The Centrality of Self in Response to Humanitarianism: An

THE CENTRALITY OF SELF IN RESPONSE TO HUMANITARIANISM: AN

ETHNOGRAPHIC APPROACH TO THE GLOBAL PEACE FILM FESTIVAL

Katherine Wahlberg

A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of

Dorothy F. Schmidt College of Arts and Letters

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Florida Atlantic University

Boca Raton, FL

December, 2015

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the members of my dissertation committee, Dr. Stephen

Charbonneau, Dr. Susan L. Brown and Dr. Gerald Sim for the guidance that they provided during the writing of this manuscript. I am especially appreciative of my committee chair, Dr. Charbonneau, whose insights helped me to crystallize my thoughts and direct my writing, and whose Skype sessions with me were invaluable. I would also like to thank Dr. Chris Robe for the long conversations that inspired me and guided my way at the beginning of my research. In addition, my gratitude goes to Nina Streich, managing director and Kelly De Vine, artistic director, who both welcomed me to the

Global Peace Film Festival and made time to talk with me in support of my research.

ABSTRACT

Author: Katherine Wahlberg

Title: The Centrality of Self in Response to Humanitarianism: An Ethnographic Approach to the Global Peace Film Festival

Institution: Florida Atlantic University

Thesis Advisor: Dr. Stephen Charbonneau

Degree: Doctor of Philosophy

Year: 2015

This dissertation examines how the Global Peace Film Festival of Orlando,

Florida, facilitates the construction of cosmopolitan identities within the context of

humanitarianism and activism. An expansion of the notion of “peace” to include multiple

levels of meaning is crucial to the identity of the festival, as it allows the screening of an array of films that appeal to the broad range of spectators and community organizations that interact with the event. Within the context of the Global Peace Film Festival, various discourses surrounding peace participate in the process of cognitively mapping the world and situating the self within it as a cosmopolitan citizen. The centrality of the self is key to understanding how audiences create solidarity with the other, and how they might choose to respond to appeals for humanitarian aid. The contemporary humanitarian imaginary builds solidarity between the viewer and the other-in-need in a manner that is rooted in self-reflection, creating an ironic spectator of vulnerable others and setting the

stage for solutions to humanitarian problems that fit into personal lifestyle choices. This study examines the complexity inherent to the articulation between producers, audiences and films, and how meaning is negotiated on a local level. Witnessing and testimonial are key practices for engaging spectators, and the testimonial encounter has a transformative power for audiences that may be channeled into various responses to calls for action. An emerging practice is significant as well, a new situatedness of the documentary filmmaker as a central figure in the promotion of both films and humanitarian causes.

This practice provides a role for the filmmaker as both entrepreneur and activist, easing the tension between the goals of humanitarianism and capitalistic concerns, while positioning the film as a tool rather than an aesthetic object and echoing the preeminence of self in our contemporary society. The Global Peace Film festival takes an innovative approach to promoting change, moving from a traditional exhibition model to an

“engagement” model that focuses on the involvement of the local community.

DEDICATION

I would like to dedicate this dissertation to my husband, Andy, whose endless love, support and enthusiasm for my work was invaluable to the completion of this project, and to my sister Merriet, whose passing was too early and whose scholarship has been an inspiration to me for my entire life. I would also like to dedicate my writing to my children, Meg and Kurt, who have always unconditionally believed in my talents and applauded my endeavors. Others in my very large family have been a great support as I have been completing this project, especially my sister Dolly, who encouraged me and allowed me to disappear for large stretches of time and my niece Stefanie, who was constant in “rooting me on.” A special thank you to my cousin-in-law, Mary Ellen

Loffler, who let me stay on her boat while attending classes and provided me with many an hour of delightful conversation.

THE CENTRALITY OF SELF IN RESPONSE TO HUMANITARIANISM: AN ETHNOGRAPHIC APPROACH TO THE GLOBAL PEACE FILM FESTIVAL

I. Introduction and Literature Review ...... 1

The Study of Media in Anthropology ...... 5

The Power of Media/Agency of the Consumer ...... 7

Practice Theory: Media and Practice ...... 10

Film Festival Studies...... 16

Cosmopolitan Identities ...... 25

Socioeconomic Changes and the Context of Independent/Documentary Film .....31

Sociopolitical Changes Since the 1990s ...... 34

Audiences and the Contemporary Humanitarian Imaginary ...... 36

The Documentary Film ...... 39

Activist and Human Rights Film Festivals ...... 47

The Global Peace Film Festival ...... 51

II. Methodology ...... 55

Scope of the Study ...... 55

Research Objectives ...... 58

The Research Site ...... 59

The Study Population ...... 60

Data Collection: Participant Observation ...... 61

Volunteering ...... 62

vii

Interviewing ...... 63

Other Activities ...... 66

Data Analysis ...... 68

III. The Structure of the Festival ...... 71

The Setting: Orlando, Winter Park and the Orange County Area ...... 72

Historical Perspective ...... 77

The Structure of the Festival ...... 80

Programs ...... 84

Financial Considerations ...... 88

Festival Events and In-kind Donations ...... 90

Major Sponsors ...... 92

Venues and Their Audiences ...... 94

Surveying the Audience ...... 97

Global Peace Film Festival Volunteers...... 98

Online Presence of the Festival...... 101

Conclusions ...... 104

IV. Audiences and Activism ...... 108

The Discourse of Peace as a Defining Characteristic ...... 108

Cosmopolitan Identities ...... 111

Solidarity and the Role of Self in Humanitarianism ...... 113

Agency and Representation ...... 118

Lifestyle Politics ...... 122

Other Calls to Action ...... 126

viii

Theatricality, the Self and the Humanitarian Imaginary ...... 128

V. Programming Goals and Aesthetics: Seeking an Identity...... 136

Programming Approach ...... 138

A New Slogan, A Renewed Focus on Action ...... 142

Panels and Events ...... 144

Opening the Festival at Rollins College ...... 147

Locally Sponsored Films and Filmmakers ...... 149

Programming for a Major Partner ...... 152

The Narrative Feature Film ...... 155

Film Aesthetics: Reflexivity and Humanitarian Efforts ...... 157

Conclusions ...... 159

VI. Testimonial and Witnessing ...... 163

Power Relationships and the Distant Other ...... 165

Witnessing and Testimonial at Valencia College ...... 166

I’m Not Leaving: Testimonial from a Hero ...... 169

Stomp out Genocide: Expressing Solidarity ...... 176

Understanding the Valencia College Event ...... 183

Witnessing and Power in Our Own Society: The Cooler Bandits ...... 190

Creating a Buzz ...... 193

One of Us: Creating Intimacy through Aesthetics ...... 195

Multi-leveled Witnessing ...... 199

Screenings: At the Global Peace Film Festival and Elsewhere ...... 205

Understanding the Buzz at the Festival ...... 207

Conclusions ...... 210

VII. Filmmakers and Activism: Entrepreneurship ...... 211

Fitting the Festival into a Broader Sociopolitical Context...... 215

Filmmaking as a Field of Production ...... 219

The Education of Audiences ...... 223

The Central Role of Filmmakers...... 227

The Do-It-Yourself Model ...... 236

Conclusions ...... 245

VIII. Conclusion ...... 248

Appendices ...... 256

Appendix A. Films Discussed in Dissertation ...... 257

Appendix B. Data Collection Instrument...... 258

Appendix C. Local Community Organizations ...... 259

Appendix D. Donors, 2014 Global Peace Film Festival ...... 261

Appendix E. Venues, 2014 Global Peace Film Festival ...... 263

Appendix F. Themes of Films Screened at 2014 Global Peace Film Festival ....264

Appendix G. Questions Asked after Viewing I’m Not Leaving ...... 265

Bibliography ...... 266

TABLES

Table 1. Selected Questions Asked by Spectators after Viewing I’m Not Leaving ...... 174

Table 2. List of Films/Film Personnel Attending 2014 Global Peace Film Festival ...... 230

I. INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW

“The Global Peace Film Festival was established to utilize the power of the motion picture to further the goal of peace on earth. With a mission to expand the definition of peace beyond anti-war, ideology, activism or specific causes, the Global Peace Film Festival films and events suggest a more personal message as reflected in the daily lives of individuals and communities the world over.”

Global Peace Film Festival Website 2014

The Global Peace Film Festival, founded by Nina Streich in Orlando, Florida,

integrates social, political and cultural activities to foster activism,1 while seeking to

transform identities of individuals in the process, offering resources that foster a common

cultural identity based on understandings of “peace.” Film festivals are important sites of

cultural production, but are also filtered through the prism of site-specific contexts unique

to the socio-cultural and geographic circumstances within which the festival functions.

While audiences play a central role in the production of meaning at film festivals, context

is key to understanding the dynamics of a festival as a particular type of sharing, participating and collaborative space. Questions arise surrounding how the context within which a specific festival takes place contributes to identity construction and how these multifarious factors interact in the processes of cultural production. To what extent do film producers consciously shape our culture for their own purposes, and/or reflect

1 Drawing from the definition of activism offered by Dorothy L. Hodgson and Ethel Brooks, activism in the context of the festival may be conceived of as “everyday actions by individuals that foster new social networks or power dynamics.” Activism might be seen as a nexus around which as “small acts” function within social relationships and thus have the potential to foster social change (Hodgson and Brooks, 15). More concisely, one might say that the festival promotes activisms, each with its own processes of knowledge production (Hodgson and Brooks, 14). 1

trends, beliefs and desires that are already present in our society? How do people use this

culture creatively for their own purposes? How do individuals define themselves in

relation to the imagined community of the festival and the people depicted in the films,

and how is the identity of the festival negotiated? These types of questions are best

addressed through an interdisciplinary approach that includes the kind of fieldwork

central in the practice of anthropology, which is grounded in the local. The emerging

field of festival studies draws from anthropology as well as other disciplines to address

the complexity of factors that surround film festivals and the specificities that inform the

enactment of any particular festival.

A film festival can be seen as a microcosm for studying broader questions about

culture, subjectivity and ideology in our society. The benefits of studying a festival are

found in examining its dynamic processes which recreate, negotiate and renew a mosaic

of the positionalities of the parties involved. Studying a festival impels the researcher to

understand culture as unfolding across a number of registers, including producers,

audiences, texts, industries and geographies. The “global” self-definition of the festival,

along with an expanded notion of “peace,” functions as a kind of intervention into the

local, defining the festival community within a distinct cosmopolitan geography, contributing to the participants’ perception of their “local” setting while situating local identities within the context of a globalized world. In this case, the key terms under which this intervention takes place are the couplet, global/peace, providing an overarching framework, ultimately overdetermining how participants see themselves and the world in general. Thus, the activist film festival may offer a significant site for the construction of cosmopolitan identities, rupturing the repetitive character of daily life

with the notion that action on a local level will afford the individual a defined place within our global action.

Film festivals offer a site for communal viewing of films, an event that is simultaneously ordinary and special, providing an experience that carries meaning and engages publics by creating a common affective experience. Activist film festivals seek to harness the spectator’s engagement towards goals including the support of a cause, the promotion of the festival or even an ongoing engagement with the film and filmmaker.

Yet, audiences seek to situate new experiences within the context of their daily lives, making sense of the local through an understanding of their place within our globalized world. The communal experience draws from local identities and grounds their understanding of the world within the context of their understanding of the local, while connecting participants with other like-minded people.

This is particularly salient for attendees of the Global Peace Film Festival because a concern with day-to-day living is built into the festival mission, positioning the festival as a nexus for both activism and praxis. From this emerges a sense of belonging to a worldwide “imagined community” in a sense extrapolated from Benedict Anderson’s understanding of nation (1983, 7) that is comprised of individuals who share the same interests and concerns. The festival experience itself shapes identities, and the content of the films acts as source material for this process. However, a much broader context is at play, echoing larger trends within our society, and creating a particular structure within which individuals find understanding and meaning within their world.

An ethnographic study of the Global Peace Film Festival offers a holistic

approach to understand the intricate relationships between producers and individuals that

media foster; it can develop our understanding of questions in film studies regarding the complexity of how people produce and use media, as well as how audiences interpret what they read, see and hear. Festival studies pressure theorists and scholars to be dynamic in their research, addressing the interconnections among multifarious factors. A film festival has become a rather commonplace event, often conceived as a participant in the promotion of both cities and organizations. Yet, the film festival is still an event that intervenes into a cultural landscape and has the potential to unsettle the way a place is perceived, as well as the appropriate the new in a way that recreates the norm. The question arises whether the leisurely consumption of film as a form of social change may be limited in scope as a practice that is grounded in social privilege.

An examination of the discourses that emerge within the context of the festival allows us to gain a more complex understanding of how this niche festival and its audience are embedded in social, political and economic systems, as well as how ideology surrounding these tropes is negotiated in people’s daily practices. Film festivals both unsettle and inscribe, loosening up old habits and offering new possibilities.

However, individuals access, respond to, and interpret messages to both comply with and challenge lived ideologies in equally complex ways. Media provide a means for constructing identities and imagining other realities, as well as a focal point around which people organize social, political and cultural activities (Dickey 1997, 415). Film festivals can act in all of these capacities, and thus offer a productive site for both interpolating identities and imagining other realities. Sarah Dickey argues that media provide a space for the “play of imagination and construction of identity”, and a source of what Arjun

Appadurai describes as a “rich, ever-changing store of possible lives” (Dickey 1997, 419,

Appadurai 1991, quoted in Dickey 1997). While films offer a variety of sociocultural understandings from which to choose, the particular festival experience itself shapes identities and provides a sensory amplification of people’s experiences through images, sounds and stories that relate to the shared identity that they take from the occasion

(Iordanova and Cheung, 2010, 5).

The Study of Media in Anthropology

It is only recently that anthropologists have begun to seriously consider the centrality of media in culture or the force that it exerts in the construction of imaginations, identities and power relations in contemporary society (Dickey 1997, 413).

Very few early scholarly works in the field of anthropology addressed media in any way

(Wolfenstein 1953, Powdermaker 1950)2 and it is only recently that there has been a shift in anthropology, media studies and other disciplines towards studying the ways in which media engage with people’s lives, as well as their social worlds.3 As social media and digital media have become central in people’s lives, it has become even more imperative

2 Drawing on the “culture-at-a-distance” approach utilized by Ruth Benedict during World War II as a means of studying cultures not accessible yet of crucial interest to national defense, Martha Wolfenstein’s (1953) analysis of fiction film connected recurrent cultural themes in movies with psychological trends of the time on the. Hortense Powdermaker’s (1950) pioneering study of the social system of Hollywood and its influence upon the films it produced was innovative in recognizing the constructed nature of cultural beliefs commonly found in Hollywood films, as well as understanding that the final product (a film) is contingent upon a complex web of power relationships situated within dominant ideologies within the industry.

3 Some additional studies in anthropology include: Noriega, Chon A. 1992. Chicanos and Film: Representation and Resistance. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press; Traube, Elizabeth. G. 1992. Dreaming Identities: Class, Gender, and Generation in 1980s Hollywood Movies. Cultural Studies. Boulder: Westview Press; Abu-Lughod, Lila. 1997. “The Interpretation of Culture(s) After Television.” Representations 59: 109-134; Bird, Elizabeth. 2010. “From Fan Practice to Mediated Moments: The Value of Practice Theory in the Understanding of Media Audiences.” In Theorising Media and Practice. Vol. 4, Anthropology of Media, 2010, edited by Brauchler and Postill, 85-104. New York: Berghahn Books. 5

for anthropologists to pay attention to the role of media in our daily lives and consider the social changes that have resulted.

With this new focus, ethnographic studies place media practices within the wider fields of practice that surround and intersect with media (Spitulnik 1993, 105). Within the field of anthropology, this interest in the relationship between media and culture emerged in response to several projects. Sara Dickey’s innovative ethnographic study of poorer neighborhoods in Madurai, South India demonstrated the importance of cinema viewing through the examination of the everyday practices of audiences, fans and stars (1993).

This was followed by a volume that addressed the importance of the consideration media in ethnographic work, Media World: Anthropology on New Terrain, edited by Faye D.

Ginsburg, Lila Abu-Lughod and Brian Larkin (2002). Faye Ginsburg drew attention to the importance of media in any ethnographic study due to the fact that media are embedded within social, political and economic systems and layered in local and global relationships. The value of ethnographic methodology in studying the role of media in everyday life is due to the nature of the discipline; while anthropologists are grounded in the local, the field is also cross-cultural and takes into account the broader technological

and institutional changes associated with media as well as transnational flows (Ginsburg et. al. 2002, 2).

An important aspect inherent to ethnography of media is the expansion of areas of concern to include social players and how media is embedded in people’s lives

(Ginsburg, et.al. 2002, 2). It is important to understand what it means to live in a

“mediated world” with its multiple articulations of media in everyday life. Elizabeth Bird notes that a more anthropological approach to media audiences provides a more complex

understanding than the “audience response” approach allows. She argues that in a media

saturated society, both new and existing conventions and practices are “refracted through

a mediated lens even if people are not consciously referencing the media” (2010, 86).

Bird contends that audiences are “active” and constituted by individuals who choose how

to construct their own identities through media. Consumers interact with media actively,

choosing, discarding, replacing and critiquing within the context of a mediated world

(Bird 2003, 166).

The central role of media in our lives provides a compelling argument for the

importance of anthropological studies of media within a sociocultural context. Media do

play a central role in culture today, acting as a means for people to understand their

world, and thus ultimately shaping their participation in a given society (Spitulnik 1993,

294-5). Media hold an important position in the cultural and ideological sphere of

contemporary society, becoming more and more responsible for providing a means

through which people construct an image of their own selves and lives, as well an image

of the meanings, practices and values that surround the lives of other groups and classes

(Hall 1977, 340). Media plays an ever-increasing role in our daily lives with the proliferation of new digital technologies and recent advances in wearable technology suggest an even more intimate relationship to come.

The Power of Media/Agency of the Consumer

The nature of the power of media and their dynamic role as vehicles of culture is a

major concern within media studies. Central to the issue of media power, as noted by

Spitulnik, is “where to locate the production of meaning and ideology” (1993, 294-5).

The relationship between the dominating power of media and the agency of the consumer is addressed by a number of authors. One cannot refute the notion that media has great power to influence people and maintain unequal power relations, but there are a wide range of views of the extent to which media controls or is used creatively by the receiver.

At one end of the spectrum, Horkheimer and Adorno emphasize the dominant position of the culture industries, maintaining that media impose dominant perspectives on audiences leaving little choice of interpretation (Horkheimer and Adorno, 74-75).4 In contrast, John

Fiske argues that audiences are active rather than powerless and bring experience and

attitudes to the process of textual interpretation. In his view, media does not serve the

dominant ideology, as the viewer has the freedom to critique the text (Fiske 1987, 39).5

However, it is important to focus on the dynamics between the producer and the

consumer, rather than taking a one-sided approach and festival studies pressures

researchers to move beyond this static debate. Although media are constructed within

particular contexts and reflect the motivations of producers, meanings are locally

produced as well, and are negotiable and apt to be appropriated. Stuart Hall notes that

4 Horkheimer and Adorno argue that the culture industry provides a “hierarchical range of mass- produced products” that constrain audiences within the category designed for each socially constructed group. From this perspective, there is nothing left for the receiver to do, as the producer has done it all, and there is “no room for imagination or reflection on the part of the audience.” Our entire world is mediated by the culture industries and viewers see the world from the perspective imposed upon them (Horkheimer and Adorno, 73-75).

5 Fiske focuses on the agency of the consumer, at the risk of ignoring the power of media in constructing reality. Fiske recognizes that the realism presented by media naturalizes the status quo, but argues that radicalism interrogates the dominant ideology found therein (Fiske 1987, 33). From this perspective, cultural texts are made by the public, not by the culture industries, which may only provide a repertoire of texts that are used as cultural resources by different formations of people in the production of their popular culture. Thus, individuals may shift between different perspectives and allegiances which may crosscut any social categories, such as race, gender, ethnicity or class. Fiske does recognize that there are interrelationships between the structure of societies and cultural allegiances, but he sees these as fluid and not particularly determinative (1989, 24).

meaning is not found solely within the text, but is bound up in the relationship between

producer, text and receiver, a relationship that reflects power relationships. Hall argues

that the meaning encoded by the producer and the meaning decoded by the consumer is

rarely a perfect match, so it is necessary to recognize the agency of the consumer as well

as the intentions of the producer (2009, 169). This recognition that there is no single

message in the text and no single audience focuses attention on the negotiation of

meaning that happens within a local context. People create and use media in different

ways, and it is essential to examine how they interpret the messages that they receive and

how they use these representations to comply with and contest ideologies embedded

within texts, as well as drawing from these texts to imagine realities and organize

activities.

This understanding of the dynamics of power relationships between producer and

consumers is central in two innovative case studies by Janice Radway (1991) and

Jacqueline Bobo (1995), who both address how individuals within a particular

interpretive community utilize media to construct identity. Radway shows how

individual interpretations of romance texts vary, pointing out that interpretation and

textual meaning are dependent on an actively productive reader who “constructs

signifiers as meaningful signs” in an individual manner, but based on previously learned

interpretive procedures and cultural codes that reflect individual circumstances.6

6 Janice Radway examined the manner in which consumers of romance novels engage with these texts, constructing meaning within the context of their situated lives. Radway observes that reading serves many different purposes for different readers (1991, 465). She rejects the “absolute autonomy of the text,” and focuses on reading as an interaction between the reader and the text. Although the reader may think that she is interpreting the text in the manner that the author intended, cultural context is as important as the text itself. Drawing from Stanley Fish, Radway argues that the concept of the interpretive community can be applied, examining the way in which a group who share basic assumptions approach a particular text or genre (1991, 467-468).

Jacqueline Bobo (1995) adds another important dimension in her study of black women

as cultural readers, showing that a specific interpretive community shares understandings

and place texts within the context of their particular position within the social structure,

even reading texts in a manner opposite to that which was intended by the author.7 These

studies contribute much to comprehending the complexity and fluidity of the dynamics of

power relationships between media and consumer. The “culturally specific self,” while

informed by various levels of ideology, is not just a socially constructed product of

society, but a fluid, multiple, and continually practiced site of negotiation of meaning

(Holland (1998, 26-29).

Practice Theory: Media and Practice

The tension between the hegemonic role of dominant forms of media and the

agency on the part of the consumer has been much debated, but as media scholars have

begun to focus more on interpretive practices exercised by media audiences, a branch of

social theory centered on “practice” has become increasingly linked with media practices

(Postill 2010, 1). Media act not so much as definers of reality but as “dynamic sites of

struggle over representation and complex spaces in which subjectivities are constructed

and identities are contested.” More interest has emerged in the ways that audiences play

an active role in constructing meaning, negotiating, modifying and interpreting media

7 Jaqueline Bobo offers a nuanced understanding of the manner in which social categories such as race and gender may be important determinants in the manner in which a text is read divergently by a particular interpretive community, regardless of the message encoded by producers. She found that black women, as cultural consumers, read texts in a way that reflects the circumstances and nuances of their lived experience. Themes found in texts may also be used as a basis for discussion in a public forum by these women, seeking social rights for participants. Even when a text is highly contentious, it can be used productively to seek change. (Bobo 1995, 2, 4). 10

messages and how they draw from their placement within socio-historical structures.

Media is closely tied to popular culture and modern consumer culture, and must be considered within the broader historical perspective of capitalism and as one of numerous types of mass produced objects and images in contemporary society (Spitulnik 1993,

296-7).

Thus, it is essential to explain the relationship between human action and some global action that might be called ‘the system,’ or the articulations between individual actors exercising agency and the systems that constrain their practices (Ortner 1984, 149),

Sherry Ortner points out that social life is better explained as a dialectical relationship between agency and structural systems, while acknowledging that these same systems may ultimately be transformed by practices (2006). At the core of the system are unequal power relationships that shape human action and events in a given time and place, constituting a lived social process that is organized by specific dominant meanings and values.

The foundations of practice theory, which focuses on this dialectical relationship can be found in earlier scholars’ works that address power relationships, agency and the hegemonic nature of social structures. Raymond Williams proposes a complex understanding of the hegemonic nature of culture that is to the point. Expanding upon

Antonio Gramsci’s notion of hegemony (1971), Williams sees hegemony as an entire

“lived system of meanings and values” in reciprocal relationship to each other, which constitutes our sense of reality, which most people cannot see beyond (2009, 110). In his view, cultural activity is seen as both tradition and practice, and hegemonies are always contested. Hegemony is dynamic; it has to be continually renewed, recreated, defended

and modified. It is continually resisted, limited, altered and challenged by external

pressures. This understanding of a lived hegemony as a process adds to an understanding

of the complexity of the central role of media today, as well as the consideration of sites

like activist film festivals where meanings are continually negotiated within a particular

context (111-112). It is this conception of hegemony as a culture, but a culture that can be seen as the lived experience of domination and subordination of particular classes, that is central to practice theory (Williams 2009, 108-110). Williams’ understanding of

hegemony as the whole social process allows for a shift in perspective to the dynamics

between the social actor and the subordinating structures of society. What practice theory

seeks to explain is the origin and reproduction of some cultural whole that results from

these dynamics (Ortner 1984, 149).

The work of Pierre Bourdieu is foundational to ideas developed further by

practice theorists. He offers the notion of habitus to describe the complex system of

interactions between rules, individual actions, and historical structures, defining habitus

as a system of durable structures that function to generate and organize practices and

perceptions. Thus, individuals operate in relationship with the habitus, which acts as a

system of cognitive and motivating structures. Habitus is essentially a system of

dispositions, or lasting and acquired schemas of thought, perception and action; it is

“embodied history, internalized as a second nature,” wherein historical circumstances are

an “active presence” in the production of culture. (Bourdieu 1990, 56). Bourdieu

delineates this situated present as a field of cultural production, which guides behavior

through the internalization of the social order in the human body, but also leaves room for

agency on the part of the individual (1990, 68). Bourdieu’s concept of a field can be

understood as such a structured social space with its own rules and schemes of domination (1990). As Bourdieu noted, there are multiple fields of cultural production, including a literary or artistic field that includes the production and reception of media, as well as the manifestation of the social agents involved (1993, 30).

When considering the context within which an activist film festival takes place, the notion of multiple fields of cultural production is useful, due to the multifarious nature of its constituents, events and venues. It is essential to query the multiple levels of cultural practice, especially within the purview of an event that seeks to situate itself within a global context. The activist film festival proposes to disrupt the everyday and force individuals to recognize something that they have ignored or presumed, but this may address particular levels social organization while leaving others intact.

Bourdieu stresses the constructed nature of objects of knowledge (1990, 54), yet this cultural work takes place across multiple fields of cultural production, not solely within the context of humanitarianism, activism or the festival community. Bourdieu distinguishes between group habitus and individual habitus, seeing the individual habitus as a reflection of schemes, perceptions, conceptions and actions common to the group.

Thus, each individual habitus is a “structural variant” of the habitus of the group and individuals tend to avoid that which does not fit into group values. Individuals shape their actions to concrete ideas about what is accessible or inaccessible, and acceptable or unacceptable. These notions of possibilities that one might appropriate are entangled with power relationships that may limit what individuals see as options for taking action.

(1990) Within the context of the film festival, the festival creates its own space that seeks to intervene in structuring these notions, while satisfying need and desire in terms of what

is possible. Certain practices and meanings are emphasized while others are ignored. It is as a result of all of the forces involved in a continual remaking and reworking that an effective dominant culture is maintained. (1990, 75-89). In spite of the great variety of positionalities of individuals attending the festival, many of the presuppositions of the broader habitus may be left unquestioned and pressure for change may be realized only in forms that act within the particularities of the current social structure.

Media constitutes a productive site for the examination of the relationship between cultural practices and multiple levels of identity, on the local as well as transnational level. Cultural identities form in relation to structural features of society such as ethnicity, race, gender, nationality and sexual orientation (Holland et.al, 7).

Drawing from Raymond Williams, who notes that experience is a process that should not be conceived entirely in terms of a finished product, (2009, 128, cited in Holland, et.al, vii), Dorothy Holland and her colleagues call for a move in cultural studies towards an examination of the process of cultural production. Lived identities are fluid and flexible, unfinished and always in process, and thus should be understood within a particular historical moment. Events like activist film festivals seek to intervene in this process, to fix what is otherwise in motion, leaving an imprint behind that instills a lasting identification with the ideology promoted by the festival. Thus, it is essential to consider how the actions of social actors are based upon continuing cultural production, both as joint production, as well as the individual agency upon which it is based (1977, (Holland, et.al., vii).

Practice theory draws together concepts surrounding the dynamic relationships between constitutive structures and the exercise of agency by social actors. Linking

practice theory with media studies provides a way to look at what people actually do with

media, as well as the ways that people use media technology. The intertwining of

technology, media and the body is ubiquitous in contemporary society and the complex

relationships among these practices and sociopolitical factors and must be unpacked in

order to understand how ideology is realized both individually and within events that take

place in public spaces.

Central questions that arise within the application of practice studies to media

studies include the ways that media articulates with everyday life, and with the body, as

well as questions of media production, thus bringing attention to embodied practices,

which vary in meaningful ways (Postill 2010, 12). Theodore Schatzki points out that

within a “total field of practices,”8 practices are distributed unevenly over space and time;

some practices are widely distributed, while others are clustered in ways that reflect the

agency of practitioners and change as agency (re)produces configurations. Thus,

interwoven practices can be found organized around “shared, practical understandings”

such as the shared knowledge that is situated within particular groups or locales (2001,

10). Each practice has its own blend of sociality, mediated interaction and articulations

with the rest of the field. The maintenance of practices over time requires the inculcation

of shared and embodied knowledge as well as the performance of that knowledge.

The study of the local, or the micro-context, should never lose sight of wider structures that enable and constrain practice. Social practices can only be understood within their historical context (Postill 2010, 9-10). As Ortner notes, a “theory of practice

is a theory of history;” thus it is only through their articulations with historical events that

8 Schatzki never defined the exact nature of his fundamental concept, “a total field of practices,” but John Postill suggests that he may be referring to the extension of meaning-making into ever broader contexts, culminating in a dense tangle of human practices that span the globe (Postill 2010, 10). 15

social practice can be understood (2006, 7). It is the dialectical relationship between

constraints from the system and the agency of individuals that must be addressed within

the context of any particular socio-historical moment with the goal of understanding the complex web of relationships, hegemonies and counter-hegemonies surround a field of production such as that which includes films, filmmakers and spectators. These complex interrelations are important aspects of an activist film festival, expressed through the specific medium of documentary film, which (re)produces the ideology that characterizes the processes of meaning-making at a particular site and within the specific community.

This perspective of media resonates strongly with Benedict Anderson’s (1983)

understanding of the imagined community as a mass-mediated collectivity, whose members may not know each other, but feel a strong sense of connection and common belonging that goes further than the local community. Much needed empirical data may be gained from ethnographic studies of media contexts addressing the interplay of media, individuals and larger socioeconomic structures (Spitulnik 1993, 295). A shift in the study of media to include the study of situated practices expands the frame of reception to include all of culture, and the ethnographic approach has much to offer to this endeavor

(Spitulnik 1993, 105-106).

Film Festival Studies

Within the contemporary field of film festival studies, researchers take a number of different directions, drawing from different research traditions and methodologies, reflecting the current trend to expand the scope of media studies in the last two decades.

Film festival research is conducted in the humanities and social sciences, by film and media scholars but also in the context of anthropology, gender studies, business, history, urban and tourism studies and a number of regional studies. One strength of the field lies in the diversity of theoretical paradigms underlying research of film festivals, although this may constrain the development of broad overarching theory. A productive way to address this issue is to examine film festivals as sites of intersecting discourses and practices, as sites where different axes intersect (De Valck and Loist 2009, 180).

Some general approaches to research can be identified through a focus on a particular axis. One axis revolves around an aesthetic discourse which treats film as art and focuses on screening and programming. The way that a festival is curated is tied directly to the progammer and his or her ideas and ideals. A second axis focuses on the economic continuum from production to distribution, which is organized along flows of capital. The focus within this area of research is on the business of cinema and the examination of the film as product. The problem of distribution is complex and any number of strategies might be employed. In additon, the film festival represents the institution itself, with its accordant funding and particular ways of functioning. Within this axis, the festival is approached on the level of people or actors, including among others, film professionals, sponsors, politicians and festival staff (De Valck and Loist

2009, 183-184). A fourth axis centers around reception, which focuses on audiences, (all attendees including professionals and the general public) and exhibition. One focus is on the general feeling of belonging to a group, which may be defined in varioud ways and heightened by identity cues. Specific context is conveyed by cultural group and the special nature of the reception setting, such as the designation of the festival as a space

for horror, queer issues, ethnic issues, or in the case of the Global Peace Film Festival,

pairing the notion of peace with the global and centering the participant within this

context . A fifth axis centers around context of place, where the festival is located along

with all the political, social and historical factors that are meaningful within that place

(De Valck and Loist 2009, 186, 183). Space and place are important in the functioning of the festival, and each film festival can be considered as a “a particular manifestation of the way that space is produced as practice” (Harbord 2002, 61). A sixth axis can be found on a wider level, the phenomenon of festivals as an interconnected film festival network with historical significance. No festival exists outside of the influence of this festival circuit with its concomitant flows of captital and culture. Film festivals must be contextualized within the context of broader structures of society and these axes help delineate a productive theoretical paradigm.

From a broader perspective, film festival studies take a cultural studies approach, reframing interests in festivals as sites of self-identification and community building (De

Valck and Loist 2009, 181) Film festivals should be understood as situated within the complexity of a particular cultural environment. The flow of media and its articulation with other cultural flows is an important aspect of the sociopolitical and historical context within which film is viewed. Arjun Appadurai proposes a framework for examining the relationship between five different dimensions of global cultural flows, ethnoscapes, mediascapes, technoscapes and ideoscapes. At the center, and essential to this study, mediascapes have great power in the distribution of information, and understandings of individuals are inflected by the world constructed by media. Of particular interest is the documentary mode, which offers a large repertoire of images and narratives that

construct a “truth” that serves the interests of those who own and control them.

Appadurai notes that “the world of commodities and the world of news and politics are

profoundly mixed,” and the lines that divide realistic and fictional landscapes are

indistinct. The further away the audience is from narrative accounts of reality, the more

likely they are to construct imagined worlds that do not come from their own empirical

knowledge of the world. Mediascapes, like documentary film, offer “image-centered,

narrative-based accounts of strips of reality” that act as scripts for imagined lives, both at

home and abroad (Appadurai 1996, 52).

While all film festivals have a lot in common, different festivals have very

different sets of circumstances and participants. Film festivals differ in form, largely due

to how their core mission is understood as well as the motivations behind screening the

films and what they wish to achieve. Some festivals function primarily as a marketplace

for distribution, even if this is not their publically declared mission, providing sites for

networking and securing financial and professional access. Films may also be seen primarily as goods which may be channeled into television or cinema distribution.

Festivals that do not offer these opportunities may have no value to filmmakers who are primarily interested in establishing a career, although human rights films are often accompanied by additional motivations to effect change. Other festivals conceive of film as a form of art, “an artistic, intellectual and spiritual expression of its makers,” and function to foster a common cultural identity. Additionally, festivals in smaller countries, smaller towns, or with insignificant market potential may be meant to service a particular audience who may not speak international languages or have access to diverse film programming (Blaževič 2012, 111-112).

Film festivals hold a role in negotiating what themes are dominant and

meaningful within a community and participate in determining what topics audiences

find compelling. Filmmaking takes place within the space of public culture, which is

constituted by a complexity of factors such as gender, class, race, and generational

changes, as well as including the filmmaking practices of producers and filmmakers.

(Ortner 2013, 9) Film festivals and competitions play a role in defining what counts as

an independent film, as well as determining what counts as a good independent film

(Ortner 2013, 5). Documentary-based film festivals have a special significance because these films are most often more overtly attached to sociopolitical perspectives and specific causes. Thus, documentary/activist-based film festivals play a role in determining what counts as an imperative social cause. This is an important distinction when addressing human rights issues because it reflects the power differentials that affect which groups and causes are represented. Those without the resources to produce a film of the quality needed to be screened or lack the advocacy of a person or group who will make them the topic of a film are unlikely to come to the attention of audiences at festivals.

The study of film festivals is essential for understanding the contemporary media landscape and the centrality of the participants. Film festivals act as important sites for identity construction and the mediation of cultural understandings. Iordanova and Cheung maintain that the festival experience itself shapes identities, while the content of the films acts as source material for this process. While films offer a variety of sociocultural understandings from which to choose, festivals also provide a shared identity that they take from the occasion (2010, 5). Viewing films at a festival amplifies the experience,

through images sounds and stories that emphasize the shared identity that brought the

audience together. Festival participants may have shared interests or identity as part of

the same group, and the festival engenders a feeling of community with others who share

the same sentiments (Iordanova 2010, 12).

Festivals can be seen as a means of practicing imagined communities, but

imagined communities of a somewhat different nature from that described by Benedict

Anderson, who declared that members of even the smallest nation were imagined because they will never know most of their fellow members (1983, 5-7). Film festivals are live

events that take place in one place at one time, with regular intervals as yearly events.

Thus, the imagined element of the community is suspended for a short time in some

ways. Audiences and programmers, and even producers are invited to participate, to

experience themselves as part of an extension of an imagined community. By virtue of

their attendance of the festival, they relate to a presupposed “mental image of affinity”

thorough an act of real togetherness.

A secondary act of imagination is also implied, that of experiencing a certain

degree of identification with the characters in the films projected at the festival. Various

individuals congregate for the purpose of fostering relationships within the imaginary

community that is animated by “the act of watching a film and imagining distant human beings becoming part of one’s own experiences.” In essence, film festivals are set up to extend an invitation to participate in “what is essentially a political act of imagined belonging” (Iordanova 2010, 13). Festivals that present documentary films, assumed to be factual accounts of the real world, enhance the notion that one is connected to real people and real places elsewhere in the world, as well as a sense of self as a part of a

community of those who care about issues faced far from home. This feeling of connection is a motivating force that producers attempt to harness for different purposes such as funding, taking action or changing public opinions. However, the nature of this

“imagining” varies with the nature of the festival and the viewpoint of western audiences is more likely to originate from the center rather than the margins, as most viewers most a comfortable position that relates to these “others” from within the context of their own lives.

One distinctive feature of major activist film festivals in the United States may be that, ideologically, the structure of the festival and the ways in which spectators participate function to place the West at the center of the conversation regarding issues from around the world, taking a perspective of liberal pluralism. It is questionable whether films or themes of many activist film festivals take any position towards international groups that decolonizes representation and power relationships between the

West and the ‘rest’ (Shohat and Stam 1994, 5). The counterhegemonic use of meanings and images for solidarity and identity affiliation may not be central in what might be called generalized activist festivals like the Global Peace Film Festival, which depend on western-oriented discourses as a means to create solidarity among audiences in order to generate support for a cause. The cosmopolitan identities attached to the privileged position of Western attendees of activist festivals may differ due to spectators’ understandings of their place in the world. There is a qualitative difference between the formation of cosmopolitan identities by individuals who inhabit and negotiate the margins and those espouse the causes of these groups from the comfortable position of the center. For those inhabiting the center, the diversity of the margins is often conflated

into a more generic “other” or “victim,” and the discourses surrounding the other tend to

support shared presupposed visions of the world. A study of the shared discourses that

emerge in the context of a particular film festival can provide insight into the core

identity of the festival and how this articulates with its constituent parts.

Rather than disrupting power relationships in order to effect change, the western

film festival tends to promote discourses that reproduce power relationships between the

haves and the have-nots. Ella Shohat and Robert Stam offer the concept of “polycentric

multiculturalism” as a productive manner to conceive of the fields of power, energy and

struggle that characterize cultural relationships (1994, 8, 48), but it is questionable how

central this configuration is in activist film festivals in the West. While liberal pluralism

such as expressed in festivals like the Global Peace Film Festival depends on tropes such

as freedom, tolerance, or charity, “polycentrism is not about the ‘touchy-feely’ sensitivity

toward other groups that tends to prevail at western activist film festivals.” Rather than

retaining power for privileged Westerners who can help, a common trope at activist film

festivals, a perspective of multiculturalism dispenses power and demands changes in

power relations. Whereas the pluralism that is more common in the West “‘allows’ other

voices to add themselves to the mainstream,” polycentric multiculturalism sees minority groups as “active, generative participants at the very core of a shared conflictual history.”

Since those who struggle due to historical circumstances must negotiate both the margins and the center, they are better placed to critique dominant or restrictive national discourses. By rejecting an essentialist view that poses identities as unified and fixed, identities can then be considered within an historical context as products of an ongoing process of differentiation that produces sets of practices, meanings and experiences.

Interactions then may be based on informed affiliation, on the basis of shared social

desires and identifications. Situated within an ongoing struggle of hegemony and

resistance, acts of cultural interlocution leave both parties changed (Shohat and Stam

1994, 48-49).

In contrast the festivals whose discourses promote liberal pluralism, Dina

Iordanova and Ruby Cheung (2010) identify festivals that are transnational in nature and

lean towards a polycentric multicultural perspective. This type of film festival addresses

cosmopolitan identities and issues in the real lives of people who experience hybridity in

identity construction, immigrant issues and diaspora experiences (Iordanova 2010, 16).

Festivals that surround identity affiliations offer far different experiences from that

described above as typical of activist film festivals. These festivals may focus on activist

issues that affect the everyday lives of the participants and thus build solidarity in a direct

manner. Festivals that revolve around identity affiliation each have their own set of

narratives that go along with achieving the goals of the group, such as solidarity and unity

in a specific manner that is not characteristic of more generalized festivals that represent

a more hegemonic center (Iordanova 2010, 22). This contrast is significant and film

festival research has an important role to play in the identification of discourses central to

western activist film festivals. Idealized western-oriented discourses disrupt the development of discourses that recognize power relationships and the promotion of a more equally-shared history based on acknowledgement of past and present historical circumstances. Since discourses surrounding peace and the global are central to the mission of the Global Peace Film Festival, it is an important site for the construction of meaning as well as a productive site for study. Because these discourses are drawn from

ideology rooted in sociopolitical and cultural factors common to our society, much

insight is revealed in how

Cosmopolitan Identities

Discourses surrounding globalization are salient in our contemporary society and often emerge in the context of activist film festivals, thus offering a significant site for the construction of imagined ‘cosmopolitan’ communities. Terhi Rantanen points out that “a cosmopolitanism” has come to mean a citizen of the world, but a citizen who regards the whole world as if it is his or her country, and as if he or she has no nationally-based prejudices or attachments (2005, 119). In contrast to this perception, the dialectic between the global and the local is dependent upon a complex web of factors and power relationships, negotiated in specific locales, and film is a powerful tool in mediating historical and social understandings of the global at a local level. As Louisa Schein contends, “arenas of engagement” such as festivals are “vital sites for the understanding how nations/states and cosmopolitanisms articulate in the contemporary historical moment” (1998, 165).

The boundaries of film festival selections, defined in terms of what is acceptable and what is not, is an important regulatory function of festivals in the production of discourses surrounding the global and the local. However, the flow of narratives and images is not unidirectional, and festival selections emerge from a complex network of concerns of the parties involved, including advocacy, filmmaking, marketing and other sociopolitical trends. Documentary film participates in a global network constituting a

transnational imaginary that is interpreted locally as a set of discourses; it is partially

through the interpretation of a global circulation of narratives and images that people

construct the meaning of their world on an individual and community level through

negotiated understandings of the global. For the individual, the particular set of

discourses that explain relationships between different groups from a particular viewpoint

functions to convey an understanding of the self as cosmopolitan. The Global Peace Film

Festival screens narratives set in far flung places, and attendees may utilize both film and

community as resources in constructing local identities within the framework of a global

world as they understand it. However, in this context, the negotiation of cosmopolitan

identities is rooted in a rather utopian notion that global peace is achievable through local

engagement with both domestic and international issues and limited by the particular set

of discourses internalized.

The notion of capital realism, outlined by Mark Fisher as “the widespread sense

that not only is capitalism the only viable political and economic system, but that it is

now impossible to even imagine a coherent alternative to it,” offers insight into why the vision of a cosmopolitan self is compelling. One of the features of the twenty-first century is the feeling of despair that surrounds our realization of the disparities of the world. We can imagine disasters all too well, and many apocalyptic films portraying a dystopic near future address our anxieties about the present by showing us a vision of dystopic forms of capitalism (Fisher 2009, 2). However, we cannot imagine changing our lives, stepping outside of the comfort found in discourses that place us in a central position in the world. Drawing from Slavoj Žižek, Fisher maintains that capitalist ideology consists of placing too much value in belief, that is to say, in the sense of our

inner subjective attitude, rather than recognizing the beliefs that we externalize in our behavior. In Fisher’s words, “So long as we believe (in our hearts) that capitalism is bad, we are free to continue to participate in capitalist exchange. In fact, capitalism relies on our ability maintain “this structure of disavowal” that allows us to maintain our lifestyle while feeling good about ourselves (Fisher 2009, 13). The perception of the self as having a “cosmopolitan” identity fits into this paradigm very well. By seeing oneself as a caring world citizen, one can compartmentalize the knowledge of the inequities of capitalism worldwide, and focus on particular discourses about how to live and how to help people.

Given the despairs of our century and the unknowable quality of the global system, a self-definition as a cosmopolitan citizen offers an attractive position from which to understand the world. Fredric Jameson maintains that we have a need to cognitively map our existence, and thus carry around in our heads a mental map of the social and global totality of our world in “various garbled forms.” Our response to an unknown landscape, whether it is physical or mental is to try to make sense of it and give it form by working out dialectic relationships between what we experience in the here and now and our imaginary sense of some overall structure (Jameson, 353). The global is too complex to know, so we draw upon the process of cognitive mapping to try to make sense of our globalized, multinational, yet unknowable world. We are bombarded with information, but cannot know the totality of the world system (Jameson 356).

Humanitarian film festivals, including the Global Peace Film Festival, can offer a concrete experience and a set of discourses that aid in both cognitively mapping the world and ascribing the self a place in this world as a cosmopolitan citizen.

In order to understand how participants make use of the set of discourses

promoted by the Global Peace Film Festival to construct cosmopolitan identities, it is

pertinent to first consider how a ‘cosmopolitan’ identity as a person who values global

peace might be constructed. The utopian nature attributed to cosmopolitanism by the

general public and some scholars is rooted in Immanuel Kant’s notion that society must

eventually arrive at “a universal cosmopolitan condition.” Kant believed that, although

not evident in the present, ultimately nations would unite to create a global civil society

that would operate under noble goals, and offer a utopian society for all people

(Malcomson 236-7).

It is within this frame of reference that many contemporary cosmopolitan

principles are laid out by both scholars and dreamers, molding the concept of

‘cosmopolitanism’ into a palliative moral response to the contemporary condition of

humanity. Drawing from this utopian vision of the world, David Held offers eight

principles as goals identifying them as universally shared in order to form a cosmopolitan

orientation: equal worth and dignity, active agency, personal responsibility and

accountability, consent, collective political decision-making, inclusiveness and subsidiarity, avoidance of serious harm and sustainability (69). While Held acknowledges that a plurality of interpretive standpoints does exist within the contemporary world, he still proposes that cosmopolitanism should take one stance, as “an ethical and political space” which sets out the guidelines that should guide public life (49, 75). This speaks to both political perspectives that reproduce existing power relations as well as providing a basis for western-centric humanitarian aid.

