At the Toronto Film Fetival, Amir Ganjavi, the editor of Universal Film and Television Journal, conducted an interbiew qith Marcelo Alderete from Mar del Plata Film Festival (Argentina). Below is a report of the conversation.
Amir Ganjavie, UniversalCinema Magazine (UM): Can you introduce yourself and tell us about your role in your organization?
Marcelo Alderete (MA): My name is Marcelo Alderete. I’m from Argentina. I’ve been working for film festivals since 1999, almost half of my life. And now, since 2009, I’ve been working as one of the artistic programmers for the Mar del Plata International Film Festival, which is the only Class A Film Festival in Latin America, according to the FIAPF, whatever that means.
(UM): I know that might sound like a silly or difficult question, but do you have any definition of a good movie? A movie that when you are watching it, you say, “Okay, it’s a good movie for my festival, I should pick it.”
(MA): I think that, nowadays, it has become more and more difficult to discover new films and new titles because there are so many productions of films. Everybody talks about the crisis of the industry. For one part, it’s real, but for the other, you see a growing number of films that are produced year by year. It becomes more difficult to catch up with these titles and these films – to watch and to know what is produced in this country and in other countries. And there is also the problem of the world premieres. And some films, when they are rejected by the big festivals, instead of accepting the invitation of a small festival, they prefer to wait another year and try again in those big festivals. In Latin America, at least, every director loves their country, they said, but they want to premiere their films in Europe or North America.
But when you see a good film, you recognize it. You see, this is something that goes beyond the hype. You see that it’s something new, and there is something powerful about the director. There is a film in Venice called Explanation for Everything. It’s the first feature of a young director from Hungary and it’s two hours and 30 minutes long. When you see this film, you can see that it’s so interesting. It is a film of today, a film that deals with the issues of today, about politics, and about the life of the city. If I try to tell the story of the film, you will say, it sounds very local. But the film uses very cinematic ways to show how the society works and how the people behave in the country. And you see how a film can explain a lot of things. When I was watching the film, I immediately connected it with the political situation in Argentina, even if these are two completely different countries.
That’s the power of cinema, to do something like that. So, yes, I can still find and see what is important or good in a film that I can say I would like to show this film in my festival. I guess this is the thing, a film that shows things that are happening today and does this using the language of cinema. Anyway, we are not showing this film in Mar del Plata, but for other reasons, not because of its quality.
(UM): Given the rise of democratization and digitalization, handling the influx of submitted films, has become a challenge for many festivals. How are you managing this situation? Do you have a dedicated programmer, and what does the selection process entail?
(MA): We open the submission around May. We are a team of programmers, but we also have a team of people who watch films. We call them “Visionadores”. They make the first viewing of the films for us. Basically, the mechanic of our work is like that. We try to see as many as possible, but it’s impossible to have the time. This year we received more than 4,000 titles, including features, short films, and work in progress. Which is a huge number.
(UM): How many features and how many shorts?
(MA): Around 1800 features and the rest, short, mediums, and work in progress. We received more than 300 features just from Argentina.
(UM): Three hundred!
(MA): … and more than 600 short films, only from Argentina. The cinema industry in Argentina is in a crisis. The economy in Argentina is really bad. There is always some political problem. There are a lot of bad things going on in our society, but still, you receive this number of titles. So, sometimes it becomes very difficult. Also, you have some slots to show films from Argentina. You can’t show 100 Argentinian films. We always left out some really good films.
(UM): When you’re selecting films, do you have any quota – gender quota, race quota, or geographical quota – in your selection process?
(MA): Yeah, we do. Since Mar del Plata is a Class A film festival, in our competition, we must have some percentage of films from different countries. We cannot put five films from the USA and five films from Argentina. We have to respect that. And we have our internal gender quota. Yes, we do.
(UM): What is the nature of the relationship between your festival and the venue? I’ve observed that many festivals face challenges in securing appropriate venues or even having venues at all.
(MA): Mar de Plata is a touristic city. So, they still have a lot of cinemas that are still working. But you know how it is, the festival demands a lot of cinemas. They go from showing one film the whole day or the whole week to showing 5 or 6 different films per day, which, mechanically, is a lot more work. Every year we use almost the same cinemas, a multiplex inside a shopping mall that was recently open, and other cinemas that are still working in the city because it’s also difficult to maintain cinemas working during the whole year.
