Documentary Film Festivals Changes Challenges Professional Perspectives 1St Ed Edition Aida Vallejo Full Chapter PDF

Documentary Film Festivals: Changes,
Challenges, Professional Perspectives

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

Politics 1st ed. Edition Aida Vallejo
https://ebookmass.com/product/documentary-film-festivals-
vol-1-methods-history-politics-1st-ed-edition-aida-vallejo/
Rethinking Film Festivals in the Pandemic Era and After

(Framing Film Festivals) 1st ed. 2023 Edition Marijke
De Valck
https://ebookmass.com/product/rethinking-film-festivals-in-the-
pandemic-era-and-after-framing-film-festivals-1st-
ed-2023-edition-marijke-de-valck/
Cognitive Theory and Documentary Film 1st ed. Edition

Catalin Brylla
https://ebookmass.com/product/cognitive-theory-and-documentary-
film-1st-ed-edition-catalin-brylla/
The New Regional Order in the Middle East: Changes and

Challenges 1st ed. 2020 Edition Sara Bazoobandi
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-new-regional-order-in-the-
middle-east-changes-and-challenges-1st-ed-2020-edition-sara-
bazoobandi/
Professional nursing: concepts & challenges Eighth
Edition Black
https://ebookmass.com/product/professional-nursing-concepts-
challenges-eighth-edition-black/
The Maternal Imagination of Film and Film Theory 1st

ed. Edition Lauren Bliss
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-maternal-imagination-of-film-
and-film-theory-1st-ed-edition-lauren-bliss/
Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and

Issues Sixth Edition
https://ebookmass.com/product/understanding-terrorism-challenges-
perspectives-and-issues-sixth-edition/
Critical Distance in Documentary Media 1st ed. Edition

Gerda Cammaer
https://ebookmass.com/product/critical-distance-in-documentary-
media-1st-ed-edition-gerda-cammaer/
Identifying and Interpreting Incongruent Film Music 1st

