Maria Moreno

It’s truly been a uniquely historic year for the Portland International Film Festival. There was certainly excitement about the new Future/Future competition, which marked PIFF’s entrance into the realm of competitive film festivals and locals were also enthusiastic about the merging of the Northwest Filmmakers Festival with PIFF, leading to wider exposure for the filmmakers in the community. The Cinema Unbound Awards were meant to serve as the swanky awards portion of the festival, honoring legendary artists like Todd Haynes and John Cameron Mitchell and providing a valuable networking experience for those who were able to afford the $250 tickets. It was set out to be a record year for the Portland International Film Festival, bringing it closer to the prestige afforded to larger North American festivals such as Sundance or Tribeca. This year, though, has been most historic because of PIFF’s unexpected closure midway through the event due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It was an unforeseen event that even the most seasoned programmer or festival organizer could not prepare for. As Janet Harbord says in the piece Contingency, Time, and Event, “the festival, like early cinema actualities, retains the risk of a live event unfolding in real-time, in the singular instant of the here and now. It creates a moment that seems paradoxically to suspend the moment (72).” It’s unfortunate that PIFF did not achieve the sort of synchrony that they were aiming for at the beginning of the festival, instead having to settle for an event which, while unique to our moment in time, is overall not conducive for the festival. It’s even more unfortunate that many people, myself included, missed many of the most exciting films showing at PIFF due to the sudden closure. I think the extraordinary circumstances which PIFF had to work under this year are important to think about while studying the festival and other larger festivals still set to happen later this year, such as Cannes. Perhaps, in a moment where the in-person network building aspect of film festivals is prohibited, upcoming festivals will begin to move onto digital platforms to keep their events alive. In this roundup, I’d like to talk about the Portland International Film Festival in relation to the events I was able to attend, specifically the opening night screening, but I’d also like to discuss this idea of the future of film festivals in the digital age, especially during a time when social gatherings are playing out online instead of in person. I’d especially like to contemplate what this means for, arguably the largest film festival in the world, the Cannes Film Festival, which is still set to go on in May as of this writing.

Of the events I was fortunate to attend before PIFF unceremoniously shut down, the Opening Night at the Whitsell Auditorium was the most interesting for me to analyze in terms of festival studies. To quote Roya Rastegar’s piece Seeing Differently, “Festival programmers do not just select films – they actively give shape to film culture. Film festivals facilitate the development of modes of storytelling and cinematic style (183).” Festivals do not take opening night programming lightly; It is the first glimpse that audiences have into the festivals programming strategy and the films they chose to highlight. It’s no wonder that the opening night screenings, two American films showing at two different theaters, were sold out fairly quickly. Anyone looking to take part without having bought the $25 tickets in advance would have had to have waited in a rush line, as I did at the Whitsell. The opening night ticket allowed for one to attend the two opening shorts at 5 PM, the opening night feature at 7 PM, and the opening night party at the Portland Art Museum. To my dismay, the opening night shorts, both by prolific, up and coming black female filmmakers, had nearly empty screenings at the Whitsell, which can seat up to 376 people, according to its Google listing. To add to the disappointment, these shorts were only available to watch during the opening night screenings, leaving many festival goers without the chance to see two of the most successful short films that travelled the festival circuit last year. It’s worth noting that these films were two of the only films at the festival made by black filmmakers from the U.S, which were shown as a precursor to two films made by white filmmakers from the U.S. To once again quote Rastegar, “Festivals have been critical sites for reinforcing what [Stuart] Hall refers to as “dominant cultural order” around beauty and stories in relation to the formation of national identity, establishing who belongs and who does not; whose expressions of selfhood and humanity are validated and whose are not; and who has access to the structures of cultural influence, or not (186).” It seems slightly tone deaf for the Portland International Film Festival to program these two important shorts where they did, during a time slot when no one was there, to only those select few who had the financial means to spend $25 on a festival screening. Unintentional as it may have been, PIFF reinforced the “dominant cultural order” by privileging films made by white American filmmakers with the coveted time slot of 7 PM on opening night. The shorts by Garrett Bradley and Ja’Tovia Gary, which both dealt with what it meant to be a black person in a white, Eurocentric society, seemed to be programmed almost as an afterthought, meant to fill the screen while people waited to watch the feature films about white people. One would hope that the Portland International Film Festival will be able to diversify their programming in the coming years and prioritize films made outside the white “dominant cultural order”.

Although one could write in great detail about the other events and films that shaped the 2020 Portland International Film Festival, the event that most significantly shaped the festival was one completely out of their control. The COVID-19 pandemic raises important questions about film festivals and public spheres during a moment in time when public spheres are being forced to adapt to the current conditions. As Cindy Hing-Yuk Wong writes in their piece Publics and Counterpublics, “While festivals need physical spaces to realize presentations and discussions, the public sphere is based on discursive construction (85).” What does the film festival as a public sphere look like when physical public gatherings are prohibited? Some filmmakers, such as director Nicholas Brennan, have begun to show what adapting to this new world may look like. Brennan, who directed the film Los Ultimos Frikis which was set to open on March 13^th at the Miami International Film Festival, has announced that the film will be available to screen digitally through Vimeo for $4.99, half the price of a ticket at MIFF (Cinema Tropical). Of the unexpected digital release, Brennan says, “While traditional outlets for creative work are suspended and cancelled, we can work together to find new ways for sharing stories and supporting each other.”  While larger international film festivals may be hesitant to approach their screenings in this way to preserve the prestige of the event, I believe this is the way for festivals to survive during this time. In opposition to this format, the Cannes Film Festival, one of the most prestigious festivals in the world, has said that they plan to be open for the public on May 12 as scheduled. This is despite the contradictory fact that they have planned to host the Marche du Film, their international film market, fully online, according to Forbes. Is it possible for these large-scale festivals to move online? One would hope that this moment in time will prove pivotal for changing the landscape of film festivals as public spheres.