Of all the problems that our festival has, the venues and the cinemas are not a huge problem. There are problems, but in the end, they’re always solved. And we also have the main cinema of the festival; there is the Auditorium. It’s a huge cinema. It has 1000 seats. It’s like this old-style cinema with a high ceiling. It’s a theater, but we use it as a cinema during the festival. It’s a beautiful place. We showed the international competition there. It’s a magnificent cinema, old style, which is perfect. We never had a problem with that. We always use this place as the main theater of the festival.
(UM): I’ve engaged in discussions with various programmers, and a recurring issue seems to be the temporary nature of employment at many festivals. Individuals are often contracted for short periods, such as two or three months, and subsequently need to seek alternative employment. This instability poses unique challenges for the programmers. I’m curious about how this situation is handled at your festival.
(MA): We are dependent on the Argentinian government. We are public employees. We don’t have that problem. I know that is one of the biggest problems of programmers in the world. They have to have three, four, or five jobs doing whatever they can related to festivals in order to keep their salary, their journey, and the money that they make. I know that it’s a huge problem. I don’t know what the solution is. All the glamour of the big festivals and the big names, and sometimes the bigger festivals don’t pay as much as the people would believe. And that is also a problem because you have the name and the importance of working for that festival, but then it’s not equal to the money that you receive.
So even if you work at a huge festival, maybe you have to do something that is not related at all to the cinema. I remember once I was at the Cannes Film Festival and it was almost the end of the festival, one of the programmers of the Quinzaine at that moment, said to me, “No, I have to leave early on Saturday. I have to go back to Paris because I have to attend my other job.” I said, “Are you working? What other festival?” He said, “No, I work in real estate. And Sunday is very important because we show the places to the people who want to rent and all of that.” So, imagine…
(UM): How does government funding influence your festival? In some instances, like the Berlin Film Festival, the Minister of Culture has recently made the decision to replace the head of the festival. Similarly, in Venice, there is speculation that the new government will make decisions regarding the continuation of the current presidency. I’m curious, what is the situation in Argentina in this regard?
(MA): In that sense, we don’t have that kind of problem. They don’t interfere. No. We don’t have that kind of problem, at least until now. You’ll never know. But no, we never had that kind of problem even with our direct bosses, the Institute of Cinema, which is called INCAA. The director of INCAA also never interfered with the selection of the festival. They participate in the festival in different ways, they produce and organize the festival. But for the other part, the selection of films, they don’t interfere. But you know, the politicians, the people who are in higher positions, they get worse every year, even those who are supposed to be good people, so, you never know what will happen in the future.
(UM): Regarding themes, are there any subjects considered taboo for your festival? For instance, if a filmmaker submits an exceptional movie opposing abortion, do you have any guidelines indicating that certain topics cannot be addressed?
(MA): No, not in that sense. We are a very open festival. We have never had that kind of problem. And yes, we can show whatever we want.
(UM): How would you approach films from controversial filmmakers? For example, in a hypothetical situation where Roman Polanski submitted a film, would it be considered for inclusion in the festival?
(MA): I will answer that question by myself because I’m not the festival. I’m just one of the programmers of the festival. The festival has a director who will make the last decision. I guess the situation with that subject in Argentina… If we show a film by Polanski, it will be a huge problem. I saw the last film of Polanski. I wouldn’t program it either. He makes things easier for the programmers because he made such a bad movie… When I saw the film, I thought it’s very similar to Triangle of Sadness.The film deals with the same subject. But how can you deal with the same subject in such a different cinematic way? And how one is a director that is almost left aside, like Polanski, and then Östlund is like the king of Cannes, twice the Palme d’Or winner. It will be such an interesting discussion, but it’s not what we’re talking about. But I guess that in Argentina, yes, it will be a huge problem. I know that the artistic director of the festival will say no. He would prefer not to deal with this issue at this point.
(UM): You’ve mentioned Argentina. While this may be a broad question, I’ve noticed that Argentinian films featured in various film festivals often address the nation’s political history. It sometimes appears as though film festivals are perpetuating stereotypes about a country. I’m curious—do you have any thoughts or reflections on this?
(MA): If you are a cinephile who watches films, a journalist, or a critic who watches films and you see this, it’s more of a problem (well, not a problem, a decision) of the film festival that selected those films. As I told you before, we have so many Argentinian films that they deal with such a wide range of different topics and different things. But it is a thing of the Argentinian cinema because of our terrible past. Also, the generation of filmmakers that are working today, some of them, are sons of people who were victims in those days.
