My very long, annual rant about the recent Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF) from a photographer’s point of view. If you’re not somehow involved with TIFF then you might be advised to skip this post.
The point of this is not only to vent my frustrations with the 44-year-old film festival but also to make suggestions to the folks that run TIFF. It seems that someone at the film festival reads this blog because some of my suggestions get implemented the following year. Thank you very much.
After the film festival, TIFF sends out a survey asking for journalists’ thoughts about the event. There’s no such questionnaire for photographers. This post provides my answers to a nonexistent questionnaire.
TL;DR: As always, some things got better, some got worse and a few things haven’t changed. You’d think that after four decades the event would be a smooth running, polished machine. But no.
Changes have included an actual red carpet, three sets of lights, blue gels for some of those lights, a clear roof on the media tent, white-only barricade covers and letting photographers wait under the tent before an event if it’s raining. All of these necessities were obvious to everyone except TIFF.
But the covered photo area is still too small and too narrow and there are no photo risers (at any venue).
The Good
1) Someone at TIFF read last year’s blog post and this year’s outdoor photo-call area was fully covered! And it had a small riser for photographers! And instead of orange tungsten lights, it had LED lights that were not orange.
Pro tip: Those LED lights are capable of 3200K to 5600K. Next year be daring and turn them up to 5000K.
Please repeat this photo-call setup next year.
Also make sure that TIFF people staffing the photo-call area know what’s going on. On some days, they told photographers that they must shoot the photo-call before the press conference (not true) and that they must stay inside the photo-call tent at all times and couldn’t shoot the celebrities signing autographs outside the tent (not true).
(Toronto photo-calls aren’t real photo-calls but rather press conference arrival pictures. TIFF doesn’t have real photo-calls like the other major film festivals.)
2) Someone at TIFF read last year’s blog and this year’s press conferences now had two – count-em, two! – official photo spots and neither one was located behind a pillar!
This year the press conference people listened to photographers and removed a plant that was placed in front of the sitting actors.
Pro tip: You never need plants on stage during a talk show, a press conference or any type of presentation. You might think plants make it look nice but (i) no one really notices or appreciates the plants and (ii) plants are always a distraction in photos. Always.
In previous years, the conference moderator’s position partially blocked the movie director. This year, they moved the director’s chair so photographers could better see the director.
All in all, the press conference layout and lighting were reasonably good. Please repeat this setup next year without any plants. But there’s more about the press conferences in a moment.
Pro tip: Those LED lights are capable of 3200K to 5600K. Feel free to turn them up to 5000K.
3) With a Friday night thunderstorm approaching, TIFF actually thought ahead and moved the evening red carpet to a large empty area inside Roy Thomson Hall. This indoor setup was reasonably well lit. Great!
This indoor setup was possible only because of the small turnout of photographers and TV crews. But a large media turnout could be accommodated indoors at Roy Thomson Hall if TIFF was prepared.
4) A shopping mall under the Roy Thomson area now has free WiFi throughout its property and it was reasonably fast. This was a good thing because TIFF no longer has WiFi at the theatre venues. Of course this makes no sense since TIFF’s main sponsor is the country’s largest telecom.
5) A Chinese food takeout in the shopping mall’s food court was nice enough to stay open an extra 1.5 hours each night to serve photographers doing the night event at Roy Thomson Hall.
6) Despite all the hassles and the hours of waiting, photographing the film festival is a much better way to earn a living than many other jobs.
The Bad
MEDIA LOUNGE:
Why cover the work tables with stacks and stacks and stacks of magazines? Why not have empty tables where people can put their laptops?
Another nice thing would have been electrical power. Last year, each table had a power bar with several electrical outlets. This year only half the tables had power.
Why does TIFF require your email address before you can use its free WiFi?
Pro tip: Tables, chairs and electricity. Internet access is greatly appreciated.
E-MAILS:
TIFF sent out a number of press releases with ridiculously long filenames. Here’s an example of a filename and I’m breaking it into three pieces so it will fit on this page:
TIFF_2019_DOCUMENTARY_LINEUP_INCLUDES_WORLD_PREMIERES_OF _THE_CAVE_AND_WE_GO_GREEN_DADS_DESERT_ONE_RED_PENGUINS_SING_ME
_A_SONG_THE_CAPOTE_TAPES_AND_BIKRAM__YOGI_GURU_PREDATOR_3_.pdf
Really?
