This entry outlines my involvement within specific areas of pre-production and how they both added and detracted from festival operations and thus festival outcome. I would also like to address my involvement with the establishment of the festival back-end including; website, design & asset management, search engine optimisation, drive management and email.

As this was my last studio for the course; I actively tried to take on a facilitatory role within the group. Listening to Sowata’s talk I realised quickly that functional groups were going to be necessary for the festival to move forward. I wanted to use the opportunity of this studio to develop processes not dissimilar to my previous internship, I was interested in following my previous colleagues model of project management and group development. On a personal level, I wanted to develop skills surrounding web management which would ultimately assist me in future business endeavours.

Unfortunately the rate of group development was inherently slow from the outset, with major goals not being established after the festival conceptualisation. I assume that these issues steamed from group size, lack of a command group, role ambiguity and not being task orientated. I tried developing the ‘action responsibilities ongoing’ sheet as a way to create individual sub deliverables which would shape precedence for the overarching project. However, as nobody was bound to a specific areas of work, there was no repercussions of not actioning tasks. Therefore disparate interest groups and friendship groups took precedence, with many class members taking groupthink approach and free-riding the course. Definitive task groups would have been much better due to our time constraints and reliance on other teams for project deliverables (eg. website waiting for copy, facebook waiting for logos etc).

I believe that the drive and professional mail functions were extremely solidifying tools. They allowed work functions to naturally develop once individuals learned how to utilise the technology. Groups established their own processes (rather messily) within the drive once core goals were established.

One particular task I wish I personally established earlier was website optimisation, SEO and analytics. This data could have advised other processes within the festival (eg. advertising, marketing, facebook engagement). Looking at the results below, our limited ad spend could have been much more strategic. For example social media at 43.67%, direct at 41.07%, organic search function at 12.13% and referrals/publicity at 3.12%. Rather than putting all of our eggs in one basket with our social media engagement. Social Media Managers did extremely well with generating unique posts with backlinks back to the website, thus building brand recognition and placing MIYFF second on Google search.

Analytics All Web Site Data Channels 20190501-20190531

Melbourne International Youth Film Festival Website

Overall I was relatively pleased with the outcomes the above mentioned work, however I do recognise that my project management, web design/wordpress and web optimisation skills need further refinement.

The following reflection is based on the “criticism session” with Rohan Spong and Erin Rosenberg on May 9th. I presented information surrounding the fundraiser event which also occurred on May 9th. This included pre-production, screening licensing, choice of films, location, catering, technical production and logistics. Due to the limited timeframe prior to the critic session; the capacity at which I could gather and collate information to present to the industry professionals was limited.

The importance of pre-production meetings, event risk assessments and location reconnaissance were well received. These procedures have been consistent for the entirety of the planning process for both the fundraiser and the main festival. These tasks are quite often pre-set requirements by venues, councils, etc. We were advised that it was best-practice to always consider them, even if they were not always set requirements.

Rohan had some doubts on the chosen location for the fundraiser, he felt the space had constraints in its usage for screening films. This especially included light, screen choice, sound, and the occupation of the space by other students (especially dancers). For most part all of these issues were addressed with the assistance of onsite trade and technical. Noise generated by other students throughout RMIT was prevalent, ratification in the future could include soundproofing with the usage of drape. Moreover, RMIT should be advised to limit student access when special events are running in the vicinity. In this case a post-event analysis with RMIT faculty would be favourable.

Additionally, Rohan criticised the choice of films being far too polarised in genre. The notion of ‘canned’ films was accepted, however he believed that the films should be closer from a stylistic standpoint. This translated over to the event with most guests enjoying the absurdity of the first film but unfortunately losing attention by the second screening. I also attribute the loss of attention & attendance due to the length of the break between the screenings. Therefore a much more succinct run-sheet should have been organised earlier.  Furthermore, greater interactivity with the film text (as many cult festivals do) should have been encouraged in order to create a more enjoyable experience.

The advertising collateral was well received, with messaging and style being in-line with our screening and Melbourne International Youth Film Festival branding. However due to our slow conceptualisation of the screening; posters, ads, facebook events received very little, if any engagement. I felt that the criticisms were well received by the myself and the team however due to being on the same day as the fundraiser itself, very few rectifications could actually be made.

The following article will highlight the learnings gained from staging the collaborative fundraiser event on the 9th of May and how it influenced decisions for the final festival. This includes understanding the importance of recognising succeedings and drawbacks and how they will ultimately change future decisions. For this event, I found myself within a general production technical role. This included acquiring the content, creating  a deck, setting up the screen, projector and sound system.

