(THE YES MEN FIX THE WORLD scooped the Panorama Audience Award at the 59th Berlinale)
I was in Berlin, for the film festival, last week. Its the first time I’ve attended Berlinale, though for years have followed the programming, voraciously reading the coverage of this prestigious event, one of the “big four” (along with Sundance, Cannes and Toronto). The media coverage of the Berlinale this year has been typical of the vast majority of film festival journalism, at least for these major events. You can find the same articles for the most recent Cannes, Toronto, and Sundance festivals.The template being:
1) The Opening Night film is covered as an event, with obligatory photos of, usually, B-list stars. The film itself is generally reported to be underwhelming (at best) or just plain awful.
2) After a few days, the programme as a whole is also reported to be underwhelming, lacking in discoveries, or just plain awful.
3) Given the apparently paucity of life changing films, it is also reported that other scribblers, and the industry at large, is in foul temper.
4) The Market is always slow, except when its truly, apocalyptically, slow….like this year. (This was actually true, by the way. Many booths at the EFM seemed to be deserted early).
5) Yet, despite the overall wretchedness of the programme, and the dismal business being done, a film or two is deemed worthy of being personally championed.
6) The parties are fan-fucking-tastic, though, keeping film festival journalists up late on satays and pilsner, upping each other’s ante re: how much the festival truly does suck this year.
And everybody shows up for the next one on the circuit.
I jest a bit, of course (these are friends, afterall), but not entirely. While this is a broad generalization, it generally holds true that this story is repurposed in one way or another for a big chunk of coverage in the trades and consumer media. IndieWire, and blogs like GreenCine and others are the exceptions, usually (but not always) taking a broader approach to their festival coverage. Smaller events are covered much more generously, typically, than the majors.
For a sample of the Berlinale 2009 versions, read here and here and here. Oh, and here’s a doozy, by festival misanthrope Shane Danielsen in IndieWire. I like reading Shane, he (can be) fiercely intelligent and is a deliciously frequent purveyer of that lost art, evisceration by word processor. Here, though, it might have occurred to Danielsen that Andrew Bujaski and the whole nouveau slacker crowd are producing work off the critical grid. They’re not making films for auteurist critics, but for other people who want to make films just like they do. These days, that’s a whole mess of people wanting to make messy films. A movement, even.
But I digress.
My experience at film festivals, both at those I’ve worked, and those I attend, is seldom reflected in festival reportage I read. For instance, rarely, if ever, does one read of the frequently amazing ways films connect with the public audiences at these events. Even, more often than is realized, the “bad” films, like BEESWAX (which I didn’t see, but a friend of mine loved). Why isn’t the public reception factored into reports of how a film is received at a festival? Q&A’s are a big part of the festival experience too. Sometimes they’re mundane, but often Q&A’s can be entertaining and enlightening, even newsworthy. They’re never mentioned in reports about festivals.
Also, seldom do I get a sense, in reading about film festivals, of the eclectic culture that coalesces around these events. The infamous dust-up between Jeff Dowd and John Anderson at Sundance was so delightfully reported because it represented something both out of the norm, yet so very much a part of festival culture. Two contentious fest stalwarts clashing. There’s some incredible characters in this very unique vagabond culture of ours. I’d like to see more of them documented in festival coverage.
Finally (these are just a few top of head things), rarely do I see an article, critical or otherwise, on the actual programming. Maybe this is a tad narcissistic, but as a curator I’m waiting for the day somebody questions why we programmed so many docs about such and such, or too little of this or that. Or, why was that pretentious first-person doc in the Competition, and not that amazingly poetic essay film? Good curators put a fair amount of thought behind the combination of a selection of films in a given programme, or the way the varying programmes are structured within the broader scope of the event, or our special and thematic programmes. The festival passes, and nary a word, negative or positive. Though, just today I see that Danielsen has some sharp thoughts on the Berlinale programmes in IndieWire.
Anyway, more editorializing than I intended here…but flush with my Berlinale virginity being so satisfyingly taken, having seen some quite incredible work (on which I’ll write soon) – even more good work than I needed to see at this point, actually – I’m feeling a little protective towards my festival colleagues in Berlin.
And, one more thing, why was there so little coverage of the docs! There was over forty of them in the festival, afterall.