Cinecon schedule

[Harlett O'Dowd]

As for being put out to pasture, I can only speak for myself when I say I am not ready for the last round up by any means.

Stan, it's not said often enough, so I'll say it now. Thanks to you and Bob and Mike and Stella and everyone at Cinecon for doing what y'all do.

I'm sorry Jim and I won't be able to attend this year, but we hope to be back next year.

And yes, once the dust clears from this year's festival, I'll be in touch with a few title requests for next year.

[Frederica]

Stan, it's not said often enough, so I'll say it now. Thanks to you and Bob and Mike and Stella and everyone at Cinecon for doing what y'all do.

What he said.

Fred

[Stan16mm]

Thank you for the kind words and I will convey them to Bob and Mike as well.

I want to simply address the message from someone about being poor/cheap. I completely understand the predicament. As to the schedule not looking familiar enough to warrant a day pass; part of the charm of Cinecon is the rediscovery of films that have not been seen since the early days of television syndication packages or film that hasn't been seen since its release to theaters.

We do show a chestnut or two but the majority of our schedule is made up of films that have been recommended to us by the studios and archivists. Some of the films were suggested for preservation by us and have gone on to have a second life in revival houses.

This is important to us. While a Chaplin film is great to have (we ran one last year -Tillie's Punctured Romance Restored and a few years before that the restored One A.M. which yours truly had a hand in getting done) we do like to show things that even we couldn't get to prescreen before the festival.

If you're looking for a festival of tried and true classics, Cinecon isn't for you. If you want to see films that have been recently preserved, films that can't be seen anywhere else in one festival, Cinecon is the place.

I hope those of you who are in the area will come by, at least, to one day of our show. 35mm rarities at a historic venue, what could be better for the classic film fan?

Stan

[Mike Gebert]

Yes, that was what I learned early on about the festivals-- don't worry about titles you know or don't know; the things you look forward to the most often disappoint, the things that delight you the most afterwards were the total surprises. I would never have gone to a festival to specifically see The Stoning, A Mormon Maid, Timetable, Mr. Dynamite, etc., but they're some of the things I'm happiest to have seen.

[Chris Snowden]

We do show a chestnut or two but the majority of our schedule is made up of films that have been recommended to us by the studios and archivists. Some of the films were suggested for preservation by us and have gone on to have a second life in revival houses.

This is important to us. While a Chaplin film is great to have (we ran one last year -Tillie's Punctured Romance Restored and a few years before that the restored One A.M. which yours truly had a hand in getting done) we do like to show things that even we couldn't get to prescreen before the festival.

If you're looking for a festival of tried and true classics, Cinecon isn't for you. If you want to see films that have been recently preserved, films that can't be seen anywhere else in one festival, Cinecon is the place.

I completely agree that little-known films can turn out to be treasures. Personally, I rate a film festival not by how familiar or unfamiliar the films were, but by how good they were.

On the other hand, Hala is not alone. A lot of film buffs will stay away from a festival if the program is packed with unfamiliar titles. A friend who introduced me to my first Cinecon back in the '90s no longer attends, for that reason. Those of us willing to take a chance on a slate of mystery titles may be in the minority.

And my point here is not to complain. I'm just concerned for Cinecon's longevity. Our membership is aging and dwindling. I'm for whatever puts butts in seats, as long as Cinecon remains true to its vintage film roots.

The San Francisco Silent Festival plays mostly the famous classics, they pack the house for nearly every show, and it's a bigger venue. The Stanford Theater plays Casablanca and Gone With the Wind every year, yet every seat is filled. Cinecon runs a lot of obscure stuff for a lot of empty seats.

But when Cinecon does show a warhorse, it's basically the best-attended film of the weekend. That shouldn't be a surprise. Most of us have seen the classics only on TV screens. When film buffs get the chance to see The Iron Horse or The Eagle or For Heaven's Sake in gorgeous 35mm prints, they turn out, if they're attending the festival in the first place.

