What is the NYFF crowd going to make of "The Host"?
NYFF! Huh! (Good gawd, y'all.) What is it good for?
I laughed when I read Caryn James' tired and trivial "All the King's Men" piece in the New York Times the other day -- especially this little nugget of unsupported parochial spin:
Oscar-ready films that have opened in September, like “Mystic River� and “Good Night, and Good Luck,� have come out of the prestigious New York Film Festival. “All the King’s Men� went to the nonexclusive Toronto film festival, and the word there was that the movie was mediocre at best.What are those two statements intended to mean? That films stand a better chance at winning Oscars if they are launched in the "prestigious" New York Film Festival (which shows about 30 features, including revivals -- the vast majority of which have already played Cannes in May, and Telluride and/or Toronto in September) rather than the "nonexclusive" Toronto International Film Festival (which shows ten times as many films)?
As David Poland points out ("Why We Don't Link To Caryn James Much"), that notion is "as wrong as wrong can be." He cites the obvious counter examples of Oscar faves shown at Toronto but not NY: "Crash," "Brokeback Mountain," "Capote," "Sideways," "Ray," "Finding Neverland"... and mentions that Clint Eastwood's "Flags of Our Fathers" also isn't being shown at NYFF. (For that matter, neither is Martin Scorsese's "The Departed," although both films open in October.)
But who even cares whether a film festival screens a movie that's later nominated for an Oscar? That's not what film festivals are about. So, is James suggesting that the more "exclusive" a festival is, the better it is? In that case, surely the Floating Film Festival (which shows twenty-something films and is programmed mostly by film critics, including Roger Ebert, Richard and Mary Corliss and me), and which is held aboard a cruise ship for only 200 or so festivalgoers, is the more "exclusive" fest. (Bruce Kirkland of the Toronto Sun has called it "the world's most exclusive.") Still, Roger Ebert says the two best film festivals in the world -- in terms of influence and quality -- are Cannes and Toronto.
Or maybe James is suggesting that "mediocre at best" pictures are helped by exposure at "prestigious" film festivals, but not at "nonexclusive" ones? (Didn't seem to help "The Da Vinci Code" or "Southland Tales" get better reviews out of Cannes...) Does she think people would think the movie was better if it was in NYFF rather than TIFF? Does she also have a bridge for sale?
But the question I really want to ask is: To whom does the New York Film Festival matter and in what ways? The general public can't get tickets, which are almost exclusively reserved for donors to the Film Society of Lincoln Center. NYFF is social payback -- time to give the old rich folks a little cinematic baksheesh for their generous financial support.
OK, so it doesn't do a helluva lot for the movie lovers of New York. How does it help the films themselves? I asked several prominent specialty distributors recently, and they only thing they all agreed upon was that if you put your movie in the NYFF, and you opened it shortly after the festival screenings (in many cases, that means releasing it the very next day), you could save a lot of money because Lincoln Center would cover practically all your publicity costs (getting the filmmakers in town for interviews, etc.). Basically, the festival pays for the launch of your movie -- and it's damned expensive to open a movie in New York. Plus, you get a good word-of-mouth screening out of it.
Unfortunately, "art films" in New York are unhealthily dependent on a single, make-or-break New York Times review, and (until this year, when the Times revised its policy) films in the NYFF were reviewed only once -- when they played the festival. Naturally, if you got a good review, you'd want to open the movie as soon as possible to capitalize on it. (If the Times review isn't going to be so good, or if it's uncertain, you open the movie on a Sunday. If the review turns out to be positive, you buy ads and reprint it.)
Nobody I talked to spoke of any particular "prestige" associated with being in the NYFF. One person did tell me a story about negotiating for the US rights to a foreign film, and how the producer held out for more money after the film was selected for the NYFF. Problem was, an NYFF slot didn't appreciably increase the value of a film in the American market. (For that matter, neither would any other film festival.) The Times review was not so great. And the movie went without a US distributor.
You may have noticed that this week Robert De Niro and the Tribeca Film Festival gang were making headlines, upstaging the opening of the NYFF with a press converence expressing solidarity with the newly launched festival in Rome, which begins later in October. That festival has been criticized for competing with the Venice festival, just as Tribeca has been criticized for competing with the old guard NY Fest. And, of course, that kind of competition is exactly the point of mounting the new festivals in Rome and Tribeca.
So, I ask YOU -- whether you're a distributor, a filmmaker, a publicist, a critic, a moviegoer: What do you get out of the NYFF? How does it help film in New York, or anywhere else? Or does it? Feel free to post comments anonymously if you have to -- or send me an e-mail and I'll do it for you. I think you see my point of view -- so, enlighten me, change my mind if I'm wrong, or confirm my impressions with your own experiences and observations. I really want to know what this apparent dinosaur has to offer the film world in the 21st century...
P.S. Over at The Hot Blog, Texas-based Variety critic Joe Leydon comments: "At this point in time, when a film plays the New York Film Festival, it does more for the festival than it does for the film. Seriously. Is there a more irrelevant festival in any major North American city? Hasn't Toronto made the event almost comically redundant?"
