National film festivals circuits in the Latin American sphere: Discussing film canon, film culture, and cinephilia
by Sebastián González Itier
Film festivals have been understood as part of a global network where each event acts as a node.[1] Their position depends on their relevance and hierarchies within the circuit. However, this notion of a network does not necessarily reflect the establishment of national or local circuits linked to small nations and cinemas. Therefore, this text discusses the creation of local film festival circuits based on film culture and cinephilia. Film festivals in Latin America are spaces for cinephilia par excellence, promoting a film culture that nurtures national cinema. This article uses the water cycle as a reference in order to identify that national circuits in Latin America work around a small group of festivals that act as condensers of resources, which are distributed to the rest of the circuit through different relationships: sublimation and deposition (film historiography); runoff (influence on smaller and local festivals); infiltration (film education); and evaporation, where the processed and transformed resources bring new films and new filmmakers to nurture the condenser film festivals to start this cycle all over again. Using the Chilean context, this model helps to understand the relationship between film festivals and film canon, film culture and cinephilia.
The water cycle model arises from the analysis of the idea proposed by Alex Fischer of understanding film festivals as an open system. His systems theory approach allows us to understand festivals as events that process and transform resources taken and returned to the environment in which they are located. From this point of view, the water cycle shows how, in a local or national context, the film festival circuit functions as a virtuous circle where, starting with a group of festivals that act as resource condensers, a cycle begins and ends with this group of festivals. Surprisingly, several concepts of the water cycle can be related to processes, events, and institutions that influence film festivals, cinephilia, and film circulation. Through this model the organisation of festivals can be analysed, also how their decisions can influence a group of smaller festivals and other instances of discussion and training in cinema.
State of art
In 2020, Minerva Campos proposed a model for studying Latin American film festivals. Campos suggests three fundamental ideas for understanding film festivals: the competition, the circuit, and the hierarchy. For Campos, the existence of different competitive sections for films at film festivals has an economic element, because of the cash prizes that the winners are awarded, and a media element, because of the interest that the films in the competition receive by the press and film critics.[2] However, Campos overlooks that film festivals provide cultural capital to the films in competition. This point is crucial to understanding the relevance of film participation at film festivals. However, it should be emphasised that many festivals do not award prizes in money, and yet they are essential venues for participating films.
About the film festival circuit, Campos proposes the existence of an international circuit of film festivals, where the festivals would be communicated through the films programmed, which use this circuit as an exhibition itinerary.[3]Campos has not deepened the circuit’s characteristics, neither does she refer to the work of de Valck, Fischer, or Vallejo regarding the international circuit. However, Campos suggests the existence of sub-circuits, where, for example, film festivals in Latin America could be understood as a sub-circuit within the global film festival circuit.[4] The third element is the hierarchy. Campos proposes, based on de Valck and Iordanova, but mainly Stringer,[5] that the circuit has hierarchies between festivals, whether economic, in terms of position within the circuit, or in terms of their centre-periphery relationship.[6] Campos relies on Stringer to propose a geographical hierarchy within the circuit. Julian Stringer proposed that the film festival circuit could be defined as a network of related events and a closed system where a festival cannot easily change its position within the circuit.[7] However, Stringer proposed a third way of understanding the circuit, concerning how international film culture is geographically composed. In his words:
The development of trade and information links between nations and regions through film festivals has necessitated the establishment of new core–periphery relations; there is a positive need for a dominant centre (big festivals) and its subordinate or dependent peripheries (little festivals). The film festival ‘map’ that one could draw up at any given time, showing the proliferation and distribution of such events around the world, does not just chart their existence on a mass spatial scale, it also provides a temporal dimension to the circuit’s organisation.[8]
Thus, Campos suggests the existence of first- and second-class film festivals related in this centre and periphery axis. Based on Johan Galtung[9] and Immanuel Wallerstein,[10] Campos proposes two ways of dividing these centres and peripheries (see Table 1). First, Campos uses Galtung’s proposal of Centre, Periphery of Centre, Centre of Periphery, and Periphery; this is in parallel with Wallerstein’s proposal of Centre, Semi-periphery, and Periphery.[11] Thus, Campos organises the international circuit by identifying different circuits that can be observed from these models. For example, in the global circuit of film festivals and festivals accredited by FIAPF, Campos places Cannes, Berlin, and Venice as the centre, and from there it moves to the periphery of all the other film festivals. According to Campos, film festivals are less important as they move outside the centre.[12] However, this point is questionable both from the global circuit and in the sub-circuits that the author raises.
