I tell you, they are a screwy bunch over there at the Los Angeles Film Festival. In recent months - whenever there has been a Festival of Films - I simply get in touch with the Festival Director and a press pass is issued so that I may cover the events, pen reviews, and interview guests whether they be a director, a star, whatever.
That was the case with the 24th Annual Asian Pacific Film Festival, the Newport Beach Film Festival, the Backlot Film Festival, and the Mockfest Film Festival.
In recent days - I was not only baffled by the questionable conduct of the Festival Director - Richard Raddon - but taken aback at his incessant game-playing, lies and deceit, and obvious efforts to either bribe me, make a pass at me, or wrangle my services for the Los Angeles Film Festival.
A case in point.
I submitted my request for a press pass in anticipation of the event looming on the horizon. But, a response was long in arriving.
I was about to send a query to determine if the request had been lost - when a lowly Public Relations person - Petra Kauraisa - sent me a curt notice informing me that her office could not provide an accreditation for the Film Festival.
Without explanation, mind you. Talk about unprofessional conduct.
What an odd turn of events!
Especially in view of the fact I gave coverage to handful of their events last year.
In fact I gave glowing reviews to worthy entries at the Festival.
Talk about ungrateful bast**ds!
In a good-faith effort to resolve the issue - and assuming the young lady was not familiar with my credentials - I responded by enlightening her that I was a critic in the professional arena, a known-writer, and then proceeded to provide links of Festival coverage to her superior, Julie Siegel (Public Relations).
Normally, I don't like to toot my own horn, but what was a boy to do?
The experience was somewhat intriguing because my press credentials for the CineVegas Film Festival (a major Film Festival event in the United States) were just approved without problem.
Why does a rinky-dink little Film circuit program like the Los Angeles Film Festival have such a difficult time issuing press passes?
At first, I thought - well now - the Los Angeles Times wants all the coverage of the events to themselves. After all they are a sponsor of the Festival.
The idea that the Los Angeles Times was behind the rejection is not all that far-fetched, either.
It should be noted that in recent days I reported on the LA Book Festival.
I did not attend, though.
I simply gave notice of the much-anticipated event (to be attended by Literary giants such as Gay Talese) so that interested blog readers could attend if they were unaware the popular fair was scheduled that weekend.
On the heels of that fair, a journalist at the Los Angeles Times newspaper made some disparaging remarks about bloggers. For instance, the writer reported there were a lot of scruffy bloggers at the UCLA celebration.
Obviously, at the Los Angeles Times there is some disdain towards bloggers.
After all, the remark, was uncalled for.
Another writer - at the same paper - also lamented one day in another piece that bloggers hadn't gone through the journalist route and inferred that they hadn't paid their dues and - bottom line - suggested that they weren't bona fide professional writers.
When you consider these events, it would appear there may be a connection between the obvious disdain towards bloggers at the Los Angeles Times, and the denial of a press pass to a blogger who openly competes with their newspaper on a daily basis, wouldn't you think?
After all, in the event you were unaware of it, the Los Angeles Times backs the annual Los Angeles Film Festival.
In retrospect (and all things considered) it would appear that the newspaper may be inclined to hog all the coverage of the events for itself - or in a more sinister vein - is trying to control the image of a Festival that is their "baby" which they have gone to great pains - along with an impressive outlay of cash - to build, promote, and boast about in the community each year.
Understandably - in my view - it is a conflict of interest for the LA Times to act as a major sponsor for the Los Angeles Film Festival for obvious reasons.
It would appear they only want select journalists - and maybe non-bloggers - to attend their press events to garner the high-profile coverage they are seeking to tout their artistic efforts.
In view of the foregoing facts, the argument is compelling, isn't it?
Notwithstanding these curious events - it should be noted that after I received word there would not be a press pass - I proceeded to ask the Public Relations office to provide the name and e-mail address of the Festival Director so that I could lodge a formal complaint.
At this juncture, things got curiouser and curiouser, as they say.
Mr. Raddon - the Festival Director (who had been out-of-the-loop until this time) - sent me an odd e-mail out-of-the-blue replete with staggering implications and - under the circumstances - some highly unusual requests.
