Toronto Film Festival 2018 Review

My annual, very, very long rant about the recent 2018 Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF) from a photographer’s point of view. If you’re not somehow involved with TIFF then it might be better to skip this post. I’m just trying to reach a certain audience. The reason is that each year, TIFF sends out a survey asking for journalists’ thoughts about the film festival but there are no questions for photographers. The film festival treats photographers as an afterthought and never bothers asking for their opinions.

TL;DR: This year, some things got better, some got worse and a few things sadly haven’t changed. TIFF has no real focus as it tries to be everything to everyone. Middle age is showing as TIFF just reiterates what it did the previous year. Final rant at the end of this post.

Let’s start with some good news

Again this year, there were fewer photographers. This appears to be due to:

(1) Budget cutbacks by news organizations. Toronto newspapers and magazines rarely, if ever, sent photographers. Foreign agencies sent fewer photographers.

(2) The lack of profit by photographers who shoot on spec and hope to make money on resales. There’s little value to any of the photos since TIFF gives Getty/WireImage pictures away for free. Many photographers shooting on spec earn nickels to maybe a couple dollars per image download.

Years ago, around sixty photographers showed up on opening night (which is a much smaller number than the big film festivals in Europe). But this year, only about thirty photographers were present. This meant less crowded photo pits.

Overall this year’s film festival was less: less photographers, less TV crews, less fans, less print coverage and less excitement except for Lady Gaga :–)

Roy Thomson Hall:

Last year’s problem of having lots of backlights but few front lights was somewhat fixed this year. They fixed it by simply eliminating half of the backlights. But they didn’t bother to spread out what lights remained. So the backlighting across the photo area was very uneven. It would’ve been nice if all the lights were properly aimed and gelled with full CTB filters. Maybe next year.

Sponsor RBC last year erected an ugly, white plywood monstrosity across from the photo pit. But this year, RBC spent big and went for shiny white plastic instead. This two-storey building took up valuable space that could have been better used by the public. Instead of a couple hundred fans getting a prime viewing spot, this RBC embarrassment allowed for only a few dozen RBC guests.

RBC’s original 10-year sponsorship deal ends soon. If RBC returns next year, and I suspect it will, then RBC and TIFF really need to rethink this mess and put this space to better use. It’s not difficult.

Princess of Wales Theatre:

Last year’s ridiculously decorated security blocks were replaced this year with plain white blocks. Or maybe they couldn’t afford colour printing this year?

Security blocks have been used for the past three years at many large public events in Toronto to prevent vehicles from being driven into the crowds of people.

The photo pit at Princes of Wales now filled in the correct order. This meant that second-row photographers didn’t have to climb over the first row and third-row photographers didn’t have to climb over the first and second rows.

What did it cost to fix this? $0. All it took was to move the celebrity arrival point to the other end of the photo pit. This also meant the flow of arriving actors now moved in the correct and natural direction. Actors now had to walk in front of the photographers to get to the theatre entrance. In previous years, they had to detour to get to the photographers.

Night events at Princess of Wales were still in darkness mixed with sodium vapour street lamps:

Press conferences:

TIFF this year got rid of last year’s bizarre background of non-stop, swirling shapes and polka dots:

This year’s background rotated between low-key images and relatively monotone colours:

Unfortunately TIFF also ran ads on the background:

Elgin Theatre:

The red carpet area was made a bit wider. All it took was to rotate the setup by 180°. But it still held only about 16 photographers. So when 26 photographers showed up for an afternoon event, it was, uh, a bit crowded.

Ryerson Theatre:

The red carpet was made wider:

But it seemed they ran out of money buying the extra red carpet because the photo background was about five metres too short. Or maybe it was just put in the wrong place:

All red carpet events:

Fewer film festival idiots running around on the red carpet shooting with cell phones and getting in the way. But it seemed there were now some strange folks in the photo pits waving cell phones and tablets.

Now some other news

Email !!!!!!!

Hundreds of emails from publicists and TIFF, 95% of which were meaningless to photographers.

Interestingly, the PR flaks who really spammed you (e.g., sent the same exact email three times per day for two weeks) did not provide any way to unsubscribe.

