See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/249919276

"Screening"? the Future of Film Festivals? A long tale of convergence and

digitization

Article  in  Film International · October 2008

DOI: 10.1386/fiin.6.4.15

CITATIONS READS

6 531

1 author:

Marijke de Valck
Utrecht University
36 PUBLICATIONS   215 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

NECSUS Film Festival Review section View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Marijke de Valck on 15 March 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Articles ‘Screening’ the Future of Film Festivals? Below A Loud Color

‘Screening’ the Future

of Film Festivals?
A long tale of convergence
and digitization

‘One of the biggest achievements of the festival network

has been to prove that there are plenty of people interested
in niche films…’

If asked to identify the trend that is most

By Marijke de Valck
Keywords: convergence,
Exploding Cinema, digitization,
film distribution, film
exhibition, ‘The Long Tail’,
online film festivals
influential in giving shape and form to the
contemporary media landscape many media
scholars are quick on their feet and reply with
a simple, three-syllable word: convergence.
What exactly is meant by convergence, how-
ever, is not as straightforward as the consensus
on and easy retrieval of the term suggests. In
his acclaimed book Convergence Culture: Where
Old and New Media Collide MIT professor Henry
Jenkins (2006: 2–3) regards convergence as ‘a
word that manages to describe technological,

www.filmint.nu | 15
Articles ‘Screening’ the Future of Film Festivals?
‘Festivals … not only make a variety of films available, they
also frame the films in a rich discursive context. Could
digital distribution over the Internet or cable do a similar or
better job?’
industrial, cultural, and social changes’. Quite
an accomplishment, one is prone to think, for
such a simple word that originally signified
specific types of (limited) mathematical behav-
iour. Jenkins (2006: 2) explains: ‘By convergence, I
mean the flow of content across multiple media
platforms, the cooperation between multiple
media industries, and the migratory behaviour of
media audiences who will go almost anywhere
in search of the kind of entertainment and expe-
riences they want’. To understand convergence’s
profound impact on the contemporary media
society, it is not enough to study technologi-
cal changes in media delivery systems, Jenkins
argues; we also need to scrutinize the shifts
that are taking place in the cultural systems,
the protocols by which we are producing and
consuming media. Convergence in the context
of media studies, then, differs significantly from
its meaning in some other fields. When applied
to media culture, convergence doesn’t refer to a
single-directional process of ‘growing together’.
More specifically, when discussing media con-
vergence we are not talking about the creation
of one super medium with which we will watch,
16 | film international issue 34
Below ...Every Third Bite
listen and interact for both leisure and commu-
nication purposes (what Jenkins calls the black
box fallacy). While being a time of homogeni-
zation, the age of convergence is also witness
to a tremendous expansion of the possibilities
for user interactivity as well as an increase in
choices available to consumers, mainly due
to the corporate-capitalist embracement of
taste differences as marketing strategies.
As a scholar specializing in film festivals I
am particularly interested in the ways conver-
gence and digitization will effect the function-
ing of the film festival network. Festivals share
this interest as the large number of talks and
strategic discussions on digital developments
attest to. Last year’s Cannes Film Festival, for
example, hosted a one-day conference on the
‘Future of Cinema’ on the opening day of its
sixtieth edition.1 The panel discussions dealt
with the fast-evolving digital economy and
tried to shed light on the question of how cur-
rent transformations are shaping new roles for
directors, producers and distributors.2 What’s
more, the topic of digitization has been on the
festival agenda for a considerable number of
 Below Long Tail author
Articles ‘Screening’ the Future of Film Festivals? Chris Anderson

