Film festival: History and theory

In primitive times, when groups of people caught a big prey and gathered around a fire at night to feast, that was their food festival. The film festival is a celebration of joy in the modern era. Here, it is the hunger of the mind that is satisfied by cinema. Though the idea of a film festival is Eurocentric, its spread has now reached every corner of the world. While people join festivals out of a desire to see stories, beneath the surface these festivals involve matters such as power dynamics, soft diplomacy, political relationship building, and cultural exchange.

In writing by scholar and author Marijke de Valck on the origin of film festivals, it is found that the first film festival was organised in Monaco on New Year’s Day in 1898. After that, the colours of festivals spread one by one to Turin, Milan, Palermo, Hamburg, Prague. The practice of awarding prizes at festivals began at an Italian film festival, initiated by the Lumière brothers in 1907. Then in the 1930s, the 'La Mostra Internazionale d’Arte Cinematografica', or the Venice Film Festival, was the first to begin regular sessions. This festival began in 1932 under the supervision of the Venice Biennale. For the sake of truth, it should be stated that the then Italian leader Benito Mussolini had a thorough understanding of the power of cinema. He believed that good propaganda could be carried out through cinema. So, for the first time, he included an international film festival in the Venice Biennale. And he embarked on fascist propaganda. From the beginning, Italy’s Venice Film Festival was receiving a good response internationally. Seeing this success, France also decided to organise a film festival. As a result, we see the Cannes Film Festival. Cannes began its journey in 1946. After the Second World War, there seemed to be a surge of film festivals across Europe. By then, the Venice Film Festival was free from the grip of fascism. Berlin began its festival in 1951. So, using the experiences of Venice, Cannes, Berlin, and the West, many countries gradually made festivals a regular occurrence. And with this, the equations of a nation’s economy, politics, and culture also began to change.

In Hong Kong, Shanghai, Busan, and many other cities in East Asia, film festivals are now held with great splendour. Within South Asia, several international-standard film festivals take place in India every year. Kolkata, Kerala, and Goa can be mentioned in this regard. And in Bangladesh, everyone is aware of the Dhaka International Film Festival. No matter which continent we speak of—Europe, America, Africa, or Asia—more than 6,000 international film festivals are currently held across the world. Among these festivals, there are competitions as well as their own circuits. Through these circuits, those involved in cinema maintain their networks. By "involved", we mean people engaged in film production and business, as well as film critics and organisers. Some, however, are unwilling to call this a circuit and instead refer to it as a network. Whatever name it is called by, the massive operation that takes place worldwide throughout the year primarily ensures the flow of two things: culture and economy. And there is no doubt that the film industries of various countries are influenced by this.

In the early days, festivals were state-controlled—like Venice or Cannes—from the 1930s to the end of the 1960s. But from the 1970s, a trend of independently hosting film festivals began to appear. At present, the film festival itself has become an industry. Because there are investments around it, various trades take place. The discussion is different for poor countries like Bangladesh. Because here, cinema itself is not given much importance, let alone film festivals, which are a far-off matter. If we had viewed cinema as part of cultural diplomacy, then both cinema and festivals would have received equal importance at the state level.

2.
A major reason film festivals received state sponsorship in Europe was that the ruling classes there understood the power and potential of cinema. For this reason, it is seen that Italy’s Mussolini and his dictatorship had appropriated the Venice Film Festival. By contrast, a democratic power like France started the Cannes Film Festival in its own country. Towards the end of the Second World War, many countries, like Cannes, began planning to organise festivals. Keeping geopolitical and cultural dominance in mind, during the Cold War, Berlin also wanted to start practicing soft power through organising festivals. It should not be forgotten that they were the defeated power in the Second World War. Thus, alongside Venice and Cannes in Europe, they had to struggle a bit to find their place.

Beyond the geopolitical chessboard, cinema lovers wanted to organise festivals. Two excellent examples of this are Locarno (1946) and Edinburgh (1947). It is seen that from the late 1940s, film festivals began across different parts of the world. Regarding the circuit or network that was being discussed, whether anyone admits it or not, a circuit operates within the festivals. And the existence of a circuit means it is controlled by someone. Initially, the International Federation of Film Producers Associations (FIAPF) controlled European festivals. They placed the Venice and Cannes festivals in the ‘A’ category and tried to control world premieres and market-based trade of films in these two festivals. In 1950, even though Berlin appeared, it did not receive the status of an A-category festival. That means FIAPF did not allow its international competition or awarding of prizes. This control included time and place as well. FIAPF determined where and when a festival would be held. Clearly, they tried to protect Venice and Cannes so that world premieres of newly made films could take place smoothly at these two festivals. But this monopoly broke down in the 1950s, when Berlin (1951), Karlovy Vary (1956), San Sebastián (1957), and Locarno (1958) began to internationally invite and award films. Due to changing circumstances, FIAPF’s control over the festivals has somewhat lessened. However, the strong presence of sales agents is still noticeable in festivals, especially in Europe and North America.