ed. Edition David Ireland
https://ebookmass.com/product/identifying-and-interpreting-
incongruent-film-music-1st-ed-edition-david-ireland/
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:
36
Ingersoll’s History, i. 120.
37
Serurier to Bassano, July 21, 1813; Archives des Aff. Étr. MSS.
38
National Intelligencer, July 17, 20, 22, 1813.
39
Madison to Gallatin, Aug. 2, 1813; Works, ii. 566.
40
Executive Journal, ii. 388.
41
Monroe to Jefferson, June 28, 1813; Adams’s Gallatin, p. 484.
42
Monroe to Jefferson, June 28, 1813; Adams’s Gallatin, p. 484.
Cf. Madison to the Senate, July 6, 1813; Executive Journal, ii.
381.
43
Hanson to Pickering, Oct. 16, 1813; Pickering MSS.
44
Harrison to Eustis, Aug. 10, 1812; Dawson, p. 273.
45
46
47
Dawson, p. 296.
48
Winchester to the “National Intelligencer,” Sept. 16, 1816.
49
Eustis to Harrison, Sept. 17, 1812; Dawson, p. 299. Eustis to
Governor Shelby, Sept. 17, 1812. McAffee, p. 117.
50
Dawson, p. 312.
51
McAffee, p. 184.
52
Armstrong to Harrison, April 4, 1813; Armstrong’s Notices, i.
245.
53
Harrison to Secretary of War, Jan. 4, 1813; Dawson, p. 337.
54
Dawson, p. 333. Armstrong’s Notices, i. 63, 86.
55
Dawson, p. 454.
56
Harrison to the Secretary of War, Jan. 4, 1813; Dawson, p.
339.
57
339.
58
339.
59
339.
60
Winchester to the “National Intelligencer,” Sept. 16, 1817;
Major Eves’s Statement; Armstrong’s Notices, i. 203. Cf.
Dawson, p. 443.
61
Winchester’s Statement; Armstrong’s Notices, i. 197.
62
McAffee, p. 230.
63
McAffee, p. 237.
64
65
Winchester to the “National Intelligencer,” Dec. 13, 1817.
66
67
James, i. 185; Richardson, p. 74.
68
Richardson, p. 75.
69
70
71
Harrison to the Secretary of War, Jan. 26, 1813; Official
Letters, p. 125.
72
Harrison to Governor Meigs, Jan. 19, 1813; “National
Intelligencer,” Feb. 11, 1813.
73
McAffee, p. 210; Armstrong’s Notices, i. 200.
74
Harrison to the Secretary of War, Feb. [Jan.] 20, 1813; MSS.
War Department Archives.
75
McAffee, p. 233.
76
Dawson, p. 364.
77
Life of Sir George Prevost; App. xxv. p 74. Christie, ii. 115.
78
Return of the whole of the troops engaged at Frenchtown, Jan.
22, 1813; MSS. Canadian Archives, c. 678, p. 18.
79
Christie, ii. 69; James, i. 186; Richardson, p. 75.
80
Proctor’s Report of Jan. 25, 1813; James, i. 418.
81
James, i. 185, 186.
82
Return, etc.; MSS. Canadian Archives, c. 648, p. 18.
83
Richardson, p. 76.
84
Statement of Madison, March 13, 1813; Niles, iv. 83.
85
Richardson’s War of 1812, p. 79.
86
Dawson, p. 362.
87
Dawson, p. 356.
88
Armstrong’s Notices, i. 85.
89
Dawson, p. 370.
90
McAffee, p. 240.
91
Dawson, p. 375.
92
Dawson, p. 373.
93
Armstrong’s Notices, i. 242.
94
Dawson, p. 337.
95
Proctor’s Report of May 4, 1813; Richardson, p. 94; James, i.
196, 429.
96
Lossing, p. 486, note.
97
Richardson, p. 86; James, i. 198.
98
Harrison to Armstrong, May 13, 1813; MSS. War Department
Archives.
99
Richardson, pp. 87, 88. Harrison to Armstrong, May 9, 1813;
MSS. War Department Archives.
100
Richardson, p. 88.
101
Harrison to Armstrong, May 13, 1813; MSS. War Department
Archives.
102
Proctor’s Report of May 14, 1813; James, i. 428; Richardson,
pp. 93, 94.
103
Prevost to Proctor, July 11, 1813; Armstrong’s Notices i. 228.
104
Richardson, p. 111.
105
James, i. 264, 265; Richardson, p. 104; Christie, p. 117.
106
Dawson, p. 408.
107
McAffee, p. 322.
108