Within this political context, activists access principles such as those offered by

Held to construct a universal cosmopolitanism based upon a Western understanding of global need. From this perspective, cosmopolitanism offers a solution to capitalist globalization and the assault of progress on our ecosystem. By positioning humans as part of not just the planet, but the cosmos, we begin to see ourselves as one part of a cosmological matter that is common to everything in the universe, a condition that places us all in equality. Thus, with its uncharted, unmarked borders, the infinite cosmos becomes an ideal trope for cosmopolitanism’s ability to dismantle divisions in our globalized world (McCulloch 2).

Although this perspective engenders an empathetic response to others and proposes a cosmopolitanism that might enhance our ability to live together harmoniously and preserve our relationship with the planet, it does not recognize the multiplicity of our world or other ways of perceiving the needs of the planet. In contrast to the notion that there exists a ‘cosmopolitan world citizen,’ who holds a true understanding of the needs of a utopian world, is the understanding that cosmopolitanisms are multiple and culturally based, and that identities are fluid, negotiable and culturally constructed. Individuals can pick and choose to construct ‘cosmopolitan’ identities that reflect complex socio-cultural and historical understandings surrounding ideology that underpins ideas about ideal world conditions. Cosmopolitanisms are multiple and locally produced.

Bruce Robbins points out that cosmopolitanism not only offers the individual an array of possible righteous identities, but is a domain of multiple competing ideologies.

As he suggests, we do think and feel beyond the nation, thinking to embrace a universal reasoning, but choose from a “multi-voiced complexity” of cosmopolitanisms, choosing

those that fits into our preexisting belief system. Thus, while cosmopolitics represents an

effort to strive for common norms and a mutual translatability among collectivities, it

also exemplifies the manner in which ideology surrounding universal cosmopolitanism

and human rights can act in service to local motivations and belief systems, as well as

participating in the process of identity construction (1998, 12).

From James Clifford’s perspective, the cultural inventiveness that lies behind the construction of cosmopolitan identities is a matter of “specific juxtapositions, selections, and overlays offered and imposed in limited historical conjunctures” (1998, 366). People construct their sense of belonging, conceptions of home, spirituality, power and freedom within a continuum of sociospatial understandings. It is within these kinds of cosmopolitan interactions that specific hybrid encounters infused with the national and the transnational are negotiated. Cosmopolitanism should be seen as “a variety of actually existing practical stances,” which inform the performance of culture (Clifford 1998, 367).

Cultural understandings evolve through encounters, whether with people or with media

portrayals of other locales.

Our understanding of ‘elsewhere’ is filtered through the lens of our own

community, and utopianism is “measured in local, rather than universal terms” (Gupta

and Ferguson 1997, 71). It is likely that audiences at activist film festivals construct

cosmopolitanism identities in much the same utopian idyllic manner as proposed by

David Held, understanding their actions as based on universal truths which lead to the

adoption of a responsible manner towards the earth and its inhabitants. However, in

actuality, this is a culturally constructed position rather than a universal truth, and there

are numerous stances that might be taken and multiple ways of interpreting the nature of

a “responsible manner.” The utopian nature of the discourses surrounding cosmopolitanism make them malleable, allowing them to be put to use within to any number of contexts.

It is by understanding cosmopolitanism as a set of discourses involving a complexity of interrelationships and levels of negotiation that film, as a major form of media, and film festivals, as complex sites for the negotiation of meanings, gain particular relevance as a means of identity construction. Film is a crucial genre of transnational production and global circulation, as it refigures narratives and offers speculative ground for the transnational imaginary and its contention within national and local communities. Within the context of the Global Peace Film Festival, film participates in the dialectic relationship between the global and the local, offering particular understandings of the global. This appears to be based primarily within Western ideology, but other threads do exist within dynamics of the festival, and are given more or less attention based on their relevancy at any given moment or within the theme of the festival.

Socioeconomic Changes and the Context of Independent/Documentary Film

Socioeconomic changes in the United States have dramatically affected the role of independent film, and documentary film in particular. Sherry Ortner argues that independent film has blossomed within the context of changes in American class structure over the decades following the 1970s. In this period, a capitalist economy, deemed ‘neoliberalism’ has resulted in the prospering of the rich while the middle class

has dwindled and the poor have gotten poorer. The major changes of this era revolve

around the shift in the relationship between capital and labor, from a worker supported

era of Fordism to a post-Fordism era in which labor is seen as “dispensable, disposable

and replaceable.” A second important shift was from a Keynesian understanding of the

relationship between the economy and the government to neoliberal, post-Keynesian model. Under Keynesian thought the government was expected to play a role in economic regulations and social programs, while neoliberalism promoted the idea that the government should get out of the way of economic activities. The processes of globalization contribute to the woes of the working class, through the deindustrialization of America, as factories were closed down and workers lost their jobs in great numbers.

This resulted in a reshaping of American class structure with a polarization of wealth

(Ortner 2013, 13-14).

Ortner describes the resulting cultural shift as “‘post-American dream’ culture.”

(2013, 18). In public popular culture, this shift can be seen as a generational shift, originating largely in a marketing culture. In the mid-1980s, the new generation designated as “baby busters” faced a shrinking job market. This group, later extended to include people born between 1961 and 1981, was dubbed Generation X. It is within this generation that most of the independent filmmakers of today were born (Ortner 2013, 19-

20). As the first generation of Americans to be completely immersed within the effects of neoliberalism, this generation expresses themselves with anger, frustration and depression, taking a postmodern stance of irony and displaying a dark sense of humor about the world (Ortner 2013, 21). These children of “a (mostly white) middle class,” who were brought up in comfortable circumstances with a solid education, find

themselves hard hit by a neoliberal world in which their middle class existence is at risk.

Factors such as the reconfiguring of the family, a rising divorce rate, both parents working, changing ideas about sexual identity and gender all contribute to the need to examine these complex issues. Out of this era, there has also developed a more contentious approach to political life, with new attention to feminism and other forms of political activism that had previously been important to baby boomers (Ortner 2013, 22-

23).

Because activist film festivals in the United States are situated within the documentary and independent film scenes, activist films and their festivals harbor many of the same attributes of these genres. Although not overtly stated, the context of independent film and the mostly grassroots filmmakers who produce them is an important aspect of the mission of the Global Peace Film Festival. Ortner notes that independence refers not to ‘isolation’ but to being a member of a community that share the value of being independent from Hollywood (2013, 33). Independent films have achieved a new status as an alternative to Hollywood, and have attracted talented filmmakers large, committed audiences. These films, and the independent film world has become positioned as “telling the truth” in opposition to the “lies” of Hollywood, of “showing reality” rather than the fakeness and lack of reality that is characteristic of Hollywood films (Ortner 2013, 9-10).

This understanding translates well into understanding the reception of activist films, which are mostly independently produced, and as documentary films strive to be understood as ‘truth’ and reality. From this basic position, the filmmaker wishes to reach and create an audience that will appreciate his/her films and the messages contained

therein. Filmmakers “find their own truth” and it follows that audiences then are free “to experience new truths within themselves” (Ortner 2013, 34). The noble goals of the activist filmmaker exist within a similar field of cultural production that has at its base a fundamental opposition between art and commerce (Ortner 2013, 35). Independent

filmmakers are situated within wider historical, political, economic, and cultural contexts,

and filmmakers who focus on political activism and awareness are a subset who should

be considered within this perspective as well as in terms of their particular circumstances

(Ortner 2013, 23). The causes that they espouse express contemporary cultural concerns,

as activist filmmakers participate in larger trends, and may, in addition to being counter-

Hollywood or counter-neoliberal, challenge any number of political or social

hegemonies.

Sociopolitical Changes Since the 1990s

The articulation between documentary film and other sociopolitical factors has

changed in significant ways since the 1990s, due to emerging national and transnational

trends. Patricia R. Zimmerman argues that the cutting off of public funds resulted in a

war for public spaces that neutralized the radical nature of documentary practice.

Documentary, forced to rely on the free market rather than federal or public funding, is

shaped in the process to function as a part of the capitalistic impulse. This effectively

hobbles documentary film, standardizing messages to appeal to the dominant white

nation (2000, 3-4). However, in spite of its capability to bear specific truths that suit the

creator, documentary film does have the potential to represent the diversity within our

borders, disrupting the contruction of our nation as a conflict-free, homogenous and

essentialized symbol of unity. Documentary film can act to undermine nation-building,

and when oriented towards opening up contestory spaces that argue for the restructuring

of the nation in ways that recognize the layering of social and political aspects in terms of

the local, national, international and transnational (Zimmerman 2000, 7).

New technology and the subsequent reorganization of commercial media has also

been utilized in the attack on documentary film. Conservatives argue that theis is no

longer a need for public support of this genre, because such media should compete within

the newly diverse marketplace, with multiple channels which provide venues for

documentary film, such as Discovery and Arts & Entertainment, adding another

neutralizing layer of competition in the marketplace and affecting the nature of the

documentaries produced. One no longer sees critical, investigative documentary

production, which has been replaced by commercial offerings. A new trend is found in

theatrically released feature-length documentaries that often reproduce a realist style,

while focusing on “unique individuals” such as Stephen Hawking within whom ideology

surrounding social and psychoanalytic structures may be condensed. This revival of the

theme of American individualism displaces a more serious debate on largers national

social and political issues and existing institutions. Rather than imagining new social

spaces or critiquing existing social structures, these films utilize a realist narrative

embellished with such postmodern stylistic flourishes as disjunctive editing that cleverly navigate an unchangeable sociopolitical landscape (Zimmerman 2000, 11).

While documentary films have the potential to oppose the narrative structures of

the nation through the contestory voices of emerging identities and social collectives, it is

of interest to examine the extent to which the activist film festival functions to narrate the nation as a space within which competing discourses and subjects might be given voice such as is found in the literary world, in which a field of novels provides a broad perspective of the articulations between multiple voices. It is essential for independent documentary to be provided with public funding and public spaces, to protect it from homogenization and privitazation, but also to allow for debate, argument and “the development of new imaginative zones” (Zimmerman 2000, 12-13). While debate seems to be a goal of the Global Peace Film Festival, it may be only carried out in peripheral ways, and its salience in the festival experience may be affected by the soft focus of the festival. While documentaries have the potential to repudiate the fiction of the nation by portraying the real, and to expose the essentializing of identities of imagined communities through the presentation of the particular, the contemporary mediascape makes this a problematic endeavor (Zimmerman 2000, 15).

Audiences and the Contemporary Humanitarian Imaginary

Film festivals with a humanitarian focus develop a particular relationship to their audiences, and participants form a particular identity in response to activist-centric documentary films within the setting of these film festival. One major aspect of film festivals is that they offer a truly collective experience of film viewership, a circumstance that is becoming rarer in our society as film viewing shifts more towards individual settings like the home. This has a particular significance for humanitarian/activist events because collective viewing at a festival creates a sense of community based on real-life

interactions with others, and can act as a concrete axis for communication by electronic

and other means in the interval between the festivals. In addition, collective viewing can

promote the kind of intense feelings that humanitarian filmmakers seek in their quest to

generate motivation which can be transformed into taking action. However, the

relationship between these practices and the transformation of audiences into activists is

not a given and spectators have complex motivations of their own. In addition, practices

surrounding humanitarianism and the way people perceive it have changed as well.

Lilie Chouliaraki argues that there is something distinct about the specific way in

which the self is constructed in response to contemporary humanitarianism. Within this

setting, the sensory nature of film elicits emotions, putting a face on the issue as the

filmmaker seeks to create feelings of solidarity with the persons being portrayed.

Chouliaraki maintains that the nature of solidarity has changed over the last four decades,

transforming the nature of identity building by spectators. When faced with the issue of

“what to do”, spectators want to take action, but instead take an ironic stance. This kind

of “detached knowingness” requires one “to negotiate in an attempt to resolve the

tensions (political, economic, and technological) of solidarity that our times press upon

us.” This paradigmatic shift results from the way that spectators see themselves as moral

actors in response to a general knowledge of the global inequality in the distribution of

resources along a West-South axis. A public communication of solidarity leads to the

construction of cosmopolitan dispositions, which Chouliaraki describes as “public dispositions towards vulnerable others…shaped by the moral imperative to act” both towards those close to us as well as far away strangers whom we will never meet and from whom we do not expect the reciprocation of actions (2013, 2-3).

As Chouliaraki proposes, humanitarian communication may be at the center of

this shift, because humanitarianism has incorporated a distinct set of altruistic claims into

its public identity. A range of popular practices revolve around these understandings,

such as those found in the personifying power of celebrities or the journalist as witness.

Each practice uses a distinct aesthetic logic, demanding responses from the spectator,

thus forming a body of cosmopolitan ethics that acts as a moralizing force, or a

“humanitarian imaginary.” The recent shift from an ethics of pity to an ethics of irony is

grounded in a particular view of self/other that is self-oriented. Ironic solidarity differs in that it situates “the pleasures of the self” at the center of moral action. Rather than doing good as a response to humanity without asking for return, doing good is now tied to “how

I feel” and being rewarded by minor gratifications. Common practices such as buying goods produced in exotic locales illustrate the conflation of humanity with a neoliberal lifestyle of “feel good altruism” (Chouliaraki 2013, 3-4). Thus, the humanitarian imaginary is an essential aspect of public cosmopolitan dispositions for a general audiences participating in western activist film festivals (Chouliaraki 2013, 26).

Witnessing and testimonial can be understood as theoretical frameworks for understanding how a film produces information and transforms audiences. Leshu

Torchin suggests that the transformative and activist functions of the festival may be best be understood by examining the “testimonial encounter” between the testimony of the films screened and the spectators who act as witnessing publics, taking responsibility for what they have seen and becoming ready to respond (Torchin 2012a, 2). Indeed, a documentary produced by a socially engaged individual who acts as a witness has transformative power for spectators, and a first person narrative in the form of a

testimonial can be a powerful means of portraying distant atrocities (Torchin 2012a, 5).

Film plays a role in social formation, fostering both an imagined community and a

“public sphere,” as conceived by Habermas (1962), that acts as a discursive space in which society can hold the state culpable (Habermas quoted in Torchin 2012a, 12).

Torchin delineates activist film festivals as “fields of witnessing,” arguing that there is a great deal of transformative power to be found in “testimony on display” (2012a, 6).

Witnessing extends from the filmmaker to the spectator, who witness in the act of viewing and knowing. Ortner argues that independent filmmakers create audiences who are likely to appreciate this kind of film (Ortner 2013, 34). This might be extended to film festivals as well, especially activist film festivals, for which the creation of an audience who will appreciate the type of films that will be shown is essential. These films are transformative, but it is an emotional experience that requires commitment from the spectator. Chouliaraki contends that humanitarianism communicates its moral message through heartbreaking spectacles, within the context that separates spectators from vulnerable others. This theatrical arrangement of separation invites us to engage, not in direct action, but in imagining ourselves as citizens who can safely act at a distance by speaking out or paying in the name of a cause (2013, 27-28).

The Documentary Film

The form of the documentary film and the styles, structures and strategies that surround it inform the pleasure that spectators derive from viewing as well as how the message is constructed and presented. One pleasure derived from documentary film lies

in its ability to make audiences aware of timely issues and see the world differently.

Audiences approach documentary films with the expectation that their desire to find out

more about the world will be satisfied through the viewing experience (Nichols 2010,

39). Bill Nichols maintains that documentaries stimulate epistephilia, a desire to know,

in their audiences and create a common business of the greatification of this desire among

the viewers. We gain a sense of pleasure and satisfaction in possessing knowledge and

enjoy being able to take the position of “The-One-Who-Knows.” This acquisition of

knowledge lends status to spectators within and without the film festival community, and

gratification may also emerge through the process of contextualizing the provided

knowledge as part of the process of cognitive mapping one’s place in the world, thus

contributing to the individuals’ construction of a cosmopolitan identity.

What documentary films offer is an array of “social issues and cultural values,

current problems and possible solutions, actual situations and specific ways of

representing them” that does much of the work of cognitive mapping and eases the

tension of a surfeit of information by presenting a logic-driven narrative point-of-view.

Beneath the pleasure and appeal of these films, their structure and rhetorical strategies go unnoticed. Filmmakers make choices throughout the process of representing a particular event or situation and choices made, such as commentary, interviews, observation, and editing techniques, or the contextualization and justaposition of scenes raise

“historiographical, ethical and aesthetic issues in forms that are distinct to documentary”

(Nichols 1991, ix-x). Documentary films engage with the world by representing it in three ways, by offering a likeness that bears a certain familarity to the world we know, by

standing for or representing the interests of others, and by making a case for the particular interpretation of the evidence being offered (Nichols 2010, 42-44).

One meaningful function of documentary films is that they actively interpret information and circumstance for the viewer through the form of the narrative. The relationships between filmmakers, subjects/social actors and audiences/viewer take shape in response to a number of formulations that recur frequently in documentaries.

Filmmakers may choose to represent others in various ways and these choices address the audience in particular manners. The filmmaker may speak in the first person, either directly or indirectly through the narration, placing the filmmaker at the center of the action. In this context, the emphasis of the film may shift from persuasion through a convincing arguement to an expression of the filmmaker’s own perspective and unique view of the issue. The filmmaker may also “speak about” and thus represent others, which lends the effort an air of civic importance and suggests that this is a social act of reporting information of common interest to the viewer. In contrast, the third person perspective that speaks of “them” implies a separation between the filmmaker and his or her subjects. This approach might seem condescending and reductionist, but can also be a powerful and effective means of representing others. The use of “you” also suggests a separation, but the term may be used to address the audience directly. This can activate a sense of self as well as conveying a sense of the audience as a community (Nichols 2010,

59-62). Self-representation, in which the persons speak for themselves through locally- based productions, is becoming more common, thus providing an opportunity for groups to speak directly to a variety of audiences. These perspectives all make use of rhetoric in order to pursuade audiences about an issue for which there is no clear-cut solution

(Nichols 2010, 63). These forms of documentary are used to different effects and purposes and form different relationships with the viewer, but they all have in common that they actively seek to interpret and convince.

Bill Nichols recognizes six modes of representation that are relevant to a consideration of documentary film: poetic, expository, observational, paticipatory, reflexive and performative. The poetic mode “emphasizes visual association, tonal or rhythmic qualities, descriptive passages and formal organization,” and is closer in character to experimental or avant-garde filmmaking. This style has little representation at the Global Peace Film Festival. The expository mode, which “emphasizes verbal commentary and an argumentative logic” is more commonly associated with documentary by audiences, and is well represented at the festival. In contrast, the observational mode “emphasizes a direct engagement with the everyday life of subjects as observed by an unobtrusive camera” and is not represented at the festival. The partipatory mode, which has shown great popularity at the Global Peace Film Festival,

“emphsizes the interaction between filmmaker and subject. Filming often includes interviews as well as more direct involvement by the filmmaker, ranging from conversations to provocations. Very films at the festival fit into the reflexive mode, which “increases our awareness of the constructedness of the film’s representation of reality” calling attention to the “conventions and assumptions that govern documentary filmmaking. In contrast, films that have qualities of the performative mode, which

“emphasizes the subjective or expressive aspect of the fimmaker’s own involvement with a subject”, are among the most popular at the Global Peace Film Festival. These films try to intensify the audience’s response through the portrayal of this involvement, thus

achieving a greater emotional and social impact. These persistant modes gain and lose

popularity at a given time and place, but ebb and flow due to a number of factors. Among

these are the filmmakers perception of the limitation of other modes, a response to

changing social context, audience expectations, in response to a particularly impressive

film, or as a response to technical possibilities or intitutional constraints or incentives

(Nichols 2010, 31-32). Different modes of documentary each construct meaning in a particular manner, establishing “different set of ethical challenges and constraints”

(Nichols 1991, xiv). However, these modes “overlap and intermingle” and films may utilize multiple modes to achieve a particular effect (Nichols 2010, 32).

Another way to consider the documentary surrounds the role of the audience. The line between documentary and fiction films is also blurred by the use of a fictional narrative to tell a complicated story that includes the stories of many people condensed into one narrative. These narratives tend to be dramatic and affective, given that so much happens to one or a few protagonists, and the heightened emotional reponses of the viewers fulfills the goal of the filmmakers to make use of these intensified responses to garner support for their causes. Well-constructed fiction films can be very effective as a documentary tool, which illutrates the fact that the perception of whether a film is a documentary or not lies in the mind of the spectator. Audiences hold some basic assumptions about a documentary, including a belief that the film is about reality and real people, and that the story is about what really happened. Although fictional films focus on constructed protagonists, audiences can perceive them to be about real people in real places, giving the same indexical quality to the cinematic sounds and images that they see (Nichols 2010, 33).

Although non-fictional, the constructed nature of documentary complicates its

status as a conduit of truth as well. Documentary films depend heavily on the spoken

word, featuring various types of commentators, including narrators, reporters,

interviewers and interviewees and other social actors. Spectators are invited to take the

content of such personal accounts as truth, but each account is a “situated” truth, that

reflects the point of view of the teller (Nichols 1991, 21). Documentary makes a distinct

claim about how it relates to the physical world, claiming a particular indexicality with

“reality,” however, there is still a blurred line between documentary and forms of

narrative fiction (Nichols 1991, xiv).

Rather than conceiving of fiction and nonfiction film as two antithetical traditions, setting fantasy in opposition to reality, it is more useful to look at the ways in which documentary films engage audiences as desiring, knowing spectators (Cowie 1999, 19-

20). The desire to experience a spectacle of the real is an essential motivation in viewing

documentary film, which provides an opportunity to simultaneously satisfy a desire for to

know and engage in a scopophilic pleasure in looking (Cowie 1999, 27-28).

Verisimilitude is central, as the world portrayed by the documentary must be believable within the context of the viewer’s gaze. Reality is coded and must be interpreted through conventionally understood signs and expectations of the viewer. The viewer identifies with the social actors’ stories when they can take up the position of social actors presented within the film as if it were their own. Thus, the reality of any given situation such as poverty is variable, and dependent on the socially constructed conventions for recognizing poverty that are part of the viewer’s experience. Versimilitude is produced when that world makes sense for the viewer (Cowie 1999, 30). Presenting ‘truth’ and

‘reality’ to audiences is a complex affair, and meanings surrounding these stories of people and places are negotiated within the context of public viewings at activist film festivals like the Global Peace Film Festival.

It is the goals of activist film festivals that set them apart from other film festivals and guide the work of the interpretation of ‘reality’ engaged in by spectators within the context of a particular sociocultural historic moment. Iordanova argues that activist film festivals and activist films have at least two things in common. First, they try to correct the record on a particular issue, improving public understanding. In addition, they both embody the belief that the medium of film is powerful enough to make an impact on audiences. Like other genre festivals, activist film festivals act as a temporary site for showcasing new films. However, activist festivals have a particular set of stakeholders, including affiliations with organizations, which are typically non-government organizations (NGOs) that function in relationships to specific peoples and causes, both locally and globally (Iordanova 2012, 13).

Another special feature of these festivals is that they cultivate relationships with educational institutions, which also act to mobilize public opinion and produce an informed citizenry. Public intellectuals often are attached to activist film festivals, holding a “moral stake” in the themes portrayed (Iordanova 2012, 14). Human rights festivals often make an effort to get the subjects of films to attend screenings at festivals, which fulfills several functions. It distances the festival, giving it a less ‘official’ label, shows commitment to the cause though the allocation of resources and creates an additional layer of connection to real people in real places (Iordanova 2012, 14 and

Higgins, 138).

The activist film holds a specific place within the culture of the United States, the

festival circuit, participating in the construction of meaning within our specific

sociopolitical and historical circumstances. In fact, our sense of our place at the center of

our globalized world aligns with the role played by documentary from its very inception in the United States and carried into the international sphere after World War II. John

Grierson helped to establish the field of documentary in our country, highlighting social progress as its primary goal in an effort to educate the public about the requirements of

modernism. In the same manner that Grierson promoted social progress through the use

of the sensorial nature of film and specific narratives appropriate for his goals,

contemporary filmmakers create films that fit into our historical moment and seek

specific outcomes (Charbonneau 2014, 19-20, 22). We can also find support our assumption that we are at the center international relations in Grierson’s view of the role of documentary film after World War II. At this time, he promoted a post-war discourse that resituated our national discourse within an international framework, proposing that the United States was in the best position as a world power to construct meanings to further international goals through documentary film (Charbonneau 2014, 21, 23). Both filmmakers and audiences at the Global Peace Film Festival take an unconscious stance that the meanings that they construct represent a single reality. Our citizens view the world from a privileged position, but imagine a better world in the face of what they know about distant places. Within this context, activism offers a way to negotiate meanings attached to one’s place in the world, whether from a position of the center or from the margins.

The ultimate question is how effectively independent documentary filmmakers can challenge the status quo in which one majority controls public space, while moving towards a Do-It-Yourself model that relies on the free market system and amassing enough public support in the form of fans to attract funding for larger projects and opportunities for distribution. The Global Peace Film Festival appears to be stumbling upon meaningful aspects of independent filmmaking, screening films that appeal to many different very different local groups, but it remains to be seen whether it is merely an expression of the capitalist impulse, or an emerging model that might allow the imagining of new spaces through dialogue that acknowledges the shared history of unequal relationships of the people involved.

Activist and Human Rights Film Festivals

The Global Peace Film Festival fits within the larger context of festivals that promote activism and human rights, although it is not strictly a ‘human rights festival’.

The Human Rights Film Network (http://www.humanrightsfilmnetwork.org) has established some basic requirements that must be met by festivals that wish to be affiliated, among which is the most basic tenet that the festival must program films

“dedicated to the analysis and exploration of human rights issues.” However, they define a human rights festival not only by theme, but also by mission. Films should not be merely a main feature of the program, but should also be tools for raising awareness. The

Human Rights Film Network places itself at the center of this objective, as an

international organization that provides a supportive environment for these festivals,

filmmakers and films.

It is the goals of activist film festivals that distinguish them from other festivals.

Although activist films may be shown at other types of festivals, these niche festivals

specialize in building community, awareness and trust locally, as well as enlisting support

and mobilizing individuals to support specific causes that the organization of the festival

promotes. To garner public visibility, activist film festivals often try to draw in

celebrities, who may become personally engaged with specific causes (Iordanova 2012,

14-15). However, while celebrities may be attached to festival events, it is generally

stressed that the real stars are the people showcased in the films who struggle for human

rights on a daily basis (Grassilli 2012, 37). Those who struggle daily may appear along

with a celebrity or the filmmaker, supporting the notion that they have a special status

due to their position in the world order.

Generally, these films function in relationship to existing organizations, so are driven by the intent to increase awareness or even to change the course of events

(Iordanova 2012, 13). Iordanova notes that there is a two-tier festival system at work, consisting first of a top-tier level of mainstream festivals that show issue-based films, as well as a second level of niche documentary and human rights festivals (2012, 17). In particular, the Global Peace Film Festival fits into the category of a niche festival, although it cannot quite be delineated as a solely documentary/human rights festival.

Although most films shown fit within this category, film selections are eclectic, and may address topics as diverse as relationships between brothers or the poetic nature of the urban environment. This eclecticism reflects both the broad swath cut by the concept of

“peace” as a vehicle for social change, as well as the tension between the implied cinephilia attached to the festival and the role of documentary films as tools for activism.

Films may be judged according to different criteria depending whether they are valued as works of art or as the centerpiece of a campaign for social change, which implies a different set of needs in terms of the form of the film as well as the motivations of the filmmaker.

Within the human rights category, the major festival taking place in the United

States is the AFI-Discovery Channel Silverdocs (Silver Spring, MD), which ideologically places documentary film squarely within the context of established media organizations.

As part of the likely international circuit that a human rights film might pursue, AFI Docs joins IDFA (Amsterdam), Hot Docs (Toronto), Sheffield Doc/Fest (Sheffield, UK),

Cinema du reel (Paris) and Visions du reel (Nyon, Switzerland) as a top-tier event

(Higgins 134). AFI Docs (formerly Silverdocs), created through an alliance between the

American Film Institute and Discovery Channel, brings documentaries to the

Washington, D.C. area. With 27,000 viewers, this festival has, in just eleven years, become “the pre-eminent documentary film festival, according to Screen International, and noted as one of the top ten most interesting film festivals in the world by Variety magazine” (withoutabox.com). For the upcoming 2014 festival, the festival is expanding its program, offering AFI Catalyst Sessions, “which serve as stimuli for national public discourse and an opportunity to engage our nations’ leaders with filmmakers striving to shine a light on the greatest issues of today” (AFI Docs Film Festival). This new focus on bringing political leaders together with filmmakers who support human rights is

parallel to the sessions with community leaders that has been offered by the Global Peace

Film Festival in years past.

Although most of the top-tier human rights festivals take place outside the United

States, another well-known festival based in the USA, the Human Rights Watch Film

Festival (HRWFF) exists beyond the nation as well, offering films internationally. Taking

place in a number of cities nationally as well as internationally, the festival offers a

limited selection of films from their New York and London showings which can be

rented by small venues as part of a “traveling show” in other locales. This festival has a

much larger scope than the Global Peace Film Festival, as well as a more narrowly defined focus on films that portray human rights stories. Bruni Burres, the director of this festival from 1991-2008, emphasized in an interview with Alex Fischer that the festival

was established to put a human face on the work being done by Human Rights Watch

(HRW), an outreach program established in the 1980s. (Fischer 2012, 201-203). Since the

HRWFF film festival is officially part of HRW, it is situated within very different

circumstances from those surrounding the Global Peace Film Festival, which reaches out

to a wide variety of independent filmmakers who are not affiliated with any organization

and espouse any number of causes. Burres emphasizes how the reputation of Human

Rights Watch supports its authoritative position; he maintains that after forty years HRW

is considered one of the most effective human rights organizations in the world because

of their commitment to accurate research and reporting. This also means that HRWFF has

stringent requirements for the films shown, which are checked rigorously for factual

accuracy, attesting to the “truth” found within each film (Fischer 2012, 204).

A well-publicized human rights film festival, the Artivist Film Festival, which has been taking place annually in Los Angeles for the last decade, has strong connections with media stars and their causes. This star power brings much attention to the festival, which hands out awards each year to celebrity honorees for their efforts to promote human rights. Unlike most other activist film festivals, here the red carpet is an important part of raising awareness by staging the Artivist Awards at Grauman’s Chinese Theatre each year. Hollywood is the community that the festival unites, with the purpose of supporting the “voices” of the stars and uniting art with human rights. On the festival website, the honorees are featured, while the film festival itself has barely a mention

(artivist.com).

The Global Peace Film Festival

In contrast to these festivals, the Global Peace Film Festival mission takes a more generalized approach, emphasizing the role of media in achieving goals surrounding the creation of a better world, interpreted through a broadened understanding of ‘peace’ as understood within a local context. The promotional material of the festival stresses that

“The Global Peace Film Festival was established to use creative media as a catalyst to inspire and educate people to initiate positive change in their local communities and worldwide.” This engages the audience in a network which is discrete to a physical locale in some aspects and manifestations, but also extends to other people and places, both known and imagined through film.

Film festivals are complex events that most often take place within a local

context, but they also are sites for the negotiation of contemporary sociopolitical issues

on multiple levels, drawing from other domains such as film circuits and humanitarian

activism. As Shohat and Stam note, “Perception itself is embedded in history.” Audiences

are shaped by the cinematic experience within an “endless dialogic process,” a continual

negotiation of meaning that articulates with sociopolitical and ideological factors (Shohat

and Stam 1996, 159). Cross-cultural spectatorship is not simply a “utopian exchange

between communities, but a dialogue embedded in the asymmetries of power” (Shohat

and Stam 1996, 165) Western audiences are comfortable with these power relationships,

and film appeals for humanitarian purposes are most often cast as a call for action from a

privileged viewpoint that reconstitute the privileged position of the viewer. The Global

Peace Film Festival actualizes common aspirations among its audiences to “do

something” in ways that are linked with humanitarian discourses and political trends within our own society.

As media becomes ever present in our daily lives in multiple contexts, a multidisciplinary approach to media studies becomes even more essential. Studies of contemporary spectatorship must include how new audio-visual technologies change cultural practices and the context of viewership. However, new forms of communication and new ways of networking do not guarantee empathy, nor does it necessarily trigger political commitment (Shohat and Stam 1996, 165-166). The practice of using film and communal viewing events as a tool to build consensus and promote change within the context of the film festival is an endeavor surrounded by a complex web of factors.

A multi-disciplinary approach to film festival studies that includes ethnographic techniques is invaluable in understanding the multi-leveled discourses and processes that surround film festivals. One value of this approach is that it promotes the teasing out of connections between film and media studies, anthropology and critical theory, connections that are becoming ever more essential to understanding our contemporary media landscapes. In particular, an ethnographic approach allows the researcher to place viewership within the context of the structure of the festival, consider how broader constructs interplay with local action and examine how viewers construct meaning with the films, people and information that they encounter during the festival event.

The first three chapters of this work lay down the foundations of the study. In this chapter, I have presented the primary theoretical constructs that will be applied to the structure of the Global Peace Film Festival and the processes that surround how meaning is constructed within the context of the festival. Before proceeding to discuss how various discourses intersect in specific ways at the Global Peace Film Festival, realizing larger trends as well as individualizing the festival, chapter two addresses the methodology of the study, and how it addresses the construction of meaning at this event. Chapter three outlines the business of the festival, funding, vendors and its relationship with the local community and other humanitarian festivals as well as the goals and motivations that underlie the structure of the festival. Adopting practices that reflect recent trends in the humanitarian film circuit, the Global Peace Film Festival is gearing up to provide more long-term support for chosen filmmakers, supporting them from the inception of the project through the promotional campaign after the film is complete.

In the following three chapters, I examine some of the ways in which various discourses intersect with festival audiences, as well as the ways in which particular films and filmmakers express these discourses in specific contexts. Chapter four focuses on the festival from the vantage point of the festival goer, addressing the articulation between audiences and the structure of feeling constructed through festival events and the expression of a narcissistic outlook in response to humanitarian concerns. A key theme of this chapter is how broader themes are digested and internalized by individual subjects at the local level. Chapter five focuses on programming decisions and how these facilitate the desire of audiences to construct cosmopolitan identities through a process of cognitive mapping, situating themselves within our complex globalized world. Chapter six focuses on two key discourses, witnessing and testimonial and examines how these discourses function to bind together to define an event at the festival, producing a coherent message suitable for the goals of the festival and the university where the event took place.

Chapter seven evaluates the shifting role of filmmakers in the humanitarian film circuit as well as at the Global Peace Film Festival. The trend finds the filmmaker taking on the role of representative for the cause featured in the film and acting as a central focus of the promotional campaign. In chapter eight, I conclude with a synthesis of the major discourses surrounding the Global Peace Film Festival.

II. METHODOLOGY

Scope of the Study

The purpose of this ethnographic study of the Global Peace Film Festival is to examine the structure and function of the Global Peace Film Festival within its local context, and how it functions as a space for the negotiation of meaning and identity construction. A consideration of the multifarious factors surrounding the festival and the articulation between events, films, filmmakers and spectators reveals how local audiences actualize various discourses attached to the event. Although broader trends in the documentary film circuit and the humanitarian imaginary are considered, the role of the festival within international or national or documentary film circuits is outside the purview of this project. The primary market for the films screened at the festival is the

United States, and I do not attempt to follow the paths of those that do have some international presence. Forty films were screened in 2014, including both feature and short films. Out of twenty-nine feature films screened at the 2014 event, only three did not list the United States as one of the countries of origin. Among the short films, two out of twenty nine listed only other countries. The filmmakers whose works were shown were primarily from the United States. The slate of films reflects a view of the world that places the United States at the center, and the event is designed for a local audience. The

Global Peace Film Festival arrays the global around the concerns of local citizens and it

is this role as a central nexus for negotiation of the discourses and the situatedness of the local that I address in this study. A list of films discussed in this dissertation may be found in Appendix A.

A multidisciplinary and ethnographic approach has allowed me to assess the phenomenon of an activist film festival that has been adapted to the particularities of the local setting and the corresponding reception of the festival by audiences, who make use of the festival to satisfy individual motivations and goals. The Global Peace Film Festival seeks to provide a service to the community and local organizations, so the festival is structured to meet the expectations attached to various local entities. Although it would be a worthy endeavor to research the ways in which discourses promoted at the festival permeate individuals’ daily activities, this study does not go beyond the festival event, to consider how people follow through with making change happen in the course of their lives after the festival is over. The primary focus of my research is the local point of articulation between audiences, festival structures, local organizations, filmmakers as well as contemporary humanitarian and sociopolitical discourses that drive programming choices, reception and the construction of cosmopolitan identities.

This ethnographic study of the Global Peace Film Festival adds an additional dimension to scholarship on film festivals by focusing on the film festival as a site of cultural production, examining how the relationships between different aspects of the festival interact to produce meaning and a sense of community for participants. Film festivals have been rapidly proliferating within the last decade, reflecting shifting cultural and socioeconomic structures and the central role of film and other media in our daily lives. This study makes a significant contribution to a growing area of film festival

studies, examining the relationship between film festivals and their audiences and the

negotiation of cultural meanings within the context of this cultural form. Audience

studies of film festivals were led by Dina Iordanova and her colleagues who conducted a

number of ethnographic studies of particular festivals. Recent studies have addressed the

position of film festivals within the context of global socioeconomic structures (Ortner

2013, Grassilli 2012) and the construction of identity by individuals in response to ideas

portrayed in documentary films (Blaževič 2012).

This study draws from scholarship in multiple disciplines, including practice

theory and media studies, to examine the way that social actors make use of media as a

basis of social knowledge. The practices of audiences and producers are both central in

the negotiation of social meaning within the context of the film festival. This study will

contribute to knowledge about how festivals function as a nexus for cultural production

and the ways that individuals utilize discourse attached to this particular form of media

(activist-based films) and their participation in this event as a means of negotiating

cultural meanings and establishing meaningful daily practices.

Another area of research surrounds changes in cultural practices resulting from

new technology that affords increased access to video cameras, non-linear editing and

other technology by the general public. The festival actively promotes opportunities for

the education of unseasoned filmmakers, promoting a Do-It-Yourself (D-I-Y) culture that places the filmmaker as entrepreneur at the center of his or her promotional campaign for the film and its cause. The increase in film production by the general public has likely been a large factor in the recent proliferation of small film festivals which seek entries from this group, and this study is unique in addressing this phenomenon.

The objective of my work is to understand the processes by which events and

actions take place at the film festival events, and the meaning that these events and

experiences have for those who engage in them, as well as others involved. This approach allowed me to gain an understanding of the ways that participants make sense of the offerings of the festival, as well as how the unfolding events fit within a larger cultural context of lived experience. My research also considers how people construct relationships with distant ‘others” as well as with those in their local community, negotiating meanings about global and national issues within a local setting.

Research Objectives

This project utilizes an ethnographic approach to examine how this activist-based

documentary film festival functions as a site of cultural production and focal point for a

community. My research objectives included an evaluation of discourses surrounding

activist-based films (documentaries) help inform the manner in which audiences understand the notion of “peace” and/or promote the desirability of particular ways of life. Research focused on the examination discourses and practices that are influential in inspiring festival attendees to become engaged with the issues portrayed in films.

Another area of research addressed the structure of events and promotions surrounding the festival. Other important questions surrounded how festival practices promote films in

a manner that establishes each film as a nexus for activism by presenting the filmmakers

to audiences as a central agent for their cause. Central to discourses surrounding the

festival is the how the notion of “peace” functions, and how it is meaningful within the context of the festival.

The Research Site

Because the Global Peace Film Festival screenings span a number of venues in the Winter Park/Orlando area, the research site varied in character according to space and place. I found venue to be an important aspect of the Global Peace Film Festival and much of the diversity of audience is due to the specific circumstances of each location, so

I attended screenings and conducted research at most of the different venues, which are outlined further in chapter two, which focuses on the structure of the festival. Venues vary in type and include a downtown cinema cafe, college campus sites including a green, a public library and a theater.

Each venue was considered in terms of sponsorship, character, context, location, and supporting audience. For example, Rollins College is a major sponsor that provides space within an academic setting, and the constitution of the audience reflected this, being composed of mostly affluent, educated viewers. In contrast, venues in downtown

Orlando attract more urban audiences to the commercial venue, Cobb Theatre as well as the Mad Cow Theatre, which houses an acting troupe as well as sponsoring their own film showings throughout the year. Valencia College is a newer venue, which provides screening space and student volunteers from their film and justice studies programs. The audience base of each venue proved to be different in character, adding an important dimension to the local aspect of film screenings as well as the nature of the film

offerings. Specific events presented or promoted by the festival function to shape identities in a variety of ways, through the sensory experience of viewing a film, question and answer sessions with the author and casual negotiations of meaning in conversation with other viewers. This diversity of venue and location attracts different audiences in addition to the appeal of the specific films. A primary goal was to comprehend how audiences navigate the complexity of the context of the festival activities, negotiating meanings on multiple levels, as well as the nature of the relationship between filmmaker and spectator.

The Study Population

The attendance of the festival was around 6500 persons, but since the films are shown in multiple venues, I did not come into contact with anything close to this number.

There was a core of a dozen filmmakers who were sponsored by the festival in 2014, but it was not possible to estimate the numbers of other filmmakers, film students and aspiring filmmakers who were present. Most film venues seat fewer than 100 persons and attendance is much less than this for most showings. The sessions after the films are a primary site of interaction and except for a few exceptions, these usually attract between

10-20 persons. Several of the larger showings/sessions may have had 100-175 persons attending.

The study population is constituted of adults and the criteria for selection as part of this study included anyone who was in attendance at the festival or had attended in the past. There was no advertising for informants; Individual attendees of the festival were

recruited for interviews by direct contact in person by me, along with a verbal inquiry

regarding their wish to participate. Some festival personnel and filmmakers were

contacted by methods other than personal contact, by telephone and through email. An

interview schedule for three different types of interviews was developed before the study

began, including casual interviews, longer in-depth interviews and interviews with

filmmakers. The questions on these schedules acted as a guide for interviewing purposes,

but informants were always allowed to lead, taking the conversation in another direction

as they wished. This data collection instrument is included in Appendix B.

Data Collection: Participant Observation

Before beginning my research, I attended the Global Peace Film Festival event

that took place on September 17-22, 2013, which included a number of showings and

special events. After finding the festival a productive site for research, I began my

research, attending the September 16-21, 2014 festival event, as well as three local events

that took place prior to the annual event. Most of the research for this project took place during the 2014 festival event, as I was on site from the beginning until the end of the festival. I continued to interview festival personnel, filmmakers and audience members during the following year and follow the successes of festival films by monitoring their websites, as well as social media attached to the festival. As a participant observer, I interacted with the events at the Global Peace Film Festival in a variety of ways, based on

the appropriateness of my role in a given situation. The methodology employed as a

means of collecting data in the course of my research include a number of practices

employed in the field of anthropology, including participant observation, informal

interviewing, semi-structured interviewing, audio recording of events and field notes.

Although I disclosed my role as a researcher to informants with whom I spoke, at

times I was merely one member of the audience at public Question-and-Answer sessions,

which proved extremely fruitful for gathering insights about audiences, or by being one

of many observing a particular phenomenon. Question-and-Answer sessions proved to be

important spaces of negotiation of meaning at the festival and especially illuminating in

terms of understanding audience reception. Observation alone or participant observation

were the primary methods utilized at Question-and-Answer sessions and filmmaker talks.

These are public sessions which are often recorded by news media and other persons, so they are not construed as private spaces by the audience. I primarily listened at Question- and-Answer sessions, rather than adding my own opinions, as I wished to act more as an observer. These sessions varied in size and quality, so I considered data drawn from each within the context of the particular persons conducting the session, the film being shown, the filmmaker and the specificities of the social issue.

Volunteering

Acting as a volunteer at the Global Peace Film Festival proved to be a productive means to gain access, establish rapport and quickly accumulate a lot of information about the inner workings of the festival. I acted as a volunteer at the festival in both 2013 and

2014 as a means of getting to know the structure of the festival and some of the people involved. In 2013, my volunteer schedule was heavy, and I worked every day at multiple

screenings, gaining insights during the process that guided my later research. In 2014, I

volunteered for just for two blocks of films on two different days, so that I would have

more time and flexibility to attend events that proved to be important to my project. At

the request of festival staff, I also drove filmmakers to and from Winter Park venues to

the secondary hotel in Orlando, as well as taking some of them to the airport. This was a

very productive activity, as I got a chance to speak with filmmakers in route. Volunteers

are seen as the heart of the festival, and an indication of the level of support of the community. In 2014, the manner in which I was introduced several times expressed the value given to those who support the festival by calling attention to my dual status as a volunteer and an all-access Gold Pass Holder, because it indicated a level of commitment

to supporting the festival in multiple ways. Of course, my motivation was driven by

research needs, which was known by the staff, but it still benefited the festival. This

insider status aided my research as well as satisfying my own wish to give something

back to the festival.

Interviewing

Interviewing was an important aspect of my research strategy, and I interviewed a

variety of participants, including festival personnel, volunteers, audience members,

filmmakers, distributors and sponsors. Due to the structure and conventions of film

festivals, informal interviewing was the most appropriate method of interviewing as a

participant in the festival, so this formed a large part of my research activities. Most

interviews during the festival were unstructured and were conducted before, during and

after events as circumstance allowed. The nature of these interviews varied according to

context, including discussions among volunteers, casual debates about films and social

issues after screenings. Due to the immediacy of the annual Global peace Film Festival

event, most of the interviews during the festival were unstructured, talking to individually

with audience members, filmmakers, volunteers, sponsors as well as interacting with

small groups. While brief encounters with festival goers were numerous and uncounted,

they provided snippets of insight from a large number of participants.

In informal interviews with attendees, no data was collected that allowed for the

identification of the subjects, although identification might be possible under some

circumstances. Most casual interactions with festival goers ranged from a few minutes to

as much as fifteen minutes. In casual interviews, identifying information was not

recorded, except for general categories such as age and gender. Some individuals were

asked if they would talk with me in more in-depth at a later time, but these interviews were still informal, with open-ended questions that allowed the interviewee to lead the

discussion and the range of topics discusses. These interviews generally lasted from 30-

50 minutes and took place within the space of the festival at a number of venues and

hotels.

Participating in casual discussions among small groups of spectators after a

screening, which might be termed as an informal type of focal group, was a meaningful

way to discover how individuals made and negotiated meaning within the context of film

viewing. For example, a visit a screening sponsored by the Global Peace Film Festival

confirmed the nature of the event as a space for the negotiation of ideology and the

construction of identity. This type of cultural production was evident in audience

negotiation of discourses surrounding food production and consumption found in the film

Planeat (2011), directed by Or Shlomi and Shelley Lee Davies, which focused on both

health issues associated with the consumption of meat and dairy products, as well as the

effects of production of these goods on the planet. After viewing the film, audience

members chatted about what was the proper way to eat, and how they were willing or

unwilling to change their diets. Conversation focused on the negotiation of meaning

surrounding personal eating habits. In one case, an unwillingness to give up cheese, even

though recognizing its health risks as described in the film, was balanced with a

willingness to give up meat to take less of a toll on the earth’s resources. Participating in

discussions such as this at the festival allowed me to establish closer relationships with

core members and gain a deeper understanding of how discourses promoted by the

festival functions in their lives.

