Cinecon schedule

[Bob Birchard]

Reading the comments on this thread so far, I thought it would be interesting - particularly for some of the newer Cinephiles - to compare this current 2009 Cinecon film program to the one run 25 years ago at Cinecon 20 in San Francisco. Jon Mirsalis and I ran that Con, and I just dug out my old program. . .

And the big complaint in those days was theat there were TWO screening rooms. There was always someone who wanted to see both films that were running in different rooms. The screening list from the San Francisco Cinecon is indeed impressive, and I'm sure some of those titles are due for repeats, but the reason we don't run pictures like "Blessed Event" very often today, great as it is, is a) because it has been screened at a Cinecon b) it plays on TCM with some regularity and c) it is available on DVD--none of these factors is a killer individually, but collectively we feel that if we're asking people to come across the country they out to be able to see stuff, for the most part, they won't see elsewhere.

Cinecon has screened over 1,500 films in the past 44 years. We'll be adding that list (as complete as we can make it) after Cinecon this year. Given the fact that Hollywood probably produced some 7,000 films between 1930 and 1950 (not to mention the surviving silents that haven't been screened)--it seems to me that chipping away at the other 5,500 is more desirable than revisiting the 1,500 already screened--though, of course, we do try to throw in a few "Joe Franklin" titles and repeats so that newbies can se some of the stuff we've come to love through the years.

[Bob Birchard]

And the Golden Dawn sing-a-long.

Fred

You have a champion for "The Golden Dawn" sing-along in Michael Schlesinger. He's tried to push it onto the schedule several times citing your recommendation. But this is an "over my dead body" event as far as I'm concerened. We exist to celebrate the movies, not to ridicule and make fun of them. Besides, I know you and Michael have a fondness for bad movies--a fondness I've learned from getting verbally beaten up on numerous occasions at Cinecon that most of our attendees do not share.

[Bob Birchard]

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 big difference between the San Francisco Silent Film Festival and Cinecon is that they have a paid staff who prepare all year and spend six months writing program notes (no criticism, just fact) all to screen eight titles. We are all unpaid, put Cinecon together in our spare time, and manage to screen something like forty films (including shorts). I rarely go to the SFSFF or to Columbus--not because thay are not great events--but because I've seen virtually everything they run. If I'm going to go north for a weekend I'd much rather go to Niles and see a bunch of stuff I haven't seen.

As for the "aging and dwindling," pre registrations are actually up from last year, we've exceeded our room block at the hotel, and believe it or not the average age of the entire body of attendees is about ten years younger than you might guess.

You wanna know my biggest complaint? Is every year about a month before Cinecon there always seems to be a royal bitch fest about what's wrong with the show.

Now I don't care what you guys think. You're entitled to yor opinions and you're entitled to express them . . . and we do listen. There ARE fewer celebrity guests than in the past, we DO take requets and attempt to fulfill as many as we can--but I wish you'd save the moaning for after the show and not in the weeks before.

If I were a newbie looking to see what Cinecon was like I'd likely be turned off by all the seeming negativity, no matter how well meaning

[Bob Birchard]

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.

As long as we're patting ourselves on the back, The Thieving Hand was a picture I recommended to Randy Haberkamp back around 1990, and it is nice to see that it has become a recognized classic.

[Bob Birchard]

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.

Well, let's see, Hala, this year Cinecon is running a rare Mary Pickford--one that you ought to see if you're the Mary Pickford fan you claim to be. We're also running a star vehicle with Norma Talmadge. Lon Chaney is also represented this year, as is George O'Brien. Last year we ran a Fairbanks and a Lloyd. The year before that we ran a Colleen Moore. We premiered the Olive Thomas documentary and have shown several of her films in the immediate past years. we also ran the Photoplay print of "The Eagle" with Rudolph Valentino. We will run others from all these stars in the future, I'm sure. This year the silents are leaning toward the directors. We're running a Rex Ingram, a William Desmond Taylor, a Howard Hawks, a Capra, a Vidor, and an unseen Michael Curtiz. So I would suggest that there is plenty to recommend the line up, even if you've never heard of the films. I had never heard of Harold Lloyd when "Harold Loyd's World of Comedy" came out in 1962--even though I was already interested in silent films.

