Universal Cinema Film & TV Journal’s Amir Ganjavie interviewed Clint Bowie, artistic director for the New Orleans Film Festival. Their conversation touches on the selection process and finding common values with the filmmakers at the festival.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Amir Ganjavie, UniversalCinema Magazine (UM): Can you introduce yourself and tell me about your role in your organization?
Clint Bowie (CB): My name is Clint Bowie. I’m the artistic director of the New Orleans Film Society, and we produce the annual New Orleans Film Festival.
(UM): What makes your festival different compared to other festivals?
(CB): I’d point to three different things that I think really make our festival stand apart from many other festivals that are roughly our size and scope. One of them is our focus on regionality. We actually dedicate over half of our entire lineup for films that are from and about the American South. We define that as the area from Texas over to Florida, up to around DC, and over to Oklahoma. It’s the region that we’re based in, it’s a region that we are trying to platform more stories from, and support artists who are making those stories. That’s one piece.
The second is our focus on BIPOC and LGBTQ creators. Typically, we show about anywhere from a half to two-thirds of the lineup from creatives who represent one of those identities, whether it’s black indigenous, or a person of color, or someone who identifies as LGBTQ+. That’s an important part of who we’re looking to support within our festival.
Then the third component that really makes our festival stand out, is the nature of support that the festival provides to the regional filmmaking community. We have a number of filmmaker programs, and labs that are initiatives of the New Orleans Film Society, and they’re all activated during the film festival. That results in a convening of a lot of artists who we’ve supported and had touchpoints with in different ways over the years. They’re part of that community that takes shape over the festival period, and it’s a really special time for them to connect with one another, with other artists who are visiting, with the industry presence, and with general festival filmgoers.
(UM): Can you tell me a little bit about the selection process for your festival? Do you have a team of programmers? Who is making the final decision?
(CB): There are three full-time programmers who are on staff, and in addition to that, we have 13 contracted programmers who are part of our team. In addition to that, we have four programming fellows who are working something of an apprentice-like position with other members of the programming team. Every film is seen by a staff-level programmer, so we are involved with those decisions. We also have a collective approach to making decisions about films and film selections. Every film is discussed in a discussion with multiple programmers. Within our team, no one’s voice is really more powerful than another’s. I would like to say that we all come together and find consensus around individual films, but that’s not fully accurate.
Sometimes, there will be eight of us on a given category team where we’re all watching films, discussing them, and it’s really hard to get eight people to agree on specific films. But important conversations come out of those discussions, and we’re able to collectively make decisions, and sometimes, that’s yielding to others on your team who feel really passionate about a film that you might not be advocating for, but might also receive their support for a film that you’re really passionate about. It’s a lot of give and take within that process.
A few years ago, we created a list of values and priorities that our festival seeks to lead with, in our decision-making processes around programming, and we make that publicly available. It’s on our website, we link it on our FilmFreeway page. We want to make sure that potential submitters and filmmakers are able to explore what our priorities are, what our values are before making the decision to share their films with us for consideration. We use that document frequently in the programming process when we get lost, for lack of a better word, and aren’t sure where to turn, or aren’t sure what decision to make. We go back to that document as a roadmap to help us make decisions.
(UM): Does this mean that the process of making the film is more important for you than the end result? You are looking more, for example, who is making the film, for what purpose? Are they given more value in your festival than the end result?
(CB): I wouldn’t say more valuable, but we put a lot of weight into that for sure, and that’s something that we’re very upfront about, and we try to communicate very openly and be transparent about. We’re looking to support artists who really value inclusivity. We’re looking to support programming teams that are ethical in their practices. We are also looking for exciting films that are breaking new ground, and pushing the envelope with respect to their visual language, the themes they’re tackling. It’s a mix. We’re certainly interested in not just the final product, but that process that went into making that final product. We’re very aware of the fact that by supporting a film, you’re also supporting the artists behind it, and we want to make sure that those artists who we’re supporting are very much aligned with the kinds of filmmakers we’re looking to support.
(UM): I remember that a few weeks ago, there was a conversation with the French Culture Minister at Cannes and somebody, Eric Wayne, asked her a question about diversity. She mentioned that it is very difficult sometimes to have a very solid measurement to measure diversity. For example, you might have a movie that is made by a poor white man from the suburbs, and you might have a film that is made by a rich woman, bourgeois class. It’s very, sometimes, difficult to say that only because of gender, or only because of race, we should prioritize this over that. I’m just curious if you have any thoughts about it or if you are trying to, for example, have this kind of conversation when you are selecting a movie about diversity.
