Conceptualising Children’s Film: Programming and Circulation of Children’s Film at Berlinale Generation Kplus and Other International Children’s Film Festivals.
Laura de Lange
University of Amsterdam Graduate School of Humanities MA (Heritage Studies): Preservation and Presentation of the Moving Image
Supervisor: Dr. F. J. J. W. (Floris) Paalman Second Reader: Dr. E. L. (Eef) Masson
Master Thesis submitted by Laura de Lange (11311525)
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my supervisor Floris Paalman and Eef Masson, coordinator of the P&P course, for their advice and assistance throughout this course and especially during the time spent working on this master thesis.
Laura de Lange Amsterdam, June 28, 2018.
Conceptualising Children’s Film: Programming and Circulation of Children’s Film at Berlinale Generation Kplus and Other International Children’s Film Festivals.
Introduction: Is the Festival Only for Adults? ...... 3
Chapter 1: Children’s Film at Festivals: Historical Perspective ...... 7 1.1 Film Festival Programming in Historical Perspective ...... 7 1.2 Children’s Film Festival Programming in Historical Perspective ...... 10
Chapter 2: Establishing Children’s Film: Film Analyses ...... 16 2.1 Min Lilla Syster (Dir. Sanne Lenken. Sweden/Germany 2015) ...... 17 2.2 Dhanak (Rainbow) (Dir. Nagesh Kukunoor. India 2015) ...... 19 2.3 Ottaal (The Trap) (Dir. Jayarai Rajastekharan. India 2015) ...... 22 2.4 Rara (Dir. Pepa San Martin. Chile/Argentina 2016) ...... 24
Chapter 3: Conceptualising Children’s Film: Berlinale Generation Kplus ...... 27 3.1 Textual Conception ...... 28 3.2 Contextual Conception ...... 32
Chapter 4: After Berlin: Conceptualising Children’s Film on the International Film Festival Circuit ..... 38 4.1 The International Film Festival Circuit ...... 38 4.2 The Films in the Children’s Film Festival Circuit ...... 39 4.2.1 Min Lilla Syster and Dhanak at Tiff Kids ...... 40 4.2.2 Min Lilla Syster and Dhanak at Cinekid ...... 42 4.2.3 Ottaal and Rara at Lucas International Film Festival for Young Film Lovers ...... 44
Conclusion ...... 48
Appendix: Festival Participation...... 52 Min Lilla Syster ...... 52 Dhanak (Rainbow) ...... 53 Ottaal (The Trap) ...... 54 Rara ...... 55
Bibliography ...... 58
Introduction: Is the Festival Only for Adults?
‘Is the festival only for adults?’1 is a question posed by a group of children in an interview with the festival director of the Berlin International Film Festival (Berlinale): this question constitutes the founding myth for the Berlinale’s children’s film section in 1978. It was justified as children had thus far been marginalised or even ignored as festival audiences and children’s film was not on the programmers’ agendas. This has changed since the late 1970s, and today there are a number of festivals with children’s film programming. But, although many children’s film festivals and sections have been around for decades, they are scarcely represented in academic as well as industry discourses as the director of the New York International Children’s Film Festival points out: ‘Sometimes I wish we didn’t have the word children in our name […]. A lot of times, people turn their noses up at the notion of movies for children – all the way from projectionists to film writers to even people who make films.’ 2 This viewpoint is doubtlessly influenced by the constant output of commercial children’s film favouring the harmless, forgoing narrative substance. The underrepresentation can also be attributed to the difficulty to pin down any definition for children’s film as a genre. There are various aspects that have to be taken into consideration when it comes to film for children: educational, psychological, personal, institutional, and cultural aspects play key roles in defining, selecting, and assessing children’s film. Festivals with a focus or sidebar on children’s film explicitly face these difficulties and take children into account as a serious audience which is entitled to quality film.3 Marianne Redpath, director of the Berlinale’s children’s film section Generation, states that ‘we are not trying to be educative or build the audience of tomorrow. Instead we take the approach that we are programming for our audience of today and that, if young people see certain types of films, that will create demand for varied programming in the future’4. But, doesn’t the process of curating, selecting, programming, and presenting specific films for young audiences inevitably influence and shape them and their viewing habit? And how does this concern particularly apply to children’s film?
1 Felsmann, Barbara. Blicke, Begegnungen, Berührungen. 25 Jahre Kinderfilmfest. Ed. Internationale Filmfestspiele Berlin. Berlin: Jovis Verlag GmbH, 2002. 11. 2 Ebiri, Bilge: “Ebiri: Why is One of New York’s Best Film Festivals Mostly Unknown?” Vulture.com. March 21, 2014. New York Magazine.
3 These questions are the outset and underlying threats for this thesis. They may be equally valid for film festival programming in general, but especially for programming for young audiences who are only beginning the process of learning about and understanding film. Generation’s mission statement furthermore says that it aims at integrating young audiences into the ‘festival’s film-aesthetic discourse’ 5 and declares: Generation speaks to well-defined audiences, but there are no conventional limits when it comes to the selection and programming of films. The section is home to cinematic works that are thematically and aesthetically linked to the experiences of children and young people. The programme encloses outstanding children’s and youth films as well as films for all target audiences that are also suitable for young people.6
This vaguely formulated statement triggers plenty of questions on the target audience, the programming practice, and the films themselves, which can be condensed into the main research questions of this thesis: how do Berlinale Generation Kplus and other international children’s film festivals conceptualise children’s film? To approach this question, I examine two main aspects of conceptualising children’s films in the festival context: programming and circulation of children’s film on the international film festival circuit. The main case study of this thesis is the Berlinale’s children’s film section Generation Kplus. As part of one of the ‘A’-list festivals and a competitive section in its own right, Generation has a strict premiere policy. Every film screened at the section has to have its international premiere (outside the country of origin) in Berlin to be eligible. This makes Generation the starting point for many films on their trajectory through the international film festival network. Therefore, the section can be regarded as a trend-setter in festivals’ conceptions of children’s film. Generation is divided into two subsections: Generation Kplus shows films for young children from the age of four, with most live-action feature films recommended for children from the age of nine. Generation 14plus targets audiences from the age of 14. In this thesis, I will focus solely on Generation Kplus as my objective is to study conceptions of children’s film, while ‘films intended for adolescents are a greyer area. Some ‘youth’ films, […], are closer in style and representation to ‘adult drama’ than to children’s film’7. This study is built in four layers: in a first step, the historical development of film festival programming will be traced, in order to pinpoint the emergence and advancement of children’s film programming at festivals. In this chapter, I will trace the three developmental phases in film festival
5 “Generation.” Berlinale. Kulturveranstaltungen des Bundes in Berlin (KBB) GmbH.
4 programming described by Marijke de Valck, leading scholar in film festival studies. Whereas de Valck focusses on festival programming, Cindy H. Wong studies both global and local aspects of film festivals as well as their audiences.8 These aspects need to be taken into account in studying children’s film festivals in particular as they have to speak to both the global film industry and young local audiences. The first chapter furthermore studies the emergence of children’s film programming at festivals in historical perspective, noting the different factors that informed the inception of children’s film programming at festivals. In a second step, I will analyse four films that held their international premiere at Berlinale Generation Kplus in 2015 and 2016, which all have been awarded with the two major prizes in this section: The Crystal Bear given out by the children’s jury and the Grand Prix of the international (professional) jury. These two juries can be considered as the voices of the two different main target audiences for the section: children and industry professionals. This selection of analysed films therefore allows to examine two different points of view on what makes an award-winning children’s film. The four films – which originate from India, Sweden, and Chile – stand pars pro toto for the international children’s film production outside the realm of commercial cinema. In a third step, the four films will be put in relation to each other to uncover recurring patterns in narrative and film aesthetics and connect these to patterns within children’s film, as studied by Noel Brown in his book The Children’s Film. Genre, Nation, and Narrative and motifs of festival films as analysed by Cindy H. Wong. This analytical perspective is complemented by an account of the institutional framework of the section. Mainly relying on interviews with section director Marianne Redpath, the mission statement, and a book written by journalist Barbara Felsmann and published by the Berlinale in honour of the 25th anniversary of the section in 2002 – the question on how Generation Kplus conceptualises children’s film will be answered. Finally, in step four, I will follow the four films’ respective trajectory on the film festival circuit in order to examine if other festivals follow the Berlinale’s lead in conceptualising children’s film. Thereby I will take a close look at the festivals and contexts in which these films have further been programmed. In order to cover the films’ course on the film festival circuit as completely as possible to be able to point to their afterlife, I chose films from the years 2015 and 2016 – as films that have entered the festival network at a later stage are still travelling from festival to festival. In the introduction to his book Noel Brown argues that ‘children’s films are objects of pleasure, fascination and nostalgia for audiences of all ages, and their appeal cuts across boundaries of class, race, sex, language, culture and nation. […] Few forms of cinema polarise opinion in quite the
8 Wong, Cindy H. Film Festivals: Culture, People, and Power on the Global Screen. Piscataway: Rutgers University Press, 2011.
5 same way or mean so many different things to different people at different stages in life.’ 9 This quote captures my motivation to write this thesis. Children’s film festivals and sections are crucial for the dissemination of children’s film with this power to attract attention, to polarise, to be debatable, and leave a lasting impression. Moreover, by inviting children to the cinema, taking them serious as an audience, and presenting challenging films, film festivals are important platforms for introducing children to film culture outside the realm of mainstream media. Brown furthermore pinpoints the issue that ‘relatively few critics have addressed children’s films as serious texts. Even fewer have attempted to define what they are, and what they are not’10. While this thesis tangentially relates to the discussion of children’s film as a genre, the main objective is to understand how festivals perceive and promote films for children through their programming practices and the circulation of the films on the circuit in order to show the challenges faced by programmers and the strategies they employ in curating programmes for very specific and at the same time heterogeneous audiences. Throughout this thesis, the term children’s film is used in different contexts, definitions, and historical meanings. Unless explicitly attributed to another author, my use of the term dissociates itself from any notion of paternalism.
9 Brown, The Children’s Film 11. 10 Brown, The Children’s Film 11.
6
Chapter 1: Children’s Film at Festivals: Historical Perspective
This first chapter aims to outline when and why children’s film programmes were introduced at festivals. Firstly, I will take a look at the historical development of film festivals with its major trends and debates, especially concerning programming practices. Secondly, the influences that lead to the emergence of children’s programming in particular will be discussed and put into the context of the Berlinale’s children’s film section Generation.
1.1 Film Festival Programming in Historical Perspective
Film festivals as modes of exhibiting film only came into existence 40 years after the emergence of the medium. The first film festival was held as part of the Venice Biennale in 1932 and subsequently the major European festivals in Cannes (1946), Karlovy Vary (1946), Edinburgh (1947), and Berlin (1951) were established. Over the years, the festival network has grown, and today there are over 6.000 film festivals on the circuit worldwide.11 Media scholar Marijke de Valck argues that, in order to understand the continuing success of film festivals, it is important to understand their history. She maps out three major developmental phases in film festival history that will serve this chapter as the framework to discuss the main trends in film festival programming in historical perspective. Although specialised film festivals and programming within larger festivals did not emerge from the outset of film festival history, it is crucial to look at the development of early film festivals to understand how more varied, specialised programming in festivals came about. The first developmental phase in film festival history described by de Valck began with the creation of the first recurrent film festival in Venice in 1932. Film festival programming at the early festivals was, according to de Valck, mainly influenced by geopolitical factors. Festivals were platforms for showcasing national cinemas in the tradition of world exhibitions and fairs. Countries were asked to submit films according to their position within the film industry, their size, and their relations with the festival’s homeland. Therefore, she argues, film festival programming mainly entailed compiling films that had been pre-selected by government bodies into coherent programmes.12 But early film festival programming was not only influenced by national governments, as Cindy H. Wong points out. While being entangled in geopolitical power struggles, festivals also had to develop their own aesthetic
11 Loist, Skadi: “Crossover Dreams: Global Circulation of Queer Film on the Film Festival Circuits.” Diogenes 62.1 (2015): 1-16 [57-72]. 5. 12 Valck, Marijke de. “Finding Audiences for Films: Festival Programming in Historical Perspective.” Coming Soon to a Festival Near You: Programming Film Festivals. Ed. Jeffrey Ruoff. St. Andrews: St. Andrews Film Studies 2012. 25-40. 27.
7 viewpoint and agenda. Both European avant-garde cinema and Hollywood were major influences. The notion of film as art, as propagated by European avant-garde film culture, was used to advocate for the creation of film festivals in the first place. In order to gain support, it was crucial to retain a relationship with the world’s most powerful film industry: Hollywood.13 Keeping close ties with the American film industry also guaranteed stars and glamour at their event, which festivals needed for public and media attention. The first European film festivals’ strong focus on national cinema as well as their reliance on the Hollywood model of stars and glamour were increasingly criticised over the years and led to two parallel developments from the late 1960s up until the early 1980s. For one, more and more new festivals emerged ‘in reaction to social needs as well as to insufficiencies of established festivals and their traditional formats’14. These new festivals contested the hegemony of the major European festivals in different ways: by presenting films from marginalised or completely ignored cinema cultures to protest political influences, by showcasing the best films already screened at other festivals in order to oppose the hierarchical order dictated by the premiere status of the ‘A’-list festivals, or by building platforms for young, independent filmmakers to advocate for avant-garde cinema.15 For another, in light of the protest culture of 1968, the Cannes film festival was disrupted by protest, consequently leading into upheavals at the other two major festivals Venice and Berlin within the next few years with calls for reformation of these ‘A’-list festivals: instead of them being used as geopolitical standoff-platforms, film festivals had to serve international film culture.16 Reacting to these calls for reformation, film festivals launched into the second development phase, described by de Valck as ‘the age of the programmers’17. This phase was shaped by approaches to reorganise the major film festivals as independent institutions with programming practices that were based on cinephilia and its recognition of cinema as the artistic expression of an individual artist (auteur). Programming developed into an important cultural practice, with programmers taking centre stage in the festival structure: ‘With the turn to expert selection, festival programming was put in the service not only of the advancement of cinema as art but also of cinema as a political tool’18. The major film festivals followed the recently emerged smaller festivals in becoming more politically sensible and engaged. Marginalised issues, such as gender, race or ethnicity, as well as young, critical voices in filmmaking were included in the programmes in newly created sections. By updating and diversifying
13 Wong 39. 14 Loist, Skadi. “The Film Festival Circuit. Networks, Hierarchies, and Circulation.” Film Festivals: History, Theory, Method, Practice. Eds. Marijke de Valck, Brendan Kredell and Skadi Loist. New York: Routledge, 2016. 49-64.56. 15 Idem 56. 16 Valck, de “Finding Audiences for Films” 28. 17 Idem 29. 18 Idem 31.