[Richard M Roberts]

You wanna know my biggest complaint? Is every year about a month before Cinecon there always seems to be a royal bitch fest about what's wrong with the show.

Well, if you could bother to get a schedule published a little sooner than a few weeks before the show, we could bitch about it earlier!


RICHARD M ROBERTS (couldn't resist, not really interested in the whole discussion. Good night folks.)

[Bob Birchard]

Well, if you could bother to get a schedule published a little sooner than a few weeks before the show, we could bitch about it earlier!


RICHARD M ROBERTS (couldn't resist, not really interested in the whole discussion. Good night folks.)

I signed off on a schedule in May, but it kept changing. Even when you run the thing you're never in control.

[misspickford9]

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.

Well, let's see, Hala, this year Cinecon is running a rare Mary Pickford--one that you ought to see if you're the Mary Pickford fan you claim to be. We're also running a star vehicle with Norma Talmadge. Lon Chaney is also represented this year, as is George O'Brien. Last year we ran a Fairbanks and a Lloyd. The year before that we ran a Colleen Moore. We premiered the Olive Thomas documentary and have shown several of her films in the immediate past years. we also ran the Photoplay print of "The Eagle" with Rudolph Valentino. We will run others from all these stars in the future, I'm sure. This year the silents are leaning toward the directors. We're running a Rex Ingram, a William Desmond Taylor, a Howard Hawks, a Capra, a Vidor, and an unseen Michael Curtiz. So I would suggest that there is plenty to recommend the line up, even if you've never heard of the films. I had never heard of Harold Lloyd when "Harold Loyd's World of Comedy" came out in 1962--even though I was already interested in silent films.

Call me silly but Im not seeing the Mary film. Im guessing Spuds which probably is meant to be Suds? If so I've already seen it. I know there have been some Pickford and Valentino films (usually one per year) in the past few years; but not the 2 that I've been watching. Someone told me about Dorothy Vernon, sadly that was before I was here. I hate Rex Ingram (hides from the bananas and yes I know he did a handful of Rudy films) and just short of Mr. Griffith I'm usually more in it for stars or the films appeal on its own.

Some descriptions would help, I just looked on the website again and nothing really has a description. I get this takes time and energy but even the New Bev links to IMDB...which is still blah but better than nothing. Its hard to say the appeal is in the films when one has to go search what films these are and what they are about and who is in them to begin with (and yes I already read the 'we dont have paid staff ala San Francisco' reply but I would assume some volunteers could get on it).

[Jim Roots]

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.

Bob, I would have to assume you've done a financial comparison between paying for exhibit space without booking a banquet, and going with the banquet to get the free exhibit space, and that the numbers favour the latter option.

I've booked a minimum of 3 conferences per year for more than 23 years now for my employers, in locations from Victoria, B.C., to St John's, Newfoundland, and I've found it NEVER works out that way.

The exhibit space in the medium/large Canadian hotels we use will normally cost anywhere from $200 to $10,000. At the high end of this scale, we book 50 spaces that we rent to exhibitors on a sliding scale depending on whether they are non-profits, service agencies, or for-profits, but rarely if ever exceed $200 per table. That covers all the expense of renting the space, and each exhibitor is responsible for paying for electrical hookups, Internet connections, etc. at their booth, so it's no extra cost for us. And we are cheap -- there is one annual exhibit in our field that charges $5,000 for a short table and over $250 for each and every "frill" including a second chair.

In other words, the exhibit space is self-sufficient. So even if we don't want a banquet, we lose no money on the exhibits.

I've never come across a hotel that, in your words, DEMANDS a banquet. Maybe the Roosevelt is unique, or maybe this is a standard practice at American hotels, I don't know. But it sure sounds odd to me.

I find banquets difficult to bring to a break-even point. The costs of the room, the tables, the food, the waiters, corkage fee (applied even to bottles of water), and gratuities require an attendance of many hundreds at ticket prices of around $80 (Cdn). Our clients can't afford those prices, and it is very difficult to round up enough attendees in any city smaller than the top three in Canada (Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver).

