“The Unbelievable Truth”
What It’s About: Writer/director Hal Hartley’s feature debut, the film follows newly released convict (Robert John Burke) as he returns to his hometown and becomes romantically involved with a young, apocalyptically-obsessed aspiring model (Adrienne Shelley) even as rumors of his murderous past threaten his ascetic existence.
Year It Played Sundance: 1990, along with “Roger and Me” and “Metropolitan” (both on this list), “Longtime Companion” and Jane Campion’s “Sweetie”.
How Was It Received At The Time? By the standards of the rest of this list, “The Unbelievable Truth” had a pretty low-key reception, though largely a positive one where it was seen/reviewed. But that would become par for the course for Hartley, whose whole career seems to exist on a track that runs parallel to, and some way off from, that of the rest of the independent filmmaking community.
How Big Did It Get? The film made a decent profit, but never blew up or made a breakout of its director the way some others we mention here did (funny to imagine a world in which Hal Hartley and, say, Quentin Tarantino swap places). However it did do two main things: it established Hartley’s very specific talents in regards to dialogue (especially his trademark circular conversations) and a certain self-awareness that skewered the potential pretension of his stories. It also got him invited back to the festival the following year, with a more polished take on similar themes (also starring Shelley) in “Trust.” That film won him a screenwriting award and confirmed the promise of ‘Truth’ but retrospectively we can look on Sundance’s championing of his debut as the driver behind a consistent if reliably under-the-radar career. In fact, we’d maintain that Hartley’s is exactly the sort of career that a festival like Sundance is really designed to nurture: not as a springboard to something bigger, but as a needed conduit to allow his small films to find the small audiences they need in order for the next film to become a viable proposition. Less of a rockstar than Jarmusch, Hartley is no less independently-spirited, and for all we sometimes bemoan Sundance’s more recent evolution into the massive juggernaut it is today, we have to give it props for supporting filmmakers like Hartley (who has had five films in total play there).
Is It Worth The Hype? What little hype it’s ever had…yes, it’s still an offbeat, funny, and oddly touching film that has such finely tuned, deadpan dialogue that it feels fresh and inventive, even if some of the trappings have dated. And it establishes Hartley’s voice perfectly, a voice of which we are very fond (check out our retrospective if you don’t believe us).
“El Mariachi”
What It’s About: As a result of an unfortunate case of mistaken identity, a musician and a ruthless criminal drug lord cross paths, leading to a wild and ridiculous chase through the streets of Mexico.
Year It Played Sundance: In 1993, “El Mariachi” did battle with “Silverlake Life,” “Ruby In Paradise” and Bryan Singer’s “ Public Access.
How Was It Received At The Time? The picture was snapped up almost immediately by Columbia Pictures even though it didn’t win an award at Sundance. Reviews were generous, particularly from Todd McCarthy of Variety, who said the film had “a verve and cheekiness” that compared to Sergio Leone and George Miller, though perhaps a large part of the narrative was dedicated to the shoestring budget and gonzo attitude of the film’s director, just one year after newly-minted enfant terrible Quentin Tarantino had set Park City alight.
How Big Did It Get?
Columbia’s purchase of the film was essentially a show of faith in writer/director Robert Rodriguez. The film itself only made $2 million in theaters, but it led to a remake/sequel, “Desperado,” that showed what Rodriguez could do with a beefed-up budget. It was an effective showreel that eventually turned Rodriguez into a hot, in-demand helmer of cheap-thrill actioners with a witty sense of humor. By the time he closed the trilogy with “Once Upon A Time In Mexico,” Rodriguez had secured his place in Hollywood. “El Mariachi” is now in the National Film Registry.
Is It Worth The Hype?
Rodriguez had intentions so modest for his $7,000-budgeted actioner that he envisioned it as a direct-to-video hit at best. The film itself is not without its charms, but that feels right: Rodriguez has made it this far based on his hustle and good humor more than his talent, as he’s basically a one-man filmmaking machine. But “El Mariachi” is ultimately a silly trifle, a time-waster of a thriller that wears its miniscule budget on its sleeve. While it’s less authentic and, at times, overly phony, “Desperado” is a much more enjoyable adventure.
“sex, lies and videotape”
What It’s About: Graham (James Spader, in an early career-defining role) is turned on only by filming the sexual confessions of others, and soon finds himself
interfering with the relationships of those around him, including Ann (Andie MacDowell), her philandering husband (Peter Gallagher) and her free-spirit sister (Laura San Giacomo).