McAffee, p. 323.
109
Governor Duncan’s Report, 1834; Armstrong’s Notices, i. 230.
110
Dawson, p. 408.
111
Richardson, p. 105.
112
Proctor to Prevost, Aug. 9, 1813; MSS. Canadian Archives.
113
Life of Prevost, p. 106, note.
114
Governor Duncan’s Report, 1834; Armstrong’s Notices, i. 230.
115
Richardson, p. 104.
116
James, ii. 264.
117
Dawson, p. 407; McAffee, p. 302.
118
Armstrong’s Notices, i. 166, note.
119
Harrison to Armstrong, March 17, 1813; Notices, i. 242.
120
Richardson, p. 110; James, Naval Occurrences, p. 285.
121
Barclay’s Report of Sept. 12, 1813; James, Naval
Occurrences. Appendix, no. 54.
122
McAffee, p. 334.
123
Harrison to Meigs, Oct. 11, 1813; Official Letters, p. 239.
124
Armstrong, i. 171, note; McAffee, p. 286.
125
R. M. Johnson to Armstrong, Dec. 22, 1834; Armstrong, i. 232.
126
Perry to Secretary Jones, Sept. 24, 1813; Official Letters, p.
215.
127
James, i. 269.
128
Richardson, p. 119.
129
Harrison to Meigs, Oct. 11, 1813; Official Letters, p. 239.
130
Richardson, pp. 126, 133, 134.
131
Perry to Secretary Jones, Sept. 27, 1813; Official Letters, p.
220.
132
Harrison to Armstrong, Sept. 27, 1813; Dawson, p. 421.
133
Harrison to Armstrong, Oct. 9, 1813; Official Letters, p. 233.
134
Report of Oct. 23, 1813; MSS. British Archives. Lower Canada,
vol. cxxiii.
135
Richardson, pp. 133, 134.
136
Harrison’s Report, Oct. 9, 1813; Official Letters, p. 234.
137
Narrative of Lieutenant Bullock, Dec. 6, 1813; Richardson, p.
137.
138
Proctor’s Report of Oct. 23, 1813; MSS. British Archives.
139
Richardson, pp. 122, 139.
140
Richardson, p. 136.
141
James, i. 278.
142
Report of Lieutenant Bullock, Dec. 6, 1813; Richardson, p.
140.
143
Harrison’s Report of Oct. 9, 1813; Official Letters, p. 233.
144
R. M. Johnson to Armstrong, Dec. 22, 1834; Armstrong’s
Notices, i. 232.
145
Report of Lieutenant Bullock, Dec. 6, 1813; Richardson, p.
140.
146
Richardson, p. 136.
147
R. M. Johnson to Armstrong, Nov. 21, 1813; MSS. War
Department Archives.
148
Richardson, p. 125. Lewis Cass to Armstrong, Oct. 28, 1813;
MSS. War Department Archives.
149
Return of Right Division, Richardson, p. 129.
150
Prevost to Bathurst, Feb. 14, 1815; MSS. British Archives.
151
W. H. Robinson to Prevost, Aug. 27, 1814; MSS. British
Archives.
152
Prevost to Bathurst, Aug. 27, 1814; MSS. British Archives,
Lower Canada, vol. cxxviii. no. 190.
153
James, i. 140.
154
Report of Major Macdonnell, Feb. 23, 1813; James, i.
Appendix no. 16.
155
State Papers, Military Affairs, i. 608.
156
Armstrong to Dearborn, Feb. 10, 1813; Armstrong’s Notices, i.
221.
157
Note presented to Cabinet, Feb. 8, 1813; Wilkinson’s Memoirs,
iii. Appendix xxvi.; State Papers, Military Affairs, i. 439.
158
State Papers; Military Affairs, i. 440.
159
Distribution of Forces in Canada; Canadian Archives, Freer
Papers, 1812–1813, p. 47.
160
Dearborn to Armstrong, March 9, 1813; State Papers, Military
Affairs, i. 441.
161
Dearborn to Armstrong, March 9, 1813; State Papers, Military
Affairs, i. 442.
162
163
Armstrong to Dearborn, April 19, 1813; State Papers, Military
Affairs, i. 442.
164
165
James, i. 143, 149.
166
Letter of Dearborn, Oct. 17, 1814; Niles, viii. 36.
167
Niles, iv. 238.
168
Table of Land Battles; Niles, x. 154.
169
Dearborn to Armstrong, April 28, 1813; State Papers, Military
Affairs, i. 443.
170
Dearborn to Armstrong, May 13, 1813; State Papers, Military
