R1 W3

Posted on by
Reply

From what we’ve encountered thus far, the variety of skills needed to set up, run, and keep afloat a film festival is vast (to say the least). Up until this point, I’ve only ever been an attendee, and while I have appreciated the enormity of the events I have been to, learning first hand what is actually required has been an eye opener.

So much is required to run a successful film festival. Beyond that, each role requires the success of each of the other roles to truly fulfil its potential; it is called a team for a reason. It has been particularly interesting seeing just how many hats people can wear back of house. A programmer will undoubtedly link in with the marketing team, the marketing team will link in with artistic director, who will link in with the venue scouts, and so on.

My key takeaway from Andrea Kuhn’s chapter in Setting Up A Human Rights Film Festival: Who Is Organising It? was that beyond the scope of the actually films and their screenings, so much more goes into building a festival. Events need to be organised that don’t rely solely on the viewing experience, guests need to be liased with to speak about the films and awards should be organised. It’s more than just accepting a films entrance and going from there.

From the beginning of this semester, I had an inkling that I wanted to be on the programming team. I don’t know if I possess much experience for the role, other than a pure love of film and the ability to watch hours on end of content, however it’s a role that I have always been interested in. I’m keen to get stuck in to this side of things, and collaborate with everyone else along the way.

 

References:
Andrea Kuhn, “Who Is Organising It? Importance of Production and Team Members” in Setting Up a Human Rights Film Festival, vol. 2, Human Rights Film Network, Prague, 2015, pp. 71-83.

Karlovy Vary – Film Spa

Posted on by
Reply

Though I found the film quite hard to follow – specifically due to a lack of familiarity with the Czech language – I found it so informative, interesting, and fun to watch. The break up of segments and interviews with the comedy sketches were a particularly enjoyable watch. I had never heard about Karlovy Vary prior to this class or this film, so to get such a comprehensive catalogue of its history was so interesting. From this film and some of the readings we have consumed thus far, particularly Kristen Stevens’ piece on the Australian film festival roots and Dorota Ostrowska’s history of the Cannes Film Festival, we can begin to see some common threads that occur throughout individual film festivals histories.

Each of the film festivals touched on in the above texts, namely the Melbourne Film Festival, Cannes Film Festival and Karlovy Vary International Film Festival, experienced the effect of local and international politics, social pressure, and trends. Melbourne’s initial film festival in Olinda was very much a grassroots affair, born out of the desire to celebrate the visual art of film. Funding became an issue in terms of reaching the glitz and glamour of other national festivals, however its grassroots approach meant that it could bypass demands of industry and politics. Cannes and Karlovy Vary are more closely tied in the issues they faced. Being European based festivals, world wars stood to be a difficult hurdle they both had to face. Cannes reacted to these external pressures by adapting the focus of the festival. In its early years, they focussed on humanist films which intended to act as a vehicle of peace during the Cold War era, offering a sense of unity on the big screen. Karlovy Vary also experienced many hurdles and disruptions during the Cold War. With Czechoslovakia being a socialist country, the inception of the (also A-list according to FIAFP) Moscow Film Festival meant that KVIFF would only be held biennially from 1959 until 1993 where it was reinstated annually. Specific nationalist politics and censorship also plagued Karlovy Vary throughout its history, leading audiences to realise that no festival – no matter its A-list status – is immune from problems.

Each festival also, at some point, has placed a large emphasis on local talent within the film industry. Small scale festivals can take note from this method for a number of reasons. Firstly, accessibility in the early years is extremely important. Secondly, supporting local artists, particular in the wake of the global pandemic, is an extremely important and easy way to give back to the community. If A-list festivals do it, why shouldn’t we?

 

References:

  • Dorota Ostrowska, “Making film history at the Cannes film festival” in Marijke de Valck, Brendan Kredell and Skadi Loist (eds), Film Festivals: History, Theory, Method, Practice, Routledge, New York, 2016, pp. 18-33.
  • Film Spa, Czech Republic, dir Miroslav Janek, 2015
  • Kirsten Stevens, “Enthusiastic Amateurs: Origins of Australia’s Film Festival Movement” in Kirsten Stevens, Australian Film Festivals: Audience, Place, and Exhibition Culture, Palgrave Macmillan US, New York, 2016, pp. 17-46.

Online v Offline – Staging a Film Festival

Posted on by
Reply

Due to a lack of resources – namely time and accessibility – I decided to hop online to visit and partake in the Melbourne Queer Film Festival. Though this was a vastly different experiences to my previous visits to festivals, there were some major benefits and positives that I took away.

