SIFF-TING

by John Sinno 

This year the Seattle International Film Festival celebrated its 35th anniversary. This seminal Seattle institution was one of the reasons I moved to Seattle 18 years ago, and it has been an amazing window into the world of film for many in our city all this time. SIFF is the biggest film festival in the United States and is considered by many to rank among the top ten in the country. At 35, SIFF is more ambitious than ever. Following their venture into year-round film exhibition with the establishment of the beautiful SIFF Cinema a few years ago, SIFF is about to make another big leap. This bold new step will take SIFF into the realm of film education. However, this year it seemed as though SIFF showed signs of aging and of being out of sync with the times.

With all this in mind, I would like to examine some of the thoughts I had while attending the film festival this year:

A lot has changed in the film industry in the last 35 years. We live in an age where accessibility to films is no longer an issue. A good festival sets an agenda of what is worthwhile among the dizzying array of films produced in the world each year. As the film industry moves into new and un-charted digital terrain where film revenues are dwindling and film output is at an all time high, film festivals all over the world are scrambling to keep filmmaking and film viewing relevant in the twenty-first century. Some of them, like SIFF, have ventured into the year-round exhibition business with varying degrees of success. Others are acting as mediators between funding agencies and filmmakers. However, with the plethora of entertainment options available to moviegoers these days, film festivals should be focusing on their audience more than ever and delivering a rich and rewarding festival experience. Due to its incredible size, SIFF experience centers around what was unfortunately missed rather than on what was seen and enjoyed. The feeling of community is lost that a smaller festival would engender. With their top-notch website, SIFF does its best to help attendees navigate its cinematic offerings; this year, SIFF even unveiled an iPhone application that allows attendees to sift through the festival’s nearly 400 films. Even so, the feeling is that one is never able to adequately cover the festival, nor therefore share that experience with others.

In addition to its unmanageable size, SIFF takes place at the wrong time of year. Just when most Seattleites are coming out of hibernation to salute the sun, filmgoers are asked to spend an entire month in a darkened theater. This year I could not convince a number of friends to check out SIFF’s offerings with me; I was turned down because those friends preferred to spend their time outdoors enjoying the season’s first gorgeous weather. I would bet that the festival would gain a 20-30% bump in attendance if it were rescheduled in the autumn, winter, or even sometime earlier in the spring.

On the curatorial front, the festival has had a history of discovering gems, (The Stunt Man, for example), and has been credited with promoting German cinema in the 1980s. Apart from its emphasis on size, however, it’s hard to see a distinct curatorial strategy of late. This comes at a time when many festivals are focusing their film selections to pursue an identifiable niche. I would argue that there is a niche for SIFF that would give it an edge nationally– internationally even– and that relying on size alone no longer works in this brave new world of 24-hour video-on-demand.

The festival has always made an effort to showcase local films and filmmakers, and the good that it does is incalculable. However, it does so in a way that segregates them from other festival films. This year’s local films were grouped together under the heading “Northwest Connections,” and included several fictional films, an array of accomplished documentaries and even a multi-million-dollar Hollywood film starring Robin Williams screened under “Northwest Connections” only because it was shot in Seattle’s Wallingford neighborhood and executive produced by a local producer. Another local film received no less than 13 one-star audience reviews at SIFF’s website with one viewer lamenting that two hours of sunny Seattle weather had been wasted on the film. I can’t help but wonder if this film, its filmmakers and Seattle audiences eager to support local film might not have been better served if this particular film had been left out of the festival altogether. One assumes that if a film has been chosen for inclusion in the festival, it is qualified to screen alongside any other film chosen from among the hundreds submitted– otherwise it would not be an official selection.

This year, SIFF threw all its promotional weight behind a single Northwest film. Lynn Shelton’s accomplished, micro-budget film earned several Sundance awards and has been picked up for U.S. distribution by Magnolia Pictures. In the process several lesser-known works by Northwest filmmakers that were craving exposure to attract distributors received little attention, and the filmmakers we left to pursue their own promotion. Perhaps this does not have to be an “either-or” situation; perhaps several Northwest films could be highlighted every year? These films include the film I co-produced, ZMD: Zombies of Mass Destruction, and terrific audience favorites like The Immaculate Conception of Little Dizzle and True Adolescents. Even without much promotion from the festival, ZMD screened to sell-out audiences and was voted fourth most popular film alongside Morris: A Life with Bells On.

A primary mission of any film festival is to deliver the chosen films in an ideal theatrical setting. Traditionally, SIFF films have been presented to the audience in a way that is more literate than at many other festivals. When Darryl MacDonald (one of SIFF’s founders and its longtime director) introduced films, the presentation was sometimes more exciting than the film presented. He was able to shed light on the significance of the film being shown, the circumstances under which it was made, and explain why it was selected for the festival. In addition to engaging the audience, these well-crafted presentations showed filmmakers that the programmers had carefully considered their selections and that they respected the films being shown enough to take a little extra time to prepare an introduction for an appreciative Seattle audience. Introductions now offer little insight into the work that’s about to be presented; after mundane announcements about voting and sponsors, audiences are told that they are in for a special treat. I believe each film is special, and that its uniqueness deserves special consideration as much as it deserves a paean extolling its general noteworthiness.

One of the mandates in festival planning is to show a film the way the director envisioned it. Showing hundreds of films with a variety of film and video formats can be a real challenge for projectionists. The opening night film, In the Loop, had soft spots on the screen, and sound echoed throughout the beautiful Paramount Theatre. These problems, coupled with the actors’ fast moving British accents, greatly reduced the effectiveness of this first-rate film. There was no audio for the first five minutes of a film screened at Pacific Place Cinemas; reels were projected in the wrong order at The Uptown; audiences missed the ending of The World’s Greatest Dad at The Egyptian when the projector bulb blew out during the film’s climactic final scene. Because film festivals are the main chance the majority of these films have to be shown in a theatrical setting, festivals have a responsibility to present the works they’ve selected in the best possible light. Other festivals struggle with these problems, too, but many festivals offer filmmakers a chance to do a technical check before they’re screened to ensure proper projection and audio. Currently SIFF’s contract states that filmmakers must pay a fee if they ask for a tech-check, but a free check could become an unlooked for boon if SIFF reigned in costs associated with logistics and size, and delivered a better exhibition experience to its patrons.

The opening night party this year was a scintillating, celebratory start to SIFF’s 35th-anniversary festival. Because Seattle is celebrated for its democratic fair-mindedness, however, I found it sadly unbefitting for Seattle to quarantine VIPs in a separate tent so that they wouldn’t have to mingle with “regular” guests. Not only is this not fair to the Seattle audiences who were asked to support the festival during the opening ceremony, but it put a literal barrier between visiting filmmakers and their local audience.

I think everyone agrees that SIFF is one of Seattle’s cultural treasures, and that SIFF is lovingly managed by a tireless, educated, ambitious and dedicated staff. Although the above critique may rub some associated with the festival the wrong way, I offer it with the best interests of SIFF in mind. I want the festival to enjoy another 35 years of bringing great films to audiences in Seattle. I want the success of Humpday and The Immaculate Conception of Little Dizzle, True Adolescents, and ZMD to inspire a new wave of creative and resourceful filmmaking in our fair city. I want the art of film to remain relevant.

John Sinno is a writer and producer, and founder of Seattle-based Typecast Films.