Affairs, i. 444.
171
James, i. p. 151.
172
Vincent to Sir George Prevost, May 28, 1813; James, i. 407;
Appendix no. 21.
173
Return of killed, etc.; James, i. 410.
174
Morgan Lewis to Armstrong, July 5, 1813; MSS. War
175
James, i. 203.
176
Armstrong to Dearborn, June 19, 1813; State Papers, Military
Affairs, i. 449.
177
Table of land battles; Niles, x. 154.
178
Morgan Lewis to Armstrong, June 14, 1813; Official Letters, p.
165. Chandler to Dearborn, June 18, 1813; Official Letters, p.
169.
179
Vincent to Prevost, June 6, 1813; James, i. p. 431.
180
Chandler’s Report of June 18, 1813; State Papers, Military
Affairs, i. p. 448.
181
Report of Colonel Harvey, June 6, 1813; Canadiana, April,
1889. Report of General Vincent, June 6, 1813; James, i. p.
431.
182
Morgan Lewis to Armstrong, June 14 (8?), 1813; Official
Letters, p. 165.
183
184
185
186
187
188
Morgan Lewis to Armstrong, July 5, 1813; MSS. War
189
Memoir of Dearborn, etc., compiled by Charles Coffin, p. 139.
190
Court of Inquiry on Colonel Boerstler, Feb. 17, 1815; Niles x.
19.
191
James, i. 216.
192
Dearborn to Armstrong, June 25, 1813; State Papers, Military
Affairs; i. 449.
193
James, i. 165; Colonel Baynes to Prevost, May 30, 1813;
James, i. 413.
194
Report of Sir George Prevost, June 1, 1813; MSS. British
Archives.
195
Prevost to Bathurst, June 1, 1813; MSS. British Archives.
Prevost’s Life, p. 82, 83.
196
James, i. 165, 166. Brenton to Freer, May 30, 1813; MSS.
Canadian Archives, Freer Papers, 1812–1813, p. 183.
197
Report of Colonel Baynes, May 30, 1813; James, i. 413.
198
Brown to Dearborn, July 25, 1813; Dearborn MSS.
199
Prevost’s Report of June 1, 1813; MSS. British Archives.
200
James, i. 175.
201
Report of Colonel Baynes, May 30, 1813; James, i. 413.
202
Brenton to Freer, May 30, 1813; MSS. Canadian Archives.
Freer Papers, 1812–1813.
203
Quarterly Review, xxvii. 419; Christie, ii. 81; James, i. 177.
204
Brown’s Report of June 1, 1813; Niles, iv. 260.
205
Brown to Dearborn, July 25, 1813; Dearborn MSS.
206
James, i. 165.
207
Return, etc.; James, i. 417.
208
Baynes’s Report of May 30, 1813; James, i. 413.
209
Strictures on General Wilkinson’s Defence; from the Albany
“Argus.” Niles, ix. 425.
210
Armstrong to Wilkinson, March 10, 1813; Wilkinson’s Memoirs,
iii. 341.
211
Armstrong to Wilkinson, March 12, 1813; Wilkinson’s Memoirs,
iii. 342.
212
Autobiography, p. 94, note.
213
Strictures; Niles, ix. 425.
214
Wilkinson, to Armstrong, May 23, 1813; Wilkinson’s Memoirs,
iii. 341.
215
Armstrong’s Notices, ii. 23.
216
217
Scott’s Autobiography, p. 50.
218
Scott’s Autobiography, p. 36.
219
Hampton to Armstrong, Aug. 23, 1813; Wilkinson’s Memoirs,
iii. Appendix xxxvi.
220
Memorandum by Armstrong, July 23, 1813; Wilkinson to
Armstrong, Aug. 6, 1813; State Papers, Military Affairs, i. 463;
221
Armstrong to Wilkinson, Aug. 8, 1813; State Papers, Military
Affairs, i. 464.
222
223
Wilkinson’s Memoirs, iii. Appendix xxxv.
224
Hampton to Armstrong, Aug. 23, 1813; Memoirs, iii. Appendix
xxxvi.
225
Wilkinson’s Memoirs, iii. 358.
226
Hampton to Armstrong, Aug. 31, 1813; MSS. War Department
Archives. Armstrong to Wilkinson, Sept. 6, 1813; Wilkinson’s
Memoirs, iii. Appendix xxxvii.
227
Armstrong’s Notices, ii. 33; Memorandum of July 23, 1813;
228
Minutes, etc.; Wilkinson’s Memoirs, iii. Appendix no. 1.
229
