Documentary Film Festivals Vol. 1: Methods, History, Politics [1st ed.] 9783030173197, 9783030173203

Table of contents :
Front Matter ....Pages i-xxv
Introduction—Volume 1: Documentary Film Festivals: Methods, History, Politics (Aida Vallejo, Ezra Winton)....Pages 1-17
Defining Documentary in the Festival Circuit: A Conversation with Bill Nichols (Aida Vallejo)....Pages 19-28
Front Matter ....Pages 29-29
Introduction to Part I, Vol. 1: Researching Documentary Film Festivals (Aida Vallejo)....Pages 31-39
Film Festival Research Workshops: Debates on Methodology (Skadi Loist)....Pages 41-52
The Data-Driven Festival: Recordkeeping and Archival Practices (Heather L. Barnes)....Pages 53-59
Front Matter ....Pages 61-61
Introduction to Part II, Vol. 1: Mapping the History of Documentary Film Festivals (Aida Vallejo)....Pages 63-75
The Rise of Documentary Festivals: A Historical Approach (Aida Vallejo)....Pages 77-100
The Film Festival as a Vehicle for Memory Officialization: The Afterlife of WWII in the Yugoslav Documentary and Short Film Festival, 1954–2004 (Dunja Jelenković)....Pages 101-122
Forging a Cultural Elite: Nyon and the Age of Festival Programmers (Christian Jungen)....Pages 123-141
Finding a Position on the Global Map of Film Festivals: The Yamagata International Documentary Film Festival (Eija Niskanen)....Pages 143-163
Front Matter ....Pages 165-165
Introduction to Part III, Vol. 1: Politics and Policies (Ezra Winton)....Pages 167-173
The Film Festival of Independent and Underground: The Case of DOChina (Tit Leung Cheung)....Pages 175-191
Mainstreaming Documentary and Activism at Toronto’s Hot Docs Festival (Ezra Winton)....Pages 193-220
The Development of Documentary Film Festivals in India: A Small-Media Phenomenon (Giulia Battaglia)....Pages 221-239
Found in Translation: Film Festivals, Documentary and the Preservation of Linguistic Diversity (Antía López-Gómez, Aida Vallejo, Mª Soliñ Barreiro, Amanda Alencar)....Pages 241-263
Back Matter ....Pages 265-296

Citation preview

FRAMING FILM FESTIVALS

Documentary Film Festivals Vol. 1 Methods, History, Politics Edited by Aida Vallejo · Ezra Winton

Framing Film Festivals Series Editors Marijke de Valck Department of Media and Culture Studies Utrecht University Utrecht, The Netherlands Tamara L. Falicov University of Kansas Kansas City, MO, USA

Every day, somewhere in the world a film festival takes place. Most people know about the festival in Cannes, the worlds’ leading film festival, and many will also be familiar with other high profile events, like Venice, the oldest festival; Sundance, America’s vibrant independent scene; and Toronto, a premier market place. In the past decade the study of film festivals has blossomed. A growing number of scholars recognize the significance of film festivals for understanding cinema’s production, distribution, reception and aesthetics, and their work has amounted to a prolific new field in the study of film culture. The Framing Film Festivals series presents the best of contemporary film festival research. Books in the series are academically rigorous, socially relevant, contain critical discourse on festivals, and are intellectually original. Framing Film Festivals offers a dedicated space for academic knowledge dissemination. More information about this series at http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/14990

Aida Vallejo  •  Ezra Winton Editors

Documentary Film Festivals Vol. 1 Methods, History, Politics

Editors Aida Vallejo University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU) Leioa, Spain

Ezra Winton ReImagining Value Action Lab Lakehead University Thunder Bay, ON, Canada

Framing Film Festivals ISBN 978-3-030-17319-7    ISBN 978-3-030-17320-3 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17320-3 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover illustration: Cro Magnon / Alamy Stock Photo This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Preface: Vol. 1—By Aida Vallejo and Ezra Winton

This book (indeed books, as there are two volumes that make up this collection) has been elaborated through a long process of hard work and mutual collaboration. As such, it has evolved significantly through the progression of bringing new collaborators on board, expanding to a more accurate, elaborate and thorough engagement with our much-loved topic of research: documentary film festivals. To those who have met us at conferences and festivals where we made flushed proclamations concerning the prospective publication, we can at long last say it is in the world, and do so with a satisfied smile on each of our faces and a feeling of release in our souls. The project’s wide scope has made it worthy of two volumes, Documentary Film Festivals Vol. 1. Methods, History, Politics and Documentary Film Festivals Vol. 2. Changes, Challenges, Professional Perspectives, which form a tandem set that tackles key issues at stake in both Documentary Studies and Film Festival Studies. Both books can be read separately or together as a single collection, but they don’t require readers to follow a given order. Nevertheless, the first volume includes some contributions that help to frame the study of documentary film festivals in a wider context, namely a review of the literature that brings together Film Festival Studies and Documentary Studies, an interview with Bill Nichols about this subject of inquiry and a historical chapter about documentary at film festivals. While we might say the first volume is more oriented to the past, the second looks towards the future of documentary film festivals. Across both volumes, historical and political concerns are complemented by the study of recent changes that have occurred v

vi 

PREFACE: VOL. 1—BY AIDA VALLEJO AND EZRA WINTON

in the festival circuit that affect documentary production, distribution, curation, exhibition and reception. Now that we are completing our own stage of prolonged production, we think it’s an appropriate moment to look back and share how we came to research the fascinating topic that has culminated in two books, and to introduce the reader to the personal experiences that brought us here. We hope you enjoy the book before you and find its content as challenging as we did, while also drawing inspiration from fresh insights into the enchanting and dynamic social, political, economic and cultural worlds of documentary film festivals.

A Researcher Navigating a Growing Festival Circuit (Aida Vallejo) In 2004, while still a university student participating in the European Erasmus Exchange programme, I visited the Thessaloniki Documentary Festival in Greece. Back then I was stunned by the capacity of feature-­ length documentaries to attract a big audience at a moment when the classical formats associated with Nichols’s expository mode (1991, 34–38) were challenged by new aesthetic forms. The appearance of Bowling for Columbine (Michael Moore, 2002) in movie theatres two years earlier represented a turning point in documentary exhibition and a boost for documentarians to unleash their creativity and go beyond the classic distribution circuit, hitherto primarily controlled by television. A few years later, in 2007, while studying the narrative construction of contemporary documentary at Autonomous University of Madrid, I focused my attention on film festivals as an object of academic study. The shift from textual analysis to contextual concerns in my research seemed a natural step towards understanding the channels of circulation that had given exposure to the feature-length documentary form in previous years. While working as a critic covering some documentary film festivals of different character, such as the veteran Zinebi Documentary and Short Film Festival of Bilbao, the internationally recognized Thessaloniki Documentary Festival and the daring newcomer Punto de Vista de Navarra, I started to reflect upon their role in the circulation of films. Creative documentary had suddenly taken the stage, breathing new life into a genre that was for a long time relegated to television and which had adopted the reportage formats associated with that medium. The spread

  PREFACE: VOL. 1—BY AIDA VALLEJO AND EZRA WINTON 

vii

of creative documentary and the extension to feature-length productions provided the necessary input for film festivals to multiply across the globe and maintain a continuous flow of diverse and high-profile films that would fill their programmes, while new digital technologies bolstered production and exhibition, facilitating new recording, editing and projection infrastructures. A preliminary search for documentary showcases inevitably raised questions of context: How many festivals were currently operating worldwide? What was their international relevance? Who were the people behind these events that created an audience for new documentary trends spreading worldwide, such as first-person documentary or—as would be seen later on—animation and interactive documentary? Eager to answer these questions, I embarked on a research project that allowed me to travel throughout the European continent, from Zinebi in my hometown Bilbao (Basque Country, Spain) to Jihlava (Czech Republic); from Dokufest in Prizren (Kosovo) to Helsinki (Finland); from ZagrebDox (Croatia) to IDFA (Amsterdam, the Netherlands). The proliferation of festivals specializing in documentary film cannot be dissociated from the appearance of certain films that laid the foundations for further documentary exhibition. Moreover, several festival founders were also filmmakers themselves. I remember the words of the director of the Documentarist Film Festival, Necati Sönmez, in the cafe of cinema Olympion in Aristotle Square during the Thessaloniki Documentary Film Festival (Greece) in 2010, as he spoke about his reasons and inspiration to create his own film festival in Istanbul (Turkey). Les glaneurs et la glaneuse (The Gleaners and I, Agnès Varda, 2000) was indeed the film that pushed him to start a festival in the metropolis divided by the Bosphorus in 2008, a city in which he also worked as a filmmaker. Interestingly, many of these films came from different parts of the world, adding to the cultural and linguistic diversity for which film festivals appeared to serve as a suitable breeding ground. Coming from a region where linguistic policies were a major cultural and political concern, I was curious about subtitling practices on the international circuit. I remember the conversations about technical issues with subtitle projectionists in Punto de Vista, as well as reflecting on the trilingual subtitling practices in Zinebi (in English, Spanish and Basque) and wondering what happens with Basque subtitles once the festival is over, given the limitations of minoritized languages to be used for further exhibition. Archival practices at these events also caught my attention. Quite unforgettably, in my aim to watch films from the first editions of the Thessaloniki

viii 

PREFACE: VOL. 1—BY AIDA VALLEJO AND EZRA WINTON

Documentary Film Festival, I had to keep my balance on the back of a motorbike with three boxes of VHS films covering a retrospective on Yugoslavia programmed by the festival during the war in the 1990s. I had found the films by digging in a warehouse in the industrial area on the outskirts of the city thanks to the kind assistance of Thessaloniki Museum of Cinema staff member Giorgos, who piloted the motorbike. The visit to OSA Archivum in late winter in Budapest turned out to be quite different, where I encountered the newest technology for film storage at an institution that benefits from the strong financial support of the Open Society Foundation.1 Precisely at the moment I arrived (in 2009), they were signing the contract to include the films of Péter Forgács in their collection. Throughout this period, conversations with festival directors, programmers, filmmakers, archivists and industry professionals provided me with rich insights into the backstage of festival practices, but at the same time these experiences brought about an ever-increasing number of new questions: What was the origin of these festivals? How had they developed historically? What was their relation to politics? What were their programming strategies? And what were their archival practices? How were filmmakers using them not only to exhibit films but also to get funding and distribute them? What was their role in the preservation of linguistic diversity? These two volumes provide answers to these questions, inviting the reader to reflect upon the origins, aims and functioning patterns of the documentary festival ecosystem.

A Curator Researching Film Festivals as Sites of Culture and Politics (Ezra Winton) Two decades ago I had an epiphany at a small film event, the World Community Film Festival, in my hometown of Courtenay on Vancouver Island (British Columbia, Canada), that would irrevocably change the course of my life. I had read a review of a film that was playing at the festival, and with a friend headed to the Sid Williams Theatre to whet my curiosity. At the time, I had little interest in documentary and knew nothing about East Timor, nor media ownership concentration and the troubling collusion between corporate power and media institutions, so it is fair to say that Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media (Mark Achbar and Peter Wintonick, 1992) blew my mind. After the epic documentary’s credits rolled, I recall leaping to my feet, grabbing my

  PREFACE: VOL. 1—BY AIDA VALLEJO AND EZRA WINTON 

ix

friend by the arm and yelling: “LET’S GO!” As I ran up the aisle past the mostly middle-aged and elderly audience members, I felt the unique and rare force of a life-changing, world-view-defining moment take over my entire being. I burst out into the sleepy streets of my town, and rubbing my eyes as they adjusted to the late afternoon light, shrieked to my friend with a kind of a strange zeal that doubly infected and gave him cause for apprehension: “WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING—NOW!” And off we went, naively starting an East Timor Alert Network chapter in Courtenay and telling everyone and anyone we could about the insidious ways mainstream media was manufacturing our very own consent—without us even knowing it! It is important to note that this film was a documentary and that the space where I encountered the said documentary was formed by a film festival. Documentary, as fiction film’s naughty and regularly punished cousin, rarely finds space on commercial cinema screens anywhere, let alone in Canada’s Hollywood-owned and dominated market.2 Manufacturing Consent certainly wasn’t enjoying a celebrated run at Courtenay’s local Megaplex alongside Reservoir Dogs, Basic Instinct and The Crying Game. No, this profound paradigm-shifting moment in my life occurred because two traditionally marginalized and alternative media forms and platforms converged in my town to exhibit a film that challenged the status quo to which I had blithely and ignorantly acquiesced to until that point. For me, that moment represents the transformative and explosive potential of the union of socially engaged documentary cinema and the public-facing film festival. Realizing this meant I would end up studying, researching and creating projects that interrogate and celebrate this combustible combination of cultural/political expression with social space. With that in mind, in 2003 I co-founded (with Svetla Turnin) what is now the documentary world’s largest community and campus-based exhibition network, Cinema Politica, a vast circuit in its own right, which runs parallel to the ever-expanding film festival circuit. As an alternative exhibition network focused on showcasing political and independent point-of-­ view (POV) documentaries, Cinema Politica often collaborates and interfaces with many documentary festivals. As such, I have had the privilege to attend and work with festivals like Rencontres Internationales du Documentaire de Montréal (RIDM) and Festival du nouveau cinéma (FNC) in Montreal, Hot Docs Canadian International Documentary

x 

PREFACE: VOL. 1—BY AIDA VALLEJO AND EZRA WINTON

Festival (Hot Docs) and imagineNATIVE in Toronto, Docudays UA International Human Rights Documentary Film Festival in Kiev, Jeden Svet/One World Human Rights Film Festival in Prague, International Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam (IDFA) in Amsterdam, Sofia International Film Festival in Sofia and many others. Along the way I have published critical pieces about the lack of space provided to activists at large documentary festivals (such as Hot Docs), I’ve sat on juries and I’ve written countless film reviews thanks to the access to often hard-to-reach films these festivals afforded me. In more recent years I have also taught courses on film festivals and curatorial politics, sometimes with a documentary focus. But it is programming that has sustained my interest in documentary film festivals over the years. The cultural politics of programming—that is critical consideration regarding who decides what gets in, what stays out and the manner in which each film is presented to the public—is one of the most fascinating and under-studied aspects of film festivals as a wider subject, and documentary festivals in particular. We live in an age of hyper-­ curation, where we constantly accede our own agency in choosing what content flows in the many channels that comprise our mediascapes. Festivals have risen to prominence as traditional (broadcast) television still clings to Palaeolithic conventions and modalities (including running times defined by advertising, suit-and-tie hosts, the erasure of the working classes and the antiquated laugh track). Yet festivals have also flourished at a time of the rampant proliferation of the so-called new media, where eyeballs all over the world increasingly refocus as they shift from larger to smaller screens. So, on the one hand, documentary film festivals offer an exciting alternative space and experience to story-broke Hollywood and its Megaplexes, as well as traditional television’s craggy conventions. On the other hand, documentary film festivals are thriving in an era of online media consumption that only continues to grow; on this latter point it is perhaps encouraging to see that all over the world audiences still seek out the kind of experience that festivals offer, that is the “event-fullness” of experiencing a (documentary) film with a bunch of strangers in the dark, who later may or may not mingle and discuss the stories they have encountered together, in a social setting. Either way, documentary and film festivals are here to stay—as separately defined cultural and media phenomena, and as intermingling forces that are reflecting and giving shape to our cinemas and cultures on a global

  PREFACE: VOL. 1—BY AIDA VALLEJO AND EZRA WINTON 

xi

scale. For my part, I’m delighted to be along for the ride and hope to be running up aisles and screaming outside of festival screenings well into the future. Leioa, Spain Thunder Bay, ON, Canada 

Aida Vallejo Ezra Winton

Notes 1. An initiative of the investor George Soros, who also founded the Central European University to which the archive is associated. 2. It is estimated, according to Acland (2003), that commercial exhibition screens in Canada show less than 3% of Canadian cinema outside the province of Quebec (where numbers are notably higher).

References Acland, Charles. 2003. Screen Traffic: Movies, Multiplexes, and Global Culture. Durham: Duke University Press. Nichols, Bill. 1991. Representing Reality: Issues and Concepts in Documentary. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

Acknowledgements: Vol. 1

This project, which has culminated in a two-volume collection of chapters and interviews, is the result of several years of research, some of it funded by different public institutions and conducted through various research projects. We would like to thank the University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), IkerFESTS research project,1 HAUtaldea research project,2 MAC research group, the Department of Education, Universities and Research of the Government of the Basque Country, the ReImagining Value Action Lab (RiVAL) at Lakehead University in Canada, the Social Science and Humanities Research Council (Canada) and the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science and the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (National Plan Research Actions I+D+I), funder of @CIN-EMA research project.3 Special thanks to the people whose taxes help to develop independent research, the output of which will hopefully contribute to better understand and improve the social and cultural environments to which they belong. We would like to thank everyone involved in this project, including those who had to drop out during this long way. Enormous thanks to each of the contributing authors of both volumes, who gave their time, hard work and expertise so that this project would come to fruition. We would also like to express deep gratitude to the team at Palgrave Macmillan, and especially the Framing Film Festivals series editors, Marijke de Valck and Tamara Falicov, for their support, encouragement and wise advice throughout the review and publication process. We would also like to thank our colleagues who helped us in both obvious and subtle ways to get through this long project, particularly Marijke xiii

xiv 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: VOL. 1

de Valck, Skadi Loist, María Paz Peirano, Thomas Waugh, Lucas Freeman and Liz Czach, all of whom shared their experience and knowledge and helped us with their generous advice. A number of festival organizers, filmmakers, archivists, television and other institutional representatives (and other scholars and practitioners) also helped us track, record and analyse the current state of documentary film festivals worldwide. Over the years of conducting this research and bringing these two volumes to light, we frequented several festivals, all of which are mentioned in our Preface and/or introductions. But needless to say, we are grateful for the opportunities they have afforded the intrepid and weary researcher balancing cinephilia with critical inquiry. Finally, thanks to our families, friends and partners for their support, patience and help. The time we have stolen from them to bring this project to light is not insignificant. In this long process we have seen new people coming into our life while others left in the process. It is to them that we owe our deepest gratitude.

Notes 1. Research project on Film and Audiovisual Festivals in the Basque Country, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU). Grant number: EHUA16/31 http://www.ehu.eus/ehusfera/ikerfests/. 2. “Visual Anthropology: a model for creativity and knowledge transference.” University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU). Grant number: EHU11/26. http://www.ehu.eus/ehusfera/hautaldea/. 3. “Transnational relations in Hispanic digital cinemas: the axes of Spain, Mexico, and Argentina.” Grant number: CSO2014-52750-P. The project is led by Miguel Fernández Labayen and Josetxo Cerdán Los Arcos at Universidad Carlos III de Madrid (UC3M). https://uc3m.libguides. com/c.php?g=499893&p=3422753.

Contents

Introduction—Volume 1: Documentary Film Festivals: Methods, History, Politics  1 Aida Vallejo and Ezra Winton Defining Documentary in the Festival Circuit: A Conversation with Bill Nichols 19 Aida Vallejo Part I Research and Methods  29 Introduction to Part I, Vol. 1: Researching Documentary Film Festivals 31 Aida Vallejo Film Festival Research Workshops: Debates on Methodology 41 Skadi Loist The Data-Driven Festival: Recordkeeping and Archival Practices 53 Heather L. Barnes

xv

xvi 

Contents

Part II Histories and Origins  61 Introduction to Part II, Vol. 1: Mapping the History of Documentary Film Festivals 63 Aida Vallejo The Rise of Documentary Festivals: A Historical Approach 77 Aida Vallejo The Film Festival as a Vehicle for Memory Officialization: The Afterlife of WWII in the Yugoslav Documentary and Short Film Festival, 1954–2004101 Dunja Jelenković Forging a Cultural Elite: Nyon and the Age of Festival Programmers123 Christian Jungen Finding a Position on the Global Map of Film Festivals: The Yamagata International Documentary Film Festival143 Eija Niskanen Part III Politics and Policies 165 Introduction to Part III, Vol. 1: Politics and Policies167 Ezra Winton The Film Festival of Independent and Underground: The Case of DOChina175 Tit Leung Cheung Mainstreaming Documentary and Activism at Toronto’s Hot Docs Festival193 Ezra Winton

 Contents 

xvii

The Development of Documentary Film Festivals in India: A Small-Media Phenomenon221 Giulia Battaglia Found in Translation: Film Festivals, Documentary and the Preservation of Linguistic Diversity241 Antía López-Gómez, Aida Vallejo, Mª Soliña Barreiro, and Amanda Alencar Index of Festivals265 Index of Subjects273 Index of Films287 Index of Names293

Notes on Contributors

Amanda Alencar  is an assistant professor in the Department of Media & Communication at Erasmus University Rotterdam, Netherlands, where she specializes in media and migration and intercultural communication. Alencar received her PhD in Audiovisual Communication and Journalism from the University of Santiago de Compostela, Spain, in 2012. After completion of her degree, she was awarded a Marie Curie Post-doctoral Fellowship from the European Commission to conduct her research project titled “TV News for Promoting Interculturalism: A Novel Step Towards Immigrant Integration” at the Department of Media Studies at the University of Amsterdam. Alencar is also a board member of the Professional Advisory Committee (PAC) at Erasmus University Rotterdam, and a former member of the Galician Association of Communication (AGACOM). She is guest editing two special issues in the (open-access) peer-reviewed journals International Communication Gazette and Media & Communication. Heather  L.  Barnes  is the Digital Curation Librarian at Wake Forest University’s Z.  Smith Reynolds Library and a PhD candidate at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s School of Information and Library Science. Her research interests include moving image archives, documentary film, participatory and collaborative archives and digital curation. She lives in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Ma Soliña Barreiro  holds a PhD in Social Communication. She has been a visiting researcher at ARIAS (Atelier de recherche sur l’intermédialité et les Arts du spectacle, CNRS, ENS, Sorbonne III). She is a researcher spexix

xx 

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

cialized in avant-garde, documentary, silent film and cinema in minority languages. Her findings have led to several publications, including “Public Policies, Diversity and National Cinemas in the Spanish Context: Catalonia, Basque Country and Galicia.” Communication & Society 30 (1) 2017. She has presented in academic conferences, such as IAMCR and ECREA. She works as a full professor at ESUP-UPF (Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona) and is a member of the Estudos Audiovisuais (EA) (Audiovisual Studies) research group at the University of Santiago de Compostela, Spain. Giulia Battaglia  is a visual anthropologist interested in both anthropology and media theories. She completed her PhD in Social Anthropology in 2012 at SOAS, University of London, with a thesis on the politics of categorisation of documentary film practices in India and in particular on their historical (re)articulation. She is a teaching fellow in the Department of Anthropology at University of London (SOAS). Battaglia has worked as a film festival curator (“From the Inside Looking Out … Filmic Visions of South Asia’s Tacit ‘Other’,” Lisbon 2012; “Persistence/Resistance in London,” 2011), a documentary film juror (“Watersprite: Cambridge International Student Festival,” 2011) and Assistant Director for Video Installation (“BAR1 Project,” Bangalore 2008) and independent film projects. Tit Leung Cheung  received his PhD in researching the East Asian documentary film festivals. He is working as a producer for a number of Hong Kong documentaries, for instance, Yellowing (2016), We the Workers (2017) and Ballad on the Shore (2017). His curatorial efforts include Hong Kong Independent Film Festival and Autonomous Cinema. The Hong Kong Actual Images Association is his latest initiative: a retrospective programme on 1980–1997 Hong Kong documentary was the first project of the association. Dunja  Jelenković  is a researcher at the Centre for Cultural History of Contemporary Societies at the Paris Saclay University (University of Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines). Her doctoral thesis, “Cultural and Political History of Yugoslav Documentary and Short Film Festival, 1954–2004—From Yugoslav Socialism to Serbian Nationalism,” dealt with festival programming practices and cultural memory in former Yugoslavia (Paris Saclay, 2017). The project was funded by the Foundation for Cultural Heritage Sciences PATRIMA (Paris, France).

  NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS 

xxi

Formerly a programmer for the festival that was the subject of her thesis (2008–2011), Jelenković is presently active as an independent curator. Her current research focuses on the images of conflicts in the Yugoslavian space. Christian Jungen  is the artistic director of the Zurich Film Festival. He has worked as a film critic for more than 25 years, covered festivals such as Cannes, Sundance, Venice, Berlin and Nyon and has served as head of the culture section of Swiss Sunday newspaper NZZ am Sonntag. He is the author of the award-winning book Hollywood in Canne$: The History of a Love-Hate Relationship (2014) and of the biography Moritz de Hadeln: Mister Filmfestival (2018, Rüffer & Rub). He has won the Prix Pathé for excellence in film criticism and is a founding member of the Swiss Film Academy. He lives in Zurich, Switzerland. Skadi Loist  is Visiting Professor of Production Cultures in Audiovisual Media Industries at the Film University Babelsberg Konrad Wolf in Potsdam, Germany, and a project leader of “Circulation of Film in the International Film Festival Network and the Impact of Film Festivals on Global Film Culture” (BMBF grant funded, 2017– 2020). Loist is the co-founder of the Film Festival Research Network (FFRN) and a Steering Committee member of the European Network for Cinema and Media Studies (NECS). Her research interests include developments in film and media industries, cultural studies and gender/queer studies with a focus on film festivals and queer cinema. Antía López-Gómez  is a tenured professor at the University of Santiago de Compostela, Spain, where she teaches European audio-visual policies. She received a PhD in Information Sciences from the Complutense University of Madrid with a study of advertising. López-Gómez is a member of the Estudos Audiovisuais (EA) (Audio-visual Studies) research group at the University of Santiago de Compostela, Spain, specializing in the subject “Cinema and Identity.” She has written numerous articles on communication policies in Europe, primarily focused on the audio-­visual sector. Eija Niskanen  teaches and studies film and animation at the University of Helsinki’s Film and Television Studies and Japanese Studies. She holds an MA from UCLA School of Theater, Film and Television. Her research interests include Japanese cinema and animation, as well as film festivals with an Asian context. She is conducting a study on Japanese

xxii 

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

animations based on the Finnish original Moomin concept, conducted partly at Meiji University in Tokyo. Niskanen is the programming director for Helsinki Cine Aasia film festival, one of the founding members of Helsinki International Film Festival and she coordinates yearly Finland Film Festival in Japan event. Aida Vallejo  is a film historian and social anthropologist who works as an associate professor at the University of the Basque Country, Spain, where she teaches documentary film theory and practice. She holds a PhD in History of Cinema from Autonomous University of Madrid with a study of documentary film festivals in Europe and an MA in Theory and Practice of Documentary Film from Autonomous University of Barcelona. Vallejo is the founder and coordinator of the Documentary Work-Group of the European Network for Cinema and Media Studies (NECS). She has written extensively on documentary and narratology, film festivals and ethnography of the media, and with María Paz Peirano has co-edited Film Festivals and Anthropology (2017). She has carried out fieldwork at several international festivals, mainly across Europe. Ezra  Winton  is a curator, critic and teacher. He is a visiting scholar at Lakehead University, Canada, where he researches film festivals, curatorial practices and politics, screen ethics, Canadian cinema and Indigenous film and media. He is finishing a book that looks at the commercialization of documentary at film festivals, with Hot Docs as the case study, called Buying in to Doing Good: Documentary Politics and Curatorial Ethics at the Hot Docs Film Festival, and is co-editing a collection with Lakota artist Dana Claxton titled Insiders/Outsiders: The Cultural Politics and Ethics of Indigenous Representation and Participation in Canada’s Media Arts. He is a co-editor of Challenge for Change: Activist Documentary at the National Film Board of Canada (2010) and Screening Truth to Power: A Reader on Documentary Activism (2014), and is a contributing editor at POV Magazine. He is also a co-founder and Director of Programming of Cinema Politica, the world’s largest documentary-screening network. Winton is a settler scholar of Dutch and English ancestry who was born and raised on Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada. https://twitter.com/ezrawinton.

List of Images

The Rise of Documentary Festivals: A Historical Approach Image 1 Audience of the Festival dei Popoli in Florence in the 1970s Image 2 Audience waiting outside the Pathé Tuschinski theatre in Amsterdam before the opening ceremony of the 2015 edition

83 86

The Film Festival as a Vehicle for Memory Officialization: The Afterlife of WWII in the Yugoslav Documentary and Short Film Festival, 1954–2004 Image 1 Cover of the festival catalogues: 1965, 1966, and 1967 Image 2 The Pit—Grote Morta (Jama, Milorad Bajić, Soko Film, 1991), screenshot

106 114

Forging a Cultural Elite: Nyon and the Age of Festival Programmers Image 1 Erika de Hadeln with Freddy Buache (left) and polish director Jerzy Bossak at the 1988 Nyon festival Image 2 Director Ara Vahouni (left), Hans-Joachim Schlegel and Erika de Hadeln introducing Armenian films in Nyon 1989 Image 3 Erika de Hadeln with Christian Zeender, head of Cinema in the Swiss Federal Office of Culture, 1988

128 132 135

xxiii

xxiv 

List of Images

Finding a Position on the Global Map of Film Festivals: The Yamagata International Documentary Film Festival Image 1 Roundtable at the Asia Symposium in 1989 Image 2 International and Japanese guests at the 1993 edition of Yamagata IDFF, including Tian Zhuangzhuang, Abbas Kiarostami (first row) and Alan Berliner (second row)

152 156

The Film Festival of Independent and Underground: The Case of DOChina Image 1 Main street of the Songzhuang area Image 2 An event cancelled due to police intervention Image 3 Poster of the 7th edition of DOChina

179 183 187

Mainstreaming Documentary and Activism at Toronto’s Hot Docs Festival Image 1 Still from Amy Miller’s The Carbon Rush (2012) Image 2 Police in India patrol a protest in this production still from Jai Bhim Comrade (Anand Patwardhan, 2012)

204 207

The Development of Documentary Film Festivals in India: A Small-Media Phenomenon Image 1 Vikalp. Mumbai, Festival 2004 Image 2 Vikalp. Films for Freedom—slogans

230 231

Found in Translation: Film Festivals, Documentary and the Preservation of Linguistic Diversity Image 1 Screening of the film Colours of the Alphabet (2016, Alastair Cole) subtitled into Sardinian at the 2017 Babel Film Festival. The film puts into question if children in Zambia should be taught in English, and the features Soli, Nayanja, Bemba and English languages. (Image by Alastair Cole) Image 2 Zinegin Film Festival’s audience follows the organizers in a “Bideo poteo”. The event mixes the Basque tradition of “poteo” (which consists on going from bar to bar to have drinks together) with the screening of a short film in each bar. (Image by Aida Vallejo)

253

255

List of Tables

Introduction to Part II, Vol. 1: Mapping the History of Documentary Film Festivals Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4

Documentary film festivals (1940s–1960s) Documentary film festivals (1970s–1980s) Documentary film festivals (1990s) Documentary film festivals (2000s–2010s)

65 66 67 69

xxv

Introduction—Volume 1: Documentary Film Festivals: Methods, History, Politics Aida Vallejo and Ezra Winton

Documentary cinema has experienced growing cultural visibility, commercial distribution and academic recognition in the last two decades. While technological changes and digitization certainly have had a role in bolstering the genre, the steadily increasing number of exhibition sites has been paramount to non-fiction film’s ascent. From Beijing to Toronto, Amsterdam to Kerala, Maputo to Doha and beyond, documentary film festivals have proliferated as a composite component of the massive spread of film festivals in general (estimated to have grown to somewhere between 4000 and 5000 in just six decades). Today these documentary art, culture and business platforms make up a vast circulation and exhibition circuit that wields ever-increasing power over documentary cultures at the beginning of the twenty-first century. Even if documentary festivals have served as a fundamental source for researchers to discover and explore the films that today form (and chal-

A. Vallejo (*) University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Leioa, Spain e-mail: [email protected] E. Winton Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, ON, Canada © The Author(s) 2020 A. Vallejo, E. Winton (eds.), Documentary Film Festivals Vol. 1, Framing Film Festivals, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17320-3_1

1

2 

A. VALLEJO AND E. WINTON

lenge) the canon, focused academic studies on documentary festivals are scarce. Moreover, appraisal of their historical evolution, political role, ­economic influence, cultural value and social significance is a necessary step towards a broad understanding of this alternative circulation and exhibition circuit. The chapters and interviews in our two volumes address these lacunae, while approaching the various aspects of documentary festivals through different lenses and from disparate disciplines, thus interrogating a wide range of topics that will interest readers focused on both documentary and festivals. Furthermore, the authors in this collection not only analyze the international network of documentary festivals, identifying relevant events from both historical and contemporary perspectives, but together they expand research carried out within the relatively young field of Film Festival Studies, while linking with academics working in other fields and disciplines such as documentary, anthropology, history, cultural and media studies, arts management, minoritized languages and, from a wider perspective, film literacy and the creative industries. While Bill Nichols notes at the beginning of this volume that the influence of documentary film festivals over the documentary form should not be overestimated, we cannot ignore Marijke de Valck’s sapient take on the enduring importance of (researching) film festivals as obligatory points of passage “because they are events—actors—that have become so important to the production, distribution and consumption of many films that, without them, an entire network of practices, places, people, etc. would fall apart” (2007, 36). With de Valck’s observation in mind, this collection explores the nature, dynamics and impact of documentary film festivals worldwide, offering a focused, collective effort to understand the context in which contemporary documentary practices and exhibition modes develop. We believe this publication is a first step into a fascinating world of globalized and globalizing events that have become privileged (and often contested) spaces for the celebration, negotiation, discussion and, above all, curation, exhibition and reception of documentary cinema. In what follows, we start by offering a review of the points of convergence of Film Festival Studies and Documentary Studies. Then, we propose a definition of the documentary festival. Drawing on concepts developed by Nichols, we deepen epistemological, socio-political and aesthetic concerns to analyze the specificities of documentary festivals. Finally, we summarize the contents of the three parts of this volume, which focus on research, history and politics, respectively.

  INTRODUCTION—VOLUME 1: DOCUMENTARY FILM FESTIVALS: METHODS… 

3

Bringing Together Film Festival and Documentary Studies This book—which is the first in a two-volume set—brings together two fields evolving within Film Studies: documentary and film festivals. While the latter is a more recent development with an exponential increase in literature appearing since 2007, following the publication of the ground-­ breaking book Film Festivals: From European Geopolitics to Global Cinephilia (de Valck 2007), documentary has deeper scholarly roots, punctuated and bolstered by academics like Thomas Waugh (1984) in the 1980s, Bill Nichols  (1991), Michael Renov  (1993) and Brian Winston (1995) in the 1990s and writers at Jump Cut since its launch in 1974.1 The genre’s more established tradition, which has attracted increasing academic attention since the 1990s, was elevated by Nichols’s seminal Representing Reality: Issues and Concepts in Documentary (1991) and the launch of the University of Minnesota Press’s Visible Evidence series in 1997.2 Recent trends in documentary scholarship in the English language show an ever-growing number of publications that expand the documentary canon towards new geographical areas, identity and ethics issues and aesthetic trends. We see this as a decentralizing tendency that contributes to a diversity of approaches as well as scholars’ profiles. On the other hand, Film Festival Studies is in a moment of wider concentration of core-academics and research works, partly due to its much younger trajectory. The study of film festivals has grown parallel to the proliferation of festival events worldwide, attracting the interest of academics such as de Valck, who laid the foundation for this research area in her comprehensive study that positioned the festival circuit as a globally connected phenomenon (2007). de Valck (together with Skadi Loist) further developed the field with the creation of the Film Festival Research Network and (with Tamara Falicov in 2015) Palgrave Macmillan’s Framing Film Festivals Series, of which these two volumes are a part. Equally so, the work of Dina Iordanova, as general editor of the Film Festival Yearbook Series (2009–2014) and the Films Need Festivals, Festivals Need Films Series (since 2013), at St Andrews Film Studies publishing house, has been instrumental in advancing the field. The study of film festivals can be framed by a general trend towards interdisciplinary approaches to film history, but also by a growing interest in transnational and world cinema, after the fall of the big national studios that had initially produced and defined “national cinemas.” Film festivals have therefore attracted the interests of researchers who study the global

4 

A. VALLEJO AND E. WINTON

dynamics of film circulation, theoreticians who seek to redress the colonial excesses of classic film history and scholars interested in minority film practices that operate alongside commercial distribution channels. Documentary certainly comprises film practices that work at the margins of commercial cinema, that are characterized by affordable means of production for peripheral cinemas and, at the same time, that contest established power dynamics. Within Film Festival Studies, the literature devoted to documentary festivals is quite scarce. Sporadic contributions have appeared in academic journals and books in the past few years, but these are dispersed from divergent disciplines and lack common referents (see de Valck and Soeteman 2010; Nornes 2009). Documentary festivals have been the subject of recent research, including doctoral theses developed by contributors of these two volumes. In addition, a smattering of book-length studies approach festivals of social concern, including documentary ­festivals. The Film Festival Yearbook 4: Film Festivals and Activism (Iordanova and Torchin 2012) tackles activist documentary festivals but focuses mainly on human rights film festivals and the social concerns associated with their programmes. In this line, new publications by social scientists have looked at small Canadian documentary festivals (Roy 2014), the human rights film festival circuit (Tascón 2015) and activist film festivals (Tascón and Wils 2016). Much of the literature devoted to documentary festivals includes anniversary books published by the festivals themselves,3 which of course focus on one single festival and, in most cases, are published in the original language of the country where the festival takes place. Another primary source of documentary festival discourse is film criticism, especially festival reports, which cover these events and appear in specialized publications, such as POV Magazine (published by the Documentary Organization of Canada), Dox Magazine (published by the European Documentary Network, 1993–2014) and Documentary Magazine (published by the International Documentary Association). Following the increased international visibility of documentary, generalist film journals have joined this trend, including classics such as Positif and Cahiers du cinéma in the French realm or Sight & Sound in the Anglophone context, as well as increased coverage from industry magazines like Variety. In addition, an ever-increasing number of blogs and online publications have added to the clamour. On the industry side, festival reports are conditioned by the urgency germane to journalism, as

  INTRODUCTION—VOLUME 1: DOCUMENTARY FILM FESTIVALS: METHODS… 

5

well as the dependent relationships that journalists and critics establish with film festivals (which control the access to different films, professionals and information through the accreditation system, and in many instances provide critics with free travel and accommodation). On the other hand, some academic journals have regularly published festival reports (Visual Anthropology Review offers interesting examples for ethnographic film), while providing deeper analyses that look at the historical contexts and social concerns, thus widening the scope of the instantaneous film analyses that prevail in most reports. In this regard, Necsus journal has opened up a new space for academic writing about film festivals, with a special section—edited by de Valck and Loist— including reports that aim to provide critical reflection on these events from a scholarly view. The influence of non-academic writings for the conformation of documentary canons should not be underestimated. The special issue devoted to documentary that Sight & Sound published in September 2014 offers a “Documentary Poll” with a list of “the greatest documentaries of all time”, according to the opinions of critics, curators, academics and filmmakers. Человек с киноаппаратом (The Man with a Movie Camera, Dziga Vertov, 1929) tops the list, while Shoah (Claude Lanzmann, 1985), Sans Soleil (Sunless, Chris Marker, 1983), Nuit et Brouillard (Night and Fog, Alain Resnais, 1955) and The Thin Blue Line (Errol Morris, 1988) follow. While watching the interactive website provided by Sight & Sound, which graphically displays the hierarchy of films, one wonders to what extent festivals have been crucial to the international exposure of these films and, further still, for their survival, which in turn has ensured they are recognized in the annals of film history. Apart from the obvious qualities of cinematographic excellence and historical significance, the controversy around, for instance, the exhibition of Night and Fog at Cannes in 1956 certainly increased the debate around the film in journalistic and academic circles.4 Differences aside, the performance of Moore’s films at Cannes and his attainment of the world’s most influential film festival award is surely one of the reasons why Bowling for Columbine ranks higher than Frederick Wiseman’s High School (1968) in Sight & Sound’s Documentary Poll, or Nicolas Philibert’s Être et Avoir (To Be and to Have, 2002)—to compare it with a more contemporary work. Other works from peripheral cinemas, such as La Batalla de Chile (The Battle of Chile, Patricio Guzmán, 1975), wouldn’t have even reached the crit-

6 

A. VALLEJO AND E. WINTON

ics and filmmakers who voted for the list, if they hadn’t been shown at European film festivals. The study of film festivals has provided critical insights into the inner dynamics of programming, management, political intervention and film circulation. From the social space shared by their attendees (Bazin 1955) and the various roles they assume (Dayan 2000), or their impact in film historiography (Di Chiara and Re 2011); to commercial aspects, such as festivals’ effects in the local and global space economy (Stringer 2001), their repercussion in the value-adding process for films and filmmakers (de Valck and Soeteman 2010; de Valck 2014; Bosma 2015) or the influence of festival film funds in shaping world cinema (Ross 2011), the study of film festivals offers comprehensive analyses that look at these global phenomena as sites where multiple agendas (economic, political, social, cultural, etc.) coexist (Harbord 2002; Turan 2002; de Valck 2007; Wong 2011). The essays in this collection approach these fascinating facets from a wide range of geographical locations, looking at key aspects that shape festivals’ histories, political aims and stakeholder (including commercial) effects. In the field of documentary studies, film festivals have rarely been addressed. We find some exceptions  in recent works, such as David Hogarth’s reflection on the global dimension of these events (2006, 33–36), Ruby Rich’s recount of their importance in the introduction to Cinema Journal’s (2010) special issue on documentary, Ana Vicente’s approach to documentary distribution (2008), Vallejo’s works about the use of the festival circuit as a production and promotion platform for documentary (2014, 2015), or Winton’s forthcoming monograph on Hot Docs. In fact, textual analysis and historical revisionism of documentary classics prevail in more recent publications (Austin and De Jong 2008; Winston 2013), while new interactive and collaborative practices have also been addressed, extending the documentary analysis to contexts of production and distribution in the digital age (Aston et al. 2017). Internet platforms have indeed centred many of the debates, while festivals still remain a mostly unexplored area. Blind spots do persist: If we look at Ian Aitken’s Encyclopedia of Documentary Film (2005), only Cinéma du Réel in Paris and IDFA in Amsterdam have individual entries. Nevertheless, many festivals are mentioned throughout the text, and major events such as Cannes, Berlin or Sundance appear several times, usually in reference to the awards received by key filmmakers. Other collections devoted to the analysis of documen-

  INTRODUCTION—VOLUME 1: DOCUMENTARY FILM FESTIVALS: METHODS… 

7

tary films refer to festivals sporadically, and New York, Sundance and Cannes appear as the most frequently mentioned in this regard. We have stewarded these two Documentary Film Festivals volumes in an effort to explore the documentary festival ecosystem as a relatively recent phenomenon that—as the biological metaphor suggests—creates a space for the development and nurturance of film cultures within it, while also creating a mutual dependence. The analysis of historical changes occurring in the exhibition circuit, and political actions fostered within it, are all key to this study. These central cultural fields serve as thematic axes that inspire the contributions herein, guiding us in our aim to contribute to a better understanding of documentary film in its past, present and future contexts.

Towards a Definition of the Documentary Film Festival (Part I) In order to better grasp the intersection of the documentary film and the film festival, we believe it is worthwhile to attempt a definition of sorts. In an era in which the boundaries of the documentary genre continue to blur, and where hybrid forms that mix non-fiction, fiction, animation and experimental practices are on the rise, it is important to consider the role that festivals play in defining what a documentary is, which of course leads to considerations of the ways in which the documentary film festival may also be defined. To guide us in these efforts, we draw on various concepts discussed by Nichols (1991, 2010), which point to key aspects that help guide the focus of each of our two volumes. The first aspect, elaborated next, is related to epistemological, socio-political and aesthetic concerns widely developed in documentary theory. Their exploration traverses the methodological, historical and political considerations discussed in this first volume. The second, elaborated in our second volume, focuses on the institutional framework referred by Nichols (1991, 14–31), which identifies authoritative agents that contribute to defining documentary, including practitioners, institutions, texts and viewers—all of which interact within the festival setting. This second definitional aspect is widely related to recent changes which have occurred in the festival circuit and its growing influence in production and distribution, a core line of inquiry of our second volume’s chapters.

8 

A. VALLEJO AND E. WINTON

Bringing these two aspects together, we define documentary festivals as public and/or industry events dedicated to the curation and exhibition of the cinematic genre or mode known as documentary, differentiating themselves from events specializing in other film genres and practices, such as fiction or animation. Documentary film festivals are social, cultural and discursive spaces in which multiple sectors, agents and forces of documentary film, industry and culture interact (be they directors, producers, sales agents, funders, sponsors, programmers, critics, audiences etc.) and where creative and economic (and sometimes political) alliances are forged. Specializing in this genre calls for a distinctive frame of interpretation as it selects films that claim a relation to “reality” both in form (with its own conventions, aesthetics and sub-genres) and in content (portraying alleged “facts” and representing lived experience). This involves an intrinsic socio-­ political dimension and a particular relationship with (and against) mainstream media discourses. In what follows, we deepen the epistemological, socio-political and aesthetic aspects that define the documentary festival, looking at specific festival dynamics that have occurred in recent years. When looking at the specificities of the documentary genre, Nichols points to the key issues at stake, including (but not limited to) (i) the genre’s relation to truth and knowledge; (ii) documentary’s socio-political commitment; and (iii) its distinctive aesthetic and narrative modes of representation (1991, 2010). It follows that these three definitional aspects of documentary are also crucially deployed towards a working definition of “the documentary film festival” as a cultural, social, political, economic and aesthetic space that inspires other particular frameworks of interpretation. In our definitional pursuit, we position documentary film festivals firstly in relation to audience expectations and the culturally contingent notion of veracity, or “the real.” As a concept, as a manifestation of conventions or as a political/aesthetic postulation, documentary drags with it wherever it goes the heavy weight of truth claims. Logically then, these same qualities—for better or worse—become embodied and refracted in the spaces and structures that are designed to care for (curate), nurture (support) and share (present) documentary. One might say that documentary’s relationship to the real world extends into the screening contexts in which the film texts circulate, meaning documentary film festivals equally stake out claims on truth in and at their attendant events. Moreover, documentary not only trades on truth (perhaps best captured by the phrase “visible evidence”), but there is an indelible association with veracity that the

  INTRODUCTION—VOLUME 1: DOCUMENTARY FILM FESTIVALS: METHODS… 

9

genre injects into the experience of each festival that showcases documentary. Following Nichols’s provocation, where documentary for the most part engages with the world in which we live, and fiction describes and presents a world imagined by the filmmaker (Nichols 2010, xi), it follows documentary festivals are engaged in presenting the world on screen. Regardless of hybridity flourishes or the familiar territorial disputes, “documentary” remains a category and concept that sketches a (rough) outline that demarcates the audio-visual recording and representation of actuality. The documentary festival setting therefore privileges a particular form of reception in which the viewer is led to expect this representation of reality and thus reads (and decodes) the films associatively. Secondly, the socio-political dimension, although not unique to documentary festivals, is a key aspect of the documentary film festival. As illustrated in the section on politics in this volume, documentary’s association with acts of resisting dominant narratives, upending the status quo and intermingling with political provocations and social movements is at the heart of many documentary festivals’ (often activist/advocacy) origins. Nevertheless, social justice and political activism tend to find hostile company in business cultures and spaces, and so it is perhaps no surprise that at mainstream commercial festivals like Cannes, Tribeca and the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF) one might search in vain for festival-­ related or sanctioned activism, while instead encountering a strong mercantile spirit. As such, the admixture of documentary and festival “presents an intriguing and unique contact zone that combines the first two foundational, or traditional, festival elements with a third: that is, business, art and activism” (Winton in Robbins and Saglier 2015). Whereas at grassroots and community-oriented festivals such as those found listed in the Radical Film Network directory,5 or activism-oriented festivals such as the numerous Human Rights Film Festivals, the second aspect of the documentary festival triad—socio-political—is omnipresent, examples of banishment or containment of activism at mainstream festivals abound.6 While this book doesn’t focus on those festivals whose main aim is bolstering political action, several chapters address the socio-political dimension of festivals, including a close reading of institutionalized festivals (such as Hot Docs, see Ezra Winton this volume), the exploration of grassroots initiatives led by filmmakers (such as Vikalp in India, see Battaglia this volume), and an examination of the historic evolution in some festivals from political commitment to more industrial agendas (such as Nyon, see Jungen this volume).

10 

A. VALLEJO AND E. WINTON

Thirdly, we approach the specificities of documentary festivals in relation to genre distinctions, which are therefore differentiated from fiction festivals. The development of feature-length documentary in the digital era has provided an arena for documentary to gain prominence over other minor-genres—such as short and experimental film—with which documentary had traditionally shared festival space at minor festivals (see Vallejo, this volume). As many examples of documentary festivals’ origins attest, this shift in documentary format can be interpreted as both cause and consequence of the rising of a network of specialized festivals that focus exclusively on the documentary genre. At the same time, documentary hybridization with other genres—including experimental, animation and fiction film—has facilitated the increasing presence of feature-­ documentaries at major festivals (see Iglesias 2020, in our second volume). While this doesn’t necessarily threaten documentary festivals’ very existence, it means that premieres are taken away from the specialized circuit (Vallejo, this volume). Moreover, the contesting practices of fiction and documentary festivals towards labelling or not labelling a film as documentary illustrate the ways in which film festivals contribute to defining the genre. Finally, documentary film festivals have positioned themselves in relation to mass media, and more specifically, to television formats and discourses about actuality. In this context, documentary festivals present alternative approaches to both current affairs and the historical past. Documentary, with few exceptions, has staked out its territory mostly on the peripheries of mainstream culture, and as such it has historically shared more in common with alternative media than any notion of what constitutes mainstream cinema (Winton Forthcoming). With this in mind, when documentary meets festival, two co-existing ontologies emerge: the first manifests as the intersection of “alternative” and “mainstream” (as in a documentary that plays at a commercial festival like TIFF); the second as the parallel intersection of documentary and festival, bundled in an institution and event that exclusively privileges and engages documentary film (these events, known as documentary film festivals, manifest along different points of the spectrum of alternative and mainstream, with some decidedly community-oriented, aesthetic-oriented and some decidedly commercial-oriented). It is these two latter aspects that we mostly address in both volumes of this collection. Following this definitional undertaking, we have selected our case studies according to their international relevance, historical interest, global diversity

  INTRODUCTION—VOLUME 1: DOCUMENTARY FILM FESTIVALS: METHODS… 

11

and institutional differences. Our interest in how the festival ecosystem affects the documentary form has also led us to include analyses of generalist film festivals, or those not specialized in documentary (Vallejo, this volume; Iglesias 2020, in our  second volume). Chapters in this book address a wide range of events labelled as documentary festivals, while also leaving others out. Although the political aspects of documentary film festivals are certainly a driving force for many of the chapters in this volume, this collection also offers a markedly different approach, as it doesn’t orient around thematic festivals but to those classified by genre, therefore addressing the most relevant documentary festivals worldwide—such as Yamagata or Hot Docs.7 Despite their importance for documentary exhibition, we do not pointedly address thematic festivals that focus on human rights, political activism or environmental issues, which together can be considered as a sub-circuit of their own. This is because, as we noted earlier, there are already publications that cover those festivals; and because we wanted to approach the documentary as a genre with its own aesthetic and ontological features, and as a space for cinematic experimentation in which the notion of “creative documentary” now most recently prevails as a defining identity. Documentary films are therefore considered not only as “documents” of reality and their social dimensions but also as an art form, a fruitful (and more affordable) alternative for peripheral cinemas and as a practice that has its own production, distribution and exhibition channels. It is the aim of our two volumes to approach the subject from these different angles. We hope the key points we have highlighted bring us closer to defining the documentary film festival in all its dressings and contradictions. Regardless, we are confident the following chapters will certainly assist in these efforts, and it is to summarizing that content we now wish to briefly turn.

Structure and Contents The book opens with a conversation with renowned documentary film scholar Bill Nichols, who reflects on the relationships between film festivals and documentary film. Rather than providing definitive answers, the interview introduces relevant topics and opens up new questions about the possibilities for the study of documentary film festivals, such as the relationship between academia and film festivals, the role of documentary festivals in defining and shaping this genre and the future of this field of

12 

A. VALLEJO AND E. WINTON

study. Built on Nichols’s recollections and personal insights, this generative discussion raises issues that are interrogated in later chapters, which sometimes share or contest his opinions about contemporary documentary practice and its exhibition contexts. This first volume is divided into three parts, each prefaced by a short introduction that frames different properties of the documentary festival phenomenon: its methodological implications, history and political role. Contemporary festival challenges, industrial developments and professional concerns are the focus of the second volume Documentary Film Festivals Vol. 2: Changes, Challenges, Professional Perspectives. Part I herein, “Research and Methods”, brings into focus some of the problems faced when researching film festivals, addressing the selection of research topics and methods, as well as archiving practices. Film Festival Research Network co-founder Skadi Loist reflects on methodological issues through a review of academic workshops celebrated since 2009. Heather Barnes, a specialist on moving image preservation, offers a discussion about the different kinds of data collection and recording practices carried out by film festivals. She proposes the example of the collaboration between the Full Frame Documentary Film Festival and Duke University as a possible model to follow for archival purposes. Part II, “Histories and Origins”, includes chapters that provide a historical overview of the development of the international documentary festival ecosystem. Firstly, Aida Vallejo proposes a chronological reconstruction of the presence of documentary at film festivals throughout the twentieth century and the beginning of twenty-first century, identifying different periods and reflecting on the conformation of the documentary canon. The next three chapters deepen the specificities of each of these periods through the study of specific case studies. Dunja Jelenković analyzes the Belgrade Documentary and Short Film Festival, an example of the specialized festivals that appeared in the 1950s. She investigates the politicization of festival programming parallel to war discourse in Yugoslavia using World War II motif to feed the conflict, and reflects on the importance of cultural history to understand wider historical processes. Christian Jungen focuses on the shifts brought about by the end of the 1960s through a study of Nyon International Documentary Film Festival’s origins. He retraces the professional trajectory of its founder, Moritz de Hadeln, and reflects on his participation in the international cultural elite that programmed film festivals in a period marked by clashing ideologies. ­ Closing this section, Eija Niskanen focuses on the 1980s with a historical

  INTRODUCTION—VOLUME 1: DOCUMENTARY FILM FESTIVALS: METHODS… 

13

analysis of the positioning of the Yamagata International Documentary Film Festival within the global network of documentary festivals, and rooted in Japanese and Asian documentary traditions. Part III, “Politics and Policies”, looks at more recent phenomena, focusing on the political aspects currently faced by documentary film festivals and their relationship with the state and public policies that either constrain or foster their activities. Tit Leung Cheung reflects on censorship at the festival DOChina in Beijing. He discusses the difference between independent and underground practices, framing programming, production and exhibition practices in the context of governmental interventionism. Ezra Winton looks at the dynamics of the most influential documentary festival in North America: Toronto’s Hot Docs. He offers a study on the increasing commercialization of this big-audience festival and the consequences for activism. Giulia Battaglia focuses on the Indian context through a study of the Vikalp festival/campaign, which was organized by independent filmmakers as a reaction to state censorship in that country, and points to the importance of new communication technologies and social media for the development of professional networks. The last contribution by Antía López-Gómez, Aida Vallejo, Mª Soliña Barreiro and Amanda Alencar expands the sphere of Film Festival Studies to the field of Small Cinemas and linguistic minorities. Through a study of the European Union’s policies to promote a multilingual audio-visual space, they focus on the use of subtitles and Original Version in the documentary festival sphere.

Conclusions The multi-faceted nature of film festivals is a key aspect of their operation, and is summarily explored at length in our two volumes. Although in this book we devote a whole section to historical forays, all chapters in both volumes are aimed at offering general frameworks that help readers understand the historical context in which each festival has developed, especially within a specific region and/or socio-cultural context. Equally, politics appears as a leitmotiv not only in Part III of this volume but also throughout most chapters of this collection, lending evidence to the specificity of documentary as a place for activism and social change (whether realized or not). Aesthetics, although without a section of its own, is key to the different filmic aspects analyzed throughout the text, especially in the frame of what has been considered a creative turn in documentary film in recent years. Directors and films mentioned throughout these two volumes

14 

A. VALLEJO AND E. WINTON

c­ ontribute not only to an expansion of the documentary canon but also to frame the genre in contexts of exhibition, while foregrounding the importance of documentary film festivals in the shaping of new documentary forms worldwide. This text is just a first step towards a more comprehensive understanding of not only what documentary festivals are or could be, but also where, when and how they arrived at their current states. The following pages, taken together, serve as an invitation to go beyond the casual-spectator role and adopt a more active and critical positioning towards festivals. In short, we invite readers to join us to assess, discuss, interrogate and celebrate documentary cinema at the site of the film festival.

Notes 1. Read past and current journal articles from Jump Cut here: https://www. ejumpcut.org/. 2. The entire series, which the University of Minnesota has discontinued, is featured here: https://www.upress.umn.edu/book-division/series/visibleevidence. Visible Evidence is also an annual conference that is held throughout the world and brings together documentary practitioners and scholars. 3. See some references about the oldest documentary festivals in the world in Vallejo, this volume. 4. After facing censorship from the German Embassy in France—which proposed to withdraw the film from the Cannes Film Festival—French print media supported the inclusion of the film in the programme. 5. Link: http://radicalfilmnetwork.com/directory/. 6. A recent example at TIFF 2014 involved a Yes Men prank against the Canadian financial institution Royal Bank of Canada (RBC), incidentally one of the festival’s main sponsors. The festival reacted by threatening to cancel screenings of the Yes Men documentary, which was incidentally featured at the festival that year. For more, see: Winton (2020a). 7. IDFA is mostly addressed in our second volume (Vallejo and Winton 2020).

References Aitken, Ian. 2005. Encyclopedia of the Documentary Film. London and New York: Routledge. Aston, Judith, Sandra Gaudenzi, and Mandy Rose, eds. 2017. I-docs: The Evolving Practices of Interactive Documentary. London: Wallflower Press and Columbia University Press.

  INTRODUCTION—VOLUME 1: DOCUMENTARY FILM FESTIVALS: METHODS… 

15

Austin, Thomas, and Wilma de Jong, eds. 2008. Rethinking Documentary: New Perspectives, New Practices. New York: Open University Press and McGraw-Hill. Bazin, André. 1955 [2009]. The Festival Viewed as a Religious Order. In Dekalog 3: On Film Festivals, ed. Richard Porton, 13–10. London: Wallflower Press. Original version in French: “Du festival considéré comme un ordre,” Les Cahiers du cinéma, 54–56. Bosma, Peter. 2015. Film Programming: Curating for Cinemas, Festivals, Archives. New York: Wallflower Press. Dayan, Daniel. 2000. Looking for Sundance: The Social Construction of a Film Festival. In Moving Images, Culture and the Mind, ed. Ib Bondebjerg, 43–52. Luton: University of Luton Press. de Valck, Marijke. 2007. Film Festivals: From European Geopolitics to Global Cinephilia. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. ———. 2014. Film Festivals, Bourdieu, and the Economization of Culture. Revue Canadienne d’Études Cinématographiques 23 (1): 74–89. de Valck, Marijke, and Mimi Soeteman. 2010. ‘And the Winner is…’: What Happens Behind the Scenes of Film Festival Competitions. International Journal of Cultural Studies 13 (3): 290–307. Di Chiara, Francesco, and Valentina Re. 2011. Film Festival/Film History: The Impact of Film Festivals on Cinema Historiography. Il Cinema Ritrovato and Beyond. Cinémas: revue d’études cinématographiques/Cinémas: Journal of Film Studies 21 (2–3): 131–151. Harbord, Janet. 2002. Film Festivals: Media Events and the Spaces of Flow. In Film Cultures, 59–75. London: Sage. Hogarth, David. 2006. Realer Than Reel. Global Directions in Documentary. Austin: University of Texas Press. Iglesias, Eulàlia. 2020. Positioning Documentaries at the Cannes International Film Festival: Fahrenheit 9/11 and Beyond. In Documentary Film Festivals Vol. 2. Changes, Challenges, Professional Perspectives, ed. Aida Vallejo and Ezra Winton, 113–129. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. Iordanova, Dina, gen. ed. 2009–2014. Film Festival Yearbook Series. St Andrews: St Andrews Film Studies. Iordanova, Dina, and Leshu Torchin, eds. 2012. Film Festival Yearbook 4: Film Festivals and Activism. St Andrews: St Andrews Film Studies. Nichols, Bill. 1991. Representing Reality: Issues and Concepts in Documentary. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. ———. 2010. Introduction to Documentary, Second Edition. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Nornes, Abé Mark. 2009. Bulldozers, Bibles and Very Sharp Knives: The Chinese Independent Documentary Scene. Film Quarterly 63 (1): 50–55. Renov, Michael, ed. 1993. Theorizing Documentary. New  York and London: Routledge.

16 

A. VALLEJO AND E. WINTON

Rich, Ruby. 2010. Documentary Disciplines: An Introduction. Cinema Journal 46 (1): 108–115. Robbins, Papagena, and Viviane Saglier. 2015. Interview with Ezra Winton, Director of Programming at Cinema Politica. Synoptique 3 (2). http://synoptique.hybrid.concordia.ca/index.php/main/article/view/74. Ross, Miriam. 2011. The Film Festival as producer: Latin American Films and Rotterdam’s Hubert Bals Fund. Screen 52 (2): 261–267. Roy, Carole. 2014. Documentary Film Festivals. Transformative Learning, Community Building & Solidarity. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Stringer, Julian. 2001. Global Cities and the International Film Festival Economy. In Cinema and the City: Film and Urban Societies in a Global Context, ed. Fitzmaurice T. Shiel, 134–143. Oxford: Blackwell. Tascón, Sonia M. 2015. Human Rights Film Festivals: Activism in Context. London and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Tascón, Sonia M., and Tyson Wils. 2016. Activist Film Festivals: Towards a Political Subject. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Turan, Kenneth. 2002. Sundance to Sarajevo: Film Festivals and the World They Made. Berkeley: University of California Press. Vallejo, Aida. 2014. Industry Sections. Documentary Film Festivals between Production and Distribution. Iluminace. Journal of Film Theory, History, and Aesthetics 26 (1): 65–82. ———. 2015. Documentary Filmmakers on the Circuit: A Festival Career from Czech Dream to Czech Peace. In Post-1990 Documentary: Reconfiguring Independence, ed. Camille Deprez and Judith Pernin, 171–187. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Vallejo, Aida, and Ezra Winton, eds. 2020. Documentary Film Festivals Vol. 2. Changes, Challenges, Professional Perspectives. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. Vicente, Ana. 2008. Documentary Viewing Platforms. In Rethinking Doclumentary: New Perspectives, New Practices, ed. Thomas Austin and Wilma de Jong. New York: Open University Press and McGraw-Hill. Waugh, Thomas, ed. 1984. Show Us Life: Toward a History and Aesthetics of the Committed Documentary. Lanham: Scarecrow Press. Winston, Brian. 1995. Claiming the Real: The Griersonian Documentary and Its Legitimations. London: British Film Institute. Winston, Brian, ed. 2013. The Documentary Film Book. London and New York: British Film Institute and Palgrave Macmillan.

  INTRODUCTION—VOLUME 1: DOCUMENTARY FILM FESTIVALS: METHODS… 

17

Winton, Ezra. Forthcoming. Buying In to Doing Good: Documentary Politics and Curatorial Ethics at the Hot Docs Film Festival. Montréal and Kingston: McGillQueen’s University Press. ———. 2020a. The Program(ming) is Political: Documentary, Festivals and the Politics of Programming. In InsURGENT Media from the Front: A Global Media Activism Reader, ed. Stephen Charbonneau and Christopher Robe. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Wong, Cindy Hing-Yuk. 2011. Film Festivals: Culture, People, and Power on the Global Screen. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

Defining Documentary in the Festival Circuit: A Conversation with Bill Nichols Aida Vallejo

Internationally renowned film scholar Bill Nichols is undoubtedly a key referent for documentary studies. In his seminal work Representing Reality: Issues and Concepts in Documentary (1991), he offers sapient reflections about the significance, ethics and aesthetics of the genre, which he further develops in Blurred Boundaries (Nichols 1994a), Introduction to Documentary (2001) and Speaking Truths with Film: Evidence, Ethics, Politics in Documentary (2016). In these works, Nichols refers to four main aspects which contribute to the articulation of a definition of documentary: a community of practitioners, an institutional framework, a corpus of texts and a constituency of viewers (1991, 12–31). Festivals represent a nodal point where these agents gather and negotiate the meaning of documentary, and therefore offer a critical aspect of film culture that must be taken into account for a better understanding of the genre. Nevertheless, these events have a timid presence in Nichols’ work, a reason why we consider that his further reflections on this topic can shed some light on the current developments in the study of the relationships between text and context in the formation of documentary cultures. A. Vallejo (*) University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Leioa, Spain e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 A. Vallejo, E. Winton (eds.), Documentary Film Festivals Vol. 1, Framing Film Festivals, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17320-3_2

19

20 

A. VALLEJO

Nevertheless, a lesser-known aspect of Nichols’ contribution to Film Studies is his work on film festivals published in the 1990s. Two of his articles that appeared in 1994, “Discovering Form, Inferring Meaning” (1994b) and “Global Image Consumption in the Age of Late Capitalism” (1994c), have been recently rescued by Film Festival Studies scholars and have been widely referenced, or even reprinted (Iordanova 2013, 29–44, see Nichols 1994c). Nichols’ expertise and reflections are therefore of key importance to incipient scholarship that aims to investigate the intersections of film festivals and documentary film. In the following conversation, Nichols reveals his insights into the past, present and future for the study of documentary film festivals. Aida Vallejo: How did you come to the topic of film festivals as academic objects of study in your pioneering articles written in the 1990s?1 Bill Nichols: Well, a few years earlier I had written Representing Reality and then I was working on Blurred Boundaries. That was a period of time when I was working quite a bit with Visual Anthropology. I was very interested in ethnographic questions, and the film festival site just struck me as one that I was going to often, as well as visiting various countries to give talks, like China, which was a very vivid example in 1986. The late 1980s was a very transformative period, when an early wave of western film theorists visited China at a point when most Chinese filmmakers had not seen western films. And it got me thinking that we used the festival as the site to import knowledge, as if you are going to a library. I was taking it for granted, not thinking about what it is like to be in a festival. I was thinking: What can I get from the festival? Information, facts, new film titles, repertoire, meeting people …. And I think that the ethnographic context I was working in stimulated me to reflect that we need to think about the festival as a very peculiar kind of culture, like another country, like a regional or distinct subculture. And then I had a chance to go to the Toronto International Film Festival that year (1993), and the festival had chosen to show Iranian films, and I thought: Oh, this is the perfect test-­ case! But I think that, particularly in the article published in the East-West Journal (on the global context), I was trying to think about what the film festival does to constitute a particular kind of reception, a particular audience and a culture that is distinct to it and that hasn’t been looked at. Now, as you say, it’s becoming a “hot topic.”

