The Los Angeles Festival of Movies, not to be confused with the Los Angeles Film Festival, took place on the weekend of April 9 to 12.
Unlike its predecessor—which often featured relatively mainstream, submission-based films—The Los Angeles Festival of Movies (LAFM) is described as “a curated festival rather than a submission-based festival” by Micah Gottlieb, one of the co-founders of LAFM.
In an interview with Annenberg Media, Micah noted wanting to differentiate the festival by focusing on “new, independent and arthouse films…that we feel have an important place in the broader film.”
Gottlieb described their selection process as reflective of the industry, stating that they “pay close attention to what’s happening in the international landscape” and that they choose the films themselves.
The selection process essentially consists of Gottlieb and Sarah Wallace choosing and acquiring films they think will be suitable for the festival through the relationships they’ve developed with distributors and other festival programmers, as well as their staff’s general knowledge of the cinematic landscape.
Both Gottlieb and his co-founder, Wallace, stressed the importance of cultivating the selection themselves, arguing that they wanted to avoid simply “passing it on to an intern who won’t care as much.”
Indeed, the films in their selection include indie movies that are notably absent from mainstream media, that only someone truly invested in the industry could acquire: “Chronovisor,” “Shades of Silk” and “Salegna Sol.”
Despite its obscure selection, Gottlieb and Wallace argue that the festival is meant for all kinds of viewers, from people who go to the movies three times a year to the hardcore cinephiles. However, my experience deviated from what they intended.
I would, arguably, define myself as someone in between; though I love movies, I usually opt for the ones that make it to cinemas rather than actively searching for lesser-known films. Unfortunately, I was unable to identify with any of the films I had the chance to see.
“Chronovisor,” a film Gottlieb and Wallace frequently praised during the interview, follows a “reclusive academic” in New York who uncovers the legend of a monk-built machine capable of photographing all of human history, drawing her into an intoxicating scholarly conspiracy.
The film, while visually appealing, was not particularly stimulating. It featured a 20-minute sequence in which notes and paragraphs from a book were displayed, so much so that it resembled a book more than a motion picture. It was difficult to understand the larger meaning and why the viewer should be invested in it.
That is to say, even though Gottlieb had stated he intended to “put together a line-up that feels like a holistic view of what the current independent film landscape looks and feels like,” the festival may be too questionably highbrow for the average film-goer.
The enjoyment of the festival, then, appears reserved for the true cinephile. However, a curation filled with niche selections was not Gottlieb and Wallace’s sole goal for the festival.
They wanted to make “these independent outhouse films” more accessible by creating an environment that incentivizes people to converse before and after the movie. Discussing the festival’s location, Wallace mentioned that the sites were chosen for their proximity to lively streets where people could grab food and converse after the festival.
The screenings were held in several different locations from Beverly Blvd. to Chinatown. The theatre on Beverly Blvd did, in fact, create a cinematic atmosphere with its vintage build and dark decor. The only issue I had with the interior was its accessibility; the pitch-black theatre could pose a safety hazard for those with visual impairments. Additionally, the space included stairs without ramps, making it difficult for wheelchair users.
The external location was even more bothersome. It is important to note that Beverly Blvd is at least half an hour away from Beverly Hills, the famous street that some non-L.A. natives could confuse with Beverly Blvd.
The theatre was in the downtown area of Beverly Blvd, which, unlike what Wallace and Gottlieb implied, was not exactly walkable. As a student without a car, I found the location did not provide easy access to other social venues that the audience could move to after the festival.
Despite some shortcomings, the Los Angeles Festival of Movies has something most large-scale event organizers lack: passion for the craft.
When asked what inspires her, Sarah replied, “The feeling of that moment: when everybody is together in a dark room.”
Her and Gottlieb’s love for film was clear. Based on their dedication and passion alone, they possess the right attributes and ideals to make this festival a great success in the upcoming years. As it is only the festival’s third year, it certainly holds substantial potential.
For now, though, the festival requires some reshaping. It could particularly benefit from moving its activities outdoors to more walkable locations, reducing location costs while creating a truly accessible and inviting environment.