I agree with a most of this -- the intros by Captor and others were particularly amateurish this year (Michel Ciment excepted) -- but I wouldn't recommend moving more screenings to the Castro. I love the theatre for its programming, atmosphere, and Mighty Wurlitzer, but it has well-known acoustical problems with many movies. This year, at least two filmmakers even commented on this during their Q&As: Jim Jarmusch quoted something that RZA and GZA say in his movie ("in case you missed it") and Bob Smeaton assured the audience that despite what they heard, the music in his movie "Festival Express" sounds great in the right theater.

I'm not picky, but unless the mix suits the Castro just right, dialog can be really hard to make out. The Kabuki's house #1 is far better, even with the Cherry Blossom parade going on outside.

But what's the deal with all the people being ushered into screenings 20, 25, even 30 minutes into the movie? It's really distracting to be processing the rush lines so late at almost every screening.

Personally, I don't mind the Kabuki since it's one of the rare venues in San Francisco near a parking garage and it's along the best bus line in SF, the 38, and walking distance from many others. Although the Castro is in someways more public transit accessible, parking is nearly impossible. And the Castro, although beautiful and a wonderful place to see a film, as was said above by Davis, it has acoustic problems. Plus, if any digital film is shown, HUGE problems can arise due to the Castro's set up. The showing of SKY BLUE was horrible and (English Version) Director PARK Sun-min was quite upset with the presentation, realizing most of us were unintentionally exposed to pixalation fuzziness. Plus the sound was awful, as if it were in mono. So I recommend keeping it at the Kabuki but coordinating better w/ the Cherry Blossom Festival.

Personally, I prefer Seattle's festival to ours, and try to head up there every year. San Francisco's festival has a strange affinity w/ Hollywood, completely at odds with the alternative-identity of this city. I mean, LAWS OF ATTRACTION as the closing film? Everyone I talked to was, to put it nicely, confused by that selection.

But one friend gave me a nice perspective on the SF International's position, however, that extends from your point of where SF lands on the Festival calender, that is, BC, (Before Cannes). They also have TONS of competition in SF. Part of why I came to this city is because of all the films made available out here due to the many festivals and rep houses. So SF Internattional has a limited number of "new" films to bring since some of the best have been shown at other festivals in the city. In other words, they have more competition than festivals elsewhere. This would also explain the less than knowledgeable introductions we get from many of the people introducing the films. (I'd like to note here that Roger Garcia is an exception this year. I enjoy hearing his comments and was disappointed to not see him present at more of the films I saw.) The staffs at NAATA, Frameline, PFA, Yerba Buena, IndieFest, etc., are just more knowledgeable and better presenters than at SF International. Whereas other cities will have the best and most knowledgeable film buffs working for their main, and often solely, International festival, SF has some of the most exciting film buffs focusing their work with other festivals.

That said, I'd rather the SF International stay where it is on the calender and be forced to compete with all the variations on theme that SF provides. Why should we give the SF International a privileged space? It would be like giving Hollywood a privileged space over alternative cinema, which, sadly, we already do. In a sense, the SF International's lesser performance is a product of the alternative viewing preferences of The City. This doesn't make me sad, it gives me hope.

Some great comments here. I'd only add, re: the Kabuki vs. other venues, that it's sort of a damned if they do, damned if they don't, situation. As the above commenters put it, the Castro is wonderful in many ways but as a primary venue it wouldn't cut it. Also, they really do need multiple screens within proximity to each other, which in SF basically means multiplexes. Which narrows it down -- because you can rule out the other AMC theater (ugh) who wouldn't give up their two weeks of first-run Hollywood crap anyway, and the Embarcadero, which logistically could work (and I prefer to the Kabuki) except that it does not have a large house like the one the Kabuki has, and less screens. Ideally, the city would get Redford or someone to come in and build that indie festival multiplex venue and that would be the place to house it (near the Presidio would be great, too because of the proximity to the fest's office). But for now... I think they're stuck with the Kabuki. But I do agree that the timing should be changed -- the cherry blossom fest becomes more of an aggravation for those of us who go to the festival every year, especially for those of us on deadline or needing to get there quickly to interview someone or go in and out. It's a logistical nightmare and I'm not sure about the bus system being as reliable over there as Adam says, but it's definitely a better bet than the Castro's parking situation. If they could just push the dates back or forward a bit...

