Ebook Documentary Film Festivals Changes Challenges Professional Perspectives Aida Vallejo Online PDF All Chapter

Documentary Film Festivals: Changes,
Challenges, Professional Perspectives

Aida Vallejo
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/documentary-film-festivals-changes-challenges-profes
sional-perspectives-aida-vallejo/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Documentary Film Festivals, Vol.1: Methods, History,

Politics Aida Vallejo
https://ebookmeta.com/product/documentary-film-festivals-
vol-1-methods-history-politics-aida-vallejo/
Film Festivals and Anthropology 1st Edition Aida

Vallejo
https://ebookmeta.com/product/film-festivals-and-
anthropology-1st-edition-aida-vallejo/
Rethinking Film Festivals in the Pandemic Era and After

(Framing Film Festivals) Marijke De Valck
https://ebookmeta.com/product/rethinking-film-festivals-in-the-
pandemic-era-and-after-framing-film-festivals-marijke-de-valck/
Cambridge IGCSE and O Level History Workbook 2C - Depth

Study: the United States, 1919-41 2nd Edition Benjamin
Harrison
https://ebookmeta.com/product/cambridge-igcse-and-o-level-
history-workbook-2c-depth-study-the-united-states-1919-41-2nd-
edition-benjamin-harrison/
LGBTQ Film Festivals Curating Queerness 1st Edition
Antoine Damiens
https://ebookmeta.com/product/lgbtq-film-festivals-curating-
queerness-1st-edition-antoine-damiens/
Primary Mathematics 3A Hoerst
https://ebookmeta.com/product/primary-mathematics-3a-hoerst/
The Philosophy of Documentary Film Image Sound Fiction

Truth 1st Edition David Larocca (Editor)
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-philosophy-of-documentary-film-
image-sound-fiction-truth-1st-edition-david-larocca-editor/
The Colonial Documentary Film in South and South East

Asia 1st Edition Ian Aitken (Editor)
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-colonial-documentary-film-in-
south-and-south-east-asia-1st-edition-ian-aitken-editor/
Resistance, Dissidence, Revolution: Documentary Film

Esthetics in the Middle East and North Africa 1st
Edition Viola Shafik
https://ebookmeta.com/product/resistance-dissidence-revolution-
documentary-film-esthetics-in-the-middle-east-and-north-
africa-1st-edition-viola-shafik/
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

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

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,
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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).
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:
moment, have imagined that he was actually suffering dreadful pain.
Such was the man, that he was even able to jest at his own
condition.
“Well, most worthy Sosilus, thou seest in me now a hitherto
unknown species—a one-eyed General—therefore, thou, as head of
the intelligence department, wilt have to be in future not only ‘the
ears of the army,’ but the unlucky General’s missing eye as well. Ah,
well, what the gods have decreed is just, and I doubt not but that
with thine aid my one remaining eye will be good enough to show me
the way to Rome.
“But now to business. What canst thou tell me about the Consul
Flaminius now at Arretium? I wish to have details as to his personal
character and his history, as well as the numbers of his troops at
present; for it is often from knowing the previous career and
characteristics of one’s foe that one knows best how to combat him.”
“Most rightly said, my lord Hannibal,” replied Sosilus, while
fumbling over his very voluminous notes. “I see that thou art of the
same mind as the cunning Ulysses, who, according to Homer, upon
a very similar occasion at the siege of Troy—but here is Flaminius;
that matter of Ulysses can rest till later on, when, if any here present
hath an hour or so to spare, I will with pleasure relate it.”
Unseen as he thought, but in reality observed by the scribe,
Chœras made a grimace at Hannibal expressive of delight at
escaping the history of Ulysses, at which the General smiled
sympathetically in return. But now, in a business-like manner, Sosilus
read aloud, as though from a dictionary:
“Flaminius-Caius, now Consul for the second time, is of plebeian
origin and much hated by the patricians on account of his ever
supporting the plebeian interests. Hath now with him at Arretium,
30,000 troops of Romans and the allies combined, of whom 6,000
are cavalry. Was tribune ten years ago, and, against the advice and
wishes of the Senate, passed a law, called the Flaminia lex, for the
division of the lands of the conquered Senones, a Gallic tribe in
Umbria, among the poorer Roman citizens. Is founder of the great
Circus called the Circus Flaminius, and likewise builder of the great
military road from Rome to Aquilæa and Ariminum, known as the via
Flaminia or Flaminian way.
“Six years ago, when Consul for the first time, crossed the River
Padus—the first Roman ever to do so—and made war upon the
Insubrian Gauls, who still detest his memory. On that occasion the
hostile Senate declared that the gods had shown prodigies and
omens against his success, and ordered him by letter to return. But
he left the letter unopened until he had first crossed the Po and
defeated the Gauls. On account of that success he is more hated
than ever by the patrician class, who have lately seen more
prodigies upon the occasion of his recent re-election by the people to
the Consulate. Their object is evidently to represent him to the
people as an unlucky man, or one unblessed by the gods.
“Some of the portents that have been seen are as follows:
“An ox in the cattle market ran into a house, rushed upstairs, and
threw itself out of a third storey window.
“A four months’ old baby in the vegetable market, loudly shouted
‘Triumph!’
“A cat gave birth to twenty-four kittens in the Forum.
“Showers of stones fell in various parts of the city.
“The statues of the gods perspired freely.
“A mouse squeaked during the election, which the Senate
therefore sought to cancel.”
This last of the list of portents against the unlucky Flaminius was
too much for the gravity of Chœras, who burst out laughing loudly.
“Lucky for that mouse,” he exclaimed, “that he did not squeak in
the Forum near the mother of the twenty-four catlings; he would
soon then have understood the meaning of portents better than
apparently doth this thick-headed Flaminius.”
There was general merriment at this sally, when Hannibal
remarked:
“Yea, thou hast said the right word, Chœras. Thick-headed he
evidently is, that is plainly his character if he can thus resist the
Senate and the patricians with their portents, and calmly go on his
own way despite all their evil omens. Many thanks unto thee,
Sosilus, for thine excellent information. From it, I now judge this
Flaminius to be a headstrong man, and one somewhat over self-
reliant. Thus I think it highly probable that we shall be able to draw
him into a pitched battle without his waiting for the other consular
army to come and join him. At any rate we will try. This is my plan.
“Methinks, if we now start to the southward, ravaging and burning
as we go, and pass him by, he will soon be drawn after us, and in
rage at seeing the blazing and devastated country, will rush
headlong to his doom. For we will select such ground as may be
favourable to ourselves for fighting upon, and then, methinks, most
worthy Chœras,” he turned to the wag, “that the thick-headed
general, when pitched against the one-eyed general, will soon find
out to his cost that the mouse did not squeak for nothing.”
“Ay, it will probably rain bullocks and babies about that period!”
retorted Chœras, “a very good omen for Carthage whenever that
happens!”
At this remark even the unhappy Maharbal grimly smiled. Then the
meeting broke up, Chœras repeating a verse aloud to Sosilus as
they rose to go.
“With bullocks raining over head,

