MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

CineVegas Craps Out

The climate for film festivals is even harsher than the climate for studios and indies. The first major fest to now announce a complete wipe-out is CineVegas, a festival that quickly became a favorite with journalists, boasting happy Vegas accommodations and some tiny finds along the way.
IndieWIRE breaks the news, but offers no real answers as to why the plug got pulled. “Quality” is a bullshit answer, with due respect to all.
My bet would be that they either lost The Palms as the central sponsor or the Brenden Theaters multiplex (inside The Palms), where the festival was held… or both. Vegas is hurting. And all things considered, CineVegas probably never earned the casino hotel a single room night sold.
The Palms is all about showy promotion, but the tipping point for CineVegas was 2007’s premiere of Ocean’s 13. Brad, Matt, and Don walked the red carpet.
In 2008… The Rocker.
2009… St John of Las Vegas.
Game over.
Studios are not spending on festivals the way they used to. Vegas casinos can get celebrities on their carpets for less. And CineVegas never emerged as a sales fest or even a festival that could draw media together – which it did – to get behind a film that would go on to have even minor commercial success.
The effort of the entire team is to be respected. Dennis Hopper could not have been a more willing and available advocate. But festivals that survive this economy will have to have a purpose clear enough to draw sponsors. Fewer days, fewer press events, less money spent on traveling talent… it’s already started, but it’s only going to get worse from here.
Yes, I hope there is a new CineVegas resurrected in the years to come. It was not a cynical effort by those who ran the event. Not at all. But if and when it comes back, expect it to do even more to service its sponsors in a city that is built on hype.

Be Sociable, Share!

7 Responses to “CineVegas Craps Out”

  1. Ju-osh says:

    Dave: I’ll donate $10 to a charity of your choice if you put up the complete Terry Gilliam interview today.
    (Maybe some other commenters will put up matching funds?)

  2. Ju-osh says:

    $20?

  3. Ju-osh says:

    $25…and a promise to click more banner ads.

  4. anghus says:

    makes sense. If New York is the heart of capitalism, Vegas would be the liver. And since capitalism is dying, it makes sense that the liver goes first.
    I guess that makes L.A. the rectum.

  5. Sultry says:

    How it is that some outlet (in this case, IndieWIRE) gets credit as the one which “breaks the news” when all they did is repeat what was already posted on the CineVegas website?
    Didn’t the Cinevegas website “break the news?”

  6. LexG says:

    SULTRY ALERT YAY!
    Sultry, you still down with the Lexman? If you know the email, give it a ring one of these days.
    COOL MOVE.

  7. Joe Leydon says:

    Actually, I have to say I saw the news on Variety first.

The Hot Blog

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