Film fest debate, continued

I am writing in response to David DeMille's letter of Sept. 6, in which he drags film critic Matthew Hays through the pillars of hell for daring to criticize the organizers of the Montreal World Film Festival. Mr. DeMille implies that Hays, a man who has consistently championed underground, alternative and foreign films in the pages of this paper, is an ignorant mouth-breather who is somehow allergic to subtitles and cares only about seeing celebrities and attending parties. He then implies that Hays's over-riding problems with the festival is that it isn't English or mainstream enough for him, which is ludicrous.

"Montreal shows many films that Toronto doesn't (most of the French films, naturally) and vice versa," according to Mr. DeMille. Or maybe not. Most of the strong French-language films screened here also appear there. On the other hand, why didn't we see the new film from Claire Denis? Or Haneke's La Pianiste?

I agree that it's unfair to hold the WFF up against a gorilla like Toronto in the arena of high profile gala premieres--Toronto is also the reigning festival in which to discover challenging low-budget international independents. Vancouver's much smaller festival is almost equally strong in this department, mostly because they make sure that the word gets out. I don't believe that Hays or anyone else wants to see studio blockbusters at the WFF (I'm certain the only people who enjoyed the '99 festival's world premiere of the locally shot Bone Collector were those who worked on it). I feel Hays was implying that stars gravitate towards the festivals that have impact, whether or not the events themselves are star-driven.

"Browse through the festival's program and you'll wonder why he always seems to miss the most interesting ones," says DeMille of Hays. This could likely be because reading the festival program, with its mountain of impersonal, non-emotive and generally anonymous text, is a less than inspiring experience. Further, never are a film's aesthetics mentioned, to the effect that a non-narrative experimental film won't sound all that different from a straightforward Hollywood melodrama.

Other festivals, from Toronto to Vancouver, Chicago, New York, London, Venice etc, have their program texts written as genuine, informative articles, signed by their authors, and never afraid to have a point-of-view. Look at the WFF texts and tell me that government secretaries didn't write them. This is probably my biggest problem with the WFF. Yes, each year is filled with brilliant titles and endless discoveries that would never otherwise be seen here. I am not so certain that the festival's organizers have the slightest idea as to which films these might be. More and more, it seems as if the programming team simply calls say, Turkey's Ministry of Culture and ask for a list of titles that should be shown. Do you ever see the organizers at the cinemas? Do you know who the programmers are? Do you see anyone connected to the festival talking to people with any level of enthusiasm about specific films? I never have.

It is glorious that the festival is able to invite literally dozens of filmmakers in from all over the world. Why is it that these filmmakers are usually introduced onstage by a nervous teenage usher reading information from napkins? Why is it that these filmmakers are never given the opportunity to have a question session with the audience following the screening (customary at virtually all serious film festivals)? There is good reason why many filmmakers return to their countries feeling as if they had been abandoned by the festival. We understand why later, if they are forced to choose between bringing their new film to Montreal or to another competing festival, they often choose the competition.

When Hays complains that the festival organizers are not accountable to anyone, I believe that he is asking why they are refusing to act with any level of responsibility towards the festival's longevity. It is clear that its most detrimental problems could be remedied without a penny of additional cost. As the saying goes, all you need is love. It seems as if the festival is so secure in its super-subsidized existence that it feels no need to do anything above the minimum. I still love the festival and I am thankful that its organizers keep returning. In spite of the faults that I have just pointed out, I think they've done many great things and I consider myself a fan, but it is completely delusional to attack a journalist for stating the obvious. For many of us, Hays earned his credibility long ago and remains an essential figure on the Montreal film scene.

--Mark Daninsky