He started by informing me that he had "watched" the trail of e-mails back and forth between myself and the publicity department and that he realized that I may be able to "help" the Festival because they were trying to resolve some web issues.
Verbatim, his e-mail says:
"We are working on many web agendas and you sound like the kind of individual who would have a wealth of information about this arena."
Then, he requested I meet with him as soon as possible.
"I am open this week. Accreditation at the LA Film Festival wont be a problem, but I want to meet."
Why, pray tell?
In fact - the urgency of his demands, and the nature of them - were a little unsettling.
One minute, Raddon's office denies me a press pass; then, in the next breath they urgently court me on the grounds that I "have a wealth of information about this arena" that may be of use to them?
If my wealth of information requires an urgent meeting, then why wouldn't he issue the pass?
Because there appeared to be no logic to his actions, I had to seriously consider if there were strings attached.
He said he could come to my neighbourhood. That we could have drinks.
Verbatim, his e-mail says:
"I would still like to meet you in person and I can come to your neighborhood for a quick lunch or drinks. Please let me know if you have the time and inclination."
Gosh, what was going on here?
He wants to come to my neighborhood and have drinks?
When I noted somewhat hesitantly that I was busy with preparations for the upcoming Vegas Film Festival coverage, he responded by noting,
"I have to leave Thursday afternoon for a family emergency. are u free tomorrow at all? ill come to you."
I've never had a Festival Director ever made such an overt, improper request, in my entire life.
For this reason, I was leery.
Since he said - "if I had the time and inclination" - I decided to pass.
And - since he said the pass would be no problem - I just expected it to be ready at the Festival gate when the festivities commenced in Westwood.
This evening, in anticipation of my plans for Vegas, I zipped off an e-mail to Mr. Raddon to ensure that the press pass would be ready at the Festival grounds.
Imagine my shock when he proceeded to not only pester me about meeting once again, but inferred that unless I did, there would be no press pass.
Does that sound like coercion to you?
I responded by noting that I basically found his behaviour odd and that I would forgo on any future efforts to obtain a press pass.
I notified him of my intention to file a post online to report on his bizarre odd-ball antics, and to inform my readers as to why I would not be reporting on the Los Angeles Film Festival this year.
In response, he threatened to sue me.
"I now consider this matter closed and will be turning it over to our lawyers. The law has very strict punitive guidelines for slander. We will be watching."
Well, I laughed out loud.
The man is obviously off his rocker.
First of all, slander pertains to the "uttered" word.
You can not sue a person for slander for remarks that are in written form.
Secondly, his comments about the lawyers, also appears to have been an attempt to threaten and intimidate me.
You can't be sued for printing the truth, Sir!
In sum - when you consider the chain of events (and Mr. Raddon's conduct) - it is quite obvious the man was up to "no good".
If my credentials did not pass muster, why did he want to meet with me to obtain my assistance on matters he noted amounted to - in his own words - a wealth of experience?
Why did he say the accreditation was not a problem, but later, deny it?
Obviously, Mr. Raddon wanted to meet with me in person to discuss matters he preferred not to be in writing - and in my estimation - was anxious to seize on such a meeting to perhaps make inappropriate advances to me on various questionable levels.
Why did Mr. Raddon have to meet me away from his office?
And, in my neighborhood?
And, for drinks?
Sir, I don't take bribes.
And, if you thought that once in my neighborhood (after we had a few drinks) that I would invite you to my "home" nearby, you were mistaken.
I do not help festivals sort out their problems.
I try to remain neutral in my business and professional relationships, without influence.
And, in the final analysis, I report my point of view fairly and squarely.
Mr. Raddon - at this point - it is obvious you need therapy!
Also - in view of your lack of ethics and professionalism (and inability to pen the simplest of e-mails) - I seriously have to ponder how you landed the Festival Director position in the first place.
All things considered, in my opinion, you are a disgrace to the Los Angeles Film Festival scene.
In fact, if you ask me, you are a menace to the community at large.
I'd rather get a root canal then mingle with clowns like you.
As to the Festival, by the way, it looks like pretty lackluster stuff.
Old re-runs of films, in some instances. And, unimaginative, cliche attempts to ponder the medium of film.
Losers!
No comments:
Post a Comment