Over at Film Threat, we take a lot of pride in our festival coverage. We've tackled the biggies (Sundance, SXSW, CineVegas) and the smaller ones (Sidewalk, SIFF, deadCENTER). Whatever the occasion, we always try to cover as many films and panels as possible. When Mark Bell, our editor-in-chief, is on the scene, we also score a ton of interviews. The idea, especially with the lower profile festivals, is to get the organizers and filmmakers as much publicity as possible, especially when they do a great job.
And then you have the folks at the Los Angeles Film Festival. FT's history with the LAFF isn't great; they hassle our guys every year about credentials and are to date the only event of its kind that's bitched to Chris Gore about not making his list of Top 10 Film Festivals. It's perhaps fitting that a fest situated in the most narcissistic city on the planet would be a pain in the ass, but recent action apparently topped even the organizers' past behavior, eliciting this screed from Mark:
Because of an out-dated staff listing on our site, written a month after Zack joined Film Threat almost a year ago, she was denying him the press pass. Despite my explanation that he wasn't an intern, that the listing was out-dated (and has since been fixed) and that he was a writer who had covered festivals and press screenings like a champ for us, [Chandan Kaur, head of publicity for LAFF] wouldn't budge. Said it wouldn't look good to all the publicists or other press outlets she denied if they checked up on Zack and saw he was an intern (he's not) when she had turned away their "real" writers.
Here's where I call bullshit. If Zack had never written a word for our site, and she pulled this rationale, you get no argument from me. Had it not been the Editor-in-Chief of Film Threat talking to her about who he had chosen to cover the festival, you'd get no argument from me. Had the SUNDANCE FILM FESTIVAL (huh, heard of that, it's kind of a big deal) not given Zack a press credential, you'd get no argument from me. The reality is that, publicist-wise, more people in Los Angeles know Zack's name from press screenings as a Film Threat writer then they ever knew of him as an intern. Press-wise? Listen, I'll put Film Threat's 22 years of covering independent film and filmmakers against anyone that wants to complain about us getting a pass, and if that other outlet has done more than we have, well, Hell, give them whatever they want. I'll campaign for them too, brothers-in-arms, because we all know this limited pass nonsense for established outlets is a joke. It's not like every press pass holder from every outlet attends every movie at the same time. If you think the press will outnumber the paying festival-goers, hold press screenings like Sundance, keep us separate.
Unfortunately, for whatever reason, there was just no way in Hell Chandan was going to let Zack have a pass. So I had a decision to make. Without Zack covering as planned, the coverage wouldn't be as complete, period. On top of that, why is every year such a ridiculous hassle with this festival!?! Is it worth it for us to jump through hoops just so they can act like we didn't cover them when next year comes around? And what about next year, are they going to tell me after I fill out all the paperwork that I can have a pass, but not for anyone I assigned to the festival? WHAT IS THE POINT!?!
Screw it, I'd rather not cover the 2007 Los Angeles Film Festival at all then bow down to some silly "yes-no" flip-flop bullshit decision in the press office. If we're so dispensable, then they can go without our coverage. Any non-profit corporation that can afford to pay their executive director Dawn Hudson $265,000 a year is obviously too big to care about the independent voice in film criticism anyway. Think about it, if they're so concerned about independent film and the independent filmmaker as they claim to be, we'd be hearing a lot more about the other films playing the festival as opposed to "The Transformers" premiere (which is taking up 4 theaters and denying some film a screening time). Los Angeles Film Festival, Congrats! You've truly gone LA!
Read it all. They never squander an opportunity to bust out that flattering picture of me that's in there.
Any filmmakers with stuff appearing at the festival who want a review can send screeners to us and one of our writers will check them out. An inelegant solution, but probably the only one for the foreseeable future, as I suspect you won't be seeing FT covering the LAFF anytime soon.
UPDATE: That was quick.
Apparently Mark talked with festival director Rich Raddon and Zack has gotten his credentials. FT won't be giving the fest itself any coverage, but this way at least the filmmakers with entries showing will get some press.
The LAFF article was subsequently “buried” in the features column. It should have remained visible on the front page for several weeks, but honestly I think LAFF pressured Mark to take it off. Mark told me he wanted to get together with them to help smooth out the relationship between FT and LAFF. I told him that since the initial article was written out of anger, he should have stuck by his guns.
My point was that if filmmakers noticed how uppity LAFF was with Film Threat, they would have pulled their pictures and put pressure on the festival directly. After all, it isn’t the festivals that get you distribution, it’s the press. The press is more powerful than apparently they even realize in this country (and that goes for entertainment), but they let themselves get bullied around by stuck-up nerf-herders, PR people, and celebrities and I don’t like that all.
LAFF should be punished for their actions, and that goes for every other film festival out there that does the same (and there are quite a few guilty parties). I understand Mark is being diplomatic (as well he should), but sometimes a little anger and indignation is good for the soul, and I’m worried FT might lose some street credibility over this blunder that wasn’t even their fault.