Interviews with festival personnel included both informal, unstructured interviews

as well as more formal semi-structured interviews. Semi-structured interviews were

conducted with key staff of the Global Peace Film Festival, including Nina Streich, the

executive director of the festival and Kelley Devine, artistic director, the volunteer

coordinators from both 2013 and 2014, and a number of the house managers at venues.

Written permission was obtained for longer one-on-one interviews and whenever names

would be revealed in the context of the person’s position with the festival.

Interviews with filmmakers who attended festivals focused on their experience at the Global Peace Film Festival, topics surrounding the production and distribution of their films before and after attending this festival, and their experiences at other festivals they had attended. Filmmakers expect to talk with the public regarding their activities,

filmmaking process, motivations and efforts to promote their films so speaking with them

about their films did not stray too far from conversations they have with others on a daily

basis at the festival. I also followed up with some after the festival to talk further about

how attending this festival aided in their promotion of their film. Filmmakers are a rich

resource for information about film festivals as they participate at as many large and

small festivals as they can. Although this goes beyond the goals of this study, this is a

potential area of research for the future that would add to an understanding of how

festivals participate in the marketing campaigns of filmmakers, how filmmakers make

choices about which festivals to apply for and attend, and how specific practices at

festivals contribute to their success.

Other Activities

Participating in other activities, such as parties, dinners and receptions provided

opportunities for interviewing people, but also provided a context for understanding the

general tone of festival and relationships between people. It was in these settings that

festival lore emerged, personalities were celebrated, adding a more complex dimension to

the function of the festival. Although the festival itself takes place at venues around the

Orlando area over six days in September, it includes other events attended by core

members. Even though festivals are ‘live’ events that take place once a year, many, like

the Global Peace Film Festival, extend this through other offerings throughout the year. I attended some of these other events promoted and sponsored by the Global Peace Film

Festival and found them to be attended by regular members but also often oriented

towards the local sponsoring organization. However, newer offerings over the past year

have had a broader appeal.

Online research contributed greatly providing context for as well as up-to-date information regarding films, filmmakers, and Global Peace Film Festival sponsored events. Social media, individual websites and fundraising sites were useful, allowing me to follow the progress of screenings and promotional activities surrounding festival films and filmmakers throughout the year. This was also a rich resource for analysis of how promotional strategies attached to films fit in with discourses surrounding the humanitarian imaginary and sociopolitical trends. Another useful activity included monitoring the social media efforts of the Global Peace Film Festival, including their

Facebook and Twitter pages. The presence of the festival in social media has been limited until very recently and tends to cluster around the dates of the annual event. However, the festival does promote a few events through Facebook posts in the course of the year, as well as posting information about peace related topics.

A few opportunities for interacting online were presented to audiences, which I participated in. These activities generally connected audience members to the filmmakers directly, and I did get a few texts in return informing me about film screenings. However, these messages were also clustered around the festival and I got none after a few months had passed, which may have reflected a lack of the filmmaker’s ability to generate a following or the fact that I did not make a contribution. I also joined a streaming video site, taking advantage of the first free month offered to festival goers, but did not find that any of the festival films were being shown on the site. Overall, the use of the internet,

social media and other social technology (such as texting a number) has a small presence at the Global Peace Film Festival, although efforts are being made to increase this.

The festival website promotes a list of organizations that one might join, getting involved with any of a number of causes. I did not expand my research into an examination of all of these organizations, many of which were not salient during the targeted 2014 festival event. Even though the goals of these organizations inform the festival’s events, the penetration of these organizations into the community and their local events would have taken my work in a tangential direction that would be better addressed in a separate study. Research on organizations that participate in the festival activities and sponsors of events was limited to those that play a major role in the festival event, and information about these entities was obtained from interviews as well as online research.

Note taking was an essential activity during events at the Global Peace Film

Festival. In the course of my research during the annual festival event, I took field notes daily, used a camera to take photographs as a memory aid and on occasion employed an audio recorder for longer interviews. Field notes were taken during or after festival screenings and other activities and elaborated upon each night after the close of festival activities, utilizing both a paper notebook as well as a laptop computer.

Data Analysis

The set of research methods outlined above was chosen to support a qualitative approach to understanding the practices and discourses surrounding the Global Peace Film Festival.

This type of analysis is characteristic of ethnographic endeavors and provides an understanding of data that is difficult to measure and quantify, providing depth and detail to the study. The analysis of quantitative data that was included in the study is based on data from other sources, including information posted publically on government funding websites and obtained from interviews with festival personnel. Some broad categories of data from the audience surveys conducted by the Global Peace Film Festival were available, and this data was used in consideration of the structure and effectiveness of the

Global Peace Film Festival. Categories of data included the percentage of attendees who reported firstly that their opinion was changed by the film they had just seen (59%), and secondly, that the film motivated them to take action regarding the issue (66%).

However, as I did not have access to these surveys, no further quantitative analysis was completed based on the results. An expansion of research to include a consideration of how individuals make us of what they encounter at the festival on a long-term basis is a potential area of research for the future. This would add an additional dimension to an understanding of how audiences translate the festival experience into their everyday lives, constructing meaning outside the festival experience.

In this chapter, I have delineated the scope of this project, my methodological perspective and the methods used to generate data. This study reveals the significance of this activist film festival as a contemporary phenomenon, and there are several areas in which further research would be beneficial that are outside the purview of this project. In the next chapter, I address the structure of the Global Peace Film Festival itself and its location within the Orlando/Winter Park area, setting the stage for the four chapters that provide an analysis of various themes within the structure of the festival. Very specific

socio-historical factors guided the establishment of the festival in its particular form and its current manifestation. The festival has evolved within a specific local set of circumstances that range from business interests, municipal goals, funding opportunities and goals of educational institutions in the area. The festival has been flexible, molding its activities to suit the needs of local entities and continues to change every year, creating a unique set of circumstances.

III. THE STRUCTURE OF THE FESTIVAL

The primary mission of the Global Peace Film Festival is to motivate the public to

engage with the films, filmmakers and causes on a personal level, shaping their lives by

making the causes relevant to their identity and promoting long-term participation at some level. Festival staff speaks of this level of participation as “authentic,” referring to the degree to which causes become imperative in participants’ lives. This “engagement festival,”9 fits into a niche market with other activist film festivals that consider audience

engagement to be of prime importance. Activist film festivals focus on going beyond the

film and addressing the issues highlighted within the film. Thus, the topical debates that

constitute the “Question and Answer” sessions are distinct from those at mainstream

festivals. The discussion that takes place is as important as the film itself and the goal is

to influence the thinking of the audience rather than to receive insight and information

regarding the making of the film (Iordanova 2012, 15-16). The viewer is encouraged to

become involved, join an actively engaged community, and view life differently as well

as changing the conditions of life for another. Discussions have the potential to negotiate

and transform meanings, which makes activist film festivals a place where a particular

type of spectator is cultivated (Tascón 2015, 68). The mission and structure of the Global

Peace Film Festival is defined around the production of networks of engagement that

extend outward from the film viewing experience. The festival has evolved around the

9 Nina Streich categorizes the Global Peace Film Festival as an “engagement” festival, and uses the term to refer to the overall goals of the festival. 71

idea that its success should be measured not just by attendance but by the level of engagement it inspires in those spectators. The level of activism that the festival engenders is considered primary, and viewing films is considered a means to this end.

This creates a tension between cinephilia and the role of films as tools for activism but the mission is given precedence in some choices. Artistic director, Kelley De Vine says that she books local and some other films to fit into goals of the festival, but that some are not films that she would book in other circumstances. From the perspective of the audience, spectators often report that they attend the festival because they love films, but many participants judge the offerings in terms of the egocentric feelings that are engendered rather than technical excellence. Many factors contribute to how the mission is enacted, but engagement is central in the organization and focus of the Global Peace

Film Festival, permeating the structure of the festival, the type of programs offered and the kind of events offered each year.

The Setting: Orlando, Winter Park and the Orange County Area

The physical locale of the Global Peace Film Festival plays an essential role in the identity of the festival. Audiences play an important role in forming local context, but the

“materiality of the encounter” within the established space of the festival reconfigures alignments and power structures in specific ways that contribute to identity building for both individuals and the festival (Torchin 2012b, 8). Although the Global Peace Film

Festival shares many characteristics with other activist festivals, the character of this

festival is distinct due to the particular nature of the Orlando-Winter Park area of Florida as well as the goals established early on by its director.

Aside from the humanitarian theme of the festival, Streich found the Orlando-

Winter Park area to be a propitious setting for the Global Peace Film Festival for a variety of reasons. She attributes much of the ongoing success of the festival, as well as the continuing need for the festival, to the existence of several major universities nearby, including University of Central Florida, Stetson University and Rollins College, allowing them to reach out to tens of thousands of students.10 This base of attendees may actually

be essential in terms of acquiring local government funding for the festival, as well as

providing a local young audience base who might find the screenings to be life-changing.

Orlando cultivates an image as an international city, which helps to define the

global aspect of the Global Peace Film Festival as well as reflecting the aim of the

festival to screen films that attract a diversity of audiences. The International Affairs

program of Orlando has made alliances with “sister cities” as well as promoting itself

globally as a “world-class community” that hosts many international visitors as well as

dignitaries and leaders from around the world. The city looks outward to the world, with

its nine official sister cities in Brazil, China, Mexico, Russia, Iceland, France, Taiwan

Japan and Spain (cityoforlando.net). This orientation of the local setting within a global

perspective is very compatible with the approach taken by the Global Peace Film

Festival, which tries to bring films from all six continents to the United States. Nina

10 University of Central Florida reports enrollment of more than 60,000 students on all its campuses http://www.ucf.edu/about-ucf/ , Stetson University reports enrollment of 2,500 undergraduate and 1400 graduate students http://www.stetson.edu/other/about/, Rollins college reports attendance of 3,237. http://www.rollins.edu/admission/student-life/fast-facts.html . In addition Valencia Community, which actively participates as a venue for the Global Peace Film Festival, reports total enrollment for 2011/12 as 70,166. http://valenciacollege.edu/IR/Reporting/internal/documents/2012StatHistFinal.pdf 73

Streich explains that this is important, “because we as Americans have a lot to learn about

every other culture in the world, and respect all those other cultures, and that’s a step

toward peace as well” (Planting Seeds 4 Peace Radio). This emphasis on screening films

that will facilitate learning about the world is essential to the constitution of the festival,

and is directly correlated with an understanding of the United States as central in global

relationships of power. The global aspect of the festival revolves around a western

perspective and films offer ways of situating oneself within the world, a configuration

may be inevitable. The field of filmmakers whose work is featured at the festival is

largely North American, and these works construct a global outlook through the choice of film topics for the festival each year. For example, among the films screened in 2014, one finds a great diversity in topics and locations, including eye-care in South Sudan, a single mother in Pakistan, a female politician in Lebanon and a boy in Cuba who dreams of becoming a baseball player. A look back at 2013 finds a similar diversity, including documentaries on sex-trafficking in Argentina, fair trade olive oil in Palestine, the

Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, and child soldiers in Uganda. This diversity in programming works well as a strategy, both to impart a global image to the festival and to create empathy with the other. However, this also functions to attract spectators with a multiplicity of perspectives and interests. The representation of a diversity of people and perspectives within the films forms a foundation for the global aspect of the festival, giving it a broader appeal while fitting into the international identity of the city.

The importance of the particular setting of Orange County, Florida, and the international image of the city of Orlando is evident when considering sponsorship. There are a number of organizations oriented towards the arts and social programs who

participate in the festival, and Global Peace Film Festival links with some national organizations as well. However, it is the funds from tourist tax revenues through the

Orange County Government Arts and Cultural Affairs and a grant from the Community

Foundation of Central Florida that lies at the heart of the festival’s continuity

(Community Foundation of Central Florida). Orlando aspires to an international business image through the establishment of the International Advisory Committee, which touts the diversity of the city (one in five residents are born outside the continental United

States) and has formed relationships with nine sister cities around the world to promote business interests (City of Orlando International Affairs). Despite the noble goals of the festival, its success is based on an intricate network of multiple commercial and social sponsorships and interests.

It is no surprise that the city of Orlando supports the aims of the Global Peace

Film Festival and expresses the appropriateness of Orlando as a setting for the festival. In the festival programs for both 2013 and 2014, one finds a letter from the mayor, Buddy

Dyer, who notes that Orlando is the perfect location for the festival. He goes on to say that Orlando is one of the largest destinations for film and television production on the

East Coast. In addition, Mayor Dyer emphasizes that Orlando has established a reputation for being one of the most welcoming communities of our nation, embodying a spirit of inclusiveness for people of all races, religions and sexual orientations. He praises his city, saying that “The journey to peace on earth begins with the single stop of understanding and accepting others, something Orlando is well known for doing.” The influx of international visitors to Disney properties and other tourist destinations has had a

significant effect on Orange County and the local focus on tourism and international

relations provides a propitious environment for the Global Peace Film Festival.

It is meaningful that, despite receiving funding from tourism dollars, the festival

is clearly demarked as an Orlando event and has no ties to any of the theme parks, which

were not mentioned in my presence at the festival events. Film festivals gain a sense of

identity through emplacement within a city and each festival utilizes site-specific

meanings and re-inflects these into understandings of the festival itself. This is underlined

by the fact that it is hard to imagine famous festivals outside of the context of their locale

(Harbord, 127). The reclaiming of Orlando from an era of urban blight has much to do

with local circumstances. Orlando, like many urban centers, suffered from a

suburbanization in the 1960s and 1970s that left the central inner city behind (Sassen

2001, 256). When Walt Disney World opened in 1971 on the south side of Orlando, it

ushered in a new era of tourism that has had a dramatic effect on this service-oriented city

(Polsson 2006, 1). However, the Orlando of the Global Peace Film Festival is predicated

on the city itself, rather than on economic flows around the numerous theme parks and

tourist attractions in the area. The international status of the city appears to be more

relevant to participants, and perhaps Orlando is growing beyond being just an appendage

of Walt Disney World. From a personal perspective, I can recognize changes in

downtown Orlando over the two decades, where a local community of urban-oriented

younger citizens has grown out of formerly blighted neighborhoods. Many residents feel

that Orlando needs to be more than just “the Mouse” and the centralization of the festival

over the northern and western parts of Orange County speaks to the more arts-oriented nature of Winter Park and the Thornhill Park area of downtown and the involvement of

college campuses within this area. The Global Peace Film Festival participates in local efforts to build an identity for the city that is separate from tourism, but reflects the international status that results from visitors from all over the world.

The primary locale of festival’s annual event is within the city of Winter Park, which is more affluent than most areas of Orlando. Here one finds the prestigious Rollins

College, the primary venue for the festival, as well as a picturesque, walkable downtown with many upscale shops and fine dining establishments. Within this small city, one finds a focus on artistic endeavors, including the Horsmer Morse Museum of American Art and the Albin Polasek Museum and Sculpture Gardens, as well as the Cornell Museum on the campus of Rollins College itself. Rollins College is a small, highly selective liberal arts college of just over 3000 students. Classes are small and students are encouraged to be engaged on campus and in the community, so a film festival that encourages engagement with social issues fits well with their mission. In addition to the current students, a number of alumni and educators from Rollins College attend the Global Peace Film

Festival screenings on the campus. The campus provides the primary location for the festival, so the festival is strongly identified with Rollins College in the Winter Park locale.

Historical Perspective

The Global Peace Film Festival was organized in 2003 as a venture funded by a private individual who wanted to do something in opposition to the war in Iraq, and conceived of the festival as a way to sway public opinion. He chose Orlando because he

had connections in the area and asked Nina Streich to organize the project. However, from the beginning the vision of the festival looked beyond this single event, deriving its mission from the notion that the festival could promote positive actions on a broader scale. Streich, initially hired as executive director and founder of the Global Peace Film

Festival, explains that she wanted to explore the meaning of “peace,” looking forwards to a positive future rather than just protesting against the war. Streich was given free rein to create a festival identity, an important factor in the development of the form of the festival. She inaugurated the Global Peace Film Festival with the aim of finding ways to

“inspire the audiences to get involved, to do something to make their world a better place” (blogtalkradio.com). The festival lost its initial funding when the New York businessman with an anti-war sentiment had his assets frozen; he was eventually convicted on charges of fraud and financing terrorism. In spite of this rocky start, Streich continued to produce the festival every year since, moving the date of the festival to coincide with the United Nations International Day of Peace on September 21st to help define the theme of the festival. From the beginning, she found the diversity of Orlando appealing, saying, “it’s a cross-roads of the world – everyone comes here (Palm 2012,

1).”

Since 2003, the Global Peace Film Festival has shown over 500 films from around the world, including some that were nominated for an Academy Award. Although the festival does not focus on red-carpet events, it has accumulated some prestige through attendees. A number of special guests have attended, including Nobel Peace Prize winners, celebrity actors, environmentalists, clerics, politicians, and United Nations dignitaries. Celebrities play only a small role in the festival activities. For example, in

2013, only two films had connections to stars: Femme (Immanuel Itier, 2013), whose

executive producer is Sharon Stone, and Whoopi Goldberg Presents Moms Mabley, The

Life Story of an African-American Standup Comedienne (Whoopi Goldberg 2013). The

showing of Goldberg’s film was in conjunction with its premiere on HBO in November

2013 and was secured due to the urging of a local festival participant. However, neither

Sharon Stone nor Whoopi Goldberg appeared at the festival. The only celebrity attendee

that year was singer Ricky Lee Jones, who also appeared in an interview in the film,

Femme. In 2014, there were no major celebrities in attendance at the festival but none of

the spectators seemed to find this unusual.

In years past, the Global Peace Film Festival has had a true international presence

through programming collaborations abroad. These joint efforts include a Global Peace

Film Festival-Japan from 2006-2009, the International College Peace Film Festival in

Korea and the Human Rights film Festival in Nepal. There are several other initiatives in the planning stage in France, England, Kenya and China as well as a return to Japan.

During June and July, 2013, the first Global Peace Film Festival screenings took place in

New York City as part of the beginning of a program to provide support to filmmakers in the development and implementation of “impact and outreach campaigns” for their films.

Over the years, the festival has moved away from the traditional film festival model,

focusing more on the “why” that motivates the filmmakers, and the support of the

filmmakers has become a central part of the festival mission (Central Florida Foundation

Global Peace Film Festival Profile).

The Structure of the Festival

The official festival schedule is constituted of film screenings, panels (discussion based events), and parties, and the primary interaction between participants revolves around these events. A large part of the audience at smaller screenings consists of members of community organizations, filmmakers and others involved in the production of the films, volunteers, students and fans of the festival who return every year. The

Global Peace Film Festival is structured to act as a hub for networking among community-based organizations, embracing the range of opinions that characterize such a diverse group. A perusal of the web page listing community groups by the festival exemplifies this diversity, ranging from the left-oriented, CODEPINK Orlando to the conservative Respect-for-Life, Inc. Many religious organizations are found on the list as well as a wide variety of causes, some of which relate to the themes of films at the festival such as the Olive Trees Foundation for Peace (peacefilmfest.org/volunteer.html).

Because the festival organizers envision “peace” not as absence of conflict, but rather as a “framework for channeling, processing and resolving conflict through respectful and non-violent means,” the festival encourages “people of good faith” to debate, discuss, and contest their real differences within the auspices of the Global Peace Film Festival. The festival is curated with the aim of encouraging open dialogue, with films acting as catalysts for conversation (Central Florida Foundation Global Peace Film Festival

Profile). The Global Peace Film Festival has been growing and changing every year, as local groups and special events come and go, with topics and activities that suit the desires and resources of the many organizations that participate.

The Global Peace Film Festival, much in common with other activist festivals, seeks to create a space within which filmmakers might interact with and inspire followers by putting a human face on causes, but also offers opportunities for local interpretation of issues (Fischer 2012, 202-3). Because the festival provides travel funds for certain filmmakers to attend the festival, grassroots films and filmmakers often found at the festival. Most films at the festival have Question & Answer sessions after the film, with the director or some other representative from the film or the festival speaking with the audience. However, some films are followed by larger panels composed of local leaders who interpret films within a local context. These panels, consisting of local leaders such as the Interfaith Council of Central Florida, negotiate meanings associated with international issues from a local perspective, as well as dealing directly with local issues highlighted in locally produced films. Several local filmmakers’ works are featured in the festival each year as well and local organizations are often tapped for these community-based discussions following these screenings. Goals of the festival include building awareness creating local relationships among spectators and organizations, and inspiring activism in the local setting where praxis may be ongoing.

A community-based approach allows the festival to attract a large number of people from different demographics and show films within a number of venues, each with its own character and following. Most screenings take place in venues with less than

100 seats, which allows the audience to get closer to filmmakers and encourages a feeling of intimacy with the cause. Like many other activist festivals, the Global Peace Film

Festival also pushes out beyond the physical spaces and dates of the main event, showing films of interest to the community at strategic socially conscious venues around the area,

such as The Center Orlando which serves the LGBT community, as well as a variety of

churches, museums and other organizations. The Global Peace Film Festival has

developed relationships with many organizations in the Orlando area, which has been an

essential element in its success. Many local participants consider the Global Peace Film

Festival to be a “grassroots” festival, supported by the efforts of volunteers and local

organizations. All of these factors combine to produce a festival that features films that

address diverse causes and social issues including even narrative fiction with a social

message. Rather than being well-defined as a venue that highlights the human rights activism in the manner of the Human Rights Watch Film Festival or oriented towards promoting the activist efforts of Hollywood stars as done by the Artivist Film Festival, the Global Peace uses the concept of peace to represent any number of causes, including basic human interactions, which allows them to draw in many different local organizations and their followers as well as allowing the programming of a broad range of selections.

Collaborative partnerships are central to the success of the Global Peace Film

Festival, including arts groups, educational institutions and community based organizations. Numerous organizations have a relationship with the festival, but some offer support that is foundational to the success of the festival, often in the form of in- kind donations. Arts group collaborations include the Enzian Theater, Orlando Science

Center, Red Chair Project/OAG, Holocaust Center and the Mad Cow Theatre.

Educational Partners include Rollins College Valencia College, University of Central

Florida, and Full Sail University. Some of the community-based organizations partnering with the festival include Slow Food Orlando, the Interfaith Council of Central Florida,

Urban ReThink, United Nations Association-USA Florida Chapter, Amnesty

International, Vegetarian Meetup, ACLU, the League of Women Voters, Orange County

and many more. With this impressive integration with the community, the Global Peace

Film Festival received many different forms of in-kind donations, including space for

events, donated food and drink and the participation in festival events by members of

these groups. The structure of the festival each year tends to revolve around these

organizations and the nature of some events varies according to the interests of the groups

as well as their levels of participation (Central Florida Foundation, Global Peace Film

Festival Profile). A list of local community organizations may be found in Appendix C.

The Global Peace Film Festival employs a variety of staff, often drawn from the community and the organizations that work with the festival, but the identity of the festival comes from the vision of Nina Streich as director and Kelley De Vine as artistic director. Nina Streich brings extensive management experience to the festival, having worked with a number of other festivals as well as an anti-nuclear demonstration in New

York City that attracted one million people. She began her career as a film editor and marketing professional and has produced and worked on several documentaries. In addition to acting as the festival manager of the Newport International Film Festival from

1998-2007, Streich served as Deputy and Acting Film Commissioner for the New York

City Mayor’s Office of Film, Theatre & Broadcasting in the Dinkins Administrator and was the Deputy Executive Director for the NYC Host Committee for the 1994 Grammy

Awards. Kelley De Vine joined the Global Peace Film Festival as artistic director in

2006, bringing expertise in the field of programming. De Vine formerly was a member of the acquisitions team for the Independent Film Channel (IFC). She continues to work

with the Independent Film Channel and acts as consultant to the Tribeca Film Institute

and numerous other festivals, but is dedicated to her personal interest in promoting the

use of media to facilitate positive change. The festival also employs a number of other

staff, including one full time and seven part time staff members, eleven contract staff and

sixty volunteers. Primary members of the staff include a technical director, two festival

managers, a social media manager, a volunteer coordinator and an outreach manager.

Governance is shared with a local board in Orange County that varies in number from

year to year.

Programs

Like many other activist festivals, the Global Peace Film Festival sponsors a number of events that go beyond the official schedule of the festival event. These events

have the purpose of penetrating the community and creating local networks to support the

festival and foster active, engaged citizenship. Central to this aim are the community

screenings which take place in in local venues in collaboration with various different

community groups. These events are held at a variety of venues, including the Orlando

Science Center, the Orlando Museum of Art, the Holocaust Memorial Resource &

Education Center, the Hope Community Center in Apopka and the Islamic Center of

central Florida (Central Florida Foundation, Global Peace Film Festival Profile). These

community screenings have built-in audiences due to the sponsoring group or the venue and show both festival films as well as other offerings.

One downtown venue for community screenings offers an insight into the urban-

oriented fans of the festival as well as illustrating the personal nature of community

relationships that support the festival. During 2013, Urban ReThink in the Thornton Park

area of downtown Orlando hosted monthly programs for three months before the festival

with screenings and discussions. This now defunct arts-based cooperative, which offered

a space for independent artists to work, was a casual but small, open-spaced venue that

supported the festival during the year as well as providing a venue for filmmakers to meet

during the festival. The monthly events at Urban ReThink attracted small crowds of

maybe ten to fifteen people who were interested in the topic of the film screened and

generally knew or had met Nina Streich personally. After the screening, Streich joined

the discussion by Skype, as she lives in New York City and travels to Orlando only for

major events and the annual festival. Her personal relationships with people have been

essential as a means of garnering support for the festival, and these community

screenings have participated in this activity on a more intimate level. However, as the

festival grows and broadens its goals, there is a need to share this endeavor. As a result,

the local board members are now beginning to take on more of the responsibilities for

building and maintaining local connections.

Since the 2014 festival, the Global Peace Film festival has announced a new

program of “Community Cinema,” a series of free screenings inaugurated for the 2014-

2015 season at the Winter Park Library. The festival was selected as one of eighty-five

organizations around the nation to host a series of screenings of the Emmy Award-

winning PBS documentary series, “Independent Lens” premiering films for teenage

audiences. This Community Cinema project celebrates its tenth year this season,

screening films in more than seventy-five cities nationwide. The aim of the project is to

“ignite conversations around issues that affect us all” effecting “real and lasting change – both at home and around the world.” This focus on “starting a conversation” is an excellent fit for the approach of the Global Peace Film Festival and enhances their position in the local community (Independent Lens, PBS.org).

The Peace Art Exhibit, another event sponsored by the festival, seeks to engage students with the notion of peace through a community contest that brings the festival to the attention of students and their parents. This contest offers an opportunity for kindergarten to twelfth grade students to submit pieces of art that express their thoughts about peace for exhibition in the Rotunda at City Hall in Orlando. Approximately two hundred works were submitted in 2014 by students in Orange County public schools.

During the 2014 festival, the winning pieces were exhibited at the Winter Park City Hall which is within walking distance of festival venues in Winter Park. Each year the number of schools participating in the contest has increased, with forty schools participating in

2014. This program brings the Global Peace Film Festival deeply into the community in a way not accessible through a festival event alone.

One of the goals of festival is to institute a program to sponsor media makers working on social issues, and a program was initiated on a small scale during the last year.11 The festival seeks to support filmmakers in all stages of production, from the

initial trailer through the development of impact and engagement campaigns once the

work is completed. The Global Peace Film Festival is selective in the projects that it

supports, choosing ones that align with the mission and vision of the festival, but if

chosen, the project will continue to receive support throughout production and

11 The budget for this sponsorship program for 2014-2015 is $5000.00. 86

distribution. This continued support after the completion of the project is an important

aspect of the festival mission. Many fiscal sponsors will support a project for a specific

time frame for production purposes, but the festival feels that it is the use of the film as a

tool for change and the networking that surrounds a filmmaker after the completion of the

film that is the essential phase for effecting social change.

The support of filmmakers through programs at the festival event has been an

ongoing part of the festival, aside from the program initiated during the past year. As part of the annual festival, the Outreach & Engagement Workshop goes further than sponsoring single producers, presenting workshops at the annual festival for any filmmakers whose work is dedicated to seeking social change (Central Florida

Foundation Profile). Panel discussions present professionals from various aspects of production and distribution as well as presenting examples of successful film campaigns.

Speakers address topics related to production, post-production, marketing and

distributions. This began as a pilot program for New York Women in Film & Television,

and has an increasing presence at the Global Peace Film Festival annual event. The

renewed focus on this program is an expansion of the “Peach Pitch” panel at the festival,

with the purpose of providing the tools and resources that help filmmakers successfully

reach their goals. The expansion of this program will be an important aspect of the

September 2015 annual event as the festival continues to increase its focus on the

filmmaker as a central focus of activism.

Financial Considerations

The financial structure of the Global Peace Film Festival reflects its community- based support as well as the importance of local funding organizations. One important sponsor is the Central Florida Foundation, a public grant-making foundation that manages more than four hundred charitable funds established by individuals, families and corporations. Since 1994, it has grown to more than $55 million in assets and has awarded more than $30 million. The foundation supports local non-profit organizations that will use the funds to improve their organization’s performance, effectiveness, impact and overall sustainability” (Central Florida Foundation). Because the Global Peace Film

Festival is funded by the Central Florida Foundation, this organization maintains a profile of the festival organization as well as financial information regarding the festivals revenue and expenses for the last three years. The budget for the festival has generally risen over the years since 2010, the first year available when I initially accessed the website for this project. The largest year-to-year increase in revenue came between 2010 with revenue of $93,000.00 and 2011 when revenue jumped to $173,353.00. Primary sources of funding include government and corporate donations, individual contributions, and earned monies, but most of the donations fit into the category of in-kind revenue, showing exactly how much support comes from local organizations, venues and corporations.

The budget for 2013, the latest data available, provides a good example of the financial structure of the festival. The data for 2013 shows $206,625.00 in revenues, while the festival spent $206,536.00, so most of the resources available each year are

used. Out of this, $125,000.00 was in-kind revenue, which is more than half of the support garnered for the festival activities that year. Government contributions made up another $43,455.00, including grants through the Arts & Cultural Affairs Program.

Individual contributions are another important source of funds with $29,896.00, while the support of the Central Florida Foundation and other corporations was $11, 583.00.

Earned revenue is low at $8,261.00, which reflects the low ticket prices of $5.00 charged at the festival, as well as the free admission given to students, filmmakers and many other community group members (Central Florida Foundation). Within these categories, many of the funding organizations provide support on an ongoing basis. For example, the non- profit organization, United Arts of Central Florida provided support in both 2013 and

2014, and has again awarded the United Arts Operating Support Grant to the Global

Peace Film Festival for the 2015 season in the amount of $6,523.00 (Palm 2014, 1).

These organizations form a strong network of support for the arts in the Orlando area and the Global Peace Film Festival is situated within this context.

The expense breakdown for the Global Peace Film Festival is also revealing, showing that the organizers are committed to making programs a priority. During 2013,

$196,000.00 of revenue was utilized on programs while $11,000.00 was spent on administration. The numbers are similar for 2012, but in 2011 the festival numbers indicate that financial issues brought drastic cuts to administration; all $171,000.00 of the revenue went to programs with zero funds allocated for administration. Interestingly, the festival does not expend funds for fundraising, and there are no expenses for fundraising listed for the entire period of time reported (2011-2014), which reflects the approach taken in funding the festival; accounting for over half of the revenues, in-kind donations

form the bulk of festival resources. The Global Peace Film Festival draws extensively from the resources of organizations and businesses within the area. With a budget of

$120,000.00, the annual film festival event is the primary activity of the festival.

However, because the in-kind budget so far exceeds the cash budget, the programs and the festival itself are greatly enhanced by the relationships formed within the local community.

Festival Events and In-kind Donations

The large amount of the budget reported by the Global Peace film Festival as in- kind donations reflects the wealth of close relationships developed within the community.

Networking is important, not just between the festival and the sponsors/venues, but also between different local groups. A list of publicized donors is found in Appendix D and a list of festival venues may be found in Appendix E. The festival provides a hub and space for this networking to take place, both during the annual festival event as well as during the year. The relationships that the festival leadership has forged with numerous organizations within the Orlando area lend a particular quality to the festival. Members of local organizations make up a good portion of attendees, and each has the potential to interpret issues and even films within specific contexts. Nina Streich notes that the Global

Peace Film Festival “gives away far too many tickets,” but this practice is central to the support of the festival by organizations. Some organizations even come, with permission, to hand out leaflets and talk to patrons at the screenings and then stay for the show, choosing a film that is compatible with their own mission. Within the space of the

festival, there is a lot of sharing of information, interest and support between the people

from various organizations.

Most of the food and drink for the festival is donated by different sponsors and

venues, ranging from national brands to local restaurants. A number of the downtown

sponsors support the effort to promote “indie” businesses in the downtown area, a part of

a “think local first” campaign developed by the Progressive Local Alliance for

Community Enrichment (PLACE), which promotes a pride of place in which local

businesses are seen as a part of building a community that has a unique character

(www.ourlando.org). Some of these businesses provide food and drinks for the festival

volunteers and events. One small vegan restaurant, the Dandelion Communitea Café and

even provided box lunches for the filmmakers’ lunch during the 2013 festival.

The three parties take place as part of the Global Peace Festival schedule each

year are sponsored by local businesses. Although these events are listed in the program,

generally, the public are not present at the parties. In 2014, the “Opening Party” was

sponsored by the Alfond Hotel, which provided elegant hors d’oeuvres and wines. This

was a large event, with around two hundred attendees, including filmmakers, actors,

publicists, sponsors and more. An official Global Peace Film Festival backdrop provided

a place for a “photo opportunity” for both the press and others. Ten-Thousand Villages, an upscale shop in downtown Winter Park, sponsors a rather business-oriented “Shopping

Party” midway through the festival, a cocktail-party hour event that raises awareness for

their fair-trade business. The shop is stuffed full of mostly small craft items with large prices made by indigenous and marginalized people from around the world. A percentage of the sales in the shop go to the Global Peace Film Festival, although not too

many sales were taking place during the 2014 event. However, the festival also promotes

Ten Thousand Villages online (tenthousandvillages.com) and asks fans to support the

festival through making purchases. This small gathering provided a place for networking,

and the people who attended were generally fans of the festival, those promoting films or

new people seeking to meet festival goers. The food was simple sandwich wraps and

modest wines were offered at the cashier’s counter.

Maxine’s on Shine, which provides the venue for the closing night “Filmmaker

Party,” sponsors an event that is rather different in nature. This hip downtown Orlando

restaurant and bar sponsors a semi-private event that celebrates the end of the festival with fine food and wine. The restaurant is open to the public and the party is listed in the festival program, but invited guests are given tickets for wine and directed to a buffet in the back room to collect food prepared by the chef. The colorful owners of Maxine’s on

Shine are close friends of Nina Streich, and their personalities shine through the evening.

Speeches are made, wine flows and conversation is lively. Networking is still going on,

but with a sense of camaraderie that promises future relationships. Given the festival’s

practice of continuing to support the filmmakers after the festival, this celebration acts as

means of cementing feelings of friendship.

Major Sponsors

In 2014, the newly opened Alfond Inn in Winter Park became a major sponsor,

giving the festival a very low rate for the sponsored filmmakers and providing other

services. The Alfond Inn provided rooms for panel events as well as a hospitality suite

with refreshments for the use of the filmmakers, volunteers and other festival participants. The staff of the festival could often be found working here along with filmmakers and volunteers taking advantage of the refreshments. The newly opened hotel is a few blocks from Rollins College and advertises itself as the most convenient hotel for visiting the college, so the relationship of the Global Peace Film Festival with the Rollins

College is likely relevant in their decision to support the festival. The hotel also provided a concierge with a table full of material about the festival in the lobby, and giving information out to festival goers also gave them the chance to draw the attention of attending alumni, teachers and community members to the attractions of the hotel.

The sponsorship by the Alfond Inn brought a new cohesiveness to the Global

Peace Film Festival’s annual event in 2014. When I first attended the festival in 2013, the venues were more scattered across the Orlando area and the filmmakers were staying at the Comfort Inn nearer to downtown Orlando than Rollins College.12 During both 2013 and 2014 some filmmakers stayed at the Comfort Suites, midway between Winter Park venues and downtown Orlando, but because the filmmakers who were sponsored by the festival stayed at the Alfond Inn, the Winter Park venues provided a central walkable area for festival activities for the core participants. One filmmaker who had attended the festival both in 2013 and 2014 commented on this, saying that it made a huge difference to the festival experience. Participants could walk between Rollins College venues, the

Alfond Inn, the Winter Park Library at the end of the block and even walk about ten blocks to Ten-Thousand Villages.

12 The 2013 “official” hotel, the Sonesta ES Suites on International Drive, was primarily a sponsorship relationship as filmmakers were not staying in rooms and there were no events nearby. 93

Rollins College is a major sponsor of the festival, providing much more than the venues on campus. The opening film of the festival traditionally takes place in an outdoor venue, on the Mills Lawn at Rollins College. In addition, films are screened in the Bush

Auditorium, which has a capacity of 345 people and the smaller Sun Trust Auditorium which can seat 88 people. Rollins College also sponsors the expenses of filmmakers who are invited to attend the festival, through their Thomas P. Johnson Distinguished Visiting

Scholar and Artist Fund. On campus, this sponsorship is announced at every screening, emphasizing the support provided by the college. This particular sponsorship is core to the mission of the festival, both to bring in filmmakers for the festival but also to support the festival goal of identifying and developing filmmakers. Faculty members at Rollins

College are also actively engaged with films that address their topics of interest and a number of them introduce films, require their students to attend and lead discussions during Question and Answer sessions.

Venues and Their Audiences

At the heart of the film festival, the audience is central to the goals of the festival as well as a primary focus for filmmakers. If the festival sometimes lacks cohesion, it is because it serves a number of demographics in very different venues in pursuit of ideological diversity. Attendees of the Global Peace Film Festival tend to be members of organizations that promote caring as a value, rather than seasoned film festival participants. Most attendees are drawn from the local area, and films attract people who are interested in that film’s topic or have connections with the venue or organization.

Particular screenings attract different audiences for a number of reasons, including the

demographic composition of the local setting as well as the nature of the venue.

Rollins College is central to both Winter Park and the Global Peace Film Festival, and for many local spectators, the festival identity is tied to both the city and college.

Perhaps because the area surrounding Rollins College is an upscale community, many of the attendees are middle to upper-middle class residents. The three venues on the Rollins

College campus draw more students, educators and alumni than other venues. However, particular film showings attract large numbers of spectators from a broader area in support of a specific local cause and the Bush auditorium provides a large venue for this purpose. Another local venue, the Winter Park Public Library, is an integral part of the festival. Just half a block from the Alfond Inn and Rollins College, it was centrally placed within the core area in which the films were presented.

In contrast, at downtown Orlando venues spectators tend to be drawn by content of the films, rather than attending because of the venue. The primary venue downtown is the Cobb Plaza Cinema Café, a multiplex that designates two of its screens to the festival event during weekday evenings and all day Saturday. There is less communication between spectators or networking taking place at this venue, because it functions as a movie theater with a table set up in the otherwise busy lobby to sell tickets for the Global

Peace Film Festival screenings. There were no blockbuster sales reported during 2014, and attendance was very minimal on Saturday afternoon. This first screening of The

Cooler Bandits took place at the Cobb Plaza for a very small audience, even though it soon became a festival favorite. However, there is a potential to draw a large crowd to this venue. During the 2013 event, a popular film by a local filmmaker about a member

of the downtown gay community, Billy and Allen: In Life, Live and Death, Equality

Matters (2013) directed by Vicki Nantz, sold out. The theater moved the event to a larger screen to accommodate the many patrons without tickets, which highlights the fact that connections with the local community can garner support for the films screened.

Another downtown venue that participated in 2013 is worth a mention because it primarily attracted a more urban, younger (18-45 years) audience. The Mad Cow Theatre in downtown Orlando, funded by some of the same grants as the Global Peace Film

Festival, is a small black box theater with its own theater group. The major events of the festival took place at other venues, but the films scheduled in this venue in 2013 addressed topics that were more politically oriented, and spectators were passionate about the causes. However, even in this extremely small venue, attendance was light and the

Question and Answer sessions were left to the employee in charge at the theater.

However, this urban audience tended to be more attuned to the conventions of film festivals than spectators in other venues, such as applauding for the filmmaker at the close of the screening.

Valencia College/West Campus is a less prestigious college in a less affluent area of Orlando, which is reflected in the composition of the audience. Most of the attendees are students and the event is geared towards the needs of this population. This venue is characteristic of the school programs that augment the Global Peace Film Festival, providing screenings for students in a variety of settings. In spite of the fact that this venue is an official venue that sponsors a film, spectators from Winter Park and downtown Orlando are not a visible part of the audience. The events at Valencia College

were primarily designed for their own students and had the character of educational

events.

Surveying the Audience

Because the Global Peace Film Festival defines itself as an engagement festival

and seeks funding for the arts from agencies concerned with the development and

promotion of the Orlando area, measuring the effect that the festival has on the

community is important to their mission. Since 2007, the Global Peace Film Festival has

been surveying audiences as part of the requirements to receive grant money from the

Orange County Tourist Development Tax, providing much needed cash. Surveying is

conducted at all films and events throughout the festival, on a volunteer basis, although

each person entering the theater is handed a survey by a festival worker and requested to

fill it out after the film, answering questions about their experience at the festival. The

Global Peace Film Festival reports the percentage of attendees who say that they intend

to take action based on the films they viewed, legitimizing the efforts of the festival each

year. In 2007, 59% of respondents said that the film that they just saw changed their

opinion, with similar results each year after. The question, “Did the film make you want to take action?” has averaged a positive response from an average of 66% of the respondents. In addition, the Global Peace Film Festival staff reports that audience members relate stories about how they were inspired by a film and took concrete action.

The goals of the survey include monitoring the outcomes of the festival as well as tracking success of each film both locally and for the support given to the filmmaker.

This kind of evidence is only anecdotal, as the festival lacks more concrete measurements. However, the survey form offers the spectator a way to make a commitment to take action as well as asking him/her to identify a specific way in which he/she might do so.

The Global Peace Film Festival does track detailed information about attendance numbers at the screenings for purposes of receiving funding, including the number of attendees of each type. Aside from the tickets sold at the door, every pass holder is given a ticket that is marked with the type of pass and collected at the door. Likewise, tickets for volunteers, students and others who enter for free are coded and collected. The festival gives away tickets for a variety of reasons in addition to the development of relationships with community organizations, such as sponsoring attendance by students who live in disadvantaged neighborhoods. The coding of tickets gives an accurate count of people present at the screening that is essential as a marker of the impact of the festival on the community.

Global Peace Film Festival Volunteers

Volunteers form the backbone of the festival, as both staff and as spectators. New to the position in 2014, volunteer coordinator Dave O’Connor reports that he sends out an invitation to volunteer to over 6000 email addresses representing people who have expressed an interest in volunteering at the Global Peace Film Festival, as well as former volunteers. Out of those emails, he got around 60 positive responses resulting in volunteers for the festival. However, emails and phone calls from people who would like

to volunteer continue into the festival week and all are given a chance to volunteer in

some capacity. Volunteers and the email list comes from a variety of sources and

networking is essential to the process. For example, Dave O’Connor works with Model

United Nations students, so they are encouraged and eager to volunteer. Local support is

essential to the festival and some of the core volunteers, especially those connected to

community organizations, act as representatives of the Global Peace Film Festival events

during the year when the managing director and artistic director are not available.

There are different levels of volunteering that represent various ways in which

people might relate to the festival. Behind the scenes volunteers are generally more

closely related to the festival on a long term basis and take on jobs like technical

director/staff for the festival or pre-screening the films and checking for technical glitches. People who pre-screen films are asked to volunteer during the festival as well,

so that they may provide inside information to guests who ask about the content of the

films. All volunteers are encouraged to learn the schedule of the festival so that they can

act in the capacity of providing information to attendees. A variety of other jobs are

attached to events other than film screenings. Other jobs that require volunteers might

take place before the festival, when volunteers hand out promotional material on

weekends and post flyers in businesses. During the festival, volunteers might help set up,

strike or man a table at one of the parties or participate in a post-event clean-up. The

festival has a great need for drivers to chauffer panel members and filmmakers to and

from venues and hotels. Most volunteers, even those more connected with the festival on

a long term basis, prefer to be at the screenings and this job takes one away from the

venues.

Many volunteers are involved in helping out at screenings and those who volunteer for at least three shifts get to attend all screenings for free. At screenings, a house manager directs the volunteers to specific jobs. People more closely connected with the festival are generally given the positions of cashier and ticket sales. Other volunteers are asked to take tickets at the door, hand out surveys and ask spectators to complete them after the film or to remove garbage from the room after the event. Both college and high school students often volunteer at the screenings and student volunteers often are present because a teacher recommended that they participate. College students generally are volunteering at venues where they attend classes, but the sprinkling of high school students among them come from many different schools from around the county or are attached to specific organizations like the United Nations Association-USA Florida

Chapter.

Volunteers are never turned down and are allowed to choose how they will volunteer. Many of the screenings have more volunteers than needed but they are directed to help someone and then they are encouraged to “go on in and enjoy the film.” This encouragement for people to volunteer at the film of their choice works well to support the aims of the festival for several reasons. The volunteers provide additional spectators for showings that have light attendance, which is positive because some showings are poorly attended, especially those playing at the same time as popular films. More importantly, volunteering opens up an opportunity to get spectators involved with the festival community and increase the impact of the festival. What begins as an opportunity to view films for free is transformed into support for the festival in other ways.

100

Online Presence of the Festival

As part of their liaison with the public, the Global Peace Film Festival maintains a website (www.peacefilmfest.org) as well as a Facebook page and Twitter account. The festival website functions as an official space for the festival, and it is here where any newcomer can find needed information about the festival event or how to submit a film for consideration. The front page of the festival website entreats visitors to donate now, submit your film or sign up for the newsletter. The website also archives information about the last year’s festival and lists sponsors. The “Get Involved” link offers an email address and form to volunteer for the festival, ways to shop that benefit the Global Peace

Film Festival and a list of community groups that one might join to support their causes.

This website is rather static and although this is the place that one can find the festival schedule, it does not appear until shortly before the event. In April 2015, the events page still had outdated information about a 2014 event at the festival, although one can find more up to date information by clicking on one of the latest Tweets, which are listed on the side of the page for @PeaceFilmFest.

Online presence is essential for connecting with the public in our digital age, and social media plays a small but essential role in promoting the Global Peace Film Festival.

The Facebook page, with almost 4800 likes as of April 2015, is one place for communication between the Global Peace Film Festival and their fans. These posts are often backed up with emails that contain the same message. A number of different kinds of posts keep people informed about festival events and items of interest to the festival community. Rather than the website, it is here that events are publicized and pictures

101

posted. Posts by the festival include announcements of events, cute pictures with maxims

to live by, quotes from famous people, news items related to peace and liberal politics,

promotions of other events in the Orlando area, the occasional requests for donors, and a

number of peace signs. The focus of many of the messages centers on how to treat other

people, how to live a good life and “what I can do,” all concerns that revolve around the

self.