years. The International Film Festival Rotter- of programming; film festival markets have
dam already launched a programme section to adjust to the demands of operating in an
dedicated to the future of cinema in 1996. As increasingly multimedia corporate environment.
the title of this programme, Exploding Cinema, In this article I will address the area that
indicates, the festival envisioned a future in challenges film festivals’ raison d’être most
which the traditional cinema theatre would fundamentally. I will look into the increased
no longer be the only place where cinema possibilities for digital distribution and exhibi-
would manifest itself. Other arts – architec- tion and ask how these might affect the film
ture, fine arts, music and theatre (dance) – were festival network in the future. In doing so I
believed to become increasingly cinematic in join the business perspective of the contem-
their languages as well. Exploding Cinema set porary convergence debates, while at the same
out to look at the crossovers between cinema, time challenging some of its assumptions
art, entertainment and games, investigating with insights derived from cultural studies.
on the one hand the role of the cinematic in
other disciplines and, on the other, the effects
of digitization on cinema as we know it.
The long tail
The term ‘Exploding Cinema’ is interesting Elsewhere (de Valck 2007), I have identified the
in the light of recent debates on convergence. phenomenon of film festivals as a solution to
It reminds us that the actual assessment of the problem of distribution. Film festivals are
digitization is closely linked to the perspec- exhibition platforms that, by virtue of their
tive chosen. Using the metaphor of an explo- temporary nature, offer the opportunity to
sion, a strong divergent force, the festival in bypass the demands of commercial distribution
Rotterdam chose to focus on (cinematic) and programme ‘difficult’ movies that are often
aesthetics. The current attention for trans- shunned by the major distributors, who are
formations in media technology and business foremost concerned with securing their return
models contributes to the popularity of the on investment and maximizing profits. I argued:
term ‘convergence’ instead. Looking back at
its historical development three consequen-
tial phases have been discerned: the first wave
of convergence hinged on the concentration
of media ownership; the second on digitiza-
tion of operating systems; while in the third
wave content emerged as ‘a very liquid asset’
that can be streamed across media platforms
(Murray 2003: 9). Being in convergence’s third
wave (post-dot.com crisis) we have moved
beyond the phase of simple utopian visions, so,
although it remains impossible to predict the
future, now is the time to draft probable sce-
narios. Digitization and our understanding of it
are not in their infancy anymore; we have his-
toric case studies and a wealth of theories at
our disposal that may offer a solid fundament
for developing a long view on film festivals.
There are many areas influenced by the digital
developments, it will be impossible to include
all in this short article. To name a few: festi-
vals can take on the task of reporting on and
framing the new aesthetic trends of hybridity
(resulting in programmes such as Exploding
Cinema); festivals are confronted with rapidly
increasing numbers of films submitted for selec-
tion, which fundamentally alters the process

