Documentary Film Festivals: Changes,

Challenges, Professional Perspectives

1st ed. Edition Aida Vallejo
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/documentary-film-festivals-changes-challenges-profe
ssional-perspectives-1st-ed-edition-aida-vallejo/
FRAMING FILM FESTIVALS

Documentary
Film Festivals Vol. 2

Changes, Challenges,
Professional Perspectives

Edited by
Aida Vallejo · Ezra Winton
 Framing Film Festivals

Series Editors
Marijke de Valck
Department of Media and Culture Studies
Utrecht University
Utrecht, The Netherlands

Tamara L. Falicov
University of Kansas
Kansas City, MO, USA
Every day, somewhere in the world a film festival takes place. Most people
know about the festival in Cannes, the worlds’ leading film festival, and
many will also be familiar with other high profile events, like Venice, the
oldest festival; Sundance, America’s vibrant independent scene; and
Toronto, a premier market place. In the past decade the study of film
festivals has blossomed. A growing number of scholars recognize the
significance of film festivals for understanding cinema’s production,
distribution, reception and aesthetics, and their work has amounted to a
prolific new field in the study of film culture. The Framing Film Festivals
series presents the best of contemporary film festival research. Books in the
series are academically rigorous, socially relevant, contain critical discourse
on festivals, and are intellectually original. Framing Film Festivals offers a
dedicated space for academic knowledge dissemination.

More information about this series at

http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/14990
 Aida Vallejo • Ezra Winton
Editors

Documentary Film
Festivals Vol. 2
Changes, Challenges, Professional Perspectives
Editors
Aida Vallejo Ezra Winton
University of the Basque Country ReImagining Value Action Lab
(UPV/EHU) Lakehead University
Leioa, Spain Thunder Bay, ON, Canada

Framing Film Festivals

ISBN 978-3-030-17323-4    ISBN 978-3-030-17324-1 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17324-1

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer
Nature Switzerland AG 2020
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of
translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval,
electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now
known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information
in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the
publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to
the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The
publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG.
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
 Preface: Vol. 2—By Aida Vallejo
and Ezra Winton

This book (indeed books, as there are two volumes that make up this col-
lection) has been elaborated through a long process of hard work and
mutual collaboration. As such, it has evolved significantly through the
progression of bringing new collaborators on board, expanding to a more
accurate, elaborate and thorough engagement with our much-loved topic
of research: documentary film festivals. To those who have met us at con-
ferences and festivals where we made flushed proclamations concerning
the prospective publication, we can at long last say it is in the world, and
do so with a satisfied smile on each of our faces and a feeling of release in
our souls.
The project’s wide scope has made it worthy of two volumes,
Documentary Film Festivals Vol. 1. Methods, History, Politics and
Documentary Film Festivals Vol. 2. Changes, Challenges, Professional
Perspectives, which form a tandem set that tackles key issues at stake in
both Documentary Studies and Film Festival Studies. Both books can be
read separately or together as a single collection, but they do not require
readers to follow a given order. Nevertheless, the first volume includes
some contributions that help to frame the study of documentary film fes-
tivals in a wider context, namely a review of the literature that brings
together Film Festival Studies and Documentary Studies, an interview
with Bill Nichols about this subject of inquiry and a historical chapter
about documentary at film festivals. While we might say the first volume is
more oriented to the past, the second looks toward the future of docu-
mentary film festivals. Across both volumes, historical and political con-
cerns are complemented by the study of recent changes that have occurred

v
vi PREFACE: VOL. 2—BY AIDA VALLEJO AND EZRA WINTON

in the festival circuit that affect documentary production, distribution,

curation, exhibition and reception.
Now that we are completing our own stage of prolonged production,
we think it’s an appropriate moment to look back and share how we came
to research the fascinating topic that has culminated in two books, and to
introduce the reader to the personal experiences that brought us here. We
hope you enjoy the book before you and find its content as challenging as
we did, while also drawing inspiration from fresh insights into the enchant-
ing and dynamic social, political, economic and cultural worlds of docu-
mentary film festivals.

A Researcher Navigating a Growing Festival Circuit

(Aida Vallejo)
In 2004, while still a university student participating in the European
Erasmus Exchange program, I visited the Thessaloniki Documentary
Festival in Greece. Back then I was stunned by the capacity of feature-­
length documentaries to attract a big audience at a moment when the
classical formats associated with Nichols’s expository mode (1991, 34–38)
were challenged by new aesthetic forms. The appearance of Bowling for
Columbine (Michael Moore, 2002) in movie theatres two years earlier
represented a turning point in documentary exhibition and a boost for
documentarians to unleash their creativity and go beyond the classic
distribution circuit, hitherto primarily controlled by television.
A few years later, in 2007, while studying the narrative construction of
contemporary documentary at Autonomous University of Madrid, I
focused my attention on film festivals as an object of academic study. The
shift from textual analysis to contextual concerns in my research seemed a
natural step towards understanding the channels of circulation that had
given exposure to the feature-length documentary form in previous years.
While working as a critic covering some documentary film festivals of dif-
ferent character, such as the veteran Zinebi Documentary and Short Film
Festival of Bilbao, the internationally recognised Thessaloniki Documentary
Festival and the daring newcomer Punto de Vista de Navarra, I started to
reflect upon their role in the circulation of films.
Creative documentary had suddenly taken the stage, breathing new life
into a genre that was for a long time relegated to television and which had
adopted the reportage formats associated with that medium. The spread
 PREFACE: VOL. 2—BY AIDA VALLEJO AND EZRA WINTON vii

of creative documentary and the extension to feature-length productions

provided the necessary input for film festivals to multiply across the globe
and maintain a continuous flow of diverse and high-profile films that
would fill their programmes, while new digital technologies bolstered pro-
duction and exhibition, facilitating new recording, editing and projection
infrastructures. A preliminary search for documentary showcases inevita-
bly raised questions of context: How many festivals were currently operat-
ing worldwide? What was their international relevance? Who were the
people behind these events that created an audience for new documentary
trends spreading worldwide, such as first-person documentary or—as
would be seen later on—animation and interactive documentary? Eager to
answer these questions, I embarked on a research project that allowed me
to travel throughout the European continent, from Zinebi in my home-
town Bilbao (Basque Country, Spain) to Jihlava (Czech Republic); from
Dokufest in Prizren (Kosovo) to Helsinki (Finland); from ZagrebDox
(Croatia) to IDFA (Amsterdam, the Netherlands).
The proliferation of festivals specialising in documentary film cannot be
dissociated from the appearance of certain films that laid the foundations
for further documentary exhibition. Moreover, several festival founders
were also filmmakers themselves. I remember the words of the director of
the Documentarist Film Festival, Necati Sönmez, in the cafe of cinema
Olympion in Aristotle Square during the Thessaloniki Documentary Film
Festival (Greece) in 2010, as he spoke about his reasons and inspiration to
create his own film festival in Istanbul (Turkey). Les glaneurs et la glaneuse
(Agnès Varda, 2000) was indeed the film that pushed him to start a festival
in the metropolis divided by the Bosphorus in 2008, a city in which he
also worked as a filmmaker.
Interestingly, many of these films came from different parts of the
world, adding to the cultural and linguistic diversity for which film festivals
appeared to serve as a suitable breeding ground. Coming from a region
where linguistic policies were a major cultural and political concern, I was
curious about subtitling practices on the international circuit. I remember
the conversations about technical issues with subtitle projectionists in
Punto de Vista, as well as reflecting on the trilingual subtitling practices in
Zinebi (in English, Spanish and Basque) and wondering what happens
with Basque subtitles once the festival is over, given the limitations of
minoritized languages to be used for further exhibition.
Archival practices at these events also caught my attention. Quite
unforgettably, in my aim to watch films from the first editions of the
viii PREFACE: VOL. 2—BY AIDA VALLEJO AND EZRA WINTON

Thessaloniki Documentary Film Festival, I had to keep my balance on the

back of a motorbike with three boxes of VHS films covering a retrospec-
tive on Yugoslavia programmed by the festival during the war in the
1990s. I had found the films by digging in a warehouse in the industrial
area on the outskirts of the city, thanks to the kind assistance of Thessaloniki
Museum of Cinema staff member Giorgos, who piloted the motorbike.
The visit to OSA Archivum in late winter in Budapest turned out to be
quite different, where I encountered the newest technology for film stor-
age at an institution that benefits from the strong financial support of the
Open Society Foundation.1 Precisely at the moment I arrived (in 2009)
they were signing the contract to include the films of Péter Forgács in
their collection.
Throughout this period, conversations with festival directors, program-
mers, filmmakers, archivists and industry professionals provided me with
rich insights into the backstage of festival practices, but at the same time
these experiences brought about an ever-increasing number of new ques-
tions: What was the origin of these festivals? How had they developed
historically? What was their relation to politics? What were their program-
ming strategies? And what were their archival practices? How were film-
makers using them not only to exhibit films but also to get funding and
distribute them? What was their role in the preservation of linguistic diver-
sity? These two volumes provide answers to these questions, inviting the
reader to reflect upon the origins, aims and functioning patterns of the
documentary festival ecosystem.

A Curator Researching Film Festivals as Sites

of Culture and Politics (Ezra Winton)

Two decades ago I had an epiphany at a small film event, the World
Community Film Festival, in my hometown of Courtenay on Vancouver
Island (British Columbia, Canada), that would irrevocably change the
course of my life. I had read a review of a film that was playing at the fes-
tival, and with a friend headed to the Sid Williams Theatre to whet my
curiosity. At the time, I had little interest in documentary and knew noth-
ing about East Timor, nor media ownership concentration and the trou-
bling collusion between corporate power and media institutions, so it is
fair to say that Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media
(Mark Achbar and Peter Wintonick 1992) blew my mind. After the epic
 PREFACE: VOL. 2—BY AIDA VALLEJO AND EZRA WINTON ix

documentary’s credits rolled, I recall leaping to my feet, grabbing my

friend by the arm, and yelling: “LET’S GO!” As I ran up the aisle past the
mostly middle-aged and elderly audience members, I felt the unique and
rare force of a life-changing, worldview-defining moment take over my
entire being. I burst out into the sleepy streets of my town, and rubbing
my eyes as they adjusted to the late afternoon light, shrieked to my friend
with a kind of strange zeal that doubly infected and gave him cause for
apprehension: “WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING—NOW!” And off we
went, naively starting an East Timor Alert Network chapter in Courtenay
and telling everyone and anyone we could about the insidious ways main-
stream media was manufacturing our very own consent—without us even
knowing it!
It is important to note that this film was a documentary and that the
space where I encountered the said documentary was formed by a film
festival. Documentary, as fiction film’s naughty and regularly punished
cousin, rarely finds space on commercial cinema screens anywhere, let
alone in Canada’s Hollywood-owned and dominated market.2
Manufacturing Consent certainly wasn’t enjoying a celebrated run at
Courtenay’s local Megaplex alongside Reservoir Dogs, Basic Instinct and
The Crying Game. No, this profound paradigm-shifting moment in my
life occurred because two traditionally marginalized and alternative media
forms and platforms converged in my town to exhibit a film that chal-
lenged the status quo to which I had blithely and ignorantly acquiesced
to until that point. For me, that moment represents the transformative
and explosive potential of the union of socially engaged documentary
cinema and the public-facing film festival. Realizing this meant I would
end up studying, researching and creating projects that interrogate and
celebrate this combustible combination of cultural/political expression
with social space into the decades that followed.
With that in mind, in 2003 I co-founded (with Svetla Turnin) what is
now the documentary world’s largest community and campus-based exhi-
bition network, Cinema Politica, a vast circuit in its own right, which runs
parallel to the ever-expanding film festival circuit. As an alternative exhibi-
tion network focused on showcasing political and independent (POV)
documentaries, Cinema Politica often collaborates and interfaces with
many documentary festivals. As such, I have had the privilege to attend
and work with festivals like Rencontres Internationales du Documentaire
de Montréal (RIDM) and Festival du nouveau cinéma (FNC) in Montreal,
Hot Docs Canadian International Documentary Festival (Hot Docs) and
x PREFACE: VOL. 2—BY AIDA VALLEJO AND EZRA WINTON

