When it comes to the Busan International Film Festival (BIFF), the festival clearly holds true to the mantra “the more the merrier.” This year, a total of 298 films from 75 countries were screened, including 100 world premieres and 29 international premieres. Ironically, 2017 set the benchmark for the lowest number of films on showcase — except for the 18th edition (also 298 films), the number of films screened at BIFF from 2008 to 2015 have consistently hit the 300-mark, with the 14th edition unveiling a record-breaking 355 films.
Apart from facing boycotts from acclaimed filmmakers since 2014 after the Sewol ferry controversy erupted, BIFF’s massive scale and stature has not been dented by its ongoing political issues. Notably, 2017 holds one of the highest number of world premieres at 100 — just shy of the 15th edition’s 101 titles — with 90 world premieres of Asian films. It is an indication of the festival’s continuing “obsession” with premiere titles[1] in Asian programming, which allows it to maintain its stronghold as the hub of Asian cinema. The launch of the inaugural Kim Ji Seok award fueled this vast number this year, with 10 feature films (all world premieres) selected as nominees from the Window on Asian Cinema section. BIFF’s programmers perform a delicate balancing act every year, as world cinema programmer Pak Dosin outlines in a personal interview: the pressure of maintaining a similar number of films to match up to the precedents set by previous editions, while simultaneously ensuring films do not dip in quality.
“Once you have these 300 films, it is not easy to go down in number just like that. But we have also come to realise that number is not important, because how many good-quality films we screen matters. There will not be a dramatic change in number — maybe next year we’ll screen 270 or 280 films, but it’s not going to be less than 250.”
Nonetheless, the festival has ignited criticism in the last few years from film journalists and industry professionals who believe it is simply becoming “too big”[2] and could afford to be more focused in its selection of programming. Executive Director of the Hong Kong International Film Festival Society Roger Garcia notes how “there’s a lot going on” at BIFF — the HKIFF averages 250 film screenings year — and poses the question: “If a festival is showing 350 to 400 films, can you really say it’s a festival of curated films?”
One must consider how a film festival’s programming is influenced by its branding and the purpose it seeks to achieve in the circuit. Industry and sales-oriented festivals such as Cannes, which is strictly reserved for film industry professionals, place great precedence on its red carpet glamour and world premiere showcase in a bid to attract the most publicity.
On the other end of the spectrum lies audience-specific festivals which solely focus on showing films for the interests of mass audiences. Having managed to successfully integrate industry elements into its structure, BIFF has managed to straddle between both worlds, since evolving to become an audience-cum industry festival with equal parts glamour, evident from a bevy of Korean and Asian stars that grace the opening ceremony every year. This is unlike the HKIFF, which is “not a glamorous film festival that focuses on the red carpet”, instead it is “a festival for the people of Hong Kong”, assets Garcia.
He adds: “For film festivals today, I’m a little saddened at their role as publicists and how these vehicles have created more of a climate of publicity for movies, instead of creating more film culture. It’s free publicity because when you have a film festival, you want a Hollywood studio movie star or a red carpet. Distributors are also pressuring you to show this movie and you need to show it, if not they might not give you a movie next year.”
A fine example would be the screening of John Woo’s poorly-received action-thriller Manhunt, one of the five films in this year’s Gala Presentation section. A highlight of BIFF, the Gala Presentation essentially serves the purpose of being a flashy publicity vehicle for the festival to generate interest among the international press; the section’s pre-requisite is that the cast and crew of these films must be in attendance. Attendees also need to have “name value” according to programmer Pak, making the latest works of Hollywood director Darren Aronofsky (mother!) and acclaimed Japanese auteur Hirokazu Kore-eda (The Third Murder) ideal picks for the Gala Presentation. Flaunting the combined star power of high-profile Japanese actor Masaharu Fukuyama and Korean star Ha Ji-won on the red carpet was a visible reason why Manhunt was chosen, rather than for actually being a well-made film — Woo’s flick was unanimously derided by film critics all over the board; Variety found the film “underwhelming and undercooked”[3] while Screen Anarchy labelled it “a disaster in search of a director.”[4] That Manhunt was neither a world or international premiere is a reinforcement of BIFF’s key agenda to promote certain films for sales agencies and distribution companies, who use the festival as a testing ground to gauge audiences’ primary reactions.
