I also agree that Anne's marketing plan is flawed. Showing the movie at libraries is basically preaching to the choir. The people who can benefit from seeing this movie are the folks who don't use or visit (or value) their libraries. Trying to get them to the library for a screening, and charging them when they get there, would not be an easy task!!

This film suffers from the same thing as do many self-published books: a distinct lack of focus and an overwhelming need of a good editor. It appeared that Anne couldn't decide what she wanted the film to be about, so she just shoveled it all in. Any competent editor would have insisted that only one topic be explored, rather than the hodge-podge array of topics we get with this film. As for Anne's marketing plan, to get the general public to come to the library to pay to see the film is absurd. The truth of the matter is that the general public is not interested in a film of this sort. The place for this film in on PBS, or perhaps one of the cable/satellite channels that specialize in documentaries. Anne should see if one of them would buy it so she can recoup at least some of her costs.

I agree with this review wholeheartedly. The lack of focus in this film was problematic. In contrast, the next morning I saw Ken Burns' presentation, complete with excerpts from his new documentary, The War. Seeing scenes from such a great documentary served to emphasize just how powerful The Hollywood Librarian should have been but wasn't.

Wow! I do not agree with these comments at all. To compare a new filmmaker and librarian to Ken Burns is not fair. Ann's film was uplifting and focused. I thought she did a fabulous job of addressing the issues of librarianship. I laughed and cried. So many excellent parts come to mind including the San Quentin prisoners raising money for the closed Salinas libraries. Funding is a major issue for us and to have this as the focal point of the last part of the movie was entirely appropriate. I loved the interviews with real librarians as well as Ray Bradbury and Katherine Hepburn's sister (a librarian). Why did Ann get a standing ovation if this film is so awful?!

In a day and time when few practice and preach real passion and commitment to an avocation--clearly Seidl has triumphed most in the world. She extended the best of others' and her own creativity for the purpose of awakening practicing librarians into being in awe of their value. In 1988, the first ALA I attended, there were discussion about 'is librarianship a profession.' This question seems to continue to rage amongst practitioners and educators. I am sorry this review skimmed and overlooked the deep-seated message to librarians, 'value yourself (as a 21st century information professional librarian) and the public will value the library.' Translation = consistent funding. Unfortunatley many in the public think by and large there is little system or science or commitment to running a library-- This films offers a weapon with which to fight that perception. In my 25 years--I do not see many weapons--only money thrown by private and public funders for 'advocacy training and workshops' which continue to fall short of making any kind of difference. This film could make a difference--if any single person who promotes it--has half the advocacy and vision of Ann Seidl.

Even if this movie were well edited and focused, I can't imagine anyone would pay $8 to see it, even librarians. The problem is that the topic of such limited interest that few people beyond the ALA premiere are going to care about it. Even if we offered a free viewing at my library, I can't imagine we'd get much of an audience.

Oder's review is right on target. While it may not be "fair" to compare a librarian and first-time filmmaker with Ken Burns, any non-librarian audience that views this film is going to do just that. As a former film editor I applaud Seidl's effort and obvious dedication, but in its present form this film will only get a standing ovation from librarians. If she wants to do more than preach to the converted-- i.e. us-- she needs to go back to the cutting room and sharpen the film's focus, and possibly change the title. She has enough material for several good documentaries. (The story of the Salinas libraries is especially compelling and if there's enough footage, could make a whole film on its own.) It's not enough for a film to be well intentioned-- it also has to be well made.

This film had little in common with the excerpt I saw at PLA in Phx. several years ago. Apparently, it took so long to complete the film Ms. Seidl lost her focus. I was disappointed in the Salinas topic that drug on and on--Hollywood? Come on. I agree that charging $8 for the viewing of this film in our library would guarantee no one in the community actually showing up and seeing it. This movie doesn't exactly have borad appeal! As far as the standing ovation. Nothing was mentioned of the hundreds of people who began pouring out of the screening about half-way through. The politicalization of a lot of the conference saw much of this dichotmoy of behaviors. People cheering while others left.

To compare Ann Seidl to Ken Burns is not only unfair, it's ridiculous! I have seen the film three times now and every time I see something new...something interesting I had missed before. Are we really so jaded that we have to lambast a colleague's exceptional effort? Wow! My husband, who is a Civil Engineer LOVED the film. Also, I think Carla from Yuma was at a different screening than ALA - I was in Washington D.C. that night and there was no mass exodus half-way through the film. Long live The Hollywood Librarian!

Hello from Ireland! We showed the Hollywood Librarian at our small health librarian conference and generally it was well received. Ann is travelling to the UK and then back to Ireland to show the fil during our National Library Ireland Week www.libraryirelandweek.ie Yes, the film has some flaws, but it is the first time I have watched a film that spoke to me as an information professional. It was funny, sad, inspiring and interesting - especially from a European perspective. Libraries here face similar challanges (well, maybenot the Patriot Act!) but it was heartening to watch and listen to other librarians whose goal was to inform and teach. I hope Ann makes a follow up - perhaps focusing on how the professiona is evolving, and how we are creating new roles for librarians. All the best from Ireland Louise Farragher Health Scineces Libraries Group www.hslg.ie