While babies strew the soil;
No matter then how thick his head,
’Twill squash like olive oil.
“There! learned man! I make thee a present of that verse for thy
history of the war, which contains, I fear me, far too much of bald
prose. A verse or two of such singular merit will far increase the
value of thy work. Therefore take it gratis; ’tis a present, I say.”
“With many thanks, I gladly accept the gift,” replied the sage with a
merry twinkle in his eye. “And now I in return will make thee also a
present, oh Chœras, and one which will greatly increase the value of
thy brains, no less a present, indeed, than the relation of that story
about Ulysses that I began just now. It will not take me much more
than an hour and a half to give it thee from end to end, with all the
references.”
“Oh, but I have business with the horses,” exclaimed Chœras, with
a look of horror, and gathering up his sword and buckler, he made for
the door of the tent. But the sage was not to be defrauded of his
revenge this time. He seized the escaping poet by his armour
cuirass at the back of the neck, and held him firmly.
“I too will come and see the horses, and can tell thee the history
as we go; but of one thing be assured. I leave thee not until thou
hast heard it all—ay, until the very last word. Thinkest thou that I am
so mean as to accept a valuable present from thee for nothing? Nay,
indeed, on the contrary. For as Achilles, when disguised as a woman
at the Court of Lycomedes, remarked one day to the fair Deidamia
—”
What Achilles said to Deidamia none of the laughing onlookers
present ever knew, for at this moment the struggling Chœras broke
out of the tent, the pedant, who was a small man, still clinging to the
back of his neck with all the tenacity of a weasel clinging to a rabbit.
He was determined to be fairly revenged upon the poet at last, and
he had got his opportunity, and did not intend to relinquish his victim!
Next day the Carthaginian army commenced to march southward
through Etruria, and, just as in Hannibal’s dream, the monster of the
devastation of Italy followed in their wake. Every person they met
was slaughtered, every building put to the flames.
Making a detour, Flaminius and his army were avoided, but the
Roman Consul was soon aware of his adversary’s passage from the
thick clouds of smoke with which the whole countryside was filled.
Furious at this, he, as Hannibal had anticipated, without waiting for
any aid to come to him from Ariminum, hurried blindly in pursuit. And
Hannibal, laughing in his sleeve, quietly lay in wait for him in the
mountain passes by the northern shores of Lake Thrasymene.
Never in the course of history has there been such an example of
a complete surprise of the whole of a large army as at this battle. For
over-night, aided by the configuration of the ground, which was
admirably adapted to his purpose, the Carthaginian general
arranged his various forces in ambush in several places, by the side
of the lake and the pass leading to the valley through which the
Roman force had to march in their fancied pursuit. Behind the hill on
one side, near the entrance to the pass, were hidden all the Balearic
slingers and the light-armed troops. On the other side, facing them,
were the Numidian cavalry and the Gallic infantry; while upon a
steep hill, which almost entirely closed the end of the valley, only
leaving, indeed, a very narrow and precipitous roadway near the
lake, stood Hannibal himself, with the whole of the Spanish and
Libyan heavy infantry.
At early dawn, when a thick mist enveloped everything down to the
water’s edge, Flaminius and his army, like flies into a trap, plunged
recklessly into the pass and the valley, which were so soon to be
whitened with their bones. The Carthaginians on the heights could
plainly hear through the mist the tramp of the 30,000 enemies
marching below them.
In the meantime, concealed by the mist, they gradually, in their
impatience, edged further and further towards the slopes, down
which they but awaited the command to charge. They could plainly—
the white heavy mist having now settled upon the lower ground—see
their own comrades similarly preparing on every surrounding hill-top.
When Hannibal, who was himself waiting in a fever of expectation,
judged by the ear that the head of the Roman columns had reached
the foot of the hill whereon he stood, he gave in a loud tone the order
to charge. According to preconceived arrangement, the cry was
instantly taken up and repeated by every general, captain, prefect,
tribune, or other officer of any and every kind stationed around the
amphitheatre of hills. In a second, the whole army was in motion,
and then with a roar like thunder, from the combined frantic shouting,
the clattering of the rocks and the clanging of the armour, thousands
of men poured down on every side at once to charge the unseen and
unsuspecting foe below. Never, indeed, in the history of the world
has there been planned and executed such a terrible surprise! The
Romans had, many of them, not even time to draw their swords, but
were slain where they stood. In three hours’ time the whole of the
Roman army, with the exception of six thousand men of the van,
who, in the mist, managed to force their way through to a hillock,
where they stood bewildered, were cut down, or driven into the lake.
Here, while standing up to their necks in the water, they were
charged by the Carthaginian cavalry, who despatched them with
their spears, the Consul Flaminius himself being one of the killed.
When at length the mist cleared, and the six thousand Romans
who had taken refuge on the hill saw the awful scene of carnage
below, they retreated to a neighbouring Etruscan village. But
Hannibal, thinking that in his present unhappy condition of mind the
more fighting that Maharbal could get the better it would be for him,
sent him the next day with all the light-armed troops and the Iberians
to besiege the village, which he did so successfully that the whole of
the six thousand surrendered to him on his promising to them their
lives. Altogether, the appalling number of fifteen thousand Romans
were actually slain in this battle, and, including the six thousand who
surrendered to Maharbal, fifteen thousand were taken prisoners,
more than half of whom were wounded. Hannibal, on his side, lost
fifteen hundred men, but they were chiefly Gauls, whom he could
best afford to lose.
Nor was this the end of the Roman disasters, for no sooner had
the news of this terrible defeat reached Rome than it was followed by
the tidings of a battle gained by Maharbal alone. For Cnœus
Servilius, having heard that Hannibal had entered Etruria and was
near Flaminius, started at once with the intention of joining him. But
his excellent intentions had been frustrated completely by the
diplomatic move made by Hannibal in setting fire to all the houses
and devastating the whole country of Etruria before the very eyes of
Flaminius. The result had been, to quote the flippant Chœras, that it
had rained, if not exactly bullocks and babies, at all events blows
and butchery at Thrasymene. Servilius, however, like a good
general, anxious to help his fellow consul, had sent on a body of four
thousand cavalry in advance, thinking that even if he could not
himself arrive in time with the infantry, these horsemen would. They
were all gallant troops, well mounted, and under the command of a
certain Caius Centenius. Had these troops arrived in time for the
battle of Lake Thrasymene they would probably have been
slaughtered there and then. But they were three or four days too