Just some observations. No criticism intended.

Jim

[Mike Gebert]

My problem with Cinecon showing things from the 60s is that you're only a couple of years away from showing things I saw in first run, and then I will officially be old.

[Frederica]

Some descriptions would help, I just looked on the website again and nothing really has a description. I get this takes time and energy but even the New Bev links to IMDB...which is still blah but better than nothing. Its hard to say the appeal is in the films when one has to go search what films these are and what they are about and who is in them to begin with (and yes I already read the 'we dont have paid staff ala San Francisco' reply but I would assume some volunteers could get on it).

Hala, if you don't want to come to Cinecon, that's fine. But since you are not coming and since you have never been to a Cinecon, I think your complaints are...shall we say "inappropriate." Bob and Mike and Stan and Stella, et.al., work pretty darned hard to put this on every year. It's a huge job, one I'm sure you will soon appreciate since you will be doing one yourself. It shouldn't be that difficult to look the announced films up, if that's what you need to make a decision on whether or not to come. But since you have already announced that you are not coming, perhaps it would be best to retire from the list.

Fred

[Bob Birchard]

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.

Well, let's see, Hala, this year Cinecon is running a rare Mary Pickford--one that you ought to see if you're the Mary Pickford fan you claim to be. We're also running a star vehicle with Norma Talmadge. Lon Chaney is also represented this year, as is George O'Brien. Last year we ran a Fairbanks and a Lloyd. The year before that we ran a Colleen Moore. We premiered the Olive Thomas documentary and have shown several of her films in the immediate past years. we also ran the Photoplay print of "The Eagle" with Rudolph Valentino. We will run others from all these stars in the future, I'm sure. This year the silents are leaning toward the directors. We're running a Rex Ingram, a William Desmond Taylor, a Howard Hawks, a Capra, a Vidor, and an unseen Michael Curtiz. So I would suggest that there is plenty to recommend the line up, even if you've never heard of the films. I had never heard of Harold Lloyd when "Harold Loyd's World of Comedy" came out in 1962--even though I was already interested in silent films.

Call me silly but Im not seeing the Mary film. Im guessing Spuds which probably is meant to be Suds? If so I've already seen it. I know there have been some Pickford and Valentino films (usually one per year) in the past few years; but not the 2 that I've been watching. Someone told me about Dorothy Vernon, sadly that was before I was here. I hate Rex Ingram (hides from the bananas and yes I know he did a handful of Rudy films) and just short of Mr. Griffith I'm usually more in it for stars or the films appeal on its own.

Some descriptions would help, I just looked on the website again and nothing really has a description. I get this takes time and energy but even the New Bev links to IMDB...which is still blah but better than nothing. Its hard to say the appeal is in the films when one has to go search what films these are and what they are about and who is in them to begin with (and yes I already read the 'we dont have paid staff ala San Francisco' reply but I would assume some volunteers could get on it).

[Bob Birchard]

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.

Bob, I would have to assume you've done a financial comparison between paying for exhibit space without booking a banquet, and going with the banquet to get the free exhibit space, and that the numbers favour the latter option.

I've booked a minimum of 3 conferences per year for more than 23 years now for my employers, in locations from Victoria, B.C., to St John's, Newfoundland, and I've found it NEVER works out that way.

The exhibit space in the medium/large Canadian hotels we use will normally cost anywhere from $200 to $10,000. At the high end of this scale, we book 50 spaces that we rent to exhibitors on a sliding scale depending on whether they are non-profits, service agencies, or for-profits, but rarely if ever exceed $200 per table. That covers all the expense of renting the space, and each exhibitor is responsible for paying for electrical hookups, Internet connections, etc. at their booth, so it's no extra cost for us. And we are cheap -- there is one annual exhibit in our field that charges $5,000 for a short table and over $250 for each and every "frill" including a second chair.

In other words, the exhibit space is self-sufficient. So even if we don't want a banquet, we lose no money on the exhibits.

I've never come across a hotel that, in your words, DEMANDS a banquet. Maybe the Roosevelt is unique, or maybe this is a standard practice at American hotels, I don't know. But it sure sounds odd to me.

