By Nicholas Garza
This years Portland International Film Festival featured films from across the globe exhibiting in 12 different venues across Portland for the opportunity to win the newly adopted film awards. This years festival was arguably the most unconventional of any other year prior simply because of the early closure of the festival because of the situation surrounding COVID-19. This does not mean that the festival was a failure by any means but this paper would be strange as a festival review without mentioning the importance of outside influences on the festival. That being said the festival was actually quite impressive especially in reference to the Cascade African Film Festival and the other festivals from in class readings. For this paper the three main focuses of the festival that should be highlighted are the venues of exhibition and PIFF’s attempts to raise its symbolic capital.. These elements came together for seven days of learning, exhibiting and curating cinema for the enthusiast in all of us.
As a film festival destination Portland seems like a strange place to set up operations as it isn’t really know for it’s current global filmmaking scene. It has been previously the epicenter of the “micro cinema” club boom of the early 90’s and 2000s that focused on “acquiring the instruments for a self-made culture” but this no longer seems the case (Halter 2004). In fact the festival is moving in the opposite direction of the movement and by extension Portland’s “Keep Portland Weird” mindset that still permeates today. The can be tied to the fact that this years festival is pulling back on the regional mindset in preference to a more global pallet. Specifically with the addition of the jury selection process PIFF is trying to increase what Bourdieu referred to as their “Symbolic capital”(Valck 105). To do this PIFF has to raise the “symbolic: prestige, honor, and recognition” of it’s selected films by putting them through what seems like a globally standard jury selection process (Valck 105). The reason that this could be viewed as limiting for the regional filmmaker is that features often make the rounds from festival to festival solely based off the fact that they exhibited in Cannes or other acclimated festivals. These films such as Bacurau have gained all the social and economic capital that is needed to gain distribution and global acclaim. Being added to the smaller festival like PIFF seems like a victory lap for the filmmakers and the acknowledgment by PIFF has no affect on the film instead PIFF is has a higher standing by having the the film exhibited. The relationship is completely backwards for films like Bacurau but for films like 32 Goldfish which have limited to no other festivals exhibiting their work this selection by PIFF has a greater influence. For PIFF to raise it’s Symbolic quality of the festival they would need all of their“programming choices [to] based on the strength of the stories and aesthetic qualities rather than popular success.”(Valck 105). That being said the addition of the Pixar film Onward is beyond baffling as the additions aligns more with Bourdieu’s thought on “economic capital” as motivations for selection. His theory states that films such as Onward which have world wide release schedules and top Hollywood actors aligns the festival with “commercial filmmaking, box-office results determine a film’s success and directly impact on actors careers”(Valck 105). Onward may seem innocuous choice but given the attempts of PIFF to heighten international acclaim one would think the selection of local or global independent films would be given the opportunity instead of a populist film. These selections aren’t necessarily the ending of the PIFF or sign of the impending doom but instead are glaring inconsistencies that the festival has to address going forward. As important Portland is to PIFF what is equally as important is the venues in which the film are exhibited.
The three theaters that were exhibited for this paper are the Whitsell Auditorium, Cinema 21, The Hollywood Theatre. These three venues were drastically different in terms of exhibiting environment and the overall audience makeup of each show. For the places like Cinema 21 and the Hollywood Theatre the viewing experience was largely the same with a large auditorium packed shoulder to shoulder with a mix of filmmakers and festival goers alike. Like that of that of the Cinematheque Francois the Hollywood Theatre is not “just a place where films were shown-it was rather that the cinema itself was present there….for young filmmakers everywhere a winter at the Cinematheque was the confirmation of a vocation.”(Roud XXV). The Hollywood is a cultural landmark that acts as taste maker for the region at almost a hundred years old the illustrious history of the theatre can be felt in almost every room. There is a ritual quality gained from seeing films in these types of theaters that is purely for recreating the aesthetic tradition of the previous generation. Unlike the the subscription based film services like Netflix there is often a discussion between audience members with before every film essentially cultivating a appreciation of film on a one to one scale. Now comparing this idea to that of the Whitsell Auditorium, the audience were almost exclusively festival pass holders and often featured relatively older audiences. This theater felt more inline with the teaching of MOMA curator Iris Berry which “targeted the adult rather than the child audience, the strong rather than the vulnerable, the thinking rather than the emotional, the ruling rather than the raucous.”(Wasson 150). This is true in terms of the tone being completely different for an audience compared to that of the Hollywood simply based off on not distracting your fellow patron. At a showing of Anna at 13,000 Feet audiences were spread out, there are no concessions allowed, and the talking between audiences members was non existent. Compared to that of Cinema 21 at the Frank and Zed screening which featured regular concessions and frequent audience interruptions either by reacting to the film or actual heckling. The Whitsell’s audiences was largely made up of the art museum members who have come accustomed to the behaviors expected of them. Meaning that these audiences adopt the mindset of being in the formal institution even when the building has closed. These were the audiences that also obeyed the festival rules of the reserved seating and wearing badges. At the Whitsell the reserved seating signs were not removed until the last 5 mins before showings but at Cinema 21 these rules were heavily ignored after only a few minutes of doors opening. This could be accounted to the social norms of having a exhibition in a art museum vs a normal theater as people are less inclined to move signs in a a regal institution like the art museum. This could also be the reason why the older crowds preferred the Whitsell to the other theaters as they are more organized and less rambunctious.
In the end the festival was enjoyable experience to go to no matter how short of a journey it might have been. The film venues and the audiences combined to show patterns of what audiences can come to expect when coming to a film festival. The biggest take away from this for the films at the festival is that they don’t necessarily highlight the fact that these films are the country’s film like that of Stringer “national projection room”(Stringer 136). This can be do in part of the festival not highlighting or giving any background information about the screenings before hand and instead they expect the audience to just come and watch. It’s liberating in a way to view films this way as the expectations are always low and the surprises that the film has become more gratifying. Although PIFF is a regional institution there is much that is needed to be done if the festival wishes to reach higher social standing amongst the world stage. The things that make the region unique are being ignored and Portland’s film history is going unacknowledged. PIFF is a fascinating festival that can be a global game changer if the right circumstances are met and if more creative curating is done. Until then the festival provides the community with quick look into the global film market and the independent artist that will become the next generation of great filmmakers.
Cited
Halter, Ed , “Head Space: Notes On the Recent History of a Self-Sustained Exhibition Scene for North American Underground Cinema” from Incite Journal of Experimental Media, Issue #4 Exhibition Guide: 1-1
Roud, Richard , “Introduction” and “Children of the Cinematheque” from A Passion for Films: Henri Langlois and the Cinémathèque Française (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983): xxiii-xxviii, 58-79.
Stringer, Julian. “Global Cities and International Film Festival Economy” Cinema and the city: film and urban societies in a global context, Mark Shiel and Tony Fitzmaurice, eds. (Blackwell, 2001)
Valck, Marijke de. “Fostering Art, Adding Value, Cultivating Taste: Film Festivals as Sites of Cultural Legitimization” Film Festivals: History, Theory, Method, Practice, Marijke de Valck, Brendan Kredell and Skadi Loist, eds. (Routledge, 2016): 110-116
Wasson, Haidee “Rearguard Exhibition: The Film Library’s Circulating Programs” in Museum Movies: The Museum of Modern Art and the Birth of Art Cinema (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005): 149-184
PSU School of Film @ PIFF 