Active engagement with the Facebook page by festival goers is sporadic and does

not reflect the many close relationships that are evident at the festival itself. The

Facebook page averages between two and five posts a month, with varying numbers of

people acting to “like” a post. Many posts have no recorded likes, but of the posts that are

“liked” many have numbers in the 2-10 range and fewer in the 10-20 range. A very few posts have larger numbers of likes but this is not attached to events or screenings but to quotes and maxims, such as the one wishing Nelson Mandela well when he fell ill (44 likes) or the picture of Spock and James Kirk of Star Trek holding a sign that says,

“Before we go looking for life on other planets can we stop killing life on this one?”.

Very few people share these posts and most of the posts that are shared are shared by 1-5

people. Rarely do a great number of people share a message such as the poster explaining

that “You are more fortunate than 3 billion people” (30 shares). The Facebook page has

gained more momentum since 2013, with more posts by festival staff, but the responses

from fans remain in the same range. This may be due to the demographics of the festival

attendees, many of whom are older and less proficient on the internet. Festival attendance

draws heavily two groups, college students who are less committed to following the

festival on a yearly basis and from older local citizens, including Rollins College alumni

102

and retirees, who may be less heavy users of social media. The festival is caught between

pre-digital and digital generations, and has not explored ways to integrate the two groups

through social media.

Some insights into the development of the festival over the years are evident

when looking at posts on Facebook. The festival’s Facebook page shows posts beginning

in July 2009, acting as an archive for photographs from the festival and events that have

taken place in connection with the festival, as well as revealing a more organic approach

to events involving the community. Past activities included a parade that opened the

festival in 2009, consisting of a small dance group with drummers and a “dog walk for

peace” with about a dozen dogs, all of whom paraded down the streets and sidewalks of

Winter Park to a street fair. The next two years continued the pet theme, with an

International Pet Parade for Peace, with dogs dressed up in costumes reflecting their

nationality “strutting their stuff” at the Global Peace Film Festival Street Fair. Through

the years, the festival has continued to grow and these activities have been dropped.

Twitter, which the festival joined in 2009, has recently become a valuable mode

for communicating information about Global Peace Film Festival events and has a more

vibrant feel of interconnectivity with its 2,658 followers, who tend to be younger and

more tech-savvy. In addition, the festival is following 1,505 others and has 93 favorites.

A lot more intimate contact between people and the festival takes place within this space.

Networking is evident, as well as information sharing and messages about personal meet- ups. Films are promoted, interviews with the press are listed, and people praise their experiences at the festival events. Although the Global Peace Film Festival has fewer

103

fans listed on Twitter than Facebook, on Twitter there a narrower focus on film and

media and making connections with other people.

The three different formats utilized by the Global Peace Film Festival to represent

itself through an online presence differ in ways that reflect a variety of factors, including

demographics and budgetary concerns. The rather static official website is more costly to change and changes happen only a few times a year. The users of Facebook and Twitter are rather different in nature, and one finds a younger fan base who are more adept with technology utilizing Twitter. Twitter is also used by young professionals to network, following the progress of others in the same business, so this carries over into filmmakers acting to promote themselves. In contrast, Facebook page includes more material that addresses the self and how one might develop into a person who cares about the world rather than focusing solely on events. The filmmakers and their activities are evident on

Twitter, but even the filmmakers themselves rarely make an appearance on Facebook other than in a post about a festival event.

Conclusions

The Global Peace Film Festival is conceived of by its leaders as an engagement festival and thus seeks to foster action on the part of spectators. Nina Streich stresses that the success of the festival is in what happens after the annual event, meaning both action taken by spectators in response to films, as well as the continued support of the film and filmmaker by the festival and their fan base. This reflects the structure and goals of the festival, which aim towards placing the filmmaker at the center of activist efforts. The

104

extensive involvement of the festival with local community organizations and funding

sources has been essential to its success, as a local presence throughout the year helps to

integrate the festival with the community. The structure of the festival is sometimes

somewhat serendipitous because its success relies heavily on relationships between

people and organizations and money is not always available. However, the structure of

the festival supports the goals of its founder, and Nina Streich has a very clear vision of

how to structure the Global Peace Film Festival to achieve social change.

Changes seem to be in the air, with the formalization of efforts to provide support

to filmmakers as well as the new centralization of the festival experience in Winter Park.

In addition, Nina Streich would like to expand the program into her home New York area utilizing the same model that centralizes activism around the filmmaker rather than the film. The festival model is moving towards an innovative approach to activism which may prove to work well in promoting a successful activist campaign that constitutes the filmmaker as witness and activist and the spectator as central to the success of the filmmaker as representative of the cause.

To understand the complexity of relationships that surround this goal, it is

necessary to examine how the Global Peace Film Festival articulates with the role of the

filmmaker as well as the audience and the humanitarian milieu. The relationship between spectator, filmmaker, film and cause is complex and the Global Peace Film Festival provides an arena in which this relationship may be negotiated. Any number of sociopolitical factors contributes to the complexity of this relationship, but meaning is constructed within local contexts and among local lives. The festival encourages individuals to make sense of their world as they perceive it, engaging with social issues

105

from beneath the umbrella of an expanded meaning of peace, which provides a wealth of room to construct meanings in ways that are compatible with individual understandings.

The structure of the Global Peace Film Festival is conducive to drawing contemporary audiences as it allows spectators to choose how to engage with the festival as well as which personal actions they might take in response to experiences at the festival.

The flexibility of programming to suit the needs of the local community has been instrumental in creating a rich local context that supports a variety of causes, but is also problematic in some ways. The festival has grown in a hodgepodge, in the moment manner (often due to budgetary concerns) that has resulted in both successes and failures on an event-by-event basis. Social media could be used more effectively to maintain p

On a broader basis, the festival participates in defining the Orange County area for its residents. These festival goers are generally more educated and more aware of global issues and prefer to construct their identity as cosmopolitan residents of an international city, rather than as local residents of a town that has become overshadowed by destination travel to theme parks and tourist traps. Activism offers a choice for the construction of local identities that fit into this perspective, so it gains a local relevance on top of other considerations. In the next chapter, I address how the Global Peace Film

Festival functions as a space and resource for audiences to construct their identities within the context of activism. Participants at the festival bring their perceptions regarding how they fit into the local as well as the relationship of the local with the global. Chapter four addresses how individuals make sense of the unknowable nature of the world, in spite of the immense amount of information that comes their way, and how

106

each negotiates a sense of how he or she stands in relationship to global events and economies.

107

IV. AUDIENCES AND ACTIVISM

The Discourse of Peace as a Defining Characteristic

A particular understanding of the notion of peace is a central component of festival ideology, strongly influencing the makeup of the attendees as well as the structure of the festival itself. Peace acts as a discourse for the negotiation of positionalities taken by audiences in the process of defining themselves as activists. It conveys a utopian sense of “making the world a better place” while at the same time easing the tension between “doing good” and remaining solidly rooted within the structures of capitalism and ignoring its consequences.

Seeking peace within this paradigm allows individuals to map their place within the world creatively in a characteristically postmodern manner, picking and choosing that which is meaningful on a personal level. Faced with an excess of information from events all over an unknowable world still does not provide a picture of a global social totality nor a sense of ones place within it. Fredric Jameson’s notion of cognitive mapping provides a framework to understand the cultural work taking place at the festival.

Individuals seek to cognitively map their position in the world, but great multinational spaces are unknown and unmapped, depending on what knowledge they have accumulated. The global may be too complex to know, but the individual can cognitively map his or her own position by mapping what they do know (Jameson, 356). Films

108

contribute knowledge and perspective for the negotiation of what should constitute the pillars of one’s positionality, as well as providing concrete markers for this mapping process in the form of a “dramatic boundaries” within which more generalized knowledge can be understood, much in the same manner as one maps a city by learning the main streets and landmarks (Jameson, 353) This cognitive model provides an organizing structure for action and the discourse of peace promoted at the festival leaves a lot of space for individuals to construct a map of their own choosing. As a central discourse of the Global Peace Film Festival, the notion of peace allows participants to construct meaning from within their own positionality, perhaps because peace most clearly expressed at the festival in terms of relationships between people on multiple levels. Individualizing understandings of peace and how to achieve it transfers its purpose into cultural production on the part of the individual, who constructs a personal understanding of what types of activism should be adopted.

The particular manner in which the discourse of peace is expressed at the festival comes directly from the founder, Nina Streich. As managing director of the festival, she purposefully has maintained a broad interpretation of peace right from the beginning because she feels strongly that peace has many facets that reach beyond political ideology. During the early years of the festival, several people asked her why she did not just drop the word “Peace” from the name of the festival. Nina relates that this rather floored her the first time, but after thinking about a response, she decided to respond,

“Why would you ask this? Why shouldn’t peace be included?” What she found was that people had a limited view of the concept of peace that did not align with her own understanding.

109

Although not clearly articulated, Nina’s intuitive feeling illustrates that the

concept of peace in this particular manifestation is essential to the core function of the

festival. She feels strongly that peace as a concept has many layers, and this informs how

she has molded the structure of the festival. From individual relationships to global

hierarchies, we should query what each of us means when we speak of peace, a process

that involves cognitive mapping of our place in the world. The website of Global Peace

Film festival (newly designed for the 2014 event) states, “From the outset, the Global

Peace Film Festival envisioned “peace” not as the absence of conflict but as a framework

for channeling and revolving conflict through respectful and non-violent means. People

of good faith have real differences that deserve to be discussed, debated and contested.”

(http:peacefilmfest.org).

The conception of the festival as a dialogical center is extended to any number of

topics and human relationships that go far beyond the concerns of humanitarianism. For example, the 2013 Global Peace Film Festival included a film about the relationship between two brothers (Mistaken for Strangers 2013, directed by Tom Berninger) as well

a short film about the use of lighting in urban environments (Electric Signs 2012, directed

by Alice Arnold). Structuring the festival to include diverse local organizations is central

to the way that the festival articulates with the local community, which consequently

creates a context that underscores the mission of the festival. This smorgasbord of choice

allows for any number of perspectives to coexist within the parameters of the festival. In

spite of this, there is an underlying structure that informs audiences about how they

should respond and feel about certain issues; films impart sociopolitical messages. In

spite of the festival’s imperative to “start a conversation,” the films are prechosen for the

110

quality and kind of messages that are portrayed. Media both represent and shape cultural

values, and this film festival plays a role in this process through the construction of a community that generally values both political action and daily praxis; it is the way in which these are included in individuals lives and consciousness that is given more free

rein. In spite of the diversity of sociopolitical stances of the participants in the festival,

there are many commonalities in the way that attendees construct their identities in

relation to humanitarianism and the festival offerings represent a particular neoliberal

viewpoint.

Cosmopolitan Identities

If we are to speak of the construction of cosmopolitan identities through

involvement with human rights activism and participation in the Global Peace Film

Festival, we must first define exactly what constitutes a cosmopolitan identity and what

factors participate in this culturally constructed positionality that forms informs identity.

Cosmopolitan identities function in dual capacities within the context of the Global Peace

Film Festival. On one level, individuals identify with what is essentially a Kantian

perspective, seeing themselves as caring individuals who have overcome the limitations

of their existence to expand their consciousness to include the well-being of all human beings. However, much more is taking place within the particular circumstances within which individuals construct an understanding of the world and their place within it. A dichotomy exists between Kant’s notion of cosmopolitanism as a “universal feeling of sympathy” and the processes actually influencing the work of identity construction by

111

spectators situated within this specific context. The complexity of factors that inform attendees goes much farther than instilling cosmopolitan perspective that can be simply defined as a universal feeling of sympathy (Kant, Critique of Judgment, trans. and ed.

Werner. S. Pluhar (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1987), quoted. in Cheah 2006, 1).

Under the umbrella of cosmopolitanism, a number of stances in relationship to those who are depicted in films are commonly taken by Western audiences attending humanitarian/activist film festivals, including attendees at the Global Peace Film Festival.

When nationalism is rejected in the interest of a collective consciousness that is sustained by a sense of global morality, then cosmopolitanism emerges as a political alternative. A feeling beyond nationalism, an awareness of globalization processes as something that requires urgent sociopolitical action, is seen as essential in achieving a future than is aligned with Kant’s notion of a utopian endpoint for humanity. Such discourses inform our Western understanding of globalization and our relationship with others in far way locales.

Cosmopolitanism and human rights are two primary ways of configuring the global in human terms (Cheah 2006, 2-3). Thus, earlier articulations of cosmopolitanism were placed in opposition to nationalism and celebrated it as a means of overcoming nationalist particularism and as a means of achieving genuine universalism. This stance is reflected in the general perception of attendees of the festival. The discourse of nationalism is perceived to be aligned with the needs of capitalism, and is rejected as a negative mode of collective consciousness that disguises itself as a universalism. Instead, global consciousness is sought, but the nature of this global consciousness is problematic.

A more nuanced approach grounds a critique of nationalism within analyses of the effects

112

of contemporary globalization and conceives of the cosmopolitical in terms of

transnational encounters (Cheah 2006, 18). This view of transnational encounters is more

in line with the polycentric multiculturalism outlined by Shohat and Stam (1994, 5), and

less so with the perceptions of the western general public. The sort of cosmopolitanism

described by Shohat and Stam consists of a variety of existing practical stances that are

constituted by identities born out of blurred boundaries, displaced lives and local ethnic

identities. This understanding is not characteristic of the way spectators at human rights festivals conceive of their relationship with the other presented in films about exotic locales or disadvantaged segments of our own population. Western audiences continue to conceive of these identities in terms of “the west and the rest” rather than pose circumstances in which more equal relationship exist between different cultural groups.

Human rights discourse gives a face to globalization, and filmgoers conceive of their world in terms of what they have heard and seen on screen, but the moral universalism of human rights discourse continues to afford justification to neoliberal arguments about how the power of globalization might unite us into a common humanity (Cheah 2006,

145).

Solidarity and the Role of Self in Humanitarianism

A more nuanced understanding of the dynamics in play at the Global Peace Film

Festival is possible if one considers the nature of the interface between the quest for a global consciousness and sociopolitical factors that are meaningful in spectators’ own lives. A key theme is found in discourses surrounding solidarity. Lilie Chouliaraki

113

proposes that a void of universal ethics leads to “a new morality of solidarity that is

resolutely ‘anti-political,’ in that it replaces the other-oriented solidarities of the past with

an individualistic morality of ‘feel good’ activism (2013, 14) .” Despite a diversity of

causes, audiences share common perspectives on humanitarianism, and these are

reflected in the ways in which audience members interact with the festival. This is played

out in the motivations of the audience to attend and to act, what expectations regarding

the attendees are held by festival organizers and the nature of the relationships among the

viewers, humanitarian efforts and vendors, as well as their experience of the films

themselves.

Motivation to act relies on a sense of solidarity, but solidarity as a concept has a

great deal of plasticity (Chouliaraki 2013, 9). Within the purview of modernity, our

understanding of solidarity has changed in essential ways that is reflected in our changing

relationship with distant others. Public culture fosters a solidarity that is shaped by our

moral imperative to act in regard to people close to us, as well as more distant others

whom we do not expect to reciprocate (Chouliaraki 2013, 3). Lilie Chouliaraki argues

that it is by examining solidarity within the context of its role as mediator of the

conflicting demands of market, politics and the media that we can begin to understand

how the spectacle of suffering is creating a specific kind of public actor in the west, an

“ironic spectator of vulnerable others,” who expresses a self-awareness that informs

about difference. This qualitatively different self-awareness “situates the pleasures of the self at the heart of moral action” and makes identity construction essential to the way people response to humanitarian appeals (Chouliaraki 2013, 3-4).

114

Audiences of the Global Peace Film Festival act in a number of capacities, but one of the strongest motivations to attend the festival is attached to identity and this particular sense of self. It was common for spectators at the festival talk about the issues in films that they had just viewed by placing them into the context of their personal life experiences. One primary goal of the Global Peace Film Festival surrounds the use of the festival experience to guide individual action through motivational experience

(http//peacefilmfest.org). Translating individual reactions to films into personal action is intricately tied to identity and a conception of the self, so motivating an individual is a complex endeavor. Mobilizing a “feel good” activism that makes us feel better about our privileged position aligns with the discourses surrounding the contemporary humanitarianism and places the self at the center of humanitarian efforts.

Lilie Chouliaraki argues that the self plays a major role in contemporary humanitarianism. She identifies a crucial era in documentary film during which a new emotionality became central to the relationship between viewers and documentary film, from 1970-2010. This new emotionality is foundational to identity construction in the context of the humanitarian film festival. If the individual constructs a cosmopolitan self within the context of the world that they perceive, drawing from films that define other worlds and other lives in a particular manner, then this process of construction becomes a vital part of the motivation of action. “How I feel?” is directly connected with “What can

I do?” The response demanded of audience members is to get in touch with our feelings in order to express solidarity with those whom are being featured in the film.

(Chouliaraki 2013, 1).

115

The form of the festival promotes a particular “structure of feeling” that draws

from overarching discourses to inform how individuals experience the event. Raymond

Williams proposes that social experience takes place within a specific present created by

the interrelations among multiple elements in the contemporary moment. Social

consciousness is a lived, active endeavor; and our lived experience exists within the

context of this articulation of relationships (Williams 2009, 132-133). This is a useful

concept for understanding practices and behavior within the context of the Global Peace

Film Festival. Multiple discourses are at play at any given event, acting in conjunction

with broader themes of the festival. The primacy of the self in response to humanitarian

issues a dominant and powerful aspect of audience experiences, interacting with other

discourses that are salient in individual lives. The festival event provides a space in which

broader discourse are ingested by individuals at the local level, resulting in various

expressions of behavior.

Attendees of the Global Peace Film Festival expressed many reasons for

participating in the festival, but the most frequent responses revolved around relating the

topics of the films to their own lives. Specific films or events are relevant to individuals,

who perceive the space of the festival as a way of affirming aspects of identity. In one

case, a non-traditional student attending night classes at Rollins College expressed his

reasons for attending the film, Pay to Play: Democracy’s High Stakes, directed by John

Wellington Ennis (2014) through his wish to become a politician. He was a part-time student, with years to go before completing a college degree, but was strongly committed to bringing honest minority leaders into the local community. He felt that he was the kind of person who should be in politics and expressed support for the filmmaker, whose film

116

exposed many of the negative political practices that take place in elections. His question for me was, “Where do you think that I should start with my career as a politician?” Put on the spot, I replied, “Maybe as a city councilman?” He looked pleased and replied,

“Yes, that’s what I’m thinking of doing in two years.” He had a plan and sought affirmation at the festival, but only planned to attend this one film screening that fit into his interests.

A clear, yet uncommon, example of how one individual expressed her particular understanding of self within the space of the festival is seen in the actions of a long-time attendee, who when asked why she returned to the festival every year, responded, “The festival taught me that I can be confrontational.” This did not express her relationship with festival events in a concrete, specific manner, but touched upon her longtime experience as an attendee. She attended many panels and films and her comments were sometimes confrontational, as was her style of interacting with participants through pointed questions. On these occasions, remarks were often related to her sense of self, reinterpreting the topic at hand in terms of her personal life, but one occasion illustrated how the broader discourses of the festival touched down, motivating her to express her conception of self in an anecdote.

On the occasion of a panel of local leaders discussing how to improve race relations in the Orlando area, she rose and acted out a narrative about her youth that expressed her sense of self in relation to race and segregation. She told a story, with bold gestures to illustrate her actions, about traveling across the South every year with her parents when she was around eight to ten years old. In this performative narrative, she related that all the way across the South from Texas to Florida, her parents would stop at

117

restaurants and let her go in first. She would ask for a table, then since the restaurant was

segregated, when the rest of the family came in she would throw her hands up and shout

“White Only!” in condemnation of the segregated restaurant, to which her family

responded “White Only!” The family would then all leave without eating. The nature of

this account is meaningful when considering her assertion that the Global Peace Film

Festival taught her to be confrontational, although this eight-year-old sounds like she needed no lessons in this enterprise. Whether a faithful account of her childhood or rewritten history, more to the point is that this narrative expressed something about how she constructed a cosmopolitan self in relation to the South, race relations and the festival. She likely placed her current self in the past, expressing complex feelings about her identity in response to the topic, as well as her long-time presence at the festival. The anecdote was taken in silence by the audience, who did not quite know how to respond.

Agency and Representation

The concern with the role of media in cultivating cosmopolitan sensibilities among audiences rests both on the nature of the text and the moral power of representations. Mediascapes, as worldwide systems of images produced by both state and private interests, provide a series of elements such as characters, plots and textual forms that can be drawn from to construct images of imagined lives of others living in distant locales as well as for oneself (Appadurai 1996, 52). These scripts are disarticulated, reconfigured and transformed into complex sets of metaphors that people use as a basis for living their lives (Lakoff and Johnson 1980, quoted in Appadurai 1996,

118

52). Audience members draw from these scripts to construct narratives of the other as well as possible futures for themselves that might include both taking action and change in their own lives (Appadurai 1996, 52).

Lilie Chouliaraki notes that this crucial connection between media representation and public action is under-theorized, yet it is in the articulation between the two that practice theory offers valuable insights (2008, 831). Practice theory seeks to explain the relationship between human actions and “the system” as an integrated whole, the unequal power relationships found therein, and how action either reproduces or challenges the status quo (Ortner 1984, 149). In anthropology the trend is to examine the construction of self, person, emotion and motive from a cross-cultural perspective, which offers insight into the way that we construct self in contrast to the other. Although speaking of the ways that writing about culture constitutes an abstract representation that contains subjective truths, James Clifford insightfully notes that “with every version of an “other,” wherever found, is also the construction of a “self” (Clifford 1986, 23). This is an apt observation to apply to spectators, who filter their conception of the other through their understandings of the world and their particular positions within it. Within practice theory, an actor-centered paradigm has emerged that regards actors as experiencing the complexities of their situation and attempting to solve problems created by those situations. By examining the forces in play upon the actors, it is possible to understand the actors themselves and the factors that influence identity construction (Ortner 1984

151).

Dorothy Holland, et. al. take a cognitive approach to understanding “how people are constituted as agents as well as subjects of culturally constructed, socially imposed

119

worlds.” Expanding upon the notion that actors are motivated by an awareness of the

complexities of their situations, they address agency and identity within the context of

lived experience. Holland and her colleagues reject the notion of a unified subject,

preferring to conceive of individuals as “composites of many, often contradictory, self-

understandings and identities” (8). Identity can then be seen as fluid and continually

negotiated within the context of daily lives. Holland and Quinn take two central

approaches to understand people’s actions, based on the notion that behavior is mediated

by a sense of self or identity. They propose that individuals may be motivated by either a

culturalist position that accesses internalized cultural logic or by a constructionist

position which draws from the subject position which they occupy within a social

situation (Holland et. al., 8). Thus individuals may be motivated by situational context as

well as by systems of cultural knowledge that are mastered and drawn from in their daily

negotiations (Quinn and Holland 1987, 3).

This approach is useful in understanding the dynamics of identity construction

within the context of the Global Peace Film Festival. Participants in the festival often

relate how a film reflects their own interest, and then go on to relate how the film is

meaningful in specific ways. I found that these ways always relate to the process of

identity construction; attendees always seem to be negotiating meaning within the context

of their lives. One striking example found in the narrative offered by a flight attendant

who, unlike most audience members had a number of somewhat unrelated causes. She

was hesitant to name her interests, saying she had not accomplished any of her goals. As

she spoke of her interests, ranging from protecting a 100-year old local tree, weaving and building all-bamboo houses in Myanmar to provide housing, it became clear that these

120

causes were as diverse as the places to which she traveled and the people she met. Every time she ran across something, she felt a connection. However, there was never enough time to follow through with any of her plans to take action, an approach that had much in common with flying through towns without stopping for long. For her latest interest, she spent weeks training in Myanmar with a friend who was engaged in the humanitarian effort to provide bamboo housing, but her primary plan was to create and bamboo kits to build gazebos locally. As she was nearing retirement age, her goal was to find a second career and redefine herself. A diversity of causes was well-suited a world traveler who was actively engaged in identity (re)construction.

Placing individuals within the context of the Global Peace Film Festival, humanitarianism and activism, I argue that that, in addition to constructing moral imperatives based on particular depictions of the disadvantaged other, audience members who attend activist film festivals use these texts to work out their position within their own social structure, sometimes in contrast to the other, but certainly within the context of moral judgments regarding any number of negative effects of the global capitalistic system. Films that inform about the inadequacies of our own system are more direct in a critique of our social structure, but films about foreign locales are utilized in a similar manner to understand one’s place within a broader globalized conception of our world.

The utopian core of capitalism and neoliberal economics participates in how western individuals see their place in our globalized world. Because capitalistic ideology has a utopian core, the hegemony of western capitalism goes uncontested; other possible utopias are eclipsed by the western notion of a capitalistic utopia (Žižek 2009, 77). Even while the negative effects of capitalism are decried, there still remains the notion that the

121

world will proceed to an endpoint that this situated within a capitalistic structure.

Practices such as the “greenwashing” of activities of corporations such as Starbucks

Coffee make them fit into paradigms of sustainability by recreating them as ideological versions of socially responsible eco-capitalism (Žižek 2009, 53). The global emphasis on capitalist practices avoids giving attention to local circumstances, which are much closer to home. The festival includes films about local issues every year, and these are often well supported. However, there is a dichotomy between “making the world a better place” and solving problems at home by recognizing our own culpability, so we often distance even local issues. We prefer to cognitively map our place in the world in terms of broad borders, constructing a cosmopolitan identity while leaving much of the local to fill in the interstices and thus remain secondary in our attention.

Lifestyle Politics

Because one primary goal of the festival is to highlight the power of film as a medium to spur people to take action, the expectation that the festival experience will be life-changing for participants is high. Like other activist film festivals, the Global Peace

Film Festival wishes to put a face on issues and calls for engagement with causes, going beyond offering a public sphere that promotes a particular form of knowledge production and expression of citizenship. Personal engagement is sought by promoting personal change in the lifestyles of individuals, manifest in such choices as whether to eat meat, recycle, or buy only fair trade olive oil. Laura Portwood-Stacer uses the term “lifestyle politics” to refer to the “whole cultural formation around individuals’ use of everyday

122

choices as a legitimate site of political expression” (2013, 9). While Portwood-Stacer addresses lifestyle politics among within the context of anarchism as a radical political philosophy, overtly political acts can be found in varying levels within a more general context in which “the personal is political.” This notion of the power of personal responsibility has become a foundation for contemporary citizenship, providing a premise for the marketing of “ethical” products to consumers (2). The kind of “lifestyle activism”13 exercised by individuals who wish to “make a difference” is premised on the notion that practices have both performative and propagandistic effects, allowing one to act as a witness to other possibilities. In this way, individuals try to make their daily lives consistent with their utopian political ideology (Portwood-Stacer 2013, 3, 9).

Transforming this into concrete acts is more complex and the slate of films does not always support suitable opportunities for local participation. Media act to foster a cosmopolitan outlook on the world, an orientation towards and willingness to relate with the other (Hannerz 1996, 103 quoted in Chouliaraki 2008), yet do not provide an option to take personal action. Yet, media play a central role in our understanding of the world as a “global village” so the connection between moral imperatives dealt out to individuals and the lack of opportunity to respond to these media-based calls for responsibility in daily lives creates tensions for the cosmopolitan self within the context of seeing and knowing and not being able to act (Chouliaraki 2008, 831).

Lifestyle options are central to the identity of the Global Peace Film Festival and not just due to film choices. Festival practices that allow participants to feel personally involved, or give them specific local opportunities for involvement act to diminish this tension, which is present generally in mediation of the world on a daily basis as well as

13 Portwood-Stacer defines lifestyle activism as “deployment of lifestyle for activist purposes” (2013, 5). 123

within the festival context. Some films highlight products, such as olive oil, that give

unfair profits to corporations at the expense of local growers and spectators are urged to

support fair trade items. The disconnect between promoting motivation and providing

opportunity has been an area of concern at the Global Peace Film Festival, and more

attention goes into providing a network of action around films whose directors are

present, while less attention is given to other films. In 2013, some patrons voiced a

frustration in making sense of small lifestyle acts on a broader scale, because of the lack

of meaningful ways to support change.

At the 2014 festival, major strides were made in providing opportunities for action, partially due to the response of the festival staff to audience comments and partially to and the changing model of the festival. A number of practices support this endeavor, including bringing in more filmmakers and promoting them as agents of change for audiences to support, increased efforts to match local organizations to film showings, new uses of technology and the choice of specific films that inform audiences about how they can take action. These efforts are discussed in subsequent chapters, as they are significant in understanding the relevance of the particular structure of different events at the festival.

Other options to support change through lifestyle are directly connected to consumption and business sponsors of the festival are sometimes connected with specific topics presented in films. During each festival event, a cocktail party is held at Ten

Thousand Villages, a store that sells fair trade gift items in downtown Winter Park. Sales of highly marked-up merchandise during the party allow patrons to express solidarity by purchasing items from a number of countries, with information about the producers

124

provided on the label. Spectators are also urged to support food vendors who sponsor the festival, such as Ethos Vegan Kitchen, Dandelion Communitea Café, Honest Tea and

Whole Foods. At the 2014 festival, the film, Connected by Coffee (2014, directed by

Aaron Dennis) is sponsored directly by the Winter Park Whole Foods Store effectively defining Whole Foods as a socially responsible participant in eco-capitalism. This endeavor participates in laying out the proper buying practices of ethical consumers.

Thus, a new ethos of global responsibility puts capitalism to work as an “instrument of the common good” and the experience of shopping at Whole Foods becomes instrumental in the construction of the self as a globally aware consumer (Žižek 2009, 34-35).

Spectators at the festival are motivated to answer the question of “What can I do?” through responsible consumption, but this type of consumption often comes with a high price tag. One elderly woman was highly disappointed when she tried to buy fair trade olive oil to support the farmers featured in the film offering at the festival; she found that fair trade olive oil was too expensive for her to buy on her retirement income.

This kind of lifestyle politics as a solution places the self at the center of humanitarian efforts; support is realized through the construction of an identity as a person who cares and consumes in a responsible manner. However, this option is geared towards a particular demographic who have more disposable income.

At the level of consumption, with a new spirit of “cultural capitalism” we buy products to experience them and to make our lives pleasurable. Thus, capitalism is transformed into an egalitarian project, with a new spirit of economic, cultural and social unity (Žižek 2009, 52). Documentary films, as first-hand knowledge, “are as good as being there” and much more convenient. Symbolic capital is gained through knowing,

125

which is then expressed through consumption (Žižek 2009, 53). The cultural ethic is

explicit; one pays a higher price because one is buying a “coffee ethic” which includes

preserving the environment, social responsibility to producers and a communal

connection with others who are like minded. Authenticity becomes salient, because

authentic experience matters (Žižek 2009, 53-54). Authenticity is positioned in

opposition to social conventions and the artistic critique offered in film offers liberation

from the constraints of our system (Boltanski and Chiapello 2007, 419). We feel a

connection with the producers and conceive of our place in the world in a particular

manner. We buy organic and fair trade goods to show that we care and that we have acquired a global awareness, thus constructing cosmopolitan identities through capitalist consumption (Žižek 2009, 54). However, our enjoyment of exotic foods also connects with a contemporary interest in gourmet food and the availability of exotic food items.

The nature of the way that we construct a global belonging is intricately tied to media, which acts as a resource for the negotiation of meaning.

Other Calls to Action

The 2014 Global Peace Film Festival offered a number of new features that

translate humanitarian appeals into possible action, including options to become involved

using social media and practicing active awareness in the community. A new use of

social media was incorporated into the showing of the film, Sold (2014) directed by

Jeffrey D. Brown; audience members were told at the beginning of the film to leave their

cell phones on, an attention-getting departure from the usual admonition to turn them off.

126

This deliberate plan to engage audience members in a wider, more enduring relationship

with the film speaks to both the motivations of the filmmaker to create a following as

well as the goal of the festival to provide a way for people to take action.

As the film concluded, two of the filmmakers were contacted on Skype and the

audience members were urged to text their email addresses to the number that provided

by the director. As people successfully connected and received a message in return, each

would call out that it worked. Nina Streich then called out each success from the front of

the room, echoing this success to the audience and building eagerness for others to join in

this success. This action put each participant on a list to receive texts from the

filmmakers, who use it to keep in touch and solicit support. However, this action also

engaged the audience in a personal and emotive response to the film and provided a sense

of having accomplished something concrete. This may appear to be merely a palliative

act, but it goes further than a “feel good” activity. The act of participation aids the

individual in the process of constructing an identity as a person of action, an engaged

citizen, and provides them with the position of an active participant in the Global Peace

Film Festival. This act also furthers other goals of the Global Peace Film Festival,

encouraging individuals to construct a self who is an active member of the festival

community and centering the filmmaker as a nexus for activism directed towards this

particular issue.

This kind of “invitation to self-expression” is a key feature of new media that has emerged recently, turning media users into producers rather than merely consumers of public communication. Public media has the capacity to engage people in new forms of public self-presentation, a contemporary theme that is echoed at times in other aspects of

127

the festival such as the “White Only” performance discussed earlier. New media has effected a “dramaturgical consciousness” that gives a theatrical nature to many new kinds of interactions between people. In the West, many young people spend much of their time in virtual worlds where they are scripting multiple stories and directing their own performances, and the film festival can become an extension of this world (Chouliaraki

2013, 16). The Global Peace Film Festival is just beginning to exploit new media as a means of achieving goals of the festival, but some audience members embraced it immediately and other attendees are affected by the emotive nature of the experience.

Theatricality, the Self and the Humanitarian Imaginary

Theatricality lies at the heart of what Lilie Chouliaraki theorizes as the

‘humanitarian imaginary,” which she delineates as a “communicative structure of cosmopolitan ethics that mundanely acts as a moralizing force upon western public life”

(2013, 3). Narratives are composed of a repertoire of staged images and stories that are used to legitimize the need to act on vulnerable others as part of one’s own moral order. It is this particular theatrical communicative structure of suffering that engenders a sympathetic identification with the other’s pain. The theatrical nature of the structure of communication evokes emotions of a particular kind. It is the performance of acts of emotion and action by a few exceptional individuals present within zones of suffering that shape the moral dispositions of the spectator Chouliaraki 2013, 28-29).

The film, The Cooler Bandits (2014), directed by John Lucas, provides an interesting example of the way spectators identify with suffering through the theatrical

128

nature of the narrative, yet transform it. The film, which had the most buzz at the festival, followed several disadvantaged black youths during their long years in prison after being convicted for strong-arm robbery. These young men were guilty of committing the crime, but most spectators were visibly empathetic and tears were not uncommon. The film recreated the crime, with a theatricality that one might expect in a true-crime show on television. The families of the men were featured, showing their socio-economic background, as well as how the crime affected the families. After years, two of the men were separately released, and the camera followed them through the release process and their attempts to rebuild their lives in the style of reality television. Added to this theatrical portrayal of suffering, one of the released prisoners attended the showings of the film and spoke about his experience, not just as a witness but as the actual suffering other. The theatricality of the ordeal was contrasted with the transformation of the suffering other into a graduate student, who seemed much like the rest of the audience but was accorded social capital due to his suffering and his socioeconomic background. In spite of the fact that he had committed a rather brutal crime, the theatrical structure of the communication of his story to the audience engenders a very strong sympathetic response. Spectators seemed to identify with him as both like themselves, as well as an other who was a victim of the ills of our social system.

When taken within the context of the unequal relationship between the affluent

West and the developing South, this kind of theatrical structure mediates the experience of suffering. Because the humanitarian imaginary positions the narrative in terms of how it relates to the spectator, several consequences result from this structure of communication. First, it weakens the truth of suffering and undermines rather than

129

intensifies moral commitment, an issue that The Cooler Bandits sidestepped. In addition, the spectacle of vulnerability reproduces global divides and unequal power relationships rather than of promoting bonds solidarity. Although pessimistic, but insightful theorization of the structure of communication characteristic of humanitarianism accounts for the articulation between the spectator and those who are performed, but then the question emerges as to how the tensions that arise might open up a new imagination of cosmopolitan solidarity. (Chouliaraki 2013, 28-29). Festival practices fit into this construct, but agency becomes salient in articulation with spectator response to distant suffering. Can moral commitment be intensified through festival practices rather than undermined? How is moral commitment transformed into action?

Another film shown during the 2014 Global Peace Film Festival, Every Three

Seconds (2014 Daniel Karslake), illustrates some of the ways that the festival spectator articulates with the humanitarian imaginary through their engagement with the festival.

The content and marketing of the film, Every Three Seconds, also provides the spectator with examples of ways in which ordinary people are made extraordinary through taking life-changing action. This film addresses the theme of the necessity for individuals to take action in a concrete manner by showing examples of individuals who personally engaged with the distant suffering other. The director of the film, Daniel Karslake, is closely connected with the Global Peace Film Festival, which has significance for understanding the way the film articulates with both the festival and the audience. The film features vignettes of five “regular folks” whose projects made an impact on the world through individual engagement with causes. By featuring a young boy, a college student, a thirty- something and two seniors, this film offers someone with whom everyone can identify.

130

The website for the film describes them as people “whose lives went from ordinary to

extraordinary based on one simple decision: TO ENGAGE”

(www.everythreeseconds.net). This fits in with the contemporary trend to place the

pleasures of the self at the center of moral action, focusing on how one may (re)construct

an identity that is something beyond the ordinary. By effecting measurable change in the

world, one gains self-fulfillment. The underlying message of the film is that one can

change oneself; each of the examples offered as a model for engagement features an

individual whose identity was integrated into their humanitarian efforts. Each of the

stories features someone whose life changed dramatically, including a young British boy

who became a celebrity by raising money online, a young woman who lobbied Congress

to change laws that allow the importation of goods connected to human rights abuses, an

African American woman who feeds thousands by leading gleaning efforts, and a

Belgian woman who moved to Africa and instigated microloans to effect change on a

local level. This elderly woman declares, “I’m too busy to feel old,” a self-declaration that underlines the focus on the individual in the narrative. The trailer for the film ends with, “Watch the movie, make a difference,” but perhaps the primary motivating factor comes from the promotional statement, “In a society where materialism reigns, what is the real secret to happiness?” (www.everythreeseconds.com)

Because this film was produced in close association with the Global Peace film festival, it holds special meaning. The theme of the film fits in directly with the yearly theme chosen for the organization that sponsored the film at the festival, the Interfaith

Council of Orlando. The audience was comprised of many groups from different churches, many of whom were already aware of this theme because of their churches’

131

relationship with the Interfaith Council. The promotional material for the film promotes a

perspective that fits in with the theme of the Interfaith council as well as placing

responsibility squarely with the individual, “Each chose action over apathy, and in the

process, each one has had a significant and lasting impact on two of the most challenging,

yet solvable issues of our time: HUNGER AND EXTREME POVERTY”

(www.everythreeseconds.net). This creates a connection between the humanitarian

imaginary and the Western individual. Each of these “staged images and stories about

distant suffering” is tied to a real person who is effecting change (Chouliaraki 2013, 28).

This film fulfills what spectators find missing in the relationship between self and other

and offers a solution to the question of “what to do.”

This kind of appeal offers a model for a radical reconstruction of one’s identity,

but then, what will spectators do with the message? Some of the audience members

applied these instructive examples to their own lives in a less intense way that fit in with

their identity as caring church members. Many picked up the topic of gleaning, talking

about planning projects with their various churches to join the St. Andrews Society in

gleaning to provide food for the hungry. This is a far cry from restructuring one’s life to revolve around gleaning as a full-time occupation as shown in the film, but the local availability of gleaning efforts offers a way for audience members to join in with efforts

to end hunger through projects arranged through their participating organization. Of the

efforts to end poverty, gleaning was the activity most easily accomplished within the

context of a church group, and a number of the spectators gravitated towards this option.

The film showed the huge local impact of this particular gleaning project, giving a face to

132

what each person can contribute and allowing individuals to construct identities that are

tied in with this moral action.

The question arises as to whether the structure of communication associated with

the humanitarian imaginary merely provides a mirror of self as a resource for

engendering a sense of solidarity, creating a public agency that is politically ambivalent.

By activating only low-intensity emotions, this type of response introduces self-

reflection as a new justification for solidarity. One no longer has to subvert the self for

the good of the cause, but can privilege the pleasures of the self as a more effective way

to make a difference to distant others (Chouliaraki 2013, 73). This sensibility, which

Lilie Chouliaraki designates as “post-humanitarian,” may simply perpetuate the narcissism of the West. What is missing is the moral education of the humanitarian imaginary” which pushes spectators beyond their comfort zone to grapple with questions about humanity and why it is important to act in response to a cause.

This structure of communication is perhaps comfortable for many spectators who

came to the showing of Every Three Seconds because it was endorsed by the Interfaith

Council of Orlando, and promoted by their churches. This film offered at least several options that did not require a major, discomfiting reconstruction of one’s identity, including the gleaning story and the boy using the internet to raise money for his cause.

The story about microloans was a feel-good romantic adventure taken by an octogenarian who moved to Africa, very much in line with missionary work. However, the political action taken by the thirty-something was more challenging to comfortable lives. The young woman featured recreated her life and career, and now spends her time on political work in the United States as well as traveling to Africa to support women who have been

133

physically and mentally brutalized in the name of commerce supported by the West. The vignettes in the film allow the viewer to choose a subject position to identify with, as well as allowing spectators to “choose their feeling” ranging from a general “feel good altruism” assuaged by giving money or joining in local projects, to a radical stance in opposition to political and institutional entities in the United States that might be conceived of as a solidarity in revolution. Every Three Seconds fits well into the contemporary paradigm of the humanitarian imaginary, illustrating the plasticity of the concept of solidarity, with multiple meanings existing even within one film (Chouliaraki

2013, 9).

The Global Peace Film Festival functions as a nexus for negotiating meaning surrounding the causes featured in the film offerings, but is the experience merely a self- centric impulse? Clearly, the trend is to interact with causes from the perspective of one’s own life, so the festival provides these opportunities through programming and by bringing in relevant speakers for panels and Question-and-Answer sessions. Media plays a role in cultivating cosmopolitan sensibilities and a structure of feeling, but the goals of the festival include encounters with real people from the community who engage people at various levels in real-time encounters that both support and challenges the contemporary structure of communication between the spectator and the humanitarian imaginary.

The festival and its films function as a vehicle for cognitive mapping, helping individuals locate their position in a broader global economy, providing a way for them to feel oriented. This provides a kind of sociopolitical compass that not only guides their understanding of their local lives but also their consumption of information about

134

faraway places. Situating the self at the center of humanitarian efforts promotes a particular type of solidarity with the other that permeates the festival, influencing programming in significant ways. A discussion of programming is offered in the next chapter, addressing the aims of the festival and how they fulfill festival goals and articulate with the specific character. Following this, chapter six goes deeper into how programming choices and rhetoric attached to the films positions the self in relation to suffering others. The centrality of the self and process of cognitive mapping involved in the construction of a cosmopolitan identity is core to the structure and function of events at the Global Peace Film Festival as well as how individuals internalize discourses encountered at the festival.

135

V. PROGRAMMING GOALS AND AESTHETICS: SEEKING AN IDENTITY

Programming is an essential part of establishing the identity of the Global Peace

Film Festival, and the particular nature of the contemporary humanitarian imaginary guides its overall mission. The Global Peace Film Festival is shaped programming goals, developed through a synergistic collaboration between the Director, Nina Streich and

Programming Director, Kelley De Vine. Nina and Kelley are sensitive to the feedback from audience members, filmmakers and local organizations, but are also well aware of trends in the wider marketplace and within the humanitarian film community. Through the choice of films, panels and events, the festival focuses on themes identified by Streich and De Vine as relevant and of interest to the Global Peace Film Festival audience.

Screenings and events address a range of contemporary issues that are salient in a wider sociopolitical context. There are a broad variety of themes addressed in the films screened at the festival, and these are outlined in Appendix F. The great diversity of films attracts a range of audiences, which increases festival attendance as well as supporting the goals of the festival. Programming decisions are instrumental in how the festival articulates with the humanitarian imaginary, and the primary results of such diversity in programming is the centralization of the self in expressions of solidarity with the other, a choice in how an individual responds to appeals, and an arena that is conducive to the process of cognitive mapping undertaken by participants.

136

The particular approach that Nina and Kelley take in programming the festival

grew out of Nina’s early experiences during the first year of the festival. During that year,

a woman grabbed her arm and said, “You have got to be my friend because you think like

me.” Similar experiences were repeated a number of times, echoing the sentiment. In one

incident, a woman related to Nina that she found out that her friend since kindergarten

unknowingly held similar beliefs to hers, but they had never talked about it before

because it was not common to talk about politics among their friends. Nina wants

individuals to “start a conversation” and feels that the Global Peace Film Festival is

accomplishing its goals, finding a voice and connecting those who are like-minded,

“people who are trying to find their identity within the world as it exists.” Spectators want to make sense of their position in the world, and seek opportunities to do so.

This kind of positioning of the self centrally in relationship to humanitarian efforts is characteristic of the aesthetics central to contemporary appeals for solidarity with those who suffer; a structure of aesthetics not typical of previous trends. Early appeals commonly utilized negative imagery to represent suffering, drawing on guilt to motivate solidarity while dehumanizing the sufferer. This was then replaced by the use of positive imagery that showed smiling faces, which effectively glossed over the reality of the misery of suffering. The recent emergence of a reflexive inclusion of the self as central is complexly related to identity and a western perspective that positions the self as a knowing moral citizen who takes action based on informed decisions about how change might be best effected, both within a personal system of choices and from an assumed superior position of knowledge. This is not simply a shift from a realist perspective to a

“textually conscious aesthetic of suffering,” but a shift in style of communication as well.

137

This new reflexive style demands authenticity, establishing the importance of the

encounter between us and the other as a means for generating solidarity, as well as a

“mirror structure” where we encounter our own image outside of the arena of suffering

and make use of it as a resource for making sense of solidarity” (Chouliaraki 2013 73).

Filmmakers as entrepreneurs connect with these trends in contemporary humanitarian

practices of communication, producing works that privilege this “self-oriented form of solidarity,” which does have the potential to spark real change but also accommodates a short term and low-intensity engagement with a cause Chouliaraki 2013, 54-55). The

Global Peace Film Festival operates within the humanitarian imaginary, so the questions that emerge concern how humanitarian imaginary articulates with practices between the festival participants, including filmmakers, spectators and humanitarian organizations.

From the perspective of the spectator, one should consider how the adoption of a broadened concept of peace as an organizing principle for programming might give priority to the placement of the self at the center of humanitarian efforts, by sparking debate but leaving control with the individual who may then decide what constitutes peace from through a process of constructing his or her identity.

Programming Approach

The Global Peace Film Festival is an organization that strives to make connections between films, filmmakers and local organizations and to support the promotional efforts of chosen filmmakers as they continue their efforts to promote their cause. The festival seeks filmmakers who engage with a cause rather than those who

138

simply make films about an issue. The Director of Programming for the Global Peace

Film Festival, Kelley De Vine, relates that the goals of the Global Peace Film Festival are aimed at the needs of the audience, rather than just “sing to the choir.” This perspective reflects a contemporary approach characteristic of other social documentary organizations as well, such as the networked, internet-based, One World

(http://oneworld.org/), which has promoted the challenge to reach “beyond the converted” (Aufderheide 2003, 38). De Vine explains that films that are morale boosters, providing inspiration or motivation for those already involved, are good, but she wants to reach those who have not even thought about involvement with activism before. De Vine believes that is important to also program films for those who are new to this kind of awareness. So she tries to program the festival in a way that inspires them to take action or change perspective; she wants to present films that engage people. De Vine takes a rather serendipitous approach, looking at films that are “out there” and how they might fit together with both other film offerings and current topics of interest.