www.filmint.nu | 17
Articles ‘Screening’ the Future of Film Festivals?
Film festivals have been able to multiply
because they offer opportunities for film
exhibition outside the regular movie theatre
circuit and the regular year-round program-
ming rhythm, in particular for films that do
not (yet) have the commercial potential to be
distributed while they are of special inter-
est to the niche community of film lovers
that visits festivals. (de Valck 2007: 104)
At film festivals audiences can watch ‘small’
films, such as first features, poetic documen-
taries or politically engaged works shot on
cheap material, that they are not likely to find
in their neighbourhood cinema or video store.
One of the biggest achievements of the fes-
tival network has been to prove that there
are plenty of people interested in niche films
and that it is possible to create a sustain-
able circuit around the exhibition of films
with artistic value and/or social relevance.
Digitization poses a severe challenge to
the established division between commer-
cial distributors and film festivals. With the
concentration of media ownership a major
shift has been set up, one from an industry
based on cinema theatres to one revolving
around copyrights (Hediger 2005: 143). In the
copyrights industry theatrical distribution is
no longer the most profitable element in the
commercial life cycle of a film. Video already
pointed at the lucrative potential of ancillary
markets in the 1980s, but its effect pales in
the face of the changes brought about by digi-
tization. Thanks to digital technologies media
products can easily and without substantial
costs be copied and distributed across vari-
ous platforms; DVDs in particular are very
successful. The result is a media economy
in which niche products can be extremely
profitable and therefore interesting for com-
mercial parties as well. To describe this new
economic model for media and entertainment
businesses Chris Anderson coined the term
‘The Long Tail’ in 2004. For the first time since
mass production the sales of small amounts
of niche products can outperform the prof-
its of items with mass popularity, causing
a major rupture in the way industrialized
societies worked until now. We can under-
stand the challenge that digital distribution
poses to film festivals better when we take
a closer look at this new ‘long tail’ model.
18 | film international issue 34
Below …E-Waste
‘With the concentration
of media ownership a
major shift has been set
up, one from an industry
based on cinema theatres
to one revolving around
copyrights…’
Anderson considered the old model as ‘poor
supply-and-demand matching’ and ‘a market
response to inefficient distribution’. He attrib-
uted the main problems to the limitations
of the physical world: cinema theatres need
to attract a minimum number of visitors per
acquired film in order to pay the rent; video and
music stores need to sell a minimum number
of copies to be able to afford the storing space
for each item. For the cinema, this meant that
cinema owners would only programme the
films that were able to generate the necessary
demand. Hence the dominance of popular Hol-
lywood films that feature stars, happy end-
ings and spectacular settings, and can count
on lavish marketing budgets for mass promo-
tion on top. Moreover, in the old model cinema
theatres are dependent on limited demograph-
ics as only the local public, those living within
a certain radius of the theatre, are potential
customers; people from Hamburg don’t tend
to catch a film in Munich, nor do East London-
ers travel to Bristol for an evening of entertain-
ment at the movies. As Anderson pointed out,
our media and entertainment industries have
long been characterized by scarcity. The radical
change brought about by digitization is that it
lifts the scarcity caused by limitations in the
physical world and brings us instead into a
world of abundance and choice. Online dis-
tribution and retail have no need for storage
Articles ‘Screening’ the Future of Film Festivals?
space. Therefore businesses using the possi-
bilities of the digital age can offer an almost
infinite amount of titles and ‘The Long Tail’ is
constituted of everything one could think of. It
contains every possible genre and the small-
est niches. The popularity of these titles may be
low, but together they amount to an enormous
global market that, thanks to digital distribu-
tion, can be exploited on-demand ad infinitum.
The question with regard to film festivals
is how this surge in possibilities for digital
distribution will influence the current festi-
val model. In a media economy characterized
by scarcity, film festivals were the appointed
places where people looking for specialized
interests and hard-to-find films would gravitate
towards. In a (future) media economy character-
ized by abundance media audiences can just as
easily find and purchase their favourite niche
products or discover new ones on the Internet
or their digital television (pay) channels. Why
wait for a festival to screen the newest hor-
ror films from Japan, when you can purchase
them online? Why travel to Venice when you
can watch a DVD at home? The question, in
short, is whether film festivals will become
superfluous in a market of abundance?
Finding films and
acquired tastes
People are going deep into the catalog, down