Works Cited

1. Harbord, Janet. “Contingency, Time, and Event.” Film Festivals History: Theory, Method, Practice, p. 72.
2. Rastegar, Roya. “Seeing Differently: The Curatorial Potential of Film Festival Programming.” Film Festivals History: Theory, Method, Practice, pp. 183–186.
3. Wong, Cindy Hing-Yuk. “Publics and Counterpublics: Rethinking Film Festivals as Public Spheres.” Film Festivals History: Theory, Method, Practice, p. 85.
4. Gutierrez, Carlos. “In Lieu of a Public Screening, Cancelled Miami Film Fest Doc LOS ÚLTIMOS FRIKIS Premieres Online.” Cinema Tropical, Cinema Tropical, 18 Mar. 2020, www.cinematropical.com/cinema-tropical/in-lieu-of-a-public-screening-cancelled-miami-film-fest-doc-los-ltimos-frikis-premieres-online.
5. Scott, Sheena. “Cannes Film Festival 2020: Marché Du Film Plans To Go Virtual.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 19 Mar. 2020, http://www.forbes.com/sites/sheenascott/2020/03/19/cannes-film-festival-2020-march-du-film-plans-to-go-virtual/#4387d8866d1c.

Luke Coverdale

Film 486

03/19/2020

Throughout the term, we’ve addressed the power of film festivals in shaping the world of film from many perspectives, such as cultural, economic and technologic. It is hard to imagine what the world of cinema would be like without their influence as festivals greatly affect the way in which we view and access films, as well as having a great effect on the nations involved and cities involved in hosting and participating. Cindy Hing-Yuk Wong summarizes this best in her article entitled Film Festivals: Culture, People and Power On The Global Screen, where she states  “Film festivals attract widespread global attention as glittering showcases for films and people. Yet, they also constitute vital nodes for global film industries for global film industries, business, institutions, and information. Festivals provide places in which multiple agents negotiate local, national and supranational relations of culture, power and identity. Ultimately they are crucial centers for the development of film knowledge and film practices: festivals and the people who create and recreate them thus shaping what films we audience and scholars will see, what films we respect and neglect, and often, how we read such cinematic works” (Wong, 1) 

One of the most pronounced effects of film festivals is their ability to construct and shape a cultural identity, both at a local and international level, either through the festival itself or the films selected for distribution. This is incredibly important for nations that don’t have much international film distribution outside of these festivals, or where festivals offer the most attention for their works. Canada is one of these nations as many filmmakers depend on festivals such as Toronto International Film Festival to achieve attention for their work, as like in many other nations, films produced in the United States often dominate popular cinema most of the year. Liz Czach addresses this in her article Film Festivals, Programming and the Building of a National Cinema, stating “ Canadian films notoriously occupy very little screen space in Canada. Yet unlike the rest of the year when little critical or popular support seems to be mustered for Canadian films, festivals generate crucial critical, public and industry interest in Canadian films.” (Czach, 7)

This also plays a very large role in the international distribution of African filmmaking, although popular filmmaking is very prolific, mostly stemming from Nigeria, where a majority of African films are produced. The Bonetti reading discusses the popularity of “Nollywood Films”, referring to the explosion of the Nigerian film industry, becoming the third largest producer of films outside of Hollywood and Bollywood. (Bonetti, 8) Although these films are very popular with local audiences, international distribution of African film is often dependent on film festivals such as the very successful New York African Film Festival (NYAFF), or Portland’s local Cascade Festival of African Films, which I had the pleasure of attending this year and hope to again next year. Bonetti discusses the reason for the popularity of these festivals when addressing the effects that NYAFF has on African filmmakers and American audiences who may not see these films otherwise.  “Much of the success that NYAFF has experienced has been due to the growing demystification of African Cinema. Traditionally American audiences simply have not had much exposure to films made by Africans, and because of this, such audiences are not accustomed to the themes, subjects, aesthetics and narrative styles that are part of the films coming out of Africa.” (Bonetti, 6) 

In our studies, we also explored some of the negative implications of how film festivals shape cultural perspective. The limitations of how many and what films are submitted to festivals can push certain agendas and ideas of national identity, as the films offer a limited viewpoint into the culture that produced them. Audiences may also interpret a nation’s identity improperly based on the films they see, often naively expecting the film to be a perfect representation of its origin, despite the problematic nature of this. Along with this, there can be issues present in the festivals themselves and their agendas and what they try to push through their programming. In the article Global Cities and International Film Festival Economy, author Julian Stringer addresses some of these issues, stating “In addition, film festivals provide a focus for the convergence of issues concerning the relation of cultural production to cultural policy.” (Stinger, 135) He cites examples of nationalism as a driving force behind several historic film festivals, such as Venice Film Festival as an act of propaganda used to legitimize Mussolini’s facsicm, or the Berlin Film Festival being tied to German’s reconstruction and democratization.