(CB): Yes, 100%. I mean, it’s not as simple as recognizing that the filmmaker identifies as queer or trans, for example, and them automatically getting special consideration or a pass into the festival, or someone identifying as black and receiving that treatment. We really go deep into who the artist is, what they share with us, and also the situation of their production and what went into making the film, their connection to the film they’re telling, that’s really interesting. To us, we actually added a number of custom questions to our application form a couple of years ago, because we found that we were doing a lot of that digging ourselves, when it wasn’t provided directly to us.
We were trying to google answers about some of the questions that we had about the film team, or about the artist’s connection to the story, or their positionality within communities that are represented on screen. We now ask those questions straight up to know, tell us about how you put your team together and how inclusivity was a part of that. Because that’s important to us, and if you can’t answer that question or you don’t feel comfortable asking that question, then maybe it’s not a good fit for you to submit to us and it’s not worth our time to consider the film.
We want to see what the relationship between the person who’s leading that story and creating that story is to what that story on screen is. Is there a connection there? Does this person have insight or nuance into this world that they’re bringing? It’s important to us to support individuals to tell stories about their own life experiences and the communities they’re a part of. We wanted to be very transparent and allow filmmakers to invite us into the story of what their relationship is to the community.
It’s a nuanced process for sure, and I don’t pretend that our process is foolproof, or that our process gets everything right. It’s a very subjective process. In the hands of a different group of people, I’m sure our festival would look very different. But we try to come together, and like I said, create a list of priorities that we are interested in pushing forward with our lineup and with our process. That is really what leads our decisions. There are lots of films that might personally resonate with me because of my biases or because of my own life experiences that might not be what we’ve decided our festival wants to push and support. It’s a constant process of my programming colleagues and I holding one another accountable, and trying to constantly check ourselves in our own biases, our blind spots, to ensure that we are pushing the priorities that we’ve collectively decided to advocate for.
(UM): What is your position in terms of Russian filmmakers now?
(CB): That’s a great question. To be honest, we don’t have a hard policy on that. We’ve not taken a public stance on who we are supporting and where they’re from. I think a lot of those issues come up within the programming process. If there are ever any red flags that make programmers feel uncomfortable or want to surface that might make audiences feel uncomfortable, we certainly pay close attention to those issues and discuss them as a group before we make any selection decisions. I think there can be a lot of room for nuance when deciding who to support and who not to, and it’s important to look deeper into the situation behind each film and behind each artist to really figure out where our values align with what’s going on with the individual project.
(UM): To continue on this, what is your relationship with controversial artists? I read an article that talks about Woody Allen and Polanski. Their movies could get screened in a European but not at an American Film Festival. I’m just curious if, in a hypothetical case, you received a very good film from a controversial artist who has some issues like this, would you consider it?
(CB): Yes, we would definitely look at the artist behind it. I think we certainly look beyond the film itself. As I was saying earlier, it’s a big part of what we prioritize in terms of the films that we select, understanding that by selecting a film, you’re also supporting a filmmaker, and we want to make sure that that artist is someone who we want to support and we want to continue to give voice and a platform too. In the situation of someone having a track record that is not one that we want to continue to support, regardless of what the film is like, we’re probably not going to support that film for the festival.
(UM): Getting back to the selection process, do you also invite films to your festival or are all of them coming from direct submission?
(CB): Great question. It’s evolved somewhat over the years, but I would say, typically, 90 to 95% of the entire lineup comes directly from filmmaker submissions through FilmFreeway. We really believe in giving filmmakers who are still directly submitting their films a platform. But we do curate a small number of films, anywhere from six to 12 films a year. We directly curate. A lot of those, we work with studios to provide advanced screenings. Our festival falls in the very latter part of the year. We’re in early November, and it’s a time when a lot of studios are putting out awards contenders. Hopefully, that also places more attention on the other films that we’re selecting outside of that process.
(UM): Some festivals are having serious problems or struggling with venues, and that has impacted their festivals and the fact that they wanted to become bigger. I’m just curious about the venue that you have and your relationship. Is it something that causes problems for your festival or are you at ease with your venue?
