give a damn? Case in point: why do I care what you think if you choose to insult instead of just rebutting?
Posted by: Jay | Dec 4, 2008 2:32:18 PM
Wow, who'd a thunk Robert Redford would turn out to be such a douche? Oh and Jay, boycotting and pulling the with-holding money from unsupportive groups is without a doubt the most effective approach, stop whining about it.
Posted by: Jersey | Dec 4, 2008 2:42:47 PM
And in other Holly Woodlawner folly, Gus Van Sant told a crowd in NYC last night that he was HAPPY "Milk" came out after Prop H8TE [which he said he only became aware of in July] "because seeing the film will make people 'wise up' to gay civil rights, which will do more than passing 'just one proposition'."
SEE: queerty.com/gus-van-sant-happy-milk-came-out-after-prop-8-20081204/
Posted by: Leland Frances | Dec 4, 2008 2:45:02 PM
That's meant to say "boycotting and with-holding"...
Posted by: Jersey | Dec 4, 2008 2:45:07 PM
What do we expect these people to do? Cancel Sundance? There was an effort made to screen the films at alternative locations and at this late date that's a pretty good response. So keep up the pressure for next year where there's time to do something about it, and THEN raise hell if nothing happens.
Posted by: Gordo | Dec 4, 2008 2:52:34 PM
Boycotting Sundance and making unreasonable demands on the Festival will do nothing to make The Mormon Church change a thing about their dogma.
How about coming to Utah and showing an example of what good gays can do. Take the higher road. A boycott is easy. Try doing something constructive instead. Come and support the Sundance Festival which has been one of the few Utah events that is gay-friendly.
If you want to boycott anything directly connected to the Mormons, I would suggest boycotting any BYU sports events. Making BYU an outsider in the world of intercollegiate sports would do more monetary harm to them than boycotting something as nebulous as: The State of Utah.
Posted by: cowboy | Dec 4, 2008 2:59:39 PM
Maybe I'm rationalizing but I do think there is a difference between boycotting Sundance and the threatening letters sent by Yes on 8.
The Yes on 8 letter came out before the election and essentially said "Give us a donation or we will publish your name as a hater of traditional marriage." They tried to bully businesses into funding their campaign of hate. (See the letter here: http://www.noonprop8.com/downloads/Prop8ThreatLetter.pdf)
In the case of the boycott, it works in reverse. No one was bullied into making a contribution one way or another. However, I am not obligated to help fund my own denial of rights. A portion of every dime I give to Cinemark funnels its way back to Yes on 8 so I have no intention of putting my money into that funnel.
Posted by: Ed | Dec 4, 2008 3:00:21 PM
Nothing is going to happen. The film industry, no matter how much they would like you to believe they are "independant", are only in business to make money. If they cancel this festival they lose money, if they boycott they lose money. They won't do either. They will hold the festival as planned, show their films in these theaters and just as many people will show up and support them. You can yell and scream and dance on your soap box as much as you like and it will not make a difference in this industry. And you believe that these actions can make a difference then you are really fooling yourselves. Do you really think that those that took away our civil rights care a rat's ass about where they seem movies or who owns the theaters?
Posted by: Wayne | Dec 4, 2008 3:01:18 PM
I agree, SCOTT B... It's not to be called a boycott, just move it to somewhere else that's more friendly and where we're treated with human respect!
Posted by: will | Dec 4, 2008 3:18:05 PM
Look at all the "No we can't!" attitude in here! No, we can't boycott! No, we cannot hold anyone responsible for taking away our civil rights! No we can't! No we can't!
Well, that's bullshit. Yes we can. Yes, we can win back equal rights for gays, and part of the way we are going to do that is a coordinated, long-term economic strategy.
Boycotting the financiers of expanding anti-gay discrimiation, like this Cinemark bigot, makes sense as an end in and of itself. It is peaceful, non-violent, and directed precisely at the economic foundation of the anti-gay political machine.
We must make anti-gay discrimination economically unaffordable to those who would continue to try to buy it.
Can we avoid funneling our own money into anti-gay discrimination? Yes, we can. Should we use the power of the purse in our non-violent struggle for civil equality in America? Yes we should.
Posted by: leschuck | Dec 4, 2008 3:23:06 PM
While I am in support of moving or boycotting Sundance, and any who show up there, I think a far better approach is go after the Morman Church.
They clearly used the Church in a political campaign. Take them to court to strip away their 501 status, tax them on everyone penny and business they own, and pay no taxes on.
Posted by: patrick nyc | Dec 4, 2008 3:26:01 PM
move sundance over here to palm springs. we already have the PS international film fest, the infrastructure, interest, volunteers, hotels and scads of non-cinemark screens. boycott utah.
Posted by: psgoodguy | Dec 4, 2008 3:27:51 PM
I agreed with Ed.
There is a difference between what the Yes on 8 campaign did and the call for boycotts from the gay community.
The Yes on 8's official campaign attempted to extort money from gay-friendly businesses.
What we are seeing now is a a grassroots effort to boycott business that are not gay-friendly.
The current calls for boycotts are not a top-down effort like Yes on 8's. It is a movement for the people, by the people. We are not trying to extort money. We are trying to encourage businesses to be gay-friendly.
There is a world of difference between the two.
Posted by: Eric | Dec 4, 2008 3:58:28 PM