On 29 October, Ji.hlava IDFF hosted a panel discussion titled “Ethics in festival programming.” The talk was moderated by French film critic Nathan Letoré and saw the participation of Cintia Gil (co-curator of Unidocs’ Artistic Differences and consultant for Cannes’ Directors Fortnight), Veton Nurkollari (artistic director of Kosovo’s DokuFest), Viktoria Leshchenko (programme director of Docudays UA) and Marek Hovorka (director of Ji.hlava IDFF).
The conversation mainly focused on the boycott of Russian cinematography as well as some ethical and political dilemmas curators need to deal with when it comes to programming in these very turbulent times.
First, Ji.hlava’s Hovorka explained how his team discussed extensively the topic of whether to include Russian films and finally decided to select a film made by a Russian filmmaker only if that would have brought “something new to the context,” with particular regard for Western European audiences who may feel the need to learn and understand more about what is going on in the Eastern part of their continent. He also highlighted how Russia’s Ministry of Culture has been one of the closest “co-operators” of Putin’s regime, deliberately developing a state-backed, indie filmmaking scene, in order to be perceived as “a normal country” by the West.
“What should we do as a programming team and, in a wider perspective, as a country?” wondered Nurkollari. He found common points between what Putin did to Ukraine and how in 1998 the Serbian government started the war with a similar pretext, namely that of “the minorities endangered looking for protection.” “What would have happened if we had a festival at that time? I can’t imagine showing a Serbian film during the war, it’s impossible,” he said, adding that he completely understands the logic behind the boycott, which must be intended as “an appeal not to validate the aggression.”
“Festivals may not be big, powerful entities having an impact. It’s much more important to ban Russia from playing football, then all the world knows about it,” Nurkollari added. He then shared an anecdote about one of his Serbian acquaintances who, after 30 years, still remembers how the former Yugoslavia’s ban from the European Championships allowed Denmark to qualify and ultimately win the trophy.
Nurkollari agreed with Hovorka’s take on how state-backed, Russian independent filmmakers were used as tools for propaganda: “We decided not to invite any Russian filmmakers, or any Russian film that was funded by the Russian Federation. In the end, we did invite a film which was a co-production between several countries, with that filmmaker in exile.”
“In the meantime, something very interesting happened with the government of Kosovo and its decision to invite two journalists from Ukraine, give them a safe heaven, a place to stay and, I think, a monthly salary. We took advantage of this opportunity to start the discussion. […] This is not the only ethical question we’re facing. There are no set rules we can stick to. Every curator, every festival has their own rules,” he concluded.
In her contribution, Gil pointed out that problems with certain countries – including Russia – which have a consistently “imperialistic, violent attitude towards the world” did not start with the invasion of Ukraine, although said event represents an “absolute critical point.” Gil took the helm of Doclisboa in 2012. At that time, her team had a list of banned embassies, which included Russia alongside other countries such as Angola, China, Israel and Guinea, controlled by regimes wherein rulers “smash their own people first, and then others.”
For Gil, it is essential to distinguish institutional relationships from the artistic ones. Specifically, she recalled how dissidents and exiled people played a crucial role in ending wars and dictatorships in Angola, Mozambique and Guinea: “It’s a little bit difficult to even start thinking about this idea that we cannot trust dissidents. […] If we establish a relationship with dissidents, it may empower a [general] sense of dissidence.”
On the topic of the boycott, she said: “The idea of a blind boycott doesn’t seem productive, especially within the discussion of the EU’s attitude towards this [crisis], because the EU and some countries were the main funders of this war. Washing this collective responsibility is a problem. I don’t think doing these well-intended, very sound, big actions […] is the best way to problematise what Europe’s responsibility is in this.”
Next, Hovorka talked through the state of inequality between Russia and Ukraine as another important aspect to take into account, since one of the two countries’ infrastructures are being totally destroyed, with dramatic effects on the local film production.
Nurkollari elaborated on how some embassies regularly put pressure on festivals and cited the recent example of the Turkish embassy opposing an Armenian focus, despite those titles already having been released in Turkey and helmed by Armenian directors residing in the Mediterranean country. On the other hand, countries like China apply even more pressure, openly asking for films to be pulled.
Meanwhile, Leshchenko of Docudays UA expressed strong doubts about supporting Russian exiles and dissidents. The question of whether to programme Russian films was already debated back in 2014 – a question which resonated with the whole team and in particular with Leshchenko herself, who was born in a Russian-speaking Ukrainian family. For a while, Russian filmmakers who weren’t backed by the state were invited by the festival, but then the team took the internal decision to stop screening their films.
“After eight years, I see how blind we were, and it got even worse. […] During those eight years, a huge colonisation process involved us all. So now it’s a very sad time, because you must leave lot of things you had in your head… All this Russian culture, Russian books… [You need] to put all that away, and you need to create something to fill this emptiness,” Leshchenko continued, emphasising how fundamental it will be for Ukrainians to redefine their culture and identify what was “basically stolen by Russian propaganda.”
Towards the end of the panel, Hovorka touched upon the controversy around Ulrich Seidl’s Sparta. He explained that the team ultimately decided to screen the film, without hosting a Q&A with the filmmaker. Thus, they turned into an opportunity to prompt a debate on children’s rights by inviting psychologists and experts to speak.
