By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com
The View From After TIFF
Good morning, Movienam!
I thought I’d start boxing the TIFF experience this morning.
It’s a weird time for film festivals. Not just TIFF. But especially at TIFF this year. Literally every single journalist or publicist I talked to – and this year, I ended up spending more time with publicists than journalists, which can be fun, but is not always ideal – talked about how front-loaded the festival felt this year… that they were exhausted by Saturday noon… that something felt “off.”
And I try to look at it objectively and I think, “It’s been front-loaded for many years now… there have been a lot of junkets – more studio junkets, actually – for many years now… and we’re all exhausted every year at TIFF.”
But I also agree… something was different this year. I think for starters, the overall quality of the films, high to low, was as good or better than it’s ever been. Adjusting for personal taste, this was a TIFF very light on clunkers. And people even seemed to have fun with some of those.
But it feels a bit, this year, like the major North American festivals of the fall – Telluride, Toronto, and New York – are all rethinking their positions and trying to fix something that wasn’t broken. Telluride has become a press fest, after decades of avoiding just that. And it’s not leaving non-media at Telluride happy, with more people, longer lines, over-anticipation of “awards movies,” and too many distractions from the Telluride experience of “the good ol’ days.” Bill & Stella Pence have been gone for a few years and Tom Luddy is no spring chicken. The festival that the three of them built set the gold standard. The festival that it seems to want to become now is a more expensive version of a much more conventional film fest. Hype is to Telluride as 3D is to movies.
In addition, Telluride’s new love affair with the civilian spotlight threatens its ability to fulfill its mission. During the 15 years in which I have been a Telluride watcher and attendee, there have been many great surprise “TBA”s that turned up right after or right before their Venice or Toronto “world premieres.” It was a lovely part of the expensive, exclusive long weekend in the mountains. But now, it has become a game… a game that Toronto and Venice (and New York as well) are less and less inclined to indulge. For instance, Warner Bros did World Premiere of Argo in Telluride this year. It wasn’t called that. But it was reviewed by enough people and outlets that, for all intents and purposes, it served as the World Premiere. People in Toronto were reacting to Telluride. And that’s okay… well, unless your strategy isn’t covering for an inferior movie with mountain hype… or until Toronto cares that its negotiated premieres are being undercut.
Telluride failed to get a number of awards-type movies this year because of this… films whose distributors were warned off of Telluride by Toronto (as well as NYFF). There is, in fact, a big difference between a wonderful little festival of cineastes, rich people, a hippie or two, and a few critics/journalists and a place where studios are now doing dinners for 40 or even 50.
The original core of Telluride was silent film. Strong and often obscure international film followed. And then, a handful of higher profile films, mostly from the indies or Dependents. This year, the biggest story was the absence of The Master, followed by Warner Bros’ Argo, followed by Bill Murray showing up (though almost no one really likes the film), followed by the beautifully foreign honorees, Marion Cotillard and Mads Mikkelsen. Stories We Tell and Frances Ha got minor bumps. And Sally Potter’s Ginger & Rosa got narrowed down into the Elle Fanning story because the press going there has gotten… well… simpler-thinking.
But when the #1 story is a movie that isn’t there… either something is wrong with the festival or something is wrong with how the festival is engaging the media. I vote for the latter.
There is plenty of good still in Telluride, so to compare it to a great restaurant bought out by a rich guy who start running whores and gambling in back and tightening the purse on food costs is too much. Let’s just say that what makes great events great is, in part, remembering why greatness ever attached in the first place.
Meanwhile, at New York, the new policy of chasing world premieres – which has eluded the festival for decades with just a couple of pre-The Social Network – changes the position of the most powerful local film festival in America. Ironically, faced with a leadership change in the festival forced by Richard Peña’s retirement, the choices were two very smart, very capable, good guys… who won’t change much. But the institution is changing regardless and I fear that before too long, “getting the job done well and smartly” will not be enough. There will have to be a new idea of what NYFF is (and the year-round programming with it) and that someone will have to be the front person to really sell it.
