){kind=link}
During Cannes 2023, Universal Cinema Film & TV Journal’s Amir Ganjavie interviewed Dr. Vincent Georgie, the Executive Director and Chief Programmer of the Windsor International Film Festival (WIFF). What follows is that interview.
Amir Ganjavie, UniversalCinema Magazine (UM): Do you have a vision for your festival in terms of programming?
Dr. Vincent Georgie (VG): We scour the world to bring in the best of the best, ensuring we have a wide swath of geographical representation. Typically, the festival shows films from about thirty to thirty-five countries. That’s important to us. We want to make sure we’re bringing in high-quality films and are also appealing to a variety of different audiences.
We want to make sure that we’ve got a significant Canadian slate every year. We also show the largest number of Francophone feature films in Canada. This year’s festival estimate will probably hit almost fifty francophone feature films, so we’re quite proud of that.
On the programming side, I think it’s really important to have a wide variety of films that are all ultimately good at what they’re trying to do. You can’t criticize a film for what it’s not. You have to look at a film for what it is and what it tried to do.
Thankfully we’ve structured the festival in a way that we have four screening rooms, one as large as one thousand two hundred with a balcony, and one as small as one hundred and thirty. And that allows you programmatically to films with different risks, content, and themes. You don’t have to worry that every film has to be an opening night screening. Or every single film has to bring in two thousand people. You want to liberate yourself from that.
I do believe programming is a creative process. It’s creating a new painting every year, and you start to paint it months ahead, and you almost don’t know where it’s going sometimes. I don’t make films. I select them. So, it’s what exists, what is there, what are filmmakers saying this year, and what’s on their minds. It’s a very pleasurable and very difficult role. You want to be singular in your vision for what the festival does, and again be widely appealing, but also show some risks and impart a love of cinema upon people.
(UM): What’s your definition of a good movie? In terms of your festival.
(VG): What is the filmmaker trying to do versus how they achieve it? What did they attempt to do versus how successful was it? I don’t really compare films to each other. You try to look at a film on its own terms and evaluate what it is doing, what it is trying to do, how successful it is, and what type of reaction you’re having. That’s how I look at a film.
It’s also important to always remember as a programmer you’re not picking for yourself. Your taste should be irrelevant. I try to hold myself to account when selecting films. Every year there are a few I like personally that we don’t invite because I don’t think they fit with the festival. I don’t know if they’ll work with the audience. And on the same token, there are always some films that I will bring into the festival, and happily show if they’re good films, that my own personal taste is not aligned. I think that’s really because you’ve got to be able to know the programming choice selections have to always tie in the bigger Festival vision and with the audience. [Even if you want to keep] pushing [the audiences] boundaries a bit.
Also, viewing films is very physical. I have a very physical reaction to it. And my body starts to shake. So, I tend to know if my body’s reacting to a film, something good is happening because I’m invested in it.
(UM): And what’s the selection process like? And who makes the final programming decisions?
(VG): I’m the Chief Programmer, so I make all the final programming decisions for the festival.
[Selection’s] a combination of tracking films from the minute they’re announced, the minute they’re funded, all the way to when they start doing a festival run. I watch a little over six hundred feature films a year. I’m always trying to stay current and find out what’s out there, and it’s never easy.
I remember last year, we invited one hundred and seventy-seven features, and in the last two weeks, we got some final invitations that would’ve pushed our festival to maybe about two hundred and ten features. And I was like, there’s just not the room for all these films. And then you start making tough selections and choices about how to prioritize certain films. It’s never easy, but I think it’s important to know what’s out there and do an enormous amount of viewing, consider what statement your festival’s trying to make, and what you’re inviting your audience to see based on the totality of the films of that year.
(UM): Films are easier to make now, and as a result, some festivals have commented on poor quality from some sources and preference for viewing films pre-screened either via distributors or other sources. Do you rely on pre-screeners?
(VG): We don’t have any pre-screening. It comes right to me and I take a look at the films. And then in terms of only picking a film that has a distributor, that has no bearing for us. We work with our distributors every day, but many films we show at the festival are there without distribution. For us, it’s all from a curatorial perspective. It’s always about selecting films that are meaningful and interesting and that you want to show. If a distributor has picked up a film for Canada, or the filmmaker is representing themselves, or they have a sales agent – we will work with all three.