Maybe with more warhorses, there'd be more attendance, more dollars in the treasury, and another 45 years of Cinecons to look forward to.

In any case, my thanks to Stan and the other Cinecon organizers.

[rudyfan]

Yes, that was what I learned early on about the festivals-- don't worry about titles you know or don't know; the things you look forward to the most often disappoint, the things that delight you the most afterwards were the total surprises. I would never have gone to a festival to specifically see The Stoning, A Mormon Maid, Timetable, Mr. Dynamite, etc., but they're some of the things I'm happiest to have seen.

I agree with Mike and Stan here, too. Even the shorter films are pleasant surprises. 1906 (or was it 07) Vitagraph The Thieving Hand still remains a fav (and I'm happy it's on the Treasures DVD).

[silentfilm]

Just to repeat what everyone is saying, the best films are usually ones that you never heard of before. I'm thinking Dangerous Blondes (1943) with Allyn Joslyn, Break the News (1938) with Jack Buchanan, and The Dixie Flyer (1926).

Hala, I know that you can get spoiled living in L.A. where there are plenty of places to see classic cinema, but you've got to at least get a one-day pass and catch a few films at Cinecon. And if you write your name on your nametag, I guarantee you that someone from Nitrateville will introduce themselves.

Speaking as someone who has to drive several hours to get to a repratory theater, it's worth every dime.

[Stan16mm]

Thanks for mentioning "Dangerous Blondes". I'm so happy it became a hit at Cinecon and now it gets sent out to play at festivals and has new fans.

This year, I pushed for and won a spot on the schedule for the next film Keyes and Joslyn made, "Strange Affair". It's just as much fun and, no doubt, will be a surprise hit for us. I know it's going to be booked with "DB" in the future as a great double bill. Shemp Howard is worth the price of admission.

And to the poster who mentioned "The Thieving Hand".... I finally got my own 16mm print to show at my own screenings. What a great curio.

Bruce, I'm so sad you won't be there.

Stan

[Stan16mm]

Pardon me for saying"...to the poster who mentoned "The Thieving Hand".... Hello Donna! Sorry you won't be down for Cinecon.

Oh and Bruce Calvert, next time you're in town, I'll be happy to show you "Strange Affair". It's from my 16mm but at least you can see it!.

Stan

[Harlett O'Dowd]

Pardon me for saying"...to the poster who mentoned "The Thieving Hand".... Hello Donna! Sorry you won't be down for Cinecon.

Oh and Bruce Calvert, next time you're in town, I'll be happy to show you "Strange Affair". It's from my 16mm but at least you can see it!.

Stan

Only Bruce? Hrmmmmph!

[Stan16mm]

Forgive me but I'm not sure who is who here.

[boblipton]

As other have noted, the best films are often the unexpected ones, but what draws them in are the classics. A couple of years ago Slapsticon ran L&H in OUT WEST and that was the show where the house was packed.

I think the right answer is often a mixed bag, show them what they think they want to see and add in something a bit obscure. You want them to see this picture? First you have to get them in the seats.

Bob

[rudyfan]

Pardon me for saying"...to the poster who mentoned "The Thieving Hand".... Hello Donna! Sorry you won't be down for Cinecon.

Stan

I'll make good my threat next year Stan. I'll also get my own act together so we can do another podcast, I had FUN with you and Evil Bob last year. This year, life's been a mess.

[silentfilm]

Pardon me for saying"...to the poster who mentoned "The Thieving Hand".... Hello Donna! Sorry you won't be down for Cinecon.

Oh and Bruce Calvert, next time you're in town, I'll be happy to show you "Strange Affair". It's from my 16mm but at least you can see it!.

Stan

Thanks Stan. Since we moved from the Dallas area, the thing I miss the most is getting together with other film collectors and screening our prints.

[misspickford9]

We do show a chestnut or two but the majority of our schedule is made up of films that have been recommended to us by the studios and archivists. Some of the films were suggested for preservation by us and have gone on to have a second life in revival houses.