Back to TIFF… I love the idea of the Jason Reitman live-read thing… belongs in the rest of the Toronto year. I love the idea of an Asian Summit… but TIFF is already bursting to the gills and it was, sadly, barely noticed. Etc, etc, etc.
On this continent, TIFF owns August – December, Sundance owns January – April and everyone else is just working on another level. Love South by Southwest, but it’s a niche event compared to the two big shows. Cannes breaks things up, but it’s not an important festival in terms of the United States and the films that emerged this year that will get big US pushes… all bought by US distributors BEFORE the festival.
TIFF was doing just fine last year. But now, things seem to be in play again. The Elgin has be subsumed by The Princess of Wales, a location that was rented as an accommodation last year and this year became the theater of choice for a number of the higher-profile filmmakers. Meanwhile, the Roy Thompson Hall is looking brutally bad as a movie theater with a balcony (3rd level) that is like watching a movie from outside the walls of a drive-in theater. But most of the 1st floor is now taken up by sponsors and even the mezzanine makes for a fairly mediocre viewing experience. Heck, you even see distributors looking at the Ryerson theater as a better place to screen than the RTH. Why? Because it draws a cooler crowd and that is what being at a festival is about.
And don’t even get me started on the press screenings and the front-loading of the festival. By the time I had emerged from scheduling hell on Wednesday, there was a very thin gruel left to see (as compared to the opening 5 days) and even thinner on the press schedule. It’s become like major studios shoving movies into shorter and shorted windows and then complaining that nothing has legs. Toronto is now a 5-day festival, in effect, because Team TIFF has allowed it to become that. And even though all the distributors are pushing to be in those first days, they are – in all but the strongest players’ cases – damaging their own product.
All three of these festivals are world-class. But as they start chasing something bigger than what has made them great, the trouble begins. Both NY and Toronto were fortunate that the economy turned and that their giant capital investments have been (mostly) paid off, though there was fear it might not happen a few years ago. (Yes, film festivals are better off today than when Obama took office.) But now, they seem emboldened like a Republican touting Reagan’s economics without remembering his then-record deficits. They are competitive and desperate to grow and dominate even more. And I’m here to say, you can screw up your business by getting too ambitious.
Little things mean nothing in the big picture. But a series of little things that come to define your style and intent can overwhelm the reality of your message.
I am a great believer in quality institutions. But with great power comes great responsibility. And from my perspective, the greatest responsibility is to see yourself clearly in the mirror and to make sure that that clear, beautiful image that made the institution what it is today doesn’t become distorted by the agenda that you never listened to in the building of your success.
TIFF still sells a lot of tickets to a lot of movie-loving Torontonians. That seems to be where things are still working pretty well. But the rest… not in the best service of the films that are not one of the Chosen 20 or the people covering the festival and presumably helping the future of the smaller films or, for me, the pleasure of the journey. I was always sad when TIFF ended each year. I stayed though the last public screening. Now, often wonder if I can leave earlier. (I can’t… I was shooting talent interviews until 5pm on my last full day this year.)
I love TIFF… and Telluride… and the idea – I really don’t attend – of NYFF. But these are slowly working towards becoming sexless marriages of convenience. No one wants that, do they?
DP, re: Telluride, I don’t get it. The last two line-ups have been easily the least focused on high-profile Hollywood premieres in my 10 years of attendance. How is it, exactly, that the fest’s “love affair with the civilian spotlight” has manifested itself?
I’m not disagreeing with you that something felt off in Telluride this year. Luddy/Meyer ended up having to get defensive over the lack of high-profile TBAs and big names because of loud disappointment by journos. But it seemed more like Telluride battling press expectations of seeing a slew of big awards movies — perhaps set by years like 2010, when ‘Black Swan’ and ‘127 Hours’ and ‘The King’s Speech’ all launched — than Telluride trying to claim its place in the big time.