imagineNATIVE in Toronto, Docudays UA International Human Rights

Documentary Film Festival in Kiev, Jeden Svet/One World Human Rights
Film Festival in Prague, International Documentary Film Festival
Amsterdam (IDFA) in Amsterdam, Sofia International Film Festival in
Sofia, and many others. Along the way I have published critical pieces
about the lack of space provided to activists at large documentary festivals
(such as Hot Docs), I’ve sat on juries, and I’ve written countless film
reviews thanks to the access to often hard-to-reach films these festivals
afforded me. In more recent years I have also taught courses on film festi-
vals and curatorial politics, sometimes with a documentary focus.
But it is programming that has sustained my interest in documentary
film festivals over the years. The cultural politics of programming—that is
critical consideration regarding who decides what gets in, what stays out,
and the manner in which each film is presented to the public—is one of
the most fascinating and under-studied aspects of film festivals as a wider
subject, and documentary festivals in particular. We live in an age of hyper-­
curation, where we constantly accede our own agency in choosing what
content flows in the many channels that comprise our mediascapes.
Festivals have risen to prominence as traditional (broadcast) television still
clings to Palaeolithic conventions and modalities (including running times
defined by advertising, suit-and-tie hosts, the erasure of the working
classes, and the antiquated laugh track). Yet festivals have also flourished at
a time of the rampant proliferation of the so-called new media, where
eyeballs all over the world increasingly refocus as they shift from larger to
smaller screens.
So, on the one hand, documentary film festivals offer an exciting alter-
native space and experience to story-broke Hollywood and its Megaplexes,
as well as traditional television’s craggy conventions. On the other hand,
documentary film festivals are thriving in an era of online media consump-
tion that only continues to grow; on this latter point it is perhaps encour-
aging to see that all over the world audiences still seek out the kind of
experience that festivals offer, that is the “event-fullness” of experiencing
a (documentary) film with a bunch of strangers in the dark, who later may
or may not mingle and discuss the stories they have encountered together,
in a social setting.
Either way, documentary and film festivals are here to stay—as sepa-
rately defined cultural and media phenomena, and as intermingling forces
that are reflecting and giving shape to our cinemas and cultures on a global
scale. For my part, I’m delighted to be along for the ride and hope to be
 PREFACE: VOL. 2—BY AIDA VALLEJO AND EZRA WINTON xi

running up aisles and screaming outside of festival screenings well into

the future.

Leioa, Spain Aida Vallejo

Thunder Bay, ON, Canada  Ezra Winton

Notes
1. An initiative of the investor George Soros, who also founded the Central
European University to which the archive is associated.
2. It is estimated, according to Acland (2003), that commercial exhibition
screens in Canada show less than 3% of Canadian cinema outside the prov-
ince of Quebec (where numbers are notably higher).

References
Acland, Charles. 2003. Screen Traffic: Movies, Multiplexes, and Global Culture.
Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Nichols, Bill. 1991. Representing Reality: Issues and Concepts in Documentary.
Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
 Acknowledgments: Vol. 2

This project, which has culminated in a two-volume collection of chapters

and interviews, is the result of several years of research, some of it funded
by different public institutions and conducted through various research
projects. We would like to thank the University of the Basque Country
(UPV/EHU), IkerFESTS research project,1 HAUtaldea research proj-
ect,2 MAC research group, the Department of Education, Universities and
Research of the Government of the Basque Country, the ReImagining
Value Action Lab (RiVAL) at Lakehead University in Canada, the Social
Science and Humanities Research Council (Canada), and the Spanish
Ministry of Education and Science and the Spanish Ministry of Economy
and Competitiveness (National Plan Research Actions I+D+I), funder of
@CIN-EMA research project.3 Special thanks to the people whose taxes
help to develop independent research, the output of which will hopefully
contribute to better understand and improve the social and cultural
environments to which they belong.
We would like to thank everyone involved in this project, including
those who had to drop out during this long way. Enormous thanks to each
of the contributing authors of both volumes, who gave their time, hard
work and expertise so that this project would come to fruition. We would
also like to express deep gratitude to the team at Palgrave Macmillan, and
especially the Framing Film Festivals series editors, Marijke de Valck and
Tamara L. Falicov, for their support, encouragement and wise advice
throughout the review and publication process.
We would also like to thank our colleagues who helped us in both obvi-
ous and subtle ways to get through this long project, particularly Marijke

xiii
xiv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: VOL. 2

de Valck, Skadi Loist, María Paz Peirano, Thomas Waugh, Lucas Freeman
and Liz Czach, all of whom shared their experience and knowledge and
helped us with their generous advice. A number of festival organizers,
filmmakers, archivists, television and other institutional representatives
(and other scholars and practitioners) also helped us track, record and
analyze the current state of documentary film festivals worldwide. Over
the years of conducting this research and bringing these two volumes to
light, we frequented several festivals, all of which are mentioned in our
Preface and/or introductions. But needless to say, we are grateful for the
opportunities they have afforded the intrepid and weary researcher balanc-
ing cinephilia with critical inquiry.
Finally, thanks to our families, friends and partners for their support,
patience and help. The time we have stolen from them to bring this proj-
ect to light is not insignificant. In this long process we have seen new
people coming into our life while others left in the process. It is to them
that we owe our deepest gratitude.

Notes
1. Research project on Film and Audiovisual Festivals in the Basque Country,
University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU). Grant number:
EHUA16/31 http://www.ehu.eus/ehusfera/ikerfests/.
2. “Visual Anthropology: a model for creativity and knowledge transference.”
University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU). Grant number:
EHU11/26. http://www.ehu.eus/ehusfera/hautaldea/.
3. “Transnational relations in Hispanic digital cinemas: the axes of Spain,
Mexico, and Argentina.” Grant number: CSO2014-52750-P. The project is
led by Miguel Fernández Labayen and Josetxo Cerdán Los Arcos at
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid (UC3M). https://uc3m.libguides.
com/c.php?g=499893&p=3422753.
 Contents

Introduction—Volume 2: Documentary Film Festivals:

Changes, Challenges, Professional Perspectives  1
Aida Vallejo and Ezra Winton

Part I Changes and Challenges  11

Introduction to Part I, Vol. 2: Changes and Challenges for

Documentary and Film Festivals 13
Aida Vallejo

IDFA’s Industry Model: Fostering Global Documentary

Production and Distribution 23
Aida Vallejo

Connecting and Sharing Experiences: Chilean Documentary

Film Professionals at the Film Festival Circuit 55
María Paz Peirano

The Invention of Northeastern Europe: The Geopolitics of

Programming at Documentary Film Festivals 73
Ilona Hongisto, Kaisu Hynnä-Granberg, and Annu Suvanto

xv
xvi Contents

Beyond the Screen: Interactive Documentary Exhibition in the

Festival Sphere 93
Stefano Odorico

Positioning Documentaries at the Cannes International Film

Festival: Fahrenheit 9/11 and Beyond113
Eulàlia Iglesias

Part II Professional Perspectives 131

Introduction to Part II, Vol. 2: Professional Perspectives133

Ezra Winton

Adapting to New Times: An Interview with Ernesto del Río,

Director of the Zinebi International Documentary and Short
Film Festival of Bilbao (2000–2017)137
Aida Vallejo

Precarity and Resistance: An Interview with Pedro Pimenta,

Founder-Director of Dockanema Documentary Film Festival
(Mozambique)147
Lindiwe Dovey

Notes on Disenchantment: A Conversation with Amir

Al-Emary, Former Director of the Ismailia International Film
Festival for Documentaries and Shorts (Egypt)157
Hassouna Mansouri

Building Networks: An Interview with Sandra J. Ruch,

Director Emeritus of the International Documentary
Association167
Samara Chadwick

Selecting Films for Festivals and Documentary Funds: An

Interview with Independent Film Programmer and Advisor
Rada Šešić175
Jennifer M. J. O’Connell and Annelies van Noortwijk
 Contents  xvii

Training Documentary Professionals: An Interview with

Stefano Tealdi, Member of the Executive Board of
Documentary Campus Workshop185
Enrico Vannucci

A Niche for Creativity: An Interview with Thierry Garrel,

Director of the French Department of Documentary Film at
TV ARTE (1991–2008)191
Sevara Pan

Connecting Festivals, Distributing Films: An Interview with

Diana Tabakov, Acquisitions Manager at Doc Alliance Films
VOD Platform201
Andrea Slováková

Index of Festivals211

Index of Subjects217

Index of Films229

Index of Names233
 Notes on Contributors

Samara Chadwick is a documentary filmmaker, programmer, and scholar

who spent over 15 years working in the field of non-fiction in Germany,
Denmark, Vanuatu, Brazil, Italy, the US and Canada. She has a PhD
in Cultural Studies and has programmed films and conferences for
HotDocs in Toronto, the 2ANNAS Film Festival in Riga, the Museum
of Modern Art in Rio de Janeiro (MAM), and the Kunst-Werke
Institute for Contemporary Art/7th Berlin Biennale in Berlin. In
2015–2016 she curated the Market, Conference, Talent Lab and
Kino VR programmes of the Montréal International Documentary
Festival (RIDM). Since 2017, she is a Senior Programmer for the
Points North Institute and the Camden International Film Festival,
and is in post-production on her first feature documentary with
Parabola Films (Canada), Beauvoir Films (Switzerland) and the
National Film Board of Canada. Samara is Project Lead on VR:RV, a
German/Canadian Exchange in Virtual Reality, a partnership
between the Goethe-Institut Montréal and MUTEK_IMG (among
many others).
Lindiwe Dovey is a film scholar, curator, and filmmaker whose main
region of focus has been sub-Saharan Africa. She is Reader in Screen Arts
and Industries, and Chair of the Centre for Media and Film Studies, at
SOAS University of London, and was the co-founding director of
both the Cambridge African Film Festival and Film Africa, London’s
African film festival. She has published widely on screen media and
film festivals and her most recent book is Curating Africa in the Age of

xix
xx NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

Film Festivals (Palgrave Macmillan, 2015), which launched Palgrave’s

Framing Film Festivals series and has been called an “essential read”
by Cameron Bailey, the Artistic Director of the Toronto International
Film Festival.
Ilona Hongisto is Associate Professor in Film Studies at the Norwegian
University of Science and Technology (NTNU); Adjunct Professor
(Docent) in Media Theory and Aesthetics at the University of Turku,
Finland; and Adjunct Professor (Docent) in Documentary Film at Aalto
University, Finland. Hongisto works across film and media studies,
specializing in documentary cinema. Her most recent work focuses
on fabulation in post-1989 Eastern European documentary film. Her
publications include the monograph Soul of the Documentary: Framing,
Expression, Ethics (Amsterdam University Press, 2015) and peer-­reviewed
articles in such journals as Studies in Documentary Film, Journal of
Scandinavian Cinema, Cultural Studies Review, and Transformations.
Kaisu Hynnä-Granberg is a Doctoral Candidate in Media Studies at the
University of Turku, Finland. Her doctoral research focuses on the themes
of non-­normative embodiment, social media and affect theory by looking
at the body positive movement online and its ways of appealing affectively
to its audiences.
Eulàlia Iglesias is a film and TV critic and lecturer at Universitat Rovira
i Virgili (Tarragona), where she teaches courses on “Contemporary
Aesthetic Trends in Communication” and “Film and TV Theory and
Analysis”. She is a member of the editorial board in Caimán—Cuadernos
de Cine (former Cahiers du Cinéma España), she regularly contributes to
several media such as the Catalan journal Ara, the Spanish digital journal
El Confidencial, Time Out Barcelona, Rockdelux, and Sensacine (Allocine
in Spain). She is a programming advisor for the D’A—Barcelona
International Auteur Film Festival and the Sevilla European Film Festival.
Hassouna Mansouri studied French literature and cinema at the
University of Tunis. In the early 90s he started to write about cinema in
Tunisian daily newspapers and magazines. He also organized film retro-
spectives and activities on film criticism. In 1995 he created Le Cercle des
Amis de Fassbinder. In 2001 he went on to establish Le Cinephile, the
official publication of the Tunisian section of the International Federation
of film critics, of which he was president from 2000 to 2006. In the same
period, from 2003–2007, he was elected vice-president of Fipresci
 NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS xxi