  DEFINING DOCUMENTARY IN THE FESTIVAL CIRCUIT: A CONVERSATION… 

21

And what is, in your opinion, the reason for this recent interest from academia? Why did film festivals become a “hot topic”? Well, after I wrote those articles I don’t remember much further discussion. But more recently people were starting groups; informal connections developed, and books started to come up. You know, it was a little bit of a surprise! Because it was like: Oh! And what happened for 20 years? I thought that I myself might do some more with that idea. I remember Jeffrey Ruoff, who was pursuing some questions about the festival audience and festivals, and apart from him it didn’t seem to be creating much interest. Part of the reason may be that festivals themselves have become so plentiful. I’m thinking here in San Francisco right this week we have the San Francisco International Film Festival, one of the oldest in the United States. But, almost every week in San Francisco there is a film festival. It seems that there are festivals spawning everywhere, and I think that’s part of the stimulus, the festival phenomenon itself. Given your expertise, I was wondering why you didn’t develop this interest in festivals also for those specializing in documentary? That’s a good question. I think at that point I didn’t think of documentary film festivals as a separate category. I had been to some, but it didn’t seem like a prominent enough phenomenon to really draw my attention. And I think my interest had always been primarily on the films and contextualizing films, groups of films, looking at their formal qualities, and their relation to social issues, and the larger questions about the industry, about production, distribution, marketing. Festivals seemed like something that others might have more expertise on. So, when I wrote those articles I felt very much like I was stepping into new water, and maybe others who were more familiar with that would get in their boats and paddle further than I could, but it didn’t happen quickly. It wasn’t right on the top of my agenda. Although it seems that it is now! And how do you see the influence of film festivals in the creation of a film canon? To what extent do they influence the inclusion of specific documentaries in film history? When you go back to the early 1990s when I wrote those pioneering books, the main book that I remember that most people referred to in discussions about documentary was Erik Barnow’s History of Documentary (1993). And that was based on his personal experience, on the films he had seen through archives, and on filmmakers. And I don’t think festivals

22 

A. VALLEJO

played a very large role. Certainly he doesn’t talk about them, even though there were documentary festivals during that period. But I think he helped to set a tone, and it is not a criticism—looking for films that were either exemplary in their form or speaking to significant issues. For me, in that period the festival was a kind of support structure, and a secondary one. I remember back in the 1970s going to the San Francisco Film Festival. My friends and I watched films from morning to night, but probably only a handful of documentaries. I remember Painters Painting by Emile de Antonio (1972), and in the press conference one of the artists in the film said “stop talking to these people—meaning the press in the room— they don’t understand what you are doing; you are wasting your time.” That was almost symbolic of the idea of discussing documentary at all. Because most film-goers were not interested in documentary. But there was a strong divide, and the idea was that documentaries are factual, they deal with the “truth,” with true issues in a real way, and they’re often boring. And in the late 1980s the appearance of Michael Moore’s Roger and Me (1989) was like: “Oh my god! There is a film that can play in theatres and make millions. We have to pay attention to this.” And The Thin Blue Line (Errol Morris, 1988) came out around the same time, and I think that the effect of both films was like a flag going up on a pole saying: “From now on, documentaries are not to be ignored. You have to learn to understand them, you have to ask about them, and you will need to know something about them.” And we are having the San Francisco International Film Festival going on right now, and not only are there quite a number of documentaries in it, but they are highlighted. That would never have happened 20 or 30 years ago. Now some documentaries get more attention than the features. The Act of Killing (Joshua Oppenheimer, Anonymous and Christine Cynn, 2012), like Night and Fog (Alain Resnais, 1956) for similar reasons— both are dealing with atrocious crimes—has generated that kind of buzz. And do you think that nowadays festivals are still secondary to the creation of the canon? Well, Sundance has always been used as an example. If you get a lot of exposure at Sundance, maybe you can get a distribution deal. And this is true for both fiction and documentary. I think that’s one of the roles festivals have played. If you can make a film that catches the attention in the festival circuit, whether it is the big circuit—Cannes, Berlin, Toronto and so on—or in a more secondary circuit, maybe New York and San Francisco … Sundance is somewhere in between …. That is a way to get to the marketplace. And in that sense, the festivals act as gatekeepers for what films get

  DEFINING DOCUMENTARY IN THE FESTIVAL CIRCUIT: A CONVERSATION… 

23

shown, and then there is the reception from audiences and critics as to which films are worth discussing and remembering. I think that does play a role in getting films before a larger public, and I think that’s the first step to qualifying for a canon. But I don’t think it canonizes as such. Because to me that takes time. It’s only over time that we can see changes in style, in direction. And which in your opinion are the most relevant agents? I think that the primary point of evolution is the filmmaker. First of all, you need to have someone like Joshua Oppenheimer making films that are pushing boundaries. Then, what happens is partly a question of festivals. The curators, the festival, the audience, the critics … all can then contribute to a dialogue about how this film has opened up possibilities, exposed us to feelings and emotions we hadn’t anticipated. But I don’t think festivals themselves create the new cutting-edge. Filmmakers are definitely first and more important for this evolution. What, in your view, is the role of film festivals in articulating a documentary definition? I think film festivals have an educational or training role. I don’t think it’s altogether conscious, but by choosing the films they choose (which are often either controversial in subject matter or distinctive in style), they are in a way educating the audience to the ranges, limits and possibilities for the form. And if you attend them, if you go to a festival devoted to documentary or you go to watch documentaries in a larger festival, you are learning to watch films that someone has already labelled as documentary. For example, if you watch a film like The Act of Killing there is a lot of fantasy, recreation, reconstructions, re-enactment … etc. You might ask: “What kind of documentary is this?” And I think that’s the core, that’s the question one might be invited to ask, by being presented with film in a context where boundaries are more fluid. The very idea of the festival is that we’re gathering to celebrate something unusual. Films that have been curated. It’s not just what’s on TV this week, or what the local cinema chain is showing. It’s like, we’re going to step back; we’re going to cast a net around the world, and try to find films that we think are out of the ordinary. And as a viewer, when that’s presented in a documentary context, I think you’re constantly invited to ask: “How does this contribute to my understanding of what documentaries are? And how can I understand this as a documentary?” And in that way, I think the festivals have extended our sense. Look at what happened at the Oscars 2014: the film that won was 20 Feet from

24 

A. VALLEJO

Stardom (Morgan Neville, 2013), and one of the films that lost was The Act of Killing. In that sense, I think that the Academy members hadn’t gone to enough festivals [laughs]. I think they voted for the documentary that was more conventional and traditional in form. The Academy is not a society for reflection, and 20 Steps from Stardom was a perfectly good choice, but I think the festival is where we get to step outside the boundaries that a conventional film honours. In Representing Reality you associate the terms “epistephilia” (as the pleasure of knowledge) and “scopophilia” (as the aesthetic pleasure of looking) to documentary and fiction, respectively. Given the new trends in documentary, with first-person films, subjectivity and other ways of pushing the boundaries of the genre, are these changes in style challenging in some way this distinction? Can the spectator find much more scopophilic possibilities in documentary nowadays? Yes. If I would rewrite this, I would go back and rethink this question like you are suggesting. When I was characterizing documentary in an earlier stage, it was something that was often boring. Not all of them, because a number of British documentaries, and certainly Flaherty and others, had quite stunning images, but for the most part they were sort of detached from character. They had a situation, an issue, but what was called the visual pleasure was usually subordinated, and in the service of some kind of knowledge transfer. Like we want you to understand the importance or significance of an issue, or a way to solve it. Now that has diminished significantly and the number of documentaries that address issues with the hope of solving them, I think it’s much less than it used to be proportionally. And the number of documentaries that explore the situation in order to have you understand it more fully regardless of what sort of decision you make is greater. And in that sense the visual quality matters more and carries more weight in a documentary context. It’s not that the scopophilic fiction has been copied; it’s a kind of visual pleasure in the service of a different kind of knowledge, an embodied knowledge, which is what I was discussing in the opening part of Blurred Boundaries back then. Typical knowledge transfer is disembodied knowledge, where everybody understands the same truth. Embodied knowledge is more experiential, it’s what David McDougall’s films are about, it’s what Lucien Taylor’s recent films like Sweetgrass (Ilisa Barbash and Lucien Castaing-Taylor, 2009) and now Leviathan (Lucien Castaing-Taylor and Verena Paravel, 2012) are about. It’s more about how does it feel to be in a given situation. And then based on those feelings you may have value judgements and interpretations. And that can be conveyed often well visually, as well

  DEFINING DOCUMENTARY IN THE FESTIVAL CIRCUIT: A CONVERSATION… 

25

as with music, which is another quality that I think recent documentary is more attentive to. And I would go back again to The Thin Blue Line and certainly the film Koyaanisqatsi (1982) by Godfrey Reggio. Another example: Péter Forgács’ films. Michael Renov and I coedited a book of essays on his work (2011). As far as I know, he has never had a theatrical release, but his films are mainly known either from television in Europe or at the festivals. And they’ve been in numerous festivals (such as Warsaw and San Francisco), and the music in his films is exceptionally evocative, suggestive, and it really creates a tone and a mood and an atmosphere that is itself immersive. These documentary films have also taken to using the visuals and using music to convey an experiential or embodied sense of knowledge. Now words like “scopophilia” and “epistephilia” have become shifting registers. And festivals have been sensitive to that. Tell us about some of your memories of festivals you’ve attended. I think one of the things that is true and strikes me over time is that I can’t say I have been to an enormous number of documentary film festivals. But, I have been to documentary festivals in the Czech Republic, Netherlands, Korea, Japan, China, Brazil and the United States. So, some reasonable exposure. And one of the things that really strikes me in almost all cases is the size and enthusiasm of the audience. I remember going to Jihlava IDFF (Jihlava International Documentary Film Festival) in the Czech Republic, where I was on the jury. There was a large auditorium where many of the films (which were fairly obscure) were shown. A typical festival, you know, not much buzz, filmmakers you may not have heard of and so on. But this very large theatre was jammed full. And when we gave the awards at the end, the theatre was totally full. And the whole thing had a real aura of excitement and anticipation surrounding the awards and who was there. It was just like fiction festivals. I also remember when I was at IDFA (International Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam) in 2010 and I was on a jury. I was the one on the team who had to come up and give the award, and it was in this beautiful theatre that seats probably over a thousand people, and it was the award show, so they played some clips. But it wasn’t a feature-documentary being shown, just the awards. But it was totally full. And I remember in Amsterdam that every day I thought I was becoming more ignorant, because I might see, on a good day, four or five documentaries, and the festival was showing 30 or 40. You just could not possibly see them all. But there was a sort of euphoria that you’re in documentary heaven, because there is such a rich amazing array of films, some of which you know are going to get in theatres, and others that you suspect may never

26 

A. VALLEJO

be seen again. And the differences were not necessarily aesthetic, there were many reasons. The chance to see films and choose your own path through those films, to me, is one of the most remarkable things. Another reflection I was having when thinking about our talk today is that in a couple of weeks I am going to the Mendocino Film Festival, a small event that takes place in a small coastal town to the north of San Francisco and shows a mixture of fiction and documentary. One of the things that strikes me is that as a phenomenon, the festival creates a virtual community. That’s part of the subculture of the festival. During its duration, a group of people attend and to some degree get to know each other. Because you hear someone ask questions, you strike up conversations waiting in line, which is more common in a festival, to wait in lines. You ask about what’s been seen, what you’ll see next and so on. And there is a group of people that come together with a common interest, who then have a chance to share some of their enthusiasm and interest with other strangers. And it happens in a very informal way. It’s something that one might study, as I did with the films that are on the screen. But the audience in the theatres also constitute a particular microcosm. And it’s an audience that might well have questions about work the filmmaker did 30 years ago. That’s part of what makes the festival audience distinct. It’s not just what new Superman film is out now that can distract me for a couple of hours. It’s how these films contribute to my understanding and knowledge and experience of film in general, given that I have an interest in it already. And in that sense, I think that at all the festivals I’ve been to, the distinction between the people behind the screen, the people making the films, the people putting them on the screen and the audience is narrower. Festivals are places where you can actually literally rub shoulders with Francis Ford Coppola or Kiarostami. Even if it’s just rubbing shoulders, I think there is a sense of “we are in this together,” which I think is quite nice! And what was your experience as a jury member from the point of view of a scholar? Oh, it is very enlightening. You see how people from different backgrounds value and appreciate different types of films, so it’s a learning experience. It’s a kind of group encounter. Certainly, one of those other sociological phenomena one can study is a jury. You know, how does a group of strangers who have a certain kind of knowledge, in this case film, come together and make judgements and come to decisions. And the stages and the process of familiarization, and sharing—usually tentatively for most people at first—values, testing the waters, finding common

  DEFINING DOCUMENTARY IN THE FESTIVAL CIRCUIT: A CONVERSATION… 

27

ground, learning what kind of arguments are persuasive or not … and in that sense, it’s a very enlightening and I would say also enjoyable process. Whoever wins the prize is going to be the person who gets the attention, and the jury is thus forgotten. But behind the scenes you are doing something that will definitely have an impact. It is not something that will carry your name forward like making a film or writing a book. And that makes decision-making easier. And do you think scholars have more or different resources to discuss than other professionals? Not necessarily. On the whole, scholar-types are more comfortable about what they think or feel, better with words. And filmmakers on juries are sometimes not as comfortable putting in words what they feel. They just can’t quite find the words to capture what they feel, but if someone else tries for them, they might say, that is exactly it or not. So that is part of what makes it interesting. It’s finding a common ground, in terms of how to express your feelings about the film. An academic can be too “academic.” You know, they can be a little bit … [laughs] dry, and theoretical about what they think. And often what really makes a film compelling to an audience is not how it uses long-takes, it is how it makes you feel. Yes, that’s why I think a scholar on a jury needs to put the scholarship hat a little bit to the side. But still, the knowledge, the historical familiarity, the conceptual tools, these are all useful if they are really put in the service of how this film engages you as a viewer. How do you see the future and possibilities of research and collaboration with film festivals? Which aspects of film festivals should be approached for a better understanding of documentary? Well, I look forward to seeing what your book makes me think [laughs]. You know, having work come out on this or having a study group at the SCMS  (Society for Cinema and Media Studies) will partly answer that question. Because it is to me determinant. Like you say, I think given the prominence of film festivals, and their proliferation, it just seems that invites a lot of reflection on what we call the standardization and differentiation of festivals. What do they have in common? How do they associate with the idea of a film festival? And then, how are they different? And maybe some of the things that you raised earlier, like canonization. How the films get selected. It’s pretty phenomenal, you know? One in a hundred getting chosen is not unusual. So, what happens with the other 99? What are the economics of that for festivals and filmmakers? How much time do you need to spend and usually pay for, to get someone to watch

28 

A. VALLEJO

100 films in order to pick one? And if you are submitting films, how many times can you pay registration fees, and shipping, even with video or DVDs, you are partly paying for the reviewer. But how many times can you afford to do that? And what are the logics and economics of all that? As I mentioned before, I would also draw attention to the audience. This community is an interesting thing to look at further in terms of the audience at festivals, as well as the festivity of the festivals. How is it different from watching a movie in another context? Another issue would be the confluences and the similarities and differences between festivals and the internet, which we ought to pursue further too. Also, the changing and evolving place and significance of documentary within large festivals like New York, Venice, San Francisco, Berlin, Toronto …. That also is something that can merit further attention. So I think there are a lot of questions that will continue to come up as we go forward, and I don’t think festivals are going to go away.

Note 1. This interview originally took place in 2014 via online video call (Bilbao-San Francisco), with further updates in 2018.

References Barnow, Erik. 1993. Documentary: A History of the Non-Fiction Film. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nichols, Bill. 1991. Representing Reality: Issues and Concepts in Documentary. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. ———. 1994a. Blurred Boundaries: Questions of Meaning in Contemporary Culture. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. ———. 1994b. Discovering Form, Inferring Meaning: New Cinemas and the Film Festival Circuit. Film Quarterly 47 (3): 16–30. http://www.jstor.org/ stable/1212956. ———. 1994c. Global Image Consumption in the Age of Late Capitalism. East-­ West Film Journal 8 (1): 68–85. Reprinted in Dina Iordanova, ed. 2013. The Film Festival Reader. St Andrews: St Andrews Film Studies, 29–44. ———. 2001. Introduction to Documentary. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. (Second edition: 2010; third edition: 2017). ———. 2016. Speaking Truths with Film: Evidence, Ethics, Politics in Documentary. Oakland, CA: University of California Press. Nichols, Bill, and Michael Renov, eds. 2011. Cinema’s Alchemist: The Films of Péter Forgács. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

PART I

Research and Methods

Introduction to Part I, Vol. 1: Researching Documentary Film Festivals Aida Vallejo

In her introduction to Film Festivals: History, Theory, Method, Practice (2016), Marijke de Valck reflects on the possible agendas of film festival research. de Valck points out that depending on the type of case study—or the type of festival(s)—that you choose as an object of academic inquiry, research questions to be raised should differ (Ibid., 6–7). Today, documentary film festivals have similar features and are confronted with similar challenges as film festivals in general, and this applies to the four aspects mentioned by de Valck: size, outreach, programming and technological issues (Ibid., 2–5). Nevertheless, as we discuss in the introduction to this book, the particularities of documentary film festivals call for their own set of specific research questions, and in as such, some theoretical frameworks, research methods and data sources are privileged over others. In this brief section that follows, two key aspects of documentary film festival research are discussed: research methodologies and archival practices. Presented as a summary of some of the main research problems faced by film festival studies, it gives a general overview of key tools for the study

A. Vallejo (*) University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Leioa, Spain e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 A. Vallejo, E. Winton (eds.), Documentary Film Festivals Vol. 1, Framing Film Festivals, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17320-3_3

31

32 

A. VALLEJO

of film festivals and the practical issues to be faced by researchers, as well as the ways in which documentary festivals have provided particular responses to these queries.

Research Topics and Questions: What to Study in Documentary Film Festivals? The documentary festival as an object of study shows some particularities, such as the absence of stars, which in turn greatly impact both the level of media coverage a festival receives and how the event can be accessed. The protagonists of documentary films are often presented at documentary festivals to attract audiences and media attention, but they lack the aura of famous actresses and actors that sustain the glamour and glitz of festivals devoted to fiction. Other features are the smaller quantity of festival staff, and a general community atmosphere and collaborative spirit shown by many documentary professionals (producers, directors and festival organizers alike). This is not to say that there lacks competition between festivals or filmmakers, or that there are not big egos seeking to make a career at documentary festivals. Hierarchies certainly exist, but they are less pronounced than at major A-list festivals and, above all, have less impact on the possibility of carrying out a successful research project. Current research on documentary film festivals includes studies that approach general topics—and can be applied to film festivals in general— and that are linked to ongoing debates within film festival studies. These include those focused on economic issues, such as the creation of value through prizes (de Valck and Soeteman 2010) or festivals’ role in production and distribution (Vallejo 2014). Although these topics have also been approached by researchers who analyze film festivals mainly devoted to fiction (see Peranson 2009; de Valck 2007; Wong 2011), the smaller size of documentary festivals and their particular dynamics of collaboration— which is often expressed by a willingness of organizers to share private information—facilitate access and therefore allow for focused and deep case studies (see Loist in this section). Research questions related to economic dynamics can be similar for documentary or generalist film festivals, but the answers elicit diverse findings. While the idea of considering the major film festival ecosystem as an interconnected circuit of distribution has been put into question (Iordanova 2009), studies about documentary festivals demonstrate that these events can function as an economically sustainable source of income for certain films both directly (Sienkiewicz

  INTRODUCTION TO PART I, VOL. 1… 

33

and McIntosh 2014) and indirectly, facilitating further distribution through television deals (Ambrós 2009), and Video on demand (VOD) or theatrical release (Vallejo 2014).1 Connections among the festivals also seem to be more evident in the documentary realm, in part due to a smaller presence of competitive dynamics such as premiere policies. In addition, practices of reciprocity, such as the invitation of other festival representatives to participate as jury members, are more common than in other festival circuits, in part due to the smaller size of the documentary community (see Vallejo 2017a). On the other hand, there are research topics more specifically attuned to documentary festivals, such as those focused on social impact2 and community building (Roy 2016), activism (Iordanova and Torchin 2012; Tascón 2015) and political debate (see Moine 2014 and the politics section in this volume). Finally, there is audience research conducted by the festivals themselves, such as Hot Docs’s 2014 study in Canada, which interprets data gleaned from a survey meant to better identify and understand documentary viewing habits (De Rosa and Burgess 2014).3

Theoretical Frameworks, Methodologies and Sources: How (and Where) to Study Documentary Film Festivals? Once the object of study has been decided upon, and the main research questions posed, theoretical frameworks and methodologies bring shape to the research. Film festival studies, as a young and interdisciplinary research area, has shown a major concern for defining its scope and boundaries, borrowing theories and methods from a wide spectrum of academic disciplines, including communication, sociology, anthropology, cultural management, history and, of course, film studies, to name but a few. Skadi Loist has noted how different approaches call for diverse methodologies: while historical accounts of film festivals rely heavily on archives, contemporary practices utilize ethnographic methods (2016, 119). In addition, qualitative approaches prevailing in film festival studies have privileged the theorization of larger mechanisms, and quantitative methods prove more appropriate for audience research or economic analysis (Ibid., 120). As we see throughout this volume, scholarly studies of documentary festivals continue to deploy qualitative approaches, while professional reports are more focused on hard data collection (including the aforementioned fes-

34 

A. VALLEJO

tival audience studies or reports of industry activity for internal use). The challenge we face as researchers is in considering to what extent are documentary film festivals willing to share these data. As we know, this kind of collaboration can compromise their position in relation to other festivals and the film industry. As Loist recounts in this section, documentary is not entirely exempt from certain access limitations in this regard. Loist’s contribution to this section recounts the debates articulated at international research workshops since 2009, including one exclusively devoted to documentary film festivals. She looks at methodological issues faced by film festival scholars, including the use of ethnomethodologies (see Vallejo 2017b), problems of access (see Dickson 2017) and archival complications (see Zielinski 2016). While these problems are common to the study of all kinds of film festivals, from my experience, documentary festivals usually put less limitations to access to their records and generally there is more transparency in their operation than in major international festivals devoted to fiction. This is also a matter of size—both in terms of budgets and in terms of staff—as many documentary festivals operate as small, non-profit organizations. Conversely, this can be also a handicap. The documentary festival can find difficulties in establishing proper records or space for archives, especially given the lack of stable offices or the limited time of contracts of staff members, where it is not uncommon for members of the team to change from one edition to the next.4 In her chapter in this section, Heather Barnes focuses on the Full Frame Documentary Film Festival to delineate the challenges that the study of film festivals poses in terms of data recording and archival sources, offering a taxonomy of the materials which can be archived, including ephemeral online materials. Technological issues are also pertinent for research focused on documentary film, as historically the formats may have differed from those of fiction, where 35 mm prevailed. Documentary usually relied on minor formats, which were at the same time cheaper and more adaptable to extreme and unpredictable shooting conditions, making use of lighter shooting equipment. Among documentary film festival archives, one finds films in 35 mm, 16 mm, Betacam, VHS or DVD formats which may be outdated and/or damaged.5 Furthermore, recent trends of online submission through sending links and passwords to access platforms in which the films are uploaded (such as Vimeo, Festhome and Withoutabox) totally change the landscape of festival archiving practices, as physical records of the films (especially those which are not selected) are not kept anymore. Budget limitations are yet another problem for archive digitiza-

  INTRODUCTION TO PART I, VOL. 1… 

35

tion. Moreover, it is worth noting that films included in the archives of documentary film festivals are not only those appearing in the programme, but—in the best cases—all films submitted for selection. These documentary films can be considered not only as works of art worthy of safe storage for their aesthetic value but also as cultural artefacts documenting historical events, cultural performances and languages from all around the world, including those which are in danger of disappearing. Some festivals have found diverse ways to secure the material support (reels, tapes or DVDs) of this immaterial cultural heritage, collaborating with institutions such as universities—examples include Full Frame in Durham (US) and Duke University, discussed by Barnes in this section, Re-Verzio Film Festival6 and the Open Society Archives (OSA)/Central European University in Budapest (Hungary), and Contra el Silencio Todas las Voces and Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana (UAM) in Mexico city (see Vallejo 2018, 163)—museums—like IDFA with the EYE museum in Amsterdam (Netherlands), or Thessaloniki Documentary Film Festival, with the Museum of Cinema (Greece)—and associations—such as EDOC (Encuentros del otro cine festival internacional de cine documental) and Cinememoria in Quito (Ecuador) (Idem.). An outstanding example of a film archive developed within a festival is La Maison du doc in Lussas, France, associated with the documentary festival États généraux du film documentaire. Started in 1989 as a video library available during the festival, today it doubly functions as a research centre and archive specialized in francophone documentaries.7 Although not directly focused on cultural preservation, film markets associated with festivals have become a major source for documentary archives. In addition to most films included in the festival programme,8 these markets offer the possibility to watch other films on sale. Additionally, it is worth noting that in the second half of the 2000s, many films were digitized by these industry events.9 Festivals and institutes for the promotion of documentary that have been managing festival markets—which took the form of video libraries available for documentary professionals— keep valuable archives, yet their collaboration with researchers needs to be developed. This is the case of the Institute of Documentary Film (IDF) and the East Doc Market in Prague (Czech Republic) with which I have collaborated for my research. One of the problems for researchers is that officially these institutes can only provide viewing films to potential buyers or distributors. Moreover, they also keep a lot of materials concerning both festivals and films, but for internal use only.

36 

A. VALLEJO

Finally, it is worth noting that although FIAPF (International Federation of Film Producers Association) has a very limited influence in the documentary festival ecosystem, they impose very restrictive conditions to their members, such as Zinebi Documentary and Short Film Festival in Bilbao or Krakow Film Festival. According to the FIAPF rules, film copies should not be kept by the festivals after the event, which highly limits their archival capacity.10

Establishing Protocols of Collaboration Given the aforementioned limitations and possibilities, I consider that it is necessary to forge a deeper knowledge and open discussion of the problems faced by both researchers and the festivals themselves, with regard to providing access to both events and institutional materials and the archives. With this aim, the first step should be to establish the guidelines of collaboration. One possible move would involve creating an international protocol for film submission to include the option to make films available for research purposes. Another possible advancement would be to create specific accreditation for researchers, which would provide access to parallel events such as industry sections or press conferences closed to the public. These are but two suggestions, while the chapters that follow open up the debate concerning the possibilities and limitations of film festival research and archiving practices within (and beyond) the documentary circuit.

Notes 1. For a reflection about the VOD platform dafilms.com promoted by the alliance of several festivals, see interview to Diana Tabakov in Slováková (2020), in our second volume. 2. In the 2016 edition of IDFA, Patricia Aufderheide from the School of Communication at American University in Washington, DC, conducted the talk “Evaluating Impact,” where case studies of impact measure of documentaries were analysed by industry professionals. See Vallejo (2016). 3. Visit this link to download the study in English or French: http://www. hotdocs.ca/i/learning-from-documentary-audiences 4. Similarly to the limitations of other secondary circuits, such as that of queer film festivals, as noted by Zielinski (2016). 5. See interview with Ernesto del Río in our second volume (Vallejo 2020). 6. Formerly Verzio Film Festival.

  INTRODUCTION TO PART I, VOL. 1… 

37

7. The archive has been  associated with the Bibliothéque nationale de France (BnF) since 2015, but the collaboration hasn’t materialized in any particular archival practice yet (see: http://www.lussasdoc.org/historique,199.html). 8. Normally films shown in retrospective sections are not included in the market. 9. In the European realm, digitization of these markets was implemented thanks to European Union funding. 10. In the case of Thessaloniki Documentary Festival, even though  it is not recognized by FIAPF, its organization is part of the Thessaloniki International Film Festival, which is accredited by FIAPF, and  therefore follows the same rules. This prevents the documentary festival of keeping copies of the films in the programme.

References Ambrós, Jordi. 2009. Financiación y difusión: mercados y festivales de documental. In Doc 21. Panorama del reciente cine documental en España, ed. Maria Inmaculada Sanchez Alarcón and Marta Díaz Estévez, 223–244. Gerona: Luces de Gálibo. De Rosa, Maria, and Marilyn Burgess. 2014. Learning from Documentary Audiences: A Market Research Study. Toronto: Hot Docs Canadian International Documentary Film Festival. https://goo.gl/dVndHQ. de Valck, Marijke. 2007. Film Festivals: From European Geopolitics to Global Cinephilia. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. ———. 2016. Introduction: What is a Film Festival? How to Study Festivals and Why You Should. In Film Festivals: History, Theory, Method, Practice, ed. Marijke de Valck, Brendan Kredell, and Skadi Loist, 1–11. London and New York: Routledge. de Valck, Marijke, and Mimi Soeteman. 2010. ‘And the Winner is…’: What Happens Behind the Scenes of Film Festival Competitions. International Journal of Cultural Studies 13 (3): 290–307. Dickson, Lesley-Ann. 2017. Insider/Outsider Positions at Glasgow Film Festival: Challenges, Issues and Opportunities in Industry-Partnered Ethnographic Research. In Film Festivals and Anthropology, ed. Aida Vallejo and María Paz Peirano, 261–275. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge SP. Iordanova, Dina. 2009. The Film Festival Circuit. In Film Festival Yearbook 1: The Festival Circuit, ed. Dina Iordanova and Ragan Rhyne, 23–39. St Andrews: St Andrews Film Studies. Iordanova, Dina, and Leshu Torchin, eds. 2012. Film Festival Yearbook 4: Film Festivals and Activism. St Andrews: St Andrews Film Studies.

38 

A. VALLEJO

Loist, Skadi. 2016. Part III—Method: Introduction. In Film Festivals: History, Theory, Method, Practice, ed. Marijke de Valck, Brendan Kredell, and Skadi Loist, 119–121. London and New York: Routledge. Moine, Caroline. 2014. Cinéma et guerre froide: Histoire du festival de films documentaires de Leipzig (1955–1990). Paris: Publications Sorbonne. Published in English: 2018. Screened Encounters. The Leipzig Documentary Film Festival 1955–1990. New York and Oxford: Berghahn Books. Peranson, Mark. 2009. First You Get the Power, Then You Get the Money: Two Models of Film Festivals. In Dekalog 3: On Film Festivals, ed. Richard Porton, 23–37. London: Wallflower Press. Roy, Carole. 2016. Documentary Film Festivals. Transformative Learning, Community Building & Solidarity. Boston: Sense Publishers. Sienkiewicz, Matt, and Heather McIntosh. 2014. The Spotlight and the Shadows: Film Festivals, Israeli Cinema and Globalisation. In Film Festivals and the Middle East, ed. Dina Iordanova and Stefanie Van de Peer, 221–234. St Andrews: St Andrews Film Studies. Slováková, Andrea. 2020. Connecting Festivals, Distributing Films: An Interview with Diana Tabakov, Acquisitions Manager at Doc Alliance Films VOD platform. In Documentary Film Festivals Vol. 2. Changes, Challenges, Professional Perspectives, ed. Aida Vallejo and Ezra Winton, 201–210. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. Tascón, Sonia M. 2015. Human Rights Festivals: Activism in Context. London and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Vallejo, Aida. 2014. Industry Sections. Documentary Film Festivals between Production and Distribution. Iluminace 26 (1): 65–82. ———. 2016. Of calendars and Industries: IDFA and CPH:DOX. Necsus. European Journal of Media Studies 9. https://goo.gl/2KHeZD. ———. 2017a. Travelling the Circuit: A Multi-sited Ethnography of Documentary Film Festivals in Europe. In Film Festivals and Anthropology, ed. Aida Vallejo and María Paz Peirano, 277–292. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge SP. ———. 2017b. Ethnographies of Film Festivals: Reflections on Methodology. In Film Festivals and Anthropology, ed. Aida Vallejo and María Paz Peirano, 251– 260. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge SP. ———. 2018. Festivales de cine documental en Iberoamérica: una cartografía histórica. Cine Documental 18: 144–171. https://goo.gl/MFcUcM. ———. 2020. Adapting to New Times: An Interview with Ernesto del Río, director of the Zinebi International Documentary and Short Film Festival of Bilbao (2000–2017). In Documentary Film Festivals Vol. 2. Changes, Challenges, Professional Perspectives, ed. Aida Vallejo and Ezra Winton, 137–146. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. Wong, Cindy. 2011. Film Festivals: Culture, People, and Power on the Global Screen. New Brunswick, NJ and London: Rutgers University Press.

  INTRODUCTION TO PART I, VOL. 1… 

39

Zielinski, Ger. 2016. On Studying Film Festival Ephemera: The Case of Queer Film Festivals and Archives of Feelings. In Film Festivals: History, Theory, Method, Practice, ed. Marijke de Valck, Brendan Kredell, and Skadi Loist, 138– 158. London and New York: Routledge.

Film Festival Research Workshops: Debates on Methodology Skadi Loist

The academic inquiry into the inner mechanisms and intricacies of film festivals has become a very productive interdisciplinary field in the past decade, which is evidenced by the growing number of books and academic articles.1 The complex systems called film festivals are a rewarding field for inquiries from very different angles: film as art form, film industry processes, institutions, reception and exhibition, politics of place and circuit flows (de Valck and Loist 2009, 182–189). However, festivals also pose a challenge as to how best to study them as multi-layered events and which theories and methods to apply. Groundbreaking studies by Thomas Elsaesser (2005) and Marijke de Valck (2007) have highlighted the useful adoption of concepts and theories borrowed from sociology. The Actor-Network-Theory (ANT) developed by Bruno Latour has been useful to think of the network in which the vast number of festivals is linked into the circuit. Another sociologist whose work has been adopted is Pierre Bourdieu. Bourdieu’s concepts of “taste” and “distinction” for instance are useful for a number of processes, which are part of festival work, such as selection processes as part of S. Loist (*) Film University Babelsberg Konrad Wolf, Potsdam, Germany e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 A. Vallejo, E. Winton (eds.), Documentary Film Festivals Vol. 1, Framing Film Festivals, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17320-3_4

41

42 

S. LOIST

­ rogramming as well as judging (jury awards, etc.) (de Valck 2007, 2014, p 2016; Wong 2011). The field of Film Festival Studies, however, has not only evolved in the form of discrete published academic inquiry that has presented theoretical approaches. In the past few years, along with many conference papers and panels, several workshops have taken place at conferences in an attempt to collectively think about how to methodologically study the messy objects that festivals are in their practical everyday business. Workshops discussing film festival studies and methodologies have taken place in 2009 at St. Andrews, 2010 at the Society for Cinema and Media Studies (SCMS), 2012 and 2013 both at the European Network for Cinema and Media Studies (NECS) and at the SCMS, and was taken up again at NECS 2016. Here a brief note in terms of positionality might be in order: as I have been an actively involved participant in many of these discussions, the following account might be a somewhat biased, personal take on what has been going on in the field. Yet, this is exactly what this account is about: positionality and levels of involvement within film festival research. One of the first events specifically devoted to film festival studies was a one-day workshop hosted by Dina Iordanova at the University of St. Andrews in 2009. Already here one of the most important strands in the discussions of how to proceed in film festival studies started to emerge: the connection between “academia” and “industry”. Iordanova had invited practitioners from the field, journalists and festival directors, along with an interdisciplinary set of scholars.2 Thus, the potentials for research were already acknowledged that arise from communication across the divide of academia and industry, two communities that often follow different agendas and interests but can benefit from each other’s expertise. In the subsequent discussions, the relation between film festivals and academic research has been central. Three different positions in this relation have emerged, which vary in the degree of distance and involvement between the two: (1) festivals and research are seen as distinct realms and activities where communication across the divide will bring mutual benefits; (2) the researcher moves closer to the object and becomes (temporarily) involved in the processes, one common way is participant observation; and (3) the distance between researcher and festival activity is diminishing further, for instance when the researcher occupies an insider position within the researched festival system, or when a festival organizer or programmer turns into a researcher. The way in which festival and academia

  FILM FESTIVAL RESEARCH WORKSHOPS: DEBATES ON METHODOLOGY 

43

are positioned to each other, I would argue, predetermines which challenges and proposed methods come into focus.

Access and Archives Starting from the first position, in which festival and academia are seen as distinct entities, the main problem routinely discussed is access to archives and material. The dearth of material and available archives was one of the points raised in St. Andrews and then taken up in the “Film Festival Research Methodology” workshop convened by Ragan Rhyne at the SCMS 2010 conference in Los Angeles.3 Following the traditional film and media studies path, researchers usually use publicly available material: program brochures, leaflets, information provided on websites and so on. Thus, the kind of material that is available influences the possibilities of research. This is especially a problem for historical research. While current research can collect material on site and create its own archive, historical research is dependent on archive material.4 Publicly available material such as program booklets provide only very limited insight into the world of a film festival. Program notes can provide a first glimpse into details of the films shown and potentially the organizers involved and guests in attendance. If one attempts an informed discussion of programming choices, more material is needed: an archive of films, including those that were not deemed classic gems over time and thus are not in circulation anymore. In addition, it is often difficult to obtain practical detailed information about the decision-making processes that are going on at film festivals. For an institutional analysis, work processes can potentially be gleaned from meeting minutes or accountant receipts. Ragan Rhyne suggested to “follow the money” in the 2010 workshop, thus urging researchers to not only rely on the usual textual material but also go through financial files and boxes of receipts to gain insights into an organization, while Ger Zielinski has pointed out the importance of ephemeral objects, such as flyers, posters, souvenirs and so on, both for countercultural festivals and for research.5 But often these materials are not available or simply non-existent. The 2013 workshop “Researching Documentary Film Festivals: Academics vs. Professionals” organized by Aida Vallejo and Šimon Bauer at the NECS Prague conference—which invited many local Czech as well as international documentary festival practitioners and industry figures6—

44 

S. LOIST

provided helpful steps toward further collaboration and information exchange between festivals and academia. One of the main points to take away was that the industry partners are not per se objecting to research. Their main concern voiced at the workshop was that they do not have the resources to actively develop such research. The fact that the workshop did focus on documentary festivals might account for the displayed willingness for collaboration. Since documentary film and the connected festival circuit operate with a different cachet of financial and cultural capital than the glamorous red-carpet oriented narrative feature circuit, the thresh-hold might be slightly lower. Different problems or logics are discernible behind the limited access to festival archives. For smaller festivals largely operating on bare minimum resources, without stable infrastructure and in precarious conditions hinging on volunteer labor,7 the issue of preserving records and archives is a luxury of space and time they simply cannot afford. This was also pointed out by Hana Kulhánková, director of the One World Human Rights Documentary Film Festival, at the NECS 2013 workshop in Prague. In an active step toward bridging the (perceived) divide between academic inquiry and festival operations, several of the practitioners present detailed what kind of materials—often side products of active festival work—could potentially be made available for later use by researchers: this could include internal film and multimedia archives, for instance at the Jihlava International Documentary Festival, or personal work archives containing notes on hundreds of Yugoslavian films as established by Rada Šešić. At larger festivals with better resources, archives and databases might exist but access can be limited for considerations of non-disclosure of industry processes. A common concern is how to deal with copyright issues in relation to original rights owners and festivals that need to be honored. This is an especially sensitive issue with brand new films that are still in the market stage. Aida Vallejo has mentioned an example from her own research of the documentary festival circuit: During the fieldwork process, she asked about the possibility to gain access to information such as statistics of film viewing, deals and presales in festival markets. She offered to honor an embargo period, such as accessing data only four years after the films had already been sold. The market organizers were still reluctant to share information, reasoning that the companies involved would not want to reveal their long-term strategies. In addition, since the implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the EU in 2018, questions of accessing data have become more complex as the status of data as protected personal information that festivals and institutions deal with undergoes new control mechanisms.

  FILM FESTIVAL RESEARCH WORKSHOPS: DEBATES ON METHODOLOGY 

45

Dialogue and Participant Observation Even when access to festival materials and archives is granted, gleaning information from booklets and other written documents merely scratches the surface of the workings of film festivals as these materials only tell a particular part of the story. Media sociologist Daniel Dayan (2013) points out that film festivals produce a written version of themselves, while the experience of attendees often tells a very different story. Beyond the fact that PR and press communication produce a certain image of a festival, it is essential to recognize that the majority of processes that make up the film festival are hidden from outside view. Even regular attendance, often regulated by an intricate choreography of accreditation levels, might not provide much insight into the inner workings. The second relational position between festival and researcher, which I propose here, is characterized by a move to come closer to an understanding of the festival workings. One way to learn more about the procedures behind the red carpets and silver screens is to turn to accounts by industry insiders. The growing field of Media Industries Studies has highlighted the value of writings by trade journalists and activists (Holt and Perren 2009, 9). Their books, articles and blogs provide nuanced background information that is based in long-term participation in the field. A more immediate way is to reach out to festival practitioners directly. The approximation to the research object can take different forms: the single-contact approach would involve a dialog with practitioners and interviews with them about their work. The form of an interview provides a way to understand the social interactions and decision-making processes that make up active festival work. These interviews create a stock of oral histories of festival practice that enables further study. The Film Festival Yearbook series made interviews with practitioners a standard feature. This is also a method that is greeted by practitioners: several participants of the NECS 2013 workshop stressed that they would be willing to act as interviewees as that would be the easiest and least time-consuming way for them to provide valuable information about their work. A more time-intensive approach would be to delve into the festival world in the form of participant observation.8 In this ethnographic approach the researcher inserts themselves in the processes as much as possible, follows one lead to the next and listens to anyone willing to talk about the subject. One specific form of participant observation, maybe even a hybrid of ethnography and insider role, was discussed at the two

46 

S. LOIST

workshops at NECS 2013  in Prague and NECS 2016  in Potsdam: the form of praxis internships, which combine working for the festival with gaining insight that can be utilized in future research on festivals (or other media industry entities).9 The issue of festival internships has appeared as one form of practice-­ based research among others over the years in conversations about how to best integrate film festivals in teaching. This was first discussed at SCMS Boston in 2012 in the workshop “Film Festival Pedagogy: Using the Film Festival as Film Course” convened by Eric Pierson and Roger Pace.10 Various festival researchers and media studies scholars have developed methods to bring festival practice knowledge into their teaching with the aim to provide some ways how students can access insider perspectives. These range from bringing experts into class, organize field trips to festivals, create film programs to learn first-hand about curating or put on a student film festival on their own. This topic was taken up again at NECS 2016  in Potsdam in the workshop “Festivals as Teaching Sites: A Roundtable on the Future of Film Festival Pedagogy”11 organized by Brendan Kredell in conjunction with conversations about the first textbook on film festivals coming out (de Valck et al. 2016). This most recent roundtable added a variety of examples on how classes that are centered on teaching qualitative and quantitative research methods were combined with festival topics. In this way, the discussions of previous years around developing methods in festival research have already been translated into media studies teaching. These recent moves to emulate insider knowledge by employing various teaching techniques lead us directly to the last form of relation of research and festival, in which the distance between the two is diminishing further: being involved in the festival organization directly.

Involvement and Questions of Positionality While the idea of traditional academic research is in many instances still the distanced, detached neutral researcher approaching the object of study without a personal agenda, especially in film festival studies knowledge of the practice side opens up new perspectives. Where researchers who come from outside can only work with available “evidence” and are often left speculating about the messy decision-making processes that can have far-­ reaching impact on the composition of a program, the life of a film and eventually the creation of a film canon, researchers with an insider point of

  FILM FESTIVAL RESEARCH WORKSHOPS: DEBATES ON METHODOLOGY 

47

view might be in a position to evaluate processes differently. Having been part of the system of negotiation between various stakeholders in the film festival universe (filmmakers, producers, sales agents, journalists, sponsors, etc.) potentially enables insider researchers to interact differently with interviewees as they can ask questions differently or look for different connections within material. The workshop “The Art and Politics of Film Festival Programming” convened by Liz Czach at SCMS 2010 in Los Angeles12 already pointed to the fact that many people involved in festival research have a professional background in festival practice, as indeed did all participants of this workshop. Similarly the workshop “Academics and Festivals: On the Flow of Labor, Expertise and Influence between”, convened by the NECS Film Festival Research Workgroup13 at the NECS 2012 Lisbon conference, highlighted the overlap of academic film historians and festival programmers, which also feeds into the discussion and research about film and festivals.14 To be sure, the potential advantage of researchers with insider knowledge also beckons a “critical self-positioning” (Ahn 2011, 4) toward the research object. There are different strategies of how to incorporate the practice background: for former festival workers who have turned into festival scholars the writing clearly profits from the deep knowledge of the field without necessarily addressing this background. Other scholars continue working in both realms and are explicitly outspoken and critical about their dual position within the field, as evidenced by Roya Rastegar in her piece “The De-Fusion of Good Intentions” (2009), where she gives a critical insider account of the working mechanisms and challenges of organizing an identity-­based film festival. Rastegar, who came to curate festivals by way of entering the practice field with the desire to research its mechanisms, continues to work in the field—formerly as Director of Programming at LA Film Festival, as Programming Associate at Sundance Film Festival and writer and producer of documentaries and series (Rastegar 2016). At the SCMS 2013 Chicago conference, Diane Burgess convened the workshop “Behind the Velvet Rope: Insider/Outsider Dilemmas for Film Festival Researchers”,15 where the advantages and challenges of this overlap were discussed.16 Some of the panelists discussed how the insider position can turn into a tightrope walk trying to balance insider knowledge and critical distance. This is especially the case if one continues to move in both realms and does not simply want to leave behind one for the other. What do you know? What can you, what do you want to publish? On the

48 

S. LOIST

one hand, as an active festival worker one is bound by ethics and loyalty with the employer, sometimes even manifested in a contract complete with a non-disclosure clause—as Diane Burgess mentioned regarding her experience as former festival employee at the Vancouver International Film Festival. On the other hand, there is no desire to put other people and their reputations on the line. Even when certain insider information might inform a reading of mechanisms and processes happening behind the scenes, one cannot always publish such findings because of disclosure issues as well as the lack of publicly available resources that could be used as reference. Here different standards might be in play for journalistic and academic work.

Conclusions What becomes apparent when looking back at the various workshop conversations from the last few years is that there is considerable discussion about qualitative methods and specifically a discernible move toward ethnographic methods in order to understand the deeper levels of festival organizations and network effects. This might have to do with the parallel strengthening of Media Industries Research, which deploys many of the same methodologies. The next methodological move—which has not been directly discussed at the above-mentioned workshops, but is emerging in various ongoing projects17—is the collection and utilization of quantitative data. As has been discussed earlier in relation to archives and databases, quantitative data (statistics, surveys, etc.) on film festivals are on a larger scale either non-existent or hard to access. This is a challenge for film festival studies especially in areas such as audience research or film circulation, that is, for the verification of the notion that the film festival circuit acts as an alternative distribution network. Nevertheless, growing connections between the worlds of theory and practice also come with the benefit not only of access (of academia) to the field (festival industry) but also with the ability to offer something back to the field. Thus, film festival research is not only a one-way street benefiting academic careers but has the potential to provide active cross pollination in the thinking about ongoing developments in film, film technology, presentation, exhibition, teaching and so forth, which makes the research worthwhile for all parties involved.

  FILM FESTIVAL RESEARCH WORKSHOPS: DEBATES ON METHODOLOGY 

49

Notes 1. An extensive overview of writings on film festivals can be found on the regularly updated online bibliography of the Film Festival Research Network. Online. Available at: http://www.filmfestivalresearch.org/ index.php/ffrn-bibliography/ (accessed 17 November 2019). 2. Workshop participants included: Irene Bignardi (Filmitalia), Ruby Cheung (University of St. Andrews), Stuart Cunningham (Queensland University of Technology), Lindiwe Dovey (SOAS, University of London), Michael Gubbins (Screen International), Janet Harbord (Goldsmiths College, University of London), Dina Iordanova (University of St. Andrews), Skadi Loist (University of Hamburg), Lucy Mazdon (University of Southampton), Richard Porton (Cineaste Magazine), David Slocum (The Berlin School of Creative Leadership), Núria Triana-Toribio (University of Manchester) and Marijke de Valck (University of Amsterdam). 3. Participants of the workshop included along with Ragan Rhyne (St. Andrews), Su-Anne Yeo (Goldsmiths), Roya Rastegar (UCSC), Brendan Kredell (Northwestern) and myself. 4. For the French context, archivists Iris Berbain and Lenka Bokova provide detailed information on the catalogues, minutes and flyers and so on that are available to festival researchers at the Bibliotèque nationale de France (Berbain and Bokova 2013). 5. See Zielinski (2016). 6. Along with Aida Vallejo (researcher on European Documentary Film Festivals), participants included Andrea Slovaková (director of AMU Press, publishing house of Academy of Performing Arts in Prague), Katarina Holubcová (executive director of Jihlava International Documentary Festival, Czech Republic), Hana Kulhánková (director of One World Human Rights Documentary Film Festival), Diana Tabakov (acquisitions in Doc Alliance Films), Zdeněk Blaha (project coordinator of East Silver Video Library), Hanka Rezková (project coordinator of Institute of Documentary Film, Czech Republic), Rada Šešić (IDFA Bertha Fund and Sarajevo Film Festival), Boris Mitić (Serbian filmmaker and producer) and myself as representative of the Film Festival Research Network. 7. I have discussed the issue of precarious conditions and volunteer labor with a focus on LGBT/Q film festivals (Loist 2011), but the problem holds true for most festivals in the vast festival network. 8. For a discussion of the benefits of ethnographic methods and participant observation for film festival research, see Vallejo (2014, 2017) and Lee (2016). 9. See Lesley-Ann Dickson’s chapter on issues of insider/outsider positioning based on her experiences with industry-partnered ethnographic research at

50 

S. LOIST

Glasgow Film Festival for her PhD research (University of Glasgow 2014), Dickson (2017). 10. Convened by Eric Pierson and Roger Pace (University of San Diego), the workshop participants included Ger Zielinski (Trent University), Dorota Ostrowska (Birkbeck, University of London), Lindiwe Dovey (SOAS), Logan Walker (University of California, Santa Cruz) and myself. The workshop resulted in a published dossier of the same title (Zielinski 2014). 11. The workshop brought together Brendan Kredell (Oakland University), Diane Burgess (University of British Columbia), Marijke de Valck (Utrecht University), Dorota Ostrowska (Birkbeck College, University of London), Ger Zielinski (Trent University) and myself. 12. Workshop participants included B.  Ruby Rich (UCSC), Kay Armatage (Toronto), Liz Czach (Alberta) and Diane Burgess (Simon Fraser). 13. Greg de Cuir, Jr. (Selector/Programmer, Alternative Film/Video Belgrade; Managing Editor, NECSUS: European Journal of Media Studies), Gavin Wilson (York St John University, UK, former cameraman, writer, sector manager Screen Yorkshire) and myself in capacity as member of the Lesbisch Schwule Filmtage Hamburg | International Queer Film Festival. 14. The double position of festival worker and researcher is also evident in much recent published research: either they were or they still are active festival organizers (Ahn 2011; Fischer 2013) or have a background in programming (e.g. Czach 2004; Rastegar 2009). 15. Workshop participants included Diane Burgess (UBC), Christian Jungen (Zurich) and myself. Two further participants, who have been instrumental in these ongoing discussions in the field—Roya Rastegar (UCLA) and Liz Czach (Alberta)—were kept away by snow storms and accidents. 16. Out of this discussion evolved the dialog about approaches to film festival research by Diane Burgess and Brendan Kredell (2016). 17. See, for example, the Kinomatics project led by Deb Verhoeven or my research project “Film Circulation on the International Film Festival Network and the Impact on Global Film Culture” (2017–2021), funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. See www. filmcirculation.net.

References Ahn, SooJeong. 2011. The Pusan International Film Festival, South Korean Cinema and Globalization. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Berbain, Iris, and Lenka Bokova. 2013. Quelles sources pour l’histoire des festivals?: Les collections du départment des Arts du spectacle de la BnF; l’histoire du festival d’Avignon dans les collections de la maison Jean Vilar. In Une histoire des festivals: XXe-XXIe siècle, ed. Anaïs Fléchet, Pascale Gœtschel, Patricia

  FILM FESTIVAL RESEARCH WORKSHOPS: DEBATES ON METHODOLOGY 

51

Hidiroglou, Sophie Jacotot, Caroline Moine, and Julie Verlaine, 303–315. Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne. Burgess, Diane, and Brendan Kredell. 2016. Positionality and Film Festival Research: A Conversation. In Film Festivals: History, Theory, Method, Practice, ed. Marijke de Valck, Brendan Kredell, and Skadi Loist, 159–176. London and New York: Routledge. Czach, Liz. 2004. Film Festivals, Programming, and the Building of a National Cinema. The Moving Image 4 (1): 76–88. Dayan, Daniel. 2013. Looking for Sundance: The Social Construction of a Film Festival (2000). In The Film Festivals Reader, ed. Dina Iordanova, 45–58. St Andrews: St Andrews Film Studies. de Valck, Marijke. 2007. Film Festivals: From European Geopolitics to Global Cinephilia. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. ———. 2014. Film Festivals, Bourdieu, and the Economization of Culture. Canadian Journal of Film Studies | Revue Canadienne d’Études Cinématographiques 23 (1): 74–89. ———. 2016. Fostering Art, Adding Value, Cultivating Taste: Film Festivals as Sites of Cultural Legitimization. In Film Festivals: History, Theory, Method, Practice, ed. Marijke de Valck, Brendan Kredell, and Skadi Loist, 100–116. London and New York: Routledge. de Valck, Marijke, Brendan Kredell, and Skadi Loist, eds. 2016. Film Festivals: History, Theory, Method, Practice. London and New York: Routledge. de Valck, Marijke, and Skadi Loist. 2009. Film Festival Studies: An Overview of a Burgeoning Field. In Film Festival Yearbook 1: The Festival Circuit, ed. Dina Iordanova and Ragan Rhyne, 179–215. St Andrews: St Andrews Film Studies. Dickson, Lesley-Ann. 2017. Insider/Outsider Positions at Glasgow Film Festival: Challenges, Issues and Opportunities in Industry-Partnered Ethnographic Research. In Film Festivals and Anthropology, ed. Aida Vallejo and Maria-Paz Peirano, 261–276. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Elsaesser, Thomas. 2005. Film Festival Networks: The New Topographies of Cinema in Europe. In European Cinema: Face to Face with Hollywood, 82–107. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Fischer, Alex. 2013. Sustainable Projections: Concepts in Film Festival Management. St Andrews: St Andrews Film Studies. Holt, Jennifer, and Alisa Perren. 2009. Introduction: Does the World Really Need One More Field of Study? In Media Industries: History, Theory, and Method, ed. Jennifer Holt and Alisa Perren, 1–16. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Lee, Toby. 2016. Being There, Taking Place: Ethnography at the Film Festival. In Film Festivals: History, Theory, Method, Practice, ed. Marijke de Valck, Brendan Kredell, and Skadi Loist, 122–137. London and New York: Routledge. Loist, Skadi. 2011. Precarious Cultural Work: About the Organization of (Queer) Film Festivals. Screen 52 (2): 268–273.

52 

S. LOIST

Rastegar, Roya. 2009. The De-Fusion of Good Intentions: Outfest’s Fusion Film Festival. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 15 (3): 481–497. ———. 2016. Seeing Differently: The Curatorial Potential of Film Festival Programming. In Film Festivals: History, Theory, Method, Practice, ed. Marijke de Valck, Brendan Kredell, and Skadi Loist, 181–195. London and New York: Routledge. Vallejo, Aida. 2014. Etnografías del cine: nuevas aproximaciones al estudio de festivales. In Espacios de comunicación: Actas del IV Congreso Internacional de la Asociación Española de Investigación de la Comunicación, ed. Itxaso Fernández-Astobiza, 1751–1763. Bilbao: AEIC (Asociación Española de Investigación de la Comunicación). ———. 2017. Ethnographies of Film Festivals: Reflections on Methodology. In Film Festivals and Anthropology, ed. Aida Vallejo and Maria-Paz Peirano, 251– 260. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Wong, Cindy Hing-Yuk. 2011. Film Festivals: Culture, People, and Power on the Global Screen. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Zielinski, Ger, ed. 2014. Film Festival Pedagogy: Using the Film Festival in or as a Film Course. Scope: An Online Journal of Film & TV Studies 26. ———. 2016. On Studying Film Festival Ephemera: The Case of Queer Film Festivals and Archives of Feelings. In Film Festivals: History, Theory, Method, Practice, ed. Marijke de Valck, Brendan Kredell, and Skadi Loist, 138–158. London and New York: Routledge.

The Data-Driven Festival: Recordkeeping and Archival Practices Heather L. Barnes

Film festivals have been explored from a variety of informal and scholarly perspectives. Little research exists, however, on the exact types of artefacts and data they generate and how they manage information. In order to connect researchers with festival archives more effectively, we need a better sense of how festivals are managing their records. Film festival records reflect the history and identity of each festival, and they contribute to our understanding of the history of film. Records are not always easy to find, however. Researchers have noted the challenges inherent in locating and preserving records of arts organizations (Phelan 2003; Reason 2003). de Valck (2007) argues that well-maintained film festival archives are invaluable tools for historical and cultural analysis. Rüling and Pedersen propose that festival archives can become “genuine repositories of knowledge” (2010, 319) and argue for the importance of identifying festivals’ textual/documentary traces (321). The organizations that execute film festivals focus primarily on event production, not on documentation.

H. L. Barnes (*) Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, USA University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA © The Author(s) 2020 A. Vallejo, E. Winton (eds.), Documentary Film Festivals Vol. 1, Framing Film Festivals, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17320-3_5

53

54 

H. L. BARNES

They typically have just a few full-time employees and rely heavily on temporary volunteers. These factors, alongside substantial t­echnological challenges, create barriers to festival records preservation. Festivals create and accumulate a wide range of “traces.” Artefacts such as programmes, tickets, posters, databases, DVDs, and film prints are all potentially useful to researchers. Although uncommon, partnerships between festivals and film archives offer benefits in the form of space and archival expertise. What follows is an overview of exploratory research efforts focused on the question of how scholars and archivists might approach film festival archives and records. Between 2010 and 2012 I interviewed staff from US film festivals about their recordkeeping and archiving practices, examined film festival websites as potential sources of archival materials, and developed case studies on specific documentary film festival archives. Drawing on that research, this chapter explores issues and questions related to the artefacts of film festivals. I offer a taxonomy of the materials which can be archived, including physical records and ephemeral data, as well as online and offline sources, and focus on technological challenges for their preservation. I end up by presenting the collaboration of Full Frame Documentary Film Festival and Duke University as a case study and possible model to follow.

What Do Festivals Keep? Physical Records Versus Ephemeral Data Film festivals incorporate many live elements, from speakers to workshops. Some festival artefacts such as signed posters and flyers might be classified as ephemera, similar to traces of theatre artefacts. Differences in how ephemera from festivals are preserved create challenges for scholars in terms of locating and identifying materials that may have research potential. One of the key challenges in preserving festival histories is that only one or two people in the organization may have the necessary knowledge about the contents of the records; photographs pose a particular challenge, as do obsolete media. Festivals often use historical records in their planning processes. Data from previous festivals in the form of audience surveys, submissions, or marketing data inform the current event production cycle. One substantial concern related to festival websites’ ability to serve as historical documentation is that the objects on the site (photos, videos) often lack sufficient metadata. For example, photos on many of the sites I examined lacked names, dates, and locations—necessary metadata elements for long-term preservation.

  THE DATA-DRIVEN FESTIVAL: RECORDKEEPING AND ARCHIVAL PRACTICES 

55

In addition to film data and copies of films, audience research, marketing materials, sales data, volunteer training information, screening DVDs (or links to online clips on services such as YouTube and Vimeo), digital copies of films, posters, programmes, website files, and fundraising contacts are some of the materials housed in film festival offices.

Where Does Festival Information Live? Online and Offline Sources One of many challenges for archivists and researchers in preserving film festival records is that their archives vary widely in terms of how well they are organized. Some festivals attend to records management and employ staff to organize files; in others, files are simply stored on the personal hard drives or in the home offices of festival staff. Film festival websites are among the many channels through which festivals communicate with audiences, filmmakers, and other stakeholders. They often feature “archives” or “history” sections containing information about past festivals, photographs, film synopses, and other data. In serving this information, festival websites are sites of artefacts from the festival’s history. Websites also feature current activities of the festival organization, offering news about upcoming events. However, festivals in my exploratory study tended to publish only limited glimpses of festival history—for example, information about award-winning films. Only rarely do they offer more complete archives; for example, elements such as video clips or searchable databases of past years’ films are infrequent. Commercial services like Vimeo and Flickr are sometimes used to serve video content. Although festival websites vary widely, most of the websites I examined included paragraph-length film synopses and core metadata elements including country of origin, title, length, and key production staff. If preserved, this data may offer useful information to researchers and those interested in the festivals’ histories. The quality of the data varies from site to site and lacks archival-quality standardization. In interviews with directors, participants reported keeping past films and data in order to field information requests from the public or to review the history of a particular filmmaker’s work while programming current festivals. Electronic records are typically held in-house or on remote ­servers, on cloud-based services such as Dropbox or Google Docs. Records exist on a spectrum of cohesiveness, ranging from simple cardboard boxes

56 

H. L. BARNES

labelled by year to formal arrangements in which records are deposited with institutional archives. Although festivals cannot typically serve as de facto film archives, festival organizations sometimes retain submission copies of films after the festival ends. This practice is likely to change, given the transition to online submissions systems like Withoutabox (a service of Amazon).

How Do Researchers Find and Preserve Festival Data? Technology Changes and Challenges Archives literature outlines the many challenges that organizations face in their efforts to preserve digital records (Tibbo 2003; Hedstrom and Lee 2002). Organizations with limited archival infrastructure face a particularly uncertain future in preserving their digital records. Short-lived digital artefacts such as websites and databases require focused efforts in order to curate the information they contain. The lifespan of a typical website is measured in months, not years; it is critical for the festival research community to identify and collect online festival materials while the media are still accessible. Technologies such as the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine—which archives a copy of each website and allows it to be pulled up on the IA site—and other archiving strategies can be helpful in this regard. Film festivals are increasingly “data-driven” in that they are interested in using their data and records more to plan and produce festivals. Many depend on digital marketing platforms like Twitter and Facebook. Festivals included in my sample maintained hybrid records; that is, they created and used both digital and analogue records. The shift from DVD submissions to online (file-based) submissions means that festivals do not accept DVDs to the same extent as during the 1990s and 2000s. Festivals reported using a mix of in-house, cloud-based, and commercial systems for data management including Google Docs, YouTube or Vimeo, and Withoutabox. For data management, some festivals have developed their own databases for fundraising, contacts management, filmmaker information, and submissions. Traditional office software such as Microsoft Office and Filemaker were also reported. Although most festivals rely on volunteers or limited core staff for their daily operations, some reported having specialized staff on hand for information technology support. Another concern related to the longevity of festival records is the fragility of digital records systems, the need for frequent data backups, and the

  THE DATA-DRIVEN FESTIVAL: RECORDKEEPING AND ARCHIVAL PRACTICES 

57

need for substantive IT support. Festival budgets and a lack of partnerships with formal archives are two factors influencing the accessibility of a festival’s records and the urgency of preserving them.

How Might Festivals and Archives Collaborate? A Case Study on the Full Frame Festival and Duke University Festivals may be thought of as temporary archives or museums; they curate, acquire, and exhibit films in time-limited events. Unlike archives, however, their focus is on production of the festival event(s); while they maintain records and data in support of organizational memory, their intent is not to serve as a long-term repository for films. Partnerships with formal archives, which offer both staff and infrastructure, can support festivals in developing effective archiving strategies. In 2007, Duke University Libraries developed an ongoing partnership with the Full Frame Festival to preserve and document preservation masters of annual festival award winners; programmes are included in the collection as well. Currently, the archive holds 242 items and is staffed by one full-time archivist and one part-time intern. A finding aid is available on the Duke University Libraries web site (http://library.duke.edu), where festival items are catalogued and described according to national standards for moving image materials. The collection is marketed via the Full Frame festival, special events featuring individual screenings of films in the collection, and on University and Full Frame websites. The festival itself does not contribute the preservation master; each filmmaker is contacted and must agree to deposit his or her work into the archives. The intent is to include all award winners; however, some filmmakers or their distribution companies decline to participate or are unreachable. After film labs create duplicate preservation master prints, these are stored off-site. DVD backup copies are also stored off-site. Access to the collection involves use of screening copies. According to Full Frame staff, the implementation of an archiving agreement with a moving image collection is a valuable arrangement. Duke offers space and expertise to enable the organization to preserve award-winning films. In addition to providing information about award winners, the organization maintains (on its own) a substantial portion of its own records. The organization retains each year’s passes, programmes,

58 

H. L. BARNES

t-shirts, and other artefacts which are then used for reference and in developing concepts and materials for subsequent events. Programmes contain a great deal of information about the festival itself, films, and filmmakers, and are considered essential to retain. The “human archive”—the wealth of knowledge about festival history that is held by long-time staff members—is an overlooked element of Full Frame’s organizational memory. This alongside some of the less-tangible elements of the festival, for example, conversations among filmmakers and audiences and the festival’s contributions to broader cultural issues (addressed in the themes of each festival), are much more challenging to document with existing records. Records management within the organization deals with both paper and electronic records. Full Frame reports that it produces or accumulates a wide range of paper documents; however, their files are (approximately) 75 per cent digital. Similar to other film festival organizations, Full Frame does not have written policies regarding backups, data emergencies, or long-term data preservation. However, its partnership with Duke’s archives set it apart in terms of preservation practices. Like other festivals, Full Frame has a small staff and, although it does not have an archivist on staff, it benefits from the organizational support provided by the Center for Documentary Studies (CDS) and Duke. The focus on film festival award winners enables the collection to keep costs down somewhat; however, locating and securing film prints can be challenging and expensive. The collaborative partnership offers both benefits and challenges. With additional resources, the festival-archives model might be expanded to include other festival documents such as programmes and posters. Overall, the arrangement provides an example of how documentary festivals might work with archives to launch sustainable preservation partnerships.

Conclusions Festivals vary widely in their ability to manage their growing collections of data and other digital and analogue media. Historians and film studies scholars are increasingly interested in the artefacts created by film festivals. In order for festivals to develop more comprehensive and efficient archives, it is important to identify the types of records that festivals have in common. A common set of data elements could assist researchers in searching for film festival information and direct archives in designing collections management tools that support documentary film festivals and scholars.

  THE DATA-DRIVEN FESTIVAL: RECORDKEEPING AND ARCHIVAL PRACTICES 

59

References de Valck, Marijke. 2007. Film Festivals: From European Geopolitics to Global Cinephilia. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Hedstrom, Margaret, and Christopher A. Lee. 2002. Significant properties of digital objects: definitions, applications, Implications. In Proceedings of the DLMForum 2002, Barcelona, 6–8 May 2002, 218–227. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Phelan, Peggy. 2003. Representation Without Reproduction. Performance: Media and Technology 3: 320. Reason, Matthew. 2003. Archive or Memory? The Detritus of Live Performance. New Theatre Quarterly: NTQ 19 (1): 82–89. Rüling, Charles-Clemens, and Jesper Strandgaard Pedersen. 2010. Film Festival Research from an Organizational Studies Perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Management 26 (3): 318–323. Tibbo, Helen. 2003. Primarily History in America: How US Historians Search for Primary Materials at the Dawn of the Digital Age. The American Archivist 66 (1): 9–50.

PART II

Histories and Origins

Introduction to Part II, Vol. 1: Mapping the History of Documentary Film Festivals Aida Vallejo

Retracing the history of documentary film festivals is of paramount importance to understand their role in the changing nature of the documentary film form through the years. Moreover, identifying different periods and structural changes is key to understanding their contemporary organizational structures and operation modes. With this in mind, chapters in this section offer historical accounts of the origins of different festivals, providing the necessary framework to understand their inner contemporary dynamics. As this collection aims to offer a global and diachronic overview of documentary film festivals, historical accounts are also included in many chapters appearing in other sections of our two volumes. The central challenge for the film historian is that festivals are by nature ephemeral encounters that operate annually, or even more intermittently (at times with temporary breaks or even final dissolution). This fragmentation calls for a systemic and comparative analysis of their operation, including their recurrent patterns as well as changing aspects through the years. This can lead us to identify major periods and trends, like those proposed

A. Vallejo (*) University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Leioa, Spain e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 A. Vallejo, E. Winton (eds.), Documentary Film Festivals Vol. 1, Framing Film Festivals, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17320-3_6

63

64 

A. VALLEJO

by de Valck (2007, 2012) and Wong (2011), who reveal key turning points that affected the role and organization of film festivals worldwide. This section reflects on the place of documentary both at generalist and at documentary festivals over time, and focuses on particular case studies in order to analyze specific aspects of the evolution of documentary film festivals. Each chapter looks at a different historical period and includes studies of the festivals’ political role in national contexts, their contribution to the creation of international cultural elites, and their impact in national and regional documentary movements in a global context.