Filenames like these are impossible to organize or sort and impossible to read in any reasonably-sized window.
The above filename could have been shortened to “Documentary_Lineup.pdf.”
E-mails from movie publicists are out of TIFF’s hands. But as always, a few PR people sent out the same e-mail every day for two weeks. Sometimes twice a day. These e-mails were quickly deleted and whatever film they promoted was ignored.
PRESS CONFERENCES:
Press conferences are the only way to get candid pictures of actors and directors being themselves. The goal is to get clean images that can be used in future press articles about that person or movie.
Pro tip: When you have multiple rows of people, don’t line them up behind each other. Stagger the rows.
The press conference background was another interesting adventure this year as it has been for the past few years. Apparently this year’s decorating theme was “clutter.”
Was it necessary to have over 14 “TIFF” logos splashed across the stage, plus the TIFF-branded coffee mugs, plus the TIFF microphone flashes? Not every moment and every bit of space has to be about branding.
Pro tip: One stands out, two is noticeable, three is a distraction, two dozen are an eyesore.
Did any of that background stuff matter? Will anyone watching the conference videos care about or even notice the stuff hanging in the background? But it did matter to photographers since it really messed up a lot of photos.
If you want to show the movie title or move poster in the background, go ahead. But please stop with the weird graphics and advertising:
Pro tip: Less is more. Less distractions means more attention on the actors and what they’re saying. The background should be silent.
As always, handheld microphones blocked people’s faces. I’m not sure what can be done other than use smaller microphones. You’d think that actors and musicians would know that you don’t hold a microphone right up against your mouth but that wasn’t always the case.
A few guests didn’t want to use a microphone because they wanted their hands free to gesture. Executive Producer Ron Howard put his microphone down and said, “C’mon, it’s a small room. You can hear me.”
After her press conference, some reporters complained that they weren’t allowed to ask questions. Stewart stayed behind and answered all remaining questions.
We need pictures that show the actor, not the background, not the microphones, not corporate logos. Pictures that capture an interesting moment will interest viewers who then might read the accompanying article about the actor or movie.
In theory, only six wire service photographers (AFP, AP, CP, EPA, Getty, Reuters) and TIFF’s own photographers are allowed to shoot the press conferences. The reasons for this are:
(1) This prevents overcrowding and excessive noise.
(2) Every publication and web site in the world already subscribes to at least one of these wire services or they can get pictures from them, in some cases for free.
(3) Pictures are available for free from TIFF.
This policy works well since press conferences have minimal camera-clicking and no photographers are blocking reporters or TV cameras.
This year there were a couple of amateur photographers at two press conferences. No idea why. Chirping and beeping noises were heard as they waved their point-and-shoot cameras about.
Why one wire service (*cough* Getty *cough*) needed two or three photographers at the same press conference is beyond me.
Despite the advancing technology of LED lights, this year’s press conference lighting was two stops darker than in 2015 when press conferences had their best lighting. I guess TIFF’s lighting budget has shrunk. This year’s lighting was only 0.7 stops brighter than 14 years ago. What has changed over the years is how well digital cameras perform.
ELGIN THEATRE:
I always try to avoid this theatre because it’s too small with photographers being packed in the entranceway. This theatre’s red carpet setup is okay as long as (i) there are no more than ten photographers, (ii) it’s not at night and (iii) it’s not raining too much.
Two other small venues, Scotiabank Theatre and TIFF Lightbox, had some small camera calls but I avoided those as well. Too small, too ugly.
And speaking of ugly, I gave up on the smallest venues over a decade ago after camera calls were set up literally in front of theatre washrooms:
RYERSON THEATRE:
I try to avoid this theatre since it’s an ugly location especially at night. But I had to do one event here.
Obviously someone at TIFF read this blog last year because this year TIFF covered the vertical, black iron bars at Ryerson.
In previous years at Ryerson Theatre, the public would stand behind those black bars while trying to get a glimpse of a celebrity. It looked like they were crammed in a jail cell:
This year, those black bars were covered up and the alternating orange-white banners were switched to only white banners (with orange text). It looked less cartoonish.
Please continue this cover-up next year.
However the photo background again only extended across one-third of the photo area. Meanwhile it extended the full length of the TV area which doesn’t really need a background. TV shoots mostly close-up talking heads.