Wilkinson to Swartwout, Aug. 25, 1813; Wilkinson’s Memoirs,
iii. 51.
230
Cf. Wilkinson to Armstrong, Oct. 19, 1813; State Papers,
Military Affairs, i. 472.
231
Armstrong to Wilkinson, Sept. 6, 1813; Wilkinson’s Memoirs, iii.
Appendix xxxvii.
232
Testimony of Brigadier-General Boyd; Wilkinson’s Memoirs, iii.
80.
233
234
235
236
Wilkinson’s Memoirs, iii. 190; Paper A, note.
237
Armstrong to Hampton, Oct. 16, 1813; Wilkinson’s Memoirs, iii.
361.
238
Armstrong to Wilkinson, Oct. 19, 1813; State Papers, Military
Affairs, i. 472.
239
Wilkinson to Armstrong, Oct. 19, 1813; State Papers, Military
Affairs, i. 472.
240
241
Armstrong to Swartwout, Oct. 16, 1813; Wilkinson’s Memoirs,
iii. 70.
242
Council of War, Nov. 8, 1813; Wilkinson’s Memoirs, iii.
Appendix xxiv. Report of Adjutant-General, Dec. 1, 1813,
Appendix vii.
243
Wilkinson to Armstrong, Oct. 28, 1813; MSS. War Department
Archives.
244
General Order of Encampment; Wilkinson’s Memoirs, iii. 126;
Order of October 9, Appendix iii.
245
Minutes etc.; Wilkinson’s Memoirs, iii. Appendix xxiv.
246
Armstrong to Wilkinson, Oct. 27, 1813; Wilkinson’s Memoirs,
iii. Appendix xli.
247
Armstrong to Wilkinson, Oct. 30, 1813; State Papers, Military
Affairs, i. 474.
248
Armstrong to Wilkinson, Nov. 12, 1813; State Papers, Military
Affairs, i. 474.
249
Journal etc.; State Papers, Military Affairs, i. 477.
250
Evidence of General Boyd; Wilkinson’s Memoirs, iii. 84;
Evidence of Doctor Bull; Wilkinson’s Memoirs, iii. 214.
251
252
Autobiography, pp. 93, 94.
253
Wilkinson’s Defence, Memoirs, iii. 451; Ripley’s Evidence,
254
Evidence of General Boyd; Wilkinson’s Memoirs, iii. 85.
255
Wilkinson to Armstrong, Nov. 18, 1813; Niles, v. 235.
256
Evidence of Colonel Walbach; Wilkinson’s Memoirs, iii. 151.
257
James, i. 323–325, 467.
258
Return, etc., State Papers, Military Affairs, i. 476.
259
Morrison’s Report of Nov. 12, 1813; James, i. 451.
260
Journal, Nov. 11, 1813; State Papers, Military Affairs, i. 478.
261
Evidence of Colonel Walbach; Wilkinson’s Memoirs, iii. 145;
Evidence of Colonel Pinkney, iii. 311.
262
Evidence of Brigadier-General Boyd; Wilkinson’s Memoirs, iii.
91.
263
James, i. 242; Christie, ii. 94.
264
Wilkinson to Armstrong, Aug. 30, 1813; State Papers, Military
Affairs, i. 466.
265
Armstrong to Hampton, Sept. 28, 1813; State Papers, Military
Affairs, i. 460. Cf. Armstrong’s Notices, ii. 25.
266
267
Prevost to Bathurst, Oct. 8, 1813; MSS. British Archives.
268
Weekly General Return, Sept. 15, 1813; MSS. Canadian
Archives, Freer Papers, 1813, p. 35.
269
Cf. Wilkinson’s Memoirs, iii. Appendix xxiv.; Council of War,
Nov. 8, 1813; Wilkinson’s Defence, Memoirs, iii. 449.
270
Hampton to Armstrong, Oct. 12, 1813; State Papers, Military
Affairs, i. 460.
271
James, i. 307.
272
Hampton to Armstrong, Nov. 1, 1813; State Papers, Military
Affairs, i. 461.
273
Prevost to Bathurst, Oct. 30, 1813; James, i. 462.
274
Hampton to Armstrong, Nov. 1, 1813; State Papers, Military
Affairs, i. 461.
275
Hampton to Armstrong, Nov. 1, 1813; Wilkinson’s Memoirs iii.
Appendix lxix.
276
Wilkinson to Hampton, Nov. 6, 1813; State Papers, Military
Affairs, i. 462.
277
Hampton to Wilkinson, Nov. 8, 1813; State Papers, Military
Affairs, 462.
278
Wilkinson to Hampton; Wilkinson’s Memoirs, iii. Appendix v.
Wilkinson to Armstrong, Nov. 24, 1813; State Papers, Military
