Seattlest: The Notorious N.P.T. Versus SIFF

James Callan

Thu, 05 Jul 2007 16:57:16 -0800

But MVB, that's haaaard. Your way is a preferable way, of course, but right now Seattle's got an easy corner on the "most gargantuan film festival in North America" market. Of course, I haven't been able to go in two years -- my wife refuses to consider herself a "babysitter" for some reason, and I just can't bring myself to use vacation time to hang out at the Egyptian. And attend without a pass? Pass.

RMH

Thu, 05 Jul 2007 16:22:34 -0800

Wow. That was fun to read.

Michael van Baker

Thu, 05 Jul 2007 15:56:36 -0800

And I wanted to *see* SUPERBAD! WAUGH! Also from a marketing perspective, though, you have to consider dilution of the brand. The problem with SIFF, as I see it, is that the heavy percentage of mediocre stuff weighs things down: it's using up theater time, audience attention, media coverage, etc., and all you get out of it is blah buzz. Lots of people responding to "How was it?" with "enh." That's not a superlative. I'd be tempted to go deep into niches with curated sub-series, programmed for the various venues (film geek stuff at NWFF & SIFF Cinema, art-house at Harvard Exit & the Egyptian & Neptune, docs at Broadway Perf. hall, all galas at Cinerama), and have the curators preview their series for fest-heads ahead of time. The curators have to be good of course -- niche crap is still crap. Then maybe look at maybe 3 showings/film for the larger crowd-pleasers, spaced at least 2-3 days apart, so people have a chance to react to good buzz. (I don't know how logistically possible this is, but what about a real-time Pick of the Fest series, with a slot per week held open for whatever people liked most? Naturally you text your vote via cell phone.) That way you can still maintain that overall oceanic grandeur to the festival, while allowing smaller films a chance to stand out enough to reach their particular audience. And people can attend the film fest and feel like they "did" it without trying to break the 200 film mark.

Audrey

Thu, 05 Jul 2007 15:12:56 -0800

Knocked Up screened, as far as I know; it was Superbad that got pulled from the schedule. An easy mistake.

James Callan

Thu, 05 Jul 2007 14:50:32 -0800

From a marketing perspective, I can see the value. There's no way for SIFF to even pretend to have the cache that New York or Sundance or Toronto do. When you can't compete on quality, compete on superlatives -- we can waste more of your late spring in movie theaters than any other film festival on the continent! Which is why something like Knocked Up gets scheduled as a SIFF film a week before it debuts in theaters. (Though I hear it was pulled from the festival.) Of course, that's completely antithetical to treating film like art, but apparently it brings in the dough. Or at least packs in the passholders.

Michael van Baker

Thu, 05 Jul 2007 14:41:04 -0800

I second most of what he says. I can't understand why the festival stretches itself thin trying to be the biggest ever, rather than offering a more edited glimpse. Why screen made-for-art-house fodder like PIAF or an artsy chick flick like EVENING when they're going to open in Seattle so soon after? I don't quite get what the point of all that is. And 60+ documentaries in a single year? How many of those are even watchable let alone worthy of festival notice?