late. The delay, however, made but little difference in the result. For
old Sosilus got timely warning from his spies of their approach, and
informed Hannibal upon the very day that Maharbal took the six
thousand prisoners. Again, with the object of keeping Maharbal at
constant hard campaigning work, so as not to give him time for
thinking, Hannibal deputed to him a separate and large command,
which should by rights of seniority more fitly have been entrusted to
Mago or to General Hanno. He sent him off with all the light-armed
troops and a considerable body of Iberian cavalry to seek for and
attack Centenius when found. Maharbal came up with the Romans in
a day or two, and he and his men, both horse and foot, being full of
confidence and valour after Thrasymene, charged at sight.
They charged with such impetuosity, the light-armed footmen by
Maharbal’s directions clinging to the stirrups of the horsemen, that at
the first shock half of the Romans were unhorsed. The footmen had
let go the stirrups just before the shock of the two bodies of cavalry
meeting, but now they bounded upon the dismounted Romans and
slew them to a man, while the horsemen pursued the remainder to a
hill, not far distant, where they defended themselves right valiantly
for the night. But the following morning, charging gallantly up the hill,
the young Numidian leader defeated them utterly. The fury of his
charge was so great that the enemy, intimidated, broke without
waiting for him to come to close quarters, and would have fled, but
that they found confronting them a large party of Balearic slingers
and archers, and some of the cavalry which Maharbal had sent
round behind the hill, to their rear. Finding themselves thus taken
between two fires, they threw down their arms, and although before
Maharbal was able to stay the carnage a good many of the Romans
were killed by the slingers and archers, most of them fell alive into
his hands. Thus, with a large number of prisoners, and with an
immense booty of fine horses and beautiful armour, Maharbal
marched back to the headquarters near the Thrasymene, covered
with glory and honour. And after this week of perpetual fighting and
carnage he ceased to be haunted by the spirit of Eugenia, whose
image now soon faded from his mind, although he never forgot her
completely so long as he lived.
Great were the rejoicings in the Carthaginian ranks after these
tremendous successes, but for all that, Hannibal did not feel himself
strong enough to attack Rome for the present.
Dividing the prisoners who were actual Romans among his troops,
and releasing all the prisoners of the allies, telling them that he made
war for Italy herself against the Romans only, he started once more.
Gathering together all the spoils and the captured horses, of which
he had an immense number, and taking his wounded with him, he
now indulged himself in what may be described as a kind of military
promenade. Entirely unopposed, but plundering and killing all the
male inhabitants whom he met, just to indulge in his hatred for the
Romans, he leisurely marched across Central Italy to the province of
Umbria, and passing through Umbria, travelled on slowly to the
southward through Picenum, where he arrived with all his army upon
the shores of the Adriatic. Here he established a fortified camp in the
midst of a most fertile country.
Right glad, indeed, were he and his army to behold the sea once
more; for they had not seen salt water now for many months. Right
glad also were the troops to rest, for they had become wearied of
carrying along all the wealth that they had amassed. Moreover, from
the hardships of the campaign, many of the men were suffering from
scurvy, and the horses were covered with scab. Fortunately, the
Carthaginians had captured among other things great quantities of
old wine, and by continuous bathing of their wounds with this, both
horses and men were soon restored to health and strength.
Meanwhile, the state of despair to which the proud Romans had
been reduced can be better imagined than described. The whole of
the inhabitants of the city of Rome, who had hitherto been ever
accustomed to hear of nought but the victories of their troops, were
now reduced to a condition of abject terror, and it is probable that
had Rome but been attacked it would have fallen.
From this camp in this fertile country, Hannibal was able to send
messengers by sea to Carthage, and on from Carthage to his
daughter in New Carthage, with tidings of his wonderful career of
success.
Again he now offered to Maharbal the opportunity not only of
returning to New Carthage to join his beloved Elissa, but of also
proceeding first of all, as his envoy, to carry the good news and a
great portion of the Roman spoils to Carthage itself, thus giving him
an opportunity of revisiting his own native land in Libya. But as he
had refused before, so now did Maharbal sturdily refuse again to
leave his general’s side.
“Nay, nay, Hannibal,” he replied. “I am not one of those who
change their minds. I have sworn to remain with thee, and remain
with thee I will. I shall doubtless, if I be spared, have plenty of time to
pass with Elissa after the war is over. And,” he continued, laughing,
“as for seeing my native country, my native country is the back of a
war-horse.”
“Then wouldst thou probably see plenty of thy native country in
Spain,” replied Hannibal; “for, from all accounts, my brother
Hasdrubal is likely to be hard pushed to it there shortly. For not only
is Cnœus Scipio there, but Publius Scipio, he whom thou didst
wound at the Ticinus, hath proceeded thither also, and doubtless
many of those discontented Iberians, especially the tribes north of
the Ebro, will desert to their standard. Fighting there will be in Iberia,
and plenty of it, as well as here, and thy strong right arm may, for all I
know, be needed some day even to defend the honour of her whom
thou lovest so much in New Carthage. So think of it, lad, before
definitely refusing. ’Twill be thy last chance.”
Maharbal’s bronzed face turned a shade paler, and he started at
the idea of harm happening to Elissa. For a second, and a second
only, he hesitated, then made up his mind once for all.
“Tush!” he said resolutely, “Elissa will be safe enough in New
Carthage. Not all the Scipios in the world could take that city.
Hannibal, my place is, as I have said, here by thy side. I remain with
thee.”
“Thank ye, lad!” said Hannibal warmly; and, moved by so much
devotion, he stretched forth his hand, and warmly clasped that of his
faithful adherent.
“And, now,” he said, “as that is settled, come with me across the
camp, and let us seek Mago, for I must send him in thy stead to
Carthage, and on, after a while, into Spain. Perhaps, after all, it
would be as well if one of the sons of Hamilcar Barca should be seen
just now for a while in Carthage, to tell of his brother’s successes,
and to ask for the reinforcements of men and money that we now
sorely need. Especially, they should send us men, for the waste of
life hath been terrible indeed since we marched out of Saguntum.
Yet both thou and I will miss Mago, lad; and who knows if we shall
ever either of us see him again.”
“Ay, Hannibal, I shall indeed miss Mago, for I love him truly like a
brother. But yonder he is, standing by the guard tent; I will step
across and call him to thee.”
“Nay, let us go together, lad, for I am anxious to take a glance
round the camp, and we can talk to him as we go.”
So together they went, and joined Mago.
CHAPTER X.
FRIENDS MUST PART.
It was upon a beautiful summer’s morning that Mago embarked for

