Festival Report

Charlie Faulkner

Film Festivals

Kristen Hole

16 March 2020

Ever Evolving: PIFF Adapts to The Future of Festivals

Programming for an International Festival poses many challenges and requires a great deal of intentionality and effort. With many considerations at play, it is one that requires a keen team that is up to such a task especially in a large scale context. The Portland International Film Festival (PIFF) has been serving the community for 43 years now, and in a time of ever evolving technology, taste, and styles of filmmaking there are even more factors in how to best appeal to the a community the programmers are aiming to reach and engage. These adaptations are difficult to yield and require a lot of fine tuning, in order to strike the correct balance. For its 43rd year, PIFF has begun to attune the festival in a new direction and territory. Change creates a great deal of scrutiny and concerns, but it is certainly clear that PIFF is doing its best to not only set itself apart from other festivals (which is a very common practice in the circuit) but also aiming to simultaneously create an environment that not only supports audiences but filmmakers as well. Film festivals function to serve many purposes, they can develop communities and bring together individuals with a similar passion and admiration for cinema as an art form, bring together filmmakers and expose them to new innovations that can inspire and develop a recognition of new trends in the field, and festivals, especially international festivals, introduce people to cultures and experiences that they otherwise may have never encountered or appreciated before. 

This type of exposure can foster a sense of global empathy and understanding, which is a very valuable practice that can be presented in the form of cinema. The difficulty that arises from international programming is how one approaches selecting films from other countries beyond the U.S, because many people may have not been knowledgeable about these places and ways of life seeing a single film from that country can strongly influence their perspective of that location. One major issue that can arise from this selection and curation is feeding into the poverty narrative of third world countries. When festivals select these stories that reflect images of impoverishment, people of those countries have their overall narrative and story exploited. This is the burden of representation, when one is only exposed to a singular piece from a country they do not know much about, that image can completely shape their judgement. This is a challenge many filmmakers from beyond the U.S have to consider in their films, any portrayal of their experiences can become a singular narrative and it becomes canonized in a certain light. This topic was very well portrayed in the film Woman In The Septic Tank, which deeply criticized the festival circuit for its taste in the overly sympathetic poverty narrative, which creates an audience that views a country as something to be pitied. When the selection of films from these countries is revealed it is very important that we as filmgoers “raise questions not only about what is included but also what is excluded” (Czach, 79). 

This narrative singularizes a culture that is so much more than the elements of destitution that is experienced in some parts of the country. Fighting back the singularity of those overly saturating canons of various countries then becomes a monumental responsibility of the programmer to select a diverse assortment that can help combat this burden of representation. It is my belief that PIFF’s understanding of this issue is very clear in their intentionality within their programming efforts. It is also apparent that the festival aims to the community specifically within Portland. The programming at PIFF aims to accept a tremendous variety in boundary pushing work that are new voices, concepts, and experiences in an array of styles and presentations. Whether it be experimental, documentary, animation, narrative, or hybrid concepts, PIFF includes films that regardless of place, display new perspectives. The conscious decisions within the programming choices allow audiences to “get in touch with the immense and fascinating variety in the ways people live and with the myriad ways in which individuals express their inner struggles” (Macdonald 30). Internal and external struggles are the core of cinema, how it is represented is diverse because it is heavily dominated by the perspective of the filmmaker’s personal experiences and point of view. Within the programmed pieces we see a large variety of such struggles. Films like The World Is Bright discusses topics of mental health and cultural expectations that shape the way such emotions are to be processed and expressed, specifically the challenges in such expression. This Is Not A Burial, It’s A Resurrection tackles the resistance of government interventions that blatantly ignore the importance of preserving traditions, The Fever introduces discussions of the power of indigenous practice amidst facism, Anne At 13,000 FT. explores the complex journey of growing up and facing adulthood, Rocks creates a beautiful slice of life narrative centered around young black girls that simultaneously acknowledges the personal struggles of difficulties in one’s homelife. These are just a few examples of the variety of messages within such films and these themes are often rooted in universal sorrows and struggles within the self. 

One of the most impressive examples of PIFF’s ability to craft diverse programming is their various shorts series. The program features seven different nights of multiple film selections grouped under one specific and stated theme. The themes in the series include the following: Ephemera, Chronicles, Longing, Resistances, Longing, Disposition, Crossing Over, and Puzzling. This concept of grouping films by theme is not a new idea, this strategy has a long history within the festival circuit. In “The Ethical Presenter: Or How To Have Good Arguments Over Dinner” written by Lauren Marks, addresses the importance of “the role of the curator is to prepare a program carefully, then step back and allow the interaction between the works and the audience unfold” (38). This model was well executed at PIFF, the programmed films fell under the selected theme and displayed a great deal of significant planning. There was no real introduction to the films, rather they allowed the audience to apply the knowledge of the theme and reflect within themselves to create meaningful connections. The films deeply varied in subject matter, presentation, and style yet the attention to criteria allowed for a uniquely woven connection that took time and contemplation to truly dissect. According to Marks it is “[the programmers’] ethical responsibility [to present an argument] to both the artist and audiences. An argument that makes clear the criteria for quality, the criteria for pleasure, and the criteria for broader significance. It invites agreement, qualification and dissent” (Marks, 43). In my experience in the viewing of the shorts program I found myself, as Marks described developing my own agreements as well as my scrutiny and dissent in the choices of the films shown. Despite any experience of disagreement it was still an extremely appreciated and enjoyable viewing. Disliking and questioning cinema is a necessary component in crafting our taste, expectations, and meaningful thought provoking questions. It is perfectly okay to experience discomfort and opposition in one’s viewership for these debates on value crafts dialogues that embolden and challenge our personal perspectives and growth.  

Additionally PIFF’s evolving goals aimed to develop a space that encouraged local filmmakers and creatives and created a space for folks to network, learn, and gain more confidence. NW film center has always been passionate about providing this work for the community, so it seems completely natural that this was integrated into the festival. In terms of accessibility, they even offered a free workshop referred to as “Meet The Experts.” Within this session, artists could flock to an informal networking opportunity with industry professionals. This opportunity is very valuable for aspiring filmmakers, writers, etc. Having a no cost event such as this, in a low stakes environment is an excellent move in the direction of accessibility. Cost is often a major barrier for many individuals, and in addition to this factor, meeting with professionals in this way is excellent for those who face challenges with anxiety who would certainly feel better in this relaxed opportunity as compared to a formal pitch.  In addition to this accessible and free program, there were many others included for those with a pass. The variety certainly provides many options for filmmakers to engage in their personal interest and also their weaknesses in order to improve and gain more confidence and knowledge. 

PIFF took some major strides this year to begin developing the festival in a new direction that meets the needs of the community. Though some may scrutinize the lacking amount of films or the showing of a Pixar film on opening night, it is important to acknowledge the great work they have done with great intent. The major changes will likely continue to adapt as PIFF moves into the new and unknown territory. It is difficult for International Festivals to maintain their image and prestige. The subtle but present weight of the standing out will continue to fester and place pressure on curators and programmers alike. This ongoing force will continue to encourage a willingness to adapt to the ever changing trends.

Work Cited

Czach, L. (2004). Film Festivals, Programming, and the Building of a National Cinema. The

Moving Image, 4(1), 76-88

Macdonald, D. (1962). Cinema 16. Film Quarterly, 16(2), 61-62. 

Marks, L. (2004). The Ethical Presenter: Or How to Have Good Arguments over Dinner. The

Moving Image, 4(1), 34-47.

.