Please shift or lengthen the photo background completely across the photo area. We tried to move the background this year but it was tied in place and heavily sandbagged.
Really consider putting up a few lights. (This red carpet is under a building’s archway which is great if it rains but not so great if it’s later than 6:00 PM.)
Get rid of the Halloween-coloured backgrounds at all the theatres. White with orange and black text? Jeez, it’s not a company picnic. A monochrome look is much more elegant. Use a dark grey (not black) background with light grey text. Or perhaps a dark blue background with grey text.
Replace the orange and white barricade covers as well, at least those facing the cameras. Dark grey or dark blue.
PRINCESS OF WALES THEATRE:
Worst – The tiny woman running the Princess of Wales red carpet like it was her own personal fiefdom. Move a little from your designated number and she’d bark at you to go back. We’re not children. We’re just trying to do our jobs.
There has to be way to light this theatre especially since the road is fully closed for four days and partially closed for the remaining days.
At one large night event at the Princess of Wales Theatre, most of the accredited photographers and TV crews were there. TIFF knew about this overcrowding by midday but waited until 30 minutes before the start to tell everyone to bring step-ladders. By comparison, the red carpet event across the street at the large Roy Thomson Hall had less than a handful of media.
For photographers, this overcrowding shouldn’t have been too much of a problem because the photo pit happens to have a supplementary photo pit less than three metres away. But instead of letting the overflow of photographers into the secondary pit, TIFF let TV use it. And then . . . wait for it . . . TIFF made the existing photo pit smaller. That’s right, smaller. Just because.
There were forty-five photographers literally shoulder to shoulder with back rows leaning up against front rows. Plus forty-five camera bags, backpacks, roller bags and step ladders. Now imagine trying to turn left-right while taking pictures. Photographers can’t stand still like we’re waiting for a bus. We need to turn left-right as the celebrity walks through their arrival.
Had it rained that day, the event would’ve been a washout because TIFF had no backup plan.
This year at Princess of Wales, like last year at Roy Thomson, we had a photographer injured when they fell. The photographer this year landed on her face and shoulder leaving her with a bloody forehead. All due to the use of step-ladders on uneven ground.
Pro tip: If you require people to use step-ladders, guess who becomes liable.
ROY THOMSON HALL:
Why was this red carpet made narrower three years ago? Oh yeah, the RBC monstrosity (left side in the above photo). The carpet should be widened to what it was up to 2015. This would give more fans better access and allow for better pictures. Everyone wins.
When it rained, 28 photographers and their step-ladders and their equipment cases had to jam into exactly 12 feet of space. The floor is made of 4 x 8 ft. sheets of plywood and the photo area was 1.5 sheets long.
At some events, the photo pit was full but the TV area was not. On one such night, the TV area had 40 feet of empty space (i.e. five empty sheets of 4 x 8 ft. plywood). Could TIFF make the photo pit bigger by expanding into the empty TV area? Of course not.
TIFF will always expand a TV pit into the photo area when necessary but it will never expand a photo pit into the TV area. Never. No matter how many photographers show up and how few TV crews show up. Never. Photographers are always told, “Just squeeze closer together.”
Again this year, several female guests nearly fell on the Roy Thomson red carpet. There’s a depression in the concrete sidewalk for a drainage grate and this grate is simply covered with red carpet. If you’re wearing heels and don’t see the invisible grate under the carpet then surprise!
Pro tip: Avoid a lawsuit by slightly realigning the red carpet so the grate is either at the very edge or, better yet, outside the carpet. Maybe the grate can be carefully covered before the carpet is installed or maybe it can be temporarily replaced with something?
A woman with a cast on her foot and ankle fell at the entrance to the media tent because she didn’t see the bump under the carpet. (At this spot, the red carpet rises several centimetres up to the wooden floor of the media tent and there are also electrical cables running under the carpet). You should’ve heard the crowd gasp when they saw her tumble to the ground. Thankfully the woman wasn’t hurt.
TWENTY IS A CROWD:
Why were there so many people on the red carpet, most of whom did nothing but get in the way?
Pro tip: The more people you have in a crowd, the less secure it becomes. More people means more confusion and more unpredictability.
