Diversity in front of, and behind, the camera is no longer enough
A key takeaway from the 21st Montreal International Documentary Festival was that, for the doc industry to be inclusive, critics and funding agencies must also change their ways.
Leonard Cortana could barely contain his anger as he recalled remarks he’s heard from members of film commissions on which he sits.
“I don’t know how many times I’ve heard someone say, ‘We have enough money for one more project, so why don’t we pick up an Indigenous project? They don’t need as much money,’” said Cortana, who is the programs and strategic partnerships manager for EURODOC, a training program for documentary producers.
Cortana was speaking to attendees at Forum RIDM, the professional program at the Montreal International Documentary Festival (or RIDM, based on its French acronym), this past November. He’s heard the same type of comments about documentaries covering women’s issues.
He said too many documentary filmmakers take on projects that deal with sensitive subjects without having the necessary funds for psychological support or compensation for the protagonists. “You can’t deal with a difficult issue without the proper funding,” he said.
Documentary Organization of Canada (DOC) treasurer and member-at-large Amar Lohana took a more nuanced view during a panel titled Creating, Distributing, Connecting: Challenges and Levers for the Documentary Ecosystem. He said significant gains have been made in terms of equity and diversity across the country, including programs for new filmmakers.
However, Lohana says there’s still work to be done. “The area where we see a lack of leadership is among decision-makers in government funding agencies, who are not diverse enough. It’s an issue that we continue to bring to their attention,” he said. “If we want to achieve lasting change, decision-makers must be more diverse than they are today.”
The Issue With Critics
Another key player for the success of a documentary filmmaker is the critic, who often acts as a bridge between the film and the viewing public. Four critics from Canada and abroad reflected on their profession during the panel titled Deconstructing Biases in Film Criticism.
The foursome agreed that criticism is a subjective endeavour. Like anyone, critics bring their own emotional baggage to watching a film. If they’re in a good mood, they may feel more positive about a film. They also bring their own life experiences and values.
Paola Casella, vice president of the International Federation of Film Critics (FIPRESCI), which represents film critics from around the world, explained, “I am a feminist. When I saw the film Promising Young Woman, I was very inclined to like it. And for the greater part of the film I was enjoying it very much,” she said. “Then some things started going wrong with the screenplay and one of the characters. So, what do you do? Do you give a voice to your side that wants to support this director, this film, this screenplay, the bravery of this film, or are you a critic who points out the pitfalls of the film itself? And, eventually, I chose to be honest.”
For Inge Coolsaet, co-editor of the Belgian film magazine Fantômas, it’s better for a critic to disclose their biases than try to hide them under the veneer of neutrality. She says that at Fantômas, critics are encouraged to write from a personal perspective and bring their “backpack” of experiences with them when they watch a film. “To put all of that in the text so that the source material for the criticism is not only the film, but is yourself,” she explains. “I think that's a potential way, not to avoid biases, but to see the effects.”
Criticism With Empathy
The panellists also discussed editorial practices that can encourage an inclusive perspective on a film.
At Montreal’s daily newspaper Le Devoir, the editors assign films to critics who have the sensitivity and cultural references to understand the world presented within, explained film and visual arts critic Olivier Du Ruisseau.
“I think that the culture is moving so fast now, and sometimes having, I don't know, the 60-year-old guy write about a story of a young filmmaker, sometimes it can feel kind of awkward,” he said. “So, I think we're trying to avoid that as much as possible, just to make sure that the criticism is as empathetic and informed as possible while also understanding that we won't know everything about the work.”
Mathieu Li-Goyette, editor-in-chief of the Quebec-based film website Panorama-cinéma, took a similar approach when producing a special issue on Indigenous cinema. His team formed an independent editorial committee with Indigenous community members, in addition to inviting Indigenous critics to participate.
That said, the effort broke down when they tried to create another special issue two years later and some of the Indigenous partners weren’t available. “We reflected on this a lot, and came to the conclusion that we need to do our own work, to be open, entertain conversations, and meet people from Indigenous cinema,” he said. “We need to meet Indigenous filmmakers, critics, programmers, go to festivals like Présence Autochtone [International First Peoples Festival].”
Li-Goyette wants his team to learn to write effectively about sensitive topics. “At our magazine, we try to create the conditions so that our team can learn how to write about these subjects that ‘aren't about us’…. [That’s] what cinema is. You know, you look through the eyes of others.”
