Much has been made of the fact that for the first time in almost twenty years Sundance 2010 had a new fest director, John Cooper. Concurrently much of the festival coverage was dedicated to analyzing and responding to changes (real and superficial) that marked this shakeup. Given it was my first trip to the festival I can’t participate in the compare-and-contrast from previous fests, but even to my virgin eyes the rebranding of Sundance has interesting and significant overtones for the state of independent film as a whole.

This year’s prominently-stated theme was “Rebel,” and emblazoned everything from printed programs to signage to merchandise in a faux street art graphic. I was taken aback, since the fest has a reputation for being a complete celebrity clusterfuck, a transplanted Hollywood hierarchy at its worst; all the goods go to the stars, followed by industry suits, maybe some filmmakers, while those without VIP status are left (literally) out in the cold hoping to get into screenings and parties. Sundance was created by Robert Redford et al. in the bucolic Utah mountains for precisely the opposite reason, as a home for independent American films made outside the Hollywood system. And it has notably helped the careers of many revered independent (or at least visionary) filmmakers including Jim Jarmusch, Steven Soderbergh, PT Anderson, and Kevin Smith, though its most famous wunderkind is Quentin Tarantino. Those of course were the days when having a buzz film at Sundance meant a studio deal in the millions and a golden ticket to a Hollywood career. Perhaps then the VIP culture made sense — it was simply following money and power. But the reigning question commentators seemed to be asking this year is what is the relevance of Sundance in the uncertain age of the gutted independent film industry? The fest’s answer, seemingly, was “Rebel.”

What does that mean? The intro spots created for Sundance screenings elaborated slightly on this ethos with four additional slogans: “Dare to Grow Underground, Dare to Come Together, Dare to Begin Again, Dare to Tell Your Own Story.” Each theme was illustrated by a slick yet lo-fi animated spot (cut paper and stop-motion were in heavy use). The only one I really responded to was Tell Your Own Story, a clever mash-up of previous Sundance hits and indie film tropes. Interestingly, its humor didn’t get much of a reaction from the audiences I was a part of; maybe the irony was lost on them? Which points to the fact that it’s really confusing to have Sundance tell you to fight the establishment when they are the establishment.

Cooper has been with Sundance for years, so his anointing is more a changing of the guard than a revolutionary takeover. That his appointment coincides with a shaky and confusing time for the independent film industry can be seen as both good and bad luck. As Manohla Dargis points out, “this return to independence [is] convenient given the economic crisis…it is, after all, easier to declare your independence from Hollywood when Hollywood has already walked out the door.” She is of course referring to the disappearance of the heady, post-Tarantino days when a buzz film could initiate an all-night bidding war; last year Sundance sales were by all accounts dismal, and though this year was a bit more promising it’s clear that the studio goldmine has run dry for indie filmmakers. By going commercial (and encouraging Hollywood to go indie) Sundance was part of the snuffing out of the strong, idiosyncratic visions that made 90s festival darlings into star directors. Studios used to come to the fest to buy independent films and launch new directors’ careers; now they come to the fest to sell their own films and launch marketing campaigns for their stars.

At this point I need to make a distinction. For documentaries and foreign films Sundance remains a wonderful opportunity and an important platform for success. Sundance is in fact known for the consistently high calibre of its docs. And I did enjoy most of the films I saw at Sundance. The overall quality and professionalism of the productions was impressive, and the programming was far stronger than at other fests I’ve attended. But did it reflect the “cinematic rebellion” that the Sundance brass desired? Not as far as I could tell. Is this the festival’s fault? Not entirely. The deeper problem is a lack of truly unique, visionary filmmakers.

Thus opens a can of worms too wriggly to contain in this piece. More on that later. It suffices to say that my parting thoughts on Sundance were a confused jumble. They are right that filmmakers must dare to tell their own stories. But if a film grows underground and no one is there to see it, does it make a sound?