(Fédération Internationale de la Presse Cinématographique), and contin-

ues to work for it as director of department in charge of African and Arab
Affairs. In 2004, at the occasion of the International Film Festival of
Carthage, he created the African Federation of Film Critics. He was the
first general secretary of this organisation and he is currently editor of its
website: www.africine.org. Mansouri is the author of three monographs
on the cinema of the South and has contributed to many collective
publications on cinema, and is pursuing a PhD at Cergy-Pontoise
University (Cergy-Pontoise). www.baobab-baobabs.blogspot.com.
Jennifer M.J. O’Connell is head of programming of Studium Generale
Groningen, a public platform for knowledge and reflection of the
University of Groningen and the Hanze University of Applied Sciences.
She also headed the International Film Festival Assen and was a junior
lecturer in the Department of Arts, Culture and Media at the University
of Groningen. Her research focuses on documentary theory and film fes-
tival policy. Recent publications include “Toward a Cognitive Definition
of First-Person Documentary” in Cognitive Theory and Documentary Film
(Palgrave Macmillan, 2018) and two entries on the Netherlands in Women
Screenwriters: An International Guide (Palgrave Macmillan, 2015). Her
research focuses on documentary theory and film festival policy.
Stefano Odorico is a Reader in Contemporary Screen Media at Leeds
Trinity University, Research Fellow in Film and Media at the University of
Bremen and Associate Director of IRIS (International Research Centre
for Interactive Storytelling, Leeds). His current work focuses primarily on
interactive factual platforms and transmedia complexity. He has recently
concluded a fully funded three-year research project on Interactive
Documentaries (DFG—German Research Foundation). He has published
numerous articles in international journals and anthologies on film and
media theory, media practice, documentary studies, urban spaces in media,
new media and interactive documentaries. He is a cofounder and member
of the editorial team of Alphaville: Journal of Film and Screen Media.
Sevara Pan is a film and broadcast journalist. She has written for the lead-
ing European magazine on documentary filmmaking DOX and the
International Documentary Association’s Documentary Magazine.
Pan has also worked on a number of documentary feature-length
films, including Vitaly Manski’s award-winning Pipeline and Clara
Trischler’s The First Sea.
xxii NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

María Paz Peirano is a lecturer in Film and Cultural Studies at

Universidad de Chile. As a Social Anthropologist, she explores different
aspects of the relationship between anthropology and cinema, understand-
ing film as social practice. Her current research looks at the role of inter-
national film festivals as educational hubs for peripheral filmmakers,
particularly Latin American directors and producers, the mapping of local
film festivals in Chile, and their role in fostering local film culture and
new audiences. Recent research includes the analysis of “Chile Films”
(1941–1949)—the failed Chilean film industry national project—,
the politics of Chilean documentary film after Pinochet’s dictator-
ship, and women’s film production in Chile, focusing on working
conditions and collaborative practices among female directors, pro-
ducers and technicians.
Andrea Slováková is a documentary filmmaker, teacher and program-
mer. She was born in Slovakia but now lives and works in Czech Republic.
She studied Mass Media Studies at the Faculty of Social Sciences of Charles
University in Prague and graduated from Film Science at the
Philosophical Faculty of Charles University, where is finishing her
postgraduate studies. She studied documentary filmmaking at Film
Academy FAMU in Prague. From 2003 to March 2011 she worked
in the management of Jihlava International Documentary Film
Festival, in the last years as the director for publishing activities.
Currently she continues to program experimental films and is an edi-
tor of bimonthly Dok.revue. She publishes articles in different maga-
zines (e.g. Cinepur, Kino Ikon, A2) and was editor-in-chief of the
annual anthology of texts on documentary called DO. She teaches
history and methods of documentary film at Masaryk’s University
Brno.
Annu Suvanto has a BA in Media Studies from the University of Turku,
Finland. She is currently working on her degree in Cultural Management
at the Humak University of Applied Sciences. Suvanto is a film festival
professional and has held multiple positions in festival production
and programming at different film festivals in Finland.
Aida Vallejo is a film historian and social anthropologist who works as an
Associate Professor at the University of the Basque Country, where she
teaches documentary film theory and practice. She holds a PhD in History
of Cinema by Autonomous University of Madrid with a study of docu-
 NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS xxiii

mentary film festivals in Europe, and a MA on theory and practice of

documentary film by Autonomous University of Barcelona. Aida is
the founder and coordinator of the Documentary Work-group of the
European Network for Cinema and Media Studies (NECS). She has
published extensively on documentary and narratology, film festivals and
ethnography of the media, and with María Paz Peirano has co-­edited Film
Festivals and Anthropology (2017). She has carried out fieldwork at several
international festivals, mainly across Europe.
Annelies van Noortwijk is a senior lecturer at the Department of Arts,
Culture and Media Studies at the University of Groningen (The
Netherlands). Her research concentrates on contemporary documentary
practice with a specific interest in questions of engagement, resistance and
ethics and the penetration of artistic discourse into non-traditional forms
of art. Recent publications include “The Other, the Same. Towards a
Metamodern Poetics with Heddy Honigmann,” in Female Authorship and
the Documentary Image (2018), “Toward a Cognitive Definition of First-
Person Documentary” in Cognitive Theory and Documentary Film
(Palgrave Macmillan, 2018) and “See Me, Feel Me, Touch Me, Heal Me,
La Question de la Mémoire dans le Documentaire à l’Epoque
Métamoderne,” in Un Art Documentaire: Enjeux Esthétiques, Politiques et
Ethiques (Presses Universitaires de Rennes, 2017).
Enrico Vannucci was born in Sassuolo, Italy, and has been passionate
about films since childhood due to his permissive parents letting him
watch VHS tapes and going to the cinema together with them. In 2007,
he graduated in screenwriting from the Centro Sperimentale di
Cinematografia and was awarded his MA in Film Studies from the
University of Bologna in 2008 with a thesis exploring John Frankenheimer
and Jonathan Demme’s The Manchurian Candidate. He has been a mem-
ber of film festival programming teams since 2010 and currently works as
a short film advisor for the Venice Film Festival and as a short film curator
at the Torino Short Film Market, as well as being a freelance curator. In
recent years he has written essays on the short and feature film festival
ecosystem that have been published and presented at international confer-
ences. Finally, he has covered major film festivals as a journalist since 2009.
Ezra Winton is a curator, critic and teacher. He is a Visiting Scholar at
Lakehead University, where he researches documentary, film festivals,
curatorial practices and politics, screen ethics, Canadian cinema and
xxiv NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

Indigenous film and media. He is finishing a book that looks at the com-
mercialization of documentary at film festivals, with Hot Docs as the case
study, called Buying In to Doing Good: Documentary Politics and Curatorial
Ethics at the Hot Docs Film Festival (McGill-Queen’s University Press),
and is co-­editing a collection with Lakota artist Dana Claxton entitled
Insiders/Outsiders: The Cultural Politics and Ethics of Indigenous
Representation and Participation in Canada’s Media Arts (Wilfrid-Laurier
University Press). He is co-editor of Challenge for Change: Activist
Documentary at the National Film Board of Canada (MQUP, 2010),
Screening Truth to Power: A Reader on Documentary Activism (Cinema
Politica, 2014) and is a contributing editor at POV Magazine. He is also
co-founder and Director of Programming of Cinema Politica, the world’s
largest documentary screening network. Ezra is a settler scholar of Dutch
and English ancestry who was born and raised in K’ómoks territory on
Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada. https://twitter.com/
ezrawinton.
 List of Images and Figures

IDFA’s Industry Model: Fostering Global Documentary

Production and Distribution
Image 1 Project presentation at IDFA’s Central Pitch in the 2015
edition of the IDFA Forum. (Image by Aida Vallejo) 32
Image 2 IDFA Academy participants and Industry professionals attend a
talk by Victor Kossakovsky and Tom Fassaert at the 2015
edition of the festival. (Image by Aida Vallejo) 42
Image 3 IDFA accredited professionals meet at the Guest meet Guests
informal evening gathering at the Café de Jaren near the festival
headquarters in the 2015 festival edition. (Image by Aida
Vallejo)45

The Invention of Northeastern Europe: The Geopolitics

of Programming at Documentary Film Festivals
Fig. 1 Distribution of screened films by festival 80
Fig. 2 Distribution of screened films by production country 81
Fig. 3 The distribution of festival screenings by production country
and festival year 82

Beyond the Screen: Interactive Documentary Exhibition

in the Festival Sphere
Image 1 Fastnet Film Festival web-site. Courtesy of Fastnet Film
Festival - http://www.fastnetshortfilmfestival.com100
Image 2 VR experience of The Enemy at IDFA 2015 104

xxv
xxvi List of Images and Figures

Positioning Documentaries at the Cannes International Film

Festival: Fahrenheit 9/11 and Beyond
Image 1 Les Glaneurs et la Glaneuse (The Gleaners and I, Agnès Varda,
2000)119
Image 2 Sacro GRA (Gianfranco Rosi, 2013) 124

Connecting Festivals, Distributing Films: An Interview

with Diana Tabakov, Acquisitions Manager at Doc Alliance
Films VOD Platform
Image 1 Diana Tabakov at the Emerging producers presentation at the
Ji.hlava International Documentary Film Festival 2018 202
 List of Tables

IDFA’s Industry Model: Fostering Global Documentary

Production and Distribution
Table 1 IDFA Forum projects by type and number of attendees
(2003–2018)34
Table 2 Docs for Sale market’s facts and figures (2008–2018) 37
Table 3 IDFA Fund Selected projects in the period 2011–2018 39

xxvii
Introduction—Volume 2: Documentary Film
Festivals: Changes, Challenges, Professional
Perspectives

Aida Vallejo and Ezra Winton

This volume is being released at a time when the worldwide proliferation

of documentary film festivals is developing in tandem with the increasing
international recognition of feature-length documentaries made for the
big screen. After suffering television format purgatory for decades, and
parallel to the digital revolution around the year 2000, documentary has
asserted its cinematographic stake beyond the small screen (see Austin
2007; Hardie 2008). Partly due to a reduction of costs in exhibition and
production, the genre has diversified festival and theatrical exhibition
spaces while also proving an affordable means for producing feature-
length films in the digital era.
If we can point to one high-profile exhibition event that has worked
to align the festival and documentary stars and cast a bright light on
the documentary and festival worlds, that would be the generalist,

A. Vallejo (*)
University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Leioa, Spain
e-mail: aida.vallejo@ehu.eus
E. Winton
ReImagining Value Action Lab, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, ON, Canada

© The Author(s) 2020 1

A. Vallejo, E. Winton (eds.), Documentary Film Festivals Vol. 2,
Framing Film Festivals, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17324-1_1
2 A. VALLEJO AND E. WINTON

industry-focused Cannes Film Festival. The star-studded nexus for

Hollywood and art house hits, box-office titans and smouldering indies
not only programmed Michael Moore’s Bowling for Columbine in 2002,
but two years later would award the coveted Palme d’Or to the ruck-­
making director for Fahrenheit 9/11, ushering one of the longest standing
ovations in the festival’s history as well as global theatrical distribution for
the film.1 This was perhaps the genre’s most optimistic moment on the
world stage, and flashing forward almost two decades later, the boom in
documentary theatrical distribution and exhibition has plateaued (while
production has obversely soared).2 Nevertheless, this short history points
to the apposing trend to documentary’s anaemic presence in commercial
theatrical spaces: the scaling up of documentary at generalist festivals and
the sturdy march of documentary-focused film festivals across the globe.
These are just some of the concerns that traverse the present collection,
focused on recent changes in documentary exhibition at film festivals.
As Marijke de Valck notes in her seminal work (2007), film festivals
have become multi-faceted events that serve as meeting points for film-
makers, producers, distributors, critics, curators, audiences, and stake-
holder communities. Documentary festivals play a crucial role in
documentary production, curation, distribution, reception and scholar-
ship, and therefore the study of their more recent challenges and develop-
ments is key to critically assessing contemporary documentary film.
Nevertheless, while one may easily locate studies charting the rise of the
film festival or the prominence of the feature-length documentary, there is
a dearth of scholarly (or otherwise) material exploring the intersection of
these ascending cultural phenomena.3 This volume aims to fill this gap,
calling attention to the growing interconnected nature of the documen-
tary festival circuit, analyzing institutional practices and patterns of circu-
lation of films and filmmakers, as well as amplifying the perspectives of
professionals that have made of these ephemeral events their workplace
and sites for professional development.
In what follows, we start by articulating a definition of the documen-
tary festival. Drawing on the work of Nichols, we then elaborate on the
discussion started in the introduction of our first volume (where we look
at epistemological, socio-political and aesthetic components of this defini-
tion). Here, we reflect on the role of the institutional framework in defin-
ing documentary festivals as the places of interaction involving the main
agents of documentary (including practitioners, institutions, texts and
viewers). Lastly, we summarize the contents of the two sections of this
 INTRODUCTION—VOLUME 2: DOCUMENTARY FILM FESTIVALS: CHANGES… 3

volume, the first of which is devoted to academic analysis of recent trends

in the documentary festival circuit, and the second to insider accounts of
professionals working on the festival circuit.