Carthage. The country all around the Carthaginian camp was, after a
shower on the previous night, looking its very best. The green leaves
of the vines, all bedewed with the raindrops, glistening in their little
hollows, dispensed a sweet odour in the clear, refreshing air. The
verdant cornfields, waving before the gentle sea-breeze, softly
rustled with a soothing sound, displaying, as they moved, the large
red poppies previously hidden beneath their bending stems. In the
dim distance, the peaks of the Apennines stood up purple and sharp
to the azure sky, while here and there a fleecy white cloud softly
rested upon some mountain crest, nestling around the hill-top, and
embracing it lovingly, as a pure maiden softly enfolding her lover in
the embrace of her snowy arms. Upon the groves of chestnut trees
the morning sun, striking upon one side and lighting them up vividly,
made all the more remarkable the contrast with the gloomy shades
which hovered in long, dark streaks along the branches where the
sunbeams had not yet fallen. Here and there from a belt of sweet-
scented pine trees could be heard the soft, trilling notes of Philomel,
the sad-voiced nightingale; while closer at hand, flowing past the
fallen tree trunk, upon which two warriors were seated, there rippled
merrily by a little streamlet, sparkling like silver in the morning rays.
At some distance in the foreground, as if to show that all in this
world is not peace, there stood line upon line of snow-white tents,
denoting the presence of an enormous camp, while behind the camp
the blue and scarcely ruffled waters of the Adriatic faded away in the
far distance into the blue of the sky, with which it seemed to merge
its waters. It was a morning made for love, for all that should be
sweet and delightful, a morning fit for heaven itself. But it was a morn
that was witness of a great sorrow—the parting of two lifelong friends
—who felt, they knew not why, that they were communing with each
other for the last time on earth.
Mago and Maharbal, each, although quite young, the hero of a
hundred bloody fights, sat upon the fallen tree, hand clasped in hand
as though they were but two young children. For long they sat in
silence, drinking in all the beauties of nature around, yet their hearts
too full to speak. So great was the sorrow they felt, that a kind of
awkwardness had fallen upon them both. They did not know what to
say to each other now that the time had come for parting. These two,
who, with bared sword and gleaming eye, so often had charged
together side by side into the very jaws of death, to issue on the
other side of some hostile squadron, with the warm blood dripping
from their deadly blades, were now speechless. At length Mago
spoke, while gripping his friend’s hand closer.
“I shall never forget it, Maharbal. I shall remember it all my life.”
“What?” said Maharbal, suddenly starting from his reverie,
“remember what, Mago?”
“How thou didst save me from that most blood-thirsty Gaul, at
whose mercy I was in that awful night of our second engagement on
the Alps. I can see thee now, in my mind’s eye, casting him and his
horse together over the precipice. By Moloch! but thou didst display
a terrible strength with this right hand of thine, snapping his hand at
the wrist like a carrot even as he was striking at me.”
“Tush, man! hold thy peace. I did not do one half for thee what
thou thyself didst for me before Saguntum—ay, and once again at
the Trebia, when three Romans had, owing to the slippery ground,
unhorsed me, and would have slain me but for thy killing two of them
and putting the third to flight. But him, thou wilt doubtless remember,
I pursued and slew myself. He was a terrible black-looking
scoundrel, but a very coward at heart, or he would not have fled
when thou wast but one to three, standing over my prostrate body. I
killed him easily.”
“Yea, I mind well the circumstance. But what shall we both do now
when we can do no more slaying together? I loved thee always as
thine elder brother, Maharbal, and feel inclined—laugh not at me, I
pray—to weep when I think that no longer thou and I shall be with
the thundering squadron in the thick of the same combat, oft times
side by side. How oft have I watched thy gigantic form from afar,
cutting and slaying, when thou knewest not that I was even
observing thee.”
“And I too, Mago! How often have not I watched thy crimson and
white plume floating from thy silver helmet. To my dying day I never
shall forget the anxiety I felt on thy behalf that day of the fight on the
Ticinus, when, myself left behind in the oak trees, I saw thee a dozen
times in the clash of battle, surrounded by the enemy, but thank the
gods, invariably issuing the victor. Ay, we have had grand times
together! but now what shall I do without thee?”
“Hast thou not got Chœras?” asked Mago tentatively.
“Ay, I have Chœras,” answered Maharbal drily, “but is Chœras the
Mago whom I have loved from boyhood?”
There was a silence again after this, for the last remark was one
that admitted of no reply. Then Mago spoke again.
“Thou wilt succeed to the command of all the cavalry when I am
gone, Maharbal; be careful of the Gallic horsemen; their chief,
Vridomarchus, is not to be relied on—watch thou him well.”
“Ay, I will watch him, and slay him too, for thy sake, if he hath
offended thee in aught.”
“Nay, slay him not, at least not yet, but rule him with a hand of iron;
make him fear thee, and all will go well. Treat him ever like a dog, for
kindness he doth not understand, and he is verily like the dog that