So, they still have things to say, to show in their art, and their films need to deal with those subjects. Yeah, it is a thing with Argentinian cinema that is still going on. But there are also some other films that don’t deal with those subjects at all.
(UM): How important is it for you to include crowd-pleaser movies in your selection? Is there a certain occupancy rate that you aim to maintain in the cinema when choosing films? Is this a factor you consider during the selection process?
(MA): I guess when you grow older, you start to want the films to try to connect in some way with the audience. You get to see many films that expel the audience… And I guess there must be something in between.
I also think that there are some films that are for smaller audiences. And you have to keep showing these films because, in the end, these films will be important at some moment. But if you don’t show them, because it’s for a few people, then these films will never reach an audience. I don’t know what is more important, whether to show The Killer, the new one by David Fincher, a film that millions will see without needing to be shown at a festival or to show this small film that you think has some value. I know that if we show this small film, it will make a difference for the director and for the people who made this film to show the film at a festival and to reach the audience that in some other way, they won’t reach. On the other hand, David Fincher won’t even know that we are showing his film. Which is more important? I think that it’s more important to show these smaller films than the others. I also think that as a programmer, you must find a balance, because there are films that are not so close to the audience, let’s say difficult films and they are good. And here are some big films that are really open to the audience, and they are also good. You have everything these days in the world of cinema.
(UM): How crucial is the presence of a star to the success of your film festival?
(MA): That’s a problem for every festival. That is a huge problem for all the festivals because the Minister of Culture, all the politicians, the governor of the places where the festival happen, want this figure, this name, this star. You wonder what is a star today for the people? Somebody who really will make a difference. In the world of cinephiles or the world of the people who love cinema, there are lots of names that for a person that is in the government, a mayor of a city, doesn’t mean anything. For example, for a festival, if you can have Pedro Costa, that would be amazing.
Let’s say Tsai Ming Liang is coming to your festival, and the programmers are happy, the critics are happy, is such a good name for the cinephiles, but the mayor of the city or the Minister of Culture will say: “Who?”. So that is always a problem because for a festival to reach a big star, you need an extra budget just for that. If you talk with the people here, they had a lot of problems because of the strike of the actors. They had a lot of problems. They missed a lot of sponsors and all of that. Because you created this, you used to have a lot of actors and famous people. When you don’t have them…, for us, it’s not a big problem because Argentina is having a really bad economic situation, it’s a country that is far away from North America, from Europe, and from Asia. It’s difficult to bring these big names. Still, we managed to have very well-known directors in all these years. We do have people from Asia, like Bong Joon-ho. He was one of the juries in our festival. We did a masterclass with him before he won the Oscar with Parasite.
As you can imagine, this huge director came from South Korea, which is the other part of the world. We made that. Johnny To was one of the guests and Claire Denis, Jean-Pierre Leaud, Joe Dante, Olivier Assayas… But then again, they are famous but… In this sort of situation, you want to have Scarlett Johansson, but for us, it’s impossible. I think that is a problem for the festival because of the requirement of having famous people and red carpet, well, some festivals don’t need that. I guess, going back to the problem that Berlinale is having at this moment.
I think that the problem is that the Cannes Film Festival created such a fantastic event, they still maintain some mystical thing. And all the critics love Cannes, they pay themselves to go to Cannes, but they don’t pay to go to a smaller festival. When you go to Cannes, you don’t have a good time, you suffer as a journalist, as a critic, as a programmer. You must run, you must wake up early, you must make lines, you suffer in the festival. But for the press and for all the people, that is a fantastic festival, the red carpet, the people well dressed, the famous stars, this and that, and the world premieres. But to repeat that for the rest of the festivals is almost impossible, even for Venice.
They have the money as well, of course, but even with money it’s really difficult to have that. And for the other festivals, even when they also have the money and the possibilities, like Berlinale or San Sebastian, it’s impossible to replicate that model of festival. This idea, that all the big festivals should be like Cannes, only creates problems, this is what’s happening now in Berlinale. The Minister of Culture, or whatever the politician in charge is, they expect something that won’t happen.
(UM): No, it’s not possible.
(MA): It’s not possible. It’s a different city. It’s a different culture. It’s a different history of the cinema of each country. But still, this idea of Cannes is what the people that have the power think the film festivals should be. They aim to get that, but it won’t happen. So, when that doesn’t happen, they blame the artistic director, they blame the program, and they blame this and that. It’s unfair. For good or bad, Cannes has such a huge power and that power it’s impossible to fight and even more difficult is to copy that idea of a festival.
