Besides that hand-drawn animated flick, NONE. Ish. What a cluster of nonsense. What in God's name happened to Sundance?! Can this truly be the institution which spawned Tarantino and PT Anderson?! Talk about losing all relevance.

Notice that 11 out of 12 are writer/directors? There's one lone writer.

I was a finalist this year and I'm disappointed by the projects they ultimately chose. Of course I'm biased, right? :-) But seriously, these all sound so...depressing! I think Mystery Man said it best on twitter when he posted this link, he noted something like: "Sundance needs to get a sense of humor!"

Jeez. All of them are heavy and I don't mean that as a negative. However, it would've been nice to see some variety.

I've noted elsewhere that I thought the overall somber, dark tone of the movies chosen for the festival this year are a reflection of the new leadership's attempt to send a message to Hwood: We're going back to our indie routes. Perhaps that's reflected in the Screenwriters Lab as well.

Which is a shame. If the major studios aren't going to support low-budget high-concept 'specialty' movies like Sideways, Juno, and Little Miss Sunshine, and festivals like Sundance won't promote them, where will that magic happen?

Got to figure it's a phase. Every year, there are wonderful movies like (500) Days of Sunshine. There's a market for specialty type films, even if the major studios have basically forsaken them in pursuit of Viewfinder 3D: The Movie.

Christina and Eve, you both hit it on the head. How in the world did Sundance suddenly become the "disease of the week" outlet?

I hope the concession stands in Park City are well stocked with Zoloft and Paxil.

Postcards from the Zoo

It's frustrating and a bit sad to always see the Sundance Screenwriters Lab announcements. Christina hit the nail on the head - 11 out of 12 writer/directors - as in we want to be sure these stories are made into movies - hopefully for the festival at some point. What would be truly interesting is to see each attendee's resume. I'm sure each and everyone has a decent industry resume of some kind. This being similar to years past when people like playwright Stephen Aldy Guirgis who had written for The Sopranos and other shows was accepted. Just last year a working studio screenwriter, not a list mind you, but someone who had worked on Max Payne was a finalist. Much like CAA, Sundance has become a victim of their own success - afraid to take a risk on a true unknown. Hell bent on ensuring the success of the labs by only selecting the already successful, but not quite known. Heck, when Tarantino was selected for the labs it was after Reservoir Dogs! I wish it was truly an open competition like the Nicholl. Then we might see real diversity in the scripts selected.

I guess this list begs the question, "Is emotional always depressing?"

Or perhaps, "Does it have to be?"

The films noted by Scott are not depressing films as much as character-revealing through life-conflict.

I'm with docmp - they're taking people far enough along in the process that their films would probably get made anyway. And if it's a screenwriting lab, what's with all the directors? Too bad.

Even more, I agree with Christian H - a lot of these films seem to be about real people with real issues - and I'd love to see them. Bluebird, Canary (which is apparently funny), Drunktown's Finest, 40 Days of Silence, and May in the Summer (all 3 of which take us to largely unknown cultures) all appeal greatly to me - and MUCH more than any of the selections on the black list, except maybe Muppet Man.

I don't have a problem with films written to entertain - but they are not what I am interested in writing. I like films that allow me to see something in a new way, or that give me an insight into a person or culture I might not be familiar with. I like a film that makes me think or feel, and the more deeply the better.

I enjoyed Sideways and, especially, Little Miss Sunshine (I felt Juno was emotionally dishonest and loathed it for that - I was bored with 500 Days of Summer and turned it off halfway through). But I don't think these films are the best that independent filmmaking can provide. First, they are too talky, presumably to keep the budget low. But can't visual storytelling- like what you described of Hitchcock a few days ago- be budget-conscious, too? Then, because they depend on talk, the writers seem to feel that everyone must be unbearably witty. I really hate that. And then, they are predictable - they stick to the formulas like glue, even if they are sometimes inventive in getting where they're going.

I know I'm in a minority in wanting to see films like the Sundance ones, but if it weren't for them, at this point I'd pretty much have to stick to foreign films to get the visual storytelling with meaning and insight that I crave.

Part of the problem is people pander to the contest's ideals and write movies that will get them in, not that will put butts in seats.
You see this in all writing competitions without exception.
Have you ever looked at a scholarship essay contest? All the essays talk about how much each person has achieved in life and how important they will continue to be. There is no great writing going on, just masturbation.
SUndance is a name brand now. Time for something new to come up and replace it.