As I write this post two weeks after the film festival, the emails are still coming in.

You’d think a PR person would be able to correctly spell the title of their film and the names of their actors, wouldn’t you?

If you were a publicist, wouldn’t you be sure to get the correct date, time and location of your movie premiere? A couple publicists gave out wrong information.

One press release had seven exclamation marks in its title ! ! ! ! ! ! ! so you knew it was important.

Another press release was:

Obviously that press release was super important.

One email had a PDF attachment with a 26-word-long filename. That’s not a filename, it’s a story.

While some PR people were good, others looked like they just got their job last week.

Netflix PR did a good job of providing useful information to photographers (i.e. they had names and photos of everyone attending their events). They also ran their red carpet events nicely. On at least two occasions, Netflix PR folks told the on-site TIFF people, “We’ll be looking after this [red carpet] so you don’t have to be right here. Thank you!” Of course, this really meant, “Get out of our way.”

Day 0

One of the many problems with TIFF is that it loves to jump on bandwagons and it goes to extreme lengths to always be politically correct. This year’s festival started with these cards being handed out:

TIFF also sent out several emails and press releases about their “zero-tolerance policy”.

No other event I’ve ever been to anywhere in the country has ever had the need to do this. This suggests that either this was a stunt for political correctness or there is a real need for this at TIFF. Assuming the latter, the question then becomes, what is going on at TIFF?

I’ve never heard, not even rumours, of any harassment issues at any other event of any kind. The exception might be at sports events where fans often yell at the referees and umpires. That may or may not be part of the game. But game officials have the authority to remove fans from the stadium or arena.

Who exactly is harassing or abusing TIFF employees, volunteers and guests? Well, let’s find out.

I tried to contact the Clearview online service listed on the card. It appeared that the service was only for TIFF employees to complain about TIFF.

I spoke with a TIFF media person. She said a TIFF employee could file a complaint about me, a photographer at the film festival. If this complaint was escalated, I could be ejected from the festival. Could I do the same and file a complaint about a TIFF employee? “No.”

TIFF is known for its higher than average employee turnover. A quick look at some comments from former employees reveals statements such as these (but always take online comments with a grain of salt):

“There are worse minimum wage jobs”, “Unprofessional”, “Very Little Respect for Low-Tier Departments”, “High turnover at lower levels”, “More corporate than you think”, “Super corporate”, “What a mess”, “Disorganized”, “Unnecessary stress, unnecessary drama”, “Good people, poor management”, “Unstable”, “You are a number in the system”, “Great people, great work, challenging processes”, “Hard work pays off but it’s rocky along the way”.

And speaking of political correctness, TIFF said:

TIFF is committed to fostering diversity and inclusion in its accredited press corps, and we have made a concerted effort to connect with and encourage under-represented individuals of all ethnicities, ages, gender identities, sexual orientations, and abilities to apply for media accreditation. We recognize TIFF is just one part of a larger ecosystem. We are working with studio partners and industry groups to collectively move the dial, by raising awareness and funds to bring more diverse voices to the Festival and working to break down the barriers that have prevented under-represented journalists from coming in the past.

In the media registration process, TIFF asked for your “gender identity, sexual orientation, cultural heritage and disability information.” You were allowed to not answer those questions.

Any problems with the accreditation process was never because of the news media but rather with how TIFF secretly selects which media to allow in. Accreditation problems have always been self-inflicted.

From the “Rules and Regulations” of the film festival: “We kindly ask that you do not request selfies with talent.”

The fact that it had to mention this should tell you about the quality and professionalism of the “journalists” who are at the film festival.

To get your media accreditation you had to agree to this policy:

A cornerstone of TIFF’s belief system is that everyone has the right to respect, as well as fair and equitable treatment from others. TIFF does not tolerate violence, mistreatment, or harassment — verbal, physical, sexual, or otherwise — towards staff, Volunteers, delegates, audience members, or attendees at any of our festivals, conferences, or events. Our staff and Volunteers are committed to ensuring the best possible experience for all of our attendees.

Oh really? When will photographers get respect or be treated the same as other journalists? Photographers have to wait in the rain while covered media areas sit empty. Only photographers are searched by security. Photographers stand and wait needlessly for hours per day. Only photo areas are not fully covered from rain. There are no photo risers. There’s no security around photo pits to prevent equipment thefts. Photographers are treated, at best, like an afterthought and, at worse, like a nuisance. (More on this at the very end).

Since the film festival moved into its own building in 2010, which was a good thing, the event has really gone downhill. Nothing but mindless bureaucratic thinking and political correctness run amok. It’s mind-boggling how this September event is run. (Note that TIFF runs several other events and activities throughout the year with which I have no experience.)

. . . a larger problem with TIFF. More and more, the festival seems to narrow toward autocracy . . .

We suffer the annoyance and aggravation of transit rerouting to accommodate the festival. . . . The public festival-goers stand in unruly rush lines, barked at by power-tripping line-up co-ordinators in dinky headsets, for the privilege of spending $28 to see movies . . . there’s a toxic mood of reverence that demands that we fall in line (often literally) and respect the creative authority of what is, at the end of the day, an arts-based charity.

– John Semley, entertainment writer. 2017 Globe and Mail column

After this year, the two top TIFF executives will leave the film festival. Will this bring needed changes? Maybe not.

TIFF last year promised a new fan-first focus which didn’t seem to happen. But maybe I missed it. TIFF also promised to reduce the number of films it screens to give the festival a more manageable size and better focus. That never happened, either.

Day 1

The film festival still keeps many photo events a secret from the media until the actual day or maybe the day before. It’s impossible to plan ahead and some events go uncovered because we simply didn’t know about them ahead of time. TIFF still doesn’t understand that some news organizations are in different time zones.

Each day’s list of events is seemingly in random order. Would be nice if it was in chronological order since that’s how time seems to happen. Although on some lists, the film festival did confuse PM with AM. For a couple events, it also confused today with tomorrow.

TIFF’s web site had some errors in its movie locations/times/venues, i.e., several films were listed as red carpet events but weren’t and others were listed as not being a red carpet event but were. This even fooled some publicists who promoted the wrong red carpet for their own film.

There’s more advertising on the red carpets this year. Always classy. Who are these ads directed at?

Day 2

Press conferences were set up wrong. It was either very difficult or impossible to photograph any film director from the official photo position. Not only was the director placed too far to one side and turned away from the photographers but the conference moderator was placed right in front of the director.

The official photo riser was a nice gesture but obviously it was just an afterthought and no photographer was ever consulted. The riser went mostly unused. But risers at red carpet events might come in handy.

Most photographers didn’t often use the official position because of the odd way the conferences were staged and because of how photographers need to work. Thankfully the press conference producer, who in the past has always, uh, “encouraged” photographers to stay in the official position, wasn’t always present this year. The two TIFF people on the floor were great because they let photographers go anywhere they needed to go.

The way these conferences were staged, the onstage talent turned toward the moderator to talk. Great if you like shooting side views:

When even the actors onstage complain about the lighting, as they’ve done for years, what does that tell you?

Handheld microphones are terrible for photos but I guess they’re a necessary evil. Some actors wanted to work without a mic.

Trying to get a decent photo from a press conference is now almost impossible. By “decent”, I mean a picture without a microphone in the face, water bottles or any random body parts in the frame. And no distracting backgrounds, please.

I try to make pictures that don’t look like point-and-shoot but rather they capture an interesting moment. I think photos should have a shelf life longer than a couple weeks. I want photos that can be used by publishers in a variety of ways.

Some news and entertainment outlets couldn’t care less about the quality of the photos as long as the celebrity is in the middle of the frame, they’re looking directly at the camera and the background can be cut off. Sigh.

Not sure why there were so few TV cameras at the press conferences.

The number of reporters in the audience was very low. One actor even expressed his surprise at how small the audience was. Maybe it’s due to cutbacks by news organizations or maybe reporters watch a livestream of the conference from their office.

Years ago, some press conferences were packed with well over a hundred people in the room. Reporters from all over the world. TV, radio, magazines, newspapers. Real reporters asking, even yelling, real questions. Those conferences lasted an hour or more and some were actually fun. Now it’s like shooting in a quiet, dark, corporate office.

TIFF, in its quest to produce sponsor-laden Youtube content, has tried to turn these press conferences into some sort of talk show. But good pictures and good talk shows require emotion and excitement. TIFF has succeeded in beating the life out of most press conferences.

Day 3

Roy Thomson had signs on some of its entrances listing prohibited items. The signs said:

No outside food or drink
No professional cameras
No glow sticks
No guns and weapons

At most of the red carpet venues, the orange-white barricade covers were arranged so the white side faced the photographers. This not only made it nicer looking, it also avoided the orange and white Home Depot look. But Ryerson Theatre never got the memo:

The photo-call area was moved outside. In theory this was a good idea but (1) it was useless when it rained since it wasn’t fully covered, (2) it was outdoors and lit with tungsten lights, and (3) it was too small:

Photographers bring step ladders and step stools which take up more space than the photographer themselves. If the film festival provided risers, stools and ladders wouldn’t be needed and the photo pits could hold more people. And it would be safer. One photographer fell off her step stool and landed on her shoulder. Fortunately she wasn’t seriously hurt.

Why was there someone in a photo pit shooting with a cell phone mounted on a selfie stick which they waved around in front of the real photographers?

TV crews were allowed to take positions in a photo pit but photographers couldn’t set foot in a TV area.

Day 4

Lady Gaga day.

The woman knows how to be a photo opp. If every celebrity dressed and “arrived” like her, we’d get interesting pictures all the time.

Day 5

It rained all day.

The photo-call area was not covered. When it rained, water collected on top of the tent that covered the arriving talent. When this water reached a certain volume, it suddenly overflowed like a waterfall onto . . . wait for it . . . the photographers.

One photographer had her flash destroyed by the water.

But who knew this would or could happen?

The film festival should’ve known because it’s happened before.

A few years ago, when the film festival used a similar setup at Roy Thomson Hall and it rained, the water overflowed onto several photographers. One unlucky photographer has his camera destroyed by the water.

A big Roy Thomson red carpet event was moved to the tiny Elgin Theatre due to the rain. A film festival employee said it was moved not only because of the rain but also because “if the (Roy Thomson) tent collapses on top of Ryan Gosling, we don’t want you getting any pictures.”

A few years ago when it rained, the red carpet at Roy Thomson got soaked. One arriving guest — a woman in heels — accidentally stepped in a particularly soggy piece of the red carpet and fell face first to the ground. Two years ago, a wind storm almost blew down the Roy Thomson tent. The wind this year did blow down some of the metal security fencing around Roy Thomson.

Photographers spent 7-1/2 hours standing in the photo pit at the Elgin because there were four back-to-back events. Imagine standing with cameras around your neck or shoulders for 7-1/2 hours in a tightly packed, indoor photo pit with 30 other photographers. One very sweaty photographer said, “You’d think TIFF would bring us some water.”

This impromptu photo pit was set up to be one metre from the arriving celebrities. If you can reach out and touch your subject, you’re a bit too close. Many celebrities expressed their surprise at how close we were. Who doesn’t love doing portraits with a 24mm lens. (The picture above was taken after we moved a step back.)

Paris Hilton (remember her?) came with her actor-boyfriend. Most celebrities spend about one minute in front of photographers. Hilton spent 15 minutes posing and posing and posing:

Day 6

Many photographers have given up on the photo calls.

The film festival did group photos before the start of each press conference. The actors would gather together at the front of the small stage and face forward into the darkness toward . . . uh . . . the reporters waving their cell phones. The official photo position was way off to one side.

Once, a very loud, “Hey! Could you turn and look over here toward the photographers,” was heard:

The WiFi in the media lounge never worked for me. But the WiFi from two nearby restaurants in the same building worked great even when I was on another floor.

The WiFi at Roy Thomson Hall worked great for one day. Then it dropped to dial-up speeds (remember dial-up?).

Some photographers sent images via cell phone and others didn’t send until they got back to their hotel. This year I sent about 3.3 GB of files, most of that on my cell phone.

Days 7, 8, 9, 10

It seems the film festival has run out of good films and just pads the festival to fill its ten-day run. This has happened in previous years and is good reason for the festival to be shorter with far fewer films.

By “good” I mean films that attract excitement and public interest which, for better or worse, means celebrities. Unfortunately films with lots of star power get attention from the public and the media while films without recognizable names get little attention no matter how good they might be.

After the first six days, at least half of the photographers have left the festival. Public attendance is low at red carpet events on these last few days.

What’s the point of having a red carpet event at the large Roy Thompson Hall when only two guests show up?

During the busy first days of the festival, photographers (and only photographers) had their camera bags searched by security at Roy Thomson (and only Roy Thomson). During the last four slow days, there were no bag checks and, in fact, no security people. That should tell you how important these last days were.

When photographers had their bags searched, it was done on the ground. You put your bags on the ground and then squatted down to open and show the contents. The security guy also squatted down to look at equipment he knew nothing about. You then picked everything up and went in. Every other event that does security checks like this does it standing up, on a table.

I suggested to the TIFF person who was watching these on-the-ground security checks that they use a table next year. She said it wasn’t her job.

Sponsor RBC does this stupid thing of having people hold up signs across from the photo pit. Why?

It didn’t do this at all events which means it could easily have been done at no events.

People with their cell phones. Sigh.

There was a photographer who shot only with a cell phone. She couldn’t understand why she didn’t get a front-row position. After much arguing, she was given a front-row spot. As soon as the actors arrived, she waved her cell phone in front of the photographers around her. She didn’t get a front-row spot again.

I spoke with some European tourists who came to see TIFF. They said, unlike other film festivals they go to, TIFF does nothing for fans. TIFF has no risers for fans, no water/coffee is available, no washrooms, and TIFF bans “big cameras.” They said other European film festivals provide risers, offer water and coffee, and have washrooms. In Toronto, fans bring their own step stools, drinks and snacks. Then they drop the empty containers and wrappers on the ground because there are no garbage cans nearby.

The Street Festival

TIFF closes several blocks of Toronto’s busiest commuter street, plus all the intersecting north-south streets, for its four-day Festival Street.

In previous years, the claim was that about 150,000 people attended the street festival. This year, the claim is at least 280,000 people.

Ah, no.

These made-up numbers are just that, made up. The number is a guess based on anyone and everyone who walks on King Street including: daily commuters who use King Street, people who work in the area, the media attending the film festival, people coming to the bars and restaurants in the area, and people attending a nearby non-TIFF theatre. This year the number included two thousand people who attended a special rally.

There’s no accurate way to count the number of people who come specifically for the street festival. But the number of people in the area didn’t seem to change much when the festival was running and after it ended. The exception was that special rally which attracted about two thousand people.

The four-day street festival attendance claim of 280,000 (averaging 70,000/day) is almost the same number as for the Canadian National Exhibition which is the country’s largest annual event.

A few more things

After each film festival, photographers are required to send in original paper tear sheets of all their published images with publication name, date and credit line clearly visible. Really. Screenshots must be *printed* showing the full web page. Really. It’s all a prerequisite to getting accreditation to the following year’s film festival.

The odd thing about the film festival’s accreditation system is that it’s tied to the individual and not the media outlet. (Remember earlier when I referred to TIFF’s self-inflicted problems with accreditation?)

I shoot for a wire service so there are no tear sheets even though TIFF keeps asking for them. This year, it appears TIFF might finally acknowledge that wire services and stock agencies don’t have tear sheets. Instead of actual printed tear sheets, the film festival is now allowing for copies of printed tear sheets. Sigh.

Each year I send an explanation of what a wire service is and why we don’t have tear sheets along with a PDF contact sheet of every image transmitted:

Just as a reminder, look how red carpet helps the film festival:

If only they could doing something about the orange and black Halloween colours:

This is the camera angle many photographers want at Roy Thomson Hall:

And this is the view we get:

By having (some or all?) photographers at the end of the red carpet, a couple hundred fans could then be moved alongside the red carpet and they wouldn’t be literally left in the dark like this:

Installing several public risers alongside the red carpet would fix the fan problem. Risers could also be installed across from the Princess of Wales Theatre when the road is closed. The other two venues are a lost cause for fans.