At Roy Thomson Hall, dozens of PR people from the larger studios (Warner Brothers, Fox Searchlight, Sony) completely blocked fans who had been waiting in place for hours. These PR people were totally oblivious to what was going on around them. They just stood there doing nothing but block the public behind them. The worst cases were for opening night, Jennifer Lopez, Joaquin Phoenix and Bruce Springsteen.
If TIFF can’t somehow herd these PR people away from the north end of the red carpet where hundreds of fans are standing, then you have to change the setup. Put up risers for the public. It’s not difficult. Put these risers along the length of the red carpet, not at the end.
FANS FIRST:
Fans first. Where have I heard that before?
Oh right, that’s what TIFF promised last year. And nothing happened.
At Roy Thomson Hall, the largest venue which can hold the most fans, the Bell patio and the RBC monstrosity are a waste of space. Both areas should be better utilized.
RBC’s two-storey structure is a shiny white plastic box that reflects camera flashes right back at the photographers. Why have a ton of empty space in the RBC structure when hundreds of fans are left to watch from *behind* the event in the dark?
A few years ago, this space was occupied by VISA which had risers for fans. This allowed more people into the event and gave them a better view. It also provided for better crowd control. Certainly a win-win for everyone.
RBC must rethink its plans for next year because this monstrosity is a ridiculous waste of space.
The Bell patio, which also takes up a good portion of space along the red carpet, was 75% empty for most events. Another waste of space. Put in risers for the fans. It’s easy, cheap and it works. That’s why other events do it.
Same thing with the L’Oreal house. It’s a two-storey building where, I guess, you can get makeup tips. Put risers in front of this building. When the crowd is ten-people deep, the last eight rows see nothing.
And speaking of (the lack of) crowd control and the RBC monstrosity, this year again there were problems with people in the RBC area. Last year, RBC had fans hold up silly signs with marketing slogans directly in front of photographers as the celebrities arrived. Thankfully this didn’t happen this year (I hope TIFF told them to stop this stupidity).
But fans in the RBC area this year were told that if they stood directly across from the photographers, they would see their picture in the next day’s newspaper! You can probably guess what happened:
A few photographers complained to the red carpet staff who then told some fans to stop making rude gestures. But this is an ongoing problem that’s been happening ever since RBC put up its structure.
Pro tip: Risers for the fans not only mean better sight lines, it also means better crowd control.
SOCIAL NUISANCE:
The film festival’s cell phone shooters still got in the way. Even TIFF’s own red carpet people had to continually tell them to get out of the way.
With several hundred fans at each day’s events, all of them armed with cell phones, why can’t TIFF and its main sponsor, the country’s largest telecom, figure out a way to capitalize on this? If you can’t figure this out, fire your marketing people and consult with a bunch of teenagers.
Pro tip: Social media isn’t what you think it is. It’s what your users think it is. Are you serving your users or yourself?
The Stupid
AMATEUR HOUR:
Why did radio get front-row photo positions in front of all the wire services? Why did reporters get front row? Why did amateurs shooting only for themselves get front row? Bloggers got front row?
Next year put these people in the TV pit and see what happens. It wouldn’t be tolerated for a moment. So why were they in the photo areas? Is it because TIFF doesn’t take photographers seriously or maybe it has no idea who it’s accrediting?
I asked two people at the Bruce Springsteen movie premiere (more on this in a moment) and they told me they were “just amateurs” and friends got them their photo credentials. Really?
Another person who has a full-time day job said she takes a week off work to come photograph at the film festival because she likes seeing her favourite movie stars up close. How is that different from any member of the public? Why did she have a photo credential?
When celebrities arrived, front-row bloggers turned their back to the actors, raised their cell phones in the air and did selfies with the actors in the background. Really?
The Bruce Springsteen red carpet became a bit of a disaster when all those hysterical amateur photographers *literally* chased him down the carpet. The TIFF people tried but failed to get them back to the photo pit.
Who could’ve known this would happen? Everyone except TIFF.
Why? Because it’s happened before.
Remember the near disaster when photographers chased Madonna and nearly fell on top of her in 2011 at Roy Thomson?
What are you going to do when Drake, hometown hero, Toronto Raptors ambassador and also a movie producer, shows up for a red carpet?
As a professional journalist, I have a code of ethics and a personal code of conduct that I must follow or I get fired. I have everything to lose. Amateurs have no such thing and have nothing to lose.
Pro tip: Professionals are predictable, amateurs are not.
