A screener is a controlled pre-release copy of a film or video, shared with a specific audience for evaluation rather than entertainment: festival programmers, film press, awards voters, distributors, buyers, funders. The word carries the whole risk model in it - "screen" as in "to screen an applicant" - because a screener is your unreleased work leaving your hands, and everything about the format exists to control what happens next.
Who gets screeners, and why
- Festival programmers. Thousands of submissions per major festival; nobody travels to watch them. The screener is your submission.
- Film press and critics. Reviews run on or before release day, which means critics watch the film before the public does.
- Distributors and buyers. Sales agents, streamers, and broadcasters evaluating acquisition - people with a commercial interest and an obligation not to leak, and wildly different discipline in practice.
- Awards voters. The awards-season screener wave is its own ecosystem, with platform-specific rules.
- Funders and commissioning editors. On unfinished work, milestone reviews of cuts-in-progress serve the same function - the documentary-side version of this is in the documentary review guide.
What makes a screener a screener (not just a copy)
Four controls separate a screener from a leaked file:
- Watermark. The classic is the burning timecode plus a recipient identity ("SCREENER — PROPERTY OF [FILM] — FOR [NAME/OUTLET]") visible on every frame. Its first job is deterrence - a watermarked copy is self-identifying when it leaks - and its second job is forensics: if a rip appears online, the watermark says whose copy it was.
- Scoped access. One recipient, one link. A file forwarded to a group destroys accountability; a per-recipient link keeps the chain.
- Expiry. Evaluation windows end. A screener that lives forever is a leak waiting for a lazy moment.
- No downloads. Streaming-only review removes the entire class of "my laptop was stolen with the file on it." A downloaded file is out of your control forever; a stream is revocable.
The old way vs the link-based way
| Method | How it controls risk | Where it breaks |
|---|---|---|
| Watermarked DVD / physical media | Per-recipient disc, hard to duplicate casually | Cost and latency; rips happen anyway; nobody owns a DVD player |
| Watermarked MP4 by file transfer | Watermark identity, one recipient per file | Download is forever - once sent, nothing is revocable |
| Secure streaming screener platform | Per-recipient links, watermark, expiry, no-download, view logs | Requires the recipient to use the platform link (they will - it is easier than a DVD) |
The streaming model won because it makes the secure path the convenient path: the programmer clicks, the film plays, nothing installs. Festival platforms increasingly accept (or require) secure-link submissions for exactly this reason.
How to make a screener from your master
- Start from the evaluation cut, not necessarily the final master - a screener for programmers might be the current fine cut; one for press is the release version.
- Upload as a review video in your workspace. Frooty's chunked upload handles a feature-length master without the restart-on-flaky-wifi ritual.
- Create the link with controls on: watermark on, download off, password for sensitive cuts, expiry set to the evaluation window. The link mechanics are in what is a video review link.
- One recipient, one link. If two outlets need it, that is two links - accountability only works if access is scoped to a person, not a group.
- Set the window and let it expire. When the festival announces or the review runs, the link dies on schedule and you never had to remember to revoke it.
The watermark reasoning deserves its own essay because its failure stories are instructive - it is in why watermark video reviews.
Screener etiquette, briefly
Programmers and critics expect: correct aspect ratio and audio levels (a screener with broken audio is an auto-reject), no burned-in subtitles unless required, and a slate with title, runtime, and contact. Send early - festivals disqualify late submissions without ceremony. And never send a final master where a screener was asked for; the control you skip is always the one that mattered.
FAQ
Do screeners really leak?
Yes - every year, awards-season screeners surface on piracy networks, which is precisely why the controls exist. Per-recipient watermarks have traced leaks back to specific recipients; streaming-only links with no download shrink the attack surface from "every copy in the wild" to "every stream in the window."
What watermark should I put on a screener?
At minimum: the word "SCREENER," the film's title, and the recipient's name or outlet - visible but not destructive to evaluation. The full deterrence-vs-judgment tradeoff is covered in the watermarking op-ed.
Can I use a review tool as a screener platform?
Yes, and for unfinished or lower-stakes distribution it is the pragmatic choice: the same controls - watermark, password, expiry, download-off - that run client review run a screener. Dedicated festival platforms add submission-form logistics on top; the protection layer is the same idea.
How long should a screener window stay open?
The evaluation window plus a small buffer: a festival announcement or publication date, plus one to two weeks. Expiry is the control people forget and are happiest they remembered.