By Leonard Klady Klady@moviecitynews.com

Confessions of a Festival Junkie: It’s A Wrap

For at least the press and industry segment that attends the Toronto International Film Festival it’s an event that kind of fizzles out. Toronto doesn’t have an official market component even though there are years (not 2008) when there’s as much buying and selling going on to equal Berlin or the American Film Market. It’s a tacit market with something called a Sales Office that keeps organizers from having to tell the wheeler dealers who owns rights to a movie and where they’re keeping an office.

Toronto also doesn’t give awards per se. The audience determines the main prize and this year it went to Danny Boyle’s energetic Bollywood-style Slumdog Millionaire. There are also critics juries that included a Discovery award to Steve McQueen’s Hunger (the first film winner at Cannes) and an assortment of kudos for Canadian films that included a runner up first feature prize to Lyne Charlebois’ female empowerment Borderline – the best of the indigenous movies I saw this year.

It’s difficult to say how well the event works for local movie goers but their continued enthusiasm and the near capacity level of screenings more than suggests it does. The on going irony is that the fervor evidenced during its 10-day span hasn’t appreciably increased the audience for alternative movies in the Ontario capitol during the other 50 weeks of the calendar. That fact has driven Victor Loewy (among others), President of Canada’s largest distribution company, to near hysteria for decades and, at one time, to unsuccessfully push for one-time only showings at the festival.

On the flip side, Toronto works almost ideally for industry visitors. The fest has been more than compliant to requests that major releases screen during the opening weekend. The intensity of the schedule doesn’t seem to bother buyers, sellers and junket press just as long as they can wrap up business and be headed home by Monday or Tuesday. Everyone likes the atmosphere which is typically described as “easy going,” they like the accessibility of product and people, the restaurants and the ability to walk to screenings that tend to be in relatively close proximity.

By the time I slipped away on Wednesday all press conferences had been completed, there was no waiting for a computer in the Sales Office, one could shoot off a cannon in the hallways and not hurt anyone and put lipstick on a pig if one were to be found. Still, more than past Toronto experiences I found my anxiety level heightened throughout. It might have been an anomaly but the pressure of seeing the 35 to 40 movies in the roughly 300 screened this year seemed more challenging.

Early in the festival I ran into Charlie Martin Smith whose saga of Scottish nationalism Stone of Destiny was the closing night film. He was jazzed about the high profile spot but certainly not unaware that key buyers would be long gone from the scene. Smith was scurrying about setting up early showings as a result and taking it in stride that potential sales people wouldn’t have the benefit of seeing it with a real audience.

One of the last people I encountered prior to making my exit was festival CEO Piers Handling who appeared understandably wary though not particularly frazzled. If things continue on schedule the event’s new home – Bell Lightbox – will be operating in 2010. I’d heard rumors that the festival still had $25 million to raise to complete the project but handling corrected me. The outstanding amount is $49 million he confirmed without popping a single bead of sweat.

The new building will house five screening rooms and he indicated that talks are underway with AMC for more screens at its Scotia multiplex (located close to the Lightbox) once the festival relocates. Ideally they want to keep all the screens they’re currently using with the new edifice replacing the Sutton Place as the hub of press/industry activity.

– Leonard Klady

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments are closed.

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon