Choices, isn’t it nice that some are made for you? Are you struggling to find a new series to binge watch during your autumn break? Netflix will give you a list of options based on your past consumption. Are you sick of listening to the same songs over and over? Spotify will have a new dose lined-up for you every week. These, however, are the media promoting themselves, a judgement of value incorporated in the warm relationship between producer and distributer (let alone being one and the same). No, a self-respecting cultural studies master student should take a more critical and wary stance. By reading into other people’s opinions, valuing ratings and measuring the hype against the well-advised views of the connoisseur we can formulate our own. While making up our mind, by reading others’, aren’t we missing something? Who are these people to tell something about some movie or album? According to Plato, the artist is reprehensible, for he is not an expert of the things he mimics (Baumeister, 2015: 71). Does this make the art-critique even more otiose?
In this blog we will analyze a possible alternative to the mass critique that has been clouding cultural productions. A move away from the current critique-consumption relation could give space to a new perspective, which might be less objective, but more transparent than the (insert number) out of five stars which scatter the World Wide Web. Kember and Zylinska regret the current state of affairs when it comes the criticism in the creative industries and search for an alternative. Their aim is 'to stage a new paradigm not only for doing media critique-as-media analysis but also for inventing (new) media' (Kember and Zylinska, 2012: 189). Using Deleuze and Bergson they argue that the creative agency of the critic producer should extend beyond individual and collective creators and that the creative potentiality of media themselves should be incorporated in the discourse (idem: 178). Channeling Butler, they state that critique is more than just fault-finding: it is a ‘creative practice that temporarily suspends judgement but ultimately requires a decision’ (idem: 184). This will then result in a new recomposition, or moreover, theory of invention and inventing well (idem: 184). In their concept of ‘critical attention’ Kember and Zylinska combine this notion of critique with a systematic and networked model of human-nonhuman relations through which they believe it is possible to wrestle ‘creativity’ away from the dominant economic framework that reaffirms the dichotomous model of the cultural industries of dominant cultural production versus alternatives (idem: 176).
Although their manifesto is very idealistic, there are some initiatives that might be seen in light of Kember and Zylinska’s text. Let’s take a look at Nijmegen’s very own organization Go Short. With its eight consecutive edition in sight for their short film festival, they have made quite a name for themselves. Next to this they organise short film related events, highlight films in their weekly blog and fight for one of their goals, namely: reinstating the ‘voorfilm’ (pre-movie). Their beliefs are reflected in the films they choose to show during the festival, or to promote during their many events throughout the year. Go Short is far from being the only festival who try to work on alternative ways of consuming films. Although, being a niche market they have a rather luxurious position, to which we will come back later on.
In a Q&A with Nick Hortentius, one of the programmers during the LIFF (Leiden International Film Festival) we soon discovered that they are looking for a strong identity as a festival as well, which is reflected in their choice of films. Most of the films which end up on this festival have been screened during other festivals such as Cannes, Berlin Film Festival and Sundance, which the programmers of LIFF dutifully visit yearly to get the cream of the crop. Notice that there is another form of criticism at work in this case, less visible to the audience. There is no longer a judgement of value by some art critic, but a selection (or censorship) of movies which are all deemed worthy by the programmers. They tend to emphasize what films should be like instead of what they shouldn’t be, in contrast to most of the critical approaches found by reviewers. This is exactly what is meant in Kember and Zylinska’s manifesto on the role of criticism. According to them the way criticism talks about media is alienating, putting creativity in the centre of the discussion as if it is something measurable. However, Hortentius had to come back to his statement later on, expressing his irritation towards distributors which pressured them to accept certain films in order to get others: ‘It is hard when you don’t get the movies you want, as well as getting the ones you don’t want’ (Hortentius, 2015).
LIFF isn’t the only one encountering these distortions due to this contamination of their identity. InScience, a debuting festival starting this very week, is seemingly seeking the balance between their integrity and attracting enough visitors for the first edition, thus surviving. With blockbusters like Interstellar and Inside Out listed on their programmes they fall out of line with other festivals, but they are not in the position of putting principles above reaching a broad audience. During one of the preparatory meetings InScience’s director Johan van de Woestijne claimed the earlier mentioned titles fitted perfectly in their vision: the relationship between science and film. Would these films been shown if they didn’t get the widespread critical esteem they enjoy at this point?
To get back to Go Short, their situation is somewhat different. They dominantly screen short films which have been adduced by the filmmakers and/or producers, instead of actively looking for films which is more the case with LIFF. This competition element cuts both ways, having the luxury of getting a lot of material on offer and selecting them on quality. This is probably due to the fact that short films are far less popular outside of these festivals and therefore a less interesting market for distributors and cinemas. The earlier mentioned ‘Mediation of Things’ is not as present as described by Raul Rodriguez-Ferrandiz in the manner of display by Go Short. Short films are less of a brand, storytelling as a symbolization of commodities as living, changing and evolving entities isn’t as determining for the object (Rodriguez-Ferrandiz, 2014: 330). The artefact-like quality for the short films is different from the full-length feature films in that they are less repetitive in nature compared to the daily screenings in mainstream cinemas. When a movie is bought by a distributor it will become available to a very large audience who can visit these films in numerous locations over a relative large amount of time. During film festivals the screenings are limited down to one one or at the most a few. This experience culture is emphasized in both the LIFF and InScience as well, stressing their festival as a unique way of enjoying films. Their selection, the choices they made for you, symbolise the brand of the festival as a whole instead of small singular events.
The turnaround in the approach of cultural products as praised by Kember and Zylinska might not be as dominant as they might have hoped, but film festivals certainly take on another stance when it comes to criticism. By selecting movies, instead of judging them, they send out a much more positive image of the media, no nagging but praising. On top of that, through the critical attention with which Go Short puts films in the spotlight, it moves beyond the intentionality of the people behind the festival and allows the medium to have an impact on its audience and beyond them. ‘It is via points of temporary stabilization between human, corporeal, and technical agency that partial decision are being made, connections between bodies are being established, aesthetic and political transformed is being achieved, and power is taking effect of different parts of ‘the network’ in a differential manner.’ (Kember and Zylinska, 2012: 200) Although we should take into account that this free form is still very dependent from the rest of the industry, it is moving into the direction Kember and Zylinska are hoping for. Ironically enough though visitors of LIFF were asked for their opinion after the screenings, handing them a piece of paper on which they could rate the film, on a scale of 1 to 5.
B.L., E.K., L.C., N.R., R.H.
Thesis proposal:
Can the innovation of Go Short really be the alternative contemporary criticism?
Bibliography
Baumeister, Thomas (2005) De filosofie van de kunsten: van Plato tot Beuys, Amstelveen: Damon.
Kember, Sarah & Zylinska, Joanna (2012) ‘Remediating Creativity: Performance, Invention, Critique’, in: Life After New Media: Mediation as a Vital Process. Cambridge: The MIT Press: 173-200.
Q&A with Nick Hortentius (31 October 2015) Leiden: CJP serveert @ LIFF.
Rodrígez-Ferrándiz, Raul (2014), ‘Culture Industries in a Postindustrial Age: Entertainment, Leisure, Creativity, Design’, in: Critical Studies in Media Communication 31 (4): 327-341.
Ruber, Kirsten (2015) Go Short Jaarverslag 2014-2015. http://issuu.com/goshortfilmfestival/docs/go_short_jaarverslag_2015__pages_/39?e=0/30120147 (27 October 2015).
Speech Johan van de Woestijne (26 October 2015) Nijmegen: volunteer meeting InScience International Film Festival.
I found really interesting your blogpost and specially, the actions around Go Short festival. However I did not understand how GSF is addressing itself towards a new/alternative way of contemporary criticism. I would like to clarify my reading, could you pinpoint what type of criticism GSF is adressing? Thank you :)
BeantwoordenVerwijderenRita
We saw they way they selected the films they show at their festival as a form of (indirect) criticism. By having a certain preference and leaving others out they both value films, like in more classical criticism, but also sketch an image of what they should be like, according to them.
BeantwoordenVerwijderen