(UM): As you’ve pointed out, this seems to result in a certain uniformity across various festivals.
(MA): This is something that is going on also on the surface of the film festivals. It’s like, in the past, each festival, including the big and important ones, had their own style; their own idea of cinema, the kind of cinema that was defended by their (artistic) director. They respected and they showed the films that represent their idea of cinema. Therefore, every festival had its characteristics.
But year after year this figure of powerful directors of festivals, like Hans Hurch, started to disappear. These big names, who are like the bosses of the festival, the ones who say what they want and don’t argue with anybody, have kind of disappeared. I don’t know if that is a good or bad thing, and I don’t know what’s next either. But now you can see that there are some festivals where the figure of the director doesn’t exist. Now they have a group of programmers who vote and decide what the festival will show. This, in some ways, affects the festival, because if you’re democratic in arts, you know you don’t get the best, you get the average. I guess that this is what’s going on at the festivals. For example, before it was known what style of cinema or what idea of cinema was defended by each of the great festivals such as Rotterdam, Venice, Berlinale or Locarno. Now that has changed, nobody knows what idea of cinema each of these festivals defend. They start to look alike a lot to each other. Like every festival now, in order to be open to all kinds of cinema, show a little bit of everything.
(UM): Oh, it’s kind of a menu.
(MA): Yes. It’s a menu of things that they give you a little bit of each. The competitive section, the section for difficult films, the mainstream, the masters (old and new), some retrospective, etc. It is like a mix of things; and then you lose your identity. I think that all the festivals nowadays, they’re losing their identity. This is a problem at my festival as well. And I don’t have the solution. I have an idea for a solution, but I won’t say it here.
In this way, the smaller festivals they’re surviving in a better way to these changes and problems. They still can keep some idea of the cinema they love. They find intelligent ways to handle economic problems. The bigger festivals have all these problems because they need a lot of money. When you need money, you’re like this huge elephant that depends on a lot of things to move and it’s difficult. But the smaller festivals, and the festivals that are dedicated to some genre or style, I guess, are doing things better because they don’t depend so much on the government or a big amount of money; they just handle whatever they have. Of course, they have their own problems, but I guess that these small festivals will survive. I hope so.
(UM): And importantly, I have heard from distributors that if a film is featured in a major ‘A’ festival, it is likely to have a continued presence, as other festivals often select films that have already been showcased…
(MA): But that’s the thing. After Cannes, you see all the films from there keep moving from festival to festival, you can see that. But then what is good about it, is that we have started talking about this. Of course, there are films that a lot of people want to see and eventually, we’ll see them some other way. But the problem and the difficult thing and the discussion and the constant struggle is about how much space you want to give to these films that everybody shows and how much space you want to save for these other films that if not in your festival, they won’t be seen in any other festivals or commercial cinema. You have to create this place to watch these films.
Also, nowadays, the films, within six months, are already old, which is another problem these days; the war of the world premieres. After the world premiere the film disappears. But I guess all these problems are problems that have been here for a long time. It’s good to discuss, to find a place to talk about them and discuss. But I guess it’s a good thing to discuss and to be open and to see as many films as possible, and to know that the film festivals are still well and alive if the response of the audiences exists. There are still crazy cinephiles who will travel to another city to watch films, and people of that city that expect every year for the festival, people discussing and talking about films after the screening, this still exists. The film festivals keep the cinema alive.
(UM): What can you share about the audience demographics for your festival? I’ve observed that attracting younger audiences is a common challenge for many festivals. Who constitutes the primary audience for yours?
(MA): Mar del Plata is a silver city. So, we have a lot of old people in the audience. They go and watch films and they are very active at the festival. They feel like they are part of the festival, which is really good. Argentina has a very strong cinephile audience, very young people. It was never an issue for the festival since I worked there, even before, there wasn’t an issue with the audience. We have this amazing and different audience. People who really know about cinema and the people who just like to watch films because there is a festival at that moment. At that point, I don’t have any complaints. We have full cinemas all the time.
(UM): How has COVID affected the festival experience, if at all? Have there been any noticeable changes in the way people attend your festival?
(MA): I guess what COVID impacted, more than the audiences, was the economics of the festival. What happened during the pandemic was that every festival was reduced in its budget. I’m talking in name of my festival, of course. We did an online edition in 2020 that, of course, was smaller than the previous edition. But when we could get back to normal, in 2021, we didn’t do an edition like the before the pandemic. And that situation keeps it up until now. From the pandemic days until now we never recovered a proper budget for a festival like Mar del Plata.