Alongside all of this, some of the most important information I learned was from our guest speakers and their insights into programming film festivals. This information is very valuable to me as a filmmaker and someone who is actively trying to become more involved in the film community in any means possible. I found Dawn and Gwen’s presentations particularly useful as someone wishing to enter their films into festivals, with Dawn providing a very important piece of information surrounding getting attention for your film. She spoke about the importance of having your film in at least one festival, as it attracts the attention of festival programmers looking for new works. She also stressed the importance of maintaining control and vigilance over your film even after it is already in the festival, as although the film may get screened, it doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll be paid or it’ll get the level of distribution you may want. The process of distribution is not over when your film makes it into the festival, it has just begun. Gwen provided useful information surrounding the programming of festivals, citing the importance of the order of the films and anticipating/planning around the success of certain films. While I never initially thought of working behind the scenes at a film festival, the presentations provided a better perspective for me into this aspect and have given me a drive to seek more active participation within festivals I hope to enter. The class as a whole has given me a much better idea of the importance and influence of festivals and hopefully will aid me as a filmmaker in pursuing a career now that I have a much better understanding of the inner workings of the industry and culture that makes up film festivals at a local and international level. 

Work Cited:

Wong, Cindy H. Film Festivals: Culture, People, and Power on the Global Screen. Rutgers University Press, 2011.

Stringer, Julian. “Global Cities and the International Film Festival Economy.” Cinema and the City Film and Urban Societies in a Global Context, by Mark Shiel, Blackwell, 2004, pp. 133–143.

Liz Czach, The Moving Image, Volume 4, Number 1, University of Minnesota Press, Spring 2004, pp. 76-88

Bonetti, Mahen. “Chapter 12: Programming African at the New York African Film Festival .” Coming Soon to a Festival near You: Programming Film Festivals, by Jeffrey Ruoff, St Andrews Film Studies, 2012.

After my one and only (and coincidently, first ever) viewing at the 43^rd annual Portland International Film Festival (PIFF), before the novel coronavirus brought it to a screeching halt, I found myself leaving the Empirical Theater at OMSI feeling very satisfied. I have seen many movies in theaters bu,t walking out of this experience, there was something decidedly different. It could have been the fact that I had just watched a movie on the biggest screen I’ve ever seen (OMSI’s Empirical Theater boasts a 61’x40’ screen) or that I was enjoying the experience that much more because the festival pass was essentially gifted to me, making this a free movie- the best kind to go see. It took me a long quiet walk across the parking lot to figure it out but then, it hit me.  I realized that it was because for the first time in a while I got the chance to view a movie that hasn’t been viewed by nearly as many people yet and something I haven’t heard or read about beforehand. I was in attendance with several others who were there for the same reasons I was too. It wasn’t because we needed something to do on a Monday night and it wasn’t for sheer entertainment. The crowd at OMSI that night was there to take in the experience of a work of art, from across the globe- to hear a story from someone not like themselves and think critically about what that meant.  On the way out I could hear people asking each other questions about the film while others jotted notes into laptops and cell phones at a café table outside the theatre doors. I started to think about film festivals, in general, and their importance to society. How festivals and their programmers “create meaningful discourses around film culture and society through the films they select and curate” (Wong, 2) and that “the act of curating means to construct in an innovative way a solid coherence between different films” (Bosma, 53). This is what stirs audience interest and attracts the average citizen and cinephiles alike to gather around an anointed work of art.  

It was only a day or two later that PIFF was cancelled due to the growing global pandemic. The brevity of the festival, coupled with my own inexperience, made it difficult to review PIFF responsibly- or at all for that matter. Never before has the threat of a deadly virus caused this festival (or any other festival for that matter) to suspend screenings and the community was shook.  What was there to do? Ideas popped up on the internet like how PIFF should screen the festival films online while talks of the benefits of all online film festivals started to gain a little buzz. If there is one thing that my only viewing, its preceding festival scheduling and the abrupt ending of PIFF, proved to me, it’s that the festival experience is not something that can be recreated in an all online format. 

The role of film festivals is to bring together people and build community around a certain theme or idea expressed in films from across the world. Films that spark discussion or inspire debate. Films that inform and those that make us laugh, films that hold a mirror to ourselves- and they do it in a time-honored way so that we all experience it communally, at the same time. To filmmakers and festival organizers the purpose of a festival is more about monetary gain but, without the desire of an audience to see new and innovative cinema, there wouldn’t be a dollar to make. Sure, films can be viewed online and plenty of people can enjoy the content but it would be in a way that doesn’t allow the film to fully captivate the audience because it is being watched outside of a communal viewing space like a theatre or auditorium. In these spaces you go to enjoy the film itself- the filmic experience- as well as the experience of communal viewing in similar conditions. (I.e. dimmed lights, quiet space, big screen, etc..)-the cinematic experience.  