Affairs, i. 480.
279
Wilkinson to Armstrong, Nov. 17, 1813; State Papers, Military
Affairs, i. 478.
280
281
Wilkinson’s Memoirs, iii. 362, note.
282
McClure to Armstrong, Dec. 10, 1813; State Papers, Military
Affairs, i. 486.
283
Armstrong to McClure, Oct. 4, 1813; State Papers, Military
Affairs, i. 484.
284
Wilkinson to Armstrong, Sept. 16, 1813; Sept. 20, 1813; State
Papers, Military Affairs, i. 467, 469.
285
Armstrong to McClure, Nov. 25, 1813; State Papers, Military
Affairs, i. 485.
286
McClure to Armstrong, Dec. 10 and 13, 1813; State Papers,
Military Affairs, i. 486.
287
James, ii. 77.
288
McClure to Armstrong, Dec. 22, 1813; State Papers, Military
Affairs, i. 487.
289
Christie, ii. 140.
290
James, ii. 20, 21.
291
James, ii. 23.
292
Christie, ii. 143; Niles, v. 382.
293
Parton’s Jackson, i. 372.
294
Monroe to Pinckney, Jan. 13, 1813; MSS. War Department
Records.
295
Monroe to Wilkinson, Jan. 30, 1813; MSS. War Department
Records.
296
Annals of Congress, 1812–1813, p. 124.
297
Annals of Congress, 1812–1813, p. 127.
298
Act of Feb. 12, 1813; Wilkinson’s Memoirs, iii. 339.
299
300
Armstrong to Jackson, March 22, 1813; MSS. War Department
Records.
301
Armstrong to Pinckney, Feb. 15, 1813; MSS. War Department
Records.
302
Armstrong to Pinckney, March 7, 1813; MSS. War Department
Records.
303
Gallatin’s Works, i. 539, note.
304
Gallatin to Monroe, May 2, 1813; Gallatin’s Writings, i. 539.
305
Monroe to Gallatin, May 5, 1813; Gallatin’s Writings, i. 540.
306
Monroe to Gallatin, May 6, 1813; Gallatin’s Writings, 1. 542.
307
Gallatin to Monroe, May 8, 1813; Gallatin’s Writings, i. 544.
308
Armstrong to Wilkinson, Feb. 16, 1813; Wilkinson’s Memoirs,
iii. 339.
309
Minutes of a Council of War, Aug. 4, 1813; Wilkinson’s
Memoirs, i. 498–503.
310
Eustis to Wilkinson, April 15, 1812; Wilkinson’s Memoirs, i.
495.
311
Wilkinson’s Memoirs, i. 507–522.
312
Armstrong to Wilkinson, May 22, 1813; Wilkinson’s Memoirs, i.
521.
313
Armstrong to Wilkinson, May 27, 1813; MSS. War Department
Records.
314
Hawkins’s Sketch, p. 24.
315
U. S. Commissioners to Governor Irwin, July 1, 1796; State
Papers, Indian Affairs, i. 611.
316
Talk of the Creek Indians, June 24, 1796; State Papers, Indian
Affairs, i. 604.
317
Life of Sam Dale, p. 59.
318
Hawkins to the Creek Chiefs, June 16, 1814; State Papers,
Indian Affairs, i. 845.
319
Report of Alexander Cornells, June 22, 1813; State Papers,
Indian Affairs, i. 845, 846.
320
Hawkins to General Pinckney, July 9, 1813; State Papers,
321
Hawkins to the Creek Chiefs, March 29, 1813; State Papers,
322
Hawkins to Armstrong, Aug. 23, 1813; State Papers, Indian
Affairs, i 851.
323
324
Letter from Kaskaskias, Feb. 27, 1813; Niles, iv. 135.
325
Hawkins to the Creek Chiefs, March 29, 1813; State Papers,
326
Hawkins to Armstrong, March 25, 1813; State Papers, Indian
Affairs, i. 840.
327
Report of the Big Warrior, April 26, 1813; State Papers, Indian
Affairs, i. 843.
328
Report of Nimrod Doyell, May 3, 1813; State Papers, Indian
Affairs, i. 843.
329
330
Talosee Fixico to Hawkins, July 5, 1813; State Papers, Indian
Affairs, i. 847.
331
Hawkins to Armstrong, July 20, 1813; State Papers, Indian
Affairs, i. 849.
332
Hawkins to Armstrong, Aug. 23, 1813; State Papers, Indian
Affairs, i. 851.
333
Carson to Claiborne, July 29, 1813; Life of Dale, p. 78.
334