A Chronology of International Documentary Film Festivals The history of film festivals has been approached from two different angles: the local-individual (with studies of certain events, normally published as anniversary books),1 and the global-comparative (proposing periodizations that look for recurrent patterns and turning points). Retracing the origins of the film festival as a European phenomenon (Elsaesser 2005; de Valck 2007), these global approaches mostly agree in proposing three main historical phases: (1) 1932–1968, when festivals served as spaces for cultural diplomacy; (2) 1968–1980s, the “age of programmers”, when festivals became independently organized; and (3) 1980s–today, the “age of directors”, when festivals have become more institutionalized and professionalized, incorporating industry activities to their programs (de Valck 2007, 2012).2 Documentary film festivals’ trajectory mostly fit in these historical phases, but with some specificities. Their historical dependence and relationship with major events explains their parallel trajectories. Nevertheless, as I recount in the first chapter of this section, at some moments documentary events have advanced what later would happen at generalist festivals (e.g. the creation of independent and politically engaged organizations before 1968; or more recently, the incorporation of video-installations and VR exhibition). Conversely, at other moments documentary festivals have followed the example of major festivals (e.g. with the inclusion of markets, workshops, and pitching sessions in the 1990s). Another specificity, made clear since the 2000s, is that the proliferation of documentary events has been more widespread than that of generalist festivals, in a period when symptoms of “saturation of the circuit” can be perceived (Vallejo 2014, 33–35). Today we can find a documentary festival in almost every city of the world. While some are recent responses to the lack of exhibition platforms

  INTRODUCTION TO PART II, VOL. 1: MAPPING THE HISTORY OF… 

65

Table 1  Documentary film festivals (1940s–1960s) Festival

Year

City

Country

Edinburgh Film Festival (originally devoted to documentary) “Cultural and Documentary Film Week” International Festival of Documentary and Experimental Film SODRE Leipzig International Festival for Documentary and Animated Film (today DOK Leipzig) Flaherty Film Seminar (not a festival stricto sensu) IDPA (Indian Documentary Producers Association) Documentary Film Festival

1947

Edinburgh

Scotland, UK

1952 1954– 1971 1955

Mannheim Montevideo

Germany Uruguay

Leipzig

Germany

1955

Vermont and others Bombay, Delhi, Madras, and Calcutta Montevideo

US

1959

Bilbao

Basque Country, Spain

1959

Florence

Italy

1960

Belgrade

1961 1964

Krakow Pesaro

Serbia (former Yugoslavia) Poland Italy

1969

Nyon

Switzerland

Latin American and Philipino Film Contest in Bilbao (today Zinebi—International Festival of Documentary and Short Film of Bilbao) Festival dei Popoli—Florence International Documentary Film Festival Belgrade Documentary and Short Film Festival Krakow Film Festival Mostra Internazionale del Nuovo Cinema in Pesaro (includes fiction and documentary) Nyon International Documentary Film Festival (today Visions du Réel)

1958

India

Uruguay

for the growing local and international documentary production, others are rooted in longer histories of cultural exhibition and circulation. In Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4, I gather information about international events created in different periods, offering an account of the historical evolution and geographical diversity of the documentary film festival phenomenon.3

Documentary Film Festivals Before the Industry Era To understand how documentary film festivals arrived at their current state, it is important to look more closely at the particularities of previous periods, when specific political constraints, cultural dynamics, or profes-

66 

A. VALLEJO

Table 2  Documentary film festivals (1970s–1980s) Festival

Year

City

Cinéma du Réel Etnofilm—International Festival of Documentary Film Sundance Film Festival (independent cinema, including documentary) South by Southwest (SXSW) International Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam (IDFA) Yamagata International Documentary Film Festival États généraux du film documentaire Message to man—International Documentary, Short, and Animated Film Festival

1978 Paris 1980 Č adca

Country

1983 Park City

France Czechoslovakia/Slovak Republic US

1987 Austin 1988 Amsterdam

Texas Netherlands

1989 Yamagata

Japan

1989 Lussas 1989 St Petersburg

France Russia

sional practices prevailed. Historical approaches can shed light on why some of these events have adapted and evolved better than others, attaining a more or less prominent position in the global landscape of film festivals. I argue that this position and the articulation of international hierarchies highly depend on the moment when these festivals started functioning, and their subsequent capacity to adapt to structural changes occurred in the circuit. This temporal specificity has influenced different aspects analyzed by the authors of this section, namely national interests (Jelenkovic), international networking (Jungen), and global positioning (Niskanen). While the first contribution to this section focuses on the relationship of film festivals to the documentary genre since their inception until today in the global context, the other three chapters offer deep case studies, each belonging to a different period and geographical region. They look at different aspects of festival operation, including programming practices, professional careers, and organization. Hence, Jelenkovic focuses on the films, with a study of Belgrade Documentary and Short Film Festival ­programming practices; Jungen looks at professionals, retracing the trajectory of Visions du Réel film festival founder Moritz de Hadeln; and Niskanen looks at the organization, recounting the strategies of national, regional, and international positioning of Yamagata International Documentary Film Festival. Each of these chapters looks at a specific

  INTRODUCTION TO PART II, VOL. 1: MAPPING THE HISTORY OF… 

67

Table 3  Documentary film festivals (1990s) Festival

Year

City

Country

Biennale Européenne du Documentaire (renamed Vue sur les docs in 1992 and FIDMarseille in 1999) Mumbai International Film Festival for Documentary, Short, and Animation Films Golden Rhyton Festival of Bulgarian Non-feature Film Ismailia International Film Festival for Documentaries and Shorts Hot Springs Documentary Film Festival Astra Film Festival Hot Docs Canadian International Documentary Film Festival Sheffield Doc/Fest

1990

Marseille

France

1990

Mumbai

India

1991

Plovdiv

Bulgaria

1991

Ismailia

Egypt

1992 1993 1993

Arkansas Sibiu Toronto

US Romania Canada

1994

Flahertiana International Documentary Film Festival Rencontres du cinéma documentaire Aux Écrans du Réel It’s all True—International Documentary Film Festival (É Tudo Verdade) Jihlava International Documentary Film Festival FIDOCS—Santiago International Documentary Film Festival International Golden Safran Documentary Film Festival International 1001 Documentary Film Festival MIDBO—Muestra Internacional Documental de Bogotá Full Frame Documentary Film Festival (originally DoubleTake Documentary Film Festival) RIDM (Rencontres Internationales du documentaire de Montréal/the Montreal International Documentary Festival) DOXA Documentary Film Festival Taiwan International Documentary Festival/台湾国际纪录片影展 Thessaloniki Documentary Festival

1995

Sheffield UK (originally Bristol) Perm Russia

1995 1996 1996

Montreuil Le Mans São Paulo

1997

Jihlava

France France Brazil

1997

Czech Republic Santiago de Chile Chile

1997

Karabük

Turkey

1998

Istanbul

Turkey

1998

Bogotá

Colombia

1998

Durham, NC

US

1998

Montreal

Canada

1998 1998 (biannual) 1999

Vancouver Taipei

Canada Taiwan

Thessaloniki

Greece (continued)

68 

A. VALLEJO

Table 3  (continued) Festival

Year

City

Country

Docudays: Beirut International Documentary Festival DOKUFILM FEST. Ljubljana International Documentary Film Festival Encounters—South African International Documentary Festival Docaviv—Tel Aviv International Documentary Film Festival

1999, biennial 1999

Beirut

Lebanon

Ljubljana

Slovenia

1999

Cape Town and Johannesburg Tel Aviv

South Africa Israel

1999

period before what can be considered as “the industry era” (Vallejo 2014, 30–33), or “the age of festival directors” in de Valck’s terms (2007: 191– 194), which developed in the 1990s with the incorporation of industry activity within the festival programs. Jelenkovic’s contribution to this section focuses on a case-study paradigmatic of the institutional model promoted by governments and started in the 1950s: the Belgrade Documentary and Short Film Festival. She retraces the political drive behind the festival curatorial practices, from the festivals’ origins, with Dictator Tito’s Yugoslav Federalism from the 1950s till the 1980s; and then moves to the war period of the 1990s to analyze the growing presence of Serbian nationalism in the program. This study gives some clues to understand why the oldest documentary festivals did not achieve the most important positions in the documentary festival circuit in the following decades, contrary to what happened in the fiction realm where Venice, Cannes, and Berlin are still at the top of the international hierarchy of film festivals. While events such as Cannes learnt to incorporate new curatorial and industrial practices to adapt to international trends in arthouse cinema (Ostrowska 2016), many documentary festivals of this first period remain constrained by institutional structures dependent of governmental bodies (not only financially but also operationally).5 The next case study, devoted to the documentary festival of Nyon (Switzerland), perfectly illustrates the second period in which the appearance of international social uprisings and independent festival models converged. Jungen’s biographical account of the festival director’s professional steps in these years serves to illustrate how politics was a key factor in the development of film festivals during this period. The chapter also accounts for the professional networks that lead to the formation of

  INTRODUCTION TO PART II, VOL. 1: MAPPING THE HISTORY OF… 

69

Table 4  Documentary film festivals (2000s–2010s) Festival

Year

City

Country

DocBsAs—Muestra Internacional de Cine Documental Contra el Silencio Todas las Voces Mediterranean Festival of Documentary Films Lagunimages—Festival International de Film, documentaires et de télévision du Bénin Jeonju International Film Festival Escales documentaires—Festival International du documentaire de création Dokufest—International Documentary and Short Film Festival Dialëktus—European Documentary and Anthropological Film Festival Doc Point Helsinki Documentary Film Festival EDOC—Encuentros del otro cine. Festival Internacional de Cine Documental GZDOC—Guangzhou International Documentary Film Festival 中国(广州)国 际 纪录片节 DokMa—Documentaries in Maribor International Film Festival AFIDocs (formerly SilverDocs) Yunfest—Yunnan Multi Culture Visual Festival CPH:DOX. Copenhagen International Documentary Film Festival DocLisboa DocuPerú. Muestra de documental peruano Bordocs—Foro Documental

2000

Buenos Aires

Argentina

2000 2000

Mexico DF Široki Brijeg

2000

Cotonou

Mexico Bosnia-­ Herzegovina Benin

2000 2001

Jeonju La Rochelle

South Korea France

2002

Prizren

Kosovo

2002– 2010 2002

Budapest

Hungary

Helsinki

Finland

Quito, Guayaquil, and other cities Guangzhou

Ecuador

Festival Internacional de documentales “Santiago Álvarez in Memoriam” EBS International Documentary Festival True/False Film Festival

2002 2003

China

2003– 2009 2003 2003

Maribor

Slovenia

Washington, DC Kunming, Yunnan

US China

2003

Copenhagen

Denmark

2003 2003

Lisbon Lima

Portugal Peru

2003– 2013 2003

Tijuana

Mexico

Santiago de Cuba

Cuba

2004 2004

Seoul Columbia, MO

South Korea US (continued)

70 

A. VALLEJO

Table 4  (continued) Festival

Year

City

Country

DocumentaMadrid International Documentary Film Festival SurDocs—Festival Internacional de Cine Documental de Puerto Varas Millennium Docs Against Gravity Film Festival (former Planet Doc Review Film Festival) China Independent Film Festival Documentary Film Festival China/China Documentary Film Festival 中国纪录片交 流周 Punto de Vista—Festival Internacional de Cine Documental de Navarra Play-Doc—International Documentary Film Festival DocumentaVenezuela. Festival de Cine Documental regional franco andino de Caracas Zagrebdox—International Documentary Film Festival Docville—International Documentary Film Festival Magnificent 7—European Feature Documentary Film Festival Asterfest International Film Festival (former International Film & Video Festival of Southeastern Europe) Aljazeera International Documentary Film Festival Ambulante Documentary Edge Festival

2004

Madrid

Spain

2004

Puerto Varas

Chile

2004

Warsaw

Poland

2004 2004

Nanjing Songzhuang, Beijing

China China

2005

Pamplona, Navarre Spain

2005

Tui, Galicia

Spain

2005

Caracas

Venezuela

2005

Zagreb

Croatia

2005

Leuven

Belgium

2005

Belgrade

Serbia

2005

Strumica

Macedonia

2005

Doha

Qatar

2005 2005

Several cities Auckland and Wellington Accra

Mexico New Zealand

Lemesos

Cyprus

2006

Mexico City

Mexico

2006

Libreville

Gabon

Real Life Documentary Film Festival Lemesos International Documentary Festival DocsMX—Mexico International Documentary Film Festival (formerly DocsDF) Escales Documentaire de Libreville

2006– 2011 2006

Ghana

(continued)

  INTRODUCTION TO PART II, VOL. 1: MAPPING THE HISTORY OF… 

71

Table 4  (continued) Festival

Year

City

Country

Dockanema

2006– 2013 20064 2006

Maputo

Mozambique Spain Spain

2007

Cádiz, Andalusia Guía de Isora, Tenerife Barcelona

2007

Tunis

Tunis

Addis Ababa Damascus and worldwide Béjaïa

Ethiopia Syria

Taipei

Taiwan Russia

2007

Ekaterinburg/ Moscow/St Petersburg Atlántida

2007

Tehran

Iran

2008

Kerala

India

2008

Timişoara

Romania

2008 2008

Istanbul Nicosia

Turkey Cyprus

2008 2008

Agadir Hong Kong

Morocco Hong Kong

2009

Khouribga

Morocco

2009

Goyang, Paju (Gyeonggi Province)

South Korea

Alcances MiradasDoc International Documentary Film Festival DocsBarcelona International Documentary Film Festival Doc à Tunis—International Documentary Film Festival in Tunis/Festival international du Film Documentaire de Tunis Addis International Film Festival DoxBox

2007 2007– 2011 Documentary Film Festival in Bajaïa/ 2007– Rencontres du Film Documentaire a Béjaïa 2011 CNEX Taipei Documentary Film Festival 2007 CNEX 主题纪录片影展f Artdocfests—Open Russian Documentary 2007 Film Festival Atlantidoc—Festival International de Cine Documental del Uruguay Cinema Verite. Iran International Documentary Film Festival International Documentary and Short Film Festival of Kerala Documfest—International Documentary Film Festival Documentarist Film Festival “Views of the World”—Nicosia International Documentary Film Festival International Documentary Festival Agadir Visible Record Chinese Documentary Festival. 华语纪录片节 FIFDOK—Festival International du Film Documentaire de Khouribga (formerly Afifdok) DMZ International Documentary Film Festival

Spain

Algeria

Uruguay

(continued)

72 

A. VALLEJO

Table 4  (continued) Festival

Year

City

Country

Beldocs—International Documentary Film 2009 Festival Caracas Doc 2010 Fórum.DOCsk 2010

Belgrade

Serbia

Caracas Košice

Makedox

2010

Skopje

I-Represent International Documentary Film Festival BeninDocs—International Festival of First Documentary Film Antenna Documentary Film Festival Antofadocs A Cielo Abierto—Festival Latinoamericano de Cine Documental Cebu International Documentary Film Festival International Mediterranean Film Festival for Documentaries and Short Films Festival Maghrebin du Film Documentaire AmDocs FIDBA—Festival Internacional de Documental de Buenos Aires AcampaDoc—Festival Internacional de Cine Documental CinéDOC—Tbilisi. International Documentary Film Festival Chennai International Documentary and Short Film Festival Kampala International Documentary Film Festival Porto/Post/Doc—Film & Media Festival Framing reality RDOC—Festival Internacional de Cine Documental de República Dominicana y el Caribe Fronteira—Festival Internacional do Filme documentário e experimental Indievillage Documentary Film festival

2011

Lagos

Venezuela Slovak Republic Macedonia (FYROM) Nigeria

2011 2011 2011 2011

Porto Novo, Cotonou/Paris Sydney Antofagasta Cochabamba

Australia Chile Bolivia

2012

Cebu City

Philippines

2012

Tripoli

Libya

2012 2012 2012

Oujda Palm Springs Buenos Aires

Morocco US Argentina

2012

Panama

2013

La Villa de los Santos Tbilisi

2013

Chennai

India

2014

Kampala

Uganda

2014

Porto

Portugal

2014

Santo Domingo

Dominican Republic

2014

Goiás/Goiânia

Brazil

2015

Melbourne

Australia

Benin/France

Georgia

  INTRODUCTION TO PART II, VOL. 1: MAPPING THE HISTORY OF… 

73

an international cultural elite that will control film festivals in subsequent periods. Finally, Niskanen’s close look at Yamagata helps us understand the process by which some festivals set the foundations for the third period of documentary film festival history (the industry era). Interestingly, Yamagata is a hybrid model as it represents the internationalization of film festivals and their achievement to become referents for the cinema of a specific region, yet it does not include industrial activities within its program. Nevertheless, Yamagata has succeeded in attracting industry professionals looking for films produced not only in Japan but also in Asia as a whole. As noted by Niskanen, this role is rooted in the origins of the festival as a local documentary filmmaker’s initiative, and the role of the festival in the articulation of a national documentary movement has been key. The bottom up structure, which is characteristic of most documentary festivals created from the 1980s onward, has given relatively young events such as Yamagata the opportunity to attain a prominent position on the global circuit, and adapt rapidly to the changes in the film industry.

Digging the Origins of Documentary Film Festivals In “Global Cities and the International Film Festival Economy” (2001), Julian Stringer vindicates the importance on focusing on geographical specificities to correct some limited views widely spread in canonical histories of cinema, such as Kristin Thompson and David Bordwell’s Film History: An Introduction (1994). In his critique, Stringer points to the fact that “festival screenings determine which movies are distributed in distinct cultural arenas, and hence which movies critics and academics are likely to gain access to” (2001, 135). Moreover, he notes that this is indicative of “how what are ostensibly distribution histories of world cinema too often masquerade as production histories” (Ibid.). In the documentary realm, classics such as Erik Barnouw’s Documentary: A History of the Non-fiction Film (1974) or Richard M. Barsam’s Non-fiction Film: A Critical History (1973), while seldom mentioning festivals, restrict films included in the canon to those accessible to US scholars at the time. Hence, unmasking the influence of global distribution dynamics through the years is of paramount importance to challenge our assumed views of the history of documentary. In this context, festival programs can serve as a key source for historical revisionism, which can widen our views of which films were actually produced (and where), and in which contexts they actually circulated.

74 

A. VALLEJO

Moreover, the analysis of past documentary festivals can serve to contribute not only to the history of the documentary genre as a film form but also to national film histories (as proposed by Niskanen) or cultural histories that can help to reconstruct the political atmosphere of a given period (as noted by Jungen and Jelenkovic). This section therefore addresses not only the history of documentary festivals but also how History with a capital H is played out through these cultural events.

Notes 1. For an account of some monographs devoted to specific documentary film festival’s histories, see Vallejo’s chapter in this section. 2. See also Wong (2011). For an account of the specificities of the history of Cannes through these periods, see Ostrowska (2016). 3. Compilation by Aida Vallejo. The list is representative, but is not exhaustive. Sources: Dovey (2015), Iordanova and Cheung (2011), Taillibert (2009), Iordanova and Van de Peer (2014), Berry and Robinson (2017), Stevens (2016), Vallejo (2018); http://edn.network/; https://www.dokweb.net/ en/; http://www.pbs.org/pov/filmmakers/resources/film-festivals.php; and author’s independent research. For an extended and updated version of this table see, https://bit.ly/2UxCcaj. For tables of thematic documentary festivals (human rights, disabilities, environmental, etc.), see Iordanova and Torchin (2012). For tables of ethnographic and anthropological film festivals, see Peirano (2017). 4. The first edition took place in 1969, but it is not until 2006 that the festival specialized in documentary. 5. See interview to Zinebi Documentary and Short Film Festival of Bilbao’s director Ernesto del Río in Vallejo (2020), in our second volume.

References Barnouw, Erik. 1974. Documentary: A History of the Non-fiction Film. New York: Oxford University Press. Barsam, Richard M. 1973. Non-fiction Film: A Critical History. Boston: E.P. Dutton (Updated second edition published in 1992). Berry, Chris, and Luke Robinson, eds. 2017. Chinese Film Festivals: Sites of Translation. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. de Valck, Marijke. 2007. Film Festivals: From European Geopolitics to Global Cinephilia. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. ———. 2012. Finding Audiences for Films: Programming in Historical Perspective. In Coming Soon to a Festival Near You: Programming Film Festivals, ed. Jeffrey Ruoff, 25–40. St Andrews: St Andrews Film Studies.

  INTRODUCTION TO PART II, VOL. 1: MAPPING THE HISTORY OF… 

75

Dovey, Lindiwe. 2015. Curating Africa in the Age of Film Festivals. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Elsaesser, Thomas. 2005. Film Festival Networks: The New Topographies of Cinema in Europe. In European Cinema: Face to Face with Hollywood, 82–107. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Reprinted in Dina Iordanova, ed. The Film Festivals Reader. St Andrews: St Andrews Film Studies, 69–96. Iordanova, Dina, and Ruby Cheung, eds. 2011. Film Festival Yearbook 3: Film Festivals and East Asia. St Andrews: St Andrews Film Studies. Iordanova, Dina, and Leshu Torchin, eds. 2012. Film Festival Yearbook 4: Film Festivals and Activism. St Andrews: St Andrews Film Studies. Iordanova, Dina, and Stefanie Van de Peer, eds. 2014. Film Festival Yearbook 6: Film Festivals and the Middle East. St Andrews: St Andrews Film Studies. Ostrowska, Dorota. 2016. Making Film History at the Cannes Film Festival. In Film Festivals. History, Theory, Method, Practice, ed. Marijke de Valck, Brendan Kredell, and Skadi Loist, 18–33. New York: Routledge. Peirano, María Paz. 2017. Mapping Ethnographic Film Festivals: A World Overview. In Film Festivals and Anthropology, ed. Aida Vallejo and María Paz Peirano, 21–36. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Stevens, Kirsten. 2016. Australian Film Festivals: Audience, Place, and Exhibition Culture. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Stringer, Julian. 2001. Global Cities and the International Film Festival Economy. In Cinema and the City: Film and Urban Societies in a Global Context, ed. Mark Shiel and Tony FitzMaurice, 134–144. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Taillibert, Christel. 2009. Tribulations Festivalières: Les festivals de cinéma et audiovisuel en France. Paris: L’Harmattan. Thompson, K., and D. Bordwell. 1994. Film History. An Introduction. New York: ΜcGraw-Hill. Vallejo, Aida. 2014. Festivales cinematográficos: En el punto de mira de la historiografía fílmica. Secuencias: Revista de Historia del cine 39: 13–42. https:// goo.gl/QkNSUh. ———. 2018. Festivales de cine documental en Iberoamérica: una cartografía histórica. Cine Documental 18: 144–171. https://goo.gl/MFcUcM. ———. 2020. Adapting to New Times: An Interview with Ernesto del Río, Director of the Zinebi International Documentary and Short Film Festival of Bilbao (2000–2017). In Documentary Film Festivals Vol. 2. Changes, Challenges, Professional Perspectives, ed. Aida Vallejo and Ezra Winton, 137–146. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. Wong, Cindy. 2011. Film Festivals: Culture, People, and Power on the Global Screen. New Brunswick, NJ and London: Rutgers University Press.

The Rise of Documentary Festivals: A Historical Approach Aida Vallejo

Documentary film festivals have witnessed an unprecedented growth since 2000, when the development of feature-length documentary started to increase the visibility of the genre in the international film sphere. Recovering a status lost a long time ago, documentary reappeared in the programmes of movie theatres and found privileged spaces for exhibition in film festivals, and with those, opportunities for production and distribution. Nevertheless, this proliferation is not unique to documentary festivals. These events have grown parallel to thematic festivals associated with different identities (related to gender, nation, ethnicity), minor genres (such as animation, experimental film or short fiction) or independent film. The historical changes occurred in the realm of major international events, such as at the pioneering festivals of Venice, Cannes or Berlin had an impact in the development of specialized festivals; while following similar trajectories, documentary festivals served to counterbalance and enrich film cultures that flourished around these events. Drawing from the periodization proposed by Marijke de Valck (2007, 2012), who defines three phases in which the role of the festivals and their A. Vallejo (*) University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Leioa, Spain e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 A. Vallejo, E. Winton (eds.), Documentary Film Festivals Vol. 1, Framing Film Festivals, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17320-3_7

77

78 

A. VALLEJO

programming strategies developed, this chapter offers a historical approach to the relationship between documentary and film festivals. In addition, a fourth phase has been identified, when the documentary festival model was extended globally, creating dynamics that expanded the canon. Moreover, the analysis proposed here retraces the origin of these events as a European phenomenon (Elsaesser 2005; de Valck 2007), and follows the transference of models from country to country subsequently developed. This chapter is divided in four sections, each of them referring to one historical period. Phase one runs from the 1930s until the 1960s, when documentary had a significant presence at major film festivals, and the first film festivals specializing in documentary were created as showcases for minor film genres. The second phase, from the end of the 1950s until 1988, saw the emergence of specialized events inspired by social movements and political uprisings. The third phase, which took place during the 1990s, saw the creation of professional events that included industry activity in their programmes. A fourth phase unfolded in the 2000s, during which documentary festivals proliferated, creating a periphery on the festival circuit.1

Defining the Genre in the Age of Diplomacy: From Major Festivals to Secondary Events As noted by Cindy Hing-Yuk Wong, the origins of the festival era find their roots in an institutional compendium that included critical journals, film clubs and film archives (2011, 30–37). This pre-festival period saw the emergence of documentary classics—considered as avant-garde at a moment when the documentary label was still not in use. These include city symphonies such as Berlin: Die Sinfonie der Großstadt (Berlin: Symphony of a Great City, Walter Ruttmann, 1927), Человек с киноаппаратом (The Man with a Movie Camera, Dziga Vertov, 1929) or À propos de Nice (About Nice, Jean Vigo, 1930), which widely circulated in film clubs and film societies throughout Europe. Filmliga in Amsterdam was one of these encounters, where Joris Ivens could watch the films that inspired his own Regen (Rain, 1929). As Tom Gunning notes: “these screenings were not ephemeral viewings serving to pass time; they were important and unique events, scheduled once a month like a cultural event, in contrast to the consumer-friendly continual showings of commercial theatres” (2014, 74).

  THE RISE OF DOCUMENTARY FESTIVALS: A HISTORICAL APPROACH 

79

This idea of encounter and celebration would be later adopted by film festivals, which would become key venues for the discussion of films, inspiring new works and bringing together filmmakers, critics and film professionals. This was the case with the Edinburgh Film Festival (1947), created as an initiative of a film society: the Edinburgh Film Guild (1930).2 In addition to film clubs, international exhibitions (or world fairs) and art exhibitions appearing in the nineteenth century have also been considered as predecessors to the film festival. The inauguration of what has come to be considered the first film festival ever, the Esposizione Internazionale d’arte Cinematografica within Venice’s Biennale in 1932, coincided with the appearance of John Grierson’s seminal writing “First Principles of Documentary” (1932). At a moment when the definition of documentary was being articulated, the festival’s programme did not make a distinction between genres and the national origin of the films was the driving force behind the selection. In a period of political unrest that ended with the outbreak of the Second World War, the festival served as a showcase of national cinemas, and governments exerted control over submission. The pre-war political battle was played out through festival programming and awards, and these practices required exceptional diplomatic skills. This can be perceived by the numerous members composing Venice’s jury each year—with a strategic selection of representatives from diverse countries—as well as the shared awards which balanced the ideological and national connotations of the awarded films. In 1934 the main award for best foreign film was given to Robert Flaherty’s Man of Aran, and in 1935 Triumph des Willens (Triumph of the Will, Leni Riefenstahl, 1935) was awarded the Gold Medal in Venice. Documentary appeared as a privileged medium for propaganda, and the festival as the appropriate venue for its international dissemination. In 1938 Olympia by Leni Riefenstahl received the award for the best film (labelled as Coppa Mussolini) in Venice,3 proving the relevant position of documentary, which prevailed over fiction in the festival awards. After seven years of the Italian festival’s monopoly and with Fascism growing incessantly in Europe, it was unsurprising that the French decided to create their own international contest in 1939, but the Cannes Film Festival was closed when Hitler invaded Poland and organizers had to wait until 1946 to celebrate its first edition. Concerns over state-controlled propaganda—and its global circulation—led to the creation of institutions such as the Empire Marketing Board (EMB) in the UK (1926) and the National Film Board of Canada

80 

A. VALLEJO

(1939) within which Scotsman Grierson developed his documentary film movement. After his overseas adventure, Grierson went back to post-war UK and in 1947 opened the first edition of the Edinburgh International Film Festival. As Colin McArthur notes, the idea of documentary underpins the emergence of this event: “It was indeed called the First International Festival of Documentary Films, its advisory committee included such stalwarts of the movement as Basil Wright and Paul Rotha, and its programme booklet was entitled Documentary 47” (1990, 92). That year the opening films were Farrebique ou Les quatre saisons (Farrebique or The Four Seasons, Georges Rouquier, 1946), which previously had its premiere in Cannes, and Paisà (Roberto Rossellini, 1946), which had premiered in Venice. Again, the documentary character of the first and the hybridity of the latter—with Neorealism bringing back the factual appeal to fiction feature-films—demonstrated the importance of the cinema of the real which remained at the forefront of the festival during the 1940s. By 1950 Edinburgh dropped the word “Documentary” from the title and the festival gave way to a wider presence of and exposure to fiction within its programme (McArthur 1990, 93).4 From then on, opening films and main awards for documentary would be rare cases at major international film festivals. Once the articulation of the genre had been set, new specialized festivals appeared. The consequence was that, although having attained its own status as a differentiated film form, documentary—and its exhibition sites—would remain as second rate. Typically created as counterparts to major fiction festivals, the first documentary festivals appeared in Europe during the 1950s. The differentiation in the festival programmes between feature-length fiction films and “minor genres” (such as short fiction, documentary, animation or experimental) was articulated in this period. Divided Germany hosted the three pioneer documentary film festivals, which followed the path of the Berlin International Film Festival (1951). West Germany hosted the “Cultural and Documentary Film Week” in Mannheim (1952) and the Oberhausen Short Film Festival (1954), while East Germany hosted the Leipzig International Festival for Documentary and Animated Film (1955). In Europe, other documentary and short film festivals were created to promote local culture and showcase national films in more peripheral regions where minor genres, such as documentary, offered an affordable means to make cinema in precarious conditions. These included the Latin American and Filipino Film Contest in Bilbao (1959)—today

  THE RISE OF DOCUMENTARY FESTIVALS: A HISTORICAL APPROACH 

81

Zinebi. International Documentary and Short Film Festival of Bilbao, developed in the shadow of the San Sebastian International Film Festival (1953); the Festival dei Popoli in Florence (1959), as an alternative to the glamorous Venice Film Festival (1932); and the Belgrade Documentary and Short Film Festival (1960), which was born out of the division of the Yugoslav Film Festival, hosted in Pula since 1954. Similar events appearing in this period include the Krakow Film Festival (1961, Poland)—conceived as a showcase of national cinema—, the International Festival of Documentary and Experimental Film SODRE5 (1954–1971) in Montevideo (Uruguay) and the IDPA Documentary Film Festival (1958) in India.6 Although major film festivals steadily pushed documentary into the background—incorporating differentiated secondary awards—they remained paramount sites for the discovery of auteur documentary. Retracing the trajectory of documentary classics, we find that many of them premiered at major film festivals. Some examples include French classics such as Les Statues meurent aussi (Statues Also Die, Alain Resnais and Chris Marker, 1953) or Nuit et Brouillard (Night and Fog, Alain Resnais, 1955), premiered at Cannes. Nevertheless, the documentary festival gained more relevance in the 1960s, with the presentation of cutting-­ edge films such as direct cinema masterworks like Titicut Follies (Frederick Wiseman, 1967), which was presented in Florence and awarded in Mannheim. Many of these films were subsequently presented at the New  York Film Festival, which has gathered together the experimental film community since 1963.7 Although not a festival in a strict sense, the Flaherty Film Seminar deserves a special mention here, given its key role in the diffusion and debate of documentary film in the US. The seminar first appeared in Vermont in 1955 and was an initiative of Robert Flaherty’s widow, Frances, whose remit was to watch and discuss Flaherty’s films. The seminar became a private encounter between film professionals who watched and discussed non-commercial films, which included experimental and documentary works, while making contacts and living in an atmosphere of community for some days. This event assembled people working in various sectors, such as practitioners, curators, programmers, librarians, writers and academics (Zimmermann 2012).8 The seminar steadily increased its relationship with academia, and since 1958 it had an advisory committee which included Erik Barnow. One can easily assume that the film canon and film analyses included in his Documentary: A History of the Non-Fiction Film

82 

A. VALLEJO

(1974) are partly inspired and informed by films and discussions from the seminar. The private character of the Flaherty Film Seminar and its similarities with the film club movement can be considered as a recurrent paradigm in the US context, in opposition to the fast spread of the film festival model in Europe. The Academy Awards created in 1929 served to some extent to fulfil the festivals’ capacity to create value and prestige for the films through awards, including a separated documentary category (present since the 1940s). The European festival model helped to open up new films to a wider audience, but at the same time increased the power of governments and other interest groups to control film exhibition at the expense of filmmakers and cinéphiles, who rarely remained to vindicate their aspirations. This concern increased exponentially throughout the 1950s leading to a period when new independent festivals driven by political activism appeared. Hence, it is no surprise that documentary, leaving behind the state-sponsored era of war propaganda, played an important part in this process.

Specialized Festivals Take the Stage: Independent Initiatives and the Turn of 1968 Born at the turn of the decade, the Festival dei Popoli—Florence International Documentary Film Festival (1959)—in Italy anticipated a new phase in which documentary festivals were created as independent initiatives with a remarkable social and political concern. Started by a group of scholars working at the University in Florence in different fields of social sciences and humanities, the Festival dei Popoli offered a space for debate and the exhibition of the works of key filmmakers who documented the agitated political atmosphere of the 1960s (see Tasselli 1982 and Iervese 2017) (Image 1). An inspiration for filmmakers and future festival organizers alike, among the jury members at its first edition were Jean Rouch and Edgar Morin. As noted by Di Iorio  (2013), Chronique d’un été (Chronicle of a Summer, 1960) owes its origin to their coming together at the event, and to the impact that films they watched there had on them. These include We Are the Lambeth Boys (Karel Reisz, 1958) and The Hunters (John Marshall and Robert Gardner, 1957). The latter, which was to become a classic of Visual Anthropology, eventually won the main award. This accounted for the

  THE RISE OF DOCUMENTARY FESTIVALS: A HISTORICAL APPROACH 

83

Image 1  Audience of the Festival dei Popoli in Florence in the 1970s

interest in ethnographic film that become part of the identity of the Festival dei Popoli, adding to the debate developed in previous decades between John Grierson—who defended the importance of portraying the contemporary modern world’s social and political challenges—, and Robert Flaherty—interested in the exoticism of cultures threatened with extinction. With an independent and strongly politicized character, the Festival dei Popoli served as a model for other events, like the one started in Nyon (Switzerland) by Moritz and Erika de Hadeln.9 In the words of Nyon’s festival founder Moritz de Hadeln, Festival dei Popoli was, during the 1950s and 1960s, the mecca of documentary film and the place where Cinéma Vérité was born (2009). Appearing in 1969, the Nyon International Documentary Film Festival—today Visions du Réel—soon became a cultural bridge between Eastern and Western Europe during the Cold War. Oberhausen and Leipzig assumed similar roles,10 and both became important places for the discovery of new authors and film movements from Eastern Europe, such as the Yugoslavian Black Wave. In 1968 Želimir Žilnik’s The Unemployed won the first place in Oberhausen. The awarding of the Special Award for his next film June Turmoil the following year

84 

A. VALLEJO

increased the Yugoslavian government’s criticism towards the festival, especially because submission was arranged directly with the production company, without Party permission (Kilkka Mann 2010). The relationships between film festivals and governments changed at the end of the decade, giving way to more independent practices both in film selection and in the choosing of jury members. In the international context, May 1968 was a turning point when the structural characteristics of the festival ecosystem changed. The disruption of Jean-Luc Godard, François Truffaut and their followers at Cannes, who fought for Henri Langlois to remain as the director of the Cinémathèque Française in 1968, had a great impact in the festival sphere, opening a new phase labelled by de Valck as “the age of programmers” (2012, 29–32). Originally conceived as a showcase of national cinema controlled by the state, the new festival model would be characterized “by independently organised festivals that operate both as protectors of the cinematic art and as facilitators of the film industries” (de Valck 2007, 19). This activist and anticompetitive wave led to a viral effect, wherein veteran documentary festivals showed their solidarity with French colleagues. That year festivals such as Florence and Bilbao renounced to give awards (Bakedano and Zunzunegui 2008, 13). Meanwhile, documentaries that caught the spirit of the times such as Woodstock (Michael Wadleigh, 1970)—which won the Academy Award for best documentary feature—travelled around film festivals all over Europe. Although documentary regained international attention with the politicization of cultural life in the 1970s, very few new documentary festivals appeared in this period. Instead of showcases of minor genres, newly minted festivals were driven by thematic criteria, focusing on the potential of documentary film to address social, political and anthropological issues. Social upheavals started in the US and promoted by the feminist movement, civil rights, gay and lesbian or Indigenous peoples in the 1970s brought about new programming practices related to gender or ethnic identities (Loist and Zielinski 2012). Similarly, film festivals that specialized in ethnographic film served as key spaces for the discussion and development of visual anthropology as an incipient academic discipline.11 The monopoly of European and US films in festival programming in previous decades gave way to a rising interest in film works from other regions of the world. A special interest was raised internationally towards Latin America and its political uprisings. La hora de los hornos (The Hour of the Furnaces, Fernando E. Solanas and Octavio Getino, 1968) premiered at

  THE RISE OF DOCUMENTARY FESTIVALS: A HISTORICAL APPROACH 

85

the Mostra Internazionale del Nuovo Cinema in Pesaro (created in 1964), which provided an example of politically engaged programming of this period (see Willemen 2013). Moreover, new festivals appeared globally, vindicating geopolitical spaces previously ignored, such as the Arab World, Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America. Although not specifically devoted to documentary, many of these festivals showcased this genre of heavy political connotations in a period of agitation. The Festival Internacional del Nuevo Cine Latinoamericano de la Habana (1979) is exemplary in this regard (see Paranaguá 2003; Mestman 2016). The multiple documentary awards of its first edition, with La batalla de Chile (The Battle of Chile, Patricio Guzmán, 1975–1979) receiving the main prize, gives account of the festival’s attempt to give exposure to the diverse realities portrayed by documentaries coming from several Latin American countries. In North America, the 1980s saw the emergence of new festivals that contributed to documentary circulation but, again, that were not specialized in the genre. In the US the Sundance Film Festival (1983) soon became a landmark for independent film, and a key event for the exhibition, distribution and even production of documentary film in the following decades (see McLane 2012, 358–359).

Trailblazers of the Industry Era: The Spread of the Third Sector in the 1990s The arrival of the International Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam (IDFA) in 1988 initiated a new trend in which documentary festivals proliferated, mostly as private initiatives that adopted the third sector model and the organizational structure of NGOs or civil associations, combining private and public funding (Rhyne 2009). This model for the management of culture spread throughout the 1990s, and most major documentary festivals born in this period adopted this legal form (Image 2). de Valck calls this phase “the directors’ era,” because they assumed the power exerted by programmers in previous decades. She associates this tendency to the growing institutionalization and professionalization of festivals: Festival directors could no longer be only cinéphiles and passionate programmers, they needed to position their festival in the increasingly complex festival circuit, global film market, national cultural agenda and local cinéphile tastes. In order to pull this off they began working with teams of

86 

A. VALLEJO

Image 2  Audience waiting outside the Pathé Tuschinski theatre in Amsterdam before the opening ceremony of the 2015 edition ­ rogrammers and also cooperating extensively with film industries, local p entrepreneurs and policymakers (2012, 34).

Documentary film festivals appearing in the late 1980s and 1990s soon attained international recognition and eventually would become referents for their geographical areas of influence. This is the case of the Yamagata International Documentary Film Festival (appearing in Japan in 1989) for Asia; Toronto’s Hot Docs (founded in Canada in 1993) for North America;12 or Jihlava International Documentary Film Festival (founded in the Czech Republic in 1997) for Central and Eastern Europe.13 Documentary festivals soon started to assume an active role in the shaping of the documentary canon mainly through four strategies: (1) inviting key figures of the documentary world; (2) awarding films; (3) creating a documentary culture through retrospectives, publications and debates; and (4) incorporating industry activities—such as pitching forums or markets—into their programmes, to serve as intermediaries between funding bodies and filmmakers.

  THE RISE OF DOCUMENTARY FESTIVALS: A HISTORICAL APPROACH 

87

The first strategy consisted of inviting filmmakers and guests to give lectures, receive tributes or act as jury members. This appeared as an influential tool to give prestige to the festivals and at the same time build social networks that would help films to move beyond their national borders. For example, among IDFA’s jury members in this period we find key figures in a variety of capacities, such as filmmakers: Frederick Wiseman (1988), Santiago Álvarez (1992); scholars: Erik Barnow (1994); or film festival directors: Amir Labaki (1996), Erika de Hadeln (1998). Although documentary festivals remained niche events, their invitation policies certainly helped to increase knowledge about documentary production among experts worldwide. The second strategy relates to the competitive character of most festivals, which adds prestige to the films through awards. Interestingly, this is one of the strategies in which festivals specialized in documentary film have proved less successful because many internationally renowned films were presented at festivals such as New York, Toronto, Sundance, Berlin and Cannes.14 Key documentaries of the 1990s include Barbara Kopple’s Oscar winner American Dream (1991); Alan Berliner’s Intimate Stranger (1991) and Nobody’s Business (1996); and Ross McElwee’s Time Indefinite (1993) and Fast, Cheap & Out of Control (1997). Outstanding European documentarists became festival favourites, like Werner Herzog, whose Lessons of Darkness (1992) provoked a furious reaction from the audience at the Berlin Film Festival due to ethical reasons. Nevertheless, the documentary festival circuit was starting to build its reputation for the discovery of new authors. Victor Kossakovsky’s recognition at IDFA with films such as Беловы (The belovs, Kossakovsky, 1993), which won the main award in 1993 is exemplary in this regard.15 The third strategy consists of the contribution to the expansion of knowledge about documentary history, and to the debate of its present and future forms. This strategy was widely developed by events such as Yamagata, which organized the Asia Symposium in its first edition. The question raised by Yamagata’s inaugural event: “Why documentary film wasn’t developing within Asia” was a declaration of intentions of a festival that nurtured Japanese documentary with the exhibition of international and national classics to a new generation of filmmakers and critics in the following decades. As Abé Mark Nornes notes, this fostered the production in the region, helping to establish local canons (2013, 214– 215). In addition, the festival published the journal Documentary Box until 2007. Other festivals like the Krakow Film Festival extended their

88 

A. VALLEJO

activities with the publication of specialized books, contributing to the writing of local histories of documentary (see Głowa 1999).16 Another example of an active policy in documentary literacy can be found in the États généraux du film documentaire, a festival which takes place in Lussas, France, since 1989. Apart from the regular retrospectives, seminars and workshops, the organization operating the festival, Ardèche Images, created the Maison du doc in 1994 to host an impressive archive that gathers films and texts from all around the world. Interestingly, despite their refusal to organize industry activities, both Yamagata and Lussas have succeeded in gathering professionals from the region and abroad, swimming against the tide of international trends in festival management. The fourth strategy was precisely played through the incorporation of industrial sections into the festival programmes. These parallel activities include festival funds, co-production and development workshops, pitching forums, film markets, promotion activities and networking.17 The organization of commercial activities can be considered as a strategy developed by the festivals to attract films and professionals—be they producers, filmmakers, distributors or commissioning editors—in an increasingly competitive environment (Vallejo 2014). Documentarists rapidly learn which kinds of film are selected to participate in industrial activities that can secure funding for works in progress, and in this way, festivals influence the future documentaries that will not only be exhibited, but also produced. A few pioneer festivals incorporated these parallel activities to their programmes in the 1990s, among which we find the IDFA forum (1991); the market and fair Sunny Side of the Doc (1990);18 or IDFA’s Jan Vrijman Fund (1998) (see Vallejo 2020a). In 1998 Cannes created the market for documentary Mipdoc, accounting for the importance of the production of documentary for television broadcasters, who would become the main players at these industrial events and regular visitors to documentary festivals. These strategies cohabit the documentary festival ecosystem from the 1990s. Although they succeeded in strengthening and recovering national documentary traditions and international masterworks, they increased competition and forced festivals to conceal opposing interests. Hence, their side effects, as we will see further, are not always perceived as a positive step.

  THE RISE OF DOCUMENTARY FESTIVALS: A HISTORICAL APPROACH 

89

Expanding the Documentary Canon: The Globalization of the Festival Model In addition to the three phases delimited by de Valck, I would add a fourth phase, when the documentary festival model spreads globally. Following Ragan Rhyne’s periodization, Skadi Loist also identifies a fourth period for LGBT film festivals characterized by the development of major links to television sponsorship, and which coincided with their proliferation through Latin America, Africa and Asia (2013, 118–121). Similar tendencies can be perceived in the documentary festival circuit where television is certainly one major player. The 2000s witnessed a “golden age” for documentary marked by the digitization process. The increase in production and exhibition grew in parallel, and documentary festivals appeared as a natural response to the lack of a distribution infrastructure. Among the most influential films of this period we find Les Glaneurs et la Glaneuse (The Gleaners and I, Agnès Varda, 2000), Être et Avoir (To Be and to Have, Nicolas Philibert, 2002) and Michael Moore’s Bowling for Columbine (2002) and Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004). Interestingly, they owe their success in part to their presence at major film festivals like Cannes, which, once again, proved more influential than specialized events. This paved the way for their theatrical releases—both through publicity and through industrial connections provided by the festival, which helped secure commercial distribution— returning to commercial cinemas a genre that had been relegated to television screens for decades. Since the year 2000, documentary festivals have proliferated globally. In many cases they were born as initiatives of documentary professionals traversing the international festival circuit in the previous decade—especially those who participated in industrial sections. Driven by the necessity to fill the empty space in creative feature-length documentary exhibition, new events appeared internationally. From Helsinki in Finland (Doc Point Helsinki, 2002) to Mexico City (DocsDF, 2006); from Doha in Qatar (Aljazeera International Documentary Film Festival, 2005) to Kerala in India (International Documentary and Short Film Festival of Kerala, 2008); from Washington, DC, in the US (AFIDocs, formerly SilverDocs, 2003)19 to Kunming in China (Yunfest, 2003), the festival ecosystem grew exponentially in the global sphere. New and old documentary film festivals rushed to include industrial sections within their programmes. Moreover,

90 

A. VALLEJO

major festivals created special activities devoted to documentary, such as the Sundance Documentary Fund (2002), Sarajevo Film Festival’s Docu Rough Cut Boutique (2011) or San Sebastian International Film Festival’s documentary pitching forum Lau Haizetara (2005).20 Festivals proved a fast and efficient tool for the international dissemination of documentary aesthetics. Although first-person documentary was not new—Roger and Me appeared already in 1989—it started to become a trend. In a few years the production of first-person documentaries arriving from all corners of the world started to fill the programmes of documentary festivals: La televisión y yo (Andrés di Tella, 2002), I for India (Sandhya Suri, 2005) or Grandma Has a Video Camera (Tania Cypriano, Brazil, 2007) are but a few examples. New festivals contributed to the expansion of the canon and to balance the cultural predomination characteristic of previous periods, with awards, retrospectives and competitions dedicated to national and regional documentaries. Nevertheless, programming and funding policies at film festivals created new cultural hierarchies in the 2000s. At a panel devoted to African Documentary during the SCMS conference in 2015,21 Michael Renov, in a respondent capacity, argued that the films analyzed, such as Bye Bye Africa (Mahamat-Saleh Haroun, 1999), This Is My Africa (Zina Saro-­Wiwa, 2008), Mille Soleils (A Thousand Suns, Mati Diop, 2013) and Touki-Bouki (Djibril Diop Mambéty, 1973), helped to “expand the canon.” The question raised by expert in African Film Festivals Lindiwe Dovey regarding the festival circulation of these films remained to some extent unanswered, but further research demonstrates that the films played mostly at European film festivals or African film festivals outside the continent. These geo-dynamics bring about conflicts around cultural representation, when filmmakers who successfully travel the international circuit become referents for the cinema of one country and “third world”-ist images of specific geopolitical regions are built.22 The nature of documentary as discoverer of new regions involved new politics of representation. Since Nanook of the North (Robert Flaherty, 1922), North American and European filmmakers have captured the world with their cameras. Although in the 2000s documentarists emerged from every corner of the globe, documentary festivals reproduced international dynamics of cultural domination through the funding bodies present at their industrial activities and through their programming policies

  THE RISE OF DOCUMENTARY FESTIVALS: A HISTORICAL APPROACH 

91

and politics of film selection.23 Thus, the control over representation had now been transposed to the control over film production and circulation. New documentary aesthetics appearing in the 2000s have been embraced and/or bolstered by documentary film festivals and their industrial activities. In 2007 IDFA dedicated a special section to animation documentary, setting the ground for the release of ‫( ואלס עם באשיר‬Waltz with Bashir, Ari Folman, 2008) the following year.24 Another trend was the experimental turn in documentary. From Péter Forgács compilations to the Harvard Sensory Lab’s works—with the outstanding performance of the festival favourite Leviathan (Véréna Paravel and Lucien Castaing-­ Taylor, 2012)— documentary film festivals served as a bridge between the movie theatre and the museum. These works have traversed the screen to non-linear forms adapted to the art gallery, where we find expanded projects by experimental filmmakers like Harun Farocki or Péter Forgács and more traditional documentarists such as Agnès Varda. I argue that in this process, and through the aforementioned strategies—such as general exposure of new works, programming dedicated retrospectives, organizing talks and roundtables and publishing specialized texts—, festivals contributed to define documentary subgenres, including, but not limited to, animation and experimental documentary. Industrial activities since 2010 have promoted and financed interactive documentaries and transmedia projects (in festivals like IDFA or Sheffield) such as Katerina Cizek’s HIGHRISE project’s works, produced by the National Film Board of Canada and presented at IDFA. In 2015 Virtual Reality (VR) appeared to be the new trend to chase, with special events and immersive exhibitions in Tribeca, Sundance, IDFA, Sheffield and Hot Docs. VR documentaries like Project Syria (Nonny de la Peña, 2015) add a new way to detach documentary image from indexicality, with the use of 3D graphics to portray contemporary wars. In 2016, an increasing interest in documentary web-series pointed to the continuous necessity of documentary festivals to explore future developments of the genre. These new viewing models challenge the classic screening conditions of linear documentaries. Given the individual viewing context required by these works, the festival purpose is redefined, in one way becoming promotion platforms to attract the attention of future online users.25 After nearly a century of festival presence, documentary film has certainly found a breeding ground and necessary exhibition space in the festival ecosystem, which continues to grow and expand in multiple aesthetic and geographic directions.

92 

A. VALLEJO

Conclusions In this chapter I have analyzed the ways in which documentary has found its way through the film festival circuit since the 1930s, and looked at the specific role played by documentary film festivals in this process. I argue that a critical view of contemporary documentary canons, and the cultural dynamics of domination involved in their conformation, can serve to better understand the historical evolution of the genre. Although not the only component, film festivals appear as major players in the articulation of the documentary definition and, as Nichols argues in the opening interview of this volume, in the expansion of its aesthetic or even ontological boundaries towards new forms such as animation, webdocs or VR. Documentary festivals have nurtured multiple social networks of filmmakers and professionals, and contributed to film literacy enriching the recovery of national and international documentary cultures. Nevertheless, from a historical point of view they have failed to influence the canon through awards and premieres in the same way major film festivals (like Cannes) or the Academy Awards in the US have done during the 1990s. Yet, the proliferation of documentary festivals in recent years and their growing internationalization has steadily contributed to upending this trend. The embrace of documentary by major feature festivals demonstrates the capacity of the genre to attain a high level of cinematographic quality with productions of comparatively limited budgets. Therefore, documentary appears as a suitable tool for small production countries, which can compete on equal terms with predominant film industries. Despite the growing challenges that documentary festivals face with an increasing saturation of the festival ecosystem, it is also necessary to point out some trends that bode well for the future of documentary festivals. While theatrical distribution for commercial fiction film has steadily worsened its financial results, and documentary film seemed to be condemned to television formats for decades, many documentary film festivals succeed in filling movie theatres night after night. This phenomenon confirms not only the importance of these events but also the necessity of their existence to maintain cinematic cultures, especially that of creative documentary. Moreover, the festival circuit is built on a model that—contrary to vertical circuits of film distribution—expands in a horizontal way. This paves the way for a diversity of aesthetics and thematic contents, which helps to counterbalance distribution monopolies.

  THE RISE OF DOCUMENTARY FESTIVALS: A HISTORICAL APPROACH 

93

Similarly, the proliferation of film festivals worldwide opens new spaces for the exhibition of productions from diverse geographical areas, preserving cultural diversity while offering the opportunity for these films to reach international audiences. The aforementioned expansion of the canon in the golden age of documentary to new geopolitical territories invites us to reflect on the importance that festivals can have today as sources for the establishment of a global history of documentary, which appears increasingly diffuse in contemporary documentary scholarship (e.g. see Juhasz and Lebow 2015; or Deprez and Pernin 2015). A focus on film festivals could therefore contribute to the writing of more geo-located histories of documentary, and at the same time help to avoid a common assumption about the importance of film production, disregarding distribution and exhibition dynamics, which are certainly central to the debate about the formation of the canon. In view of the growing presence of the industrial activities they organize, and the increasing number of funding sources they depend on, the primary challenge to be faced by documentary film festivals in upcoming years will therefore consist of managing in the best possible way their growing power over the film cultures they nurture, while maintaining their integrity and balancing the interests of the growing number of institutions with which they collaborate. Another major challenge is related to new technologies, and the necessity of film festivals to be constantly updated and aware of the future developments of the genre, nurturing new documentary trends that will attain wider exposure in the years to come. Documentary film festivals demonstrated a quick capacity for adaptation to the technological changes occurring in recent years. Coming from video formats, digitization was embraced as a natural process, contrary to the fiction film realm where celluloid predominated. This is also the case with new transmedia and VR forms, for which documentary festivals are playing a pioneering role. In this frame, there is a contradiction between the need to be at the cutting edge of technological and aesthetic transformations, supporting new consumption models such as web-docs or VR documentaries, which, at the same time, will keep the audience out of the cinema. In a globalized context, differentiation appears as a necessary survival tool for the creative industries. Given the diversity of locations and identities developed by documentary film festivals, the expansion of the canon promises a rich, but certainly demanding, task for researchers in coming years. This is just a starting point for further studies about international

94 

A. VALLEJO

cultural connections and dynamics of film circulation, which can help to better understand the past, present and future of the documentary.

Notes 1. Despite the fact that using the core-periphery dichotomy can raise some criticism, I consider that these terms contribute to highlighting the cultural hierarchies that remain in the global festival circuit. The contemporary tendency to use terms such as “World Cinema” or “films from the Global South” to refer to film works coming from countries with low production capacity or historically labelled as “non-western” or the “third world” help to hide international power relationships that prevail in postcolonial periods. 2. On the origins of Edinburgh Film Festival, see McArthur (1990) and Hardy (1992). 3. Shared with Luciano Serra pilota by Goffredo Alessandrini (1938). 4. Nevertheless, documentary still remained an important part of the festival identity, and booklets and lectures devoted to documentary took place, such as the 1952 conference “New Directions in Documentary.” After a wandering period, Edinburgh appeared to return to a serious engagement with documentary cinema, and its 1968 edition paid tribute to Grierson, who offered a “celebrity lecture” and received the Golden Thistle award (McArthur 1990, 97). 5. See Amieva about SODRE (2012) and Battlaglia in this volume about IDPA. For a study of the presence of the documentary in Latin American film festivals in historical perspective, see Peirano and Amieva (2018). 6. Due to their long trajectory, some of these festivals maintain close connections with institutions that historically interacted with film festivals. This is the case of FIPRESCI, the international federation of film critics that gives awards in (among other festivals) Bilbao and Krakow, or FIAPF, which has accredited these two festivals in the category of Documentary and Short Fiction. This recognition involves automatic eligibility of the films awarded in these festivals for the Academy Awards, as well as the European Film Awards. For commemorative accounts of these festivals’ histories, see: Zinebi: Bakedano and Zunzunegui (2008), Belgrade: Jelenković (2013), Oberhausen: Behnken (2004), Leipzig: Schenk (2007), Dei Popoli: Tasselli (1982). 7. New York became the mecca of experimental cinema in the 1960s. In addition to the New York Film Festival (1963), other institutions were created in this period, such as the Millennium Film Workshop and Film Forum (1966) and the Anthology Film Archives (opened in 1970 by Jonas Mekas, Jerome Hill, P. Adams Sitney, Peter Kubelka and Stan Brakhage).

  THE RISE OF DOCUMENTARY FESTIVALS: A HISTORICAL APPROACH 

95

8. See also the special issue in Wide Angle by Barnow and Zimmermann (1995) and the historical account: Zimmermann and MacDonald (2017). 9. For a study of the first years of the event, see Christian Jungen’s chapter in this volume. 10. See Moine (2003) and Kötzing and Moine (2017). 11. Film festivals specializing in ethnographic film include Cinéma du Réel (created in Paris in 1978 as an initiative of the Pompidou Museum) (see Blangonnet 1994), the aforementioned Festival dei Popoli, the Margaret Mead Film Festival (inaugurated in 1977 at the American Museum of Natural History in New York) and the Royal Anthropological Institute’s Ethnographic Film Festival (organized in London on a biannual basis, since 1985). For a historical study of ethnographic film festivals, see Vallejo and Peirano (2017). 12. For a critical view on the commercialization of Hot Docs, see Ezra Winton’s chapter in this volume. 13. Other documentary festivals that appeared in the 1990s include the Biennale Européenne du Documentaire in Marseille (originally named Biennale Européenne du Documentaire; in its second edition it changed its name to Vue sur les docs and in 1999 adopted the current name FIDMarseille); the Doc/Fest Sheffield (created in 1994  in the UK and originally celebrated in Bristol), which took advantage of the strong television production context in UK to attract filmmakers to their industry sections; the Thessaloniki Documentary Festival (founded in Greece in 1999), which benefited from its stability in the context of the Balkans and international connections. (The director of the festival, Dimitri Eipides was cofounder of the Montreal Festival Du Nouveau Cinéma [appeared in 1971] and programmer at the Toronto International Film Festival, operating since 1976 in Canada.) In the North American sphere the Hot Springs Documentary Film Festival started in Arkansas in 1992, while the Full Frame Documentary Film Festival began in 1998 as the DoubleTake Documentary Film Festival (held in Durham, NC). In Canada two new events appeared in 1998: RIDM (Rencontres Interantionales du Documentaire de Montréal/the Montreal International Documentary Festival) and DOXA in Vancouver. In Latin America É tudo Verdade/It’s all True was founded in 1996  in São Paulo (Brazil) by film critic Amir Labaki, who had served in the board of IDFA (see Vallejo 2018). In 2006 the festival co-organized the international conference devoted to documentary Visible Evidence XIII.  In 1997 Patricio Guzmán created the Santiago International Documentary Film Festival, FIDOCS (Santiago de Chile), which helped to energize local production (Amado and Mourão 2013, 228; Peirano 2016, 2018). 14. For a study of the presence of documentary at the Cannes Film Festival’s program, see Iglesias (2020) in our second volume.

96 

A. VALLEJO

15. For a study of award policies and auteur recognition at IDFA, see de Valck and Soeteman (2010). 16. This was due to concerns around the overlap of lobbying and programming as a potential conflict of interest. 17. Moreover, many industry activities, especially those promoting co-­ productions, have been fostered by institutions outside film festivals. These are mostly national and supranational institutes for the promotion of documentary film, such as the European Documentary Network (EDN), founded in Copenhagen (Denmark) in 1996. The European Union has been a major funding source for these initiatives, through the MEDIA (1991) or IBERMEDIA (1996) programmes. 18. Created in collaboration with FIDMarseille, in 2005 the market split from the festival, and moved to La Rochelle. 19. For a study of Silverdocs’ programming policies, see Gann (2012). 20. See interview to former director of Zinebi Ernesto del Río in our first volume (Vallejo 2020b). 21. Contemporary Documentary Practices in Africa Panel. March 27, 2015. Participants: Aboubakar Sanogo (Carleton University), Rachel Gabara (University of Georgia), Jude Akudinobi (University of California, Santa Barbara) and Michael Renov (respondent, University of Southern California). 22. For further reflections on how this dynamics affect the circulation of films in minority languages, see López-Gómez et al. (this volume). 23. See chapter on IDFA in our second volume (Vallejo 2020a). 24. See interview to former ARTE France TV programmer Thierry Garrel in our second volume (Pan 2020). 25. For an analysis of the challenges of new interactive documentary forms for documentary exhibition, see Stefano Odorico (2020) in our second volume.

References Amado, Ana, and Maria Dora Mourão. 2013. Images from the South: Contemporary Documentary in Argentina and Brazil. In The Documentary Film Book, ed. Brian Winston, 228–236. London: Palgrave Macmillan and British Film Institute. Amieva, Mariana. 2012. Cine Arte del SODRE en la conformación de un campo audiovisual en Uruguay. Políticas públicas y acciones individuales. Cine Documental 6. https://goo.gl/4s1nRS Bakedano, Jose Julián, and Santos Zunzunegui, eds. 2008. Imágenes de un largo viaje: cincuenta años de cine en ZINEBI, 1959–2008. Bilbao: Ayuntamiento de Bilbao.

  THE RISE OF DOCUMENTARY FESTIVALS: A HISTORICAL APPROACH 

97

Barnow, Erik. 1983 [1974]. Documentary: A History of the Non-Fiction Film. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Barnow, Erik, and Patricia R.  Zimmermann, eds. 1995. The Flaherty: Four Decades in the Cause of Independent Cinema. Wide Angle [special quadruple issue on the Flaherty Film Seminar] 17: 1–4. Behnken, Klaus, ed. 2004. Kurz und Klein: 50 Jahre Internationale Kurzfilmtage Oberhausen. Ostfildern-Ruit: Hatje Cantz. Blangonnet, Catherine, ed. 1994. Cinéma du réel. Images Documentaires [special issue on the Cinéma du reel Festival] 16. https://goo.gl/KdVaAc de Hadeln, Moritz. 2009. Il était une fois… 40ème anniversaire du Festival International du Film Documentaire à Nyon. DeHadeln&Partners. https:// goo.gl/ReKJrX Deprez, Camille, and Judith Pernin, eds. 2015. Post-1990 Documentary: Reconfiguring Independence. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. de Valck, Marijke. 2007. Film Festivals: From European Geopolitics to Global Cinephilia. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. ———. 2012. Finding Audiences for Films: Programming in Historical Perspective. In Coming Soon to a Festival Near You: Programming Film Festivals, ed. Jeffrey Ruoff, 25–40. St Andrews: St Andrews Film Studies. de Valck, Marijke, and Mimi Soeteman. 2010. ‘And the Winner is…:’ What Happens Behind the Scenes of Film Festival Competitions. International Journal of Cultural Studies 13 (3): 290–307. Di Iorio, Sam. 2013, February 25. Chronicle of a Summer: Truth and Consequences. The Criterion Collection. https://goo.gl/ZhJ2HS Elsaesser, Thomas. 2005. Film Festival Networks: The New Topographies of Cinema in Europe. In European Cinema: Face to Face with Hollywood, 82–107. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Gann, Jon. 2012. ‘Mediate. Curate. Facilitate’: Sky Sitney, SILVERDOCS.  In Behind the Screens: Programmers Reveal How Film Festivals Really Work, ed. Jon Gann, 149–165. Washington, DC: Reel Plan Press. Głowa, Jadwiga, ed. 1999. Zooming on History’s Turning Point: Documentaries in the 1990s in Central and Eastern Europe/Dokument po przełomie. Film dokumentalny lat 90. w Europie Šrodokowo-wschodniej. Krakow: Uniwersytet Jagielloński [bilingual edition Polish/English]. Grierson, John. 1966 [1932]. First Principles of Documentary. In Grierson on Documentary, ed. Forsyth Hardy, 145–156. London: Faber and Faber. Gunning, Tom. 2014. Encounters in Darkened Rooms: Alternative Programming of the Dutch Filmliga, 1927–31. In The Emergence of Film Culture: Knowledge Production, Institution Building, and the Fate of the Avant-garde in Europe, 1919–1945, ed. Malte Hagener, 72–116. Oxford: Berghahn Books.

98 

A. VALLEJO

Hardy, Forsyth. 1992. Slightly Mad and Full of Dangers: The Story of the Edinburgh Film Festival. Edinburgh: Ramsay Head Press. Iervese, Vittorio. 2017. Between Familiar and Unfamiliar. Ethnographic Films in the Festival dei Popoli. In Film Festivals and Anthropology, ed. Aida Vallejo and María Paz Peirano, 127–141. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge SP. Iglesias, Eulàlia. 2020. Positioning Documentaries at the Cannes International Film Festival: Fahrenheit 9/11 and Beyond. In Documentary Film Festivals Vol. 2. Changes, Challenges, Professional Perspectives, ed. Aida Vallejo and Ezra Winton, 113–129. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. Jelenković, Dunja. 2013. The Short Film Fest—60 Years: Monograph on the Belgrade Documentary and Short Film Festival. Belgrade: FEST head office [bilingual edition Serbian/English]. Juhasz, Alexandra, and Alisa Lebow, eds. 2015. A Companion to Contemporary Documentary Film. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell. Kilkka Mann, Lena. 2010. The Provocative Želimir Žilnik: From Yugoslavia’s Black Wave to Germany’s RAF. Südslavistik.online 2: 35–57. https://goo. gl/1zvU1n. Kötzing, Andreas, and Caroline Moine, eds. 2017. Cultural Transfer and Political Conflicts. Film Festivals in the Cold War. Göttingen: V&R unipress GmbH. Loist, Skadi. 2013. The Queer Film Festival Phenomenon in a Global Historical Perspective (the 1970s–2000s). In Un histoire des festivals. XXe–XXIe siècle, dir. Anaïs Fléchet, 109–121. Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne. Loist, Skadi, and Ger Zielinski. 2012. On the Development of Queer Film Festivals and Their Media Activism. In Film Festival Yearbook 4: Film Festivals and Activism, ed. Dina Iordanova and Leshu Torchin, 49–62. St Andrews: St Andrews Film Studies. McArthur, Colin. 1990. The Rises and Falls of the Edinburgh International Film Festival. In From Limelight to Satellite: A Scottish Film Book, ed. Eddie Dick, 91–102. Edinburgh: Scottish Film Council and British Film Institute. McLane, Betsy A. 2012. A New History of Documentary Film. Second edition. London and New York: Continuum. Mestman, Mariano, coord. 2016. Las Rupturas del 68 en el cine de América Latina. Buenos Aires: Ediciones Akal. Moine, Caroline. 2003. Le festival du film documentaire de Leipzig, un lieu d’échanges culturels international? Entre mythe et réalité. Relations Internationales 116: 559–571. Nornes, Abé Mark. 2013. Eastwards. In The Documentary Film Book, ed. Brian Winston, 209–215. London: Palgrave Macmillan and British Film Institute. Odorico, Stefano. 2020. Beyond the Screen: Interactive Documentary Exhibition in the Festival Sphere. In Documentary Film Festivals Vol. 2. Changes, Challenges, Professional Perspectives, ed. Aida Vallejo and Ezra Winton, 93–111. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.

  THE RISE OF DOCUMENTARY FESTIVALS: A HISTORICAL APPROACH 

99

Pan, Sevara. 2020. A Niche for Creativity: An Interview with Thierry Garrel, Director of the French Department of Documentary Film at TV Arte (1991–2008). In Documentary Film Festivals Vol. 2. Changes, Challenges, Professional Perspectives, ed. Aida Vallejo and Ezra Winton, 191–199. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. Paranaguá, Paulo Antonio, ed. 2003. Cine Documental en América Latina. Madrid: Cátedra. Peirano, María Paz. 2016. Pursuing, Resembling, and Contesting the Global: The Emergence of Chilean Film Festivals. New Review of Film and Television Studies 14 (1): 112–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/17400309.2015.1109345. ———. 2018. FIDOCS y la formación de un campo de cine documental en Chile en la década de 1990. Cine Documental 18: 62–89. https://goo.gl/6auZ4F. Peirano, María Paz, and Mariana Amieva, eds. 2018. Encuentros en los márgenes: festivales de cine y documental latinoamericano. Cine Documental 18 [special issue on film festivals and documentary in Latin America]. https:// goo.gl/uz5bGU Rhyne, Ragan. 2009. Film Festival Circuits and Stakeholders. In Film Festival Yearbook 1: The Festival Circuit, ed. Dina Iordanova and Ragan Rhyne, 9–39. St Andrews: St Andrews Film Studies. Schenk, Ralf. 2007. Bilder einer gespaltenen Welt: 50 Jahre Leipziger Dokumentarund Animationsfilmfestival. Berlin: Bertz+Fischer. Tasselli, Maria Pia. 1982. Il Cinema dell’uomo: Festival dei Popoli (1959–1981). Roma: Bulzoni. Vallejo, Aida. 2014. Industry Sections: Documentary Film Festivals Between Production and Distribution. Iluminace 26 (1): 65–82. ———. 2018. Festivales de cine documental en Iberoamérica: una cartografía histórica. Cine Documental 18: 144–171. https://goo.gl/MFcUcM. ———. 2020a. IDFA’s Industry Model: Fostering Global Documentary Production and Distribution. In Documentary Film Festivals Vol. 2. Changes, Challenges, Professional Perspectives, ed. Aida Vallejo and Ezra Winton, 23–53. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. ———. 2020b. Adapting to New Times: An Interview with Ernesto del Río, director of the Zinebi International Documentary and Short Film Festival of Bilbao (2000–2017). In Documentary Film Festivals Vol 2. Changes, Challenges, Professional Perspectives, ed. Aida Vallejo and Ezra Winton, 137–146. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. Vallejo, Aida, and María Paz Peirano. 2017. Film Festivals and Anthropology. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Willemen, Paul. 2013. On Pesaro (1981/1985). In The Film Festival Reader, ed. Dina Iordanova, 19–27. St Andrews: St Andrews Film Studies.

100 

A. VALLEJO

Wong, Cindy Hing-Yuk. 2011. Film Festivals: Culture, People, and Power on the Global Screen. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Zimmermann, Patricia R. 2012. Humanist and Poetic Activism: The Robert Flaherty Film Seminar in the 1950s. In Film Festival Yearbook 4: Film Festivals and Activism, ed. Dina Iordanova and Leshu Torchin. St Andrews: St Andrews Film Studies. Zimmermann, Patricia R., and Scott MacDonald. 2017. The Flaherty. Decades in the Cause of Independent Cinema. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

The Film Festival as a Vehicle for Memory Officialization: The Afterlife of WWII in the Yugoslav Documentary and Short Film Festival, 1954–2004 Dunja Jelenković

This chapter analyzes the change in programming practices at the Yugoslav Documentary and Short Film Festival (YDSFF), at the time of the major political and ideological transition of the late 1980s/early 1990s in Yugoslavia, which finally resulted in the country’s dissolution in the 1990s.1 The chapter charts the festival’s history from its creation in 1954, until its internationalization in 2004, showing the event’s transition from one that contributed to the creation of the Yugoslav supranational identity, to one that turned to the reinforcement of Serbian national identity, the two processes being ideologically completely opposite. By focusing on the changes in the approach to World War II (WWII)—the most common theme in the entire festival’s history— the chapter unfolds the role of the festival in the construction and

D. Jelenković (*) University of Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, University of Paris Saclay, Paris, France © The Author(s) 2020 A. Vallejo, E. Winton (eds.), Documentary Film Festivals Vol. 1, Framing Film Festivals, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17320-3_8

101

102 

D. JELENKOVIĆ

destruction of a common Yugoslav identity and the supranational socialist Yugoslav myth. Developed within the framework of cultural memory studies (A.  Assmann 2006; J.  Assmann 1995, 2008; Nora 1984) and historical approaches to film festivals (Kötzing and Moine 2017; Pisu 2013), this chapter is a result of research in cultural history that comprised a detailed investigation of the festival’s archives, that is, catalogues, print materials, administrative documents and press clippings. The research also included content analysis of a selection of relevant films screened at the festival. The chapter opens with a revision of the literature devoted to the study of film festivals and history, as well as the officialization of cultural memory. Then it looks at YDSFF’s history, within the wider framework of history of Yugoslavia. The next two sections probe the presence of films in the program featuring WWII. Firstly, by focusing on the way the festival approached WWII in the socialist period, and secondly, by looking at the transition toward a more nationalist oriented programming in subsequent years. The first changes toward a more nationalist programming occurred in the late 1980s, in line with the change of political climate in the country, when the republics started to openly fight for their separate interests instead of joint Yugoslav interests. This culminated in 1991, with a major shift within the WWII narrative and a decrease in the origins of the films in the program. The year 1991 marks the distinction between the two periods, due to a structural change that happens within the festival. That is, its gradual inclusion of only films from Serbia and Montenegro. This happened after a boycott of a majority of Croatian production houses in 1991, and progressive withdrawal of the remaining ones between the 1991 and 1992 editions, eliciting a complete turn in the event’s programming.

Film Festival History and the Officialization of Cultural Memory Speaking of historical studies, political influence on film festivals has been researched, among others, by Caroline Moine (2014) who worked on the Leipzig Film Festival in the context of the Cold War (1955–1990). Andreas Kötzing similarly discussed the influence of the political climate of the Cold War on film festival programming in his study of Leipzig and Oberhausen (2013). The edited collection Cultural Transfer and Political Conflicts, under the direction of Caroline Moine and Andreas Kötzing, also discusses the influence of the Cold War on various European film festivals (Kötzing and Moine 2017), while Stefano Pisu’s work (2013)

  THE FILM FESTIVAL AS A VEHICLE FOR MEMORY OFFICIALIZATION… 

103

analyzes the presence of the Soviet Union at the Venice Film Festival in the period 1932–1953. When it comes to the studies of former Yugoslavia, while significant scholarly work has been done on the relations between politics and documentary cinema production, mostly within the studies of the critical Black Wave cinema from 1960s/early 1970s,2 there is little research on political influence on festival programming in the field of documentary film.3 On the other hand, the role of cultural institutions in the officialization of cultural memory has been largely investigated (A.  Assmann 2006; J. Assmann 1995, 2008; Nora 1984), often in relation to school manuscripts as promotional vehicles of “official memory.”4 Documentary film festivals are interesting in this matter because of documentary’s perceived link to “reality.” Due to this association, among certain audiences, documentary is often mistaken for journalism and/or for truth itself, instead of being seen as an artist’s vision of reality. Numerous headlines in the press following the YDSFF confirm the tendency to confound documentary film with reality: “A ‘copy’ of reality,”5 “The reality ‘as it is,’”6 “The truth above all,”7 “True stories,”8 and “The reality in short.”9 Bearing this in mind, the chapter will analyze which version of the Yugoslav WWII “reality” was presented to festival audiences through its programs in two specific political periods: firstly, the period of socialist Yugoslavia marked by the integrative cultural processes (1943–1991); and secondly, the period of post-socialist Yugoslavia marked by the wars, Serbian nationalist discourse, and, consequently, disintegrative cultural processes (1991–2003). The analysis will reveal to what extent the YDSFF, as an event run and financed by state institutions, utilized documentary as an instrument that influenced the construction of collective and national identities. It will also demonstrate how two political regimes that are completely opposite in their ideological nature can legitimize their power by the instrumentalization of the past for their contemporary political objectives. In doing so, the chapter will illustrate how a film festival can be used as a vehicle for the officialization of cultural memory.

The Film Festival as a Crown of the New Cinema Culture The YDSFF was founded in 1954 in Pula (Croatia) in the newly established socialist Yugoslav republic. The republic was proclaimed at the place of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia amid the occupation in 1943, under the leadership of the Partisan resistance movement head Josip Broz Tito.