Towards a Definition of the Documentary Film

Festival (Part II)
In the first volume of this tandem compendium, we proposed a thorough
review of the literature that brings together Film Festival Studies and
Documentary Studies. While these are for the most part disparate fields
concerned with divergent issues (there is a tendency within Documentary
Studies to focus on textual analysis and ethical concerns, while Film
Festival Studies has predominantly looked at institutional and industrial
aspects, including distribution, exhibition and production), we believe
that Documentary Studies can be enriched by the study of the contexts of
documentary exhibition that a focus on film festivals offers.
As an underexplored object (and area) of study, it is instructive to mani-
fest a definition of the documentary film festival. With this in mind, we
draw on various concepts discussed by Nichols (1991, 2010), which point
to key aspects that help guide the focus of each of our two volumes. The
first is related to epistemological, socio-political and aesthetic dimensions
(2010) (and is discussed at length in our first volume dedicated to meth-
odological, historical and political aspects of documentary film festivals).
The second serves as a reference point to the diverse aspects discussed in
this volume, namely recent changes that have occurred in the festival cir-
cuit and its growing influence in production and distribution. As Nichols
notes, the institutional framework is key for defining the documentary
genre, and agents involved in this process (including practitioners, institu-
tions, texts and viewers) contribute to it in a constant negotiation (1991,
14–31). Given that film festivals are shared spaces for these agents to co-­
mingle, exchange ideas, chase trends and raise debate, Nichols’s premises
are paramount to our definition of the documentary festival.
Bringing these two aspects together, we define documentary festivals as
public and/or industry events dedicated to the curation and exhibition of
the cinematic genre or mode known as documentary, differentiating them-
selves from events specializing in other film genres and practices, such as
fiction or animation. Documentary film festivals are social, cultural and
discursive spaces in which multiple sectors, agents and forces of documen-
tary film interact (be they directors, producers, sales agents, funders,
4 A. VALLEJO AND E. WINTON

sponsors, programmers, critics, audiences, and so on) and where creative

and economic (and sometimes political) alliances are forged. Specializing in
this genre calls for a distinctive frame of interpretation as it selects films that
claim a relation to ‘reality’ both in form (with its own conventions, aesthet-
ics and sub-genres) and content (portraying alleged ‘facts’). This involves
an intrinsic socio-political dimension and a particular relationship with
(and against) mainstream media discourses. In what follows, we will deepen
the focus on the institutional aspects that define the documentary festival,
looking at specific festival dynamics that have occurred in recent years.
Nichols’s classic definition of documentary posits four considerations:
“a community of practitioners”, “an institutional practice”, “a corpus of
texts” and “a constituency of viewers” (1991, 14–31). These “axes of
orientation” highlight the contribution to the documentary definition of
four main agents, namely: institutions, filmmakers, films and audiences.
The festival’s very nature as a nodal point at which these agents meet,
interact and negotiate puts it in a key position as an intermediary among
all these defining forces. Moreover, as some chapters in this volume attest,4
a remarkable percentage of work made by documentary professionals takes
place intensively during festivals. This includes selecting films for program-
ming, selling or buying documentaries, searching for producers and
funders, writing film reviews, initiating collaborations, facilitating expo-
sure to social and political campaigns and watching films, among others.
Although each of the aforementioned agents interpret documentary in
particular and divergent ways, it is at the festival site that these various
operatives coalesce and bump up against each other. What is at stake, then,
is each festival’s capacity to deal with the agendas of all these agents and,
accordingly, to what extent the festival is able to privilege its own view
(and values) of what the documentary is, and therefore contribute to
defining documentary.
Documentary festivals articulate their distinctive approach to the genre
through multiple strategies. These include film curating—which involves
the selection (and rejection) of films, as well as their placement in differ-
entiated program sections (competitive, thematic and retrospectives); the
discovery of new films and première presentations; the managing of media
coverage and assignment of prizes; the organizing of conferences, round
tables and seminars; the publishing of books and specialized texts; and the
creation of funding envelopes and industry activities.5 Festivals are the
places where a film’s qualities are evaluated and negotiated by program-
mers, critics, juries and audiences. Documentary festivals contribute to the
 INTRODUCTION—VOLUME 2: DOCUMENTARY FILM FESTIVALS: CHANGES… 5

ongoing project of defining the genre not only through their program-
ming and awards, but also through their official discourse.
A comparative analysis of contemporary festival programs shows a
growing tendency of many events to select the same films. This trend has
developed parallel to a multiplication of the number of films showcased.
Big “festival hits” such as Waltz with Bashir (Ari Folman, 2008) or The Act
of Killing (Joshua Oppenheimer, 2012) travel from festival to festival,
while successful sub-genres—from experimental non-fiction to music
documentaries—find accommodation through different program sections
catering to themes. Hence, festivals’ differentiated identity is more related
to the contextualization of films within their programs, rather than to
their selection as a whole. For example, while CPH:DOX in Copenhagen
has built a reputation as a showcase of experimental works that navigate
the boundaries of fiction and documentary, IDFA’s (Amsterdam) identity
is built around curating works that creatively address socio-political issues.
Nevertheless, we can see films that participate in both festivals, yet they do
so in different sections. Festivals’ contribution to defining documentary is
therefore played out on one hand through the festivals’ curatorial
practices—which involves deciding in which section films will be presented
(and therefore potentially awarded)—, and on the other hand through the
contextualization of the films within the festival’s own discourse—whereby
some films that fit into the festival’s definitional framework are privileged
over others.
It is in this context that genre crossovers and new forms that chal-
lenge documentary conventions are being articulated. In many cases,
festivals have created a space for these cinematic forms through festival-
generated or supported concepts such as “the creative documentary,”
which is differentiated from the closed format of the journalistic televi-
sion documentary featuring talking heads and an omniscient voice-over
with illustrative images—a mixture of what Nichols has labeled as the
“expository” and “participatory” modes (1991). Although there is no
consensus about what exactly constitutes “the creative documentary”—
neither in the academic, nor in the professional world (other concepts
include “auteur documentary” “or feature-length documentary”)—, the
main features commonly associated to the creative documentary gravitate
between an exploration of the cinematic language both in its aesthetic
and narrative dimensions, as well as a cinematographic vocation (a com-
mon denominator is that these films are conceived for the big screen).
Moreover, the word non-fiction—associated with the documentary
6 A. VALLEJO AND E. WINTON

genre since the 1970s in the academic realm (see Barsam 1973; Barnow
1983; Plantinga 1997)—,6 has been widely used in the festival context to
highlight this distinction and reflect on the blurring boundaries of fic-
tion and documentary. While “documentary” still remains as the most
common identity label in festival titles, some events have shifted names,
erasing the “documentary” word from them. This is the case of today’s
FIDMarseille or Marseille International Film Festival, which started as
Biennale Européenne du Documentaire in 1990 and shifted its name to
Vue sur le Docs in its second edition, to become FIDMarseille (Festival
International du Documentaire de Marseille) in 1999. A diachronic look
at the festival catalogues shows that since the 2000s, the word documen-
tary has steadily taken less visibility in the festival’s title, to completely
disappear from it, with only the “D” of FIDMarseille remaining. This is a
strategy directly related to the curatorial practices of the festival to widen
their scope beyond the classic documentary, including new experimental
and alternative fictional forms within its program.
We argue that the film festival circuit has created a space for the devel-
opment of this type of documentary (as an alternative exhibition space to
television and, to some extent, as a preliminary step for later distribution
in movie theaters). For this reason, we focus on contextual analysis and
put specialized film festivals in the focus of our study, as they are key events
for the creation of cultural networks around creative documentary, and
therefore contribute greatly to its definition.

Structure and Contents

While our first volume of this collection, Documentary Film Festivals Vol. 1.
Methods, History, Politics, is more focused on peering into the past of doc-
umentary festivals, this second volume is primarily concentrated on their
future. The book is divided into two sections, each prefaced by a short
introduction that frames different properties of the documentary festival
phenomenon. The first looks at organizational and curatorial practices
that define festival programs (that go beyond the screening of films to an
ever-extending list of industrial activities or interactive exhibitions), and
the second recounts personal experiences of festival professionals and insti-
tutions that closely collaborate with festivals.
The first section, “Changes and Challenges,” addresses key changes
recently experienced by the festival ecosystem that have affected not only
circulation, but also new production patterns and aesthetics of
 INTRODUCTION—VOLUME 2: DOCUMENTARY FILM FESTIVALS: CHANGES… 7

documentary film. Aida Vallejo looks at the internationally renowned

IDFA festival in Amsterdam, focusing on the industry sections developed
within its program. Her inquiry is concerned with IDFA’s influence in the
development of new film productions, professional careers and other film
festivals, and how that has helped to position the festival at the top of the
international festival hierarchy. Maria Paz Peirano analyzes the importance
of film festivals and markets as a networking place for professionals, fol-
lowing Chilean documentarists at European events. She studies the use of
these festivals as promotion platforms for peripheral cinemas as well as the
institutional strategies developed to gain international exposure through
festival participation. Ilona Hongisto, Kaisu Hynnä-Granberg and Annu
Suvanto focus on the relationships between geopolitics and distribution
practices in the festival circuit. They address the articulation of a suprana-
tional identification, such as “Northeastern Europe”, as strategies for
increasing the circulation of films. Stefano Odorico looks at new exhibi-
tion practices in the festival sphere, which have appeared in response to
new interactive and transmedia documentary works. He reflects on how
the traditional exhibition site is reinvented to promote audiovisual prod-
ucts that are originally conceived for virtual space, identifying key events
that have included this practice within their programmes. To conclude this
section, Eulàlia Iglesias ambles out of the documentary festival circuit to
focus on the ways in which A-list festivals have embraced documentary in
recent years. She scrutinizes the presence of documentary in the pro-
grammes of the Cannes Film Festival over the years, and reflects on the
role of major film festivals (mainly devoted to fiction) in the shaping of the
definition of the documentary in the age of hybridization of genres.
The second section, “Professional perspectives” includes interviews
with professionals working in the international festival circuit, and thus
deepens the ongoing debates around industrial aspects of documentary
film festivals, as well as tackling the organisational challenges they face.
The first three interviews focus on film festival directors, and serve to
address issues and geographical areas not covered in the rest of the collec-
tion, such as the adaptation of older festivals to the changes in feature-­
length documentary production and projection technologies (Ernesto del
Río, Bilbao Documentary and Short Film Festival); the organizational
challenges imposed by governmental and institutional constrains (Amir
Al-Emary, Ismailia International Film Festival for Documentaries and
Shorts, Egypt); and the initiatives and financial limitations for building
documentary audiences (Pedro Pimenta, Dockanema, Mozambique). The
8 A. VALLEJO AND E. WINTON

remaining interviews draw attention to institutions that are not film festi-
vals, but closely collaborate with them in different aspects. Interviewees
include Sandra Ruch (Emeritus Director of IDA—International
Documentary Association), Rada Šešić (independent programmer and
advisor, working for the Rotterdam Film Festival, Sarajevo Film Festival
and IDFA Bertha Fund), Stefano Tealdi (former Secretary of Documentary
Campus Workshop), Thierry Garrel (former director of the French
Department at TV Arte) and Diana Tabakov (Acquisitions Manager of the
online VOD platform specialised on documentary Doc Alliance Films).
The fact that some of the interviewees are no longer staff members at the
institutions that they speak of adds credence to the “independent” charac-
ter of their declarations, while also responding to the historical interests
this collection addresses as long-term processes.

Conclusions
Film festivals are of key importance to the understanding of contemporary
film cultures. In the case of documentary this affirmation is even stronger
because of the lack of a real commercial distribution network beyond tele-
vision environments. The aim of this book is to illuminate the role and
impact of documentary film festivals in the processes of international cir-
culation and appreciation of documentary film.
This volume offers readers interested in researching documentary and/
or festivals new insights to understand the dynamics of documentary film
festivals as events that operate on multiple levels, including those of pro-
duction, curation, distribution and exhibition. On the other hand, readers
who herald from industry will find this volume to be a useful reference
guide to identify those events that are relevant to their own efforts, and
will undoubtedly help to design distribution strategies for documentary.
Institutional, organizational and industrial concerns are key for festival
operation and are addressed in depth through the case studies presented
in this volume. From the impact of film festivals in documentary distribu-
tion and production, to funding problems faced by the festivals them-
selves, the economic aspect of documentary film festivals is a relevant one
both for academics and professionals alike. With a shift in curatorial prac-
tices that expand festival programs to a wide range of activities—including
screenings, exhibitions, conferences, pitching presentations, co-­production
fora or even parties—festivals have long ago become much more than a
space for watching films. The integration of these practices within the
 INTRODUCTION—VOLUME 2: DOCUMENTARY FILM FESTIVALS: CHANGES… 9

documentary festival ecosystem is critically addressed in the following

pages, with the aim of contributing to a wider understanding of its recent
changes and future challenges.

