Seán Leahy's Cinematic Portfolio

Preface:

  • For my Contemporary Cinema module (FX2011) as part of my Film and Screen Media course at University College Cork I was tasked with writing an essay about film festivals in response to the following: “Compare and contrast Mark Peranson’s film concepts of “Business Film Festivals” and “Audience Film Festivals”. Your answer should move beyond description and into critique, with reference to further readings.”

Binary or Spectrum?

An analysis of Mark Peranson’s concepts of ‘business’ and ‘audience’ film festivals:

21st April 2024

In Mark Peranson’s article, ‘First You Get the Power, Then You Get the Money: Two Models of Film Festivals’, he categories film festivals into two distinct categories, which he terms as being ‘business’ and ‘audience’ festivals. Having examined Peranson’s evidence for his argument that film festivals occupy binary categories, this essay will attempt to showcase that Peranson’s conclusions are antiquated and surface level, with him having generalised the entire film festival landscape. Therefore, this essay will first discuss the third phase of film festivals, which became dominant in contemporary society since the mid 2000s, and specifically how this change in iterations impacted Peranson’s conclusions. Secondly, this essay will debate Peranson’s examination of ‘interest groups’ that film festivals try to appeal to, alongside investigating their gain in power due to neoliberalism. Lastly, this essay will examine through Peranson’s dichotomy how the purpose of film festivals has changed and evolved, with it discussing subjects such as their shift from being a passive to an active participant, alongside their impact on tourism and culture on a national scale.

Coinciding with, and partly due to the advent of the digital filmmaking revolution, was the change from the second to the third phase of film festivals. This new phase which was birthed due to “a complex shift of several interlocking cultural and economic agendas”, is the foundations on which Peranson’s arguments are constructed (Loist 58). Hence, Peranson’s arguments are influenced by this moment in time, in which rapid change was occurring within the film festival landscape. In his article, Peranson describes the ‘business festivals’ as having the following qualities; “High budget … Premiere oriented … Major corporate sponsorship … Market/business presence … Major competition … Film-fund/Third world investment … Hollywood studio involvement … [alongside always] expanding” (Peranson 38). However, the opposite of these facets is what Peranson uses to describe ‘audience festivals’, which reinforces his binary categorising of film festivals. Opposing Peranson’s viewpoint is that of Pierre Bourdieu, with author Marijke de Valck, echoing Bourdieu’s opinion that the subdividing of festivals into two distinct ‘cultural subfields’ i.e. “restricted production[s] and large-scale production[s]”, akin to Peranson’s outlook is only a surface level evaluation of film festivals, with Valck stating that the “two subfield[s] should not be taken as fixed categories, but rather be seen as the poles on a sliding scale” (Valck 101). Consequently, the gap between these two ‘poles’ creates a spectrum, which facilitates a multitude of varying film festivals to coincide with one another, with examples including “small-gauge” and “film-amateur” festivals (Caneppele 101). In addition to this, the spectrum also allows for “[v]arious “diasporic” or “ethic” film festivals” to exist, with their being a “broad spectrum of activist festivals” which focus on issues “such as disabilities, human rights, and ecology”, as evident with festivals such as the Catalyst International Film Festival. Therefore, because of the spectrums mere existence, it inherently disproves Peranson’s binary categorisation of film festivals. Instead, as Skadi Loist highlights in her written piece, contemporary film festivals exist within a tiered system, known as the ‘festival circuit’.