104 

D. JELENKOVIĆ

The new country, spreading more or less over the same territory as the royalist Yugoslavia, was further constituted after the conclusion of the war in 1945, and adopted the name of Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) in 1963.10 It was organized as a federation of six republics, each with its own capital: Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Montenegro, Macedonia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. In addition, the largest of them, Serbia, also included two autonomous provinces, Kosovo in the south and Vojvodina in the north. More or less according to this division, the country also recognized, first five, then as of 1971, six constitutive nations.11 The main ideals of the federation, a classless society and the “brotherhood and unity” of the Yugoslav nations, were identified as such partially as a result of the national and class conflicts that had been shaking the royalist Yugoslavia ever since its creation in 1918. The Communist Party of Yugoslavia (CPY)12 gained recognition partly due to their promise to resolve the national question—a constant struggle between a part of Croatian and a part of Serbian politicians, about the position of the two largest Yugoslav nations within the country.13 The communists’ program also aimed at the creation of a more just, socialist and classless society, in doing so resolving the various issues of the working class from all the Yugoslav nations. The Partisan movement therefore attracted members from all the parts of Yugoslavia who shared these ideals. As other communist parties, following Lenin’s claimed statement that “of all the arts, for us the cinema is the most important,”14 the CPY quickly understood cinema’s propagandist potential. The Partisans expressed a strong interest in moving images already during the war: they formed the first film crew and reached official decisions to film the Partisan battles. Yet cinema, especially documentary, had an additional value for the Yugoslav communists, due to the particular circumstances related exclusively to this region. As soon as WWII reached Yugoslavia in 1941, the country, weakened by the internal national and ideological conflicts ever since its creation, entered a complex set of civil wars. Among the various ideological and ethnic groups that took part in them, the three most powerful were the Axis collaborationist Ustasha movement (Croatian ultra-nationalists, for the creation of an ethically clean Croatian state, running the fascist puppet state Independent State of Croatia—ISC—between 1941 and 1945), the collaborationist Chetnik movement (Serbian ultra-nationalists, royalists, for the return of the King and reestablishment of Greater Serbia15 as a monarchy, at the very beginning fighting against, but quickly starting to collaborate with the Axis), and the Partisan resistance movement

  THE FILM FESTIVAL AS A VEHICLE FOR MEMORY OFFICIALIZATION… 

105

(supranational leftist movement, for reestablishment of Yugoslavia as a socialist republic under the leadership of the Communist Party). They all entered a complex set of clashes, pitting each against the other (see Pavlowitch 2008; Tomasevich 2001; Pavlaković 2013). The Partisans came out of the conflict as triple winners: in the socialist revolution, in the civil war and in the war against the Axis powers. Yet they did not have an easy task establishing the new country based upon the heritage of numerous racial and civil victims of the civil war. In such a situation, the government strongly insisted on the commemoration of the Partisan movement, always carefully stressing its multinational profile. The idea was to show the joint struggle of all the Yugoslav nations, fighting together against the various internal and external (ideological and class) enemies, while the bloody conflict between some members of these very same national groups was conveniently set aside. As a direct media that easily communicates with the audiences, cinema proved itself to be a handy tool for the officialization of this memory, especially since the communists inherited a largely illiterate society from the Kingdom. The officialization of this memory through cinema was also enabled thanks to the rather detailed documentation of the liberation kept by the Partisan film units. Even before the end of the war the communists focused on filling in the blank inherited from the monarchy in terms of cinema culture (Kosanović 2004). What is interesting however is that they declared 1945—the year when WWII ended—as the beginning of the history of the Yugoslav cinema, hence refusing to acknowledge the pre-communist cinema history, and the random, but persisting developments before their arrival to power. The socialist revolution was presented as a Big Bang from which everything began and the socialist Yugoslav identity was created based on this skewed heritage. Structurally, film production was organized in such a way that it mirrored the architecture of the country; that is, it tried as much as possible to enable equal cinema development in all the federal units of the new state. The crown of the process of the establishment of organized cinema production was the creation of the national film festival in Pula, Croatia. Founded a year before the celebration of the tenth anniversary of Yugoslav cinema, the festival’s aim was to provide an overview of the fast-growing national production in all areas of film production. However, in order to be able to dedicate more space to documentary and short film, in 1959 the event was divided into two: the Yugoslav Fiction Film Festival that stayed in Pula, and the Yugoslav Documentary and Short Film Festival, which took place for the first time

106 

D. JELENKOVIĆ

in 196016 in Belgrade. At first the two festivals were managed by a common organization “Yugoslav Film Festival” (YFF), and in the mid-1970s the founding rights were transferred to the town of Pula and the city of Belgrade, respectively. Yugoslav Documentary and Short Film Festival has, since then, been organized by the following public institutions: Beograd Publik (1975–1978), Sava Centar (1978–1991), Jugoslavija Film (1991– 2003), Direkcija FEST-a (2003–2014), CeBeF (2014–2017), and Dom omladine (2017–present). The event has been on the state budget ever since it was founded.17 It changed its name in 2004, becoming the Belgrade Documentary and Short Film Festival.18 The same year, it became an international festival, thus officially breaking with its Yugoslav history, although in practical terms it had already diverged at the beginning of the 1990s (Image 1). The festival cherished the concept of Yugoslav socialism until the late 1980s, in line with the key political events and changes in the country. All the constitutive parts of SFRY were equally represented at the festival, and Council, jury, selection committees, and other structures always included representatives from all the six federal republics and the two provinces. Politicians, often high-ranking officials of the League of Communists of

Image 1  Cover of the festival catalogues: 1965, 1966, and 1967

  THE FILM FESTIVAL AS A VEHICLE FOR MEMORY OFFICIALIZATION… 

107

Yugoslavia (LCY), were regularly present at the festival, not only in the audience, but also as Council or jury members.19 Films were also included from all the parts of the federation. Numerous special programs celebrated the memory of war, yet the importance of WWII for the festival is evident also from the fact that as a theme it even had its own category in the period when the festival catalogue presented a film overview thematically.20 This changed in 1967 when the Council took the decision to classify the submitted films as documentary, short fiction, animated, and utility films,21 and established new awards accordingly. However, WWII remained one of the most present film themes in the documentaries screened at the festival, sometimes with more than 20 productions dedicated to WWII in one and the same festival edition.22

Memory of WWII as the Social and Cultural Glue of the Federation Since the republic was born in the middle of the war and as a result of Partisan struggle, the cult of Yugoslavia was largely built on the imagery of WWII. In the entire period of 1945–1991, Partisan heroism was the dominant image of war in Yugoslav society (see Č alić 2010; Perica and Velikonja 2012; Stojanović 2010). The central element of the socialist Yugoslav myth, the memory of WWII, functioned for decades as the ideological glue that united the Yugoslav nations and helped construct a common identity. That is why it was the most deployed theme in the socialist Yugoslav cinema, with some 250 Partisan features produced between 1947 and 1990 (Munitić 2005, 264), and hundreds of documentaries that celebrated the Partisans’ struggles (see Ilić 1970, 1974, 1980, 1982, 1988). Following the national production achievements, the festival repeatedly praised the antifascist struggle, Yugoslav revolutionary heritage, and the accomplishments of Partisans of all the Yugoslav nations, united under the leadership of Tito. As the President of the Republic, Tito became the festival’s official patron at its second edition. When the documentary section moved to Belgrade in 1960, Tito’s influence over the festival remained intact, although there is no official document confirming that the patronage continued. In 1978, at the event’s 25th anniversary, the Council granted Tito, as patron of the festival, the Golden Plaque in gratitude for his continuous help and support.23 This accolade can be understood either as the

108 

D. JELENKOVIĆ

c­ onfirmation of the continuance of Tito’s patronage after the separation, or as its official beginning. In any case, Tito was an important part of the festival’s identity ever since its creation—on the one hand the festival participated in the construction of the cult of the leader and, on the other, this cult gave higher legitimacy to the festival, also helping construct the festival’s own image. Tito’s importance for the festival’s identity is evident from numerous films screened in his honor, but also from his photos and quotes about cinema published in the catalogues, special events, and exhibitions organized in his honor, as well as official markings of his birthday. In terms of memory of WWII, the importance of Tito’s cult for the festival was related to his role as the leader of the resistance movement. By celebrating Tito, in any of his most important state roles (leader of the party, Marshal of Yugoslavia or President of the state), the festival appeared to confirm the legitimacy of the leader of the Partisan resistance. World War II was also a constant point of return in the speeches of the festival’s organizers and municipality officials, as well as in the festival catalogue texts. In addition, the festival commemorated most of the important dates of the Yugoslav socialist calendar, many of them related to the memory of WWII, such as the 20th anniversary of the People’s Uprising (1961), 40 years since the end of the WWII and liberation of Belgrade (1984),24 40 years of “Victory over fascism” (1985), and so on. In 1981, the year when Yugoslavia celebrated four decades since the military coup and mass demonstrations against Yugoslavia joining the Tripartite Pact (on March 27, 1941), the festival was opened on the historic date of March 27. The use of March 27 represents a fine example of the festival’s participation in the manipulation of historical facts: although the communists were only a part of the protest, and a smaller part, the official narrative presented them for decades as the organizers of the protests (Radić 2008, 69). The festival featured an abundance of images of Partisan bravery in all the segments of its program. Titles commemorating the Partisan heroism included: Blood of Freedom25 (Žika Č ukulić, 1955), Ten on One (Bata Č engić, 1959), The Grave and Its Glory (Mihailo Jovanović, 1959), Red Snow in Pohorje (Jože Pogačnik, 1974), The Battle of Sutjeska (Vladan Slijepčević, 1980), and so on. Partisan sacrifice was an important element of the WWII myth because the blood spilled for the freedom of the country imposed even greater responsibility to the ones who stayed after the fallen ones—those left to enjoy the freedom gained in such a macabre manner. However, the representation of the war was not only limited to

  THE FILM FESTIVAL AS A VEHICLE FOR MEMORY OFFICIALIZATION… 

109

the commemoration of big dates and chronicles of related battles, but a wide range of “smaller” themes was also addressed, such as art about the war (The Poem About My Country, Stole Janković, 1962), a forgotten melody of a Partisan march (Forgotten March, Brana Ćelović, 1964), or Partisan-led schools (People from My Textbook, Stevan Stanić, 1974). While the stories of the joint struggle of the Yugoslavs against the common enemy dominated festival screens, the history of the civil war was much less addressed. This does not mean that the communists tried to hide this part of WWII history. On the contrary, the conflict was acknowledged and most likely the official number of victims was even exaggerated. However, the memory of civil war, as a potential landmine for future conflicts, was carefully adapted so that it could serve the unity of the Yugoslav nations, and not work against it. The fact that Serbs were the most numerous victims (see Kočović 1985) was not hidden, yet it was made certain that victims of other nationalities were equally mentioned. The official narrative also strongly insisted on the fascist aspect of the depicted crimes. This means that it was important to stress that the ones who committed the crimes were supporters of an ideology that was in its core opposite to the socialist one, and not that they were members of a certain nation. Similarly, it was important to present the victims as the antifascists from different parts of Yugoslavia, and not as members of one particular nation. The most evident example of such memory of WWII is the representation of the Ustasha crimes in the festival. The most repeated subject in the documentary film production related to the civil war is the story of the concentration and extermination camp of Jasenovac. The landmark of the Independent State of Croatia (ISC), Jasenovac, differed from the Nazi camps since it was a place of imprisonment, forced labor, and liquidation foremost of the Serbian orthodox population that was supposed to be completely cleared out from the territory of the ISC (Mataušić 2008). They were joined by the Jews and Roma that were also executed based on racial grounds, and by political opponents of the Ustasha regime— Croatian communists, antifascists, Partisans, and members of their families (Ibid.). The best-known Yugoslav documentary on this theme is the 1984 Grand Prix winner Blood and Ashes of Jasenovac, by Lordan Zafranović. The film, conforming to the socialist narrative, insists on the ideological aspect of the depicted crimes. The narrator speaks of a “furious campaign against the Jews and the communists,” states that “[t]he ruthless extermination of all political enemies, Serbs, Jews and Gypsies becomes an integral

110 

D. JELENKOVIĆ

part of the Ustasha practices and worldview,” and continues: “The anti-­ communist spirit is the important element of political character of fascism even in its Croatian Ustasha version. Croatian Patriots, Serbs, Jews, Gypsies, became the victims of notorious […] decree on sending disobedient and perilous persons to labor camps and concentration camps.”26 The order of appearance of the victims is indicative of the attempt to soften the racial aspect of the crimes. The far most numerous victims in Jasenovac were the Serbs, followed by Jews and Roma; all three stigmatized as a part of ethnic cleansing due to their nationality and religion—that is, racial reasons. However, the synopsis lists them as second, only after the Croatian communists and antifascists. Croatian communists were indeed among the victims, however least numerous. Despite that they are here listed first, and under the name of patriots. The film includes testimonies given in different dialects of the Serbo-Croatian language, as well as in Slovenian, features people whose names suggest they were indeed coming from “different parts of our country,” and includes testimony from Roma survivors. The official WWII narrative, which represented the victims foremost as a class and ideological-related sacrifice, did not leave much room for the Holocaust. This means that the Holocaust was treated ambivalently in the process of the construction of WWII memory: it was never omitted but never particularly emphasized; that is to say, the Jewish victims were mentioned in all the official occasions, but were so together with other WWII victims (Ignjatović and Manojlović Pintar 2008). Therefore, although WWII was a common fixture in the program, during the socialist period the festival did not present any documentaries devoted exclusively to the Holocaust, despite this being one of, if not the most important aspect of WWII. The festival screened films that challenged official narratives as well. The most obvious examples come from the politically turbulent years 1967–1973. The so-called Black Wave27 shifted the focus of attention to critical and engaged works, known for their pessimistic view of Yugoslav socialism. They mostly focused on contemporary themes—by portraying “dropouts” from the allegedly flawless Yugoslav society, they were revealing the imperfections of the system. In relation to the memory of WWII, it is worth mentioning Mika Antić’s documentary The Monument (1968), which criticized the silence of the regime about the Novi Sad Raid, the mass liquidations of Serbs, Jews, and Roma from the town of Novi Sad conducted in 1942 by the Hungarian occupying forces. The Raid was probably a controversial topic because of the numerous Hungarian

  THE FILM FESTIVAL AS A VEHICLE FOR MEMORY OFFICIALIZATION… 

111

­ inority population still living in Vojvodina. It could have also possibly m opened the issues of Partisan liquidations of Hungarians at the end of the war, a topic that was not allowed to be discussed openly. Therefore, while the entire memory of war was focused on the Partisan victims, the civilian victims of the Novi Sad Raid did not merit a monument, which is the point of criticism in the film. However, typically for the Black Wave, which aimed at improving and not drastically changing the system with its criticism, this film fully fits the socialist narrative: the narrator, who is Serbian, insists on his love for his Hungarian girlfriend, underlining the notion that there is no difference between them, as they are both ultimately Yugoslavs. In summary, in the entire socialist period, the memory of WWII was most often represented as a heroic joint struggle of all the Yugoslav peoples, gathered under the Partisan movement. The civil war that raged across the country as a part of WWII had a secondary place in the officially sanctified memory. In addition, the representation of the civil war needed to be freed, in the limits of what was possible, from national insignia— when it comes to both the victims and their executors. War crimes were not concealed, but the festival’s programs insisted on the ideological and not on the ethnic/racial dimensions of these crimes. Although the festival did accommodate for a certain degree of criticism, the critical films that screened also formed a part of the socialist discourse that promoted society based on class and not nation, as well as the accepted memory of WWII that supported that approach.

Memory of WWII as a Landmine for Future Conflicts The period of the 1980s saw large political instability in Yugoslavia due to the economic crisis and the rise of individual nationalisms in different republics. The major destabilization factor was the autonomous province of Kosovo in Serbia, which, mostly populated by Albanians, had been claiming the status of the republic. The differences between various constitutive parts of Yugoslavia were also deepened by the emergence of influential nationalist leaders in individual republics. In Serbia, the Kosovo problem facilitated the rise of Slobodan Milošević, the Party apparatchik who played the nationalist card by promising to save the jeopardized Serbian nation outside of central Serbia, foremost in Kosovo. In 1986 he became the president of the Serbian branch of the Communist Party of

112 

D. JELENKOVIĆ

Yugoslavia, in 1989 President of the Presidency of the Socialist Republic of Serbia, and in the first multiparty elections in 1990 the first President of Serbia.28 Following the fall of communist/socialist systems in Europe, socialist Yugoslavia, which had already lost its leader Tito in 1980, struggled deep in economic and political crisis, and soon broke up in a series of wars: Slovenia (1991), Croatia (1991–1995), Bosnia and Herzegovina (1992–1995), Kosovo (1998–1999), and NATO bombing (1999). When the wars started, following Slovenia’s and Croatia’s declaration of independence in 1991, as certain republics were leaving the federation, one by one the production houses and filmmakers from these republics also disappeared from the festival’s structures and its program. Already from 1993 the entire management, jury, and the participating production houses were exclusively from Serbia and Montenegro, the two republics that stayed together until 2006. Following this change of the festival’s structure, which reduced the former multi-federal festival to a local Serbian-Montenegrin event, and alongside the fall of socialism in the country, the socialist strain that had once typified the program was gradually replaced by works featuring motives typical for the Serbian ethno-­ nationalism of the 1990s. The corpus of these new and newly discovered topics, characteristic for the so-called period of culture of nationalism (as defined by Dragićević Šešić and Mikić 2013),29 mostly comprised the following: critics of socialist Yugoslavia, praise for the Serbian Orthodox Church, folklore and traditions, and commemoration of Serbian victims in the ongoing conflict, as well as other wars throughout history.30 In other words, production focused on the elements that differentiated the Serbian nation from the other Yugoslav nations, which were now, together with the socialist Yugoslavia as such, presented as enemies. These changes, firstly in mainstream documentary film production, and then consequently also in the festival’s programming, were a part of a larger cultural and political process of distancing from the previous country, while justifying the Serbian role in its disintegration. Milena Dragićević Šešić remarks that “Nationalism in cultural policy has only one purpose, to strengthen the feeling of national affiliation, which can be achieved, first of all, by means of remove, distance from the other, as well as abuse and adaptation of certain events in accordance with the desirable narratives of cultural policy” (Dragićević Šešić 2010, 268). With these changes, the WWII theme is the first that experiences a transformation—from a pillar of the ­construction of the supranational Yugoslav identity, the memory of WWII becomes the arbiter of its deconstruction.

  THE FILM FESTIVAL AS A VEHICLE FOR MEMORY OFFICIALIZATION… 

113

One can establish two aspects of the changing nature of the memory of WWII in this context: justification of the new state order and justification of the Serbian participation in the Yugoslav wars. In order to justify the change of the state order, which in the 1990s experienced the first phase of the transition from socialism to capitalism, a new state order that was formerly glorified was now remembered negatively. The Serbian position within the federation was presented as a loss, and the socialist Yugoslavia was therefore largely presented as the jailor of the Serbian nation (see Kuljić 2006, 2011). Since the negative memory of socialist Yugoslavia replaced the previous celebration of the socialist concepts, WWII as the event that gave birth to the previous state also needed to be remembered negatively. The negative memory of WWII also helped explain and justify the ongoing wars in Croatia and Bosnia: the Serbian civil victims, killed at the hands of Ustashas, were brought out of the closet, pushing the memory of the joint Partisan struggle out from the pedestal of WWII memory. With the end of the mass production of films glorifying the Partisan movement, the presence of WWII in the festival programs was drastically reduced. Its quality also changed: when WWII was featured, it was mostly deployed to show the crimes of Croatian Ustashas, against the Serbs, and not to celebrate the Yugoslav Partisan movement (i.e. Serbian and Croatian joint struggle against the common enemy), as had been the case previously. These messages had a dual role: they helped the Serbian victimization narrative and contributed to the creation of the myth of ancestral hatred, which allegedly united the Croatian people against the Serbs.31 This is especially important considering the wider context in which these films were screened—during the wars of the 1990s the word Ustasha was repeatedly used in Serbian media controlled by the government as a synonym for Croatian people, thus purposely creating confusion and spreading hatred (see Thompson 1994). The first film from this series is Milorad Bajić’s The Pit—Grote Morta (1991), which addresses the crimes committed by Ustashas in the pits of the Velebit mountain area, where Serbian locals were buried alive in masses. The documentary was screened in 1991, in the context of harsh political divisions within the festival related to the Croatian withdrawal and accusations that YDSFF would be a place for Serbian war propaganda.32 Raw and full of direct accusations, the film immediately provoked a scandal. While Zafranović’s Blood and Ashes of Jasenovac insists on the reconciliation of the Yugoslav peoples and purposely includes testimonies of survivors from various parts of Yugoslavia, Bajić’s film focuses e­ xclusively

114 

D. JELENKOVIĆ

on the Serbian victims. The film concludes by revealing shocking material shot by the film crew that went down into one of the pits and dug through the bones and skulls. This material is edited together with a short message from one of the survivors: “I, Jovanka Radoja, from the pit, I am sending the message to everybody, to the Serbs: with Croats you can eat and drink, but never trust them! Never trust them.”33 The camera goes back in the pit where we can now see the filmmaker hugging the skulls of, as he says, “his brothers the Orthodox Serbs” and sends a message to the Pope, reminding of the support the Ustashas had from the Catholic Church in WWII. This particular quote of the victim Jovanka Radoja that denigrated the entire Croatian peoples is at the core of the 1991 polemics around the propagandist nature of the festival. The inclusion of this film in the program is a good example of the often-ambivalent position of the festival regarding the hottest political issues in Yugoslavia at the time. The jury34 acknowledged that the film identified the entire Croatian peoples with the crime.35 However, when the filmmaker refused to accept their request to cut out the problematic sentence,36 the film was taken out of the competition but not out of the general program (Image 2).

Image 2  The Pit—Grote Morta (Jama, Milorad Bajić, Soko Film, 1991), screenshot

  THE FILM FESTIVAL AS A VEHICLE FOR MEMORY OFFICIALIZATION… 

115

Other films followed. In 1992, the festival programmed Madonna, Queen of Croats by the Partisan veteran Krsto Škanata, about Ustasha mass execution of children, and Artists about Genocide—Milić of Mačva by Božidar Vučurović, which presented the motive of genocide against Serbs in the work of Serbian painter of nationalist political orientation, Milić of Mačva. It is notable that this theme comes into focus in the times of war: both between 1991 and 1995, and in 1999, when its presence rises again amid the NATO bombings and the war in Kosovo. Screenings of these films during the war aided the Serbian victimization narrative, claiming the allegedly continuous nature of what most of these films define as the genocide against the Serbs: starting in the past, the Serbian suffering continues to the present day. This discourse contributes to the representation of the current wars as those of defense. These films also reinforce the unity of the Serbian nation, gathered together around the memory of their common suffering. This is an element that clearly positions them together, and against the other Yugoslav nations, which are now presented as their enemies. The documentaries about the contemporary conflicts also regularly made open reference to WWII, suggesting the allegedly continuous nature of Croatian crimes against the Serbs. In that sense, one can note the documentary Something Was Telling Me That I would Stay Alive (Govorilo mi je nešto da ću ostat živ, Spasoje Jovanović, Miroslav Stanković, CINE PRO, 1997). The film is an interview with Ljuban Jednak (1916–1997), the only survivor of the 1941 Ustasha massacre of Serbs in a church in the village of Glina, in the region of Krajina in Croatia. Jednak, now a refugee from Croatia living in Belgrade, speaks of the events in 1941 as well as of the 1990s war in Croatia. The contemporary footage of Serbian refugees from Krajina is edited together with the archival material from WWII: scenes of turning local Serbs into Catholics, corpses, international press reports from the time, and so on. In doing so the film achieves continuity between the WWII Ustasha crimes and Croatian people and army as contemporary enemy, equalizing the two. Comparing the discourse present in films on WWII before and after the Yugoslav wars, it is notable that prior to the 1990s the stress was on the anti-Yugoslav character of Ustasha crimes, emphasizing that the victims were “antifascists from the entire Yugoslavia,” while in the 1990s the accent was rather on the anti-Serbian dimension of these events, putting aside the aspect of the ideological disagreement (fascist–antifascist) and instead strongly underlining the fact that far more numerous victims in the

116 

D. JELENKOVIĆ

camps were Serbs. We see from these examples how the construction of the image of the victim changes: in the socialist period the victims were defined by their ideology (they were primarily defined as antifascists, as for example insisted numerous times throughout the narration in The Blood and Ashes of Jasenovac), while the issue of nation was purposely downplayed by insisting that the victims were coming from all the parts of Yugoslavia. On the other hand, in the post-socialist period the issue of ideology becomes less important than the issue of nation, which now comes into focus. Basically, from the “fascist vs. anti-fascist” discourse these events moved to a “Serbian vs. anti-Serbian” plan. In addition, the construction of the image of villains also changes—similarly to what occurred with the perception of the victim, the issue of nation here comes into focus as well. While the notion of fascism still has traction when describing the perpetrators, the important factor here is that the entire Croatian nation is often identified with the crimes committed.

Conclusions The messages conveyed through the documentaries screened at the Yugoslav Documentary and Short Film Festival on the theme of WWII in the socialist period had as a goal political reconciliation—one is not insisting on the nationality of the victims or of the villains, but rather on a relation between fascism and antifascism. These nations shared a common past that both brought them together and separated them. By insisting on the joint antifascist struggle and on the notion of the working class that they all had in common, the festival participated in the process of the construction of the common identity of the heterogenic community of the Yugoslav nations. With the change of the political order and the beginning of the wars of the 1990s, the festival’s program more and more showed disapproval of Yugoslav concepts, criticism of its system, blame put on other constitutive peoples of the former country for different injustices against the Serbian people and other topics previously unknown to the festival’s audiences. Although the post-socialist period is marked by the negative memory of socialist Yugoslavia, which is characterized as the jailor of the Serbian nation, the methods that the nationalists used for the reinforcement of the Serbian national identity are exactly the same as the ones used by the communist government: while some information is emphasized, other information is put aside. The only difference is that the emphasized and neglected information swapped places. The commemoration of

  THE FILM FESTIVAL AS A VEHICLE FOR MEMORY OFFICIALIZATION… 

117

Partisan heroism as the common element of all the Yugoslav nations is replaced with the commemoration of the Serbian victims as a common element of the Serbian nation, and a differentiating element from the other Yugoslav nations, which are now presented as enemies. Even if critical works were not new to the festival, the criticism of Yugoslavia expressed in the films from the socialist and post-socialist periods had a completely different form and aim. While one could say that some of the Black Wave films basically called for the League of Communists of Yugoslavia to stick to its own program and values,37 films from the 1990s that criticized socialist Yugoslavia had as a goal the strengthening the idea of Serbian national identity—one of the main manipulating elements in Milošević’s politics. The propagandist potential of documentary cinema was most obvious in films about war, a frequent film theme throughout the entire festival history, but whose role changed most drastically in the context of the new wars raging in the 1990s. It should be underlined that the Yugoslav Documentary and Short Film Festival could only make its selection from what was produced in the country and that it did screen the majority of films that were produced therein (cf. festival catalogues)—the problematic of its curating is therefore partially a result of the decisions made by producers and filmmakers that were to a great extent themselves “fitting the frame” of dominant discourses in culture in the two periods. That said, the festival further positioned some of these filmmakers with its curating: by placing a film in or out of the competition, by assigning certain screening times, awarding prizes, promotion in the press, and so on. As the festival has never been interrupted, not even during the Yugoslav wars, it proves to be a valuable resource to study the manner in which film festivals can shift political allegiances in turbulent circumstances. Finally, as this chapter has sought to illustrate, the Yugoslav Documentary and Short Film Festival, which lasted almost the same years as the state itself, can be a useful site for understanding the complex political history of Yugoslavia and the transformations of the state’s memory policies.

Notes 1. The chapter provides some of the findings of my Ph.D. thesis, conducted with the University  Paris Saclay/Versailles Saint-Quentin en Yvelines under the title: “Cultural and Political History of the Yugoslav Documentary and Short Film Festival, 1954–2004: From Yugoslav Socialism to Serbian

118 

D. JELENKOVIĆ

Nationalism” (2017). I would like to thank to David Archibald and Vjeran Pavlaković who provided invaluable insights on a draft version of this chapter. 2. For more on the Black Wave, see Buden (2013), Kirn et al. (2012). 3. For a more general overview of the programming practices of Yugoslav Documentary and Short Film Festival in the two periods, see Jelenković (2016). 4. For the case of school manuscripts in post-socialist Yugoslavia, see Stojanović (2010). 5. “‘Prepisana’ stvarnost” [A “copy” of reality], Bogdan Kalafatović, NIN, March 19, 1978. 6. “Stvarnost ‘kao takva’” [The reality “as it is”], Aco Štaka, Oslobodjenje, March 30, 1987. 7. “Istina iznad svega” [The truth above all], M. K, Novosti, March 28, 1989. 8. “Istinite priče” [True stories], Milan Mitić, Novosti, March 29, 1987. 9. “Stvarnost ukratko” [The reality in short], V. L, Politika Ekspres, March 26, 1998. 10. Founded on 29 November 1943 as the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia, renamed in 1945 into Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia, and in 1963 into the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY), and finally disintegrated as a result of wars in the 1990s. The republics that stayed together after the disintegration, Serbia and Montenegro, continued to use the name Yugoslavia—the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) was established in 1992, and renamed into State Union of Serbia and Montenegro in 2003. 11. The first five recognized constitutive nations were Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Montenegrins, and Macedonians, recognized as such being numerically most dominant South Slavic national group in each respective republic. As of 1961 the Islamized Slavs from Bosnia and Herzegovina could declare themselves as Muslims in the population census. They were recognized as the sixth constitutive nation in 1971. Yugoslavia was a specific case where the word “Muslim” if written with a capital letter signified a national/ ethnic and not religious category. 12. Renamed League of Communists of Yugoslavia (LCY) in 1952, in order to mark the distance from the Eastern Bloc after the break with Stalin in 1948. 13. The leading Serbian politicians were for a centralized state run from Belgrade, while the leading Croatian politicians were anticentralists. 14. Statement given to Anatoly Lunacharsky, the commissar of education of the Soviet Union in February 1922. Sovtskoe Kino, 1933, No. 1–2.

  THE FILM FESTIVAL AS A VEHICLE FOR MEMORY OFFICIALIZATION… 

119

15. The idea of Greater Serbia means gathering all the Serbs into one state, which would consist of Serbia and all the other Balkan territories where Serbs live in greater numbers. 16. The festival took place in Belgrade for the first time from March 4 to 9, 1960, as the First Yugoslav Documentary and Short Film Festival. In 1961, the event resumed continuity, which had commenced in Pula under the official name The Eighth Yugoslav Documentary and Short Film Festival. The year 1954 is taken as the official year of its creation. 17. Mostly from the budget of the city of Belgrade, but notable funding has also been received from the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Serbia. In a smaller extent different companies also sponsored the festival occasionally (Cf. festival catalogues 1954–2004). 18. The change of the name is related to the fact that in 2003 the country also abandoned its Yugoslav name, changing it into the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro. 19. To mention but a few: Draža Marković, top-rank Communist Party officer, served among other as President of the Presidency of the SFRY, President of the Presidency of Communist Party of Yugoslavia, and so on (jury member in 1961), Đuro Kladarin, Vice-president of the Socialist Alliance of Working People of Croatia, one of the Presidents of the Chamber of Education and Culture of the Federal Assembly of Yugoslavia (President of Managing Board of YFF 1963–1965), Olga Kreačić, Deputy Secretary for Information at the Federal Executive Council (jury member 1958–1962), and so on. 20. Other themes included the life of youth, social relations in our socialist reality, material development of the country, revolutionary past of Yugoslav people, culture and art, educational and instructional films, information-­ propaganda-­economy genre. 21. Utility films (namenski filmovi) were commissioned documentaries that usually presented the development of the Yugoslav industry. 22. This was the case, for example, in 1961 when there were 25 documentaries about WWII. Twenty approached the theme from a historical perspective, and five indirectly, through the stories on the jubilees, such as 15 years since the liberation of Sarajevo (Spring in my Town, Žika Ristić, 1961), 20 years since the uprising in Macedonia (11th October 1941 … 1961, Trajče Popov, 1961), and so on. As in 1961 90 films were screened in total, representing 22%, or almost one fourth, of the entire program. In addition, films that celebrated the socialist revolution were also screened. 23. Tito did not make an appearance, but he did send an envoy (Report on the 25th Festival [1978], Catalogue 1979, 106).

120 

D. JELENKOVIĆ

24. The cover of the Catalog also reminded audiences of the Liberation of Belgrade, with a photo of devastated streets of the capital and the caption “1944–1984.” The country was liberated in May 1945. 25. All the cited films were produced in Yugoslavia (socialist and post-­socialist), unless stated otherwise. The years stated represent the years of the films’ participation in the festival. The year of production is the same of one year before, unless stated otherwise. 26. Film narration. The italics are mine. 27. The names of Želimir Žilnik, Živojin Pavlović, Aleksandar Petrović, Lazar Stojanović, Dušan Makavejev, and others are associated with the Black Wave. They achieved great results at the festivals abroad, but were facing constant troubles in their own country. Although only one film, The City (1963), by Marko Babac, Kokan Rakonjac, and Živojin Pavlović, was officially banned, dozens of films were prevented from having public screenings. See documentary about the Black Wave, Censored without Censorship, Dinko Tucaković and Milan Nikodijević, Art&Popcorn, SRB, 2007. 28. President of Serbia (1990–1997); President of Yugoslavia (1997–2000). 29. COMPENDIUM of Cultural Policies and Trends in Europe, Country Profile: Serbia. Prepared and updated by: Dragićević Šešić, Milena, Mikić, Hristina. Last profile update: January 2013. Accessed: April 7, 2014, www. culturalpolicies.net. 30. The idea of historical correctness of the Serbian nation was an important element in the process of ideologization of the past for political purposes (Stojanović 2010, 106). 31. For more about the theories regarding an alleged ancient hatred between the Serbs and the Croats, see Jović (2009). 32. “Ići ili ne ići u Beograd” [To go or not to go to Belgrade], Branka Sömen, Vjesnik, March 7, 1991. 33. In Serbo-Croatian original: “Ja Jovanka Radoja, iz jame, poručujem svima, Srbovima, sa Hrvatima jedite i pijte, ali nikad ne vjerujte. Nikad im ne vjerujte.” 34. Branko Gapo (president), Božidar Zečević, Miša Grčar, Nikola Stojanović, Nikola Majdak. 35. “Počeo 38 festival JDKF, Dokumentarci i TV estetika” [The 38th YDSFF has Started. Documentaries and TV Aesthetic], M.  Midžović, Politika Ekspres, March 29, 1991. 36. Ibid. 37. See the interview given by Branko Vučićević in the documentary Censored Without Censorship.

  THE FILM FESTIVAL AS A VEHICLE FOR MEMORY OFFICIALIZATION… 

121

References Assmann, Aleida. 2006. Der lange Schatten der Vergangenheit. Erinnerungskultur und Geschichtspolitik. Munich: C. H. Beck. Assmann, Jan. 1995. Collective Memory and Cultural Identity. New German Critique 65: 125–133. ———. 2008. Communicative and Cultural Memory. In Cultural Memory Studies. An International and Interdisciplinary Handbook, ed. Astrid Eril and Ansgar Nunning, 109–118. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter. Buden, Boris. 2013. Žilnik, Želimir, Uvod u prošlost [Introduction to the Past]. Novi Sad: kuda.org. Č alić, Marie-Janine. 2010. Geschichte Jugoslawiens im 20. Jahrhundert. Munich: C.H. Beck Verlag. Dragićević Šešić, Milena. 2010. Cultural Policy, Nationalism and European Integrations. In To be From/Out: Towards the Redefinition of the Cultural Identity of Serbia, ed. Katarina Tojić and Marijana Simu, 254–273. Belgrade: Center for Cultural Interactions Kulturklammer. Dragićević Šešić, Milena, and Hristina Mikić. 2013. Country Profile: Serbia. Compendium of Cultural Policies and Trends in Europe. www.culturalpolicies.net Ignjatović, Aleksandar, and Olga Manojlović Pintar. 2008. Prostori selektovanih memorija: Staro sajmište u Beogradu i sećanje na Drugi svetski rat. In Kultura sjećanja 1941. Povjesni lomovi i savladavanje prošlosti The Culture of Memory 1941. Historical Turning Points and Coming to Terms with the Past], ed. Sulejman Bosto, Tihomir Cipek, and Olivera Milosavljević, 95–113. Zagreb: Disput. Ilić, Momčilo, ed. 1970, 1974, 1980, 1982, 1988. Filmografija jugoslovenskog filma 1945–1985 [The Filmography of the Yugoslav Cinema]. Vol. I–V. Belgrade: Institut za film. Jelenković, Dunja. 2016. Politics, Ideology, and Programming Practices: How the Yugoslav Documentary and Short Film Festival Abandoned the Idea of Yugoslavia. New Review of Film and Television Studies 14 (1): 76–92. ———. 2017. Cultural and Political History of the Yugoslav Documentary and Short Film Festival: From Yugoslav Socialism to Serbian Nationalism. PhD diss., University Paris Saclay/University of Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, Paris. Jović, Dejan. 2009. Yugoslavia: A State that Withered Away. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press. Kirn, Gal, Dubravka Sekulić, and Žiga Testen, eds. 2012. Surfing the Black: Yugoslav Black Wave Cinema and Its Transgressive Moments. Maastricht: Jan van Eyck Academie. Kočović, Bogoljub. 1985. Žrtve drugog svetskog rata u Jugoslaviji [Casualties of World War II in Yugoslavia]. London: Biddles of Guilford for Veritas Foundation Press.

122 

D. JELENKOVIĆ

Kosanović, Dejan. 2004. A Short History of Cinema in Serbia and Montenegro. Part I—1896–1945. Belgrade: Jugoslovenska Kinoteka, Direkcija FEST-a. Kötzing, Andreas. 2013. Kultur- und Filmpolitik im Kalten Krieg: Die Filmfestivals von Leipzig und Oberhausen in gesamtdeutscher Perspektive, 1954–1972. Göttingen: Wallstein. Kötzing, Andreas, and Caroline Moine. 2017. Cultural Transfer and Political Conflicts. Film Festivals in the Cold War. Göttingen: V&R unipress. Kuljić, Todor. 2006. Kultura sećanja [The Culture of Memory]. Belgrade: Č igoja štampa. ———. 2011. Sećanje na titoizam. Izmedu̵ diktata i otpora [Memory of Titoism. Between Dictatorship and Resistance]. Belgrade: Č igoja štampa. Mataušić, Nataša. 2008. Koncentracioni logor Jasenovac. Fotomonografija [The Concentration Camp of Jasenovac. Book of Photographs]. Zagreb: Spomen područje Jasenovac. Moine, Caroline. 2014. Cinéma et guerre froide: Histoire du festival de films documentaires de Leipzig (1955–1990). Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne. Munitić, Ranko. 2005. Adio, Jugo-film! Belgrade: Srpski kulturni klub, Centar film; Kragujevac: Prizma. Nora, Pierre. 1984. Les Lieux de mémoire. Vol. I–III. Paris: Gallimard. Pavlaković, Vjeran. 2013. Yugoslavia. In European Resistance in the Second World War, ed. Phillip Cooke and Ben Shepherd, 213–242. Barnsley: Pen & Sword Military. Pavlowitch, Stevan K. 2008. Hitler’s New Disorder: The Second World War in Yugoslavia. London: Hurst & Company. Perica, Vjekoslav, and Mitja Velikonja. 2012. Nebeska Jugoslavija [Heavenly Yugoslavia]. Belgrade: Biblioteka XX vek. Pisu, Stefano. 2013. Stalin a Venezia. L’Urss alla Mostra del cinema fra diplomazia culturale e scontro ideologico (1932– 1953). Catanzaro: Rubbettino Editore. Radić, Radmila. 2008. Istorija i sećanje. Primer 27. marta 1941. In Kultura sjećanja 1941. Povjesni lomovi i savladavanje prošlosti [The Culture of Memory 1941. Historical Turning Points and Coming to Terms with the Past], ed. Sulejman Bosto, Tihomir Cipek, and Olivera Milosavljević, 69–83. Zagreb: Disput. Stojanović, Dubravka. 2010. Ulje na vodi. Ogledi iz istorije sadašnjosti Srbije [Oil on Water. Essays on Serbian History of the Present]. Belgrade: Peščanik. Thompson, Mark. 1994. Forging War. The Media in Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. London: International Center against Censorship. Tomasevich, Jozo. 2001. War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941–1945: Occupation and Collaboration. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Forging a Cultural Elite: Nyon and the Age of Festival Programmers Christian Jungen

Visions du Réel in Nyon, Switzerland, is among the three most important film festivals for documentaries in the world, along with International Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam (IDFA) and Hot Docs in Toronto. In this group Nyon enjoys the reputation of being an elitist festival. When it was founded in 1969 by Moritz de Hadeln, it helped to mark a new era for festivals: the age of programmers. Older events such as the Festival dei Popoli in Florence, Italy, and DOK Leipzig, were conceived in the post-­ World War II spirit of international understanding. They were mainly showcases for the self-representation of nations. Nyon became one of the first truly independent documentary festivals where it was not official entries selected by state bodies that defined the programme, but its artistic director, the former photographer and filmmaker Moritz de Hadeln. Drawing on Janet Staiger’s emphasis on the study of the material conditions of film exhibition, this chapter proposes a contextual approach to film cultures in the 1970s, when documentary attained international relevance (especially in relation to social and political movements). As Staiger

C. Jungen (*) Zurich Film Festival, Zürich, Switzerland e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 A. Vallejo, E. Winton (eds.), Documentary Film Festivals Vol. 1, Framing Film Festivals, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17320-3_9

123

124 

C. JUNGEN

has argued, a historical materialist analysis can serve to better understand the changing meanings of a film. It is therefore necessary to reconstruct the conditions of its creation and reception, for which the analysis of media texts appears as a necessary task (1992, 48; 2005). Mainly based on oral history interviews with former director Moritz and his wife and collaborator Erika de Hadeln,1 on their own publications as well as on letters and files from their archives, this chapter tells the largely unknown early history of the Visions du Réel festival, reflecting on the canonical influence of programmers in the 1970s (de Valck 2007, 2012). I first recount the succession of artistic directors who have led Nyon since its inception, reflecting on the reasons that obscured de Hadeln’s period in the official history of the festival. Then I look at the origins of Visions du Réel, reconstructing the personal networks, which allowed de Hadeln to become part of the European cultural elite of the 1960s. I then focus on the period when he directed the event (from 1969 to 1979) and I show how he shaped, with his personal taste and his predilection for activist cinema, the identity of the festival with a programme characterized by left-wing ideas, films from the Soviet orbit and controversial topics. Finally, I retrace his career further in the festival circuit (as artistic director of Locarno, Berlin and Venice), facilitated by his contacts in the international cinematographic realm.

The Age of Programmers: Artistic Directors and the Festival Identity In her historical analysis of festival programming, Marijke de Valck proposes a periodization which is key to understanding the origins of the Nyon International Documentary Film Festival. de Valck claims that in 1968, following the nationalistic phase (1932–1967), a new age began in which programming became an issue of cinéphile passion (recognizing new great auteur movements) and political sensibility (representing both large social movements and liberation struggles), as well as reflective of personal issues that remained underrepresented in the mainstream public domain, such as those relating to gender, race and ethnicity (2007, 14). de Valck mentions Ulrich Gregor, founder of the International Forum of Young Cinema of the Berlinale, and Hubert Bals, creator of the International Film Festival Rotterdam, as emblematic figures of this period, but as many other scholars, she neglects to name Moritz de

  FORGING A CULTURAL ELITE: NYON AND THE AGE OF FESTIVAL… 

125

Hadeln. He not only founded and directed Nyon (from 1969 to 1979) but also ran the Locarno International Film Festival from 1972 to 1977. He was later at the helm of the Berlinale from 1979 to 2001 before breathing new life into the struggling Venice film festival in 2002 and 2003. This chapter argues that if there is one artistic director who defined and embodied the age of the programmers, it is de Hadeln. Throughout the years, Nyon has changed its artistic director several times, adapting to new trends in the international festival circuit. These shifts have certainly modernized the festival, but its original spirit has, to some extent, been lost along the way. During de Hadeln’s era, Nyon stood both in opposition to the prevalent festival model of the nationalistic phase, as well as opposed to the corporate industry model of the 1990s. The festival’s identity was shaped by three factors: (1) the historic context of the aftermath of 1968; (2) Switzerland’s position as a neutral country; and (3) former documentarian de Hadeln being the right man at the right time. Today Visions du Réel is known as a festival where the “how” is more important than the “what”. It focuses on personal styles of storytelling, on essay films and experimental forms at the intersection of cinema and arts. This bias was not always typical for the festival. It is, in fact, the legacy of long-time artistic director Jean Perret who ran the festival from 1995 to 2010. In his era Visions du Réel stood out for its three achievements: (1) it discovered new voices such as Kazakh auteur Sergei Dvortsevoy and the late Swiss master Peter Liechti; (2) it highlighted the oeuvres of established masters such as Johan van der Keuken and Frederick Wiseman; and (3) it leveraged filmmakers who already gained some credence, but were still unknown to even cinéphile circles, such as Apichatpong Weerasethakul and Naomi Kawase. For a long time the discovery of new talents was the main task of a festival. But in a world with an estimated 10,000 festivals2 to put them on the map, meaning bringing artists to the attention of audiences and media, this has probably become the biggest challenge. Naomi Kawase acknowledged this point at the 67th Cannes Film Festival: I owe my career to Nyon. Back in 2000 I found myself in an artistic crisis. I had already decided to give up filmmaking. Then Visions du Réel showed a retrospective of my films, introduced them to an expert audience in the West. When I saw how people flocked to theatres to watch my films and how moved they were by them, I decided to continue.3

126 

C. JUNGEN

In 2014 Visions du Réel (which from 2011 to 2017 was headed by former Italian film critic Luciano Barisone) feted its 20th anniversary. It was only on this occasion that many experts in the field learned that the festival in Nyon is much older. In fact, it was founded in 1969 by de Hadeln. He ran the festival through 1979 before handing it over to his wife Erika de Hadeln, who was at the helm from 1980 to 1993. This pre-­ history is shamefully kept quiet both by the festival itself and by other international institutions, although masters such as van der Keuken, Rob Epstein or Herz Frank were discovered at Nyon.4 The main reason for the silence on this pioneering era of Moritz and Erika de Hadeln is that their successor took over Nyon after a nasty battle over the future direction the festival would take. Another reason is that the festival was entirely forged by de Hadeln who kept its archives under tight wraps. All catalogues and letters were deposited (and forgotten) in boxes in his garage. I had access to all of this material before de Hadeln gave it to the Swiss film archive in Lausanne. As de Valck notes, in the 1980s a “process of institutionalisation” began (2012, 32), where festivals were no longer run by committed individuals and their networks. They became ‘companies’ with big budgets and demanding sponsors. They were part of a festival circuit or the “global space economy”, as Julian Stringer defines it (2001, 135). They competed with each other for films, guests and discoveries. Their main goal was to gain attention in the economy of prestige (Jungen 2014). Before this era developed, it was enough for festivals to have the consensus of the most important film critics, who acted as tastemakers for the elite. With their positive coverage, they could confer cultural prestige upon a film festival (Bourdieu 1984, 247–256). But then suddenly festivals needed record numbers—of paying spectators, accredited journalists and stars in attendance. Red carpets got rolled out, sponsor flags fluttered in the wind of change. Nyon is a prototypical example of this evolution. Jean Perret wanted a more celebratory event and films with political subject matters and activist directors with a message weren’t among his priorities. In a period when essay films and first-person narration blossomed, the former film critic from Geneva put more emphasis on style and aesthetics. To underline the beginning of a new era, he changed the name from Nyon International Documentary Film Festival to Visions du Réel. However, one can only understand Nyon’s new mission by looking at the festival’s early history.

  FORGING A CULTURAL ELITE: NYON AND THE AGE OF FESTIVAL… 

127

The Beginnings: 1968 and the Forging of a Cultural Elite The history of the Nyon festival doesn’t start in 1994, as many believe, but in 1963—in the small town of Rolle (home of Jean-Luc Godard) on the lake of Geneva. In that year local film enthusiasts founded the International Amateur Film Festival, and anyone who had a camera could show their work there. In 1965 the festival was transferred to the nearby picturesque town of Nyon. In 1968 Moritz de Hadeln served on the jury. He grew up in Florence and Nyon but was born in Exeter in 1940 as the son of a British military officer, who helped liberate Italy during World War II, and a Romanian painter. He became a cinéphile when he visited the Festival dei Popoli in Florence.5 Heated debates on Cinéma vérité were held there in the early 1960s. At the festival de Hadeln personally knew the masters from the field: Joris Ivens, Henri Storck, Donn A.  Pennebaker, Robert Leacock, Georges Rouquier, Mario Ruspoli and Jean Rouch. It was also at Florence that de Hadeln decided to become a filmmaker himself. Thanks to Freddy Buache (Image 1), co-founder and director of the Swiss film archive in Lausanne, who introduced him to Walter Marti, de Hadeln could direct his first feature documentary, Le Pélè (1963), on the annual pilgrimage of the Sorbonne students to Chartres. Marti was one of the founding fathers of the New Swiss Film of the 1960s and 1970s, which at the beginning was driven by documentaries. He co-directed his films together with Reni Mertens, a literary scholar who sheltered Bertolt Brecht in her home on Lake Zurich after World War II. Mertens hosted a debate circle where great minds such as Brecht and his wife Helene Weigel, Swiss novelist Max Frisch, Italian screenwriter Cesare Zavattini and Hungarian Philosopher Georg Lukács met. In this circle, de Hadeln became familiar with the revolutionary thinking of some of postwar Europe’s most influential intellectuals. “Marti and Mertens not only helped me making my first feature documentary Le Pélè, they shaped my way of thinking,” de Hadeln recounts. “Every morning we met in the café Odeon in Zurich. We read newspapers and discussed how we could change society through revolution. Marti and Mertens taught me swimming against the stream.”6 Although Moritz de Hadeln didn’t participate in the upheaval of May 1968 in Paris, he is a member of the intellectual generation of 1968. He

128 

C. JUNGEN

Image 1  Erika de Hadeln with Freddy Buache (left) and polish director Jerzy Bossak at the 1988 Nyon festival

considered film to be a political weapon that could change the world, such as it was propagated by Joris Ivens at the time. As a jury member of the 1968 Amateur Film Festival, de Hadeln was unhappy with the selection. “The films didn’t reflect the critical spirit of ‘68, the festival merely was the showcase for rich parents who shot films of their children playing”, he recounts.7 The jury refused to award the top prize, the Regard d’Or, out of protest over the poor selection. de Hadeln harshly criticized the programme and the amateur organization. In a guest column in a local newspaper, he wrote: It’s evident that you cannot mix family films and vacation films with works of directors who one day will live from their films and already use professional means and professional collaborators. (…) Make out of Nyon an independent festival, or a semi-professional one, according to the sense we attribute to those terms, [this] would help the Nyon manifestation to become a real festival. (Journal de Genève, November 6, 1968)

  FORGING A CULTURAL ELITE: NYON AND THE AGE OF FESTIVAL… 

129

de Hadeln not only criticized the event, he tried to make a contribution to improve the festival.

New Winds for Nyon: de Hadeln’s Era Together with his wife Erika de Hadeln and a local film critic in 1969, he prepared an initiative for a more professional festival that was supported by the Swiss Filmmakers’ Association. The steering committee of the Nyon festival dismissed their plan at first. But after several General Assemblies they finally asked de Hadeln, only one month before the beginning of the 1969 edition, to take over as president of the selection committee (de Hadeln 1988, 34). de Hadeln didn’t have the time or means to travel to search for films. But with the help of his mentors Buache and Storck and at only 29 years old, he succeeded in almost no time to put together a remarkable programme. Based on the model of the Festival dei Popoli, he wanted Nyon to become a platform for debates. The country of honour was Belgium, and in competition de Hadeln programmed a selection of high-profile works that were clearly left-wing. Joris Ivens presented Le 17e parallèle: la guerre du peuple (1968) on the War in Vietnam and the famous writer Edgar Snow, biographer of Mao Tse-Tung and organizer of Nixon’s visit to China, showed La Chine rouge d’aujourd’hui, un quart de l’humanité (1969). For the closing night film, Walter Marti presented his political masterpiece Ursula oder das Unwerte Leben (1966) about the education of a deaf-blind girl that authorities described as “cretinous” and not worthy of education. Although the festival International du Cinéma, as it was called, was also open to short, fictional and experimental films, its focus was on feature documentaries. But it was only in 1985 that it specialized on documentaries exclusively and took the name of Festival International du Film Documentaire. The first festival of de Hadeln took place against the backdrop of the Vietnam War and student protests in the Western world. The programming revealed the political interests of the artistic director: de Hadeln privileged films that put spotlights on the under-privileged and acted as a mouthpiece for counter-culture. This was important since there weren’t many documentary festivals at the time where such titles could be shown. This was a time long before the invention of VHS, DVD or VoD, when films couldn’t be circulated so easily. Therefore, it was all the more important that those films were shown to people who could analyse and talk about them and make sure they were picked up by CinéClubs, film

130 

C. JUNGEN

archives and other festivals. With their politics of exclusion and inclusion, festival directors acted in the process of canonization as the first agents who sorted the wheat from the chaff. Film critics who talked about the movies and the programmers of film clubs, who later showed these films, were the subsequent agents influencing distribution and exhibition channels (Jungen 2014, 95). The 1970s were the Golden Age of film criticism, and the leading plumes had a faithful readership which cared about their opinions and knew the critics as well as the auteurs that they defended. The early history of the festival is unique. Usually film festivals are built bottom-up. They first gain a reputation and then over time succeed in inviting well-known directors. Nyon, however, became from the very beginning the meeting point for some of the biggest names from the field. Thanks to the international networks of de Hadeln, renowned filmmakers flocked to the small lake town, where the local population hardly took notice of the event. In the middle of the Cold War it certainly helped that Switzerland was a neutral country and that the Geneva area, which is home to the Office of the United Nations and the headquarters of the Red Cross, enjoyed the reputation of an international conference centre. A crucial role in the making of Nyon’s reputation was played by the Association Internationale des Documentaristes (AID; “International Documentary Association”). AID was founded in 1968 in Algiers, then the capital of many revolutionary movements, and existed through 1998. It succeeded the World Union of Documentary, which was initiated in 1947 by John Grierson. de Hadeln was one of the founding-members and became president of the AID in 1974. For several years in the early 1970s AID held its General Assembly in Nyon. During the festival the likes of Erwin Leiser, Basil Wright, Ivens and Storck debated over the direction of activist and auteurist documentary cinema. This new de Hadeln era was characterized by militant cinema, the fight against censorship and the representation of film nations from behind the Iron Curtain (Image 2). Echoes of the Left While the counter-culture was present on the screens of Nyon, the student protests arrived in town with some delay. In 1971 young Swiss directors wanted to close down the festival, protesting against seven colleagues who were fired by the conservative director of the Television de la Suisse Romande. They had accused the management of the station of corruption

  FORGING A CULTURAL ELITE: NYON AND THE AGE OF FESTIVAL… 

131

and were fired after the management head had their phones wiretapped. de Hadeln couldn’t calm them when they took to the stage. Then Ivens, the Dutch doyen of documentary cinema and a proud communist, stepped in. He received the protesters one by one in a room next to the projectionist’s booth. He told them that what happened at the local television station was scandalous, but that it was pointless for them to try to close down the festival. de Hadeln recalls: “His argument was quite simple: Nyon is a progressive festival. Closing it down means oppressing a place of counter-­culture where films are shown that reflect favourably on the class struggle” (1988, 39). The “young Turks” were honoured by the reception of the well-known Ivens and gave up their plan. “Ivens saved the festival from falling in disgrace,” de Hadeln explains. “His authority was unquestioned.” Was Nyon really a left-wing festival? de Hadeln (who in 2011 left the Socialist Party of Switzerland and became a member of the Green Party) refuses to call himself a militant left-winger. He says he had a preference for films that questioned the bourgeois society and put the focus on minorities. Nyon did become a platform for the counter-culture. In the 1970s it seismographically registered the Civil Rights movement in North America, and in the 1980s it mirrored and reflected the changes in Eastern Europe. For example, in 1973 the controversial revolutionary-minded soviet filmmaker Roman Karmen served on the jury. He was famous for his portraits of Communist leaders, such as China’s Mao Tse-Tung, Vietnam’s Ho Chi Minh and Cuba’s Fidel Castro, all of whom granted him personal access. Shortly after coming back from Chile, Karmen personally introduced at Nyon his latest work called Blazed Continent (1972), an anti-imperialist documentary on the liberation movements in South America. Over a period of six months he shot in five countries: Peru, Bolivia, Venezuela, Panama and Chile. The film is a mix of Cinéma vérité with shots from popular upheavals and Soviet propaganda-style montage. Starting from a script called America glazami kommunista (America through the eyes of a Communist), Karmen located his work in the “battle tradition of the revolutionary ciné-reportage” (1971). The film was shown at Nyon only a few days after the Americans overthrew Salvador Allende, the first Marxist who became president of a Latin American country through open election. The screening took place in a heated atmosphere; civilian policemen were present to make sure that nothing untoward happened. The screening was widely reviewed in film magazines such as Ecran.8

132 

C. JUNGEN

Image 2  Director Ara Vahouni (left), Hans-Joachim Schlegel and Erika de Hadeln introducing Armenian films in Nyon 1989

Breaking Taboos, Fighting Censorship Nyon became one of the first addresses in the world for films that put the focus on sexual minorities. Under the law of the Canton of Vaud, every film that screened in Nyon had to get the approval of the police department. In 1970 de Hadeln chose Denmark as the country of honour. Among the 11 long features, he had invited was Quiet Days in Clichy (1970), the sexually explicit adaptation of Henry Miller’s scandalous novel by the same name. de Hadeln feared that police would confiscate the 35 mm copy.9 To avoid an intervention by authorities he scheduled the film, by Danish director Jens Jørgen Thorsen, for an 11 pm screening. To downsize the “scandal” and give the screening a pedagogic touch, de Hadeln organized a subsequent panel discussion on censorship and the question of how far art may go in the representation of sexuality. But the proposition was too progressive for Switzerland in 1970. The censorship committee vetoed the screening of Quiet Days in Clichy. Conservative members even asked de Hadeln to resign. The artistic director also got criticism from left-wingers because of the panel. “You don’t discuss

  FORGING A CULTURAL ELITE: NYON AND THE AGE OF FESTIVAL… 

133

censorship, you just ignore it,” shouted Freddy Buache (de Hadeln 1988, 37). Because de Hadeln wasn’t allowed to show Quiet Days in Clichy, he took revenge in his own way by secretly screening another sexually explicit Danish picture, Stine og drengene (An Intimate Portrait of a Teenager, Finn Karlsson, 1969). This marked the beginning of de Hadeln’s long-­ lasting fight against censorship. “I wasn’t a fan of porn, but I showed certain films to protest against the arbitrary bans of the censorship body,” de Hadeln recalls.10 He pushed the envelope with the gusto of a provocateur. Like other festival directors at the time, de Hadeln contributed to the liberalization of the praxis of defining admission ages and to the abolishment of censorship in Switzerland. He also helped pave the way for filmmakers to express themselves without fear of having their material cut by the overzealous scissors of censorship boards. A Crack in the Iron Curtain Another focal point of de Hadeln’s programming practice was the politics of the smaller countries. In his first early years at Nyon he dedicated programmes to a country of honour. Those weren’t the big Western film nations, but rather countries such as India or those of Eastern Europe, whose movies few local audiences had experienced. At the time, most festivals still filled their programme with official entries. They showed films a state body had offered them, often depicting the producing nation in a good light. Leipzig, for example, was under the influence of the cultural bureaucrats of the German Democratic Republic who even imposed cuts on foreign pictures. Moreover, the festival’s director often had to screen films from Soviet republics that were unseen, since they arrived at the last moment. de Hadeln, for his part, tried to make his own selection, also in socialist states. In 1970 he met a clerk from the Soviet embassy in Bern by the name of Justas Vincas Paleckis. The man was impressed by the retrospective on Danish cinema in Nyon. He suggested to de Hadeln to show films from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in the following year. With Paleckis’s help de Hadeln could travel to Moscow in the spring of 1971. There he was received by Alexander Slawnow, head of the foreign relations department of Goskino. de Hadeln explained to him that the Soviet Union was too big a country for a single retrospective; therefore, it would be better to present just one republic. The next morning Slawnow sent him to Tashkent, the capital of the republic of Uzbekistan. de Hadeln was accompanied by an official delegate who was none other

134 

C. JUNGEN

than a KGB agent who had to report to the home office every night what had happened during the day. For ten days de Hadeln could screen films at the studio lot of Uzbekfilm. He made a selection of his own and got an index of all the Uzbek films that was compiled to celebrate the 100th anniversary of Lenin. In Moscow Soviet officials tried to take it away from him. They were suspicious about Uzbekistan, where an independent movement was quite strong. de Hadeln managed to smuggle one copy out of the country. He made a translation from the document that listed in alphabetical order all the films produced at Uzbekfilm, and he published it on the occasion of the Uzbek retrospective. The Soviet delegation in Nyon was quite big: A dozen directors and actors made the trip to the city, accompanied by a regime bureaucrat. It’s easy to smile about this surveillance from today’s perspective, but Switzerland wasn’t any better. Anti-communism was fervent in the country. The Federal Intelligence Service observed de Hadeln for many years, and made extensive reports about him and his encounters with Eastern European or Chinese officials. After the so-called Secret File Scandal shook public opinion in Switzerland in 1989, the 900,000 citizens of whom the Secret Police kept files on were allowed to inspect the dossier. Among de Hadeln’s files, the encounters with Paleckis were classified; most of the observations are quite banal though, such as stating when the festival director met with representatives of the Chinese and Soviet embassies in Bern. de Hadeln was heavily attacked by local politicians. They accused him of filo-communism. That the top prize in 1971, the Golden Sesterce, was awarded to La bataille des dix millions by Chris Marker (a friend of Fidel Castro) on the sugar production in Cuba didn’t help. But in cinéphile circles, de Hadeln received praise. Film critics, film magazines and filmmakers highly valued his programming practice. For the first time Uzbek films were shown outside of Socialist states. A year later when de Hadeln was in Moscow again, the people from Sovexport showed him a Russian translation from the Nyon brochure which accompanied the retrospective. “They told me that ‘our’ history of Uzbek cinema was the only one existing so far.” And so, mediating between East and West became the main charge of de Hadeln’s career. As a citizen of “neutral” Switzerland with English and Romanian roots, he was predestined to build bridges between the blocks. In Nyon, but also as artistic director of Locarno and Berlin, he introduced Eastern European and also Chinese cinema to the West.

  FORGING A CULTURAL ELITE: NYON AND THE AGE OF FESTIVAL… 

135

Image 3  Erika de Hadeln with Christian Zeender, head of Cinema in the Swiss Federal Office of Culture, 1988

The Programmers’ Elite: From Nyon to Locarno, and Beyond That de Hadeln had talent and a very good address book also came to the attention of Alex Bänninger, head of the film section in the Federal Department of Internal Affairs in Bern. When Locarno was in a crisis, after its artistic co-directors Freddy Buache and Sandro Bianconi stepped down out of protest over pressure to make a less political and more popular festival, Bänninger asked de Hadeln for help. He thought that as a moderate left-winger with diplomatic skills, de Hadeln could calm the situation. In 1972 the two created the Swiss Society of International Film Festivals. It was responsible for Locarno and Nyon putting documentary cinema at eye level with feature films. de Hadeln became artistic director of both events. This position gave him even more power, because he could afford to travel more, and with two hats. Thanks to his position and his network, de Hadeln could lure some of the eminent auteurs to Locarno. His first

136 

C. JUNGEN

jury president was Andrei Tarkovsky, and the first important discovery of his tenure in Locarno was Mike Leigh who walked away with the Golden Leopard for his debut film Bleak Moments in 1972. And Nyon became a high-profile festival where films by Johan van der Keuken, Frederick Wiseman, Henri Storck and Chris Marker (to name just a few) had their world or European premieres. Even auteurs more known for fiction films such as Mrinal Sen, Jean-Luc Godard and André Téchiné presented their works in Nyon. Often, however, the filmmakers weren’t present because Nyon didn’t have enough money to pay for their flights. To give just one example of the festival’s financial difficulties, in 1975 it presented Welfare by Frederick Wiseman. Neither did de Hadeln have the money to invite the director nor to subtitle Wiseman’s masterpiece, which looks at the New York benefits system from the point of view of the officials administering it and the claimants crowding their offices. The festival had to screen the film in its original English version and de Hadeln took a microphone and a bottle of whiskey, went into the projection booth and translated the soundtrack simultaneously from English into French. Enhancing the profile of Nyon and Locarno in such a short time was certainly the result of the taste and passion of a great cinéphile, but also the consequence of a strong network. de Hadeln became a protégé of Lotte Eisner from the Cinémathèque Française (who liked his film Le Pélè) and he appointed competent people to his selection committee, first, of course, his wife Erika, then Gordon Hitchens, editor in chief of Film Comment and a close friend of Jonas Mekas and Gregory Markopoulos; followed by Manfred Salzgeber, an expert on gay and avant-garde cinema; and Hans-Joachim Schlegel, an expert on Eastern European cinemas and a personal friend of Andrei Tarkovsky. The film business is a people’s business in which access to films and talents is key. de Hadeln was at the epicentre of an activist cinéphile elite that dominated festivals and film archives in the 1970s. These people shared a passion for leftist activist cinema; they had the same enemies (fascism, state bureaucrats, censors, Hollywood commercialism, conservative film critics) and helped each other. “Networks of taste-makers support those who support them”, as Janet Staiger has put it (1985, 19). A festival director with predilection for activist cinema would rather appoint a jury president who shares their ideas than an advocate of commercial movie-making. How this cinéphile network paid off for de Hadeln became clear in 1979. The German government in Bonn was looking for a new artistic

  FORGING A CULTURAL ELITE: NYON AND THE AGE OF FESTIVAL… 

137

director for the Berlin International Film Festival. Ulrich Gregor, who in 1973 was jury president in Locarno, recommended de Hadeln for the job. The Nyon director was appointed. Since his new employer forbid him to direct another festival by contract, de Hadeln handed Nyon over to Erika de Hadeln. But the two of them still made choices together. In a joint venture with the Panorama section of the Berlin festival, they organized retrospectives of films from the Soviet Republic of Armenia, the Baltic States and Romania. The German festival paid half of the costs and agreed to show the programme after Nyon. Just how strong the documentary festival had become as a place of discoveries is proven by the career success many movies made for their makers after their premiere: in 1983 Erika de Hadeln showed Flamenco at 5:15 by Cynthia Scott, about ballet students in their final year at the National Ballet School of Canada, and in 1984 the Sesterce d’or was awarded to Rob Epstein’s dedicated documentary The Times of Harvey Milk, about the first openly gay politician in the US. Both films later won the Academy Award for best documentary, and Nyon continued to serve as springboard for many documentary auteurs. Although Nyon never attracted more than 10,000 spectators at the time, it became a mecca for the “professionnels de la profession” as Godard would call them: International film critics, archivists, film historians, producers and many festival directors. Ally Derks, for example, was a regular guest at Nyon in the 1980s. According to Erika de Hadeln, it was there that the Dutch cinéphile decided to found her own festival, the International Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam (IDFA): “She was impressed by our work of discovery and told me that she modelled her festival on Nyon.”11 Many other directors, that is, from the Margaret Mead Film Festival in New York to the Krakow Film Festival in Poland, chose films for their own events based on viewings at Nyon. While the time of the pioneers in Nyon was running out, others copied their programming practices and combined them with marketing and mass audience friendly events. Erika and Moritz prolonged their “cinema copain” way of programming into the 1990s—way into the third phase of institutionalization, according to de Valck’s periodization of film festivals (2012). But in 1993 the Swiss Federal Office of Culture drastically reduced its funding for Nyon (see Image 3). It claimed that the festival was too insiderish and niche, that it didn’t attract enough spectators. This was also due to a more general trend in culture, the democratization of knowledge that the internet

138 

C. JUNGEN

would leverage. Old elites and their authoritarian tastemakers (festival directors, film critics) were thus challenged by a younger generation. As a consequence, Erika and Moritz—who refused to roll out a red carpet and continued to write long reports in return for little subsidies—quit furiously. The end was all the more painful for the pioneers, because not only did the programme have their signature, somehow the whole festival felt like their baby. Since they didn’t have enough money to rent an office, they worked for many years out of their apartment in Gland, a small town next to Nyon. The first edition of Nyon in 1969 was produced with 20,000 Swiss francs, and the budget of Visions du Réel 2016 was 3 million.12 But it wasn’t only their cross-grained, personal way of producing festivals that led to an end of their era in Nyon. The films also changed. In the 1990s the militant documentaries that advocated for minorities disappeared. As a reaction to the predominantly talking-head documentaries made for TV, a new experimental filmmaking blossomed, that of personal-­ narration films. Generally speaking, form became more important than content, although you can’t judge one without the other. The so-called creative documentaries replaced activist films. No longer films about persons (Mao Tse-tung) or themes (abortion), but films with persons became en vogue. The boundaries between documentary and fiction blurred, even the classification category “documentary” was put into question. Newer festivals specialized in the so-called Cinema of the Real, and Jean Perret became its fervent advocate. In the same way Erika and Moritz de Hadeln shaped the image of the Nyon festival with their programming, Perret did so with his selections. In a way, Nyon became the mirror of the trends in contemporary documentary filmmaking. Today’s director, Luciano Barrisone, has made efforts to reconcile old and new, content and form. Referring to the festival’s new name “Visions du Réel” de Hadeln declared “cinéma du reel” was just a high-blown French term of professorial Cahiers du Cinéma readers who knew everything better, but were missing in clear standpoints. As a close friend of film critic Michel Ciment, he always preferred Positif over Cahiers (which was an advocate of the new trend).

Conclusions The aim of this chapter was to point out that the documentary festival in Nyon has a rich and surprising history which is much older than the more than 20 years of Visions du Réel. It has shown that the festival became a

  FORGING A CULTURAL ELITE: NYON AND THE AGE OF FESTIVAL… 

139

meeting point for the cultural elite in the 1970s. Its early director, Moritz de Hadeln, was at the epicentre of a ramified network of intellectuals, programmers, festival directors, archive pioneers and producers. He never reached masses of moviegoers, but he could expose films, themes and unknown film countries with his programming practice that resonated at other festivals and in film magazines. He made a small selection, showed only around 50 films per festival and made sure there were never two screenings at the same time. That way all the experts attending referred to the same corpus of films. de Hadeln’s goal was always to be free and independent—independent from state bodies and independent from sponsors. The aftermath of 1968 was ideal for a young artist-turned-festival director. The upheaval of May 1968 provoked an emancipation of cultural events from state bodies. Everywhere young artists themselves took canonical influence, as is shown by the Directors Fortnight (created in 1969) in Cannes or the Forum of Young Cinema (created in 1971) in Berlin. With his predilections for activist cinema, de Hadeln shaped the image of the festival in the same way as his favourite auteurs shaped their own body of work with their unmistakable mise-en-scène. In the same way Frederick Wiseman made films about institutions with sequence shots as the trademark of his oeuvre, de Hadeln made advocate cinema the trademark of his festival. But in the 1990s a good programme wasn’t good enough. Moviegoing had decreased drastically and even cinéphile circles were subject to an atomization of taste and practices. Finding an audience became suddenly the most important task of festivals. As a result, a worldwide institutionalization and eventization trend hit the cultural landscape. Festivals had to deliver numbers: of spectators, stars and sponsors. Nyon under Moritz and Erika de Hadeln was a personally managed boutique for likeminded cognoscenti. Suddenly in their neighbourhood big supermarkets—which consisted of lots of boutiques under the same roof, like IDFA—were erected. These new events wanted to offer something for everybody, showing more films in more and diversified sections, giving away dozens of prizes. We could say that the revolution ate its children, but one of them seemed to survive. Moritz de Hadeln was a fierce opponent of this institutionalization trend, but thanks to the status he had gained at the Nyon and Locarno festivals, he was called to run the International Berlin Film Festival, which in terms of films, spectators and sponsors is by far the

140 

C. JUNGEN

biggest festival in Europe. In the same way film critics lived in a symbiosis with their favourite auteurs whose films they could read and decipher, de Hadeln lived as a festival director in symbiosis with important filmmakers who were most grateful to him. It should be added that the foundation of a festival for “cinema of the real” in the French-speaking part of Switzerland was an audacious undertaking. Documentaries have always been very popular in the German-­ speaking part of the country where they constitute one fourth of the titles shown in theatres, but they are widely ignored in the French-speaking part. Until recently the newspapers of Lausanne and Geneva hardly took notice of the festival although it achieved a global reputation. In the mind of film critics, documentary is still considered to be inferior to fictional feature films. In his two books C’est du Cinéma! (1988) and L’insupportable vérité. Chronique de six années turbulentes (1988–1993) (1993), de Hadeln recaps Nyon’s history and strikes a personal balance. Those books are to a certain degree self-defences against wide-ranging criticism. de Hadeln dedicates much space to his battles for funding and a decent infrastructure. He hardly speaks about the films he selected and the career they had after their premiere in Nyon. But this probably isn’t the task of an artistic director anyway. It’s up to film historians and film critics. With this chapter I hope to have shed light on the early history of the Nyon festival, which was rich on films, but poor on means and recognition by the wider public.

Notes 1. The quotes in this chapter from Erika und Moritz de Hadeln are based on 250 hours of oral history interviews that the author conducted with them for his book Moritz de Hadeln: Mister Filmfestival (Jungen 2018). 2. Stephen Follows of Film Data and Education in 2013 counted 9706 festivals which have run at least once in the last 15 years. https://goo. gl/9CBkY3. 3. Interview with the author, Cannes, May 22, 2014. 4. You won’t find any reference on the festival’s website and sites such as IMDb don’t even reference the prize winners of the first 25 years. 5. The festival was founded in 1959 by students from the humanities of the University of Florence. It was the first festival for documentaries and the “birthplace” of Cinéma Vérité. 6. Interview with the author on December 20, 2010, in Gland, Switzerland. 7. Interview with the author on June 7, 2010, in Gland, Switzerland.

  FORGING A CULTURAL ELITE: NYON AND THE AGE OF FESTIVAL… 

141

8. Ecran 20: 22 (December 1973). 9. In the early 1970s police often confiscated celluloid prints and destroyed them, that is, of films such as John Waters Pink Flamingo (1972) in Zurich. 10. Interview with the author on May 3, 2010, in Gland, Switzerland. 11. Interview with the author on May 3, 2010, in Gland, Switzerland. 12. Three million Swiss francs are equivalent to $3.2 million and €2.4 million.

References Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984 [1979]. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Translated by Richard Nice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. de Hadeln, Moritz. 1988. C’est du Cinéma! 20e Festival International du Film Documentaire Nyon Suisse. Lausanne: Moulin. ———. 1993. L’insupportable vérité. Chronique de six années turbulents (1988– 1993). Lausanne: Moulin. de Valck, Marijke. 2007. Film Festivals: From European Geopolitics to Global Cinephilia. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. ———. 2012. Finding Audiences for Films: Programming in Historical Perspective. In Coming Soon to a Festival Near You: Programming Film Festivals, ed. Jeffrey Ruoff, 25–40. St Andrews: St Andrews Film Studies. Jungen, Christian. 2014. Hollywood in Canne$: The History of a Love-Hate-­ Relationship. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. ———. 2018. Moritz de Hadeln: Mister Filmfestival. Zurich: Rüffer & Rub. Karmen, Roman. 1971. Boevye traditsii revoliutsionnogo kinoreportazha. Sovetskaia ekran 2, January. Staiger, Janet. 1985. The Politics of Film Canons. Cinema Journal 3: 4–23. ———. 1992. Interpreting films: Studies in the Historical Reception of American Cinema. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ———. 2005. Media Reception Studies. New York and London: New York University Press.