This is important to us. While a Chaplin film is great to have (we ran one last year -Tillie's Punctured Romance Restored and a few years before that the restored One A.M. which yours truly had a hand in getting done) we do like to show things that even we couldn't get to prescreen before the festival.

If you're looking for a festival of tried and true classics, Cinecon isn't for you. If you want to see films that have been recently preserved, films that can't be seen anywhere else in one festival, Cinecon is the place.

I completely agree that little-known films can turn out to be treasures. Personally, I rate a film festival not by how familiar or unfamiliar the films were, but by how good they were.

On the other hand, Hala is not alone. A lot of film buffs will stay away from a festival if the program is packed with unfamiliar titles. A friend who introduced me to my first Cinecon back in the '90s no longer attends, for that reason. Those of us willing to take a chance on a slate of mystery titles may be in the minority.

And my point here is not to complain. I'm just concerned for Cinecon's longevity. Our membership is aging and dwindling. I'm for whatever puts butts in seats, as long as Cinecon remains true to its vintage film roots.

The San Francisco Silent Festival plays mostly the famous classics, they pack the house for nearly every show, and it's a bigger venue. The Stanford Theater plays Casablanca and Gone With the Wind every year, yet every seat is filled. Cinecon runs a lot of obscure stuff for a lot of empty seats.

But when Cinecon does show a warhorse, it's basically the best-attended film of the weekend. That shouldn't be a surprise. Most of us have seen the classics only on TV screens. When film buffs get the chance to see The Iron Horse or The Eagle or For Heaven's Sake in gorgeous 35mm prints, they turn out, if they're attending the festival in the first place.

Maybe with more warhorses, there'd be more attendance, more dollars in the treasury, and another 45 years of Cinecons to look forward to.

In any case, my thanks to Stan and the other Cinecon organizers.

That was my point; and why I mentioned it in my very post. YES unknown films can be a treat. BUT if you pepper in a few better known titles that dont get screened often then you'll draw in more butts to the seats so to speak; and enjoying the festival they might just stick around to see more of the unknowns.

Like I said I know I can fall madly in love with something I havent seen; but without the guarantee that there is a reason to see it (reasons I mentioned: history, stars, story, obscure, so forth) or a promise I'll see something else I like, I wouldnt spend my money on it. If you want to get down to the day pass idea that would be above and beyond a good way to go: stick in a well known talkie and a well known silent and then put the rest of the lineup as obscure and I'm sure people would not only come but enjoy it as well.

I am spoiled and will continue enjoy being so :p. But I do want to see all classic and silent film screenings do the best they can, whether I am there or not. Right now The New Beverly, The Old Town Music Hall, The Silent Movie Theatre, and a few other places are having a hell of a classic lineup for September and October. No way I could even make time to go to all of them but Im happy to know Broken Blossoms, Phantom, Haxan, and a ton of Hitchcock are being shown.

[rudyfan]

Maybe it was not clear in the previous postings, but Cinecon does use day passes and have for all the years Cinecon has been running (at least since I went to my first in 1979-1980).

http://www.cinecon.org/cinecon_regform.html#day

It's down at the bottom of the page.

[misspickford9]

Maybe it was not clear in the previous postings, but Cinecon does use day passes and have for all the years Cinecon has been running (at least since I went to my first in 1979-1980).

http://www.cinecon.org/cinecon_regform.html#day

It's down at the bottom of the page.

I know, thats what I was referencing above.

[Mike Gebert]

without the guarantee that there is a reason to see it (reasons I mentioned: history, stars, story, obscure, so forth) or a promise I'll see something else I like, I wouldnt spend my money on it

Well, really then, a festival isn't for you. The point of a festival, it seems to me, is the serendipity of unexpected discovery, to immerse yourself in as many things as possible without knowing what they may turn out to be. If you only want expected things, well, there's plenty of film series around LA, and they charge by the film.

This is not to say that the idea of showing the occasional warhorse is a bad one-- Cinevent does this to attract traffic for its dealer rooms, and someone like me still finds plenty of old familiar titles that are in fact new to me, or unseen in 30 years, or whatever. But it's also perfectly reasonable to choose not to do that, feeling that it's plenty done elsewhere.