The Melbourne Queer Film Festival’s hybrid model of screenings offered wider accessibility to patrons like myself. The fact that I could view some of the pieces without leaving the comfort of my home meant was paramount in my decision to ‘attend’; I’m not entirely sure I would have taken an interest otherwise. The ability to choose which film to watch and when I would watch it (within the rented time constraints, of course) also gave me the illusion that I had a part to play in the festival outside of that as a spectator. For a moment, I felt like I was a programmer choosing what to play and when. It also gave me the power to pause, rewind, switch on subtitles as I saw fit. I could create my own cinema experience without interference of other spectators arriving late or opening their mid movie snacks at pivotal dialogue points.

This hybrid model adopted by many film festivals of late reminded me of one of the key takeaways I got from Dorota Ostrowska’s ‘Making film history at the Cannes film festival’. That is, the adaptability and change seen throughout many big name film festivals histories including, of course, Cannes. Though for significantly different reasons and starting from different catalysts, Cannes’ evolution throughout the years catalogued in Ostrowska’s piece – from its political roots at its inception to the addition of the Critics and Directors weeks – provide an example to other and emerging film festivals that change can occur without impacting integrity or success. In the case of MQFF, its choice to adapt by partially running the festival in an online manner is reminiscent of Cannes’ changes throughout its history.

It would be foolish, however, the limits that this model comes with. Placing the spectator in a position of power can lead to a lack of ‘festivity’ that makes in person screenings so special. In an online setting we don’t necessarily get the sense that we are partaking in a film festival, and the experience – aside from a few trailers and logos – wouldn’t differ greatly from watching a Netflix film. Yes, this method presumedly does open the audience reach significantly, it comes at a cost. Though I appreciated the control, accessibility, and comfort an online viewing gave me, I missed the fanfare that is so typical of in person Melbourne film festivals.

 

References:
Dorota Ostrowska, “Making film history at the Cannes film festival” in Marijke de Valck, Brendan Kredell and Skadi Loist (eds), Film Festivals: History, Theory, Method, Practice, Routledge, New York, 2016, pp. 18-33.

Reflection – Final

Posted on by
Reply

That’s it, y’all. That’s the end of semester. I’m partly really glad it’s over and partly really sad that I will probably never have a class where I get to watch comedy news segments every lesson. (side note – thanks for a really fun semester, Ruth).

I’m really proud of the work we accomplished throughout and at the conclusion of The Right News. Considering we only had three people consistently present during our meetings (no shade – the others helped behind the scenes in their own way), we pulled off a really high quality final piece.

We really lucked out with the quality of our filming equipment. This eased a lot of the pressure and stress that would’ve been present, given the physical restraints on movement. We were able to produce something that I feel would not feel out of place on late night television. The graphics worked really well in adding to the dialogue, and I think we chose our cutaways well. Through clever writing, timing, and acting, we successfully satirised the right-wing media’s attack on Dan Andrews. The call to action and ‘change of heart’ of the anchor played an important role in emphasising the ludicrousness of the state of the media, and made it quite obvious that the piece was indeed satire and parody.

If we had the time and opportunity to rework this piece, the addition of some sound effects to reproduce the effect of a live audience may have worked well. This is an idea that we discussed, but in the end we felt the absence would work well given the majority of the piece is from the right-wing perspective. However, some canned laughter at certain points may have been beneficial in signifying and cueing jokes. I also believe the timing of the graphics could have been more tight, however that is just nit-picking.

As said, I’m really proud of the work we produced. I think it is funny, on topic, and well executed. It was a pleasure working with my group, and the level of organisation we had throughout the duration made the project far less daunting and far more fun. So thank you!

Reflection – The Larrikin

Posted on by
Reply

I was really intrigued by the points raised in Higgie’s article that we unpacked during week eight, on the topic of Australian news satire and politicians engagement with it. It raised some thoughts and questions that I had never really considered. I was particularly interested in the idea of the ‘larrikin’ as a character that is played out by Australian politicians.

“In other words, larrikins have an ‘ordinary’ and ‘common-sense’ knowledge that is privileged as trusted and authentic. The larrikin, due to its alignment with a perceived real, authentic Australia, is therefore a useful figure to associate oneself with in politics.” p65

It’s an interesting concept to wrap your head around, and can definitely be applied to present and past Australian politicians. I’d go so far as to say it’s generally the male politicians that actively try to align themselves with the larrikin value – that down-to-earth, true blue, common Aussie bloke.