I did think their overall selection of films this year was pretty solid, though, regardless of how many of them were world or US premieres or whatever. It's true that they now have to compete with a lot more film festivals, both locally and internationally, so it's never going to get a ton of premieres.

And I hate the Hollywood stuff too, especially for films that are opening nationally the next day, but something along those lines is probably a necessary evil in order to attract the number of donors, sponsors, and celebs needed to keep a fest of this size going. Speaking of which, I agree, too, that the exorbitant ticket prices seemed to be punishing the wrong people -- preventing a lot of moviegoers from attending. The economy sucks these days so I know there's a trickle down affect hurting all nonprofits, but it seems a few more corporate sponsors and SF philanthropists could keep those prices down at least a bit.

Next year, SF film festival will be at my house! It's small, and parking sucks, and only one screen, but no cherry blossom festival!

C

hmm hmm okay let's see.

management: the aspect of this that bugs me is that my ticket is carefully controlled and checked by as many as four people, but then the film is barely introduced, the room lights are configured wrong during the Q-A sessions, and the Q-A facilitator rarely has more than one starter question of their own. there's a strange "i like cinema but i don't love it" vibe in the air. i do appreciate how tightly things are scheduled, i do.

rethink the venues, rethink the duration: the combination of the thursday closing and the oldest multiplex in town suggests that the fest lacks community support. the size of the crowds doesn't seem to indicate that, so maybe the trouble is the relationship with city government or the arts establishment. or just that the arts situation is generally pretty fucking shabby - note the many theater closures, many during "the boom." i agree that more should be done at the castro, and that the SFFS could help find money to do the castro an audio favor or two. also agree that other multi-screen venues are even less attractive, inside and out. anyhow - good points - but "we do what we can" is a fairly strong defense against them - in the absence of a multi-year plan, i would expect status quo.

rethink the pricing: yeah. WTF. on the other hand, i blame sorry ass arts funding for nearly everything, including iraq and the pile of laundry in my bedroom.

rethink the dates:(1) i agree. the timing between cannes and the academy awards seems to guarantee zilcho exclusives. putting the thing somewhere in sight of pride month and summer tourists would be an unbelievable new height of profile if if if a better venue were available. i like the presidio idea, but what other services are there for people on breaks between movies? how i wish there were a multiplex near north beach - maybe a plan to move there could accompany the opening of the new train line from downtown. maybe that's an idea to pitch to the city and other possible partners. i know one could write a book on the politics of san francisco parking (for reference see: garage, museums, golden gate park).

(2) however, SF is not a primary media market and the SFIFF doorway maybe leads nowhere. peter scarlet didn't care: he loved the stuff that was headed for housebound obscurity. (i ran into him many times at the PFA during the rest of the year, and i can tell you, the movies we both went to see were not interesting to other folk.) in any case zilcho major exclusives may be a birthright. ladies and gentlemen, the roles of "toronto" and "park city" in tonight's performance will be played by cities in ontario and utah, respectively. are any purchasing decisions made in SF? is that something you think should be taking place?

(3) most people don't have the money or time to go to seattle for an entire film festival. i'm one of those people. in fact i love the kabuki-castro axis because both are less than 20 minutes' walk from my home. however it's silly to argue that the SFIFF shouldn't be featured among the fests in the city. it's the best, deepest, widest of all of them. if indiefest folk or SFIAAFF folk or anybody else feels like "beating" the SFIFF is a goal, that's dumb - this is all about getting movies and people together, and the other fests i think do not want to see what happens if the big show fizzles. maybe space between the up-and-comers and the grand dame would help reduce donor fatigue - think of the spectrum of festivals as being like an opera or ballet or sports season, and sell season tickets to the lot of 'em.

I agree with the above complaints and want to add a couple more:

Festival passes at the SFIFF are a joke really, with any bulk ticket plan not really worth the cost considering the number of films you will be able to see. I think Toronto is a much more reasonably priced festival in this regard since I think I got a 50 pass last year for less than 400 US (I don't remember the exact price but it worked out to a little less than $7 a ticket). I won't even get into press accreditation for independent online critics because I don't want to sound like sour grapes.