biteth the hand that feeds him.”
“I thank thee, Mago, but I think I will slay him; he will be far less
trouble that way.”
Another pause ensued, and then, looking his comrade straight in
the face, the young General Mago asked the question that Maharbal
had been expecting.
“And what about my niece Elissa? shall I tell her or no that
Hannibal offered unto thee the chance of going to Carthage and then
to Spain instead of me, or rather before me?”
“Ay, tell her, Mago—she may as well know me as I am. I love her
deeply, ’tis true, but I love my duty to my country and to Hannibal
more than all else.”
“And what about Eugenia? shall I mention that circumstance? I
think, for mine own sake, ’twere wiser not, but ’twould vastly raise
thee in Elissa’s esteem to know how thou hadst scorned another for
her love’s sake.”
Maharbal sprung to his feet and covered his eyes with his hands
as the remembrance of the dreadful tragedy with Eugenia flashed
vividly across his mind. He turned and faced Mago.
“I would rather, oh my friend, my more than brother, that thou
shouldst say nought of that matter. It is not that I fear that she should
know that I have slain a woman, but I would not have her think that I
seek or have sought to glorify myself by assuming for her sake a
virtue that I have not felt. For, by the holy gods, Mago, it was, I truly
believe, chiefly for thine own sake that I acted as I did. But thine
honour and mine honour were at stake, Eugenia’s honour likewise.
In truth I know not rightly whether I thought of Elissa or no, the whole
affair hath been so horrible unto me. Therefore, Mago, while in no
wise binding thee, I think that I would rather that that matter
remained secret.”
“Ay, secret it shall be, but now tell me this; hast thou not a letter for
Elissa? if so, let me have it now. I shall see her within the year.”
“Yea, I have a letter ready, and here it is. But stay a moment, I see
a wild rose climbing yonder, I would enclose a blossom or two and a
few leaves of the sweet briar within the folds. Tell her that I have
pressed them to my lips, and send them to her with all my love. I
have no other message to send; but I may never see her again,
therefore tell her simply this, that I am faithful still.”
Maharbal plucked the wild roses and enclosed them within his
scroll, which he gave to Mago. Then the two warriors and friends,
who had seen so many bloody fields together, clasped each other in
their brawny arms, all armour-clad as they were, even as they had
been two weak, foolish girls. After this they descended the hill almost
in silence to the camp.
Here there was great pomp and parade, and the great General
Mago was escorted to his ship with much ceremony by a large guard
of honour composed of men who had served under him in many a
sanguinary conflict.
And now, with the departure of Mago, it is time that we turned our
attention for awhile to what had been going on elsewhere.
CHAPTER XI.
ELISSA AS A WARRIOR.
After the departure of the army with her father and her lover from
Spain, a great blank had fallen upon the life of the young girl Elissa.
For the dull days had succeeded to the dull days, and still no news
came to relieve the anxious heart of the ardent girl.
Her uncle Hasdrubal was away with the army that Hannibal had
left in Northern Iberia. Melania, at whose memory her pretty teeth
met tightly, was dead. Cleandra had left her. There was absolutely
no one to whom she could mention in confidential talk even the
name of Maharbal, save the foolish Princess Cœcilia. To mention
him to her was, so Elissa soon found, to expose herself to many a
jarring note, for so thoughtless was the buxom lady, so absolutely
tactless, that she contrived to say ever the wrong thing when
referring to the absent lover. It was not done intentionally, or from ill-
nature, but that only made matters all the worse when she blurted
out some such remark as this:
“Oh! doubtless he hath half-a-dozen other sweethearts by this
time, those soldiers are all alike, my niece, never faithful when once
their backs are turned, and very often not even when at home. Oh!
thou needst not look at me like that, Elissa, ’tis absolutely true, I
assure thee, and about all of them. Think on my late husband
Hasdrubal, how disgracefully he behaved. But that is what they are; I
tell thee the truth; ay, verily all soldiers are like that. ’Tis no use thy
pining for Maharbal, nor waiting for him either. Therefore, if he come
not back very shortly, thou shouldst take another lover. As for
Hannibal, thy father, him thou canst never hope to see again, after
his starting off on such a madcap errand as this invasion of Italia by
land.”
This kind of speech was not very consoling. But it was what Elissa
had to expect, and to put up with if she ever mentioned her lover’s
name. Therefore she at length learned to hold her peace where he
was concerned.
“Let us talk about some other matter,” she said testily, one day
after some such conversation. “As for me, Princess Cœcilia, thanks
be to the gods! I do not share thy opinion of men, nor deem that all
can be so bad. Maybe ’tis fortunate for me that I have not had thine
experience. Therefore, I will continue to put my faith in Maharbal. But
I have now other and weightier matters to discuss with thee. I have
this very day received a lengthy despatch from mine uncle
Hasdrubal, and ’tis most serious. It seemeth that the war hath not by
any means gone well with him for some time past.
“Firstly, by means of the base treason of one Abilyx, an Iberian
