Click here to read the full article.
It is only fitting that this year’s International Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam kicks off on a Friday the 13th. The date, long associated with ideas of disruption, feels an apt omen for the current moment in documentary
filmmaking. This year’s fall festival season was largely dominated by conversations on docs like Lance Oppenheim and Nathan Fielder’s “You Can See Everything,” Alex Gibney’s “Musk,” and Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor’s “NAZA,” the first two now landing in Amsterdam to invite audiences and industry members to discuss what they may represent for the future of documentary filmmaking.
IDFA artistic director Isabel Arrate Fernandez says that “what we are seeing happen at the box office in the U.S. is a buzz.” Oppenheim and Fielder’s documentary about Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes has recently become A24’s third-biggest domestic release after surpassing $80 million at the box office. “What I take from that is, I hope, that it instigates a different way of looking at what documentary can do, what documentary in the cinema can do, that collective experience in the cinema.”
“These films break every pattern that there has been, every framework people were holding onto,” she goes on. “For independent documentary to thrive and continue developing, it’s necessary to think outside of that fixed framework and a formatted way of releasing a documentary.”
Arrate Fernandez also notes that despite “You Can See Everything” sitting at just under three hours and “Musk” surpassing the four-hour mark, they are drawing audiences into cinemas. “There is also a new group of audiences instigated to go to the cinema and watch [‘You Can See Everything’] because of Nathan Fielder. That’s already a new opening that is very interesting there. What else would this audience see?”
The artistic director also recognizes the docs on two incendiary American figures—Holmes and trillionaire Elon Musk—are “exceptions.” “These are U.S. productions; we are talking different budgets, different budgets for publicity and marketing behind it. Still, it does show that documentaries in the cinema can thrive.”
It will be particularly interesting to see how these American productions will employ IDFA for their already brewing awards campaign. The festival has become the key European stop for documentaries vying for Oscar noms, with key studios, streamers and broadcasters throwing receptions for their top titles at the festival. With a growing conversation on whether or not Oppenheim and Fielder’s doc might finally see a documentary nominated for best picture, IDFA becomes even more key.
Asked about that element of the festival, Arrate Fernandez says, “Budgets play a huge role in campaigning,” but she is seeing more and more independent films with more modest publicity budgets find a place in this once impenetrable bubble. “Films like ‘A Fox Under a Pink Moon’ or ‘Rehearsals for a Revolution,’ ‘Closure’ and ‘Traces’ are out there.”
“What I’m appreciating is seeing how these films are entering the playing field and adding something different [to it],” she adds. “They are adding something that maybe wasn’t very visible in this sphere and showing how broad this era of documentary cinema is, and what you want is the pollination between all these different clusters because that’s how we move on.”
Another key conversation happening at IDFA this year revolves around AI, especially as high-profile docs like “Musk” and Ava DuVernay’s “14th” have both admitted to using the technology. The festival is stepping beyond generalized panels to truly drill down into the nitty-gritty of AI usage in doc-making, looking into how rights holders are engaging with the technology and the political implications of AI use in documentary films.
For the first time this year, IDFA has also asked filmmakers in the program whether or not they used AI in their films and how. “It’s time to start discussing the ethics and how we want to use this,” says Arrate Fernandez. “It’s an ongoing conversation where we don’t have the answers. We’re learning a lot, and that is key. It’s about developing a standard practice, and I think we get there through the community having these conversations and hearing from filmmakers on how they are dealing with it.”
On the subject of transparency, the artistic director also spoke about the festival’s current guidelines when it comes to welcoming attendees and films from Israel. Last year, Israeli industry figures from major institutions, including DocAviv Festival, the CoPro market and public broadcaster Kan, were turned down from attending the festival, with the artistic director saying that “organizations from Israel that receive government support were not granted accreditation, though this decision will be reviewed next year.”
And IDFA has indeed reviewed its policies ahead of this year’s edition, having updated its principles and guidelines and continuing to evaluate films and guests on a “case-by-case basis.” “We continue learning. This year we will probably learn more and implement it next year.”
“There is never the pretension of holding the truth and knowing exactly how to do it,” she continues. “The basis remains that we don’t want IDFA to be a platform for governments that are accused or are guilty of violating human rights.”
“The other key thing is that we look at everything case by case because we understand there is no one-size-fits-all,” she emphasizes, explaining how projects in both the main program and industry activities go through a selection committee and advisors before ending up on a short list. “That’s when we start looking at: Where is this coming from? What is the relation with the government? Is this an independent production? If it has funding from a certain government, what does that mean? Will we then platform that government?”
Arrate Fernandez says the same case-by-case process applies for accreditation, “with the idea that we want to do justice to the values of solidarity, artistic freedom, pluralism, and also presenting this in a way where organizations and professionals that share these values are welcome.”
Officially, there are no films from Israel in this year’s program because no filmmakers have listed Israel as a country of production. “We do not decide what country is listed as a production country. We also don’t decide how people list themselves with a nationality, and people have multiple nationalities. Nationality has never been an issue for us. That’s not something we look at,” Arrate Fernandez says.
The festival is, however, screening films like Avi Mograbi’s “Wild Asparagus” and Anat Even’s “Collapse,” both which have been made in Israel but are listed under different countries. When asked if she believes filmmakers are purposefully omitting Israel as a production country to avoid any type of backlash, Arrate Fernandez says “it can be a political choice.”
“If you look at ‘Collapse,’ the film starts with a big sign [that says] the film was not funded by any Israeli institutions or money,” she notes. “That’s [Even’s] choice. That’s a statement she wants to make. It can be a political statement, but it can also be a pragmatic choice because of backlash. Honestly, it’s sad, because what we are trying to do with documentary and [what is] at the heart of documentary is telling all these stories and showing those nuances, the complexities.”
Lastly, Arrate Fernandez says she is saddened by how conversations have been stripped of nuance in favor of a black-and-white judgment made without evaluating a wider context or conversation. “If you look at conversations happening last year and the year before in terms of what IDFA did have or did not have, it’s all black and white. It’s assumptions being put on one thing, one country not being there, and drawing conclusions based on that. I think that blurs the conversation. That’s not a real conversation and doesn’t represent what we do in the documentary industry.”