Year It Played Sundance: 1989, when Steven Soderbergh’s film dominated a field that included “Heathers,” “Miracle Mile” and “Let’s Get Lost.”
How Was It Received At The Time? An Academy Award nomination for Best Screenplay was one of the bigger accolades the film received as it garnered near-universal critical praise, in addition to the Sundance hosannas and the Palme d’Or in Cannes over films like “Do The Right Thing,” “Mystery Train” and “Cinema Paradiso.” Roger Ebert’s more measured review, however, trod delicately, as he said, “I am not sure it is as good as the Cannes jury apparently found it; it has more intelligence than heart, and is more clever than enlightening. But it is never boring, and there are moments when it reminds us of how sexy the movies used to be, back in the days when speech was an erogenous zone.”
How Big Did It Get? Steven Soderbergh’s debut picture ended up becoming the poster child for the nineties’ independent film revolution, pulling in over $25.5m off a budget of $1.2m. In addition to kicking off the career of Soderbergh, one of the medium’s most fascinating and versatile filmmakers, it also launched Miramax to prominence, beginning the era of the powerful indie distributor. The picture has since been added to the National Film Registry. And it also marks a kind of “before and after” point for Sundance itself—it was this perfect storm of Weinsteins, breakout success and all-conquering festival and awards presence that make the industry at large realize there was money in them thar Utah hills, and the “modern” Sundance was born.
Is It Worth The Hype? The breakthrough first film of a great American auteur, it now feels a little chilly and distant, not necessarily like the indie “sensation” it was in the day. But back then, this was a novelty—it made sense that some filmmakers were starting to expand the cinematic vocabulary to observe how adults really do behave behind closed doors. Not titillating in the least, the picture remains intellectually stimulating in the best ways, even if it has a whiff of sterility and amateurishness to it.
“Stranger Than Paradise”
What It’s About: Divided into three chapters, Jim Jarmusch’s theatrical feature debut is a surreal, minimalist ultra-deadpan comedy in which Willie (John Lurie) and Eddie (Richard Edson) leave New York to visit Eva (Eszter Balint), Willie’s cousin who’d shown up unexpectedly at his apartment the year before and had since moved to Cleveland.
Year It Played Sundance: 1985, the same year as influential documentary “The Times of Harvey Milk,” Coens‘ debut “Blood Simple,” “ The Killing Fields” and “The Brother from Another Planet”
How Was It Received At The Time? ‘Paradise’ actually arrived for its U.S. bow trailing international awards: the Best Debut prize from Cannes and the Golden Leopard at Locarno, and with Sundance not yet the titan it’s been for the last two and half decades one could wonder how much the festival did for the film, and how much the film did for the festival. But Jarmusch being such a quintessential, albeit Euro-influenced, idiosyncratic, American filmmaker (the film was even subtitled “A New American Film”) and his subsequent influence over the U.S. indie scene being so great, the Sundance premiere was a hugely important moment in his career. The festival awarded it the Special Jury Prize, thereby setting its seal on one of the most seminal films in the independent American scene, and honoring early a filmmaker who, especially compared with, say, fellow class of ‘85 honorees the Coens, has remained defiantly off-grid and indie-to-the-bone ever since.
How Big Did It Get? The film made $2.5m off its $100,000 budget, but its real impact was more cultural than financial. It established a very distinctive auteurist voice in Jarmusch that brilliantly married European influences to an offbeat Americana, producing something new and desperately hip, yet not so avant-garde as to be alienating. The film is preserved by the National Registry for its cultural significance, regularly tops polls of cult films, and was and is frequently name-checked as an influence by subsequent generations of independent filmmakers.
Is It Worth The Hype? Without a doubt. Jarmusch’s episodic, off-key film—part road movie, part odd couple/threesome buddy movie, part morose Samuel Beckett play—is still the purest distillation of his inimitable style (with “Down By Law” maybe a close second). And while Jarmusch would go on to work against bigger canvases, the sparseness of the approach here, the cool simplicity of the black-and-white photography (often of empty locales) and the 100% droll, utterly undemonstrative performances all combine to make the film unassailably timeless. It’s definitely not for everyone, which, as it’s practically become a manifesto for independence in filmmaking, is exactly as it should be.