First, Campos’ model can be questioned regarding the positioning criteria of film festivals. Placing Cannes, Berlin, and Venice at the centre of the circuit seems at first glance to be correct but undervalues a group of film festivals that are at least as relevant to the film festival circuit and the film industry. For example, Elsaesser in his discussion of the film festival network proposes a first line of festivals which includes Cannes, Berlin, Venice, Rotterdam (Netherlands), Locarno (Switzerland), San Sebastian (Spain), Karlovy Vary (Czech Republic), Sundance (United States), and Toronto (Canada). This group of film festivals concentrate the attention of filmmakers, film critics, and film market spaces.[13]Furthermore, de Valck in her book Film Festivals: From European geopolitics to global cinephilia, proposes that the film festivals that are essential to understanding the international film festival circuit are Berlin, Cannes, Venice, and Rotterdam, as one of the crucial events, mostly because of the value that the festival places on auteur cinema and global cinephilia.[14]
Moreover, in the Latin American context, Campos’ model proposes that the centre of the film festival circuit in the region is composed by BAFICI (Buenos Aires International Film Festival, Argentina), Mar del Plata (Argentina), SANFIC (Chile), Cartagena de Indias (Colombia), Guadalajara (Mexico), and Morelia (Mexico). Nevertheless, this selection is also questionable. It does not include two film festivals that are internationally relevant for the circuit, filmmakers, and the press: the Havana International Film Festival (Cuba), and FICValdivia in Chile. The Havana International Film Festival, founded in 1979, has symbolic importance, representing a continuation of the Vina del Mar film festivals of 1967 and 1969, being a centre for a political and identity-based cinema in the region. Following this argument, Robert Koehler argued that there are specific film festivals in Latin America that attract more attention than others, either because of their programming, their audience, the relevance of industry activities, markets, and because they are critical to both understand a film festival circuit as well as to understand a new type of Latin American films.[15] This group of film festivals consists of BAFICI, the most exciting and relevant for Koehler, FICValdivia, Morelia, Cartagena de Indias, Los Cabos International Film Festival FICUNAM in Mexico. Valdivia, Los Cabos, and FICUNAM are not included as central festival in Campos’ model.
Moreover, including SANFIC over FICValdivia in Campos’ model is also controversial, mainly because the role and position that FICValdivia represents in the region are much more relevant than SANFIC for Chilean and international cinema. As it was stated by Peirano[16] and González Itier,[17] FICValdivia is considered the most important film festival in Chile, not only because of its curatorial view and film programming but also because it is a crucial node for any Latin American filmmaker, film researcher, press, and film workers.
Finally, Campos’ model is hardly applicable in the national or small regional circuit context because the centres may change, and the peripheries are unclear. This issue is because the Latin American and national circuits in Latin America are young and fragile. Young, because in most countries of the region the film festival phenomenon only started to explode at the beginning of the 2000s. For example, Mar del Plata was founded in Argentina in 1954, but BAFICI was only created in 1999, and Cosquin International Film Festival in 2011. In Mexico, Guadalajara International Film Festival was created in 1986. However, Monterrey International Film Festival appeared in 2000, Morelia International Film Festival in 2003, Festival Internacional de Cine Documental de la Ciudad de México (DOCMX) in 2006, and FICUNAM in 2011. The Chilean case is similar: Viña del Mar emerged in Chile in 1963, FICValdivia in 1994, FIDOCS in 1997, and SANFIC in 2005. Nevertheless, the vast wave of new Chilean film festivals started after 2005, with fewer than ten festivals per year, up to more than sixty events at the end of the 2000s.[18]
The Latin American film festival circuit is also fragile because most of these events depend on competitive state funds, such as the Film Promotion Fund in Chile, Concurso de Gestión Cultural para el Audiovisual del Ministerio de Cultura del Perú (Peruvian Ministry of Culture’s Cultural Management Competition for the Audiovisual Sector), IMCINE (Mexican Film Institute) in Mexico, and INCAA (National Institute of Cinema and Audiovisual Arts) in Argentina. The Chilean film fund finances only ten months of work for film festivals, forcing them to depend on this type of funding every year and preventing a more excellent projection of each event over time. For example, in 2019, FIDOCS experienced a crisis when it was not awarded the culture fund, which put its continuity at risk and meant a significant restructuring of its size[19] and team.[20]
Fischer’s open system model and Latin American film festivals
Despite the number of film festivals in Latin America, it is still premature to speak of a consolidated Latin American film festival circuit. However, even with the relevance and explosion of film festivals in Latin America since 2000, these remain wedded to the geopolitics of the international circuit and do not constitute a nation network per se. As I state in an article, in an exploration of the Chilean context, it can be affirmed that some film festivals exist which dominate the circuit, concentrating a significant part of the world premieres of Chilean cinema, Latin American premieres, and an intense industry activity.[21] These festivals have been placed in that position thanks to the strong support of local institutions, a great trajectory, and their ability to congregate, from their beginnings, the Chilean cinema community. Furthermore, they are an active part of the global network of film festivals described by de Valck, especially in the Latin American network.