Finding a Position on the Global Map of Film Festivals: The Yamagata International Documentary Film Festival Eija Niskanen

Since its inauguration in 1989, the Yamagata International Documentary Film Festival (YIDFF) has strived to balance its programming in two areas: First, it has become one of the most important international documentary film festivals with an international competition for feature-length documentary films; second, it has become a regionally significant documentary festival featuring the latest in Asian and Japanese documentary films together with associated discussion events. YIDFF’s particular history, including its founding moment, has shaped its programming policies. Although policies have not been directly spelt out in terms of guiding the inclusion or exclusion of specific types of films, both the period in which the founding of the festival occurred relative to the Japanese documentary film movement and the history of its founding as a result of documentary filmmaker Shinsuke Ogawa’s documentary ideals are still an important part of what marks YIDFF different from other documentary film festivals.

E. Niskanen (*) University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland © The Author(s) 2020 A. Vallejo, E. Winton (eds.), Documentary Film Festivals Vol. 1, Framing Film Festivals, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17320-3_10

143

144 

E. NISKANEN

At the same time, its geographical location influences its programming policies and practices. The aim of the recently established field of film festival research is the theoretical and methodological study of film festivals as cultural institutions (de Valck 2007; Wong 2011; Ahn 2012). This research has emerged along with the “festivalization” of film culture, meaning that film festivals not only function as an important way to screen and distribute films but also support important side events such as production markets. With YIDFF, this side value stems both from the locale of the festival and its ability to enable discussions about the meaning, means, production and distribution of documentary films, especially in Asia, and from the specific social issues raised by the films presented. It goes without saying that the documentary film form itself has gained much of its current popularity through film festival network screenings and the sale markets attached to them. Drawing on Film Festival Research Network (FFRN) co-founder Marijke de Valck’s research on film festivals as actor-networks and their historical development through different phases (2007), this chapter focuses on the establishment, programming policy and position of Yamagata International Documentary Film Festival in relation to both Japanese film festivals and world documentary film festivals.1 In the following pages, I will discuss the establishment and history of YIDFF, with changes in both its governance and funding and the expansion of programming slots, its position within the wider history of Japanese documentary filmmaking and the structure of the festival, including, in particular, its non-commercial programming flavor, which the festival has maintained until the present day. I also discuss the nature of the festival as a mixture of local, Japanese, regional and international interests. Of particular interest is the position of the documentary film festival in Japan and in Asia. I aim to show that Yamagata’s role in raising the position of documentary films in Asia has been more pronounced than the festival’s notoriety in the West.

Asian Film Festivals and Politics of Internationalization Asia hosts a plethora of film festivals, the oldest being the South-East Asian Film Festival (later renamed Asia-Pacific Film Festival), which started in 1954. This festival was geared to the East and South-East Asian markets, as it was established by the biggest Japanese film studios and the famous film moguls, the Shaw Brothers of Hong Kong, who ran

  FINDING A POSITION ON THE GLOBAL MAP OF FILM FESTIVALS… 

145

­ istribution and exhibition theater chains in South-East Asia. By contrast, d the Tokyo International Film Festival, which began in 1989, aimed to be a Western-style A-list festival with red carpets and glamorous celebrity events. However, despite maintaining membership in the official competition festival chain, Tokyo failed to reach the region’s top festival position as that spot went to Hong Kong in late 1980s and early 1990s, followed by Pusan/Busan Film Festival (est. 1996). Both of these festivals have occupied the top positions while enjoying the greatest attention of foreign buyers, programmers and press. Tokyo has also failed to develop a pro-­ filmic programming policy—although both its Asian and Japanese film programs may have interesting films, they are also brimming with artistic and commercial flops. Hence those interested in genuine cinephilic programming head to alternative festivals such as TOKYO FILMeX for Asian features, Hiroshima International Animation Festival for international short art animation, Yubari Fantastic Film Festival for independent genre films by young filmmakers or Pia Film Festival to check tomorrow’s new director names. YIDFF belongs to this niche group: a festival for documentary lovers and those interested in discussing them in a friendly surrounding. Most of these festivals started during a fairly narrow time slot in the 1980s, and many of them are tied to the rise of a specific local film boom, for example in the case of Hong Kong the rise of the local new wave of filmmaking in the 1980s and the connection with local television production and the rise of local Kanto-language identity politics (Curtin 2007); or with PIFF/ BIFF (Pusan International Film Festival, later Busan International Film Festival) in the coming-together of the rise of the Korean cinema industry during the post-dictatorship era of the 1990s and the local economic interests at the city of Pusan/Busan (Ahn 2012). They naturally also connect with the changing practices of exhibiting independent, alternative and special interest films, such as documentaries, as the post-war film club and touring exhibition models started vanishing. How international then are these festivals? Despite its grand cash prizes, Tokyo never really managed to rise to the level of the top generalist festivals either globally or regionally in Asia, whereas others have managed better. Even the shoestring-budgeted Yubari gets its fair share of young South Korean filmmakers, and the festival has solidified relations with PiFan International Fantastic Film Festival in South Korea. This seems to be typical to many Japanese film festivals—they matter most in the Asian context but also influence European and North American Asian- and

146 

E. NISKANEN

Japan-themed smaller festivals, whose programmers have found these festivals and developed ties with them. I am most interested in Yamagata and its position in the international film festival circuit. My starting point is the impression that YIDFF’s special identity, linking from today to before its inception and connecting with the history of Japanese documentary, has been effectively used to carve a festival identity that is both different from other documentary film festivals and polar opposite to Tokyo International Film Festival. In considering this, I take Julian Stringer’s notion of festival image: “Positively, events that establish festival images that fully engage with global/local dynamics, that fully suggest the international dimensions of local film cultures, may produce a genuine local city identity based around a shared sense of cinephilia and an engagement with dynamic processes of cultural exchange” (2001, 140). YIDFF’s regional approach toward the rest of Asia, with direct and sometimes personal levels of engagement, has helped the festival to carve itself an identity within a specific sociocultural context, which has allowed the national and regional documentary filmmaking communities to establish the festival as a fruitful co-working sphere and a platform to discuss the role of Asian documentaries in international and regional context.

YIDFF History and Format Yamagata International Documentary Film Festival was established in 1989, to coincide with the 100 years of the Yamagata administration, and has since grown to be one of the most respected documentary film festivals in the world. The festival is well known among international documentary film professionals and prime networks, such as those visiting International Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam (IDFA), and is the most distinguished documentary film festival in Asia. The festival is arranged bi-annually as a one-week long event in October in Yamagata City, Yamagata Prefecture, in the northern part of Japan called Tohoku, in the midst of an area characterized by vibrant agricultural communities. The city, with a population of 250,000, is 350 km north from Tokyo and is easily reachable within a few hours by bullet train. The festival’s history gives YIDFF its particular foundational narrative as well as its programmatic goal. The festival started when the central figure of the Japanese post-war documentary movement, Shinsuke Ogawa (1935–1992), on the invitation of the local farming community, spent

  FINDING A POSITION ON THE GLOBAL MAP OF FILM FESTIVALS… 

147

two decades recording and practicing the agricultural life in the Yamagata Prefecture. Due to his influence and direct participation, in 1989 a festival was established to screen innovating, thought-provoking and discussion-­ enhancing documentaries from around the world. The Ogawa ideal, to shoot a documentary by recording a reality that one has been truly immersed in, therefore stands as an ideal for films screened at YIDFF (Koshi 2002). In its focusing on cinephilia, Yamagata resembles such festivals as the Midnight Sun Film Festival in Finland’s Lapland, which, though initiated by the local municipality, has the foundational story as the “festival of the Kaurismäki filmmaker brothers and film scholar, programmer and filmmaker Peter von Bagh,”2 who from the beginning have actively supported it and have been involved in the programming. In both cases programming policies and practices can be claimed to be rooted in the festivals’ respective foundational narrative. Los Angeles Times film critic Kenneth Turan, who visited Midnight Sun in 1999, quoted Mika Kaurismäki on how the Kaurismäki brothers decided to create a film festival in the middle of nowhere (2002, 109–121). Yamagata has some of the same spirit, though not as extreme as Midnight Sun: In order to participate in YIDFF; you have to leave Tokyo and or any other large cities, where filmmaking communities tend to live and work. The Ogawa documentary filmmaking tradition is still strong in the festival’s international competition section and other programs. Ogawa, a contemporary of such central Japanese documentary directors as Kazuo Hara, Noriaki Tsuchimoto and Susumu Hani, grew with the political movement of post-war Japan. He, like his contemporaries, participated with his documentary filmmaking in this movement. Ogawa’s first documentaries Nihon Kaiho sensen: Sanrizuka no natsu (日本解放戦線 三里塚 の夏 Summer in Narita, 1968) and Sanrizuka: Dainitoride no hitobito (三 里塚 第二砦の人々 Narita: The Peasants of the Second Fortress, 1971) recorded the demonstrations and blocking of Narita from the airport construction project while these demonstrations were going on. The Sanrizuka and Narita series documented the collaboration of students and its presentation differed from television news reports in its open sympathy and alignment with the movement. When Ogawa Pro, consisting of the director and the filming crew, moved to Yamagata Prefecture in the 1970s and started simultaneous farming and documenting the local farming village with their camera, Ogawa’s idea of participatory filmmaking grew even deeper. The famous result was Magino Village: A Tale/1000-nen kizaki no hidokei: Maginomura monogatari (1000 年刻みの日時計 牧野村物語

148 

E. NISKANEN

1987). Now the focus is not so openly political but rather stems from a deep involvement with the documentary topic. Ogawa’s style of filmmaking involved a lengthy interaction and personal involvement with the documentary subjects. These kinds of films appear to be an integral part of YIDFF. Hence the birth of the festival is tied up with the politically and socially involved movement of Japanese documentary filmmaking. Although the social protests died down during the early 1970s, the ideals as well as the practices were preserved within the Japanese documentary filmmaking community, who used the documentary form as a tool for social discussion. This history also connects with changes in the exhibition of alternative, independent cinema and documentary film. During the Narita struggle days, Ogawa Pro toured its films via Japan by having location-specific exhibition spots, and later as touring events at public halls, local independent theaters and schools. As this route became inhibited due to structural changes in the film industry, festivals took off as an alternative exhibition venue, as they similarly took over from the film club movement in many other countries. The Ogawa team even built their own one-month theater for the premiere of Nippon Magino Village in Kyoto (Nornes 1997). Hence Ogawa Pro was not only a documentary filmmaker, but like other Japanese independent documentarists, was also a film exhibitor for their own films who had already gained experience with film screenings around Japan before the idea of a film festival sprung up. Ogawa’s international and domestic prestige—he snatched a FIPRESCI Critics’ prize with Nippon koku Nippon koku furuyashiki mura (日本国古屋敷村) at Berlinale in 1982—without a doubt lent itself to the festival’s success. As a heritage to the Ogawa legacy, specific ideals with the programming policy are central to the festival, with the mission and goal established right from the beginning. According to their programming policy statement, YIDFF has strived to illustrate the state of contemporary documentary cinema in its international and historical context and in its particular mode of production. The festival aims to educate both Japanese and Asian documentary filmmakers in the narrative and political opportunities of the documentary genre, and to offer an example in filmmaking that is different from mainstream commercial feature films. From its beginning, the festival has screened the central documentary films of the 1960s and 1970s social documentary, through works such as those of Noriaki Tsuchimoto, as well as covered the history of Japanese documentary filmmaking. It has also covered the central directors of world documentary film, including

  FINDING A POSITION ON THE GLOBAL MAP OF FILM FESTIVALS… 

149

Robert Flaherty, Jean Rouch, Chris Marker, Joris Ivens and so on. Markus Nornes covers the importance of these film screenings during the first years of YIDFF as models for Asian filmmakers on the production of politically involved films (Nornes 2014). Taken together, the films should broaden and challenge the audience’s view of documentary film. To highlight “documentary film as film” during the first editions all films entered for the international competition slot had to be shot on film. From 2001, with the expansion of digital shooting, the competition films have allowed more digital and video productions (Yano 2013, 82).

Festival Organization YIDFF is organized by a non-profit organization (NPO), titled “Yamagata International Documentary Film Festival,” and co-organized by Yamagata city. The NPO has a board chaired currently by Yoshihiko Okubo. The festival has two offices, one in Yamagata and another in Tokyo, and is supported by the city of Yamagata. For almost two decades the festival was organized by the city of Yamagata, but financial strains since the Lehman crisis of 2008 forced the city to give up the complete financial responsibility for the festival starting April 1, 2007 (YIDFF 2007). The festival budget is 150,000,000 yen (1.1 million €) for the festival year. 100,000,000 yen comes from the Yamagata city government and the rest from the Agency for Cultural Affairs, membership fees, donations and other sources. Lately the festival has been supported by Japan Arts Council, Fondation Franco-Japonaise Sasakawa and Fukutake Foundation for the Promotion of Regional Culture in Japan. Special sponsor is Eiki Industrial Co. Ltd., a manufacturer of projection technology, and SKY Perfect JSAT Corporation, along with numerous local and national businesses, media outlets and others. Other support is in the form of national cultural institutes, such as Goethe Institut, British Council and others, depending on the festival’s special focus programs and the nationality of the jury members. Takuya Takahashi is currently (at the time of writing) in charge of the Yamagata office. Asako Fujioka managed the Tokyo office until 2014, following the long-term manager Kazuyuki Yano; the new Tokyo head has not yet been determined, and the festival is being headed from the Yamagata office. Fujioka was central in programming of Asian films and creating close connections to Asian- and Middle Eastern-filmmaking communities. She switched to her Tokyo office director position after having been in charge of the Asian program, during which time she developed

150 

E. NISKANEN

direct contacts to China’s Yunnan region and its documentary-making community. Lately, between 15 and 20 people work for the festival, either year-round or on a part-time basis. Altogether 390 volunteers worked for the 2013 festival. Volunteers are recruited both locally in Yamagata as well as in Tokyo and other parts of the country, and they include both Japanese and foreigners living in Japan, such as students.3 As Yamagata town center does not house multiplexes, the festival is spread around the central area in several venues, reached easily by walking or with the 100-yen (about 1€) community bus. The opening and closing ceremonies, as well the international competition series are screened at the Yamagata Central Public Hall, which also houses the press and guest offices. Yamagata Citizen’s Hall houses two theater halls, while the nearby Forum theater has two smaller screens and the Solaris theater one. Traditionally Asian-focus screenings have been held at the Muse theater, but in 2009 the theater was closed for renovation (and may never open for further screenings). Some screening and discussion events are held at the City Museum and at the adjacent Yamagata Manabikan cultural center. Also, talk and educational events are held at the Tohoku University of Art and Design, local schools and surrounding municipalities. Other events, such as special invitational receptions for country-specific film series or to celebrate a particular jury guest, such as the 2011 reception in honor of the jury member Atom Egoyan, hosted by the Canadian Embassy, are arranged around the town. During the first festival in 1989 there were a total of 80 films shown, with an audience attendance of 11,920. This has doubled since, with 22,353 attending the 2013 festival edition, according to the count of the volunteers at doors. During the 2013 festival free passes were delivered to press, filmmakers and film industry—related guests and scholars. The guest category in 2013 included 238 persons and the press (altogether 278 persons). The audience consists of two groups: the local Yamagata people and those arriving from outside the town. The latter group consists largely of people connected in some way to either films or, in some cases, to the social issues the films deal with, for example, people working with NPOs and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Of course, many people appearing in the Japanese documentaries also show up. Hence, traveling to Yamagata are large numbers of documentary and other film professionals ranging from filmmakers to producers, distributors, film festival programmers, film students and journalists. Many come from abroad (in 2013, 72 foreign guest passes and 42 foreign press passes were handed

  FINDING A POSITION ON THE GLOBAL MAP OF FILM FESTIVALS… 

151

out). To assist the invited director and jury guests in getting from Tokyo airport to Yamagata with the bullet train, volunteers are appointed at Narita airport and at Tokyo main railway station. The festival takes the invited director guests and jury members, as well as festival programmers for local tours, including the famous Yamadera temple and shrine complex, a hot spring and tasting of local cuisine, hence promoting local tourism through international guests. Whereas in Tokyo, film festivals tend to get absorbed by the hectic city life, in Yamagata the event is visible in the street scene, and the participants, both domestic and from abroad, are beneficial for the local tourism industry, hence underlining the festival’s geopolitical perspective. “My familiar city was utterly transformed. Foreigners are walking down Nanokamachi—a very unusual sight,” writes a festival volunteer in the festival Daily Bulletin (Suto 2011). The location, all in all, has played a role in the image of the festival, and the hotels and restaurants in Yamagata city, without a doubt, benefit from this surge of visitors, especially after the 3/11 triple disaster (the Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami that provoked the nuclear accident in Fukushima in 2011), which scared tourists away from even such low-radiation areas of Tōhoku as Yamagata Prefecture. On the other hand, locals do not necessarily participate in the festival in large crowds, but the audience is a selected one, or students at school and university screenings (Suto 2011). Yamagata has been actively using its remote location (as seen from the capital Tokyo) to its advantage. Events which would become lost in the busy landscape of Tokyo, stands out in Yamagata, and the film professionals and fans who make the journey to stay there from a couple of days to almost a week can disconnect from their daily lives and have a total immersion in film culture, all the way to the late night. Thinking of media anthropologist Daniel Dayan’s notion of the festival as a set of divergent performances by such groups as filmmakers, distributors, festival organizers, journalists, audience and so on (2000), at YIDFF these groups tend to form one large group, mixing together rather than performing their afore-­ defined roles, as they tend to do at A-list festivals.

Programming Policy The first festival edition of 1989 established the basic structure for different programming slots: International competition, consisting of 15 recent feature-length documentary films selected by a pre-jury; Special Invitation Films, with 6 films screened (this section is usually devoted to the films of the jury members); and Works from Asia with 9 films, including fiction features.

152 

E. NISKANEN

The first edition also included the Asia Symposium, headed by Shinsuke Ogawa with documentary makers from around Asia, as well as the Dawn of Japanese Documentaries, with 44 films from the beginning of cinema until 1945 screened, a remarkable effort delving deep into Japanese film history. An important side program was “A Salute to Robert and Frances Flaherty,” in order to honor the grand prize named after them, with six central films screened. The historical retrospectives of central documentarists are in fact educational tools for Asian filmmakers, as Japanese cinema professor Markus Nornes, who has been involved with the special programs of YIDFF since its starting years, has noted. Especially during the festival’s first editions, the Asian directors delved into seeing and discussing these films—and returned two years later with their own films, influenced by these retrospectives and seminars attached to them (Nornes 2014) (Image 1). As YIDFF Tokyo office head Kazuyuki Yano notes, in the 1980s, the only Asian country whose documentary films entered the international competition was India (2013, 83). This situation has since changed during the three decades of the festival, with several Chinese, Korean and other Asian documentaries competing during the recent festival editions. Yamagata’s role in supporting and serving as a model and teaching tool for many Asian documentarists should therefore not be underestimated. During the first festival editions, it was even hard to find experienced Asian documentary directors (except Japanese and Indian) to serve in the jury,

Image 1  Roundtable at the Asia Symposium in 1989

  FINDING A POSITION ON THE GLOBAL MAP OF FILM FESTIVALS… 

153

which might explain the invitation to fiction filmmaker Edward Yang from Taiwan to attend jury in 1991. In 2007 the festival invited to the jury the Filipino director Kidlat Tahimik, who had participated in all YIDFF festivals between 1989 and 1995 and was thus a representative director schooled by the festival (YIDFF 2007). As one Asian documentarist put it: “For me, Yamagata was my film school. That is more important than the recent high cash prizes of Dubai and Abu Dhabi” (Fujioka 2013, 94). As can be seen, the unique YIDFF mix is created from programs of new international documentaries, with a strong focus on Asian and Japanese documentaries both recent and historical, and with homages to the founders of documentary cinema. Some new sections have been added here and there and special programs have been created for particular festivals. The competition section’s selection committee’s work offers an example of efforts made toward regional and equality a concern. Until 2011 the Tokyo-based selection committee’s members based in Tokyo area went through the submitted films for the international competition and selected 40–50 films. Then the Yamagata-based selection committee went through these films, and the selected works were a combination of the opinions of the two committees. The committees also include non-film industry members. Since 2011, as the number of submissions has significantly increased, a committee of 12–13 members view everything submitted, after which there is a discussion to decide the selected works (Yano 2013, 81). As for the overall film selection for the festival, in 2013 YIDFF had nearly 20 people, mostly Japanese with a few international advisors in selection committees or advising for these (international competition and New Asian Currents programs). Programming staff are mentioned in the catalogue and comprised around 12 people for the last festivals. Hence, it can be concluded that programming decisions are spread among a relatively large group of people, further underlining the YIDFF’s collective ideal (YIDFF 2011). “The region” is a useful concept to keep in mind, be it Yamagata, Japan or Asia. At YIDFF the binary opposition of global (aka, the international competition) and the regional (the strong Asian programs and side events), as well as the conscious tie-in of many programs to the local Tohoku and Yamagata regions, do not so much stand in opposition to each other but rather highlight the nature of documentary filmmaking across geographies. As seen above, the international competition and the special ­screening programs focused on the historical masters of documentary cinema have worked as educational tools for Asian filmmakers to participate

154 

E. NISKANEN

in the international competition. Perhaps they have also helped to raise an educated audience for the festival. Moreover, YIDFF has also served as a model for other Asian documentary films festivals, where people visiting YIDFF subsequently established festivals in their own respective countries (Nornes 2014). These include some mainland Chinese festivals, like Guangzhou International Documentary Film Festival, Jeonju International Film Festival in South Korea, Taiwan International Ethnographic Film Festival and DMZ International Documentary Film Festival in South Korea (Nornes 2019), although further research should be done to analyze how big the actual influence was. In 2013, 212 films were screened in different program slots. The 15 films comprising the main competition were selected in 2013 among 1153 entries of new feature-length documentary films from 117 countries—a remarkable number of films submitted for a regional festival that started in 1989 with 221 entries in competition. In 2015 1196 films were submitted (YIDFF 2015). Fifteen competition nominees were selected by a 20-­person selection committee for over 6 months prior to the festival. The competition section’s film directors are invited to the festival and they participate in Q&A events after the screening of their film. The festival has attracted a number of well-known filmmakers for the competition jury, including in 2013 when Masao Adachi, the filmmaker-turned-member of the left-wing terrorist group United Red Army, who spent decades in exile in the Middle East. Other important programs include: New Asian Currents, introducing new and rising Asian filmmakers (with 63 films from 608 entries selected in 2013); New Docs Japan (previously Japanese Panorama), showcasing the latest Japanese documentary films (created since the 2009 festival), with films directed by foreign directors on Japan also accepted; films about Yamagata; and finally YIDFF Network Special Screenings. These local programs attract local viewers, who are able to engage with the city’s local history through them. The surge in documentaries shot on video produced the need for a one-time only World Special Program started in 1999, which was created for the rising video documentary practice occurring all over the world. The Asian video documentaries were already in the Asian program, which included a special VIDEO ACT! program slot (YIDFF 1999). As stated above, documentaries shot with video e­ quipment were allowed in the international competition since 2001, after which the need for this special program vanished.

  FINDING A POSITION ON THE GLOBAL MAP OF FILM FESTIVALS… 

155

Specific programs, such as introductions of a particular country’s documentary films, or retrospectives of one director’s work, are the core elements of the regular side programs. At the second festival in 1991, a special “Media Wars” retrospective, with propaganda films from the U.S. and Japan from the 15-year war (1931–1945) and World War II, was programmed together with accompanying talk events. In 2011 and 2013 such special programs were established around the 3/11 triple disaster of 2011, with attendant discussion events. Documentaries focusing on the earthquake, tsunami and nuclear disaster and their after-effects to the Tohoku region have been numerous, ranging from reportage to experimental explorations. These films, though screened in Tokyo as well, are particularly important for Yamagata as a festival celebrated in Tohoku (North-East Japan, where the tsunami hit). Other programs in 2013 were the large Chris Marker retrospective, consisting of 45 films. The “Arab Spring” program consisted of six films screened with related discussions, as well as special programs dedicated to the relationship between Yamagata and film, be it archival material or the current involvement of filmmakers with the Yamagata region (YIDFF 2009). Specific joint country programs, such as the 1999 “Filming—Screening—Changing: Video Activisms in Japan and Korea,” aim to draw comparisons and common ground among the filmmaking communities, and to connect Japan with other East-Asian countries. Similar programs have been arranged with a Japan-Taiwan focus. YIDFF does not sport “star programmers.” Contrary to many festivals, at Yamagata the competition films do not have to be world festival premieres—for example, the 2015 international competition screened Chilean filmmaker Patricio Guzmán’s documentary The Pearl Button, which had its premiere that same year. Neither does a former competition award disqualify a work from selection—for example, in 2015 Kim Longinotto’s The Dreamcatcher was included in the international competition despite having won the World Cinema Directing Award in the documentary category at the 2015 Sundance Film Festival. YIDFF also has a clear cinephilic and academic side, seen particularly in the side programs, as well as after-screening Q&A talks; the festival also holds special discussion events and seminars. Discussion on different documentary filmmaking practices, from style or political context of the films to production and distribution issues, is a crucial part of the festival. In 2013 the seminar series titled “The Ethics Machine: Six Gazes at the Camera” discussed the ethics involved in documentary production through several examples including the directors Kazuo Hara and Joshua

156 

E. NISKANEN

Oppenheimer; the enthused discussion on which continued at the festival club Komian. Both had directed documentaries on killers, and Oppenheimer’s film The Act of Killing (which won the Mayor’s Prize) especially divided opinions about the ethics of the filmmakers in order to make a statement. The series included discussions on such contemporary and locally relevant topics as “Disaster Films and Ethics,” and included among discussants the UK scholar Brian Winston. As Japanese cinema scholar Roger Macy (2013) points out in his festival report, “the relationship between the documentary filmmaker and her or his subject was a constant theme” at YIDFF, something which the work of contemporary Japanese documentarists like Tetsuaki Matsue and Yojyu Matsubayashi highlights (Image 2). YIDFF has established several awards for the different categories of films screened at the festival. The main prize of the International Competition section is appropriately titled The Robert and Frances Flaherty Prize (The Grand Prize) of two million yen. There is also The

Image 2  International and Japanese guests at the 1993 edition of Yamagata IDFF, including Tian Zhuangzhuang, Abbas Kiarostami (first row) and Alan Berliner (second row)

  FINDING A POSITION ON THE GLOBAL MAP OF FILM FESTIVALS… 

157

Mayor’s Prize (Prize of Excellence) of 1 million yen. Additional prizes include The Special Jury Prize of 300,000 yen, and two Runner-up Prizes of 300,000 yen. The Citizens’ Prize, meanwhile, is voted by the audience through paper slips handed to them upon entrance to the theater. Since 1993 the festival has granted the Ogawa Shinsuke prize for new up-and-­ coming Asian filmmakers, named after the past Shinsuke Ogawa of 500,000 yen, with two prizes of excellence of 300,000 yen each. In 1995 International Federation of Film Critics FIPRESCI started awarding at YIDFF, and since 1999 there has also been the Netpac Award given by the Network for the Promotion of Asian Cinema. These prizes have served to bring more focus to Asian filmmakers. As the prizes and cash attached to them have served many filmmakers’—and especially Asian filmmakers’— careers, YIDFF can be seen as particularly influential in the regional Asian context. Interestingly, though, YIDFF’s name does not come up much in European documentary film circles, who all go to IDFA, something that many see as a proof of this own festival circuit’s Eurocentric focus (Nornes 2014). Although European cinephiles interested in documentary films will recognize immediately the YIDFF catalogue in Agnes Varda’s house in her film The Gleaners and I, for buyers and sellers of documentary content, the festival is more distant.

Further Activities All competition film prints, subtitled in Japanese, stay at the YIDFF library and are screened normally next year in Tokyo and at other venues, as well as being accessible in the library video booths. In between the main festival, YIDFF arranges regular film screenings and workshops around documentaries and documentary filmmaking both in Yamagata and Tokyo, as well as in other cities. For example, in September 2012, Finnish documentary producer Iikka Vehkalahti from YLE (Finnish National Broadcasting) was invited by YIDFF to hold a workshop for young Japanese documentary creators in Tokyo. The Yamagata program includes a regular, twice monthly Friday screening program. In 2011 YIDFF also arranged film tours in the 3/11 disaster evacuation centers. The festival publishes regular festival catalogue. During the festival, the volunteer group YIDFF Network puts out a leaflet called The Daily Bulletin, which consists of director interviews and event reports, together. YIDFF also publishes a festival report, which is sent to international film festivals and other industry professionals. The festival used to have its own

158 

E. NISKANEN

film journal, Documentary Box (28 issues were published between September 1992 and October 2007), with both director profiles and interviews and more theoretical discussion on documentary film. Since the end of the printed journal publication, the festival has an electronic YIDFF news bulletin, a subscription email information letter. The festival has also published special catalogues relating to the screening series, such as the 1991 “Media Wars Then & Now” program book, which has articles on war propaganda by film scholars and serves as source material for those interested in the topic (Fukushima and Nornes 1991). Notably YIDFF has not established any production markets for filmmakers and producers to pitch their upcoming projects for possible funders or co-producers, or sales markets in the manner of many film festivals. The non-commercial nature of YIDFF is a very notable feature. Hence the festival is one of the remnants of the cinephile age of festival culture, as opposed to the recent turn of festivals to include either a production pitch market or a film sales market as part of the festival to attract a new kind of crowd. Marijke de Valck (2007) uses the term “relational status of festivals” to refer to the complex way in which festivals are positioned to each other, conditioned by regional, national or network dynamics. YIDFF did not make the IndieWire’s annual top documentary film festival list due to two facts: YIDFF is not annual but bi-annual, and also because the publication’s concentration on North America and Europe prevented any mention of YIDFF even in a by-line (Anderson and Beth 2014). The lack of commercial activities such as sales market was no doubt a further reason. YIDFF is also not a qualifying event for consideration of nominations for the Academy Award for Best Documentary Short Subject, in part because it does not house a specific short documentary competition. Even discussions at Yamagata underline the festival’s staff’s recognition of their non-­commercial nature as compared to IDFA of Amsterdam (Fujioka 2013, 93–98). The cinephile-oriented nature of the festival is further underlined by the absence of pompousness or glitz. No red carpets or evening gowns are to be seen even at the official reception offered by the city of Yamagata. The most notable feature of Yamagata is the non-categorization of participants. All wait patiently in the same line to enter the theaters. The official festival club Komian, a pop-up club at a traditional Japanese inn building, that provides catering during the festival, allows access to all including normal ticket buyers and the directors, press and other accredited participants with low prices for drinks and snacks. Though key Japanese middle-­

  FINDING A POSITION ON THE GLOBAL MAP OF FILM FESTIVALS… 

159

aged individuals tend to form their own party within the party gatherings, the festival offers easy access for any film fan to approach the filmmakers either at the club or after the screenings in discussions that continue in the lobbies. As the festival heads hold a low profile during the festival, the overall atmosphere is perhaps consciously aimed at creating an atmosphere equal to Ogawa’s filmmaking ideals. In terms of international interaction, this works, but another notable feature is the invisibility of the festival organization that avoids ostentatious treatment of the main guests. The Komian club atmosphere might be even called slightly of the old days, and one female director referred to it as the “boys’ club,” referring to the late-­ night drunken discussions on films at the Komian that somehow seem to be happening in a timeless loop back from 1989. Nonetheless, YIDFF serves as a showcase for local, regional and international documentarists, who get to see one another’s works and discuss them together; combined with informal audience interaction. Now that in Japan the conservative Abe administration has already limited dissenting voices from the social and political discussion (e.g., with the December 2014 passing of the State Secret Law), YIDFF will likely become an even more important space for free debate, although a recently enacted law might prevent Japanese documentarists from obtaining information on matters defined by the state as secret. Documentary scholar Bill Nichols has claimed that film festivals tend to both underline the uniqueness of local cultures (as presented through films from different countries) and “affirm the underlying qualities of an ‘international cinema’” (1994, 68–85). YIDFF illustrates this notion on two levels: First, it is a country-specific festival, underlining its role as a bridge between Japan, Asia and the world; and second, it performs special roles both in distilling Asian documentaries for world audiences, while simultaneously introducing notable world documentary filmmaking to professionals and other documentary specialists in Japan.

Conclusions In my discussion I have mapped out one festival, the Yamagata International Documentary Film festival, as an example of a non-Western film festival working on three levels: the international with its long feature c­ ompetition; the regional with its strong ties and educational role in relation to Asia where it is the largest documentary film festival; and finally as a local festi-

160 

E. NISKANEN

val, with its Japan-related special programs and its popularity among younger Japanese independent filmmakers and associated circles. Deliberately political, down to earth and closely tied to Japanese 1960s and 1970s documentary history, Yamagata has similarities to the Midnight Sun which was established to be “anti-Cannes;” Yamagata has so far strived to have a non-commercial core. The specific foundational history and the coming-together of the already socially charged genre of documentary filmmaking, as well as the involvement of local government has shaped YIDFF into a festival that has gone through the creation of it as a citizen’s movement with the support of the local authorities, later to be established as a more independent NPO. However, the festival has been successful in keeping the ideals of its birth alive, with new generations of Japanese and Asian filmmakers contributing to its program. The issues covered by the program have reflected both timeless and historical concerns of the region, such as the 1991 Media Wars program, but also relevant contemporary matters, such as films reacting to the 3/11 nuclear crisis. Although the international competition may have some films screened at IDFA and other Western festivals, it is for the Asian films and—now with the possibilities of online screeners—for the non-commercial nature of discussions that a trip for a Western film festival programmer is worth taking to Yamagata (Fujioka 2013, 94). YIDFF has also served as a film school for Asian documentarists and as a space for discussion on the nature and politics of documentary filmmaking, as well as a venue to discuss the social phenomena covered in these documentaries. YIDFF’s greatest achievement is perhaps its role as a film school for Asian documentarists, and its history demonstrates how many of the first years’ filmmakers have become active contributors of their own films to the festival. It would be well worthwhile to do a study on the influence of these filmmakers in the field of documentary filmmaking in their respective countries. The same applies in Japan: post-Ogawa generation Japanese documentary filmmaking has been showcased at Yamagata, and clearly there are new filmmakers, new approaches to documentary—for example the mix of fiction and documentary—new social themes to cover and the challenges of contemporary politics, such as the 3/11 and nuclear power, the right-wing push for the rewriting of the Japanese Constitution, the position of the new “freeta generation” at the neo-liberal labor m ­ arket, not to mention private, personal experiences and local experiences covered in recent documentaries. What has been Yamagata’s role in encouraging this new generation of

  FINDING A POSITION ON THE GLOBAL MAP OF FILM FESTIVALS… 

161

domestic documentary? Will YIDFF keep its place, or will it be get challenged by the mix of new media? YIDFF has proven Julian Stringer’s claim that cities often play a bigger role for festivals than industries (2001)—or rather, in the case of YIDFF, the coming-together of projects: Ogawa’s, Yamagata city’s and film professionals, as well as active scholars and enthusiastic audiences. The mixture of Japanese documentary filmmaking heritage, with strong connections within the Asian region and a willingness to keep the international historical framework of documentary film in mind, connect at this northern place called Yamagata. Yamagata’s charm, as many foreign guests have noted, is in how film itself is at the center of attention, in contrast to the European festivals, where markets and pitching sessions are now the main task for the attending filmmakers and industry participants. It remains to be seen how the deliberately non-commercial YIDFF will do in the future festival circuit, where documentary films and filmmakers are more clearly branded and marketed.

Notes 1. I have been a frequent visitor to YIDFF since early 1990s, from the festival’s second edition in 1991. With an ardent interest in both the rhetorical form of documentary films and the documentary form’s participation into political debate, I have followed the development of YIDFF. 2. Film critic, film historian, festival programmer and filmmaker Peter von Bagh passed away in September 2014. He was an internationally well known, central figure in Finnish cinephilia scene, as well as in programming and leadership of Midnight Sun Film Festival. It is interesting that the festival’s first post-von Bagh issue of 2015 drew even a larger crowd of participants than ever since the start of the festival. 3. Fujioka, Asako/Niskanen, Eija. Email exchange. 10.06.2012.

References Ahn, SooJeong. 2012. The Pusan International Film Festival, South Korean Cinema and Globalization. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Anderson, John, and Hanna Beth. 2014. Top Dozen Documentary Film Festivals: Up Next, Hot Docs and Full Frame. IndieWire. https://www.indiewire. com/2014/03/top-dozen-documentary-film-festivals-up-next-hot-docsand-full-frame-192940/

162 

E. NISKANEN

Curtin, Michael. 2007. Playing to The World’s Biggest Audience. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: UC Press. Dayan, Daniel. 2000. Looking for Sundance: The Social Construction of a Film Festival. In Moving Images, Culture and the Mind, ed. Ib Bondebjerg, 43–52. Luton: University of Luton Press. de Valck, Marijke. 2007. Film Festivals. From European Geopolitics to Global cinephilia. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Fujioka, Asako. 2013. Sekai kara mita Yamagata [Yamagata as Seen from Outside]. In Tō hokugaku. Nichijo ni toru. Yamagata dokyumentarii eigasai [Tō hoku Area Studies. Yamagata Documentary Film Festival]. Yamagata: Tō hoku geijutsu kō ka daigaku, Tō hoku bunka kenkyu center [Tohoku Art and Design University, Tohoku Cultural Research Center]. Fukushima, Yukio, and Markus Nornes. 1991. Media Wars: Then & Now: Pearl Harbor 50th Anniversary: Yamagata International Documentary Film Festival ’91, October 7–10. Tokyo: Sō jinsha. Koshi, Ueno. 2002. Towards a Theory of Ogawa Shinsuke’s Filmmaking. Documentary Box 19. http://www.yidff.jp/docbox/19/box19-3-e.html Macy, Roger. 2013. Protagonists and Perpetrators: The 13th Yamagata International Documentary Film. Senses of Cinema. http://sensesofcinema. com/2013/festival-reports/protagonists-and-perpetrators-the-13th-yamagatainternational-documentary-film-festival/ Nichols, Bill. 1994. Global Image Consumption in the Age of Late Capitalism. East-West Film Journal 8 (1): 68–85. Reprinted in Dina Iordanova, ed. 2013. The Film Festival Reader. St Andrews: St Andrews Film Studies, 29–44. Nornes, Abé Mark. 1997. The Theater of Thousand Years. The Journal of the International Institute 4 (2). http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.4750978. 0004.204. Nornes, Markus. 2014. Yamagata—Asia—Europe: The International Film Festival Short-Circuit. In Oxford Handbook of Japanese Cinema, ed. Daisuke Miyao, 245–268. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Sometimes also quoted as Abé Mark Nornes]. ———. 2019. Discussion Thread on the Influence of YIDFF at Kinejapan Discussion List, May 8, 2019. Yale University Server. Stringer, Julian. 2001. Global Cities and the International Film Festival Economy. In Cinema and the City: Film and Urban Societies in a Global Context, ed. Fitzmaurice T. Shiel, 134–143. Oxford: Blackwell. Suto, Hanae. 2011, October 11. A Few Steps from Yamagata: Toward a Cinema Loved by Locals. YIDFF Daily Bulletin: 5. [Translated by Kenji Green]. Turan, Kenneth. 2002. Sundance to Sarajevo: Film Festivals and the World They Made. Berkeley: University of California Press. Wong, Cindy Hing-Yuk. 2011. Film Festivals: Culture, People, and Power on the Global Screen. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

  FINDING A POSITION ON THE GLOBAL MAP OF FILM FESTIVALS… 

163

Yano, Kazuyuki. 2013. Eigasai ha ikimono de aru. Yamagata kokusai dokyumentarii eigasai no ayumi [A Film Festival is a Living Thing. On the Advancement of Yamagata Documentary Film Festival]. In Tō hokugaku. Nichijo ni toru. Yamagata dokyumentarii eigasai [Tō hoku Area Studies. Yamagata Documentary Film Festival]. Yamagata: Tō hoku geijutsu kō ka daigaku, Tō hoku bunka kenkyu center [Tohoku Art and Design University, Tohoku Cultural Research Center].

Festival Catalogues

and

Reports

Fujioka, Asako, and Eija Niskanen. Email Exchange. 10.06.2012 YIDFF. 1999. Yamagata International Film Festival Catalogue. ———. 2007. YIDFF 2007 Information. YIDFF Website, October 11. http:// www.yidff.jp/2007/2007-e.html ———. 2009. YIDFF 2009 festival Report. YIDFF Website. http://www.yidff.jp/ catalog/catalog2-e.html#fr11 ———. 2011. YIDFF 2011 Festival Report. YIDFF Website. http://www.yidff. jp/2011/2011-e.html ———. 2015. YIDFF Website. http://www.yidff.jp/2015/program/15p1-e. html#t2

PART III

Politics and Policies

Introduction to Part III, Vol. 1: Politics and Policies Ezra Winton

In his 2014 Vox article “How politics makes us stupid,” Ezra Klein unleashed a torrent of online debate and commentary when he wrote: “The point of politics is policy.”1 While some vehemently disagreed, the entanglement of these two concepts is centuries old, and regardless of the intricacies of the relationship, we cannot deny that the two are inexorably linked, whether considering governments, corporations or institutions like schools, libraries or, of course, film festivals. Politics often inform or drive policy-making, whereby civil society, lobby groups and elite classes influence policymakers by participating and intervening in the political arena as provocateurs, activists and public opinion influencers. So what to make of politics and policy at the site of a fairly recent cultural phenomenon, whose managers so often default to the supposedly safe refrain: “Our festival isn’t political?” A quick glance at flare-ups from only a few festivals in recent years serves as a counterpoint to this assertion.

E. Winton (*) Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, ON, Canada © The Author(s) 2020 A. Vallejo, E. Winton (eds.), Documentary Film Festivals Vol. 1, Framing Film Festivals, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17320-3_11

167

168 

E. WINTON

The Film Festival as a Political Arena The Tribeca Film Festival removed a documentary from their program in 2016 after massive public criticism revealed Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe (Andrew Wakefield, 2016) contained discredited—and potentially harmful—information about treating children with autism. ­ That same year, the cast and crew of the Brazilian film Aquarius (Kleber Mendonca, 2016) held signs in protest against the suspension of Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff on the red carpet at Cannes (an action that many believe resulted in the commercially damaging and rare 18+ rating the film received from Brazil’s Ministry of Justice). In 2015 Montreal’s RIDM documentary festival screened a deeply problematic film purporting to “self-represent” Inuit called of the North (Dominic Gagnon, 2015), and unwittingly inspired a formidable Indigenous-led backlash against the festival and the film. While of the North continues to circulate in Europe seemingly free of the charges of racism expressed against the documentary in North America, activists seeking to hold RIDM accountable staged actions at the festival’s 2016 edition when Indigenous panelists appropriated festival space for an emotional and fierce discussion of the ethics of programming, and musicians set to play a key event at the festival refused to perform unless RIDM apologized. A year earlier, the Toronto International Film Festival threatened to cancel screenings of The Yes Men Are Revolting (Laura Nix, Jacques Servin and Igor Vamos, 2014) at its 2014 edition after the infamous pranksters staged an anti-tar sands action with the film’s subject Gitz Crazyboy at and against one of the festival’s main corporate sponsors (and chief financier of Alberta’s oil sands project): The Royal Bank of Canada.2 Indeed, there are myriad tales placing politics firmly at the feet of festivals, perhaps the most cited involving Jean-Luc Goddard, François Truffaut, Claude Berri and Claude Lelouch, who took over the main stage at Cannes on May 17, 1968, to announce the festival would desist out of solidarity with workers and students staging their own political actions across France. While examples are legion, most of these accounts see politics happening at festivals, rather than presenting festivals as political institutions that also make policy. The question of politics and policy and their lack of clarity at festivals were put into sharp relief in a 2013 interview I conducted with former Hot Docs Programming Director Sean Farnel, who rhetorically stated: “The festival [Hot Docs] won’t take money from the Iranian consulate, but will from the Israeli consulate. Why? Where is

  INTRODUCTION TO PART III, VOL. 1: POLITICS AND POLICIES 

169

this written? Where is the policy stating this is protocol?” (Winton 2013). Farnel was pointing to the paradox that persists at so many festivals, where an inward-looking denial of an institution’s own political machinations and an outward-looking lack of articulated policy form an institutional worldview.3 In this light, the following section provides chapters that together assert the need for the critical recognition, and instigate interrogation, of both politics and policies at documentary film festivals. The diverse approaches to and ways in which documentary festivals engage with politics and policy (both internal and external) summon issues of institutional discourse, censorship, ethics, diversity, regionalism, access and more—topics explored in this section’s robust pages.

Documentary Festivals Between Politics and Policies If we consider documentary’s historical positioning (by makers, audiences and institutions) as a public service, interest or educational artform, then questions of policy and politics inevitably lead to the relationship that documentary festivals have with governments. State-funding for both documentary films and festivals is widespread, but unevenly articulated across the world. Each country has its own historical, economic, cultural and political contexts in which the state interfaces with documentary festivals. In Canada, there is relatively strong support for documentary festivals as platforms for the circulation of documentary, while there is little to no support for documentary distribution and exhibition channels and venues otherwise. In the US, there is less funding from the state, and organizers instead turn to private entities like corporations and foundations to offer sponsorship. In Europe, documentary festivals access pan-European funds, regional funds and national funds to stage their events, but these levels of state support are unevenly distributed, paralleling the power of the metropoles and the relative lack of influence at the peripheries. In China, the world’s most populous country, government interaction with documentary festivals, has, as film scholar Tit Leung Cheung relates in this section, had a tremendous impact on two related but differentiated concepts, as they relate to contemporary documentary modes, platforms and practices: independence and underground. In his rousing focus on Beijing’s DOChina, where the issue of censorship and the struggle for a space and practice for political filmmaking intersect and reverberate across the country, affecting other

170 

E. WINTON

festivals and the wider documentary culture, Cheung argues that documentary festivals play a central role in fomenting independent documentary filmmaking. Interrogating the complicated terrain of programming, production and exhibition in China, he provocatively links the underground film scene with festivals, and perhaps most importantly with “a form of active political resistance” in that country, signaling a c­ritical stance on the role of the state in supporting or suppressing documentary expression at the site of the documentary festival. One differentiating factor that separates documentary film festivals from fiction or generalist film festivals is indeed the politics, which is the focal point of a 2017 collection, edited by Sonia Tascón and Tyson Wils, called Activist Film Festivals: Towards a Political Subject. As the Tascón and Wils volume illustrates, many documentary filmmakers engage with social and political issues and subjects in their works, and this focus has an impact on the reception space and experience wherever they circulate. At human rights film festivals and activist-oriented festivals, these socio-political aspects of the films are interpolated by the festival in the form of public discussions, campaigns and other events outside of screenings. At other documentary film festivals, the festival may choose to take a back seat to the politics, or at least claim to take a back seat. Wearing my two hats as film programmer and scholar, I explore this relationship between political activism and documentary festivals through a close analysis of Canada’s most important festival for non-fiction cinema: Toronto’s Hot Docs Canadian International Film Festival. I look at the ways in which the festival’s evolution toward success and popularity has had consequences on progressive political activism commonly associated with documentary. My argument, that the commercialization of documentary at festivals like Hot Docs forecloses on deep engagement from civil society on and around socio-political issues raised in the films featured at such events, while stifling more radical political filmmakers in the process, points to the ways in which documentary film festivals come with a different set of research questions and concerns from their fiction counterparts. Not least of these particular factors is the developing relationship documentary festivals have with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) (see Rhyne 2009), which are increasingly influencing the genre at the inception stage, a partnership sometimes fused at festival forums and industry events. Farnel has commented that this process of the NGOization of the genre at documentary festivals has produced “safe films” (Winton 2013, Forthcoming; see Moses Peaslee and Kredell 2014 for more on Toronto). The obverse of

  INTRODUCTION TO PART III, VOL. 1: POLITICS AND POLICIES 

171

“safe” is of course “dangerous”—a word that conjures both cultural policy and cultural expression that might be a threat to those that have the power to maintain the status quo.

Of Centers and Centering In considering the ways in which politics and policy are embedded and reflected in festivals, we can also consider the ways in which a documentary festival circuit has formed in parallel, but not entirely extricated from, the fiction-dominated generalist festival circuit. Each festival circuit has its metropoles and peripheries—the international  network of documentary festivals is dominated by IDFA, Hot Docs, Sheffield and a handful of other large and influential events, while the generalist festival circuit is shaped by Cannes, Berlin, Sundance, the  Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF), Venice and its own cluster of movers and shakers that determine the shape of the festival ecosphere. Curator and scholar Giulia Battaglia writes in this section on the emergence of a unique circuit of documentary makers and activists in India who are emboldened and serviced by new social media tools to organize in the grassroots, and as such points to the ways in which the subtext of government policy interplays with documentary screening events. Battaglia compels us to consider the vitality of festivals as loci for otherwise dispersed, often virtual, communities of documentary filmmakers to converge in a country as expansive and diverse as India. She traces the history of documentary film festivals as political campaigns and actions carried out against government censorship, contributing a crucial component to the history of festivals as cultural, political and social arenas where both politics and policies matter profoundly. Her chapter reminds us that documentary makers and fans are often much more politically activated and vocal than their fiction counterparts, and as such see the coming together of community at festival events as opportunities to organize, campaign and enact social change through such manifestations. Politics and policy take diverse shapes and forms at the site of the documentary film festival. While political activism around screened films and the corralling of campaigners at events is perhaps the most obvious and visual example, there are other less-studied and explored iterations of policy and politics that continue to shape and be shaped by documentary festivals. Antía López-Gómez, Aida Vallejo, Soliña Barreiro and Amanda Paz Alencar write in this section about the intersection of documentary

172 

E. WINTON

festivals, small cinemas and linguistic minorities, offering an account of one such iteration. Taking as their starting point a study of the European Union’s policies to promote a multilingual audiovisual space, they focus on the use of subtitles and Original Version audio in the festival sphere, reminding us that concerns of language and its preservation and cultivation has deep political and policy implications at sites of cultural exchange and consumption. In their interrogation of considerations and practices of linguistic diversity at the podia of documentary film festivals, López-­Gómez et al. bring into question meta-policy initiatives around political and cultural borders—when and how they are enacted and enforced, and how they impact the multilingual, multicultural audiences that documentary cinema attracts (and subjects it represents on screen). As we mention in our main introduction to this volume, documentary is an increasingly accessible mode of audiovisual storytelling across the globe. While English may still dominate as the lingua franca of the moment, documentary filmmakers speak a multiplicity of languages, and subjects of documentary express an even greater linguistic diversity. López-Gómez et  al. draw attention to this fact and critically assess the ways in which documentary festivals and their attendant politics and policies play a major role in questions of diversity, pluralism, preservation and even revitalization of language. Just as López-Gómez et al.’s chapter obliges us to ruminate on the connections between documentary festivals and the nation-state (and its sub-­ summation in regionalism), all the chapters of this section bring into focus the under-served topical blend of documentary and festival politics and policies. While we are aware this is only a beginning step, there is much work to be done to pry apart these often-flattened strata of the festival as research site. We are thus pleased that this section offers a generative, jumping-off point from which to move forth into the tumultuous world of documentary festivals and their attendant political equations and upheavals, as well as the more hidden, staid layer of policy-making and policy-playing that gives shape to festivals the world over.

Notes 1. Source: http://www.vox.com/2014/4/6/5556462/brain-dead-howpolitics-makes-us-stupid. 2. For more on of the North at RIDM and The Yes Men Are Revolting at TIFF, see Winton (2020a).

  INTRODUCTION TO PART III, VOL. 1: POLITICS AND POLICIES 

173

3. The call for festivals to draft and initiate (and publish) policy guidelines has resounded as long as there have been festivals, yet little effort has been undertaken on the part of these institutions. Which is why it is so encouraging to see the steps the Ann Arbor Film Festival is taking in moving forward to adapt the Film Festival Code of Ethics, currently under development by the Film Festival Alliance (FFA).

References Moses Peaslee, Robert, and Brendan Kredell. 2014. The Host City: (Re)locating Media Events in the Network Era. Interactions: Studies in Communication & Culture 5 (2): 149–152. Rhyne, Ragan. 2009. Film Festival Circuits and Stakeholders. In Film Festival Yearbook 1: The Festival Circuit, ed. Dina Iordanova and Ragan Rhyne. St Andrews: St Andrews Film Studies. Tascón, Sonia, and Tyson Wils. 2017. Activist Film Festivals: Towards a Political Subject. Bristol: Intellect Ltd. Winton, Ezra. 2013. Unpublished Interview with Sean Farnel. ———. Forthcoming. Buying In to Doing Good: Documentary Politics and Curatorial Ethics at the Hot Docs Film Festival. Montréal and Kingston: McGillQueen’s University Press. ———. 2020a. The Program(ming) is Political: Documentary, Festivals and the Politics of Programming. In InsUrgent Media from the Front: A Global Media Activism Reader, ed. Stephen Charbonneau and Christopher Robe. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

The Film Festival of Independent and Underground: The Case of DOChina Tit Leung Cheung

It is the Documentary Film Festival China (DOChina) which, of all the other Chinese film festivals devoted to documentary, best represents independence and the underground. In addition to DOChina, two other significant documentary film festivals1 are held in China, the Yunnan Multicultural Visual Festival (Yunfest) and the Guangzhou International Documentary Film Festival (GZDOC). In terms of their “independence,” Yunfest certainly places a similar emphasis on its efforts to provide an “uncompromising commitment on independence” (Nornes 2009, 51) as does DOChina; however, GZDOC, as one of the Chinese Government’s “official recognized event[s],” is dismissed, by the organizer of DOChina at least, as merely a “showcase for government television programmes” (Lin 2011); it is not welcomed by most Chinese independent filmmakers, and the submitted works must pass the censorship implied by the festival (Nornes 2009, 51). Although both DOChina and Yunfest receive censorship pressure from government officials, it is the Beijing-centred DOChina which most frequently and easily attracts official attention. The diversified

T. L. Cheung (*) Hong Kong Actual Images Association, Tuen Mun, Hong Kong © The Author(s) 2020 A. Vallejo, E. Winton (eds.), Documentary Film Festivals Vol. 1, Framing Film Festivals, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17320-3_12

175

176 

T. L. CHEUNG

activities and branching projects of DOChina make it a distinctive example to illustrate the issues of an underground film scene in China. There are two concepts frequently referred to in discussions of Chinese independent filmmaking, namely independence and the underground. The claim here is that these concepts can reflect concurrent but different dimensions of the Chinese independent film festival context. The discussion that follows identifies particular aspects of DOChina festival organization that demonstrate each of these concepts respectively, and examines their emergence from the discussion. The examination of the concept of independence primarily examines organizational aspects motivated by aspirations towards independence. The film selection, for instance, displays the festival organizers’ emphasis on works that have been produced independently, as distinguished from state-produced works. The concept of an underground is explored with reference to some of the solutions employed to tackle those constraints imposed upon filmmakers by the Chinese government: certain organizational arrangements of the festival that ‘protect’ it from disturbance, such as the festival’s name and its sometimes unorthodox scheduling. The context and an analysis of particular aspects of the festival, as structured in this chapter, represent the festival’s pursuit of independence in filmmaking. It is a pursuit which is motivated by ambitions towards developing Chinese independent filmmaking as a form of cultural exchange among the attending film practitioners and can be seen as a form of active political resistance. This chapter starts with a look at the origins and development of DOChina in relation to Fanhall Films and the Songzhuang District. Then I delve deep into the discussion of the concepts of ‘independence’ and ‘underground,’ as they have been articulated and contested in the Chinese festival realm. A thorough analysis of the DOChina programming policies and organizational challenges follow, first by looking at its ‘independent’ character and then at its ‘underground’ practices. Finally, I look at how the political situation forced the organizers to stop running the event.

Origins and Development of DOChina: Fanhall Films and the Songzhuang District DOChina is an annual film festival held in Songzhuang in the Tongzhou District, a suburban area of Beijing. Although it is located in the capital city of China, the area of Songzhuang is itself completely different to the developed urban landscape one would expect. Songzhuang is, in addition

  THE FILM FESTIVAL OF INDEPENDENT AND UNDERGROUND: THE CASE… 

177

to being a rural farming area, one of the major artist communities in Beijing. It is a place where galleries, studios and an official Songzhuang Art Museum are located along the main street. The festival itself is organized by Fanhall Films. While the group’s English title ‘Fanhall: “a hall for movie fans”’ is somewhat prosaic, the Chinese title, Xianxiang Gongzuoshi, has a more expansive (and ambitious) literal meaning of ‘phenomenon studio.’ Fanhall was started by its leading organizer Zhu Rikun in 2001 as, originally, a film store selling VCDs and audio discs on the campus of Tsinghua University in Beijing. The store was opened to satisfy Zhu’s personal enthusiasm for “simply watching movies” (Lin 2011; Foxley 2006). In subsequent years, Fanhall organized regular screenings in independent Chinese cinemas (also inviting filmmakers to participate in Question and Answer fora), film clubs, workshops and Internet discussion platforms, (the banned official webpage of the group, fanhall.com for instance). In 2002, Fanhall organized screening events devoted to the Sixth Generation Chinese Filmmakers (where the term is used to describe the generation of Chinese filmmakers which included Jia Zhangke, Wang Xiaoshuai, Zhang Yuan and Lou Ye, among others). Their works mainly focus on the ordinary life of the contemporary urban Chinese, such as Jia Zhangke’s 小武 (Xiao Wu 1998), which portrays the encounters of a pickpocket in a small Chinese town. It was a year later that DOChina was curated for the first time. Inspired by the success of the Sixth Generation screening events, DOChina has, with the exception of two years (2005 and 2010 due to funding and censorship problems), operated annually since 2003. Zhu had noticed quite a number of filmmakers adopting documentary as a “form of creation” (Lin 2011); the first edition of DOChina was curated as a retrospective to seek out and collect Chinese documentary films. The first edition of DOChina was organized by Fanhall with venue support by the School of Art and Communication of Beijing Normal University, despite its government-­ affiliated status, and had previously collaborated with Fanhall for university screening events. A screening room in the National Library of China in Beijing was rented to provide an additional venue. Over 50 films were screened during the festival, including both independent and state-­ television-­related works. Simply including works from ‘the system’ did not provide DOChina’s organizers with an automatic stamp of approval for their new film festival; the Beijing Normal University and the National Library of China refused to rent venues for the festival the following year. After searching for a substitute, Fanhall rented screening rooms in the Beijing World Art Museum—a state-supported museum—as the venue for

178 

T. L. CHEUNG

the festival in 2004. In this edition, Zhu curated film programming into a more diverse presentation by including the categories of Chinese independent documentary, Chinese television documentary, documentaries of humanity and social concern, a Chinese documentary retrospective, international documentaries and Japanese documentaries. However, because the museum was an official government-supported site, the museum’s officers were afraid of receiving any form of complaint from other government officials, especially regarding the screening of films which touched on sensitive issues, such as homosexuality and HIV, explored in Chen Weijun’s 好死不如賴活著 (To Live is Better than to Die, 2003), which portrays a family suffering from HIV. After two days of the festival, apparently in response to pressure from within the government, the museum curator terminated the lease on the venue. The museum’s curator was frightened and asked Zhu to destroy all festival posters printed with the museum’s name so as to erase all evidence that the museum had supported the event, even for just those two days.2 The lack of continuity in venue partners proved to be a major obstacle for Fanhall’s ability to organise its festivals with the proposed 2005 edition of DOChina cancelled due to lack of venue and funding support. During the following year, Zhu was invited by teaching staff at Anhui University to organize DOChina on their campus. Thus, the location for DOChina 2006 shifted from Beijing to Anhui Province. Fortunately, the fluctuating location of the festival was eventually settled in 2007 after Zhu and Fanhall settled in Songzhuang (Beijing). DOChina 2007 was held in the Songzhuang Art Museum, and has received support from Li Xianting Film Fund since then, where Zhu Rikun was employed as the director of the film fund. Since the establishment of this co-operative relationship, both the festival and Fanhall Films have experienced steady growth. In 2008, Fanhall Films built its own movie theatre close to the Songzhuang Art Museum. The building is a complex of Fanhall offices, a café and the movie theatre itself (located in the basement). Since then, the primary venue of the festival has shifted from the museum to the theatre, although major events, such as the opening ceremony, are still held at the museum (Image 1). The number of screened works and categories has also increased: DOChina 2007 screened 24 independent Chinese documentaries, which were divided among the categories of competition, non-competition and Diversity and Multi-Culturalism. Both the competition and the non-­ competition programmes were instituted as regular programming for the festival, making DOChina famous as a festival showcasing the latest

  THE FILM FESTIVAL OF INDEPENDENT AND UNDERGROUND: THE CASE… 

179

Image 1  Main street of the Songzhuang area

i­ndependent documentaries. In the 2008 edition, DOChina co-operated with the Yamagata International Documentary Film Festival (YIDFF) in Japan towards the curation of a retrospective of the Japanese documentary filmmaker, Ogawa Shinsuke, who has been ‘particularly strong[ly]’ influenced by Chinese documentary filmmakers, but whose films are rarely seen in China (Nornes 2009). Since this edition, retrospective programming of particular filmmakers has been curated annually, with filmmakers featured in the programme ranging from Belgian (Henri Storck in DOChina 2009) to Korean (Kim Dong-won in DOChina 2010). Despite facing numerous obstacles, DOChina insists on the development of Chinese independent film as its central goal, and this manifests in particular organizational aspects of the festival itself. After settling down at Songzhuang, DOChina aimed at enhancing its independence by sourcing most of its funding and venue support from individual non-government parties. The Basis Group, a business-to-business marketing and brand development agency which invests in creative industries and supported

180 

T. L. CHEUNG

early DVD distribution for Fanhall, has maintained its support of the festival since 2008. Non-regular support also comes from local and foreign institutions. The local institutions are mostly from sectors within the creative industries, such as the LDX Contemporary Art Center and fashion brand Donoratico, while foreign funding mostly comes from the film programme devoted to the corresponding region. As a festival which is self-­ alienated from the state and from dominant (zhuliu) Chinese political power, DOChina is not merely a film festival showcasing independent films, it can be regarded as a profoundly and intrinsically ‘independent festival.’

Independence and Underground in Chinese Film Festivals In academic discussions of independent films in China, two concepts are often employed: ‘independence’ and ‘underground.’ Naturally, the notion of ‘independence’ enters any discussion, but, and especially when discussing what is known as the Sixth Generation of Chinese filmmakers, the term ‘underground’ is also often employed (Zhou 2007; Pickowicz 2006; Reynaud 2003); Jia Zhangke’s Xiao Wu (1997) and Wang Xiaoshuai’s 十 七歲的單車 (Beijing Bicycle, 2001) were the famous examples affiliated to the Sixth Generation filmmaking. Although these terms are employed frequently to describe independent films in China in general, scholars have interpreted the terms in a diversified manner. In “Social and Political Dynamics of Underground Filmmaking in China” (2006), Paul Pickowicz argues that the term “underground film” is preferable to “independent film” because “many Chinese filmmakers choose to use it themselves … [i]t is part of their identity,” and because it captures “the unofficial nature of the work and the clear intention of these young artists to resist state control” (2006, 2–3). However, Zhang Yingjin’s (2006) article in the same volume states that for “political reasons, most young directors refuse the term ‘underground’ and prefer ‘independent,’” since the term independent “best describes the alternative modes of production and circulation of their works” (2006, 26, emphasis in original). These concepts represent different dimensions of contemporary independent Chinese film. Although some filmmakers and scholars tend to use the concept that best represents the particular circumstances upon which

  THE FILM FESTIVAL OF INDEPENDENT AND UNDERGROUND: THE CASE… 

181

they are focused, others regard the two terms as part of a process wherein one concept transforms into the other: the title of the volume containing the works cited above, edited by Pickowicz and Zhang, From Underground to Independent: Alternative Film Culture in Contemporary China (2006), harbours such a preoccupation. The authors state in their Preface that “the dynamics in question may point to a direction away from ‘underground’ and toward semi-independence or ‘independence’ in the new century” (2006, vii). In other words, the concepts preclude each other and represent different ‘directions’ in contemporary Chinese documentary filmmaking. As provided by Chuck Kleinhans (1998), the term independent “has to be understood as a relational term—independent in relation to the dominant system” (308, Berry 2006, 110). And Chris Berry declares that in the Chinese context, this dominant system can be understood as the state system: ‘the system’ (tizhi). So, ‘independence’ in China refers to works “not made within ‘the system’ (tizhi) … [that are] not part of the approved internal annual production schedule of either a state-owned film studio or television station” (2006, 111). This is a similar position to that suggested by Pickowicz: “[I]n the Chinese case the concept means independence from the Chinese state rather than independence from the sort of powerful private conglomerates that have dominated Hollywood” (2006, 3). And Zhang further consolidates reference to the state by holding that ‘independence’ for Chinese filmmaking is, “if not entirely independent of state institutions (for nominal affiliation was required in some cases), at least independent of official ideology [emphasis in original]” (2006, 26). In Berry’s analysis of independence, he cites Kleinhans’s understanding of independence as a relational term as mentioned above (2006, 111). This is especially relevant to the context of independent film festivals in China since the very pursuit of independence in a film festival is actually a form of resistance to the dominant power in that country, the state system. It requires adaptive strategies to fulfil its aims and some of the resultant acts by the organization to further these aims are regarded as ‘illegal’ and are thus designated as ‘underground.’ Underground, in the context of Chinese cinema, is regarded as an “opposition” (Lu 2003, 30; Berry 2007, 128), as “subversive” (Pickowicz 2006, 4), and as an attempt to “resist” the state system by the “unofficial nature of the work” (Pickowicz 2006, 3).3 The term “underground” is often the “prevalent notion” employed by “Western critics when describing the Sixth Generation” of Chinese filmmakers (Zhang 2007, 34).4

182 

T. L. CHEUNG

However, the “oppositional dimension” sometimes extends beyond a mere disapproval of the state-owned film institutions, and instead becomes an active resistance to the “state’s and the party’s domination of political life” (Pickowicz 2006, 4). This can be dangerous for filmmakers, especially when such resistance can potentially result in accusations of the crime of being “counter-revolutionary” (fan geming).5 As a result, “film critics in China prefer to de-emphasize the heretical implications of the term ‘underground film’ by using alternative references” (Mo and Xiao 2006, 145), and both independent and documentary filmmakers “resist” such labels and passively insist that “independence does not necessarily equate with opposition to the state, the Party or the government” (Berry 2007, 128). Indeed, “video production outside the state-owned system is [and] has ever been in itself either illegal or forbidden by regulation” (Berry 2006, 114). This means that irrespective of whether they are labelled as independent or underground, any unofficial film can be regarded by the system as illegal at any time. However, because of gradually increasing co-operation among the filmmakers and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) government,6 the ‘illegality’ of these works has been shifting towards a measure of ‘legitimacy’ and some films are “legally available as a VCD or DVD even though they have not been passed [by the government censor] for exhibition in the movie theatres” (Berry 2006, 115). The touchstone for illegal status then is not based on the violation of the production regulations imposed by the government—such as the alienation of state-owned television station and refusal to submit to censorship—but is to be found in “the issue of content” (Pickowicz 2006, 6). Any content that confronts, or even criticizes, the state is taboo, and contravenes a “foundational ground rule” that filmmakers “generally accept” (Ibid.). And such taboo surely does not involve written down regulations that detail the dos-and-­ don’ts, but a hidden agenda that governs interrupted and instructed movements, and is often changed depending on the current political climate. For instance, the local protests inspired by the Chinese Jasmine Revolution in 2011 are a tense situation to consider. Although political criticism is taboo in China, underground works that confront the official ideology of the PRC government—the euphemistic ‘harmonious society’ (hexie shehui)—are emerging, especially in the area of independent documentary. In the context of the non-state film festival in China,7 these two concepts are in fact co-existent and represent simultaneous but different

  THE FILM FESTIVAL OF INDEPENDENT AND UNDERGROUND: THE CASE… 

183

Image 2  An event cancelled due to police intervention

dimensions of DOChina: independent from the Chinese government both structurally and ideologically, and the underground strategies to sustain the festival. It is the pursuit of independence resulting in a status of underground. These two concepts are revealed as not merely descriptive of the structures of the festival but as the central ambition and pursuit of the organizer. They serve the ultimate purpose of consolidating the development of Chinese independent, and yet becoming underground, filmmaking (Image 2).

Independence in DOChina: Film Selection and Production Backgrounds DOChina presents both regular and occasional programmes. The regular programme is devoted to those independent Chinese documentaries that have been produced within the previous year. It includes competitive and non-competitive sections, where screened films are mostly submitted by their directors, rather than having been invited by the festival.

184 

T. L. CHEUNG

Submission is advertised on the Li Xianting Film Fund and Fanhall websites and in some of the popular web fora in China. Although no regional restrictions are placed on submitted films, there are rarely films not produced by the PRC filmmakers.8 According to DOChina’s organizer, Zhu Rikun, there were around 70 submissions to the 2011 edition, representing a significant number of works in terms of Chinese independent documentary filmmaking (Lin 2011). Submissions are assessed by the festival juries, including Zhu, which in addition to passing cinematic/ cinephile judgement on the films, also consider the independence of the works, which is to say their individual affiliation (or lack thereof) with the state system. Occasionally submissions are received from state-owned television, a situation which Zhu says comes about because the submitters “do not really know neither much information of DOChina nor the idea of independent, and further relate [being] independent with business” (Lin 2011). The juries prefer not to select these films, first, because the organizers wish to select works that match the festival’s emphasis on independence in filmmaking; and, second, because these state-supported films already receive more opportunities for screening than the independents. This serves to illustrate that the interpretation of ‘independent’ in the eyes of DOChina’s organizers complies with that discourse of independence from the state system mentioned above: state-owned television programmes are excluded from DOChina. The diverse relationships that occur between the state system and independent filmmakers show that independence cannot solely be determined by a work’s subject matter; the funding for the work produced and the filmmaker’s background must be taken into account as well. In the film selection process of DOChina, in addition to the cinematic quality of the works, preference is given to works produced independently in terms of their funding.9 This can be illustrated with reference to self-­funded productions by non-professionally trained filmmakers, such as 火星綜合症 (Martian Syndrome, 2009) by Xue Jianqiang, who was previously a miller, as well as a hairdresser. The film is Xue’s first feature length documentary and concerns “a young man, coming from Mars, arrived in Beijing, lived a fugitive life,”10 and was totally funded personally by Xue. Although some cases might have an ambiguous production background, DOChina tends to give way to those works that can clearly demonstrate their independence across a range of different measures; funding sources and ­institutional affiliations, for instance. It is this kind of film which DOChina regards as independent, and which distinguishes the works in its film selection from state-supported productions.