Midnight screenings have been a joke at this festival in the two years I have gone to it, but it was especially weak this year (Marronnier is the worst film I have ever seen in a festival) and I know there are certainly some better films available, even cherry-picking from other festivals.

Speaking of that, why repeat any films from last months San Jose Cinequest -- Double Dare and The Man Who Copied are certainly decent enough films but couldn't they find other films that haven't already screened in this REGION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA to show.

Also, especially compared to Toronto, this area of San Francisco (right around the Kabuki) seems to have a few disadvantages for festival going. First the different venues are not within walking distance or even reasonable transit distance so you can go back and forth easily. I end up pretty much staying at the Kabuki for most of the fest because I don't want to miss a screening time in order to haul my ass over to Berkeley. Also getting food fast seems to be a major point for festival going and this area of SF is not great for such quick eat-and-go places; featuring an awful Burger King and far too many eateries up Fillmore that will waste precious screening time.

ah see, the trick for quick food is the japanese restos on the northern japantown plaza. ramen! curry! cold noodles! yum.

Yeah, I should have warned up front that I am not a big enough fan of Japanese food to have it all the time - I was sorely missing the hot dog stands of Toronto, etc.

Everything you've said here, other than ticket pricing, reminds me of simlar problems with my home film festival, the USA Film Festival in Dallas, Texas.
I'm wondering how widespread these sorts of problems really are?

re: management and "there's a strange 'i like cinema but i don't love it' vibe in the air."

possibly related to the vibe that the sffs is more about the s than about the f?

mebbe. i don't go to the parties, i just go to the flickers.

Point 1: I don't know enough to really comment.

Point 2: I agree with others' comments about the Castro and its sound problems (Still, it's a perfect venue for many events). In previous years the Cherry Blossom Festival only monopolized the streets outside the Kabuki for one weekend and only used Theatre 1 on one Saturday. That didn't seem like too much of a burden. But this year the Cherry Blossom folks decided to expand their festival to two weekends, and it came at the expense of the SFIFF. I think there can be a great symbiosis between the two events, but I wonder if the SFIFF's shrinking role at the Kabuki is indicative of deeper problems with the festival.

Point 3: I think Sundance tickets are even more expensive. If SFIFF is trying to increase its status as one of the premier film festivals in the US, I wonder if they feel that increased ticket prices are some kind of badge of respectibility.

Point 4: I'm neutral on this one.

Point 5: No no no. Make a slight change to avoid conflicting with Cherry Blossom two weekends in a row, but don't move SFIFF to a completely different place on the calendar. The position just between Oscar/Awards season and Cannes seems like a perfectly reasonable slot, even if it does mean that we have to see Goodbye Dragon Inn almost a year after its premiere. There are plenty of other fests (Hong Kong, Buenos Aires, Istanbul, Singapore, and now Tribeca) that have to contend with a similar place on the calendar, and they are among the most respected festivals in the world, outside the big five (Cannes, Berlin, Venice, Toronto, Sundance). San Francisco can make this slot work, it just takes a bit more programming guts.

calendar slot could/should work to the advantage of any given festival that is beyond a few hours' travel of southern france - an appetizer, a challenge, an unrelated treat. and here, after the long dark winter of middle-brow crowd pleasing, i'll watch virtually anything that lacks sweeping orchestration. these easy obvious advantages in mind, is there a temptation to use the SFIFF to restate the oscar premise in higher-brow language? maybe because the big international flicks are a little stale, maybe because we have this el-lay-nemesis thing going...

to re-focus the festival i wonder if a new category might be developed, for anthropological fiction films - films which include food, courtship, generational relations, faith, work, play, music etc - not pedagogy - exploring the human experience in greater detail. a prize for this might be inappropriate but it could be treated like a fest-in-fest thing, a thread running through, with signposts in the catalog.

This is kind of an old discussion by this time, but the Sf Chron reported this morning that the fest got hit with more than a 20% drop in ticket sales this year. They're certainly doing SOMEthing wrong.