I had little to any doubt in my competency to complete these tasks, thus I found that I gained little benefits from partaking. Some things which could have improved from a production standpoint include; a much more definitive run sheet to dictate the proceedings of the night, content to be delivered in a more timely fashion and less time elapsed between the screenings (or greater time management). These issues are fairly standardised for most events or productions that i’m involved in a professional capacity. They are universal issues and often get better with experience. A definitive Event Organiser (EO) or Production Manager (PM) for the night would have allowed much more of a succinct experience for both guests and the team. Ideally this will translate into the final event as the scope and scale is much larger.

Another drawback for the event was the amount of marketing and promotion that took place before the event. Posters were only disseminated 6 days prior to the event which allowed for very little coverage and awareness. For other festivals, promotion needs to be spread a few months in advance in order to build traction.  Due to our limited time frame in the studio, it is understandable that we could only conduct marketing in limited capacity. However for future festivals it would be advised that marketing materials should be prepared months in advance.

In terms of programming for the event. I feel that the selection was apt for the ‘canned’ theming of the experience. Although I do believe greater value could have been created if the films were similar genres. For example, a screening of ‘The Room’ would have worked nicely with ‘Ben and Arthur.’ The films would have complemented each other in terms of tackiness and cult following.

This entry outlines the guidelines for film classifications as determined by the Federal Register of Legislation website. It also highlights the new classification arrangements for film festivals, computer games expos and cultural institutions who wish to screen unclassified content.

The Guidelines for the Classification of Films 2012: Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 was developed in order for explain the various classifications and the scope and materials of each category. The latest version was developed in 2012 and is constantly revised though community input. It is based off legislation and the cooperative effort of federal, state and territory governments. Classification decisions are made through the classification board with the administrative assistance provided through the attorney-general’s department. All films and computer games are to be classified according to the act prior to release.

The classification categories are as follows; G or very mild, PG or mild, M or moderate, MA15+ or strong, R18+ or high, X18+, RC or very high. The act takes into account various standards and assumptions about the respective audiences, each classification is measured against context of actions including impact and interactivity. All classifications except for G need to provide guidance and information to the viewers prior to the commencement of the film or video game.

Classifiable elements include that of themes, violence, sex, language, drug use and nudity. Each category will look at the context, frequency and impact of each element and grade them accordingly.

In 2015 there have been recent changes to the requirements for film festivals, computer game expos and cultural institutions who wish to screen unclassified content. Event organisers no longer need to apply for classification, rather than make a self-assessment of the content in which they will be screening and then choose whether they will be exempt from the classification standard. The exemptions apply to registered events and approved cultural institutions.

Individuals who attend the events must adhere to the classification age guidelines; that is movies rated M or MA+15 must not allow under 15 year olds to enter. Furthermore films classified R18+ must only allow adults to enter the event. Classification exemption cannot apply to films rated X18+ and RC. Waivers can be attained, however must be done in advance pending approval from the classification board. At current there are no fees associated with classification exemption. However if the event or cultural institution does not meet the requirements, they will not be allowed to screen the content.

References

“Guidelines for the Classification of Films 2012: Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995” on Federal Register of Legislation website, accessed 28 April, 2019.

“New classification exemption arrangements for film festivals, computer game expos and cultural institutions.” on Australian Classification, website, accessed 28 April, 2019.

Since the establishment of film festivals; academics, journalists and cinephiles have found themselves in a state of contention surrounding the intent and direction in which film festivals must operate, and ultimately their purpose in defending film. Like all aspects of the developing globalised world, film festivals cannot operate in a cultural or economic vacuum independent from the rest of society. They must operate within the constraints of a broader process.

“in the 1930s, Mussolini launched the world’s first film festival, Venice, to celebrate fascist ideas and aesthetics. To counter this, two alternative festivals were launched, one in a former fishing town, Cannes, and one in the ‘Athens of the North’, a centre of the Enlightenment, Edinburgh.” (Cousins, 2012). Cousins opening quote within the manifesto highlights opposing ideologies and the difficulties facing film festivals.

Cousins (2012) argues that most international film festivals have evolved into new ideations, however are fundamentally the same as those of which were launched in the 1930s. They are masked in ‘glamour and ubiquity’, often not able to connect with the core premise of film festivals. Too many of the festival elite are concerned with attaining premiere films and celebrity appearances. Koehler (2009) also describes these material issues and also extends his argument to encompass a detachment and aversion of cinephilia at the centre of festival activities; therefore believes the scope of festivals have become dissipated in their outreach and adaption.

Just as we look at films, music and art as authored concepts, Cousins (2012) argues that we should also look at film festivals the same way. Albeit over a series of days or weeks. Film festival organisers need to author themselves as stylists and storytellers; removing objects such as red carpets and VIP booths. Considering more about the impact they can make on a spatial and temporary space within society. Elsaesser in Ma (2017) argues the notion that festivals in the international festival circuit have adapted to a globalised and homogenous operational model. Whether this model is beneficial to film festivals and films on a wider scale is still a site of contention. Cousins (2017) believes they are in a state of formal torpor which needs to fundamentally change in order to create a joyous, innovative, divine, political, and honest film festival experience.  