With the ease and widespread availability of streaming services and with our cellphones being practically a travelling media player- we can watch anything from YouTube videos to feature length films at the launch of an app- it may be that filmmaker and festivals alike may be tempted by the allure of the reach of the online platform. Afterall if the purpose of a festival is to get your film seen and bought for distribution then it would follow that as wide a net as possible be cast so as to get as many eyes on your film as possible. However, the role, of festivals is far more important to the community than its capitalist purposes. Bringing people together and sharing an experience and ideas is what gains your film attention. All around the world almost every country has more than one film festival that groom young talent to become bigger better filmmakers. The idea of a film festival is to, more or less, exchange or have ideas go around. For this reason, at the festival, there is more going on than just the screening of film. “festivals provide places in which multiple agents negotiate local, national and supranational relations of culture, power and identity. Ultimately, they are crucial centers for the development of film knowledge and film practices” (Wong, 2). 

At PIFF, for example, there were workshops and live events scheduled to run concurrently with the films of the festival. These allow people, of the film community and otherwise, the opportunity to share in a message that isn’t presented cinematically- therefore more directly digested and shared beyond the festival. Additionally, in something like a Q&A with a director, questions can be asked that perhaps more than one person was wondering and where the filmmaker(s) get to explain further, their vision and maybe share some of the process. I understand that this too, is something that could, technically, be achieved online but to that I say there is, again something lost. It’s like talking an online class as opposed to one on a school’s campus. The exact same professor could give the exact same lecture on the exact same material but there is a difference in viewing it at home via virtual classroom and being there in person. Professors and teachers alike, strive to create a learning environment in each of their classrooms where “students feel physically and emotionally safe. They see the classroom as a place where they can be themselves and express themselves and their ideas without judgment.” (“Characteristics of a Positive Learning Environment”) 

The festival (with its various screenings, Q&A’s, workshops etc…) acts as the preferred learning environment for film. Every year in countries and cities all over the world crowds flock to film festivals to experience the newest and most innovative works of art in motion pictures, to watch in real time the current and future implications of cinema. Being among fellow cinephiles in a shared space and hearing their thoughts, seeing their reactions during a film are things that you just can’t get sitting at home on a computer.  

-Sword 

\Works Cited\ 

Bosma, Peter A. N. Film Programming: Curating for Cinemas, Festivals, Archives. Wallflower Press, 2015. 

“Characteristics of a Positive Learning Environment.” Human Kinetics, us.humankinetics.com/blogs/excerpt/characteristics-of-a-positive-learning-environment. 

Rastegar, Roya. “Seeing Differently: The Curatorial Potential of Film Festival Programming.” Film Festivals: History, Theory, Method Practice, Routledge, 2016, p. 186. 

Wong, Cindy H. Film Festivals: Culture, People, and Power on the Global Screen. Rutgers University Press, 2011. 

By Hannah Cumming

The 43rd annual Portland International Film Festival (PIFF) was experiencing a rebranding this year, before it’s unfortunate cancellation on day seven of the festival in an effort to reduce the COVID-19 spread. After hiring a new director, Amy Dotson, the NW Film Center decided to combine the previously separate and regionally centered NW Filmmakers Festival (NWFC) with PIFF in order to incorporate more PNW talent and showcase both international and local films. This was a big year for the festival, as it was testing out a lot of new changes in structure, programming, and exhibition. The festival had more workshops, panels, and networking events than ever before – another effort to further intertwine the festival with the Portland film industry. In addition to this new model, the festival had a variety of immersive multimedia experiences such as the seven hour live listening party of John Cameron Mitchell’s podcast (of which he was in attendance), and the large art installations (the Mobile Projection Unit) projected onto the side of the Portland Art Museum that accompanied opening night and the after party. These multiple efforts to diversify the film festival experience did exactly what they were meant to, “the festival harnesses the time of contingency through live events that bookend screenings, introducing into the offering the singularity of an experience that cannot be reproduced at a later date or location” (Harbord, 76). By providing audience members with the ability to interact with the films, filmmakers, other festival goers, and other forms of multimedia art, the festival was distinguished from both its previous years and other competing international festivals. The NWFC’s goal for this year was to solidify the festival’s position in the global film sphere, aspiring “to the status of a global event, both through the implementation of their programming strategies and through the establishment of an international reach and reputation” (Stringer, 139). By also incorporating a wide variety of local works, the festival uplifts their local industry to a more global scale as well, “Their ambition is to use the existing big festivals as models so as to bring the world to the city in question, while simultaneously spreading the reputation of the city in question around the world.” (Stringer, 139).