Higgie’s article also brings up the tumultuous relationship that politicians have with comedy and satire. It seems to be this pattern of ignoring -> acknowledging ->laughing along -> actively participating. The initial points stem from an embarrassment of being the butt of the joke, while the latter speaks to the notion of ‘if you can’t beat them, join them’. This is a clever tactic to take as a politician to try to seem more relatable, but it certainly doesn’t take away from the fact that the satire still exists. They are indeed still the ones being parodied, and are still the ones being laughed at. Which points to the idea that the politicians still aren’t grasping the concept or point of the satire. The satire is still getting the job done, and presumably still – to some degree – igniting a response in the audience.

I think I went on a bit of a tangent there, but I’ll end the reflection with this; this was probably my favourite article we have read all semester.

Reflection – what has changed?

Posted on by
Reply

It’s interesting to consider how my thoughts on comedy news have transformed, changed, and developed. At this late stage in the semester, I feel like I understand the genre a lot more – obviously in part due to the fact that I have engaged in a semesters worth of content on the matter, but also because I have given myself the time and space to think about news, comedy news satire more critically.

As I said in my earliest blog post, I had not engaged with comedy news very often, if at all. I thought it to be a rather negative take on world affairs, through the tone and mannerisms that prolific satirists often use. However, over the course of the semester, I have seen my view shift. I can see the benefit of this approach and the predominantly good intentions behind the content. Upon reflection, I think my adversity to seeking out comedy news actually stemmed from a complete disinterest in political affairs, this stemming from a bad attempt at completing a politics degree and the state of mainstream media. Since watching and reading more comedy news, and the assigned articles throughout the semester, I feel like satire is the perfect way for me to stay informed with current affairs while still keeping my sanity. The fresh and funny approach to political drama and hard hitting news stories definitely makes the world seem more palatable. The combination of form and content makes comedy news an easy but informative watch (or red).

The way I keep up to date with the news has also changed dramatically since the beginning of this course. I have made a twitter account (lol) and I have turned on notifications for reputable news sources, such as The Guardian and The ABC. While these publications obviously don’t fall under ‘comedy’, I still find it interesting that comedy news seemed to be the gateway for me actively trying to keep up to date.

Reflection – School Leadership Spill

Posted on by
Reply

It’s interesting being able to recognise certain techniques within comedy news and satire, particularly as we move in to the final stages of the course. Although we watched this comedy sketch from The Feed around the mid way point of the semester, I found it SO funny. I thought it was worth looking at again given the nature of the content, particularly as we move into the preparation stages of our final project.

The piece sets itself up as a comedic skit from the outset and obviously points to what it is satirising – the Liberal leadership spill – through its content and its title. Putting this political affair in a school setting is a really effective way of communicating the point of the skit, which is to parody Australian politics and liken it to a school ground fight to point out the ludicrousness of it. The explicit references to specific moments in our political history, such as the same-sex marriage debate, is not only extremely clever writing, but was damn funny too.

This piece definitely serves as great inspiration for our final project, which is also centred around Australian politics. Though we may not necessarily be using parody much throughout the piece, it’s interesting to see the different approaches people take towards similar topics. This is one of the few sketch comedy style satire I remember watching throughout the semester, which is a nice change of pace from traditional news-anchor style segments. I like the way The Feed has utilised parody and combined two seemingly unrelated points of interest. Also, as a side note, you should read the comments on the video. They’re wild and funny in itself.

Reflection – Presentations

Posted on by
Reply

I was quite nervous about presenting our concept and pitch to the class, as is to be expected. I think this stems from a natural adversity to public speaking, rather than a lack of confidence in the content. What made this presentation even more anxiety inducing was the prospect of only have three out of five members of our group present. However, given the circumstances, I think we did a damn fine job.

 

We were quite well prepared when coming in to the presentation week. We had finalised the structure our piece would take and had written a rough draft, along with some mockup graphics to show to the class. This level of organisation definitely made the presentation smoother, but also put us in a really great spot to receive constructive feedback from Ruth, Paul and our classmates. The feedback we received helped us think through some potential technical issues that we may face during the filming of our segment, particularly in regards to the inclusion of other characters – dictators, the grinch, the Karens – and whether or not we should have assigned members act out these roles, rather than use voiceovers or utilise some deepfake techniques. Paul’s suggestion to consider the use of canned laughter is something we will take away, as it could potentially add to the comedic value (or at least let people know when they should be laughing).

It was also really great to see how the other groups had decided to approach their topics. I’m really excited to see how the Olympics segment will turn out, given that they’ve decided to speak to sports journalism more broadly. Their test shots and graphic looks great already, so I can’t wait to see their final.

Overall I believe the presentation went well – for our group, and for our classmates’. The feedback we received was particularly positive and left me feeling really confident about the task ahead.