[precode]

The whole point of Cinecon from almost the beginning has been to show films you could not see anywhere else. This has become increasingly difficult with the rise of DVDs and TCM, but we still manage.

Contrary to Hala's assumption, more common titles do NOT increase attendance. Most of our attendees are from out of town, and they are not of a mind to spend close to a grand to fly out here and stay in a hotel to watch stuff they've already seen and perhaps even own. One has only to look at the enormous popularity of Cinefest in Syracuse--where people will happily fly to a snowbound, sub-zero town in March to see films even more obscure than the ones we show--to recognize this. We do make it a point to show a couple of common films every year, but too many and our regular attendees start to get turned off and stay home.

Moreover, I would think that after nearly half a century, people would by now have enough faith in us to believe that we would never knowingly program a lousy film, and just because you haven't heard of something doesn't ipso facto mean it's unworthy of watching.

Those who stay home punish no one but themselves.

Mike S.

[Stan16mm]

And we do show a few more common titles at Cinecon for those that want to see them. We also do it to get people to check out the dealers room.

[misspickford9]

The whole point of Cinecon from almost the beginning has been to show films you could not see anywhere else. This has become increasingly difficult with the rise of DVDs and TCM, but we still manage.

Contrary to Hala's assumption, more common titles do NOT increase attendance. Most of our attendees are from out of town, and they are not of a mind to spend close to a grand to fly out here and stay in a hotel to watch stuff they've already seen and perhaps even own. One has only to look at the enormous popularity of Cinefest in Syracuse--where people will happily fly to a snowbound, sub-zero town in March to see films even more obscure than the ones we show--to recognize this. We do make it a point to show a couple of common films every year, but too many and our regular attendees start to get turned off and stay home.

Moreover, I would think that after nearly half a century, people would by now have enough faith in us to believe that we would never knowingly program a lousy film, and just because you haven't heard of something doesn't ipso facto mean it's unworthy of watching.

Those who stay home punish no one but themselves.

Mike S.

I dont think a festival is not necessarily for me; just this style of one. Both the San Fransico Silent Film Festival and Cinefest go along the lines of what I said: they show rarities, but they also throw in assurances for people who might not normally come: in 2007 they had names like Harold Lloyd and Mary Pickford and Colleen Moore at San Franscico. In 2008 they had Douglas Fairbanks (Im going off the top of my head, obviously there might be others). Cinefest had Olive Thomas, Mary Pickford, and a few others Im not recalling.

But those films were maybe 1-3 out of the entire lineup...many other things were rare and obscure. The whole reason I even mentioned this was someone suggested I come; and I looked over the lineup and can say I dont see anything that would make me happy if I hated every other film screening that day. To top it off I dont know the history or the appeal of these rare films either...San Fransisco showed a Chinese film this year that had China's most popular and tragic silent film actress in it...I've seen only one Chinese silent film but that would have been something I would have liked to have seen. Last year they showed that German shadowpuppet film...another thing I have never seen but would have liked to; they put the history out there.

I dont know anything about any of these films in this Cinecon lineup (as someone mentioned last year they showed Tillie's, that was one of the few films I wouldnt have minded seeing but I remember it was only one in the entire lineup that drew me) or why I should want to discover them. I dont know the draw or the stars or the story behind it. Thats what Im saying.

I understand people fly out, and that is wonderful. Frankly I find the fact its almost 50 years old quite wonderful. BUT to keep new generations interested when Lillian Gish can no longer show up; well...I think a lineup of 'wha?' films will not do it. MANY MANY MANY people I have heard at the many many many screenings and such I have gone to say they have not seen a silent or even a talkie as old as whatever is screening; but they heard something about the film or the star and it drew them in. I heard a LOT of that with Buster Keaton and Rudy and even Harold Lloyd.