Notes
1. A moment not without its share of critics and detractors, who felt the film
won solely for political, not quality, reasons. Regardless, it was a heightened
moment of visibility for documentary at arguably the world’s most presti-
gious festival.
2. In Canada where one of this publication’s editors is based, it is next to
impossible to encounter documentaries in commercial theatres. The coun-
try’s cinemas continue to focus on Hollywood fiction (95% of content out-
side of Quebec). Yet, more documentaries than ever are being produced in
Canada. In Europe, the situation differs from country to country but,
although the presence of documentary in commercial theatres is scarce, sev-
eral initiatives have been created to screen documentaries at independent
movie theatres and cultural centres. In many cases, they have been started by
or in collaboration with documentary festivals. Examples include “El docu-
mental del mes” (The Documentary of the Month) taking place in some
cities of Spain and Latin America (see López-Gómez et al. 2020, 256, in our
first volume), or the BDDN (Balkan Documentary Distribution Network)
initiatives in the Balkans (see Vallejo 2014, 75–76).
3. For a thorough revision of scholarly works on film festivals and documen-
tary see the introduction of our first volume (Vallejo and Winton 2020).
4. See Peirano’s chapter on Chilean filmmakers on the European festival circuit
and Vallejo’s chapter on IDFA in this volume.
5. In Di Chiara and Re’s reflection on film festivals and historiography (2011)
the authors identify some of these practices as key to the formation (and
renegotiation) of the film canon.
6. Interestingly, the doctoral thesis by Carl Plantinga that led to the publica-
tion of Rhetoric and Representation in Nonfiction Film was entitled A theory
of representation in the documentary film (1991).

References
Austin, Thomas. 2007. Watching the World: Screen Documentary and Audiences.
Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Barnow, Erik. 1983. Documentary: A History of the Non-fiction Film. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Barsam, Richard. 1973. Nonfiction Film: A Critical History. New York:
E. P. Dutton.
10 A. VALLEJO AND E. WINTON

De Valck, Marijke. 2007. Film Festivals. From European Geopolitics to Global

Cinephilia. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Di Chiara, Francesco, and Valentina Re. 2011. Film Festival/Film History: The
Impact of Film Festivals on Cinema Historiography. Il Cinema Ritrovato and
Beyond. Cinémas: revue d’études cinématographiques/Cinémas: Journal of Film
Studies 21 (2–3): 131–151.
Hardie, Amy. 2008. Rollercoasters and Reality: A Study of Big Screen Documentary
Audiences 2002–2007. Particip@tions 5: 1. http://www.participations.org/
Volume%205/Issue%201%20-%20special/5_01_hardy.htm.
López-Gómez, Antía, Aida Vallejo, Mª Soliña Barreiro, and Amanda Alencar.
2020. Found in Translation: Film Festivals, Documentary and the Preservation
of Linguistic Diversity. In Documentary Film Festivals Vol. 1. Methods, History,
Politics, ed. Aida Vallejo and Ezra Winton, 241–263. Cham, Switzerland:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Nichols, Bill. 1991. Representing Reality: Issues and Concepts in Documentary.
Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
———. 2010. Introduction to Documentary. Second Edition. Bloomington, IN:
Indiana University Press.
Plantinga, Carl. 1997. Rhetoric and Representation in Nonfiction Film. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Vallejo, Aida. 2014. Industry Sections. Documentary Film Festivals between
Production and Distribution. Iluminace. Journal of Film Theory, History, and
Aesthetics 26 (1): 65–82.
Vallejo, Aida, and Ezra Winton. 2020. Introduction–Volume 1: Documentary
Film Festivals: Methods, History, Politics. In Documentary Film Festivals Vol. 1.
Methods, History, Politics, ed. Aida Vallejo and Ezra Winton, 1–17. Cham,
Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
 PART I

Changes and Challenges

 Introduction to Part I, Vol. 2:
Changes and Challenges for
Documentary and Film Festivals

Aida Vallejo

Recent changes in the festival realm have profoundly affected the aim and
scope of both documentary film and documentary film festivals. A look at
contemporary trends in the documentary festival ecosystem gives us some
clues to better understand its functioning patterns, key agents and future
challenges. Chapters in this section analyze these aspects, focusing on
diverse agents, namely festivals as institutions, professionals and films.
The international documentary festival circuit has been subject to
structural organizational changes since the 1990s. As noted by Marijke de
Valck, these are characterized by “a shift from festival programmers in the
1970s, driven by cinephile passions and an ideology of political participa-
tion, to the festival director of the 1990s, who has become a professional
cultural entrepreneur who manages the various constituencies of the festi-
val network” (2007, 43). According to Skadi Loist, “larger-scale economic
shifts, such as the spread of neoliberal market logic after the end of the

A. Vallejo (*)
University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Leioa, Spain
e-mail: aida.vallejo@ehu.eus

© The Author(s) 2020 13

A. Vallejo, E. Winton (eds.), Documentary Film Festivals Vol. 2,
Framing Film Festivals, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17324-1_2
14 A. VALLEJO

Cold War and the rise of the global city paradigm have encouraged an
eventization and further proliferation of the circuit” (2016, 60). For doc-
umentary festivals, this implies the spread of funding and organizational
models based on private non-profit associations (Rhyne 2009), and the
incorporation of industry activity (markets, funds, pitching fora, etc.)
within the festival program (see De Valck 2007, 108–118; Wong 2011,
129–158; Vallejo 2014a). Other major changes include the digitization
process and a global proliferation of events. This has brought us to the
current state characterized by a “saturation of the circuit” and the articula-
tion of global peripheries (Vallejo 2014b).
This section looks at recent changes in the festival ecosystem, identify-
ing contemporary trends in the documentary realm. Focusing on the chal-
lenges faced by documentary (and generalist) film festivals, the following
five chapters reflect on three main aspects: industrial concerns, technologi-
cal issues and curatorial practices. These include studies on the role of film
festivals as producers and distributors; the irruption of interactive forms
within festival programs; and new documentary trends embraced by A-list
film festivals.

Festival Proliferation, Hierarchies

and Industry Sections

Documentary film festivals have proliferated globally throughout the

2000s. This can be considered as a natural response to the increasing num-
ber of productions made yearly as well as cheaper exhibition infrastruc-
tures, both facilitated by the availability of new digital equipment. In this
frame, documentary festivals have developed strategies to position them-
selves in the global network of international events, both in relation to
major fiction festivals and other parallel circuits such as thematic film festi-
vals. A particular feature of documentary festivals is that they are not so
much under pressure by premiere policies and accreditation rules imposed
by the International Federation of Film Producers Associations (FIAPF)1,
which certainly constrain programming practices and create an ever-­
increasing competitive environment. Conversely, several documentary fes-
tival programmes are made of the best films travelling the circuit,
functioning mainly as exhibition platforms that fulfil the gap of commercial
distribution, rather than creating a space for discovery of new works for
international critics for whom world premieres are a pull factor. Moreover,
thematically-driven events such as ethnographic film festivals (see Vallejo
and Peirano 2017), human rights film festivals (see Tascón 2015) and
 INTRODUCTION TO PART I, VOL. 2: CHANGES AND CHALLENGES… 15

other social-related thematic festivals (e.g. environmental or disabilities)

add to the list of film festivals showing mainly documentary works, afford-
ing feature-length documentary a remarkable presence on the big screen.
In this context, retracing the global circulation of documentary films is
becoming increasingly complex, as the circuits of circulation are multiple
and rapidly expand in different directions. Film festival studies have noted
the necessity to interrogate the extent to which film festivals function as a
circuit (of films and people) and if so, of commercial distribution,2 consid-
ering the documentary as a parallel circuit. According to Loist “A host of
smaller networks now exist to serve specific audiences or ‘minor genres’;
these networks operate differently than the general narrative feature film
norm and create their own niche markets and industries, building parallel
circuits while also being interconnected with the general network” (Loist
2016, 52). Following Loist, the networked nature of the documentary
festival circuit can be analysed focusing on two main agents: films and
professionals.
Firstly, the documentary festival ecosystem can work as a distribution
network for some films, securing revenues in the form of screening fees
and/or further distribution deals for theatrical release or television broad-
casting. Yet, for most documentaries festivals mostly act as an exhibition
circuit, with films travelling from one place to another, gaining visibility and
value through public exposure to key agents and media. Documentary films
from specific geographical areas have found in documentary film festivals an
exhibition platform that contributes to defining cinemas from certain
regions, such as Northeastern Europe, as we see in this section’s contribu-
tion by Ilona Hongisto, Kaisu Hynnä-Granberg and Annu Suvanto. In their
statistical analysis of the films’ circulation through European documentary
festivals, they argue that festival exposure is key for the articulation of docu-
mentary aesthetics and themes associated to a specific geopolitical area.
Secondly, the circulation of professionals from festival to festival is key to
understanding programming patterns at different events as well as the
development of documentary productions through the years, thanks to
networking practices and long-term professional relationships established
within the festival circuit (see Vallejo 2015, 2017). As noted by María Paz
Peirano in her chapter in this section, the global circulation of professionals
from regions of small production capacity, such as Chile, has increased the
visibility of their national cinemas, with remarkable results in festival circu-
lation, funding and awards; as well as an increase in local quality productions.
Documentary festival organizers can be considered as a small commu-
nity who know each other and travel to fellow events, in many cases invited
16 A. VALLEJO

as jury members. This practice has been facilitated by a decrease in travel-

ling costs and an increase in the speed and networking possibilities of new
communication networks developed since the 1990s, as noted by Giulia
Battaglia (2020) in our first volume, where she reflects on the impact of
new social media and communications in the development of documen-
tary communities in India.
It is worth noting that the presence of women in diverse professional
capacities, including that of festival directors, although not yet predomi-
nant, is certainly more common in the documentary circuit than at major
non-specialized festivals. Yet, the presence of women is more appreciable
in networking-related roles, including producers, representatives of insti-
tutes of promotion and co-production, as well as intermediaries of all
kind (see Seguí 2018). This trend certainly reproduces cultural patterns
of gender inequality, where women facilitate and coordinate the creative
work (predominantly) made by male auteurs. Documentary festivals have
nevertheless expressed their concern about the visibility of women film-
makers, and gender issues have been incorporated to the agenda of festi-
val selection (both for program sections, industrial events and film funds),
pioneering the inclusion of special programs dedicated to women film-
makers and/or professionals. This was the case of IDFA’s The Female
Gaze in 2014 (see Turnin 2015). This concern has extended to festivals’
organization, with equality campaigns that promote a wider presence of
female workers among the festival staff. For example FIPADOC Festival
representatives signed the Collectif 50/50 agreement in Biarritz in
January 2020, committing to ensure at least 50 per cent of the staff
would be women.
The diffusion of connections and networking practices that make coop-
eration a major drive behind the documentary festival circuit does not
preclude hierarchies that put certain events in more privileged or powerful
positions than others. Most documentary professionals agree that
International Documentary Festival Amsterdam (IDFA) in the Netherlands
is one of their most (if not the most) important meeting points globally,
and its prominence lies in the industrial activities that have developed par-
allel to the main exhibition program. The first chapter in this section
(Vallejo this volume) presents a study of these industrial activities, follow-
ing their evolution since the 1990s. I analyze IDFA’s impact in contempo-
rary documentary production and its role as a benchmark for other festivals
that modelled their industry programs after it.
 INTRODUCTION TO PART I, VOL. 2: CHANGES AND CHALLENGES… 17

The incorporation of industry activity is precisely one major change in

the festival ecosystem since the 2000s, following similar trends started in
the 1990s at other major non-specialized festivals. The role of television
broadcasters in the documentary festival realm is a distinctive feature of
this specialized circuit, with a notable presence of commissioning editors
from big channels such as Arte, Al Jazeera or BBC.
Finally, the articulation of hierarchies necessarily implies the existence
of core-periphery relationships within the documentary festival ecosystem.
There is a general trend in which those events considered more peripheral
disproportionately rely on major festivals to curate their own programs. In
this context, industrial activities play a key role for attracting international
professionals and festival representatives, and their capacity to act as refer-
ents for specific regions is paramount to determine which festivals are at
the top of the hierarchy. Even though documentary film festivals have
proliferated globally, post-colonial dynamics still operate as a driving force
behind festival participation and international positioning, with a predom-
inance of North American and North Western European festivals in the
international circuit.