Mark Peranson argues that film festivals ‘exist as an alternative distribution network’ that allows spectators to see films that would otherwise be impossible to see.[22] As part of this distribution network, Peranson proposes that film festivals could be separated into business festivals and audience festivals.[23] Within this duality, some festivals can be considered mixed, meaning they have both business and audience characteristics. In the case of Chile, it can be said that there are no business festivals, but there are festivals that have a large part of the characteristics that Peranson describes. The Chilean case is mainly explained by the dependence of the festivals on competitive funds that prevent their continuity or a permanent number of staffs working continuously. FICValdivia is the largest film festival in Chile and is now established as an essential part of the international circuit of film festivals. Nevertheless, it is impossible to classify FICValdivia as a business film festival instead of a mixed festival. According to Peranson’s classification, FICValdivia has most of the attributes of a business festival: it has a world and international premiere orientation; it has guests presenting all the competing films; it has one or more relevant significant competitions; it hosts several retrospectives; it receives a large number of films in its open call; and it has been expanding every year. However, the festival does not meet the criteria of having substantial funding; as mentioned above, festivals depend on competitive funding, which is obtained every year. Nor does it have a significant and permanent team, and only some employees continue to work throughout the year. It does not have a film fund for film development, only a film lab called Cine Chileno del Futuro. The festival’s central role relates to its connection to European festivals, particularly with Rotterdam and Locarno.
Considering a potential national film festivals circuit in Chile, I propose that this circuit’s leading festivals are: FICValdivia, FIDOCS, and SANFIC. Following this argument, these festivals attract resources, films, film communities, and specialised media. Alexander Fischer develops the definition of festivals as attractors in his doctoral thesis in 2010. In general terms, Fischer based his work on the systems theory developed by Katz and Kahn, which developed a scale to establish further whether these systems are open and closed. For Fischer, film festivals are open systems because of their dependence on the environment and their inability to be self-sustaining.[24] Fischer thus establishes a relationship between the Katz and Kahn scale and film festivals, defining ten levels of environmental dependency. In terms of its direct application to film festivals, Fischer proposes a sort of simplification of the model in four phases: input, transformation, output, and re-energisation.[25]
Phase 1, input, is mainly related to the first level of ‘importation of energy’. These festivals concentrate the most notable amount of local and international film premieres and the most significant press attention; moreover, they concentrate the public and private resources that allow them to continue over time. As Fischer explains, energy is understood, concerning festivals, as the resources that film festivals need to function. In terms of funding, although Chilean film festivals mainly depend on public funds for their budget, the three festivals that lead in the national circuit have so far obtained support from these funds, along with other sources of funding, in almost all their versions.
Phase 2 is transformation. This phase is related to when film festival organisers manipulate a resource ‘in order to perform a specific role or task’.[26] Strictly speaking, the central manipulation of resources is programming – namely the arrangement of films in different competitions, focuses, tributes, and categories. Fischer quotes Robert Koehler to say that the statement of film festivals lies in the programming. This point of view is similar to what Peter Bosma said in his research on film programming. In his research, Bosma raises the relevance of the curatorial team as the discoverers and selectors of the best films of the year, along with seeing new talents appear.[27] In Bosma’s words:
The ‘product’ of a film festival is the programme. In order to be able to promote the programme properly it is necessary to create a recognisable ‘corporate identity’, in other words a clear curatorial profile.[28]
The third phase is output, which refers to the return of transformed resources to the environment, whether films, guests, through screenings, masterclasses, or panel discussions.[29] Therefore, the output can be understood as the running of the film festival itself. The fourth phase is re-energisation, which is the work before and after the film festival, concerning the search for new resources, films, and the benefits that the films may have derived from their participation in the film festival.[30]
The model presented by Fischer allows an understanding of a kind of constant circuit in the process of organising a film festival. However, it is not enough to understand how these events relate to each other. In this way, it is necessary to develop other tools and adaptations to this theory in order to understand the circuit of film festivals in Chile.
The water cycle model analogy
I propose that the Chilean circuit of film festivals functions as a cycle, where a small group of festivals act as (in Fischer’s terminology) condensers or attractors of resources, which transform the context and, particularly in terms of films, guests, and press, return the resources to the environment to nourish the whole cycle. Following this argument, Jasper Vanhaelemeesch,[31] in his doctoral thesis on film festivals in Central America, uses the term ‘cluster’ to refer to this type of condensing festival. In order to explain the cycle, I will draw an analogy with the water cycle. The water cycle, in simple terms, deals with how water flows between its three states of matter in a constant and endless cycle. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the United States, the water cycle is understood as ‘the continuous movement of water within the Earth and atmosphere’.[32]
For this analogy, it is necessary to filter some concepts that will be useful to complete this model (see Figure 1). For example, I will explore in this article concepts linked to the Earth and atmosphere. The first of these concepts is precipitation. In the water cycle, precipitation is the process where condensed water vapour falls to the earth in the form of rain, snow, fog, etc.[33] For the terms of this model, precipitation will be understood, in Fischer’s terms, as the levels of ‘The throughput of energy’ and ‘the output’ – that is, the process by which festivals return already-processed resources to the environment.[34] Although this process is carried out by all festivals, in terms of this analogy, it is the three main film festivals in the Chilean circuit (FICValdivia, SANFIC, and FIDOCS) that, after condensing the resources, transform them and return them to the environment to continue the rest of the cycle.
Fig. 1: The water cycle (NOAA).