What happened to the one-photo-position-per-outlet policy? One outlet (*cough* Getty *cough*) had up to four positions. And the laughable part is that they often stood side-by-side.
There were also photographers shooting for a large photo agency (*cough* Getty *cough*) but not getting paid.
SILLY SECURITY THEATRE:
There were some security bag checks but only at one venue and only for the registered photographers for whom TIFF knows their names, addresses, phone numbers and employers. There were no security checks for the hundreds of fans who lined the red carpet.
Security checks were again done on the ground. Each photographer put their bags on the ground and then the security people and photographer had to squat on the ground. This happened in the one-metre-wide entranceway which blocked all other people. Please visualize a line of photographers in a narrow entrance with bags on the ground. Let’s just say it was a bit of a bottleneck.
Best of all, at night events, these security checks were done in the dark. Each photographer squatted down and opened their black camera bag as the security person also squatted down to look into the black bag at black camera equipment. In the dark.
The security people had no idea what they were looking at. During one security check, I was asked if I had any liquids or food in my camera bag.
Pro tip: Why?
During a royal visit with Prince Charles, I asked an RCMP officer why they searched photographers’ bags but never searched the bags or backpacks carried by the public who were often closer to the Prince than the photographers. The police officer replied, “Because it’s easier.”
DON’T WALK THIS WAY
Photographers were not allowed to walk on the red carpet at Roy Thomson but TIFF people, PR people, security people and TV talking heads could. Why? Did TIFF think we had dirty shoes?
At Roy Thomson, TIFF filled the TV pit first and the photo pit second. This meant that photographers had to walk through the crowded TV pit. This meant carrying step-stools, camera bags and roller bags over and around TV light stands, TV tripods, TV cameras, TV cables, TV equipment bags, TV step-stools and, of course, TV people. Then, since the photo pit leaves first, the entire process just mentioned had to be repeated in the opposite direction.
Utter stupidity!
It was entirely avoidable if (i) photographers walked on the red carpet inside the media tent and went around the TV pit, or (ii) photographers used the walkway next to the photo pit. You know, the same walkway that TIFF, PR folks, TV talking heads, security and some actors used.
When photographers repeatedly asked to use this walkway, a TIFF person yelled, “What’s wrong? I’ve already told you no!”
I asked a more knowledgeable TIFF person and he said this walkway was closed for “security reasons.” He didn’t know what the security issue was but said the order came from a much higher-up person so he had to obey.
Some fans were told the walkway had to be kept clear as a fire route. A fire route in a wide open, outdoor public square? However as mentioned, many other people used this walkway throughout the film festival.
Pro tip: Common sense works better than mindless bureaucracy.
TIMELESS
No red carpet schedules are given out until the morning of the event. Yet this information is known at least two weeks ahead of time. It should be embarrassing to TIFF that I have to contact some movie studios asking when their red carpet will be held “because TIFF refuses to give out this information ahead of time.”
Pro tip: Movie studios want the press to know as much as possible about their films.
The problem with TIFF refusing to give press information to the press is that the press can’t plan their work. A few hours notice is not enough especially when news editors are in other countries (i.e. other time zones). TIFF still can’t comprehend time zones.
TIFF each day around 10:00 AM sends out a list of events scheduled for that day. Photographers have until noon to RSVP which events they will attend that day. But 10:00 AM to 12:00 PM (Toronto time) is early evening or night for editors in Europe and Asia.
The film festival is by no means a priority in world events. So by the time editors make a decision for film festival coverage, it’s well past the noon deadline (Toronto time).
After submitting my RSVP for a particular day, editors in Spain asked me to cover an event for which I had not already RSVP’d. I notified TIFF at 1:00 PM that I wanted to switch to a different event being held at 5:00 PM. I never heard back so I went to that other event.
There were only three other photographers at this 5:00 PM event so the red carpet person had no problem with me being there. After the event ended and I was walking away, I got a reply from TIFF about me switching events. The five-word e-mail said, “No we cannot allow that.”
Why can’t you allow a photographer to shoot an event that you knew several hours earlier would be near-empty? Why send a reply after the event is over? What exactly is the purpose of your press office? Obviously it’s not to assist photographers.
Pro tip: If you have a “press office” then employ people who understand the press.
HARASSMENT
The wire service I shoot for has a code of conduct for its photographers. We cannot interfere with other photographers.