8 their programming practices, the major festivals not only reacted to the critique directed towards them but also secured their hegemony in the ever-growing festival circuit.19 The paradigm shift from the first to the second phase in film festival history ultimately paved the way for the third stage which, according to de Valck, began in the 1980s and lasts up until today. This phase again is characterised by two major developments: Had the festivals emerged in the second stage mainly contested the major festivals’ gaps and shortcomings in their programming practices, many of the festivals created from the 1980s specialised in genres or audiences marginalised or ignored by festivals, for example children’s film.20 With the addition of these new festivals, the international film festival network grew and diversified. In turn, festivals had to both compete for attention as well as work together in an increasingly competitive and globalised market. With the efforts to establish the major festivals as independent institutions, initiated in the second developmental phase, film festivals became increasingly professionalised and gained authority. As important cultural institutions, they attracted larger audiences and the public attending the festivals became more diverse, which in turn meant that their programming had to become more varied in order to cater to all members of the audience: Cinephiles, industry professionals as well as the general public. Especially gaining the attention of the general public and building a loyal local audience became an important point on festivals’ agendas, as they were and still are ‘very important in the success of film festivals, not only financially but also in their role in creating and atmosphere to ensure the success of the festivals’21. Festivals formed teams of programmers for a more varied input in the selection and programming process. They also started to closely work together with local institutions and city governments: ‘By the late 1990s, new film festivals became closely aligned with their host cities and communities, with film festivals serving as another venue to add to wider global culture offerings.’22 Wong points out that all film festivals are ‘sustained by a universalist discourse of art and aesthetics that transcend the festival or the nation. There is no film festival that does not see itself as devoting its energy and effort to the preservation and development of the art of cinema’ 23. Film festivals thus share a common goal that is informed by the notion of cinephilia which de Valck pinpoints as the driving force behind programming practices in the second phase of film festival history. As cultural institutions, film festivals are agents in film industries as well as in cultural and political spheres. They both operate on a global and a local scale. They are embedded in discourses on
19 Wong 51. 20 Idem 53. 21 Idem 54. 22 Idem 60. 23 Idem 63.
9 globalisation as ‘the majority of film festivals today have global palettes and global ambitions’24 and as they have to assert themselves in an ever-growing competitive global film festival circuit. Despite the shared aim, festivals thus have to find ways to distinguish themselves to stay relevant in the global picture. At the same time, film festivals function on a local level as they ‘do not just showcase cinema, they actively build audiences and communities’25, by either showing a diverse programme that appeals to varied audiences or by strict specialisation to speak to specific communities. While the ‘A’-list festivals still hold the dominant position in the festival network, smaller specialised festivals have found the niches within the larger system and have built their own well- sustained networks and communities. One of these specialised festival networks and its development will be the topic of the next chapter, in which I will take a look at the emergence of children’s film programming at festivals.
1.2 Children’s Film Festival Programming in Historical Perspective
Although Marijke de Valck pinpoints the emergence of festivals with children’s programming to the third development phase in film festival history which began around 198026, the first children’s film festivals and children’s film sections within larger festivals already emerged in the 1970s, in the second development phase de Valck maps out, as for example the Giffoni Film Festival in Giffoni Valle Piana in Italy in 1971, the Lucas International Film Festival for Young Film Lovers in Frankfurt am Main in 1974, as well as children’s film sidebars within larger festivals, for example at the International Film Festival Berlin in 1978. Studying the emergence of these early children’s film programmes from the perspective of film festival history, it can be argued that the programme diversification strategies employed by film festivals in the wake of the protests of the late 1960s and early 1970s not only uttered themselves in cinephile programming, but furthermore in targeting underrepresented audiences such as children as part of more politically engaged programming and a tendency to democratise festivals. Although there were efforts to include children’s film at film festivals, children were not recognised as serious audiences. Even though Berlinale head Wolf Donner, for example, promised to include a children’s film programme which was named Cinema for People Aged Six and Up in 1978, this decision was accompanied by concerns by the festival itself and the media that a programme
24 Wong 60. 25 Rastegar, Roya. “Difference, Aesthetics and the Curatorial Crisis of Film Festivals.” Screen 53.3 (Autumn 2012): 310-317. 311. 26 Valck, Marijke de. Film Festivals. From Geopolitics to Global Cinephilia. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2007. 179.
10 highlighting children’s film would not appeal to a large audience.27 Contrary to these concerns, the programme was a major success28, proving that there were receptive audiences for children’s film. This had already been realised by commercial media culture which had developed a ‘broader and progressive cultural receptiveness to “juvenile” entertainment’29, as Noel Brown points out. With the emergence of multiplex cinemas that targeted young audiences in particular as well as the debut of the first cable television channel exclusively showing children’s programming Nickelodeon in 1977, children and young people were appreciated as profitable audiences. That young audiences were a valuable market was soon realised by the commercial film industry, which from the 1980s built specialised production units which were focused on a heavy output of so-called family films and family- orientated multimedia franchises. This development, as Brown argues, was of great importance for the global dominance of commercial family cinema from Hollywood today.30 This hegemony is not only imbued to theatrical releases but also the growing market for home viewing with VHS and later DVDs exclusively targeting children and families. Furthermore, children’s television developed beyond the one children’s channel Nickelodeon with more and more specialised television channels appearing on the map, such as Disney Channel. These developments concurred with the bulk of children’s film festivals emerging in the 1980s and 1990s, as, amongst others, the Chicago International Children’s Film Festival (1983), Tiff Kids, the children’s film sidebar as well as a standalone children’s film festival helmed by the Toronto International Film Festival, the New York International Children’s Film Festival and the Golden Elephant International Children’s Film Festival in different cities in India, which all held their first editions in 1997. Likewise, the Berlinale began to institutionalise its children’s film section in the 1980s. First of all, the heavy-handed name Cinema for People Aged Six and Up was changed to Kinderfilmfest in 1980. Including the word children into the name, the section explicitly acknowledged its target audience. The name-change, furthermore, set up the professionalisation and institutionalisation of the section, in order for it to become a central competitive section within rather than just an addendum to the Berlinale. This implied adjusting its organisation according to festival standards. In a first step, the selection regulations were updated matching those of the Berlinale’s other sections.31 These regulations, up until today, include that films are only eligible for participation if they have not been
27 Felsmann 13. 28 Idem 13. 29 Brown, Noel. “Family Entertainment and Contemporary Hollywood Cinema.” Scope: An Online Journal of Film and Television Studies. 25 (February 2013): 1-22. 6.
11 screened outside their country of origin and consequently not been screened in any other European film festival. These statutes were installed to ensure the Berlinale’s hegemonic position as an ‘A’-list festival with premiere status. Furthermore, from 1981 the section was helmed by its own director. New section head Gabi Sikorski formulated her aims for the Kinderfilmfest as follows: Just like adults, children should receive the full cinematic experience – with the same expenditure and sense of celebration. High quality films and top technical facilities are important as well as the usual trimmings – from comfortable seats and the curtain to the opening gong. The Kinderfilmfest should also become more glamorous and dignified. With special festival guests, the press, photographers, interviews with children, all that sort of thing.32
Sikorski implied a strong turn towards the entertainment factor of the programme, falling in line with the event-character inherent to the major film festival modelled on Hollywood’s allure. By staging, for example, elaborate premieres and press conferences, the festival aimed for prestige in the public’s and the media’s eyes. From this point onwards, the Kinderfilmfest opened with a lavish opening- celebration. Press conferences and screenings were held and a children’s meeting point installed in the section’s screening venue, where children could meet the filmmakers. Moreover, a professional jury was installed which would award the best films with the Grand Prix of the international jury. In the statement Sikorski furthermore announced that children would be granted the same festival-going experience the usual festival audiences, cinephiles and industry professionals, were used to. Thereby she signalled that children were to be taken seriously as an audience at the festival. Sending out this signal was crucial after having been critiqued for not paying enough attention to their audience’s wishes and opinions before. 33 This push towards audience inclusion can be seen in line with film festivals’ attempts to democratise their programming. Rather than following ‘the (often idiosyncratic) taste of one man (and programmers then were mostly men)’34, festivals now, in the third development phase described by de Valck, expanded their horizons by taking input from teams of programmers into account as well as giving the audience platforms to voice their opinions. The Kinderfilmfest asked the audience to fill out questionnaires after every screening and give their opinions, a practice that is still in place. Today, the surveys also function as method of selection for the children’s and youth juries. The questionnaires are evaluated and children and young people who, according to the section’s website, ‘write openly, honestly and vividly about their film experience’35 stand a chance to be invited to join the next edition’s jury. The children’s jury was first introduced at the Kinderfilmfest in 1986 and has since then given out awards, the Crystal Bear for the best film and the best short film as well as special mentions to other films that left an impression.
32 Felsmann 35. 33 In: Felsmann 75. 34 Valck, de “Finding Audiences for Films” 34. 35 “Generation.”, Berlinale.
12 This paradigm shift to recognise children as serious and lucrative audiences – which partly evolved from Hollywood’s and television’s targeting of young and family audiences – contributed to the creation of these specialised children’s film festivals in the 1980s and 1990s. On the one hand, they could point to the success of the Hollywood family film, which implied that young audiences were marketable, in order to justify their existence. On the other hand, these festivals positioned themselves against Hollywood’s family film: Whereas the family film stood for traditional cinematic values such as ‘narrative transparency, spectacle, emotive qualities, an optimistic message (culminating in a “happy ending”) and broad audience suitability’36, factors which enforced the film’s marketability, the emerging children’s film festivals underlined their shared aim to act as presenters and distributors of progressive independent cinema for children, which they labelled quality children’s film. Pointing to the lack of quality film for young audiences, the children’s film festivals since then function as an alternative distribution platform beyond the realm of commercial cinema distribution. Today, in an international network of over 6.000 film festivals in total, the children’s film festivals only make up a small group: According to the European Children’s Film Association, a database service for European high-quality film for children, there are 149 film festivals with children’s film programming worldwide. 88 of these festivals are specialised children’s film festivals and 61 children’s film strands within larger festivals, both with general and specialised (e.g. documentary) programming.37 This seems to suggest that there are enduring prejudices against children’s film that have to do with the general connotation of this label with the Hollywood family film, its traditional values, and hegemonic position. Most children’s film festivals and programmes are initiated, sustained, and are part of lager institutions: film festivals such as Berlinale Generation and TIFF Kids, and multimedia companies such as the Chicago International Children’s Film Festival which is part of the Chicago based multimedia non-profit ‘Facets’, or media educational institutions; the Lucas film festival in Frankfurt am Main, for example, is organised by the German Film Institute. The affiliation of children’s film festivals and programmes with different institutions speaks for the many different ways to think about children’s film, involving ‘a range of personal, pedagogical, critical, textual, institutional, and cultural/imperial points of view’38. One way film festivals think about children’s film is doubtlessly the educational stance, as all festivals are (although not helmed or coordinated by) associated with local and national educational institutions.
36 Brown, “Family Entertainment” 2. 37 An overview can be found here: “Festivals”. ECFAweb. European Children’s Film Association.
13 The Berlinale’s children’s film section, for example, has been associated with educational institutions from its outset: the first editions were organised in collaboration with the Berlin Institute for Media Education. This partnership was not always fruitful due to the divide of opinions on what to highlight in the programme: the strong artistic stance of the festival or the educational mission of the institute. The section finally decided to foreground its own artistic agenda in the programme, and to implement the educational mission in school screenings. By introducing school screenings, the section could retain the important ties with local schools that provide audiences, as well as include the educational stance without it taking over and over-shading the whole programme. Some of the festivals and sections within larger festivals are of international acclaim, are covered in international industry papers, and reach large audiences, not only (mainly local) children and young people, but also industry professionals, such as Berlinale Generation, the Chicago International Children’s Film Festival, the Giffoni Experience (previously festival), and Cinekid in Amsterdam. These festivals and sections are, similarly to the ‘A’-list festivals in the international network, important global platforms for the distribution of independent children’s film. In their double role as audience festivals as well as industry events, these children’s film festivals have to balance out their two functions: appealing to their local young audiences as well as staying relevant to the international film industry, especially distributors. This area of tension is visible in the Berlinale’s children’s film section, which was in 2007 again renamed and rebranded to Generation. Over the years the section has developed from a small- scale project into a fully institutionalised competitive section with over 65.000 visitors per edition. 39 In order to accommodate and appeal to its growing audience, the section divided its programme into two subsections: one for children from the ages four to fourteen, called Generation Kplus and one for young people from the age of fourteen, named Generation 14plus. This division does not only allow the section to further broaden its reach but also to extend its programme: while the Kinderfilmfest showed around ten feature films and fifteen shorts in total, Generation now programmes around 60 titles, both short and feature length, spread out over the two subsections with fifteen feature length films and two to three short film programmes per subsection. Both subsections have two juries, representing the two main audiences: a children’s / youth jury and a professional international jury. By expanding the programme and maintaining its position as a competitive section within the festival, the section secures its hegemonic position in the competitive (children’s film) festival circuit. Many children’s film festivals exclusively operate on a national or local level. Their focus mainly lies on making independent children’s film accessible to local audiences. On the industry level, they are interesting to national (or local) broadcasting stations as television remains the largest
39 “Generation.”, Berlinale.
14 distributor for independent children’s film beyond the festivals. These smaller festivals often are second or third stations for the films successfully showcased in the other, larger festivals. In sustaining a network for the circulation and presentation of films for children, children’s film festivals and sections work towards a common aim: to build a platform for the production and distribution of quality children’s film as an alternative to Hollywood’s commercial family film.
15
Chapter 2: Establishing Children’s Film: Film Analyses
Noel Brown asserts in his book The Children’s Film. Genre, Nation and Narrative that ‘in order for a film to be established popularly as a children’s film, it must – somehow – be recognisable as such, meeting established expectations regarding what a children’s film is’40. Consequently, he argues, children’s film ‘must possess a set of textual and associative significations that differentiate it from cinema intended primarily for adult audiences’41. This means that there must be certain narrative and/or aesthetic features that recur in films targeted towards young audiences in order for them to be acknowledged as children’s films. Assuming that there are such recurrent patterns, in this chapter, I will analyse four films that held their international premiere at the Berlinale’s children’s film section Generation Kplus. These films have been awarded with the major prizes of the section: The Crystal Bear given out by the section’s children’s jury and the Grand Prix of the international jury. Then, in chapter three, the four films are compared in order to point out recurrent film aesthetic and narrative patterns. As the conception of children’s film is not only tied to the filmic texts but also the institutional framework in which they are presented, the results of the analysis are tied in with the institutional framework of Berlinale Generation Kplus, in order to make conclusions about the section’s conception of children’s film. The analyses of the four films contain – next to detailed synopses – examinations of the themes and issues discussed in the films and the most prominent film aesthetic means to convey these, including cinematography, editing, and sound. I argue that, in order to function as children’s films, the filmic texts have to create common ground between their protagonists and the young audiences, aiming for an ‘imaginative engagement […] normally conflated under the term “identification”’42. Murray Smith proposes, instead of using the general term identification, three levels of emotional engagement of audiences: recognition, alignment, and allegiance which form the structure of sympathy.43 In the analyses of the films, I follow Smith’s proposal. Complementing the narrative, I thereby focus on the film aesthetic techniques, cinematography, editing, and sound. The aim is to point to the ways in which these films create recognition, alignment, and allegiance between their protagonists and the (young) audience by means of storytelling and aesthetic devices.
40 Brown, The Children’s Film 26. 41 Idem 27. 42 Smith, Murray. “Altered States: Character and Emotional Response in the Cinema.” Cinema Journal 33.4 (Summer 1994): 34-56. 35.