whom he trusted, General Bostar, who commandeth at Saguntum,
hath, being deceived by Abilyx, most foolishly delivered over unto
the two Roman generals all the hostages of the Northern Iberian
tribes. The Romans in turn have given up these hostages to the
Iberians, and thereby secured important alliances. Secondly,
General Hanno, the son of Gisco, hath been severely defeated, and
both he and the king Andobales have fallen into the hands of the
Romans. Thirdly, Hasdrubal’s own fleet hath been defeated close by
the land, and in sight of mine uncle’s army drawn up on the beach.
The cowardly sailors fled to the shore, and, beaching their vessels,
which they abandoned, sought the protection of Hasdrubal’s force.
The only bright spot in the cloudy sky is that Hasdrubal, with a flying
column of eight thousand infantry and one thousand horse, hath
himself surprised a great number of the sailors of the Roman fleet on
shore, scattered about the country, and killed them. With reference
to this last affair, Hasdrubal writeth that Cnœus Scipio hath since
then joined his fleet, and punished the authors of the disaster
according to the Roman custom! I wonder what that may be? ’tis no
doubt something terrible.”
“Ay, doubtless something horrid, probably crucifying them head
downward, or else impaling them, or maybe breaking them on the
wheel,” replied the princess. “I trust,” she added consolingly, “that
neither Hannibal nor Maharbal have yet been similarly served. But
’tis more than likely.”
“With all this,” continued Elissa, ignoring the pleasant suggestion
conveyed in the latter part of Cœcilia’s remark, “thou wilt easily see
that it behoveth us ourselves to be more careful than ever in our
defences here of New Carthage. For strong though we be, what is
there to guarantee us, like Bostar, against treachery from within,
when, should the Romans make a sudden descent in our
neighbourhood, we may all fall into their hands? May the sacred
gods protect us from such a fate! But as one never knows who may
prove a traitor, nor what may chance in war, I intend myself
henceforward in my capacity of Regent and Governor to devote far
more time personally than heretofore to the troops of the garrison,
such as to seeing to their efficiency and readiness. For it shall never
be said of a daughter of Hannibal that, from sheer idleness, she
neglected her trust to her country. As for treachery, should I ever
suspect any human soul within these walls, whether man or woman,
Iberian or Carthaginian, of either deliberately or by foolishness
committing such an action as should endanger the safety of the city,
I should speedily make use of mine authority to punish such an one
according to the Carthaginian custom in such cases, which, as
witness the sacrifices to Moloch, can upon occasion be made quite
as terrible as any Roman custom. Therefore let such a one be
careful.”
During the latter part of her speech, Elissa looked very pointedly at
the little princess, in whom, owing to her light character, she had no
great faith, and who trembled before her in consequence of the
pointed remark.
“By all the gods!” replied the usually merry lady, with blanching
cheek, “wherefore dost thee look at me like that, Elissa? Surely thou
wouldst never suspect me of turning traitor? Only think of it, what on
earth should I do myself,” she continued, “were I to be captured and
fall into the hands of the Roman officers? I am sure I should die of
fright,” and she gave a little giggle.
Elissa had now shot her bolt intended to convey a warning, and
that it had struck home she knew. She now therefore said,
banteringly:
“Thou die of fright! by no means, my dear aunt; methinks that on
the contrary thou wouldst be quite happy under such circumstances.
I have frequently heard that some of those Romans are very
handsome men, and how could they fail to be at once struck by thine
attractions and charms?”
“Ah, yes, that is true, certainly,” replied the vain little lady, beaming
at the compliment. “But for all that I fancy I am better off here. I
believe that the Romans object to their ladies wearing veils even out
in the sun. Think, my niece, how terribly trying to the complexion.
Never could I survive such a trial as that; ’twould be worse even than
being crucified according to Roman custom upside down, a very
unbecoming posture that.” And she gave a little shudder.
“And one,” replied Elissa, smiling in spite of herself, “that I trust
neither thou nor I, mine aunt, may ever be seen in, and it behoveth
us therefore to be more than extra careful. Thus, by letting all in the
city know that we are constantly on the alert, we shall have less to
fear from treason. Moreover, the enemy themselves, even if they
have spies among us, learning that we are ever prepared, will be
less likely to dare to attack us, seeing how strong is our position.”
One of Elissa’s amusements latterly had been in learning warlike
exercises, such as the use of spear and broadsword, and throwing
the javeline, and from this time forth she, who had hitherto not had
much to occupy herself, became in very sooth the ruling military
spirit in New Carthage. For she was now not only the Civil Governor
but the active general as well, and not a guard was mounted, nor a
man moved without her orders. Clad in a helmet and a light cuirass,
both of steel inlaid with gold scroll work, and with a jewel-hilted
sword by her side, she now frequently mounted a war-horse, for she
was a splendid rider, and reviewed the troops in person. Not content