In addition to including more regional films, this year the international programming portion seemed to incorporate many independent foreign films with underrepresented narratives (not including the Pixar film Onward). The program reads, “PIFF strives to act as a platform for underrepresented voices and serves as a catalyst for cultural appreciation, conservation, collaboration, and community building.” This can be seen in their selection of films from a wide variety of countries, cultures, and filmmakers. By elevating the voices of those who may not always have the outreach required to promote their work globally, the festival betters the film’s chances of securing a distribution deal, “Festival screenings determine which movies are distributed in distinct cultural arenas, and hence which movies critics and academics are likely to gain access to.” (Stringer, 134) Not only does a film festival screening increase the opportunity for international distribution, but they also provide more underrepresented films with a prestigious stamp of approval – the clout to take home to their national cinema, “While sales, foreign distribution deals, and the interest of talent agents are some of the hoped-for outcomes of festival exposure, those films and directors regularly represented in festivals are also likely to garner something else — critical capital.” (Czach, 82)

In addition to the incredible international films that were selected, I was particularly interested in the locally produced films (both short and feature length) that were scheduled to screen at this year’s festival, such as: Thunderbolt in Mine Eye, Sophie Jones, Clementine, First Cow, Borrufa, Frank and Zed, and more. Unfortunately, due to the fear of COVID-19 spread that led to the festival’s cancellation, I was only able to see the screening of Thunderbolt in Mine Eye, a debut feature by brother-sister directing duo Sarah and Zachary Sherman. After the screening, the directors and their lead actress (also local) took to the stage to partake in a Q&A facilitated by local producer/director/and POWfilm fest founder Tara Johnson-Medinger. Sarah was able to answer many of my questions regarding their success with the crowdfunding platform Seed and Spark, as well as inquiries about directing with her sibling, what it was like to make a coming-of-age story with actual teenagers, and her personal experience of filming in her hometown of Portland, OR. The ability to speak to local or international filmmakers directly is not something one can experience at any theater or on the comfort of their own couch – and that immersive exhibition experience alone is enough to go back year after year. But it was the new additions to the festival experience (emulating those of Cannes, Tribeca, Sundance, and more) that really solidified the success of their short but eventful 43rd year, “Cannes and other major international film festivals are about advancing the cinematic art and international collaboration, not so much among the film-producing nations nowadays but rather among the film industry professionals who come from many different corners of the world” (Ostrowska, 30). PIFF took the initiative to make this year’s festival an incredible networking opportunity for filmmakers who were traveling from out of town, as well as filmmakers who were right at home. In an effort to advance the Portland film industry through interactive panels, networking events, and workshops led by local industry professionals, the festival also intertwined their programming of regional films with the international films seamlessly, as if to deliberately put them on the same level, “the work of programming became not about selecting the films, but arranging them into programs that would enable unexpected connections” (Rastegar 189). There were no “Portland Made” shorts blocks or screenings that were overtly marketed as “local.” By showcasing both international voices and local voices, the 43rd annual Portland International Film Festival managed to uplift the local industry to a global scale while simultaneously providing audiences with a diverse assortment of work by filmmakers from all over the world.

Works Cited

Czach, Liz. “Film Festivals, Programming, and the Building of a National Cinema.” The Moving Image, vol. 4, no. 1, 2004.

Harbord, Janet. “Contingency, time and event: an archaeological approach to the film festival.” Film Festivals: History, Theory, Method, Practice, edited by Marijke de Valck, Brendan Kredell and Skadi Loist, Routledge, 2016.

Rastegar, Roya. “Seeing Differently: The curatorial potential of film festival programming.” Film Festivals: History, Theory, Method, Practice, Taylor & Francis Group.

Stringer, Julian. “Global Cities and International Film Festival Economy.” Cinema and the city: film and urban societies in a global context, edited by Mark Shiel and Tony Fitzmaurice, Blackwell, 2001.

By Karlee Boon

To most of its attendees and filmmakers, the 2020 Portland International Film Festival will most likely be a week they will never forget. Amidst the growing fears of COVID-19, the festival was able to run up through its Wednesday evening program until finally, on the afternoon of March 12, PIFF was forced to cancel all remaining screenings. Unfortunately, due to these circumstances, many passholders like myself were not able to take full advantage of all of the films that this event had to offer. With the chaos of an impending pandemic, among other changes like combining PIFF with the long-running NW Filmmakers fest and introduction of jury-style audience voting, PIFF was a significantly different festival in 2020 than in years prior. Since its abrupt end last week, the Portland film community has only continued to take hit after hit in the many days since its cancellation – with The Clinton and Hollywood Theater soon following suit. In the shadow of PIFF’s shutdown, it is important to take a look back on what the festival succeeded in, as well as what it could work to improve upon its eventual rescheduling and in the years to come. 

Over the first week that PIFF was showing films, I was able to catch two particular features that I had been looking forward to for a while. The first screening was the World Premiere of Frank and Zed, a locally-made horror/comedy starring an all-puppet cast. The director, Jesse Blanchard, was present for a Q&A following the film and shared all details of its production, including that he had been working on the film for over four years before he even began crowdfunding and promoting it. Finally, after a total of six years in production, Frank and Zed was completed and entered into festivals in late 2019. 

The second film I got to attend was Thunderbolt in Mine Eye, one of the last exhibited works at PIFF 2020, which premiered on the evening of Wednesday, March 11. Like Frank and Zed, Thunderbolt was also made here in Portland by the brother/sister directing duo Sarah and Zachary Sherman. The film itself felt very familiar, with a plot and thematic arc that didn’t really bring anything new to the coming-of-age romance genre. However, Thunderbolt did succeed in its casting decisions, especially in its prioritization of the casting of actual teenage actors. Beyond the actual film, I was almost more excited to stay behind for the Q&A with the directors and actors, during which they gave the audience insight on their casting methods, crowdfunding strategies, and even how they eventually had film executive produced by the Duplass Brothers. 