Not courting the locals might not be a good idea; it wouldnt take much to get them to attend a Cinecon, so I dont seen why the 'well its not for them' attitude prevails.

[elalamo]

Cinecon is an event that I look forward to all year long and I have no suggestions on how it could be improved -- it's just exactly how I like it right now. (Well, I do wish people would stop applauding every freakin' time they see somebody they recognize in a movie, but maybe that's just me.)

I live in Los Angeles so I have more access to the Joe Franklin titles than many people around the country. That's exactly why I love Cinecon -- it's filled with surprises. I'm certainly not as knowledgeable about film history as some of the giants involved in Cinecon like the Messrs. Taffel, Birchard and Schlesinger. But I'm PRETTY knowledgeable and the lineup is almost always composed of films that I never even heard of. And that's the most delightful circumstance I can imagine. There's no movie-going thrill as great as watching those curtains open and having little or no idea whatsoever what's about to appear.

As for the ongoing celebrity/banquet debate, I have to figure that the banquet brings in important funds to keep Cinecon going. If that's the case, then I'm all for it, even if I never choose to attend. If it's a money loser, then I don't really see the point. But again, since I live here, seeing celebrities is not all that difficult so that issue has zero impact on my feelings about Cinecon. And when a film is shown in which I have no interest -- like THE SILENCERS this year -- then I'll just go do something else. I welcome the chance to get out into the fetid air of Hollywood now and again.

In summation, if people avoid Cinecon because the movies aren't familiar to them, then I feel bad for them for missing out. But personally, I could hardly like Cinecon more.

Unless, of course, they'd finally give in and show PURITY. Come on! I've been waiting five years!

[Jim Reid]

It's not like Cinecon doesn't run the "warhorses" either. In the last two years I've seen Harold Lloyd in "Speedy", Mary Pickford in "Dorothy Vernon of Hadden Hall", Tom Mix in a film I missed and can't remember the name, a Wm. S Hart film, "The Patent Leather Kid". I'd like to see a Keaton on the big screen, but that's just me. Maybe the new version of "Our Hospitality" that ran at the Keaton festival recently. I just hope that some day you won't want to see a film badly, only to find out it ran at Cinecon in '09.

[Mike Gebert]

Jesus, they showed Speedy? Not again.

[Chris Snowden]

Contrary to Hala's assumption, more common titles do NOT increase attendance... We do make it a point to show a couple of common films every year, but too many and our regular attendees start to get turned off and stay home.

Mike, you know the inner workings of Cinecon as well as anyone, but in my experience the warhorse films are very well attended. Back when we had films running simultaneously in two rooms, The Circus was consigned to the smaller room on the theory that no one would be very interested in such a familiar title. I remember Bob being fairly astonished that it drew a standing-room-only crowd.

If it's not too late, why not slap together a rough survey, run off some copies, slip one into everybody's membership packet, and let the Cinephiles themselves indicate whether they want the guests, the banquets, the warhorses, etc. Put a tray or something by the Egyptian's front doors and people can drop off their surveys. The results might surprise you. (Or me. Or both of us.)

[Harold Aherne]

I haven't yet attended one of these festivals, but I certainly fall into the category that prefers rare films to proven audience-pleasers. Wonderful as The Cameraman and Top Hat are, I don't think I'd invest a huge amount of time and money to see them at a festival unless they were surrounded by at least a dozen or so uncommon titles--such as (speaking hypothetically) an incomplete 1916 Metro picture, a programmer with Robert Agnew and Dorothy Revier, perhaps a mid-30s Chesterfield or Puritan title, and some comedy or Vitaphone 2-reelers with forgotten talent.

Naturally, anyone with a yen for the obscure has to be prepared for others' disappointment and ho-hum reactions. But for me at least, I'd feel immensely satisfied even if all the obscurities were awful and/or in disappointing condition. Where else could I sample such a buffet (from several different chefs--er, archives) in just a few days? And getting to see a couple of common titles in 35mm would be the proverbial icing. I think it's better to expand one's knowledge of film history rather than just view familiar titles that tend to confirm one's perspective...even if they do attract larger crowds...

