Her assesment was refeshing compared to the earlier A.O. Scott article and NY Magazine's fawning Entertainment Weekly style festival round-up, but I do take issue with her dismissal of the "big" movies at the festival. Now, I haven't seen The Queen, Marie Antoinette, or Little Children yet, but saying it's problem to have them in the festival is ludicrous. I'm seeing Syndromes and a Century tommorow at the Chicago International Film Festival, but I'm also excited to see the three she chastised. Because the films have famous actors, popular directors, and high profile releases, doesn't make them any less worthy than something like Syndromes... I understand she's lamenting the choice to have the movies, which are coming out within weeks or days of the festival showings, taking up spots that movies without american distribution could fill, more so I suppose than the films themselves, but festivals do need that media attention, and a quiet, two part thai film isn't going to get them that, and from the look of the NYFF's schedule, they seem to have a decent balance between red carpet entertainment reporting oppurtunities, and "festival" movies.

Not a bad assessment - it's pretty much what you asserted in the first place.

My big question is, that sure all of this is fine and sounds appropriately true, but what do the people who run the festival actually get out of it. Is it just so they look good in their select crowd of other elitists? I can't imagine that this is the only reason.

In smaller profiled venues I'm sure it's about getting the little man's art out there for an audience to see. There's a goal to fight the system. NYFF adheres to the system in many ways. Looking at this from an outsiders point of view - there has to be large quantities of money involved for the people who head NYFF up. There has to be something that keeps the shackles on the wrists, and stops them from changing. I would be very interested in knowing what that reason is. That elitism has to pay off in some way, other than a look-how-good-we-look attitude.

And Jim, take your break. The world won't stop if you step away from your PC for a few days. Best.

I think there's a fatal flaw in this whole topic (though it is a lot of fun putting rich cinesnobs in their place) because it implies that festivals are obligated to play some role toward the greater good.

I'm reminded of an interview during which Werner Herzog is asked if films must benefit society. He responds "Who is society?"

Selective or not, the NYFF plays some great films, and I'm gonna take advantage of that as long as I can afford it.

Matt: And well you should! But remember it's the NYFF itself that claims to serve the "greater good" (and to be "prestigious" and "exclusive" to boot); I'm just asking for evidence. I think this is really more of an analysis of unquestioned provincial New York attitude: "We're in New York, so of course we are the pinnacle of festivals." And that's just not true by any real-world standards. The NYFF doesn't matter much outside of midtown Manhattan (not that there's anything wrong with that) -- not many exclusive premieres, many films that go immediately into theatrical release after their festival launch, relatively little coverage outside the local press, padding/filler even with only 25-30 slots -- but I don't mean to suggest it's not worth doing, or that it doesn't showcase some good and great films. But the NYFF long ago lost its reputation for being ahead of the curve, as far as important new films are concerned. I'm not saying it has to serve "the greater good." I'm just looking at its own claims (or those raised on its behalf in the New York press) and asking for evidence to back up these unsupported conclusions. I think Manohla did that very well. Obviously, NYFF is not what it once was. It's not in the same league (by which I mean it's not the same kind of festival) as Cannes, Toronto, Venice, Berlin... The question now is: What is it?

You'll have to forgive the religious analogy (but that's where my past was spent). But it sounds like the NYFF is very much like one of those curches that repeats the same things every time they sit down, sing the same songs, repeat repeat repeat, until it means little to nothing. They do it because it makes them feel better. They care not for reaching out, or having any meaning beyond what they think is best suited for them. To me that suffocates. It kills passion. Festivals are meant to help the spirit of film thrive, and if it's not doing that, then it's worthless. You ask these hardball questions and then say that you aren't saying that NYFF isn't worth anything. And when it comes to what a festival should be and mean, it doesn't sound like it is worth it - anymore.

In a earlier post, you were wondering what the NYFF audience would make of The Host. I saw it today in a fairly packed Alice Tully Theater, and the response was strong and positive. At the same time, there were things I noticed at the screening which make me somewhat cynical about the film's presence there.

Liza Schwarzbaum, apparently a chief selector of the festival, came out on stage before it began. She described it as "the perfect movie" because it combined political commentary, monsters, and familial dysfunction. Then she brought out one of three American character actors from the film to officially introduce it. It was clear that he was not prepared, and proceeded to ramble about he became involved with the film, without actually addressing the film itself. (He also worked in a bad pun about he wanted a "career move," but his agent got him a "Korea move." Get it?)

Together these things (along with that damned introductory video which was just as funny the second & third time I saw it) say to me that they included The Host as a means to gain some street cred among those who question their supreme cinematic authority.

Then again, it worked. Whatever their subconscious motives, the audience response was incredibly strong. Everyone just seemed grateful for the chance to see it.

Thanks very much for the report, Matt! Actually, it sounds to me like Lisa and the Film Society of Lincoln Center probably handled the screening perfectly, and positioned it ideally so the festival audience would be receptive. Sometimes that's the kind of thing that needs to be done -- and there's nothing that provokes a positive response better than having people from the film in attendance at the screening.

