Since their inception international film festivals have not only pursued and addressed esthetic or culturological goals and tasks but also have impacted political processes. This idea, which seems strange at first sight, has been repeatedly confirmed in the 20th century history.
International festivals are an integral part of cinema. Meanwhile the idea of holding such film parades at which film directors from all over the world compete with each other, choosing the best of the best (sometimes nominally), could promote the sharing of experiences, establishment of contacts, reaching out to audiences and carry a greater charge of opportunities and different potentials - not only esthetical- that it may seem at first glance.
Since their inception international film festivals have not only pursued and addressed esthetic or culturological goals and tasks but also have impacted political processes. This idea, which seems strange at first sight, has been repeatedly confirmed in the 20th century history.
International festivals are an integral part of cinema. Meanwhile the idea of holding such film parades at which film directors from all over the world compete with each other, choosing the best of the best (sometimes nominally), could promote the sharing of experiences, establishment of contacts, reaching out to audiences and carry a greater charge of opportunities and different potentials - not only esthetical- that it may seem at first glance. Suffice it to recall that the Venetian film festival – the oldest in the world—was founded in 1932 on the initiative of Benito Mussolini. Often alongside with endless arguments over new trends, “waves”, (be it French, South Korean or Romanian) and names in the festival life, or more exactly - festival paradigm built on the basis of the analysis of the results of the Big Three (Berlin, Cannes, Venice) - one can detect elements of political maneuvering and unambiguous public posturing going far beyond deliberations on cinema proper.
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin who coined a text-book phrase “The most important art for us is the cinema” intuitively understood the boundless potential of this art which was then still in a farcical state and due to its mass character and hence accessibility could instill in the credible spectator the ideology necessary for the young Soviet power. The plan was brilliantly executed: Sergei Eisenstein, Vsevolod Pudovkin, Dziga Vertov, Alexander Dovzhenko did an excellent job. However, soon it became clear that the international arena is much more attractive from the point of view of promoting ideas on the inevitability of the dictatorship of proletariat and world revolution. As a result – the 1935 First Moscow Film Festival held by personal order of Joseph Stalin.
However, no matter what reasons guided the politicians who started manipulating art the festival life created its own context with prevailing social and political rather than only political motives. A vivid proof was the disrupted Cannes Film Festival in May 1968 which in those times was already considered the world’s greatest event in cinematography (certainly, its cancellation was like an explosion which simply could not be ignored). At a specially convened press-conference a group of activists headed by Jean-Luc Godard, Francois Truffaut and Claude Lelouch declared that it considered improper to hold the festival at the time of mass disturbances and an ongoing strike of many trade-unions in France whose goal was the resignation of Charles de Gaulle. The festival’s management was accused of cowardice and lack of conscience. The very next day Robert le Brait, the head of the festival, announced its closure which was seen as another minor step towards the established goal.
No less courageous was the behavior of the members of the jury of the 3rd Moscow International Film Festival under the chairmanship of Grigori Chukhraj awarding in 1963 the main prize to Federico Fellini’s film “Eight and a Half”. This decision was contrary to the directive of the party leadership: the first prizes of film festivals irrespective of their artistic qualities must be awarded to national films or at least films from the countries of the Socialist camp.
After the dissolution of the USSR (by the way, it is noteworthy that the greatest influx of celebrities at a Moscow Festival was in 1987 when the winds of change of Mikhail Gorbachev’s perestroika lured to the capital guests of the highest rank and status) the festival map of the world was redrawn. The Cold War was coming to an end. The great Festival Three continued its incessant efforts in quest of new content while the Moscow International Film Festival began to look for its lost self-identification as the previous goals and tasks – to prove the competence of film makers of those countries which were under the tacit patronage of the Soviet Union—were no longer compatible with the requirements of the time, in fact often looking absurd.
These days some countries oppose the participation of their citizens in major international festivals. A vivid example of that was the decision of the organizing committee of the last 64th Cannes Festival to include in the program films of two Iranian directors – Mohammad Rasulov and Jafar Panahi. For their participation in anti-government demonstrations in Iran after presidential elections in June 2009 they were sentenced to six years of imprisonment and banned from shooting new pictures during 20(!) years, which actually meant the end of their career. One of them, V.Rasulov, received the prize for the best director work in the festival’s second most important program “Un Certain Regard”. Without questioning the artistic merits of the film, it would be difficult not to see this as a gesture of support of the professional community first for a human being and then - the director.
Similar examples whose list could go on graphically symbolize the attempts of the inherently apolitical film festival movement to impact real global political processes. Certainly it would be a mistake to declare the existence of direct correlation between those two but to deny it would be much more erroneous and near-sighted. As an institution of esthetic and cultural influence any major international film festival would not deprive itself of the pleasure to play on a political filed. Given huge public interest in the festival, various passage moves could be made, reflecting the position of the film festival’s management or individual directors.
However, one should not forget the existence of the feedback typical of the Moscow film festival during Soviet times when the majority of decisions taken originated from the Ministry of Culture, which made an emphasis not on artistic but on ideological aspects of presented films. It is obvious that current management of major international film festivals takes into account a certain geopolitical context (with the Berlin Festival especially active in this field having won the status of the most politicized representative of the Big Three) and deliberately includes in the program such films whose premieres can stir public opinion and arouse serious discussions.
The situation when international film festivals can play the role of socio-political influence agents, though not obvious to many people, is normal and objective. By its impact and outreach cinema greatly exceeds theatre and literature. That is why it would be foolish of those in the echelons of power and other stakeholders not to use its potential for ideological purposes. In the 1920s-1030s this was brilliantly demonstrated by Sergei Eisenstein. In the 1960s it was Godart who picked up the banner. Oscar Wilde’s maxim “Life imitates Art far more than Art imitates Life” is still topical. Modern cinema is very sensitive and reflexive with respect to many political processes and initiatives (the war in Iraq, struggle with the economic crisis, collapse of the policy of multiculturalism in Europe), while festivals are just a mirror reflection and aggregator of these deliberations, nascent tendencies and new-fangled trends.