with merely looking carefully and watchfully after the troops of the
garrison, she also constantly made fresh levies among the Iberians,
whom she caused to be trained and then forwarded to her uncle
Hasdrubal at the seat of war. In constantly employing herself in this
way the days hung less wearily on her hands. Thus first the months
and then the years rolled by, and from the cares of government and
the active part that she took in the management of the troops, the
pain of the separation became gradually less, and the self-reliant
young woman began in time to cease to think about her lover so
exclusively.
When Elissa took to live with her a charming young maiden to
whom she was much attached, Sophonisba, the daughter of a
certain General Hasdrubal, the son of the Gisco slaughtered so
basely by the mercenaries in the truceless war, the void in the young
girl’s life became partly filled. Sophonisba was a remarkably
handsome girl of some fifteen summers. Educated in Carthage, she
was quick-witted and sharp beyond her years, and made a most
excellent companion. With her society, life was not for Elissa quite so
dreary as heretofore.
At last, after two and a half years had elapsed, a large fleet of
Carthaginian ships, full of reinforcements for Hasdrubal, were one
day sighted off the harbour mouth. When they had entered the
roadstead and anchored, Elissa’s young and favourite uncle Mago
came ashore, bearing to her the letters of her father and her lover,
the latter containing the wild roses now long since plucked on the
Adriatic shore.
At sight of the dear one’s handwriting and the withered roses, the
whole of love’s young dream came back with a gush of feeling. Nor
did Mago forget to praise his friend in every way, and speak of his
bravery and constancy to his niece, whose heart thrilled with pride to
hear her lover thus praised. When, however, Mago informed Elissa
that, had he so willed it, Maharbal might have returned to New
Carthage in his stead, the impression which he made upon the
young girl’s mind was quite contrary to what the warrior had hoped.
For he, looking from a soldier’s point of view, had imagined that she
would be pleased at finding that her lover was of such a noble
character, able to prefer duty to self; whereas, on the contrary, she
was only angered, for with a woman’s feelings, she could not
understand how anybody, or anything in the world, be it honour, duty,
or anything else, could have been preferred by her lover to herself
upon such an opportunity. Mago, perceiving this evil impression, was
sorry that he had mentioned the circumstance at all.
“Surely!” Elissa exclaimed passionately, “he hath had enough of
fighting; surely he hath already done enough for Hannibal, for
honour, and for his country to have been able to spare a little time for
me who have, all lonely, been eating out my heart for him so long.
And he is mine! Before the gods I have a right to him; yet am I
neglected thus! Surely I was worth more than this! But since he
would not come to me himself, I will have none of his letters, nay, nor
of his miserable roses either!”
Stamping on the floor, with anger in her eyes, she tore twice in
twain the scroll that Mago had brought her from Maharbal, and
dashed it to the ground. Then casting the withered roses to the floor
beside the fluttering pieces of papyrus, Elissa spurned them with her
foot. How glorious the outraged girl looked in her righteous anger!
But then, a revulsion of feeling setting in, she suddenly cast herself
upon her sympathetic uncle’s breast in a flood of tears, while he
vainly sought to console her. After this, she broke from him again,
picked up the scattered fragments, tenderly picked up also the
crushed and shrivelled rose leaves, and clutching them to her
beating bosom, fled from the apartment. Poor Elissa! accustomed as
she was to have her own way in everything, her pride had indeed
been sadly hurt; but love was after all still the lord of all.
It must be owned that hers was a terrible and trying position. Maid
but no maid, wife but no wife, ruling over New Carthage and all the
surrounding territory in Southern Spain with princely powers, with all
the might of Carthage to support her in her authority, yet she was
powerless to have her will. Working, too, as she ever was, for the
good of her country, she was yet condemned by an adverse fate to
gain no good herself, the one thing that she desired in this world to
make life worth living being denied to her.
First it had been her father who had, for his own reasons, torn her
lover from her arms just as she had learned to know what love was;
and now it was that noble young soldier, the flower of the army,
Maharbal himself, who had preferred, or so it seemed, the undying
fame of military glory, which he was earning in Italy, to her loving
arms. It has been said by one, herself a loving woman, in an analysis
of the sexes, that absence makes man but not woman indifferent,
the beloved object gradually fading from the former’s mind. “For,”
she writes, “men are not made like women, and in time they do
forget, although they do not think at the first that they will, ever. But I
have closely studied them, and have discovered that, in their
relations to each other, women can live on a past, but men always
need an immediate future to look forward to, or else everything is
lost in a mist of oblivion. To women ‘have beens’ are enough for
ever, whilst men require to have their five senses constantly
occupied on the people they love, or else soon grow cooler, and in

