The Los Angeles Film Festival will wind down tonight with Desierto. The Mexico-France co-production grapples with the hot button issue of illegal border crossings into the U.S.

The good news for my LAFF 2016 experience is a relatively strong program, albeit based upon my limited personal experience. I’ll just add the fact that I didn’t see as many films as I had hoped. Still, such films as Blood Stripe, Kicks and 11:55 fulfilled a mandate of diversity without employing it as a crutch.

This year’s juried award winners included Blood Stripe, about a female Marine coping with her tours of duty in Afghanistan. Documentary winner Political Animals focused on gay politicians in California. The latter film also won the audience award with the audience nod going to Green/is/Gold, a tale of brothers taking control from errant parents.

The festival move to Culver City was a marked improvement from the Downtown years. In addition to a more convivial environment such niceties as parking and access proved to be relatively low-stress experiences. The downside for the event is it’s not well run. Screenings begin 20 to 30 minutes late and that ought to be addressed with a better training program for its volunteers. There’s disarray within the Arclight complex with no sense of anyone steering the fest. An element as simple as signage is frustratingly absent. It resulted in one instance of being directed to the wrong auditorium. The “wrong” movie was likely better than the one planned out in my schedule but serendipity isn’t a sufficient defense.

Another major hurdle for the LAFF is bringing up its profile. My ad hoc survey found that almost no one outside the media and Film Independent membership was aware that a major film festival was going on this week. Its media sponsor the Los Angeles Times ran an opening day story and only two subsequent profile pieces on individual films. It felt very much like a disconnect between the corporate decision makers and reporters unenthused by the program.

The seemingly more receptive alternative L.A. Weekly appeared to be boycotting the LAFF. Last week’s issue, where one would anticipate a guide to the “hot” titles not to be missed, merited not a single mention about the event or its contents. My other ad hoc survey revealed that about 80% of attendees were Film Independent members. That might be a sufficient base to sustain the program. Preaching to the converted does little to expand the audience for alternative moviegoing.

The limited media exposure the LAFF received stressed diversity in respect to the films directed by minorities, women and other under-represented folk. There’s no question that emphasis is laudable and necessary. Still when you lead with your rationale, the content is going to suffer. The actual films got shunted off to the side or were referenced not in terms of quality or invention but in how they fit into a programming niche.

There’s long been an “us” and “them” stance embodied by Film Independent. Its annual Spirit Awards show revels in taking easy swipes at Hollywood studios and mainstreamers. Yet it strategically takes place on Oscar weekend to ensure that high profile names will be available and its broadcast revenue secured.

The choice to create a combative pose is simply not honest. There’s enormous overlap between the myriad haves and have-nots of the film industry that often blur the lines that are supposed to separate the sectors. The time has come to embrace the inter-relationship and champion the best, not the neediest.

Be Sociable, Share!

• 
•