What do you think the festival is actually doing wrong?
Sorry…we’ve all read about the festival everywhere else but here…you missed the boat. Too late.
checked the seating chart for Roy Thompson Hall – 3rd floor – seems to sit about 500 to 1000 people …
are ticket prices cheaper up there … the tiff hype is so huge people will sit anywhere to see a movie at crazy prices.
do actors and directors ever sit up there ?
why not just stop showing movies there and get more people into that lightbox ..
DP – whats the worst theatre you been too and why do they keep showing movies there …
also you should have interviewed the millions who didn’t go to the movie festival so you could find out reasons why….not every movie needs to be shown with 1000 people .. where is the tiff on vod ?…some people probably don’t want to spend 3 hours watching Cloud Atlas in a theatre – i’m guessing the big sponsors don’t want vod ..but with 300+ films …some are only worth 2 bucks …some are worth 10 bucks.
tiff could make a deal with google to bring real vod and they should dump bell. crazy idea but it might work.
Sorry for you, Glamourboy.
DP: I agree that TIFF front load their schedules on purpose. They want to be seen as heavily influential to the Oscar race; most studios/distributor demands their award contenders to be seen in the first weekend to generate buzz.
TIFF basically thinks they are big enough to do this while catering to the regular film lovers in Toronto. Indeed, there are more than 300 films shown, and sadly many of them get lost in the shuffle. But isn’t that the fault of the media as well? They could very well stay back and cover the smaller gems, instead of leaving on Wed/Thurs when there are 3 days left in the festival. Perhaps I am being awfully naive about this…
Bring on the reviews!!!
Had this conversation with many journos throughout the fest. Bitching about the front-loading is universal among press at TIFF. First 4-5 days, you have to miss at least half of what you’d like to catch, and it’s usually the smaller films that get hurt by that because everyone HAS to see THE MASTER or CLOUD ATLAS at that first priority press screening because they have to be FIRST! to write about it, lest the glamourboys of the world tell them they’re “too late.”
Fuck that, honestly. Being FIRST!, if what you’re banging out quickly to be FIRST! is half-baked, half-thought, barely pseudo-intellectual bullshit, provides little of actual merit in the eyes of the grown-up side of the industry. Ask the studio execs and the publicists who work for them whose words they actually care about reading. It’s sure as hell not the vast majority of film bloggers rushing to be first. Way too much chaff amidst the wheat.
But back to the front-load issue. On the one hand many journos will say, TIFF is too expensive to stay for the duration, no one would do it. But on the other, if you ask them: But wait: If the fest held back half the big premieres, and those all-important junkets (blergh) were in the second half of the fest, would you not stay? The answer is almost invariably, “Well, yes.”
The other issue with the front-loading is the ongoing problem with this fest (and Sundance, but to a lesser extent there) of talent being there for their press days before press has even had a P&I screening of the film. How does it at all benefit the talent, or the film, to do this? It just doesn’t.
And lastly: Peter, I agree with you on that, but that’s also because that’s the way TIFF has chosen to position that first weekend. They’ve created their own monster, but that’s not to say they couldn’t choose to reassess and restructure it.
Kim, I agree. TIFF created their own monster, and the sad thing is that I am not sure they want to change it. As long as they are in ‘Award winning’ mindset, that’s not going to change. However, even if they balance their schedule would the smaller films get the attention it deserves? I am not sure it will, since the media will always look for the award winner, and those smaller films will get left behind.
my solution for tiff next year . just do a mega deal with google – let them deal with 100 films in any digital format for people on any digital device – youtube – ipad – video game consoles – cell phones – figure out the lowest possible price they can charge – tiff / google figure out a way to pay the film makers faster – no worldwide restrictions – people can watch any of the 100 films anywhere in the world.
tiff should take the risk and dump every technology partner they have and just deal with google …
if it works then every other film festival will want to do the same … stick with google digital distribution.
i’m sure apple can do all this now if they wanted – google is good because 99% of the time – videos from youtube work without major problems. the trust factor is super high .
also google techs can figure out how to add non english subtitles to movies faster so they can put it out worldwide faster .
google can save the movie industry – it takes a lot of smart tech and business people and google got both.
or we can go with microsoft’s bing!
