Chicago Gets Googled
Asian Carp: 'Nice Try, Suckers'
Friday Afternoon Diversion: Earth With Rings
CPL's Bookamania Brings The Reading Fun For Kids
Dear CIFF,
We've got some beef with you. Here's a little list of pet peeves about this year's festival (summed up nicely by Phil Moreheart of Facets): screenings changing times and/or venues without staff knowledge; understaffed box offices; sound drops, framing issues that obscured subtitles, and even simple tasks like turning the theatre lights off before starting the movie.
But what happened Monday night at the Malcolm McDowell event was the last straw.
Mr. McDowell presented his movie Never Apologize (which, by the way, was wonderful) and then was being interviewed afterwards by the Trib's Michael Wilmington. The two were chatting very agreeably, and Malcolm had just told some very juicy stories about working with Stanley Kubrick and Lindsay Anderson. And then, about 20 minutes in, practically midsentence, a CIFF spokeswoman interrupted the proceedings to tell us that we'd all have to leave, it was over; there was another movie that had to use the theater and she was sorry. That's all folks. Malcom was pretty gracious under the circumstances, but all she gave him time to say was, "Well, thanks for having me anyway."
Do not bill an event as "An Evening with Malcolm McDowell" and charge people $13 and then just cut it off after 20 minutes. It's embarrassing. It shows a real lack of planning (i.e. you don't schedule another screening so soon afterwards when the whole point of the event is a postscreening discussion and Q & A).
But in the end, we just can't be that hard on you.
For one thing, you showed almost 150 films this year, which was many many more than we had a prayer of seeing. Your ambition and scope can't be faulted. And we did see some really good movies (Control, Home of the Giants), even saw some great ones (Stuck, America the Beautiful and You, the Living come to mind). For another thing, even if there were times when venues were understaffed and/or chaotic, the vast majority of staff was courteous, helpful and was able to maintain a decent sense of humor. And the queues for ticketholders were almost always clearly marked and easy to find.
Most importantly there was still the amazing, communal sense of adventure that comes from gorging on movies that otherwise might've slipped through the cracks.
So don't take our criticism the wrong way. We still love you. But the fact is if you want to get more Chicagoans excited about you then you've got some room for improvement. We humbly offer some suggestions:
We know that booking and scheduling 150 movies is tricky. But witholding information until virtually the last minute is not acceptable. We understand that the paper festival schedules take awhile to design, print and distribute. But it's 2007. Take advantage of the web, which is fast and easy (just like us). Put the schedule online, and do it three weeks before Opening Night. Create CIFF text messaging alerts that cinephiles can subscribe to, and use it to quickly spread the word that a film has sold out, or that a screening has been canceled or relocated.
Being properly staffed is always a challenge; we don't dispute that. But there need to be fewer people handing out ballots and more people manning the box office. We won't be voting on a movie if we can't get a ticket in a timely fashion.
This year you turned 43, so it's no big surprise that you're going through a bit of a mid-life crisis. We want you to get through this rough patch so that next year's festival can be the best yet. We promise to be there for you.
Love,
Chicagoist
P.S. Thanks for giving Ken Nordine something to do year after year.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I thought the festival was much better than last year in terms of how I was treated as a member of the press. Terms of the pass were more defined and staff were, generally, more easy-going, though why they decided to close the credentialing process mere days before the first film is beyond me.
I thought there was room for improvement in terms of starting films on time. Some were egregiously late. I ended up having to sit in the second row for one film because my previous film ended with less than 5 minutes to spare to get to the next one. I have to admit, I took offense when the CIFF announcer for the screening commended everyone who got to the screening well in advance to get a good seat, in a voice scolding the latecomers. It certainly wasn't my fault I scratched in just under the wire.
Also, why can't we get more guests of the fest? Again, there were very few around as compared with other years.
I didn't see Tuya's Marriage, but I'm still floored 4 Months, 3 Weeks & 2 Days didn't win the Gold Hugo--or any award!