the long, long list of available titles, far past
what’s available at Blockbuster Video, Tower
Records, and Barnes & Noble. And the more
they find, the more they like. As they wan-
der further from the beaten path, they dis-
cover their taste is not as mainstream as they
thought (or as they had been led to believe by
marketing, a lack of alternatives, and a hit-
driven culture).
Chris Anderson, ‘The Long Tail’, 2004
Anderson formulated three rules for the ‘long
tail’ economy: broad availability, low prices
and assistance with search strategies. The
third point is crucial for niche films. With ‘dif-
ficult’ products – which counts for many films
screened at film festivals – people are not very
likely to go and look for these films without
prior knowledge or intermediary advice. It is
wishful thinking of a culturally educated and
intellectual elite that when quality films are
more readily available the tastes of people will
change accordingly. Appreciation and consump-
tion of certain films will always be embedded
in the larger cultural systems of education,
criticism, programming and public debate. As
Wesley Shrum (1996: 40) observed: ‘Taste in
high art is mediated by experts, whereas taste
in low art is not.’ This is not to say that (more)
people could become interested in develop-
ing their tastes when they are inspired and
encouraged by enthusiastic peers or knowl-
edgeable experts, but without being alerted
to the existence of ‘other’ films would people
really go off the beaten track? If so, would
they be able to find, say, a Hou Hsiao-hsien
film in the overload of material. If so, would
they chose to spent enough time on his slow-
paced films in order to begin appreciating
his style? The probability of such is not very
high when undertaken as a solitary activity.
For several decades film festivals have been
successful in helping people find films and
guiding audiences in acquiring refined tastes,
for example in world cinema, experimen-
tal films or restored items from the archives.
At film festivals one can immerse oneself in
cinephile peer communities and take advan-
tage of all the expert selections, discussions
and film reviews. Festivals, in other words, not
only make a variety of films available, they also
frame the films in a rich discursive context.
Could digital distribution over the Internet or
cable do a similar or better job? We can learn
valuable lessons from television here. With
the multiplication of television channels in
the 1990s, (cable and satellite) television was
the first mass medium (of moving images) to
become characterized by abundance. As John
Sinclair has argued, this meant the end of the
golden age of broadcasting in which televi-
sion was an instrument for creating imag-
ined communities on the national level and
interpersonal cohesion on the domestic level.
It constitutes the beginning of an era of frag-
mentation and individualized consumption: ‘To
the extent that the new services cultivate even
more varied and specialized tastes and inter-
ests, they become a force for social differentia-
tion rather than unification’ (Sinclair 2004: 43).
With digitization these effects are intensified.
The main difference with broadcast tele-
vision and digital television is that the first
www.filmint.nu | 19
Articles ‘Screening’ the Future of Film Festivals?
is a so-called ‘push’ and the second a ‘pull’
medium. Whereas the old television consumer
could sit on his couch passively exposed to
the flow of programming, the new television
user is forced to be active and choose what
to watch. The shift is, in other words, from a
medium shaped by top-down programming
to one dominated by user flows and expanded
choices. Early experiences with interactive
and digital television, however, challenged the
old assumption that media consumers were
awaiting a situation of abundance and eager
to choose among 500+ channels (Vittore 1997).
Moreover, as John Caldwell (2003: 143) argues:
‘All of the predictions about digital’s utopian
promise as a responsive “lean-in”, “pull” tech-
nology aside, programmers and the financial
interests that that deploy them will continue
to attempt to “push” content, to brand delivery
systems, and to schedule media experience’.
In the contemporary aggressive environment,
where commercial producers and program-
mers turn to strategies of affective branding,
spectacular aesthetics and populist content, it
is, I argue, not enough to make festival films
available online. Festivals need to draw atten-
tion to the alternative titles and provide a
sociocultural environment where viewers are
stimulated to watch and contemplate these
films. As Caroline Pauwels and Jo Bauwens
have convincingly argued with regard to televi-
sion viewers, the idea that people are autono-
mous in their viewing choices is a myth. They
state that ‘what we consume is always a reflec-
tion of the socio-cultural conditions in which
we exist … It is precisely the social determina-
tion of choices that the optimistic perspectives
[on television consumer sovereignty] scarcely
pauses to consider’ (Pauwels and Bauwens
2007: 155). When we apply Bourdieu’s per-
spective on our cultural viewing habits and
taste distinctions the idea of socially nur-
tured consumption patterns applies to cin-
ema even more strongly than to television.
Festival space that matters
Theoretically, we could replace actual festi-