At the risk sounding like, once again, I’m ranting from my perch on the porch at the Old Film Critics Home: There have been complaints about big movies overshadowing little movies at TIFF for as long as I can remember. For at least a couple decades, really. I can remember in 1992 when there literally were junket-style round-table interviews every single freakin’ day of the festival, for movies running the gamut from Waterland (with Jeremy Irons) to A River Runs Through It to Hal Hartley’s Simple Men. So even when front-loading wasn’t a factor, there still were complaints about worthy films getting lost in the shuffle. Indeed, a big film doesn’t even have to be in the festival to suck all the media attention away from everything else. Remember the year Jodie Foster flew into Toronto to promote Flightplan — and OWNED the local press for two days?
Joe, I hear you. But at least if they’d spread it out more, I have to think there’d be more room than there is now for those smaller films. Consider: If TIFF spread out the Galas and Special Presentations and Masters for the duration of the fest and took the emphasis off the front-loading, they could program primarly the bigger films in, say, the first couple morning slots of the day. Toss in a couple of CWCs or docs or Vanguard in the smaller theaters for those who want them, right?
Then they could have mostly smaller and lower profile acquisition films, more of the CWCs and docs and such throughout the rest of the afternoon and evening. If the only choices in the evenings were any number of CWCS and docs, and people were already there anyhow because the bigger films were more spread out, do you not think people would, by default, check out at least one or two of the smaller films in the afternoon and evening, to fill their viewing slate? Who doesn’t go to TIFF and feel guilty if they aren’t seeing 3-5 a day anyhow?
Schedule larger films toward the end of the fest, not just the beginning, spread the goddamn junkets out so they aren’t all stacked on top of each other. Give the journos, AND the films, some breathing room. Most people leave early, I think, not because of money issues but because there’s such a strong feeling that the fest is OVER by the Wednesday. If there were still a ton of films people wanted to see, I think they’d stay. The sense that the fest is over halfway through is primarily a programming problem that TIFF could fix, if they chose to.
Forgive me, but there are two fallacies in your argument. First, many people at the festival don’t feel guilty at all if they’re not seeing 3-5 films a day — if they’re also filing reviews, interviews, taping/editing segments, etc. every day. Also, there’s a good reason why many people don’t stay for the entire festival, and it has nothing to do with front-loading: They (or the venues that send them) can’t afford to stay for the entire event. Front-loading actually serves to help those people.
Virtually every film has a repeat screening in the back half of the festival, it’s just not a problem if you stick around. It’s my understanding the front loading push came from LA agents not wanting thier talent to feel “slighted” by a later in the week premiere.
I’m glad TIFF is finally exerting some muscle in response to Telluride basically scooping all it’s premieres year after year.
BTW Cloud Atlas was the best movie at the fest
Unfortunately not all screenings has a repeated screening during the second half of the week. As a result, certain films get lost in shuffle. I spoke with a critic who wanted to see Sarah Polley’s Stories We Tell, but it has only one press screening and two public screening all during the first weekend. So if you missed the movie on the first weekend, then that’s it. You hear the strong word of mouth but you can’t see it anywhere else.
There were three films that didn’t schedule out for me at all — “The Silver Linings Playbook,” Polley’s film, and “The Place Beyond The Pines” — and “Spring Breakers” only scheduled for me once, and it ended up turning away over 150 people, myself included. By contrast, there were two days where I struggled to find anything I wanted to see. It’s a huge issue when you make it impossible for working press to see the big titles, much less the smaller titles that they might be able to discover if the schedule made more sense.