A human rights film festival is much more than just the sum of its film program; its reach exceeds the duration of the festival event. The aim of many, including the

Global Peace Film Festival is to create a sharing, collaborative and participatory community space within the temporal space of the festival that will project into a more permanent relationship with spectators (Grassilli 2012, 39). Human rights film festivals connect people, providing a way for them to re-connect with their own community and initiate a dialogue over issues, all primary goals of the Global Peace Film Festival

(Grassilli 2012, 41). The ideas and feelings about the scope of human rights vary considerably, which is reflected in the selection of films and speakers at these festivals,

139

which may take either a focused or a broader approach to choosing topics of interest.

What draws spectators together is an emotional sense of human decency, an ideological

appeal to empathy and solidarity (Bronkhorst 2004).

Within the broad context of programming choices of the Global Peace Film

Festival, the richness of contexts found within a broad concept of peace offers a starting point for various dialogues about contemporary human rights issues, a goal that fits well into the purpose of this type of festival. Director of Programing, Kelley De Vine offered an example from the 2013 festival that illustrates her approach to programming that focuses on taking the needs of the audience into consideration, and changing perspectives

rather than promoting one particular point of view. As background for her choice of

films, she related that she received many requests from spectators and friends asking for a

film about the death penalty. However, she did not want a film that addressed the topic

head-on, feeling that to “hit people over the head” with it was not the most effective way

to garner support for change. The film chosen, Prison Through Tomorrow’s Eyes (2013)

was directed by Paul Sutton, a professor of criminal justice who had just realized his

long-time dream of making a film that would expose some of the lesser known aspects of

being imprisoned. This interesting choice reflects an approach that encourages spectators

to be “active readers” of films, seeking to develop new imaginative zones rather than

challenge power structures from a unified position. This approach recognizes that the

audience plays a crucial role in the formation of context and debate (Torchin 2012b, 8).

Festival choices exemplify the notion held by the Human Rights Film Network that

human rights films exist “primarily to inform and inspire” (Grassilli 2012, 36).

140

The choice of the film, Prison Through Tomorrow’s Eyes, illustrates the particular approach that Kelly De Vine and Nina Streich take with programming, including a rather organic approach to topics as well as the inclusion of the personal narratives that offer spectators a subject position with which to identify. The film follows

Sutton’s senior Justice Studies students as they tour prisons and learn the personal circumstances of how prisoners came to be incarcerated. The film begins with interviews with the students whose responses reflect common attitudes, such as the notion that people are in prison because they belong there. During the tours he filmed their casual talk as they reacted to each other about what they were experiencing, in places like the restaurants where they were eating lunch. Comments reflected their shock at what the prisoners revealed, such as, “Oh my God, that could be me,” or “I know someone who did that and didn’t get caught.” Then he interviewed the students after the series of tours and got very changed responses. The film never mentions the death penalty, but audiences experience the same journey taken by students.

At the Question and Answer session after the film, the panel members provided an opportunity for spectators to connect with real people working and struggling with the issue; the Global Peace Film Festival brought in someone from Amnesty International and a wrongly convicted felon who was later freed. It is this sort of sensorial experience and personal testimony that form the heart of the human rights festival experience; programming goals of the Global Peace Film Festival are directed towards drawing a number of threads together to foster conversation and debate surrounding a complex topic. The program supports films and organizations through panels that address different aspects of the issues portrayed in films in a more concrete manner. Kelley De Vine

141

speaks of her rationale for choosing films, “So we try to program films that engage people when we can put them together.” Choices fit together to create a larger picture that informs conversation within the context of the notion of peace as complex, negotiable and multifaceted. The Global Peace Film Festival continues this theme in 2014, with another offering that addresses prisoners, crime and punishment, The Cooler Bandits

(2014), directed by John Lucas, which is discussed in the next chapter.

A New Slogan, A Renewed Focus on Action

The theme of the Global Peace Film Festival was updated for 2014 to reflect a renewed emphasis on action, with its new slogan, “Don’t Just Sit There: Watch Films,

Get Involved, Change Things.” This is supported by a complementary maxim appearing on promotional material, “The real action begins after the credits roll.” The tension between cinephilia and activism is addressed here, and watching films is posed as an active way to make a difference. But it is the motivation to act that is privileged as more beneficial, defining film as a tool for activism rather than an aesthetic object. In pursuit of the goal to connect action directly with film viewing, Kelley De Vine tries to make connections between the efforts of filmmakers with local activists, police task forces, government policy makers, and organizations. The festival brings people together in a wide variety of contexts that reflect the differences within each community of followers, varying from local ecologists making educational shorts to a critical assessment of national political funding. Still, the goal is to connect the film experience with concrete action on the part of the spectator. Another promotional line offered by a Global Peace

142

Film Festival email reflects this goal, “We connect people who want to change the world with people who can change it.” The great challenge taken on by the festival staff is to stimulate action after the festival is over by generating motivation through the sensorial festival experience and sponsoring relationships between people during the festival.

To fulfill the goal of creating spectators who get involved, the development of an active audience is essential for humanitarian festivals like the Global Peace Film Festival.

Filmmaker Jan Selby, whose film, Beyond the Divide (2014) explores the path to healing relationships wounded by war, emphasized that she sought this response from spectators.

Beyond the Divide examines the long-standing social rift in Missuoula, Montana with roots in the Vietnam War, emerging from conflicts between those who served and those who fought against the war at home. The path to healing political differences cannot be clearly delineated, so the message of the film must be interpreted by individuals. Jan

Selby related that even though an active audience that works to construct meaning is usually associated with avant-garde or revolutionary film, it is still essential in order for her film to have an impact.

This focus on an active audience is core to the expectations of the programming goals of the Global Peace Film Festival, but it demands a particular sort of engagement of the spectator with film. Approaching the interaction between the spectator and film from a phenomenological perspective, the spectator can be seen, not as a passive voyeur who is seduced by images, but as a “scientific investigator or experimenter, who observes phenomena and searches for their causes” (Ranciere 2011, 5). Due to this particular kind of personal engagement with activist films, the portrayal of the “victim” changes in nature. The construction of the victim is effected within the context of his or her place as

143

one element within a certain distribution of those portrayed elsewhere. Thus, the image

does not stand alone, but belongs to a system of visibility that is defined by any number

of sociopolitical factors that articulate with the humanitarian imaginary. It is the situated

nature of the victim within this system that governs the status of the bodies represented as

well as the nature of the attention that they merit in the eyes of the audience (Ranciere

2011, 99). The spectator must interpret the system of images in terms of his or her own understanding of the world and the Global Peace Film Festival offers extended contexts within which to understand the images viewed in the film offerings as well as a space for negotiation of meaning.

Panels and Events

Panels and events at the festival often offer highlight a particular issue found within festival programing choices or offer support for filmmakers. A number of these parties and panels will be discussed in a subsequent chapter within the context of support offered to filmmakers. However, some panels are programmed to provide a forum for the discussion of local issues and function to create ties with the local community. Kelley De

Vine tries to draw in films that focus on local issues that are currently relevant in the national conversation as well.

In keeping with the broadened definition of the notion of peace, the first panel of the festival, entitled “What is Peace?” presents a different topic each year, delineating peace in terms of a specific topic. In 2014, the panel focused on race relations, a topic of interest due to the local issues surrounding the 2012 shooting of an unarmed black

144

teenager, Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida (Delinski 2012). This shooting has become relevant in a national conversation about race relations, but also remains a concern for local leaders working in and with Sanford to try to find local solutions. The panel consisted of five local leaders directly involved in this effort, who presented statistical as well as personal information as to how changes are being instituted in Sanford as well as the wider Orlando area. This panel was well attended and a number of local black residents in the audience contributed candid personal stories to illustrate the need for change. Topics of discussion included very specific efforts like the Blue Ribbon Panel assessing the Sanford Police Department and the resulting 9-Point Plan, as well as topics with a wider context such as the need to address the fracture in our society created by historical and contemporary forms of inequality in our nation.

Programming efforts are often successful in creating networks between organizations, films and supporters at the festival, but one unsuccessful event provides insight into the potential of scheduled events to instigate active support in the local community. A workshop on disaster preparedness was offered in coordination with the film, This Time Next Year (2014) directed by Jeff Reichert and Farihah Zaman, which chronicles the rebuilding of a coastal town in New Jersey after Hurricane Sandy swept through. This Time Next Year focuses on people caring for people and giving time to help those who suffer hardship, a theme that reflects the kind of active involvement sought through festival goals. To connect this theme with concrete action, the Global Peace Film

Festival staff made an arrangement with the organization, World Cares Center (WCC), who offer a presentation on preparedness and safety precautions needed by volunteers after a disaster. This is certainly a relevant topic in Florida, and the presentation had the

145

potential to provide essential information to the network of persons involved in hurricane

preparedness in the Orlando area. The World Cares Center provides education for local leaders to better train them for handling volunteers after a disaster as well as seeking to inspire volunteers to take action in a safe manner. Given the large number of people who mobilize for a hurricane in Florida, the workshop might attract first responders as well as spectators interested in supporting disaster preparedness. The goal was to bring motivated spectators and local disaster leaders together under the tutelage of a national organization with expertise in the topic, thus creating a larger informed network of people who might help with disaster response in the area. However, the film itself did not generate much

attention at the festival, perhaps due to the great familiarity of Floridians with hurricanes

and their aftermath. Due to other considerations as well, the workshop was not well

attended and made little impact on the festival goers.14

One defining characteristic of the structure of the Global Peace Film Festival programming is that efforts are made to draw together people and organizations with common interests under the umbrella of a particular film. As a corollary to the disaster

training presentation, a grassroots organization called Global Hope Network was granted

permission to set up a table to hand out their literature about their efforts in response to

disasters in African nations. A number of small organizations, often founded by a single

individual or couple, are given permission to set up a table at events and films that relate

to their interests, in order to recruit volunteers and support.15 Thus, a network of

14 Due to the last-minute agreement with the World Cares Center to accept Orlando as one of the five cities in the United States to be granted the opportunity to host the workshop, there was no time to promote the event; the audience failed to materialize and an opportunity was lost. The workshop was also moved from the Alfond Hotel in Winter Park to the downtown Orlando Public Library, a venue that was not utilized for any other events or screenings. 15 In fact, no organizations are refused when they ask to participate. 146

opportunities to engage with an issue is often offered to spectators who may choose how to participate.

Opening the Festival at Rollins College

A primary goal of programming choices is to make connections with local groups or causes, which includes ongoing relationships with several major sponsors as well as sponsors and organizations that fit in with works of chosen filmmakers. The contrast between the films offered at the 2014 Global Peace Film Festival and those screened at the 2013 festival often serves to illustrate trends or availability of particular films or groups. The goals and needs of local organizations, and even organizations themselves, change yearly and the festival is responsive to those changes. Ongoing relationships with several major sponsors of the festival and their needs are important factors that shape the offerings at the festival each year. Each year the festival develops within certain parameters, but a multitude of variable factors create an event that is individual in many ways. Opening night provides a good example of this variability within programming goals, yet it sets a tone for the festival that reflects the relaxed style of events.

Opening night is traditionally a film on the lawn at Rollins College; sponsored by the College, this film is chosen to be of interest to their students. At the 2013 Global

Peace Film Festival, the film chosen, Mistaken for Strangers (2013) directed by Tom

Berninger, featured the relationship between two brothers, one of whom was in a popular band well known to students who attended the film. Students were well pleased with the film as it showed behind-the-scenes footage of the band. Other attendees included many

147

well-educated spectators, many of whom were Rollins College alumni. The message of

the film was in keeping with the organic approach to the notion of peace favored in

programming the Global Peace Film Festival, in that it focused on relationships between

people, an aspect of peace that emerges in a number of the films screened at the festival

both in 2013 and 2014.

The choice of the opening film for the 2014 festival, CinemAbility, (Jenni Gold,

2013), also featured behind-the-scenes interviews, but took a historical look at

Hollywood films. Perhaps because opening night was rainy and the screening had to relocated from the lawn to an indoor venue, attendance was light and few students

attended. The film, a reflexive look at film industry practices, featured film clips from

famous Hollywood movies ranging from the 1930s to the present that revealed the way

handicapped persons are portrayed in film, along with personal stories and interviews that

highlighted handicapped actors. Although a well-crafted offering that showed in-depth

research,16 the spectators expressed little enthusiasm after the film ended and quickly

rushed off into the rainy night. One departing foursome noted that it was “just a bunch of

interviews.” What CinemAbility did lack was a sensorial approach to the topic, as well as

a primary character that gave a face to the cause. Jenni Gold, as a handicapped director

might have fulfilled that role, but was unable to attend due to health issues.

16 This film used clips and interviews interwoven in a meaningful manner, resulting in an insightful analysis of the portrayal of the handicapped in film as well as the type of roles given to handicapped actors. The film revealed behind- the-scenes knowledge that provides a new perspective on the treatment of the handicapped in Hollywood films. For example, an interview with an actor who was a “little person” showed some of the complexities surrounding the roles available and the desire to portray those considered handicapped in a less prejudicial manner. Peter Dinklage broke through a barrier for little people with his role on the HBO series, Game of Thrones, but the result was a dramatic drop in work for other actors because few directors wanted cast little people in stereotypical roles. So for a while, Peter Dinklage was the small actor getting much work. 148

Giving a face to the issue appears to make a real difference in audience support for a cause, and what this film lacked was an inspiration-based approach that could induce positive warm feelings about supporting the cause. Richard Turner, prior head of

ActionAid’s fundraising described this as a “Find Your Feeling” approach that allows people to feel great about what they give but does not make them feel rotten if they do not give (Chouliaraki 2013, 5). The style of appeal is essential to a successful overture to audiences, and the emergent style in the humanitarian market can be characterized as

“reflexive,” inviting audience members to rely on themselves in choosing appropriate actions (Chouliaraki 2013, 65).

Locally Sponsored Films and Filmmakers

Another programming goal of the Global Peace Film Festival is to support local

Florida issues by featuring films made by local filmmakers. This aspect of the festival counters the impulse of globalist discourses that allow the individual to map a place in the world that ignores conditions at home. These films seek individuals who are deeply connected with local issues and construct a self that is rooted in the local and has a different expression of a cosmopolitan identity. One might equate this with the identification of minority groups with others facing similar conditions on an international level, such as the pan-Indian movement in which many different indigenous peoples from around the world participate based on common goals. This is not a universal response to local films; some individuals were more aligned with the sort of cognitive mapping described earlier. The audiences at the showings of local films tended to be already

149

deeply involved in the causes featured and were well versed in facts and figures

associated with the issue.

The topics of the films programmed each year are dependent on those films

available for screening, a factor which has a great impact on the popularity of the

showings as well as the kind of spectators who attend. The 2014 local issues featured at

the Global Peace Film Festival were far more localized in nature than those featured at

the 2013 festival, which tied local causes to national issues.17 During the 2014 festival,

these films were short focused on environmental concerns, produced with educational

venues in mind and grouped with like-minded short from other areas of the country.

From the Cabin to The Forest: The Timeless Wisdom of Archie Carr (2014), directed by

Bob Giguere, focuses on the wisdom of naturalist Archie Carr, who taught the ecology of

Florida to generations of college students.18 One major concern was with the

disappearing natural artesian springs in Florida as a result of the lowering of the water

table due to factors related to overuse. This film was paired with Marion Lake Story:

Defeating the Mighty Phragmite (2013), directed by Greta Schiller, a film about a local

effort to reclaim a lake in Long Island, New York by laboriously removing an invasive

plant that choked the shoreline and waters.

The showings of these films were fairly well attended and discussion after the screenings focused on a range of environmental issues, especially local topics. Many of the attendees were active in promoting Florida State Amendment #1: The Water and

17 Some of these films are discussed in a forthcoming chapter on filmmakers as entrepreneurs. In 2013, the films by local filmmakers were highly visible and attracted very large audiences and major sponsors. The one local film supported by the Interfaith Council of Orange County, Every Three Seconds, is discussed above. 18 The Ocala National Forest is not far from the Orlando area and is significant for locals, many of whom visit it on a regular basis. 150

Land Conservation Initiative, which would reserve tax funds to support nature

conservation. Since the amendment was coming up for vote soon, a number of spectators

solicited supporting signatures after the screenings. Residents mentioned local efforts in

2012 to protect Lake Apopka which was threatened by plans to place a private airport in

the area. These films were attended by nature lovers, people who actually spent a lot of

time enjoying the Florida ecosystem and who enjoyed spending time with other nature

lovers. As part of the festival offerings, a personal friend of Nina Streich even offered

any attendees who wished an opportunity go on a complimentary tour of the Everglades.

The environmentally-focused filmmakers who attended forged relationships based on

their shared cause; a close camaraderie developed between the directors of these films,

and the local director, Bob Giguere, even took the visiting Greta Schiller on a whole-day

canoe trip to explore the ecosystem of the Ocala National Forest.

In contrast, Billy and Alan: In Life, Love and Death, Equality Matters (2013), directed by Vicki Nantz, shown at the 2013 festival drew a much larger audience due to a huge local base of support. The screening at Rollins College filled the 350-seat Bush

Auditorium, and the event at the downtown Cobb Cinema had to be moved to a larger theater to accommodate the crowd. The film focuses on the experiences of Orlando

Weekly journalist, Bill Manes, who after losing his partner of eleven years faced the loss of much more because Florida does not recognize same-sex relationships. Even with a will and joint ownership of his home, Alan’s homophobic parents were able to claim the body as well as Billy’s possessions. The filmmaker featured this story of a man well- known in the community due to his position as a local writer with the purpose of supporting the state-wide efforts to change the laws. The film was shown at number of

151

festivals in Florida during 2013 as a way of raising awareness of the legal issues faced by

gay couples, and free DVD’s were offered to audience members.

This film garnered far more “buzz” at the 2013 festival than the environmental

films could muster in 2014, even though the filmmakers were present both years. Several

factors appear to be relevant. Billy and Alan: In Life, Love and Death, Equality Matters

addressed gay issues that are in the forefront of state and national level efforts to achieve

equality, and joined a conversation that was salient in the state of Florida. However, an

important part of the popularity of the film rested in the appearance of Billy at the

festival. Because Billy is a well-known, colorful personality, his public testimony was an important element that garnered support for the film. The story highlights a hardship so close (within the year before the screening) that it was difficult for him to talk about it during the Question & Answer session without showing deep emotions. The director also spoke of how difficult it was for him to speak publicly, giving the testimonial more weight.

Programming for a Major Partner

The Interfaith Council of Central Florida, a major partner that draws a large

audience, focuses on a different cause every year, so a film offered at the Global Peace

Film Festival is programmed with their theme in mind. Over the two years that I

attended the festival, the interaction between church leaders associated with the Council

and the festival experience differed significantly. In 2013, their local efforts focused on

the homeless and the film chosen, Take Me Home Documentary (2013) directed by

152

Famor Botero, highlighted the plight of the homeless in downtown Orlando, bringing the

issue close to home. The panel after the show featured five church leaders from various

faiths who belonged to the Interfaith Council, as well as four homeless people who were

featured in the film, including a six year-old boy. Panel members at the Question &

Answer session were challenged directly by the audience regarding their efforts to effect change.

The screening of the film, Every Three Seconds (2014) directed by Daniel

Karslak, at the 2014 festival was different in nature. As discussed in chapter 4, the film’s presentation of four personal narratives of individuals who took action to effect change seemed a perfect fit for both the 2014 theme of the Interfaith Council and in the type of volunteerism common in congregations. However, the film does ask spectators to take action in a very direct way and offers several models for doing so during the Question and Answer session following the film. The Q & A session after the film also reflected a change in the relationship between church and the festival audience which appears to be deliberate and far more comfortable for the church leaders. At the beginning of the session, the head of the Interfaith Council read a short explanation of the position and teaching of each faith in regards to the 2014 theme of poverty. Church leaders tasked with the film showing were then recognized by asking them to stand, but there was no opportunity for questioning them directly. The primary focus of the session was to speak with the director of the film, Daniel Karslak and Mark Dixon, a Global Peace Film

Festival board member who participated in the making of the film. Each of the four causes from the film was discussed and spectators were encouraged to donate or participate as appropriate, matching causes with specific actions that offered the spectator

153

a comfortable position from which to choose a personally suitable expression of

solidarity. The proclamation promoted by the film, that there are “so many ways to end

poverty now,” allows space for church members to plan a project that fits in with their

goals, abilities and level of engagement. Given the great variety of church members and

their approaches to engagement with charity, the film works well.

The form of this film fits well with programming goals of the festival as well as

illustrating how humanitarian appeals might be made attractive through offering appeals

and personal narratives that support self-reflection as a motivator. The film offers a format that is something of a “nice sandwich,” portraying the story of each of the activists

and how their efforts have transformed their own lives along with an embedded depiction

of the victims that is not so palatable. This kind of shift from an affective to a reflexive

perspective not only places the spectator at the center of a western cosmopolitan outlook, but also poses emotional responses in narcissistic terms. Such personal narratives about activists that celebrate their efforts as self-fulfilling acts function to situate self-reflection as essential to the contemporary humanitarian sensibility, because it promotes the pleasures of the self as a means of making a difference rather than demanding the subordination of the self to a higher cause (Chouliaraki 2013, 75). Although films that feature personal narratives of various types are not the only type of films programmed at the Global Peace Film Festival, they do figure largely in that they are some of the most popular with spectators and were often topics of conversation. Imagery and language contributes to the personal narrative, putting a face on suffering and making an appeal for a moral response from spectators.

154

The Narrative Feature Film

Narrative feature films are often included in the lineup at the Global Peace Film

Festival, and these offerings contribute much in the same way as documentary film to the

process of cognitive mapping. Even among the documentaries shown at the festival, there

is a strong narrative emphasis. As a form of cognitive mapping, the festival seeks to

promote a larger narrative, one that empowers subjects to see their place in a larger story.

Audiences may not distinguish between narrative and documentary forms and even

accept a fictional narrative as truth. In 2014, the festival screened the very popular film,

Sold (2014), directed by Jeffrey D. Brown, a fictional account that constructs the

circumstances involving the sale of a young girl into prostitution by condensing the

experiences of many girls into one story. Based on true stories of human trafficking, Sold

is especially effective in using a sensorial approach to the topic that evokes a theater of

pity. Appadurai noted that mediascapes provide large repertoires of images and narratives

that constitutes the nature of a locale for viewers blurring the lines between realistic and

fictional landscapes, which aptly describes the response of the audience at this screening

(1996, 52). While Sold did provide a vehicle for understanding the conditions of human

trafficking, it was also received as “truth.” This dramatic story was very effective in

evoking emotion from the audience in response to the plight of the protagonist. The film

follows the journey of a thirteen year old girl from a rural village in Nepal to the gritty

brothel into which she is sold as a sex slave. As a fictional account, the film ties many

different aspects of trafficking into one tale, creating a heart-wrenching account that affected the audience deeply.

155

The question arises as to how spectator response to this film articulates with the humanitarian imaginary as well as marketing efforts. A winner at several major film festivals, the official website for the film entreat support for a “global movement, saying your actions make a difference and asking people to help by “spreading the word through your social networks” (http://www.soldthemovie.com/). The central role of the filmmaker as marketer is discussed in a later chapter, but it is interesting to note that the only action that the audience is asked to take by the filmmaker is to support the film.

Promoting the film and its message on social media once again places the spectator at the center of the message in what Chouliaraki proposes as a narcissistic, self-reflective effort that “privileges the pleasures of the self” as the most effective way of making a difference (2013, 75). This kind of grand emotional response allows spectators to experience an emotional onslaught as something of a personal catharsis that does not necessarily translate into individual action.

However, the Global Peace Film Festival brings the problem back to the community level by focusing on local efforts to combat human trafficking. The participants in Question and Answer session that followed the film first pointed out that human trafficking takes place all over the world, and is especially prevalent in Florida.

The panel consisted of the producers of Sold, who attended by cellular telephone link, and a police officer who is the chairman of the Task Force for Human Trafficking in

Orlando. The session began with his account of the work being done locally, and backed up with statistics to show the extent of the problem. According to the officer, the task force was finishing up a nine month long undercover sting that was to be concluded shortly. This was followed by a discussion by the producers of the extent of the problem

156

in Nepal where the film is set. The officer ended by asking people to be aware of

situations that indicate human trafficking, such as men loitering outside motels or bars

with women who do not speak English and appear to be under their control. The Question

& Answer session focused mostly on awareness rather than taking action, but offered this

as a means of being the eyes and ears for those who can make a difference in a direct

manner. This does appear to tie up emotions rather neatly, positioning the spectator

centrally within the process of “making a difference” while allowing the spectator to

maintain a safe distance. This ability to distance oneself, as what Chouliaraki calls an

“ironic spectator,” allows us to experience emotions of empathy and tender-heartedness with a self-conscious detached knowingness (2013, 2). As Chouliaraki notes, this reflexive style of appeal allows us to disengage from our “grand emotions” and rely on our own judgments to decide which actions are possible or desirable (2013, 65).

Film Aesthetics: Reflexivity and Humanitarian Efforts

Reflexivity aimed at both the individual as well as humanitarian efforts is found in the programming of another popular film associated with Rollins College, Send in the

Clowns: Changing the Face of Humanitarian Aid (2014), directed by Sam Lee. The film

takes a reflexive look at how humanitarian aid is practiced, comparing the efforts of

young people offering clowning as a type of aid with the efforts of non-government

organizations to provide food and jobs for people in earthquake-ravaged Haiti. The

answer offered is not as straightforward as one might expect, and a rather interesting

conclusion was reached at the end of the film, yet the spectator grapples with the question

157

of whether the clowns have anything to offer throughout the film. This showing was the

premiere of the film and coincided with the launch of the website, sendintheclowns.org

and their facebook.com page and garnered the support of a professor from Rollins

College, Sue Easton of the Communications department, who has supported the festival

for many years and recruits her students as spectators. Dr. Easton introduced the film and

lead the discussion in the Question and Answer session as well.

The film explores the impact of aid in Haiti, but might be applied to efforts

around the world. Non-government organizations came and went, often leaving people in

the lurch, such as the project that built housing outside of town with jobs promised, but

then pulled out leaving people with housing too far from Haiti to allow them to commute

to work. The troupe of clowns is presented in contrast to efforts that provided initial aid

but were not sustainable. The clowns were not well received during their first trip, as

local residents did not appreciate uninvited guests starting to perform comedy, eating in

front of hungry residents and generally following their own agenda. The protagonist

returns later with a second troupe of clowns to offer workshops in clowning and the

contrast offered is that this effort left people with something valuable but intangible, a

kind of self-development that would help them to succeed.

This perspective has much to offer spectators within the context of the contemporary humanitarian imaginary. The goal of the film was to start a conversation about how one supports humanitarian efforts, including choosing where and how to give money, as well as personal efforts. The sustainability of humanitarian efforts certainly is a topic that should draw debate, but the film is far more effective in promoting a humanitarian sensibility that places the pleasures of the self at its center. The film

158

attempts to make the analogy that the hodgepodge of well-meaning humanitarian efforts in Haiti is much like “sending in the clowns” but the impact of the film comes from a search for identity on the part of the young people who take up clowning. The film is well-suited to an audience of college students who identify with its themes and provides a tool for discussion, which coincides with the goals of the filmmakers, who want to tour colleges and offering screenings. The popularity of the film may lie in its well-placed examination of how people might construct an identity within the context of the contemporary humanitarian imaginary and as such meets the programming goals of the festival directed towards college students.

Conclusions

The Global Peace Film Festival shares many goals of other humanitarian film festivals, but excels in connecting the films to the local community in a direct manner that gives the Global Peace Film Festival a particular local flavor. A neoliberal lifestyle is certainly part of the response to the humanitarian imaginary in which the Global Peace

Film Festival participates, but the festival does effectively connect people within the context of local organizations, thus garnering support for community efforts to effect change. Self-development on the part of the spectator does play a part in the goals of the festival, a factor that is significant when considered within the context of the trends found in the humanitarian community, but the close relationship of the festival with students from colleges in the local area makes this an appropriate approach as well. The multi-

level nature of the goals of the festival, ranging from individual lifestyle changes to

159

support of international injustices, fit well with the expression of values drawn from the wider humanitarian imaginary as well as the construction of cosmopolitan identities from within a Western perspective. Programming goals reflect this, as spectators are encouraged to connect with each other, with both local and national or international organizations and with filmmakers. The spectator and his or her decisions about how to

“make a difference” are placed at the center of the festival experience as an organizing factor.

The festival seeks to “start a conversation” but it is a conversation that orients and maps the world on some level. Even though debate by the participants has the potential to imagine new spaces and generate conversations that challenge existing power relationships, this potential may go largely unrealized. Within the festival, authentic challenges to the hegemonic power structures do exist, such as found in the candid testimonials of African American audience members talking about their experiences of race relations in this specific local community. However, the overall structure and realization of the festival necessarily fits into contemporary market structures as well as the humanitarian imaginary. The smorgasbord of offerings allows spectators to choose that which fits personal lifestyles, and the pleasures of self-fulfillment figure largely in film offerings as well, reflecting trends in the larger humanitarian imaginary.

Programming choices are made within the context of a global system of images, the humanitarian imaginary and a global civil society, yet it is within the context of these programming choices that audiences respond in various ways. The motivation to act may be redirected into what the spectator feels is appropriate from his or her perspective or may dissipate quickly, but there is a distinct aesthetic that is effective upon western

160

audiences. Films that are more sensorial in nature and put a “face” on the cause are those that get the most attention at the Global Peace Film Festival. Filmmakers seek to create feelings of solidarity with the people that they portray, and the most effective manner of doing so appears to be through personal narrative, testimonial and witnessing.

Cosmopolitan ethics construct the humanitarian imaginary as a moralizing force that acts as a guide for understanding how solidarity with the other should be constructed by the spectator (Chouliaraki 2012, 3).

Globalism, peace and cosmopolitanism all act as discourses that overdetermine practices of identity construction, but also participate in the reconstitution or reconfiguration of relationships of power within the context of the festival. Foucault notes that power must be considered as something that circulates and is exercised in a web of interactions. Individuals circulate among its threads and are always acting on and being acted upon by power. Power constitutes individuals, but at the same time individuals are vehicles of power (Foucault 1980, 98).

Activist films utilize customary practices and techniques to speak about others, express discourses of power, and motivate audiences, but activist film festivals use programming and the structure of events for the same purposes. It is important to keep in mind that documentary films are not a reproduction of reality that give a voice to the world, but instead are a representation of the world. Documentaries convince through the strength of the argument that they present, but especially through the power of their voice, the specific manner of expressing how they see the world (Nichols 2010, 68). This chapter highlighted the relationship between the goals of programming and the centrality of the self in the way that audiences relate to the humanitarian imaginary within the

161

context of the articulation between the Global Peace Film Festival and the local community. In the next chapter, I will take an in-depth look at the relation between film aesthetics and structured events at the festival, identifying how practices and discourses fit into the contemporary humanitarian imaginary. I will evaluate the role of two powerful practices, testimonial and witnessing, both of which are salient to the ways that audiences relate with the humanitarian imaginary as well as contributing to the popularity and impact of particular films and events at the Global Peace Film Festival.

162

VI. TESTIMONIAL AND WITNESSING

The discourses of witnessing and testimony provide a compelling framework for producing information and transforming audiences within the context of the humanitarian imaginary by generating feelings of solidarity in the spectator, Both witnessing and testimonial can take place on multiple levels within the context of the festival, ranging from subjects of the film to filmmakers or narrators, within or outside of the film.

Discourses of power circulate among these various positionalities, giving voice to particular views of the world promoted at the festival, and motivating audiences in a specific manner.

It is in the interface between media representation and public action that witnessing and testimony functions effectively to achieve solidarity. (Chouliaraki 2008,

831). While there are many options for us to engage with the suffering of others, mediation has great power as moral education that is particularly salient when witnessing and testimonial are the primary focus. In an act of convincing, films provide exemplary stories to illustrate what is important within a particular situation rather than instructing us as to what is right or wrong; thus, it is the performative nature of the actions of the individuals portrayed that guides or inspires the actions of individuals. Chouliaraki notes that the relationship between media representation and public action might be best understood as a relationship of “conditional freedom.” The capacity of the spectator to connect with the distant other relies on providing multiple ethical positions with which

163

they might engage. This allows the spectator to fit public action or support into the

framework of their own conception of the world, their sense of self and frees them to

make decisions about what they feel are appropriate responses (Chouliaraki 2008, 846).

Many of the films and events at The Global Peace Film Festival utilize

testimonial and witnessing in meaningful ways, illustrating the interplay between

spectators and the humanitarian imaginary within the context of any number of

sociopolitical and historical factors. Indeed, testimonial and witnessing are important

elements in the majority of the films screened, but play a vital role in particular films and

events. In this chapter, I present two in-depth examples which illustrate differing

strategies surrounding the use of testimonial and witnessing to engage audiences in a

powerful manner. The first, an event at Valencia College West that showed two films

seeking support to end genocide in the world, drew heavily on the expectation that the

self is central in how audiences relate to films. In contrast, the second utilizes witnessing

and testimonial on multiple levels, highlighting the pathos of victims of socio-economic power structures in our society, while offering the compelling presence of the victim.

In these examples, I highlight occasions that depend heavily on the physical presence of witnesses at the festival. It is the unique qualities of these witnesses that contribute to their impact at the festival. One event features an extraordinarily fearless

American who defied an evacuation mandate, remaining in Rwanda during the genocide of 1994, while another film draws on personal testimony from a convicted prisoner who beat the odds and got a college education after his release. In both cases, spectators at the festival identified strongly with these persons, who are the both the subjects of the films and witnesses that appear in person to interact with the film audiences. While the first

164

film is displaced from everyday experience by both time and place, the second film critiques our own society through the presentation of testimonial that is far closer to home. In both cases, testimonial and witnessing are crucial factors in creating solidarity as well as foundational to construction of identity on the part of the spectator.

Power Relationships and the Distant Other

The privileged position of the western spectator is key to understanding the appeals made by films through witnessing and testimonial. At the Valencia College West event, it is necessary to consider that the audiences holds a conventional western sensibility towards distant others when viewing films about faraway places, cognitively mapping a place for themselves within this world by developing a particular ethical position. This kind of testimonial encounter and the situated character of witnessing must be understood as interwoven with the social lives of the actors concerned and tied to spectators privileged position in terms of financial, symbolic, political and cultural capital

(Torchin 2012a, 14). The framework of global cultural processes proposed by Arjun

Appadurai offers a perspective from which to consider the situated nature of the way that spectators engage with humanitarian appeals (1996, 50). Myriad factors constitute the specifics of the interchange between film, spectator, venue, filmmaker, activists and any number of others who participate in an event and accompanying discourses of power contribute to the development of a cosmopolitan viewpoint within which to understand an issue.

165

Benedict Anderson’s notion of imagined communities (1983) is also useful in

placing these appeals within context. A strong sense of connection and common

belonging connects the spectator with the distant other, but is also essential in conceiving

how self and other belong in the same world. The imagination is a key component in

aligning publics across national borders, constructing a cosmopolitan viewpoint within

context of an imagined worldwide understanding of human rights (Torchin 2012a, 13).

The humanitarian imaginary works together with specificities to create a directed

response to individual circumstances and experiences in the form of witnessing and

testimonial.

Witnessing and Testimonial at Valencia College

An event that took place at Valencia College West Campus, as part of the Global

Peace Film Festival in partnership with the Peace and Justice Initiative of the college, offers much insight into the power of testimonial and witnessing in creating solidarity

among audiences. This event features two films, both of which promote efforts to end

genocide worldwide and constitute the spectator as a “savior” who might act in order to

save the distant exotic other. The screening of I’m Not Leaving (2014), directed by

Kevin Ekrall, along with Stomp Out Genocide (2013), directed by Mitch Lewis,

illustrates how a combination of venue, films, activist, witnessing and personal

appearances can create a synergy that inspires and motivates spectators. Media

representations offer possibilities for public action, but these available avenues for

agency are not enough in and of themselves to transform the spectator into a public actor.

166

Media texts are performative, and do more than simply address a pre-existing audience that is already prepared to engage in social action. Media does have the power to galvanize an audience as a body of action through narrating and visualizing distant events, but it is essential to consider the conditions of how media texts might promote an ethics of care and responsibility or indifference and apathy towards distant others. In order to understand the response of the spectator, it is crucial to consider both the aesthetic quality of the film, that is the combination of words and images, as well as other conditions of the screening (Chouliaraki 2008, 832).

The Valencia College West event provides a rich example of how aesthetics, personalities, audience, witness and activist all contribute to a particular expression of caring and self-development. Postmodern and critical theories take a pessimistic view regarding the nature of this caring, such as the perspective offered by Lilie Chouliaraki, who proposes that our contemporary “post-humanitarian” era is characterized by a

“public disposition of low intensity emotions and a technological imagination of instant

gratification but without justification.” This theoretical perspective provides insight into

the ways that the contemporary trend for self-conscious reflection figures as a primary

means of engagement with technological communication such as film. Thus, spectators

detach emotion from the sufferer, allowing the experience to revolve around personal

growth. This creates a “post-emotional individual” who takes cues from media and the

internet as to when and how he or she should exhibit emotions (Chouliaraki 2013, 73).

However, this may be somewhat unidimensional, as there are opportunities for authentic

responses on the part of spectators that do not simply inspire self-reflection. It is

interesting to consider how an event might engage spectators in ways that both fulfill and

167

exceed the parameters of a post-humanitarian response. Students provide an audience of a

particular nature and the goals of the event planners reflect related programming needs of both the Global Peace Film Festival and the event. The Valencia College West event seeks to provide moral education to their students by providing an experience that is personal in nature through specific programming and event planning, weaving together an historical and contemporary view of genocide in Africa with visual aesthetics that have great impact with the in-person testimony of witnesses through multiple approaches to this emotional material.

This event offered by the Peace and Justice Initiative was clearly designed with a particular goal, to provide moral education to the student audience, which was underlined by the commitment of the educators speaking at the event. One member of this group expressed great appreciation for the work of the Global Peace Film Festival and the collaborative effort with Valencia College, which she feels has made a difference in both

Orlando and the world. Within the context of the college event, she has personally witnessed the ways in which students have felt the impact this event in the past and are inspired to take action as a result. Another educator at the event notes that the films brought to the school introduce important social and educational messages to the students that promote peace and justice through the introduction of diverse voices (Great

Nonprofits, 2). This event highlights one of the multiple contexts in which student education is promoted by the Global Peace Film Festival, and the practice of matching films to specific organizations. In addition, the message conveyed by the filmmaker and guest attached to the two films clearly focused on personal values and self-development as a means of effecting change. This is effective in fulfilling the goals of the school as

168

well as showing a success rooted in a particular relationship between the self and the

humanitarianism imaginary.

I’m Not Leaving: Testimonial from a Hero

The feature film of the evening, I’m Not Leaving, seeks solidarity with both the

power of a film that documents atrocity through images as well as the concrete presence

of the persons whose narrative is being featured in the film. The director of this film was

less important to the message than the witness of genocide about whom the film was

made. A workman-like production, I’m Not Leaving makes its impact through the

personalization of original home video, audio recordings and still photographs taken

during the Rwandan Genocide during 1994. The film focuses on the experience of Carl

Wilkens, an American who chose to stay when all other citizens of the United States were

evacuated at the beginning of the massacre. The depiction of genocide in Rwanda

revolves around Carl’s position in the country and how events intersected with his

presence. The film declares, “One American refused to leave,” proclaiming that Carl is

exceptional.

The experience is intensified by the physical presence of Carl and his wife

Theresa, who offer an emotionally charged testimonial both in and after the film

regarding the events that he and his family experienced. His story is dramatic, and rather

voyeuristic, in that he faced gunfire and possible death on a daily basis while taking public action to protect people at risk of extermination, so his affective testimony had a great impact on the audience, with the film offering proof of his danger. This heroic

169

stance is recognized by the audience, whose comments after the show include, “He’s a

hero!,” “There should have been more people like him when the genocide happened!,”

and “He and his wife are incredible!.” As a hero, Carl is also a role model, and he uses

this to talk about values and building relationships between people. As a retiree, Carl has

stepped up his speaking engagements to a full time occupation, using the film, I’m Not

Leaving as part of a multimedia presentation19 that focuses less on the horror of genocide

and more on those who stood up against the wrong (www.worldoutsidemyshoes.org. This

provides role models for the development of values that will promote positive

relationships with other people, as well as gaining support for efforts to end genocide in

African nations. Carl’s story works as an ideological statement, much like survivor

testimony, but is also aligned with taking action in extreme circumstances (Torchin

2012a, 37).

Carl Wilkins’ affective testimonial is heartfelt and core to his identity, which is

constructed within the context of a witness to this atrocity. George Yúdice insightfully

points out that a witness portrays his or her own experience as an “agent rather than a

representative of a collective memory and identity” (17). The narrative discourse of

testimonials may act as a means for witnesses to work out their identities within the

aesthetic (Yúdice 1991, 19). This effectively describes the role of the witness taken by

Carl, who wrote a book by the same title as the film, defining himself as someone who

refused to leave. His decision was based on his unwillingness to abandon his Tutsi

household members to the situation, and his presence is central to their safety. This places

him in the position of hero and savior, which is consistent with the social and cultural

19 Carl’s presentation often includes a multimedia presentation. This event did not include his multimedia presentation, just utilizing the film and testimonial from Carl and his wife, Theresa. 170

imperative for witnesses to assume the grievances and demands of the oppressed, as the

commonly positioned westerner in relation to the other in need. In testimonials, the

artist/writer acts as a spokesperson for “the voiceless” (Yúdice 1991, 15). Although

Carl’s household members speak through interviews within the film, it is through his vision of the events that the story unfolds for the viewer. In testimonial, the personal story is shared with the community. As Yúdice points out, “The speaker does not speak for or represent a community, but rather performs an act of identity-formation, which is simultaneously personal and collective (Yúdice 1991, 15).” Truth is evoked through popular discourse within the context of an authentic narrative that denounces the exploitation and oppression taking place in a particular situation (Yúdice 1991, 17).

Testimony has historically been understood as a truthful first-person narration of suffering with the aim of transforming the world, but also relates to the rhetorical efforts of film projects to end atrocities by portraying them for empathetic audiences (Torchin

2012a, 5). Torchin proposes that film footage itself acts as a witness of atrocities (2012a,

113). The quality of authenticity attached to the media featured within the film contributes to the testimony, bearing witness to the events. Much of the film’s appeal comes from the use of old photographs, audio recording produced on outdated equipment and home movies from an earlier era, which help to create feelings of solidarity for the audience. Media technology acts as a means of extending the reach of the original occurrences in space and time, creating witnesses through watching. This allows members of the audience to identify with survivor testimony, while at the same time also allowing for both replay and the dissemination of the moment (Torchin 2012a, 7). The result is a powerful narrative that was deeply affective for the spectators at the event,

171

placing Carl concretely within an historical event, but also providing his person as both

example and motivation for contemporary action. Making “powerful human stories”

within a global context is not simple as one must negotiate a geopolitical landscape in

which public opinion must be forged within an array of contexts and made politically

relevant (Torchin 2012a, 144). The genocide in Rwanda took place some time ago, but is made relevant through personal testimony. Carl Wilkens is a passionate witness about his experiences in Rwanda, and these events appear to have been important in constructing his own identity, which sends a powerful message to spectators. Personal narrative is effective in putting a face on the dangers faced by those who “do the right thing.”

During the Question and Answer session after the film, Carl Wilkins and his wife

Theresa continued their testimony on the past events in Rwanda. His designation as role

model for personal values and actions is a salient part of the discussion. This is

underlined right from the start by the manner in which Carl and Theresa are introduced,

“Such naked courage…imagine having that kind of courage…it is the regular pattern

around the world…ask what is wrong with us, and after that what can I do, what

complication do I have to humanity, and that voice has to override the overarching voices

of politicians.” Comments by one spectator echoed this sentiment about our culpability,

“How can we let this happen? We complain about housework and doing our laundry, but

let this happen, even now this is going and we watch TV and let it happen” She

continued, “He is amazing, just amazing. That is the kind of person we all need to be.”

This reflects what developed into the strongest message of the night as the discussion

soon shifted towards self-development. The questions directed to Carl Wilkens and his

answers reflect the strong emphasis on self-development. Sprinkled within Carl’s

172

witnessing about genocidal acts and the specific actions that he took to counter these acts was testimonial about his sense of morality, including that he could not leave members of his household to be slaughtered when his presence might prevent it and that God had a plan for his life. His life and his experiences provided a strong moral compass for decision-making that extended beyond the specific situation and offered a role model for students, shifting the focus from politics to self, and this came out in his answers to their questions after the screening. In his responses, Carl always returned to building personal values and relationships with other people as a solution to genocide, often accompanied by anecdotes from his experience in Rwanda. For example, in response to the opening question about a political topic, the recent genocide on Gaza Strip, Carl responded by saying that we always have these tragedies, that he cannot keep up, and that he actually took a break from the news in July because he needed some space. He went on to say,

“We don’t have to slip from crisis to crisis…there are so many things we can do in a peaceful manner, emphasizing we should turn “responsibility” around to “ability to respond, using our specific talents to take action. Likewise, when asked if he had established an organization that students could join, he told them about his 501C organization, World Outside My

Shoes, and the chapters established by students at schools. However, he then relates that the focus of these chapters is on “who is the other around us,” saying, “Yes, we want to change genocide, but we need to change the way we think.” He goes on to talk about how we are not going to solve anything by excluding someone, and since that is where genocide comes from, “our initial plea is to start in examining ourselves.” When a student commented that God protected him, Carl, who is a pastor responded, “I have come to

173

believe that God’s protection is not an invisible shield. Much of God’s protection comes through your hands and my hands, thru the hands of people.” He tied this in with his responses to other questions that followed, emphasizing repeatedly that we are defined by what we do with what we have, weaving this into questions about values, how to forgive, and his actions in Rwanda. Carl ended the discussion on this same note, equating the recovery of Rwanda with this theme, reporting the positive changes in

Rwanda that reflect the fact that they should not be defined by what was taken from them, reiterating that “you are defined, not by what you don’t have, but what you do with what you have.”

Table 1. Selected Questions Asked by Spectators after Viewing I’m Not Leaving20

Selected Questions: Where are we on the genocide that happened on Gaza Strip about a month ago and what do you think we should respond to that? Do you have an organization that you made and started and that we can be a part of? I just wanted to say that in the scripture, said, that cause you did it to my little ones, you did it to me, and I think it takes a lot of courage, what you did, when a nation abandons everybody, and you stay on your own and you leave your family…Remember, you put yourself on the line, and I’m going to say, God protected you. I had two questions. I know it was an overall devastating experience, but when you think back about that time, what moment, what exact moment does your mind go to? And my other question is, what was the number one value that you learned? My question is, where did you get it, what allowed you to make that decision? I still need to understand what, how you could do something so great, so powerful, to leave everything and do this sacrifice to save so many? And it really troubles me that this country shut the doors and you were there.