Ebook Documentary Film Festivals Changes Challenges Professional Perspectives Aida Vallejo Online PDF All Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ebook Documentary Film Festivals Changes Challenges Professional Perspectives Aida Vallejo Online PDF All Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Documentary Film Festivals: Changes,

Challenges, Professional Perspectives

Documentary Film Festivals, Vol.1: Methods, History,

Film Festivals and Anthropology 1st Edition Aida

Rethinking Film Festivals in the Pandemic Era and After

Cambridge IGCSE and O Level History Workbook 2C - Depth

Primary Mathematics 3A Hoerst

The Philosophy of Documentary Film Image Sound Fiction

The Colonial Documentary Film in South and South East

Resistance, Dissidence, Revolution: Documentary Film

More information about this series at

Framing Film Festivals

in the festival circuit that affect documentary production, distribution,

A Researcher Navigating a Growing Festival Circuit

of creative documentary and the extension to feature-length productions

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

A Curator Researching Film Festivals as Sites

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

imagineNATIVE in Toronto, Docudays UA International Human Rights

running up aisles and screaming outside of festival screenings well into

Leioa, Spain Aida Vallejo

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

Introduction—Volume 2: Documentary Film Festivals:

Part I Changes and Challenges 11

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

IDFA’s Industry Model: Fostering Global Documentary

Connecting and Sharing Experiences: Chilean Documentary

The Invention of Northeastern Europe: The Geopolitics of

Beyond the Screen: Interactive Documentary Exhibition in the

Positioning Documentaries at the Cannes International Film

Part II Professional Perspectives 131

Introduction to Part II, Vol. 2: Professional Perspectives133

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

Precarity and Resistance: An Interview with Pedro Pimenta,

Notes on Disenchantment: A Conversation with Amir

Building Networks: An Interview with Sandra J. Ruch,

Selecting Films for Festivals and Documentary Funds: An

Training Documentary Professionals: An Interview with

A Niche for Creativity: An Interview with Thierry Garrel,

Connecting Festivals, Distributing Films: An Interview with

Samara Chadwick is a documentary filmmaker, programmer, and scholar

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

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

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

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

IDFA’s Industry Model: Fostering Global Documentary

The Invention of Northeastern Europe: The Geopolitics

Beyond the Screen: Interactive Documentary Exhibition

Positioning Documentaries at the Cannes International Film

Connecting Festivals, Distributing Films: An Interview

IDFA’s Industry Model: Fostering Global Documentary

Aida Vallejo and Ezra Winton

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

© The Author(s) 2020 1

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

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

Towards a Definition of the Documentary Film

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

Structure and Contents

documentary film. Aida Vallejo looks at the internationally renowned

documentary festival ecosystem is critically addressed in the following

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

Changes and Challenges

Leioa, Spain Aida Vallejo

Part I Changes and Challenges 11

Part II Professional Perspectives 131

Introduction to Part II, Vol. 2: Professional Perspectives133