So, what was lost was and never recovered is the number of films that we used to show and the number of guests. I guess it’s a thing that happens in a lot of festivals. We never recovered completely from the COVID. The festivals get over the COVID, and they are well now, but not as well as they used to be. And also, travel around the world has become so expensive. In Argentina, with the economic situation and with the rate of dollar and peso, it’s so difficult to travel around the world, go to festivals, you know, plane tickets, screening fees, etc. I guess that affects a lot.
(UM): At the end of our conversation, I wonder if there is anything left that you think might be interesting for our audiences that we didn’t cover.
(MA): I don’t know. Even with all these crises that we are going through, crises that are more related to some ideas that people who are not related to the cinema had, like a governor of a city or a minister of culture, I guess that the festivals still represent something for the world of cinema. You can see that there are a lot of people here. So many people. So many audiences, and the city loving their festival and the people who volunteer at the festival. And I see the same in almost every festival that I go to. There’s still this audience that wants to go to the festivals. I’ve been to a lot of festivals this year for different reasons and in every festival, what you still see is the audience. The people still go to the festivals. The people still go to the cinema. The people still want to experience the festival, this moment, this event of watching a film together at the cinema. I think these problems, like the reductions and the change of the directors, programmers, etc. This is something that is affecting the festivals, but it’s not related directly to the film festivals, it’s likely an external problem that some people in power (politicians, ministers) create over the festivals. It’s like the festival doesn’t have a real problem except economics. Ok, there is the problem about what’s going on with the cinema today, but we can discuss this while attending film festivals. But all these attacks from different sides are something that the festivals are suffering from and in some way it’s unfair because, for example, if you went to the last Berlinale, it was a good edition.
But, if you get Spielberg as a guest and the politics say you need a bigger figure, well, what do they want? It’s impossible! You want Brad Pitt naked running around in the Potsdamer Platz? It’s too much. But then again, this last edition of the Berlinale and the editions that the Berlinale has been doing since Carlos Chatrian and Mark Peranson and all their team working there, is not a festival that expelled the audiences. No, they open the festival for the audiences. And not only in the main competition but also in every section. It’s a festival where you can see what’s going on with cinema today. They put an anime film in the competition. They show some good German films in the competition. It’s not like a festival just for cinephiles. But they still get attacked because of the program. Then you say: what’s the problem with this festival? And the problem is the people that attack the festival because they want to be Cannes.
(UM): Yeah, exactly.
(MA): If you have a Spielberg and he’s not enough, what do they want? It’s not that the cinemas are empty. The audience was there. Then again, you have a big name like Spielberg, who is such a great director but also very popular, but still…
There is another problem at festivals, and it is what is known as “the industry”. That whole group of people who attend festivals to participate in the markets, but who never go to a theater to see a film. These people also want the films that the festival programs to be big films, with famous actors, that can be sold to every country in the world. And when the festival’s programming offers something else, they start to complain. It is an internal enemy that almost all festivals have. Of course, I don’t know the solution, because these markets generate a lot of money for the festivals, so…
(UM): And the problem is that, in a year, only usually 20 or 30 very good films are being produced.
(MA): But that’s a wrong idea of what a festival should be, that all the films that you show at a film festival must be masterpieces. That’s impossible. What you show is like a state of the cinema in the world. This is what’s going on in the cinema in the world, which doesn’t mean that all these films are masterpieces. The true cinephile doesn’t want to watch masterpieces all the time. They just want to watch films. If they are good, well, so much better.
(UM): Yeah, and you want to compare them.
(MA): You want to know what’s going on in some other countries and what’s happening in that other country, this variety of things that you don’t get to see if not for the festivals. Here, they’re showing this film, The Monk and the Gun. It’s a film from Bhutan. When you see this film, you see how Bhutan is, how it looks, at least through the lens of this film.
You see a film from Korea. You see a film from this other country. That’s another thing that the festivals do, and it’s very important. They show films from all over the world. And you get to see all these films that you won’t get to see during the rest of the year in your country, even if you live in New York, and of course most people don’t live in New York. This is something very important that the festivals still do. We assume that the world, through the internet, etc., it’s available to everyone without leaving our homes and that is false. The world is getting smaller and smaller for people in general, people are barely able to cover their basic needs, and what festivals do, by showing all these films, is to show you that there is a bigger world out there. Which is also what good movies do. But I don’t know. I’m just a programmer.
© 2020-2023. UniversalCinema Mag.