These resources, as mentioned above, are composed of funds, films, press, guests, and others. On funding, most film festivals in Latin America depend on the Film Fund. Regarding the films, it is essential to set programming as the festival’s identity. Robert Koehler argues that the programming and selection within a festival is a ‘statement of values’, ‘an act of criticism’, which is shaped by the films that are selected as well as those that are left out.[35] Following this argument, Mark Cousins proposes the idea that programming can be authorial, where the directing team and the programming team ‘must think of themselves as storytellers and stylist’, proposing their structure and aesthetics for the festival.[36] These qualities have allowed them to position themselves, according to this model, as condensers of the resources that compose and use the festivals, to start the precipitation of these already-processed resources.
These main festivals present films in their competitions and focus, which will go out to the rest of this cycle with the mark of having participated in the programming of these festivals. The influence of these main film festivals for the rest of the festivals can be understood in de Valck’s argument when she analyses the global circuit of film festivals. In her argument, de Valck argues that the participation of films in specific film festivals acts as a ‘hallmark’ of quality for auteur films that will later circulate within a global network of film festivals.[37] Thus, in the Chilean context, FICValdivia, FIDOCS, and SANFIC are the festivals that provide and ensure the quality of the films that will nourish the more than 90 festivals that are part of Chile’s film festival map.
Regarding the press, it is worth mentioning that, in the Chilean context, the mainstream Chilean media does not cover film festivals in Chile extensively; since at least 2015, it has become common to see reports from Variety and The Hollywood Reporter highlighting the world and Latin American premieres at FICValdivia and SANFIC, bringing more relevance and higher visibility to the films that are part of these competitions. Nevertheless, the primary press coverage is provided by specialised Latin American media, such as: Otros Cines (Argentina), El Agente Cine (Chile), Desist Film(Perú), Correspondencias (México), and many others.
Fig. 2: The water cycle analogy (González).
Deposition and sublimation: Film festivals and film historiography
The resources returned by these three festivals are received at three primary levels: deposition/sublimation, infiltration/subsurface flow, and runoff. The first concept I am going to explain is that of deposition and sublimation. In the water cycle, deposition is the transition from water vapour directly to ice, and sublimation is the opposite process, which means from ice to steam.[38] Within this analogy, these processes could be understood as the relationship between film festivals and film historiography. In 2011, Francesco Di Chiara and Valentina Re published an article analysing this relationship using the case study of Il Cinema Ritrovato. In this article, Di Chiara and Re argue that film festivals impact film historiography in three ways. The first point relates to the influence of film festivals on the work of film historians. Through organising retrospectives, tributes, and other activities, film festivals directly affect the ‘historical hierarchies’ of cinema, posing new questions to researchers and creating ‘new canons’.[39] At the same time, the competitions also condition this influence. In the words of Di Chiara and Re:
by presenting brand new films, a festival is able to shape the perception of the contemporary cinema landscape, such as by grouping pictures according to new authorial, generic or stylistic features in side sessions.[40]
The second point addressed by Di Chiara and Re mentions that by organising retrospectives and tributes, film festivals have ‘the power to change the perspective’ on something that has already been studied by film historians, just as the competitions can change the perspective on contemporary cinema.[41] The last point is that festivals have the power to invite and work with certain types of experts and researchers who go with their curatorial vision and selection criteria, to accept certain films or to organise retrospectives.[42] These three points make it possible to establish the relationship between film festivals and film historiography as the relationship of sublimation and deposition. In other words, festivals have a direct relationship in creating a film memory that does not necessarily need to go through the validation of a circuit. This memory or history is stable and remains in time, but at the same time it can return to festivals in the sense of re-understanding it and reinterpreting it. Thus, the deposition process is when film festivals directly influence film historiography, establishing new understandings and reflections upon the work of film historians. On the other hand, sublimation is the inverse process, when film festivals collect film historiography to create new lines within their programming.
Following the idea of film memory, Ana Grgic, when referring to archival film festivals, proposes that film festivals and archives can be understood as sites of collective memory. Grgic argues that when archival films are screened at film festivals, individual and collective memory processes take place, as film viewing is a collective ‘social experience’.[43]Grgic’s argument connects with the argument of the thesis on film festivals as meeting places for cinephilia. To ensure the survival of cinephilic memories, Grgic argues that the interaction between film historians, curators, archivists, and audiences is indispensable, as in this interaction an exchange of knowledge takes place that nurtures collective memory.[44] The fact that the exchange is a collective experience is at the same time an emotional experience, as it allows us to connect with a shared past, with the cultural roots of a community, and even to present ‘the origins of national cinema’.[45] Although Grgic specifically addresses archive film festivals, her proposal is helpful to analyse the programmes and historical retrospectives that film festivals present in each of their editions.
