A group of industry professionals said at the 26th Ji.hlava International Documentary Film Festival that a host of thorny issues confront film festivals that wish to maintain their independence and integrity in a world that is so happy for many.
International festival programmers say the recent debate over whether festivals should ban films from Russia, as a group of Ukrainian filmmakers have publicly urged, is just one example of the dilemma.
But this controversy alone has led to divisions among those who choose festival films for a living: do they reject only those films backed by Russian state money? Or joint productions in which the Russian state participates? Or only those backed by Russian money after the country invaded Ukraine in February? Should they also ban those made by Russian dissidents?
Victoria Leshchenko, Program Director at Docudays UA Ukraine Human Rights Film Festival and a professional with 10 years of festival management experience, had to think carefully about the arguments.
“You can’t cancel Russian culture, of course,” she says, but at the same time she argues, “It’s good to suspend this cooperation until the war is over.”
She adds that Leshchenko is not convinced that showing films of Russian dissidents living abroad is acceptable. She says that “Russian elites,” as she calls them, are leaving their country and protesting abroad. “We really think this doesn’t help”
Supporting dissidents of all kinds is an “essential” role for film festivals, says Cynthia Gill, co-curator of Technical Differences and document consultant for Fortnight magazine for Cannes Filmmakers.
Moreover, banning controversial films is not always helpful. “Big, well-intentioned actions” can make a dramatic statement, she says, but it sounds like a cancellation culture that “only benefits Facebook and Twitter for a week.”
Gill argues that it takes more courage to address the controversy publicly. “Open wounds must remain open,” she says, and a difficult discussion is important to continue because it is better than “a strange peace under the cover of a bubble.”
However, festival programmers are of the view that the discussion should be viewed separately from promoting a film or its filmmakers. “I’m not sure I would put a Russian film in competition,” Gill admits, because in some cases “the awards mean more than the movie.”
Ji.hlava’s president, Marek Hovorka, says the issue of which Russian-made films should be shown at the festival, if any, has been the subject of heated debate among his colleagues, describing Ukraine’s call for a ban as “the strongest call in years”.
“All exhibition curators must face the matter and decide what their position is,” he adds. Hovorka points out that the film topics being discussed cannot be excluded. “If we find a movie directed by a Russian filmmaker that brings a new context, we win.”
Hovorka acknowledges that sanctions are important in the face of Russian domestic propaganda, which is trying to convince citizens there that “nothing is happening.” When he feels the impact of the sanctions, he says, it tells those same Russians that “something is not normal.”
Vytun Nurkolari, Artistic Director of DokuFest Kosovo, agrees that the sanctions are important but notes that film festivals have limited influence on national politics. “It is very important to prevent Russians from playing football,” he argues. “Then the world will see.”
Another ethical dilemma facing festivals is whether to screen films whose directors have been criticized in the media, programmers say. An example from this year’s Ji.hlava festival, Ulrich Seidl’s movie “Sparta” sparked controversy after a German publication published a story suggesting the director is exploiting children in Romania by filming them naked.
Hovorka says Ji.hlava chose to screen the film followed by a discussion on the subject of exploitation.
Gill argues that the issues raised in this controversy extend far beyond Seidl’s film, citing the “colonial tradition of cinema” in which “white rich countries are depicted in less wealthy and less white countries”, often with little sensitivity to the rights and dignity of citizens there. She described the issue as a systemic problem, and abolition of culture would not change much.
Gill argues that film festivals may have a greater impact by exerting more pressure than by making screening decisions, noting that poor countries often offer incentives for filming to lure crews to invest there, but they are not always fair to locals. Film festivals can have a role in shaping incentives to make them fairer and prevent them from allowing exploitation.
[ad_2]