I find banquets difficult to bring to a break-even point. The costs of the room, the tables, the food, the waiters, corkage fee (applied even to bottles of water), and gratuities require an attendance of many hundreds at ticket prices of around $80 (Cdn). Our clients can't afford those prices, and it is very difficult to round up enough attendees in any city smaller than the top three in Canada (Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver).

Just some observations. No criticism intended.

Jim

Well, you're right on most of these counts. The difference with us is that we look to the dealers rooms to bring in money not to break even. It is true the dealers room does not bring in what it used to, but it is still a substantial chink of income for the festival. Hotels elsewhere may be different, but I've found here in L.A. the cost of renting meeting space is pretty prohibitive. The hotels are interested in keeping their catering staffs employed, so it's cheaper to do a banquet than it would be to rent the space.

[Bob Birchard]

Call me silly but Im not seeing the Mary film. Im guessing Spuds which probably is meant to be Suds? If so I've already seen it. I know there have been some Pickford and Valentino films (usually one per year) in the past few years; but not the 2 that I've been watching. Someone told me about Dorothy Vernon, sadly that was before I was here. I hate Rex Ingram (hides from the bananas and yes I know he did a handful of Rudy films) and just short of Mr. Griffith I'm usually more in it for stars or the films appeal on its own.

Some descriptions would help, I just looked on the website again and nothing really has a description. I get this takes time and energy but even the New Bev links to IMDB...which is still blah but better than nothing. Its hard to say the appeal is in the films when one has to go search what films these are and what they are about and who is in them to begin with (and yes I already read the 'we dont have paid staff ala San Francisco' reply but I would assume some volunteers could get on it).

A piece of advice from an old movie fan . . . never leave anyone an opening like that. We just can't resist . . .

Okay, Hala, you're silly. The Pickford film is "The Dawn of a Tomorrow" (Famous Players, 1915), this is a film from the Swedish Film Institute, which may have screened in Sweden and in Bologna, but it is certainly the first West Coast U.S. screening of this newly found and restored film. If you knew your Pickford titles, it might actually have jumped off the page at you. And, If you actually think we would confuse "Suds" with "Spuds", you're silly once again. You may have seen "Suds," but you clearly haven't seen "Spuds."

The Pickford film is an illustrative example of why the schedule is often in a state of flux. We were really only able to confirm this booking in the last couple of weeks, even though it had been in the works for months.

[Bob Birchard]

My problem with Cinecon showing things from the 60s is that you're only a couple of years away from showing things I saw in first run, and then I will officially be old.

I hate to break it to you, Mike, but we ARE old. When Cinecon started in 1965, "The Phantom of the Opera" was only 40 years old and many of the attendees HAD seen it first run. We're moving into the dreaded "Star Wars" territory these days.

[boblipton]

So are you going to run EASY RIDER?

Bob

[Bob Birchard]

So are you going to run EASY RIDER?

Bob

No, but we are running "Easy Living."

[Mike Gebert]

I'm not old till you show Marooned or Patton.

[rudyfan]

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.

As long as we're patting ourselves on the back, The Thieving Hand was a picture I recommended to Randy Haberkamp back around 1990, and it is nice to see that it has become a recognized classic.

Well let me thank you again for screening it. I was charmed by the innovation and wry story telling and have never forgotten it. It is one of my all time favorite Cinecon cinematic memories. I'll also put in a plug for Wolf Song from the Cinegrill and seeing Fazil, too. Of course, on the other hand, I will also never get over the screening of the Spanish version of Laurel and Hardy's Chickens Come Home, either. Mike Hawks has evidence of that!

[Frederica]

Well let me thank you again for screening it. I was charmed by the innovation and wry story telling and have never forgotten it. It is one of my all time favorite Cinecon cinematic memories. I'll also put in a plug for Wolf Song from the Cinegrill and seeing Fazil, too. Of course, on the other hand, I will also never get over the screening of the Spanish version of Laurel and Hardy's Chickens Come Home, either. Mike Hawks has evidence of that!

I got Happily Buried, featuring dancing breakfast food, for my first Cinecon. Never heard of it before.