-Harold

[azjazzman]

My feeling is that with the appearance of THE SILENCERS on the film program, the Cinecon has now officially "jumped the shark".

[Bob Birchard]

I just think it is insane to have her in the first place. I did enjoy Corman and
at least that was screening of rare interesting film in terms of showing something from the 60s. Like I said personally I like the extra time to hang out , go to pool etc but is Joey Heatherton and WHERE HAS LOVE GONE next ?

Please, please, please ditch the guests from now on. It's gotten beyond ridiculous now with Stella Stevens. Does that mean killing the banquet? Good. Kill it. If anyone really needs to have dinner with Marvin Kaplan, they can call his agent. The autograph hounds who are eager to see these 1950s-1970s people can go to the Ray Courts shows.

Chris, Jessica, et.al.

You are guys who never come to the banquet--so for you the celebs mean nothing. But there is a healthy contingent of the attendees who do like the banquet and who come to see celebs. Killing the banquet, as desirable as it might be (personally I'd vote for doing away with it) is simply not an option. The hotel demands the revenue in exchange for the free exhibit space. To sell banquet tix we need a drawing card. If you can figure out a way to sell banquet tix without celebs--I'm all for it. Perhaps we should revert to the Sons of the Desert formula, charge $250.00 and force all attendees to pony up for the banquet. Then we'd hear squawking about that!

Also, as much griping as I hear about celebs and later films, they are always among our better attended screenings. As I've said many times, if it was up to me alone we'd run nothing but pictures from the Teens, but my responsibility is to attempt to please the ENTIRE audience (or at least to have the entire audience only moderately disgruntled for different reasons). As many as 15 years ago I heard one of our attendees moan, "When are they going to start showing stuff from the '50s--after all the fifties were fifty years ago!" This past year, for the first time I can remember, we actually had four people complain on their audience surveys that there were too many silents on the program. One of those four was for doing away with them altogether! This is something we have no intention of doing, but it does suggest that if we want to develop an audience for silents it behooves us to sprinkle in a few pictures that might appeal to a broader audience so that we can get them to stay for the stuff we want to see.

[precode]

Contrary to Hala's assumption, more common titles do NOT increase attendance... We do make it a point to show a couple of common films every year, but too many and our regular attendees start to get turned off and stay home.

Mike, you know the inner workings of Cinecon as well as anyone, but in my experience the warhorse films are very well attended. Back when we had films running simultaneously in two rooms, The Circus was consigned to the smaller room on the theory that no one would be very interested in such a familiar title. I remember Bob being fairly astonished that it drew a standing-room-only crowd.

If it's not too late, why not slap together a rough survey, run off some copies, slip one into everybody's membership packet, and let the Cinephiles themselves indicate whether they want the guests, the banquets, the warhorses, etc. Put a tray or something by the Egyptian's front doors and people can drop off their surveys. The results might surprise you. (Or me. Or both of us.)

We do surveys EVERY year, and we read them very closely. The blanks are on the registration table around Saturday or Sunday.

As for THE CIRCUS, the room was very small, but more to the point, Sydney Chaplin was the guest, so more people than expected showed up just so they'd have a talking point for the Q&A. More often than not, the "warhorses" are accompanying a celebrity (e.g., HAIL THE CONQUERING HERO, THE BAND WAGON, HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN), so naturally attendance will spike for those pictures.

And to answer an earlier question about big stars: this year's films feature John Wayne, Gary Cooper, Betty Grable, Dean Martin, Maurice Chevalier, Jean Arthur, Sylvia Sidney, John Gilbert, Boris Karloff, James Mason, Deborah Kerr, George O'Brien, The Andrews Sisters, Dan Dailey, Mary Pickford, Jack Haley, Lon Chaney Sr., Constance Cummings, Betty Bronson, Fred MacMurray, Claudette Colbert, Robert Young, Ray Milland, Mickey Rooney, Harry Langdon, Norma Talmadge, George Raft, Carole Lombard, Jean Hersholt, Edward Arnold, Donald O'Connor, such writers and directors as Howard Hawks, Frank Capra, Preston Sturges, Rex Ingram, Roland West, William Desmond Taylor, Mitchell Leisen, Michael Curtiz and King Vidor, and of course all those countless wonderful character actors like Edgar Kennedy, Franklin Pangborn, William Demarest, Charles Lane and Shemp Howard. Seriously, if you can't find someone in there you like, then you simply aren't trying.

