LFF director responds your ideas

Six weeks ago, Greg Dyke, the British Film Institute’s new chair, spoke of making the London Film Festival ‘bigger and glitzier’. We began an online discussion, and you reacted strongly. Here, the director of the festival, Sandra Hebron, responds to your ideas, from lowering ticket prices to broadening the event’s appeal

A few weeks ago, Time Out’s film editor wrote a cogent defence of the London Film Festival’s current cultural remit, and asked readers to join in the discussion by way of an online forum. No festival should stand still, and a cultural event dealing with one of our most rapidly changing art forms should be relevant and receptive to change.

But there are some fundamental principles that underlie the festival and are as relevant as when the festival began 52 years ago. The LFF was founded as a public ‘Festival of Festivals’ to enable audiences in London to see films that had premiered at other international events. Its aim was to provide a showcase for the best of world cinema, a mandate which we still hold dear. But it has also always been a festival with a strong industry presence, and with a large press and media attendance.

As well as our annual surveys which gauge our audiences’ views on everything we do, from programming to practicalities, we also seek the opinions of our industry colleagues, from filmmakers to distributors and journalists. Hearing the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the festival helps us plan for the coming years.

The Time Out debate shares with some of the existing feedback a wealth of good ideas and a fair number of gripes, the latter ranging from the wholly justified to the worryingly snobbish.

One of the overriding concerns of the filmmakers and industry folk we speak to is that the festival should maintain its breadth of programme. Interestingly, some Time Out readers see this less as welcome diversity and more a lack of identity. For sure, a festival of 180 feature films and 130 shorts is unlikely to be able to maintain the ‘common thread’ which one reader was looking for. But arguably the films we programme do address the previously mentioned ‘best of world cinema’ remit, and it is gratifying to read that by and large this is appreciated.

Sometimes the best can include American, even Hollywood, cinema. But every year there are films from more than 40 countries in our programme. And for anyone who thinks that the festival offers a sop to the US majors, I can reassure you that we turn down as many studio productions as any other kind. In fact, overall we programme just 10 per cent of the films that we see, a fact that gives me cause for concern when people suggest that the festival shows too many. Surely it’s better to be spoilt for choice than starved by the lack of it?

There’s also a concern from some that the festival is already too glitzy, and too given over to films which will soon make their way into UK cinemas. But what about all the documentaries, live action and animated shorts, artists’ film and video and the restorations from the world’s archives? Less than 30 per cent of the films we screen have UK distribution when they come into the festival, a proportion that has changed little over the years. That said, I’m always delighted when a film like ‘Half Nelson’ or ‘California Dreamin’' finds UK distribution as a result of being selected for the festival.

The postings about the programme display a tension which also surfaces in the discussion of the logistics of the festival. Some readers want the festival to be intimate, exclusive, cinephile. Others favour a more inclusive and democratic approach. We try to strike a delicate balance between the two, so that our core of knowledgeable filmgoers can attend with serious purpose, but where space is still maintained to introduce new audiences to unfamiliar work.

A festival should be somewhere that allows audiences to take chances, and that includes people who like to watch films in the Odeon West End (where directors from Angelopoulos to Ang Lee have remarked on the high quality of the technical presentation).

That said, the comments include great ideas about extending the range of venues and drawing in non-traditional spaces. Ticket pricing and availability is something keenly felt, and as someone who thinks cinema-going across the board in London is too expensive, I’m sympathetic.

When we signed The Times as a title sponsor in 2003 we were able to hold our ticket prices steady, and now we make the minimum increases year on year and offer concessions where we can. We operate on less than half the budget of a festival like Toronto, our closest equivalent, and our level of subsidy is low. We have to raise almost 70 per cent of our budget from box office income and sponsorship combined, so ticket revenue is critical.

We can’t blame a lack of resources for any or all of the festival’s shortcomings. Some, such as not admitting latecomers, can be easily tackled. But the absence of programme notes is directly linked to lack of money. Similarly, a few people commented that they would like to see more filmmakers attending. So would we! At the moment we have cast or crew attending just over half of the films, many of them paid for by cultural institutes or distributors. We have ambitious plans to raise more money to bring in filmmakers, and to improve the marketing and advertising, another area that’s short of funds.

In common with Time Out and its readers, we’re only interested in making the LFF the best possible festival for London. To that end, we’re grateful to everyone who took the time to comment.

This year’s London Film Festival runs from Oct 15 to 30.

---

• 
•