Film Programming

Curating for Cinemas, Festivals, Archives

Peter Bosma

• Publisher: WallFlower Press
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9780231850827
• Topic: Media & Performing Arts
• Subtopic: Film & Video

This study explores artistic choices in cinema exhibition, focusing on film theaters, film festivals, and film archives and situating film-curating issues within an international context. Artistic and commercial film availability has increased overwhelmingly as a result of the digitization of the infrastructure of distribution and exhibition. The film trade's conventional structures are transforming and, in the digital age, supply and demand can meet without the intervention of traditional gatekeepers—everybody can be a film curator, in a passive or active way. This volume addresses three kinds of readers: those who want to become film curators, those who want to research the film-curating phenomenon, and those critical cinema visitors who seek to investigate the story behind the selection process of available films and the way to present them.

1 REFLECTION

In our lifetime we all collect special experiences of screenings in cinemas and we cherish the memories of them. There is a whole industry at work to make this possible. This book focuses on the end of the decision chain. The purpose of this book is to analyse the activity of selecting films and scheduling them purposefully for screening to an audience, whether at a film theatre, film festival or film archive. This activity could be described as ‘curating film’ or ‘film programming’. What do these terms mean, precisely? This calls for clarification. The next step is to investigate the practice of contemporary film curating as a worthwhile subject of research. Historical research on curating film programmes is also explored, and a list of relevant general research questions is offered. Then, the phenomenon of presenting films professionally is discussed from an institutional perspective. This approach serves as a tool for mapping the artistic choices of the film curator and analysing them in a systematic way.

1.1 Definitions and Demarcations

The phenomenon of film presentation has a varied context in the digital age. We may focus on films shown on the big screen, but films are everywhere: outdoors in the public space there are many urban screens, and in the personal environment one can consume films at any time. The term ‘film’ refers here to the phenomenon of a public screening of a film for a paying and attentive audience in a film theatre, at a film festival, in a film archive or elsewhere. These options need some specification. A ‘film theatre’ is a venue for film screenings through the year. Subdivisions could be made on the basis of identity (art-house cinema or commercial venue; first-run theatre offering premieres or repertory cinema offering revivals) and size (the number of seats and the number of screening rooms). A ‘film festival’ is a temporary series of film screenings and side programmes, presented as a unified event. A subdivision of film festivals could be made on the basis of the geographical scope, thematic range and overall purpose of the festival. A ‘film archive’ is an institution dedicated to conserving, preserving and restoring film heritage. For a definition of ‘film heritage’, see section 6.1.

Here the term ‘film curator’ is used to indicate the person who compiles a film programme. The term ‘curator’ is associated predominantly with art galleries and museums, but could be applied to the field of film exhibition as well. The term ‘film programmer’ is frequently used in the international film industry, but could prove a bit confusing because in the information technology industry the designation of ‘programmer’ refers to someone who undertakes computer programming. Naturally, it is possible to disregard possible misunderstandings and continue to use the term ‘film programmer’, focusing on the scheduling of screenings, and many do so, but I choose here to use the label ‘film curator’ as it connotes a more sophisticated level of cinematic knowledge than simply ‘programming’ specific screenings.

The process of making artistic choices is a common phenomenon in the cultural field. In the music industry a DJ selects music for dance events, club nights or radio programmes. In the television industry a scheduler selects the content of a broadcast for a station or channel. In the world of fine arts a curator selects content for an art biennale or museum, or presentations of collections. There is also the more recent phenomenon of ‘content curation’ performed by both digital information professionals and amateurs, selecting and filtering content of social media on the Internet. The term ‘format’ is mostly used to indicate the style or arrangement of a programme idea for (commercial) television; this is comparable to a magazine format. A cinema programme can also have a format, with recurring items and a recognisable line-up.