16 2.1 Min Lilla Syster (Dir. Sanne Lenken. Sweden/Germany 2015)
Sanne Lenken has taken part in the Berlinale’s campus for up-and-coming filmmakers, Berlinale Talents, and presented her short film Äta Lunch at Berlinale Generation 14plus in 2013. Her first feature-length film Min Lilla Syster was programmed at Berlinale Generation Kplus in 2015. The film examines the ‘volatile intersections between sisterhood, eating disorders and gender driven-body issues’44 from the perspective of twelve-year-old Stella. The sensitive exploration of these complex themes won the film the Crystal Bear given out by the children’s jury which stated that ‘the film’s unique perspective, stunning performances and challenging theme really touched our hearts’45. Stella is a (seemingly) content twelve-year-old. She lives with her busy, often absent but loving parents and older sister Katja in a not further specified Swedish town. The family dynamic is set up within the first few minutes of the film: Katja, a talented figure skater, is clearly front and centre of the parent’s attention and Stella’s role model. Stella imitates her sister, for example in wanting to become a figure skater, although she evidently doesn’t have the talent for it. The sisters generally have a close and loving relationship. At the same time, Katja, being aware of her sister’s admiration, likes to wield her influence over her sister. She frequently bursts into aggressive fits that she lets out on her parents and Stella. The family accepts this behaviour by blaming it on the constant stress Katja is under in advancing her figure skating career and performing well in school. One night, Stella catches her sister in the bathroom throwing up her dinner. Her initial reaction is to tell her parent’s what she witnessed, but Katja blackmails her into keeping the secret: if she tells the parents, Katja will expose the inappropriate poems Stella writes about Katja’s 35-year-old figure skating coach with whom the twelve-year-old is in love. Stella is thus forced to silently watch her sister’s eating disorder spiralling out of control while the parents stay oblivious to the situation. She finally breaks her silence and lets her parents in on her secret. The parents, overwhelmed with the situation, give in to Katja’s wish not to seek professional help and believe her that she can beat the illness by herself. But the situation escalates quickly when the parents force feed Katja who in turn runs away and is found by Stella on the ice skating rink, where she finally collapses. The ending of the film fast forwards to a few weeks after the event, when Stella visits her sister in the hospital for the first time. The sisters have apparently been estranged for a while but reform their bond cautiously with Stella promising to return for a visit the following week.
44 Dalton, Stephen. “’My Skinny Sister’ (‘Min lilla syster’): Gothenburg Review.” The Hollywood Reporter. April 2, 2015: n.pag.
17 Min Lilla Syster literally translates into my little (or small) sister. The English distribution title is My Skinny Sister. The original title implies that the film takes in the older sister’s point of view to look onto Stella. It points to Stella as the focal point of the story but not as the storyteller. The English title suggests the opposite, that the story is told from Stella’s point of view looking onto her older sister and hints at the issue of eating disorder discussed in the film. Both titles and their different implications, however, point to the question whether the audience is meant to identify with the protagonists or the subject of the film. The film makes it clear from the first scene that the story is told from Stella’s perspective as she is the focus of the cinematography from the opening shot. A hand-held camera is used which evokes a sense of reality, contrary to elaborate camera movements (crane shots etc.) that are often used to embellish and heighten the dramaturgy of a film. The hand-held camera is often employed in documentaries and with its inherent instability being hand-held and its ability to stay close to the happenings and the protagonists implies a sense of authenticity. In Min Lilla Syster the use of a hand- held camera not only allows to stay close to and move around with Stella, but also gives the film the air of a documentary and implicitly suggests that a realistic story is being told. To focus on Stella’s perspective, the cinematographer often employs close-ups. The close-up is useful to showcase sentiments without having to rely on spoken explanations. This method again alludes authenticity as the immediate, unfiltered feelings of the protagonist are put on display. In Min Lilla Syster close-ups are used to focus on Stella and display her emotions and immediate reactions to situations in capturing her face. One reaction shot of Stella’s face, for example, shows her contemplatively touching her nose after having been shown a photograph of a female historical figure with a prominent nose, considered ugly by her classmates. Stella, who is prone to compare herself to her older sister, is very insecure about her own appearance, and this shot points to her insecurities. Stella having to deal with the difficult situation of keeping her sister’s secret is also mainly conveyed through close-ups. Besides laying focus on Stella with this camera technique, it is also a means to isolate her from the other characters with her being the only one visible on screen in certain moments. This speaks for the situation she is put in by having to keep her sister’s illness from their parents: being alone, unable to act on and speak about her feelings, fears, and anxieties she faces. This is an effective means to emphasise the pressure Stella feels being blackmailed into keeping a secret from her parents all the while having to silently watch her sister being ill. By staying close to Stella and focusing on her emotions and reactions through close-ups the audience gains access to Stella’s emotions, and is therefore encouraged to align itself with Stella.46
46 ‘Alignment describes the process by which spectators are placed in relation to characters in terms of access to their actions and to what they know and feel.’ In: Smith 41.
18 The sister’s complicated relationship is conveyed by means of juxtapositions. The decision to cast two physically different actresses is the most obvious of the contrasts employed. Katja, being in her late teens and a competitive, semi-professional athlete, is hailed as the star of the family and is, as pointed out by different people in the film, an attractive young woman. Stella, on the other hand, is still more child than teenager both physically and mentally. She strives to look and be like her older sister. Furthermore, the editing functions as means to convey the sisters’ dynamic, between having a close, loving relationship, the older sister wielding power over the younger, and both of them keeping a dangerous secret. This correlation is disclosed by hard cutting scenes of the two sisters having fun with scenes of Katja bursting into her aggressive fits and the sisters fighting. This editing technique furthermore emphasises the unpredictability of Katja’s behaviour towards her family, which only Stella and the audience realise at first is due to her eating disorder. Again, the film’s aim to establish a link between audiences and the protagonist Stella is reinforced here by letting the audience in on the secret. The sound design of the film – corresponding to the cinematography – is kept simple. There is only a minimalistic non-diegetic score which is used to underline contemplative moments rather than to heighten the dramatics of climatic scenes. To heighten the tension of the pivotal scene near the end of the film, diegetic sound is employed: when Stella finds her sister on the ice rink after she has run away, the sound of the skates relentlessly circling on the ice mixed with Stella’s pleads for her sister to stop create a powerful soundscape. By mostly relying on the diegetic sound, the sound design in unison with the cinematography underlines the authentic depiction of the plot. In Min Lilla Syster the film aesthetic devices are employed to create a relatable experience for audiences. By opting for a hand-held camera and depending on diegetic sound, the film suggests that it is depicting reality in exploring themes familiar to audience members: family and sibling dynamics, being a teenager and gender-related body issues. By telling the story from twelve-year-old Stella’s point of view, the film aims for a sense of allegiance between the (young) audience and Stella. Experiencing her sister’s illness and the ramifications for the family from her perspective makes the difficult issues discussed in the film understandable for young audiences.
2.2 Dhanak (Rainbow) (Dir. Nagesh Kukunoor. India 2015)
Dhanak is the first film by Nagesh Kukunoor presented at the Berlinale. The film was programmed at Berlinale Generation Kplus in 2015. Mainly focusing on the relationship between siblings, the film also hints at various socio-political issues. The film won the international jury’s Grand Prix for best film with the following explanation: This dynamically-directed film delivers joy and heartbreak in equal measure – the young brother and sister at its heart and the unbreakable love between them are irresistible. As we journey across the
19 country with these two young people, we become deeply invested in their quirky “against all odds” quest. We were constantly surprised by the twists and turns in their journey, and the unusual eccentric characters that await them at each and every juncture! Filled with colour, magic, music, spontaneity and a plenty of emotion, this film lives up to its name and delivers a celebration of live to savour long after the end credits roll!47
Dhanak tells the story of ten-year-old girl Pari and her eight-year-old brother Chotu who live with their aunt and uncle in a small village in the Northern Indian desert state Rajasthan after their parents have passed away. The siblings are inseparable and ever since Chotu has lost his eyesight at age four Pari takes care of him. Her care goes so far that she willingly fails her grades at school (although she is one of the best pupils) in order to be held back, so she can go to the same class as her brother. Both children are movie-lovers. On their daily walk to school they make up stories with their favourite heroes. Pari favours romantic lead Shah Rukh Khan and Chotu action hero Salman Khan. Pari has promised her brother that he will gain back his eyesight and that she will show him a rainbow by his ninth birthday which is fast approaching. But the family is poor and has no money for an operation. After discovering a poster in the local cinema with her hero Shah Rukh Khan promoting a charity to give visually impaired people their eyesight back, Pari is convinced that he is the only one who can help her brother. She writes and posts letters to Shah Rukh Khan every day until the postman refuses to play along anymore, dismissing her belief that the letters will actually reach the movie star. When word reaches the village that Shah Rukh Khan will shoot his next film in the Rajasthan desert, Pari and her brother embark on a journey to go see the film star on location 300 km away from their home. On their journey, they have several encounters with people willing to help as well as people trying to deceive them. When they finally reach the filming location, the production has already moved on. On a final track through the desert both break down dehydrated. They are taken to the hospital by a rich stranger who also pays for Chotu’s operation. Pari is convinced it was Shah Rukh Khan although it is never disclosed who the stranger is. The film ends with Chotu being able to see again on his ninth birthday. Dhanak is a multi-layered film drawing inspiration from and paying tribute to both the road movie genre and Indian Bollywood cinema. It makes a point about the power of cinema all the while commenting on social issues in contemporary Indian society, amongst others the position of girls, child labour, poverty, and religion. Within this web of multi-layered references the two children Pari and Chotu and their quest through the desert always remain the centrepiece. This is conveyed in the cinematography: wide-angle shots are used to showcase the vastness of the desert the children have to find their way through. At the same time, the children are mostly in the centre of these wide-angle shots, highlighting that they are the focal point of the film as well as showcasing their close relationship
47 “Press Releases 2015.”, Berlinale.
20 as they stand together and move in a close unit through the seemingly endless emptiness. This cinematographic technique helps the audience to recognise the mutual dependency of the siblings. Furthermore, close-ups are used to reinforce the audience’s recognition of the protagonists’ emotions: before his eye-operation, for example, Chotu is shown in close-up. He re-arranges his hair after it has been washed and combed for the operation, showing that he is nervous. Especially in the last scene, when the camera takes Chotu’s point of view to experience with him the first thing he sees after his operation, the recognition sways into allegiance as the audience experiences this emotional moment from Chotu’s perspective. Long sequences of the two kids trekking through the desert are intercut with scenes of the various encounters with strangers along the way: a religious leader with ties to Shah Rukh Khan, a lost American tourist, a nomad woman who saves the children from a child trafficker, a fortune teller, and a strange mute man driving an imaginary bus through the desert who helps the children reach their destination. These encounters with these almost mythological figures gives the story the character of a fairy tale. At the same time, the interactions serve as a commentary on socio-political issues. Staying true to its title, which is the Urdu word for rainbow, it also literally serves as the colour scheme of the film, mainly conveyed in clothing. All characters are dressed in vibrant, colourful garments that set them apart from the monochromatic brown of the desert. The colour-scheme of the film also functions as a nod to the Bollywood musical, renowned for its colourfulness. The citation of Indian cinema is furthermore underlined by the sound design. The film has a cheerful extra-diegetic score, but the spotlight is put on the diegetic sound which also functions as a plot device: whenever the siblings stumble upon strangers on their journey, Chotu breaks into song – reciting traditional Rajasthani songs – attracting the strangers’ attention that leads to interaction. The reference to Bollywood cinema is moreover used to characterise the two children. Pari and Chotu adore Indian cinema and the two most prominent leading actors: Chotu admires the action star Salman Khan for his strength, fearlessness and independence. Despite his impairment, Chotu is also the more bold, boisterous and adventurous of the two siblings. Pari idolises Shah Rukh Khan for being the sensible romantic hero that overcomes every obstacle, including giving her brother back his eyesight. Correspondingly, Pari – as the older sibling and caretaker – is more attentive and cautious than her brother. By immersing themselves into the alternative realities created in their favourite films, the children evade the harsh reality of their own lives. Here, the film can be seen as a reflection upon Smith’s structure of sympathy and the shifting construction of recognition, alignment and allegiance: although Chotu can’t see, he has recognised Salman Khan as a hero, has formed an alignment only through Pari’s live-translation of what is visible on screen, and finally formed an allegiance with the action hero, replicating his character traits and behaviour. The audience, in turn, comes to understand
21 Pari and Chotu through the children’s allegiance with their favourite movie stars. Consequently, the audience is encouraged to form an alignment with the children.48 In Dhanak both the narrative and the film aesthetic devices allude to the idea of ‘magic realism’49: a colourful, fairy tale-like world based on the narratives and aesthetics of Bollywood cinema. On the surface, the film might allude to classical children’s films with its optimism and happy ending, but it goes beyond that with its reflection on the power of cinema. The cinema does not only serve as an influence for the film’s aesthetics, but as a reference point for the audience to understand the protagonists Pari and Chotu. The cinema is the red line that guides through the multi-layered film: First, by Pari and Chotu building a cinematic world for themselves in a real environment ridden with problems (which are only hinted at). Then, by the children going to the cinema and Pari finding the poster with Shah Rukh Khan, the action is put into motion. Finally, by Pari believing it was actually the movie star Shah Rukh Khan who paid for her brother’s operation, cinema is suggested as a helper.
2.3 Ottaal (The Trap) (Dir. Jayarai Rajastekharan. India 2015)
Jayarai Rajastekharan had already been part of the Berlinale in 2011 with his feature Karunam (Pathos) which was presented in the section Forum. In 2016, he was invited to present his film Ottaal at Generation Kplus. Ottaal deals with the complex themes of social injustice, children’s rights, and the issue of child labour in India. These difficult issues did not daunt the young audience. The film was awarded with the Crystal Bear given out by the children’s jury which stated that ‘this exceptional movie touched us all with its irresistible images of nature, laid-back music and amazingly gifted actors. The unique way of filming certain details blew us away. We think it’s important that such a sad and serious topic be tackled in a movie, though the film also managed to capture the humour and joy of life’50. Ottaal is an adaption of Anton Chekhov’s short story Vanka, which is about a young boy writing a letter to his grandfather, pleading to free him from his life in child labour and take him back home. The film similarly opens with a young boy writing a letter to his grandfather, before the film jumps in time to tell the back story. The boy is eight-year-old Kuttappayi who has been orphaned after his parents committed suicide. He now lives with his grandfather in the South Indian backwaters where
48 ‘Recognition and alignment require only that the spectator understand that these traits and mental states make up the character.’ In: Smith 42. 49 Leydon, Joe. “Film Review: Dhanak (Rainbow).” Variety. July 8, 2016: n.pag. Variety Media, LLC.