Aida Vallejo proposes that film festivals can shape the film canon through three concepts: competitions, controversy, and curatorial initiatives.[46] According to Vallejo, films (especially foreign films) have the option of circulating on the circuit through festival competitions, thus gaining recognition and entering the film canon and film history.[47] The discussion about the canon is complex from the perspective of this article, namely from the perspective of Third World cinema, Third Cinema, or Global South cinema. In her article, Vallejo cites Julian Stringer’s critique of Kristin Thompson and David Bordwell’s first edition of Film History: An Introduction, pointing out that the history of South Korean cinema is summarised in a single film with a successful presence at film festivals.[48] Vallejo notes that in the second edition of the book, Thompson and Bordwell add new sections that include discussions of cinemas that gained international prominence thanks to film festivals such as Cannes, Berlin, and Venice.[49] What Stringer discussed about South Korean cinema is not dissimilar to what happens to Chilean cinema and Chilean filmmakers in film history books. For example, in Mark Cousins’ book The Story of Film, only two Chilean films are mentioned: Miguel Littin’s La Tierra Prometida / The Promised Land (1973) and Patricio Guzmán’s trilogy La Batalla de Chile / The Battle of Chile (Cuba/Chile, 1975-1979), which Cousins mention as one of the most influential films of the Third Cinema.[50]The book has no mention, for example, of Raúl Ruiz or the role played by the Viña del Mar festival in the New Latin American Cinema.
The second concept identified by Vallejo is controversy. According to Vallejo, film festivals have an active political role and can influence discussions contemporary to the edition of the festival.[51] In other words, the selection of certain films can confront certain discourses present in the political discussions of a country or region. Vallejo’s third point is the curatorial initiatives of film festivals. Vallejo refers to the parallel activities that film festivals have concerning film history, cinephilia, and discussions about cinema.[52] FICValdivia and Mar del Plata, in many of their editions, have master classes and book launches promoted by the festivals, in order to discuss some aspects of national and international cinema.
Runoff: Film festivals as film exhibitors
Following the analogy of the water cycle, the second concept to explore is runoff. For the water cycle, the runoff is the movement of liquid water through the territory, superficially or underground, until it reaches lakes, oceans, or is consumed by humans.[53] For this model, the runoff will be understood as the process of distribution and exhibition of films in a national circuit of film festivals. This circuit comprises all the film festivals that do not act as attractors, representing nearly 100 events in the country. Film festivals have been consolidated as an alternative film distribution network, in which they act as the leading film exhibitors.[54] In many cases, these events are the only place where these films can be seen.
As previously mentioned, the festivals that dominate the circuit are SANFIC in August, FICValdivia in October, and FIDOCS in November. From these dates, the Chilean festival circuit begins. This can be explained by the fact that small festivals reproduce the samples and competitions that have circulated through the main festivals. The main premieres of Chilean and international cinema have already passed through the three main festivals; therefore, small festivals design their programming from the programs of previous festivals. Half of the festivals take place between September, October, and November, with ten, 17, and 26 festivals, respectively.
The accumulation of film festivals at the end of the year has to do with three main reasons. The first is funding, as the Film Promotion Fund closes its applications in July of each year, releasing its results between December and January, to finally start distributing resources from March and April. Moreover, the Fund’s regulations require that the festival be held during the same calendar year, reducing the working time of festivals to around nine months, as any expenses incurred before the funding delivery date cannot be accounted for at the end of the project. The second reason is that many film festivals have outdoor screenings, in public squares, parks, beaches, among other places; therefore, they have to wait until the end of winter (end of September) to hold their festival. The third reason is the films. No matter how small they are, many film festivals hope to have the most recent films possible, so they wait for the premieres at SANFIC and FICValdivia to start negotiating the participation of a film in their festivals. In fact, in the months leading up to the start of the Chilean circuit, there are the fewest festivals: one in May, four in June, and two in July. These months represent the final part of the circuit, in which all the attention is focused on the announcements that SANFIC publishes months before August, when the festival circuit starts again. These dates are not random and are connected to the relationships that Chilean film festivals have developed formally and informally with film festivals abroad; for example, the relationship between SANFIC with Cannes (May) and Berlin (February), and FICValdivia with Rotterdam (January) and Locarno (August), as well as San Sebastian (September).
The variety of film festivals and their large geographical extension, rather than generating sub-circuits, has led Chilean film festivals to consolidate themselves as a network for the exhibition of Chilean cinema. Although several of them have some specialisation, the vast majority screens Chilean feature films out of competition or in parallel programmes. Moreover, most film festivals in Chile are admission-free for the audience, so the economic barrier would not be a problem to watch Chilean films. However, the big problem is that films are usually shown only once and, except for the few festivals that take place between December and February, most festivals occur during the working months.
Infiltration and subsurface flow: Cineclubs, film festivals, and cinephilia
The final key concepts to understanding this analogy of the water cycle are the notions of infiltration and subsurface flow. In the water cycle, infiltration occurs when water passes through the soil to become groundwater and soil moisture.[55] Once converted into groundwater, the subsurface flow begins – a process in which the water settles in aquifers, moving very slowly where it can eventually reach the ocean[56]. These concepts are related to the role that film schools and film clubs play in training new filmmakers, film lovers, and film professionals. In simple terms, film festivals filter films and cinematographic movements for local cine-clubs, generating discussions around national filmmakers, films, or even cinemas. In the same way, film schools train, from theory and practice, a new litter of filmmakers whose films once again nourish this circuit.