A tendency to celebrate nationalism through internationalism can be observed in the festivals born in the fifties and sixties. However, beyond these, many festivals worldwide have aimed purely to encourage regional cinema or to highlight films of particular characteristics or genres. For example, in many places, festivals dedicated to short films, documentaries, and animation are held. Although this tendency started in the sixties, the number of such specialized film festivals increased from the eighties onward. Through these, alongside mainstream cinema, films with specific traits began to develop their own production and exhibition systems. This created a parallel circuit of film festivals. Different kinds of audiences were formed. These festivals, their films, and their audiences are entirely different from those of ‘A’ category festivals. As time passes, more diverse types of film festivals are emerging. The various features of these festivals have ultimately enriched the practice of cinema.

3.
The expansion of diverse types of film festivals that began spreading from the 1960s and their characteristics have mainly been determined by the needs of the times—that is, variously coloured festival wings have spread worldwide due to social and political demands. New festivals have been born to break free from the limitations and conformity of major festivals. Each festival is celebrated with a different agenda. In Tehran and Cuba, for example, international festivals are held emphasising national cinema. Latin America, to present a narrative different from European cinema, introduced the concept of Third Cinema as a theory. The dominance of anti-capitalist political films is seen in the Pesaro and Rotterdam film festivals. Turning away from films in A-list festivals, the best films selected from those shown in other festivals worldwide gain importance in the London and Vienna festivals.

Medium and small-sized festivals have tried to recognise social demands through their own evolution, and similarly, the big festivals have continuously undergone changes to keep pace with the times and are still doing so. The troubled history of the Cannes Film Festival in 1968 is not unknown to us. The famous student-popular movement that took place in France at that time changed the Cannes Festival. In response to the desires of young filmmakers and film critics, two sections were added to Cannes later: in 1968, the ‘Semaine de la Critique’ (Critics’ Week) and in 1969, the ‘Quinzaine des Réalisateurs’ (Directors’ Fortnight). As the names suggest, one section screens films selected by critics, while the other emphasises the work of young filmmakers. These are called the parallel sections of the Cannes Festival.

The Berlin International Film Festival, or Berlinale, has also gone through similar changes and additions. For example, in 1970, the ‘Forum des Jungen Films’ section, abbreviated as Forum, was added as an independently curated section. It is a collection of works by young filmmakers. A decade later, in 1980, Berlinale opened another section called ‘Info-Schau,’ which was later renamed ‘Panorama.’ The main competition of the Berlin Festival features major arthouse or commercial production films, while the Forum showcases avant-garde films. The Panorama includes films that lie between the main competition and the Forum—neither fully commercial or major productions nor fully experimental works. These can be called middle cinema. In 2025, they added a new section called New Perspectives, where only directors’ first films are featured.

From the examples of Cannes and Berlinale, it is clear that, keeping pace with changes in time and society, the people connected to the film industry, film critics, and film lovers’ expectations have been increasingly accommodated by the big festivals through their own changes. Some festivals have also become ‘Festivals of Festivals.’ They do not engage in any conflict or competition with major festivals but rather curate their selections from the good films shown at those festivals. The London Film Festival started this model in 1956, followed by the Toronto Film Festival in 1976.

4.
Just as an alternative world of cinema was created by breaking away from the glamorous, glittering world of mainstream films, a similar thing has happened in the realm of film festivals. Unable to survive the pressure from Cannes and Venice, Berlinale moved from June to February starting in 1978. The reason was that Berlinale did not want to be sandwiched between Cannes in May and Venice in September. This shift also benefited the European film industry because when the major festivals occur at regular intervals, it helps them with premieres, theatrical releases, and screenings.

Beyond this veteran trio of festivals, overcoming FIAPF’s dominance, the Sundance and Rotterdam film festivals started in the 1970s have made the greatest efforts to showcase independent and artistic films. It is worth mentioning that the United States Film Festival, which began in 1978, became part of Robert Redford’s Sundance Institute in 1985, at which point its name was changed to the Sundance Film Festival. Since then, the festival has worked closely with Hollywood and gradually became a very influential centre for independent cinema within the United States.