On the upside, the selection of films were a much more elite group that in previous festivals. Not enough Asian, too much French, not enough documentaries, but all in all, a really good line-up.
I hope this was actually sent to CIFF.
By the way, the animated shorts this year were horrible. Truly the bottom of the barrel. They need to do some re-organizing and live up to the hype for next year.
The pet peeves you note are inexcusable for a festival in its 43rd year (note '47' typo above).
Here's another: The CIFF website allows you to browse by title, origin, or category, but not by director?! It's like going to a record store (remember those) and not being able to browse by musician/band/composer name - not very user-friendly.
"[CIFF's] ambition and scope can't be faulted."
You're joking, right? Other than the 32 films & videos (who knows? yet another pet peeve: the program doesn't indicate the format!) in the four "Shorts" programs, which seem to be all "narrative" works, the remaining films are almost all feature-length documentaries and/or narrative works. Is that a broad scope? Or are you simply counting their countries of origin?
I'm sure the emphasis on "internationalness" is a good marketing strategy for the festival, as a way of attracting the Whole Foods-shopping, NPR-listening crowd (who get to feel sophisticated by going to "foreign" films). But from an art-lover's perspective, the emphasis on country of origin (however that's determined) is almost meaningless.
As for CIFF showing "movies that otherwise might've slipped through the cracks":
I'd be curious to see a study comparing CIFF with other festivals, in terms of the percentage of films which have distribution. I suspect CIFF shows a lot more films which will in fact be screened at one of the local "art-house" venues within the next year or so. This isn't necessarily a bad thing -- but we should just be clear about what CIFF is and what it is not.
I thought there was room for improvement in terms of starting films on time.
... Maybe because the Q&As for the film before ran over?
Perhaps billing it as an "Evening w/ Malcolm McDowell" was a mistake -- but a 20 minute Q&A is pretty much the status quo for these festivals. I don't fault the CIFF woman for trying to empty the theater; she was trying to get the next screening to start as close to on-time as possible. It's kind of a no-win situation. People are gonna be unhappy no matter what you do. My experience at this year's festival went pretty well -- even if the screening I attended Friday night also started late.
As far as the issue of ballots -- yeah, you really do need that many people to hand out ballots. As a filmmaker with a film in competition, you want everyone to get a ballot, everyone to vote, and everyone to get that ballot in the box. It's something that is regulated, and is taken very seriously. You do not fuck around with the ballots. (At least at Sundance, where I spend my winter vacation as a theater manager -- I have no affiliation with CIFF).
It wasn't about Q&As from what I could see. I went to a film that started 15 minutes late. We were all seated and waiting. The film just didn't start. I know that waiting for guests sometimes causes films to start late, but Look was nearly an hour late in its first showing (yes, the director was there).
Billo was the worst DVD projection I have ever seen. I think if they can't project something worth watching, they shouldn't offer the film at all. I don't mind DVD, but at least make it a high-quality DVD.
Agreed about the directors, though in this case, the Jacques Rivette was the worst film I saw in the festival.
@ Jason: I pretty much agree with your extra points of criticism; in fact I probably would have mentioned more of them but for the fact that I though my post was already whiny enough. It'd be great to have more experimental stuff and more local stuff. But within the confines of its focus (feature narratives) I thought there was an awful lot of variety.
@ stoked: what was really bad about the McDowell event is that he was clearly ready (and expecting) to talk more, and Wilmington had barely asked more than 3 questions. One solution? Have it at the Harris Theater or some other venue where time constraints are more flexible. I'd be willing to pay more if I was assured that it wasn't just another shoehorn event.
It brings back memories of this amazing evening a few years ago at the Siskel: "Tippi" Hedren in person for a screening of "The Birds." After the film she answered question after question, and when the audience was finally silent (almost an hour later) she said, "Is that all? I could go all night!"