Furthermore, Koehler (2009) states that film festivals impact in defending the purity of cinema has dissipated due to a growing marketisation of the process, turning the experience into trading exhibitions rather than sites of meaning. Quite simply tho, without marketisation film festivals would not survive in modern society. To truly defend and support film, festivals must extend their capacities and be open to change when change is genuinely needed.

References

Cousins, M 2012, “Film Festival Form: A Manifesto” on “The Film Festival Academy” website, accessed 12 April.

Ma, R 2018, Asian documentary connections, scale-making, and the Yamagata International Documentary Film Festival (YIDFF). Transnational Cinemas, vol. 9, no. 2, pg. 164-180.

Koehler, R 2009, “Cinephilia and Film Festivals” in Dekalog 3: On Film Festivals, Wallflower Press, London, pg. 81-97.

This article will be highlighting the key takeaways from Mia Falstein-Rush’s presentation surrounding the festival experience, especially the first half of her presentation. With Mia’s extensive involvement in areas of operations and programming, her perspective was invaluable in aiding with the processes in which we are currently undertaking as a team for our festival. Furthermore, her personal narrative allowed me to critically examine my own professional brand and how I will be proceeding with my career.

From the outset you could see that her approach to engaging with festivals was wide reaching. She attested to the opportunities available to those who wish to enter a career in film festivals. This included getting involved with festival volunteering. She stated that by partaking in volunteering you can gain in-depth operational perspectives of film festivals.

Mia said one of the core premises of engaging in film festivals included the belief in the power of film as a medium. In that it truly has the ability to change and shape the world. Film festivals can create value added experiences for audiences; this can include unique screening experiences, festival events, networking, community building, and recognition for filmmakers.

Mia believed that film festivals were a catalyst for changing the landscape ‘on’ and ‘off’ the screen. This ultimately led to the conception of her first film festival, ‘Seen & Heard Melbourne’. This festival highlighted the discrepancies between men and women in the film industry. Including the lack of women behind the camera; especially in roles such as directors, producers and writers. Because of this discrepancy she was able to formulate the festival ‘why’. In other words how curators must frame their own core values to that of the  festivals mission and values.

The following article will be highlighting key methodologies used by Jong and Carrión (2015) in order to secure funding for a film festival. These methodologies were used in the context of human rights film festivals and NFPs (Non-for-profits) however could also be extended out to other festivals and screening activities. Due to my current role within the partners and sponsorships department, this reading was of interest to me. I will critically analyse our current processes against it and where possible make rectifications for future strategy. The authors highlighted the importance of developing a strategy and writing down a project plan displaying all festival activities (this includes clearly defined objectives and a respective timelines). By doing this direct correlations can be made between festival activities and the benefits attained by partners and sponsors. There should be some intersectionality between the project plan and the development of sponsorship packages.

Plans and research that could advise the sponsorship package could include; identifying target groups, competitor analysis’, the political and social context of the festival, expected outcome and evaluation plan, programme description, production and logistic plan, publicity plan, budgeting and financing plan, material and personal plans, and outlook objectives.  

Unfortunately due to our limited time frame and hunger for funding, we developed the sponsorship package prior to doing the aforementioned in-depth research and plans. Some tentative partners could be developed early, however for future events I would recommend that marketing, production and finance departments should develop the baseline festival processes before launching any callouts for funding.

Identifying suitable funding and financial sources can be done early in the planning process, however one must consider the importance of having all of your ‘cards in order’ before contacting them. Sources could include: foreign funds and donors (governments, foundations, international agencies etc), domestic funds and donors (non-governmental), public sectors (local and national government), corporate sponsorships and in-kind partnerships, individual donations, benefit events, fundraising activities, crowdfunding, box office, advertising and various other sources.

Like any business model the importance of diversifying your funds is essential to the longevity of film festivals. As reported donors are often engaged for the first year of the festival (and/or second year) but quite often stop supporting due to finding new organisations to work with. Developing world festivals will need to rely on foreign funds and donors initially until the project becomes completely sustainable. There are implications of these actions, some governments of these countries will require in-depth communication and procedures in order to run festivals. This may limit particular films from being shown due to regulatory measures.

The authors developed three stages that the partners and sponsorships department of film festivals should adhere to. The initial stage being the ‘funding process’, that is, getting acquainted with applying for a grants, sponsorships or in-kind partnerships. Double checking the guidelines, criteria and recommendations. This especially includes deadlines and timeline conditions. By this correctly, you will save wasted time and potential resources. Sponsors will want to see tangible results after the project has ended. The importance of formulating clear, measurable indicators and evaluation methodologies (as noted earlier). Deliver these results in a succinct sponsorships package.