20 The complete script of the questions is found in Appendix G. 174

The film itself, I’m Not Leaving, provided supporting footage for Carl’s moral position, through interviews with people who left Rwanda during the evacuation, in which they expressed sentiments about how much could have been done if everyone had stayed as well as interviews with peacekeepers who witnessed how Carl’s presence made a huge difference for so many people. This was contrasted with stories about the people that Carl saved, who went on to live productive lives, rising above the conflict. This focus on moral education allows the spectator to reflect back on his or her own moral perspective, providing a way to experience the film and its message with the self at the center as well as a way to channel emotions. Thus, moral education of this type fits well into the humanitarian imaginary as well as providing a model for identity construction for the spectator. Carl makes all the hard decisions, yet the spectator has the luxury of sitting back and watching. The spectator witness is placed in the position of voyeur, freed from the moral obligation to act in response within this specific context except in terms of personal development (Chouliaraki 2008, 842). The danger is spelled out clearly in photographs videos and graphic drawings of events not captured at the time; Carl delivers food and water and the safety of his presence to those in need, remaining steadfast even as bullets fly while the spectator need only sit back in awe. This is followed by a

“debriefing,” during which Carl explains how one needs to live and relate with other people. The film provides a medium for a discussion of values and the recovery of the people of Rwanda provide a sense of what is possible when one acquires these values.

175

Stomp out Genocide: Expressing Solidarity

In contrast to such an aesthetically graphic account of the details of a well-known

massacre in Rwanda, spectators responded enthusiastically to the upbeat nature of Stomp

out Genocide, directed by Mitch Lewis. Only seven minutes long, this short film offers

the tale of an African child who wanders into a destroyed African village21 and finds a red pair of shoes that had belonged to a child victimized in an unidentified genocide. He puts on the sneakers and stomps in anger, which leads to a dance. The shoes, with other red shoes, travel around the world and are danced in by hundreds of other children in villages as well as western schools, to speak out against human rights violations against children (Global Peace Film Festival Brochure, 54).

His message has a “feel good” nature that allows students to recover from their sorrow at the horror of an event in which children died by taking an action that fits into both our consumer society as well as our understanding of the global economy. This film instructs the students how to act, replacing the horror of genocide with a manageable response. “If we see something in the world that we think is wrong, we have the power to change it.” This film takes such a general approach that it allows the spectator to disengage from an emotional response to the horror of the images of genocide in Rwanda and embrace a post-humanitarian perspective. The activities that form the basis for the short film include footage of students in four cities in the United States and four villages

in different countries in Africa (www.artstoendgenocide.org/join-the-movement.html) and spectators are encouraged to see themselves as a future part of the project. The

21 Interestingly, the video never names this African village or the country in which it exists, leaving the child an anonymous “African.” 176

filmmaker reports that the film has been viewed in seventy-two countries, so its message has been heard widely.

Aesthetically, the film celebrates children and art, music and dance. There is only one shot of a child digging up red sneakers in a ruined village which cannot really be seen; meanwhile the narrator informs us that the shoes belonged to a young child who was a victim of genocide. The use of a child to dig up the sneakers is obviously constructed, the sneakers are large enough to fit a teenager and the use of a child perhaps gives agency to children as public actors. In contrast to this constructed vision of the incident, there are hundreds of children from many places smiling and dancing joyously, many in red sneakers, for most of the remainder of the film. While they dance, the voiceover informs the audience that, “Many children throughout Africa are going barefoot and are vulnerable to diseases transmitted from the soil. While filming this video we were able to donate hundreds of sneakers to these children.” But the images that we see are of still of smiling, dancing children. The narrator then reiterates the fact that if we see something we think is wrong, we have the power to change it, but this time within the context of providing shoes for children in Africa. He goes on to say that for children around the world, this is their first step as agents of change, to making the world a better place. Although short, this film makes a great leap from genocide to shoes, ignoring the fact that the child originally killed in the anonymous village actually had shoes. At the end of the film, an American teenager is seen giving advice to her peers, “And I encourage y’all as well just to spread the word and talk with your friends, with your family about what we did today and also about what you’ve learned about genocide.” The children seen in this project are given a lesson about genocide, but the film itself focuses

177

on actions of solidarity that are based in self-reflection. The purpose of the film is to personally engage students in the cause and to encourage them to form groups on campus that support grassroots projects.

The film is aimed towards motivating students to enlist their school to join a specific project to establish shoe-making in African villages, but any public action that ensues may be related to self-reflection. The screening is followed by an appeal during the Question and Answer session by director Mitch Lewis for spectators to take up their own cause or to help with his efforts to provide poor villages with economic help by establishing shoe-making as a village endeavor. There was a great deal of enthusiasm for the shoe project and many expressed interest in joining the campaign. However, the students responded like one might expect in our consumer society; many wanted a pair of the red shoes being manufactured in villages for themselves. When one student blurted out, “I want a pair of these shoes!” at the end of the film, the sentiment was echoed throughout the room by other young women. Throughout the film, the spectator sees children dancing in the rough-made red shoes as well as the iconic red tennis shoes. This use of images is effective in sending a message that one can help while remaining at a safe distance both geographically and emotionally; self-development as a caring

individual is a valuable commodity.

At the end of the evening, the Valencia students are invited to write a message on

a huge cloth “wall” at the back of the room, a rather self-reflective act that shifts the focus to feelings of the spectator. Students lined up at the end of the night to write express their emotions in the form of “messages” with no promise on the part of the organizers to deliver these messages to anyone. This is perhaps more of an appeal to

178

“find your feeling,” which focuses on the question of “what to do” rather than why one should act. This kind of invitation to self-expression is characteristic of many contemporary humanitarian appeals and is an effective way to generate solidarity

(Chouliaraki 2013, 15).

Mitch Lewis emphasizes that he is not a filmmaker, but an artist from North

Carolina who wants to make a difference in the world. His personal appeal is based in the notion that historically many people in the arts have effected social change through their art and worked for the betterment of humankind. He talks about the ways in which his small grassroots organization, Arts To End Genocide, uses art “to shape public opinion and influence social change.” The Arts to End Genocide website offers insight into the motivations and approach of its founder, providing further information about his art projects discussed at the festival event. Mitch Lewis came into the project through his sculptural exhibition about the genocide in Darfur. He relates that he witnessed a great outpouring of emotion from viewers, who expressed that his exhibition had a great impact on their lives and the lives of their children. As his exhibit traveled around the country, people repeatedly asked him, “What can I do?” His response was to found

Artists to End Genocide “to provide a vehicle for ordinary American citizens to become proactive, and create a dialogue of understanding with their brothers in Africa.” Since then Mitch Lewis has established relationships with a number of foundations, academic institutions, non-government organizations and artists, creating a network for his collaborative projects with both American and African children

(www.artstoendgenocide.org/founders-statement.html).

179

The use of art as a means of promoting a message about genocide places Mitch

Lewis within the context of the marketplace as well as promoting a particular sensibility

characteristic of the humanitarian imaginary. The short, Stomp Out Genocide, is offered

freely to anyone who wishes to view it on the website and the appeal to adults is directed

at educators who might bring an event to their school. However successful the project

might be in bringing attention to genocide, it does so in a particular manner that places

the spectator at the center and accesses self-reflection as a means of creating feelings of solidarity. The website echoes the sentiments expressed at Valencia College, asking students to share their creativity with the organization by expressing their feelings about genocide. Students are informed that there are many ways to do this using either the visual or performing arts and specific suggestions are offered. The self is still central to choosing how to respond; the individual is encouraged to act as a “free subject” who may decide on a way to take action that is appropriate for their own needs (Chouliaraki 2008,

845). Students are asked to send in a video of their creations, which will then be posted on the website to show the world that “children really care.” This is appropriate action that children can take, yet the primary purpose is the moral education of the audience, a goal that is directed at all ages.

Mitch Lewis declares that the aim of his project is to “begin the conversation” as well as noting that it will transform American students into global citizens. Yet, the perspective of these “global citizens,” their cosmopolitan outlook, is firmly rooted in a western understanding of global relationships and the power differentials that constitute the relationship of the west with “the rest.” Contemporary mediation is part of what

Aristotle calls our education as citizens of the world (Chouliaraki 2008, 838). Yet, the

180

perspective commonly held by many of the spectators at the Global Peace Film Festival is anchored in a cosmopolitanism orientation that defines the ethnical and political space of morality in unidimensional terms that reflect our own understanding of possible solutions for global issues (McCullough, 2).

The “movement” to end genocide, as it is dubbed on the Arts to End Genocide website contains a call to children and adults and constitutes a more complex message with a dual purpose, educating children in a palatable manner as well as addressing adults in an oblique manner. Within the context of global abuse of children’s human rights, which is the main focus of the efforts of this organization, images of smiling, well dressed children offer a contrasting vision to less fortunate children who never shown.

The question is whether this is an effective method of combating genocide around the world. In his appeal to the audience, Mitch Lewis focuses on the question, “What can I do?” He then answers the question, offering art and creativity as a means of making a difference. The way that the students at Valencia College responded to this film echoed this focus on self-reflection. Both men and women expressed a wish to help the children without shoes, but a talking about genocide tended to have been set aside after viewing this film. While concern for the children was genuine, many embraced self-expression as a solution and comments from often students started with the word, “I.” “I want those shoes!”!I would love to do an art project!” Young women tended to be more interested in the product, such as, “Those shoes are so cute. They are like UGGs!” “Where can I buy them?” One young woman that I talked to expressed her belief in the project, saying, “He

(Mitch) is getting a lot done by using art to talk about genocide. I would like to do something important like that, but I don’t know what I can do.” During the question and

181

answer session, another young woman said, “I’m not a student, what can I do?” She was

told to that after the schools complete a shoe project, they are asked to challenge the

community to “walk a mile” in the shoes of the children. Since they have no shoes, this

means walking a mile barefoot on a local track to encourage the whole community to get

involved. Emotions after this film were more upbeat than after I’m Not Leaving, since it

proposed solutions that involved popular activities and interesting projects. The

encounter with the other is sanitized by this film, which is made to be appropriate for

younger children. The primary outcome of this screening is a feeling of solidarity with

children in other places. In this film, spectators are directed to feel sad about the children

missing (killed) in this village, but happy about the children expressing solidarity around

the world, and the students at Valencia followed this pattern by expressing solidarity

through proposing acts that they might accomplish within the familiarity of their home.

Spectators are told how and when to feel emotions about genocide, which is

characteristic of a post-humanitarian expression of emotion. This post-humanitarian structure of feeling is characteristic of the fundamental shift in the communicative structure of the imaginary, shifting the focus from a theatrically-based encounter between

“us” and “them” to a mirror structure in which what we are confronted with is our own image as a “resource for making sense of solidarity (Chouliaraki 2013, 73)”. Within the context of the college setting, the experience may translate more directly into moral education rather than public action, into a style of appealing that ignores the tension between awareness-raising and fund-raising as well as between politics and the market.

Earlier styles of humanitarian appeals depended on an affective performativity and moral universalism to establish its legitimacy, while post-humanitarian appeals rely on a

182

reflexive particularism that places the sufferer in opposition to ourselves, which may

either dehumanize the sufferer or engender empathy through positive emotions that

eventually appropriate the sufferer and conceive of his or her future in a world like ours

(Chouliaraki 2013, 74). The structure of the Arts to End Genocide project and film fits

into this positive structure of feeling which utilizes self-reflection as a justification for

solidarity and privileges the pleasures of the self as effective and favorable way of

making a difference (Chouliaraki 2013, 75).

Understanding the Valencia College Event

The structure of the event at Valencia College added to the impact of both films.

By screening I’m Not Leaving with Stomp Out Genocide, the emotional impact of the two films merges in response to the film, The sorrow of historical events was ameliorated by an appeal that spoke to self-reflection and the chance to make a difference by taking public action in a facile manner. Faced with the moral demand commanded by the witnessing of a human misery that cannot be satisfied through direct action because the misery is distant and mediated, spectators seek action that is accomplishable. Our moral integrity as witnesses depend on media being able to transmit the perception that action is possible and that the misery viewed is not inevitable and unchangeable (Vestergaard

2010, 171-172). The aesthetic quality of each film showed at this event aroused different types of emotions, and change might be realized in different ways in response to each film as well. While I’m Not Leaving overtly calls upon the spectator to “do the right thing” in a way that demands standing up to hard situations, it also calls for personal

183

growth and ties that growth to living a Godly life.22 On the other hand, the response called for by Stomp Out Genocide is much more concrete and can be accomplished through participating in the shoes project or even by a growth in one’s own creativity.

Even though students were visibly effected by the testimonial about the genocide in

Rwanda, the end of the evening included a “feel good” occasion. The red shoes were equated with a joyful dance and the film proposed a concrete way to deal with earlier negative feelings, and the writing of messages on the cloth wall allowed students to show their solidarity in a final act that expressed personal feelings.

The fact that this event was not promoted on campus as a part of the Global Peace

Film Festival is significant. When I arrived at Valencia College West Campus, there was no visible publicity for the event in the hallways, the building where the event took place or on the larger campus. There was a sign outside the screening room that announced the event as a part of “Valencia College Peace Week.” This event was defined on the signage as a school event hosted by Valencia College Justice Studies and moderated by professors from this program, and as such had a very different feel from other Global

Peace Film Festival Events. More than 350 spectators, mostly students, were present and carefully tied-up bags of popcorn were offered for free with other snacks at tables staffed by student volunteers. The audience composition was also far more diverse ethnically than other festival events, which reflected the demographics of the less prestigious ranking of this state college. This student-centered event fit well into the parameters sought by the director of Stomp Out Genocide as well as the more testimonial approach taken by Carl Wilkins.

22 This is expressed several times during the evening but is not emphasized, perhaps because this is a state school. 184

I would argue that events like the Global Peace Film Festival screenings at

Valencia College do not necessarily evoke low intensity emotions that distance the

spectator; it is more accurate to say that these films and the event itself channel the

spectators’ very intense emotions by telling them “how and when” to feel (Chouliaraki

2013, 73-74). The purpose of the event is to stimulate authentic emotions then to retain and transfer these emotions to a specific goal. The spectators at the screening at Valencia

College were situated within the context of overt moral education and their very intense emotions were evident. The presence of a witness and the aesthetics of the films had much to do with the generation of these intense emotions. The aim seemed to be to channel those emotions towards a particular public action, and this may be characteristic of many events at the Global Peace Film Festival. As noted earlier, audiences are seeking an answer to the question, “What can I do?” to which there is not always an easy answer.

The programming of the festival is aimed at putting people together, in hopes of being a catalyst for public action.

While a focus on self may be central in determining how emotion may be expressed within the process of defining how and when one should act, this kind of response fits well with our larger society as well as the goals and beliefs that sustain the

Global Peace Film Festival. The diminished emotions held by the “ironic spectator” as part of the process of reflecting emotion back to the self is characteristic of narcissistic nature of our larger society. Christopher Lasch noted this change in structure of feeling as far back as the late 1970s when he wrote of the emergence of the narcissistic personality in our society. Every society produces its own norms and modes of organizing experience, which for the individual is realized in the form of personality (1978, 34).

185

Lasch noted the desire on the part of Americans to live for the self, essentially turning

their attention to personal preoccupations, especially “psychic self-improvement” such as

“getting in touch with their feelings, eating health food, taking lessons in ballet or belly- dancing” and so on (Lasch 1978, 4). Given the centrality of the self in how spectators relate to humanitarian topics, it is no surprise that personal activities figure largely in efforts to make the world a better place.

Susan Sontag observed another interesting trend in the 1970s that has become central in our “self” focused society, the emergence of “self-surveillance.” She noted that the presence of cameras provides the technical means to provide ceaseless self-scrutiny because the sense of self becomes dependent on the consumption of images of the self

(Sontag 1978, 28). This insight provides an equally apt assessment of contemporary western society in which “selfies”23 are a ubiquitous part of many lives. Public self- presentation and an invitation to self-expression is a key feature of new media that engages people in producing a dramaturgical consciousness that participates in the formation of cosmopolitan dispositions (Chouliaraki 2013, 16). A constant engagement with social media websites like Facebook allows individuals to get continual feedback from photographs posted online that may be central to identity construction.24 Indeed,

Sontag’s observation that “reality has come to seem more and more like what we are

23 Close-up photographs of the self, usually taken with a cellular telephone camera. 24 A 2011 study conducted by the University of Texas Psychology Department found that social media sites reflect user’s genuine personalities. According to this study, Facebook users are no different offline than they are online. Further, the study shows a real connection between offline personality and behavior on Facebook. Indeed, the study notes that “Social and personality processes…accurately mirror non-virtual environments.” Looking at five personality traits, including openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness and neuroticism, researchers concluded that self-reported personality traits are accurately portrayed on online social networks like Facebook (Gosling 2011). However, it seems more complex than just people posting on social networks in an “honest” manner. Understandings of self are gained from the self-surveillance inherent in taking, choosing and posting photographs online and these understandings participate in the process of identity construction. 186

shown by cameras” points out something essential in the relationship between the

spectator and the humanitarian film and casts understanding on importance of the witness

as a representative of other people and places and the need to put a face on a cause (1978,

28).

Within contemporary contexts, a self-focus may still be expressed through psychic self-improvement or the embracing of lifestyle politics, but, there are integral changes in our society and world that engender qualitative differences. The self is now more commonly understood within a global perspective. With the growing interconnectedness of the world comes a greater awareness of global processes, greater ties with other peoples and culture and the development of a world system of images from which people draw to construct identity. The Global Peace Film Festival provides an arena in which one can develop the self as a world citizen, in a way that fits into a moral imperative to be a caring individual. In the process of developing a cosmopolitan identity within the context of the Global Peace film festival, an individual can focus on the self, on lifestyle as a political action, as well as having the agency to choose how to best make a difference based on the needs of oneself. Spectators at the Global Peace Film

Festival are seeking an opportunity to feel connected with their community as well as the world. Many expressed passionate emotions about global conditions, but took a variety of positionalities ranging from a rarer negative perspective to a more positive self-oriented view based on potential personal action, to events that channeled emotions into simple acts of support or emotional and artistic expression.

One means through which emotions can be channeled is through identification with a witness, effecting a “witnessing” of one’s own, perhaps as a replacement for

187

voyeuristic viewing. Leschu Torchin notes that the notion of witnessing publics is particularly productive, as it allows us to conceive of the ways audiences relate to distant suffering (2012a, 12). When solidarity is based in self-reflection it creates an emotional response of pity that takes on a political nature (Chouliaraki 2013: 54). This is a comfortable perspective for western spectators to occupy, and ties social change to personal edification. As the one who has power to make change happen, the spectator maintains a privileged position from which he or she may imagine other worlds and make decisions about how to respond in a way that is personally acceptable.

The Valencia college event relies heavily on the imagining of the witnessing public. After seeing personal experiences tied to a concrete witness who testifies about a particular situation, spectators are asked to imagine the conditions faced by children around the world in any number of places and situations or the horrors of genocide in

Rwanda. Spectators are offered ways to respond to what they imagine through self- affirming actions. Students are actively engaged in identity construction, and the goals of education include guiding students in this process; the event seeks to promote civic engagement rather than the radicalization of students. The structure of the event supports these goals in a very concrete way by channeling emotions into action or self-reflection; this also fits into the nature of contemporary society in which individuals are accustomed to being told how and when to feel. The particular structuring of messages during the event echoes a sentiment central to the humanitarian imaginary, to act morally in response to the needs of the vulnerable other. Specific messages emerge that align with the goals and ideology promoted by the Global Peace Film Festival, including: “You should be an engaged citizen,” “Here is something that you can do locally and

188

concretely,” “Grassroots efforts are a good way to effect change,” and “If you are a better

person, the world will become a better place.”

Given the nature of our contemporary society, the approach of the Global Peace

Film Festival is appropriate for attracting audiences and garnering audience support for

causes and films, as well as embodying the soul of the festival. Nina Streich emphasizes

that peace emerges from our personal relationships, that this is the basic level to be built

upon in an effort to make the world a better place, which puts the emphasis on individual

agency at the center of efforts to make a difference. This upbeat, capitalistic-based

solution to genocide echoes commonly held sentiments that conceive of cosmopolitanism

as a means of dismantling social and economic differences in our world (McCulloch, 2).

It is doubtful whether a radical approach or one more centered on polycentric

multiculturalism would be successful with Orlando audiences or fit the needs of the

cultural Orange County institutions which support the festival. Films about distant others

are firmly rooted within a perspective that contrasts dominant cultures against those who

are less powerful, often portraying westerners as heroes and constructing possible futures

for others that resembles our own. Because it was aimed at a student population, the

Valencia College Event had a different slant from other showings at the festival in the

type of moral education stressed, but it still promoted similar ideology and goals such as

“starting a conversation” and the changing the world through changing oneself.

Witnessing and testimonial were crucial to contributing moral imperatives towards identity construction among students and spectators responded enthusiastically to the appeal. Thus, the event was effective in achieving the goals of both the college and the festival. Chouliaraki makes a valid observation when she notes that the post-

189

humanitarianism characteristic of humanitarian efforts forgets about the kind of moral

education that pushes us to consider questions of who is the human and why we should

act on a cause (2013, 76). However, it is not entirely absent in events like this one.

Questions of humanity lie at the core of the Rwanda genocide featured in I’m Not

Leaving, but rather than debate these issues, emotions are shifted towards a moral education of the self that aligns with the morality of the witness and a grassroots upbeat

project that opens up multiple avenues for action that fit into personal choice.

Witnessing and Power in Our Own Society: The Cooler Bandits

Witnessing and testimonial can be just as powerful when turned towards the other

within our own society. Among the films shown at the Global Peace Film Festival, most

challenges to mainstream American culture are directed at the internal structures in our

own society, such as equal rights for the gay community, the handicapped, racially based

discrimination, or the treatment of prisoners. Media and their discourses have an impact

on public life and these discourses are driven by our relationships with both institutions

and technology (Chouliaraki 2006, 3). Whether international or national, our relationship

with issues is tied up in institutional flows of money and technology that are expressed in

which issues are debated and in what ways. An asymmetrical division exists between the

viewer, who is safely watching and the sufferer, who is vulnerable to power relationships,

economic resources, geopolitical positions and the realities of everyday life. Zones of

viewing are characterized by a space of safety, predictability, homogeneity and relative

190

prosperity, posed in contrast to the zones of vulnerability and suffering that are portrayed by media (Chouliaraki 2006, 4-5).

The realization of the notion of cosmopolitanism is inseparably connected to the media, but much theory on the media takes cosmopolitanism for granted. In the social theory of media, two narratives remain relevant in exploring how mediation shapes the cosmopolitan spectator, one positive and one negative. Both emphasize that media creates a new connectivity between spectators and others, and has the potential to manipulate the spectator’s sense of closeness and ability to connect with the spectacle of suffering. The pessimistic view draws from Adorno’s notion that spectators are passive consumers of media-based knowledge who accept a “sanitized” version of reality. Thus, the technology may distort the authenticity of the event represented. However, a second version of this pessimistic view proposes that it is the comfort of the spectators’ homes and lives that distorts their connectivity with distant sufferers.

In contrast, the optimistic view proposes that the technology of mediation brings the world closer together through simultaneous viewing, which creates a cosmopolitan consciousness, an imaginary “we” that brings all spectators together in the act of watching. This vision, much like Marshall McLuhan’s idea of the global village (1964) sets up a “feeling in common” projected into an imagined community that is based on viewing (Chouliaraki 2006, 23-27). Thus, mediation becomes a tool of perspective, a way to frame issues within the context of local concerns. Events may be framed in ways to make them engaging at a personal level that then may be abstracted to the level of society at large (Tomlinson 1999, 179). Dislocated from local places and bodies, cosmopolitanism is expressed as a sensibility rather than action, a disposition that

191

indicates a willingness to act on the suffering of others without any guarantees. As a consequence, when a sensibility of pity emerges as an act of identification on the part of the spectator, the cosmopolitan public becomes situated at the center of media spectatorship (Chouliaraki 2006, 206).

The way that we understand the public realm is reliant on our understanding of self; a psychological identification with the other that “provides a condition of possibility for cosmopolitanism” (Chouliaraki 2006, 209). Tomlinson notes that narratives of moral concern must be expressed in ways that translate the general and the global into local understanding, and significantly, into that which is personal and intimate (1999, 179).

This link is significant because it constitutes cosmopolitanism and intimacy in a cause and effect relationship that rests upon the understanding that spectators and sufferers share a common humanity. The spectator may feel intimate with the other, whether nearby or distant, and understand the sufferer in terms of the spectators’ own psychological world. Thus, the reality of the suffering is validated by a self-evaluation on the part of the spectator. In contemporary Western society, the public world has been eclipsed by the private psyche; thus, narcissism is manifested in Western social relations by a characteristic use of one’s own “intimate feelings as a measure of the meaning of reality” (Sennett 1976, 326). This constitution of the other as an extension of the self is especially pertinent in understanding the spectator’s view of the other within our own society; we empathize because we recognize the common humanity of the other and project a reality that specifies the sufferings of a disadvantaged group in terms of our own lives. A focus on one’s own feelings as an important touch point of reality is relevant in

192

the reception of films at the Global Peace Film Festival, and no more dramatically than in

the reception of The Cooler Bandits (2013), directed by John Lucas.

Creating a Buzz

As the film with the most “buzz” at the festival, The Cooler Bandits created a

synergistic energy throughout the event that expresses as much about the witnessing

public as the social construct that surrounded the message of the film. The “buzz” that

followed the film was very much a product of an emotional engagement on the part of the

spectators who saw the film as well as their sense of having been witnesses themselves.

This sense of witnessing was woven throughout events at the festival, as people talked

about the film, the presence of one of the young African American men featured, the

director and his process of filmmaking.

A great part of the appeal of this film lies in the process that the director went through in the making of The Cooler Bandits. A photojournalist who emerged in the art scene in Ohio, John Lucas knew two of the young men featured in the film as youngsters and was with one of them at an event a week before his arrest, so his witnessing of the personal journeys of the young men had its roots in the point at which the narrative begins (Blackmore-Dobbyn 2012, 1). He later returned to document the story of their imprisonment as a long term project, taking a chance that the story and the footage would

culminate in a film of some merit. The film takes a somewhat different approach to the

topic of race, class and imprisonment. What the film achieves is a broad view of socio-

economic cultural factors surrounding the experience of growing up as a black male in

193

our society, the familial and personal consequences of choosing a particular path, and the

difficulty of building a life in our society after imprisonment. Lucas reports that his film

has been rejected by a number of larger festivals because it does not have a central,

recognizable message about prisons that fits into a conventional understanding of activist

films, but the film was received with great interest at the Global Peace film festival and

has been successful in other venues as well.

The narrative of The Cooler Bandits follows four young men, Richard “Poochie”

Roderick, Dominic Harris, Charlie Kelly and Frankie Porter, through a crime spree

during which they robbed a series of local restaurants in Akron, Ohio. They were dubbed

“The Cooler Bandits” by local press because they forced employees into walk-in coolers before taking the cash. Although they never killed or injured anyone, they were eventually caught and sentenced to very long prison sentences. Frankie Porter got up to

528 years while Richard “Poochie” Roderick and Charlie Kelly were given 68-159 years.

Donovan Harris, the only one who could afford a lawyer, was given the lightest sentence of 16-50 years. A meaningful point made by the film and reinforced through promotional material is that “While no one disputes their guilt, many wonder if the punishment fit the crime.” The film follows “Poochie” and Charlie as they near release from prison after twenty years, and “their reintegration into a world that is now completely foreign to them.” This affective language, used in promotional material stresses the treatment of the young men by the justice system and their loss of interaction with the outside world, setting up an emotional response to their situation (Cleveland International Film Festival

39). This sets the tone for the message of the film as well as the implicit political stance

194

taken by the narrative and aptly describes the structure within which the narrative is

framed.

The immense impact of The Cooler Bandits is due to a number of complex factors

surrounding the film. These young men are self-admitted robbers who held their victims in fear in restaurant coolers. This appears to be something of a paradox; the mostly middle-class spectators celebrate the very men whom they might fear if they passed them on the street. So one must consider why this might be true. The film effectively creates an image of the men as people that we can know, tracing the course of their lives from the naivety of vulnerable youngsters to mean trying to rebuild their lives after prison, drawing the audience into their inner psychology. The narrative builds the spectator’s knowledge through a variety of aesthetic techniques, providing both context and a sense of intimacy, including the men’s inner thoughts, the impact of their imprisonment on family members and their difficulty in negotiating the criminal justice system.

One of Us: Creating Intimacy through Aesthetics

The aesthetics of the film play an essential role in constructing an intimate view of the men’s lives, generating sympathy by highlighting the inequities of incarceration for the underclass in the United States. Feelings engendered through the act of viewing introduce a measure of proximity or distance from the spectacle of suffering based on how the footage is utilized. The Cooler Bandits draws the spectator into both the homes and the prison and presents each sufferer as “one of us.” Empathy, denunciation of causes of suffering and aesthetic contemplation are key devices in portraying suffering, and

195

topics of pity and suffering are presented as both personal and public reality. The personal experiences of these young men become representative of the experiences of many and a basis for understanding how our society functions (Chouliaraki 2006, 42).

Within the context of mediation, the visual properties of this film provide an excellent example of the ways that presence and absence and how certain scenes of suffering are constructed make them of little or immense concern to Western audiences.

The film engenders few emotions regarding or feelings of identification with the victims of these crimes, which are depicted through stills and news stories about the hunt for the perpetrators. How the past crimes are represented is tied up in power relationships, and the narrative focuses on the position of these young men within the power structures of our society. The aesthetics of the film create an empathetic view and understanding of the situated nature of their actions by choice of what to include. Foucault’s theory of power is useful in understanding the mediation of events; the aesthetic choices in depicting the past crimes aptly illustrates the complexities of practice and discourse that position these individuals within certain relationships of power to each other within a social field

(Chouliaraki 2006, 7). This era of the youngsters’ lives is understood as poor choices that come out of social conditions. The prison interviews provide evidence of the consequences of these choices, with the understanding that incarceration has further effects on their families and neighborhoods. Visual properties play a role in constructing meaning in these scenes and engender feelings of solidarity for suffering in very specific contexts.

The camera, along with John Lucas, follows the event of the actual release of

Poochie from prison. The spectator joins him for the rather tense process: the change of

196

clothes, the return of belongings, the exit interview, all leading up to walking out the gate

and getting into a minivan with the director and camera operator. Poochie calls his family

on an unfamiliar cellular telephone, and talks with the crew about his fears about entering

the outside world after so many years in prison. The style of the film shifts to something like a reality show, with a hand-held camera lending authenticity to the unscripted nature

of the moment. The spectator follows Poochie as he enters the half-way house to live, a rather austere place that he is glad to enter, as this world is foreign to him. He then visits his family and finds himself the central focus of a large “welcome home” party. This segment is rather different aesthetically from earlier portions of the film. Release from prison, capturing uncertainty in a very vulnerable and authentic moment, seems more real than black and white photographs of news stories that recount the crime committed long ago.

The narrative continues, documenting the reentry of Poochie into the outside world, along with Charlie, who was released some time earlier. This part of the narrative is also significant for audiences. The men struggle to build positive lives, get an apartment, and reconcile differences with Donovan, who got out of prison earlier.

Poochie is accepted at a college in California, in a program that helps disadvantaged former students who have not been able complete their education. This is meaningful because, as the film explains, Poochie would not have qualified for this college program without having taking some college credits in prison, an opportunity that was dismantled due to public opinion that the government should not give “free” education to prisoners.

What is mentioned, but not highlighted is that he was encouraged to apply for to the program by a friend of the director, who was a faculty member at the college. Poochie

197

remains the focus of the film, diligently studying, gaining his Bachelors’ degree and

going on to a Master’s degree program. The spectator has now traveled through his whole life, as he is catapulted from youngster to prisoner, from half-way house resident looking

for a job, to working for a mechanic and moving into a house and finally leaving the poor

neighborhood behind as he pursued an education.

This journey effectively transforms him from a member of the underclass to a

person on the brink of a career that will give him economic status in our society. This is a

person with whom the middle-class audience can identify. Spectators now can imagine

his future, based on their knowledge of advancement through education. Their

understanding of Poochie feels personal and intimate, as he has shared many of his

innermost thoughts with them. The film creates a sense of intimacy by revealing his inner

psychology, engendering feelings of common humanity in the spectators. The aesthetic

experience is highly affective, with many spectators crying in response to the emotional

difficulties of his journey. John Lucas uses visual elements effectively to create an

emotive experience for the audience, and privately divulges that he watches the

spectators during screenings to gauge their emotional responses. The audience extends

their inner psychology to understand the experience that these men have gone through.

After a cathartic viewing experience, that sensory amplification of the men’s experiences

through images, sounds and stories, spectators construct a shared identity that they may

then take from the occasion (Iordanova and Cheung, 2010, 5). After the film screened,

audience members wanted to know all about the personal lives of the prisoners, looking

for updates. “How did your incarceration affect your family?” “What was life like in the

half-way house?” “When will Frankie get out of jail?” Richard Roderick answers many

198

of the questions about the four men, while John Lucas fields inquiries about how his

experienced, including how he got access to the prison during the years that the men were

incarcerated. John related that he is pleased to find that audiences are so visibly affected

by his work, and he watches people to see overt signs of their engagement. ”Yes,” I tell

him, “I am just as affected as everyone else.” This kind of engagement means that he has

accomplished what he set out to do, people to see beyond the crime, to empathize with

the young men, considering the situatedness of this crime in within the racialized

socioeconomic conditions of our society.

Multi-leveled Witnessing

Audiences are generated through testimonial encounters, and The Cooler Bandits

generates ardent audience response through a multi-leveled structure of witnessing and testimonial. Torchin notes that media witnessing occurs in three ways, in, by, and through the media. This provides insight into the occasion of the screening of the film at the

Global Peace Film Festival. The film and the event promote witnesses on multiple levels, across platforms, extending the reach of the witnessing encounter across time and space

(Torchin 2012a, 17). The multiple levels of witnessing, testimonial and personal encounters at the screening create a synthesis of meanings that the spectator can interpret meaningfully from an individual perspective. Witnessing and testimonial takes place within and without the film as well as the situating of witnesses as both participants and observers.

199

As director, John Lucas is a witness in multiple contexts: as a witness both of these boys childhoods and of the moment when the young men’s lives were changed, as well as someone who followed their journey through the correctional system. His presence as a witness, both in the film and at the film festival, gives weight to his call for spectators to join him in taking a stance in this humanitarian effort. The promotional material features many excellent photographs taken by this photojournalist turned filmmaker. During the 1980s, as a volunteer in the Big Brother/Big Sister program, Lucas got to know children in the poor North Hill neighborhood of Akron. His interest in social criticism as an artist was expressed in a photo-essay, The Flag Series, documenting the children’s relationship to the American flag. He kept returning to North Hill, trying to understand the forces that kept this community in distress, becoming very knowledgeable about the conditions of the neighborhood before producing The Cooler Bandits, his first film.

This kind of in-depth knowledge, as well as a long term commitment to the project make his witnessing very compelling. Lucas also acts as advocate and an agent of change. He aids the young men in many ways during his years of filming, as well as communicating with and helping family members of the young men, showing a level of integration with their lives that is characteristic of an ethnographic study. He becomes an active part of their lives long before the film is complete and the shooting of the film is collaborative in nature. Much of the emotional content of the film is derived from his relationship with the young men, such as is found in the “coming home” sequences when

Poochie is released from prison.

200

This level of involvement and intimacy in the relationship between filmmaker and subjects varies considerably among humanitarian/activist films, and it is worth noting how this affects the quality of testimonial. John Lucas is very involved with the young men in The Cooler Bandits as both filmmaker and advocate, while I’m Not Leaving features Carl Wilkens, who has developed deep personal relationships with the subjects of the film. It is the depth of Wilkens’ commitment to the people of Rwanda that inspires spectators to support his efforts to stop genocide. However, it is the immediacy of the experiences of the young men in The Cooler Bandits that adds to its significance in our contemporary society and contributes to John Lucas’ position and his campaign for social change surrounding the film. In one case, spectators primarily identify with the “savior” while in the other, they identify directly with the sufferer, who is not only present and admirable but made significantly more understandable through his relationship with the filmmaker.

At the Global Peace Film Festival, this affective viewing experience followed by a Question and Answer Session featuring one of the released prisoners is used effectively.

Poochie, who is greeted enthusiastically after the screening, embodies a concrete witness as well as a victim. The testimonials of the men seen in the film took place during years of incarceration and life after release, which are then integrated into the present through the physical presence at the screening of one of the subjects of the film. Screenings around the country follow this format, as the film is accompanied by one or more of the foursome. Many of these screenings take place at high schools, adding intimate sessions with the former prisoners in small classrooms, but generally the film festival experience is more oriented to a broader audience. Questions posed by spectators to Poochie after the

201

screening at the Global Peace Film Festival focused on his prison experience and his education as well as the lives of the other three prisoners.

Regardless of the quality of the conversation, there still is an element of “star power” given to the witness because of his appearance at the festival. The presence of the body encourages spectators to transfer the knowledge of intimate details of the witness’s life into a feeling of intimacy with the person. Testimony on display has a transformative capacity, fleshing out the context, adding details and depth to the screening (Torchin

2012b, 6). As part of the Question and Answer session after the film, John Lucas provided context for The Cooler Bandits, relating details about the campaign for social change through activism. At the same time, “Poochie” provided the context for the witness’s present lives, catching up the audience on how they are faring, such as relating efforts to assist Frankie, who remains in prison. Spectators at the Global Peace Film

Festival screening were more interested in talking with Poochie about “what it was like”, finding out how he felt, an indication that they were evaluating the reality of his world through their own emotional response to the circumstances of the young men’s experiences.

Along with serious conversations about the prison system and the socioeconomic conditions that breed criminal behavior, speculations about Poochie’s experience continued throughout the week and were partially instrumental in creating a buzz. I was asked on a number of occasions if I had seen the film, and when I replied in the affirmative, the asker wanted to know details about the story and Poochie himself. A number of people who had seen the film had no idea about the restrictions and difficulties involved with living a normal life after prison until after the screening. In one

202

conversation that I had with a spectator, she speculated on how it must feel to get out of prison and whether one could ever recover from the experience, “What can you do after going to prison? I can’t believe that he couldn’t even see his friends without breaking the law (because they were both felons)…And no one would rent him an apartment!”

The feeling of knowing attached to Poochie extended to the after party at the end of the festival. The party was held at a restaurant and bar in a trendy area near downtown

Orlando, Maxine’s on Shine, with food and wine and the presence and support of the rather hip owners. Food and excellent wine was provided and conversation flowed between filmmakers and other insiders such as upper echelon volunteers and sponsors.

Some spectators who were connected with the festival or got to know people were included. Poochie attended this gathering and was popular, with people including him in their conversations, yet he did not show much interest in this kind of social gathering or attempts to constitute him as one of the celebratory crowd. Earlier, he had related to me,

“I study a lot. I don’t really go out.” At this gathering, he did not drink and was rather serious. He was more interested in debating the issues, but readily told different aspects of his story when asked. Poochie moved from table to table with the director talking with various people, but after a couple of hours left the party and went outside to talk at length to someone on his cellphone.

It is rather significant that Richard continued to be addressed as “Poochie,” his gang nickname, throughout the festival and the party, rather than being called by his given name of Richard. In contrast, at a screening and discussion at the Heyman Center at

Columbia University, he was addressed as Richard (Vimeo.com, Public Humanities

Initiative: Film Screening and Discussion: “The Cooler Bandits). This suggests that

203

Richard was still seen by spectators at the Global Peace Film Festival within his role of victim, rather than as an equal activist, as a college student with plans to do post-graduate work and eventually teach public education in prisons. This aligns with the notion that we place ourselves and our lifestyle at the center of our humanitarian efforts. Poochie is a symbol for a disadvantaged class and a victim of the inequities of our justice system, but

Richard is a man with passionate views on correcting the justice system, some of which may not fit as well into spectators’ expectations about prison reform. Privately, John

Lucas related to me that Richard believes that jails should be abolished, a seemingly radical position that might discomfort the general public, but expresses his focus on underlying societal causes. Richard points out that “incarceration happens because the system is broken.” However, these views are not the focus of many conversations with spectators at the Global Peace Film Festival. Instead, Richard answers rather voyeuristic inquiries about prison life and speaks seriously of his efforts to get his degree and his support of the film as a means of achieving more equitable treatment of prisoners and better opportunities for the underclasses in our country.

These conversations are a good fit with the situated positions of the audience at the Global Peace Film Festival. Spectators may take this message and fit it into their own conception of how changes might be accomplished. The activist festival itself fosters a kind of “community of believers” who value basic freedoms and respect for human rights and encourage active citizenship and solidarity with those in need (Blaževič 2012, 110).

There are many avenues that humanitarian efforts might focus on, ranging from political action, economic aid or education to prison reform itself and the conversation at the

204

ranges around a number of issues of interest to each person, including the recent shootings of young unarmed black men by the police that have been featured in the news.

Screenings: At the Global Peace Film Festival and Elsewhere

Film festival screenings fit into the activist efforts surrounding The Cooler

Bandits, but are different in nature from other screenings. Elsewhere, the approach taken by the director, John Lucas is a more grassroots effort to connect directly with prisoners and young people at risk, as well as appearing at events that promote networking with others who are working towards social change. At the Global Peace Film festival, John

Lucas appeared to be less interested in promoting his film through the usual manner.

When I introduced him to a publicist at an event, she offered her card and asked for his.

In response, Lucas replied, “I don’t do cards,” simply standing there and leaving a silence for her to fill. His mission is more focused on reaching people directly involved with the issue, and he seeks out screenings for either those at risk or those who are interested in taking political action. Although the film has appeared at film festivals, 25 most of the screenings are at high schools, prisons and universities (coolerbandits.com).

The Cooler Bandits addresses a contemporary issue in a compelling manner and participates in efforts to seek political change. The conversation is about the societal conditions that contribute to the high percentage of black men who go to prison, as well as what this does to their families, a cost that is often ignored. The Cooler Bandits also promotes the work of Michelle Alexander, author of The New Jim Crow: Mass

25 Some of the accolades of The Cooler Bandits include: 2014 Winner Best Documentary Harlem International Film Festival, 2014 Best Local Feature Cleveland International Film Festival: Official Selection at: 2015 Pan African Film Festival, 2014 Lone Star Film Festival, 2014 Justice on Trial Film Festival. 205

Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness (2012), an exposé on racial inequities

endorsed by Cornel West and featured on the New York Times paperback best seller list.

Alexander notes that just as many African American males are in prison today as were

enslaved in our country, so role of black male in our society has not changed. Similarly,

the efforts of the people surrounding The Cooler Bandits focus on the institutionalized

racism that is inherent in the severity of sentences received by people of color. The

campaign that surrounds this film is a vital effort and the Global Peace Film Festival is

just one stop that is rather atypical given most of the events scheduled. At the Heyman

Center at Columbia University on March 17, 2015, the director reports that the film has toured ten schools and eight prisons in the prior two weeks (Public Humanities Initiative:

Film Screening and Discussion: “The Cooler Bandits,” Vimeo.com). The director takes the film to festivals, including the Global Peace Film Festival, to gain recognition and spread his message, but much of his efforts are directed elsewhere.

This kind of campaign strategy is essential to successfully use a film to effect

social or political change; a handful of screenings within the context of a film festival is

not enough. Films have the power to motivate spectators to take action outside of the

cinema, but one needs structural support and a committed group of people who utilize a

film within the context of social networking and more traditional avenues of promoting

advocacy. Films are but one tool used to raise public awareness and advocate for change.

It is what one does with the films and the interpretive contexts that one builds for their

screenings (Blaževič 2012, 112).

Even though most of the screenings of The Cooler Bandits are outside the festival setting and often address at-risk groups directly, the activist film festival has its own role,

206

connecting the film with spectators from a different demographic. Films festivals are

better equipped than many civil organizations to reach out to a broader audience, going

beyond the core group of supporters to engage with new audiences. One reason that film

is very effective as a tool of communication is that it does engage the emotions as well as

the intellect (Blaževič 2012, 113). This is illustrated by the reception of the film at the

Global Peace Film Festival, whose patrons embraced both the message of the film as well

as the live witness with whom spectators identified.

Understanding the Buzz at the Festival

The position of The Cooler Bandits within the structure of the festival and the

contemporary conversation regarding racial issues in our nation is relevant to its

reception at the Global Peace Film Festival. Given the opening panel at the festival on

local race relations and the impact on the community of the killing of a young black man in Sanford, Florida, the film focuses attention on the inequities that produce such events, provides an outlet for feelings and then showcases someone who has successfully moved beyond the disastrous results of limiting circumstances and poor choices. The context of the film within the setting of the festival is an important aspect of its reception. The

Cooler Bandits had a slow start at the festival, with a rather small audience viewing the film at the large venue at the Cobb Theater in downtown Orlando. However, the presence of both director and subject of the film contributed to the word-of-mouth promotion that resulted in the popularity of the film. By the time the second screening happened a few

207

days later, many people were talking about the film, talking to John Lucas and Poochie, and planning to attend the final screening of The Cooler Bandits rather than other films.

However, what is compelling about the presence of The Cooler Bandits at the

Global Peace Film Festival is the feeling of authenticity that surrounds the screening. One element is in the feelings of intimacy and knowing that are engendered in the spectator.

John Lucas’s relationship with Poochie is core to the aesthetics of the film, but also constitutes Poochie as someone that we might know. We understand that we share a common humanity with him, and can extend our psychological world to include his circumstances, just as Lucas has done. Our focus is on our own feelings as important touch points of reality. Poochie is different from us, but we may empathize and project a reality that recognizes his suffering as the product of what is wrong with our society as we understand it.

The film very effectively allows the spectator to extend an individual understanding of our society to include the experiences of these “cooler bandits,” while the physical presence and testimony of the sufferer enhances an intimacy that inspires solidarity. There is a materiality in the encounter that engages the spectator in a very personal way and creates a context for the audience, a space that realigns the focus of change (Torchin 2012b, 1). Feelings of solidarity are enhanced by the concrete nature of the encounter with the sufferer, essentially allowing the spectator to essentially adopt the role of witness as well. In conversation with spectators, the director and the “star” of the film both direct feelings of solidarity towards action; we must change the socioeconomic and racial conditions that put young men at risk and the justice system that imposes incarceration inequitably on young black men. As noted by Jamal Joseph, Columbia

208

School of the Arts professor, the wonder is that these young men managed to keep their humanity throughout decades in prison and are now going on to try to help others in the same position (Vimeo.com: Public Humanities Initiative: Film Screening and

Discussion: “The Cooler Bandits”). This very accurately describes the experience of spectators at the Global Peace Film Festival as well, who wonder that this nice young man could live through so much, a perspective that contributes to the “star power” of

Poochie as someone who has endured and risen from the ashes to create a new life.

It is no surprise that The Cooler Bandits made a splash at the festival. In addition to being an excellent fit with the festival mission and theme, this festival does not feature many stars. The appearance of “Poochie” puts a very personal, yet safe, face on the issue and provides the opportunity to engage with him face-to-face. The image of suffering engenders feelings of pity but also an imagining of ourselves as public actors and this story of success in rebuilding life after prison shifts the focus from pity to action.