  THE FILM FESTIVAL OF INDEPENDENT AND UNDERGROUND: THE CASE… 

185

DOChina from Underground: Discursive Strategies and Guerrilla Screenings DOChina does not hesitate in screening independent works that are of great cinematic quality, despite the fact that they may be sensitive to the government edicts. The notion of an underground film can actually be understood as a consequence of its independence; as a defensive expression of independence through disapproval that results in an underground status requiring a subtle, under-the-radar strategy to maintain its presence. At DOChina, these strategies manifest as forms of resistance, both passive and active. The first (passive) refers to the title of the event and the second (active) to what I call its ‘guerrilla screening’ policy. DOChina’s Chinese and English titles are very different, especially regarding the very words ‘film festival.’ Its English title is simply the Documentary Film Festival China and clearly contains the appellation ‘film festival.’ However, in the Chinese title, no such equivalent words directly refer to the event as a ‘film festival’ and, instead, the words ‘jiaoliu zhou,’ which literally stand for ‘communication week’ (or alternatively ‘exchange week’) are used. This is because any event named as a ‘film festival’ falls under the supervision of the Film Bureau of the State Administration for Radio, Film and Television (SARFT), the “bureaucracy overseeing cinema—as in celluloid—and must ask authorities for permission to organize” (Nornes 2009, 52). The SARFT “claims jurisdiction over” (Berry 2009) all events named as film festivals and requires any such event to “submit to full censorship proceedings” (Nornes 2009, 52) before it can be approved by the state. It is only a film festival which enjoys the government’s full support that can be officially named as a ‘film festival;’11 however, by replacing the festival’s Chinese title with ‘exhibition’ or ‘week,’ the event falls under the auspices of the Ministry of Culture, a less restrictive “bureaucracy that oversees DVDs” (Ibid.). Still, this renaming of the DOChina to ‘communication week’ in the Chinese is not simply a case of diversionary semantics accomplished by the ‘virtue of verbiage’ since an emphasis on communication is indeed a key pursuit of the festival itself. The festival serves as a platform for communication that aims at the enlightenment of the participating guests. Hence, it is through such a naming that the festival simultaneously expresses its ambitions towards facilitating communication and dodges the troublesome regulations of the state, while still retaining and demon-

186 

T. L. CHEUNG

strating its ambitions as a film festival status to the rest of the world through the use of those very words in its English title. The second major strategy consists of what I call guerrilla screening. Although DOChina does not require that the films it screens be sent to the state censorship authority for vetting, this is not to say that state officials are ignorant of the event and its content. Zhu admits that Fanhall Films is an organization of ‘concern’ to government officials, and plainclothes police take part surreptitiously in its events so as to gather information. In view of its continual pursuit of the independence, as well as the maintaining of the operations of its festivals, Fanhall requires strategies to respond to such circumstances. One of these strategies is the guerrilla screening. Unlike other festivals that undergo little or no censorship pressure from government institutions, and where the festival schedule is usually distributed at least a week before the festival starts, in the case of DOChina, the screening list and schedule are announced only a few days before the festival commences. Of course, this information will still be noticed by the officials concerned, but a late announcement is one way of maintaining a low profile that serves to prolong what in effect becomes an ‘underground film festival.’ Abé Mark Nornes relates such an experience in DOChina 2008: One night at the 2008 edition, an unusual number of people milled around the theatre after the last film. Everyone had the same hushed question: ‘Is it on?’ They soon shuffled back into the theatre. The festival director, Zhu Rikun, inspected the audience to ensure only invitees were seated. Then he locked the doors, and showed a film they knew could get them in trouble. (2009, 52–54)

This is a screening method designed for those works that have attracted the state officials’ attention. Occasionally, such a work will not even be included in the festival catalogue, but news of its screening time will circulate through the festival community through (Chinese) whispers. In DOChina 2010, for instance, a contentious film by Xu Xin, 克拉瑪依 (Karamay 2010), was scheduled for screening on a night after all other scheduled screenings had finished, and was not included in the catalogue. The film is about the death of child actors who had died in an accidental fire during a performance for the government officials in a theatre at a town in Xinjiang in China (Image 3).

  THE FILM FESTIVAL OF INDEPENDENT AND UNDERGROUND: THE CASE… 

187

Image 3  Poster of the 7th edition of DOChina

Conclusions: Updates on DOChina Nornes states that independent documentary “is playing a cat-and-mouse game with the government. The latter has opened up a measured free space, the limits of which are constantly tested by filmmakers and festivals alike” (2009, 52). Filmmakers test these limits by producing films that are critical of the notion of politically prohibited content, and festivals like DOChina test and strive to extend the limits of ‘measured free space’ via their film selection and programming. DOChina actively involves films that will draw attention from state officials in an act that demonstrates

188 

T. L. CHEUNG

their insistence on facilitating the production of quality independent films in spite of any trouble or underground status that may ensue. This insistence reflects the emerging use of documentary as a medium to portray socio-political issues. Such documentaries are increasing in number, such as Ai Xiaoming’s 太石村 (Tai Shi Village, 2006), Hu Jie’s 我雖死去 (Though I am gone, 2006) and Ai Weiwei’s 老媽蹄花 (Stewed Pork, 2009), which all touch on areas in which the state power is most sensitive. It seems that in such a ‘cat-and-mouse game,’ the cat has learned that it must, to a certain degree at least, tolerate the evasive and subversive tricks of the mouse. But is such a seeming equilibrium really maintained between the filmmakers and the state? According to Nornes, “a key arrest or imprisonment is all it takes to shut down cinematic rabblerousing” (2009 54). In 2011, that is just what happened. Ai Weiwei was arrested by state police and detained from 3 April until 22 June 2011 on charges of non-payment of taxes, which government officials stated had “nothing to do with freedom of expression.”12 Moreover, the proposed DOChina 2011  in May was cancelled. Government officials explicitly told Li Xianting that “this was not the right time for an independent organization to screen Chinese films that the state has not authorized,” and thus announced that “the Film Fund organizers, unwilling to have their films vetted in advance, chose to call off the festival” (Kraicer 2011). Social conditions in China proved to be very sensitive in 2011. A series of “sporadic, low-key Sunday afternoon ‘walks’ in crowded districts of major cities” took place, inspired by the recent Tunisian pro-democracy revolution, which the Chinese people somewhat whimsically named the ‘Jasmine Revolution.’ The detention of Ai Weiwei served to remind the people just who was in control of the country. In this light, the cancellation of DOChina 2011 can be seen as something more than the result of an unfortunate “coincidental timing [with] the 1st annual Beijing International Film Festival”13 (Ibid.). So, although the ‘cat’—the PRC government—has opened up free spaces for the ‘mouse’—the independent documentary scene, and other art forms— everything in the game, including that free space, is still under the cat’s supervision and control. Indeed, the cat may pounce and devour the mouse at any moment. For those living in such a heavily monitored underground ‘free space,’ active resistance is the only way to make significant progress towards independence; to passively run around dodging attention is indeed merely a tactic for the short term. In DOChina, the ‘striving

  THE FILM FESTIVAL OF INDEPENDENT AND UNDERGROUND: THE CASE… 

189

for change’ is not merely a slogan but is manifested clearly through its active and passive responses to the obstacles it encounters. As Zhu pessimistically notes on the future of DOChina (Lin 2011), the ‘free space’ is obviously not free enough. Since 2012, DOChina was merged as a programme in the Beijing Independent Film Festival (BiFF), which was also organized by Li Xianting Film Fund. However, such a merger did not dodge the attention from the PRC government. The opening screening of BiFF 2012 was interrupted by an “accidental” power cut-off, which sarcastically rendered the festival into “the shortest film festival ever in history, closed right after it was inaugurated” (Cui 2012). In 2013, Zhu Rikun resigned from the post of the director of Fanhall Films and all of his duties in Li Xianting Film Fund. The situation became more brutal in 2014, as Festival Director Wang Hongwei was detained by the police and the materials in the festival office were confiscated, including the Chinese independent films library that had been collected for years. Wang Wo, one of the filmmakers who actively participated in DOChina and BiFF, rendered the incidents as a documentary entitled 沒有電影的電影節 (A Filmless Festival, 2015). Despite all this, the BiFF still took place in 2014, but BiFF 2015 was reduced to a ‘print-only’ film festival, as Wang Hongwei has described. In the absence of an opening ceremony and screenings, the printed festival catalogue is the only physical material distributed officially, and yet, it recorded the silence of the festival. Struggling in a vanishing ‘free space,’ the future outlook for independent film festivals in China is pessimistic.

Notes 1. There are also a number of other festivals that present a significant proportion of China’s documentary screenings, such as the May Festival and the Crossing Festival, organized by the Chinese documentary pioneer Wu Wenguang, where live theatre is scheduled besides screenings of documentary works. There is also the China Independent Film Festival (CIFF), discussed by Berry (2009), which programmes one of its categories for documentaries. 2. Author’s interview with the organizer, Zhu Rikun, 4 May 2010. 3. See also Chen Mo and Zhiwei Xiao, “Chinese Underground films.” 4. See also Berenice Reynaud (2003) “Up from the Underground: Zhang Yuan, a Sixth Generation.” 5. One of the most serious crimes in the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Its name was revised to the name as inciting subversion of state power in

190 

T. L. CHEUNG

1997. The 2010 recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize Liu Xiaobo was sentenced for just such a crime because of his involvement with the Chapter 08, a document regarded as subversive by the PRC. The law is regarded as a violation of the right to freedom to speech which exists in most Western democracies. 6. See also Chen Mo and Zhiwei Xiao, “Chinese Underground films.” 7. The non-state nature is specified here because there are film festivals in China that are supported by the Chinese government. These festivals represent a totally different phenomenon in comparison to other, non-state-­ supported or state-related film festivals: examples of these ‘public’ (minjian) film festivals include the Yunfest and CIFF. 8. One exception is a film produced by J.P. Sniadecki concerning the aftermath of the Sichuan earthquake, which screened in DOChina in 2010. 9. The funding sources and background of the filmmakers is as diverse as the topics of the works. The funding can range from the support of friends or a local production company, to foreign foundations or institutions. While the backgrounds of the filmmakers are varied—university lecturer, theatre performer, poet and miller—according to Zhu, the first film for most of these filmmakers was self-funded, and a majority of the filmmakers were not trained in the cinematic profession during their studies (2010, 11). 10. From the director’s own synopsis. 11. Author’s interview with the organiser, Zhu Rikun, dated 4 May 2010. 12. See also http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2011/apr/08/ weiwei-detention-economic-crimes-china. 13. Ironically, the short form of Beijing International Film Festival (BIFF) is basically the same as the Beijing Independent Film Festival (BiFF), but with the difference of capital I or small letter I, ‘international’ versus ‘independent.’

References Berry, Chris. 2006. Independently Chinese: Duan Jinchuan, Jiang Yue and Chinese Documentary. In From Underground to Independent: Alternative Film Culture in Contemporary China, ed. Paul Pickowicz and Yingjin Zhang, 102– 122. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. ———. 2007. Getting Real: Chinese Documentaries, Chinese Post-Socialism. In China’s Urban Generation, ed. Zhang Zhen, 115–134. Durham: Duke University Press. ———. 2009. When Is a Film Festival Not a Festival? The 6th China Independent Film Festival. Senses of Cinema 53. http://www.sensesofcinema.com/2009/ festival-repor ts/when-is-a-film-festival-not-a-festival-the-6th-chinaindependent-film-festival/

  THE FILM FESTIVAL OF INDEPENDENT AND UNDERGROUND: THE CASE… 

191

Cui, Weiping. 2012. Bimu sanci de “beijing duli yingxiang zhan” (The closing ceremony of Beijing Independent Film Festival was repeated three times). The New  York Times, September 3. http://cn.nytimes.com/culture/20120903/ cc03cuiweiping Foxley, Marina. 2006. Fanhall Studio Spreading the Spirit of Independence in Chinese Cinema: An Interview with Zhu Rikun, Head of Fanhall Studio. Directors Lounge. http://kultur-in-berlin.de/fanhall.html Kleinhans, Chuck. 1998. Independent Features. In The New American Cinema, ed. Jon Lewis, 307–327. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Kraicer, Shelly. 2011. Shelly on Film: The Film Festival that Wasn’t. dGeneratefilms, May 12. http://dgeneratefilms.com/film-festivals/shelly-on-film-thefilm-festival-that-wasnt/. Lin, Wood. 2011. Zhuanfang zhongguo jilupian jiaoliu zhoucezhan ren Zhu Rikun [Interview with the Curator of the Documentary Film Festival China, Zhu Rikun]. Taiwan Documentary E-paper 16. http://docworker.blogspot. com/2011/06/blog-post_820.html Lu, Xinyu. 2003. Jilu Zhongguo: Dangdai Zhongguo xin jilu yundong [Documenting China: The New Documentary Movement in China]. Beijing: Sanlian Shudian. Mo, Chen, and Zhiwei Xiao. 2006. Chinese Underground Films: Critical Views from China. In From Underground to Independent: Alternative Film Culture in Contemporary China, ed. Paul Pickowicz and Yingjin Zhang, 143–159. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. Nornes, Abé Mark. 2009. Bulldozers, Bibles and Very Sharp Knives: The Chinese Independent Documentary Scene. Film Quarterly 63 (1): 50–55. Pickowicz, Paul. 2006. Social and Political Dynamics of Underground Filmmaking in China. In From Underground to Independent: Alternative Film Culture in Contemporary China, ed. Paul Pickowicz and Yingjin Zhang, 1–21. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. Reynaud, Berenice. 2003. Up from the Underground, Zhang Yuan: A Sixth Generation. Film Comment 39 (5): 58–59. Zhang, Yingjin. 2006. My Camera Doesn’t Lie? Truth, Subjectivity and Audience in Chinese Independent Film and Video. In From Underground to Independent: Alternative Film Culture in Contemporary China, ed. Paul Pickowicz and Yingjin Zhang, 23–45. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. ———. 2007. Rebel without a Cause? China’s New Urban Generation and Post-­ Socialist Filmmaking. In China’s Urban Generation, ed. Zhang Zhen, 49–80. Durham: Duke University Press. Zhou, Xuelin. 2007. Young Rebels in Contemporary Chinese Cinema. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Zhu, Rikun. 2010. Overview on Chinese Independent Documentary. In Fanhall Annual Report on China Independent Film 2009, Beijing, China, 11–15.

Mainstreaming Documentary and Activism at Toronto’s Hot Docs Festival Ezra Winton

The business of documentaries is a big part of HOT DOCS! but its heart and soul are the filmmakers and their films. … We need documentaries that provoke, advocate and inspire. All documentary forms are important, but the pov documentary, an endangered species, needs to be preserved. (Jay and Bienstock in Hot Docs Program 1998, 5)

Despite the proclamations of their custodians, commercial film festivals are political creatures, and the Hot Docs Canadian International Documentary Festival is no exception. Hot Docs, which launched in 1994, represents a multi-faceted social, cultural, economic and political nexus in the world of contemporary documentary media and festival culture. The annual market and public screening event is a highly structured and astutely managed cultural entity that negotiates the firebrand social justice and activism terrain associated with documentary with the comparatively prosaic topography of film industry and commercial entertainment business. I argue in this chapter that as the entity that has conjoined these often-estranged audio-visual impulses, Hot Docs has adopted conventional mainstream

E. Winton (*) Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, ON, Canada © The Author(s) 2020 A. Vallejo, E. Winton (eds.), Documentary Film Festivals Vol. 1, Framing Film Festivals, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17320-3_13

193

194 

E. WINTON

festival strategies and practices along the way, and as such over the course of two decades has privileged the latter (industry/business) at the expense of the former (activism/politics). Effects of this mainstream orientation include the bracketing out of off-­screen or ITRW (In the Real World) activism, increased visibility for corporate sponsors and liberal programming that crowds out screen time for more politically radical POV (Point– of-View) documentaries. While such institutional externalities1 are cast in a negative light by those of us who valorize and emphasize documentary cinema’s potential to not only engage but activate audiences, they are also the outcomes of a commercial festival model whose supporters point to a corollary of benefits that include robust ticket sales, favourable media attention and a growing popularity in mainstream culture and society for the documentary form. My research  into Hot Docs weighs the former costs against the latter benefits and argues for the need to recouple politics and activism with documentary at important festival sites such as this crucial Canadian institution. What follows is concerned then with the arena of cultural politics at Hot Docs or “the domain in which meanings are constructed and negotiated, where relations of dominance and subordination are defined and contested” (Jackson 1990, 202). In particular I focus on the ways in which the festival’s commercial/mainstream modus operandi circumscribes and interfaces with social justice, documentary-as-alternative media and ­political activism currents. In this alternative-mainstream mixture, three competing or intersecting socio-cultural forces are at play: business (industry and finance), art (films and related interpretive discourse) and onscreen and ‘off-screen’ politics (modes of civil society-led activism represented in films programmed and in festival spaces). Through a study of its programming and organizational strategies, my research attempts to tease out the ways in which the festival’s consequential configuration of these three social phenomena, or Hot Docs’s ‘turn to the commercial,’ impacts the intersection of socio-political activism and documentary (or what could be called ‘documentary activism’),2 as the festival charts a path from humble grassroots beginnings to mainstream commercial success. This chapter attempts to reveal a process of commercialization at the Toronto-based festival, arguing that Hot Docs’s well-publicized growth and popularity has a lesser-discussed flip side—namely the further marginalization of radical political documentaries and the decoupling

  MAINSTREAMING DOCUMENTARY AND ACTIVISM AT TORONTO’S HOT… 

195

of civil society activism from documentary cinema. With this in mind, it is my intention to reveal not an atypical process of festival commercialization but rather one example that serves to illustrate a more widespread structural shift where the socio-political and cultural peripheral forms and actions (what I call ‘radical committed documentary’ and related activisms in this case) are subsumed into a mainstream framework that does little to challenge the status quo, and offers market-friendly environments and champions a certain kind of product (what I call the ‘liberal consensus documentary’). Put differently, it is a circulation and exhibition structure that can “use as many r evolutions per minute as are fed into the marketing machinery” ­ (Aufderheide 2000, 6). This analysis of mainstreaming at Hot Docs is part of a larger research and publishing project, which will culminate in a manuscript, published by McGill-Queen’s University Press (see Winton Forthcoming).

Hot Docs: A History of Growth Hot Docs is an annual industry and audience documentary festival staged in Toronto each April/May that showcases a variety of non-fiction films from all over the world. Conceived  in 1993  (and inaugurated the next year) by the Canadian Independent Film Caucus, or CIFC (now the Documentary Organization of Canada, or DOC), Hot Docs began as a self-described grassroots documentary art and advocacy initiative that expanded CIFC’s mandate to support independent Canadian filmmakers at the time. Fleshing out the origins of what is now the second most important documentary festival in the world (after IDFA in the Netherlands), Paul Jay, the filmmaker who suggested to the CIFC Board the then-uncommon idea of a festival devoted entirely to documentary, recalls: There had to be a place for independent point-of-view documentaries. Hot Docs came out of my frustration that nobody would do any fundraising […] so, really, the idea for Hot Docs came partly out of this issue of how can we raise the profile of independent documentary filmmaking, and then also it was about whether we could raise some funds for the Film Caucus so we could continue our lobbying work. (Winton 2013b)

196 

E. WINTON

Early Hot Docs auxiliary events (those organized outside of regular screenings) focused discussion around documentary practices, forms and challenges, and were for the most part made up of filmmakers showing their work to, and talking with, each other in hotel suites and later in cafés in Toronto’s Little Italy neighbourhood. The CIFC event also provided a modest non-fiction antidote to the gloss-and-glam found at the fiction-­ focused Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF), an event that had secured its spectacular status since launching two decades earlier in 1976. Attesting to the ‘do it yourself’ (DIY) spirit of the early festival editions, Peter Wintonick once recalled a major technical feat accomplished at early  Hot Docs gatherings, where filmmakers “balanced televisions on chairs” in order to “watch and critique each other’s docs” (Winton 2011a). Created from the efforts of CIFC members, including Barri Cohen, Paul Jay, Barry Greenwald, Ali Kazimi and John Walker, Hot Docs emerged as a spirited advocate for independent POV documentary, where POV was synonymous with a strong filmmaker’s (often socio-political) perspective. Importantly, the festival consciously differentiated itself from—rather than integrating with—the wider commercial audio-visual field and its attendant documentary conventions of ‘objective’ talking-­ head programmes broadcast on television. At inception, Hot Docs showcased documentary different in both form and politics from both mainstream commercial cinema and television fare. With an emphasis on socio-political and committed filmmaking of varying lengths (from the epic Manufacturing Consent to the short Minoru: Memory of Exile), the first programme was a collection of films highlighting confrontational politics, radical activism and ethnically oriented identity politics. It included films on racism and war (Moving the Mountain; Minoru; English for Yu), social movements and political history (The Black Sheep), poverty and survival (In the Gutter and Other Good Places), marginalization and ability (Les Fiances de la Tour Eiffel), the environment (Battle for the Trees) and Indigenous culture (Bowl of Bone). Screenings of these Canadian works were organized by the filmmaker-­dominated festival team, and event discourse emphasized art and politics with a focus on filmmakers and their relationship with the wider public sphere. Crucially, the young festival had a markedly local/national orientation, which was supported by a directive to showcase and support Canadian works in the face of a steady flow of audio-visual content from the US.

  MAINSTREAMING DOCUMENTARY AND ACTIVISM AT TORONTO’S HOT… 

197

Policy critic Barri Cohen maintains that although they developed the mandate to bring international documentary to the festival, “the priority was on Canadian work, with an international stream” (Winton 2011b). Early festival discourse expressed through programme notes supports Cohen’s claims: organizers recognized the robust international context of documentary production, while arguing for—and situating—a strong independent Canadian presence in the genre. A look at early programming confirms this alignment, where less than 7 per cent of programming comprised US content in the first five years of the festival (with the sliver of non-Canadian documentary mostly made up of European productions). In contrast, recent Hot Docs programming numbers reveal that Canadian films have dropped to their lowest number in a decade and US works comprised between 25 and 35 per cent of total programming each year (Winton 2013a, 252). I do not raise these programming concerns in order to provoke familiar debates around (Canadian) nationalism and (US) imperialism, but rather to gesture towards a shift from an independent domestic context to a (now) US-dominated international commercial market context. Assessing the programming from the first editions of Hot Docs reveals a determined focus on the local: Between 1994 and 1998 the festival screened 261 documentaries, 200 of which were Canadian, 11 American and 50 international titles produced mostly in Europe. In these formative years, programming decisions were made in the community tradition of committee bodies, which were mostly made up of filmmaker peers and with considerable overlap with the festival’s management. Ger Zielinski argues that “the practice of committee-run festivals returns to the new types of community-oriented film festivals in an attempt to be accountable to and represent the festival’s imagined counter-publics” (2008, 314– 315). As will be noted, the inaugural years of community accountability at Hot Docs have subsided to an era where the institution is often unresponsive to community concerns and demands. A shift in the programming process slowly came into effect into the 2000s, culminating with the appointment of a Director of Programming in 2006 (Sean Farnel) and a final break with community peer programming practices. Today the festival is programmed by mostly non-filmmakers and run by professional cultural managers who command a $6 million budget (a sizeable increase from a purportedly initial $5000 budget for the first edition). Today’s

198 

E. WINTON

management efforts have steered activities towards capital accumulation3 vis-à-vis ticket sales (or audience growth)4 and exclusive industry events.5 In more recent years management has also created and/or steered crucial funding for documentary production, acquired exhibition space (the Bloor Cinema), diversified programming (the Hot Docs Podcast Festival) and extended activities (year-long programmes). Hot Docs annually boasts record-setting numbers for audiences, delegates and pecuniary figurations, demonstrating the cynosure for today’s mainstreaming festival: growth. Whereas early iterations of the festival, with filmmaker-led events (both screenings and auxiliary talks), attempted to meet the ‘documentary audience-building’ and documentary advocacy aspects of the CIFC’s stated mandate, the contemporary iteration of Hot Docs has evolved its focus from audience creation to audience expansion, while doc-advocacy now takes shape through the Hot Docs Forum as opportune industry/business contact zones.6 One can assume this focus on growth helps secure the festival’s budgetary needs associated with expanding a festival each year in size and scope. It is my contention that this growth has been supported through increased corporate sponsorship and enabled by populist programming and the diversification of revenuegenerating enterprise (from the festival-as-producer to new content delivery platforms to year-round activities such as those facilitated through the festival’s more recent purchase of the Bloor Cinema, now the Hot Docs Ted Rogers Cinema). An overarching emphasis on growth is symptomatic of the process of commercialization, and as entrepreneurial historian Nancy F.  Koehn has indicated, core values can get lost in the dazzle of escalating numbers: “Big companies start off with verve and energy and aspiration and incredible values outside the marketplace that fuel their growth, then grow to the point that they’re no longer in tune with what really moved the enterprise forward in the first place.”7 I would argue this kind of values slippage is germane to the new  Hot Docs, and one only need compare it with Missouri-based True/False, an American documentary festival known for de-emphasizing growth and firming founding core values around supporting filmmakers and the attendant local documentary culture and community.8 The early period of Hot Docs described above has been overshadowed by the attention (from both the festival itself and external media)9 directed towards the festival’s more recent period of impressive growth and popularity, while its local/community roots have become the stuff of oral history, kept alive at the festival’s periphery by filmmakers and original Hot Docs

  MAINSTREAMING DOCUMENTARY AND ACTIVISM AT TORONTO’S HOT… 

199

progenitors. As a consequence, the Hot Docs narrative, as told through the institution’s official discourse and archives, tends to ‘begin’ in 1999 with the hiring of Chris McDonald as Executive Director and the final mandate break from the CIFC, during which time the festival was partitioned off from the CIFC’s stewardship (in 1998) and separately incorporated. It is widely held in the Toronto documentary community that McDonald and the new management team reoriented the festival towards lucrative commercial horizons and audience popularity, a path celebrated by some (including, almost without exception, media coverage of the festival) and criticized by others (mainly filmmakers and activists who, mostly privately, share my concerns around the march of commercialization). Coupled with its ardent focus on growth and market expansion has been the institution’s participation in a larger festival culture of conformity, prevalent among mainstream festivals in the international festival circuit, where commercially successful festivals’ efforts are strategically mimicked by other festivals seeking audience and pecuniary expansion. For example, ‘festival hits’ are repeatedly programmed in succession (such as fest-favourites Tig, The Cove or Ai Weiwei: Never Sorry), and festival formats, categories and promotional strategies are copied and sampled (such as the now near-universal standardized programming categories found across the festival circuit). Evidence of this programming strategy can be found in Hot Docs’s relationship with the Utah-based Sundance Film Festival. Sundance documentaries have come to play an increasingly significant role in Hot Docs programming: of 22 featured films highlighted in an early Hot Docs 2013 press release, a mighty 17 had just played at Sundance and/or were produced by the Sundance Institute.10 This selection strategy—where an annual raft of works are mainlined from one commercial festival to another—ultimately venerates an established unidirectional cross-border flow (US–Canada) of culture and business while also signalling the ways in which Hot Docs is forging a ‘Sundance North Model’ for documentary (Sundance, whose founder Robert Redford has famously likened to having become a commercial ‘monster’ similar to Las Vegas, programmes both fiction and non-fiction works). Sundance began as an alternative to the mainstream and now champions expensively produced mainstream liberal films as independently produced radical works are pushed out of the programme.11 Adapting this model also distances Hot Docs from its initial objectives to re-direct transnational media flows away from American mainstream domination towards an independent Canadian-global blend.

200 

E. WINTON

Looking at the ways in which Hot Docs adopts a Sundance programming approach and the ways in which the festival works closely with the American festival in other ways (including renaming the Audience Choice Award to the Sundance Channel People’s Choice Award in 2011), similarities between the festivals become apparent. Whereas both initiatives began as counter-events to status quo configurations (mainstream Hollywood fiction and mainstream—mostly televisual—documentary, respectively), each festival now plays a prominent role in the system it once sought to differentiate itself from, providing yet another illustration of the manifold ways in which the commercial markets of capitalism appropriate the margins and fold in peripheries in an ongoing public-to-private process of what Linebaugh (2014) calls the ‘enclosure’ of the commons. The Sundance model may offer the promise of success by way of high-profile events, big business deals and pop culture buzz, but as an annual celebration of the convergence of celebrity, arts commodification and liberal politics, the festival’s steady advance  toward commercial prosperity ultimately reinforces mainstream media values, and in doing so multiplies the concomitant problems associated with that model. Cottrell has articulated these concerns in relation to Sundance: We should be concerned about the ability to turn unique cultural projects such as art and film into commodities because it makes the possibility of formulating long-term projects of differentiation, resistance, and sustainable alternatives problematic. If cultural production is always subject to market appropriation that is controlled by highly centralized means of production then the possibility for artistic diversity and differentiation is in crisis. (2009, 4)

As Hot Docs adopts the Sundance model to the Canadian context through curatorial and organizational imitation, it risks retrofitting an entertainment market model that has historically been at odds with documentary, a genre known for its deep connections to political resistance and alternative media forms and practices. Speaking to this long-­held association, Gaines gestures to documentary’s embodied relationship with politics here: “The whole rationale behind documenting political battles on film, as opposed to producing written records, is to make struggle visceral, to go beyond the abstractly intellectual to produce a body swelling” (1999, 91). As Hot Docs tracks from local to global and from the community  margins to the commercial  mainstream, the body politic, comprised of art, culture and actions contesting or resisting the commercial realm, contracts instead of expands. While this may not have amounted to a ‘crisis’ as Cottrell describes above, it has had a deep and lasting negative impact on documentary culture and cinema—one of the last media arts

  MAINSTREAMING DOCUMENTARY AND ACTIVISM AT TORONTO’S HOT… 

201

enclaves able and willing to stage effective insurrections and voice alternative perspectives to dominant power structures.

Documentary-as-Alternative Media and Radical Committed Versus Liberal Consensus Documentaries Academic literature on (documentary) festivals and activism, and the cultural politics of film festivals in particular, remains fairly thin. Iordanova and Torchin’s volume Film Festivals and Activism (2012) offers an initial footing. However, while the book’s contributors devote the bulk of their discussion to mainstream human rights festivals, they seldom work through a critical lens to analyze the kinds of activism that take place at such festivals, and instead advance an improved and focused iteration of the existing research on film festivals. Other scholarly works that have set a serious, critical bar—such as de Valck’s 2007 foundational work Film Festivals: From European Geopolitics to Global Cinephilia—have set the stage, but activism at festivals is not a focus. Ahn’s (2012) and Wong’s (2011) monographs refreshingly address a need to combine cultural criticism and rich ethnographic festival accounts with political concerns, but once again cultural politics and  activism remain perched on the periphery. Promisingly, two more recently published volumes and one dissertation directly address the topic of festivals, cultural politics and activism: Tascón’s monograph Human Rights Film Festivals: Activism in Context (2015) introduces the intriguing concept of “the humanitarian gaze” and probes questions of an implicated audience as well as questioning the kinds of activism associated with human rights festivals; Tascón and Wils’s (eds.) Activist Film Festivals: Towards a Political Subject (2017) considers the title’s complex entanglement, and as a collection offers a much-needed compendium of decidedly critical analyses of festival sites; Damiens’s PhD dissertation, “Festivals, Uncut: Queer/ ing Festival Studies, Curating Queerness” (2017) forges a crucial and overdue reckoning of the field, offering an unapologetically political intervention. Moving to another field of inquiry, literature on alternative media’s relationship with and to activism serves as a referent for two key concepts that function as pivot points for my analysis of Hot Docs: the ‘radical committed documentary’ versus the ‘liberal consensus documentary.’12 As part of a filmmaking continuum of alternative and mainstream/commercial media forms, I deploy the concepts in order to locate Hot Docs and the films the festival champions within a spectrum that affiliates mainstream culture with commercially placed documentaries (liberal consensus) and radical/progressive activisms and alternative media with peripheral forms (radical committed).

202 

E. WINTON

The ‘radical committed documentary’ is a concept I use to draw together two lineages of documentary discourse and practice. The term ‘radical’ connects with the theoretical terrain of radical media, itself an iteration of what is more commonly referred to as ‘alternative media’ (Atkinson 2010; Kozolanka et al. 2012) or ‘community media’ (Howley 2010).13 Radical committed documentary also pays homage to Waugh’s (1984) definition of ‘committed documentaries’ as insurrectional works that “attempt to act, to intervene—whether as gut-level calls to immediate, localized action, or as more cerebral essays in long-­term, global analysis” (xiii). Lastly, I draw from Downing’s pronunciation that radical alternative media “serve two overriding purposes: (a) to express opposition vertically from subordinate quarters directly at the power structure and against its behaviour; (b) to build support, solidarity, and networking laterally against policies or even against the very survival of the power structure” (2001, xi).14 Following this description, the radical alternative media lens—when applied to documentary—situates some films in direct opposition to dominant cultural forms and power structures, while others may explore alternatives to such hegemonic formations, either through the creation of alternative forms or system reform (while still others may deploy both strategies). In this regard, Heart of Sky, Heart of Earth (Eric Black and Frauke Sandig, 2012), a documentary about Mayan resistance to the violence of global capital in the guise of Monsanto and Canadian gold mining companies, and a submission rejected for the 2012 Hot Docs edition, works both vertically and laterally against the instrumental and structural forces impinging on Indigenous sovereignty and the larger structuring containment of local culture by global capital. In this case the screen content works vertically, while the screening context impacts laterally, whereby the filmmakers insist on the participation of Indigenous guest speakers at screenings regardless of where the film is shown in the world.15 Extending Waugh’s (1984) figuring of ‘committed filmmakers,’ that is those committed to socio-political transformation and revolutionary agitation, to festival communities, my concern here is whether one can discern  the presence and/or support for ITRW activism (social and environmental activism—whereby members of civil society convey, through discourse and actions, their support for progressive societal change with dedicated communication and embodied action) at festivals devoted to documentary. Or put another way, if there is indeed activism

  MAINSTREAMING DOCUMENTARY AND ACTIVISM AT TORONTO’S HOT… 

203

associated with documentary (outside the act of making an activist film) present at a festival like Hot Docs, what shape does it take? When documentary functions as radical alternative media it can be found to express oppositional ideological impulses in allyship with on-the-­ ground struggles for progressive, social transformation. For instance, Amy Miller’s Canadian-produced exposé The Carbon Rush (about the injustice of carbon trading schemes and rejected by Hot Docs also in 2012) expresses a commitment to the progressive politics of Indigenous solidarity and independence, environmentalism, anti-poverty and human rights movements, while at the same time advocating for the larger ideological underpinnings of the film’s subjects, those of which are rooted in a politics of communalism, participatory economics, self-determination and anti-­ corporatism. Miller, who identifies as a filmmaker and activist, has commented on the difficult terrain filmmakers who present such politically radical work must negotiate when trying to get their films shown at mainstream festivals: The argument has been made to me dozens of times: the general public wants to watch a documentary that is looking at the climate crisis and yet ‘feel good’ afterwards. The critics and festival programmers have argued that I should tone down the severity of the problem and focus on making sure fence sitting audience members don’t feel so ‘depressed’ with the bleakness of the situation that my films paint. If I were to do this then my films ‘would be much better received, get into big festivals, get massive distribution, win awards, etc.’ (Winton 2013d)

The pressures Miller feels are those of conforming to what Davies describes as a “template film festival experience.” He argues that to avoid falling into this conventional format, “film festivals that seek to promote activism or advance human rights must structure the experience on offer in such a way that it promotes these goals” (2018). If the festival’s goals centre around making audiences feel good, then less room will be made at the programming table for filmmakers like Miller, who has had every film she has directed rejected by Hot Docs’s programmers. Her works confront and dissent against status quo politics by implicating audiences in systemic dysfunction and oppression. It is to this camp of radical film work that I now turn (Image 1). Documentary, with its historical linkage to activism, has, as Nichols notes, “strong ties to a tradition of liberal ameliorations and radical trans-

204 

E. WINTON

Image 1  Still from Amy Miller’s The Carbon Rush (2012)

formations of social practices” (2013, 32). Socio-politically-oriented non-­ fiction films have traditionally rallied against conservatism in the form of incisive radical interventions (like The Carbon Rush, pictured above) on one hand and softer liberal iterations on the other (like The Cove). Populating the latter camp are works I refer to as ‘liberal consensus documentaries,’ which are films that fulfil a more populist, liberal and feel-good socio-political agenda. There is little to no counter-discourse confronting dominant systems expounded in such films (the bulk of which are produced in advanced capitalist states and are projected on festival screens in those same countries), as they instead seek resilience within social, political and economic structures that are facilitating various injustices showcased on screen (e.g. such films are seldom, if ever, championing anti-capitalist, anti-civ or anarchist perspectives). In the archetypal liberal consensus documentary, arguments for radical political and systemic transformation are rejected in favour of acceptable  and agreeable take-action provocations that, along Downing’s vertical axis, present individual-oriented solutions such as boycotting certain products or making slight behavioural adjustments like recycling, taking shorter showers16 or changing light bulbs (the latter of which is egregiously suggested as a legitimate climate action in An Inconvenient Truth). These suggested solutions often prefigure and assume conspicuous consumerism and seek minor, ineffective adjustments to structuring frameworks that thrive on consensus of the status quo, rather than espousing major disruptions to Western comfort regimes (for

  MAINSTREAMING DOCUMENTARY AND ACTIVISM AT TORONTO’S HOT… 

205

example: the emphasis on recycling programmes vs. the radical restructuring of consumerism that would result in a massive reduction of waste) as well as mainstream culture and politics. In 2011 Hot Docs foregrounded the liberal consensus documentary form by organizing a programming sidebar of films under the moniker ‘Small Acts.’ The section featured works that celebrated various minute actions people in the West perform in order to, ostensibly, improve society but that offer no structural critique of, or radical prognosis for, confronting/dismantling the overriding systems perpetuating the problems in the first place. The programme of Small Acts films promoted the idea that social change strategy is best when it is individualized and incremental—not when staged as a collectively enacted, systemic upheaval. In 2017 the festival promoted liberal consensus filmmaking to the coveted and prestigious opening night slot with Bee Nation (Lana Šlezić, 2017), a settler-­made feel-good tale of Indigenous kids competing in a Canadian spelling bee that seemingly unintentionally recreates conditions for the colonial gaze.17 The rise (in stature and number) at Hot Docs of liberal consensus documentaries and the shutting out of the radical committed strain (see Winton Forthcoming, for a deeper analysis of these trends) reflects and contributes to a wider mainstream commercial trend in film festival culture and business, where a culture of conformity (perhaps best evidenced by repeat programmes across festivals) throughout the festival circuit is circumscribed by a willingness to accept and even promote neoliberal capitalism and its attendant liberal politics (individualism, private property, consent of law, ‘tolerance,’ etc). It is an entrenched values system that mirrors elite interests and is reflected across the commercial, mainstream mediascape (a values system that consistently attracts large corporate sponsors like banks, which now sponsor every major festival in Canada). Several symptomatic elements of this paradigm now punctuate the Hot Docs topography (as films, events, sponsors, discourse, etc.). As they increasingly drive and define the institution, they create fissures in the already beleaguered civil society engagement and socio-political activist element at the festival. An increased focus on celebrity-driven films, a pronounced lack of diverse input from artists, from programming to management to industry,18 inattention to local sociopolitical concerns and support for disreputable corporate sponsors starts to sound like a checklist for a multinational media conglomerate’s goings on, not a non-profit documentary festival whose tagline is ‘Outstanding. Outspoken,’ and which “has cultivated the image … [of] a  festival that engages with pressing social and political issues.” Yet, these same characteristics also point to the festival’s successful growth and popularity as it ­continues to push towards the mainstream.

206 

E. WINTON

Radical committed documentaries (and the activism they represent and inspire), on the other hand, embody a direct affront to the liberal consensus model. They are therefore more difficult to absorb into the mainstream framework and, at Hot Docs, are often shut out or obscured through festival placement and promotion, such as the poorly promoted screenings of the radical Indian documentary that challenges the caste system (Jai Bhim Comrade, Anand Patwardhan, 2012) or by placing Jason O’Hara’s critical exposé of favela-cleansing in Brazil via international sporting events, State of Exception (2017), out of competition. In 2019 the festival bucked opening night trends with a screening of the anti-­colonial documentary nîpawistamâsowin: We Will Stand Up by Cree filmmaker Tasha Hubbard, but revealed the lack of structural support, or deep awareness, for such work by screening a severely colonial advert immediately before the film. I am not arguing that liberal consensus films shouldn’t occupy curatorial  space on the documentary horizon. On the contrary, a diversity of forms and politics make the documentary genre vibrant and relevant to diverse audiences. But the turn to the commercial at Hot Docs and other documentary-focused festivals has meant the near-capsizing of radical committed documentary programming—a vital and already marginalized alternative form—as liberal consensus films are increasingly programmed along the festival circuit line, leaving little room for both local independent film culture and radical filmmaking. As a result of this liberal consensus disposition, mainstream festival structure and space continues to mirror and propagate existing dominant ideas, values, objectives and political perspectives, while further isolating the already-fringe elements expressed in radical committed documentaries. As with the case of Bee Nation above, it is a self-actualizing cycle in that the festival programmes liberal consensus films in prominent curatorial slots, the mainstream media bestows great attention to these films, audiences turn up in droves to see them and leave feeling good, and so the festival programmes more of the same. Given these powerful and enduring patterns that are producing more audiences for documentary, I fully acknowledge that perhaps it is time to accept this is the inevitable course for a film festival seeking to bring in larger crowds and rally large corporate sponsors each year. And perhaps Hot Docs, like Sundance, should be accepted as a reformist alternative media institution that no longer has a vested interest in upsetting and unsettling mainstream political culture. But the fact remains that Hot Docs has become one of the most important purveyors of documentary film and culture in Canada. As such, those of us who see civil society, socio-­

  MAINSTREAMING DOCUMENTARY AND ACTIVISM AT TORONTO’S HOT… 

207

Image 2  Police in India patrol a protest in this production still from  Jai Bhim Comrade (Anand Patwardhan, 2012)

political activism and radical politics and creativity as integrally linked with and even at times dependent on documentary, sense the urgency in drawing attention to the social, cultural and  political costs that underwrite commercial gains (Image 2).

Mainstreaming at Hot Docs: NGOization and Branded Content On the topic of festivals and commerce, Loist and Zielinski write that festivals have evolved from nation-builders to platform-expanders to market-­ makers: “Festivals are no longer just facilitators; rather, they have become part of the industry itself by making advances into classical industry tasks” (2012, 54). Hot Docs is no exception to this trend, and while the festival shirks an emphasis on locally situated and relevant socio-political activism related to programmed content (an example would be allowing Indigenous, environmental, anti-poverty, anti-racist, migrant justice, etc., activist groups to speak or have a presence at relevant screenings), it has prioritized the development of festival business and film industry, principally through the Hot Docs Forum. Integral to this component of the festival

208 

E. WINTON

is the ways in which Hot Docs brings together filmmakers, industry players and the mainstream non-governmental organization (NGO) sector. Industry insider and Canadian filmmaker James Buffin has written about this confluence as early as 2009, when, after attending The Good Pitch at that year’s Hot Docs Forum, he remarked: The Good Pitch took place on day two of the Toronto Documentary Forum at this year’s Hot Docs Festival. It’s part of Channel 4 Britdoc Foundation’s efforts to advocate for the increased use of documentary films towards creating social change and is partnered with the Sundance Institute Documentary Film Program. Amnesty International is hosting another Good Pitch event in the UK this fall. And The Good Pitch was extraordinary. Panel members—foundations, NGOs and campaigners—unabashedly came out with statements like, “I love this project,” or “I want to be involved” and “Well, you know we have supported causes like yours for a long time.”19

Buffin interviewed Jess Search for his article and asked the Executive Director of the Britdoc Foundation about filmmakers working with NGOs: “You never get given money to make films that come with no agenda. And that was as true with money that came from television as it is with money that comes from any other source, whether it’s from a private philanthropist, an investor, a brand, (or) an NGO.”20 Search goes on to suggest filmmakers should always ask questions about intent to avoid a ‘mess’ but ultimately doesn’t see any problems inherent to the confluence of these economic, cultural and political forces. Others are more cautionary and critical. Choudry and Kapoor argue that the phenomenon of NGOization, or “the professionalization and institutionalization of social action” (2013, 5), works to reinforce status quo socio-political and economic regimes, namely capitalism and colonialism. Writer, essayist and activist Arundhati Roy is fiercely clear in her opposition to the NGOization of politics and activism: NGOs give the impression that they are filling the vacuum created by a retreating state. And they are, but in a materially inconsequential way. Their real contribution is that they defuse political anger and dole out as aid or benevolence what people ought to have by right. They alter the public psyche. They turn people into dependent victims and blunt the edges of political resistance. NGOs form a sort of buffer between the sarkar and public. Between Empire and its subjects. They have become the arbitrators, the interpreters, the facilitators. … Real political resistance offers no such short

  MAINSTREAMING DOCUMENTARY AND ACTIVISM AT TORONTO’S HOT… 

209

cuts. The NGO-ization of politics threatens to turn resistance into a well-­ mannered, reasonable, salaried, 9-to-5 job. With a few perks thrown in. Real resistance has real consequences. And no salary.21

Roy’s concerns about the professionalization of political activism resonate with my own regarding both the professionalization of festivals and the foreclosure on radical resistance and progressive politics at such events. And, as Buffin’s insider’s account above confirms, Hot Docs films co-­ produced with NGOs are programmed at the festival, while NGOs are represented at the Hot Docs Forum and play a pivotal role at the social change-oriented The Good Pitch. NGOs also have a strong presence at auxiliary events (as speakers and sponsors). There are at least two consequences to the possible NGOization of documentary at festivals like Hot Docs: the propagation of ‘safe’ programming (more on this below) and the replacement of the presence of local activist groups and campaigns with ‘big player’ international NGOs like Amnesty International, Greenpeace and others. A recent expression of both funding strategies’ circuit conventionality is the development of festivals-as-producers, whereby the branded mark of a festival now includes production (or festival-produced/commissioned films).22 The Sundance Institute has championed this relatively new festival role, and Hot Docs is following suit, working hand in hand with NGOs and foundations to facilitate the making of socio-political films tackling issues of concern to partnering institutions. This articulation of NGOization is a novel documentary festival addition that is fast becoming convention—NGOs have historically collaborated with filmmakers after documentaries have already been made, not before shooting begins. Sean Farnel, who led programming at Hot Docs for five years (2006–2011), sees this NGO-festival alliance at documentary festivals as part of a troubling trend: The so-called political films are really tame, not dangerous and not changing minds … just reasserting common opinions that the people that go to documentary films already have … [these are] documentaries made as campaign and advocacy films for audio-visual infants … other political films don’t get the festival exposure because they’re seen to be too difficult for audiences … it’s all about where the money is coming from. Now the deliverable is goodness and this has taken the danger out. (Winton 2013c)

210 

E. WINTON

Farnel’s interpretation of safe films having tamed politics recalls Roy’s suggestion that NGOization “blunt[s] the edges of political resistance” and returns to the question of locally situated, reflexive and radical activism at Hot Docs. If delivered goodness, to follow Farnel, is projected on the screens at Hot Docs, then packaging deliverable goodness happens away from the public and with industry players at the Hot Docs Forum. The Forum is a space created for filmmakers to pitch projects to funders and commissioning editors, and the festival has developed their emerging role as arbiters of funds, launching the Hot Docs-Blue Ice Group Documentary Fund, a grant programme “providing financial support to African documentary filmmakers for development and production.”23 Like TIFF, Cannes, the Berlinale and Sundance, Hot Docs is leveraging its influence in the film world (documentary specifically) to accumulate and distribute resources through a process of curation that takes into consideration future programming opportunities for the festival (Falicov [2010] has also noted the emergence of this process at Latin American festivals). In other words, festivals are more likely to fund films that they can programme upon their completion, meeting objectives of novelty (and ‘discovery’), as well as closing a programming loop that is set in motion with the festival and at times the NGO sector in the pre-production, even pitching, stage (the Best Canadian Pitch “links filmmakers with NGOs, charities, ad agencies and media” according to the CBC).24 Farnel has pointed out that this new configuration prominently features the role of mainstream and established NGOs right from the beginning. It is not just artists, government funders, commissioning editors and programmers who determine which films are brought to the forefront of Canadian audience attention, but a whole mix of industrial and civil society players who gather under the umbrella of the festival institution. This is one of many structural obstructions for any radical committed documentary reaching fruition and finding audiences, especially if we consider “the revolution will not be funded,” an expression that echoes NGOization concerns.25 If the socio-political documentaries Hot Docs champions along with NGOs aren’t “dangerous” as Farnel puts it, then perhaps they are a safe bet because a condition of the mainstream is concerned with the ways in which politics can be tied up (controlled or neutralized) in soft positions or even an affected, enervated neutrality. Michael Parenti argues that society encounters culture through social structures that include institutions, and those institutions “are regularly misrepresented as being politically neutral, especially by those who occupy

  MAINSTREAMING DOCUMENTARY AND ACTIVISM AT TORONTO’S HOT… 

211

command positions within them or who are otherwise advantaged by them” (2006, 15–16). Former Hot Docs Executive Director Chris McDonald has provided substantiation for this claim by insisting that it is “not the festival’s job to do politics” (Winton Forthcoming). The festival’s own literature and promotional materials suggest that it is the job of Hot Docs to do documentary business and art, affirming that the festival, performing as a mainstream media institution, wants to be regarded as politically neutral, fulfilling the less controversial role as an industry and audience festival. Mainstream NGOs, following Roy, would seem to coalesce with festivals around this agenda. Concerning the festival-as-institution, Peranson differentiates between business and audience festivals, whereby the former focuses on industry and trade concerns and the latter on showing films to the public. In his equation, the business festival is on the rise and the audience festival is in decline (Peranson 2009, 27). The two models offer a tidy delineation, but one that does not apply to Hot Docs, a festival with a significant industry conference on the ‘inside’ and a massive public screening apparatus on the ‘outside.’ In fact, Hot Docs teeters between two types of festival, trying, it would seem, to be one part audience festival and one part industry festival, all the while developing a brand approach that is remarkably similar to strategies at Sundance, which can be considered a business or industry festival (these include a DVD festival line, channels on iTunes, NGO/ festival co-productions and films branded and financed through the institution). Yet, whereas much has been written about Sundance’s commercialization,26 Hot Docs has received little public criticism for following a similar path—perhaps due in part to the more downcast nature of a festival focused on documentary, where big budget Hollywood films, movie stars and red carpets are seldom found (e.g. as they are at Sundance and TIFF). As mainstream NGOs clamour at the festival gates, they join the corporate world, which continues to enjoy visibility and importance at Hot Docs. A manifestation of this presence splashed the festival in April 2010, when Hot Docs opened with what Farnel would call a ‘safe’ documentary. In this case, it was the North American premiere of a film that takes a humorous, non-confrontational, celebrity-driven approach and doesn’t shake any political foundations, while  titillating audiences  all the same. POM Wonderful Presents: The Greatest Movie Ever Sold by director, producer and entrepreneur Morgan Spurlock is ostensibly a behind-the-­ scenes  look at the world of advertising and marketing in the US but is ultimately a vehicle for Spurlock to advance his brand of activist entertain-

212 

E. WINTON

ment. Despite its behind-the-scenes premise, it offers no structural critique of the marketing/PR world and instead proposes that documentaries can be corporate-sponsored themselves (hence, the film’s appropriate tagline: “He’s Not Selling Out, He’s Buying In”). After the screening, which included a rousing stand-up-comedy routine/Q&A with Spurlock, I left feeling disappointed that the film’s marketing strategy—which pitted everyman Spurlock against a big bad industry in much the same way the PR for his hit McDonald’s documentary SuperSize Me (2004) did—led me to believe I was going to see an activist film. Instead, I found myself craving deeper political engagement with the issues Spurlock leveraged for punchlines in the film. To my surprise, that wasn’t the only thing I was craving: I was also thirsty for POM Wonderful juice, the brand featured prominently in the film. Much to the equal surprise of many of us spilling out of Toronto’s Isabel Bader Theatre that night, those feelings of insatiable quench were answered as chipper workers in POM Wonderful company garb handed out free bottles of the juice to every Hot Docs audience member who succumbed to the temptation of a free drink. As we walked away sipping our juices, one thing became clear—the opening night film had combined the promise of social justice with the comfort of consumerism, and had sealed the deal by getting the film’s principle sponsor product placed both on the screen and in audience hands. The opening event combined documentary with activism themes (ironically in Spurlock’s opening narration in the film he opines: “It seems everywhere you look these days someone is trying to sell you something”), yet delivered feel-­ good entertainment tied up neatly in assertive sponsorship and clever product placement. As one festivalgoer, who was about to receive a free juice, said: “Well that’s a marketing coup.” Aggressive sponsorship branding was also incorporated into the 2015 edition of Hot Docs. During early screenings at the festival I witnessed audiences registering their discontent with soft boos after the pre-show projection of an advert that played at most of the 600 screenings during the festival. The commercial was for Nabob Coffee, and aside from its cultural pitfalls (A Colombian filmmaker friend pointed out the absurdity of Colombian coffee growers having conversations with the segment’s ‘host’ in English), the advert and its placement ratcheted up the appropriation and deception registers as a commercial masquerading as a documentary short played on screens during a documentary festival. In the advert an intrepid American ventures into the deep coffee-growing valleys of Colombia to discover what comprises a good—and simple—cup of cof-

  MAINSTREAMING DOCUMENTARY AND ACTIVISM AT TORONTO’S HOT… 

213

fee. With documentary realism formal qualities that included shaky camera work and interviews with farmers, the advert easily passed for a short documentary about coffee-growing—until the Nabob brand reveal at the end. The Nabob logo and name was also projected on to theatre walls and imprinted on placards and other materials distributed throughout the festival. The faux-documentary advert was unprecedented at Hot Docs, the audacity of its placement akin to ‘sneaking’ the audio-visual commercial into a documentary-screening space, disguised as content. This surprised audiences and filmmakers alike, and was summed up in commercial festival relativity terms by one festivalgoer who remarked: “What is this, is this TIFF?” That comment, overheard in the cinema, highlights what is at stake in these public spaces and platforms for documentary: audiences and media consumers have grown to expect crass commercialism from Hollywood and its institutional outposts (like TIFF), but we expect something different—alternative we might even say—from the world of documentary. I would argue this is due to documentary’s longstanding linkages to social justice, political activism, the public interest and its familiar affronts to status quo culture and politics. While Hot Docs tantalizes its audiences with fluffy liberal films like POM Wonderful: The Greatest Movie Ever Sold and builds its audience with mainstream Sundance fare, all the while growing its financial stature through partnerships with NGOs and sponsors like Nabob, it strengthens business values and weakens those of stakeholder community. The initial articulated values of the festival, interpreted from its organizational records, programming, events and discourse reflect community values oriented around local culture and politics—a kind of grassroots beginning focused on critical arts and a politics-infused discourse, small screenings and Canadian film culture. At today’s festival, with the highly visible presence of multinational brands like Nabob coffee and POM Juice as well as the top-tier sponsor Scotiabank, the grassroots have made way for a corporate-­friendly environment where you won’t find civil society groups handing out flyers on The Kraft Heinz Company’s (owner of the Nabob brand) troubling environmental and labour record; nor will you encounter information on Scotiabank’s ethically dubious history of off-shore banking, labour disputes and community bullying in Toronto; nor will you find tables of pamphlets for audiences to learn about the problems of funding cuts to documentary (a problem that Spurlock’s film could be said to address, by turning to ‘help’ from corporate partners). Filmmakers I’ve spoken with during my research inquiries into Hot Docs have been

214 

E. WINTON

told that handing out such materials or having a presence at screenings will slow down the festival and negatively impact efficiency. And of course there’s the line about the festival not ‘doing’ politics. In the film exhibition world, there is a place that personifies the welcoming presence of huge corporations and the expunging of socio-political  activism and expression—it’s called the Megaplex. The examples mentioned above are but two recent instances of the ways in which corporate sponsorship is conquering the territories of local activism and documentary dissent at Hot Docs (and beyond).

Conclusions: The Slow Festival As marketing, industry and business interests continue to usurp the kinds of grassroots spaces of Hot Docs past, activist filmmaker Anand Patwardhan offers a critique of these annual commercial events, writing: The film festival today is largely an extension of the market. Political activism is the last thing on its mind. While some political films do get shown it is only when they fulfil the geopolitical needs of affluent nations that they are celebrated in. So, if they appeal to a sense of charity that is fine. If they show how this charity is not needed, or is counter-productive, because local resistance is alive and well, then of course the film has gone beyond its brief. Such a film will either not be selected or be relegated to an insignificant corner. (Turnin 2014)

With Patwardhan’s reflection in mind, some questions remain: What are the core values of Hot Docs, how are they different from those articulated during its grassroots beginnings and what is the driving force behind its focus on growth? Can a documentary festival be popular, successful and encourage dissent, radical politics and ITRW activism at the same time? Can a festival not grow and still be ‘successful’? To reach a wider audience, the commercial market model tells us mass appeal equates to  digestible, non-confrontational, ‘safe’ content. But if part of the reason for showing documentaries in the first place is to upend/ challenge the status quo, or at least be ‘outspoken,’ then perhaps the answer is to slow down that growth and look inwards—to local filmmakers, local political movements and local culture. Perhaps integrating civil society groups into the festival would make Hot Docs a messier contact zone to control and manage (one can imagine the friction created from

  MAINSTREAMING DOCUMENTARY AND ACTIVISM AT TORONTO’S HOT… 

215

groups who would be opposed to sponsors like Hilton Hotels or Scotiabank), but hasn’t disruption always been a part of the documentary DNA—to provoke, challenge, upset, denounce, decry and mobilize? If there is one recent moment that crystallizes these tensions at Hot Docs, it was at a screening of the documentary Blackfish (Gabriela Cowperthwaite) in 2014. After the credits rolled following the feature-length indictment of SeaWorld, a typically stilted 10-minute Hot Docs Q&A with the director followed, and festival volunteers informed the packed Isabel Bader theatre that it was time to shuffle out to make room for the next projection. At this announcement, one visibly agitated woman stood up in front of her seat and yelled: “There is a SeaWorld right here in Ontario called MarineLand!” Another audience member in a balcony seat yelled down in response: “What can we do?” Following this impromptu dialogue the director, gave her last, discouraging answer into the mic while being ushered off the stage: “At this time, I don’t know, but we’re working on something.” This post-screening scene epitomizes the kinds of lost opportunities I’ve noted at Hot Docs, where the festival fails to leverage the power of documentary and the charged social space of a documentary screening to immediately activate or locally mobilize audiences on issues presented in screened content. If Hot Docs was open to civil society participation and the presence of thematically linked socio-political activism and campaigns, they would have invited local activist group MarineLand Animal Defense to table and even say a few words before or after the screening. Leaflets detailing their campaign to end the captivity of animals and shut down MarineLand, which is less than two hours from the Hot Docs screening location of Blackfish, could have been passed out to several hundred audience members, many of whom were visibly moved by a film’s message that encourages an openness to such materials. People could have learned more about a related local issue, and discovered ways to get involved and become directly active around an issue on topic and close to home. Instead, they learned of the local issue from a particularly enthusiastic fellow audience member and were given no indication of any activism they might join or enact. All that said, the chance that Hot Docs will allow itself to develop into a festival that encourages and even facilitates the presence of off-screen activism is unlikely if the festival continues to affirm, value and privilege status-quo affirming, feel-good, liberal consensus films. Without the radical filmmakers showcased and their films on site the event is destined to

216 

E. WINTON

grow into something resembling a documentary version of Sundance or TIFF—another soft ‘alternative’ to the US-dominated commercial entertainment industry. Hopefully the festival recognizes the room and need for differentiated values and interests  around programming and events organization (there is more to documentary than selling tickets, building audiences and creating industry opportunities), and in the future the documentary community in Toronto and Canada will have a festival that fully seizes documentary’s power to inform, engage, inspire and activate audiences and wider stakeholder communities.

Notes 1. In the sense of: “In economics, an externality is the cost or benefit that affects a party who did not choose to incur that cost or benefit.” https:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality. 2. For more on “documentary activism,” see Turnin and Winton 2014, 20. 3. According to Wikipedia, “Capital accumulation refers to the investment of money or a financial asset for the purpose of making more money (whether in the form of profit, rent, interest, royalties, capital gain or some other kind of return). Accumulation of capital is the basis of capitalism.” https:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_accumulation#cite_note-Definition_of_ Capital.2C_Marxist_Internet_Archive_Encyclopedia-1. However, capital accumulation can also refer to the ways one kind of capital (say cultural) can strengthen another kind of capital (say financial). For more on this, see Sandra Braman’s “Art in the Information Economy” (1996) in the Canadian Journal of Communication (http://www.cjc-online.ca/index. php/journal/article/view/938/844). My use of the term is meant to point to the ways in which audience growth contributes to the festival’s budget. 4. For example, according to the festival, Hot Docs’s  2004  audience of 37,000 swelled to 223,000 in 2018. 5. Culminating at the important Hot Docs Forum where passes for each of the 450 delegates cost just below $1000 each. 6. To illustrate, it is of relevant note that since 2007 Hot Docs’s management and staff have been paid to organize the annual World Congress of Science and Factual Producers Conference, an “industry conference that [brings] together science and specialist factual producers and broadcasters from around the world.” One can assume this contract helps secure the festival’s budgetary needs associated with growing a festival each year in size and scope (intriguingly this is a publicly opaque relationship as there is no mention of Hot Docs on the Conference’s website). https://www.wcsfp.com.

  MAINSTREAMING DOCUMENTARY AND ACTIVISM AT TORONTO’S HOT… 

217

7. http://bigthink.com/videos/the-arrogance-of-unlimited-growth-2. 8. Alison Byrne Fields states: “To me, despite the fact that the festival has grown larger and more well known and there are more big name filmmakers walking down 9th Street in Columbia, MO at the end of February/ beginning of March every year, it is exactly the same festival that it was in the beginning.” http://www.whatisaggregate.com/truefalse-aggregate-aunique-commitment/. 9. Academics have largely followed suit with uncritical insight and praise, such as the 2013 study by Barr, Goeldner and Heller. http://www.localfilmcultures.ca/?page_id=2537. 10. This passage from a related press release announcing 28 titles at the 2013 edition illustrates which festivals Hot Docs takes programming cues from: “Award-winners from the recent international festival circuit include BLOOD BROTHER (Grand Jury Prize: Documentary, and Audience Choice Award: Documentary, Sundance 2013), GIDEON’S ARMY (Documentary Editing Award, Sundance 2013), PUSSY RIOT—A PUNK PRAYER (World Cinema Documentary Special Jury Prize, Sundance 2013), THE MACHINE WHICH MAKES EVERYTHING DISAPPEAR (World Cinema Directing Award: Dramatic, Sundance 2013), and WHO IS DAYANI CRISTAL? (World Cinema Cinematography Award: Documentary, Sundance 2013).” http://www.hotdocs.ca/media/press_ releases/hot_docs_announces_28_high_profile_special_presentations. 11. According to Entertainment Media Partners, the average budget of a documentary feature at Sundance is US $400,000 and in 2015 the accumulated budgets of all 45 accepted documentaries at the festival totalled US $18 million. http://www.culturalweekly.com/sundance-infographic-2015dollars-and-distribution/. 12. For a more focused fleshing out of these concepts, see: “Upping the Anti: Documentary, Capitalism and Liberalism in an Age of Austerity,” POV Magazine, Issue 92, Winter 2013 http://povmagazine.com/articles/ view/upping-the-anti. 13. I follow John Downing’s (2001) insistence on the use of the ‘radical’ signifier as an addition to alternative media in order to stress its political orientation (in contra-distinction to fascist and liberal alternative media for instance). 14. All this is to say that positioning documentary as an alternative media form has both obvious and equivocal connotations. On the one hand, it is near common sense that documentary is a kind of ‘alternative’ to other mainstream media, yet it is not always framed as such in the scholarship. Further, some documentary works share more alternative qualities than others (the radical committed documentary representing an ideal type). And like Nichols (2013, xv) I leverage particular films as examples not to create the

218 

E. WINTON

impression that there exists an alternative documentary canon, but that some works are “indicative of specific questions or exemplify important approaches to certain issues … [and] although illustrative they do not amount to a history of the genre” (Ibid.); or in this case, a sub-genre. In other words, I mention radical committed documentaries like Heart of Sky and others to help frame a discussion of docs-as-alternative-media as they relate to mainstream festivals. 15. Frauke Sandig & Eric Black, email interview with filmmakers, September, 2013. 16. See the short film “Forget Shorter Showers” here: https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=m2TbrtCGbhQ. 17. Readers interested in a critique of this film can check out my review here: http://povmagazine.com/articles/view/review-bee-nation; for a followup piece written in response to the active debate over the film, go here: http://povmagazine.com/articles/view/a-structured-inequity 18. Following the flare-up around Hot Docs’s programming of Bee Nation (Lana Šlezić) as opening film in 2017 (this incident is discussed at length in Winton  Forthcoming), the festival took swift action to diversify its Board, which at the time of writing had increased its Members of Colour from one to four (out of 21). At time of writing Hot Docs has two People of Colour in senior programming positions; No People of Colour are in management positions for the festival’s main industry event, the Hot Docs Summit, nor are in paid positions to oversee Hot Docs’s African film fund (some African volunteers are part of a project selection committee, according to the festival). https://www.hotdocs.ca/board-of-directors. 19. http://povmagazine.com/articles/view/ngo-doc. 20. http://povmagazine.com/articles/view/ngo-doc. 21. https://towardfreedom.com/archives/globalism/arundhati-roy-the-ngoization-of-resistance. 22. Brand synergy was on display at the 2017 edition of Hot Docs, where a trailer for a new documentary, to be released soon after the festival in the Hot Docs-owned Bloor Cinema, played before every screening. In the Name of All Canadians was commissioned by Hot Docs, and bares the reference: “A Hot Docs Film.” More about the film here: http://www. inthenameofallcanadians.com/. 23. https://www.hotdocs.ca/i/hot-docs-blue-ice-group-documentary-fund. 24. The 2017 edition of Hot Docs opened with a film that was pitched at the festival the year before: Bee Nation by Lana Šlezić; the CBC article on the best Canadian pitch can be read here: https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/hot-docs-has-40-000-for-best-canadian-pitch-1.862958. 25. I borrow the expression from INCITE’s website (2007): “INCITE! Women, Gender Non-Conforming, and Trans people of Color∗ Against

  MAINSTREAMING DOCUMENTARY AND ACTIVISM AT TORONTO’S HOT… 

219

Violence is a U.S. based activist organization of radical feminists of color advancing a movement to end violence against women of color and our communities through direct action, critical dialogue and grassroots organizing.” http://www.incite-national.org/page/about-incite. 26. Such writing occurs in both academic and popular culture contexts, a latter example of which can be found at https://www.theguardian.com/ film/2008/jan/06/sundancefilmfestival.festivals.

References Ahn, SooJeong. 2012. The Pusan International Film Festival, South Korean Cinema and Globalization. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Atkinson, Joshua D. 2010. Alternative Media and Politics of Resistance: A Communication Perspective. Bern: Peter Lang. Aufderheide, Patricia. 2000. The Daily Planet: A Critic on the Capitalist Culture Beat. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Choudry, Aziz, and Dip Kapoor, eds. 2013. NGOization: Complicity, Contradictions and Prospects. London: Zed Books. Cottrell, Matt Dee. 2009. The Question Concerning the Cooptation of the Sundance Film Festival: An Analysis of the Commodification of Independent Cinema. MSc thesis, Utah State University. Damiens, Antoine. 2017. “Festivals, Uncut: Queer/ing Festival Studies, Curating Queerness.” PhD diss. Concordia University. Davies, Lyell. 2018. Not Only Projections in a Dark Room: Theorizing Activist Film Festivals in the Lives of Campaign and Social Movements. Frames Cinema Journal, Issue 13, May 2018. de Valck, Marijke. 2007. Film Festivals: From European Geopolitics to Global Cinephilia. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Downing, John. 2001. Radical Media: Rebellious Communication and Social Movements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Falicov, Tamara L. 2010. Migrating from South to North: The Role of Film Festivals in Funding and Shaping Global South Film and Video. In Locating Migrating Media, ed. Greg Elmer, Charles H. Davis, Janine Marchessault, and John McCollough, 3–22. Lanham: Lexington Books. Gaines, Jane M. 1999. Political Mimesis. In Collecting Visible Evidence, ed. Jane M. Gaines and Michael Renov. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Howley, Kevin. 2010. Understanding Community Media. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence. 2007. The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond the Non-Profit Industrial Complex. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.

220 

E. WINTON

Iordanova, Dina, and Leshu Torchin, eds. 2012. Film Festival Yearbook 4: Film Festivals and Activism. St Andrews: St Andrews Film Studies. Jackson, Peter. 1990. The Cultural Politics of Masculinity: Towards a Social Geography. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers: New Series 16 (2): 199–213. Kozolanka, Kirsten, Patricia Mazepa, and David Skinner, eds. 2012. Alternative Media in Canada. Vancouver: UBC Press. Linebaugh, Peter. 2014. Stop, Thief!: The Commons, Enclosures, and Resistance. Oakland, CA: PM Press. Loist, Skadi, and Ger Zielinski. 2012. On the Development of Queer Film Festivals and Their Media Activism. In Film Festival Yearbook 4: Film Festivals and Activism, ed. Dina Iordanova and Leshu Torchin, 49–62. St Andrews: St Andrews Film Studies. Nichols, Bill. 2013. The Question of Evidence, the Power of Rhetoric and Documentary Film. In The Documentary Film Book, ed. Brian Winston, 33–39. London: British Film Institute. Parenti, Michael. 2006. The Culture Struggle. New York: Seven Stories Press. Peranson, Mark. 2009. First Your Get The Power, Then You Get The Money: Two Models of Film Festivals. In Dekalog 3: On Film Festivals, ed. Richard Porton, 23–37. London: Wallflower Press. Turnin, Svetla, and Ezra Winton. 2014. Introduction: Encounters with Documentary Activism. In Screening Truth to Power: A Reader on Documentary Activism, ed. Svetla Turnin and Ezra Winton, 17–28. Montréal: Cinema Politica. Waugh, Thomas, ed. 1984. Show Us Life: Toward a History and Aesthetics of the Committed Documentary. Metuchen: The Scarecrow Press. Winton, Ezra. Forthcoming. Buying In to Doing Good: Documentary Politics and Curatorial Ethics at the Hot Docs Film Festival. Montréal and Kingston: McGillQueen’s University Press. Wong, Cindy Hing-Yuk. 2011. Film Festivals: Culture, People, and Power on the Global Screen. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Zielinski, Ger. 2008. Furtive, Steady Glances: On the Emergence and Cultural Politics of Lesbian and Gay Film Festivals. PhD diss., McGill University.

Interviews Turnin, Svetla. 2014. Unpublished Interview with Anand Patwardhan. Winton, Ezra. 2011a. Unpublished Interview with Peter Wintonick. ———. 2011b. Unpublished Interview with Barri Cohen. ———. 2013a. “Good for the Heart and Soul, Good for Business.” PhD diss., Concordia University. ———. 2013b. Unpublished Interview with Paul Jay. ———. 2013c. Unpublished Interview with Sean Farnel. ———. 2013d. Unpublished Interview with Amy Miller.

The Development of Documentary Film Festivals in India: A Small-Media Phenomenon Giulia Battaglia

This chapter addresses documentary film festivals in India as small-media practices. Although inscribed in a grounded local festival tradition, documentary film festivals in India multiplied and took a specific form with the advent of modern technologies throughout the decade of 2000s, which enabled practitioners to go beyond official festival circuits and state institutions. While scholars may address these practices as “alternative media” forms (cf. Couldry and Curran 2003; Reeves 1993), we can also frame them within what others have called “small media” practices (Sreberny-­ Mohammadi and Mohammadi 1994). The origin of the term small media dates back to the early 1990s when Sreberny-Mohammadi and Mohammadi focused their analysis of the 1978–1979 Iranian revolution from the perspective of the production and circulation of audio cassettes and leaflets seen as precisely the ‘small media’ that facilitated and fostered a general mobilisation. Recently, some scholars have included in the description of small media not only media produced at a ‘small’ scale but also the use of

G. Battaglia (*) IRMECCEN, Université Sorbonne Nouvelle, Paris 3, Paris, France © The Author(s) 2020 A. Vallejo, E. Winton (eds.), Documentary Film Festivals Vol. 1, Framing Film Festivals, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17320-3_14

221

222 

G. BATTAGLIA

Internet platforms, such as blogs or listservs, when these online iterations challenge the control of information of mainstream media (cf. Sreberny and Khiabany 2010) or directly mobilise groups (Spitulnik 2002, 181). Documentary film festivals, conceived as also forms of ‘campaign’ or ‘protest,’ however, are yet to be integrated in such debate. As this chapter demonstrates, the 2004 Indian film festival and filmmakers campaign— ‘Vikalp—Films for Freedom’—is one example that can help initiate this much-needed incorporation. This festival not only transformed the tradition of Indian documentary film festivals into a small-media practice but also created a community of filmmakers at a national level—who had until then been scattered across the country. The material presented in this chapter is the result of ethnographic and historical research conducted in India over 20 months between 2007 and 2009 (see Battaglia 2018), and its analysis is mostly based on the outcome of reflections and exchanges I had with scholars and filmmakers after 2009 around that time. This chapter looks at the role of Vikalp in the transformation and evolution of the Indian documentary community. I begin with a general overview and discussion of the emergence and development of documentary film festivals in the subcontinent. Then I move to some historical ethnographic material concerning Vikalp—Films for Freedom and how such a festival and campaign—what I would call ‘festival-protest’—initiated a small-media phenomenon across the country. I put particular emphasis on the role of online communication in the articulation of the documentary community within the country as well as in the promotion of coordinated actions. Finally, I reflect on the influence that Vikalp had in the documentary festival sphere in India developed in subsequent years.