The Documentary as Testing Ground:

New Technologies and Aesthetics
Changes in documentary production have been reflected in the programs
of both documentary and non-specialized film festivals since the 2000s.
While fiction works (and festivals devoted to them) have proven to be
more conservative in terms of technological innovation and aesthetic
experimentation, documentary film has served as a testing ground for new
interactive forms and Virtual Reality experiments; as well as aesthetic and
narrative ruptures that challenged conventions of cinema and expanded its
scope to new media landscapes.
Firstly, documentary film festivals have embraced technological innova-
tions quite naturally. Contrary to fiction productions, which went through
—at times quite reluctant—a transition from 35 mm to digital formats,
documentary film had already left film as a standard and embraced video
since the 1990s. The digital transition was therefore easier and faster
within documentary film festivals, and their markets were digitized during
the 2000s. Festival exhibition developed in parallel, and profited from the
flexibility of digital projection. This involved freedom to collaborate with
18 A. VALLEJO

diverse venues and cultural institutions, which didn’t need to grapple with
equipment capable of projecting celluloid.
New media formats have also been rapidly adopted by the documen-
tary, which has proven to be a fertile breeding ground for interactive forms
and Virtual Reality (see Aston et al. 2017). Stefano Odorico’s chapter in
this section reflects on how those documentary film festivals that rushed
to incorporate these works into their programs adapted their venues and
exhibition contexts to new expanded formats that privileged the individual
viewing experience, as opposed to the collective audience that defines the
essence of a festival.
Secondly, although the documentary genre has served as a learning tool
for filmmakers since the early years of specialized festivals, in recent decades
its role as aesthetic testing ground has grown, blurring its boundaries with
the fiction genre and finding a place in the programs of major non-­
specialized events. Eulàlia Iglesias’ chapter in this section looks at the pro-
grams of A-list film festivals to interrogate how events such as Cannes have
adapted to new trends in documentary film. As she argues, a thorough
analysis of the films selected by Cannes shows a very conservative attitude
towards documentary, while festivals such as Locarno have been more
open to new hybrid forms that have allowed documentaries to compete in
equal terms with fiction.
A last major trend in programming conditioned by new technologies
involves the onset of online submission platforms, such as Withoutabox or
Festhome or private viewing platforms, like Vimeo, that have increased
the speed of submission of films for competition and eliminated techno-
logical problems that other formats such as DVD involved. This has cer-
tainly contributed to the ever-increasing number of films that film festivals
have to review for selection, which is starting to become a real challenge
in terms of time and staff management. In response, many festivals have
incorporated submission fees, increasing the costs of documentary pro-
ductions. In addition, the number of films that are not part of the blind
selection (cold submissions) but requested based on their success at other
events or their participation in industry sections is increasing, as noted by
professionals such as Sean Farnell (in Fischer 2012) or Sky Sitney (in Gann
2012). This can be considered as a result of both a growing interconnec-
tion between events, and an increasing influence of the production role of
film festivals, which create “festival films” that feed their own programs
while meeting their aesthetic demands (see Wong 2011; Falicov 2016).
 INTRODUCTION TO PART I, VOL. 2: CHANGES AND CHALLENGES… 19

Future Challenges for Documentary

and Film Festivals

The changing landscape of documentary production and exhibition pres-

ent some challenges for film festivals and filmmakers alike. The industry
sections incorporated to festival programmes have certainly increased their
capacity to support new productions and attract professionals, but at the
same time have created an international hierarchy in which not all festivals
can serve as industry nodes. In this frame, the growing interconnectedness
of the documentary festival circuit has brought about an increasing aware-
ness of the festivals concerning their position and identity within the
global context. This explains why particular events have developed strate-
gies of international positioning, such as the CPH:DOX shift of dates
from Autumn to Spring in 2016 in order to be able to compete with IDFA
(see Vallejo 2016).
Meanwhile, new technologies offer a fertile ground for testing new
forms for the documentary, expanding its boundaries even further. Once
the digitization process has been completed and implemented at all stages
of the film chain from production, to online submission, to exhibition,
practical issues can give way to ontological ones. Interactivity provides the
ground for exploring new expanded formats, while the film festival site
must accommodate its classic understanding of film viewing to these prac-
tices. In this context, the delicate art of curating, understood as a mode of
craftsmanship that demands a highly self-reflective attitude, will play a
major role in finding a balance between the past and future of the docu-
mentary film at festivals and beyond.

Notes
1. Fédération Internationale des Associations de Producteurs de Films.
2. Initial positions defending the connectivity of the festival circuit and its role
as a distribution network alternative to Hollywood (Elsaesser 2005; De
Valck 2007) have been contested by those who put in question its actual
connection and distribution role (Iordanova 2009); although in recent years
both parts have recognized the limitations of border positions. Nevertheless
recent works insist on the importance of the networked nature of the circuit
and its evolution through time (Loist 2016).
20 A. VALLEJO

References
Aston, Judith, Sandra Gaudenzi, and Mandy Rose, eds. 2017. I-Docs: The Evolving
Practices of Interactive Documentary. London: Wallflower Press and Columbia
University Press.
Battaglia, Giulia. 2020. The Development of Documentary Film Festivals in India:
A Small-media Phenomenon. In Documentary Film Festivals Vol. 1. Methods,
History, Politics, ed. Aida Vallejo and Ezra Winton, 221–239. Cham,
Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
De Valck, Marijke. 2007. Film Festivals: From European Geopolitics to Global
Cinephilia. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Elsaesser, Thomas. 2005. Film Festival Networks: The New Topographies of
Cinema in Europe. In European Cinema: Face to Face with Hollywood, 82–107.
Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Reprinted in Dina Iordanova, ed.
2013. The Film Festival Reader. St Andrews: St Andrews Film Studies, 69–96.
Falicov, Tamara L. 2016. The ‘Festival Film’: Film Festival Funds as Cultural
Intermediaries. In Film Festivals: History, Theory, Method, Practice, ed. Marijke
de Valck, Brendan Kredell, and Skadi Loist, 209–229. New York: Routledge.
Fischer, Alex. 2012. Hot Docs: A Prescription for Reality: An Interview with Sean
Farnell, Former Director of Programming at Hot Docs Canadian International
Documentary Festival. In Film Festival Yearbook 4: Film Festivals and Activism,
ed. Dina Iordanova and Leshu Torchin, 225–234. St. Andrews: St. Andrews
Film Studies.
Gann, Jon. 2012. ‘Mediate. Curate. Facilitate.’: Sky Sitney, SILVERDOCS. In
Behind the Screens: Programmers Reveal How Film Festivals Really Work,
149–165. Washington, DC: Reel Plan Press.
Iordanova, Dina. 2009. The Film Festival Circuit. In Film Festival Yearbook 1: The
Festival Circuit, ed. Dina Iordanova and Ragan Rhyne, 23–39. St. Andrews: St.
Andrews Film Studies.
Loist, Skadi. 2016. The Film Festival Circuit: Networks, Hierarchies, and
Circulation. In Film Festivals: History, Theory, Method, Practice, ed. Marijke de
Vack, Brendan Kredell, and Skadi Loist, 49–64. New York: Routledge.
Rhyne, Ragan. 2009. Film Festival Circuits and Stakeholders. In Film Festival
Yearbook 1: The Festival Circuit, ed. Dina Iordanova and Ragan Rhyne, 9–39.
St. Andrews: St. Andrews Film Studies.
Seguí, Isabel. 2018. Auteurism, Machismo-Leninismo, and Other Issues. Women’s
Labor in Andean Oppositional Film Production. Feminist Media Histories
4 (1): 11–36.
Tascón, Sonia M. 2015. Human Rights Film Festivals: Activism in Context.
London and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
At the age of a year the bird propagates, so that individuals in the
white, mottled, or blue plumage, may be seen breeding together.
When only a few weeks old, the serrature of the claw of the middle
toe is scarcely perceptible, exhibiting merely faint indications of
points upon a very slight margin. This margin enlarges, and when
the bird is completely fledged the serratures are perfectly formed.
In this bird, as in most other Herons, the crura of the lower mandible
are thin, flexible, and elastic, the angle filled by an elastic membrane
covered by the skin. The tongue is 1 inch long, sagittate at the base,
tapering to a point. The roof of the mouth has a median prominent
ridge, and two lateral lines; the palate is convex; the posterior
aperture of the nares 10 lines in length. The pharynx may be dilated
to 1 1/2 inch; the œsophagus, which is 12 inches long, is when
dilated 10 lines in diameter at its upper part, and gradually contracts
to 7 lines; at the curvature of the neck it lies directly behind, having
passed down on the left side, along with the trachea. Its walls are
extremely thin, contrasting in this respect with the œsophagus of the
Great Northern Diver and other swimming piscivorous birds. The
proventriculus is 1 inch long, its glandules cylindrical, and extremely
slender. The stomach seems as if it merely formed a basal sac to the
œsophagus, its muscles being extremely thin, its tendons circular
and half an inch in diameter; cuticular lining soft. The intestine is long
and very narrow, 5 feet 10 inches in length, 2 lines in diameter at the
upper part, 1 1/2 near the rectum, which is 2 3/4 inches long, with a
diameter of 4 1/2 lines, and terminates in a nipple-like cœcum,
projecting 3 lines beyond the entrance of the small intestine, but
having no appearance of the two lateral appendages usually called
cœca. In this respect, the Blue Heron agrees with others of the same
family. The cloaca is about an inch in length and breadth.
The trachea, when extended, is 8 3/4 inches long. The rings 170 in
number, are osseous and circular, so that the organ preserves its
cylindrical form under all circumstances. They are, like those of all
Herons, of equal breadth on both sides, not broad on one side and
narrow on the other, as has been represented. The contractor
muscles are very slender, as are the sterno-tracheal; the former
send down a slip on each side to the first bronchial ring. The
diameter of the trachea is 2 lines at the upper part, 1 1/2 at the lower.
The bronchi are short, wide, conical, of about 13 half rings.
The right lobe of the liver is 2 1/4 inches long, the left lobe 1 1/2; the
heart 1 1/4 in length, 8 lines broad, of an oblong conical form. The
stomach contained remains of insects and crustaceous animals,
together with a few seeds.
 TELL-TALE GODWIT.

Totanus melanoleucus, Vieill.

PLATE CCCVIII. Male and Female.