Cosmopolitan agency is an emotionally motivated response to conditions that are perceived to be worthy of a universal call to action (Chouliaraki 2006 45). What is questionable is whether audiences at the Global Peace Film Festival are moved to action by The Cooler Bandits or whether awareness is the primary outcome. What is likely is that spectators draw from the viewing experience a sense of being a witness to injustice and a certainty that change needs to happen in our society. These values may then be internalized to inform a cosmopolitan sense of self, and may emerge as factors of change in various contexts in the future. The goal of this film is to disrupt a number of discourses that reproduce power relationships between the haves and the have-nots, which it does

209

eloquently with a compelling narrative that transforms its protagonists into potential members of society through the creation of intimacy and empathy.

Conclusions

Testimonial and witnessing can be used effectively from a variety of positionalities and on multiple levels, creating solidarity with the other within specific discourses of power. Appeals to audiences are strengthened by personal appearances and personal narratives, creating an emotional appeal. Filmmakers often appear as witnesses themselves, giving testimonial of what they have experienced, both as participants in films and as a participant in film festivals. The Global Peace Film Festival brings in as many directors as they can, as well as some of the subjects seen in the films. The central place of the filmmaker as witness can be extended to a position as a representative of a cause, and this trend within activist film circuits has been taken up as a strategy by the festival for a number of reasons. In the next chapter, I consider the centrality given to the filmmaker more closely and identify some of the factors that drive this change.

210

VII. FILMMAKERS AND ACTIVISM: ENTREPRENEURSHIP

The goals and organization of the Global Peace Film Festival, including their focus on the director/filmmaker, align with a recent trend for film festivals to engage more closely with film production and distribution. Each film festival puts forward various activities that are focused around their specific model, often featuring activities that promote film projects and support the filmmakers. Festivals are changing from sites that primarily display completed films to become important venues that often trigger the entire developmental cycle of a film, including conception, financing, production and circulation. Film festivals are transforming into clusters of activities of both creativity and commerce and acting as a node of transnational infrastructures. The new norm is to engage with production and distribution, and many festivals foster new talent through mid-production pitching sessions that aim towards creating an additional investment stream for the project. Some festivals have created their own distribution labels, teaming up with television stations or with specific streaming platforms. The festival becomes an inherent link in the creative process, which places it as a key player in the film industry as well as a giving it a place in the dynamics of social structures of power. The film festival increasingly acts as a bridge between politics and other spheres of society (Iordanova

2015, 7), a position that accurately describes the way that the Global Peace Film Festival seeks to strategically place itself.

211

The structure of the Global Peace Film Festival expresses the dynamics between

multiple factors, articulating a complex web of broader ideology and social structures.

Dina Iordanova notes that it is important to consider how a festival “structures and

narrates itself,” what its components are, and “what constitutes the play of power

between its participants,” as this constitution of meaning is reenacted within the time and

space of the festival as well as extending itself into the context of its locality and into the

network of festivals (Iordanova 2015, 9). Indeed, it is in the manner in which the Global

Peace Film Festival “structures and narrates itself” that it finds meaning, both within its

locality and potentially as a growing participant in the network of activist documentary

film festivals. There are many activities taking place at the festival, but their

organizational model elaborates on the function of the activist festival, going beyond

their audience-oriented cultivation of peace to focus on the support and promotion of the

filmmaker as a central figure or representative of a specific cause. The Global Peace Film

Festival concentrates primarily on fostering new talent. A focus on the support of the

filmmaker on a long-term basis before and after the festival allows for a festival-specific model that not only reflects trends at other festivals but fits in with their goals as a small festival as well as reflecting broader socio-cultural factors. The festival provides activities that support this goal, including the film pitch, networking opportunities such as filmmaker luncheons and educational workshops that focus on helping filmmakers get distribution. The Global Peace Film Festival establishes relationships that might offer opportunities to the filmmakers attending the conference or those slated to do so in the future.

212

The placement of the filmmaker at the center of attention at the Global Peace Film

Festival allows activities to function in multiple layers; in addition to holding a place as a

witness or representative of a cause, the filmmaker is also at the center of a marketing endeavor. This eases the tension between moneymaking and noble ideals, as the support of the filmmaker becomes synonymous with supporting the social cause. The civically-

minded filmmaker can be seen as an expert who can mediate between our social and

political world and the caring citizen (Druick and Williams 2014, 2). However, this

practice also creates a particular relationship between the filmmaker and the Global Peace

Film Festival organization, a position that is the core to festival goals. Efforts to help the

filmmaker with issues of production and distribution are central, aligning the model of

the Global Peace Film Festival with the recent trend found in other festivals.

The Global Peace Film Festival is structured similarly to other larger festivals in a number of ways, echoing many of the same activities, although some are limited in a way that reflects the small size of the festival. For example, a partnership with Fandor.com promotes streaming documentary videos, but festival offerings are not on the site. Fandor is simply promoted as a place to view other documentary films, and a one month free subscription is offered to anyone who fills in the survey for the film just viewed. The multiple layered nature of the relationship with Fandor can be seen in its functions at the festival. It offers a networking opportunity for filmmakers, a possible streaming market and promotes a streaming organization that will foster interest in documentary film. From the perspective of the audience, it also provides a way to engage fans at screenings and encourages spectators to fill out surveys that bring in grant money. Another streaming option is offered each year at the festival, approximating the roll of streaming

213

partnerships; the short films featured at the festival are streamed on the Global Peace

Film Festival website (www.peacefest.org) with the permission of the directors, and

voting for the best short takes place in this context. Voting takes place during the festival

only, and most viewing and voting discussed at the festival comes from those who are

more intimately engaged with the festival such as filmmakers and volunteers. However,

the films have an online presence that may be beneficial in terms of promotional

activities.

The “festival pitch,” an established practice at many festivals, is a core activity in

terms of the ideology surrounding the Global Peace Film Festival, as limited funding

dictates that they seek outside support for filmmakers. At the festival, the “Peace Pitch”

gives filmmakers an opportunity to present their work-in-progress and seek funds mid-

project. The filmmakers who present their pitch are those whom the festival has

recognized as fitting their criteria for a future screening of their work. At this event, Ken

Carpenter, a Global Peace Film Festival board member, was joined by three filmmakers.

Eric Forman, an independent producer, sought support for his first feature film, Dead

Time, which will tell the story of a man convicted of murder in 2006 after just two days

of testimony. Forman was in need of funds for production and hoped to attract some attention. In addition, Bill Belleville and Bob Giguere, who has a film in the festival this year, talked about their upcoming project, The Hidden Secret Springs of Florida. These two directors were more interested in promoting the message of the film, which focused on the improper use of water supplies in Florida, resulting in the drying up of our natural springs.

214

In spite of the support of the festival, gaining funding as a result of this endeavor

seemed unlikely as this event was not well attended. However, this seems to be typical of

other events at other festivals. According to a recent IDFA survey (International

Documentary Film Festival, Amsterdam), people interviewed regarding the effectiveness of festival pitches at larger festivals expressed reservations about attending pitching forums and seemed to consider them wasteful, since spectators must pay for these events at larger festivals (Iordanova 2015, 8). Because the Peace Pitch is free at the Global

Peace Film Festival, it primarily serves a role for the filmmaker, while offering a glimpse into the life of the filmmaker for the spectator, including how a project is enacted as well as the need for funding. Since spectators are encouraged to “pick up a camera” and make a film, it participates in an interesting dynamic that blurs the line between filmmaker and spectator.

Fitting the Festival into a Broader Sociopolitical Context

The dynamics of the market and the sociopolitical context within which film

festivals exists both factor into the decision by the Global Peace Film Festival to

centralize the role of the filmmaker. The paradigm of “peace” acts as a tool for

organizing activities and ideology within the context of the festival, but at the same time

functions to obscure power relationships on a broader scale. “Peace” acts as a strategy to

create a particular sort of imagined community that draws upon ideals such as

“cosmopolitanism” as understood by both audiences and promoters. While these processes may not entirely disrupt the interplay of cultural relationships described as

215

“polycentric multiculturalism” by Shohat and Stam (1994, 8), it is more often a reflection

of a neoliberal outlook that is translated into interactions surrounding spectators, films

and filmmakers. Engagement by the spectator is positioned in response to an empathetic

encounter within the context of his or her own life. A certain degree of self-reflection on the part of the spectator is likely, as discussed earlier, but this takes place within the encounter between filmmaker and spectators. The nature of this dynamic encounter reflects both the characteristics of post-humanitarianism as well as a shift within capitalism from a classical liberal to a neoliberal conception of public morality which affects the nature of this encounter (Boltanski and Chiapello 2007, quoted in Chouliaraki

2013, 5).

Humanitarianism has been theorized as a liberal idea “born out of capitalism,” a form of action that articulates with the market. (Chouliaraki 2013, 6). The specific manifestation of capitalism in our contemporary society creates a space in which practices like branding, lifestyle politics and greenwashing form an interface for the commodification of products and activist films certainly participate in these practices. A look at the historical forms of capitalism provides some insights into how films, filmmakers and spectators fit into these dynamics. Boltanski and Chiapello point out that one of the attractions of the original capitalism was that it afforded possibilities to choose one’s mode of social affiliation, rather than these being defined by birth within a village or a station in life (2007, 425).

A strong challenge to this promise of liberation occurred during the first half of the nineteenth century; critiques suggested that this was instead a new form of slavery for the workers and created false desires among the consumers in order to sustain the market

216

(Boltanski and Chiapello 2007, 427). The response to this “first crisis of modernity” was

an emphasis by society in the first third of the twentieth century on strengthening

institutional bonds, improving labor and living conditions of workers and mechanisms of

security that included the construction of the welfare state. However, new forms of

oppression associated with this “second spirit” of capitalism arose. From the end of the

1960s, the hierarchical constraints of this form of capitalism were denounced, and a new,

so-called “network” capitalism emerged in which persons found the freedom to construct

any potentially beneficial links with others on multiple levels. Thus, current forms of

capitalism give autonomy to the worker, but also demand autonomy from people, whose

status is often associated with their capacity for self-fulfillment (Boltanski and Chiapello

2007, 428-429). Along with this change in perspective come negative aspects such as a

reduction in the protections of wage earners and more difficult working conditions,

including an intensification of work expectations and increased mental burdens

(Boltanski and Chiapello 2007, 430-431).

The processes of capitalism and liberation from its exigencies are meaningful from both a group and individual level. Liberation can be considered as “deliverance from a condition of oppression suffered by a people,” or as that which restricts “the self-

definition and self-fulfillment of individuals” (Boltanski and Chiapello 2007, 433). A

denunciation of the oppression of certain groups of people is of great relevance to the

humanitarian imaginary as well as activist filmmakers and the milieu of activist film

festivals. However, the liberation of the individual is an important factor for participants

as well. One type of liberation comes in the form of achieving freedom of time and the

fulfillment of aspirations to mobility. Nearly all of the inventions that have driven the

217

development of capitalism have been in the development of ways for people to liberate themselves, such as in the innovation of other energy sources to perform work, such as washing machines, toasters, cellular telephones, Google Glass, etc. Capitalism has no need to curb this type of liberation since it is based in consumption. However, these products offer just an illusion of emancipation, as time slots are freed up so that they can be appropriated to use these products. This is accelerated by the commodification of the culture industries, including networks surrounding the marketization of documentary/activist film. (Boltanski and Chiapello 2007, 437-438).

Lifestyle, including choice of products, and the postmodern impulse to pick and choose when constructing one’s identity play an essential role in the consumption of media. The promotion of “cause-friendly” products allows us to piece together an identity that consumes in a particular manner, giving us an illusion of emancipation from capitalism by way of the commodity. A demand for authenticity has grown out of the critique of the industrial complex, mass production and the homogenization of lifestyles, but this kind of standardization has been replaced by the proliferation and diversity of consumer goods (Boltanski and Chiapello 2007, 326). Our quest for authenticity, which is central to the importance of our lifestyle choices, as well as the importance we attribute to the “witness” in activist films, is grounded in capitalistic structures. The lines between personal and professional lives have become blurred, and people are expected to “give” themselves to their work. We feel a lack of authenticity in our daily lives, manifest in the loss of uniqueness, the lack of spontaneity, the presence of more objects than living beings in our lives, and the numbing proliferation of spectacle. Rooted in the sphere of consumption, a strategy for ameliorating this is found in the consumption of ever new

218

products (Boltanski and Chiapello 2007, 99, 433). The choice of lifestyle associated with activism both repels and embraces this capitalist impulse. Buying fair trade products is both supportive of self-identification as someone who cares and a source of something new, thus supporting a global system of marketization as well as satisfying our impulse for novelty.

It is in the tensions inherent to the interface between the commodification of people or products and the artistic critique of the capitalist system that filmmakers fulfill a social role of both authentic witness and entrepreneur. While they represent the cause for their audiences, they also relate to spectators through their role as entrepreneur. The contemporary manner in which humanitarianism is understood within the context of the market reflects a shift from what might be called a “classic liberal” to a “neoliberal conception of public morality” that reflects the manner in which media is situated within capitalism as well as the sphere of documentary film. While humanitarianism contrasted a public logic of economic usefulness with an individual altruism in the past, contemporary humanitarianism blurs the lines between the two through the marketization of humanitarian practice (Chouliaraki 2013, 6).

Filmmaking as a Field of Production

The humanitarian film sphere can be understood as characteristic of what

Bourdieu (1993) described as a field of cultural production. The structural relations of this field are manifest in the social agents involved, including individuals, groups and organizations. The work of art must be understood within its social conditions of

219

production, the system within which the work of art “defines itself” (Bourdieu 1993, 30,

33). Fields of cultural production create a “space of possibilities” that orients the producer to certain modes and forms that are situated in relation to other works. Thus, to understand the work, one must place it within its multifaceted socio-historical context

(Bourdieu 1993, 176-177). Thus, along with the films themselves, the social roles that

filmmakers fulfill are situated within institutional frameworks of cultural practice. The

construction, distribution and consumption of activist films take place within this cultural

construct which itself fits into wider social structures of power. The film festival has

become a central node in the dynamics of production, distribution and consumption of

documentary film. Torchin notes the complexity of interrelations that contribute to what

is produced and how it is distributed, “Circuits of exhibition and distribution, as well as

imagined audiences at all registers, from editors to viewers, play roles in this landscape”

(2012a, 14). The “festival-as-non-profit” model has situated festivals in competition with

each other, creating the need for each festival to legitimize its mission and agenda,

establish itself regionally and seek funding on this basis.

Materially, the purpose of festivals is also to act to sustain and expand this new

culture industry for those who hold a stake in their existence (Rhyne, 19). The various

players in the festival circuit exercise power in various ways as intermediaries between

the events, the commercial film industry and spectators. The festival circuit is constituted

through the negotiation of these kinds of investments in the field of production. Aside

from the spectators, Janet Harbord distinguishes four discourses that operate within the

film circuit, including discourses of independent filmmakers, discourses of media

representation, business discourse of financing and legal transactions and the discourse of

220

tourism and the service economy of host cities (Harbord 2002, 60, quoted in Rhyne, 17).

Ragan Rhyne adds policy stakeholders, those entities that participate in founding film

festivals, those private entities who fund them and manage the day-to-day practices of

cultural administration. The interplay between these factions and the journalistic

representation of these relationships constitute the film festival, a negotiation that is

crucial to the way that the festival functions as an event as well as how it is understood as

a cultural phenomenon (Rhyne 18). The contemporary film festival circuit provides “a

continuous international pattern of circulation and exchange for image-culture that is part of a larger economy, aesthetics and politics” (Nichols 2014, 29). However, this circulation does not function as a cohesive network. It must be understood as a new culture industry that is managed through the model of the non-profit organization through sponsorship by public and private funds (Rhyne, 20). Within this culture industry, festival goers engage with cinema from elsewhere, where local modes of production are different and producers are not necessarily white or Western. The festival circuit allows the local to travel globally, yet not in a uniform manner. The festival context adds a layer of the global over local meanings that might offer fresh insight but also may obscure or distort the culture being portrayed. It is through the patterns of reception that meanings are constituted, and the specific configurations of film festivals play a distinct role in this process (Nichols 2014, 29).

The model of the non-profit documentary film festival and the contemporary form of the humanitarian imaginary is central to the form and function of the Global Peace

Film Festival. The dynamics of the contemporary humanitarian film market has led to a shift to entrepreneur-centered practices of communication, moving from a convention of

221

the use of negative imagery to frame appeals to audiences to a model of representation

that elicits moral solidarity with those portrayed in films (Chouliaraki 2013, 54). Within

this context, the filmmaker is situated within the marketplace as an intermediary and

seeks to provide an encounter that will be perceived as authentic. While the construction

of “authenticity” is complex, the filmmaker plays a large role in communicating or

mediating between those represented and those who receive and evaluate the message.

Thus, filmmakers inhabit the interface between different peoples and products within this

particular sphere.

The transformation of the practices surrounding the production and circulation of

documentary films has had a significant impact on the role of the filmmaker in promotion

and marketing, expanding the “outreach” of independent media makers and facilitating

collaborations with various types of alliances that are key to the successful strategies for

public engagement. One primary goal of the Global Peace Film Festival in supporting

filmmakers is to facilitate the kinds of partnerships with organizations that can help

promote their work. A recent trend that is characteristic of the Global Peace Film Festival is the establishing of closer relationships between filmmakers who tell powerful stories that move audiences and organizations which have well-defined ideas about what stories

they would like to have told (Aufderheide 2003, 4). The Global Peace Film Festival is

engaging in long-term relationships in support of filmmakers themselves, providing funding for projects, a chance to promote their work and networking opportunities.

The distribution of documentaries that focus on social issues has expanded a great

deal in the last ten years due to digital technologies and coalition-building strategies such

as those utilized by the Global Peace Film Festival. The line between production and

222

distribution has blurred and it is characteristic to start planning and even executing public

engagement early and to anticipate a “long tail” of distribution. Typically, a two-step approach is used, first creating a buzz around the film and then utilizing the film as a tool for social change on a long-term basis (Abrash 2006, 3, 6). In this sphere, the role of the filmmaker can go beyond production, to engage with campaign strategies as well as production services (Abrash 2006, 4). The Global Peace Film Festival actively seeks out filmmakers who are motivated to put a lot of effort into the promotional enterprises, placing value both on the message within the film and the “long tail” promotion of the message. The primary focus is on “mission-driven media makers,” those who seek to engage communities directly to further their message. Long term distribution may be implemented through a “phased rollout strategy” that utilizes a variety of approaches. An initial phase might include planning to identify core audiences, seek publicity “hooks” and refining messages for public consumption. A “media phase” generally follows within which the screenings of the film occur. A “community phase” ensues, engaging audiences through screenings organized through a network of partnerships with organizations (Abrash 2006, 5). It is this “community phase” that lies at the heart of the mission of the Global Peace Film Festival

The Education of Audiences

The Global Peace Film Festival seeks to create a public space for the negotiation of meanings among their audiences, and it is significant that the filmmaker holds a central place in this space. Their aim is to spark a conversation on issues, and build

223

bridges between those who have differing opinions, but there exists within the chosen

films an underlying core of meaning that reflects the perspective of the liberal-leaning festival staff. It is significant that chosen films often approach a topic indirectly. The festival seeks a different kind of conversation from their spectators; rather than a meeting

of the like-minded, they seek to bring information to people and spark debate. The films

chosen to be shown at the festival often reflect this goal, and the filmmakers facilitate the

debate in the Question-and-Answer Sessions. For example, How to Touch a Hot Stove:

Thought and Behavioral Difference in a Society of Norms (2014), a short film directed by

Sheryll Franko, explores the alternative thinking of those labeled with “mental disorders”

because they have very different views of the world. The director, a mental health

professional, suggests that a civil rights movement is needed for these persons, and offers

an alternative way to think about their lives. This film may not convince anyone that

these patients are able to function in society without help, but opens a conversation about

ways they might be integrated into society. The role taken by the filmmaker in this case

was to show and promote the film as a means of education, and audience members are

asked to open their minds to new possibilities. At the festival, some topics lead to less

discussion while others are widely debated for a variety of reasons, and mental health

issues did not garner much attention from spectators. The broader political sphere has

much to do with topics that catch the interest of the audience, as well as the degree of

promotion engaged in by both the filmmaker and the festival. The popularity of films is

related to broader trends as well as the quality and impact of specific works and people

present at the festival.

224

One primary public goal of the Global Peace Film Festival is to highlight the power of film as a medium that can effect social change, but participants at the festival internalize this logic in a complex manner. Participants at the film festival may key in with the sociopolitical, historical position of film as a medium of protest, a conception of independent film outside the mainstream, video as a method that is more accessible outsiders due to inexpensive technology or focus on their own role as supporter as integral to producing change. As discussed earlier, the predisposition to desire pre- packaged emotions is central to the reception of humanitarian film and situates the film festival as a site for “packages” that might be consumed. The package might include any of the film, the filmmaker, victims, witnesses, or other agents of change.

Audiences also attribute to filmmakers of independent documentary film an authenticity that derives from an understanding on the part of audiences that the filmmaker is bringing to them an authentic encounter of real people. This is related to the general knowledge of the public about the accessibility of video cameras that might be used by anyone to make a movie. Viewers are generally aware of the ease of access to inexpensive technology that has proliferated since the introduction of home video recording in the mid-1980s (Ganley and Ganley 1987, 1). Many own video cameras themselves, and they identify with the independent filmmaker as outside the fakery of the

Hollywood machine, not recognizing the constructed nature of the documentaries that they view. The authenticity given to the filmmaker attributes him or her with the authority to speak for the cause and to present a representation of the other that is

“truthful.” Thus, films that address human rights and other social issues create public spaces inhabited with people who witness human rights abuses. These films also foster

225

opportunities for political actors to participate in various ways with a social cause, in spite of the fact that they are not direct participants the locale in which these events take place (Hinegardner, 173). The subjectivity of the dynamics of social engagement with documentary film revolves around our confrontation with a representation of the historical world (178), and it works well to utilize the physical presence of the filmmaker to enhance the coalition-building strategies used to build community engagement.

Post-humanitarianism, as described by Lilie Chouliaraki, is “a specific response to the crisis of pity” that is bound up in market practices of branding and the legitimacy of appeals. The marketization of humanitarian practice is a salient aspect of activist film festivals, which screen films that feature many of the international organizations (IOs), and international non-government organizations (INGOs) that have proliferated in the past three decades (Chouliaraki 2013, 6). While film festivals have existed on a global scale since the 1930s, the last two decades has seen an exponential increase in their importance and visibility. They now constitute a major site for form viewership for millions of people around the globe (Stringer 2013, 59-60). The proliferation of film festivals around the world offers many occasions for audiences to build an understanding of their role within the festival experience, and the Global Peace Film Festival expands on this through events that are more explicit in informing spectators about what roles they should take.

Festivals foster a sense of community and common cultural identity and this strategy elaborates the opportunity for the film to act as a tool in promoting both the festival and specific causes. Staging a festival is but one part of the year-long system of advocacy that activist film festivals undertake. However, the festival offers an

226

opportunity to participate in an “annual ritual,” a public celebration that acts as a focal point for the rest of the year for a community of believers (Blaževič 2012, 110, 112).

Chris Farrell argues that the function of a festival as a material site for people to interact has become even more essential in an era of digital social media. Within the festival context people can engage, and this necessary human contact sustains relationships that are carried forth into a virtual context throughout the year. The audience acts in a variety of capacities at the festival, many of which revolve around this particular understanding of the role of the filmmaker. The Global Peace Film Festival encourages spectators to see filmmakers as in a central position of activism. The tensions between the positives of social change and the monetization of the cause are not only negated, but audience members are encouraged to act as members of what is essentially a grassroots advertising effort, promoting films by arranging showings in other venues and contexts.

The Central Role of Filmmakers

Makers of media are often primarily interested in moving on to the next project, but non- profit organizations like the Global Peace Film Festival are often highly motivated to track the success of the media product in furthering their goals and projects.

The Global Peace Film Festival has filled a specific niche within this overall goal, choosing to promote directors who are more interested in furthering their cause than in making more films. The Global Peace Film Festival has narrated itself as a festival without red carpets, prizes or elaborate parties, which is significant. Rather than striving for prizes, most of the filmmakers who attend are sponsored by Rollins College’s Thomas

227

P. Johnson Visiting Scholar and Artist Initiative, and utilize the festival as a learning experience as well as a film screening. Nina Streich reports that the format of the festival allows for the showing of films that do not have a home elsewhere, or other avenues of distribution. Streich explains that the festival provides a venue for films that are “labors of love,” whose directors do not want to cut anything from their film to make it the correct length for television. However, this is significant in terms of the role of the filmmaker. She is seeking filmmakers who are promising but new to the game, enthusiastic and eager to engage audiences on a personal level at Question and Answer sessions. This is a key motivation for the festival: to forge relationships centered on topics highlighted during the festival, encouraging praxis by both filmmakers and audience members.

This establishes a grassroots tone that is conducive to the realization of a major goal of the Global Peace Film Festival, to function as an “engagement festival” that promotes personal relationships between people interested in a particular issue. Nina

Streich explains that the festival is moving further away from the traditional exhibition model for festivals to seek this kind of engagement model that pairs films and filmmakers with local organizations. The local festival outreach coordinator receives a list of the films and reaches out to local organizations to connect with them. Streich frames this, in terms of audience response, “People are leaning forward in their seats and saying, ‘What can we do?” and we want to have those tools, want to capture those people in that moment when they want to do something.” She goes on to say, There is such a broad swath of what people can do, but unless they are given the tools and told, ‘Here you go, run with it,’ it’s not going to happen.” She explains that their mission is to make that

228

connection and that most of the films programmed are made by filmmakers who want to make an impact about the subject that their film. She feels that the role of the film festival is to act as a vehicle to help them reach an audience, to facilitate that endeavor specifically. This goal is shared by filmmakers, who are looking father than support of their films to seek engagement with their social cause. As one filmmaker noted, “I am looking for an active audience that works to construct meaning when viewing my film.”

This kind of complex centrality is key to the goals of the festival and is central to its role in this field of cultural production.

Filmmakers play the key role at the center of a campaign to promote both film and cause. The Global Peace Film Festival seeks to support filmmakers who make films for the purpose of engaging their audiences in the social cause that they support and brings as many to the festival each year that funds allow. Situated within the social role extended to them as humanitarian or activist filmmakers, these directors are engaged in

“complicated practices of meaning-making and re-making” for the purpose of engaging their audiences in the social justice causes that they support (Torchin 2012a, 14). Most of the filmmakers attending both the 2013 and 2014 events were not seasoned filmmakers whose works had been shown elsewhere, but newcomers to filmmaking whose presence was sponsored by the Global Peace Film Festival.

The festival provides overt support of the filmmakers through activities concerning sponsorship, networking gatherings and education. Workshops and panels provide seasoned professionals who offer concrete advice as to how to promote their films through marketing and distributing as well as social events that provide opportunities to interact with others with similar interests. The role of the filmmaker is

229

crucial to the understandings forged by the community surrounding the Global Peace

Film Festival. In addition to sponsoring filmmakers, a central practice of the Global

Peace Film Festival is to provide them with networking events and discussion panels that instruct them in ways to create a base of supportive audiences and promote the films that they have made after the annual festival event has concluded.

Table 2. List of Films/Film Personnel Attending 2014 Global Peace Film Festival

Director/Attendee at Festival: Film: Jenni Gold (cancelled last minute due to CinemAbility health issue) Jan Selby Beyond the Divide Rosa Rogers Casablanca Calling John Lucas The Cooler Bandits Daniel Karslake Every Three Seconds Carl and Theresa Wilkens I’m Not Leaving (subjects of film) Paper City Akil Gibbons John Wellington Ennis Pay 2 Play: Democracy’s High Stakes Sam Lee (by telephone after the viewing) Send in the Clowns: Changing the Face of Humanitarian Aid Jeffrey D. Brown (with Orlando Task Force) Sold Bob Giguere From The Cabin to the Forest: The Timeless Wisdom of Archie Carr Sheryll Franko How to Touch a Hot Stove: Thought and Behavioral Differences in a Society of Norms Greta Schiller The Marion Lake Story: Defeating the Mighty Phragmite Mitch Lewis Stomp Out Genocide

The primary events at the Global Peace Film Festival revolve around the filmmakers or other representatives of the film. Films and panels that offer personal interactions with the filmmakers or others involved in the process such as actors or producers are very popular with spectators at the festival. Spectators may find the face of a cause attached to someone found within the diegesis of the film itself, but the 230

materiality of a personal encounter with the filmmaker or some other witness can be just as powerful. Having a double status through one’s physical presence as filmmaker and witness or as a victim who is a witnessing presence at the festival attributes one with even more power as a meaningful symbol of the cause. When filmmakers bring along some of the subjects of their film, it is to aid the impact such personal encounters have on the audience. The films discussed earlier provide excellent examples of the value of providing a concrete presence at the festival showings. John Lucas, the director of Cooler

Bandits always travels with one or more of the former prisoners featured in his film, while Carl Wilkins, the protagonist of I’m Not Leaving travels with the film instead of the director.26 However, the most often the central figure at the festival is the director, and it is the directors of activist films that are the primary focus of the board of the Global

Peace Film Festival.

As part of the creation of the programming, the festival pulls in grassroots filmmakers, paying their expenses and providing panels that are directed at teaching these neophyte filmmakers how to “give life to” their films after they are completed. One distributor, Steve Michelson of Specialty Studios, was brought in for the 2013 festival to present a session to educate the filmmakers on the topic of self-promotion, along with one of his protégés whose film was screened during the festival. Specialty Studios distributes over 300 videos, and Michelson was very clear in stating what he looked for when choosing films, a commitment on the part of the filmmaker. The goal of the workshop was to help new filmmakers to recognize the process of building an audience through a ‘Do-It-Yourself’ approach that might serve multiple purposes, either as a call for direct local activism on the part of the filmmaker, or as a means of creating a “fan

26 The impetus for the making of this film came from Carl Wilkens rather than the director, Kevin Ekrall. 231

base” and then using that success to attract support from more traditional sources such as

foundations.

At the training workshop, Michelson emphasized the need for the filmmaker to

take center stage in promotional activities, marketing the film, the filmmaker and an

established fan base as a whole package when seeking funding or distribution. He noted

that many foundations now want films with a “proven track record” rather than taking a

chance on a film before or during production. Contemporary funding sources look at the

film, but also the person behind the film, and want a “committed filmmaker” who

recognizes that his or her work is just beginning when the film is complete. They want to

see that a “sense of community that already exists” surrounding the film.

The workshop focused primarily on strategies on “how to approach a campaign.”

Filmmakers were advised that they should knit together a network of resources, such as

mailing lists and community showings. Michelson noted that giving away copies of

DVDs of the movie, even to audience members, establishes relationships that later

produce money. The film, Ripple of Hope (2008), directed by Renzo Vasquez, was offered as an example. This documentary about the assassination of Robert Kennedy garnered 30,000 hits online, and Michelson noted that it would take two years to mine this information and use it for campaign purposes. Michelson pointed out that organizations that fund documentary projects have changed their criteria for selecting projects to receive grants. The money that is available is for the engagement that happens after the film is completed. Filmmakers were directed to “do-it-yourself,” building their

resources, seeking access to people, establishing social networks, using local

organizations, soliciting home screenings, participating in community websites and

232

holding fundraisers. The importance of an online presence was stressed; the website has become the “center of the universe” and audiences should always be directed to go there to participate in furthering the cause, thus building a following. Michelson emphasized that building a successful integrated campaign is the path to both distribution and funding.

Thus, the filmmaker is positioned at the center of a hierarchy of public activism supporting a social cause, not only as an expert, but also as an entrepreneur. The film website offers a public space for interaction with the film, and interested parties who are attracted to these websites are petitioned to join the cause through their support of the film. Fans are encouraged to “join the campaign,” which usually entails entering one’s email address and/or making comments. The website for the film CinemAbility (2013), directed by Jenni Gold provides an excellent example. One button seeks email addresses by clicking on “Join the Campaign” while other buttons allow one to “Find a Screening” or sign up to “Host a Screening.” Home screenings, where the fan invites friends to view and discuss the film, are sought by many directors.

By conflating the success of the cause into the success of the filmmaker, the festival promotes the filmmaker/audience interface as essential. The capitalist impulse is thus embedded in social awareness, in an attempt to subvert any notion that the monetary component of the festival undermines the championship of the disadvantaged in the world. Thus, the way in which the Global Peace Film Festival is structured lessens the tension and conflict between cinema as a tool for social change and the popular and commercial success of the film and filmmaker. This approach ameliorates the underlying tensions between politics and the marketplace and between awareness-raising and the

233

fundraising that lies at the heart of the activist film festival. The distinction lies in the promotion of the filmmaker as witness and carrier of the cause rather than just the cause.

The promotion of the filmmaker and film as representative of the cause circumvents the tension between the market and ideology and poses the filmmaker entrepreneur as a positive and necessary component in humanitarian efforts.

Positioning the filmmaker at the center of a humanitarian-based campaign is a strategy that fits into contemporary understandings and practices surrounding activist films and their place within the humanitarian imaginary. Filmmakers are placed at the center of the way an issue is understood, and thus they have great influence over the way spectators construct meaning. Filmmakers make use of documentary realism to construct a particular vision of the world that claims objectivity but actually is a style, a form of textual representation that reflects his or her viewpoint. Spectators draw from the subjectivities offered by the filmmaker in order to situate an issue within the context of their own lives, drawing from both social imagination and sense of cultural identity.

Documentary film transports the spectator to other places and defines the sensibilities and vision of the filmmaker within the historical world through the agency of his or her presence, and this special status lends itself to gaining a following within the festival setting (Nichols 1991, 179).

As a small festival with limited funding and a local focus, this is a strategy that is viable and well-suited for the Global Peace Film Festival. The exhibition of peripheral films and the cultivation of local film production is characteristic of any number of small film festivals, but the Global Peace Film Festival draws from a pool of filmmakers that meet these certain criteria. Film distribution and film commissioning are important

234

aspects of film festivals because this helps filmmakers and producers become self-

sustainable financially and to build professional contacts. Generally, festivals that lack

the ability to offer marketing and commissioning have less value to filmmakers in the

form of generating returns on the film, and this is a primary goal for many directors

(Blaževič 2012, 111). The dynamics of the Global Peace Film Festival draw from this

model, but target a specific kind of filmmaker who fits into their mission, seeking

emerging filmmakers who are connected personally with the cause and who wish to

remain actively engaged with the promotion of the film on a grassroots level.

Often, the filmmakers chosen by the Global Peace Film Festival are first-time

directors or filmmakers who produced the film within the context of an arena in which

they are employed. For example, Sheryll Franko made How to Touch a Hot Stove:

Though and Behavioral Differences in a Society of Norms (2014) because she works in

mental health and wishes to address the marginalization of people with “mental

disorders.” Her personal experiences have led to her passion and belief that human

experience and differences in thinking, feeling and perception should be accepted.

Directors are often passionate about a topic because it involves them personally, such as

Jenni Gold, the disabled director of CinemAbility (2013), which explores the manner in

which people with disabilities have been portrayed in Hollywood films since the days of

silent films. It is these personal connections that create idiosyncratic networks of

relationships and compelling promotional campaigns. One filmmaker at the festival noted

that it is the broader appeal of the festival, the diversity of the directors and their work

that makes the festival it attractive and different from the many other documentary film

festivals that she has attended. Many attendees at the Global Peace Film Festival relate

235

that one of the things they find compelling about the festival is that it changes every year.

Changes revolve around the people involved any particular year, and filmmakers play an important role in these dynamics. The particular filmmakers who attend each festival event are situated within a network of factors that is individual, thus creating a unique circumstance of screening and promotional efforts that follow sociopolitical trends.

The Do-It-Yourself Model

The Do-It-Yourself model has become a component of contemporary independent filmmaking generally, and is prevalent in documentary filmmaking. The position of the contemporary filmmaker has roots in the use of alternative media to challenge authorities beginning in the 1960s. Arising out of this tradition, the independent filmmaker has gained a position as “society’s conscience” (Aufderheide 2003, 8-9). Since the 1980s, a shift of focus has emerged in the humanitarian sector, subordinating an other-oriented perspective aimed at saving lives to a new-found interest in self-oriented production aimed at producing a profitable performance (Chouliaraki 2013, 6). With changing technology, filmmakers have had access to less expensive and portable equipment, as well as non-linear editing capabilities (MacDougall, 15). The recent changes emerging since the ease of access to technology echo other modes of the culture industry while followed a similar trajectory. In the music industry, the Do-It-Yourself ethnic of the punk rock musicians led to major changes in funding and production of music videos and spread to other forms of performance. The home screenings of films sought by contemporary documentary filmmakers fits into the format of the popular

236

house concerts that provide music venues for performers in a home setting. Coming from

a tradition of dissent and rebellion, punk rock musicians hold a place as challenging the

mainstream, a position that may not be as vital in documentary films, but aligns with the

sanitized version of punk appropriated by the culture industries. Punk culture had a

significant impact on a variety of cultural and political fields, and challenged prescribed

notions of class, age, gender, sexuality and ethnicity as well as establishing a new model

for the production of cultural products (Sabin 1999, 2). This understanding of the impact

of the works of Do-It-Yourself producers resonates with the public and offers them a way

to participate (Donahue 2001, 93).

Activists of all sorts have taken up video as a tool for their causes, using a variety

of approaches. With the use of the internet, The Do-It-Yourself ethic has proliferated documentary in a role as alternative media. Due to the easily-accessed tools to create digital media and the internet, one now finds a variety of virtual communities and public spaces in which institutions, organizations and individuals share their work. Many new possibilities for community-based media have opened up with the proliferation of cable television channels, and the need to fill program space has increased opportunities for non-profit organizations to find a market (Aufderheide 2003, 33, 45, 47).

The model of the Do-It-Yourself filmmaker may articulate with capitalism in essential ways. There have been many attempts within global capitalism to harness activism as a means of promoting corporate self-interests. Practices include various types of greenwashing, which is characterized by the actions of corporations to creatively manage their reputations through the use of rhetoric, activist tropes and programs to obscure their negative corporate actions (Laufer 255). Slavoj Žižek proposes that that the

237

“uncontested hegemony of capitalism is sustained by the utopian core of capitalist

ideology.” The articulation of activism with contemporary global capitalism may depend

upon a rather utopian understanding of the world, supporting the notion that our present

system works and problems can be solved one by one. This kind of pragmatic realism

eclipses the possibility of creating alternatives by supporting the status quo and lends

itself to the appropriation of activism by corporate interests (2009, 77).

The filmmaker is positioned at the center of a hierarchy of public activism

supporting a social cause, not only as an expert, but also as an entrepreneur. By

conflating the success of the cause into the success of the filmmaker, the festival

promotes the filmmaker/audience interface as essential. The capitalist impulse is thus

embedded in social awareness, in an attempt to subvert any notion that the monetary component of the festival undermines the championship of the disadvantaged in the world. Thus, the way in which the Global Peace Film Festival is structured lessens the tension and conflict between cinema as a tool for social change and the popular and commercial success of the film and filmmaker.

For the Global Peace Film Festival, the focus on a Do-It-Yourself practice of filmmaking may be a response to both lack of funding and the need to ameliorate the disjunction between radical film and the changes in the position of the filmmaker within the free market system. Documentary filmmakers are intimately engaged with the marketization of humanitarian practice, a perspective that has come to revolve around a

Do-It-Yourself approach to filmmaking and the non-profit model adopted by the festival supports this approach. With some many new digital outlets, independent documentary filmmaker has many options to pursue in the interest of furthering both their cause and

238

their success as a filmmaker. Independent documentary directors might fit their film into any number of models that reflect the field of production and articulate with activist film festivals.

One option is to produce a film under the aegis of a non-profit sponsor of social documentary, producing the film in a manner that fits in with their expectations. For many non-profit organizations, a documentary is produced as part of a campaign, in terms of aesthetics, design and targeted outlets (Aufderheide 2003, 52). The Global Peace

Film Festival does not engage in campaigns, but their relationship with the Interfaith

Council of Central Florida has led to their sponsorship of films that fit certain criteria. As discussed earlier, the films produced for both 2013 and 2014 screenings were sponsored by the Interfaith Council and tailored to fit their theme each year. These films were successful as powerful tools for recruiting local engagement. Another option is to produce a film suited to educational screenings, seeking placement in catalogs geared towards the classroom as well as personal appearances along with the screenings. The

Global Peace Film Festival supports this endeavor as well, through its highly developed relationships with colleges and secondary education. Finally, community media projects focus on engaging local communities and publics. They seek the involvement and support of community members and success through working with local organizations to build local cultural networks (Aufderheide 2003, 51). The Global Peace Film Festival is highly successful in this endeavor, and their large network of local relationships is of great value to filmmakers at the festival. The model of the Global Peace Film Festival has developed all these approaches with varying events that coordinate their efforts. Both the educational and community aspect of the festival are highly developed; their latest

239

mission is to expand their role as a non-profit funder of filmmakers of their choice, the least developed aspect of their efforts. Filmmakers at the festival generally fit best into one of these approaches and are slotted into appropriate screenings and activities.

The intricacies of the relationships between personal situatedness, market, the

specific nature of the cause and sociopolitical factors can be seen in the practices

surrounding films and their filmmakers. Makes an interesting comparison; all share some

features, but individual circumstances have much to do with how the campaign is

implemented. Films and topics appear to act as organizing factors for those who choose

to engage with a particular cause, and often each cause is presented with a particular local

group in mind. Thus, festival ideology advances global peace as something that can be

achieved through local praxis, but praxis that fits into mainstream society.

Some of the films shown at the Global Peace Film Festival are on their own

trajectories, with directors who are adept at establishing relationships and finding outlets

for their films. Among notable films in this category is The Cooler Bandits (2014), which

continues to be screened in prisons and inner city schools as well as universities and

festivals accompanied by the director, John Lucas and one or more of the prisoners

feature in the film. Jenni Gold, director of CinemAbility (2013) has produced other more

mainstream films and her connections in Hollywood, as evidenced by quotes from well-

known Hollywood personages featured on www.cinemability.com as well as popular

actors appearing in the film, place her in a different position in relationship to the Global

Peace Film Festival. However, both films still seek a base of fans to promote awareness

of the issue as well as support for the film. Each of these films are situated uniquely

within the context of a heartfelt connection that is important for spectators. In the case of

240

John Lucas, there is a tale of a deeply personal relationship of a first time director with

the prisoners portrayed as representative of gross injustice. Jenni Gold is a Hollywood

director with a severe disability who gathered film clips and stories of the injustices

visited upon the disabled who work in Hollywood.

Providing support for the filmmakers is a vital part of the activities of the staff of

the Global Peace Film Festival. Many of the first-time directors whose films are chosen

to screen at the festival have benefited from their guidance networking. A good example

can be seen in the path of a local filmmaker, Famor Botero, and his relationship with the

festival. His film, Take Me Home (Documentary) (2013).27 Famor, an immigrant from

Columbia, began his first film as part of a class project with Full Sail University, a media oriented college whose film students often volunteer at the festival. He continued his work after the class ended, following homeless persons around for a year and a half.

While filming, he worked in conjunction with Beth Davalos, coordinator for the

Seminole County School System’s Families in Transition Program (FIT), who guided him to transient communities and accompanied him to interview families (Ruben 2013,

1). Crowdsourcing funds for post-production and marketing were sought on indiegogo.com, but only $220.00 of the $25,000.00 goal was received (Indiegogo).

Regardless, Take Me Home (Documentary) premiered on February 16, 2013 at the 9th

Orlando Latin America Film and Heritage Festival 2013 (OLA FEST), where it was

awarded Best Humanitarian Film (Ruben 2013, 1).

Take Me Home (Documentary), which screened at the 2013 Global Peace Film

Festival, exhibited all the qualities that the festival was seeking. There were films at the

27 The film’s name was changed after the festival and is now billed as Take Me Home. However, it is listed on IMDb (imdb.com) as Take Me Home Documentary. The official release date of the film is September 17, 2013. (Imdb.com) 241

festival that were technically superior, but this local film and filmmaker were a good fit

for the mission of the Global Peace Film Festival. In 2013, the focus of the Interfaith

Council of Central Florida was on homelessness, and the film was chosen to be

sponsored by this donor. Famor Botero was committed to seek change and was a

personable, enthusiastic representative of his cause. His passion for championing the

homeless and his earnest promise to speak with their voices makes a connection with

audiences. Famor tells stories about homeless persons that do not fit into stereotypes held

by the public. He speaks of how he experienced a life-changing moment when he stopped and talked to Rick, a homeless man with a Master’s Degree who lost his wife and daughter to a drunk driver, and then his job and home due to the economy. The story he tells at the screening of Take Me Home (Documentary) at the festival was not just about the homeless, although their physical presence made a powerful impact. It was also about his relationship with the homeless, his discovery, his passionate response to what he learned. Famor is seen frequently in the film, and even the film’s trailer announces it as

“A journey that changed his life.” Famor has a personable style, and this along with the centrality of his role in the film makes him a good candidate for the center this type of marketing campaign.

In the year following the 2013 Global Peace Film Festival screening, Famor ran a successful promotional campaign and Take Me Home (Documentary) was screened at churches, community organizations and festivals. Famor attended the 2014 Global Peace

Film Festival event and was glowing with success. When I first saw him at the festival,

Famor excitedly divulged, “My film just showed at USC!”28 He was enthusiastic in his

praise of the festival staff and their role in his success as well, expressing that they were

28 University of Southern California 242

“like family” and “kept in touch with me all year,” taking him in and mentoring him. He

reported that Ayden, the homeless child featured in his film has been found a home, due

to his inclusion in the feature. This was one of the goals that Nina Streich wanted to see

fulfilled, to see a direct result from the screening at the Global Peace Film Festival

translated into a home for Ayden. The success that Botero had with this film has led to new projects and new successes as a director. Contrary to the expectation for filmmakers to engage in a long-tailed promotional campaign, Famor Botero turned his attention to a new project on immigration reform. This eighteen minute short, Los Ocho (2015) premiered at the Palm Beach International Film Festival in March, 2015. This might appear to be a filmmaker just moving on to new projects, but Famor Botero’s work has a central theme.

Famor Botero expresses that what drives him is giving a voice to groups that are not heard in our society, a more general cause that reflects his orientation within this field of cultural production. The central role that Botero inhabits as both director and protagonist in Take Me Home (Documentary) offers a heroic role model for spectators.

He is taking action and representing the homeless by educating people. Speaking with their voices, he becomes representative of their cause, and his inclusion in the film enhances this perception. He is speaking in opposition to the mainstream, bringing out stories and voices that contradict the general opinions held by the public. This enhances his image as an “indie” filmmaker and activist, although there are also persons and organizations featured in the film whose jobs revolve around helping the homeless. Beth

Davalos has helped over 10,000 homeless people through her job with Seminole County

243

and is featured in the film, but it is Famor Botero who is memorable as he travels through

the landscape of the homeless.

It is essential to look at why this charismatic director/actor is memorable and why

this technically-adequate film is so compelling to viewers. Bringing the homeless persons shown in the film to screenings has great impact, but there is much more to be said about the way the film is structured and how the filmmaker fits himself into the story. The

intimate relationships that Famor Botero built with the persons whose stories he told are

compelling as a story of an activist, even though he never names himself as such. The

film places him at the center of the action and he speaks even more eloquently in

interviews and Facebook posts. Facebook posts include pictures and comments that uplift

the homeless but place himself at the center, such as “I have a dream, that one day you

too will see a homeless kid and not just walk away...: and “My new beautiful family,

homeless, empty-pocketed, but full of love and humbleness. He often talks about his project in the first person, using language such as “I walked the street looking for stories” and refers to the project as “utilizing my art to tell stories” (FOX35 News Interview).