The second stage is that of ‘developing your relationships’ which highlights the importance of sharing successes and failures with your immediate network, sponsors and partners. Always advising them when your budget changes or you deviate from the plan. By doing such they may be able to advise you further on prospective actions. Inviting them to give a talk or participate in a discussion so they are actively involved in the festival experience will also aid within this phase. If this is not feasible, send them periodic emails on the status of the festival.

The authors state that the festival should always remain independent, leverage shared goals, but don’t include sponsors directly in the process.

The final stage is that of ‘evaluation and reporting’ which is when all festival activities and data is disclosed to the partners and sponsors. This is done to assist them in their own reporting and whether engaging with the film festival has delivered an acceptable ROI. This process entails setting requirements for an evaluation report and the timeframe in which you need to deliver it to your sponsors and partners. Writing down all of your successes and how they variated from your original proposal/application. In all honesty, stating what went well and what went wrong. A good report states the description of the event and original objectives. Exact outcomes are always welcomed; number of visitors for screenings, number of visitors participating in specific events, earned media, owned media, and paid media. If the festival is a new occurrence it is important to gauge visitors overall experience, this can also be used to advise future events.

References

Jong, M and Carrión, M 2015 “Adding Water to the Soup Pot: Finding Resources for Your Festival” in Setting Up a Human Rights Film Festival, vol. 2, Human Rights Film Network, Prague, pp. 115-129.

The following article will be highlighting key topics raised within the Kuhn (2015) reading. Especially surrounding the prevalence of production team members and venue selection. This reading was focused on Human Rights Film Festivals and NFP (Non-For-Profit) models however could be easily adapted and re-contextualised to suit other screening and festival activities.  

Kuhn (2015) establishes the importance of acquiring production team members (initially through volunteer pathways) in order to participate in generalist festival duties. This includes tasks such as becoming the ‘face’ of the festival through client servicing and liaison, developing the overall form and function of the festival, intersecting with other festival departments, and venue reconnaissance.

Assignment of clear responsibilities to various people, if they cannot complete said task have a designated individual to takeover when required. Starting each day with a staff meeting outlining the events for the day and tasks which need to be completed. Creating clear methodologies of communication which is accessible to everyone. Finally to ensure consistency, creating checklists in which each individual can utilise. Thus improving processes for future festivals.

Team positions vary according to the lifespan and size of the festival. Core positions include that of director(s), programmer(s), program coordinator, technical coordinator and production department. For larger festivals with international guests, a dedicated guest coordinator is also required (guest coordinators will also need to organise: visas, accomodation, tickets, welcoming letter, itinerary etc.)

The importance of planning and operational activities should not be overlooked, including tasks such as: scheduling labor logistics, purchasing of materials and consumables, and ongoing festival budgeting.

Production staff should be mindful of the permissions and licensing that will be required to run the festival in various states and countries. Most commonly includes event licensing which covers things including: censorship license, broadcast license, event license, building or distribution regulations, and food and liquor licensing. Most venues or public spaces will require event public liability insurance.

Venue selection is of critical importance as it quite often determines the success of the festival. Factoring in an appropriate size venue for the festival is of critical importance, ensuring that it is reasonably accessible for a wide range of audiences. Traveling festivals need to be planned well in advance with relevant logistical information predetermined. This includes multiple site visits and liaison with relevant authorities. Festivals in remote locations or within the traveling circuit often need to supply basic amenities such as power, water and sewage.

Screening venues are quite often regarded as an easier option for festivals due to the infrastructure already in place. Identifying areas around the venue for signage or other festival related activities is ideal. Orientation around the area is critical especially of that of International Film Festivals due to some guests limited language abilities.

The importance of accessibility should not be overlooked when factoring in venue selection. This includes accessibility for all ages, demographics and physical abilities. Thus considering things such as: public transport costs, centralised location, disability access, time of day etc.

Additionally the development and implementation of a festival centre is critical as it can act as a hub for day to day activities. This space can be used for ticket selling, wifi, displaying of promotional marketing materials and additional services (including  guest services, press office etc). Contemplating a particular festival look within these areas is of utmost importance as it creates consistency during the events eg. flowers, banners, and hand crafted items.

In terms of festival ticketing, even if it is being listed for free it’s important to keep it ticketed in order to control the particular amount of seats which are available at each event. Tickets should be distributed online and offline with suitable points of control (eg. festival hub). Creating ticketing will also allow for quantitative figures to be generated.

By following the aforementioned ideas and processes, production teams can ensure a seamless, professional and enjoyable festival experience for all individuals.

References

Kuhn, A 2015, “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, pp. 71-83.