Fan FOR LIFE.

Fred

[Stan16mm]

Donna,
When you are in town, we'll have a special screening of "The Thieving Hand" for you.

By this time next week, we'll be seeing films at the Egyptian.
I'm very excited.

Joan, will you sit beside me so we can "count" the moneys?

Stan

[Stan16mm]

I mean MONKEYS!!!!

[Frederica]

I mean MONKEYS!!!!

Damn.

Fred

[My Pal Toots]

I think Cinecon is a success each year due to the tremendous efforts of the committee. Bob, Mike, Stan, Stella, et all do a great job. The film schedule, Grauman’s Egyptian Theatre venue and dealers’ rooms are ideal. On many levels the festival works very well.

I enjoy the celebrity component of Cinecon but am concerned with the direction we are taking. The banquet is always a lot of fun. I think the Society for Cinephiles award should be presented to those who deserve it. It is our version of the Academy award. People like Celeste Holm, Patricia Neal and Walter Mirisch truly deserve it for their contribution to motion picture history. It seems highly inappropriate to be honouring Ms. Booth and Ms. Darcel at the banquet this year. It renders the value of our award to the point of being meaningless. The depths of parody. Our festival has attained a level of prestige over the years which would be sad to see diminished. I have no problem with these ladies being invited to Cinecon as guests in the theatre and screening their films. I am sure their anecdotes will be delightful.

What I cannot understand is that our Cinecon network includes the cream of film history industry professionals so why must we rely on just one celebrity wrangler? There are celebrities who make the festival rounds who do not demand money for their appearance. They have books out and events to plug. I think we are missing some opportunities. Let’s utilise our network to its fullest potential. I do not have a problem with having guests from the 50s. It was inevitable. There are numerous “names” still living. Having other guest categories such as producers, directors and composers is fine. Overall, if Cinecon is to retain its prestige status we need at least one name guest each year to interest people. We are in an era of economic uncertainty so the money spent to travel to Los Angeles each year counts more than ever. We cinephiles are passionate people who feel the need to protect what we value. I hope my comments will be taken as constructive. Thanks.

[Richard M Roberts]

I think Cinecon is a success each year due to the tremendous efforts of the committee. Bob, Mike, Stan, Stella, et all do a great job. The film schedule, Grumman’s Egyptian Theatre venue and dealers’ rooms are ideal. On many levels the festival works very well.

I enjoy the celebrity component of Cinecon but am concerned with the direction we are taking. The banquet is always a lot of fun. I think the Society for Cinephiles award should be presented to those who deserve it. It is our version of the Academy award. People like Celeste Holm, Patricia Neal and Walter Mirisch truly deserve it for their contribution to motion picture history. It seems highly inappropriate to be honouring Ms. Booth and Ms. Darcel at the banquet this year. It renders the value of our award to the point of being meaningless. The depths of parody. Our festival has attained a level of prestige over the years which would be sad to see diminished.

Ahm---okay, here are the actual prerequisites for someone in the movie business to get a Cinecon award.

1. They must still be alive (at least barely).

2. They must show up.

And ya know, I really doubt that that little chunk of lucite is actually sitting next to anyone's Oscar on their mantelpiece.

RICHARD M ROBERTS

[precode]

[quote="My Pal Toots"]I think Cinecon is a success each year due to the tremendous efforts of the committee. Bob, Mike, Stan, Stella, et all do a great job. The film schedule, Grumman’s Egyptian Theatre venue and dealers’ rooms are ideal. On many levels the festival works very well.