A film curator is a person who selects films for public screenings, using various criteria, to be held either in a film theatre, at a festival, in a film archive or elsewhere. In each case, the curator has a dual responsibility: to compose an interesting programme and attract a large enough and, hopefully, loyal audience. In other words, the curator’s goal is to obtain a measure of critical acclaim and provide the highest possible customer satisfaction. A film curator organises inspiring programmes and events, and brings together films and people, enabling exchanges and encounters. His or her core task is to create added value in cultural terms, set in a context of negotiating financial conditions, coordinating a smooth workflow, and overcoming repressions and restrictions.

This general definition of a film curator could be compared with the more specific definition given by four film heritage experts, Paolo Cherchi Usai, David Francis, Alexander Horwath and Michael Loebenstein, who limit themselves to the world of film archives and formulate a more restricted definition of ‘film curatorship’: ‘The art of interpreting the aesthetics, history, and technology of cinema through the selective collection, preservation, and documentation of films and their exhibition in archival presentations’ (Cherchi Usai et al. 2008: 231).

This book, then, is about the story behind the organisation of curated content in the domain of cinema: someone prepares a set of film screenings and hopes to attract a significant audience to attend and enjoy this programme. From an economic perspective, a film curator is just a small part of a larger whole. Seen from a business point of view, a film curator is not considered to be the decisive decision-maker. Therefore, the focus here will be on the characteristics of artistic choices but also on the context in which these choices are made and mediated. The curatorial practice consists of a daily struggle with deadlines. Firstly on an artistic level: choosing which films are to be programmed next week, next month, next season. Secondly on a financial level: how this will be paid for. There is also the urgent need to address marketing challenges: how to attract an audience and gain critical attention. The task of a film curator is, furthermore, to act as the moderator of a relevant conversation and instigator of audience participation and engagement. To organise the screening of a film programme is certainly a high-pressure task.

A film curator also has to retain his or her passion and curiosity, despite the pressure and routine of consecutive deadlines. The challenge is to keep an open mind, to continue to explore recent publications and magazines and to visit various film festivals. A film curator is supposed to be cautiously receptive to associations, intuitions and promptings, in combination with having the discipline to do lots of research in order to cut down the long list of possible choices and to compile the final selection in the best possible way. Every film curator has to perform a delicate balancing act in emphasising traditions of film art on the one hand and deconstructions of these traditions on the other. The central challenge is to learn from experiences and evaluations of logistics, but also to be able to explore new approaches and to be open to new ideas and new ways to present both film heritage and film releases.

There are a wide range of causes and effects of successful curating, which could be formalised in conditional critical success factors (CSFs) and evaluative key performance indicators (KPIs). The creation of curating concepts needs to be connected to a strategy of fundraising and marketing efforts. To support the analysis of best practices of entrepreneurship applied to curatorial practice there exists a wide body of guidelines and methods, taken from business theory and specialisations such as project management and marketing strategy. Using tools like systematic checklists and audits, it is possible to perform insightful benchmarking. The focus in this book, however, is strictly on discussing issues concerning the creation of a valuable film programme. But the context of business considerations remains in the background.

The core function of a film curator could be described as being a ‘gatekeeper’ or a ‘cultural intermediary’. Both terms are derived from sociological research into the cultural industries, mass communication and journalism (see, for example, Shoemaker and Vos 2009). A gatekeeper’s main function lies in selecting which cultural events the spectators get to see or hear. Taking its meaning most literally, a gatekeeper functions as a strict doorman who decides who and what is getting access to an audience and the media. But a gatekeeper is never one person acting alone. The decision chain in the film world consists of an interdependent network of producers, sales agents, distributors, curators and critics. This complex pattern of collective decision-making is based on, for example, assessing the potential profitability of proposed projects and searching for new content for existing successful formats. In contrast, a cultural intermediary acts as a matchmaker or go-between, who focuses on discovering new talents and new approaches, and introducing them to a new audience at the best possible venue.