It doesn’t make a difference to us, it’s just a matter of outreach and communication. I’ve got to say we’re quite fortunate on that front.
I was in touch with a filmmaker this morning whose work we’d never shown. We didn’t know each other at all and you quickly, as in most cases like this, you get to a [rapport]. Filmmakers make films because they want them shown, they want audiences to see what they’ve made, and film festivals have the responsibility of doing the very best job possible to create the best conditions possible for audiences to discover them. So, I’ve typically found it very easy to work with a filmmaker self-distributing.
(UM): And does your festival have quotas?
(VG): No, we don’t. The overall vision, supported by the board of directors, is something I take my lens with and pick fantastic films. We don’t get into 10% of this and 6% of that. I think there’s always consciousness on my front. When you’re looking for excellence, you’re going to find films from around the world. It’s not possible for them to be all from one country. You’ll find films of different genres, from master filmmakers, and first-time filmmakers. But we do not have any quota system. In fact, it’s something I’d probably fight against. Because then you’re filling up quotas as opposed to picking fantastic films. And I don’t think that’s a good strategy.
(UM): Would you program films from controversial filmmakers, like Woody Allen or Roman Polanski?
(VG): Absolutely. It’s not something we would shy away from. We’re picking great films. And Controversy is okay. Discussion and debate are okay. If the film is fantastic, it’s going to be shown. If the film is not fantastic, it won’t be shown.
The other thing too, I think that’s always really important, regardless of the film’s director, film is a collaborative process. Hundreds of people work on a film. And then to decide that a film cannot exist or cannot be shown because of controversy around one person or two? We’re going to consider that for programming. We’re not going to feed into certain filmmakers being banned or certain content can’t screen because it’s too controversial.
(UM): And in terms of countries, like Russia, where there are political issues, do you have a policy regarding films?
(VG): Definitely no policy. We’ve consistently shown a significant amount of Iranian cinema because it’s excellent cinema. There’s no policy for or against it, just that they’re fantastic films. That’s a thing I think is unusual for any festival when they decide they’re not going to show, for example, Russian films because of what’s going on with Ukraine. I find it quite shocking to hold it against the filmmakers, to penalize the filmmakers for what their country is doing or not doing. Why would you penalize Russian filmmakers and not show them at your festival? That makes no sense to me at all.
(UM): You mentioned that you try to support the Canadian industry. I feel that in Canada there is no policy to support Canadian filmmakers. There’s no Canadian culture or identity. In French Canada, we have governmental support. But the rest of Canada doesn’t seem to have any kind of support. I’m just curious about your thought about the status of the Canadian film industry and how you are trying to support Canadian films.
(VG): That’s a big question. Very big picture, Canada is a young country, which I think is part of its identity. But secondly, having so much influence from the United States. The debate around what the definition of Canadian and US culture is will last longer than your life or mine. I think in terms of the state of the film industry. We have many outstanding filmmakers, both very established and mid-career and up-and-coming. There’s no lack of talent. I think funding is a concern because working with smaller budgets is an issue. Distribution is obviously a huge issue as well. For many films, if they get a theatrical release, a theatrical release means one cinema in Vancouver in Toronto – for one week.
I think where I have concerns on funding is it seems that the industry, or funders, sometimes get too caught up with wanting to consistently support first-time filmmakers. This conceptually is a very good thing, but I wonder sometimes if it’s at the sacrifice of mid-career filmmakers. It seems that there’s so much focus on who’s never made a film before and someone that’s breaking in, which is great, but I wonder, will we support that same filmmaker for their second or third feature? Probably not. And that worries me. There’s a whole middle ground of filmmakers that I don’t think we’re supporting. From a filmmaker that made their first or second feature, and then what happened after that? They didn’t make a third, or fourth? And then you’ve got filmmakers that made twenty features, but then the middle is disappearing. That’s actually quite concerning.
