Chicagoist: An Open Letter to the Chicago International Film Festival

Rob Christopher

Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:02:23 -0600

@ 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!"

Ferdy

Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:53:42 -0600

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.

stokedamerican

Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:44:11 -0600

Jason Guthartz

Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:28:47 -0600

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.

Number 6

Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:13:55 -0600

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.

Ferdy

Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:12:32 -0600

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.