(CB): Yes, that’s a very good question. We’re in New Orleans, Louisiana, which is a place that actually doesn’t have a ton of movie theatres in the city proper, and it has been a challenge for us to create a walkable campus that utilizes turnkey venues. By that, I mean existing venues that are set up and could be functional cinema spaces for the festival without us having to create them. In the past, we have invested a lot of staff resources, financial resources, and general capacity in building out venues of our own, warehouses and museums, and lobbies of different organizations that give us space, that allow us to bring in risers and a screen and a DCP projector, but that’s very expensive. In the past, we’ve really invested in that to create a walkable campus, which can be a really exciting and important part of a festival. Especially when you’re from out of town and you go to a festival and you’re able to walk from venue to venue, you don’t have to go outside of a festival campus, so to speak. In order for us to make that happen, we have to invest in building out venues, and it is very expensive.
In terms of our relationship to venue partners, we’ve obviously had ups and downs over the years as it relates to increased costs for rentals. We don’t own our own venues, so we have to pay pretty significantly to rent venues, and it’s not been easy. It’s always a negotiation. We also try to be loyal to the spaces in the city that our audiences really love to see movies in. That adds another complicating layer to how we decide which venues to use, and the different areas of the city to activate during the festival. I would say it’s one of the most difficult aspects of the operations of our festival. Because there are just so many different issues at play that make that process a little more complicated than one might think. It sounds like you have experience with identifying venues and all that, so you probably have a sense of how difficult it is.
(UM): Yes. I know exactly, because I know that Toronto is very lucky, the Toronto Film Festival, because of the venue that it has. But for example, in Tribeca, it’s more difficult. I heard the venues are spread out in the city, and it’s not easy to go from here to there. I’m comparing European Film Festivals, for example, Venice compared to Cannes. Cannes’s better because of the venue, and the infrastructure of the city. I know that that helps a lot for a festival to become bigger when you have venues available and affordable. It plays a huge role in your festival. I’m just trying to see the struggle that different festivals have with the venue, especially in the United States, where I know there is not too much support from the government. They are mostly private or a small portion comes from federal or state.
(CB): I would add to that that one of our biggest issues related to venues is identifying a large enough venue that can accommodate interest in opening night films, closing night films, and inner piece selections. There are no turnkey venues in the city that allow for us to gather, say, 600 to 1,000 people in a space without having to bring in a DCP projector, or without having to heavily invest in a space to allow it to accommodate the festival, the size of a single film audience that we would need for an opening night or a closing night film. That requires a lot of figuring out year to year. That’s a particular challenge for us.
(UM): I imagine that education should be an important part of your festival selection. You are looking for films that might be good for kids or education or the community.
(CB): We don’t have a kid-specific section of the festival. In the past, we’ve certainly had selections that we feel are family friendly or appropriate to all ages, and we try to engage younger audiences. We regularly bring in high school students, and that’s important to us to make sure there are selections that are appropriate for high school age students.
Speaking to education, media literacy is really an important part of our work, and we have a conference that’s in tandem with the festival. It’s a series of panels, and roundtables, and keynotes and sessions that are designed to build more media literacy to allow both audiences and artists to connect more deeply with some of the themes and films that we are putting forth. We also have a number of opportunities for filmmakers to learn from one another, and from the industry presence at the festival. Sometimes, those are through panel discussions or through curated one-on-one meetings that we help to facilitate during the festival. But there are a lot of learning and educational resources in that way, in terms of what it looks like to support artists in their journey as they continue to grow and build their artistic voice. I would say, when we think about education, it’s more on how we support emerging artists as opposed to building, I would say, younger audiences of under 15.
(UM): When you are saying that you are trying to support emerging artists, do you offer cash awards or theatrical screening deals? How are you trying to, in concrete ways, support emerging artists?
(CB): Sure. We have a couple of programs designed to do just that. We have one program, for example, that supports between six and 10 artists a year with a small cash grant of $2,000. A program that connects them to experienced filmmakers, provides them with ongoing mentorship, and gives them passes to both our festival as well as to other events. For example, we just took this year’s cohort to the Atlanta Film Festival, and provided them with passes and transportation so that they could experience another festival setting and build relationships with other filmmakers in our region. We have another program that’s specifically designed to support South-based producers. Not just writer-directors, which is what the Emerging Voices program is for, but the Producer’s Lab is designed to support those who are interested in producing the work of others.