A Brief History of Documentary Screenings in India Shortly after its independence in 1947, the first government of India set up a branch of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting specializing in the production and distribution of documentary and short films. In 1948, this branch was called the ‘Films Division’ (henceforth FD). The FD quickly became “the single largest producer of documentary films in the world” and, in India, “could claim an average audience strength of eight million viewers every week” (Roy 2007, 34) thanks to compulsory screenings in cinema halls before the main feature film (cf. also Thapa 1985). While the majority of the FD productions and screenings were instructional films produced by people employed by the government, in different historical periods, the FD also collaborated with several

  THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCUMENTARY FILM FESTIVALS IN INDIA… 

223

s­ tate-­independent filmmakers, producing different typologies of films, yet not often screened to the public. Many of these state-independent filmmakers were active in the documentary field since the colonial period, teaching the medium to younger generations who have continued practising documentary filmmaking until the present day. The FD functioned as an important state organ in the production of documentary films until the 1980s, when, as I argue elsewhere, the arrival of video technology and multiplication of non-state film practices transformed the situation (cf. Battaglia 2014). Challenged by the early 1990s development of the state television channel Doordarshan, in 1994 the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting stopped the mandate of making the screening of the FD films compulsory in cinema halls (Chatterjee 1994). The years of transformation also coincided with the setting-up and early development of the first Bombay International Film Festival for Documentary and Short Films (henceforth BIFF) in which both the FD and independent practitioners became actively involved (Prabhu 1992; Zaidi 1992; Waugh 2012). There is no official account that can tell us when the first documentary film festival emerged in India. Nevertheless, during my 2007–2009 fieldwork, I had the chance to discuss the history of documentary film practices and film festivals with different professionals across the country. I also had the opportunity to take a look at official and unofficial documents that made references to the possibility of the establishment of such institutions. What emerged from this research is that parallel to the activities of the FD there have been independent film activities conducted by an association of independent individuals called the Independent Documentary Producers Association, or IDPA (cf. Mohan 1972, 1990). In December 1956 independent filmmakers not officially working for the FD formally got together and created the IDPA.  It is thanks to this association that India’s first documentary festival took place in 1958, when a group of independent filmmakers in Bombay organized what they called “The IDPA Documentary Film Festival” and, following an already-existing tradition of travelling cinema mostly developed throughout the colonial period (cf. Hughes 2010), travelled with films from Bombay to Delhi, Madras and Calcutta organising different screening activities (cf. Mohan 1972, 1990). This festival typology had been repeated twice but it did not last for longer than these two editions. As Mohan (1972, 1990) and Garga (2007) have widely narrated, the IDPA activities had rapidly merged into the FD’s activities when during

224 

G. BATTAGLIA

the 1960s the FD opened its doors to independent producers. However, by that time the FD had already been involved in other state film activities not necessarily linked to documentary film practices. Amongst them there was the International Film Festival of India (IFFI). Although supported by the FD, the fiction-dominated IFFI did not give importance to documentary films until 1985. According to Pankaj Butalia, a well-known Indian filmmaker and film festival programmer, this development occurred thanks to the initiative of a single female filmmaker, Meera Dewan, who was at the time supported by the Federation of Film Societies of India (FFSI). This was one of the first concrete initiatives that opened the door for the creation of the Bombay International Film Festival for Documentary and Short Films.1 During the 1985 IFFI, ‘Documedia’ was the first ‘documentary panorama’ created in India for international documentary films and ‘Shorts-1’ was the second such attempt. The latter was organized in Calcutta by the Seagull Film Society and the FFSI, along with private funding. ‘Shorts-1’ screened several international films and two films made in India in the early 1980s—Shashi Anand’s Man vs. Man and Meera Dewan’s Gift of Love—both financially supported by the FD. Due to inadequate funding, ‘Shorts-1’ failed to grow over the following years (cf. Rao 2001). Despite this, A.K. Dey argues the festival was perceived as a great success and “led the Government of India [to] entrust […] the Federation [FFSI] with the responsibility of organizing the Documedia in both the Filmotsav ‘86 [in Hyderabad] and the 11th IFFI [in New Delhi]” (1987, 46). Between 1986 and 1988 the FFSI took charge of organising the documentary panorama within the IFFI. During this period, different kinds of specialized seminars also took place. One of these dealt with the possibility of creating a separate film festival dedicated solely to documentary films (cf. Chanana 1988). According to Pankaj Butalia, “although the idea was to create a state-independent festival, managed by the FFSI, in the end the government created another state-institution for documentary film, run by the FD.”2 This was the beginning of BIFF, started in 1990 as a biennial international festival of documentary film (today also known as MIFF— the acronym was altered when Bombay’s name was officially changed to Mumbai in 1995). Since its inception, BIFF has served as a platform for filmmakers to both screen their films and watch other documentary films made in India. If the first BIFF was not particularly successful—as it primarily focused on international filmmakers such as Trinh T. Minh-ha and Dennis O’Rourke

  THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCUMENTARY FILM FESTIVALS IN INDIA… 

225

to mention a few (cf. Prabhu 1990; Zaidi 1992)—the second, in 1992, should probably be considered the turning point for documentary practices in India (Prabhu 1992, 69). For the first time, Indian filmmakers came out in large numbers to meet and share their concerns and knowledge. BIFF became a platform for filmmakers to articulate debates about documentary practices, to get to know each other and to shed light on women filmmakers who had up to that point been left on the margins of the history of documentary film in the country. As the only physical place in which to meet with fellow filmmakers, BIFF acted as a ‘material conduit’ (Larkin 2008) that enabled the production and free circulation of what Friedrich Kittler (1990) has called a ‘discourse network’ concerned with documentary film practices. Indeed, because of its immediate popularity, BIFF brought together practices of filmmaking that by then were scattered across the country. Nevertheless, BIFF, and later on MIFF, has for long remained another state institution at odds with independent film practices. As such, about ten years after it was created, it had to grapple with the complicated problem of cinematic censorship in relation to the audience. To understand film censorship in India, William Mazzarella develops a theory of “performative dispensation” suggesting that, “any claim to sovereign power is also a claim on a particular relation between sensuous incitement and symbolic order” (2013, 3), where also audiences play an active role in relation to cinematic regulations. It is precisely at this complicated juncture that in late 2003 and early 2004 independent practitioners from all over the country came together as a community to initiate an alternative festival-­ protest called Vikalp—Films for Freedom, doing so in the name of freedom of expression. In this context, the first uses of Internet technologies played a key role. In particular, emails and online listservs enabled documentary filmmakers to come together as a community to claim space in public fora and to defend their freedom of expression against state control. In their first use in the Indian context, mailing lists and listservs can be considered as forms of ‘small media’ that are, in Sreberny-Mohammadi and Mohammadi’s words, “participatory, public phenomena, controlled neither by big states nor big corporations” that do not follow “formal parties or organized unions,” and thus are “vehicles for direct participation in the mediated communications process and for the extension of the voices of groups and ideas otherwise not heard” (1994, 20–22). Building on this idea, Debra Spitulnik has argued that the literature on democratisation has forgotten to give due attention to “the whole set of

226 

G. BATTAGLIA

alternative small media that are significant in helping people create meaningful communicative spaces for themselves” (2002, 177). These media create alternative spheres of communication and challenge state power. They are often localized in more territories or operate in cyber and virtual spaces, sometimes expanding beyond the nation (Ibid., 179). Small media occupy an intermediary position between the ‘new’ and the ‘old,’ and function as “expressive devices in the formation of group identities” (Ibid., 181); they “foster an imaginative social solidarity, often as the precursor for actual physical mobilization” (Sreberny-Mohammadi and Mohammadi 1994, 24). Vikalp—Films for Freedom (henceforth Vikalp) is surely an example of this. As I shall demonstrate, it not only transformed an online network of practitioners into a national community of filmmakers but also enabled the development of a widespread practice of ‘small-media’ festivals.

Vikalp—Films for Freedom Vikalp is a bit like Rashomon! It never existed in a formal shape, it does not exist, yet it never stopped existing, and it will always exist. It is an intriguing range of memories and perceptions, many layers of varying and overlapping truths, seemingly in conflict, yet in a state of benign coexistence. (Rakesh Sharma, listserv communication, July 2009). I am sure everyone will tell you a different story. My memory is that in July 2003 I read the advert for MIFF 2004 and realised that in order to participate, films required a censor certificate. I started wondering what this was and I sent a few emails to find out. I received an immediate response from other filmmakers who were wondering the same thing. From here somehow it all began. (Sanjay Kak, personal communication, June 2008)

In February 2004 Vikalp mobilized filmmakers from all over the country. For the first time, 250 filmmakers came together to fight the arbitrary introduction of the censor certificate as a mandatory precondition for Indian documentary films entered into MIFF 2004. However, as the quotations above suggest, narratives about the emergence of Vikalp are often contradictory. Kurosawa’s film Rashomon is accurately used in this context to highlight these incongruities.3 During my 2007–2009 fieldwork, I engaged in conversations with filmmakers about the beginning of Vikalp. I noticed that every time I attempted to start the discussion with information obtained from another

  THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCUMENTARY FILM FESTIVALS IN INDIA… 

227

filmmaker, my interlocutor would often respond: “This is not true.” Precisely because “Vikalp is a bit like Rashomon,” it might be useful to highlight its historical significance outside of the position of the existing contradictory narratives, focusing on the technological and socio-­historical elements that brought this ‘community’ together. To do this, it is informative to start from the online debate that emerged in July 2003 (prior to Vikalp) led by New Delhi film practitioners. If Vikalp as a film festival occurred in March 2004, as a protest, a campaign or a movement, it began in July 2003 because it was at this time that the new regulation for MIFF 2004 film entries came out. In other words, it was at this time that filmmakers realized that in order to submit their films they should have had a censor certificate. The filmmakers in New Delhi who were involved in the July 2003 email exchange against the new regulations at MIFF 2004, included Amar Kanwar, Pankaj Butalia, Rahul Roy, Saba Dewan, Sameera Jain and Sanjay Kak. By this time, most of these filmmakers had already been involved in other, more localized, campaigns for freedom of speech and expression (cf. Battaglia 2018). In this case however, thanks to the de-territorialization of Internet technology and specifically the use of ‘listservs,’ which by then became a popular phenomenon in India, the discussion was not limited to only New Delhi filmmakers. Approximately 90 filmmakers from across the country immediately responded to the early e-messages or ‘digests’—as filmmakers at the time of my 2007–2009 fieldwork called the exchange of emails that occurred between July 2003 and March 2004. In a couple of months, this number tripled. However, the six ‘Delhi-based filmmakers’ listed above functioned as influential ‘leaders’ of the virtual conversations and as a sort of already established sub-group of practitioners. Indeed, by analyzing the communication that occurred in the digests, one can observe that these practitioners frequently talked as a group or as a collective, never taking individual initiatives or expressing individual opinions. This was probably due to their past experience with other campaigns, which had already enabled them to establish a ‘temporary’ community through which to express their rights as filmmakers (cf. Battaglia 2018). Thus, like any other small media, Vikalp built upon existing ties but functioned as an “expressive device […] in the formation of group identities” (Spitulnik 2002, 181). The name ‘Vikalp’ does not date back to the initial formation of this documentary community in India. In the beginning, the group called the movement the “Campaign against Censorship at MIFF.”4 The intention

228 

G. BATTAGLIA

of the group was to present filmmakers’ concerns about the introduction of censor certificates at MIFF 2004 to the press and the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (I&B). Together with the FD, the Ministry of I&B was in charge of organizing MIFF.  With this specific target in mind, the online crowd of filmmakers grew fairly rapidly and by September 2003 news of the group had already reached the public domain. Newspapers—such as The Hindu (September 16, 2003a; September 19, 2003b), The Times of India (September 19, 2003), Hindustan Times (September 16, 2003) and The Indian Express (September 17, 2003a; September 19, 2003b)—dedicated columns to detailed descriptions of the mobilization and, within a few months, the campaign had escalated. As a result, in December 2003 MIFF withdrew the censor certificate precondition for film entries. Five months of intense campaigning had made it possible to both reach a victory and create a “community of practice”—that is, as for Lave and Wenger, “a set of relations among persons, activity, and world, over time and in relation with other tangential and overlapping community of practice” (1991, 98). After achieving this outcome, the New Delhi group wrote a follow-up email to the online network of filmmakers. Dear friends, Over the past five months there has been an unprecedented coming together of documentary practitioners from all over the country on the issue of censorship at MIFF. This might be read as an expression of the general frustration we feel at not being able to fight those who would attempt to extend control over our minds and lives. But it is also indicative of the fact that the documentary community feels that the time is ripe to exert some control over institutions which determine the production and distribution of its work. The question that seems to be on the lips of many is ‘What now?’ Do we consolidate our efforts in the form of an organisation that intervenes in different situations? Should we be content to remain a pressure lobby which materialises whenever there is a need, and disappears when there is none? Or should we be more pro-active in shaping institutions which support and influence documentary film-making? […] These are only some of the questions that have been raised in the past few months. Please do take this seriously and find the time to think about these, discuss with others so we can share our responses. In solidarity, Amar, Pankaj, Rahul, Saba, Sameera, Sanjay (December 12, 2003, emphasis added).

  THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCUMENTARY FILM FESTIVALS IN INDIA… 

229

As emerges from this email, by December 2003 the New Delhi group was already addressing the online network of filmmakers as a ‘documentary community’ with shared feelings about the production and distribution of films. Up to this point, the ‘community’ existed only in an online form and was constituted by names and places listed together on virtual pages. Perhaps it would have remained as such if, at the end of 2003, some filmmakers had not noticed that in reality MIFF had informally maintained the censor restrictions. In fact, even though it officially withdrew the censor certificate precondition from the entry form, MIFF made sure to exclude films submitted without certificates. Filmmakers interpreted this manoeuvre as a ‘lobby’ against their campaign and, in their words, they were “horrified to see some of the best and most provocative films left out” (Films for Freedom Festival Booklet 2004, 4). Amongst the films refused by MIFF were a great number that had already been screened in international film festivals and art galleries, including the MOMA in New York, the IDFA in Amsterdam, Sundance Film Festival, Yamagata International Documentary Film Festival, Leipzig International Film Festival and Hong Kong International Film Festival, to mention a few. Over time, some of the films excluded from MIFF have also received international recognition of various kinds and festival awards. They included A Night of Prophecy by Amar Kanwar; Kaya Pooche Maya Se by Arvind Sinha; Narayan Gangaram Surve by Arun Khopkar; Naata by Anjali Monteiro and K.P.  Jayshankar; New Improved Delhi by Vani Subramanian and Surajit Sarkar; The City Beautiful by Rahul Roy; Final Solution by Rakesh Sharma; Nee Engey by R.V. Ramani; Sita’s Family by Saba Dewan; Words On Water by Sanjay Kak; Umarutram by Sivakumar. Because of such international recognition and an overall discontent from the way in which MIFF 2004 was organized, at the beginning of 2004 filmmakers decided to come together physically and organize a festival-­campaign against censorship. Those behind the campaign chose the name ‘Vikalp—Films for Freedom’ and it took place in parallel with MIFF in Mumbai. In other words, the already established online network had, in fact, functioned “as the precursor for actual physical mobilization” (Sreberny-Mohammadi and Mohammadi 1994, 24). As such, a virtual community of filmmakers was transformed into a physical community (Images 1 and 2). As the result of a quick decision taken by filmmakers over email and mobile phones, Vikalp took place in February 2004. The rapid organization of the festival-protest was facilitated by the fact that in January 2004

230 

G. BATTAGLIA

Image 1  Vikalp. Mumbai, Festival 2004

the World Social Forum was taking place in Mumbai and several Indian filmmakers and films were already present in Mumbai for that reason. This combination of already-available films and filmmakers sped up the process of organizing Vikalp in time for February. As Anjali Monteiro pointed out to me, “all Mumbai-based filmmakers made Vikalp physically possible.

  THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCUMENTARY FILM FESTIVALS IN INDIA… 

231

Image 2  Vikalp. Films for Freedom—slogans

From the beginning, they coordinated the organization of the event through mobile communications.”5 In other words, while New Delhi practitioners were in charge of the coordination of the event online (and expanded the network to include international filmmakers and academics), Mumbai practitioners took care of the offline logistics. With VHS film copies and a minimum contribution of 500 rupees per film (at that time equivalent to approximately 10 pounds sterling) to cover

232 

G. BATTAGLIA

festival expenses, in less than a month, independent filmmakers were able to organize a parallel, alternative and ‘small-media’ film festival. Fiftyeight films were screened at Vikalp, covering a wide range of issues including communal politics, caste, gender discrimination and the politics of development—all topics frequently repressed by the censor board. The event ran for a week and, according to what filmmakers wrote in one of the festival booklets, it was “an unprecedented success” (Films for Freedom Festival Booklet 2004, 4). Both national and international media reported on the alternative festival, including the BBC (February 6, 2004), The Guardian (February 3, 2004) and Aljazeera (February 8, 2004).6 At a national level, The Hindu (February 22, 2004), The Indian Express (January 25, 2004), Hindustan Times (February 6, 2004) and The Telegraph (January 28, 2004) supported the festival-protest with positive headlines and reports. In particular, The Telegraph drew attention to an incident that helped give shape to the widespread support that Vikalp secured. The incident concerned the renowned playwright Girish Karnad, who decided to resign as chairman of the jury for MIFF 2004—“in the wake of a tussle between independent documentary film-makers and the Films Division over censorship and selection” (The Telegraph, India, January 28, 2004). As Karnad told The Telegraph, after the threat of a total boycott by independent filmmakers, “a new method of selection was introduced in which, though the members of the selection committee were under no political pressure, the final collation of marks awarded by these members was left to an officer of the Films Division, with no independent member participating in the final decision” (Ibid.). At this historical juncture, the relationship between independent documentary filmmakers and the state became increasingly bitter. Some scholars such as Vinay Lal assert that after Vikalp “one can consequently indulge oneself in the belief that documentary film-makers will no longer exist at the margins of political and artistic activity in India” (2005, 185). Rather, we can better say that thanks to Vikalp, filmmakers have begun to reconsider their film practices in relation to the state. Moreover, for the first time, the use of small-media practices made publicly visible an independent documentary film movement as a small-media practice and physically possible the existence of a community of filmmakers on a national scale. Despite the collective energy that emerged in the early 2000s, this movement did not last for long. With the exception of Bangalore, Calcutta and Shillong (which soon after Vikalp organised a festival maintaining the

  THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCUMENTARY FILM FESTIVALS IN INDIA… 

233

same name), Vikalp did not travel further than its initial festival-protest and today its name refers to this particular moment of mobilization of filmmakers and not to a sustained movement of anti-censorship in India. After the Vikalp experience indeed, MIFF stopped asking for a censor certificate as a prerequisite for submission and over the time it became more open to independent documentary practices increasingly including, for example, independent filmmakers as part of the MIFF selection committee. At the same time, the use of digital technologies increasingly widespread in the subcontinent allowing an easier organization of film screenings and ‘small-media’ festivals in private venues where the government could no longer intervene in disagreement with the subject screened and discussed. In other words, Vikalp functioned as the catalyst for the development of other forms of film screenings across the country and in the history and memory of individuals has remained a stand-alone example of freedom of speech. “Vikalp should be considered as the first and the last movement of documentary filmmakers in India,” says the renowned filmmaker and editor Reena Mohan.7 Indeed, to date, there has been no other wide-scale mobilization of filmmakers (cf. also Waugh 2012). And, when I searched for the ‘spirit’ of Vikalp in contemporary filmmakers’ practices, I immediately realized that it had become a depository memory. At the time of my 2007–2009 fieldwork, indeed, several filmmakers talked about Vikalp as Rashomon8—perhaps to avoid further questions about the fact that Vikalp had faded from the documentary scene.

Conclusions: Documentary Festivals After Vikalp If Vikalp was the first and maybe the last documentary film movement in India, it also signalled the beginning of the consolidation of a community of filmmakers and of documentary festivals as small-media practices. Filmmakers in India have never physically mobilized again, but an ‘official’ online community of documentary filmmakers has indeed emerged. Although by this time online listservs were already being used by filmmakers (for example, a listserv called Docuwallahs has existed since 2001— that in a second time transformed into Docuwallahs2), a national network of practitioners was yet to be formed. With Vikalp, a specialized listserv emerged, restricted to those filmmakers who participated at Vikalp. This new listserv not only united filmmakers across the country but also helped to revitalize other listservs, such as Docuwallahs. Over time, both Vikalp’s listserv and Docuwallahs’ listserv have served as virtual spaces for d ­ iscussion

234 

G. BATTAGLIA

and to inform and mobilize documentary practitioners. These listservs have been ‘resistant’ to more contemporary social media platforms such as Facebook (and in more recent time have become complementary) and thus require further academic investigation. In addition, the activities and initiatives shared in the listservs have fostered the emergence of a multiplication of small-scale independent film festivals and screenings across the country. It is as if practitioners have begun to be linked through virtual spaces but have continued to act locally in their physical space. However, while for many filmmakers the name ‘Vikalp’ has come to be a depository memory, the spirit of ‘alternative,’ ‘independent’ and ‘small-media’ festivals has remained, though manifested through other regionalized and more localized ‘small’ media festivals or screening practices. When I began my fieldwork in India, for example, at the end of 2007, it was almost impossible to be able to participate in all the existent documentary film festivals across the country. For about six months there was a documentary festival occurring almost in every corner. The Madurai Documentary Film Festival in Tamil Nadu, Vibgyor in Kerala and BYOFF (Bring Your Own Film Festival) in Puri (Orissa/Odisha) are only some of the known small-scale festivals. Along with this, local organizations and collectives of individuals also mushroomed across India enabling small festivals and screening facilities in rural parts of India as well as University campus in metropolises. ‘Marupakkam’ in Madurai (Tamil Nadu), ‘Akhra’ in Ranchi (Jharkhand), ‘Third Eye Communication’ in Cochin (Kerala), ‘Vikalp-Bangalore’ in Bangalore (Karnataka), ‘Pedestrian Pictures’ in Bangalore (Kerala), ‘Cinema of Resistance’ in Gorakhpur (Uttar Pradesh), ‘Vikalp Prithvi’ in Mumbai (Maharashtra) and ‘Media Solidarity’ in Kolkata (West Bengal) were the most active at the time of my stay in the subcontinent. Throughout my several interactions with filmmakers in these festival venues, it became clear to me that Vikalp for them had remained a stand-­ alone moment in history that had enabled other practices to exist—independent from the state but also from private funding. New technologies had gradually allowed for the reproduction of film copies and mobile projections in a cheaper and more moveable manner. Meanwhile, listservs9 have continued to function as a way to circulate communications about the organization of festivals inviting filmmakers to take part. In this respect, digital technologies at large have been fundamental for allowing films and their constituent critical resistance to travel across the country (cf. Battaglia and Favero 2014). In such a scenario, as another well-known

  THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCUMENTARY FILM FESTIVALS IN INDIA… 

235

Indian ­filmmaker Sanjay Kak pointed out, for many the question of state censorship faded away. What has become more important in the contemporary day has been to convince ‘the mob.’ In his words, indeed, “the only way to be censored in contemporary India is not to be able to convince multiple audiences with your film. The mob can always make use of state power to stop a public screening; otherwise, documentary films can more easily speak to an audience today.”10 In short, with the advent of digital technology and thus the easier circulation of DVDs and film projectors, screening facilities have become more accessible and have cut down all the costs enabling festivals to multiply in number without the need of a big budget for their realization. Listservs have continued to play an important role to circulate information about the multiple screenings and festivals existent in India. At present, the scale of these festivals changes all the time, yet the quality of films remains. ‘Packages’ of selected films that had already received national and international recognition increasingly circulate outside the official exhibition spaces reaching the most remote areas of India. ‘Retrospectives’ of well-known Indian filmmakers such as Anand Patwardhan, Deepa Dhanraj, Ali Kazmi and Shabnam Virmani, to mention only a few, are often featured in the festivals; and filmmakers themselves take part in the event talking to different local publics interested in their work. To conclude, we can say that in a way Vikalp today functions as a historical legacy for contemporary documentary festivals scattered across the country (cf. also Waugh 2012), with the exception of Anand Patwardhan and Rakesh Sharma—who have built their entire careers and thus film productions in opposition to state regulations (cf. Mazzarella 2013; Battaglia 2018). Since the Vikalp experience, several documentary filmmakers have moved away from contesting state power in such a way and have begun instead to search even more explicitly for ‘alternative’ sites (cf. Couldry and Curran 2003; Reeves 1993; Fox and Starn 1997) in which to engage with their audiences and political discourses. In other words, documentary filmmakers have created new festival sites across the country in which to engage with politics (cf. also Deprez 2015). Because no longer in opposition to the mainstream, these new sites have more explicitly become ‘small-media’ practices (Spitulnik 2002) or ‘activist’ festivals (Iordanova and Torchin 2012) disconnected from state media power and therefore exist and proliferate outside the restrictions of official film festival circuits and state institutions. This proliferation of independent festival and screening activities has in the most recent years even pushed to a

236 

G. BATTAGLIA

restructuring of the Films Division institution, which has decided to open its doors to such initiatives by transforming its activities, and MIFF itself has been compelled to become a much more open space of exchange between independent and state documentary practices. At present, the idea of ‘documentary festival’ in India is conceived as a kind of alternative small-media practice. That is, an event of a small or large scale that any individual or organisation can organise with localized forms of crowdfunding and independently from mainstream discourses, practices and policies. Surely, this is a phenomenon that urges further attention for those interested in documentary festivals and small-media practices.

Notes 1. Conversation with Pankaj Butalia 20/04/09. See also Dey (1987) and http://dff.nic.in/iffi.asp. 2. Conversation with Pankaj Butalia 20/04/09. 3. Rashomon (1950) is a well-known Japanese film, directed by Akira Kurosawa. It talks about the rape of a woman and the murder of her husband through the contradictory narratives of different witnesses. The whole film is constructed through a flashback mode. 4. To read more about the campaign, consult the 2004 report entitled Resisting Censorship: Celebrating Freedom of Expression. 5. Conversation with media scholar and documentary filmmaker, Anjali Monteiro 18/04/09. 6. The BBC’s article is available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/ south_asia/3466691.stm. The article written by The Guardian is available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2004/feb/03/festivals/print Aljazeera’s article can be found at: http://english.aljazeera.net/archive/2004/02/ 20084913115164590.html. 7. Conversation with Reena Mohan 30/11/08. 8. See previous note on Kurosawa’s film. 9. As pointed out, this chapter focuses primarily on a period prior to the development of Facebook and Twitter (as the most effective vehicle of information at the time I write this chapter). Yet, what is important to highlight and worth exploring further is that at present, despite the wide use of Facebook across India, listservs continue to play a significant role in this community, challenging some contemporary media theories that see something exceptionally new in the most recent technologies. 10. Sanjay Kak, public seminar, International Video Festival of Kerala, May 2008.

  THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCUMENTARY FILM FESTIVALS IN INDIA… 

237

References Battaglia, Giulia. 2014. The Video Turn: Documentary Film Practices in 1980s India. Visual Anthropology 27 (1–2): 72–90. ———. 2018. Documentary Film in India: An Anthropological History. London: Routledge. Battaglia, Giulia, and Paolo Favero. 2014. Reflections Upon the Meaning of Contemporary Digital Image-making Practices in India. In Arts and Aesthetics in a Globalizing World, ed. Raminder Kaur and Parul Dave-Mukherji, 241– 258. London: Bloomsbury. Chanana, Openender. 1988. Documentary Today. Survival & Breakthrough. Cinema in India 2 (1): 34–36. Chatterjee, Partha. 1994. The Indian Documentary Scene Fraught with Hazards. Cinemaya: The Asian Film Quarterly 23 (Spring): 44–45. Couldry, Nick, and James Curran. 2003. Contesting Media Power: Alternative Media in a Networked World. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. Deprez, Camille. 2015. A Space in Between: The Legacy of the Activity Documentary Film in India. In Post-1990 Documentary: Reconfiguring Independence, ed. Camille Deprez and Judith Pernin. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Dey, A.K. 1987. An Alternative Network. Film Societies Role. In Docu-Scene India, ed. Opender Chanana. Bombay: Indian Documentary Producers Association. Fox, Richard, and Orin Starn. 1997. Between Resistance and Revolution: Cultural Politics and Social Protest. London: Rutgers University Press. Garga, B.D. 2007. From Raj to Swaraj. The Non-fiction Film in India. New Delhi: Penguin Viking. Hughes, P. Stephen. 2010. When Film Came to Madras. Bioscope 1 (2): 147–168. Iordanova, Dina, and Leshu Torchin. 2012. Film Festival Yearbook 4: Film Festivals and Activism. St Andrews: St Andrews Film Studies. Kittler, Friedrich A. 1990. Discourse Networks 1800/1900. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Lal, Vinay. 2005. Travails of the Nation. Some Notes on Indian Documentaries. Third Text 19 (2): 175–185. Larkin, Brian. 2008. Signal and Noise: Media, Infrastructure, and Urban Culture in Nigeria. Durham: Duke University Press. Lave, Jean, and Etienne Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mazzarella, William. 2013. Censorium: Cinema and the Open Edge of Mass Publicity. Delhi: Oriental BlackSwan. Mohan, Jag. 1972. Dr. P.V. Pathy. Pune: National Film Archive of India.

238 

G. BATTAGLIA

———. 1990. Documentary Films and National Awakening. New Delhi: Publications Division. Prabhu, V. Shrikant. 1990. Hope for the Non-Conformist. Documentary Festival in Retrospect. Deep Focus 3 (2): 47–50. Prabhu, V. Shrikant. 1992. The End of History and New Beginning in Cinema. Report on Bombay Documentary and Short Film Festival 1992. Deep Focus 4 (2): 68–72. Rao, H.N.Narahari. 2001. My Days with the Film Society Movement. Bangalore: Sibina Services. Reeves, Geoffrey. 1993. Communications and the “Third World”. London: Routledge. Roy, Srirupa. 2007. Moving Pictures: The Films Division of India and the Visual Practices of the Nation State. In Beyond Belief: India and the Politics of Postcolonial Nationalism. Durham and London: Duke University Press. Spitulnik, Debra. 2002. Alternative Small Media and Communication Spaces. In Media and Democracy in Africa, ed. Göran Hydén, Michael Leslie, and Folu Folarin Ogundimu. London: Transaction Publishers. Sreberny-Mohammadi, Annabelle, and Ali Mohammadi. 1994. Small Media, Big Revolution: Communication, Culture, and the Iranian Revolution. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Sreberny, Annabelle, and Gholam Khiabany. 2010. Blogistan: The Internet and Politics in Iran. New York: I.B. Tauris. Thapa, N.S. 1985. The documentary Film in India. Films Division at Work. In 70 Years of Indian Cinema (1913–1983), ed. T.M. Ramachandran and S. Rukmini. Bombay: Cinema India-International. Waugh, Thomas. 2012. Miffed! Or ‘Grasping for [Polluted?] Air’. Bioscope: South Asian Screen Studies 3 (1): 87–93. Zaidi, Shama. 1992. Catching the Wind. Cinema in India 3: 12–15.

Festival Catalogues, Non-academic Reviews

and

Reports

Films for Freedom: A Say NO to Censorship Festival. 2004. Festival Booklet. The Hindu. 2003a, September 16. Film-makers to Boycott Mumbai Festival. 4. ———. 2003b, September 19. No Censorship for Film Festival. 4. ———. 2004, February 22. Positive Protest. 5. Hindustan Times. 2003, September 16. Filmmakers Protest Censorship in Fest. 5. ———. 2004, February 6. Vikalp Generates More Response than MIFF. www. h i n d u s t a n t i m e s . c o m / o n l i n e C D A / P F Ve r s i o n . j s p ? a r t i c l e = h ttp://10.81.141.122/news/181_562758,0110030009.html The Indian Express. 2003a, September 17. Censor: MIFFed Filmmakers to Boycott Festival. 5. ———. 2003b, September 19. Prasad Says No Censor for Docus. 5.

  THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCUMENTARY FILM FESTIVALS IN INDIA… 

239

———. 2004, January 25. Film-makers Protest Fest, Organise Parallel Event. http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=74190 Resisting Censorship: Celebrating Freedom of Expression. 2004. Unpublished Report written and edited by a commission of the Campaign Against Censorship at MIFF. The Telegraph India. 2004, January 28. Karnad Quit Blow to Film Big Brother. www.telegraphindia.com/1040129/asp/others/print.html The Times of India. 2003, September 19. Docu-makers Are MIFFed No More. 6.

Found in Translation: Film Festivals, Documentary and the Preservation of Linguistic Diversity Antía López-Gómez, Aida Vallejo, Mª Soliña Barreiro, and Amanda Alencar

The internationalization of film circulation and the control over distribution channels by global corporations—mostly of US origin—has led to a current situation of cultural predomination of English-language productions.1 This context has limited linguistic diversity in contemporary cinema, especially in commercial circuits. Independent networks of film circulation, such as film festivals, exist as alternative spaces more open to peripheral cinemas and minor genres, including documentary. Their multiple levels of cultural intervention (between the international-global and the national/regional/local) have given space to a wider presence of films from a diversity of geographical origins, featuring multiple languages. The

A. López-Gómez (*) Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain e-mail: [email protected] A. Vallejo University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Leioa, Spain e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 A. Vallejo, E. Winton (eds.), Documentary Film Festivals Vol. 1, Framing Film Festivals, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17320-3_15

241

242 

A. LÓPEZ-GÓMEZ ET AL.

international character of film festivals therefore positions these events as privileged spaces for the preservation of linguistic diversity. Notably, screening films in the original language with subtitles is a widespread practice within the festival circuit—even in national contexts where dubbing is the norm. This chapter argues that research about minority-language films can be highly enriched if focused on the documentary genre. In opposition to the artificial imposition of dubbing practices, documentary films favour subtitling practices, providing the means for experiencing cultural diversity in multilingual contexts in a natural way, especially in the festival context, where subtitling is the norm. Based on a study of the institutional policies carried out by the European Union to foster and preserve linguistic diversity in the audio-visual realm, this chapter looks at film festivals that specialize in documentary film or minority languages, in order to interrogate their role in the visibility and circulation of cinemas featuring minority languages. Firstly, we analyze the specificities of documentary film as a genre that privileges the screening of works in their original languages with subtitles. Secondly, we focus on European policies in order to reflect on the challenges of creating a common audio-visual market in a multilingual context. Finally, we investigate the ways in which film festivals specializing in minority languages and documentary film overcome the difficulties of creating spaces of cultural translation that increase the visibility of minoritized languages,2 while balancing their local, regional and international dimensions.

Original Language Version, Documentary and Film Festivals Viewing a film in its original language contributes to experiencing it as a differentiated cultural phenomenon. Original Version (OV)3 calls for a specific frame of reception by the spectator. The interpretation of the film M. S. Barreiro Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain e-mail: [email protected] A. Alencar Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands e-mail: [email protected]

  FOUND IN TRANSLATION: FILM FESTIVALS, DOCUMENTARY… 

243

in OV is closely related to identity construction—felt as foreign or your own—and to cultural diversity. The linguistic integrity of a film is therefore a key aspect of cultural interpretation. This is especially apparent in documentary film, precisely due to the credibility and verisimilitude associated to this genre (Nichols 1991). The “truth claim” of documentary is indeed closely related to the linguistic reality it portrays. The documentary’s cultural specificity depends to a great extent on the faithful representation of the original language of the film during the screening. Moreover, documentary films hardly endure the imposition of language established by dubbing, due to both ontological and technical reasons. The first reason refers to the necessity, inherent to documentary, of maintaining the accuracy of the reported empirical facts. Culture is a crucial element for understanding the relationship between the audience and documentary film. Authenticity, even veracity, is understood as inherent to this genre. The access to culture provided by subtitling that respects the original sound of the recorded actuality is more important for the documentary spectator than fully linguistic mechanical comprehension—probably more accurate with dubbing than subtitling. We can therefore conclude that the documentary audience favours an experience inside a different reality—disregarding a possible loss of information—over a complete comprehension provided by fully understandable dialogues in their own language. A second reason can be explained by the technical limitations of recording live events. In fiction films, soundtracks are artificially constructed by adding different sounds separately. This facilitates dubbing processes with the inclusion of dialogues isolated in a single track. In opposition, audio recorded for documentary usually appears as a continuum whole capturing the documentary’s profilmic (sonic) reality. The only tracks that appear separately are those of voice-over and music, which are added in post-­ production—and can therefore be dubbed without technical impediments. Hence, it is no coincidence that the expository mode (Nichols 1991) privileged by these technical requirements is the norm in most documentaries made for television. This is a medium where sound prevails over image and dubbing is certainly more common in television than in cinematographic documentaries. New trends in documentary filmmaking offer alternative narratives to the use of the voice-over characteristic of the expository mode. Creative documentaries aimed for the big screen and exhibited at film festivals

244 

A. LÓPEZ-GÓMEZ ET AL.

have explored new aesthetic possibilities for documentary, especially since the 2000s. Those associated with observational aesthetics or offscreen first-person voice present a sonic reality that links the represented social actors with specific languages. Films such as Les glaneurs et la glaneuse (The Gleaners and I, Agnès Varda, 2000), with its rediscovery of the French territory gleaning glimpses of ordinary life; or Sweetgrass (Ilisa Barbash and Lucien Castaing-Taylor, 2009), with an observational approach to “authentic” contemporary cowboys’ jargon, are certainly connected to the specific linguistic realities in which their characters are immersed. The documentary film is a genre that mobilizes minority languages as well as the so-called minoritized languages, as opposed to dominant languages, which prevail in (commercial) fiction cinema. In his study of the presence of Indigenous languages in Argentinian documentary, Matías R. Canova notes that only the presence of the original language allows individuals to be part of a pre-existing culture—an intrinsic aspect of the documentary form (2013). Thus, actions taken by the people appearing in a film will be perceived by viewers as faithful to the portrayed reality only when using their language.4 This statement is challenged by international dynamics of film festival circulation that affect the relationship between social actors appearing in the films and audiences sharing their culture and language. Traditional film festivals give prestige to selected filmmakers, direct the attention of distributors towards particular films and decide on the inclusion/exclusion of films from public exhibition. Thus, filmmakers making films in non-hegemonic languages who aim to attain international recognition and increase exposure of their films, abandon the festivals within their own native exhibition areas in order to participate in “old major European festivals” or the newer “cosmopolitan festivals of North America,” usually located in centres of cultural domination and far away from peripheries (de Valck 2007, 71). This process weakens the natural circulation of minority language cinemas, including documentary, which has successfully fitted the call of the major circuit for innovative film forms. Only if they succeed in these major festivals, will auteurs be able to return to their own territories and reach a wider portion of their native audience. As Marijke de Valck notes when analysing this process on the basis of African cinema’s position in First and Third World film festivals, here “colonialism was replaced by new forms of domination that are, instead, operated globally and under the guise of open (fair) competition” (2007, 71).

  FOUND IN TRANSLATION: FILM FESTIVALS, DOCUMENTARY… 

245

This trend affects most peripheral cinemas, especially those that feature minoritized languages, whose cultural singularity pass unnoticed through the subtitle-dominated festival circuit. For example, the film movement Novo Cine Galego (New Galician Cinema) has been configured and has gained visibility in international film festivals before arriving in Galicia— an autonomous region with its own language situated north-west of Spain. This is apparent in the international circulation of documentaries such as Costa da Morte (Lois Patiño, Galicia, 2013) or Arraianos (Eloy Enciso, Galicia, 2012), films that are more authorial than national. Marta Pérez Pereiro and Fernando Redondo Neira have analyzed this phenomenon, emphasizing the need to recover these films for their native audiences: “A balance between exterior visibility, along with the presence of influential critics who follow these films in festivals and visibility inside their own territory should be an aspiration for a national cinema” (2014, 9). Hence, the absence of a network that enables reasonable visibility for minority language films pushes filmmakers to sacrifice the natural process of exhibition. Only when films have been recognized abroad, do they reach local audiences, who can then watch films in their own languages. As a consequence, minority language films have a weak circulation because they lack “adequate” instruments to establish a national canon, to foster production and to generate their own audience. That is the reason why many contemporary minority-language films tend to be more authorial than national cinemas. The “representation of reality” claimed by documentary film (Nichols 1991) is related not only to linguistic specificities but also to cultural identity as a whole. It mobilizes concepts such as Indigenous cultures or national identities. The debate about the role of language in the categorization of a film in relation to a specific cultural and/or geopolitical instance raises wider questions related to identity-construction. Is a film Quechua or Inuit because it portrays people speaking Indigenous languages? Are the cultural practices showcased by the film that which conforms its identity? Is authorship relevant to this categorization—when made by a member of the community or by an “outsider” who belongs to another culture and/or speaks another language? Are the geographical locations relevant to that identity? How are multilingual realities portrayed in films featuring polyglot characters, such as immigrants?5 These and other questions have served as guidelines to develop the programming strategies of film festivals—with their international, regional and national contexts—and have also contributed to cultural policies by

246 

A. LÓPEZ-GÓMEZ ET AL.

governmental institutions that fund these events. In what follows, we propose to look at the European context—where the regional identities are commonly associated with “national” labels, instead of “Aboriginal” or “Indigenous,” which are usually applied to minoritized languages in other parts of the world—in order to analyze public initiatives aimed to promote the linguistic diversity of a region, that of Europe, where more than 70 different languages are spoken.6

European Public Policies: Reports and Actions Given the pioneering work of some European institutions in implementing public policies intended to preserve and promote linguistic diversity, a close look at the European Union’s policies can shed some light on the possibilities and limitations of creating an audio-visual market in a multilingual context, while preserving the linguistic cultural heritage of this geopolitical region. How has the European Community Programme of Cultural Policy approached the multilingual reality that defines the European Union?7 In this section we will focus on two of the main strategies developed by the EU: the elaboration of reports based on large-scale studies that recommend specific cultural actions and the actual implementation of policies through funding and organizing festivals and prizes. Reports on Linguistic Diversity in a Fragmented Cultural Market In recent years, policies related to cultural diversity have constituted the legal framework for the development of audio-visual productions in the EU. One recent European action related to diversity policies is the elaboration of a report on the use of subtitles to promote the learning of languages (MCG and EACEA 2011).8 This report responded to the macro political essence of European actions and could be regarded as follow-­up measures aimed at promoting linguistic diversity that have been implemented since 2003 in the EU. The main goal of EU linguistic policies in the audio-visual realm is to promote language learning through a­ udio-­visual works in OV—as a response to the predominance of the English language—as well as through the expansion of a multilingual-based economy. This would work as an alternative to the present economic model, in which many different European countries and languages have to make an effort to integrate into the system.

  FOUND IN TRANSLATION: FILM FESTIVALS, DOCUMENTARY… 

247

Although the European Commission aims to fight against monolingualism, this does not necessarily mean to fight against linguistic homogenization and linguistic barriers. Among the multiple languages spoken in Europe, the EU supports the translation of minority languages to languages which already have a dominant position in international and European contexts—such as English, German, French or Spanish.9 Film festival initiatives such as the “Glocal Cinema” platform, initiated by the San Sebastian Film Festival, aim at counterbalancing this tendency, giving exposure to films shot in European “non-hegemonic” languages.10 The EACEA report (2011) encompasses 33 European countries, with the coexistence of three different practises: subtitling, dubbing and voice-­ over. It focuses on how these practises vary depending on three different factors: the country (or region), the type of media (cinema or television) and the target group (general, cinephile, disabled, young public, etc.). Nevertheless, there is a fourth factor undetermined by the report, which is worthy of attention: minoritized and minority languages. Minority languages develop particular strategies in order to ensure their survival. Original Version with Subtitles appears as the only way to improve audio-visual cultural distinctiveness and challenge aesthetic and cultural standardization. On the other hand,  dubbing can be considered  as an inevitable “lost in translation” factor to consider. There are historical reasons which explain—and justify from the point of view of the European Community Policy—the implementation of subtitling practises in some territories. These reasons are tacitly considered as indicators of healthy democracies in Europe: (1) lack of centralist policies promoting monolingualism; (2) lack of censorship concerning foreign languages in audio-visual products; (3) low illiteracy rates as a result of a high educational level and commitment to multilingualism; (4) the reduction of markets, from national closed circuits to a shared European economy of culture. This has favoured the acceptance of audio-visual works in OV as the medium for increasing the exhibition of EU films in the region, while promoting diversity within European audio-visual culture. As a consequence, the European Commission pays special attention to those markets oriented to culture, among which we find festivals, awards, film libraries and so on as to develop its own cultural strategy regardless of economic global positions. According to the 2011 EACEA report, the linguistic choice of the audience (via subtitling, dubbing or voice-over) is mostly congruent with

248 

A. LÓPEZ-GÓMEZ ET AL.

their country tradition. Nevertheless, the report underlines differences in documentary film-related genres because in these cases subtitling and voice-over (or both mixed) prevail in every country. Aside from the goal to ensure understanding of the content of films, the report proposes to put more emphasis on culture as a factor that justifies and supports OV, but the idea remains undeveloped. In European reports linguistic diversity is the most frequently mentioned barrier for the dissemination of audio-visual productions. They refer to it as “market fragmentation.” In Europe, the average cost for subtitling and dubbing a single film ranges from 2700 to 34,000 euros (MCG and Peaceful Fish 2007, 38). Hence, preserving this diversity not only calls for an active education of the audiences but also requires additional investment. The EU has also addressed the preservation of linguistic diversity focusing on social issues distinct from cultural difference. Recent policies have put an emphasis on the integration of persons with disabilities on the one hand—especially for hearing impaired persons—11and film literacy, on the other. These two lines of action have offered funding opportunities for initiatives related to subtitling and the promotion of European films in OV. Although European reports have succeeded in bringing attention to the importance of preserving cultural and linguistic diversity in the process of building a European audio-visual market, in many cases they have failed to get their proposed measures implemented, at least in the short term. For example, a study on subtitling practices and their necessities within the EU published in 2007 strongly recommends the establishment of normalized subtitling formats, the launch of a database providing information on films featuring different linguistic versions or the preparation of packages for distribution that include OV with subtitles, and are adapted for Video on demand (VoD) (MCG and Peaceful Fish 2007, 132). To date, none of the European initiatives and recommendations proposed by this study have been put into practise. Festivals and Awards Promoted by the European Union Supporting European film festivals is one of the European Commission’s action plans for economic and cultural reasons. Festivals create resistant spaces against the flood of Anglophone audio-visual productions and function as alternative spaces for diffusing the European Tower of Babel. EU policies specifically directed to promote linguistic diversity include the

  FOUND IN TRANSLATION: FILM FESTIVALS, DOCUMENTARY… 

249

Lux Film Prize (created in 2007), the Lux Film Days Film Festival (celebrated since 2012) and the European Film Awards. The Lux Film Prize, which is organized by the European Parliament,12 aims to break linguistic barriers, covering the expenses required for translation. The prize stipulates that three selected films (among the ten preselected films) will be subtitled “in different European languages” (of the 24 official languages) and adapted for visually and hearing impaired people. In addition, the prize covers “a cinema launch or production, in each Member State, of a 35mm or digital copy.”13 Moreover, in 2012 the Lux Film Days Film Festival was created to increase the award’s visibility, with the public screenings of the three competing films offering a way to “create a European public space.”14 Despite the explicit inclusion of documentary and fictional works in the conditions for participation, we find no documentary films among the finalists of the Lux Film Prize in recent years. Among the pre-selected productions, we could only find some documentary films such as La Plaga (The Plague, Neus Ballús, 2013)—labelled as fiction by its producers for the purpose of wider dissemination—Cesare deve morire (Caesar Must Die, Paolo & Vittorio Taviani, 2012), which can also be considered as a hybrid between fiction and documentary as well, and performance dance Pina (Wim Wenders, 2011). Thus, this initiative is not specifically aimed to promote documentary film neither minority languages other than those hegemonic within the EU. Diversity and respect to OV with subtitles in cinematographic programming is also fostered by the European Film Awards, an initiative created in 1988 as an attempt to emulate Hollywood’s Academy Awards, with the aim of “advancing the interests of the European film industry.”15 Among its categories we find the European Film Award for Best Documentary (or Prix Arte), which has been awarded annually since 1989. A close analysis of the nominated films through the years demonstrates that their selection criteria when defining what is a European documentary relates more to the production country—with a noteworthy presence of European coproductions—rather than to the portrayal (and preservation) of the European cultural and linguistic diversity. This is evidenced by many of the awarded films, which although produced by companies located in EU member countries, are shot in regions outside Europe. This is the case of Darwin’s Nightmare (Hubert Sauper, winner 2004) a co-­production of France/Austria/Belgium shot in Tanzania and featuring English, Russian and Swahili languages; Un dragon dans les eaux pures du Caucase (The

250 

A. LÓPEZ-GÓMEZ ET AL.

Pipeline Next Door, Nino Kiradzé, winner 2005) a French production shot in Georgia and featuring English and Georgian languages; Nostalgia de la Luz (Nostalgia for the Light, Patricio Guzmán, winner 2010), a coproduction between Chile, Spain, France, Germany and USA shot in Chile and featuring Spanish and English languages; or The Act of Killing (Joshua Oppenheimer, winner 2013), a UK/Denmark/Norway co-production shot in Indonesia and featuring Indonesian and English languages.16 Another initiative directed to increase the circulation of European films is the Europa Cinema Awards, targeted at independent movie theatres which are members of the Europa Cinema network. But again, none of the movie theatres receiving a prize in recent years stands for a noteworthy presence of documentary in its programme.17 While the Lux Film Prize, the Lux Film Days Film Festival or the European Film Awards are initiatives directly organized and controlled by institutions of the European Union, other events that support linguistic diversity have been created by independent organizations. This is the case of festivals specializing in minority languages (such as Babel Film Festival) or documentary film (such as DocsBarcelona).18 In the next section, we will focus on some of the practises of subtitling and translation taking place at these events.

Festivals in the Periphery: Documentary and Minority Languages In her study of the role of Canadian film festivals in the canonization of national cinema, Liz Czach (2004) refers to the two-cinemas tradition of the Anglo-Canadian Toronto International Film Festival and the Quebecoise (francophone) Montreal World Film Festival. Similarly, in the documentary realm we find two festivals which respond to similar linguistic and cultural dynamics: The Rencontres Internationales du Documentaire de Montréal (RIDM) of francophone identity—with a notable presence of European auteur documentary and links to festivals such as FIDMarseille or Visions du Réel—and Hot Docs, taking place in anglophone Toronto— with an influence of US documentary following the Sundance model— (see Winton, this volume). While Hot Docs’s official language is English, RIDM tries to find a balance between francophone and anglophone films. In this case the lack of funding prevents the event from being fully bilingual and the subtitles appear mostly in English.19

  FOUND IN TRANSLATION: FILM FESTIVALS, DOCUMENTARY… 

251

Festivals develop different strategies regarding multilingualism. Depending on their target audience, these strategies can involve different practices of translation: subtitling films or simultaneous translation in Q&As—usually directed to the local audience20—or using a pivot language21 (usually English) to facilitate communication—normally directed to professionals who participate in industry sections.22 The following subsections will focus on the linguistic practises implemented by film festivals in the European context, first, by looking at festivals specializing in minority languages in regions who have their own minority languages, such as Brittany (France) or Sardinia (Italy); and second, by analyzing festivals specializing in documentary, focusing on Spain (and the French border), where several languages with official status coexist. Festivals on Minority Languages In order to better understand the relationship between cinema and linguistic diversity, it is interesting to explore linguistic practices carried out at film festivals that specialize in minority-language films. Among the most common programming practices we find the inclusion of fiction and documentary genres in the same competitive section, and the use of subtitles either in English or in the official language of the country (or state) where the festival takes place. The presence of an international audience—mainly constituted by professionals and guests—usually forces these events to use a unique language for subtitling; more often than not this is English. The logistics, economic constraints and rationality of screening times and spaces therefore limits the possibilities for multilingualism, as the international dimension of the festival demands linguistic homogenization. In the European realm, interest in minority languages usually arises from regions in which a minoritized language is spoken. The multicultural strategy of minority-language film festivals serves to give visibility to the local language, while showing solidarity with communities that share ­similar problems around the world. As such, we will now focus on two minority-­language festivals by examining their strategies to preserve and promote linguistic diversity: The Douarnenez Film Festival in Brittany and The Babel Film Festival in Sardinia. Douarnenez Film Festival takes place in Brittany, an administrative region in the north-western part of France. With a general focus on cultural diversity and (national) identities, the festival promotes Breton

252 

A. LÓPEZ-GÓMEZ ET AL.

cinema and minority-language films, with a special focus in a region or community each year.23 Although the first edition of this festival dates back to 1978, public policies aimed at the promotion and recovery of the local Breton and Gaul languages were not developed until 2004. Due to an extreme decline in the number of native speakers and the limited support from the central French administration,24 these policies are limited to promoting audio-visual productions through grants and technical and linguistic training and providing funding for dubbing to the Breton language—in order to increase broadcasting hours in the Breton language. Screenings of films in French or Breton include closed captioning for hearing impaired people. Foreign films are accompanied with regular French subtitling. There is not a special section devoted to documentary film, so documentaries are screened together with other films sorted according to thematic categories. There is also a special section on Breton film: Grand cru Bretagne. Finally, the project Bretagne & Diversité (BED) is an attempt to increase the visibility and circulation of some films projected at the festival.25 Our second case study, the Babel Film Festival, takes place in Sardinia since 2010 and is the first film festival devoted exclusively to minority language cinema. Their selection is open to any film featuring at least 60 per cent of its audio spoken by minority languages, dialects or slangs (or even sign languages) from territories without any official status. Babel encourages the submission of any type of audio-visual production without restrictions— including production and release dates and genres or styles—but it “has to be the expression of a culturally and/or socially linguistic minority” (Image 1).26 Babel Film Festival raises a specific awareness of documentary film by devoting an autonomous category for this genre in competition. English is the official international language appearing in the catalogues (together with Italian and Sardinian) and film productions must be submitted with English subtitles and, when possible, in Italian.27 Documentary Film Festivals in Multilingual Contexts While not primarily concerned with minority languages, documentary film festivals are major showcases for films featuring minority (and minoritized) languages. Many of these festivals are aimed at preserving a cinematic culture and creating cinephile (instead of identity-oriented) communities. Moreover, these events receive much wider audience and media attention than thematic film festivals and have a bigger international impact. This

  FOUND IN TRANSLATION: FILM FESTIVALS, DOCUMENTARY… 

253

Image 1  Screening of the film Colours of the Alphabet (2016, Alastair Cole) subtitled into Sardinian at the 2017 Babel Film Festival. The film puts into question if children in Zambia should be taught in English, and the features Soli, Nayanja, Bemba and English languages. (Image by Alastair Cole)

can be also a limitation for implementing policies of language preservation, as they have to find a balance between their multilingual character and linguistic homogenization imposed by industrial activities incorporated into their programmes. In what follows, we will focus on the Spanish context, an interesting geopolitical space to reflect upon the ways in which film festivals manage multilingualism, as three minority languages (Galician, Basque and Catalan) are recognized as co-official (together with Spanish) in their respective autonomous administrative regions. Our first case study is Play-Doc, a documentary film festival that appeared in 2005 in a small town in the South of Galicia (in the border between Spain and Portugal). Despite its strong local character, the festival has a deep international vocation. It attracts films made in the margins—in relation to both their format and countries of origin—and devotes a section to Galician cinema. With this programming policy, the festival

254 

A. LÓPEZ-GÓMEZ ET AL.

tries to reconcile the specific (and extraordinary) with the possibility of global circulation. The result is clear in its subtitling policies: Galician and Spanish language films are subtitled in English with other language films subtitled in Spanish. The official status of a language implies that its presence is mandatory at events organized and/or funded by public institutions. This is the case of Zinebi Documentary and Short Film Festival, taking place in the city of Bilbao, in the Basque Country, and organized by the municipality. In this festival, not only the catalogue appears in three languages (Basque, Spanish and English) but also subtitles in the official section are simultaneously displayed in the official languages. Given the long trajectory of the festival—which appeared in 1959, when Spain was under dictatorial rule that persecuted minoritized languages—its linguistic strategies have changed throughout the years. Today, the projection of subtitles in three languages—with all the technical and economic limitations involved—and bilingual award ceremonies presented in Spanish and Basque contribute to its multilingual character, bringing attention the difficulties of serving so many purposes at the same time. Some of these challenges include: full comprehension by the audience; preservation and visibility of Basque language, and the increase of the festival’s international profile, so that foreigners who do not know Spanish or Basque can fully participate in the festival experience. Although mainly devoted to fiction cinema, San Sebastian Film festival is also worthy of attention in the Basque context, as it hosts the Lau Haizetara co-production forum for documentaries. Interestingly, European television representatives participating in this industrial activity are frequently commissioning editors proficient in Spanish or French (in addition to English) and Spanish is the most common language used to present and comment on film projects (despite an increasing presence of projects presented in English in recent editions). The Basque language is spoken in another autonomous region as well: Navarre, where the Punto de Vista International Documentary Film Festival has been celebrated in the city of Pamplona since 2005.28 The Basque language only has official status in some parts of this administrative region (including Pamplona), and while the festival’s catalogues and websites are trilingual, most of the festival activities are hosted in Spanish. Nevertheless, the appointment of Basque speaking directors has brought a bigger presence of films in the Basque language to the programme.29

  FOUND IN TRANSLATION: FILM FESTIVALS, DOCUMENTARY… 

255

Image 2  Zinegin Film Festival’s audience follows the organizers in a “Bideo poteo.” The event mixes the Basque tradition of “poteo” (which consists on going from bar to bar to have drinks together) with the screening of a short film in each bar. (Image by Aida Vallejo)

In the south-western part of France, the Basque language is also spoken, although it has no official recognition in this territory. The Zinegin Basque Film and Documentary Festival, which has taken place in Hasparren (Labourd) since 2012, is the main Basque cinema event in the Northern Basque Country (Iparralde). It was created to facilitate the exhibition of films in the Basque language for an audience who has limited access to audio-visual content in this language, due to limitations imposed by French distribution dynamics and public policies (Martinez et al. 2015) (Image 2). DocsBarcelona International Documentary Film Festival takes place in the autonomous region of Catalonia—where Catalan is recognized as an official language—and is another key case study, as it brings together concerns about minority languages with industrial goals to promote film distribution. The business-oriented character of this festival is evidenced by the fact that it was created as a strategy of the production company Parallel 40 to develop documentary distribution both in the region and beyond,

256 

A. LÓPEZ-GÓMEZ ET AL.

extending its activities to other Spanish-speaking regions, including Latin America. In doing so, they take advantage of historical linguistic and cultural ties, facilitated by the use of Spanish. Most of the films in the programme of DocsBarcelona are subtitled in Catalan, and afterwards they are distributed to Spain, Chile and Argentina with Spanish and Catalan subtitles. Moreover, throughout the year DocsBarcelona galvanizes El documental del mes (“The documentary of the month”),30 which fosters the screening of a documentary film once a month all over Spain—with more than 45 towns already participating in the project. This initiative plays a crucial role in the strengthening of the Catalan-speaking community because Catalan subtitled OV films arrive to other administrative regions of Spain where the language is spoken, such as the Balearic Islands and Valence. Another important characteristic is that El documental del mes is not limited to commercial movie theatres but also collaborates with athenaeums, universities, associations, television and VOD platforms. DVD sales are also used as a strategy to recover the investment made in subtitling.31 Beyond this, online VOD platforms become an extension of documentary film festivals. For instance, Filmin.es offers a movie selection from DocsBarcelona, DocumentaMadrid or Mostra Internacional de Films de Dones with Spanish subtitles. Filmin has also developed AraFilms,32 a platform that provides access to films dubbed and subtitled in Catalan. Unfortunately, subtitling in the four languages with official status in Spain is not yet available in this platform due to technical problems regarding the codification of a film with different subtitle tracks.33

Conclusions: Challenges for Documentary Films in Minority Languages Documentary film is a privileged space for the preservation of linguistic diversity, both as a tool for documenting immaterial culture—including speaking practices—and as a genre that has specific technical features that favour subtitling over dubbing. The film festival ecosystem, which is at the same time a breeding ground for global film works and a space for educating the audience, deserves special attention in order to develop orchestrated policies to improve its cultural impact and fight against monolingualism.

  FOUND IN TRANSLATION: FILM FESTIVALS, DOCUMENTARY… 

257

Taking into consideration the limitations and priorities of production and distribution companies, we consider that there is no way to fight against monolingualism within the market. Thus, film festivals acting, whether totally or partially, at the edges of the market may provide new avenues for film diversity. Specialized film festivals function as production and exhibition sites that serve to attract the public to films that are otherwise restricted through other channels of film distribution. Documentary film festivals—as well as ethnographic film festivals or festivals specializing in cultural diversity which include a large amount of documentaries in their programmes—give visibility to films in OV and minority languages within circuits of audio-visual distribution. We argue that the implementation of public policies that foster these festivals and provide the population with a solid base of knowledge, among other incentives, are key conditions for creating new patterns of cultural consumption and training the audience to appreciate cultural and linguistic diversity. In this context, it is important to note that linguistic diversity in relation to documentary film has not yet been properly taken into consideration as a specific criterion for the European Union’s initiatives that foster film production. Although different regional desks have been created by the MEDIA programme since 2000, most of the information published by this entity is available in English. Moreover, if one of the EU’s declared intentions is to create a multilingual space and foster diversity, new policies should be implemented to have a real effect in the European audio-visual realm. Among others, it would be necessary to allocate funds for translation and/or language learning for filmmakers—be it English or other pivot languages used in co-productions. While the rules of the market impose linguistic homogenization, the film festival circuit can serve as a corrective. The horizontal nature of the film festival ecosystem, compared to the vertical structure of the Hollywood control over the value-chain through all stages of film development (production-­ distribution-exhibition), offers alternative spaces for minority-­language films to reach new audiences. Nevertheless, while the inclusion of national, regional and international sections at film festivals increases the possibilities for these films to get recognition, global cultural hierarchies still play a crucial role for filmmakers aiming at making an international career in the festival circuit. This explains the growing auteurist appeal of minority-­language film, which distances itself from national cinema approaches. The cosmopolitan nature of major film festivals therefore prevails over other parallel circuits, be they genre-specialized,

258 

A. LÓPEZ-GÓMEZ ET AL.

such as documentary festivals, or thematic, such as minority-language festivals. Yet, ironically the representatives of major festivals may have less competence to evaluate the linguistic—and cultural—value of the films. The global appeal of the films that received the European Film Award for best documentary in recent years, mostly shot by European filmmakers in other continents—with its intrinsic post-­colonial implications—confirms this trend. Although not directly threatening the multilingual diversity of the films, the aforementioned dynamics can contribute to a loss of cultural diversity, if films that include cultural references only understandable in specific national or local contexts cease to exist, because they don’t fit the universal appeal required to be understood by international festival audiences. The fact that these filmic approaches fit the EU aims to promote diversity while building a shared audio-visual market suggests that this tendency is likely to continue in the future. In summary, we consider that cultural public policies aimed to preserve and promote minority languages without any official status should seek to balance the global and local dimensions of film festivals: facilitating the internationalization of events taking place in territories defined by (linguistic) cultural diversity and at the same time strengthening communities (of professionals as well as audiences) that facilitate the circulation of these works. Documentary appears as an appropriate genre to attain these goals, given its relation with the representation of reality, its technical specificities and its intrinsic cultural value. Acknowledgements  This work has been developed as part of the following research projects: “Towards the European Digital Space. The Role of Small Cinemas in Original Version” (CSO2012-35784) led by the Audiovisual Studies Research Group directed by Full Professor Margarita Ledo Andión at the University of Santiago de Compostela (Galicia); @CIN-EMA: “Transnational Relations in Hispanic Digital Cinemas: The Axes of Spain, Mexico, and Argentina” (CSO2014-­52750-­P), https://bit.ly/2JymIN4—both funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness in the frame of the National Plan Research Actions I+D+I; and ikerFESTS: “Film and Audiovisual Festivals in the Basque Country” (EHUA16/31) led by Aida Vallejo and funded by the University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU). https://bit.ly/2JxYhz2.

  FOUND IN TRANSLATION: FILM FESTIVALS, DOCUMENTARY… 

259

Notes 1. In commercial Hollywood films, remakes are another way to “translate” films not only linguistically but also in cultural terms. 2. While the “minority language” refers to the quantity of speakers of a given language in relation to a wider population within a territory, the term “minoritized” reflects the marginalization (or even prosecution) suffered by a language. 3. The term “Original Version” is widely used in French and Spanish contexts, which use the abbreviation VO (Version Originale/Versión original) to refer to the language of the original soundtrack of the film. Film festivals also use this abbreviation in their webpages in English, or terms such as “original language” or “spoken languages” in their film fact sheets. 4. See also Barrios (2008) and Brown (2004). 5. For a study of multilingualism and the representation of polyglot characters in documentary film, see Berger (2010). 6. Out of which 33 have official status. According to a note published at an EU specialized news website, euroXpress, in Europe up to 70 minority languages are struggling for survival. Available at: https://bit.ly/3bFM0Vp (accessed 29 April 2014). These include only local languages, while the number of languages actually spoken in Europe is certainly increased by migrants from multiple origins. 7. It should be remarked that talking about “Community position” is a way to simplify the European Union’s audio-visual and language diversity policies. We are just speaking about the institutional position. Nevertheless, if we take General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT, 1993) as a reference frame, we would find dissenting views between different states, such as French delegation defence of cultural exception, appealing to the Free Trade Agreement negotiations between USA and Canada, where Canada introduced (clause 2005) exceptions for cinema, radio, phonographic products and publishing (Frau-Meigs 2002). 8. Etude sur l’utilisation du sous-titrage. Le potentiel du sous-titrage pour encourager l’apprentissage et améliorer la maîtrise des langues [Study about the use of subtitling. The potential of subtitling for learning and improving language skills]. Endorsed by the European Commission (Directorate-­ General for Education and Culture) and developed by the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Agency Executive Service (EACEA). 9. The Creative Europe Programme will be funding until 2020 the mobility of European artworks and artists, and audio-visual adaptation to digital, in fields such as audio-visual subtitling. The “Cooperation Project” programme incentivizes the translation from minority languages to English,

260 

A. LÓPEZ-GÓMEZ ET AL.

French, German and Spanish, as a means to increase their international visibility. http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/creative-europe/. 10. See Nerekan Umaran and Vallejo (2017) and the “Glocal Cinema” project’s website: http://www.glocalcinema.com/. 11. See the 2011 report by the European Federation of Hard of Hearing People (EFHOH). 12. Other goals are “‘illustrating European debate’ and promoting ‘the circulation of European (co) productions’”. 13. Lux Prize website. http://www.luxprize.eu/news/les-neiges-dukilimandjaro-wins-2011-lux-film-prize. 14. European Parliament/LUX Prize website. http://www.luxprize.eu/ news/european-parliament-lux-prize-2010-winner-die-fremde-bescreened-all-member-states-during-may. 15. https://www.europeanfilmacademy.org/European-Film-Academy. 35.0.html. 16. This is not to say that films featuring European locations and languages are not present in the selection. Nominated and awarded films featuring local aspects of some European regions include Sacro GRA (Gianfranco Rosi, nominee 2014), Hiver nomad (Winter Nomad, Manuel von Stürler, winner 2012), Steam of Life (Miesten vuoro, Joonas Berghäll and Mika Hotakainen, nominee 2010), The Beaches of Agnès (Agnès Varda, nominee 2009), Cooking History (Ako sa varia dejiny, Péter Kerekes, nominee 2009) and so on. 17. Awarded cinema theatres include Kino Mladost & Kino Lumiere (Bratislava, Slovakia, 2014), Kino Artis (Tallin, Estonia, 2013), Star (Strasbourg, France, 2012) and Abaton Kino (Hamburg, Germany, 2011). 18. Interestingly, these are still partly dependent on the EU as they receive its financial support. While Babel Film Festival is sponsored by the European Parliament, DocsBarcelona receives funding from the MEDIA programme of the EU. 19. Personal interview with Charlotte Selb (director of programming of RIDM) conducted by Aida Vallejo (1 March 2013). 20. In the Russian context, simultaneous translation has been also used in projections (see Razlogova 2014). Within the contemporary documentary film festival circuit, we see this practice in festivals such as the Jihlava International Documentary Film Festival in Czech Republic, which has used this system to translate to English films in the Czech section. The costs and technical requirements of subtitling are some of the reasons behind implementing these practices, which certainly act as an impediment to a direct reception of original languages. For a reflection about problems of cultural translation of African cinema in Q&A sessions at international festivals, see Dovey (2015, 69–72).

  FOUND IN TRANSLATION: FILM FESTIVALS, DOCUMENTARY… 

261

21. An intermediary language (Díaz-Cintas and Ramael 2007, 249). 22. For a study of the industry sections appearing in film festivals aimed to promote documentary production and distribution, see Vallejo (2014). 23. In March 2015, the festival paid homage to the recently deceased Breton filmmaker René Vautier with the projection of some of his militant films, such as Afrique 50 (1950), featuring themes like colonialism, which have been key for the festival programming. He had already been the protagonist of a retrospective in Douarnenez in 1998, the year when Wales was the invited region. 24. In 1999 France signed the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages but practical actions were not implemented until 2012, when the Region of Bretagne published the report to analyse the success of its linguistic policies application approved in 2004 (Région de Bretagne 2012). The agreement reached by the Bretagne Region with the French government and the Centre National de la Cinématographie resulted in a poor investment of just 100,000 euros agreed in 2000–2006 (OFIS 2007, 108). 25. Bretagne & Diversité is a project initiated by former programmer and codirector of the Douarnenez Film Festival, Caroline Troin. BED’s website was created by Association Bretagne Culture Diversité and produced by Rhizomes association, in collaboration with Daoulagad Breizh and the Douarnenez Film Festival. The site offers information and links to online viewing for films appearing in the festival over the years. While the festival’s website appears only in French, BED’s website is available both in French and in Breton. BED’s website. http://bretagne-et-diversite.net/fr/. 26. Babel Film Festival Rules. Online. Available at: https://bit.ly/3aBCu5A (accessed 24 May 2014). 27. Their website appears mainly in Italian and Sardinian, with some parts translated to English (such as the “Minorias” (Minorities) section, where they explain what they consider as “minority or regional” languages, which is based on the European Charter of the Minority or Regional Languages (1992)). http://www.babelfilmfestival.com/?page_id=19. 28. With a programme which is not focused on Basque identity, other bigger festivals in the region include the International Festival of Audiovisual Programs (FIPA) taking place in Biarritz since 1987 (which collaborates with San Sebastian Film Festival’s co-production forum) since 2007 (http://www.sansebastianfestival.com/2014/news/1/4168/in), as well as the Biarritz Festival Latin America celebrated since 1991. 29. Oskar Alegria was appointed director in 2014, following Josetxo Cerdán. A filmmaker himself, Alegria’s film Emak Bakia Baita (The Search for Emak Bakia, 2012) features Basque and Spanish languages and is shot in Biarritz, within the Northern part of Basque Country (in France). In 2018 Garbiñe Ortega (also a Basque speaker) took over his position as the new director.

