Welcome to the new, all-blue Eyes Wired Open - a change that came about as a way of solving the colour font problem on the home page I complained about in the post below.
(Many thanks to Tony, Alison and Karel for your suggestions - greatly appreciated. It not only solved the problem, but the site was probably in need of a fresh look anyway and the more I look at this one the more I like it. I hope readers do too.)
That's all by way of introducing an extract from an essay I wrote on the global expansion of the film festival circuit, published in the Melbourne literary journal Meanjin in December 2008 and which I've discovered is now online.
That's all by way of introducing an extract from an essay I wrote on the global expansion of the film festival circuit, published in the Melbourne literary journal Meanjin in December 2008 and which I've discovered is now online.
With Cannes about to start, Sydney opening in a few weeks, the Spanish under way and the German just over, it's as good a time as any to wonder what we get out of festivals and examine the kinds of pressures they're under.
Extract:
"On the international level the competitive pressure has increased in the last four or five years due to the advent of extremely well-funded international festivals with major ambitions such as Rome, New York’s Tribeca, Dubai and Abu Dhabi.
South Korea’s regional powerhouse, Pusan, is not that much older and Texan event South by South West, or SXSW, a former music festival that now encompasses several events devoted to independent film, music and new media, is on the rise.
All are looking for premieres, be they international, regional or national, and stars to tread their red carpets. The trouble is, there are only so many stars
available to line up for an infinite number of required photo ops, and only so many films worth screening. While Cannes appears secure in its primary position, there’s constant jockeying for position and prestige by Berlin, Venice and Toronto, all perched on the next highest rung.
Appear to be slipping—as appeared to be happening this year with Venice—and one of them can quickly be judged by international film executives and media to be an event that doesn’t justify the expense of attendance. All the jostling for media coverage, the nervous looking over the shoulder at what similar festivals are doing, is not just confined to the upper echelon. It’s everywhere.
Purists may think that none of this matters, since the core function of festivals has always been to bring films to an audience that otherwise wouldn’t get a chance to see them. This is particularly true of Australia’s major festivals, which have been traditionally focused on audiences rather than industry.
However, it’s becoming increasingly impossible to separate the cultural imperative from the pragmatic and commercial considerations that make these events possible. Sponsors, whether government or corporate, don’t make donations but investments in which they expect to get something back—attention, the chance to meet famous actors, prestige, advertising.
The apparent contradictions between these worldly, often vulgar impulses and the desire to promote high cinematic art are at their most glaring in Cannes, where lurid trash rubs shoulders with the work of the latest Iranian and Turkish auteurs.
Yet it’s the former that makes the latter possible. For despite popular opinion, no festival ever makes a profit. They’re all subsidised...
...Meanwhile all festivals are having to grapple with another issue. The number of films being made every year has mushroomed. Cheap digital cameras and lap-top editing software has brought filmmaking within the reach of just about anyone sufficiently determined."
Extract:
"On the international level the competitive pressure has increased in the last four or five years due to the advent of extremely well-funded international festivals with major ambitions such as Rome, New York’s Tribeca, Dubai and Abu Dhabi.
South Korea’s regional powerhouse, Pusan, is not that much older and Texan event South by South West, or SXSW, a former music festival that now encompasses several events devoted to independent film, music and new media, is on the rise.
All are looking for premieres, be they international, regional or national, and stars to tread their red carpets. The trouble is, there are only so many stars
available to line up for an infinite number of required photo ops, and only so many films worth screening. While Cannes appears secure in its primary position, there’s constant jockeying for position and prestige by Berlin, Venice and Toronto, all perched on the next highest rung.Appear to be slipping—as appeared to be happening this year with Venice—and one of them can quickly be judged by international film executives and media to be an event that doesn’t justify the expense of attendance. All the jostling for media coverage, the nervous looking over the shoulder at what similar festivals are doing, is not just confined to the upper echelon. It’s everywhere.
Purists may think that none of this matters, since the core function of festivals has always been to bring films to an audience that otherwise wouldn’t get a chance to see them. This is particularly true of Australia’s major festivals, which have been traditionally focused on audiences rather than industry.
However, it’s becoming increasingly impossible to separate the cultural imperative from the pragmatic and commercial considerations that make these events possible. Sponsors, whether government or corporate, don’t make donations but investments in which they expect to get something back—attention, the chance to meet famous actors, prestige, advertising.
The apparent contradictions between these worldly, often vulgar impulses and the desire to promote high cinematic art are at their most glaring in Cannes, where lurid trash rubs shoulders with the work of the latest Iranian and Turkish auteurs.
Yet it’s the former that makes the latter possible. For despite popular opinion, no festival ever makes a profit. They’re all subsidised...
...Meanwhile all festivals are having to grapple with another issue. The number of films being made every year has mushroomed. Cheap digital cameras and lap-top editing software has brought filmmaking within the reach of just about anyone sufficiently determined."
0 comments:
Post a Comment