Mike S.

[Bob Birchard]

But ultimately, Nitrateville probably isn't the place to have this discussion. Bob, is there any way of bringing up this subject at the business meeting this year?

Well, this does come up for discusion every year, and the answer, as I noted to Chris elsewhere, is always the same. We need a banquet, NOT because we love to have a banquet but because the hotel demands the revenue. Also, at least one of our committee people--and the most valuable one during the show, because she coordinates all the volunteers, just LOVES the banquet.

We also place these celebrity screenings of later films strategically so that those who aren't interested in the film or the guest will be driven to the dealers rooms. The dealers are a major component of the show. We're in the theater, they're in the hotel--you figure it out.

As for rare titles, I think Cinecon through the years has shown more rare titles than any of the other festivals, if you look at the schedule this year, I think you'll find quite a few films that most of the attendees will not have seen, and (unless they live near New York, L.A. or Rochester) would not likely get a chance to see on a theater screen, among such rareties this year are:


TRIAL MARRIAGE (never scrrened anywhere before Cinecon 45)
Love Detectives (Pre-Code; Betty Grable short)
HE FELL IN LOVE WITH HIS WIFE (screened at UCLA preservation festival where about 50 people attended)
BROADWAY LOVE
GIVE OUT, SISTERS (where are you going to see this in 35mm?)
PAID TO LOVE
TRICK FOR TRICK (last time it was screened in L.A. was 18 years ago when we ran it)
GOOD TIME CHARLEY
Screen Snapshot (1923, Clara Bow)
THE DAWN OF A TOMORROW
NIGHTMARE (1942)
TURN TO THE RIGHT!
LOVER COME BACK (1931)
DE LUXE ANNIE

So at least half the schedule is stuff that either hasn't been screened or is not likely to be screened anywhere else, and I daresay that even most of the more "common" titles like "Easy Living" or "Rumba" or "The Bride Comes Home" are films that most of our attendees will not have seen previously.

I always cite the example of Charlie Chaplin's "The Circus," which we ran in the small room back when we were at the Red Lion in Glendale while we ran an incredibly rare Tiffany in the big room. 12 people sat to watch the Tiffany--over a hudred crammed into the small room and we had to turn people away. Most of these people, good Cinephiles all, had never seen "The Circus" even though it had been in continuous distribution theatrically, non-theatrically, on cable, on Super 8mm and on video for about twenty years. Not all the Cinecon attendees are as "well screened" as we are.

And, strangely enough, they want to be entertained. About six years ago we had a schedule that pushed rarety over entertainment--and, boy did I get an earful--literally surrounded by about 20 people at 6:00 pm Monday evening--all complaining that rare was all well and fgood, but thy paid their money to be entertained.

Yes, years ago, we did do some celebs in the Cinegrill or other small rooms-and even though that worked then, it won't now. Our star wrangler demands a screening or feels we are not showing enough respect. This is the same star wrangler we had fifteen years ago--but things change. Cinecon, like life, is a compromise. We need to attempt to satisfy all of us who put it on and all of the attendees sitting in the dark. It ain't easy stepping through that minefield, believe me.

In any event there was a time when there were as many as fifteen celebrity events during Cinecon. This year there are three celeb screenings, and one honoree who is only coming to the banquet. So, as the crop of golden age celebs has dwindled, we've also cut back on the number of celeb appearances. And, I have to tell you that the only questions regarding the schedule that I've received through the web site e-mail are: When will "The Silencers" and "Easy Living" be screened?