Written by Hannah Mason

March 6th through 15th, the Portland International Film Festival (PIFF) showcases select films from around the world at a series of Portland Theatres, such as Cinema 21, Cinemagic, and the Portland Art Museum’s Whitsell Auditorium (which is the primary location for film showings).  The festival also hosts workshops and panels on a multitude of topics around film and the film industry—two of which I was particularly looking forward to were “Jumping Into Features”, a panel tackling the subject of the experience of directing a feature film for the first time, featuring panelists Aimee Lynn Barneburg (Producer, Clementine), Sarah Sherman (Director, Thunderbolt in Mine Eye), Lindsay Guerrero (Producer, Sophie Jones), Jessie Barr (Director, Sophie Jones) and Moderated by Cambria Matlow, a feature documentary filmmaker, [1]; and “Writing for New Media Platforms”, a panel geared toward the narrative process in mediums outside of film, such as Web, XR, Gaming, and TV, featuring panelists Randall Jahnson (Feature film and game screenwriter), Andrew Stern (Writer and engineer of AI characters and interactive stories), Anina Bennett (Graphic Novel Writer and Illustrator), Paul Guinan (Graphic Novel Writer and Illustrator), amd Roberta Cumbiancchera (filmmaker), [2].

This year is PIFF’s 43rd year, and some major changes have been adapted to the festival, presumably in order to raise the festival’s prestige and overall significance in the international film circuit.  

How does a festival cultivate clout?

The general consensus amongst festival studies academics suggests that while aspects such as accessibility are important to consumers, it is exclusivity and perpetuating films with a particular festival “taste” which creates an aura of influence around a festival.  Elaborating on Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of “habitus” and its impact on “symbolic capital,” Marijke de Valck writes:

“Festivals’ gatekeeping function refers to the objective structures; filmmakers have to ‘pass’ festivals in order to find exposure (exhibition opportunities), recognition (assessed as worthy enough to be shown), and ideally also prestige (selection for esteemed programs, prizes, or other honors),” (Valck 109).

This year, PIFF has accepted less films into their program than in years prior.  In total, there were 111 films selected to be shown at PIFF (including both features and shorts), [3].  This number is comparable to this year’s Sundance Film Festival in Utah, which featured 118 films this year, [4].  In past years, PIFF included 130+ films (90 of which were feature films), [5, 6], and in the year prior—PIFF42—the festival featured 140+ films, [5].  This is a difference of over 20-30 films! Nearly half of the 111 films selected for PIFF43 are from the US, making up roughly 47% of the international festival.

Also in previous years, the Northwest Film Center had hosted the Northwest FIlmmakers’ Festival—A film festival entirely dedicated to filmmakers from the Pacific Northwest.  This year, the Northwest Filmmakers’ Festival has been “incorporated” into PIFF—dissolving the Northwest Film Festival entirely, opting for a Northwest Filmmaker’s spotlight at PIFF, in hopes to attract a broader audience exposure for filmmakers from the Pacific Northwest.

As a filmmaker of the pacific northwest, I couldn’t help but feel the potential for personal impact—In my mind, this news meant less chances for exposure for my work.  However, this sense of panic was false—The festival was smoothly incorporated into PIFF: Of the 52 US films, 21 film selections were from Oregon, and 5 were from Washington—Overall making up half of the US films selected.  While there were only 26 slots to feature Pacific Northwest filmmakers, it really proved itself to be an overall bigger opportunity for exposure for those selected few filmmakers. In her essay Film Festivals, Programming, and the Building of a National Cinema, Liz Czach writes, “a rudimentary requirement for a film’s potential inclusion in the canon is the need for it to be seen by scholars, critics, and the pubic,” (Czach 81).  In his explanation as to why PIFF was integrating the Northwest Filmmakers’ Festival, Exhibition Program Manager and Programmer Morgen Ruff explained that the demographics for the Northwest Filmmakers’ Festival was primarily filmmakers from the pacific northwest, and therefore left many films screened at the festival in a particular niche with little to no distribution or mobility through the grander film circuits.  Thus, the decision to incorporate the Northwest Filmmakers’ Festival into PIFF is an attempt at a sort of regional film canon of the pacific northwest.

While there weren’t as many films in total as in previous years—a factor that now, given the current coronavirus pandemic which forced the festival to end early, feels not so important (though perhaps is important while looking forward to future PIFF events)—the films that were selected looked highly intriguing. 

Considering film festival selection, in her Introductory chapter in her book Film Festivals: Culture, People, & Power on the Global Screen, Cindy H. Wong describes the “festival film” as “non-Hollywood, artistic, serious, and edgy,” (Wong 6).  She further writes:

“The primary selections of the major festivals, through the years, have favored a special kind of film: dark, serious, challenging, and linked to classic or emergent auteurs,” (Wong 7).

While I was unfortunately only able to attend one film at the festival, an Oregon film called Frank & Zed—a comedy/horror film made entirely with puppets (which was an incredibly unique and entertaining film).  It was darkly humorous, severely unique from Hollywood films, incredibly artistic, and certainly felt like the work of an auteur.  While I wasn’t able to see the other films—two of which that certainly would’ve seemed to have perfectly fit Wong’s criteria for a festival film were Kill Me to Death (a punk film from Seattle, WA) and Dogs Don’t Wear Pants (a BDSM-centric film from Finland/Latvia)—Frank & Zed served as a strong indicator of the quality and uniqueness Portland International Film Festival looks for in a film when programming the festival.

One thing that made me consider the exclusionary aspect of prestigious film festivals was the price of the event.  While there was a free showing of the Disney film Onward, and there were a few select free events (including 2 networking opportunity events), the standard movie pass for the festival is $350.  For students this number is significantly smaller—$150—but is still an exorbitant amount of money for the average student. Passes can cost up to $1,500, and the cheapest pass—an event only pass which does not grant access to any of the films—is $90 [7].  However, tickets can be purchased on an individual basis, an attractive offer for someone who may only want to see a handful of films.

Overall, it can be seen where small, subtle changes in the Portland International Film Festival’s programming strategy is gearing itself toward hopeful, eventual, grander significance in the global film circuit.

Sources

1. PIFF Workshop: Jumping Into Features 
2. PIFF Workshop: Writing for New Media
3. PIFF43: Films Selected (Listed by Country)
4. 2020 Sundance Film Lineup
5. PIFF42 Film Catalog
6. PIFF41 Film Catalog
7. PIFF43 Pass Prices

Czach, Liz. “Film Festivals, Programming, and the Building of a National Cinema.” The Moving Image, vol. 4, no. 1, 2004, pp. 76–88., doi:10.1353/mov.2004.0004.

Valck, Marijke de. “Fostering Art, Adding Value, Cultivating Taste: Film Festivals as Sites of Cultural Legitimization.” Film Festivals: History, Theory, Method, Practice, by Brendan Kredell et al., Routledge, 2016, pp. 100–116.

Wong, Cindy H. “Introduction.” Film Festivals: Culture, People, and Power on the Global Screen, by Cindy H. Wong, Rutgers University Press, 2011, pp. 1–28.