In 2013, when his film was screened at the Global Peace Film Festival, Famor

Botero was inexperienced in marketing and his promotional campaign was very uneven.

The name of the film was referred to in several different forms and even his name

changed depending on the interview. He was known from his school as Fabien Morales

(Full Sail Blog) and in a Latin based news articles as Fabien Morales-Botero (Latin É, 1).

Identifying as a Latino filmmaker has been an effective aspect of his promotional

campaign, and he has given a number of interviews in Spanish. In the years after the

244

screening at the Global Peace Film Festival, he has solidified his identity as a director as

Famor Botero and found a cohesive identity as a filmmaker.

The role of the filmmaker is shifting in the humanitarian film circuit, emphasizing the role of witness as well as responding to other changes, including new technology that allow more access and freedom of choice and restructured funding sources that require more of the documentary filmmaker as the central support of promotional campaigns.

This suggests that witnessing is becoming more important to the way that audiences construct solidarity with the other, that the centrality of the self might be transferred to the filmmaker, and that audiences can identify with filmmakers as the face of a cause, perhaps supporting the film rather than the cause. The tension between cinephilia and film as a tool for activism may be satisfied for the spectator in this way, as the film becomes an object of desire, and the success of the cause is equated with the success of the filmmaker. A close association with the promotional campaign also grants the fan a status as something of an “insider” which is part of the motivation to attend the film festival itself. All of these factors coincide with the goals of the filmmaker as well as the

Global Peace Film Festival.

Conclusions

The Global Peace Film Festival is successful in its position as an engagement festival, an emerging model that reflects industry trends. A major strategy in engaging with audiences lies in the position of the filmmaker in the campaign, providing more than just a face for the cause. Spectators are also invited to share an intimate view with the

245

filmmaker and his or her efforts. This conveys an authenticity that is compelling for spectators, who seek meaning through both participation and knowing, whether they participate on a grand scale or simply with their monetary contributions, time, or passing on an awareness of the cause to others, based on their experience at the event. The films become individualized components of a mediascape that is accessed by spectators to build their sense of identity and community within a world that is overly full of choices.

By situating the filmmaker at the center of marketing, spectators are provided with a real person whose actions they can follow or model themselves after. The festival encounter plays an essential role in the process of identity construction, as spectators individualize the experience, often through an understanding of self that draws from lifestyle politics and the association of products with change. For the spectator, the tension between the marketization of humanitarianism and idealism recedes and is replaced with pleasure at the success of the filmmaker in successfully promoting change and a sense of how the self fits into this process. The emergence of the filmmaker-centric promotional campaign aligns with changes in the humanitarian imaginary as well as the self-centric, postmodern nature of the consumption of cultural products in our contemporary society.

The Global Peace Film Festival and the filmmakers who attend its events utilize many of the marketing and funding strategies that are common within the broader structure of media-making. A number of the filmmakers raise funds through online crowdsourcing. Connecting with audiences at the festival is an essential activity, as building a fan base for one’s film has become a necessary part of the marketing campaign. Social media has emerged as a way to build a following, and the Global Peace

Film Festival is just beginning to explore these methods, through Facebook, Twitter, and

246

texting on cellular telephones. Film rarely functions alone within a campaign and the use of multiple platforms enhances the effectiveness of efforts to build support (Torchin

2012a, 16). The internet and social media complicates thinking about this field of cultural production and its publics who find authenticity within the relationships built within this context. The convergence of multiple media forms creates a new field of witnessing with new characteristics, a melding of moving images, photographs, text which provides a means for exhibition, circulation and action, both real and virtual. This kind of knowledge space constitutes a relatively new “field of witnessing” that offers new possibilities, while fulfilling any number of sociopolitical and cultural purposes (Torchin

2012a, 17). Placing the filmmaker at the center of these practices offers a nexus for activities and the negotiation of meaning as well as a concrete representative for the social cause. The personality of the filmmaker adds to his or her appeal as a face of the social cause, and personal encounters with filmmakers are attractive because they convey an insider status as well as a sense of authenticity that audiences are seeking.

247

VIII. CONCLUSION

The study of film festivals is compelling due to embeddedness of media in our everyday lives and the rapidly increasing presence of film festivals in our communities.

In the preceding chapters, I have evaluated a number of discourses and practices surrounding the Global Peace Film Festival and the totality of the phenomenon reveals much about our larger society as well as humanitarian practices and activist film festivals.

An interdisciplinary approach to this scholarship allows many insights to emerge, and the formation of a multi-dimensional perspective of the festival that affords a richer view of the interweaving of discourses and power relationships within the sphere of the humanitarian imaginary and documentary film. The use of ethnographic methods allows a qualitative analysis of the articulation between audiences and producers, media products, social structures and the festival industry. Connections between discourses of cosmopolitanism, globalization and peace are practiced at a local level and enacted in a concrete fashion at a film festival, which makes an ethnographic approach essential, giving a much richer understanding than is possible through traditional audience reception studies.

The Global Peace Film Festival acts as a vital node within the sphere of humanitarian film festivals, and as such articulates with the local community and audiences in a way that fits into the phenomenon of activism surrounding social issues.

The situatedness of the festival within the local context shapes the festival in many ways,

248

interplaying with individual lives through various discourses. The logic of the festival articulates elegantly with the interplay of the central discourses, venues and various stakeholders at the festival. The festival is structured to provide a flexible space for the negotiation of meaning, within the constraints of what is offered and how it is offered.

However, films go through a process of selection, so this negotiation is functioning within a defined space and the perspectives constructed within the chosen films exercise a degree of influence.

One of the key features of the festival is that it offers local audiences an attractive space for the work of identity construction, particularly for the construction of cosmopolitan identities. Although we find pleasure in looking at the world from a distance, we also strive to find our place within it, and the discourse of peace offered at the Global Peace Film Festival allows us to construct cosmopolitan identities within the context of the contemporary humanitarian imaginary. The organizing notion of peace constructed at the festival provides a flexible arena of discourses that can be accessed in multiple ways according to needs of the self. People make use of its offerings creatively to construct identities and negotiate meanings, and make sense of the global through the process of cognitive mapping. We recognize globalization and the global economic system as an overdetermining factor in our lives, but we have a difficult time grasping it.

However, even though we cannot grasp its specificities, we try to cognitively map how we fit into the structure of global processes. Documentary films offer concrete markers for the purposes of this cultural work, providing a shortcut to the construction of a cognitive framework for our world. Faced with the dilemmas of our century, we want to

249

make the world a better place but cannot imagine how, and the Global Peace Film

Festival helps us to find a way that makes sense to us.

Another key feature of the Global Peace Film Festival is the centrality of the self in the way that audiences relate to the humanitarian imaginary. For most people, the majority of knowledge that they hold about the global is mediated, and film acts as one important source of knowledge. Because of its sensory nature, film has the potential to play a special role in engendering emotions and thus a commitment to causes, so it is well suited to the stated purpose of the festival to use film creatively to “inspire” people to participate in achieving “peace.” But constructing a conception of peace is left to be an individual affair and this is significant, given the self-oriented nature of our contemporary society. As we strive to cognitively map our world, we recognize the deleterious effects of capitalism around the world, but do not want to give up our lifestyle. This creates a moral tension that is ameliorated through a variety of practices at the festival, allowing individuals to reconfigure the self in a positive way within the context of the humanitarian imaginary by creating solidarity with the other in a particular manner. The flexibility of the discourse of peace at the Global Peace Film Festival allows festivalgoers to respond in any one of a number of ways that celebrate the self within the context of the festival such as lifestyle choices, expressing oneself through art, and even being an active supporter of a filmmaker. The structure of feeling that emerges under the umbrella of the

Global Peace Film Festival is attractive to viewers and contributes to the success of the festival.

The centrality of self in our contemporary society has a dramatic influence on the structure of both films and humanitarian film festivals, and the increasing focus on the

250

activist filmmaker emerges as a significant factor at the Global Peace Film Festival.

Filmmakers are often at the center of attention for festival goers at the festival as the

primary organizer of the promotional campaign, and at times as narrators or actors within

the films themselves. The line between the business of the promotion of the film and the

social cause promoted by the film has become blurred, and the filmmaker acts as a central

figure around which discourses are arranged. Programming goals revolve around

creating networks of activism around filmmakers through the interest and participation of audiences. The promotion of the filmmaker eases the tension between the selfless goals of humanitarianism and the capitalistic impulses of career and the marketplace, while positioning the film as a tool rather than an aesthetic object. The success of the filmmaker and the film become attached to the success of the cause, which can create an additional connotation for audience members who follow the film after the festival. In this position,

filmmakers become activists, and fans can identify with the success of the filmmaker as

an activist in a somewhat voyeuristic and vicarious manner, obviating any need for the

fan to go further than supporting this ready-made campaign. Thus, the promotion of the filmmaker as an activist is a productive activity in many applications, and a solid strategy for the development and promotion of the Global Peace Film Festival.

Echoing a trend that that has developed among other culture industries, the emerging Do-It-Yourself model has had a significant impact on the practices associated with the promotional campaigns of independent documentary filmmakers. The increased pressure to build networks of support around independently produced films before funding becomes available pressures neophytes to learn specific skills, among which are building a fan base through social media and webpages, as well as developing

251

relationships through showings at community organizations and home based events. The

most recent endeavor launched by the Global Peace Film Festival, the long-term grooming and support of the filmmaker, fits into this trend and takes it further to figuratively meld the film and filmmaker and develop a them as a new node in the promotional campaign of the cause itself. The career of the filmmaker is very much at stake in this effort, and his/her potential for success is greatly enhanced by the support of the festival. Once again, we can see that this entire process eases tensions concerning the situating of the social cause within the marketplace. It may be that the multi-level approach to activism that the Global Peace Film Festival takes fits very well into the scheme of neoliberal capitalism.

The Global Peace Film Festival event is structured as a dialogic conversation among audiences, media, and institutions within a socio-historical context, but the subtleties of the articulation between strategies of representation and audience agency reflect the selective rationale of the festival staff. The films screened at the festival have gone through a selective judging process which reflects the particulars of the larger context within which they were chosen. The politics surrounding the social causes themselves influence the process, and the choices made by the festival staff are influenced by topics of interest to the broader society. In addition, the interest of local organizations has an impact, as the festival is structured to directly meet their interests and garner their support both at the festival and for screenings at other times during the year. Many members of the audience are attracted to the festival through a particular community organization in which they take part, and the festival is effective in connecting people with opportunities to effect social change at the local level because of

252

the penetration of these community groups in the organization of the festival. This sort of fan base demands a flexible structure because these pre-sorted audiences can hold very different views on particular topics. Similarly, there is a disparity between the age and experience of different audiences, and screenings aimed towards younger audiences tended to include upbeat elements. Although there are some outliers, most films do not promote radical activism; the key seems to be “starting a conversation” and as conversations go, this one is rather civil. Audiences, especially college students, were challenged very gently, as opposed to more radical film experiences that might have been scheduled. Overall, audience experiences at the Global Peace Film Festival are affirmative of the self, and allow for multiple types of selves to be represented through different screenings at different venues. One might say that this festival is a characteristically post-modern event, where one can pick-and-choose the kind of self/activist one wishes to be as well as how and when to participate.

Witnessing and testimonial are two key practices that permeate films and activities at the Global Peace Film Festival. Operating in multiple contexts, these are core to both representation and reception. Filmmakers code in messages through aesthetic choices, and the strategy to place oneself within the diegesis of the film sends a powerful message about the filmmaker’s role as an activist and representative of the social cause.

Personal appearances at the festival by filmmakers and subjects are powerful practices that generate strong emotions and satisfy the audience’s desire to know. The audiences at the festival favor the personal accounts that often appear in the films screened, and the increased chatter about these films makes it evident that this is a very successful aesthetic choice.

253

This study of the Global Peace Film Festival reveals much about the narcissistic

bent of our society and the contemporary appropriation of humanitarianism by capitalism within the domain of film festivals. The recent proliferation of film festivals in this country finds both large and small festivals attached to myriad goals, but the availability of new technology articulates with capitalist structures in a particular manner in the context of documentary and humanitarian film festivals. Discourses surrounding humanitarianism are complex and multitudinous, but the negotiation of social issues is moving into a personalized context in which the filmmaker takes an active central role.

The choice of peace as an overarching discourse is appropriate given our times

and the particular configuration of the humanitarian imaginary, and this study identifies

how the construction of the self is meaningfully played out within the space of the Global

Peace Film Festival. A consideration of the complex interplay of discourses at the festival

shows that is a well-chosen strategy that contributes to the success of the festival. Within

the context of the festival, audiences are more responsive to appeals for help from the

comfort of a central western position that allows them to construct a cosmopolitan

identity within the context of humanitarianism while satisfying their own impulses and

lifestyle choices. This has broad implications in terms of how audiences build solidarity

with the other, and it would be positive for the festival to give more emphasis to a

dialogic conversation that acknowledges unequal power relationships on a global level.

The Global Peace Film Festival is evolving as structural factors change, but these

changes appear to be honing the current imperatives built into the form of the festival.

The Global Peace Film Festival is but one piece in the puzzle. Other humanitarian

festivals also share some of the same characteristics, reflecting the same configuration of

254

self within a global context. It would be interesting to see how contemporary structures play out in different locales under the aegis of differing missions of other festivals. The

Global Peace Film Festival has been in existence for over a decade, changing along with the community, and its chosen mission has made it highly successful because it articulates with broader structures of society in a way that is meaningful for audiences.

255

APPENDICES

256

Appendix A. Films Discussed in Dissertation

Billy and Allen: In Life, Live and Death, Equality Matters (2013), directed by Vicki Nantz

CinemAbility (2013), directed by Jenni Gold

Connected by Coffee (2014) directed by Aaron Dennis

The Cooler Bandits (2014), directed by John Lucas

Electric Signs (2012), directed by Alice Arnold

Every Three Seconds (2014) directed by Daniel Karslak

From the Cabin to The Forest: The Timeless Wisdom of Archie Carr (2014), directed by Bob Giguere

How to Touch a Hot Stove: Thought and Behavioral Difference in a Society of Norms (2014)

I’m Not Leaving (2014), directed by Kevin Ekrall

Marion Lake Story: Defeating the Mighty Phragmite (2013), directed by Greta Schiller

Mistaken for Strangers (2013) directed by Tom Berninger

Pay to Play: Democracy’s High Stakes (2014) directed by John Wellington Ennis

Planeat (2011), directed by Or Shlomi and Shelley Lee Davies

Prison Through Tomorrow’s Eyes (2013) was directed by Paul Sutton

Ripple of Hope (2008), directed by Renzo Vasquez

Send in the Clowns: Changing the Face of Humanitarian Aid (2014), directed by Sam Lee

Sold (2014) directed by Jeffrey D. Brown

Stomp Out Genocide (2013), directed by Mitch Lewis

Take Me Home Documentary (2013) directed by Famor Botero

This Time Next Year (2014) directed by Jeff Reichert and Farihah Zaman

257

Appendix B. Data Collection Instrument

Data Collection Instrument/Interview Schedule

Katherine Wahlberg/Global Peace Film Festival

The following questions are for three different types of interviews:

Casual Interview Questions (anonymous interviews at festival)

1. What did you think of the film you just saw? 2. Is the topic of the film an important issue today? How does it relate to “peace”? 3. How did you come to attend the festival today? 4. Is this your first time at the festival? a. If attended before: How has the festival changed over the years? 5. Tell me about your experiences with the festival.

Follow-up questions for longer interviews:

1. Tell me more about your experiences with the festival. 2. Are you part of any of the organizations that are connected to the festival? 3. What did you find to be the most compelling aspect of the festival? Which film had the most impact on you? 4. Did any of the films you’ve seen change the way that you view what’s going on in the world? a. Have the films provided you with direct ways that you can make change happen? 5. Do you think that the festival results in positive changes in the world? a. Has it spurred you to make changes in your life? b. Will you participate in any way with efforts for change this year?

Initial Interview Questions for filmmakers:

1. How did you come to make this film? a. How is the subject of the film meaningful to you personally? 2. Tell me about how you came to show your film in this festival. 3. How do you promote your film? How has the festival helped you to promote it? 4. As an independent filmmaker, how do you promoting the social issue highlighted in your film? 5. Tell me about the responses of people who have seen your film at this festival. Other festivals? 6. What are your next plans for your film?

258

Appendix C. Local Community Organizations29

AARP Florida State Office A.C.L.U. Central Chapter African Heritage Alliance Center Africans United Council American Red Cross of Central Florida Amnesty International Back to Nature Wildlife Building US The Center Central Florida Birth Network Central Florida Disability Chamber Central Florida Jobs with Justice Central Florida Urban League Coalition for the Homeless Community Food and Outreach Center E.A.R.T.H. Awareness Eco-Action, The Green Initiative Falling Whistles Farmworker Association of Florida Federation of Congregations United to Serve (FOCUS) Florida Audubon Society Center Florida Coalition for Peace and Justice Florida School of Holistic Living Food Not Bombs Friends of the Wekiva Give Kids the World Global Hope Network International Greater Orlando Human Trafficking Task Force Green Works Orlando Habitat for Humanity Orlando Hands On Orlando! Harbor House Health Care center for the Homeless Hindu Society of Central Florida

29 Source: 2014 Global Peace Film Festival Program. This list is not comprehensive, as there are many small organizations that participate in the festival in various ways. These organizations are provided for participants, but are not endorsed by the festival and are offered with the caveat that individuals should evaluate their effectiveness and accomplishments when getting involved. 259

The Holocaust Memorial Resource and Education Center of Florida Hope Community Center HOPE Helps, Inc. IDEAS for Us Interfaith Council of Central Florida Islamic Society of Central Florida Ivanhoe Village Main Street Jewish Community Center Jack & Lee Rosen Southwest Orlando Campus Jewish Community Center Maitland Campus Junior League of Greater Orlando Halloween Hustle with US League of Women Voters Orange County Lighthouse Central Florida MBA Orlando, LGBT Chamber of Commerce Metropolitan Business Association Mills Fifty Mainstreet Company NAACP Orange County Branch National Organization for Women, Orlando Chapter Notre Dame Americorps Office of Student Involvement University of Central Florida Orlando Zen Circle Pathways Drop-In Center Peace & Justice Initiative Valencia College Planned Parenthood of Greater Orlando ReBUILD Globally RSVP of Orange, Osceola and Volusia Save the Manatee Club, Inc. Second Harvest Food Bank Sierra Club – Orlando Chapter Sikh Society of Central Florida Simple Living Institute, Inc. Slow Food Orlando Ten Thousand Villages Transition Orlando United Nations Association Orlando Vegetarians of Central Florida Veterans for Peace www.ThorntonParkDistrict.com Zebra Coalition, Supporting LGBT + Youth Zonta International, Orlando Chapter

260

Appendix D. Donors, 2014 Global Peace Film Festival30

Event Sponsor: Orange County Arts & Cultural Affairs

White Dove Sponsors: Clear Channel Outdoor IDEAS Thomas P. Johnson Visiting Scholar and Artist Initiative Moore Stephens Lovelace, P.A. Rollins College

Venue Partners: The Alfond Inn Cobb Plaza Cinema Café Rollins College Valencia College Winter Park Library

Media Sponsors: Fandor.com Festival Genius Growing Bolder Orlando Weekly ProductionHUB Visit Orlando WPRK 91.5FM

Friends of the Festival Central Florida Veg Fest Great Big Circle Harte Hanks Nicholson Investments, LLC React to Film United Arts of Central Florida Whole Foods Market Winter Park Women in Film & TV Florida

Peace Lovers Dandelion Communitea Café Ethos Vegan Kitchen ForeFront Productions LLC Honest Tea

30 Source: 2014 Global Peace Film Festival Program. 261

Interfaith Council of Central Florida Maxine’s on Shine Park Plaza Hotel PeaceKeeper Cause-Metics Redbird Printing Ten Thousand Villages

262

Appendix E. Venues, 2014 Global Peace Film Festival31

The Alfond Inn, 300 East New England Avenue, Winter Park, Florida 32789

Cobb Plaza Cinema Café, 155 South Orange Avenue, Orlando, Florida 32801

Mad Cow Theatre, 54 West Church Street, Orlando, Florida 32801

Maxine’s on Shine, 337 North Shine Avenue, Orlando, Florida 32803

Orlando City Hall, Rotunda, 400 South Orange Avenue, Orlando, Florida

Rollins College, 1000 Holt Avenue, Winter Park, Florida 32789 The Green Bush Auditorium Sun Trust Auditorium

Ten Thousand Villages, 329 North Park Avenue #102, Winter Park, Florida 32789

Valencia College West Campus, 1800 South Kirkman Avenue, Orlando Florida Central Campus, 850 West Morse Boulevard, Winter Park, Florida

Winter Park Public Library. 460 East New England Avenue, Winter Park, Florida 32789

31 Source: 2014 Global Peace Film Festival Program. 263

Appendix F. Themes of Films Screened at 2014 Global Peace Film Festival32

2014 Themes: 2014 Films Screened: Activism Every Three Seconds (Dir. Daniel Karslake) Havana Curveball (Dir. Marcia Jamel, Ken Schneider) Send in the Clowns: Changing the Face of Humanitarian Aid (Dir. Sam Lee) Arts Broken City Poets (Dir. Ariane Wu) Health and Aging Pretty Old (Dir. Walter Matteson) Weight Problem: Cultural Narratives of Fat and Obesity (Dir. Lisa Tillmann) Duk County (Dir. Jordan Campbell) Disaster This Time Next Year (Dir. Jeff Reichert, Farihah Zaman) Ecological Issues Dear Governor Hickenlooper (Dir. Stash Wislocki) (Fracking, Oil Oil & Water (Dir. Laurel Spellman Smith, Francine Strickwera) Spills) From the Cabin to the forest: the Timeless Wisdom of Archie Carr (Dir. Bob Giguere) Farm Workers, Fair Cesar’s Last Fast (Dir. Richard Ray Perez, Lorena Parlee) Trade Connected by Coffee (Dir. Aaron Dennis

Genocide I’m Not Leaving (Dir. Kevin Ekrall)

Immigration, Adelante (dir. Noam Osband) Refugees African Exodus (Dir. Brad Rothschild) Lessons of Basketball and War (Dir. Ron Bourke) Gay Marriage Rights One – A Story of Love and Equality (Dir. Becca Roth) Inner City Paper City (Dir. Akil Gibbons) Conditions Mental Illness Voices (Dir. Hiroshi Hara, Gary Tsai) How to Touch a Hot Stove: Thought and Behavioral Differences in a Society of Norms (Dir. Sheryll Franko) Disability CinemAbility Political issues 1971 (Dir. Johanna Hamilton) Pay to Play: Democracy’s High Stakes (Dir. John Wellington Ennis) Madame Parliamentarian (Dir. Rouane Itani) Prisons, Death 17 Not Required Indians (Dir. Soniya Kirpalani) Sentence The Cooler Bandits (Dir. John Lucas) Prison Terminal: The Last Days of Private Jack Hall (Dir. Edgar Barens Alone (Dir. Daffodil J. Atlan) School Shootings The Other One (Dir. Josef Steiff) War, Peace, Beyond the Divide (Dir. Jan Selby) Veterans Pictures From a Hiroshima Schoolyard (Dir. Bryan Reichhardt) At a Distance (Dir. Baqir Rezaie) Kawomera: Plant, Pray, Partner for Peace (Dir. Marla Mossman) Women’s Issues Casablanca Calling (Dir. Rosa Rogers) (poverty, education, Sold (Dir. Jeffrey D. Brown violence, trafficking) Unafraid: Voices From the Crime Victims Treatment Center (Dir. Karin Venegas)

32 This is a complete list of films, including feature and short films. There is some overlap of topics within films, so the films are categorized by primary topic. 264

Appendix G. Scripts of Questions Asked after Viewing I’m Not Leaving

Where are we on the genocide that happened on Gaza Strip about a month ago and what do you think we should respond to that? Do you know what happened to the kids in the barrels and what happened to the kids in the orphanage? Do you have an organization that you made and started and that we can be a part of? One of the big problems afterwards was forgiveness, because you had neighbor killing neighbor, so you had a neighbor killing your entire family and now you are asked to forgive them. And I was just wondering, you stayed, your new self, how you reacted to this? I wondered if you ever felt conflicted, how did you work with the prime minister and all the people who were in charge of these killings and did you ever feel that you were withdrawn, that you were working with them? And I also wondered, Theresa if you could talk more about your experiences, because when I read this book, I think about you a lot, and what you were going through as well. In your home after you stayed did you have any means to defend yourself. If you were armed? Do you think that if you did have weapons that it would have changed the whole situation? I just wanted to say that in the scripture, said, that cause you did it to my little ones, you did it to me, and I think it takes a lot of courage, what you did, when a nation abandons everybody, and you stay on your own and you leave your family. One of the biggest things that I say is that you surrender everything to God, at that point, that all these people were surrounded by the camps and they didn’t attack. Remember, you put yourself on the line, and I’m going to say, God protected you. I had two questions. I know it was an overall devastating experience, but when you think back about that time, what moment, what exact moment does your mind go to? And my other question is, what was the number one value that you learned? I just wanted to know about your vision. I’m pretty sure that I, if I were in that situation that I would have said, no, I’m leaving with my family. I just wish that someday I would be able to do with courage what you have been able to do. And you went from a system, what was it like to know that you were responsible for lives of people that you never even met? And what was it like knowing in that moment that you were responsible for what would happen in their lives? My question is, where did you get it, what allowed you to make that decision? I still need to understand what, how you could do something so great, so powerful, to leave everything and do this sacrifice to save so many? And it really troubles me that this country shut the doors and you were there.

265

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abrash, Barbara. 2006. “Making Your Documentary Matter: Public Engagement Strategies that Work,” Center for Social Media, accessed January 17, 2015, http://www.cmsimpact.org/media-impact/conference/rap-reports/making-your- documentary-matter-2006/.

Abu-Lughod, Lila. 1997. “The Interpretation of Culture(s) After Television.” Representations 59: 109-133.

AFI Docs Film Festival, accessed November 30, 2013, http://afi.com/afidocs/about.aspx#.UpqOieI4nYQ/.

Alexander, Michelle. 2012. The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. New York: The New Press.

Anderson, Benedict. 2006 (1983). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso.

Appadurai, Arjun. 1996. “Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy.” In The Anthropology of Globalization: A Reader, edited by Jonathan Xavier Inda and Renato Rosaldo, 46-64. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers, Inc.

———. 1991. “Global Ethnoscapes: Notes and Queries for a Transnational Anthropology.” In Recapturing Anthropology: Working in the Present, edited by Richard G. Fox. Santa Fe, New Mexico: School of American Research Press.

Artivist Film. Accessed August 14, 2013Festival, artivist.com/.

Arts to End Genocide. Accessed January 30, 2015, http://www.artstoendgenocide.org,

Aufderheide, Pat. 2003. “In the Battle for Realty: Social Documentaries in the U.S.” Center for Social Media Report, accessed January 22, 2015 www.centerforsocialmedia.org/battle/indes/htm/.

Bird, Elizabeth. 2003. The Audience in Everyday Life: Living in a Media World. New York: Routledge.

266

———. 2010. “From Fan Practice to Mediated Moments: The Value of Practice Theory in the Understanding of Media Audiences.” In Theorising Media and Practice. Vol. 4, Anthropology of Media, edited by Birgit Brauchler and John Postill, 85-104. New York: Berghahn Books.

Blackmore-Dobbyn, Andrew. 2012. “Cooler Bandits Film Receives MacArthur Foundation Grant.” Huffington Post, accessed March 18, 2015, www.huffintonpost.com/andrew-blackmore-Dobbyn/coolerbandits_b _1552850.html?/.

Blaževič, Igor. 2012. “Film Festivals as a Human Rights Awareness Building Tool: Experiences of the Prague One World Festival. In Film Festival Yearbook 4: Film Festivals and Activism, edited by Dina Iordanova and Leshu Torchin. St. Andrews: St. Andrews Film Studies.

Bobo, Jacqueline. 1995. Black Women as Cultural Readers. New York: Columbia University Press.

Boltanski, Luc and Eve Chiapello. 2007. The New Spirit of Capitalism, translated by Gregory Elliott. London: Verso.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1993. The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature, edited and Introduced by Randal Johnson. New York: Columbia University Press.

———. 1990. The Logic of Practice, translated by Richard Nice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Bronkhorst, Dan. 2004. “The Human Rights Film: Reflections on its History, Principles and Practices.” Amnesty International Film Festival, Amsterdam, 2003. One World 2004: 6th Annual Human Rights Documentary Film Festival. http://jedensvet.cz/archive/www.jedensvet.cz/ow/2004/en/workshops /index2.php.htm/.

Central Florida Foundation. n.d., cffound.org/receive/cffgrants/.

Central Florida Foundation, Global Peace Film Festival Profile. Last updated February 26, 2015, cfcf.guidestar.org/NonprofitProfile.aspx?Orgld=1056147/.

Charbonneau, Stephen. 2014. “John Grierson and the United States.” In The Grierson Effect: Tracing Documentary’s International Movement, edited by Zoë Druick and Deane Williams,13-28. London: British Film Institution/Palgrave Macmillan.

Cheah, Pheng. 2006. Inhuman Conditions: On Cosmopolitanism and Human Rights. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

267

———. 1998. “Introduction Part II: The Cosmopolitical Today.” In Cosmopolitics: Thinking and Feeling beyond the Nation, edited by Pheng Cheah and Bruce Robbins, 20-41. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Chouliaraki, Lilie. 2013. The Ironic Spectator: Solidarity in the age of Post- Humanitarianism. Malden, MA: Polity Press.

———. 2008. “The Media as Moral Education: Mediation and Action.” Media Culture and Society. Sage Publications 30 (6): 831-852.

———. 2006. The Spectatorship of Suffering. London: Sage Publications Limited.

CinemAbility. Accessed August 2, 2015, http://www.cinemability.com/.

City of Orlando International Affairs. Accessed August 3, 2013, http://www.cityoforlando.net/international/aboutus.htm/.

City of Orlando.net. Accessed March 28, 2015, www.cityoforlando.net/mayor/interantional-affairs/.

Cleveland International Film Festival 39/2014. Accessed March 8, 2015, www.clevelandfilm.org/films/2014/the-cooler-bandits/.

Clifford, James. 1986. “Introduction: Partial Truths.” In Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography, edited by James Clifford and George E. Marcus, 1- 26. Berkeley: University of California Press.

———. 1998. “Mixed Feelings.” In Cosmopolitics: Thinking and Feeling beyond the Nation, edited by Pheng Cheah and Bruce Robbins, 362-370. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

———. 1997. Routes: Travel and Translation in the Late Twentieth Century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Community Foundation of Central Florida. Accessed August 3, 2013, http://www.mycfcf.org/.

Cowie, Elizabeth. 1999. “The Spectacle of Actuality.” In Collecting Visible Evidence, Volume 6, edited by Jane M. Gaines and Michael Renov, 19-45. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Delinski, Rachel. 2012. “Boy, 17, Shot to Death after ‘Altercation’.” Sanford Herald. February 29, 2012. http://www.mysanfordherald.com/view/full_story/17694234/ Article-Boy—17—shot-to-death-after-altercation-?/.

268

De Valck, Marijke. 2007. Film Festivals from European Geopolitics to Global Cinephilia: Film Culture in Transition. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. http://www.netlibrary.com/urlapi.asp?action=summary&v=1&bookid=259104.

De Valck, Marijke and Skadi Loist. 2009. “Film Festival Studies: An Overview of a Burgeoning Field.” In Film Festival Yearbook 1: The Film Circuit, edited by Dina Iordanova with Ragan Rhyne, 179-215. St. Andrews: St. Andrews Film Studies.

Dickey, Sara A. 1997. “Anthropology and Its Contributions to Studies of Mass Media.” International Social Science Journal, Vol. 49 (153): 413-428.

———. 1993. Cinema and the Urban Poor in South India. Cambridge studies in social and cultural anthropology, 92. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Donahue, Matthew A. 2001. "The Message Behind the Beat: Social and Political Attitudes Expressed in American Rap and Punk Rock Music of the 1980s and early 1990s", Ph.D. dissertation, Bowling Green State University. In Dissertations & Theses: Full Text [database on-line]; publication number AAT 3016146. http://www.proquest.com.ezproxy.fau.edu/.

Druick, Zoë, and Deane Williams. 2014. “Introduction.” In The Grierson Effect: Tracing Documentary’s International Movement, edited by Zoë Druick and Deane Williams, 1-11. London: British Film Institution Palgrave Macmillan.

Every Three Seconds. Accessed Nov. 30, 2014, www.everythreeseconds.net/.

Fenton, Natalie. 2007. “Getting Alternative Messages in Mainstream Media.” In The Alternative Media Handbook, edited by Kate Coyer, Tony Dalmunt and Alan Fountain, 143-153. New York: Routledge.

Fischer, Alex. 2012. “From Local to Global: The Growing Pains of the Human Rights Watch International Film Festival: An Interview with Bruni Burres, Festival Director (1991-2008).” In Film Festival Yearbook 4: Film Festivals and Activism, edited by Dina Iordanova and Leshu Torchin, 201-214. St. Andrews: St. Andrews Film Studies.

Fisher, Mark. 2009. Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative?. Winchester, UK and Washington, USA: Zero Books.

Fiske, John. 1987. Television Culture. London and New York: Routledge.

———. 1989. Understanding Popular Culture. London and New York: Routledge.

Foucault, Michel. 1980. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews & Other Writings 1972 to 1977, edited by Colin Gordon. New York: Pantheon Books.

269

Fox News Channel 35. September 18, 2012. @fox35Orlando, Twitter.com/.

Full Sail Blog. “Grad’s Documentary ‘Take Me Home’ at Global Peace Film Festival.” Accessed August 1, 2015, http://www.fullsailblog.com/grads- documentary-take-me-home-at-global-peace-film-festival/.

Ganley, Gladys D. and Oswald H, Ganley. 1987. Global Political Fallout: The First Decade of the VCR 1976 – 1985. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Ginsburg, Faye D. 2002. “Introduction.” In Media Worlds: Anthropology on New Terrain, edited by Faye D. Ginsburg, Lila Abu-Lughod and Brian Larkin, 1-36. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Ginsburg, Faye D., Lila Abu-Lughod and Brian Larkin, eds. 2002. Media Worlds: Anthropology on New Terrain. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Global Peace Film Festival. n.d. http.//peacefilmfest.org,

Global Peace Film Festival Brochure, 2014.

Global Peace Film Festival Brochure. 2013.

Gosling, Samuel D., Adam A. Augustine, Simine Vazire, Nicholas Holtzman and Sam Gaddis. “Manifestations of Personality in Online Social Networks: Self- Reported Facebook-Related Behaviors and Observable Profile Information.” Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking. September, 2011 14 (9): 483-488, http://readwrite.cm/2012/01/11 study_your_facebook_personality _is_the_real_you#awesm=~odYORzIEQKIoi9/.

Gramsci, Antonio. 2008 (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci, edited and translated by Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith. New York: International Publishers.

Grassilli, Mariagiulia. 2012. “Human Rights Film Festivals: Global/Local Networks for Advocacy.” In Film Festival Yearbook 4: Film Festivals and Activism, edited by Dina Iordanova and Leshu Torchin, 31-47. St. Andrews: St. Andrews Film Studies.

Great Nonprofits. October 12, 2014. www.greatprofits.org.

Gupta, Akhil and James Ferguson. 1997. “Beyond “Culture”: Space, Identity, and the politics of Difference.” In Culture, Power, Place: Explorations in Critical Anthropology, edited by Akhil Gupta and James Ferguson, 33-51. Durham NC: Duke University Press.

270

Habermas, Jurgen. 1989 (1962). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge: Polity.

Hall, Stuart. 1977. Culture, the Media and the “Ideological Effect.” In Mass Communication and Society, edited by James Curran, Michael Gurevitch and Janet Woolacott, 315-348. London: Edward Arnold.

———. 2009. “Notes on Deconstructing ‘The Popular.’” In Cultural Theory and Popular Culture: A Reader, 4th ed., edited by John Storey, 509-518. Harlow, England: Pearson Longman.

Hall, Stuart and Martin Jacques. 1986. “People Aid: A New Politics Sweeps the Land.” Marxism Today, July, 10-14.

Hannerz, Ulf. 1996. Transnational Connections. London: Routledge.

Harbord, Janet. 2002. Film Cultures. London: Sage.

———. 2013. “Film Festivals – Time-Event.” In The Film Festival Reader, edited by Dina Iordanova, 127-133. St. Andrews: St. Andrews Film Studies.

Held, David. 2010. Cosmopolitanism: Ideals and Realities. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Higgins, Nick. 2012. “‘Tell Our Story to the World’: The Meaning of Success for a Massacre Foretold – A Filmmaker Reflects.” In Film Festival Yearbook 4: Film Festivals and Activism, edited by Dina Iordanova and Leshu Torchin, 133-142. St. Andrews: St. Andrews Film Studies.

Hinegardner, Livia. 2009. “Action, Organization, and Documentary Film: Beyond a Communications Model of Human Rights Videos.” Visual Anthropology Review: 25 (2): 172-185.

Hodgson, Dorothy L. and Ethel Brooks. 2007. “Introduction: Activisms.” Women’s Studies Quarterly 35 (3/4): 14-25.

Holland, Dorothy C., William Lachicotte, Jr., Debra Skinner, and Carole Cain. 1998. Identity and Agency in Cultural Worlds. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Holland, Dorothy and Naomi Quinn. 1987. “Culture and Cognition.” In Cultural Models in Language and Thought, edited by Dorothy Holland and Naomi Quinn, 3-42. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Horkheimer, Max and Theodor W. Adorno. 2001. "The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception.” In Media and Cultural Studies: Keyworks,

271

edited by Meenakski Gigi Durham and Douglas M. Kellner, 71-101. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

Human Rights Film Network. Accessed August 14, 2013, http://www.humanrightsfilmnetwork.org,

Independent Lens/PBS.org. Accessed March 28, 2015, www.pbs.org /independentlens/getinvolved/. Indiegogo. Accessed August 4, 2015, https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/take-me- home-documentary#/story/.

Iordanova, Dina. 2015. “The Film Festival as an Industry Node.” In Media Industries Journal 1.3 (2015): 7-11. ISSN: 2373-9307.

———. 2012. “Film Festivals and Dissent: Can Film Change the World?” In Film Festival Yearbook 4: Film Festivals and Activism, edited by Dina Iordanova and Leshu Torchin, 13-30. St. Andrews: St. Andrews Film Studies.

———. 2010. “Mediating Diaspora: Film Festivals and ‘Imagined Communities.’” In Film Festival Yearbook 2: Film Festivals and Imagined Communities, edited by Dina Iordanova and Ruby Cheung, 12-44. St. Andrews: St. Andrews Film Studies.

Iordanova, Dina and Leshu Torchin, eds. 2012. Film Festival Yearbook 4: Film Festivals and Activism. St. Andrews: St. Andrews Film Studies.

Iordanova, Dina and Ragan Rhyne, eds. 2009. Film Festival Yearbook 1: The Festival Circuit. St. Andrews: St. Andrews Film Studies.

Iordanova, Dina, and Ruby Cheung. 2010. “Introduction.” In Film Festival Yearbook 2: Film Festivals and Imagined Communities, edited by Dina Iordanova and Ruby Cheung, 1-10. St. Andrews: St. Andrews Film Studies.

Jameson, Fredric. 1988. “Cognitive Mapping.” In Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, edited and with an introduction by Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg, 349-360.. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Johnson, Marcia. July 22, 2010. Blog Talk Radio, Seeds for Peace Radio Interview, http://www.blogtalkradio/plantingseedsforpeace/.

Lasch, Christopher. 1978. The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Latin É. February 18, 2013. “é | Fabian Morales-Botero: Éxclusive interview with Fabian Morales-Botero,” http://www.latin-e.com/fabianmoralesbotero.

272

Laufer, William S. 2003. “Social Accountability and Corporate Greenwashing.” Journal of Business Ethics 43 (3), 253-261.

MacDougall, David.” Renewing Ethnographic Film: Is Digital Video Changing the Genre?” Anthropology Today 17 (3) (June, 2001), 15-21.

Malcomson, Scott L. 1998. “The Varieties of Cosmopolitan Experience.” In Cosmopolitics: Thinking and Feeling Beyond the Nation, edited by Pheng Cheah and Bruce Robbins, 233-245. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

McCulloch, Fiona. 2012. Cosmopolitanism in Contemporary British Fiction: Imagined Identities. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

McLuhan, Marshall. 1964. Understanding Media. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Nichols, Bill. 2014. “Global Image Consumption in the Age of Late Capitalism.” In The Film Festival Reader, edited by Dina Iordanova, 29-44. St. Andrews: St. Andrews Film Studies.

———. 2010. Introduction to Documentary, 2nd edition. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

———. 1991. Representing Reality: Issues and Concepts in Documentary. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

One World. Accessed February 1, 2015, http://oneworld.org/.

Ortner, Sherry B. 2006. Anthropology and Social Theory: Culture, Power, and the Acting Subject. Durham: Duke University Press.

———. 1997. “Fieldwork in the Postcommunity.” Anthropology and Humanism 22 (1): 61-80.

———. 2013. Not Hollywood: Independent Film at the Twilight of the American Dream. Durham: Duke University Press.

———. 1984. “Theory in Anthropology since the Sixties.” In Comparative Studies in Society and History 26 (1): 126-66.

Palm, Matthew J. September 13, 2012. “Global Peace Film Festival Marks 10 Years in Orlando.” Orlando Sentinel, The Artistic Type: A Blog of Theatre, Arts and Culture. http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-09-13/entertainment/os-global- peace-film-festival-20120910_1_nina-streich-talks-peace-film/.

273

———. December 8, 2014. “Recipients of United Arts of Central Florida’s Operating Support Grants.” Orlando Sentinel, www.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment/arts- and-theater/the-artistic-type/os-lunited-arts-operating-grants-list-20141208-pos/. Polsson, Ken. 2006. Chronology of Walt Disney World, http://kpolsson.com /wdworld/.

Portwood-Stacer, Laura. 2013. Lifestyle Politics and Radical Activism (Contemporary Anarchist Studies). New York: Bloomsbury Academic.

Postill, John. 2010 “Introduction: Theorising Media and Practice.” In Theorising Media and Practice. Vol. 4, Anthropology of Media, edited by Birgit Brauchler and John Postill, 1-31. New York: Berghahn Books.

Powdermaker, Hortense. 1950. Hollywood: the Dream Factory. [New York?]: Grosset & Dunlap.

Radway, Janice. 1991. “Interpretive Communities and Variable Literacies: The Functions of Romance Reading.” In Rethinking Poplar Culture: Contemporary Perspectives in Cultural Studies, edited by Chandra Mukerji and Michael Schudson, 465-486. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Ranciere, Jacques. 2011. The Emancipated Spectator. Brooklyn, NY: Verso.

Rantanen, Terhi. 2005. The Media and Globalization. London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Robbins, Bruce. 1998. “Introduction Part I: Actually Existing Cosmopolitanisms.” In Cosmopolitics: Thindking and Feeling Beyond the Nation, edited by Pheng Cheah and Bruce Robbins. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Ruben, Pamela. March 1, 2013. “Orlando’s Davalos Featured in Homeless Documentary.” Heritage Florida Jewish News. Year 37, No. 24, http://www.heritagefl.com/story/2013/03/01/news/orlandos-davalos-featured-in- homeless-documentary/211.html/.

Sabin, Roger. 1999. Punk Rock, So What? The Cultural Legacy of Punk Rock. New York and London: Routledge.

Sassen, Saskia. 2001. The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo, 2nd edition. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.

Schatzki, Theodore R. 2001. “Introduction: Practice Theory”, in The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory, editied by Theodore R. Schatzi, Karin Knorr Cetina and Eike von Savigny, 1-14. London: Routledge,.

274

Schein, Louisa. 1998. “Importing Miao Brethren to Hmong America.” In Cosmopolitics: Thinking and feeling Beyond the Nation, edited by Pheng Cheah and Bruce Robbins. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Sennett, Richard. 1976. The Fall of Public Man. New York: Norton Books.

Shohat, Ella and Robert Stam. 1996. “From the Imperial Family to the Transnational Imaginary: Media Spectatorship in the Age of Globalization.” In Global/Local: Cultural Production and the Transnational Imaginary, edited by Rob Wilson and Wimal Dissanayake, 145-170. Durham and London: Duke University Press.

———. 1994. Unthinking Eurocentrism: Multiculturalism and the Media. London and New York: Routledge.

Sontag, Susan. 1978 (1977). On Photography. New York: Dell Publishing Company.

Spitulnik, Debra. 1993. “Anthropology and Mass Media.” Annual Review of Anthropology 22: 293-315.

Stringer, Julian. 2013. “Regarding Film Festivals: Introduction.” In The Film Festival Reader, edited by Dina Iordanova, 59-68. St. Andrews: St. Andrews Film Studies.

Tascón, Sonia M. 2015. Human Rights Film Festivals: Activism in Context. New York: Palgrave McMillan

Ten Thousand Villages. Accessed July 10, 2013. tenthousandvillages.com/.

The Cooler Bandits: A Film by John Lucas. Accessed March 20, 2105, www.coolerbandits.com/.

Tomlinson, John. 1999. Globalization and Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Torchin, Leshu. 2012a. Creating the Witness: Documenting Genocide on Film, Video, and the Internet. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

———. 2012b. “Networked for Advocacy,” In Film Festival Yearbook 4: Film Festivals and Activism, edited by Dina Iordanova and Leshu Torchin, 1-12. St. Andrews: St. Andrews Film Studies.

Twitter. Accessed August 15, 2015. https://twitter.com/famorbotero/.

Vestergaard, Anne. 2010. “Identity and Appeal in the Humanitarian Brand.” In Media, Organizations and Identity, edited by Lilie Chouliaraki and Mette Morsing, 168-184. New York: Palgrave Macmillan

275

Vimeo.com. March 17, 2015. “Public Humanities Initiative: Film Screening and Discussion: ‘The Cooler Bandits,’” Heyman Center/Society of Fellows. https:/vimeo.com/122341365.

Williams, Raymond. 2009 (1977). Marxism and Literature. New York: Oxford University Press.

Withoutabox.com. Accessed November 30, 2013. https://www.withoutabox .com/03film/03t_fin/03t_fin_fest_01over.php?festival_id=3759/.

World Outside My Shoes. Accessed February 23, 2015, www.worldoutsidemyshoes .org/.

Wolfenstein, Martha. 1953. “Movie Analyses in the Study of Culture.” In The Study of Culture at a Distance, edited by Margaret Mead and Rhoda Metraux, 267-280. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Yúdice, George. 1991. “Testimonio and Postmodernism.” Voices of the Voiceless in Testimonial Literature, Part 1. Latin American Perspectives, 18:3 (Summer 1991), 15-31.

Zimmerman, Patricia R. 2000. States of Emergency: Documentaries, Wars, Democracies. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Žižek Slavoj. 2009. First as Tragedy, Then as Farce. London: Verso.

276