It is my opinion that they who have given so much importance to the

cry of this bird, as to believe it to be mainly instrumental in ensuring
the safety of other species, and in particular of Ducks, have called in
the aid of their imagination to increase the interest of what requires
no such illustration. A person unacquainted with this Godwit would
believe, on reading its history as recorded in books, that the safety of
these birds depends on the friendly warning of their long-billed and
long-tongued neighbour. And yet it is at no season more noisy or
more vigilant than the Kildeer Plover, nor ever half so much so as the
Semipalmated species, the reiterated vociferations of which are so
annoying. It is true that the Tell-tale is quite loquacious enough; nay,
you, Reader, and I, may admit that it is a cunning and watchful bird,
ever willing to admonish you or me, or any other person whom it may
observe advancing towards it with no good intent, that it has all along
watched us. But then, when one has observed the habits of this bird
for a considerable time, in different situations, and when no other
feathered creatures are in sight, he will be convinced that the Tell-
tale merely intends by its cries to preserve itself, and not generously
to warn others of their danger. So you may safely banish from your
mind the apprehension, which the reading of books may have
caused, that duck-shooting in the marshes of our Middle Districts, is
as hopeless a pursuit as “a wild goose chase.”
The Tell-tale Godwit has a great range in the United States, where,
indeed, I have found it in almost every district, and at all seasons. It
spends the winter along the shores of our estuaries, rivers, and
ponds, and in the rice-fields, from Maryland to Mexico. It is abundant
then in South Carolina, the Floridas, and along the shores of the Gulf
of Mexico, as far as Texas, where I found it in considerable numbers
and paired, in the months of April and May, along with the Yellow-
shank Snipe, Totanus flavipes. It is also met with in spring and
autumn over the whole interior of the country, and I have found it
quite abundant at those seasons along the entire length of the
Mississippi, Ohio, and Missouri rivers, as well as on the Arkansas.
They congregate in great numbers in the inland marshes of Florida,
and along its rivers, during the winter. I found them near Eastport, in
the State of Maine, on the 11th of May 1833; and on the coast of
Labrador, on the 18th of June of the same year. In Newfoundland, on
the 11th of August, the young were equal in size to their parents, and
being extremely fat, tender, and juicy, afforded excellent eating. In
general, however, these birds are thin and have a fishy taste.
In the State of Maine and the province of New Brunswick, the Tell-
tale is known by the name of “Humility,” which, however, is an
appellation that ill accords with its vociferous habits. The Creoles of
New Orleans call it “Clou-clou;” and were these syllables rapidly
enunciated from two to five times in succession, the sounds would
have some resemblance to the usual notes of the species.
When these Godwits arrive in the vicinity of New Orleans about the
middle of March, they appear in considerable flocks. They retire,
however, in the beginning of May, and return about the first of July,
from which time they continue there until the end of autumn, some
indeed remaining all winter. It seems, that at the period of their
disappearance at New Orleans, they retire to the vast marshes near
the sea-shore, and there breed, for I have found them abundant near
the passes or mouths of the Mississippi in pairs, on the first of April,
when the air is warmer than in the interior. They are said to breed in
the marshes along the coast of New Jersey, where, according to
Wilson, they arrive early in April, and continue until November. It is a
curious fact that the Tell-tale Godwit, as well as some other birds of
similar habits, is of very rare occurrence along the shores of
Massachusetts and Maine. This, however, seems to be accounted
for by the absence there of the large spongy marshes, to which
these birds are fond of resorting.
Although found in the vicinity of both salt and fresh water, at all
seasons, it usually prefers the latter, and the spots which appear to
be best adapted to its nature are ponds of which the water is shallow
and the shores muddy, so that they can walk and wade at ease upon
them. Wherever such ponds occur, whether in plantations or in the
interior of forests, or on extensive savannahs or prairies, there you
will find them actively employed, wading so far into the water as to
seem as if they were swimming. If just alighted after ever so short a
flight, they hold their wings upright for a considerable time, as if
doubtful of not having obtained good footing. Closing their wings,
they then move nimbly about the pool, and are seen catching small
fishes, insects, worms, or snails, which they do with rapidity and a
considerable degree of grace, for their steps are light, and the
balancing or vibratory motion of their body, while their head is gently
moved backwards and forwards, is very pleasing to the eye.
I have often observed these birds on large logs floating on the
Mississippi, and moving gently with the current, and this sometimes
in company with the Snowy Heron, Ardea candidissima, or the
American Crow, Corvus Americanus. In such situations, they procure
shrimps and the fry of fishes. In autumn, they are extremely prone to
betake themselves to the margins of our most sequestered lakes in
the interior of Louisiana and Kentucky, where the summer heat has
left exposed great flats of soft sandy mud abounding with food suited
to their appetite, and where they are much less likely to be disturbed
than when on the marshes on the sea-shore, or on the margins of
rivers. When they have been some time in the salt-marshes, and
have eaten indiscriminately small shell-fish, worms, and fry, they
acquire a disagreeable fishy taste, and being at the same time less
fat, are scarcely fit for the table. They are social birds, and frequently
mingle with other waders, as well as with the smaller ducks, such as
the Blue-winged and Green-winged Teals. In the salt-marshes they
associate with Curlews, Willets, and other species, with which they
live in peace, and on the watchfulness of which they depend quite as
much as on their own.
The flight of the Tell-tale Godwit, or “Great Yellow-Shank,” as it is
generally named in the Western Country, is swift, at times elevated,
and, when necessary, sustained. They pass through the air with their
necks and legs stretched to their full length, and roam over the
places which they select several times before they alight, emitting
their well-known and easily imitated whistling notes, should any
suspicious object be in sight, or if they are anxious to receive the
answer of some of their own tribe that have already alighted. At such
times, any person who can imitate their cries can easily check their
flight, and in a few moments induce them to pass or to alight within
shooting distance. This I have not unfrequently succeeded in doing,
when they were, at the commencement of my calls, almost half a
mile distant. Nay, I have sometimes seen them so gentle, that on my
killing several in a flock, the rest would only remove a few yards.
I have always found that the cries of this bird were louder and more
frequent during the period of its breeding, when scarcely any birds
were in the vicinity. I therefore conclude that its cries are then more
intended to draw you from the spot where its nest is concealed, than
for any other purpose, as on such occasions the bird either moves
off on foot, or flies away and alights at a short distance from the
place where its treasure lies.
When in Labrador, I found these birds breeding, two or three pairs
together, in the delightful quiet valleys bounded by rugged hills of
considerable height, and watered by limpid brooks. These valleys
exhibit, in June and July, the richest verdure, luxuriant grasses of
various species growing here and there in separate beds many
yards in extent, while the intervening spaces, which are
comparatively bare, are of that boggy nature so congenial to the
habits of these species. In one of those pleasing retreats my son
found a pair of Tell-tales, in the month of June, both of which were
procured. The female was found to contain a full-formed egg, and
some more of the size of peas. The eggs are four, pyriform, 2 1/4
1
inches long, 1 4 /2/8 in their greatest breadth, pale greenish-yellow,
marked with blotches of umber and pale purplish-grey.
The plumage of this bird has a very different appearance in autumn
and winter from that which it presents at the approach of the
breeding season. This has led some students of Nature in the United
States to suppose, that there exist two nearly allied species; but this,
I am confident, is not the case. The female is larger than the male,
but only in a slight degree.
Dr Richardson has found this species on the Saskatchewan and Dr
Townsend on the Columbia River.

Totanus melanoleucus, Ch. Bonaparte, Synopsis of Birds of United States,

p. 324.
Tell-tale Godwit or Snipe, Scolopax vociferus, Wils. Amer. Ornith. vol. vii.
p. 57, pl. 58, fig. 5.
Tell-tale, or Greater Yellow-Shanks, Nuttall, Manual, vol. ii. p. 148.
Totanus vociferus, Tell-tale, Richards. and Swains. Faun. Bor. Amer. vol. ii.
p. 389.
Adult male. Plate CCCVIII. Fig 1.
Bill much longer than the head, very slender, subcylindrical, straight,
flexible, compressed at the base, the point rather depressed and
obtuse. Upper mandible with the dorsal line straight, the ridge
convex, broader at the base beyond the nostrils blended with the
sides, which are convex, the edges thick, with a groove running their
whole length, the tip slightly deflected. Lower mandible with the
angle very long and narrow, the dorsal line straight, the sides
convex, with a slight groove in their basal half, the sides convex, the
edges grooved longitudinally, the tip narrow. Nasal groove long and
narrow, extending to nearly half the length of the bill; nostrils basal,
linear, direct, pervious.
Head of moderate size, oblong, compressed, eyes large. Neck rather
long and slender. Body slender. Feet very long and slender; tibia
bare for half its length, scutellate before and behind, tarsus
compressed, also scutellate before and behind; hind toe very small
and elevated; fore toes of moderate length, very slender, connected
at the base by webs, of which the outer is larger; second or inner toe
considerably shorter than fourth, which is in a similar degree
exceeded by the third; all covered with numerous scutella above,
flattened beneath, and marginate. Claws small, slightly arched, much
compressed, rather obtuse, that of the middle toe much larger, with
the inner edge dilated.
Plumage soft and blended, on the fore part of the head very short.
Wings long, narrow, pointed; primaries narrow and tapering, first
longest, second a little shorter, the rest rapidly graduated;
secondaries short, broad, incurved, obliquely rounded, the inner
elongated and tapering. Tail short, doubly emarginate in a slight
degree, of twelve rounded feathers.
Bill black, tinged with bluish-grey at the base. Iris dark brown. Feet
bright yellow, claws brownish-black. Upper part of the head, lores,
cheeks, and the neck all round, excepting the throat, streaked with
brownish-black, on a white ground, tinged with grey on the head and
hind neck; the throat, breast, and abdomen, are pure white, the sides
and lower tail-coverts barred with brownish-black, as are the axillar
feathers and lower wing-coverts, the lower surface of the primaries
light grey, their shafts white. The upper parts generally are black,
glossed with green, each feather margined with white triangular
spots. The hind part of the rump and the upper tail-coverts white,
barred with dusky. The anterior smaller wing-coverts, alula, primary
coverts, and primary quills, brownish-black, without spots; shaft of
first primary white, of the rest brown. Tail-feathers white, with
numerous bands of dark greyish-brown, the middle six feathers more
or less of a light brownish-grey toward the end, the bars not
extending over their central part, their tips white. Length to end of tail
14 inches, to end of wings 14, to end of claws 16; extent of wings
24 3/4; bill along the ridge 2 3/12, along the edge of the lower
mandible 2 5/12, wing from flexure 8 2/12; tail 3 8/12; bare part of tibia
1 1/2; tarsus 2 5/12; hind toe and claw 4 1/2/12; middle toe and claw
1 8 1/2/12. Weight 6 oz.

Adult Female. Plate CCCVIII. Fig. 2.

The female resembles the male.

Length to end of tail 13 3/4, to end of wings 14 1/2, to end of claws

17 3/4; extent of wings 25 1/2. Weight 6 1/2 oz.

Both sexes become darker on the upper parts, at the approach of

spring. This dark colour disappears after their autumnal moult.
The tongue is 1 2/12 inch in length, slender, sagittate and papillate at
the base, triangular, tapering to a fine point. On the roof of the mouth
are two rows of large blunt papillæ directed backwards; the edges of
the mandibles are thick and grooved; the posterior aperture of the
nares linear, 9/12 long. The œsophagus, 6 3/4 inches in length,
passes along the right side of the neck, and has a diameter of 3/12 of
an inch in its upper part, but is dilated to 5/12 before it enters the
thorax. The proventriculus is oblong, 8/12 in length, its glandules
oblong. The stomach is oblong, 1 2/12 inch in length, 8/12 in breadth,
its lateral muscles of moderate size, the tendons 5/12 in diameter, the
cuticular lining hard, with large longitudinal rugæ, and of a deep red
colour. The intestine 2 feet 8 inches long, varying in diameter from
2 1/2/ to 2/12. The rectum 1 9/12 inch long; the cæca 4 inches 5/12
12
long, of an oblong form, with the extremity rounded, their diameter
1 1/2/ .
12

In another individual, the œsophagus is 6 1/2 inches long; the

stomach 1 9/12; the intestine 2 feet 3 inches; the rectum 1 9/12, the
cæca 4 1/12, their diameter 1 1/2/12.
1
The trachea, 4 8/12 inches long, 2 /2/12 in diameter above, 2/12 below;
of 120 unossified rings; its contractor muscles feeble, the sterno-
tracheal moderate; a single pair of inferior laryngeal; the bronchial
rings about 15.
 COMMON TERN.

Sterna Hirundo, Linn.

PLATE CCCIX. Adult.