1.2 Mapping the Artistic Choices of the Film Curator

This introductory chapter focuses on analysing and discussing the position and function of a film curator. Before practical issues are discussed in the next chapters, here I will sketch a framework to organise the background information in a systematic way. There is a scientific approach labelled institutional analysis that aims at gaining insight into the mechanisms of the presentation and circulation of culture in general. The phenomenon of artistic choice, furthermore, is highly relevant in the domain of the humanities, because this is the key to understanding the actual supply of culture, and also the historical developments in this area. Who decides which cultural expressions are to be seen and heard regularly, which of them are being safeguarded in accessible archives, and which of them are surfacing in school textbooks, and ranked as generally accepted cultural heritage?

There is a fierce existential competition, both for sheer presence and attention and for appreciation and remembrance. A film curator should have an opinion about the essentials of cinema history and the fundamentals of their contemporary film practice. Stefanie Schulte-Strathaus (2004) discusses the practice of ‘showing different films differently’, in relation to the film archive. Her central argument is that films are products of a specific place and time and are watched by a viewer with a specific background of knowledge and experience. In the ideal situation a film curator has a clear and innovative artistic vision that adds value to the chosen films. Three actions are necessary: creating a strong programme, embedding that programme in a relevant context, and making the programme attractive for a sufficiently large crowd.

Each film curator is part of an ‘economy of ideas’, based on a particular exchange value: salaries are paid for constructing a brilliant programme concept. The audience is part of an ‘economy of experience’: the cinema ticket is paid for in exchange for a special and lasting viewing experience. The twenty-first century is characterised by a transition from the era of ownership to the ‘Age of Access’, as Jeremy Rifkin (2000) labelled it in his book of the same name.

Film curators are the masters of their cinema venue, but they have to relate themselves to a complex network of connections between several actors and aspects. The position of a film curator is characterised by a strong dependence on suppliers. To begin with, there are film producers with a wide range of reputations, from unknown new talents to respectable established names. Next come the intermediaries, most prominently the sales agents and distributors who are a part of the infrastructure of the film industry, but also the network of governmental institutions that provide an essential context of cultural policy and support. On the reception side is the powerful force of the audience and the influence of peers and independent experts. One of the first distinctions to make in this ramified network is at the level of the mobility of films: what route do they take; where are they screened? The international chain of film distribution provides a constant supply of films that need to be processed, filtered and promoted. This flow of official releases can be supplemented by film curators with relevant exclusive programming. Therefore it is necessary to consider also the mobility of film curators: what research they do, what trips they undertake, what discoveries they make and what kind of constraints and restrictions they encounter.

The position of film curators has changed due to developments in the networks of both the production and the consumption of films. The film curator of today is to be regarded as a node of connections in a network, functioning in a period of transition. Scientific research into the curatorial practice is a challenging exercise in posing the right questions, to discover patterns which transcend daily routines.

How can we map relevant developments, evaluate them and possibly explain them? It all starts with a systematic inventory of the whole spectrum of collaborations, conflicts and constraints. Here follows an initial brainstorm of possible specifications in this area, translated into a provisional list of issues to be addressed: Which patterns are to be distinguished in film circulation? What are the criteria for the selection of films and choice of distribution channels? Which opinions and ambitions are noticeable in the network of intermediaries? Which forces filter the availability and preservation of films? Which characteristics mark the collective viewing habits, appreciation and remembrance? Which target groups are addressed and reached? These questions are part of a current debate in a wide range of scientific institutional research in the humanities focused on the circulation of culture, in such disciplines as media studies (television, radio, the Internet), art history (galleries, auction houses, museums), literary studies (publishers, magazines, bookshops, libraries), musicology (the music industry, concert halls, orchestras), theatre studies (festivals, companies, playhouses and other stages) and even religious studies (forms of liturgy, selection of sacred texts). In the humanities a holistic approach prevails, meaning that the object, in our case the film programme, is analysed in its context of political-legal, economic, social-cultural and technological aspects. In many textbooks this spectrum of external influential forces is summarised by the abbreviation PEST.