As Rastegar discusses in her essay “Seeing Differently,” “The exhibition structure of a festival impacts which audiences attend, how they watch the films, and what kinds of engagements they make with each other before and after screenings,” (189).  It’s clear that the venue a film is shown in has a big impact on the way its viewers interact with the material, and this was proven between my two experiences at PIFF with the screenings of both Frank and Zed and Thunderbolt in Mine Eye. Frank and Zed, which debuted at Cinema 21, had a very “cinema of attractions” exhibition mode, with puppeteers greeting audiences at the door and many of the film’s more iconic props being placed on display in the lobby. Because this particular film was a part of the PIFF After Dark program, the crowd was much more lively and talkative than in other festival screenings I’ve attended. In contrast, the screening of Thunderbolt felt far more sterile and academic, something I can’t help but attribute to any experience I have at the Whitsell. By holding this screening in the auditorium of an art museum, there was an automatic heir of professionalism surrounding the event, providing far less rowdiness and more of a respectable, thoughtful viewing experience. 

Besides the dramatically different viewing experience between film screenings, PIFF seemed to present almost two eventirely different festivals through its programming decisions. Despite literally standing for “Portland International Film Festival,” PIFF’s international film selections failed to sway me in choosing them over a locally-made film. A big factor for this is that, obviously, local filmmakers from the Northwest are far more likely to attend screenings in their own cities. Because of this, I felt that I would be getting an overall better festival experience by seeing films where there was guaranteed to be some kind of Q&A session with its creators afterwards. Having the opportunity to listen to other independent filmmakers’ experiences and struggles with production, crowdfunding and distribution is invaluable to myself and other young directors, as well as an audience member who may not be able to get the same level of insight from an international film where the director isn’t present. 

Because of these sentiments, which I’m sure many other student attendees could agree with, I found the choice to combine PIFF with the previous NW Filmmakers Festival an odd one. The ladder festival, which was also run by the NW Film Center, was created specifically to showcase works from regional artists throughout the Pacific Northwest. As Stringer writes in his essay “Global Cities and the International Film Festival Economy,” film festivals have to be competitive in two different sectors: it’s position as a fixture in the local community, as well as a constant move towards expansion (139). The Film Center took a big risk this year by combining both festivals together in an attempt to expand its targeted audiences as well as the scale of the festival as a whole. For those interested in both international and locally-made productions, the combination of these two festivals forced many to choose which films they wanted to support more, as well as decide which screening would provide a more unique experience as an audience member. Unfortunately, this decision from PIFF, was one that I did not feel paid off – not only for attendees, but filmmakers as well. As Wong writes, film festivals, especially small, local fests like PIFF, “shape the lives and future of film workers” by promoting new work from smaller creators and exposing them to potentially life-changing opportunities (14). By taking a festival created specifically to showcase these artists, as well as already established local filmmakers, and merging it with an international program, PIFF took opportunities away from its local community members. As Wong states, “these [local] festivals are vital parts of local filmic, artistic, and sociocultural worlds” and should be respected as such (13). I believe PIFF took a misguided step in combining both of its festivals into one event, and it feels that the local film industry was be negatively impacted in the process. 

In the wake of PIFF’s shutdown and with the virus slowly taking its toll on audiences around the country, forcing people to stay out of the public sphere and away from communal film viewing, it will be fascinating to see how cinema exhibition will continue to push forward. During its short 2020 festival, the PIFF programmers were able to showcase a number of fantastic locally-made works, but unfortunately were not able to give them the recognition they would’ve received had they premiered at their own event. In Portland, a community which is basically glued together by the vibrant arts community within it, cinema is an intrinsic part of our everyday lives. I’m looking forward to watching how many theaters and film festivals like PIFF will continue to work through these next months, with some potentially new and exciting exhibition modes being utilized in the process. 

Works Cited:

Rastegar, Roya. “Seeing Differently: The Curatorial Potential of Film Festival Programming.” 

Stringer, Julian. “Global Cities and International Film Festival Economy.” Cinema and the City: Film and Urban Societies in a Global Context, edited by Mark Shiel and Tony Fitzmaurice, Blackwell, 2001. 

Wong, Cindy Hung-yuk. “Introduction,” Film Festivals: Culture, People & Power on the Global Screen, Routledge, 2011. 

The short lived 43rd annual Portland International Film Festival (PIFF) was an upsetting time. Not for the minimal films that were planned to be screened at the festival or the few films I was personally able to attend before it was cancelled; rather for the unfortunate event of COVID-19 and the derailing of society it caused. This unprecedented event has forced me to reflect on the aspects of the festival I was able to attend instead of the festival as whole if it were to have screened films as scheduled. On reflection, each of the three films I attended represent community in some form, of which the festival itself is focused on creating. This idea of community is more important now as the threat of this pandemic has disrupted day to day society. 