The cineclubs are still key within this model of the water cycle, as they are the ones who receive the resources of the festivals and process them, creating new generations of audiences and cinephiles. According to De Valck, film festivals act as reproduction systems in two ways: first, by reproducing filmmakers and films through competitions and awards that will allow them to enter the global film festival circuit and motivate new filmmakers to participate in festivals by making films;[57] the second way serves as a reproduction system, according to De Valck, by reproducing the audience:
They cultivate people’s disposition for the global art cinema. When people frequent festivals they are educated, so to speak, into the world of art cinema: they learn to appreciate unfamiliar forms, understand new types of narratives, and discover foreign cultures. It is at festivals that a new generation of cinephiles is hatched.[58]
In this respect, I would point out a difference between my argument and De Valck’s. What I am proposing with the water cycle model and the role of cineclubs and film schools is not the opposite of what De Valck has expressed but opens more possibilities. De Valck’s argument follows Nicholls when he argues that film festivals have institutional and discursive power and that this is where new meanings emerge for understanding global cinema.[59] However, in less global or less industrial contexts, film festivals need more tools to consolidate their discourse on the new, emerging, or any concept they want to raise about cinema. Thus, it is the role of cineclubs and film schools to take these resources and discourses, to consolidate and expand them within a community.
According to statistics from the Ministry of Culture, Arts and Heritage, in 2014, there were 98 study programmes related to film, of which more than 50% are taught by institutes.[60] Of these programmes, 89% correspond to undergraduate degrees, 9% to diplomas, and 2% to postgraduate degrees.[61] According to their prestige, both academically and in terms of the film production of their graduates, the most important centres of study are the Universidad de Chile, the Universidad Católica, the Escuela de Cine de Chile, the Universidad del Desarrollo, and the Universidad Mayor. The film schools are part of the water cycle model because their students are educated in the global trends of auteur cinema and Chilean cinema and because many members of the Chilean film community and cinephilia teach at these institutions. At the Film School of the Universidad de Chile, filmmakers Ignacio Agüero, Carlos Flores del Pino, Alejandro Fernández Almendras, Tiziana Panizza, Alicia Scherson; researchers María Paz Peirano, Luis Horta, Claudia Bossay, Carlos Ossa; the director of the Women’s Film Festival (FEMCINE) Antonella Estevez, among others, are part of the academic body.[62] Meanwhile, at the Universidad Católica, the teaching staff includes filmmakers Elisa Eliash, Niles Atallah, Christopher Murray, Maite Alberdi, Claudia Huaiquimilla, researcher Carolina Urrutia, and film editor Andrea Chignoli, among others.[63] All of them are part of the film festival circuit, both in Chile and abroad, so they communicate directly to the students about global film trends, they update the films that are part of their courses, and at the same time the students can see how many of their teachers premiere their films or publish their research. It is these students who, even before they graduate, will begin to be part of a new cinephilia and perhaps even begin to participate in competitions at their first festivals.
Evaporation: The virtuous circle
Finally, the closing of this circuit, such as the water cycle, is evaporation. Evaporation is understood as the passage from liquid water to steam, thanks to solar radiation.[64] For this analogy, evaporation will be understood as the result of all the previous steps of this circuit: film festivals, cineclubs, film schools – that have allowed the development of new films, and the appearance of new filmmakers who will begin their journey with the aim of being selected in the three festivals that lead the circuit. Each of the previous stages of the water cycle model aimed to promote film culture and a new cinephilia. Thus, each stage contributed to the evaporation of a new generation of filmmakers and films that would constantly nurture the film festival circuit. Of course, new filmmakers do not appear every year, but there are always new films. Directors progressively develop new languages or consolidate their styles by passing through the Chilean film festival circuit.
Conclusions
Main film festivals act as condenser film festivals, accumulating premieres of Latin American and international films, press attention, relevant guests, and greater attention from audiences, cinephilia, and the film community. It is these festivals that, once their editions are over, begin to return the resources to their environment, which are received in three processes that are connected to film festivals, cinephilia, and film culture. The first, sublimation and deposition, refers directly to the relationship between film festivals and film historiography. The article discusses several concepts that appear in this relationship, such as collective memory, emotionality, prestige, and the film canon. The second point is the runoff, which encompasses the role of festivals as exhibitors or the circuit itself. The runoff is when smaller festivals present films that have been previously presented at the condensing festivals to reproduce both the relevance of the programme and allow audiences to see the same kind of films. The third point is the infiltration that deals with film education by film clubs and film schools. Through these three points, the national film culture is promoted, allowing the emergence of a new generation of filmmakers and cinephiles who, through evaporation, will nurture the condenser festivals, and thus the rest of the circuit.
