By Leonard Klady Klady@moviecitynews.com

CONFESSIONS OF FILM FESTIVAL JUNKIE

LAFF Out Loud

The curious thing that popped into my head as I leafed through the program book for the upcoming Los Angeles Film Festival was decidedly arcane. It had nothing to do with the film selections or such decidedly local issues as parking or the logistics of getting from one venue to another.

This will not be another “why can’t L.A. put on a world class film festival” screed.

Granted it may be equally inane.

What crossed my mind was simply that my attitude toward the Los Angeles Film Festival – and indeed all film events unspooling locally – was colored by the fact that they unravel in my metaphoric and literal backyard. When I go to a film feast in Toronto or Berlin or Sundance there’s a different gestalt. There are logistical matters to get out of the way that include transportation and lodging.

That aside and the obvious geographic relocation, there’s also the reality that I’m on a business trip. Such “intrusions” as friends and families are relegated down one’s priority list. I’m there to see films, talk to creatives and write about those encounters.

Conversely, despite having a similar agenda when covering the likes of LAFF, AFI LA or Outfest, those previously noted intrusions cannot be as readily pushed aside. And hand in glove with that I go to bed each night in my bed, shower in a familiar stall, have minimally speaking a wider choice of wardrobe, prepare breakfast in the kitchen I designed and employ the vehicle I own for transportation.

The act of paging through a festival booklet takes on a decidedly different tone there and here. The away experience is virtually clinical. There’s a frigid precision to it. How to maximize one’s experience in a very contained period is a science.

The experience in Los Angeles is more in the fuzzy logic realm. Whereas one can largely clear the slate and bore into the out-of-town event, such is not the case when you’re working from the home base. It’s more of a juggling act with regular screenings and other activities factoring into the schedule.

Quite apart from logistical and psychological road bumps there’s a disquieting, almost self deprecating, aura that surrounds the Los Angeles Film Festival. Its organizers appear to have a handle on what it “isn’t” as opposed to what it “is.” Their stance is that it’s a festival of films they like rather than a showcase of world premiere events.

Yet, again scanning the program, there are plenty of debuting movies, albeit not from the art house or mainstream royal cadre. And the brunt of non-world openers is inarguably films that have yet to become musty from extensive festival exposure.

Whether conscious or otherwise LAFF has evolved as the film event the city needs. It’s an eclectic mix of high and middle brow movies with a sufficient amount of glitz appropriate to the venue.

The one element that’s thus far eluded the festival is truly making itself a community event. That aspect is a daunting aspect for any metropolis as geographically sprawling as L.A. but not made any easier by its historic nomadic history from Hollywood to Westwood and now in its second year in what’s laughingly referred to as downtown.

LAFF has hitched its wagon to AIG financing and that entertainment giant is committed to turning the previously declining city core into an event destination. It’s built or attracted such venues as the Staples Centre and the Grammy Museum as well as major hotels and restaurants. There’s no question that the effort has borne results but it’s nonetheless an evolving situation and time will bear out whether a film festival fits neatly into the overall picture.

For the nonce the curtain goes up Thursday on 11 days of hopefully upbeat discovery. Keep watching this space for actual mention of movies and such in the coming days.

Be Sociable, Share!

One Response to “CONFESSIONS OF FILM FESTIVAL JUNKIE”

  1. Keil Shults says:

    Why does nobody seem to be excited about Bernie (the new Linklater film), which I believe premieres tonight? There’s not even a mention of it on the front pages of MCN or Indiewire.

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