Hence, it is within contemporary society, that the ‘festival circuit’ has become the dominant apparatus which contains nearly all forms of film festivals. Before analysing Peranson’s listing of ‘interest groups’ within this apparatus, it is important to understand the changes from the second to the third phase of festivals, which enabled the growth in power that these ‘interest groups’ have since acquired. Consequently, their growth in power stems from the “rise of neoliberalism”, and the changing attitude of societies outlook on cultural events, with people dismissing the previous notion of them allowing for “the formation of a coherent national identity”, with the public instead shifting their viewpoint towards them as being “a value-generating creative industry” (Loist 58). Consequently, due to this transition into a hyper-capitalistic and globalised society, governments had begun to diminish or withdraw their investments into national film festivals, with them subsequently leaving a power vacuum, in which the ‘interest groups’ as outlined in Peranson’s essay were willing to fill. Therefore, as described in his essay, Peranson lists a plethora of ‘interest groups’ that contemporary film festivals try to appeal to, which are; “Distributor/Buyer … Sales Agent … Sponsors … Government … Audience … Critics … [and] Filmmakers” (Peranson 39). Furthermore, Peranson argues that maintaining effective relationships with these ‘interest groups’ is critical for a festivals success and continued existence, with him prioritising them into different orders depending on weather it’s for a ‘business’ or ‘audience’ festival, due to their differing level of accepted prestigiousness within the film festival landscape. Hence, the acquired power of these ‘interest groups’ due to the corporatisation of film festivals, has led to an imbalance of power, with festivals having to accept their demands to stay afloat. In Peranson’s essay he reaffirms this position, with him stating that “big sales agents … often demand fees from festivals to cover ‘their costs’” (40). Despite Peranson’s not so clandestine hinting at bribery within the capitalised ‘festival circuit’, there has been attempts to counteract it, as Cindy Hing-Yuk Wong highlights in her written piece, with her stating that there has been the establishment of festivals which oppose the monetary driven value of the ‘festival circuit’, such as The Subversive Film Festival which “openly proclaims its anti-neoliberal [and] anti-capitalist stance” (Wong 91). Nevertheless, these anti-capitalist festivals to some degree still rely ‘interest groups’ to cover their operational costs, such as “official sponsors, and partners” (Wong 92).

Additionally, within this new phase of film festivals, major foundational changes have occurred. With them now playing “an important role in terms of both production … and distribution” (Báez-Montenegro and Devesa-Fernández 190), with them having “moved from being passive platforms and facilitators for the film industry to becoming intermediaries and increasingly active players in all aspects of the film industry” (Loist 59). In investigating their changes, one could see the advantages of viewing them through the prism of Peranson’s binary categorisation, as it allows for the analysing of the main differences between the festivals at either ends of the spectrum, and how they affect their surrounding environment. Subsequently, a field in which the two differ to quite a significant degree is that of culture and tourism. In regards to ‘audience festivals’, they facilitate the fostering of a local film culture, with them enabling local filmmakers to display and discuss culturally unique topics that contribute to the public discourse. An example of this is Docs Ireland, a film festival which describes itself as being “an annual programme of events showcasing the Irish documentary industry” (Docs Ireland). Within this festival they have several categories which cater to local filmmakers such as ‘Short Irish Documentary’ and ‘Short Irish Documentary – Under 25 Years Old’, with the latter facilitating the encouragement for young filmmakers to contribute to the public discourse. Despite their fostering of a local film culture, ‘audience festivals’ rarely draw in the large numbers compared to ‘business/A-list festivals’ akin to the likes of the Cannes Film Festival in France, which state that they welcome “between 35,000 and 40,000 festival goers” every year (Online Ticket Office). Consequently, this huge influx of tourists, festival-goers, critics, buyers and filmmakers to a region leads to a substantial boost in their local economy, as evident with festivals such as The Sundance Film Festival, which has reportedly “pumped nearly half a billion dollars into Utah’s economy and created more than 8,400 jobs” between 2012 and 2017 (Robb). Therefore, due to their ability to considerably impact their surrounding environment, ‘business’ festivals have a large unbalanced influence on the local economy of where their situated, which can be devasting for local inhabitants in areas such as housing, where the possibility of gentrification can increase. Hence, the sheer power that these ‘business’ festivals can have in a region, can lead to them indirectly dictating local polices rather than policymakers dictating the limits of the festivals, with a ‘policy of appeasement’ usually being the manner in which one can describe their relationship with one another. Evidently, this can be observed in The Sundance Film Festival’s recent proposal to consider other cities to host their festival from 2027 onwards, with the Mayor of Park City in Utah stating that “We appreciate our partnership with Sundance, and we want the festival to remain here for another 40 years” (Sperling).