That program supports 8 to 10 producers a year and also gives a cash grant of $2,000 to support them on their journey, a lab-like environment, passes to the festival, to other festivals, to mentorship. We also have a program during the festival called South Pitch, and it invites 12 filmmakers to the festival. This year, we’ll be covering transportation costs. Everyone will get $1,000, and we’ll also be providing two $10,000 prizes to two filmmakers who pitch their projects before a panel of judges who provide feedback on the pitch and their project, and also select those two winners. We give out a decent amount of direct cash to support artists who are building their artistic careers, and also try to supplement that with other mentorship services, connections to industry gatekeepers, which is important. Everyone who has a film at the festival receives a screening fee. We do believe in paying artists when we are explaining their work. Everyone in the festival receives a small stipend, and then we also provide a travel allowance to anyone who’s able to attend.
(UM): In terms of the online experience and COVID, what was the impact of COVID on your program? For example, Sundance right now has an online portion. I’m just curious if this happened in your festival. Did it change in any way the structure of your festival or programming?
(CB): We did add a virtual component to our festival. In 2020, our festival was both virtual and outdoor, with multiple outdoor venues, so it was a hybrid. We continued that model into 2021. the virtual component of the festival, we’ve retained that. last year, when the festival was back to an in-person indoor festival, we also included a virtual component for folks who couldn’t attend in person for whatever reason, due to accessibility issues, due to travel, due to finances, or whatever the case may be, they were also able to take part virtually in some of the film offerings. We’re looking to continue that this year. We found that it’s able to reach a number of people. I would say, in terms of the finances, it kind of breaks even for us. We’re certainly not making any money off of the virtual, given what we have to put into it. But we do think it’s an important part that makes our festival more accessible to more people. We want to continue that.
In terms of other ways that COVID shaped and has impacted us, we used to put a lot of money into filmmaker travel, and we used to not pay filmmakers any screening fee. During COVID, since there was no travel, we put all of that money into creating a screening fee. Once we did that, we couldn’t really go back and unring that bell. It’s something that we wanted to do, we just hadn’t really been able to. We maintained our commitment to the screening fees and then started to add travel stipends back in last year. It’s been difficult financially, but we’ve been able to do it.
Our festival also was longer pre-COVID. It used to be close to 10 days. We’ve shrunk the festival to about five or six days, and I think this year’s going to be six. Last year was five. But part of that was due to just our resources, what we were able to financially pull off. COVID did impact us financially pretty significantly. I think it forced us to really consider all of our practices and what we were doing, and I think a lot of small changes came out of that, and I think it benefited us in some ways and hurt us in others, but it provided for some important reflection time for us as an organization.
(UM): At the end of our conversation, I wonder if there’s anything left that you want to add or a thought that you might feel might be interesting for our audience.
(CB): Something that I think a lot about is the relationship between festivals to filmmakers, specifically submitters, people who are putting their work out there for consideration. When speaking with filmmakers, I try to make the point as often as I can that they really hold the power in this relationship. We’re dependent on them to share their work with us. Our festival is nothing without the filmmakers who are willing to share their work with us and have it shown in the festival, have it considered. I would love to empower filmmakers to own that power a little bit more. I think changes that they would like to see in the festival circuit, whether it’s at our festival or across the board, have the best chance of coming from the filmmakers themselves.
If filmmakers want to see higher screening fees from every festival, they have to demand that. It’s really important for filmmakers too to interrogate the practices of film festivals, to interrogate the programming, to not just blindly submit to festivals just based on reputation, but do more digging and find out who’s making the decisions. I would certainly never send my work or pay for my work to be considered without knowing who was going to be considering it. I would encourage all filmmakers out there to ask those questions of festivals, who is on your programming team, if you, for example, are a queer filmmaker and your story centers on some queer plot line, I would be asking how many queer films that festival had supported the previous year. Is that a space that they’re interested in?
Those are questions that would be important to me. I would encourage filmmakers to demand more of film festivals, both in transparency and in what they offer, because I do think that power dynamic, the festivals in the past have kind of held that power, but I think that there’s a real opportunity to shift that and have filmmakers own a bit more of that. That’s just something that I would like to share to all the filmmakers and potential film submitters out there, just own a little bit more of the power.
© 2020-2023. UniversalCinema Mag.