There is still no substantial and comprehensive institutional theory of film production, distribution and exhibition. The American film theorist Noël Carroll made an initial attempt in an article originally published in 1979, in which he takes the aesthetics of the American philosopher George Dickie as a starting point (reprinted in Carroll 1996). Happily enough, there are a few outstanding case studies published in the domain of institutional research of film circulation, such as that of Kristin Thompson (2008), who offers an analysis of the international marketing campaign and release of the Lord of the Rings trilogy (Peter Jackson, 2001, 2002, 2003). This is a fascinating story, from both a business and an artistic perspective.

Film curating: film production

First of all we need filmmakers, people who are creative and have the stamina to develop their ideas and realise outstanding films. They are confronted by fierce competition in terms of contemporary talent and a huge heritage in the form of the output of their predecessors. What is the story behind the scenes? Institutional art theory is a subdiscipline of art sociology, and this specific perspective offers a useful framework for developing systematic reflection on the creation of films. American sociologist Howard Becker made a lasting contribution with his book Art Worlds (1982). His central concept is that creating art is a collective activity: it is the result of the cooperation and also obstruction of many. Even the most autonomous and individual artist still needs other people to make his or her art possible: people offering different forms of support such as education, supply of materials, channels of distribution and critical discourse. Behind each work of art Becker observes a layer of background stories about necessary conditions of assistance, support, collaboration and cooperation. This could be supplemented by also identifying a range of conflicts, constraints, rivalry and competition. Creating art involves a more or less coherent connection between many interacting parties and forces. This complex configuration is called an ‘art world’, a term which was first used by art critic Arthur C. Danto in 1964. Becker offers an inspiring reflection on the production, distribution and consumption of art. His concept of art worlds could easily be applied to ‘film worlds’. Films could be considered as nodes in several networks, among others the influence of government cultural policies and market forces, and the exchange of viewing experiences in the (inter)national public domain and on a personal level. The mapping of the dynamic relations between a configuration of nodes in a network and the flow of interaction between them could also be approached through the method of the ‘Actor Network Theory’ (ANT). However, for an elaboration of this perspective there is need for more space than this introduction permits (but see, among others, Latour 2005).

What are the necessary and sufficient conditions to be an artist? According to Becker, it is useless to try to define art using a compilation of specific intrinsic features. Traditional aesthetics formulates various criteria of realism, expressionism and poetics of form and style. Becker considers these value concepts as just one of the many social factors in the dynamics of an art world. His focus is on the story behind the scenes, with special attention paid to the analysis and understanding of reputations and conventions. He addresses the position of the artist in general, distinguishing three main categories. The majority of film artists are best described using his label ‘integrated professionals’. In the film world there are just a small amount of outsiders (‘folk artists’, ‘naive artists’). The most interesting category is what Becker calls ‘mavericks’, the unruly and self-willed artists. Orson Welles is often considered a maverick, due to his unconventional use of existing institutionalised practices and his career on the edges of the industry. This understanding could be the justification for a film curator to devote a film programme to his films. There are a lot of other directors who ignore conventions, both in the domain of film style and in the context of movie business, for example David Lynch, Jean-Luc Godard and Peter Greenaway. A film curator could choose to focus on selecting an overview of films from individual mavericks, or put them in a context of equivalent talents, or contrast them to relevant counterparts.

Film curating: film reception

Film exhibition forms another challenging starting point for reflection, the focus this time being on the details of the audience. Who is sitting in the screening room, under which conditions, resulting in which reactions? Film reception is a dynamic phenomenon. The same film could result in different reactions (physical, emotional, cognitive), expressed individually or collectively. Reactions could also change due to different circumstances. For example, it could matter a lot if you watch a film in an empty auditorium or a packed house, on your own or with a group of friends. Watching a film is an open process of participation in the creation of value, which evokes individual responses and shared experiences and memories. Art-house cinemas are filled by immobile spectators, sitting in darkness, with no distractions, resulting in a variable degree of identification with the space and time of the film narration, of entering the ...