..Gary Dretzka
..Noah Forrest
..Leonard Klady
..R.J. Matson
..David Poland
..Douglas Pratt
..Ray Pride
..Michael Wilmington

Hey, I’ve Got a Barn, We Could Put On a Show

There are certain evergreens in journalism - even film journalism. One of the equivalents, not to be too L.A.centric, of the Why Can’t You Get a Good Bagel in Los Angeles? piece is The Why Can’t Hollywood Support a World Class Film Festival?

Presently L.A. has two events that aspire to be important annual film showcases - the Los Angeles Film Festival that opens Thursday and the AFI Los Angeles Film Festival in November. Both run 10-days and screen roughly 100 features (including mini-retrospectives), plus shorts, panels, workshops and sundry other activities associated with this sort of film smorgasbord.

They’re each, in their own way, pretty good. And, even with unlimited resources and access to product, I remain unconvinced either can improve markedly beyond their present level. That’s not to say there isn’t room for improvement and that the events won’t get better. However, such factors as geography, timing, competition and venue are limitations rather than assets when you put on a function of this sort in the “movie capital of the world.”

For different reasons, the majority of high profile movie festivals tend to unspool in cozy locales including Cannes, Venice and Sundance. There isn’t a significant film festival in Paris or Rome and such venerable sites as London and New York have lost much of their bygone luster.

The function and role of the film festival has also radically changed since it was given birth by a functionary in Mussolini’s Italy close to 70 years ago. The first sorties into this area were marked by two factors: tourism and politics. Cannes was strategically placed on the cusp of its peak tourism season in hopes of extending it several weeks. In places such as Venice and Berlin it was often a chest thumping opportunity by the host country to honor its national cinema.

By the time the film festival reached North American shores in the 1950s, other elements began to color this activity. The idea of bringing European and Asian films that depicted human interaction frankly and graphically or had stories with odd narrative forms or unusual imagery had an innate snob appeal for rarified moviegoers. It was also an opportunity to see movies that would not ordinarily play even at establish art houses. They were in the best scenario the equivalent of theater’s out-of-town try out, paving the way for countless films and filmmakers to enter American movie theaters.

When Los Angeles finally had the opportunity to partake in a full-blown film festival, it was like bringing food to starving refugees. The brainchild of the late Gary Essert (also the force behind the American Cinematheque), FilmEx debuted in 1971 and had a vibrant run through almost two decades. Eventually, hostile members of his board undid Essert and the event faltered under new stewardship, and then morphed into the AFI Fest and has been digging itself out of the wrong sort of programming and improving with each new edition.

It’s impossible to know whether FilmEx would have continued to be an important part of the cultural landscape had Essert stayed at its helm. However, in its transition period, several new factors became part of the festival mix and, once again, provided challenges for the programmers of L.A. based film events.

In no particular order consider these elements: proliferation, the audience, the film calendar, the festival as market.

When FilmEx unveiled its first edition, the American terrain was relatively sparsely populated of like-minded showcases. San Francisco, New York and Chicago were its senior members. Sundance, Toronto, Seattle and such geographically close points as Santa Barbara and Palm Springs had yet to pop up. The relatively manageable calendar of such events would rapidly disintegrate as more and more centers adopted them as local social events, additions to an existing cultural portfolio or, simply, a business venture with a nice profit center. Based on a combination of savvy, experience and luck a few emerged with something unique to offer that resonated beyond the city limits … a very few.

The surfeit of film festivals changed many things. Producers, filmmakers and foreign cultural agencies became very strategic about where films and talent were sent in North America. In turn, the people acquiring movies became increasingly selective about which stops were mandatory, discretionary or to be avoided. Fewer and fewer films with domestic distribution were sent to festivals unless they coincided with the picture’s theatrical debut and a promotional tour of its artists.

Today, there are only two North American must stops for industry movers and shakers - Toronto and Sundance. The two events are mostly studies in stark contrast. What they have in common is a ferocious atmosphere of business networking and, as a result, the facility to attract new films either seeking distribution or hoping to use the venue as a major promotional launch pad. The differences between the two range from the obvious to the subtle. Toronto is a major urban center that has adopted its festival as the premiere event of the fall social schedule. It is a public festival, famous for appreciative audiences. Ironically, even after a quarter century of packed houses for even the most obscure and arcane movies, the appetite for alternative film going in the 50 weeks between unspoolings remains disappointing.

Sundance, for the uninitiated, is a ski resort in the Wasach Mountains of Utah. Like the AFI fest, it morphed out of another festival and struggled to develop an identity and audience. Its fortunes started to improve in 1989 when the $1.2 million budgeted Sex, lies, and videotape received the audience award (True Love was the jury winner) and went on the win the top prize at Cannes and gross $70 million worldwide theatrically. Almost immediately the word went out that Sundance was the place to find new films and filmmakers. It was the cinematic gold rush.

It was also the turning point in the relationship between the festival and the community. As long as it had been a funky, low profile, modestly attended affair, the residents and businesses of Park City enjoyed the distraction. However, as it evolved into a media and industry circus, tension levels began to escalate and locals began to feel the crunch as this horde displaced free spending skiers in January, a peak period of its tourism season.

In brief, one festival serves the needs of its community; the other does not. Back in Los Angeles, the most culturally and ethnically diverse community in the United States, it’s almost impossible to define the local pulse or situate the hub from which its heart beats. FilmEx, in retrospect, was very ambitious to that end. During its run, it changed its flagship theater several times and more than one edition mounted the Herculean task of setting up venues on the East and West sides of the city.

In addition to serving the local audience, the L.A. and AFI fests have to serve their masters, respectively the Independent Feature Project and the American Film Institute. In the former case, that’s involved a concentration on American indies and with its placement between Sundance and Toronto, its choices have been less than pristine. Wisely, it dropped the word independent from its moniker and has spread its interests. The AFI has had similar growing pains and experienced a quantum leap in attendance last year when it moved to the former Cinerama Dome (using four of its 16 screens) and beefed up its activities among the various ethnic groups in the metropolitan area. Still, it’s a daunting task to identify and program for such a geographically and multi-culturally diverse crowd.

Something else has changed since the demise of FilmEx. Los Angeles has surpassed New York as the American city with the most eclectic and voluminous screening opportunities. Year round programming from the American Cinematheque, L.A. County Museum, UCLA and Film Forum is just the beginning. Additionally there are strong niche events including Outfest, annual programs of films from France, Italy, Israel, Spain, Hungary, Germany and other nations and a very active alternative program through Laemmle Theaters that runs 52 weeks of the year.

While that’s considerably improved the cinemaliteracy of Lower Cal, it’s also closed the door on dozens of pictures that have been showcased as a result of these specialized programs. To date, it’s been a tough sell for organizers of the two festivals to convince filmmakers, sales agents and producers that their films would receive greater recognition and benefit as part of their program.

The glass ceiling for film festivals in Los Angeles is the ability to program unseen A-list titles. That’s why Toronto, Sundance, Cannes and sometimes Berlin are where the international film community descends for 10 to 14 days every year. While many of these people work and have primary residences within the realm of greater L.A. County, they have yet to demonstrate a willingness to make a trip cross town to see new talent and until that changes there’s only so much room for growth.  You’re probably thinking this sounds like a Catch-22 and you’re right. It’s also a kind of vicious circle.

Yes it’s all very daunting and until its economically viable to import East Coast water, the bagels are only going to be so good. But just try and get decent and authentic Mexican food in the Big Apple.

- by Leonard Klady