As the largest film festival is Portland, PIFF had worked hard to establish itself a community of cinephiles and provide them with the most intriguing films of the year. This year in particular, they were attempting to become a higher profile festival by adding a competition with a jury, multi-media experiences, and more time for panels and workshops. They wanted to become one of the leading film festivals in the Pacific Northwest. In Julian Stringer’s essay Global Cities and the International Film Festival Economy, Stringer writes in reference to a possible way we can view festivals and their affect of the perception of city: “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”(140) PIFF wanted to become a larger cultural experience that engaged with the audience and filmmakers; which could have worked but now we may not be sure of its effectiveness due to COVID-19. 

PIFF featured several events throughout its briefly enjoyed week. Purple Rain(1983) was the festival’s retrospective that was going to be presented by guest curator Gina Duncan from the Brooklyn Academy of Music. She unfortunately could not make it to the event and instead recorded a short introduction of the film that preceded the film. Screened at the Whitsell Auditorium at the Portland Art Museum, the film did not seem to fit with the location. Prince’s film debut was far too energetic and campy for the stuffy and conservative location of an art museum. The attendance was also, unfortunately, small however the film was nonetheless embraced by the lively crowd. The film brought together a community to laugh and enjoy Prince’s music. The audience interacted with the film through dancing and applause during and after musical numbers; it momentarily felt as if we in the 80s experiencing Prince live. 

The article Curating Film written by Siri Peyer pulls from several programmers and curators and their take on the relationship between the film itself and the space it is screening. Peyer’s interview with Ian White expresses his view on this idea: “As a curator, I [Ian White] work mainly in the context of cinema. It is about showing artists’ film and video in the context of cinema, rather than in the context of an art gallery. It shares with performance this frame and emphasis on the event, and even if projecting a film is not immediately understood as a live event, to me sometimes it becomes very close to being a live event.”(2) The potential for spontaneity of the audience and their reactions towards a film is part of the experience of watching film itself. The audience, their reception to the film, and their even energy levels cannot be foreseen by the programmers and can either enhance or disrupt the viewing experience of the film. The experience of a concert film such as Purple Rain would have been better honored in a theater that would have complimented the campiness of the film. 

The grandeur and uniformity of OMSI’s Empirical theater complemented the masses in  State Funeral (2019) and the overall spectacle of Josef Stalin’s funeral. The Netherlands/Lithuanian archival documentary directed by Sergei Loznitsa was mostly long winded and at times eerie in the documentation of how the USSR responded to the death of their leader. A unique take on archival documentary, Loznitsa pieced together the footage create a full story with multiple angles of the endless masses that attended the funeral to pay their respects. The IMAX screen perfectly accentuated the absurdity of the multi-day event. Reminiscent of Eisensteinian montage, State Funeral focuses on the masses and the coming together of a community. However, it puts Sergei Eisenstein’s dialectic montage on its head, instead of highlighting communist ideology, it reminds us of the atrocities under Stalin’s regime. After the innumerable shots of crying citizens in mourning and politicians speaking to the crowd about their deceased dictator, the film ends with title cards, reminding the viewer of the inhumane acts Stalin did.

On returning to the Whitsell Auditorium for The World is Full of Secrets(2019) the location of the screening felt almost insignificant to the film itself. It neither added nor took away form the film, however the attendance of the film’s director, Graham Swon, accentuated the film by giving the audience some understanding of this film’s experimental storytelling. This film had the best attendance of the three, the micro budget indie horror was successful in attracting a large enough audience. The film was challenging through its use of extremely long takes that consisted of monologues. It was both claustrophobic through its tight close-ups on the girls telling the stories, and distancing through its technique of “tell don’t show” that welcomed the audiences mind to wander. Delicately shot and nostalgic towards an innocent part of one’s youth, The World is Full of Secrets is an experience that can only work in a theater. The film focuses on a group of girls telling each other horror stories that focused on violence against teenage girls. Again, we see a theme of community and both the forming of bonds and the disruption of them. Swon’s film is reminiscent of Cindy Wong’s observation on the type of films and filmmakers that are part of festivals. She 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.” (7) Swon’s unconventional take on horror is sure to bring people to the theaters and make them curious on what else he can do. 

I enjoyed my brief time attending PIFF and was upset over this unexpected turn of events. This winter has been unusual, stressful, and even bleak. So when an event that is focused on bringing people together for a shared experience of film going is disrupted, it can seem almost hopeless. However, more than ever we must stay calm and positive through this hardship. Society will move on and PIFF return next year to bring the community together again.

Written by Anny Gutierrez

Works Cited

Peyer, Siri. “Curating Film .” On-Curating.org, Dorothee Ritcher, http://www.on-curating.org/files/oc/dateiverwaltung/old Issues/ONCURATING_Issue3.pdf.

Stringer, Julian. “Global Cities and International Film Festival Economy.” Cinema and the City: Film and Urban Societies in a Global Context, Blackwell, 2001, pp. 134-144.

Wong, Hing-Yuk Cindy. “Introduction.”Film Festivals: Culture, People, and Power on the Global Screen, Routledge, 2011, pp. 1-28.

The 43rd Portland International Film Festival started off stumbling. On the first day of screenings, the projector died at the Cinema 21 location, cancelling the first shorts program of the festival. Though the projector was back up quickly, it was a rough start for an already somewhat questionable year of programming. There were many observations that the overall catalog of films this year was small in comparison to previous years. This year the festival was holding its first competition, however, and many watching the festival attributed the slim offerings to a step up in prestige. Of course, the expectation is that with fewer films comes better quality, and there seems to be some disappointment there as well.