val visits with viewing films and participating
in voting systems online. Moreover, as Jenkins
observed, at present fundamental shifts are
occurring in the protocols by which we are con-
suming media, so it is not unthinkable that these
20 | film international issue 34
shifts may cause the established patterns in our
cultural systems to adapt in due time. But will
they? In order to formulate a likely scenario and
long view on the future of film festivals I believe
we should begin by investigating some early
examples of film festivals organized on the Inter-
net. One would suspect that they have the best
of both worlds: unlimited availability of (niche)
titles and an ‘expert’ frame that can function
as both portal and guide to the films on offer.
Let’s take a brief look at two online film fes-
tivals, the American Media That Matters Film
Festival and the Japanese CON-CAN Movie
Festival. Media That Matters is currently in its
seventh edition (May 2007–May 2008). The festi-
val showcases short films on ‘the most impor-
tant topics of the day … [and] engages diverse
audiences and inspires them to take action’.3
Issues that are brought up include criminal and
economic justice, gender, gay/lesbian, human
rights, media, politics and health. The CON-
CAN Movie Festival (in its fourth year in 2007)
also streams short films online. The festival
organization selects a wide variety of films and
aims to bring viewers and film-makers from all
around the world together: ‘We at CON-CAN
Media Plaza believe that what the world needs
most is a communications plaza where like
minded neighbors with caring and rich hearts
can connect.’4 Like all online film festivals these
initiatives have only played a peripheral role
in the festival network so far. The reason for
their peripheral status should, however, not be
attributed to the focus on short films. Shorts
are widely recognized as an important genre
and receive attention at prestigious interna-
tional film festivals as well.5 They have always
attracted the attention of the international film
festival community because the format is less
susceptible to commercially imposed con-
straints and thus allows for aesthetic experi-
mentation and bold topic choices. Short films
are, furthermore, a sensible choice for these
first-generation digital festivals, because of
bandwidth limitations and the shorter average
attention span that is commonly believed to
characterize activity on the Internet.6 It is tell-
ing that many of these festivals combine their
online presence with events that take place in
the real world. Every year in June Media That
Matters presents a new selection of sixteen
films, chosen by a jury consisting of ‘filmmak-
ers, educators, writers, nonprofit leaders, film
Articles ‘Screening’ the Future of Film Festivals?
programmers, activists and youth’. They host
a festive event in New York, the city where the
festival organization is located, and invite a
celebrity, for example Tim Robbins or Woody
Harrelson, to present the selection. This event,
in other words, closely resembles the format
of real-time festivals and it is the event orga-
nized in New York that functions as kick-off to
a year of Media That Matters activities, both on-
and offline (throughout the year community
screenings and events take place). CON-CAN in
its turn offers a quite elaborated online sched-
ule that involves rounds of audience review
as well as expert and jury selection. Instead
of opening with an offline event, the festival
culminates in one: the award ceremony in
Tokyo. The examples prompt us to ask whether
online festivals depend on real-time events?
Clearly, physical events have major advan-
tages over their online offsprings. For one,
events taking place in actual space and time
are more capable of creating a festive atmo-
sphere, which not only alerts and attracts visi-
tors to the screenings, but also puts them in
the mood for ‘discoveries’. Festival visitors are
thus more open and willing to try and make
sense of unfamiliar content (Nichols 1994).
Year-round availability of films through digi-
tal distribution is less likely to create the right
setting for this type of high attentive media
consumption. Many cinephiles simply crave
the theatrical immersion (Klinger 2006). For
film, the screen is still considered the pre-
mier choice and the most authentic experi-
ence, which means that in a network revolving
around cultural value addition the most pres-
tigious events will use cinema theatres and
give film-lovers the opportunity to watch the
complete programme on the superior silver
screen. What’s more, cinema theatres and
festival locations can add prestige when bow-
ing on a rich history (de Valck 2007: 138–39).
Another set of reasons why spatial charac-
teristics are central to the way festivals func-
tion is linked to actual presence. Festivals need
rituals and ceremonies to add value and attract
media attention and these are much harder to
conceive of in virtual space. Major international
film festivals cannot be media events without
celebrities posing for photographers on the red
carpet. Neither are competition programmes
likely to generate sufficient prestige when not
concluded with an official award ceremony
in which the prizewinner mounts a stage to
receive his/her prize in person (English 2005:
31–35). The online festivals from our example,
Media That Matters and CON-CAN, indeed