As films have become more independent in production, festivals too have become increasingly independent and diverse over time. That is why, through the political and social changes of the sixties and seventies, we see various identity-based festivals emerging, such as those focused on women, children, LGBTQ+ communities, Black people, and indigenous topics. The reflection of sociologist Benedict Anderson’s theory of the “Imagined Community” can be seen in ethnically or tribal-centred film festivals. Beyond gender, race, and ethnicity, festivals are now evolving around spirituality, human rights, and the environment.

In the 1980s and 1990s, as a craze for organising film festivals on diverse themes spread across different parts of the world, new words emerged in festival literature. Film critics are the users of these words, such as: eventisation, festivalomania, festivalisation, festival epidemic, and so on. The reason behind the emergence of these terms is that the initial circuit of festivals broke down and began a new journey in new directions, with new dimensions, whether for better or worse. Festivals then became a subject of study, especially at the beginning of the twenty-first century. Since then, the third wave of film festivals has begun. In the first era, film festivals were controlled by nationalism and international diplomacy. The second phase saw festivals influenced by politics and social movements. And in the third phase, festivals are largely influenced by neoliberal economics, corporate culture, and complex social psychology.

A notable aspect of this last phase is the emergence of regional market-based film festivals, such as the Red Sea Film Festival. Considering the countries around the Red Sea, this festival organised by Saudi Arabia is not just a festival; it carries an agenda or aspiration to expand its cultural products both within the Arabic-speaking region and into the Western market.

Interestingly, all three types of festivals now take place year-round, in various cities. This practice of festivals, continuing for more than a hundred years, is becoming increasingly diverse and thematic as time passes. The subject matter of festivals, the participants, and the investors together make the festival ecosystem quite complex now. And because it has become complex, festivals and their ecosystems have become attractive subjects for theoretical discussion.

5.
We are living in a time when the culture of watching films collectively has declined. Like many other countries, Bangladesh has seen a decrease in the number of traditional movie theaters. Although multiscreen cineplexes have increased, these places are no longer just about watching films; they have become complex spaces intertwined with dining, shopping, dating, and other activities. In such a scenario, when someone goes to watch a film at a festival, the dark theater of the festival replaces the traditional cinema hall or private home setting.

On the other hand, film festivals offer a lot to the audience—not only in terms of viewing experience but also socially and culturally.

Film theorist Janet Harbord believes that film festivals gift us a culture of film appreciation and practice, which would otherwise be lost in the clutter of big-budget, star-studded films. Without festivals, the interaction between thoughtful films and thoughtful audiences would significantly diminish. We know that festivals do not only screen big production house films; they give space to diverse voices and different perspectives—films from “alternative” streams that might never be shown in regular theaters. Except for A-list festivals, most other festivals predominantly showcase independent films that do not follow commercial formulas or formulaic storytelling.

Secondly, collectively, festivals play a crucial role in the distribution and exhibition of films, especially independent ones, a role impossible for other platforms to fulfill. For instance, TV channels might not air these films as they do not generate advertising revenue, and big theaters won’t screen them because it would be financially unviable—they prefer to show star-led blockbusters. More importantly, festivals challenge the dominance of certain languages in cinema, such as English worldwide, by screening numerous non-English language films. For some time, audiences watch and discuss these films, gaining exposure to different cultures. Moreover, when films win acclaim at festivals, their commercial potential often expands significantly.

Thirdly, film festivals create an open environment where the exchange of ideas between experts and the general audience can take place. Not only do viewers gain new perspectives, but filmmakers also get the opportunity to face questions directly and engage in discussions about their work. This opens a unique window for the audience to delve deeper into the film.

Fourthly, because festivals are held at a specific place and time, the geographical location, weather, and local people’s mindset must be taken into account when organizing the event. When a festival is held continuously, it becomes a part of the culture of that particular nation or community. Tourism is also involved in this aspect. For example, the Dhaka International Film Festival is held in January, a month when there is little rain in Bangladesh and people are enthusiastic about the festival. Foreign guests also enjoy favourable weather while attending.

The Cannes Film Festival, held in May, also benefits from good weather, allowing visitors from all over the world not only to enjoy the festival but also to appreciate the locality — such as the beauty of the French Riviera.

An exception is the Berlin International Film Festival (Berlinale), held in February when Germany experiences heavy snow. The timing change was partly due to political rivalry with Cannes and Venice, which pushed Berlinale to move its schedule.

6.
Despite the countless alternatives to watching films, people still attend film festivals because they want to engage with the public sphere. No one would deny that it is nearly impossible to celebrate a film festival without a public sphere. If it is online-based or organised only for members of a particular institution, then it may not fully qualify as a public sphere. For instance, if a university organises a film festival exclusively for its students, it cannot be called a public sphere in the broad sense, though it still has some characteristics similar to a public sphere.