This first film to show as part of the new Future/Future competition was Borrufa(2020) by new filmmaker, Roland Dahwen. Because this was the first year of the competition, and this was the very first film of the competition to show, the expectations were high. Much to the audience’s dismay, the film was not an entertainment film, but an art film. In Valck’s article, they speak about the ‘cultivation of taste’. They argue that the general taste of the festival scene is the rejection of “the cinema of attraction”, or the typical pure entertainment films that come out of Hollywood. They also include a quote from Bourdieu outlining the freedom of these festival artists from their “masters”, or the typical cinema goers and the desire for profit. This point seems contradictory to the reaction of the art film, Borrufa. 

More than half of the audience walked out of the film throughout the screening, though more prominently within the first 20 minutes or so. It seems many felt some desire to stick it through even though they clearly hated it, and complaining from various audience members was loud and disruptive. The film’s shot lengths were generally between 3-5 minutes, and the aesthetic was very minimalistic. There was very little dialogue, and often very little movement from the characters in a scene. There was no intention for the film to be entertaining. During the talkback, the filmmaker showed little interest in the actual final piece, but more in the process of creation. This Infuriated some of the audience members who had stuck around this long. Perhaps they had desired some kind of payoff, some explanation for the slow mundaneness of the film. Instead the author essentially told them that their perception of the piece was not important to him. This is a typical artist mentality, the complete opposite of the entertainment industry. 

This reaction of the audience to an art film was completely unanticipated. It is hard to believe that film festival goers would be so unprepared for a film that directly opposed the values of Hollywood. By all conception, this is the type of film that film festivals were designed for, and yet it fell worse than flat, it actively enraged the majority of its audience. The announcement of the winners of the Future/Future competition was made just yesterday, and unsurprisingly Borrufa was not one of them.

Children of the Sea(2019) was a Japanese animation film that was most certainly a children’s film. It was unclear what to expect from the film, really, but the idea followed a young girl who felt as if she didn’t belong, she meets strange new friends and they show her a new world, the general youth-aimed story structure. Before the screening the volunteers handed out surveys to complete after the film. Apparently, the screening of this film was sponsored by the Consulate Office of Japan in Portland, and the survey was meant to measure the audience member’s perception of Japan and Japanese culture through the film. It was a strange touch to attempt to grasp Japanese culture through a singular, and rather abstract film. It added a bit of pressure to really connect with the specific location and cultural contexts of the film, which was not entirely necessary and did spoil a bit of the enjoyment. If they had simply given the survey after the film it would not have added that pressure. They also may not have gotten the quantity of responses they were hoping for in that scenario, but there were not many people actually turning in the survey anyways.

Onward(2020) was a second interesting addition to the program, being the opening film to play at the Whitsell for the first full day of the festival. Many questioned the choice to play a major release to open the festival, especially given the timing of the showing which was a day after the film’s release in major theaters across the country. Given the already short supply of films offered by the festival, it was an odd choice to give one of those slots to a film anyone could go see in any theater for the following month or so. Not only that, but the film was played twice in the festival, and tickets for the second showing were more expensive than going to see the film in any big theater.

Rastegar in their piece about curation discusses the practice as a balancing act between “artists and various stakeholders”(182). The addition of Onward to the festival line-up is suggested to be the result of someone from Disney Plus being part of the group of judges for the Future/Future competition. Perhaps in some deal with Disney Plus, the company would only accept this position if advertising was given to their new film. It seems a similar situation in the case of Purple Rain(1984), a Prince movie that is generally available despite its age. This was the result of a guest programmer who curated a set of musical films to run at the festival. The same could go for Children of the Sea, and the festival’s addition of a sponsor through the film. So although these films may appear completely out of place at a glance, the reasoning goes into some of the people that the festival has chosen to work with this year, for various reasons.

The festival was cancelled with 4 full days of programming remaining. This was an unforeseeable event, of course, but it merely adds to the sting of the time-slots taken by the major release films that could have gone to more exclusive films audiences will not have access to, possibly ever. Not only was the early cancellation a removal of content, it was a removal of time. Harbord’s essay examines the importance of ‘time and event’ in the context of film festivals. The smaller Future/Forward Competition was scheduled on one of the cancelled days. This competition was for teenage filmmakers specifically, in contrast to the larger Future/Future Competition that Borrufa was a part of. It is unlikely these teen-made films will ever show in this context again, removing this singular ‘time-event’ from both the filmmaker’s lives as well as the audiences’. Though, Harbord also points out that these unpredictable misfires add to the time-experience, as well as the initial failure of the projector in Cinema 21. Certainly, this festival will be difficult to forget.

Materials Referenced

de Valck, Marijke – Fostering Art, Adding Value, Cultivating Taste: Film Festivals as Sites of Cultural Legitimization

Rastegar, Roya – Seeing Differently: The Curatorial Potential of Film Festival Programming

Harbord, Janet – Contingency, Time, and Event: An Archaeological Approach to the Film Festival

Emma Mayfield (Words: 1174)