22 they raise flocks of ducks and lead a harmonious life in the scarcely populated water landscape. Kuttappayi befriends Tintu, the son of a wealthy local hotel owner. Contrary to Kuttappayi, who is smart and eager to learn but too poor to afford going to school, Tintu goes to school every day. The two boys start exchanging their knowledge respectively acquired in school and in nature: Tintu lends Kuttappayi his books and Kuttappayi in turn teaches Tintu about living in nature. Kuttappayi leads a sheltered and happy life until his grandfather falls ill. Realising he can’t take care of his grandson for much longer, the boy’s future suddenly is very uncertain. At first, Tintu’s mother offers to take the boy in and let him work in the hotel, but Tintu’s father refuses. Left with no other choice, the grandfather has to leave his grandsons’ future to his boss, knowing that he will sell the boy into child labour. He tells Kuttappayi that he will be sent to school and that he can come back to visit whenever he wants. In reality, Kuttappayi is sent to work in a firework factory where he has to work hours on end and is heavily abused. The film ends where it started with Kuttappayi writing the letter to his grandfather, describing the horrors he has to live through every day and begging the grandfather to take him home. Ottaal imagines the life of the boy in Chekhov’s short story before he was put in his desolate situation. The opening shot of the film hints at the boy’s fate, by showing Kuttappayi writing his letter in a small room that is overcrowded with young boys lying on the floor sleeping. The opening shot and the title of the film which translates into The Trap suggest an unhappy ending also to audiences who are not familiar with Chekhov’s story. In the opening shot Kuttappayi recites his letter describing his desolate situation in voice-over. The film is segmented into two narrative layers – the past and the present – that are visualised differently. Whereas the film recounts the past according to the slow paced daily life in the scarcely populated, idyllic landscape of the backwaters, in the harsh present of Kuttappayi’s life the film suddenly turns loud and hectic. This juxtaposition is mainly conveyed by the cinematography and the editing: in the past portion of the film the camera lingers in long sequences on the idyllic landscape as well as the boy and his grandfather in their daily routine. There are hardly any visible cuts, creating the illusion of one continuous flow resulting in a calm atmosphere. The present, on the other hand, is represented by a shaky hand-held camera as well as hard cuts between scenes, which allude rush and confusion. The sound furthermore underlines the contrast between the two time-layers. A quiet score alternating with the diegetic sounds of nature – the ducks quacking, the chirping of crickets, etc. – accompanies the past. The diegetic sound attached to the present consists of a cacophony of city and factory sounds, such as cars honking, exploding fireworks, the foreman’s shouting, and children crying. These juxtapositions are means to convey Kuttappayi’s feelings of shock and confusion when he is forcefully taken out of his peaceful and happy environment and, against his will, is forced to work
23 under miserable conditions and subsequently serves to influence the audience’s emotional response. The audience, having gained access to ‘the character’s state of mind, understanding the context of the character’s actions, and having morally evaluated the character on the basis of this knowledge’51 over the course of the film by means of the extended flash-back, at this point has built an allegiance with Kuttappayi who is the innocent victim of his social circumstances.
2.4 Rara (Dir. Pepa San Martin. Chile/Argentina 2016)
Pepa San Martin had been present at the Berlinale before, at Berlinale Shorts with La Ducha in 2011. Rara – based on a true story – is her first feature-length film and was presented at Generation Kplus in 2016. The film fictionalises the experience of a Chilean judge who lost custody of her children due to her sexual orientation.52 The film reflects upon family life from the perspective of the twelve- year-old daughter and thereby themes as identity, tolerance, love, loyalty as well as pain in the family context are discussed. Rara was awarded with the Grand Prix for best film by the international jury with the following statement: From its opening shot we get an accurate and thoroughly enjoyable glimpse into an adolescent’s life as she grapples with the everyday problems of growing up. Each scene in this powerful film is carefully constructed with complete economy of movement and script. The characters and relationships are etched flawlessly depicting a modern reality that both reflects the time we live in as well as makes us question the very concept of a perfect family. The acting, the script and above all the direction keep us totally engrossed in this beautiful tale of loyalty, despair, hope and ultimately love in its many forms.53
After their parents’ divorce, twelve-year-old Sara and her younger sister Cata live with their mother Paula and her girlfriend Lia. They lead a harmonious, sometimes chaotic life. The girls have a loving relationship with both their mother Paula and her girlfriend Lia, who is as much in charge of parental duties as the girls’ mother. Sara and Cata go visit their father Victor and his new wife regularly. The girls are seemingly fine with their family arrangement, but Sara is aware of the prejudices against her mother’s sexual orientation with teachers being irritated by a drawing made by Cata depicting her family with two mothers, and her friends wondering if she will become lesbian herself. Moreover, as she turns thirteen, puberty is advancing and with it conflicting feelings and mood-swings. Sara has to navigate her new feelings towards boys, she experiments with make-up and planning her thirteenth birthday party becomes a matter of highest priority to her and her best friend Pancha. All the while, Sara’s home-life becomes more tumultuous. She is frequently annoyed by her mother, the neediness of her younger sister, the chores she has to do at home, and her family life in general.
51 Smith 41. 52 Holland, Jonathan. “’Rara’: Berlin Review.” The Hollywood Reporter. February 15, 2016: n.pag.
24 Moreover, Sara is more alert of people’s prejudices and misconceptions about her family’s situation and the outright homophobia Paula and Lia are confronted with, which makes her feel even more uncomfortable about her family life. Sara complains to her father and after a fight she has with her mother is at his doorstep. Also, she decides to give her birthday party at his house. These developments prompt Victor to think that his daughters live in an unhealthy environment. Although Sara and Cata insist that they are happy at home, Victor attempts to gain custody so his daughters can move in with him and his wife. The ensuing custody-battle between the girls’ parents is only hinted at. Paula is tense and gets angry quickly while Lia tries to keep everything at bay and Sara and Cata have to come to terms with the situation as it is decided that they have to move into their father’s house. The film ends with Paula, Lia, Sara, and Cata in the car on their way to the father’s house. The film cuts to black before they get out of the car and Paula saying: ‘Okay, let’s go.’ The film’s title Rara translates into ‘strange’, which can be interpreted as a reference to Sara’s strange and conflicting feelings upon hitting puberty, as the twelve-year-old is the focal point of the film. This is established in the opening sequence in which the camera follows Sara through the school building for several minutes. Close-ups are used to convey Sara’s inner life as they mostly show her looking into a mirror studying her own face, which points to her undergoing change, having difficulties to recognise herself and feeling strange. In wide-angle, static camera shots the family dynamics in both Paula’s and Victor’s households are studied. The two families are often shown sitting at the table and the camera captures everyone’s expressions and reactions to the conversations held. By not moving in on the characters but staying at a distance in these family-situations, the camera is clearly positioned as an observer. This contributes to the naturalistic effect the film aims at as the camera stays still and the protagonists move around it, in and out of the shot, closer by or more far away without the camera interfering. The wide-angle, static camera shot is also employed in situations in which Paula and Lia have to deal with people’s intolerance and Sara noticing: one scene, for example, shows the family in a restaurant. Sara is positioned in the foreground sitting at the table, her mother in the background talking to an acquaintance who suddenly becomes dismissive when Paula introduces Lia. The audience’s attention is directly drawn to Sara, who is visibly uncomfortable and embarrassed with the situation. This scene is also an example for the insinuations the film works with, especially in conveying the parents’ custody battle. Instead of explaining to Sara and Cata and thus also to the audience what is happening, they have to read the signs: Paula being distraught, the children being interviewed by a psychologist, the parents in heated discussions whenever they meet. This approach is effective to communicate to audiences how the children are left in the dark and the parents’ failure to recognise how the unclear situation confuses the children. This is reinforced with Cata recurrently asking Sara what is going on
25 and Sara, who tries to make sense of the hints, having to navigate what and what not to tell her little sister. In terms of editing, juxtapositions of scenes are employed. A scene in the mother’s household is followed by one in the father’s house. Thereby, the different life styles and consequently their different views on the situation are conveyed: whereas Paula’s and Lia’s household is more chaotic, emotionally charged with a lot of fighting but at the same time close and loving, Victor and his wife lead a quiet life in which emotional outbursts are seldom and in which everything seems to go according to plan and order. By juxtaposing these scenes, it also becomes clear that either parent tries to influence their daughters in their favour and pit them against the other parent. This dynamic is furthermore underlined in a subplot in which Cata finds an abandoned kitten on the street. At first, Paula refuses to take the cat in. But when Victor also declines to take the cat into his house, Paula instantly changes her mind. Regarding the sound design, there are only two scenes in which music plays a key role. In both those scenes, diegetic sound is used: the first one shows Sara and Cata dancing with their mothers in their living room. Mirroring this scene, the second scene at Sara’s birthday party shows all her friends dancing to the music and enjoying themselves, but Sara seems to be absent minded. She notices her little sister sitting alone in the garden and goes to join her rather than stay inside and dance with her friends. These scenes again point to Sara’s conflicting feelings: she should enjoy her party but doesn’t, but being with her mother, Lia and Cata – although she is often irritated by them – makes her happy. Apart from the incorporation of diegetic sound in these scenes, the film, except for a few moments, refrains from the use of an extra-diegetic soundtrack. Rara chooses to address its themes from Sara’s perspective, thereby focusing not only on the effects of the parents’ custody battle on the twelve-year-old but also her struggle to find her own identity. This approach triggers the audience’s alignment with Sara as they come to understand how she feels and acts. Thereby the film refrains from film aesthetic devices that heighten dramaturgy, such as elaborate camera angles or a noticeable soundtrack, aiming at a naturalistic, documentary-like effect to tell a true-to-life story.
26
Chapter 3: Conceptualising Children’s Film: Berlinale Generation Kplus Marianne Redpath, current head of Berlinale Generation, contests that ‘the benefit of seeing the Generation program for young people is that they are seeing film-festival films’54. Redpath implies that the films screened at the Berlinale Generation are not just children’s but festival films which naturally include all films screened at festivals. But Cindy H. Wong argues that there is a specific category of festival films which follow ‘a set of features, a family of resemblances that have proven to attract festival programmers at different points in history’55. The films in this category – as they rarely reach mass audiences – are not necessarily bound to commercial conventions in their narrative and aesthetic layout.56 This notion of festival films mirrors Generation’s mission statement in which it says that the section aims at programming films outside of conventional lines.57 In chapter two, I have argued with Noel Brown that children’s film must follow certain narrative and aesthetic patterns in order to be recognised as such. Moreover, Brown observes certain conventions within children’s cinema. Although he recognises that ‘film for children inhabits a multitude of generic styles, and their cultural and ideological meanings are similarly broad-ranging’58, Brown proposes five broad, recurring conventions of children’s films: In short, these are the foregrounding of children or child-like protagonists and their experiences59, the importance of social community (family, friends), the rejection of people disrupting social codes (by being violent, breaking the law etc.), the forgoing of adult themes and issues (sex, violence, drug abuse, etc.), and an optimistic i.e. happy ending.60 I have furthermore argued that children’s film has to create common ground between the protagonists and the young audiences. As shown in chapter two by following Murray Smith’s approach, all four films employ their narrative and film aesthetic devices to create recognition, alignment or allegiance between the audience and the protagonists. Taking all of these approaches into account – Wong’s examination of festival films, Brown’s observation of patterns and conventions within children’s cinema and Murray Smith’s structure of
54 Sawyer 101. 55 Wong 74. 56 Idem 70. 57 “Generation.”, Berlinale. 58 Brown, The Children’s Film 29. 59 ‘Most protagonists of children’s films are actual children or adolescents […]. But the on-screen presence of children is not a pre-requisite for classification as a children’s film. Instead, many productions centre on what might be called ‘symbolic children’. […] In children’s cinema, childhood is not just a biologically-determined development stage; it is a social construct.’ In: Idem 29-30. 60 Idem 29-33.
27 sympathy – leads to the question of how Berlinale Generation Kplus evaluates and possibly combines these categories of festival and children’s film? What, conclusively, is the sections understanding of children’s film? By relating the four films to each other, comparing them in terms of themes and film aesthetic devices as well as the institutional framework of the section, Generation’s conception of children’s film is explored in the following.
3.1 Textual Conception
Wong attests in her study of festival films that ‘one clear hallmark of many festival films is their serious demeanor’61 concerning the themes they discuss. This indication for festival films can be found back in all four films as they all noticeably deal with difficult themes related to contemporary socio-political discourses and concepts: Min Lilla Syster and Rara examine the concept of identity and the society’s impact on shaping one’s own. Ottaal and Dhanak are reflections/comments on the issues of children’s rights, injustice, freedom and status within society. All four films furthermore deal with love, loyalty, and conflict, especially in the family context. The challenge is to convey these complex themes to young audiences, to make them relate to and understand the subject matters in their own terms. In order to do so, all films choose a similar approach: they convey these issues within a child’s horizon of experiences and ‘deal with the interests, fears, misapprehensions and concerns of children in their own terms’62. By positioning Stella, protagonist of Min Lilla Syster, and Sara, main character of Rara, on the cusp of puberty, the difficulties of forming one own identity can be conveyed. Kuttappayi, protagonist of Ottaal, not being able to go to school although it is his greatest wish is the premise to discuss social injustice. And in Dhanak the children immerse themselves in an alternative cinematic universe in order to deal with the harsh reality. In doing so, the films clearly follow the children’s film convention of foregrounding young protagonist’ experiences as formulated by Brown. Balzagette and Staples add that children’s films furthermore tend to ‘foreground the problems of coping with adults, or coping without them’63, which falls in line with the importance of social community pointed out by Brown as another convention of children’s film. This is true for all four films. The problems of dealing with or without adults are mainly discussed in the family unit. In Min Lilla Syster the parents are often absent, Stella and her sister thus have to cope without them. When the parents are finally let in on the secret, they are as helpless as their children. In Rara there
61 Wong 75. 62 Bazalgette, Cary and Terry Staples. “Unshrinking the Kids. Children’s Cinema and the Family Film.” In Front of the Children. Screen Entertainment and Young Audiences. Eds. Cary Balzagette and David Buckingham. London: British Film Institute, 1995. 92-108. 96. 63 Idem 96.
