Cine Staff Defends SXSW Against Stupid Complaints
Filed under: SXSW, Fandom, Cinematical Indie
.jpg){kind=logo}
I've started to notice some whining about SXSW on certain blogs (and amazingly ignorant Twitter feeds from folks who should just be grateful for the damn press badge), and it just boggles my mind. Here we have a film festival that strives to remedy just about everything that 'veterans' dislike about Sundance and Toronto ... and still people find a way to weep about A) the fact that press and ticket-buyers have to (gasp) share the same auditorium, B) the fact that "the movies mostly suck," and C) the press office is "a joke."Now, maybe it's just because SXSW was the first film festival to truly WELCOME the online community, but as a five-year veteran of the event, I just had to address Mr. Anonymous' statements.
A. Wow. Elitism rules. I hope I never get so jaded about my job that I show such casual disdain for the "non-press" riff-raff. YOU'RE ALL THERE TO WATCH THE SAME MOVIE! But my colleagues address this gripe quite well (after the jump), and so I'll just move on to...
B. "The movies mostly suck" and / or "SXSW takes too many films from Sundance." OK, the second one is easy: Sundance is a great festival with a top-notch programming team. SXSW takes place only seven weeks after Sundance. DO THE MATH! And to address complaint number one, well, I was (seriously) going to post a list of 75 good / great films that I've seen at SXSW over the past five years, but that seemed like too much work for such a specious criticism. "The movies mostly suck" tells me all I need to know about the person who supplied those words. (But if you'd LIKE to see the last five years of SXSW film programming, no problem: Click here, here, here, here, and here.)
C. Absolute B.S. Complete and utter crap. No, SXSW does not have an ornate and elaborately sponsor-owned set-up for the press quarters, but whenever I need a couch / laptop / free water / screener disc / mailbox access / press kit / contact information / friendly word from a cute volunteer ... the press office does its job remarkably well. As if "the press aren't coddled enough" is a legitimate reason to trash a film festival...
And then we have the following testimonials from some well-established film writers, all of whom have covered SXSW for this and other websites:
"SXSW is especially fun for me because I live in Austin. So it's like a big party in my backyard, but I don't have to clean anything up afterwards. I know some critics prefer festivals with lots of press screenings, but I like seeing films with festgoers since I always have friends attending, and it's a great way to chat with other people who love movies. It *was* difficult for press to get into Alamo Ritz screenings last year, because out-of-towners will see anything at an Alamo and the Ritz theaters aren't huge -- I hope the festival folks have found some way to make that easier for press this year." -- Jette Kernion
"The worst are the people complaining that SXSW doesn't segregate the press from the public. That film writers now think that this is how film festivals should be -- the press shuffling in unison from one press screening to another -- is simply whack, and a sign of egos run completely amok. There are no access problems at SXSW; the only possible complaint is having to stand in line with, and then sit with, the ticket-buying "riff-raff" -- who also happen to be the world's most appreciative, enthusiastic and polite filmgoers. These people should be ashamed of themselves, and they can keep the gloom of Toronto's Varsity theater, with dead-eyed press and industry wandering around staring at their iPhones. I'll take the communal moviegoing joy of SXSW (and Telluride) any day." -- Eugene Novikov
"The weather, panels, awesome people, films, venues, parties, food and plenty of good vibes -- if film geek heaven exists, I'm sure it's fairly close to what goes on at SXSW each year." -- Erik Davis
"SXSW is more fun than Sundance, more charismatic than Toronto, and less French than Cannes. It's a festival that actually has a personality -- laid-back, not too serious, but still packed with enjoyable films. I LIKE that SXSW doesn't exclude films that have played elsewhere, because it means I get a chance to see the ones I missed at Toronto or Sundance. I LIKE that there's not a complicated hierarchy of important press vs. regular press vs. ticket-holders. (Sundance could learn from that.) I love the Alamo Drafthouse, the beautiful old Paramount Theatre, the raucous evening crowds on 6th Street, and the abundance of pizza-by-the-slice eateries. People be hatin' on SXSW? Fine! Stay home, and leave more SXSW goodness for the rest of us." -- Eric D. Snider
"It's been my spring break destination for three years, going on four, and it's easy to see why: the movies are plentiful, the theaters are pretty great, the food and weather are equally delicious, the movie-watchers are an enthusiastic and knowledgeable lot, and the attending press are no less professional for having to stand alongside them -- if anything, they make a few new friends every year. I know I do, and I know I'll continue to for as long as I may make the trip." -- Will Goss
