Written by Garrett Recker
The Portland International Film Festival’s 43rd year was a jarring experience of cultural reflection and reform mixed with an abrupt, unceremonious conclusion. Having only seen a handful of features and one shorts program, as a whole, I felt the theme of “capital” in PIFF as a festival and its showcased work. While I’ve never attended PIFF in years prior, my scattered discussions with seasoned members informed me of the festival’s recent economic and cultural capital pivot. PIFF reduced its showcase and invited bigger studio production screenings, and it created a feeling of festival exclusivity that worked in the festival’s favor to foster a high-end social capital. This capital was spent to widen the festival’s audience to the general movie goer and include Hollywood studio work that diluted the festival’s credibility in the eyes of the indie artist.
As a yearly event that has spanned decades, the curators approached this year with the goal of boosting PIFF’s economic capital by shifting its cultural capital focus. In “Fostering Art, Adding Value, Cultivating Taste: Film Festivals as Sites of Cultural Legitimation,” writer Marijke de Valck explains these two capitals are at play when a festival balances and develops, or in in PIFF’s case redevelops, their image, stating, “Economic capital refers to money, assets, and other economic resources…Cultural capital determines a person’s social status in society (class), and is formed by knowledge, skills, education, attitudes, and taste” (de Valck 105). Even though both of these capitals can be individually defined, they exist in a symbiotic relationship where an alteration to one affects the other. While PIFF made money in years past, they were never considered as “commercial” as they were this year. A decrease in independent film screenings and a festival kickoff with Pixar’s 2020 Onward implied a greater interest in appeasing the masses, or general movie goers, instead of the smaller art community.
This year, PIFF was actively changing their symbolic capital—which de Valck defines in this case as a public’s perception of a festival’s “prestige, honor, and recognition”—to directly impact their cultural capital. As of their 43rd year, PIFF now presents itself as housing a more inclusive symbolic capital than exclusive symbolic capital. Shifting to a commercial status allows for more family friendly and cult classic content, which helps to guarantee a general audience size and economic capital. With curation and programming being tailored to wider groups, it invites what Julian Stringer calls in “Global Cities and the International Film Festival Economy” a “touristic and commodified aesthetic” (Stringer 140), which further supports PIFF’s new inclusive symbolic capital and easy-access cultural capital. Their 43rd year came across as a mid-transitional showcase where multiple versions of both capitals were used, equating to a confusing viewing experience, programing layout, and fan base.
The festival’s showcase is a blend of new mainstream cinema, old cult classics, and recent indie work. Their audience is also ununified with returning members expecting a more sophisticated screening and discussion with the art and general movie-goers who enjoy food, soda and whispered conversation with their neighbor. PIFF has dipped a toe in commercial cultural capital while still relying on their previous audience—expecting a more academic cultural capital—to attend. Atmospherically, both groups clash and neither are satisfied. The opening of the festival promises everyone curations that don’t need contextualization, which never really comes, but the later screenings prove this false.
Judging by audiences’ responses after such screenings, films like Onward and Prince’s Purple Rain leave the general audience satisfied while those seeking new, global independent films with an empty stomach. Alternatively, no one is left pleased with showings like Shorts 2: Chronicles which haphazardly positions works together creating a clashing of tones, all while providing no cultural or historical contextualization for either type of viewer. In The Ethical Presenter: Or How to Have Good Arguments Over Dinner, writer Laura Marks expresses the attentiveness required for the job, stating, “the role of the curator is to prepare the program carefully, then step back and allow the interactions between the works and audience unfold” (Marks 38). It is my belief that PIFF’s lack of attentiveness and care resulted in a short’s program with curations that couldn’t build a dialogue due to their differing tones and an isolated audience from no contextualization.
After attending the Cascade Festival of African Film—a festival that utilized outside sources to facilitate contextualization and cultural immersion for a more academic viewing experience—I was surprised to find a lack of any festival provided information to aid a greater audience understanding and assessment before each screening. It is my belief, as a result of this festival, that contextualization for high cultural capital should always be provided whenever possible, regardless of if the film calls for it. At the Cascade Festival of African Film, two in-depth papers were offered to viewers to help communicate what they were about to see. It offered cultural, political, and social context as well as information about the creative team. This was offered to everyone in attendance and it was the audience member’s choice if they wished to engage. It allowed for all bases to be covered and all types of audience members to leave happy. Mahen Boetti elaborates on the implementation of external media to enhance the experience in “Programing African Cinema at the New York African Film Festival,” stating, “Furthermore, we [New York African Film Festival] enhance our film screenings with interactive elements, such as African dance and drum workshops with master teachers, arts, and craft workshops and sampling of African food” (Boetti). In my opinion, this attentiveness should have been present during PIFF. For the Cascade Festival of African Film, the work all stems from African roots. While this is still broad, it’s easier for an audience member to understand the political, social, and cultural aspects at play in the presented piece. PIFF, on the other hand, is an international festival with a global curation, and upon viewing, no context was offered outside the paragraphs in the catalog. This makes analysis of work more complicated, and in the case of their oddly programmed shorts, sometimes confusing. The audience, as a result of their new symbolic capital, all enter the screening with their own varying levels of cultural capital. Seasoned festival goers might be prepared to explore cultural topics in Japan, Iran, Italy or France while the general movie goer, whose film knowledge might be lesser, will disregard the film for its inaccessibility. This lack of context dilutes PIFF’s cultural capital—an implied festival aspect with the utilization of the Portland Art Museum’s Whitsell Auditorium.
PIFF was an event that didn’t know what it wanted to be. Instead of developing an adjacent festival focused more on economic capital gain with comercial tactics, PIFF pushed the pendulum in the opposite direction. It resulted in a polarized audience. Going forward, either avenue is equally respectable for PIFF’s evolving identity. This identity just needs to be clear.
Work Cited
Bonetti, Mahen. “Programming African Cinema at the New York African Film Festival.” Coming Soon to a Festival Near You: Programing Film Festivals, edited by Jeffrey Ruoff, St. Andrews Film Studies, 2012.
de Valck, Marijke. “Fostering Art, Adding Value, Cultivating Taste: Film Festivals as Sites of Cultural Legitimization.” Film Festivals: History, Theory, Method, Praxis, edited by Marijke de Valck, Brendan Kredall and Skadi Loist, Routledge, 2016, pp.100-116.
Marks, Laura U. “The Ethical Presenter: Or How to Have Good Arguments over Dinner.” The Moving Image, edited by Donald Crafton and Susan Ohmer, University of Minnesota Press, 2004, pp. 34-47.
Stringer, Julian. “Global Cities and the International Film Festival Economy.” Cinema and the City, edited by Mark Shiel and Tony Fitzmaurice, Blackwell Publishing, 2001, pp. 134-144.
PSU School of Film @ PIFF 