28 are two sets of parents with different ideas about how their children should grow up. Sara and her little sister have to learn how to cope in this field of tension on their own as their parents are consumed by their custody battle. In both Dhanak and Ottaal the children have to rely on surrogate family units as their parents are deceased. Pari and Chotu run away from their aunt and uncle in order to deal with their problem themselves, but quickly realise that they are reliant on help from adults to achieve their aim. Kuttappayi, the protagonist of Ottaal, faces great difficulties when the only trustworthy adult in his life, his grandfather, has to leave him. Similar to breaking down the larger themes to issues children can relate to, in these films families become ‘microcosms of society-at-large’64. Notwithstanding the similarities in themes, the films differ in the extent to which these are dealt with. Brown observes that many children’s films cope with difficult issues ‘either abstractly (e.g. through metonymy, allegory or ellipsis) or via suggestion’65. This pattern is recognisable in Dhanak and in Rara which both work with suggestions: in Dhanak different socio-political issues are hinted at in the children’s encounters with strangers along the way. In Rara the subplot of Cata and her kitten is one of the examples for abstractly dealing with the girls’ own situation being shuffled around between the parents’ households. Moreover, the film does not go into detail on the custody battle but hints at the difficult situation with Sara observing her parents’ behaviour, by the girls being questioned by a psychologist, or the mother giving an interview for a newspaper. Sara and the audience, having formed an alignment with her, interpret these signs and put the pieces together. Min Lilla Syster chooses a similar approach at first by only suggesting that there is something wrong with Katja, before revealing the secret. Then, the film becomes more direct in its depiction of Katja’s illness and the ramifications for the family, for example by showing the parents trying to force feed Katja. This scene conveys the wrenching reality of the illness and the parents’ helplessness. The audience looks onto this scene together with Stella, and by experiencing this violent scene from her perspective forms an allegiance with her. Here, building up to the culmination of the film, the audience’s emotional response is triggered. Ottaal, in the past portion of the film, also only hints at Kuttappayi’s uncertain situation being an orphan and living with his old and ill grandfather, for example in the conversations his grandfather has with other adults, all the while Kuttappayi stays oblivious. Although Brown ascertains that in children’s film ‘violence is usually sanitised’ and ‘more traumatic realities […] are almost always avoided’ 66, the film renounces this convention when Kuttappayi is sold into child labour. It relentlessly depicts his suffering in the fireworks factory. Watching him being abused therefore sets off a strong emotional response. Both Min Lilla Syster and Ottaal deploy psychological and physical violence (in
64 Brown, The Children’s Film 29. 65 Idem 31. 66 Idem 31.
29 small doses) to affect the audience emotionally and to convey the harrowing reality of mental illness in Min Lilla Syster and child labour in Ottaal. These scenes are effective tools in creating allegiance with the protagonists and their experiences, as Smith points out: ‘With allegiance we go beyond understanding by evaluating and responding emotionally to the traits and emotions of the character in the context of the narrative situation.’67
Wong continues in her exploration of festival films that ‘austerity imbues the motion of the film as well. Shots and camera movements, while often carefully executed, are rarely elaborate. […] Handheld roughness may be a mark of immediacy and truth, even if constructed with this meaning in mainstream film as well’68. Wong’s observations regarding cinematography are recognisable in three of the four films: Min Lilla Syster, Ottaal and Rara make use of a hand-held camera to create a realistic effect, thereby implying that they are telling real-life stories. This effect is furthermore underlined in these three films by the reliance on diegetic sound to accentuate important plot points and pivotal scenes, instead of using an extra-diegetic soundtrack for heightened dramaturgy. Dhanak, contrarily, uses both cinematography and sound to create its distinct atmosphere of ‘magic realism’, a cinematic alternative reality the children build around themselves based on their favourite Bollywood films, thereby creating a fairy-tale like world. Wong furthermore remarks that festival films mostly refrain from the use of close-ups in order to forego ‘forced encounters between audience and characters’69. Contrary to Wong’s note, the four films all use close-ups to produce encounters between the audience and the films protagonist. In order to foreground their young protagonist’s experiences, which according to Brown is one of the main conventions of children’s film, all four films choose to tell the stories from the children’s perspective in order for the audience to understand them and their actions to in turn form an alignment with the characters. Additionally, wide-angle shots are employed to depict the family dynamics in the films, as for example in Dhanak to indicate the sibling’s close relationship or in Rara to observe the two different family units and their respective interaction. Both these camera techniques, studying protagonists up close and from a distance, are means for the audience to recognise and understand the films’ characters, their actions, and motivations. The editing reinforces the audience’s understanding of the character’s behaviour. In Min Lilla Syster, juxtapositions of scenes are employed as a tool to convey the sister’s complex relationship which helps the audience to understand Stella’s motivation behind keeping her sister’s illness from her
67 Smith 42. 68 Wong 75. 69 Idem 78.
30 parents for so long. In Ottaal, the juxtaposition of Kuttappayi’s past and present life is an effective tool to make the audience empathise with the protagonist. In Rara, juxtapositions are used to point to the field of tension between the parents, and to clarify the difficulties Sara and Cata face in navigating between their parents without upsetting one of them. Again, Dhanak differs in its approach. Here, the editing is mainly used to drive the narrative by intercutting sequences of the children wandering through the desert with the encounters with strangers which help on the children on their quest.
The narrative structure and film aesthetic devices are, in all four films, crucial means to promote the audiences’ understanding of the protagonists and to trigger a possible emotional involvement with the characters. The narration of the films thereby functions as the ‘ultimate “organizer” […] that generates recognition, alignment, and allegiance’70. All four films chose to break down larger issues into microcosms representing children’s own experiences, following both the conventions of festival films to deal with serious issues as well as of children’s film to tell stories foregrounding children’s experiences in order to create a basic common ground between the protagonists and young audiences. Smith continues that ‘the narration uses the various cinematic techniques in order to produce these subsystems [recognition, alignment, and allegiance], and different techniques become prominent with each of the intermediary structures and different types of film’71. Similarly, the four films employ the film aesthetic devices, especially cinematography, sound, and editing, to build up their structure of sympathy. Generally, the film aesthetic devices in all four films are employed to lay the basis and generate recognition by, for example, establishing the protagonists from the opening shot as all four films do. Then, in order to create a sense of alignment ‘spectators are also provided with visual and aural information more or less congruent with that available to characters’72: the cinematography focuses and follows the protagonist, the editing organises the narrative in such a way that the protagonists’ actions become understandable and the sound underlines specific scenes and aspects of the narrative that are crucial for the stories and/or the protagonists’ evolvement. Additionally, certain techniques such as close-ups are employed in all four films to allow the audience to have ‘what s/he takes to be reliable access to the character’s state of mind, understanding the context of the character’s actions, and having morally evaluated the character on the basis of this knowledge’ 73, resulting in an alignment between the audience and the protagonists.
70 Smith 35. 71 Idem 35. 72 Idem 35. 73 Idem 41.
31 Creating the sense of alignment or allegiance between the audience and the protagonists is, as I have argued, crucial in order for films to function as children’s films. Festival films, which is the category Marianne Redpath uses for the films Generation Kplus screens, ‘appeal to other kind of audiences [as opposed to commercial cinema]: the festival cinephiles, the festival professionals, and the festival critical apparatus’74. But, a children’s film programme at a festival has another predominant audience demographic; The films have to appeal to children who are still in the process of acquiring knowledge and the handling of film. So, whereas festival films ‘demand concerted effort from the audience to actively seek the meaning that texts imply’75 as they speak to the trained eye of cinephiles and industry audiences, children’s festival films have to be more assertive in implying meaning as they have to appeal to children who (often) encounter festival films for the first time in order to constitute a successful film festival experience for the young audience. The importance of creating common ground through alignment or allegiance, is recognisable when taking the jury verdicts into account. Min Lilla Syster and Ottaal, which were both awarded with the children’s jury’s Crystal Bear, address their difficult subject matters head-on through the perspective of their young protagonists. They allow the audience to access their protagonists’ mind- sets, motivations and actions by closely studying their (every) emotional response. Dhanak and Rara, awarded with the Grand Prix of the professional international jury, employ more abstract approaches to deal with difficult subject matters. Although these films also have moments in which the audience is encouraged to ally with the protagonists, they both remain for the most part on the level of alignment making it more difficult for young audiences to identify with the protagonists.
3.2 Contextual Conception
Marianne Redpath uses the term festival films for the works screened at Generation, because ‘our films don’t necessarily qualify as “children’s films”; I don’t even call them “children’s films”’76. Furthermore, Redpath stresses that the films are not meant to be pedagogic or to be means to build ‘the audience of tomorrow’77. These stipulations have two major implications for the section’s conception of the films presented at Generation.
74 Wong 71. 75 Idem 71. 76 Schneider, Ruth. “Not Just for Kids: Berlinale’s Generation Curator.” Exberliner. February 7, 2018: n. pag. Iomauna Media GmbH.
32 For one, by using the term festival films rather than children’s films, she acknowledges Wong’s category of distinct festival films and the notion that ‘festival films often confront classical ideas about narrative, whether in connections, temporality, order of outcome. […] This does not necessarily mean that festival films are not narrative, only that they do not adhere to the straight “classical” mode”’78. The importance of the distinction from commercial cinema and its narratives can be attributed to the notion of cinephilia which drives the programming practices of festivals such as the Berlinale: spotlighting films with a strong artistic stance outside the realm of commercial cinema. This practice also pertains to the children’s films showcased at Generation. Highlighting the artistry of filmmaking has been an important benchmark since the inception of the children’s film section in the late 1970s. Although the section was organised in collaboration with the Berlin Institute for Media Education, aesthetic criteria were more important to the programming practice than the pedagogical value, as Barbara Kraemer, curator of the first edition of the children’s film programme in 1978, points out: ‘We wanted to show the children special films […]. The films had to capture the children’s attention, tell a story which they could relate to and they had to be well crafted. We did not select films with an educational message but with artistic merit’79. When, in the following year, the Institute for Media Education took over and created a programme with a throughout educational focus, this decision was heavily criticised in the press for neglecting the cinematic vision to such a degree that ‘all the fun has been lost. Cinema here is only seen as an appendage to a huge educational apparatus which has taken such a firm hold on film that everything fantastic and ‘subversive’ that heightens the cinematic experience – has evaporated under the dictates of educational intent’80. This critique first of all reveals the wide range of interpretations of children’s cinema; It mirrors the challenges the section faces in navigating and balancing their programme between the poles of education, film-aesthetics, and entertainment. Even though Redpath argues that the programme is not meant to be educative, the cooperation with educational institutions is crucial for funding and keeping close ties with local schools as they provide audiences. To adhere to the educational mission, school screenings were implemented from the early stages of the section. Spotlighting film as art is important for staying in line with the festival’s general agenda and in turn crucial for attracting professional audiences as well. Finally, accentuating the entertainment factor in the programme is essential to meet audience expectations in order to guarantee the longevity of the section in the first place. Considering the four films analysed in the previous chapter, it is important to note that entertainment does not necessarily equal amusement. In all their variety, these films can be taken as expressions of the section’s concept – dealing with difficult issues whilst sill having playful and enjoyable aspects to them.
78 Wong 79. 79 In: Felsmann 13. 80 In: Idem 21.
33 Naturally, these four films do not follow all the hallmarks for festival films that Wong points out. But still, they distance themselves (in part) from classical i.e. commercial children’s cinema and family film by not following all the conventions of children’s film observed by Brown. In this aspect, the films thus follow the Berlinale’s cinephile agenda. Yet, they all include elements ajar to classical children’s film, as foregrounding young characters and their experiences, and negotiating issues in the family context, in order to be accessible and enjoyable for children. The programming of films that cannot unequivocally be categorised as children’s films and the refusal to pre-label the films shown at Generation as children’s film, for another, ties in with the name change and rebranding of the section in 2007 when the Kinderfilmfest became Berlinale Generation. This rebranding is affiliated with the constant re-evaluation of the conceptual underpinning of any children’s film programme within festivals and elsewhere: how do children themselves benefit from the programme? Children’s film programmers (as festival programmers in general) have to react to paradigm shifts in political and cultural discourses, as shown in chapter one and with these changing paradigms ‘this “category” [of festival films] is constantly evolving due to social and cultural changes’81. By using the more inclusive term generation for the section and broadening the programme with two subsections, the children’s film programme could address several issues: The division into Generation Kplus and Generation 14plus ties into the debate of suitability and appropriateness as Marianne Redpath explains: This was because as programmers we were constantly discovering films that were outside our limit of thirteen years and under. We felt that we wanted to have the opportunity to screen these complex and mature films and so we developed a new stream, which was Generation 14plus. This change to two competitions really allowed us to talk about our audiences again and focus on what we were doing. The programmers of each section are always discussing the placement of films and what is most appropriate.82
The discussion of suitability and appropriateness is intrinsically linked to the curation of children’s film. This is, according to Noel Brown, based on ‘an enduring perception that children (vulnerable, innocent) require protection from early exposure to disturbing content’83 and results in censorship and age- ratings to avoid backlash for publicly showing film considered inappropriate to children. The films screened at Generation are not (yet) age-rated, as they have not been officially released by the time they are presented at the festival. The festival therefore has to define its own system of rating suitability of films for their young audiences. Generation does not impose age-restrictions or give out warnings about difficult content, but works with age recommendations. By dividing the target group
81 Wong 75. 82 Sawyer 97. 83 Brown, The Children’s Film 21.
34 into more narrow age groups, the audience can be better monitored according to age. Also, by giving out age-recommendations rather than laying down age-restrictions and/or warnings, Generation sends out the signal that it neither restricts its audiences nor censors films shown in its programme. Looking at the four films analysed here, the age recommendations are indicated in the programme, but the reasons for them can only be assumed as there is no further information to be found. Min Lilla Syster, probably due to its heavy subject matter and depiction, was recommended from the age of twelve, as was Rara. In the case of Rara the age recommendation is surprising, as the film is very cautious in its treatment of the parent’s custody battle. Possibly, the suggestion for ages twelve and up is due to the mention and hinting at sex. Dhanak which can be considered the most child-friendly film in the classical (i.e. commercial) sense, was recommended from the age of nine as was Ottaal which is remarkable as the film depicts a child suffering in forced labour. Recognising that there are films with heavy subject matters programmed for children at Generation Kplus, Marianne Redpath observes that mainly adults argue that these films are traumatising children, whereas the young audiences are enthusiast about these films.84 Redpath’s observation ties in with the section’s aim to work against the prescribed label of children’s film which is overburdened with prejudices according to Redpath, especially in Germany (but certainly also in other countries) ‘where dubbing and family blockbusters monopolise the youth market’85. Nevertheless, the section acknowledges – although it avoids to pre-label the films as children’s films – that the films programmed at Generation, of which many have not primarily been made for children per se, are made into children’s films by presenting them to young audiences who in turn evaluate them as suitable for them.86 Thereby the section reverses the common process of categorising children’s films which according to Brown is ‘prescribed by what (adult) society believes children ought to see – a determination that is based on social, psychological, ethical and behavioural considerations. Children’s film is an invention of adult society’ 87. Contrary to this notion, Generation stresses the importance of its young audience’s evaluation and verdict, following the key question that is the underlying thread of the section: How do children benefit from the programme? Therefore, audience feedback via questionnaires and the children’s jury play a pivotal role. Contrary to the common assumption that children’s film has to treat its young audience carefully, the films awarded by the children’s jury in 2015 and 2016 Min Lilla Syster and Ottaal deal with their complex and difficult
84 Schneider n.pag. 85 Schneider n.pag. 86 Geissler, Cornelia: “Sich den Träumen stellen. “Generation” bei der Berlinale.” Frankfurter Rundschau. February 11, 2016: n. pag. Frankfurter Rundschau GmbH.
35 subject matters in a direct, non-prettified way, thereby disregarding these common conventions and expectations tied to children’s film. Recognising the children’s jury as a voice for the tastes of Generation’s young audiences, it again becomes clear that children appreciate films that fall into the category of festival films in terms of themes and their film aesthetic conveyance. As a competitive section within an ‘A’-list festival, Generation is a platform for the distribution and circulation of films for children and therefore also has to cater to the expectations and demands of the film industry. In the industry, the label children’s film cannot be omitted as many countries have special funds for the production and distribution of children’s film.88 Moreover, the distribution depends on certain labels in order to target specific audiences and increase the marketability of films. Here, the international professional jury and their verdict come into play. The international jury represents the (children’s film) industry and the festival as a promoter of film culture for young people. Therefore, the international jury prize, contrary to the children’s jury award which does not include prize money, is endowed with 7.500 Euro prize money. It can be argued that both Dhanak and Rara are more in line with the conventions of children’s film in their subdued conveyance of difficult themes through only hinting at the issues at stake in Rara, and the creating of a fairy-tale like world in Dhanak. Especially the latter, with its optimism and happy ending has the traits of a classical children’s film. At the same time, both films stand in the tradition of festival films. Rara with its naturalistic character which is ajar to festival films’ austerity in sight and sound; Dhanak as a reflection on cinema and its impact, thereby following another hallmark of festival films pointed out by Wong: ‘they are aware of intertextualities in form, allusion, and meanings that are heightened in the intense discourse of the festival, where films are often “about” or at least speaking to other films.’ 89 Dhanak speaks, if not to one or two films in particular, to two genres: Bollywood cinema and road movies. In this case, it can be asserted that the interconnection of festival- and children’s film is mastered. In turn, it can be argued that the international jury’s verdict points to what the industry should regard as a quality children’s film. The films programmed at Berlinale Generation Kplus enter the section as festival films. These festival films are selected as they also fit certain conventions of children’s film such as the focus on young protagonists and their experiences in dealing with the issues on hand. They are evaluated as suitable for children by the audience and the juries. In turn, these films are passed on to other festivals with the label of quality or, as Berlinale Generation puts it, outstanding children’s films. As mode of exhibition the cinema is intrinsically linked to film as a medium and an art form. Therefore, by
88 Schneider n.pag. 89 Wong 73.
36 introducing its young audience to films with hallmarks of festival films in the cinema and allowing the young audience to voice their opinion about the programme, Berlinale Generation follows its mission to involve children in the ‘festival’s film-aesthetic discourse’90.