I enjoy the celebrity component of Cinecon but am concerned with the direction we are taking. The banquet is always a lot of fun. I think the Society for Cinephiles award should be presented to those who deserve it. It is our version of the Academy award. People like Celeste Holm, Patricia Neal and Walter Mirisch truly deserve it for their contribution to motion picture history. It seems highly inappropriate to be honouring Ms. Booth and Ms. Darcel at the banquet this year. It renders the value of our award to the point of being meaningless. The depths of parody. Our festival has attained a level of prestige over the years which would be sad to see diminished. I have no problem with these ladies being invited to Cinecon as guests in the theatre and screening their films. I am sure their anecdotes will be delightful. [quote]

I beg to differ. Ms. Booth, both under that name and as Lorna Gray, has had an amazing career, working with the likes of John Wayne, Buster Keaton, Bob Hope, W.C. Fields, Charley Chase and the Three Stooges, to name but a few. (Who else could make that claim?) She is idolized by three separate subgenres: serial fans, B-western fans and comedy-short fans. This is only the second time she has appeared at a festival like this; her previous appearance, in Memphis, drew hours-long lines waiting to meet her and get her autograph. She is EXACTLY the type of celebrity we should be honoring, and we should be grateful that she has agreed to come.

Mike S.

[azjazzman]

My problem with Cinecon showing things from the 60s is that you're only a couple of years away from showing things I saw in first run, and then I will officially be old.

I *did* see THE SILENCERS when it first came out. And even at the tender age of 9, I knew it wouldn't be making anybody's top ten lists.

[rudyfan]

Well, I think Bob or Stan or Mike nailed it, there are those who come to Cinecon for the films and avoid the banquet (that would describe me) and I also loved the dealer room, Danny Schwartz always has done yeoman's work setting that up (and before Danny it was Marty Kearns, right?).

I can bitch about not seeing a firmed up schedule until a few weeks before, but not once have I ever been to a Cinecon and not had a damn fine time or seen an unexpected gem. Reminds me, Wayne Morris Valley of the Giants in glorious technicolor.

For the record, I'm really, truly, sorry I can't make it this year.

Regarding promotion and atttracting new blood, I will stand by my earlier statements on upping the ante of the cinecon website with some video (even pointers to youtube) where possible and sending out email newsletters. That alone keeps people connected and excited about the annual Labor Day event. I suggest this also because let's face it, email is relatively free (thinking of saving some $$ for Cinecon). Facebook is not a bad thing, either.

I also still think that all the studios/archives and such being in such close proximity, getting some buzz going at UCLA and the Academy would not be a bad thing. How this is done, I can't tell you, but I know Stan, Bob and Mike are well versed in this.

I will shout out, bring back a preservationists program. That will help get buzz going for what Cinecon has done so well in the past, get some films preserved. It's a good thing!

I'll continue my boycott of the banquet, nothing personal, my non attendance frees up a ticket for someone who really loves going.

Stan I will hold you to your promise of a screening of The Thieving Hand and relish seeing it on screen once again. I'll also cast a vote for more Lupino Lane, Sword Points was another highlight for me as I've mentioned before (thank you Patrick).

Enough with my comments, you all have a great time without me, I know you will!

[Chris Snowden]

Some descriptions would help, I just looked on the website again and nothing really has a description. I get this takes time and energy but even the New Bev links to IMDB...which is still blah but better than nothing. Its hard to say the appeal is in the films when one has to go search what films these are and what they are about and who is in them to begin with (and yes I already read the 'we dont have paid staff ala San Francisco' reply but I would assume some volunteers could get on it).

Hala, if you don't want to come to Cinecon, that's fine. But since you are not coming and since you have never been to a Cinecon, I think your complaints are...shall we say "inappropriate." Bob and Mike and Stan and Stella, et.al., work pretty darned hard to put this on every year. It's a huge job, one I'm sure you will soon appreciate since you will be doing one yourself. It shouldn't be that difficult to look the announced films up, if that's what you need to make a decision on whether or not to come. But since you have already announced that you are not coming, perhaps it would be best to retire from the list.

Frederica, I get what you're saying, but I didn't interpret Hala's comments as complaints. To me, she was only explaining why she chooses not to go to the festival.

When a local vintage movie fan decides against attending a festival of (mostly) vintage movies, I think it's helpful to know why.

Personally, I feel a little concerned when vintage film fans in their 20s pass up the festivals. I like to believe that these films will still be seen and enjoyed fifty years from now, and will always be out there (the way classical music is). But who knows.

[azjazzman]

But since you have already announced that you are not coming, perhaps it would be best to retire from the list.

Fred

Surely you aren't saying that anyone who doesn't go to Cinecon isn't welcome at Nitrateville?