The German philosopher and sociologist Jürgen Habermas, in his book The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, drew a comparative line showing how the nature of the public space changed with the rise of the bourgeoisie, especially from the 17th to the 19th centuries. During this period, the private realm gradually transformed into a public sphere that was conceptual and discursive in nature. In this space, individuals presented reasoned arguments on public matters, which were somehow connected with the economic system of society. Habermas considers this entire phenomenon as a project of the European Enlightenment. Furthermore, he tried to determine the relationship between the public sphere and the growing capitalism within the nation-states of the 19th century. Although Habermas framed the public sphere within bourgeois culture and capitalism, his ideas are still important for understanding the concept of film festivals in our context of popular culture.

Media and communication scholar Cindy Hing-Yuk Wong has shown that many theorists have thought about the public sphere and film festivals differently, moving beyond Habermas’s ideas. For example, Oscar Negt and Alexander Kluge believe the public sphere is not only bourgeois but can also belong to the marginalised. Nancy Fraser similarly argues that Habermas neglected the importance of the subaltern public sphere. Alongside the public spheres of marginalised groups, Fraser later discussed the concept of transnational or cross-national public spheres. The idea of transnational public spheres resonates well with our understanding of film festivals. In theoretical readings of film festivals, the American theorist Michael Warner’s concept of "publics and counterpublics" holds practical significance.

According to Warner, a public is a group of people who voluntarily gather in a common space within a shared language realm and interact with one another. If this public and its space become authoritarian or if another group feels alienated from them and forms a separate space with its own shared language or discourse where they exchange ideas among themselves, an alternative public sphere is created. This alternative-public forms an identity, which Warner calls counterpublics—for example, the LGBTQ community. Counterpublics inherently challenge the dominance or hegemony of the main public. Therefore, it is clear that today’s A-list film festivals, organized by the new liberal bourgeoisie and representing the mainstream public sphere, are always somewhat unsettled by the marginalised groups and their film festivals held within alternative public spheres.

7.
Though festivals differ widely in colour, aroma, rhythm, and the crowd, one thing remains consistent across all of them: film screening. Focusing on this shared feature, film festival expert Marijke de Valck believes it is important to pose several questions to understand the ontology—or nature of existence—of film festivals that have diverged in character. Where lies the difference between film screenings at festivals and those in regular theaters? Does the praise a film receives at a festival differ if it is shown elsewhere? How does the existence of festivals as a circuit or screening platform influence filmmakers?

Valck seeks answers to these questions drawing on the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of “symbolic capital.” Symbolic capital refers to the recognition and prestige an individual or institution gains in society through certain actions, which in turn creates social value. It helps explain how someone can wield influence in society without material wealth, force, or power, becoming a significant voice within social power structures. This idea is central to Bourdieu’s work and is frequently used to understand film festivals. Symbolic capital is highly effective in conferring social recognition, acceptance, and legitimacy—something a film festival provides to itself, participating filmmakers, award-winning films, and artists.

Using Bourdieu’s concept, Valck divides the ontology of film festivals into three parts. The first is called the “field,” which Bourdieu terms the “field of cultural production.” Valck discusses how film festivals have created a distinct field outside commercial cinemas and box office releases. The “field of cultural production” refers to the social arena where art, literature, and other cultural products are created, distributed, valued, and consumed. Within this field, artists, writers, critics, and others compete and collaborate. Bourdieu explains that, just as there are political, judicial, economic, and religious fields, the cultural field also has its own unique characteristics, values, and principles.

Film festivals have also emerged with their own distinct characteristics and rules. They compete with one another but also cooperate to avoid conflicts in the screening circuit. European film festivals began with the aim of countering the commercial influence of Hollywood films. They succeeded in making audiences understand that festival films are different from commercial cinema, emphasizing artistic films. In this way, they were able to create a separate market for European films. Festival films are never shown for profit; rather, they are screened purely for cultural purposes and only two to three times during the entire festival. While cinemas often have various commercial activities such as food stalls, T-shirts, souvenirs, etc., festivals do not include these. Sometimes festivals may provide some funding to major productions, but this cannot be considered commercial transactions since the amounts are very small. Therefore, the separate field that festivals have created beyond mainstream film screening for the sake of art and culture is highly appreciable.

Additionally, festivals are scheduled with time gaps between each other to allow filmmakers and stakeholders the necessary preparation for release and promotion. Keeping the festival circuit active in this way is a form of mutual support. By doing so, festivals manage to secure a unique space and prestige in the cultural field, thereby accumulating what is known as symbolic capital.