"Last year was my first personal encounter with the SXSW beast, so I have no historical perspective to share from an attendee's viewpoint. Still, I've been watching films emerge into the film world from SXSW for years -- not so much the slam bang, dash your head against the wall, "celebs slumming in indie"-type fare, as much as the quiet, adventurous, daring, ambitious fare that is too seldom seen or advocated in the US. My viewings last year included the raucous, celebratory midnight blast of Dance With the Dead, and the total, off-putting alienation of Yeast; the insightful, slickly-made Joy Division and the homegrown antics of Wesley Willis' Joyride; the infuriating atrocities brought to light in They Killed Sister Dorothy and the fiery, soul-stirring fulminations of Dreams with Sharp Teeth. (Nothing like seeing Harlan Ellison in person!) And there's something about that egalitarian pass system, where the press is not treated differently from any other of the multitude of pass holders, that's populist and occasionally frustrating yet energizing. Now if they could just have more tasty and affordable food options at the Austin Convention Center ..." -- Peter Martin
"Everything they said, plus two magical words: Alamo Drafthouse. SXSW would still be a damn fine festival without the Alamos, but these venues lend a special kind of movie-freak magic to the event. And when that starts "getting old," I'll have to start looking for a new line of work." -- Scott Weinberg
Tom Cruise and J.J. Abrams Reunite for 'Mission Impossible 4'
'Big Top Pee-Wee': The Original Benicio Del Toro Wolfman
Spin-ematical: New on DVD and Blu-ray for 2/9
Watch This: Brilliant Oscar-Nominated Short 'Logorama'
Chris Nolan to Lead 'Superman' Reboot!?
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
2-03-2009 @ 8:09PM
Eugene Novikov said...
Since a whole squadron of Cine staff will be there, we should host a Cine happy hour. Meet some readers? It would be cool.
Reply
2-03-2009 @ 8:25PM
Neil (Film School Rejects) said...
Here, here! Go Weinberg.
Personally I'm smitten with the 'ole South by experience -- and no, it has nothing to do with the fact that I am moving to Austin this month. Okay, maybe a little. But either way, you cannot deny that SXSW is a festival built for all of "us" and not "them." What pains me is seeing bloggers who I thought were hip and with it jumping on the anti-South by bandwagon just because Jeffrey Wells posted something about it. They should know better. And they should take a moment to remember what it was like to walk down 6th Street last year during the evening hours, or what it was like to catch a premiere at the Paramount (even after standing in line a block and a half away).
As for the films -- we saw some great films last year. And I don't care if some of them played at Sundance or Toronto. There are a few that I'd like to see again (like Moon or Humpday) and a few that I sadly missed (Sin Nombre and Grace come to mind). That, and there are always a few gems to be discovered -- the SXSW programmers do a hell of a job.
And finally, the press room issue. That is just the Sundance crowd fresh off a week of free Organic tea, Shasta cola and shitty wifi. That's not how Texas rolls. In fact, I've got a fridge full of beer and perfectly good wifi in my apartment building in South Congress -- and the entire Cinematical staff is welcome! :P
So screw those you who would say that SXSW isn't good enough or flashy enough or filled with this year's breakout hit. It has character, which is a lot more than I can say for you.
Reply
2-03-2009 @ 8:29PM
Eric Kohn said...
Great post. I'm glad somebody took a stand against this nonsense. If SXSW is so bad, why do people always seem to enjoy it so much? And I can't think of a friendlier festival atmosphere. As much as I'll vouch for the validity of trekking out to Cannes, a lot of people there barely make eye contact; compare that to the warm embrace of Austin's undeniably awesome crowd, and there's no doubting to universal coziness SXSW provides.
Outside of that, there is the unique program, the informative panels and plenty of other practical reasons for media to attend.
Reply
2-03-2009 @ 8:38PM
Norm Schrager -- Meet In the Lobby said...
Do critics really bitch about having to watch screeners with the "general public"? What an embarrassing opinion. In my experiences, the true way to cover a film festival, to get the vibe and flavor of the crowd, the town, the film lineup, is to attend every possible screening with the ticket buyers.
Reply
2-03-2009 @ 9:23PM
Erik Davis said...
Norm, I completely agree. Press screenings are usually way too boring, especially with comedies. I'd much rather watch a festival film with the ticket-buying audience because these are people who respect films and really want to have a good time.
2-03-2009 @ 10:20PM
Scott Weinberg said...
In some cases, like a massively-attended fest a la Sundance or Toronto, press screenings only make sense. You don't want 300 press people taking seats from ticket-buyers, or vice versa, I suppose.
But for a big-but not gigantic festival like SXSW, I think this method works just fine. Over the last five years, the only reason I've ever missed a movie: My boneheadedness at not showing up in time.
Also that one time the Alamo refused me service because I kept pinching Tim's ass.