In conclusion, this essay aimed to showcase how Mark Peranson’s binary categorisation of film festivals into ‘business’ and ‘audience’ categories is reductive and antiquated, with it having argued instead for the use of a ‘film festival spectrum’ that encompasses a wide range of festivals. In doing so, this essay first surveyed the shift from the second to third phase of festivals which would have impacted Peranson’s arguments. Secondly, it investigated Peranson’s listing of festival ‘interest groups’ in relation to the rise of neoliberalism and globalisation. Lastly, it explored the positives of Peranson’s binary categorisation, with it showcasing how it can be used to explore differences between the two extremes at either ends of the spectrum, with it paying particular attention to how they affect culture and tourism on a national scale. 

Works Cited:

Báez-Montenegro, Andrea, and María Devesa-Fernández. “Motivation, satisfaction and loyalty in the case of a film festival: Differences between local and non-local participants.” Journal of Cultural Economics, vol. 41, no. 2, 2 Feb. 2017, pp. 173–195, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-017-9292-2. Accessed 10 April 2024.

Caneppele, Paolo. “Amateur film festivals: Sources, history, and Perspectives.” Studies in European Cinema, vol. 19, no. 3, 22 June 2022, pp. 191–203, https://doi.org/10.1080/17411548.2022.2087051. Accessed 10th April 2024.

“Docs Ireland.” FilmFreeway, https://filmfreeway.com/DocsIreland. Accessed 10 April 2024.

Loist, Skadi. “The film festival circuit, Networks, hierarchies, and circulation.” Film Festivals: History, Theory, Method, Practice, by Marijke de Valck, Brendan Kredell and Skadi Loist, Routledge, 2016, pp. 49-64, https://www.routledge.com/Film-Festivals-History-Theory-Method-Practice/deValck-Kredell-Loist/p/book/9780415712477. Accessed 10th April 2024.

Peranson, Mark. “First You Get the Power, Then You Get the Money: Two Models of Film

Festivals.” Cinéaste, vol. 33, no. 3, 2008, pp. 37–43. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41690661. Accessed 10th April 2024.

“Online Ticket Office.” Festival de Cannes, Cannes Film Festival, https://www.festival-cannes.com/en/take-part/your-festival-experience/online-ticket-office. Accessed 10 April 2024.

Robb, David. “Sundance Film Festival: $465 Million in Economic Impact over Last 5 Years.” Deadline, Deadline, 14 June 2017, https://deadline.com/2017/06/sundance-film-festival-economic-impact-465-million-5-years. Accessed 10 April 2024.

Sperling, Nicole. “A New Home for Sundance? Festival Organizers Say It’s Possible.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 17 Apr. 2024, https://nytimes.com/2024/04/17/business/media/sundance-film-festival-park-city.html. Accessed 17 April 2024.

Valck, Marijke de. “Fostering art, adding value, cultivating taste. Film festivals as sites of cultural legitimization”. Film Festivals: History, Theory, Method, Practice, by Marijke de Valck, Brendan Kredell and Skadi Loist, Routledge, 2016, pp. 100-116, https://www.routledge.com/Film-Festivals-History-Theory-Method-Practice/deValck-Kredell-Loist/p/book/9780415712477. Accessed 10April 2024.

Wong, Cindy Hing-Yuk. “Publics and counterpublics, Rethinking film festivals as public spheres.” Film Festivals: History, Theory, Method, Practice, by Marijke de Valck, Brendan Kredell and Skadi Loist, Routledge, 2016, pp. 83-99, https://www.routledge.com/Film-Festivals-History-Theory-Method-Practice/deValck-Kredell-Loist/p/book/9780415712477. Accessed 10th April 2024.