From time to time, one of TIFF’s own photographers intentionally blocked other photographers from getting certain pictures. When a good moment was about to happen, especially with an A-list celebrity, he deliberately stood directly in front of the celebrity, sometimes even with his arms outstretched to block as many photographers as possible, and refused to move until the celebrity left. He’d say, “You guys don’t need this picture.”
This photographer has exclusive behind-the-scenes access yet he still felt the need to intentionally block other photographers during their limited access time.
There have been complaints about this one photographer over the years and TIFF has done nothing. Is it because he gives TIFF free pictures?
You might think that TIFF’s anti-harassment policy would come into play and this guy would be kicked out of the festival. But you’d be wrong.
Just to be fair, there was another TIFF photographer who was perfect. He did his pictures and then got out of the way quickly. He was careful not to step in front of the other photographers. He often helped the other photographers by making sure a celebrity stayed in place until everyone got their pictures.
And Finally
A brief detour into a secondary rant:
Pictures of celebrities standing in front of a logo-covered background are the lowest hanging fruit of entertainment photography. Grocery store checkout lanes are full of magazines that love this type of picture. An infinite number of entertainment web sites are full of these photos because they’re cheap and easy to use. Having celebrities stand in front of a logo-covered background is standard operating procedure for all entertainment events. Sadly this look has filtered down.
Some businesses use a red carpet and company-logo background for staff parties. Some weddings do the same. You can even get the red carpet treatment for children’s birthday parties. Geez.
When I was your age, these logo backgrounds didn’t exist. Celebrities were photographed on the street as they arrived at a theatre. This meant horrible backgrounds that included parked cars, telephone poles, garbage cans, other people, etc. Celebrities were sometimes posed in front of building walls in a attempt to clean up the background:
Someone somewhere got the idea to put up paper backgrounds which later became vinyl backgrounds. Enter corporate sponsorship. One or two logos became a dozen logos. And here we are today where people are trained to stand in front of a logo-covered background. Sigh.
We now return to the main rant.
Over the past dozen years or so, all newspapers and magazines have drastically cut back. This year at TIFF, I saw only one newspaper photographer and no magazine photographers. (But note that larger media outlets get private access to actors and directors through movie studio publicists without going to TIFF.)
This means that all newspapers, magazines and news web sites depend on the wire services. There are five main international wire services and one Canadian wire service, in alphabetical order: Agence France-Presse (AFP), Associated Press (AP), Canadian Press (CP), European Pressphoto Agency (EPA), Getty and Reuters.
Every newspaper, magazine and web site in the world either subscribes to at least one of these wire services or they can get pictures from them, in some cases for free.
So you’d think TIFF would make an effort to ensure these wire services (I shoot for EPA) got good photo access at outdoor events. Yet we were often behind amateurs, photographers working for free, reporters with cameras and people shooting for non-news companies.
Speaking of reporters with cameras, there was a reporter who got her first camera just days before the film festival. She had no idea how to use it. No exaggeration. She had a front-row photo position.
Up until 2000, TIFF accredited only actual photojournalists. Then it changed policy and now seemingly allows almost anyone. Due to news media cutbacks over the years, few photojournalists attend TIFF anymore. So the unexpected benefit of that policy change in 2000 is that the photo pits at TIFF still have a reasonable number of photographers. Empty photo pits would make the film festival look bad in the eyes of the movie studios. This is a reason why TIFF has small photo pits – to pack photographers closer together so it looks full.
The problem is not the number of people accredited because many other film festivals have far more photographers than Toronto. The issue is the lack of experience. I don’t know any other event that accredits amateurs and non-media people. I assume the reason why TIFF doesn’t consider photographers to be Press is because most of the accredited photographers are not Press.
TIFF has many problems. All are self-inflicted and all are fixable. But the film festival doesn’t seem to be interested. The festival is like an old piece of unfinished wood furniture. It’s usable as is but no one wants to sand it smooth and properly finish it.
The Toronto Film Festival seems to be afraid or unwilling to make big changes. It doesn’t know how to become a more exciting for a larger public. It’s not interested in better media coverage. The film festival gets almost the same attention from the public and local media as one Toronto Maple Leafs hockey game.
TIFF has never been “fans first” because the public is just a background prop for the cameras. The Toronto film festival is corporate interests first.
Thanks for reading.