Since 2019, the social context has allowed us to test the water cycle model and observe that it is a model that can be used to study national film festival circuits. First, because of the changes in the social landscape, film festivals have to adapt to new conditions of production and safety. The last film festival held in normality in Chile before the pandemic was the 26th version of FICValdivia, held from 7-13 October 2019. On 14 October, secondary students started to demonstrate in Santiago, mainly by staging massive evasions on public transport in Santiago. For four days the demonstrations increased, with more people joining the evasions under the slogan ‘To evade, not to pay, another way to fight’, while the government of President Piñera called the demonstrators ‘thugs’ and ‘violent’ while increasing the police presence in the Metro stations.[65] On 18 October, riot police began to disperse protesters with tear gas, generating a wave of violence that ended with fires at nineteen Metro stations, public transport buses damaged, and attacks on local shops. To this day, the authorities have not determined whether the fires were set by demonstrators or by the police. President Piñera declared a state of emergency, requesting the presence of military forces on the streets. Quickly, some film festivals such as FIDOCS adapted to the social context, creating exhibitions that bring audiences closer to understanding the social discontent.
Second, the arrival of the pandemic also meant a new adaptation of film festivals to online formats. Due to the pandemic, film festivals began to be postponed, with uncertainty about the conditions under which they could be held. The first announcements concerned FICValdivia and SANFIC. In an Instagram Live session organised by El Agente Cine on 8 May, Raúl Camargo, Director of FICValdivia, explained the different options to hold the festival. Camargo remarked that three options were considered: a traditional film festival, a mixed festival combining on-site and online exhibitions, and a fully online film festival.[66] However, any decision would be made three weeks before the dates of FICValdivia, which takes place in October, and would depend on public health authorities. Later, SANFIC announced on 19 May that its 2020 edition would keep its dates from 16-23 August and go entirely online through the platforms Festival Scope and Shift 72. The condenser film festivals continued to influence the rest of the Chilean film festivals. Furthermore, FICValdivia imitated the experience of the in-person film festival, creating a daily online programme that was released in the same way as if the spectator went to each venue at the appointed time to view the film he or she wanted to see. Also, for budgetary reasons, smaller festivals held more retrospectives of Chilean and Latin American filmmakers because screening fees are cheaper than European screening fees. Also, they organised more audience education activities, and several online film clubs were created. The role of festivals as meeting places and sites for the promotion of film culture and cinephiles, although put under tension, was strengthened thanks to a circuit that I suggested was incipient, but which shows signs of being more consolidated than it seems.
Author
Sebastián González Itier is a lecturer and researcher in film at Universidad de los Andes (Chile), teaching film theory, film history, curatorship, digital distribution, and film criticism, and is part of the staff of the PhD in communication. He holds a PhD in film studies from the University of Edinburgh. His research focuses on the circuit of film festivals, film culture, cinephilia, the film canon, and film programming and curatorship. He is a film critic and part of the board at El Agente Cine (www.elagentecine.cl) and is co-researcher and co-creator of www.festivalesdecine.cl. In 2022 he was awarded the FAI research fund to research FICValdivia and its role in Chilean cinema, and in 2023 he was awarded the FONDECYT project to research curatorial theories and practices in film festivals in Chile.
References
Bosma, P. Film programming: Curating for cinemas, festivals, archives. London-New York: Wallflower, 2015.
Camargo, R. Live de #ElAgenteCine con Raúl Camargo, 2020 (M. Águila, Interviewer): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ry69CYwfEdw
Campos, M. Tensiones en el circuito cinematográfico internacional: modelo para el estudio de los festivales latinoamericanos. Comunicación y Medios, 42, 2020: 72-84.
Consejo Nacional de la Cultura y las Artes. Política Nacional del Campo Audiovisual 2017-2022. Valparaíso: CNCA, 2016
Cousins, M. The story of film. London: Pavilion, 2013.
_____. Film festival form: A manifesto. Film Festival Academy, 2012: http://www.filmfestivalacademy.net/
De Valck, M. Film festivals: From European geopolitics to global cinephilia. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2007.
_____. ‘Film festivals, Bourdieu, and the economization of culture’, Canadian Journal of Film Studies, 23, 1, 2014: 74-89.
Di Chiara, F. and Re, V. ‘Film Festival/Film History: The Impact of Film Festivals on Cinema Historiography. Il cinema ritrovato and beyond’, Cinémas: Journal of Film Studies, 21, 2-3, 2011: 131-151.
Elsaesser, T. European cinema: Face to face with Hollywood. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2005.
Facultad de la Comunicación e Imagen. Cuerpo Académico, 2023: https://fcei.uchile.cl/academicos
Facultad de Comunicacines UC. (2023). Cuerpo Académico: https://comunicaciones.uc.cl/facultad/personas/
Fischer, A. Conceptualising basic film festival operation: An open system paradigm, PhD thesis, Bond University, 2009.
González, S. ‘Festivales de cine en Chile como ventanas de difusión y exhibición del cine chileno’ in Imaginarios del cine chileno y latinoamericano, edited by M. Villarroel. Santiago de Chile: LOM, 2018: 87-95.
_____. ‘FICValdivia y su posición en el cine chileno contemporáneo’, Comunicación Y Medios, 29, 42, 2020: 96-107; https://doi.org/10.5354/0719-1529.2020.57288
_____. Chilean film festivals: Promoters of film culture and cinephilia in Chile, PhD thesis, The University of Edinburgh, 2021.