both arrange ceremonies at actual locations.
Furthermore, it is very important that people
can meet face-to-face at festivals. Face-to-
face interactions stimulate regular visitors to
discuss and develop their taste and the pos-
sibility of meeting directors, stars, industry
professionals or other experts in person adds
a spectacular dimension to the festival event
that makes it more competitive in the con-
temporary experience economy than Internet
forums and communities for film viewing. In
a media economy characterized by abundant
choices for consumers, it is the embedding
in a supportive and spectacular sociocultural
context – e.g. immersing oneself into the fes-
tival (in-)crowd – that is crucial in stimulating
people to watch festival films. It is the actual
festival space that matters. Contrary to what
‘The Long Tail’ model would have us believe,
the fact that festival space is only acces-
sible for a limited amount of time (decreased
availability) further strengthens its appeal. It
www.filmint.nu | 21
Articles ‘Screening’ the Future of Film Festivals?
generates exclusivity and thus raises the pres-
tige and news value of programmed films.
Conclusions
Despite my fear whether niche products will
be indeed found in the long tail and my res-
ervations about the extent audiences will
develop a liking for ‘difficult’ films through
self-learning, I do believe film festivals could
lose ground to digital distribution platforms
on other fronts. In terms of economics, digi-
tal distribution and ‘The Long Tail’ model
offer commercial opportunities that festivals
simply cannot match. Festivals are bound by
the limitations of the physical world and will
therefore remain non-profit organizations that
depend on funding, sponsorships and/or ticket
sales. Film festivals are unable to turn a profit
on individual titles, because of their format:
many films are programmed alongside each
other, each film only screening an average of
two or three times. This has severe implications
for the viability of the festival network as an
alternative business model. Although festivals
find audiences and media exposure for films,
they at the same time tend to secure most
film-makers in a dependent position, blocking
their chances to employ their labour to gen-
erate an income. Digital distribution, on the
other hand, can result in commercial success.
In ‘The Long Tail’ even the smallest niche can
generate revenues. Why would film-makers
lend their creations to festivals for free when
they can reach audiences and make money
with distribution through digital platforms?
I believe we are faced with the contradictory
situation that the physical characteristics of the
film festival network are at the same time its
weakest link – keeping film-makers captured in
a subsidized ghetto – and indispensable to its
success as an alternative distribution and exhi-
bition circuit for films that have (niche) artistic
value and/or socio-political relevance. Many
festival films are atypical niche products that
depend to a large extent on discursive fram-
ing, embedding in a sociocultural context and
persistence in acquiring tastes. As I have shown
in this article, festival space matters, because
it supports the visibility and prestige of festival
films in ways that digital distribution cannot.
In order to draw scenarios for future changes
in the festival network we will have to continue
22 | film international issue 34
and complement insights derived from new
business models with knowledge of cultural
systems and cultural consumption. Learn-
ing from Jenkins’s assessment (2006: 13–16) of
the black box fallacy we are warned not to fall
into the trap of thinking that one medium (one
mode of distribution) will be the end result of
this period of convergence. It is in other words
not a question of either one of the two emerg-
ing as the survivor of a ‘convergence shake-out’.
The CON-CAN Movie Festival might be a fore-
runner of things to come; in September 2007
the festival went offline with a series of screen-
ings at the KYOTE Indies-Cinema 2007. So the
future of festival screenings appears bright.
The future of cinema seems even brighter
when we consider the advantages of ‘The Long
Tail’ model. Digital distribution might prove
to be the perfect companion to actual festi-
val events, creating opportunities for further
expansion and consolidation of the circulation
of niche films among worldwide audiences. •
Contributor details
Marijke de Valck is Assistant Professor in
Media Studies at the University of Amster-
dam (Faculty of Humanities). Her recent
publications include a monograph on film
festivals, Film Festivals: From European Geopol-
itics to Global Cinephilia (2007) and two edited
volumes, Sonic Interventions (2007) and
Cinephilia: Movies, Love and Memory (2005).
References
Anderson, Chris (2004), ‘The Long
Tail’, Wired 12: 10 (October), http://
www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/
tail.html. Accessed 13 June 2008.
________ (2006), The Long Tail: Why the Future
of Business is Selling Less of More, New York:
Hyperion.
Caldwell, John (2003), ‘Second-shift Media
Aesthetics: Programming, Interactiv-
ity, and User Flows’, in John Caldwell and
Anna Everett (eds), New Media: Theories
and Practices of Digitexuality, New York
and London: Routledge, pp.127–44.
Articles ‘Screening’ the Future of Film Festivals?