Although the Prince of Musignano has thought that the bird named
the Common Tern in America, differs from that bearing the same
name in Europe, and has in consequence changed its appellation to
that of Wilson’s Tern, I am of opinion that no difference exists
between the Common Terns of the two Continents. The cry of both is
besides precisely similar, so that with me there is no doubt whatever
as to their identity. Experience has shewn me that the markings or
white spots on the primary quills of Gulls, at one time assumed as a
criterion by which species might be distinguished, cannot in the least
be depended on, varying, as they always do, in individuals of the
same species, at almost each successive moult. Then why, Reader,
should not Terns exhibit analogous changes? The fact is, they do so;
and it is almost impossible, on closely inspecting a dozen or more
specimens procured at the same period, in either country, to find two
individuals exactly corresponding in every particular. Some have the
bill almost entirely black, while others have it more or less red and
black, and tipped with yellow. The length of the tail-feathers, that of
the tarsus, and the size of the inter-digital membranes, are all found
to differ in some degree, if minutely compared. If species are to be
founded on such slight differences, an ample field is open to those
who are ambitious of being discoverers. At all events, I cannot help
remarking here, that it seems to me improper to impose new names
on objects, until it is proved by undeniable facts that they present
permanent differences.
I have observed this species along the Atlantic coast of North
America, from Galveston Island in Texas to the Straits of Belle Isle
on the coast of Labrador, both in spring and in early autumn. But
when on the islands in Galveston Bay, in the month of April, I saw
only a few arriving there from the west; whereas, in the beginning of
May great numbers arrived there from the east, settled at once, and
commenced breeding. I felt convinced that the numbers which came
from the direction of the Floridas were much greater than those
which arrived from the westward, and judged it probable that vast
numbers had at the same time left the Peninsula on their way
northward. Should other travellers observe the same or similar
phenomena at the season mentioned, it will be proved that this
species does not extend its autumnal migration so far as several
others, which I observed arriving at Galveston Island from the south-
west, for example, the Least Tern, Sterna minuta, the Cayenne Tern,
St. cayana, and the Black Tern, St. nigra.
The Common Tern commences breeding on the coast of our Middle
Districts about the 5th of May. On my voyage to Labrador, I found its
eggs on the islands in the Gulf of St Lawrence, and especially on the
Magdalene Islands, which I visited on the 11th of that month. On the
18th I saw them in great abundance in the neighbourhood of
American Harbour, on the coast of Labrador, where thousands of
Terns were plunging headlong after shrimps all round us. In that
country, their eggs were deposited among the short grass, and the
places which they occupied were but slightly scratched; whereas on
the Magdalene Islands, where they breed on sandy ridges, slight
hollows were scooped out, as is generally the case along the eastern
coast of the United States. Their sojourn in Labrador is of short
duration; and when we were at Newfoundland, on the 14th of
August, multitudes were already passing southward. At the same
period considerable numbers pass by an inland route from the
Canadas, and all our great lakes, travelling along the Ohio and
Mississippi. While residing at Henderson, and afterwards at
Cincinnati, I had ample opportunities of watching their movements in
the month of September. And yet, you will think it strange, that,
during their vernal migration, I never saw one ascend any of these
rivers or the streams connected with them. Perhaps the inferior
temperature of the waters, compared with those of the ocean, in the
early spring months, may induce them to abandon their route at that
season. In autumn, on the contrary, when these rivers are heated
and reduced in size, the Terns may find in them an abundant supply
of the fry of various fishes. It would thus appear, being corroborated
by other observations which I have made relative to migration, that
species whose range is extensive, are determined in their
movements by a genial temperature and an abundant supply of food.
With an easy and buoyant flight, the Tern visits the whole of our
indented coasts, with the intention of procuring food, or of rearing its
young, amidst all the comforts and enjoyments which kind Nature
has provided for it. Full of agreeable sensations, the mated pair glide
along side by side, as gaily as ever glided bridegroom and bride. The
air is warm, the sky of the purest azure, and in every nook the
glittering fry tempts them to satiate their appetite. Here, dancing in
the sunshine, with noisy mirth, the vast congregation spreads over
the sandy shores, where, from immemorial time, the species has
taken up its temporary abode. They all alight, and with minced steps,
and tails carefully raised so as not to be injured by the sand, the
different pairs move about, renew their caresses, and scoop out a
little cavity in the soil. If you come again in a few days, you will find
the place covered with eggs. There they lie, three in each hollow,
beautifully spotted and pointed; and as they receive heat enough
from the sun, the birds have left them until evening. But not absent
are they from the cherished spot, for they have seen you, and now
they all fly up screaming. Although unable to drive you away, they
seem most anxiously to urge your departure by every entreaty they
can devise; just as you would do, were your family endangered by
some creature as much stronger than yourself as you are superior to
them. Humanity fills your heart, you feel for them as a parent feels,
and you willingly abandon the place. The eggs are soon hatched; the
young in due time follow their parents, who, not considering their
pleasant labour ended when they are able to fly, feed them on wing
in the manner of swallows, until they are quite capable of procuring
their subsistence themselves. So soon as this is the case, the young
birds fly off in bands, to seek on distant shores, and in sunny climes,
the plentiful food which the ocean yields.
The nest of the Common Tern is, as I have said, a mere hollow made
in the loose sand of some island or mainland beach, scantily tufted
with wiry grass, or strewed with sea-weeds. Their eggs never exceed
three in number; their average length is 1 inch 5 1/2 eighths, their
breadth 1 1/4 inch. They vary greatly in their markings, as is the case
with those of all the smaller species of this family; but their ground
colour is generally pale yellowish-green, blotched and spotted with
brownish-black and purplish-grey or neutral tint.
The young, which are fed with small fishes, shrimps, and insects,
separate from the old birds when fully fledged, and do not again
associate with them until the following spring, when both are found
breeding in the same places. It seems quite curious to see these
young birds in winter, during boisterous weather, throwing
themselves into the remotest parts of estuaries, and even visiting
salt-water ponds at some distance from the sea, as I have often
seen them do at Charleston, in South Carolina, when accompanied
by my friend the Rev. Dr Bachman. Their plumage is then so very
different from that of the old birds, that one might readily believe
them to be of another species, did he not observe that their mode of
flying and their notes are the same. Not less strange is it, that on
such occasions none of the old birds are to be seen in the place,
they having remained, braving the fury of the tempest, on the outer
harbours. In the beginning of winter, young birds also sometimes
ascend the Mississippi as far as Natchez; and in the same manner
betake themselves to all the large lakes bordering the Gulf of
Mexico. There, as well as elsewhere, you see them plunge into the
water, and instantaneously secure their prey, rise as quickly, and
dash into another spot hard by, whenever food happens to be
abundant.
I have many times seen the Common Tern suddenly fly up and come
close over a man or a dog, without the least apparent provocation,
indeed when far distant from its nest, and then pass and repass
repeatedly within a few yards, emitting a plaintive cry, as if its eggs
or young were in the immediate vicinity. At other times, when the
birds were yet distant from their young, and carrying fish in their bills,
they would, on seeing a man, round to, drop their food, and perform
the same evolutions. I, however, know nothing more remarkable of
this species of Tern, than that it should breed, as I know from
personal observation to be the case, along the whole of our Atlantic
coast, in suitable places, from Texas to Labrador.
When travelling in stormy weather, they skim over the surface of the
water, moving rapidly and close together; whereas in fine weather,
they rise high, and proceed in a straggling manner. Now and then I
have seen them alight among Tringas of different species, as well as
among Razor-billed Shearwaters, on outward sand beaches.

Sterna Hirundo, Linn. Syst. Nat., vol. i. p. 227.—Lath. Ind. Ornith., vol. ii. p.
807.—Ch. Bonaparte, Synopsis of Birds of the United States, 354.—
Richards. and Swains. Fauna Bor. Amer. vol. ii. p. 412.
 Great Tern, Sterna Hirundo, Wils. Amer. Ornith., vol. viii. p. 76, pl. 60, fig.
1.
Great or Common Tern, Nuttall, Manual, vol. ii. p. 271.

Adult Male. Plate CCCIX.

Bill about the same length as the head, rather slender, compressed,
nearly straight, tapering to a narrow point. Upper mandible with the
dorsal line slightly arched, the ridge rather broad and convex at the
base, narrow towards the end, the sides sloping, convex towards the
end, the edges sharp and inflected, the tip very slender. Nasal
groove rather long, and with a faint groove and ridge extending
obliquely to the edge of the mandible; nostrils sub-basal, linear,
direct, pervious. Lower mandible with the angle very narrow,
extending beyond the middle, the dorsal line straight, the sides
ascending and convex, the edges sharp and inflected, the tip very
acute.
Head of moderate size, oblong; neck of moderate length; body very
slender. Feet very small; tibia bare for a considerable space; tarsus
very short, slender, compressed, covered anteriorly with twenty-two
small scutella, laterally and behind with reticular scales; toes very
small, slender, the first extremely small, the third longest, the fourth
considerably shorter, the second shorter than the fourth in the same
proportion; the anterior toes connected by reticulated webs, which
are deeply concave at their margin. Claws arched, compressed, that
of the hind toe smallest, of the middle by much the largest, and
having the inner edge thin and dilated.
Plumage soft, close, blended, very short on the fore part of the head;
the feathers, in general, broad and rounded; wings very long, narrow,
and pointed; primary quills tapering to a rounded point, slightly
curved inwards, the first longest, the rest rapidly graduated;
secondary quills short, broad incurved, obliquely rounded, the inner
more tapering. Tail long, very deeply forked, of twelve feathers, of
which the outer are tapering, the middle short and rounded.
Bill bright coral-red, black towards the end, the tip light yellow; inside
of mouth reddish-orange; eye hazel. Feet coral-red, lighter than the
bill; claws brownish-black. Upper part of the head, and the hind neck
half-way down, deep black, the anterior part tinged with brown, the
posterior with blue. The sides of the head, the fore neck, and all the
lower parts, white, with a slight tinge of greyish-blue on the breast.
Back, scapulars, and wings, light greyish-blue, the edges of the
wings, the rump, and upper tail-coverts, white, slightly tinged with
grey. First primary, with the outer web deep black, the shaft white, on
the inner web a greyish-black band running along the shaft, narrow
at the base, and widening so as to occupy the whole breadth of the
web for an inch at the end, where it is hoary. The next five have the
outer web, and a varying portion of the inner, in nearly their whole
length hoary, but at the same time with a dusky shade, which
becomes more apparent at the ends; the rest of the quills are like the
back, but margined and tipped with white. Tail-feathers with the inner
webs white, the outer webs of the colour of the back, paler on the
middle feathers, gradually deepening outwards, and on the outer
feathers dark or blackish-grey.
Length to end of tail 16 inches, to the fork of the tail 11, to end of
wings 15 3/8, to end of claws 11 1/4; extent of wings 31 1/2; wing from
flexure 11 5/12; tail to end of lateral feathers 7 1/12, to fork 3 1/12; bare
part of tibia 6 1/2/12; tarsus 10 1/2/12; hind toe and claw 3 1/2/12, middle
toe and claw 1 1/12. Weight 5 oz.

The female is similar to the male, but rather smaller. In some

instances I have seen a small portion of the forehead white.
Length to end of tail 15 inches, to the fork 11 1/2, to end of wings
15 1/4, to end of claws 11; extent of wings 30 1/4; wing from flexure
10 1/2. Weight 5 oz.

The young in their first plumage, have the bill dull greenish-black,
with the tip yellowish; the feet greenish-yellow.
In winter, the bill is black, with the base pale orange, and the tip
yellowish; the feet orange-yellow. The colours are as in the adult, the
forehead white, the rest of the head dusky, the upper parts having
the feathers slightly margined with lighter.

Length to end of tail 12 3/4, to the fork 11; to end of wings 14, to end
of claws 10 1/2; extent of wings 29 1/4; wing from flexure 8 1/4.

American and British specimens present no essential differences

when compared in considerable numbers. The outer web of the
lateral tail-feather is blackish-grey, and the inner webs of the tail-
feathers are white in all the specimens collected for comparison. The
tarsus in American specimens varies in length from 9 to 10 1/2
twelfths, and the claw of the middle toe from 2 1/2 to 4 1/2 twelfths;
but similar differences are observed in the British birds.

The tongue is 1 4/12 inch long, sagittate and papillate at the base,
very slender, tapering, the point slit, the upper surface a little
concave, the lower horny towards the end. Aperture of posterior
nares linear, 9 twelfths long. Palate with a middle and two lateral
ridges. Œsophagus 6 inches long, extremely wide, its average
diameter on the neck 7 twelfths, within the thorax 11 twelfths. The
stomach is muscular, 1 inch long, the lateral muscles not
distinguishable, the fasciculi of fibres being disposed as in the
rapacious birds; the central tendinous spaces 3 twelfths in diameter;
the cuticular lining strong, with broad longitudinal rugæ. The contents
of the stomach, fishes. The proventriculus 1 inch long. Intestine 1
foot 7 inches long, of moderate diameter, convoluted, varying from
2 3/4 twelfths to 2 1/2 twelfths. Rectum 1 inch long. Cœca 5 twelfths
long, with a diameter of 3/4 of a twelfth.

The trachea is 3 1/4 inches long, 2 1/2 twelfths in breadth above, 1 1/2
twelfth below; its rings 103, feeble and unossified; the lateral
muscles extremely slender; there are sterno-tracheal muscles, but
none besides. Bronchial half-rings about 18.
 SPOTTED SANDPIPER.

Totanus macularius, Temm.

PLATE CCCX. Male and Female.

In the course of my last journey in search of information respecting

the birds which at one season or other are found within the limits of
the United States, I observed so vast a number of them in Texas,
that I almost concluded that more than two-thirds of our species
occur there. Among them I observed the beautiful bird now before
you.
The Spotted Sandpiper has a wonderfully extensive range, for I have
met with it not only in most parts of the United States, but also on the
shores of Labrador, where, on the 17th June 1833, I found it
breeding. On the 29th of July, the young were fully fledged, and
scampering over the rocks about us, amid the putrid and drying cod-
fish. In that country it breeds later by three months than in Texas; for
on the head waters of Buffalo Bayou, about sixty miles from the
margin of the Mexican Gulf, I saw broods already well grown on the
5th of May 1837. On the same day of the same month in 1832, a
similar occurrence happened on an island near Indian Key, on the
south-east coast of Florida. In Newfoundland, on the other hand, the
young were just fully fledged on the 11th of August 1833. It appears
strange that none were observed by Dr Richardson on the shores
of Hudson’s Bay, or in the interior of that country. They are quite
abundant along the margins of the Mississippi, the Ohio, and their