Hawkins to Floyd, Sept. 30, 1813; State Papers, Indian Affairs,
i. 854.
335
Pickett’s Alabama, ii. 264.
336
Life of Dale, 106.
337
Hawkins to Armstrong, July 20, 1813; State Papers, Indian
Affairs, i. 849.
338
Hawkins to Floyd, Sept. 30, 1813; State Papers, Indian Affairs,
i. 854.
339
Big Warrior to Hawkins, Aug. 4, 1813; State Papers, Indian
Affairs, i. 851.
340
Report of General Coffee, Nov. 4, 1813; Niles, v. 218.
341
Jackson to Blount, Nov. 11, 1813; Niles, v. 267.
342
343
Blount to Jackson, Dec. 22, 1813; Parton’s Jackson, i. 479,
480–484.
344
Hawkins’s Sketch, pp. 43, 44.
345
Cocke to the Secretary of War, Nov. 28, 1813; Niles, v. 282,
283.
346
Cocke to White; Parton’s Jackson, i. 451.
347
Floyd to Pinckney, Dec. 4, 1813; Niles, v. 283.
348
Pinckney to Armstrong, Dec. 28, 1813; MSS. War Department
Archives.
349
Pinckney to Jackson, Jan. 19, 1814; MSS. War Department
Archives.
350
Parton, i. 864.
351
Hawkins’s Sketch, p. 45.
352
Jackson to Pinckney, Jan. 29, 1814; Niles, v. 427.
353
354
355
Pickett’s Alabama, ii. 336.
356
Jackson to Pinckney, Jan. 29, 1814; Niles v. 427.
357
Letter from Milledgeville, March 16, 1814; “The War,” April 5,
1814.
358
Floyd to Pinckney, Jan. 27, 1814; Niles, v. 411.
359
Floyd to Pinckney, Feb. 2, 1814; Military and Naval Letters, p.
306. Hawkins to Armstrong, June 7, 1814; State Papers,
360
Pinckney to the Governor of Georgia, Feb. 20, 1814; Niles, vi.
132.
361
Pinckney to Colonel Williams, Dec. 23, 1813; MSS. War
362
363
364
Cocke’s Defence; “National Intelligencer,” October, 1852.
Parton’s Jackson, i. 455. Eaton’s Jackson, p. 155.
365
366
Col. Gideon Morgan to Governor Blount, April 1, 1814; Niles,
vi. 148.
367
Eaton’s Jackson, p. 156.
368
Jackson to Pinckney, March 28, 1814; Military and Naval
Letters, p. 319.
369
Coffee to Jackson, April 1, 1814; Niles, vi. 148.
370
Colonel Morgan to Governor Blount, April 1, 1814; Niles, vi.
148.
371
Jackson to Governor Blount, March 31, 1814; Niles, vi. 147.
372
Jackson to Governor Blount, April 18, 1814; Niles, vi. 212. April
25, 1814; Niles, vi. 219.
373
Hawkins to Pinckney, April 25, 1814; State Papers, Indian
Affairs, i. 858.

Documentary Film Festivals Changes Challenges Professional Perspectives 1St Ed Edition Aida Vallejo Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Documentary Film Festivals Changes Challenges Professional Perspectives 1St Ed Edition Aida Vallejo Full Chapter PDF

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

Documentary Film Festivals Changes Challenges Professional Perspectives 1St Ed Edition Aida Vallejo Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Documentary Film Festivals: Changes,

Challenges, Professional Perspectives

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

Rethinking Film Festivals in the Pandemic Era and After

Cognitive Theory and Documentary Film 1st ed. Edition

The New Regional Order in the Middle East: Changes and

The Maternal Imagination of Film and Film Theory 1st

Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and

Critical Distance in Documentary Media 1st ed. Edition

Identifying and Interpreting Incongruent Film Music 1st

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

Leioa, Spain Aida Vallejo

Part I Changes and Challenges 11

Part II Professional Perspectives 131

Introduction to Part II, Vol. 2: Professional Perspectives133