90 “Generation.”, Berlinale.
37
Chapter 4: After Berlin: Conceptualising Children’s Film on the International Film Festival Circuit
4.1 The International Film Festival Circuit
In 1998, around the same time many children’s film festivals emerged, former president of the European Children’s Film Association (ECFA) Domenico Lucchini demanded that ‘we should create a market or at least a network for the distribution and diffusion of the works presented at the various festivals’91. This kind of festival network is described as the film festival circuit, a term that has different implications: On the one hand, the film festival circuit is an all-encompassing idea, covering the entire landscape of a few thousand-odd festivals. On another level, when talking about “the circuit” practitioners and journalists have a selected number of top-tier festivals in mind. To complicate matters further, when speaking about a specific film or project the term circuit becomes relational, referring to the trajectory of a specific product through a global network of festivals.92
Generally, the term film festival circuit relates to the business value of film festivals and is informed by the interests of the respective actor within the film festival network. In this thesis, the term is used to describe the network of film festivals and the films’ trajectory up until its (possible) further distribution on the other channels: cinema, home video, television, or video on demand. The film festival circuit is a compartmentalised and hierarchical network with the ‘A’-list festivals taking the prime position. With their premiere status, they condition time and place of films’ first exposure to the film festival circuit. From their outset on an ‘A’-list festival, which are also called top-tier festivals, films travel to lower-ranked festivals in the circuit and specialised sub-circuits as for example children’s film festivals. Many films that are screened at festival are not picked up for further distribution. For these films, the circuit functions as an alternative distribution system and the only platform for exposure and further dissemination. Most children’s films screened at festivals are similarly reliant on the festival circuit for further distribution, as ‘the chances for (a film) to find its way to young audiences in cinemas or on TV screens have decreased to a remarkable degree’93 due to the ongoing ‘oligopolistic nature of international multimedia distribution’94. In order to build a viable
91 Lucchini, Domenico. “For an Ethical Cinema. The Importance of Children’s Film Festivals in the Present Media Landscape.” ECFA Journal 6 (November 1998). 1-3. 3. 92 Loist, “The Film Festival Circuit” 49. 93 Guenther Kinstler, former organiser of the Frankfurt International Film Festival. In: Brown, The Children’s Film 154. 94 Idem 155.
38 alternative distribution system for children’s film, children’s film festivals and sidebars have to maintain a close-knit network as Lucchini asserted in 1998. Children’s films often not only circulate on the sub-circuit of children’s film festivals but are also showcased at other festivals with different specialisations. This can be attributed to the ‘ideal of distribution [..] to reach the most screens and paying audiences possible’95. Min Lilla Syster and Rara, being the first feature films of the directors, were for example shown at festivals with general programming in new director sections. Rara was furthermore shown at many LGBT and Queer film festivals. All four films were part of festivals focusing on national and regional cinema cultures. That the films were part of a wide array of festivals moreover shows that these films can be conceptualised in different ways. They are not children’s films per se but are understood as such through their exhibition in children’s film festivals and sidebars. The film festival circuit is also viable in terms of programming practices, as festival programmers travel the circuit to scout for films for their own festivals. This practice, next to the open submissions, is “the most important part of program selection, both for the profilebuilding of a festival, but also for the flow of festival films” 96. As the aim of this thesis is to study festivals’ conceptions of children’s film, I trace in the following the four films on their trajectory on the international film festival circuit. I will not go into the business side that is imbued with the circuit in depth, but spotlight the programming of these films: are other festivals’ programming practices informed by the Berlinale’s conception of children’s films? Are there recognisable patterns in the conception of children’s film throughout the film festival circuit?
4.2 The Films in the Children’s Film Festival Circuit
All four films, as many other festival- and children’s films that are produced outside of the commercial realm are reliant on the film festival distribution system in order to find audiences. Therefore, these films travel to many festivals and stay on the circuit for one to two (or even more) years. Following the festival films’ trajectory on the circuit, the four films analysed in this thesis have travelled to festivals with general programming and specialised programming after their premiere at the ‘A’-list festival in Berlin. Having been showcased at the Berlinale’s children’s film section, the four films have been appraised as quality children’s films and in turn been certified for presentations at other children’s film festivals. All four films have screened at many different festivals (see Appendix for all festival screenings) from larger festivals such as Tiff Kids in Toronto or Cinekid in Amsterdam, to smaller
95 Loist, “Crossover Dreams” 7. 96 Idem 6.
39 children’s film festivals such as the Providence Children’s Film Festival, Cinema in Sneakers in Warsaw, and others around the world. In order to make conclusions about conceptions of children’s film on the film festival circuit, I am focusing on the top-tier children’s film festivals as they, similarly to Berlinale Generation, are important hubs for showcasing children’s film and in turn influential in shaping conceptions of children’s films: Tiff Kids, as Berlinale Generation part of one of the major international film festivals; Cinekid in Amsterdam, as a major player on the children’s film festival circuit, which has both an important industrial strand as well as a local and national standing; and the Lucas International Film Festival for Young Film Lovers which is one of the oldest children’s film festivals with a long tradition of children’s film programming.
4.2.1 Min Lilla Syster and Dhanak at Tiff Kids
For Dhanak, Tiff Kids, the standalone children’s film festival affiliated with the Toronto International Film Festival, was the second station on the film festival circuit after its premiere in Berlin. Upon its release in Berlin the film had no distributor97, and was thus reliant on further distribution on the festival circuit. It can be assumed that Dhanak was discovered by Tiff programmers in Berlin and set up for its North American premiere in Toronto. Min Lilla Syster already had a distributor before being screened in Berlin. Distributors aim for a wide exposure of their films on the festival circuit. Therefore, Min Lilla Syster had been presented at several festivals with general and specialised programming (foremost children’s and women’s film festivals), before making its way to the main festival Tiff’s children’s film sidebar in 2015. Elizabeth Muskala, director of Tiff Kids, says that the festival brings back standout films from the main festival ‘because September is a tough time for families to go see films, so this is an opportunity to bring the best of world cinemas to our junior audiences’ 98. Min Lilla Syster was one of these standout films as it was showcased at Tiff Kids in 2016 again. Muskala implies that Tiff Kids takes its main target audience’s availability into account. Contrary to Berlinale Generation, which balances industry and local young audiences at the same time, the children’s film sidebar at Tiff rather speaks to general and industry audiences, whereas Tiff Kids specifically targets local young audiences from the ages three to thirteen. By introducing a specific
97 “Dhanak.” Berlinale. 2015. Kulturveranstaltungen des Bundes in Berlin (KBB) GmbH.
40 children’s film festival that fits the target audiences’ calendar, Tiff Kids shows the importance of the local link for children’s film festivals. The local link of the festival to the city of Toronto is furthermore reinforced by one of its guiding principles according to which the programme should ‘reflect the evolving cultural demographic of the city we live in’ 99. Correspondingly the objective of Tiff Kids is to link local young audiences to ‘the best cinema from around the globe’100, providing ‘access to the world’s cultures’ 101, and promoting ‘multiculturalism, diversity, and understanding through film’102. In order to accomplish this aim, the festival shows a diverse programme with films from many different countries and film cultures, representing the multicultural demographic of the city of Toronto. In 2016, when Min Lilla Syster was part of Tiff Kids, the programme for example included 28 feature films and 111 short films from 35 countries. 103 Both Min Lilla Syster and Dhanak fit into these parameters: Min Lilla Syster as a film that addresses the universal contemporary issue of one’s own body image within a ‘culturally sanctioned femininity’104 in a way, as one film critic points out, that is unfamiliar to North American audiences: ‘no American or Canadian film would approach the seriousness or cruelty with which Lenken addresses her Swedish audience.’105 Dhanak comments on current Indian socio-cultural and political issues and at the same time references and reflects upon Indian film culture by referencing Bollywood cinema aesthetically as well as on a narrative level by having the protagonists immerse themselves in a cinematic alternative reality. Former director of the festival Jane Shoettle furthermore pinpoints as one of the guiding principles of Tiff Kids that ‘every child has the right to see themselves [sic!] represented on screen’106. This right for representation finds its form in foregrounding young protagonists and their experiences in the films programmed. Similarly, Min Lilla Syster and Dhanak tell stories about children from the
99 “20 Years of Tiff Kids.” Tiff. April 7. 2017. Toronto International Film Festival Inc.
41 perspective of children: Min Lilla Syster focuses on Stella and foregrounds her coming to terms with her sister’s illness. Dhanak concentrates on the relationship between siblings Pari and Chotu and their quest to find a way to gain back Chotu’s eyesight. In order for children to feel that they are represented on screen – although the stories might not relate to their own experience directly – the films have to create a structure of sympathy: both films employ the narrative and film aesthetic devices, especially the cinematography, to help young audiences understand the protagonists’ character traits, motivations and actions. In turn, they can morally evaluate the characters and align or ally with the protagonists. Schoettle’s statement about children’s representation on a festival’s screens also plays into the rebranding of the section in 2012. The children’s film festival was initiated in 1997 under the name Sprockets Toronto International Film Festival for Children and Youth with the mission to integrate children into Toronto’s film festival landscape. In order to strengthen its brand as a children’s film festival, the name was changed to Tiff Kids. Whereas the Berlinale’s children’s film section chose the broad term generation for its name to widen its reach and to suggest that the section does not pre- label the films it shows as children’s films, Tiff Kids chose to use its rebranding to reinforce its focus on children’s film for young audiences between the ages three and thirteen. Moreover, Tiff Kids promotes itself as a family festival, which translates into the programming of independent children’s festival films discussing difficult issues next to classical commercial children’s film. Films like Min Lilla Syster and Dhanak that have been declared suitable for children by Berlinale Generation’s audience and juries, are labelled and promoted as children’s films in Toronto and put in a line-up with commercial children’s film productions from Disney and Warner Brothers. By representing the range of the worlds children’s film productions that mirror different understandings of children’s film, Tiff Kids aims to create an overall formative experience for children ‘through the discovery of filmmaking and animation’107 and in turn intends to raise the ‘next generation of cinemagoers’108.
4.2.2 Min Lilla Syster and Dhanak at Cinekid
Min Lilla Syster had been presented at many smaller national children’s film festivals and other festivals, before initiating its run in the new festival season with showcases at top-tier festivals on the children’s film festival circuit in September/October 2015, half a year after its international premiere in Berlin. Within a month it was both presented at the Toronto Film Festival’s children’s film sidebar and as part of the competition at Cinekid in Amsterdam.
107 “Tiff Kids.” Tiff. Toronto International Film Festival Inc.
42 Dhanak, after its presentation at the Tiff Kids, travelled to far less festivals than Min Lilla Syster. It was predominantly shown at Indian film festivals and national or local children’s film festivals. It gained another distinction, being awarded the best children’s feature prize at the Cinema in Sneakers festival in Warsaw. Still without distributor, the film was selected for the Cinekid Screening Club, a digital film library that runs during the festival with a line-up of films curated by Cinekid. It offers ‘TV buyers, sales agents, programmers and distributors the opportunity to screen these productions in private screening booths for programming or acquisition purposes’109. The Screening Club functions as a platform for films without distribution and connects them to a specific industry audience. There are no further specifications on what kind of films the festival selects for this industry specific section. One possible reason for the selection of Dhanak may have been certain traits of a classical children’s film: it is funny, cheerful, and optimistic which might increase its marketability as a children’s film. The Screening Club is part of Cinekid’s industry portion which the festival describes as a meeting place where the ‘very best of the international children’s media industry comes together’110 for conferences, talks, the Screening Club, and a co-production market. The strong industrial stance of the festival goes hand in hand with its overall mission which the festival has updated recently for the upcoming edition and in reaction to the fast-paced media developments. It states that Cinekid aims to ‘promote the quality of visual culture for young children (3-14 years) and to strengthen children’s position in relation to media through active and creative participation by young people’111. As the mission statement implies, Cinekid is not only focused on film but includes television and cross-media productions into their programme all under the banner of high quality productions for children. In order to reach young audiences and have them participate at the festival, Cinekid (similar to Tiff Kids) takes their audience’s availability into account. The festival takes place during the autumn holiday break and can therefore function as a holiday activity for local school children. The festival has its centre in Amsterdam where the bulk of the festival takes place, but also expands the programme to other cities in the Netherlands to include young audiences outside of Amsterdam. Regarding its film programming, the festival states that it selects ‘new, unusual and striking films’112 in line with its objective to present and promote high quality content for children. The festival itself does not further specify its understanding of high quality film. The Dutch newspaper de Volkskrant states that Cinekid traditionally presents social-realistic dramas discussing pressing
109 “Screening Club.” Cinekid. < https://www.cinekid.nl/en/professionals/professionals- programme/screeningclub>. [Last accessed: June 24, 2018]. 110 “Mission and Vision.” Cinekid.
43 contemporary issues with children in their centre as high quality children’s films.113 Min Lilla Syster, presented in the international children’s film competition at the festival, fits this description and was correspondingly awarded a special mention as it was shortlisted for the award in its category. In their statement, the jury reflected on different conceptions of children’s film: ‘Should they be entertaining and comfortingly traditional in their construction, harking back to older values and an older cinematic tradition […]? Or should films for children challenge and educate like the excellent Swedish entrant My Skinny Sister […]?’114In this statement the field of tension between entertainment and education embedded in conceptualising children’s film comes to the fore. The jury at Cinekid ultimately decided upon a film that ‘“ticked every box”, managing to be both widely funny and yet impressively serious’115, pointing to the festival’s changing understanding of children’s film. De Volkskrant observes that in recent years, the festival has increasingly programmed films with a fantasy element to them such as adventure and superhero films, mirroring the current trend in the children’s film industry to produce these kinds of films.116 Cinekid’s conception of children’s film is thus intrinsically linked to the children’s film industry. This conception is less informed by the film as art discourse that influences Berlinale Generation’s programming, but by bridging the gap between entertainment, the representation of difficult themes and education. Whereas Berlinale Generation predominantly programmes films that were not essentially made for children but are made into children’s films by being showcased at Generation, Cinekid does the opposite: it selects films that have been made for young audiences specifically or that have been evaluated as children’s film by being presented and evaluated at other festivals as the Berlinale as suitable for children.
4.2.3 Ottaal and Rara at Lucas International Film Festival for Young Film Lovers
The Generation Kplus laureates of 2016, Ottaal and Rara took different paths on the film festival circuit than their predecessors. Ottaal had already completed its theatrical run in Indian cinemas before being selected for Berlinale Generation. It is difficult to find information on the film and its trajectory on the film festival circuit. It has been shown at Indian film festivals and a few national children’s film festivals. Its low exposure to festivals can be explained with its lacking a world distributor117. Looking at the film’s challenging theme of child labour and its depiction of a young boy
113 Kleijer, Pauline. “De Moderne Superheldjes in Kinderfilms. Superhelden op Filmfestival Cinekid.” De Volkskrant. October 14, 2015: n.pag. De Persgroep Nederland B.V.