Another piece, I think we have to be really conscious of, is to support and nurture and cheer on filmmakers. Specifically, if they’ve made good films. I do worry that we can sometimes get into national cheerleading of a film or filmmaker because it’s the polite thing, but if the film didn’t turn out well, I don’t know that heaping false praise onto a film is doing anyone any good.
(UM): And how do you support filmmakers at your festival? Are they invited to attend?
(VG): We invite filmmakers to the festival. Last year, for example, we probably had 20-25 different filmmakers, plus some other industry colleagues. We love having filmmakers at the festival proper. And those are all out-of-town filmmakers. Some of the local filmmakers attend as well.
Also, we have the WIFF prize in Canadian Film. The prize is $25,000 cash for the best Canadian film. In 2022, Riceboy Sleeps by Anthony Shim was awarded the prize. Our festival nominates ten films, but then a separate jury of industry colleagues comes to the festival and adjudicates, and they selected that film. Back in 2019, when we had the prize pre-pandemic, the film Kuessipan by the filmmaker Myriam Verreault received the prize.
Part of our mission statement is the support for Canadian international film. And we thought the best way to tangibly support a Canadian filmmaker is to offer funding. Is to actually put some hard dollars on the table. It’s very easy to say everyone supports Canadian film, but what do you mean by support? And we said we believe in a film and a filmmaker, let’s put some actual real dollars down.
(UM): You mentioned about 50 francophone films earlier, which leads me to think you see a lot of Quebec films. Does that mean you support films from Quebec more than the rest of Canada?
(VG): Regardless of what province it’s coming from, they’re all Canadian films in our festival’s view. The Quebec system specifically is more advanced in its structure and its funding. It has a star system. Even though star systems aren’t something I’m particularly excited by, it’s an important part of the industry. Similarly, it is not unusual at all for a film from Quebec to open in the top 5, or even be number 1 at the box office in the province. And that’s quite extraordinary. So it’s because the Quebec system is long established and well-resourced, not overly-resourced, unfortunately, it’s just that much more established than the rest of Canada. There’s a lot more production coming out, really viable films. So, by nature, the Canadian festival scene favours films coming out of Quebec. I want to clear my bias here, I’m also on the board of Ontario Creates, and there’s an enormous amount of excellent films made in Ontario. And that’s only going in the right direction too. Just the sheer amount of excellent films that are shot in this province. I think that’s emerging in a very exciting way. I’m very proud of that. But overall, when we’re looking at Canada, we’re looking at the whole country. The Quebec scene is just that much more established and well-funded historically. So it’s just a bit more robustly structured.
(UM): How did Covid impact your festival? Did you go online or hybrid?
(VG): We didn’t do online at all. We made a decision in the March of 2020 like everyone else did about what we were going to do. We had just finished a very large festival in 2019. It was our 15th anniversary and we were planning the next one. We decided not to do a virtual film festival. I’m going to admit, we had no interest in it, and it’s not to be critical of festivals that did virtual or hybrid festivals. If it worked or made sense for them, so be it. For us, we felt it was off a brand. We’re a highly experiential film festival and are excited by the in-person experience. And we said, if we can’t do a proper WIFF during the pandemic, we’re not going to do a virtual one.
So we didn’t do one at all. What we did as a sense of responsibility to our audience was a drive-in. We did a drive-in in 2020 and 2021. In 2020, it lasted about two and a half weeks. And in 2021 it lasted three and a half weeks. We had enormous fun doing that. We’re right on the Canada-US border, and we did it right on the Detroit River. So, there was a beautiful view of the waterfront.
And then, once restrictions were at a better state, we began planning for 2022. We stopped the drive-in and returned to doing what we love and believe we exist for, a proper art-house film festival. And we had a great addition to it last fall.
(UM): Is there anything else you’d like to add?
(VG): I think what’s great about our festival, is it’s a very easy festival to navigate. It’s 11 days long. All of the venues are within a five-minute walk of each other. So, it encourages people to watch a lot of films. So, for example, our pass holders watch something like 35 feature films on average. Our festival is meant for people who want to watch a lot of films, not just one or two, but watching a lot and taking risks on films. We’re very proud of that, that our audience is full of new cinephiles and long-established cinephiles.
© 2020-2023. UniversalCinema Mag.