And finally

Some larger organizations and events which are supported by tax dollars produce an “economic impact” report to show that the tax money being spent is a good investment. TIFF gets almost $5.7M in government grants (along with $4.4M in private donations and $12.4M in sponsorships).

TIFF has done three economic impact studies in 2003, 2009 and 2013. All of these reports showed that the economic impact of TIFF is overwhelmingly positive.

Without a doubt, TIFF has created and does create both full-time and part-time jobs. Many downtown hotels, restaurants, night clubs, theatres, caterers, event planners and other businesses financially benefit from the film festival. TIFF is huge for movie lovers and up-and-coming filmmakers.

But headlines like TIFF brings $189M into Toronto economy are absolutely wrong.

It’s important not to confuse “economic impact” with actual money spent. You need to understand how these economic impact numbers are estimated.

The economic impact of TIFF was $67M in 2003, $162M in 2009 and $189M in 2013. The methodology of the study was changed after 2003 and this change just happened to produce much larger numbers.

I can’t find the actual 2013 study so I’ll refer to the 2009 study (link to PDF) and assume the same methodology was used for the 2013 study.

This economic impact study estimated the dollar value of all activities directly or indirectly associated with TIFF’s year-round operations. It’s not just the ten-day film festival in September although that one flagship event brings in the big money.

TIFF’s economic impact includes such things as:

• The dollar value of work performed by volunteers who work for free. (Huh?)

• Money spent by TIFF on anything and everything.

• Money spent by delegates, their families and their employers while attending the ten-day festival. Remember that the September film festival is also a movie industry business convention that the public and media don’t usually see.

These numbers were based on a survey of 17% of the delegates and companies at the ten-day festival. The numbers were crunched through Ontario’s Tourism Regional Economic Impact Model. (You, too, can calculate the economic impact of your own event, (e.g. backyard BBQ, family reunion, child’s birthday party, etc.), by using this online calculator).

• Money spent by anyone who came to watch a movie at the film festival. It’s based on the number of movie tickets sold. If someone watched three movies in one day, they were counted as being three people and their impact was counted three times.

It’s automatically assumed that when someone attends as a delegate, a tourist or a movie-goer, they will *always* spend $A on hotels, $B on meals, $C on souvenirs, $D on taxis, etc.

• Here’s the big one: the estimated dollar value of all business deals made, of all business deals *started*, and of all business deals that were *expected* to happen, during the ten-day festival in September.

This one is the biggest contributor to TIFF’s economic impact. The estimated dollar value of both actual and expected business deals are included even though those dollars may be spent entirely outside of Canada.

Now you might be wondering what was, and still is, the second biggest contributor to the economic impact.

According to TIFF’s own studies, the second biggest contributor to its economic impact and the number one reason why celebrities and big Hollywood movies come to Toronto is the free publicity generated by the news media.

The 2009 study determined that the value of “media impressions” from the ten-day film festival was $33.1M. This value has gone nowhere but up since TIFF’s first study in 2003 (then about $18M).

A “media impression” is each time the film festival is mentioned in print, online, on radio or on TV. For some unknown reason, the time period for counting media impressions starts two months before the September film festival starts and ends one week after.

The economic impact study calculated the dollar value of each mention as if a movie studio or TIFF had to buy that same space as an advertisement. For example, a half-page newspaper article equaled a half-page advertisement. It was based on readership or viewership numbers and the advertising rates of various media outlets across Canada and around the world.

The most popular type of media mention revolved around celebrities and red carpet events. And what does that mean? Photos.

Every photographer, every editor and every reporter knows that few articles, print or online, are read to completion, yet every single photo is “read” in its entirety.

Every single photo attracts attention to itself and to the accompanying article if there is one. A picture increases the readership of an accompanying article by 300%.

Pictures are what create and enhance reader interest. Pictures are what power the Internet. And by TIFF’s own studies, those pictures are of celebrities mostly at red carpet events but also at photo calls and press conferences.

You might think TIFF would treat photographers a bit better and help them do a better job.