I see what you're getting at, but I don't entirely agree with you. First, I should note that The Host immediately followed Inland Empire, which graced us with the presence of Laura Dern, Justin Theroux, and of course, David Lynch (quick note to fans, look forward to it). The intro was brief and to the point, followed by a Q&A.

It was Paul Lazar who introduced The Host, which to me makes as much sense as him introducing Silemce of the Lambs. If they had any of the leads or especially Bong Joon-Ho himself, I think it would've gone over much better. On the other hand, Lazar clearly seemed to have pretty good case of stage fright, which made his intro a rambling, stammering mess. If he had the same presence on stage that he does on screen, I wouldn't forsee any problem with it.

JE: Ah, now I see what you're saying. Thanks for filling in those details.

Obviously, NYFF is not what it once was.

Absolutely right. This is my 20th year at the festival, and while there were some true gems this year, films like Little Children have no business being at this (or any other) festival.

The number of films that arrived this year with distribution was higher than ever before. While that's not a bad thing, it is indicative of the festival's growing hesitation in taking chances.

As a former member of the NYFF selection committee, I nearly had to pick myself up off the floor from laughing at the reference to "rich cinesnobs" and Phillip Kelley's assertion that "there has to be large quantities of money involved for the people who head NYFF up."

Uh, no.

The festival's staff is made up of people who like movies, who have chosen to work in at non-profit organization, and who, consequently, make considerably less than they would in the private sector. I suspect that waiting on tables would provide a more comfortable and reliable income than working for any film festival that I am aware of.

I can't think of a single large public festival that doesn't program a few commercial films. The sad fact is that it's those movies -- the "Marie Antoinette"s and the "Little Children"s -- that sell out first, and provide some financial cushion for the rest of the program. Board members, who really pay for the NYFF, like to meet movie stars much more than they like to see obscure Egyptian films. I think these titles may stand out at the NYFF because the program is relatively small. Toronto shows much more dreck than the NYFF, but when the dreck is diluted in 300 films, it stand out a lot less. And I'm sure that the TIFF folks will tell you the same thing: it's the big movie with the big stars that's opening the day after the festival screening that sells the most tickets. Even the Floating Film Festival, if I'm not mistaken, largely played films that already had distribution, but Jim, tell me if I'm wrong.

I found Manohla's piece harsh and somewhat disingenuous, in that, as a former member of the selection committee herself, she knows how it works: the committee has to see a film before it can be accepted, which is not a condition that most festivals apply. Neither "I Don't Want to Sleep Alone" nor "Still Life" were finished in time for the committee to see them; they did see "Dong," but, according to committee member John Powers, they felt that it would make no sense without "Still Life" as a companion piece, and I can understand that point of view (though personally, I would have shown it anyway). When Richard Pena, the program director, asked Manohla what films she thought were missing, she mentioned "Southland Tales," which is being re-edited by its director after its disastrous showing at Cannes, and is hence unavailable, and "Colossal Youth, " a three hour Portuguese film that also received extremely negative reviews from Cannes (though I would have shown that one, too), and simply was not to the taste of the programmers. (And it's not like the festival hasn't done its bit for the Portuguese cinema in the past, as a glance at the old schedules will tell you). If you or your readers know of any particular cutting-edge, chance-taking films that the NYFF neglected to show, please pass along the titles, because I'd love to see them myself. Overall, I'd say that it's less a case of the NYFF not being "what it once was," than of world cinema not being what it once was -- and I don't know what Richard Pena can do about that.

best regards

Dave Kehr

I think these titles may stand out at the NYFF because the program is relatively small. Toronto shows much more dreck than the NYFF, but when the dreck is diluted in 300 films, it stand out a lot less.

Dave, I think you're absolutely correct; and that's my point. It's probably harder, in some ways, to program a small festival than a large one (and I was not seriously comparing the boutique FFF to NY or Telluride -- just pointing out the "exclusivity" dictated by the small number of slots).

And, as I said when I identified the NYFF programmers for this year, I think they're all seriously committed, knowledgeable and passionate movie people -- just the kind of folks who should be programming festivals. I'm asking, for the future (and so, I think, is Manohla): Where is this festival going? Is it going to be primarily a showcase for the best from other festivals? If so, that's a fine thing to be. If it once was known for an audience for the next generation of films and filmmakers, is that still its goal? If so, how will it go about it?

Isn't it a good idea to ask these sorts of questions of our civic and cultural institutions every few years, if such institutions are going to continue to matter, adapt and survive? (Jeez, New Yorkers are SO thin-skinned!) I think this has been a worthwhile discussion -- one that should take place with every film festival every year. NY is just a magnet because it's in America's Biggest Town and comes right on the heels of Venice, Telluride and Toronto, so comparisons are inescapable...