de Valck, Marijke (2007), Film Festivals: From Endnotes

European Geopolitics to Global Cinephilia,
1 The conference ‘The Future of Cinema’
Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
took place on Monday 22 May 2007 and was
English, James F. (2005), The Economy hosted by The Cannes Market, Filmfestivals.
of Prestige: Prizes, Awards and the Cir- com, MM2 Editions and Moving Pictures.
culation of Cultural Value, Cambridge,
2 For a podcast of one of the panel discus-
MA: Harvard University Press.
sion see http://light.vpod.tv/?s=0.0.207440.
Hediger, Vinzenz (2005), ‘The Original ‘Cinema: Towards the Audiences of Tomor-
Is Always Lost’, in Marijke de Valck and row’ discussion led by Colin Brown, edi-
Malte Hagner (eds), Cinephilia: Movies, tor in chief of Screen International.
Love and Memory, Amsterdam: Amster-
3 Website of the Media That Matters Film
dam University Press, pp. 135–49.
Festival, http://www.mediathatmattersfest.
Jenkins, Henry (2006), Convergence Culture: org/about/. Accessed 8 November 2007.
Where Old and New Media Collide, New York
4 See the CON-CAN Movie Festival
and London: New York University Press.
website http://www.con-can.com.
Klinger, Barbara (2006), Beyond the Mul-
5 The cradle of short film fests is the Inter-
tiplex: Cinema, New Technologies, and the
national Short Film Festival Oberhausen,
Home, Berkeley, Los Angeles and Lon-
established in 1954, receiving FIAFP accredi-
don: University of California Press.
tation as early as 1960 and presenting an
Murray, Simone (2003), ‘Media’s Conver- influential manifesto in 1962. In the mani-
gence’s Third Wave: Content Stream- festo, 28 young German film-makers declare
ing’, Convergence, 9: 1 (March), pp. 8–18. their dedication to contribute to the new
German film. They observe that in the last
Nichols, Bill (1994), ‘Discovering Form,
couple of years short films have won many
Inferring Meaning: New Cinemas and
prizes at festivals and received favourable
the Film Festival Circuit’, Film Quar-
critiques. To them this is a sign that the
terly, 47: 31 (Spring), pp. 16–30.
future of the German film is in the hands
Pauwels, Caroline and Bauwens, Jo of those who understand the new film lan-
(2007), ‘Power to the People’? The myth guage. ‘The old film is dead. We believe in
of television consumer sovereignty the new film [my translation]’, International
revisited’, International Journal of Media Short Film Festival Oberhausen website,
and Cultural Politics, 3: 2, pp. 149–65. http://www.kurzfilmtage.de/ikf/fileadmin/
Kurzfilmtage/Pressebilder/62_OB_MANI-
Shrum, Wesley Monroe Jr. (1996), Fringe and
FEST.PDF. Accessed 13 November 2007.
Fortune: The Role of Critics in High and Popular
Art, Princeton: Princeton University Press. 6 Although most studies point at a low
attention span for Internet users, a recent
Sinclair, John (2004), ‘Into the Post-broad-
study challenges this assumption. It com-
cast Era’, in John Sinclair and Graeme
pared the time spent on news coverage
Turner (eds), Contemporary World Tele-
online with the time spent reading printed
vision, section on ‘Television in the
newspapers and found that online people
Age of Convergence’, London: BFI Pub-
actually have a longer attention span. For
lishing, pp. 42–60 (esp. pp. 43–45).
details see http://www.eyetrack.poynter.org.
Vittore, Vince (1997), ‘The New Video Mix:
Couch potatoes may not need 500 chan-
nels, but they’ll pay for better options’,
Telephony Online, 8 December, http://tele-
phonyonline.com/mag/telecom_new_
video_mix/. Accessed 26 November 2007.

www.filmint.nu | 23
View publication stats