Reply
2-04-2009 @ 12:45AM
Ant said...
Is SXSW really worth it? I'm reluctant to cough up $600 - $900 because well... It's Austin.
Austin is a cool laid back place - but its also the single most overrated city in the country (I live there). My fear is, like most festivals in Austin, SXSW is also highly overrated.
Reply
2-10-2009 @ 8:41PM
John Lang said...
bwahahaha. best joke ever.
2-04-2009 @ 2:31PM
Ant said...
No joke. I don't drink the Austin kool-aid. It's a great place to live but totally overrated.
Just don't say that to the army of hippies or homeless people... They get crazy.
2-04-2009 @ 10:19AM
freemarketmarx said...
Speaking as a member of vox populi, and not a media personality like a blogger or producer or print journalist, I see all of these criticisms as strengths, not weaknesses.
SXSW is by far the most accessible and democratic of the major film festivals. It gives smaller, yet still good and entertaining and enjoyable, films a chance they wouldn't have at Cannes or Sundance. $60 nets you a film pass, which will get you into nearly everything if you show up 20-30 minutes early. Stagger your days right and you can catch a good 10-15 movies even BEFORE music starts up. And you'll mingle in line with great, friendly people just like you, people who love movies and are damn excited to be there. A lot of us live here and would never be able to hit up Sundance on account of having jobs and lives, so for us, this is our big time of the year. It's a blast.
Reply
2-04-2009 @ 2:31PM
Ant said...
Uhh... Isn't it $300 (well, now $425) for a film only pass?
2-04-2009 @ 5:06PM
freemarketmarx said...
Nope. A film BADGE is in the triple digits, but the old-school paper pass is only $60-$65 (I forget which) and will still get you into nearly everything.
2-04-2009 @ 8:42PM
Moises Chiullan said...
This post is the reason I'm glad Jeff posted what that idiot (whoever the fuck he is) said. I've been going since 2003, coincidentally when I met Scott Weinberg in line at registration. SXSW is a festival I've talked up to people who write professionally like Anonymous McJackass but have never gone, thinking "it's no Sundance/Toronto/Cannes." Why is that a bad thing???
The vibe is just the beginning of it. It's a genuinely rewarding experience as a whole. The complaints about difficulty getting in to things is based on one of two things: 1) not showing up reasonably early or 2) you tried getting in the a show at the Ritz and half the auditorium was roped off for VIPs. I think they heard the complaints loud and clear last year on #2. A press screening is an entirely different experience than a SXSW "mixed" screening. I much prefer the latter. Less pretentious, more authentic, and the reason I'll go every year I'm able.
Reply
2-04-2009 @ 10:44PM
Trevor said...
We absolutely have the cutest volunteers.
Reply
2-07-2009 @ 4:12PM
Larry Richman said...
I am a member of the press and this will be my 4th year covering SXSW. I also cover Sundance, Toronto, and Tribeca every year as well as a number of smaller regional events. Of the dozen or so I attend each year, few film festivals can beat SXSW for sheer enjoyment, both in the quality of the program as well as the kickass rock 'n roll setting in which it takes place. I cannot count how many people I've met who ask me about "what my favorite festival" is, and I am delighted to mention the fact that press and public attend the same screenings as a perfect example of why SXSW is so thrilling. Sure, I saw 55 films last year at Tribeca -- in a small, dank theater with morose critics who wouldn't dare audibly express any reaction or betray their (*shudder*) objectivity. As a journalist covering independent film and festivals (I do NOT consider myself a "critic") being a part of the shared cinematic experience is often as important to my readers as my own opinions about the film. Not to mention that I couldn't care less about swag, or VIP parties, or red carpets. I am a photographer but my specialty is shooting Q&As, which also cannot be done at press screenings. At other festivals I have to BEG for tickets to public screenings. Let the whiners stay home.
Reply
2-24-2009 @ 1:39PM
Jenn Brown said...
This made me laugh. SXSW is a great festival because it's a filmgeek festival. That includes both filmmakers, those who write about them, and those who just appreciate (the films, the process, and the makers).
If you're going to enjoy a film, why not enjoy it with people who love film, and usually have enough manners to STFU during the film, unless it's a spontaneous reaction with the rest of the crowd?
And what's better than standing in the badge line, meeting new friends, getting and giving buzz, and finding out the guy you're telling about your current favorite film happens to be the producer? Maybe sitting in your seat at the Alamo and having a beer with them.
It's not perfect, but what involving the logistics of herding thousands can be?
Unless you're one of those "LA Producer" types who're loud, grabbing at girls and trying to impress everyone who's raising flags for the management to take his ass out before the film starts.
Reply