262 

A. LÓPEZ-GÓMEZ ET AL.

30. El Documental del mes is a Parallel 40 production initiative that has been economically supported during 2004–2007 by the European Project CinemaNet Europe. 31. Editing and DVD sales are additional ways of allowing cost recovery deriving from creating and delivering Catalan subtitles. DocsBarcelona. 32. Arafilms’ official website. http://films.ara.cat. 33. This problem is due to the necessity to upload a single copy of the film for each version as subtitles are incorporated to the image in flash format. Thus, the use of space in the server with multilingual subtitles increases the costs for Arafilms.

References Barrios, Graciela. 2008. Etnicidad y lenguaje. Montevideo: Universidad de la República. Berger, Verena. 2010. Voices Against the Silence: Polyglot Documentary Films from Spain and Portugal. In Polyglot Cinema: Language Contact and Migration in France, Italy, Portugal and Spain, ed. Verena Berger and Miya Komori, 211–225. Vienna: LIT. Brown, Penelope. 2004. Linguistic Politeness. In Sociolinguistics/Soziolinguistik. An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society, ed. Ulrich Ammon, Norbert Dittmar, Klaus J. Mattheier, and Peter Trudgill, 1410–1415. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter. Canova, Matías R. 2013. Un acercamiento teórico-lingüístico al documental argentino sobre grupos indígenas. Lingüística 29 (1): 205–235. Czach, Liz. 2004. Film Festivals, Programming, and the Building of a National Cinema. The Moving Image 4 (1): 76–88. de Valck, Marijke. 2007. Film Festivals. From European Geopolitics to Global Cinephilia. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Díaz-Cintas, Jorge, and Aline Ramael. 2007. Audiovisual Translation: Subtitling. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing. Dovey, Lindiwe. 2015. Curating Africa in the Age of Film Festivals. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Frau-Meigs, Divina. 2002. Excepción cultural, políticas nacionales y mundialización. Quaderns del CAC 14: 3–18. Martinez, Josu, Miriam Frances, Katixa Agirre, and Miren Manias-Muñoz. 2015. Zinegin Basque Film Festival: A Non-existent Audience Revealed. Participations 12 (1): 725–738. Nerekan Umaran, Amaia, and Aida Vallejo. 2017. Rethinking Geolinguistic Spaces: The San Sebastian Film Festival Between Latin America and Europe. Necsus. European Journal of Media Studies 11 (Spring). http://www.necsus-ejms.org/

  FOUND IN TRANSLATION: FILM FESTIVALS, DOCUMENTARY… 

263

rethinking-geolinguistic-spaces-the-san-sebastian-film-festival-between-latinamerica-and-europe/. Nichols, Bill. 1991. Representing Reality: Issues and Concepts in Documentary. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Pérez Pereiro, Marta, and Fernando Redondo Neira. 2014. Novo Cinema Galego: cartografías audiovisuais trazadas dende a periferia. Paper presented at Lusocom Conference, Pontevedra (Galicia). Razlogova, Elena. 2014. Listening to the Inaudible Foreign: Simultaneous Translators and Soviet Experience of Foreign Cinema. In Sound, Music, Speech in Soviet and Post-Soviet Cinema, ed. Lilya Kaganovsky and Masha Salazkina. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. http://elenarazlogova. org/?page_id=70. Vallejo, Aida. 2014. Industry Sections. Documentary Film Festivals Between Production and Distribution. Iluminace 26 (1): 65–82.

Reports EFHOH. 2011. State of Subtitling Access in the EU.  Creating a Barrier-Free Europe for all Hard of Hearing Citizens. Media Consulting Group (MCG) and Peaceful Fish. 2007. Étude des besoins et pratiques de l’industrie audiovisuelle européenne en matière du doublage et sous titrage. Paris: European Commission. Media Consulting Group (MCG) and EACEA. 2011. Etude sur l’utilisation du sous titrage. Le potentiel du sous titrage pour encourager l’apprentissage et améliorer la maîtrise des langues. Paris: European Commission. Observatoire de la langue Bretonne (OFIS). 2007. La langue bretonne à la croisée des chemins. Deuxième rapport général sur l’état de la langue bretonne 2002– 2007. Carhaix-Plouguer: Office Public de la Langue Bretonne. www.ofis-bzh. org. Region de Bretagne. 2012. Une politique linguistique pour la Bretagne. Rapport d’actualisation. Region Bretagne. http://www.bretagne.fr/internet/upload/ docs/application/pdf/2012-04/rapport_dactualisation_de_la_politique_linguisique_2012.pdf

Index of Festivals1

A Abu Dhabi Film Festival, 153 AcampaDoc – Festival Internacional de Cine Documental (La Villa de los Santos, Panama), 35 Addis International Film Festival (Addis Ababa, Ethiopia), 71 AFIDocs, formerly SilverDocs (Washington DC, USA), 89 Alcances. Festival de cine documental (Cádiz, Spain), 71 Aljazeera International Documentary Film Festival (Doha, Qatar), 89 Alternative Film/Video Festival (Belgrade, Serbia), 50n13 Ambulante (Mexico), 70 AmDocs. American Documentary and Animation Film Festival (Palm Springs, USA), 198 Antenna Documentary Film Festival (Sydney, Australia), 72

1

Antofadocs (Antofagasta, Chile), 72 Artdocfests – Open Russian Documentary Film Festival (Ekaterinburg/Moscow/St Petersburg, Russia), 71 Asia-Pacific Film Festival, formerly South East Asian Film Festival (Tokyo, Japan), 144 Asterfest International Film Festival, former International Film & Video Festival of Southeastern Europe (Strumica, Macedonia), 70 Astra Film Festival (Sibiu, Romania), 67 Atlantidoc – Festival International de Cine Documental del Uruguay (Atlántida, Uruguay), 71 Aux Écrans du reel. Festival des films documentaires (Le Mans, France), 67

 Note: Page numbers followed by ‘n’ refer to notes.

© The Author(s) 2020 A. Vallejo, E. Winton (eds.), Documentary Film Festivals Vol. 1, Framing Film Festivals, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17320-3

265

266 

INDEX OF FESTIVALS

B Babel Film Festival (Cagliari, Sardinia, Italy), 250–253 Beijing Independent Film (BiFF), 189, 190n13 Beldocs. International Documentary Film Festival (Serbia), 72 Belgrade Documentary and Short Film Festival (Yugoslavia/Serbia), 12, 66, 68, 81, 106 BeninDocs – International Festival of First Documentary Film (Porto Novo, Cotonou/Paris, Benin and France), 72 Berlinale. Berlin International Film Festival (Berlin, Germany), 80, 124, 125, 137 Bombay International Film Festival for Documentary and Short Films (BIFF, Bombay, India), 145, 223–225 Bordocs – Foro Documental (Tijuana, Mexico), 69 Bring Your Own Film Festival (BYOFF, Puri, Orissa/Odisha, India), 234 C Cannes Film Festival (Cannes, France), 14n4, 79, 95n14, 125 Caracas Doc (Venezuela), 72 Cebu International Documentary Film Festival (Cebu city, Philippines), 72 Chennai International Documentary and Shorts Film Festival (Chennai, India), 72 China Independent Film Festival (CIFF, Nanjing, China), 189n1 A Cielo Abierto – Festival Latinoamericano de cine documental (Cochabamba, Bolivia), 85

CinéDOC – Tbilisi. International Documentary Film Festival (Tbilisi, Georgia), 72 Cinéma du Réel. Festival International du Film Documentaire (Paris, France), 95n11, 138 CNEX Taipei Documentary Film Festival (Taipei, Taiwan), 71 Contra el Silencio Todas las Voces (Tlalpan, Mexico DF, Mexico), 35 CPH:DOX. Copenhagen International Documentary Film Festival (Copenhagen, Denmark), 69 D Dialëktus – European Documentary and Anthropological Film Festival (Budapest, Hungary), 69 DMZ International Documentary Festival (Goyang, Paju, South Korea), 154 Doc à Tunis. International Documentary Film Festival in Tunis (Tunis), 71 Docaviv. Tel Aviv International Documentary Film Festival (Tel Aviv, Israel), 68 DocBsAs. DocBuenosAires. Muestra Internacional de Cine Documental (Buenos Aires, Argentina), 69 DOChina. Documentary Film Festival China/China Documentary Film Festival 中国纪录片交流周 (Beijing, China), 13, 169, 187–189, 190n8 Dockanema (Maputo, Mozambique), 71 DocLisboa (Lisbon, Portugal), 69 Doc Point Helsinki Documentary Film Festival (Finland), vii, 89

  INDEX OF FESTIVALS 

DocsBarcelona International Documentary Film Festival (Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain), 250, 255, 256, 260n18 DocsDF, see DocsMX. Mexico International Documentary Film Festival (formerly DocsDF) DocsMX. Mexico International Documentary Film Festival (formerly DocsDF), 70 Docudays: Beirut International Documentary Festival (Beirut, Lebanon), 68 Docudays UA International Human Rights Documentary Film Festival (Kiev, Ukraine), x Documedia (first documentary panorama of the IFFI, Goa, India), 224 DocumentaMadrid International Documentary Film Festival (Spain), 256 Documentarist Film Festival (Istanbul, Turkey), vii Documentary Edge Festival (Auckland and Wellington, New Zealand), 70 Documentary Film Festival in Bajaïa/ Rencontres du Film Documentaire a Bejaïa (Bejaïa, Algeria), 71 DocumentaVenezuela. Festival de Cine Documental regional franco andino de Caracas (Venezuela), 70 Documfest International Documentary Film Festival (Timişoara, Romania), 71 DocuPerú. Muestra de documental peruano (Lima, Perú), 69 Docville. International Documentary Film Festival (Leuven, Belgium), 70

267

DOK Leipzig. The International Leipzig Festival for Documentary and Animated Film (Leipzig, Germany), 80, 83, 102, 123, 133, 229 DokMa. Documentaries in Maribor International Film Festival (Maribor, Slovenia), 69 Dokufest. International Documentary and Short Film Festival (Prizren, Kosovo), vii DOKUFILM FEST. Ljubljana International Documentary Film Festival (Ljubljana, Slovenia), 68 Douarnenez Film Festival (Douarnenez, Brittany, France), 251, 261n25 DOXA Documentary Film Festival (Vancouver, Canada), 95n13 DoxBox (Damascus, Syria), 71 Dubai International Film Festival (Dubai, United Arab Emirates), 153 E EBS International Documentary Festival (Seoul, South Korea), 69 Edinburgh Film Festival (Edinburg, Scotland, UK), 79 Encounters. South African International Documentary Festival (Cape Town and Johannesburg, South Africa), 68 Encuentros del otro cine festival internacional de cine documental (EDOC, Quito, Guayaquil, and other cities, Ecuador), 35 Escales Documentaire de Libreville (Libreville, Gabon), 70 Escales documentaires. Festival International du documentaire de création (La Rochelle, France), 69

268 

INDEX OF FESTIVALS

États généraux du film documentaire (Lussas, France), 35, 88 Etnofilm – International Festival of Documentary Film (Č adca, Checoslovakia/Slovak Republic), 66 F Festival dei Popoli. Florence International Documentary Film Festival (Florence, Italy), 81–84, 95n11, 123, 127, 129 Festival Internacional del Nuevo Cine Latinoamericano de la Habana (La Habana, Cuba), 85 Festival Maghrebin du Film Documentaire (Oujda, Morocco), 72 FIDBA. Festival Internacional de Documental de Buenos Aires (Buenos Aires, Argentina), 72 FIDMarseille, Festival International de Cinéma de Marseille, formerly Biennale Européenne du Documentaire and Vue sur le docs (Marseille, France), 95n13, 96n18, 250 FIDOCS. Santiago International Documentary Film Festival (Santiago de Chile, Chile), 95n13 FIFDOK. Festival International du film documentaire de Khouribga, formerly Afifdok (Khouribga, Morocco), 71 Flahertiana International Documentary Film Festival (Perm, Russia), 67 Flaherty Film Seminar (Vertmon and others, US), 81, 82 FNC. Festival du nouveau cinéma (Montreal, Canada), ix, 95n13

Fórum.DOCsk (Košice, Slovak Republic), 72 Fronteira. Festival Internacional do Filme documentário e experimental (Goiás/Goiânia, Brazil), 72 Full Frame Documentary Film Festival, originally DoubleTake Documentary Film Festival (Durham, North Carolina, USA), 12, 34, 35, 54, 57–58, 95n13 G Glasgow Film Festival (Glasgow, Scotland, UK), 50n9 Golden Rhyton Festival of Bulgarian Non-feature Film (Plovdiv, Bulgaria), 67 GZDOC. Guangzhou International Documentary Film Festival/中国 (广州)国际 纪录片节 (Guangzhou, China), 154, 175 H Hamburg Interntanional Queer Film Festival/Lesbisch Schwule Filmtage Hamburg (Hamburg, Germany), 50n13 Hiroshima International Animation Festival (Hiroshima, Japan), 145 Hong Kong International Film Festival (Hong Kong), 229 Hot Docs Canadian International Documentary Festival (Toronto, Canada), ix, x, 9, 11, 13, 33, 86, 91, 95n12, 123, 168, 170, 171, 193–216, 250 Hot Springs Documentary Film Festival (Arkansas, USA), 95n13

  INDEX OF FESTIVALS 

I IDFA. International Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam (Netherlands), vii, x, 6, 14n7, 25, 35, 36n2, 85, 87, 88, 91, 95n13, 96n15, 123, 137, 139, 146, 157, 158, 160, 171, 195, 229 IDPA Documentary Film Festival (Bombay, Delhi, Madras and Calcutta, India), 223 IFFI. International Film Festival of India (Goa, India), see Documedia (first documentary panorama of the IFFI, Goa, India) ImagineNATIVE Film + Media Arts Festival (Toronto, Canada), x Indievillage Documentary Film festival (Melbourne, Australia), 72 International Amateur Film Festival (Geneva, Switzerland), 127 International Documentary and Short Film Festival of Kerala (India), 89 International Documentary Festival Agadir (Agadir, Morocco), 71 International Golden Safran Documentary Film Festival (Karabuk, Turkey), 67 International Film Festival Rotterdam (Netherlands), 124 International Mediterranean Film Festival for Documentaries and Short Films (Tripoli, Libya), 72 International 1001 Documentary Film Festival (Istanbul, Turkey), 67 I-Represent International Documentary Film Festival (Lagos, Nigeria), 72 Ismailia International Film Festival for Documentaries and Shorts (Ismailia, Egypt), 67 It’s all True/É tudo Verdade International Documentary Film Festival (São Paulo, Brazil), 95n13

269

J Jeonju International Film Festival (Jeonju, South Korea), 154 Jihlava International Documentary Film Festival (Jihlava, Czech Republic), 25, 44, 49n6, 86, 260n20 K Kampala International Documentary Film Festival (Kampala, Uganda), 72 Krakow Film Festival (Krakow, Poland), 36, 81, 87, 137 L Lagunimages. Festival International de Film, documentaires et de télévision du Bénin (Cotonou, Benin), 69 Lemesos International Documentary Festival (Lemesos, Cyprus), 70 Locarno Film Festival (Locarno, Switzerland), 125 Los Angeles Film Festival (Los Angeles, US), 47 Lux Film Days Film Festival (40 European cities), 249 M Madurai Documentary Film Festival (Tamil Nadu, India), 234 Magnificent 7. European Feature Documentary Film Festival (Belgrade, Serbia), 70 Makedox (Skopje, Macedonia), 72 Mannheim Cultural and Documentary Film Week (International Film Festival Mannheim-Heidelberg, Germany), 80, 81 Margaret Mead Film Festival (New York, USA), 95n11, 137

270 

INDEX OF FESTIVALS

Mediterranean Festival of Documentary Films (Široki Brijeg, Bosnia-Herzegovina), 69 Mendocino Film Festival (Mendocino, California, USA), 26 Message to man. International Documentary, Short, and Animated Film Festival (St Petersburg, Russia), 66 MIDBO. Muestra Internacional Documental de Bogotá (Colombia), 67 Midnight Sun Film Festival (Lapland, Finland), 147, 160, 161n2 MIFF. Mumbai International Film Festival for Documentary, Short, and Animation Films (Mumbai, India), 224–229, 232, 233, 236 Millennium Docs Against Gravity Film Festival, former Planet Doc Review Film Festival (Warsaw, Poland), 70 MiradasDoc International Documentary Film Festival (Guía de Isora, Tenerife, Spain), 71 Montreal World Film Festival (Montreal, Canada), 250 Mostra Internacional de Films de Dones (Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain), 256 Mostra Internazionale del Nuovo Cinema in Pesaro (Pesaro, Italy), 85 N New York Film Festival (New York, USA), 7, 28, 81, 87, 94n7, 137, 229 Nyon International Documentary Film Festival, today Visions du Réel (Nyon, Switzerland), 12, 66, 68, 83, 123–140, 250

O Oberhausen Short Film Festival (Oberhausen, Germany), 80, 102 One World/Jeden Svet Human Rights Documentary Film Festival (Prague, Czech Republic), x, 25, 35, 44, 49n6 P Pia Film Festival (Tokyo, Japan), 145 PiFan International Fantastic Film Festival (Bucheon, South Korea), 145 PIFF/BIFF. Pusan/Busan International Film Festival (South Korea), 145 Play-Doc. International Documentary Film Festival (Tui, Galicia, Spain), 253 Porto/Post/Doc. Film & Media Festival Framing reality (Porto, Portugal), 72 Punto de Vista. International Documentary Film Festival (Pamplona, Navarre, Spain), 254 R RDOC. Festival Internacional de Cine Documental de República Dominicana y el Caribe (Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic), 72 Real Life Documentary Film Festival (Accra, Ghana), 70 Re-Verzio Film Festival (Budapest, Hungary), 35 RIDM. Rencontres Internationales du documentaire de Montréal/the Montreal International Documentary Festival (Montreal, Canada), ix, 95n13, 168, 250

  INDEX OF FESTIVALS 

S San Francisco International Film Festival (San Francisco, USA), 21, 22, 25, 28 San Sebastian Film Festival (San Sebastian, Basque Country, Spain), 81, 90, 247, 254, 261n28 “Santiago Álvarez in Memoriam”. Festival Internacional de documentales (Santiago de Cuba, Cuba), 69 Sarajevo Film Festival (Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina), 49n6, 90 Sheffield Doc/Fest. Sheffield International Documentary Festival (Sheffield, UK), 91, 95n13, 171 SODRE. International Festival of Documentary and Experimental Film (Montevideo, Uruguay), 81 Sofia International Film Festival (Sofia, Bulgaria), x Sundance Film Festival (Salt Lake City, Utah, USA), 7, 22, 47, 85, 87, 91, 155, 171, 199, 210, 211, 216, 229 SurDocs. Festival Internacional de cine documental de Puerto Varas (Puerto Varas, Chile), 70 SXSW. South by Southwest (Austin, Texas, USA), 66 T Taiwan International Documentary Festival/台湾国际纪录片影展 (Taipei, Taiwan), 67 Taiwan International Ethnographic Film Festival (Taiwan), 154 Thessaloniki Documentary Film Festival (Thessaloniki, Greece), vi, vii, 35, 37n10, 95n13

271

TIFF. Toronto International Film Festival (Toronto, Canada), x, 9, 10, 20, 22, 28, 87, 95n13, 123, 168, 170, 171, 195, 196, 210, 211, 213, 216, 250 TOKYO FILMeX (Tokyo, Japan), 145 Tokyo International Film Festival (Tokyo, Japan), 145, 146 Tribeca Film Festival (New York, USA), 9, 91, 168 True/False Film Festival (Columbia, Missouri, USA), 198 V Vancouver International Film Festival (Vancouver, Canada), 48 Venice Film Festival (Venice, Italy), 28, 68, 80, 81, 102–103, 124, 125, 171 Vibgyor Film Festival (Thrissur City, Kerala, India), 234 “Views of the World”– Nicosia International Documentary Film Festival (Cyprus), 71 Vikalp. Films for Freedom (Mumbai, India), 9, 13, 222, 225–236 Visible Record Chinese Documentary Festival/华语纪录片节 (Hong Kong), 71 Visions du Réel. Festival International de Cinéma (Nyon, Switzerland), 66, 83, 123–126, 138, 250 W World Community Film Festival (Courtenay on Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada), viii

272 

INDEX OF FESTIVALS

Y YDSFF. Yugoslav Documentary and Short Film Festival (Belgrade, Serbia, Yugoslavia), 101–117, 117n1, 119n16 YIDFF. Yamagata International Documentary Film Festival (Yamagata, Japan), 13, 66, 73, 86, 143–161, 179, 229 Yubari Fantastic Film Festival/(ゆうば り国際ファンタスティック映画 祭 (Yubari, Japan), 145 Yugoslav Fiction Film Festival (Pula, Croatia, Yugoslavia), 81, 105 Yugoslav Film Festival (YFF, Belgrade and Pula, Yugoslavia), 81, 106, 119n19

Yunfest. Yunnan Multicultural Visual Festival (Kunming, China), 89, 175, 190n7 Z Zagrebdox. International Documentary Film Festival (Zagreb, Croatia), vii Zinebi. Interantional Festival of Documentary and Short Film of Bilbao (Bilbao, Basque Country, Spain), vi, vii, 36, 80, 81, 94n6, 254 Zinegin Basque Film and Documentary Festival (Hasparren/Labourd, Nouvelle-­ Aquitaine, France), 255

Index of Subjects1

A Aboriginal, 246 Academia, vi, 1–5, 11, 12, 20, 21, 27, 31, 33, 41–44, 46–48, 73, 81, 84, 155, 201, 217n9, 219n26, 231, 234 Academy Awards (Oscars), 23, 82, 84, 87, 92, 94n6, 137, 158 Accessibility, x, 5, 32, 34, 36, 43–46, 48, 57, 73, 126, 131, 136, 158, 159, 169, 243, 255, 256 Accreditation, 5, 36, 45, 126 Activism, 9, 11, 13, 33, 82, 170, 171, 193–219 See also Militant cinema Actor-Network-Theory (ANT), 41 Actors/actresses, 2, 32, 134, 186, 244 See also Film stars Actuality, 9, 10, 243 Advocacy, 195, 198, 209 Aesthetics, vi, 2, 3, 7, 8, 11, 13, 19, 26, 35, 90–93, 126, 244, 247

1

Africa, 85, 89, 244, 260n20 Agency for Cultural Affairs (Japan), 149 A-list festivals, 32, 151 Aljazeera, 232 Alternative, ix, x, 2, 10, 11, 48, 81, 145, 148, 180, 199–203, 206, 213, 216, 217n13, 217–218n14, 225, 226, 232, 234–236, 241, 243, 246, 248, 257 Amazon, 56 Amnesty international, 208, 209 Analogue, 56, 58 Anglophone, 4, 248, 250 Anhui University, 178 Animation documentary, vii, 91 Anniversary books, 4, 64 Anthology Film Archives, 94n7 Anthropology, 2, 33 Anticompetitive, 84 Antifascist, 107, 109, 110, 115, 116 Arab Spring, 155

 Note: Page numbers followed by ‘n’ refer to notes.

© The Author(s) 2020 A. Vallejo, E. Winton (eds.), Documentary Film Festivals Vol. 1, Framing Film Festivals, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17320-3

273

274 

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

Arab World, 85 AraFilms, 256, 262n33 Archives, vii, viii, 12, 21, 31, 33–36, 43–45, 48, 53–58, 78, 88, 102, 124, 126, 127, 130, 136, 137, 199 Ardèche Images, 88 Argentina, 256 Armenia, 137 Art form, 11, 41, 188 ARTE France TV, 96n24 Art galleries, 91, 229 Arthouse cinema, 68 Arts management, 2 Asia, 73, 86, 89, 143–146, 148, 149, 151–154, 157, 159–161 Asia Symposium, 87, 152 Association Interantionale des Documentaristes (AID, International Documentary Association), 4, 130 Audience, vi, vii, ix, x, 8, 20, 21, 23, 25–28, 32–34, 48, 54, 55, 58, 82, 83, 86, 87, 93, 103, 105, 107, 116, 120n24, 125, 133, 137, 139, 150, 151, 154, 157, 159, 161, 169, 172, 186, 194, 195, 198, 199, 201, 203, 206, 209–216, 216n3, 222, 225, 235, 243–245, 247, 248, 251, 252, 254–258 Audio discs, 177 Austria, 249 Authenticity, 243 Avant-garde cinema, 136 Awards, 5, 6, 25, 27, 32, 42, 55, 57, 58, 79–87, 90, 92, 94n6, 96n15, 107, 117, 128, 134, 139, 140n4, 145, 148, 152, 153, 155–157, 203, 217n10, 229, 246–250, 254 B Backups, 56–58 Balearic Islands, 256

Baltic States, 137 Basque Country, vii, 254, 255, 261n29 Basque language, 254, 255 BBC, 232 Beijing, 1, 13, 169, 176–178, 189 Beijing World Art Museum, 177 Belgian (Henri Storck), 179 Belgium, 129, 249 Betacam, 34 Bibliotèque nationale de France, 49n4 Black Wave, 83, 103, 110, 111, 117, 120n27 Blogs, 4, 45, 222 Bloor Cinema, 198, 218n22 Bolivia, 131 Bombay (Mumbai), 223, 224, 229–231, 234 Bourgeois, 131 Boycott, 102, 204, 232 Brazil, 25, 90, 95n13, 206 Brazil’s Ministry of Justice, 168 Bretagne, 252, 261n24, 261n25 Bretagne & Diversité (BED), 252, 261n25 Breton language, 252 Britdoc Foundation, 208 British Columbia, viii British Council, 149 Broadcasting, x, 88, 196, 216n6, 222, 223, 252 Budgets, 34, 57, 92, 106, 119n17, 126, 138, 149, 197, 211, 216n3, 217n11, 235 Business, 1, 9, 42, 136, 149, 184, 193, 194, 198–200, 205, 207, 211, 213, 214 C Cahiers du cinéma, 4, 138 Calcutta, 223, 224, 232 Canada, viii, ix, xin2, 33, 86, 95n13, 169, 170, 206, 216, 259n7

  INDEX OF SUBJECTS 

Canadian Embassy, 150 Canadian Independent Film Caucus (CIFC), 195, 196, 198, 199 Canon, 2, 3, 5, 12, 14, 21–23, 27, 46, 73, 78, 81, 86, 89–93, 130, 218n14, 245, 250 Capitalism, 113, 200, 205, 208, 216n3 Catalan language, 253, 255, 256, 262n31 Catalonia, 255 Celluloid, 34, 132, 249 See also 16 mm; 35mm Censorship, 13, 130, 132–133, 169, 171, 175, 177, 182, 185, 186, 225, 228, 229, 232, 233, 235, 247 See also Freedom of speech Center for Documentary Studies (CDS), 58 Central European University (Budapest), xin1, 35 Channel 4, 208 Chile, 131, 250, 256 China (PRC, Popular Republic of China), 20, 25, 89, 129, 131, 150, 169, 170, 175–177, 179–182, 184, 186, 188, 189, 189n1, 189–190n5, 190n7 Chinese Ministry of Culture, 185 Cinema halls, see Movie theatres Cinema Journal, 6 Cinema Olympion, vii Cinema Politica, ix Cinémathèque Française, 84, 136 Cinéma Vérité, 83, 127, 131, 140n5 Cinememoria (Quito, Ecuador), 35 Cinephilia, 82, 85, 124, 125, 127, 134, 136, 137, 139, 146, 147, 157, 158, 161n2, 184, 247, 252 Circulation, vi, 1, 2, 4, 6, 48, 65, 79, 85, 90, 91, 94, 96n22, 169, 180, 195, 221, 225, 235, 241, 242, 244, 245, 250, 252, 254, 258

275

City Museum, 150 Civil associations, 85 Civil rights, 84 Civil Rights movement, 131 Civil society, 167, 170, 195, 202, 205, 206, 210, 213–215 Civil war, 104, 105, 109, 111 Cloud-based services, 55 Cold War, 83, 102, 130 Collaboration, 6, 12, 27–28, 32, 34–36, 44, 54, 58, 96n18, 147, 261n25 Collective, 2, 103, 153, 227, 232, 234 Colonialism, 4, 208, 223, 244, 261n23 Commercial cinemas, ix, 89, 196 Commissioning editors, 88, 210, 254 Communist Party of Yugoslavia (CPY), 104, 112, 119n19 Community, viii, ix, 19, 26, 28, 32, 33, 56, 81, 116, 146, 148, 150, 171, 186, 197–199, 202, 213, 216, 222, 225–229, 232, 233, 236n9, 238, 245, 252, 256 Competition, 33, 87, 88, 90, 114, 117, 129, 143, 145, 147, 149–155, 157–160, 178, 183, 206, 244, 251, 252 Concentration camps, 110 Consumerism, 204, 205, 212 Consumption, x, 2, 20, 93, 172, 257 Controversial, 23, 110, 124, 131, 211 Co-productions, 88, 96n17, 158, 211, 249, 250, 254, 257, 261n28 Copyright, 44 Corporations, viii, 125, 149, 168, 169, 194, 198, 205, 206, 211, 213, 214, 225, 241 Cosmopolitan, 244, 257 Countercultural, 43 Counter-discourse, 204 Creative documentary, vi, vii, 11, 92, 138, 243 Creative industries, 2, 93, 179, 180

276 

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

Croatia, vii, 103, 104, 112, 113, 115, 119n19 Cuba, 131, 134 Cultural capital, 44 Cultural diversity, 93, 242, 243, 246, 251, 257, 258 Cultural domination, 90, 244 Cultural elites, 12, 64, 73, 123–140 Cultural management, 33 Cultural memory, 102–103 Cultural politics, ix, x, 171, 194, 201 Cultural preservation, 35 Cultural standardization, 247 Cultural Studies, 2 Cultural translation, 242 Curating, viii, x, 6, 8, 12, 13, 31, 42, 43, 46, 47, 50n14, 55, 57, 66, 78, 79, 81, 84–86, 90, 91, 95n13, 96n19, 101–103, 112, 117, 118n3, 123–140, 143–157, 160, 161n2, 168, 170, 176, 178, 179, 187, 194, 197–200, 203, 205, 206, 209, 210, 213, 216, 217n10, 218n18, 224, 245, 249, 251, 253, 260n19, 261n23, 261n25 See also Programming Curatorial practices, x, 68, 178 Czech Republic, vii, 25, 35, 49n6, 86, 260n20 D Data, 12, 31, 33, 34, 44, 48, 53–58 Databases, 44, 48, 54–56, 248 Decision-making, 27, 43, 45, 46 Delhi, 223 Denmark, 96n17, 132, 250 Digital, vii, 6, 10, 55, 56, 58, 149, 233–235, 249, 259n9 Digitization, 34–35, 37n9, 93 Diplomacy, 64, 78–82

Directors, vii, viii, 8, 13, 32, 42, 44, 49n6, 55, 64, 68, 74n5, 84, 85, 87, 95n13, 123–130, 132–140, 145, 147–149, 151–155, 157–159, 178, 180, 183, 186, 189, 190n10, 211, 215, 254, 261n29 Directors Fortnight (Cannes), 139 Distinction, 10, 24–26, 41, 79, 102 Distribution, vi, 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 11, 21, 22, 32, 33, 35, 48, 57, 73, 77, 85, 88, 89, 92, 93, 130, 144, 145, 150, 151, 155, 169, 180, 203, 222, 228, 229, 241, 244, 248, 255, 257, 261n22 Diversity, vii, viii, 3, 10, 65, 92, 93, 169, 172, 178, 200, 206, 241–258 Doc Alliance Films, 49n6 Documedia (First documentary panorama of the IFFI), 224 Documentary Box (YIDFF’s journal), 87, 158 Documentary classics, 6, 78, 81 Documentary Magazine, 4 Documentary Organization of Canada (DOC), 4, 195 Documentary Studies, v, 2–7, 19 Docu Rough Cut Boutique (Sarajevo), 90 Docuwallahs Listserv (later Docuwallahs2), 233 Do It Yourself (DIY), 196 Doordarshan Tv channel, 223 Dox Magazine, 4 Dropbox, 55 Dubbing, 242, 243, 247, 248, 252, 256 Duke University, 12, 35, 54, 57–58 DVD, 28, 34, 35, 54–57, 129, 180, 182, 211, 235, 256, 262n31

  INDEX OF SUBJECTS 

E EACEA report (2011), 246, 247, 259n8 Eastern Europe, 83, 86, 131, 133, 134, 136 East Silver Video Library, 49n6 East Timor, viii, ix Economics, vi, 2, 6, 8, 27, 28, 32, 33, 111, 112, 145, 169, 193, 203, 204, 208, 216n1, 246–248, 251, 254 Ecran, 131 Educational, 23, 119n20, 150, 152, 153, 159, 169, 247 Eiki Industria Co.Ltd, 149 El documental del mes (“The documentary of the month”), 256 Emails, 158, 218n15, 225–229 Employees, 48, 54 Entertainment, 193, 200, 211–212, 216, 217n11 Ephemeral, 34, 43, 54–55, 63, 78 Epistemological, 2, 7, 8 Epistephilia, 24–25 Essay films, 125, 126 Ethics, 19, 48, 87, 155, 156, 168, 169, 173n3 Ethnicity, 77, 124 Ethnographic, 5, 20, 33, 45, 48, 49n8, 49n9, 74n3, 83, 84, 95n11, 201, 222, 257 Eurocentric, 157 Europa Cinema Awards, 250 Europa Cinema network, 250 European Commission, 247, 248, 259n8 European Community Programme, 246 European Documentary Network (EDN), 4, 96n17 European Film Award for Best Documentary (or Prix Arte), 258

277

European Film Awards, 94n6, 249, 250 European Network for Cinema and Media Studies (NECS), 42–47 European Union, 13, 37n9, 96n17, 172, 242, 246, 248–250, 257, 259n7 Eventization, 139 Exhibition, 8, 11–14, 41, 48, 64, 65, 77, 79, 80, 82, 85, 89, 91, 93, 96n25, 108, 123, 130, 145, 148, 170, 182, 185, 195, 214, 235, 244, 245, 247, 255, 257 Experimental, 7, 10, 77, 80, 81, 91, 94n7, 125, 129, 138, 155 Expository mode, vi, 243 EYE musem (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 35 F Facebook, 56, 234, 236n9, 238 Factual, 22, 80, 216n6 Fanhall Films, 176–180, 186, 189 Fascism, 79, 104, 109, 110, 116, 136, 217n13 Feature-length documentaries, vi, 10, 77, 89, 143, 151, 154, 184 Federation of Film Societies of India (FFSI), 224 Festival reports, 4, 5, 156, 157 Festival staff, 32, 42, 47, 48, 50n14, 55, 82, 151 Festivity, 28 Fiction, ix, 7–10, 22, 24–26, 32, 34, 68, 77, 79, 80, 92, 93, 107, 136, 138, 151, 153, 160, 170, 171, 182, 199, 200, 243, 244, 249, 251, 254 Fieldwork, 44, 223, 226, 227, 233, 234 Filemaker, 56

278 

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

Film Bureau of the State Administration for Radio, Film and Television (SARFT, China), 185 Film clubs, 78, 79, 82, 129, 130, 145, 148, 177 Film Comment, 136 Film criticism, vi, 5–6, 8, 22, 23, 73, 79, 95n13, 111, 112, 126, 129, 130, 134, 136–138, 140, 147, 161n2, 182, 203, 245 Film criticism/reviews, x, 4, 130 Film Festival Research Network (FFRN), 3, 12, 49n1, 49n6, 144 Film festival studies, v, 2–4, 13, 20, 31–33, 42, 46, 48 Film genres, 8, 10, 78 Film historiography, 6 Film industries, 34, 41, 73, 84, 86, 92, 148, 150, 193, 207, 249 Filmin.es, 256 Film literacy, 2, 88, 92, 248 Film markets, 35, 85, 88, 158 Film preservation, viii, 12, 35, 44, 53–58, 93, 172, 241–258 Film prints/master prints, 54, 57, 58, 157 Films Division (FD, India), 222, 232, 236 Film selection, 12, 35, 41, 79, 84, 91, 102, 106, 117, 128, 129, 133, 134, 136, 138, 139, 153–155, 176, 183–184, 187, 199, 218n18, 232, 233, 249, 252, 256, 260n16 Film stars, 32, 126, 139, 211 See also Actors/actresses Film studies, 3, 20, 33, 58 Film submissions, 34, 36, 54, 56, 79, 84, 153, 184, 202, 233, 252 Finland, vii, 89, 147 First-person documentary, vii, 90, 126

Flickr, 55 Folklore, 112 Fondation Franco-Japonaise Sasakawa, 149 Forum of Young Cinema (Berlin), 139 France, 14n4, 35, 88, 168, 249, 251, 255, 260n17, 261n24, 261n29 Francophone (French-speaking), 35, 140, 250 Freedom of speech, 13, 14n4, 130, 132–133, 139, 169, 171, 175, 177, 182, 185, 186, 225–229, 232, 233, 235, 247 See also Censorship Fukutake Foundation for the Promotion of Regional Culture in Japan, 149 Funding/fundraising, viii, 37n9, 55, 56, 85, 86, 88, 90, 93, 96n17, 119n17, 137, 140, 144, 169, 177–180, 184, 190n9, 195, 209, 213, 224, 234, 246, 248, 250, 252, 259n9, 260n18 Funds, 6, 88, 169, 195, 210, 218n18, 246, 257 G Galician language, 253, 254 Gaul language, 252 Gender, 77, 84, 124, 232 Georgia, 250 German Democratic Republic, 133 German-speaking, 140 Glamour, 32 Global South, 94n1 Global space economy, 6, 126 Goethe Institut, 149 The Good Pitch, 208 Google Docs, 55, 56

  INDEX OF SUBJECTS 

Goskino, 133 Governmental bodies, 68, 79, 82, 84, 105, 113, 116, 136, 149, 160, 167, 169, 171, 175, 176, 178, 182, 183, 185–189, 190n7, 210, 222, 224, 233, 261n24 Grassroots, 9, 171, 194, 195, 213, 214, 219n25 The Guardian, 232 Guerrilla screening, 185–187 H Hard drives, 55 Harvard Sensory Lab, 91 Hearing impaired people, 249, 252 Hegemonic, 202, 249 Hierarchies, 5, 32, 66, 68, 90, 94n1, 257 The Hindu, 228, 232 Hindustan Times, 228, 232 Historic revisionism, 6, 73 History, v, 1–14, 21–22, 27, 33, 35, 43, 45, 53–55, 58, 63–66, 73, 74, 74n1, 74n2, 101–103, 105, 106, 108, 109, 112, 117, 119n22, 120n30, 124, 126, 127, 130, 134, 138, 140, 140n1, 143, 144, 146–149, 152–154, 160, 161, 169, 171, 189, 195–201, 203, 213, 218n14, 222–227, 232–235, 247, 256 HIV, 178 Hollywood, x, 136, 181, 200, 211, 213, 257, 259n1 Hot Docs-Blue Ice Group Documentary Fund, 210 Hot Docs Forum, 198, 207–210, 216n5 Human rights, 4, 11, 74n3, 170, 201, 203 Hyderabad, 224

279

I IBERMEDIA program, 96n17 Ideological, 79, 101, 103–105, 107, 109, 111, 115, 203 IDFA Bertha Fund, 49n6 IDFA fórum, 88 Immaterial cultural heritage, 35 Imperialism, 197 Independence, 112, 169, 175, 176, 179, 183–186, 188, 203, 222 Independent, ix, 13, 64, 68, 74n3, 77, 82–85, 123, 128, 134, 139, 145, 148, 160, 170, 175–189, 190n13, 195–197, 199, 223–225, 232–236, 241, 250 Independent Documentary Producers Association (IDPA, India), 223 Indexicality, 91 India, 9, 89, 90, 133, 152, 171, 221–236 The Indian Express, 228, 232 Indian Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, 222 IndieWire, 158 Indigenous, 168, 196, 202, 203, 207, 244–246 Indonesia, 250 Industry, viii, 4, 8, 9, 21, 34–36, 41–46, 48, 64–73, 78, 85–88, 96n17, 119n21, 125, 145, 148, 150, 151, 153, 157, 161, 170, 193–195, 198, 205, 207, 208, 210–212, 214, 216, 216n6, 218n18, 249, 251, 261n22 Institute of Documentary Film (IDF, Czech Republic), 35, 49n6 Institutional analysis, 43 Institutionalization, 85, 126, 137, 139, 208 Intellectuals, 127, 139 Interactive documentaries, vii, 5, 6, 91, 96n25

280 

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

Interdisciplinary, 3, 42 International Federation of Film Critics (FIPRESCI), 94n6, 148, 157 International Federation of Film Producers Association (FIAPF), 36, 37n10, 94n6 International Film Festival of India (IFFI, Goa, India), see Documedia (First documentary panorama of the IFFI) Internationalization, 73, 92, 101, 144–146, 241, 258 Internet, 6, 28, 137, 177, 222, 225, 227 Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine, 56 Internships, 46 Inuit, 168, 245 Involvement, 42, 46–48, 148, 155, 160, 190n5 Iran, 20, 168, 221 Isabel Bader Theatre (Toronto), 212 Italy, 82, 123, 127, 196, 251 ITRW (In the Real World), 194, 214 IT support, 57 J Jan Vrijman Fund, 88 Japan, 13, 25, 73, 86, 143–150, 152–161, 178, 179, 236n3, 238 Japan Arts Council, 149 Japanese post-war documentary movement, 146 Jasmine Revolution (China, 2011), 182, 188 Jews, 109, 110 Journalism, 4, 45, 103 Journalistic, 5, 48

Journalists, 5, 42, 47, 126, 150, 151 Jump Cut, 3, 14n1 Juries, x, 25–27, 33, 42, 79, 82, 84, 87, 106, 107, 112, 114, 119n19, 127, 128, 131, 136, 137, 149–154, 184, 232 K Kanto-language, 145 KGB, 134 Korea, 25, 145, 152, 155, 179 Kosovo, vii, 104, 111, 112, 115 L Labour, 44, 49n7, 54–56, 109, 110, 150, 151, 157, 160, 213, 215, 218n18 La Maison du doc (Lussas, France), 35, 88 Language learning, 246, 257 Latin America, 84, 85, 89, 256, 261n28 Lau Haizetara co-production forum (San Sebastian), 90, 254 LDX Contemporary Art Centerc, 180 Left-wing, 124, 129, 131, 154 LGBT, 84, 89, 178 LGBT/Q, 49n7 Liberal consensus, 201–207, 215 Liberation movements, 131 Linguistic diversity, vii, viii, 172, 241–258 Linguistic minorities, 13, 172 Linguistic policies, vii, 246, 261n24 Li Xianting Film Fund, 178, 184, 189 Lobby, 167, 228, 229 Los Angeles Times, 147 Lux Film Prize, 249, 250

  INDEX OF SUBJECTS 

M Madras, 223 Mainstream, ix, 8–10, 112, 124, 148, 193–216, 217–218n14, 222, 235, 236 Management, 2, 6, 33, 55, 56, 58, 85, 88, 112, 130, 131, 197–199, 205, 216n6, 218n18 Marker, Chris, 134, 155 Marketing, 21, 54–56, 137, 179, 195, 211, 212, 214 Marxist, 131 May ’68, 84, 127, 139 Media, viii–x, 8, 10, 14n4, 32, 43, 45, 46, 54, 56, 58, 105, 113, 124, 125, 149, 151, 171, 193, 194, 198–207, 211, 213, 217n13, 217n14, 221, 222, 226, 227, 232, 234, 235, 236n5, 238, 247, 252 Media consumption, x Media industries, 48 Media Industries Studies, 45 MEDIA program (EU), 96n17, 257, 260n18 Mediascapes, x Meeting point, 130, 139 Megaplexes, ix, x, 214 Memory officialization, 101–117, 123 Metadata, 54, 55 Methodological issues, 7, 12, 34, 48, 144 Methodology, 31, 33–36, 41–48 Mexico, 35, 89 Microsoft Office, 56 Middle East, 154 Militant cinema, x, 4, 9, 11, 13, 33, 45, 82, 84, 124, 126, 130, 136, 138, 139, 167, 168, 170, 171, 193–216, 235 See also Activism

281

Millennium Film Workshop and Film Forum, 94n7 Minorities, 131, 132, 138, 261n27 Minoritised languages, vii, 2, 242, 244–246, 251, 252, 254 Minority languages, 96n22, 242, 244, 245, 247, 249–253, 255–258, 259n2, 259n6, 259n9, 261n24 Mipdoc, 88 Mise-en-scène, 139 Mobile phones, 229 MOMA (New York), 229 Monolingualism, 247, 256, 257 Montenegro, 102, 104, 112, 118n10, 119n18 Movie theatres, vi, 77, 91, 92, 178, 182, 222, 223, 250, 256 Multilingual, 13, 172, 242, 245, 246, 252–258, 262n33 Multimedia, 44 Muse Theater, 150 Museums, viii, 35, 57, 91, 95n11, 177, 178 Music, 25, 243 N Narrative, vi, 8, 9, 44, 102, 108–113, 115, 146–148, 199, 226, 227, 236n3, 238, 243 National cinemas, 3, 79, 81, 84, 245, 250, 257 National Film Board of Canada, 79, 91 National identities, 101, 103, 116, 117, 245, 251 Nationalism, 68, 102, 103, 111, 112, 115, 116, 118n1, 197 National Library of China (Beijing), 177 Natives, 84, 244, 245, 252

282 

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

Navarre (Spain), 254 NECSUS: European Journal of Media Studies, 5, 50n13 Neoliberal, 205 Netherlands, vii, 25, 35, 195 Networking, ix, 2, 10, 13, 41, 48, 49n7, 66, 68, 87, 88, 92, 124, 126, 130, 135, 136, 139, 144, 146, 157, 158, 171, 202, 226, 228, 229, 231, 233, 241, 245, 250 New Delhi, 224, 227, 228, 229, 231 New media, x, 161 New Swiss Film, 127 Nodal point, 19 Non-commercial, 81, 144, 158, 160, 161 Non-competitive, 183 Non-fiction, 1, 7, 170, 195, 196, 199, 204 Non-governmental organziation (NGO), 208–211, 213 See also Non-profit organization (NPO); Third sector Non-profit organization (NPO), 34, 149, 150, 160 See also Non-governmental organziation (NGO); Third sector North America, 13, 85, 86, 131, 158, 168, 244 Norway, 250 O Obsolete media, 54 Offline, 54–56, 231 Offscreen voice, 244 Online, 222, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 231, 233, 167, 4, 34, 34, 49n1, 54, 55, 55–56, 56, 56, 91, 160, 261n25, 256, x

Online listservs, 222, 225–227, 233–235, 236n9, 238 Open Society Foundation, viii Oral histories, 45, 124, 140n1, 198 Original Language Version (OV), 13, 172, 242–249, 256, 257, 259n3 Orthodox Church, 112 OSA Archives (Budapest, Hungary), viii P Panama, 131 Participant observation, 42, 45–46, 49n8 Participatory, 147, 203, 225 Pedagogy, 132 Peripheral cinemas, 4, 5, 10, 11, 78, 169, 171, 198, 200, 201, 241, 244, 245, 250–251 Peru, 131 Photographs, 54, 55, 108, 120n24 Pitching fora, 64, 86, 88, 90, 158, 161, 210 Point-of-view (POV) documentaries, ix, 193–196 Points of passage, 2 Policy-making, vii, 13, 33, 58, 86–88, 90, 96n15, 96n19, 112, 117, 143–145, 147, 148, 151–157, 167–172, 173n3, 176, 185, 195, 197, 202, 236, 242, 245–248, 252–258, 259n7, 261n24 Politics, viii–xi, 1–14, 33, 41, 68, 90, 91, 103, 117, 130, 133, 144–146, 160, 167, 169–172, 194, 196, 200, 201, 203, 205–211, 213, 214, 232, 235 Porn, 133 Portugal, 253 Positif, 4, 138 Positionality, 42, 46–48

  INDEX OF SUBJECTS 

Post-production, 243 POV Magazine, 4 Power dynamics, 4 Premieres, 10, 33, 80, 92, 136, 137, 140, 148, 155 Presales, 44 Press conferences, 22, 36 Production, vi, vii, 2, 4, 6–8, 11, 13, 21, 32, 47, 49n6, 53–55, 57, 65, 73, 77, 84, 85, 87–93, 94n1, 95n13, 102, 103, 105, 107, 109, 112, 113, 117, 120n25, 134, 137, 139, 144, 145, 148–150, 155, 157, 158, 170, 180–184, 188, 190n9, 197, 200, 209–211, 216n6, 221–225, 228, 229, 235, 245, 246, 248–250, 252, 255, 257, 261n22, 262n30 Professionalization, 85, 208, 209 Programming, vi, x, 5, 8, 23, 47, 56, 57, 68, 81, 117, 171, 178, 179 See also Curating Protest, 108, 128–130, 133, 135, 148, 168, 182, 222, 227 Public domain, 124, 228 Public Relations (PR), 45, 212 Q Qatar, 89 Qualitative, 33, 46, 48 Quantitative, 33, 46, 48 R Race, 124 Radical Committed documentaries, 201–207, 210, 217–218n14 Radical Film Network, 9 Reality/real, 8, 9, 11, 22, 24–25, 80, 85, 103, 119n20, 128, 147, 208, 209, 229, 243–246, 257, 258

283

Reception, vi, 2, 9, 20, 23, 41, 124, 131, 150, 158, 170, 242, 260n20 Reciprocity, 33 Reconstruction, 12, 23 Recreation, 23 Red carpets, 44, 45, 126, 138, 145, 158, 168, 211 Red Cross, 130 Re-enactment, 23 Regionalism, 169, 172 Registration fees, 28 Reportage, vi, 155 Repository, 57 Retrospectives, viii, 86, 88, 90, 91, 125, 133, 134, 137, 152, 155, 177–179, 235, 261n23 See also Tributes Roma (Gypsies), 109, 110 Romania, 137 S Sales agents, 8, 47 Sardinia, 251, 252 Scholars, 3, 4, 11, 14n2, 19, 20, 26–27, 42, 46, 47, 54, 58, 73, 82, 87, 124, 127, 147, 150, 156, 158, 159, 161, 169–171, 180, 221, 222, 232, 236n5, 238 School of Art and Communication of Beijing Normal University, 177 Scopophilia, 24–25 Seagull Film Society, 224 Self-funded, 190n9 Sequence shots, 139 Serbia, 102, 104, 111, 112, 118n10, 119n15, 119n17, 120n29 Servers, 55, 262n33 Shaw Brothers, 144 Sid Williams Theatre, viii Sight & Sound, 4, 5

284 

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

16 mm, 34 See also Celluloid Sixth Generation Chinese Filmmakers, 177, 180 Small cinemas, 13 Small-media, 221–236 Social impact, 33 Socialist, 102, 104, 105, 108–113, 116, 117, 119n20, 119n22, 133, 134 Socialist Party of Switzerland, 131 Socialist Yugoslav Republic, 103 Social justice, 9, 193, 194, 212, 213 Social media, 13, 234 Social movements, 9, 78, 124, 196 Social networks, 87, 92 Social uprising, 68 Society for Cinema and Media Studies (SCMS), 27, 42, 43, 46, 47, 90 Sociology, 33, 41 Socio-political, 2, 7–9, 170, 188, 194, 196, 202, 204–210, 214, 215 Solaris theater (Yamagata), 150 Solidarity, 84, 168, 202, 203, 226, 228, 251 Songzhuang Art Museum, 176, 178 Songzhuang district, 176–180 Sound, 205, 243, 259n3 South America, 131 South Korea, 145, 154 Sovexport, 134 Soviet orbit, 124, 133 Spain, vii, 250, 251, 253, 254, 256 Sponsors, 8, 14n6, 47, 126, 139, 149, 168, 194, 205, 206, 209, 212, 213, 215 Stakeholders, 6, 47, 55, 216 Standardization, 27, 55, 247 State media power, 235 State-owned, 181, 182, 184 Statistics, 44, 48 Subculture, 20, 26 Sub-saharan Africa, 85

Subtitles, vii, 13, 136, 172, 242, 246–252, 254, 256, 262n31, 262n33 Subversive, 181, 188, 190n5 Sundance Channel, 200 Sundance Documentary Fund, 90 Sunny Side of the Doc, 88 Surveys, 33, 48, 54 Swiss Federal Office of Culture, 132, 137 Swiss film archive (Laussanne), 126, 127 Swiss Filmmakers’ Association, 129 Swiss Society of International Film Festivals, 135 T Talking-head documentaries, 138, 196 Tanzania, 249 Taste, 41, 85, 124, 136, 139 Taste-makers, 126, 136, 138 Teaching, 46, 48, 152, 178, 223 Technology, vii, viii, 1, 13, 48, 54, 56–57, 93, 149, 221, 223, 225, 227, 233–235, 236n9, 238 The Telegraph India, 232 Television, vi, x, 10, 23, 25, 33, 88, 89, 92, 95n13, 96n24, 131, 138, 145, 147, 175, 178, 181, 184, 196, 208, 223, 243, 247, 254, 256 Television broadcasting, x, 196 Television de la Suisse Romande, 130 Textual analysis, vi, 6 The Times of India, 228 Theatres, vi, viii, 22, 25, 26, 54, 77, 86, 91, 92, 125, 140, 178, 186, 189n1, 190n9, 212, 213, 215, 250, 256, 260n17 Theatrical release, 25, 33, 89 Thessaloniki Museum of Cinema (Greece), viii, 35

  INDEX OF SUBJECTS 

Third sector, 85–88 See also Non-governmental organziation (NGO), Non-­ profit organization (NPO) 35 mm, 34, 132, 249 See also Celluloid 3D graphics, 91 3/11 nuclear crisis (Japan), 160 Tohoku University of Art and Design, 150 Tourism, 151 Training, 23, 55, 252, 257 Transmedia, 91, 93 Transnational cinema, 3, 199 Travelling cinema, 223 Tributes, viii, 37n8, 86, 88, 90, 91, 125, 133, 134, 137, 152, 155, 177–179, 235, 261n23 See also Retrospectives Truth, 8, 24, 103, 226 Tsinghua University in Beijing, 177 Twitter, 56, 236n9, 238 U Underground, 13, 170, 175–189 United Kingdom (UK), 50n13, 79, 80, 95n13, 156, 208, 250 United Nations, 130 United Red Army, 154 United States of America (USA), 21, 25, 35, 54, 73, 81, 82, 84, 85, 89, 92, 137, 169, 196, 197, 211, 217n11, 241, 250 University of St. Andrews, 42, 49n2 Uzbekfilm, 134 Uzbekistan, 133, 134 V Valence, 256 Value-adding, 6, 32 Variety, 4

285

Venezuela, 131 Veracity, 8, 243 Verisimilitude, 243 Victims, 105, 109–117, 208 Video, 28, 54, 55, 93, 149, 154, 157, 182, 223 Video Compact Disc (VCD), 177, 182 Video Home System (VHS), viii, 34, 129, 231 Video libraries, see Archives Video on Demand (VOD), 33, 36n1, 129, 248, 256 Video-installations, 64 Vietnam War, 129 Vimeo, 34, 55, 56 Virtual Reality (VR), 64, 91–93 Virtual spaces, 226, 233, 234 Visible evidence, 8, 14n2 Visible Evidence Conference, 95n13 Visual anthropology, 20, 82, 84 Visual Anthropology Review, 5 Voice-over, 243, 247, 248 Volunteers, see Labour W Wars, 91, 103, 104, 112, 113, 115–117, 118n10 Web-documentaries, 92, 93 Web-series, 91 Websites, 5, 43, 54–57, 140n4, 184, 216n6, 218n25, 254, 259n6, 261n25, 261n27 Winners, 57, 58, 87, 105, 109, 140n4, 249, 250, 260n16 Withoutabox, 34, 56 Working class, x, 104 Workshops, 12, 34, 41–48, 54, 64, 88, 157, 177 World cinema, 3, 6, 73, 217n10 World Community Film Festival (Courtenay on Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada), viii

286 

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

World Social Forum (2004, Mumbai), 230 World Union of Documentary, 130 World War II, 12, 78, 79, 101–117, 127, 155 Y Yamagata Central Public Hall, 150 Yamagata city government, 149

Yamagata Manabikan cultural center, 150 YLE (Finnish National Broadcasting), 157 YouTube, 55, 56 Yugoslavia, viii, 12, 101–105, 107–109, 111–117, 118n10, 118n11, 120n25 Yunnan region (China), 150

Index of Films

A About Nice / À propos de Nice (Jean Vigo), 78 The Act of Killing (Joshua Oppenheimer, Anonymous and Christine Cynn), 22, 156, 250 Ai Weiwei: Never Sorry, 199 American Dream (Barbara Kopple), 87 Aquarius (Kleber Mendonca), 168 Arraianos (Eloy Enciso), 245 Artists about Genocide – Milić of Mačva (Božidar Vučurović), 115 B Basic Instinct, ix Battle for the Trees, 196 The Battle of Chile / La Batalla de Chile (Patricio Guzmán), 5, 85 The Battle of Sutjeska (Vladan Slijepčević), 108 Beijing Bicycle (Wang Xiaoshuai), 180 The Belovs / Belovy (Victor Kossakovsky), 87

Berlin: Symphony of a Metropolis / Berlin: Die Sinfonie der Großstadt (Walter Ruttmann), 78 Blackfish (Gabriela Cowperthwaite), 215 The Black Sheep, 196 Blazed Continent (Roman Karmen), 131 Bleak Moments (Mike Leigh), 136 Blood and Ashes of Jasenovac (Lordan Zafranović), 109 Blood of Freedom (Žika Č ukulić), 108 Bowling for Columbine (Michael Moore), vi, 5, 89 Bowl of Bone, 196 Bye Bye Africa (Mahamat-Saleh Haroun), 90 C The Carbon Rush (Amy Miller), 203, 204 Cesare deve morire (Paolo & Vittorio Taviani), 249 Chronique d'un été (Jean Rouch), 82

© The Author(s) 2020 A. Vallejo, E. Winton (eds.), Documentary Film Festivals Vol. 1, Framing Film Festivals, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17320-3

287

288 

INDEX OF FILMS

The City Beautiful (Rahul Roy), 229 Cooking History (Ako sa varia dejiny and Péter Kerekes), 260 Costa da Morte (Lois Patiño), 245 The Cove, 199, 204 The Crying Game, ix D Darwin’s Nightmare (Hubert Sauper), 249 The Dreamcatcher (Kim Longinotto), 155 E Emak Bakia Baita (The Search for Emak Bakia), 261 English for Yu, 196 F Fahrenheit 9/11 (Michael Moore), 89 Farrebique ou Les quatre saisons (Georges Rouquier), 80 Fast, Cheap & Out of Control (Ross McElwee), 87 A Filmless Festival (Wang Wo), 189 Final Solution (Rakesh Sharma), 229 Flamenco at 5:15 (Cynthia Scott), 137 Forgotten March (Brana Ćelović), 109 The Four Seasons (Georges Rouquier), 80 Furuyashiki Mura (Shinsuke Ogawa), 148 G Gift of Love (Meera Dewan), 224 The Gleaners and I / Les Glaneurs et la Glaneuse (Agnès Varda), vii, 89, 157, 244

Grandma Has a Video Camera (Tania Cypriano), 90 The Grave and its Glory (Mihailo Jovanović), 108 H Heart of Sky, Heart of Earth (Eric Black and Frauke Sandig), 202 HIGHRISE (Katerina Cizek), 91 High School (Frederick Wiseman), 5 Hiver nomad (Winter Nomad and Manuel von Stürler), 260 The Hour of the Furnaces / La hora de los hornos (Fernando E. Solanas and Octavio Getino), 84 The Hunters (John Marshall and Robert Gardner), 82 I I for India (Sandhya Suri), 90 An Inconvenient Truth, 204 In the Gutter and Other Good Places, 196 Intimate Stranger (Alan Berliner), 87 J Jai Bhim Comrade (Anand Patwardhan), 206, 207 June Turmoil (Želimir Žilnik), 83 K Karamay (Xu Xin), 186 Kaya Pooche Maya Se (Arvind Sinha), 229 Koyaanisqatsi (Godfrey Reggio), 25

  INDEX OF FILMS 

L La bataille des dix millions (Chris Marker), 134 La Chine rouge d’aujourd’hui, un quart de l’humanité, 129 La televisión y yo (Andrés di Tella), 90 Le Pélè (Moritz de Hadeln), 127, 136 Le 17e parallèle: la guerre du peuple (Joris Ivens), 129 Les Fiances de la Tour Eiffel, 196 Lessons of Darkness (Werner Herzog), 87 Leviathan (Lucien Castaing-Taylor and Verena Paravel), 24, 91 M Madonna, Queen of Croats (Krsto Škanata), 115 Magino Village: A Tale / 1000-nen kizaki no hidokei: Maginomura monogatari, 147, 148 Man of Aran (Robert Flaherty), 79 Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media (Mark Achbar, Peter Wintonick), viii, ix, 196 Man vs. Man (Shashi Anand), 224 The Man with a Movie Camera (Dziga Vertov), 5, 78 Martian Syndrome (Xue Jianqiang), 184 Mille Soleils (Mati Diop), 90 Minoru: Memory of Exile, 196 The Monument (Mika Antić), 110 Moving the Mountain, 196 N Naata (Anjali Monteiro and K.P. Jayshankar), 229 Nanook of the North (Robert Flaherty), 90

289

Narayan Gangaram Surve (Arun Khopkar), 229 Narita: The Peasants of the Second Fortress (Shinsuke Ogawa), 147 Nee Engey (RV Ramani), 229 New Improved Delhi (Vani Subramanian and Surajit Sarkar), 229 Night and Fog / Nuit et Brouillard (Alain Resnais), 5, 22, 81 A Night of Prophecy (Amar Kanwar), 229 Nihon Kaiho sensen: Sanrizuka no natsu (Shinsuke Ogawa), 147 Nobody’s Business (Alan Berliner), 87 Nostalgia for the Light / Nostalgia de la Luz (Patricio Guzmán), 250 O of the North (Dominic Gagnon), 168 Olympia (Leni Riefensthalt), 79 P Painters Painting (Emile de Antonio), 22 Paisà (Roberto Rossellini), 80 The Pearl Button (Patricio Guzmán), 155 People from my textbook (Stevan Stanić), 109 Pina (Wim Wenders), 249 The Pipeline Next Door / Un dragon dans les eaux pures du Caucase (Nino Kiradzé), 249, 250 The Pit – Grote Morta (Milorad Bajić), 113, 114 The Plague / La Plaga (Neus Ballús), 249 The Poem about my country (Stole Janković), 109

290 

INDEX OF FILMS

POM Wonderful: The Greatest Movie Ever Sold (Morgan Spurlock), 211, 213 Project Syria (Nonny de la Peña), 91 Q Quiet Days in Clichy (Jens Jorgen Thorsen), 132 R Rain (Joris Ivens), 78 Rashomon (Akira Kurosawa), 226, 238 Red Snow in Pohorje (Jože Pogačnik), 108 Regen (Joris Ivens), 78 Reservoir Dogs, ix Roger and Me (Michael Moore), 22, 90 S Sacro GRA (Gianfranco Rosi), 260 Sanrizuka: Dainitoride no hitobito (Shinsuke Ogawa), 147 Sans Soleil (Chris Marker), 5 Shoah (Claude Lanzmann), 5 Sita's Family (Saba Dewan), 229 Something was Telling me that I would Stay Alive / Govorilo mi je nešto da ću ostat žiz (Spasoje Jovanović and Miroslav Stanković), 115 State of Exception (Jason O’Hara), 206 Statues Also Die / Les Statues Meurent (Alain Resnais and Chris Marker), 81 Steam of Life (Miesten vuoro, Joonas Berghäll and Mika Hotakainen), 260 Stewed Pork (Ai Weiwei), 188

Summer in Narita (Shinsuke Ogawa), 147 SuperSize Me (Morgan Spurlock), 212 Sweetgrass (Ilisa Barbash and Lucien Castaing-Taylor), 24, 244 T Tai Shi Village (Ai Xiaoming), 188 Ten on One (Bata Č engić), 108 The Beaches of Agnès (Agnès Varda), 260 The Thin Blue Line (Errol Morris), 5, 22 This is My Africa (Zina Saro-­ Wiwa), 90 A Thousand Suns (Mati Diop), 90 Tig, 199 Time Indefinite (Ross McElwee), 87 The Times of Harvey Milk (Rob Epstein), 137 Titicut Follies (Frederick Wiseman), 81 To Be and to Have / Être et Avoir (Nicholas Philibert), 5, 89 To Live is Better than to Die (Chen Weijun), 178 Touki-Bouki (Djibril Diop Mambéty), 90 Triumph of the Will (Leni Riefensthalt), 79 20 Feet from Stardom (Morgan Neville), 24 U Umarutram (Sivakumar), 229 The Unemployed (Želimir Žilnik), 83 Ursula oder das Unwerte Leben (Walter Marti), 129

  INDEX OF FILMS 

V Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe (Andrew Wakefield), 168 W Waltz with Bashir (Ari Folman), 91 We Are the Lambeth Boys (Karel Reisz), 82 Welfare (Frederick Wiseman), 136

291

Woodstock (Michael Wadleigh), 84 Words On Water (Sanjay Kak), 229 X Xiao Wu (Jia Zhangke), 180 Y The Yes Men Are Revolting (Laura Nix, Jacques Servin and Igor Vamos), 168

Index of Names1

A Achbar, Mark, viii Adachi, Masao, 154 Ai Weiwei, 188 Ai Xiaoming, 188 Álvarez, Santiago, 87 Anand, Shashi, 224 Antić, Mika, 110 B Bajić, Milorad, 113, 114 Ballús, Neus, 249 Barbash, Ilisa, 24, 244 Berliner, Alan, 87, 156 Berri, Claude, 168 Black, Eric, 202, 218n15 Buffin, James, 208, 209 Butalia, Pankaj, 224, 227

1

C Castaing-Taylor, Lucien, 24, 91, 244 Ćelović, Brana, 109 Č engić, Bata, 108 Cizek, Katerina, 91 Coppola, Francis Ford, 26 Č ukulić, Žika, 108 Cynn, Christine, 22 Cypriano, Tania, 90 D de Antonio, Emile, 22 de Hadeln, Moritz, 12, 66, 83, 123–131, 133, 134, 138, 139 de la Peña, Nonny, 91 Dewan, Meera, 224 Dewan, Saba, 227, 229 Dhanraj, Deepa, 235

 Note: Page numbers followed by ‘n’ refer to notes.

© The Author(s) 2020 A. Vallejo, E. Winton (eds.), Documentary Film Festivals Vol. 1, Framing Film Festivals, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17320-3

293

294 

INDEX OF NAMES

Di Tella, Andrés, 90 Diop,Mati, 90 Dong-won, Kim, 179 Dvortsevoy, Sergei, 125 E Egoyan, Atom, 150 Enciso, Eloy, 245 Epstein, Rob, 126, 137 F Farocki, Harun, 91 Flaherty, Frances, 152, 156 Flaherty, Robert, 79, 81, 83, 90, 149 Folman, Ari, 91 Forgács, Péter, viii, 25, 91 Frank, Herz, 126 G Gagnon, Dominic, 168 Gardner, Robert, 82 Getino, Octavio, 84 Godard, Jean-Luc, 84, 127, 136, 137 Greenwald, Barry, 196 Guzmán, Patricio, 5, 85, 95n13, 155, 250 H Hani, Susumu, 147 Hara, Kazuo, 147 Haroun, Mahamat-Saleh, 90 Herzog, Werner, 87 I Ivens, Joris, 78, 127–131, 149

J Jain, Sameera, 227 Janković, Stole, 109 Jay, Paul, 195, 196 Jayshankar, K.P., 229 Jianqiang, Xue, 184 Jovanović, Mihailo, 108 Jovanović, Spasoje, 115 K Kak, Sanjay, 226, 227, 229, 235, 238 Kanwar, Amar, 227, 229 Karmen, Roman, 131 Kawase, Naomi, 125 Kazimi, Ali, 196 Khopkar, Arun, 229 Kiarostami, Abbas, 26, 156 Kiradzé, Nino, 250 Kopple, Barbara, 87 Kossakovsky, Victor, 87 Kurosawa, Akira, 226, 238 L Lanzmann, Claude, 5 Leacock, Robert, 127 Leigh, Mike, 136 Leiser, Erwin, 130 Lelouch, Claude, 168 Longinotto, Kim, 155 Lou Ye, 177 M Mambéty, Djibril Diop, 90 Marker, Chris, 5, 81, 136, 149 Markopoulos, Gregory, 136 Marshall, John, 82 Marti, Walter, 127, 129

  INDEX OF NAMES 

Matsubayashi, Yoju, 156 Matsue, Tetsuaki, 156 McDougall, David, 24 McElwee, Ross, 87 Mendonca, Kleber, 168 Mertens, Reni, 127 Miller, Amy, 203 Minha, Trinh T., 224 Mohan, Reena, 233 Monteiro, Anjali, 229, 230, 238 Moore, Michael, vi, 5, 22, 89 Morris, Errol, 5, 22 N Neville, Morgan, 24 Nix, Laura, 168 O Ogawa, Shinsuke, 143, 146, 147, 152, 157, 159, 161, 179 O’Hara, Jason, 206 Oppenheimer, Joshua, 22, 23, 156, 250 O’Rourke, Dennis, 224 P Patiño, Lois, 245 Patwardhan, Anand, 206, 207, 214, 235 Pennebaker, Donn A., 127 Philibert, Nicolas, 5, 89 Pogačnik, Jože, 108 R Ramani, R.V., 229 Redford, Robert, 199 Reggio, Godfrey, 25 Reisz, Karel, 82 Resnais, Alain, 5, 22, 81

Riefenstahl, Leni, 79 Rossellini, Roberto, 80 Rouch, Jean, 82, 127, 149 Rouquier, Georges, 80, 127 Roy, Rahul, 227, 229 Ruspoli, Mario, 127 Ruttmann, Walter, 78 S Sandig, Frauke, 202, 218n15 Sarkar, Surajit, 229 Sharma, Rakesh, 226, 229, 235 Saro-Wiwa, Zina, 90 Sauper, Hubert, 249 Scott, Cynthia, 137 Sen, Mrinal, 136 Servin, Jacques, 168 Sinha, Arvind, 229 Sivakumar, 229 Škanata, Krsto, 115 Slijepčević, Vladan, 108 Snow, Edgar, 129 Solanas, Fernando E., 84 Spurlock, Morgan, 211–213 Stanić, Stevan, 109 Stanković, Miroslav, 115 Storck, Henri, 127, 129, 130, 136, 179 Subramanian, Vani, 229 Suri, Sandhya, 90 T Tahimik, Kidlat, 153 Tarkovsky, Andrei, 136 Taviani, Paolo, 249 Taviani, Vittorio, 249 Téchiné, André, 136 Thorsen, Jens Jorgen, 132 Truffaut, François, 84, 168 Tsuchimoto, Noriaki, 147, 148

295

296 

INDEX OF NAMES

V Vamos, Igor, 168 Van der Keuken, Johan, 125, 126, 136 Varda, Agnès, vii, 89, 91, 157, 244, 260n16 Vehkalahti, Iikka, 157 Vertov, Dziga, 5, 78 Vigo, Jean, 78 Virmani, Shabnam, 235 Von Bagh, Peter, 147, 161n2 Vučurović, Božidar, 115 W Wadleigh, Michael, 84 Walker, John, 196 Weerasethakul, Apichatpong, 125 Weijun, Chen, 178 Wenders, Wim, 249 Wintonick, Peter, viii, 196

Wiseman, Frederick, 5, 81, 87, 125, 136, 139 Wo, Wang, 189 Wright, Basil, 80, 130 X Xiaoshuai, Wang, 177 Xin, Xu, 186 Y Yang, Edward, 153 Yuan, Zhang, 177 Z Zafranović, Lordan, 109, 113 Zhangke, Jia, 177, 180 Žilnik, Želimir, 83, 120n27