_____. ‘Interview with Antonia Girardi (FIDOCS)’, El Agente Cine, 2022: http://elagentecine.cl/entrevista/entrevista-a-antonia-girardi-directora-de-fidocs-hemos-estado-siempre-reflexionando-el-cine-como-evento-colectivo/
Grgic, A. ‘Archival Film Festivals as Sites of Memory’ in Film festival yearbook 5: Archival film festivals, edited by A. Marlow-Mann. St Andrews: St Andrews Film Studies, 2013: 55-66.
Iordanova, D. ‘The Film Festival Circuit’ in Film festival yearbook 1: The festival circuit, edited by D. Iordanova and R. Rhyne. St. Andrews: St Andrews Film Studies, 2009: 23-39.
Koehler, R. ‘Cinephilia and Film Festivals’ in Dekalog 3: On film festivals, edited by R. Porton. London: Wallflower, 2009: 81-97.
_____. ‘A New Latin Primer’, Sight & Sound, 27, 8, 2017: 16-17.
Nicholls, B. ‘Global Image Consumption in the Age of Late Capitalism’, East-West Film Journal, 8, 2, 1994: 68-85.
NOAA. Water cycle, 2019: https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/freshwater/water-cycle
Page, J. Decolonizing science in Latin American art. London: UCL Press, 2021.
Peirano, M. ‘Pursuing, resembling, and contesting the global: the emergence of Chilean film festivals’, New Review of Film and Television Studies, 1, 14, 2016: 112-131.
_____. ‘FIDOCS y la formación de un campo de cine documental en Chile en la década de 1990’, Cine Documental, 18, 2018: 62-89.
Peranson, M. ‘First You Get the Power, Then You Get the Money: Two Models of Film Festivals’ in Dekalog 3: On film festivals, edited by R. Porton. London-New York: Wallflower, 2009: 23-37.
Rivera, V. and De Ruyt, F. ‘Evasiones masivas en Metro superan las 50 y policía dispone uso de Fuerzas Especiales’, La Tercera, 17 October 2019: https://www.latercera.com/nacional/noticia/evasiones-masivas-metro-superan-las-50-policia-dispone-uso-fuerzas-especiales/866137/
Stringer, J. ‘Global Cities and the International Film Festival Economy’ in Cinema and the city, edited by M. Shiel and T. Fitzmaurice. Oxford-Malden: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2001: 134-144.
Vallejo, A. ‘Rethinking the canon: The role of film festivals in shaping film history’, Studies in European Cinema, 17, 2, 2020: 155-169.
Vanhaelemeesch, J. Common ground: Film cultures and film festivals in Central America, PhD thesis, University of Antwerp, 2021.
[1] Stringer 2001; Elsaesser 2005; de Valck 2007.
[2] Campos 2020, p. 75.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] de Valck 2007; Iordanova 2009; Stringer 2001.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Stringer 2001, p. 137.
[8] Ibid., pp.137-138.
[9] Galtung 1971.
[10] Wallerstein 1974, 1976.
[11] Campos 2020, p. 78.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Elsaesser 2005, pp. 84-85.
[14] De Valck 2007.
[15] Koehler 2017, pp. 16-17.
[16] Peirano 2016.
[17] González Itier 2020.
[18] Festivalesdecine.cl 2023.
[19] Peirano 2018, p. 85.
[20] González Itier 2022.
[21] González 2018, p. 93.
[22] Peranson 2009, pp. 23-24.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Fischer 2009, p. 70.
[25] Ibid., p. 83.
[26] Ibid., p. 84.
[27] Bosma 2015, p. 71.
[28] Ibid.
[29] Fischer 2009, p. 85.
[30] Ibid., pp. 86-88.
[31] Vanhaelemeesch 2021.
[32] NOAA 2019.
[33] Ibid.
[34] Fischer 2009, p. 71.
[35] Koehler 2009, p. 82.
[36] Cousins 2012.
[37] De Valck 2014, p. 79.
[38] NOAA 2019.
[39] Di Chiara & Re 2011.
[40] Ibid., pp. 134-135.
[41] Ibid., p. 135.
[42] Ibid.
[43] Grgic 2013, p. 60.
[44] Ibid.
[45] Ibid., p. 62.
[46] Vallejo 2020, pp. 161-162.
[47] Ibid.
[48] Ibid., p. 156.
[49] Ibid.
[50] Cousins 2013, p. 377.
[51] Vallejo 2020, p. 162.
[52] Ibid.
[53] NOAA 2019.
[54] Iordanova 2009, pp. 24-28.
[55] NOAA 2019.
[56] Ibid.
[57] De Valck 2014, p. 78.
[58] Ibid.
[59] Nicholls 1994, pp. 77-78.
[60] Consejo Nacional de la Cultura y las Artes 2016, p. 29.
[61] Ibid., p. 30.
[62] FCEI 2023.
[63] Facultad de Comunicaciones 2023.
[64] NOAA 2019.
[65] Rivera & De Ruyt 2019.
[66] Camargo 2020.