44 suffering under abuse in forced labour, it can moreover be assumed that some children’s film festivals found the film unsuitable for children and did not follow the Berlinale’s lead in programming the film for young audiences. Ottaal did get a platform at the Lucas Film Festival for Young Film Lovers in 2016. Rara was presented at the same edition of Lucas, after having predominantly been shown within new/young director sections at general film festivals, as well as world cinema and Latin- American festivals. It was shown at two children’s and teenage film festivals, before making its way to the Lucas Film Festivals. Similar to Min Lilla Syster in the year before, Rara is a film that has been conceptualised in different ways by its distributor and the festivals it has been presented at. It has been distributed on different festival sub-circuits to widen its reach. After its presentation at Lucas, Rara was for example predominantly presented at LGBQ film festivals. The Lucas International Film Festival for Young Film Lovers is Germany’s oldest children’s film festival which held its first edition in 1974. The festival is organised by the German Film Institute which holds several film festivals in and around Frankfurt am Main, fostering the city’s standing as a centre for (German) film culture in the west of Germany next to the other centres Berlin (east), Munich (south) and Hamburg (north). With its long tradition and ideal position in the largest city in the area and the surrounding cities of Offenbach and Wiesbaden, where parts of the programme are shown, Lucas can address a large regional audience. In 2016, in order to widen its reach, the festival underwent a rebranding, following the Berlinale’s lead to choose a name that points to a broader target group: from Lucas International Children’s Film Festival to Festival for Young Film Lovers. Originally, the festival’s main target group were children between the ages four and fourteen. With the rebranding, a new section called Young European Cinephiles was introduced with films chosen by teenagers for teenagers, including young people up to the age of eighteen into the festival. With the rebranding, the festival moreover changed its selection policy: from selecting films according to premiere status to choosing films for their quality with the aim to program films that go beyond classical conventions of children’s film and showing films that are not exclusively made for the children’s film market.118 With this programming practice, the Lucas festival follows the Berlinale’s lead in not only showing films that were made for young audiences in particular and in not pre-labelling films as children’s films. Studying the festival’s programme of the 2016 edition to find signifiers for what the festival understands as quality film, it becomes apparent that only feature films that were nominated for or won awards at other festivals were programmed, such as Ottaal and Rara. This suggests that the Lukas
45 festival’s understanding of quality is informed by other festivals’ judgements. The term ‘quality’ is employed by many festivals to describe the programmed independent children’s film productions but has to be regarded critically as it implies that commercial children’s cinema cannot account for quality cinema, thereby playing into prevailing prejudices. Yet, by programming a best-of of quality children’s film, the Lucas festival reinforces its position on the circuit as a promoter and distributor of progressive independent film for children. The festival asserts that it sees it ‘as essential to give children as early as possible the tools that will help them to understand and deal with film as a medium and as an artform’119. Hereby the Lucas film festival follows Berlinale Generation’s mission to introduce children to the festival’s film- aesthetic discourse. In order to fulfil this aim, the festival for one programmes films such as Ottaal and Rara that employ narrative and film-aesthetic devices in the tradition of festival films, for example by opting for a naturalistic effect through cinematography and sound. The Lukas film festival furthermore states ‘that film unfolds its magic in the cinema, where it really belongs – to transmit that is one of our main missions’120, highlighting that the film-aesthetic discourse is, for another, tied to the cinema as mode of exhibition. In order for children to understand film as a medium and art form, the cinema setting is thus crucial.
Looking at the films’ trajectory on the children’s film festival circuit at the hand of three exemplary festivals – Tiff Kids, Cinekid, and Lucas International Film Festival for Young Film Lovers – two conceptions of children’s film come to the fore. Tiff Kids and Cinekid clearly point to their main target group in their names. Both festivals cater to a narrower age group than Berlinale Generation and Lucas. They program films for children from the ages three to thirteen (fourteen). In turn, both festivals clearly mark their programme as a selection of children’s films. Their aim is to represent the best children’s film productions from around the world, predominantly independent quality children’s films but also commercial productions in order to strengthen children’s overall media literacy. Both festivals have ties to commercial production enterprises; Tiff Kids works with Disney Channel and includes classic children’s films in their programme. Cinekid maintains an industry section for children’s media. These ties have an impact on the conception of children’s film at these two festivals: Their conception of children’s film is lees bound to film-aesthetics (both festival for example do not insist on the term festival films) but to the films’
119 “Press Release.” Lucas Filmfestival. September 16, 2016. Lucas – Internationales Filmfestival für Junge Filmfans.
46 strengths to interweave difficult issues with playfulness. The entertainment factor of the films is thus highlighted. The Lucas International Film Festival for Young Film Lovers follows Berlinale Generation in refraining from pre-labelling the films programmed as children’s films. Both festivals insist they programme not only films made for children, but also works that have not implicitly been made for young audiences. These films are made into children’s films by particular narrative and aesthetic hallmarks for which they are selected for the children’s film sections and by their acknowledgment by young audiences. They both highlight their position as facilitators of film culture and film (festival) aesthetics to children and invoke cinephile programming practices. All children’s film festivals use either the term outstanding children’s film or the label (high) quality children’s film for the dissemination of the films through their network. These labels are created to distinguish the films promoted by the festivals from commercial children’s film productions. By circulating and adding value to these quality children’s films, the festivals contest the canon of commercial children’s and family films that in turn triggers prejudices against children’s film as purely entertaining and insubstantial. The films the children’s film festivals programme, show that films for children can have substance, discuss important contemporary issues, have film-aesthetic aspirations all the while being entertaining. After their trajectory on the international film festival circuits and several sub-circuits, none of the four films has been released in cinemas widely nor were they a commercial success. Min Lilla Syster has been released in European countries in cinema and DVD, as has Rara which furthermore was released in cinemas in its country of origin Chile. Ottaal has not been released theatrically in any other country outside India, but was acquired by Netflix. Dhanak is also available on Netflix, and has additionally been released in cinemas in India and Pakistan. Their exposure on the festival circuit was thus vital for them to be shown in the cinema for young audiences. As all four festivals highlighted in this thesis take in the role of transmitters of quality film and film culture to young audiences, they are all aware of the importance of the cinema setting for the presentation of film which is the connecting component in their conception of children’s film. In order to guarantee that a large audience can see the films in the cinema, the children’s film festivals maintain strong local links by co-operating with various educational institutions, taking their audience’s availability into account, and reflecting on their multicultural demographics in their programmes. Thereby they aim to build communities that sustain the longevity of these festivals.
47
Conclusion As pointed out against the background of Berlinale Generation Kplus’ conception of children’s film, the conceptual underpinning for children’s film programmes at festivals and elsewhere is based on the question on how children can benefit from a film programme. This conceptual underpinning is tied to the historical development of children’s film festivals, the emergence of which is informed by both film festival and media history. Children’s film programming has only entered the film festival network in the 1970s, in a time the major film festivals had to react to protests. They had been accused of neglecting their duty to promote film culture and auteur cinema, and forced to strengthen their position as more and more smaller festivals emerged. These new festivals’ programming pointed to and filled the gaps in themes, regions, and audiences within the system of film festivals. These developments resulted in more varied programming and the inclusions of specialisations and audiences that had been marginalised or ignored before. Early endeavours to include children in film festivals can thus be seen in a political light as a means to democratise and create a more inclusive festival circuit. The notion of a democratic film festival is still relevant for children’s film festivals today as children are actively encouraged to voice their opinion about the programmes and to participate in giving it its form, for example by taking part in children’s juries. Being taken serious as an audience in their own right is thus one of the benefits children can take away from their festival experience at the Berlinale and other children’s film festivals. Most children’s film festivals appeared in the 1980s and 1990s – in a time, the film festival circuit was growing and diversifying into a globalised, competitive network. At the same time, the commercial children’s film industry, which had recognised that children were profitable audiences, boomed with the growing family-oriented home viewing market and child-specific television channels. The emergence of the bulk of children’s film festivals can be seen in direct reaction to this development. For one, the festivals could point to the marketability of young audiences and for another, they could position themselves against the commercial children’s film market and thereby build their profiles as promoters and distributors of independent progressive children’s film in the tradition of festivals’ mission to promote (alternative) film culture. This mission is still the driving force behind most children’s film festivals today, although some festivals such as Tiff Kids and Cinekid also embrace their connection with commercial production enterprises in order to present the full scope of contemporary children’s film production. Introducing children to different film cultures is another benefit for their young audiences that children’s film festivals formulate as it gives them the tools to develop their media literacy.
48 In order to make conclusions about different festivals’ conceptions of children’s film and their specific opinion about what is beneficial to children, I have analysed four films in this thesis standing in for the international independent children’s film production. Following Noel Brown’s argumentation that there must be narrative and film aesthetic patterns that identify children’s film121, I pointed to narrative and film aesthetic patterns to in turn identify the textual conception of children’s film. All four films discuss complex and difficult current socio-political and cultural issues, such as identity (Min Lilla Syster and Rara) or social injustice (Dhanak and Ottaal). Thereby, they follow one of the hallmarks Cindy H. Wong ascribes to the category of festival films. These complex issues are conveyed in the four films from the perspective of young protagonists. The themes of the films are broken down to experiences within children’s own horizon of experience: family dynamics, sibling relationships, and school stand in for the overarching themes. The films thus depict microcosms of society at large. Thereby the films pursue one of the main conventions of children’s film formulated by Noel Brown as the foregrounding of children (or child-like characters) and their experiences.122 Children are still in the process of recognising and learning about film, therefore need specific tools to understand films, especially if they discuss issues outside their own environment. That is why I have argued that these films presented to children at festivals have to create a sense of understanding and (ideally) identification between the audience and the protagonists in order to function as children’s films. This is crucial also for Berlinale Generation’s and other festivals’ missions to take their young audiences serious and their needs and wishes into account. Following Murray Smith’s notion of the structure of sympathy, I have shown that all four films by means of narrative and film aesthetic devices create the base with recognition, which describes the process of the audience constructing characters123. By closely studying their protagonists and their (re)actions in facing the difficult issues they are confronted with, the films furthermore generate alignment, which places the audience in relation with the protagonists ‘in terms of access to their actions and what they know and feel’124. Especially Min Lilla Syster and Ottaal go even further. They let the audience experience shocking but crucial moments in the protagonists’ development from the perspective of the young protagonists Stella and Kuttappayi, thereby triggering a strong emotional response from the audience and in turn creating what Smith terms allegiance. These two films have been awarded by the children’s jury with the Crystal Bear for best film, supporting my argumentation that films for children need to lay common ground between the young audiences and protagonists in order to function as such and for children to actually benefit from what they are seeing on screen.
121 Brown, The Children’s Film 27. 122 Idem 29. 123 Smith 40. 124 Idem 41.
49 The analysis of the four films has shown that they are both festival films in line with the Berlinale’s film-aesthetic demands as well as children’s films in the way they deal with difficult issues and construct a structure of sympathy. Berlinale Generation does not use the term children’s film for the films the section programmes but festival films. It also refrains from age restrictions, but works with age recommendations, thereby implying that it does not restrict or censor. Only by the films exposure to young audiences the films are made into children’s films. Thereby, the section reverses the common process of adults pre-labelling and rating the suitability of children’s film, signalling that children themselves are equipped to process films and their suitability for them. Through their presentation at Berlinale Generation Kplus, the films are labelled as outstanding or quality children’s films, a label that is bolstered by the awards given to them. As such the films travelled the international children’s film festival circuit. The four films were also shown at festivals with different specialisations, as national or regional cinemas (all four films) women’s film (Min Lilla Syster and Rara) and LGBQ film festivals (Rara). On the business side this wide dissemination on the film festival circuit and its sub circuits is a strategy distributors employ to give the films as much exposure to the broadest audiences as possible and in turn to add value to the films. That the films were shown in different context, not only in children’s film programmes, also implies that they can be conceptualised in different ways, reinforcing Berlinale Generation’s understanding that these films are festival films that have certain hallmarks of children’s films and are turned into children’s film by young audience’s evaluation. But, when looking at the four films’ afterlife, one major issue becomes apparent: these films seldom leave the film festival network with a wide theatrical release. They are at risk to fall into obscurity which makes it difficult to create a new canon of quality children’s films. A chance for these films could be a further distribution by video on demand and streaming services. Dhanak and Ottaal are already part of Netflix’s library and are thus easily accessible, whereas Min Lilla Syster and Rara are only available on DVD in the EU. The role of video on demand and streaming services in the further promotion and distribution of quality children’s films and the question on if and how these films then reach young audiences online could be an issue explored in further future-oriented research as these online platforms are of growing importance and increase their hegemonic position over the home- viewing market. Being fully aware that my analysis could only cover a small part of children’s film in the festival context, a thus far underrepresented area of research, I now return to the question on the outset of the analysis: doesn’t the process of curating, selecting, programming specific films for young audiences inevitably influence and shape them and their viewing habit? I have shown that the festivals’ conceptions of children’s film go beyond the prejudices levelled against it: Film for children can reflect on pressing contemporary issues, it can contribute to and represent festivals’ film-aesthetic discourses
50 and it can make issues and experiences outside of children’s direct environment understandable and relatable to young audiences. The children’s film festivals take their young audiences opinions into account and take children serious as an audience in their own right. All these aspects constituting the young audiences’ festival experience surely shape children’s understanding of film and in turn influence their viewing habit. Creating a successful festival experience for young audiences is thus crucial to establish the cinema-going public of tomorrow. In this aspect, the understanding of children’s film can lead the way for other institutions working with children and film (as well as other media). In order to make these films’ benefits as accessible as possible – especially to children beyond the already interested festival audience – I hope for cinema, television, and new media such as video on demand to democratise the experience of watching these films.
51
Appendix: Festival Participation
In this appendix I have collected all available information on the four films’ trajectory on the international film festival circuit. Both Min Lilla Syster and Rara were easier to trace, whereas there is little information to be found on Dhanak and Ottaal. I have indicated the sources used in this appendix, not in the bibliography.
Min Lilla Syster
Sources: “My Skinny Sister (2015).” The Swedish Film Database. Swedish Film Institute.