8.
Alongside aesthetic criticism, geopolitical ideologies, and the expression of unique culture and nationalism, the world’s major film festivals have been conducted from the very beginning; but beyond these, in a different kind of festival, the organizers’ aim is to challenge bourgeois ideology. Pierre Bourdieu calls this a ‘symbolic revolution.’ In this revolution, artists reject bourgeois demands and dominance and seek to erase the capitalist market system. Whether they can completely defeat the bourgeois system is a separate debate; however, within them there is an evident effort to walk an alternative path. This effort brings diversity to film festivals.

In search of the essence of these festivals, Marijke de Valck draws on another key concept, capital, also borrowed from Bourdieu. Bourdieu divides capital into four types: economic, social, cultural, and symbolic. Humans are engrossed in a game in their respective fields, where, according to rules, everyone strives to accumulate different types of capital to secure the best position in society. There is competition here. Through the accumulation of material wealth, a person acquires economic capital. For obtaining social privileges and benefits, they build and maintain relationships with others, accumulating social capital. Through education, knowledge acquisition, and cultural skills, they accumulate cultural capital, earning respect in specific fields. And through honor, recognition, and glory, they gather symbolic capital. By accumulating this capital, individuals or institutions aim to establish a strong position in their respective domains.

Applying Bourdieu’s concept of symbolic capital makes it easy to understand why some people produce commercial films while others, influenced by aura and prestige, create different kinds of films. Among those who plan and organize festivals, these two inclinations are also evident. Rather than chasing commercially successful films, many festivals value aesthetic, artistic, and thoughtful cinema. This value, however, is not a market value but a symbolic value. By granting this value, festivals not only give cultural recognition to such films but also confer cultural legitimacy. Through this recognition and legitimacy, films and related practitioners can navigate society with dignity and respect in their respective fields.

So-called mainstream and alternative film festivals mostly select films through programming that won’t last long in regular theaters—films that often lack big stars, contain youth-driven critiques, and do not follow the familiar formulas of commercial cinema. By giving these films opportunities to be screened and recognized at festivals, these events enable filmmakers working outside the commercial mainstream to accumulate significant symbolic capital. It should not be forgotten that by leveraging symbolic value, many film festivals can also accumulate economic capital, though this economic capital is not comparable to the financial gains of commercial films. Festivals never conduct billion-dollar businesses; instead, they gather economic capital primarily to facilitate the smooth organisation of future festivals.

9.
Pierre Bourdieu’s discussion on the transformation of capital is well illustrated through film festivals and the films screened there. In Europe, what is known as art cinema gains symbolic capital when films are screened and awarded at prestigious festivals like Cannes, which can then be converted into economic capital. For example, Abdelatif Kechiche’s film Blue Is the Warmest Color (2013) won the Palme d’Or at Cannes, which helped the film secure many distributors worldwide for theatrical release. Additionally, the exposure from various festival circuits contributed to its box office success. Another significant factor behind the film’s commercial success was its subject matter and explicit scenes—depicting female homosexuality and intimate moments—which drew considerable attention and aided its marketability.

While winning awards at major festivals clearly boosts a film’s prospects, even official selection alone can open multiple pathways for a film’s commercial distribution. Research by Stephen Meizias and his colleagues has shown how films winning awards at major European festivals tend to perform well commercially. Moreover, nominated films also attract significant audience interest. It is common practice to use the festival’s logo or laurel on film posters during promotion, which undoubtedly piques audience curiosity. Winning an award amplifies this effect even more. Therefore, in the realm of art cinema, if filmmakers want to accumulate economic capital, participating in festivals is almost indispensable.

Commercial mainstream films also turn to festivals for symbolic capital, even though they have their own ways to accumulate economic capital. Festivals host world premieres of such films, creating a mutually beneficial relationship. Commercial films gain cultural legitimacy by being showcased in the prestigious environment of festivals. For example, many big-budget Hollywood films premiere at Cannes, such as The Great Gatsby (2013), Mad Max: Fury Road (2015), and Top Gun: Maverick (2022). By featuring these films, festivals themselves benefit enormously—they become the focal point of global media attention. Major stars attend these festivals to promote their films, which turns the red carpet into a star-studded spectacle. This glamour helps festivals attract significant advertising revenue from large industry players. The more money a festival can gather, the more it can establish itself as a major player in the festival circuit. With consistent funding and regular organization over a few years, a festival gradually builds reputation and prestige. This symbolic capital becomes the foundation for the festival’s future success. According to Bourdieu’s field theory, every field is a battleground where participants compete using their capital—and film festivals are no exception.

Bidhan Rebeiro: Essayist and film critic