Hi, Jim,
As a former Chicagoan and present New Yorker, I know how easy it is to build up resentment against the great Satan in the East. But you are making claims here for the NYFF that the NYFF, to its credit, no longer makes for itself. It is no longer a national festival, but a local event, perhaps intended even more for the Upper East Side than for Manhattan in general. There is simply no room, given the almost continual film festival that is New York, for a giant festival on the order of Toronto or even Chicago; almost all of the films in those events will be seen here sooner or later at one of the four major non-profit outlets (Walter Reade, MOMA, Film Forum, MOMI) and the remaining handful of commercial art theaters. The best proof of this is probably the relative failure of the Tribeca festival, which, despite its huge advertising budget (thanks to its underwriting by American Express) attracts a woefully small audience (I have been at screenings with 20 or 30 people), few buyers, and no out of town critics I know of. That Rome is now imitating that format (reportedly, they originally wanted just to bring the whole Tribeca festival over to Italy in one piece) is less a tribute to Tribeca's innovative aesthetics than its connection to powerful celebrities -- the sort of boldface names that Rome's politically ambitious mayor now wants to draw to his city so he can be photographed with them.
best regards
Dave Kehr
Thanks, Dave. I promise I have no resentment against the Great Satan of the East. I just thought I might be able to bring up some of these questions, which many have been asking but few are willing to raise in public (especially in NY). I think your points are absolutely valid: When there is so much film culture going on all year in New York (including the four institutional venues you mention), what's a film festival to do? And that's my question. What function does NYFF serve? If it's to raise money for the programming at the Walter Reade the rest of the year, that in itself is worth holding a festival for. I'm just trying to understand where NYFF fits into the picture...
I admittedly know little about the inner workings of film festivals, but some of what you're saying about NYFF is news to me. Recently a friend of mine (early twenties; I'll ask him if he donates to the institutions you mentioned) purchased several tickets for the premiere of Inland Empire at NYFF. As far as I know, he just called up Lincoln Center, ordered tickets, and they gave them to him. They were a little pricey, but not at all reserved for a more exclusive audience. James' article was a stupid premise to begin with, but I wonder if you might be exaggerating some of your details. If not (as I said, I know next to nothing about how large film festivals are run), please explain this in more depth so that it accounts for two young, broke film lovers in the greater NY area to be attending a festival reserved for "old rich folks."
JE: That's encouraging! I'm sure there are exceptions -- depending on the individual film. And it seems to me that a three-hour experimental/improvisational David Lynch DV movie (which premiered in Venice) might well be one of 'em. How many of the regular festival crowd are going to go for that one, when there are more black-tie-friendly films available? (That's why I'm interested in seeing how "The Host" plays.)
Wonder if anyone's come up with the idea yet of holding a film festival in which only a single film is shown? That would be the most exclusive of all!
The story you relate of a producer holding out for a bigger distribution payceck after getting a NYFF slot is extremely depressing to a cinephile and, I suspect, more common than generally acknowledged. Given the sorry state of commercial theatrcial distribution these days and the widening gap between the prestige of top-tier (ie, Toronto) and regional film festivals, it's no wonder so many film fans, even the ones living in major cities with big festivals, turn to DVD importing as the only reliable way to see the best new "festival films".
Jim,
Isn't it enough that the festival presents quality films that might not otherwise be seen by such a large audience? As Matt points out, it's not true that all the seats are reserved for donors. As far as I know, it's first come, first served, though members are sent a mailing a week or so before the NYT announcement ad giving them a chance to buy tickets before the general public. I'm afraid the festival loses money, rather than making it, as does the Walter Reade and Film Comment. But that's what we have non-profit institutions for, isn't it? David Poland's notion that festivals exist a) to sell films to distributors and b) set up the Oscar races seems very narrow and industry-insider to me. I share your pessimism about the art house reception of "The Host," but that's more because I don't think there's an audience in general for action films with subtitles -- as the disappointing performance of "Lady Vengeance" suggests.
best
Dave
JE: Thanks again for that perspective, Dave. I agree that's what non-profits are for, and I could not care less about handicapping Oscar faves -- something that has nothing to do with film festivals or film criticism. Again, I'm just trying to see how the current NYFF fits into the cinematic Big Picture. If the NYFF provides a showcase that gets a larger audience for some films than they would otherwise get at the Walter Reade, MOMA, MOMI, or Film Forum, then that is indeed a good thing.
I just got back from the NYFF screening of A Knife in the Water, and took note of something that applies directly to the topic at hand.
Before the film started, a list of the names of prominent directors scrolled down the screen at increasing speed until they became difficult to read. Then a title card came up saying something to the effect of
"Some people accuse us of being selective and having high standards, but that's what our audience expects from us."
I was cracking up.
JE: Jeez, that's SO perfect! Exactly the exaggerated sense of its own importance that I despise. Like they're seriously being criticized for having standards? This is the festival that showed Woody Allen's "Celebrity" -- and not, I think, because anybody thought it was a good movie.