The country with the most number of films at BIFF this year was Japan with 41 films, with a spotlight on feel-good, predictable and more commercial offerings. One of the most talked-about films among festivalgoers was romance melodrama Let Me Eat Your Pancreas (The Korean Herald), while light-hearted drama Miracles of Namiya General Store and fantasy romance anime Fireworks, Should We See It From The Side or The Bottom were also screened. That these three films obtained commercial releases in Singapore is an indication of their stronger mainstream accessibility, as Singapore only distributes a select Japanese films in cinemas every year, and mostly popular crowd-pleasing titles that appeal to the masses. But is BIFF playing it too safe when it comes to its East Asian programming? The choice of Chinese-Taiwanese drama film Love Education as the closing film this year was an uninspiring one, with its meandering narrative and overly-sentimental introspection on intergenerational womenhood. Film critic Goran Topalovic also criticizes Korean melodrama Butterfly Sleep in the Gala Presentation:[5]
“During the festival’s early years, BIFF had great success in putting the New Korean Cinema on the map, but these days, most of mainstream Asian cinema is playing it safe, offering well-made but by-the-numbers productions, as epitomized by the serviceable May-December romance Butterfly Sleep. A decidedly commercial-minded return to filmmaking by Jeong Jae-eun, whose critically acclaimed coming-of-age tale Take Care of My Cat (2001) provided Bae Doona (TV’s Sense8, Cloud Atlas) with her breakthrough role, Butterfly Sleep was made for the regional market’s consumption.”
BIFF launched a Midnight Passion section in 2006, which offers around midnight screenings of 10 films, typically from the horror, gore, thriller or action genres. Moving into an increasing number of genre films is the festival’s strategic movie to reach out to more audiences, particularly a younger crowd, with other festivals such as the Tokyo International Film Festival and Hawaii International Film Festival doing the same. But with pivotal specialized film festivals in South Korea such as the Bucheon International Fantastic Film Festival (BIFAN) and the Seoul International Women's Film Festival in existence, BIFF faces the risk of encroaching into their niches should it become too specific in its programming. According to BIFAN programmer Jongsuk Thomas Nam, BIFF should stay away from programming popular genre titles since BIFAN already produces a “prolific showcase” of horror, thriller, mystery and fantasy films from East Asia and Southeast Asia. He adds that BIFF also needs to be careful about programming an excessive number of films made by female directors, given the ample presence of large-scale women film festivals in South Korea that screen films directed and produced by women.
“BIFF is a multi-faceted department store — there are more characters and topics they can deal with outside of those niches which they can program effectively. They don’t necessarily have to program horror films or have female filmmakers; if they want to, they can, but why fight over those titles with other festivals who are already doing them already? Besides, genre filmmakers would rather come to BIFAN than BIFF because genre films are a small fraction of BIFF’s programming, so they get buried.
Programmer Pak admitted they would consider trimming down BIFF’s selection of films “a little bit”. He said: “Some films are just screened and that’s it, there’s no promotion – those are the films that we can cut down on. So we will probably have less films, but these films will have more chance to be promoted.” From Pak’s statement, one echoes the worry that more streamlined focus in film section would then come at the expense of comparatively inaccessible experimental films which are more difficult to promote to its festival audiences, especially those lacking the promotional value of star power. Which begs the question: can BIFF obtain a middle ground when it comes to straddling commercial, safe cinema as well as arthouse, independent cinema? International Film Festival Rotterdam festival director Bero Beyer observes how interesting attempts have been made to fill the middle ground at festivals, which have been absent for a while. According to him, there has been a movement towards bigger-budget, local oriented quality films with well-developed scripts and a couple of stars that still make their money back. At the same time, there has also been a small niche of low-budget films that manage to be fresh and new.
“Many people tend to forget this at the end of the day: For film festivals, even for Rotterdam, we are an audience festival. So we want the people to see the films. Even for the most obscure, hardcore 6-hour experimental black-and-white film with only two takes, we do our best to make sure people will actually come and sit through the entire film.”
It is a sentiment that Garcia echoes:
“It’s good to show experimental films or films that are of minority interest because if you don't show them, no one else is going to show them. If they are interesting movies they should be shown, so there is always a place for them. But that means in essence that there always that there is going to be a full house and a kind of empty house. There is a middle ground.”
Whether or not BIFF can continue along those similar lines as Rotterdam and get Asian audiences to accept a greater degree of unconventional forms of filmmaking as a viable alternative to its program remains to be seen. But like every other film festival, it has the due responsibility to ensure its program continues to remain bold and challenging, and that it does not neglect the promotion of more obscure, inaccessible independent cinema that lack big names of flashier titles, even if those films do not attract the same number of audiences.
The desire for greater publicity and recognition from the international world should not in any way compromise the quality of the BIFF's programming.
[1] Ahn, SooJeong. The Pusan International Film Festival, South Korean Cinema and Globalization (TransAsia: Screen Cultures). Hong Kong University Press, HKU, 2012, 128.
[2] Cabagnot, Ed. "16th BIFF Reportage, Part I: The Numbers Game." ASEF culture360. Accessed November 30, 2017
[3] Kiang, Jessica. "Film Review: ‘Manhunt’." Variety. October 26, 2017. Accessed November 30, 2017.
[4] Marsh, James. "Busan 2017 Review: MAN HUNT, a Disaster in Search of a Director." ScreenAnarchy. October 15, 2017. Accessed November 30, 2017
[5] Topalovic, Goran. "Festivals: Busan." Film Comment. November 21, 2017. Accessed November 30, 2017.