Gothenburg Film Festival, Gothenburg, Sweden (January 2015): Audience Award, Best Nordic Film International Film Festival, Berlin, Germany (February 2015): Crystal Bear for Best Film International Film Festival, Beijing, China (April 2015) Festival International de Cinéma – Ciné-Jeune de l’Aisne, Laon, France (April 2015) Festival of European Cinema, Lecce, Italy (April 2015): Fipresci Prize Flying Broom International Women’s Film Festival, Ankara, Turkey (May 2015) International Film Festival, Seattle, USA (May 2015) Écrans Juniors, Cannes, France (May 2015) Film Festival, Pula, Croatia (May 2015) International Urban Film Festival, Teheran, Iran (May 2015) International Film Festival for Children and Youth, Zlin, Czech Republic (June 2015) Transilvania International Film Festival, Cluj-Napoca, Romania (June 2015) Film Festival, Sydney, Australia (June 2015) Film Festival, Valletta, Malta (June 2015) International Film Festival, Moscow, Russia (June 2015) International Children’s Film Festival, Tel Aviv, Israel (July 2015) Film Fleadh, Galway, Ireland (July 2015) IndieBo – Independent Film Festival, Bogota, Colombia (July 2015)
52 International Film Festival, Melbourne, Australia (July 2015) International Images Film Festival for Women, Harare, Zimbabwe (August 2015) MICGenero – International Film Festival with Gender Perspective, Mexico City, Mexico (September 2015) International Film Festival, Toronto, Canada (October 2015) International Film Festival, Vancouver, Canada (October 2015) Film Festival, Milwaukee, USA (October 2015) BFI London Film Festival, London, United Kingdom (October 2015) Cinekid, Amsterdam, Netherlands (October 2015) International Film Festival, Sao Paolo, Brazil (October 2015) Vermont International Film Festival, Burlington, USA (October 2015) International Film Festival, Reykjavik, Iceland (November 2015) Tiff Kids International Film Festival, Toronto, Canada (April 2016)
Dhanak (Rainbow)
Sources: “Dhanak.” Drishyamfilms. [With reservation, as not all information given on the website was right.]
International Film Festival, Berlin, Germany (February 2015): Grand Prix of the International Jury Generation Kplus Tiff Kids International Film Festival, Toronto, Canada (April 2015) Indian Film Festival, Los Angeles, USA (April 2015) Cinema in Sneakers, Warsaw, Poland (June 2015): Winner Children’s Feature Film Competition Indian Film Festival, London, United Kingdom (July 2015) International Children’s Film Festival, Tel Aviv, Israel (July 2015) Tumble Weeds Film Festival for Children & Youth, Salt Lake City, USA (September 2015) Cinekid, Amsterdam, Netherlands (October 2015) International Film Festival (Cinema for Children), Dubai, United Arab Emirates (December 2015) Buff International Film Festival, Malmö, Sweden (March 2016) International Film Festival, Seattle, USA (May 2016)
53 Children’s Film Festival, Providence, USA (2016) Discovery Film Festival – Scotland’s International Film Festival for Young Audiences, Dundee (and other cities), Scotland (Autumn 2016) International Children Film Festival, Hyderabad, India (November 2015): Golden Plaque for Best Actor (Hetal Gada as Pari) Fifem –International Children’s Film Festival, Montreal, Canada (March 2016) C:india – Indian Film Festival, The Hague, Netherlands (October 2016)
Ottaal (The Trap)
Sources: “Ottaal (The Trap).” Birmingham Indian Film Festival. London Indian Film Festival Ltd.
International Film Festival of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram, India (2015): Winner International Competition International Film Festival, Berlin, Germany (February 2016): Crystal Bear for Best Film Indian Film Festival, Los Angeles, USA (April 2016)
54 Indian Film Festival, Birmingham, United Kingdom (June 2016) Indian Film Festival, Melbourne, Australia (August 2016) Lucas International Film Festival for Young Film Lovers, Frankfurt am Main, Germany (September 2016) South Asian Film Festival, Chicago, USA (October 2016) C: India – Indian Film Festival, The Hague, Netherlands (October 2016)
Rara
Source: Rara. Latido Films.
International Film Festival, Berlin, Germany (February 2016): Grand Prix of the International Jury Generation Kplus Cinélatino – Rencontres de Toulouse, Toulouse, France (March 2016) International Film Festival, Seattle, USA (June 2016) Frameline Film Festival, San Francisco, USA (June 2016) Film Festival, Galway, Ireland (July 2016) Film Festival, Jerusalem, Israel (July 2016) Giffoni International Film Festival, Giffoni Valle Piana, Italy (July 2016) International Fantastic Film Festival, Buchan, South Korea (July 2016) Latin-American Film Festival, Rotterdam, Netherlands (August 2016) World Cinema Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands (August 2016) Llámale H, Montevideo, Uruguay (September 2016) Cine a la Vista – International Film Festival for Teenagers, San Martín de los Andes, Argentina (September 2016) AFI Latin American Film Festival, Washington DC, USA (September 2016) International Film Festival, San Sebastian, Spain (September 2016): Sebastiane Latino Award and Horizons Award for Best Film Lucas International Film Festival for Young Film Lovers, Frankfurt am Main, Germany (September 2016) Queer Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal (September 2016): Audience Award and Award for Best Actress Film Festival, Milwaukee, USA (September/October 2016) Pride Pictures Queer Film Festival, Karlsruhe, Germany (October 2016) BFI London Film Festival, London, United Kingdom (October 2016) International Film Festival, Bogota, Colombia (October 2016): Young Award for Best Film
55 Festival do Rio, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (October 2016): Felix Award International Film Festival, Valdivia, Chile (October 2016): Young Audience Award Newfest: LGBT Film Festival, New York, USA (October 2016) Pride Film Festival, Seoul, South Korea (October 2016) Giffoni Macedonia, Skopje, Macedonia (October 2016) Molodist Kyiv International Film Festival, Kiev, Ukraine (October 2016) International Queer Film Festival, Taipei, Taiwan (November 2016) Three Frontiers International Film Festival, Puerto Iguazú, Argentina (November 2016): Award for Best Director Filem’on – International Children’s Film Festival, Brussels, Belgium (November 2016) Pink Screens Film Festival, Brussels, Belgium (November 2016) Spektrum Film Festival, Wroclaw, Poland (November 2016) Diversity Cultures Mix Brazil Film Festival, Sao Paulo, Brazil (November 2016) International Film Festival, Stockholm, Sweden (November 2016) TRANSITION – Queer Minorities Film Festival, Vienna, Austria (November 2016) Latin Cinema, Minneapolis, USA (November 2016) ANTOFADOCS – International Film Festival of Antofagasta, Chile (November 2016) Kinderfilmfestival – Institut Pitanga, Vienna, Austria (November 2016) Chéries, chéries – LGBT Film Festival, Paris, France (November 2016) International Film Festival of India, Goa, India (November 2016): Centenary Award for Best Debut Film LGBT Film Festival, Ljubljana, Slovenia (November/December 2016) Kinderfilmfest, Stuttgart, Germany (December 2016) Slovak Queer Film Festival, Bratislava, Slovakia (December 2016) La Habana International Film Festival, Havana, Cuba (December 2016): United Nations Award Kerala International Film Festival, Thiruvananthapuram, India (December 2016) International Film Festival, Palm Springs, USA (January 2017) International Film Festival, Pune, India (January 2017) Pink Life Queer Film Festival, Istanbul and Ankara, Turkey (January 2017) International Film Festival, Tromsø, Norway (January 2017) Cinemás, Gent, Belgium (January 2017) Global Cinema International Film Festival, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic (January/February 2017) International Film Festival, Portland, USA (February 2017) Festival de Cine, Punta del Este, Chile (February 2017) Mardi Gras Queer Film Festival, Sidney, Australia (February/March 2017)
56 Queer Film Festival, Brisbane, Australia (March 2017) Latino Film Festival, San Diego, USA (March 2017) Cinélatino – Rencontres de Toulouse, Toulouse, France (March 2017) BUFF Film Festival, Malmö, Sweden (March 2017) Febiofest – International Film Festival, Prague, Czech Republic (March 2017) Ojoloco Film Festival, Grenoble, France (March/April 2017) International Film Festival, Vilnius, Lithuania (March/April 2017) Latinoamerican Film Festival, Salzburg, Austria (March/April 2017) International Film Festival, Panama City, Panama (March/April 2017) MoMA Ibermedia, New York, USA (March/April 2017) Queer Film Festival, Melbourne, Australia (March/April 2017) Viva –Film Festival, Manchester, United Kingdom (March/April 2017) Festival Transpositions, Chambéry, France (April 2017) Viva Presents …, Sheffield, United Kingdom (April 2017) CineLatino – CineEspañol, Tübingen and Stuttgart, Germany (April 2017) FUERZAFest – LGBTQ Latino Film Festival, New York, USA (April 2017) Spectrum Film Festival, Martha’s Vineyard, USA (April 2017) Viva Presents …, Birmingham, United Kingdom (April 2017) Zinentiendo Festival LGBTQI, Zaragoza, Spain (April/May 2017) Latin American Film Festival, Ottawa, Canada (April/May 2017) Eye on Film International Film Festival for Children and Youth, different cities in Slovenia (May 2017) Muestra de Cine, Ternium and Monterrey, Mexico (May 2017) Festival de Cine Español, Rome, Italy (May 2017) FuerzaFest, New York, USA (May 2017) Bagdam Espace Lesbien, Toulouse, France (May 2017) People to People Queer Festival, Seoul, South Korea (May 2017) Berkshire International Film Festival, Great Barrington and Pittsfield, USA (June 2017) Muestra de Cine y Mujeres, Pamplona, Spain (June 2017) Lesbenfilmtage, Freiburg, Germany (June 2017) World Pride Festival, Madrid, Spain (June 2017) Festival de Cine, L’Alfas del Pi, Spain (July 2017) Latin American Days, Bucharest, Romania (July 2017) Queer Film Festival, Kansai, Japan (September 2017)
57
Bibliography
Bazalgette, Cary and Terry Staples. “Unshrinking the Kids. Children’s Cinema and the Family Film.” In Front of the Children. Screen Entertainment and Young Audiences. Eds. Cary Balzagette and David Buckingham. London: British Film Institute, 1995. 92-108.
Brown, Noel. The Children’s Film. Genre, Nation, and Narrative. New York: Columbia University Press, 2017.
Felsmann, Barbara. Blicke, Begegnungen, Berührungen. 25 Jahre Kinderfilmfest. Ed. Internationale Filmfestspiele Berlin. Berlin: Jovis Verlag GmbH, 2002.
Krumholz, Felicia and Beatriz Moreira de Azevedo Porto Gonçalves. “Participation and Learning Trajectories on the Rio International Film Festivals Section for Children and Young People.” Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy 7.4 (2012): 302-313.
Loist, Skadi. “Crossover Dreams: Global Circulation of Queer Film on the Film Festival Circuits.” Diogenes 62.1 (2015): 1-16 [57-72].
Loist, Skadi. “The Film Festival Circuit. Networks, Hierarchies, and Circulation.” Film Festivals: History, Theory, Method, Practice. Eds. Marijke de Valck, Brendan Kredell, and Skadi Loist. New York: Routledge, 2016. 49-64.
Lucchini, Domenico. “For an Ethical Cinema. The Importance of Children’s Film Festivals in the Present Media Landscape.” ECFA Journal 6 (November 1998). 1-3.
Rastegar, Roya. “Difference, Aesthetics and the Curatorial Crisis of Film Festivals.” Screen 53.3 (Autumn 2012): 310-317.
Sawyer, Clare. “The Kids Are All Right: Beyond the Mainstream in Berlinale’s Generation.” Screen Education 73 (March 2014): 96-101.
58 Smith, Murray. “Altered States: Character and Emotional Response in the Cinema.” Cinema Journal 33.4 (Summer 1994): 34-56.
Valck, Marijke de. Film Festivals. From Geopolitics to Global Cinephilia. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2007.
Valck, Marijke de. “Finding Audiences for Films: Festival Programming in Historical Perspective.” Coming Soon to a Festival Near You: Programming Film Festivals. Eds. Jeffrey Ruoff. St. Andrews: St. Andrews Film Studies 2012. 25-40.
Wong, Cindy H. Film Festivals: Culture, People, and Power on the Global Screen. Piscataway: Rutgers University Press, 2011.
Online Sources: Articles/Reviews
Brown, Noel. “Family Entertainment and Contemporary Hollywood Cinema.” Scope: An Online Journal of Film and Television Studies. 25 (February 2013): 1-22.
Dalton, Stephen. “’My Skinny Sister’ (‘Min lilla syster’): Gothenburg Review.” The Hollywood Reporter. April 2, 2015: n.pag.
Ebiri, Bilge: “Ebiri: Why is One of New York’s Best Film Festivals Mostly Unknown?” Vulture.com. March 21, 2014. New York Magazine.
Geissler, Cornelia: “Sich den Träumen stellen. “Generation” bei der Berlinale.” Frankfurter Rundschau. February 11, 2016: n. pag. Frankfurter Rundschau GmbH.
59 Hertz, Barry. “TIFF Kids: The Challenges of Being a Family-First Film Festival.” The Globe and Mail. April 5, 2017: n. pag. The Globe and Mail Inc.
Holland, Jonathan. “‘Rara’: Berlin Review.” The Hollywood Reporter. February 15, 2016: n.pag.
Kleijer, Pauline. “De Moderne Superheldjes in Kinderfilms. Superhelden op Filmfestival Cinekid.” De Volkskrant. October 14, 2015: n.pag. De Persgroep Nederland B.V.
Leydon, Joe. “Film Review: Dhanak (Rainbow).” Variety. July 8, 2016: n.pag. Variety Media, LLC.
Schneider, Ruth. “Not Just for Kids: Berlinale’s Generation Curator.” Exberliner. February 7, 2018: n. pag. Iomauna Media GmbH.
Sicinski, Michael. “TIFF 2015| My Skinny Sister (Sanne Lenken, Sweden/Germany) – TIFF Kids.” Cinema Scope. 2015: n.pag.
Vladmin. “Roll Out the Red Carpet for the Tiff Kids International Film Festival.” Villagelivingmagazine.ca. April 1, 2014: n.pag. Village Living Publications Inc.
60
Online Sources: Festivals “Festivals”. ECFAweb. European Children’s Film Association.
Berlinale Generation “Dhanak.” Berlinale. 2015. Kulturveranstaltungen des Bundes in Berlin (KBB) GmbH.
“Generation.” Berlinale. Kulturveranstaltungen des Bundes in Berlin (KBB) GmbH.
“Ottaal.” Berlinale. 2015. Kulturveranstaltungen des Bundes in Berlin (KBB) GmbH.
“Press Releases 2015.” Berlinale. February 14, 2015. Kulturveranstaltungen des Bundes in Berlin (KBB) GmbH.
“Press Releases 2016.” Berlinale. February 20, 2016. Kulturveranstaltungen des Bundes in Berlin (KBB) GmbH.
61 Tiff Kids “Connecting Children to the Best Cinema from Around the Globe at the 19th Annual Tiff Kids International Film Festival.” Tiff. March 2, 2016: n.pag. Toronto International Film Festival Inc.
“Tiff Kids.” Tiff. Toronto International Film Festival Inc.
“20 Years of Tiff Kids.” Tiff. April 7. 2017. Toronto International Film Festival Inc.
Cinekid “Festival”. Cinekid.
“Jury Statement Best Children’s Film 2015.” Cinekid.
“Mission and Vision.” Cinekid.
“Screening Club.” Cinekid.
62
Lucas International Film Festival for Young Film Lovers “Lucas Festivalzeitung.” Lucas Filmfestival. 2016. Lucas – Internationales Filmfestival für Junge Filmfans.
“Press Release.” Lucas Filmfestival. September 16, 2016. Lucas – Internationales Filmfestival für Junge Filmfans.
Films Dhanak (Rainbow). Dir. Nagesh Kukunoor. PVR Pictures (India), 2015.
Min Lilla Syster. Dir. Sanne Lenken. Wide Management, 2015.
Ottaal (The Trap) Dir. Jayarai Rajastekharan. Qube, Reelmonk (India), 2014.
Rara Dir. Pepa San Martin. Latido Films, 2016.
63