The Los Angeles Film Festival was a year of trial and error. From the film selection to the change in locale it had quite a shift to previous years. To create more of a village type feel almost the entire festival was sent out to Westwood and spread throughout the theatres there. A great idea in theory and appealing to those only visiting but for the locals, the space proved far less central than past years at the Sunset 5 and Directors Guild screening rooms. With gas prices and traffic, many Eastsiders stayed home to garden instead of going to see up-and-coming filmmakers.

But the Sunset 5 was not completely pushed off the map. Some films debuted and closed in the West Hollywood location. For those who don't know the area, it's quite a trek between West Hollywood and Westwood. The days of jumping from screening to screening came to a halt when the films were split between those two venues. And festival-goers with no transportation were forced to stay put and hopefully be able to view the alternate screening times of their desired films.

I'm not sure when the change happened in film festivals where it was no longer about pushing independent filmmakers who created original work but rather promoting and premiering Hollywood films that already had distribution. Part of the allure of attending a festival is the chance to see work that you may never have the opportunity to see projected in a dark theater. Reasons being that they were perhaps not Hollywood enough, would never be Hollywood enough, or that Hollywood just wasn't ready for them. The makers of such films are also able to show their art to a large uninfluenced audience for the first time. An added bonus would be a company wanting to distribute their film to the masses.

This year at the Festival, the Opening Night and Closing Night films were Hollywood films under the guise of "independent" (Even the Centerpiece Premiere already received distribution while at Sundance). But all three films opened either within the run of the festival or only weeks after the festival's end. So is the festival community catering to “big picture making” instead of seeking the promotion of truly independent artists? Perhaps this is the way it has always been but I just never really noticed before. Although on the last day of the festival I found myself skipping the closing Gala film (Little Miss Sunshine) to see an Italian independent documentary. I knew for a fact that in two weeks time I would be able to purchase a ticket at any theatre to see the film at a time that fit comfortably within my schedule.

Unfortunately this year's choices in the real independent films also lacked that certain luster that moviegoers are seeking. I found myself longing to know what truly drove the characters because there seemed to be no definitive reason to why the movie was even happening. Analog Days (dir. Mike Ott) was a perfect example of that. A hipster's version of Dazed and Confused, but the film grazed upon the following topics: racism, terrorism, the extreme left and right of American politics, art school, college days, young adult angst, and the list continues. All great possible stories but none of which were ever developed. For me, the highlight of the festival was Chalk, directed by Mike Akel—by far the best in the Narrative Competition. The film had heart, humor, and a great story.

Perhaps it was just an off year in picking films for the Los Angeles Film Festival. Or maybe I'm not speaking the language of the up-an coming films. But if there is one thing that should remain the same i that film festivals should give well-written, well-executed, original films the opportunity to be seen by over 60,000 festival devotees—instead of catering to the premiere of Hollywood's big name films.

--Jennifer