Conceptualising Children’s Film:
Programming and Circulation of Children’s Film at Berlinale Generation Kplus
and Other International Children’s Film Festivals.
Laura de Lange
University of Amsterdam
Graduate School of Humanities
MA (Heritage Studies): Preservation and Presentation of the Moving Image
Supervisor: Dr. F. J. J. W. (Floris) Paalman
Second Reader: Dr. E. L. (Eef) Masson
Master Thesis submitted by
Laura de Lange (11311525)
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my supervisor Floris Paalman and Eef Masson, coordinator
of the P&P course, for their advice and assistance throughout this course and
especially during the time spent working on this master thesis.
Laura de Lange
Conceptualising Children’s Film:
Programming and Circulation of Children’s Film at Berlinale Generation Kplus and Other
International Children’s Film Festivals.
Introduction: Is the Festival Only for Adults? ... 3
Chapter 1: Children’s Film at Festivals: Historical Perspective ... 7
1.1 Film Festival Programming in Historical Perspective ... 7
1.2 Children’s Film Festival Programming in Historical Perspective ... 10
Chapter 2: Establishing Children’s Film: Film Analyses ... 16
2.1 Min Lilla Syster (Dir. Sanne Lenken. Sweden/Germany 2015) ... 17
2.2 Dhanak (Rainbow) (Dir. Nagesh Kukunoor. India 2015) ... 19
2.3 Ottaal (The Trap) (Dir. Jayarai Rajastekharan. India 2015) ... 22
2.4 Rara (Dir. Pepa San Martin. Chile/Argentina 2016) ... 24
Chapter 3: Conceptualising Children’s Film: Berlinale Generation Kplus ... 27
3.1 Textual Conception ... 28
3.2 Contextual Conception ... 32
Chapter 4: After Berlin: Conceptualising Children’s Film on the International Film Festival Circuit ... 38
4.1 The International Film Festival Circuit ... 38
4.2 The Films in the Children’s Film Festival Circuit ... 39
4.2.1 Min Lilla Syster and Dhanak at Tiff Kids ... 40
4.2.2 Min Lilla Syster and Dhanak at Cinekid ... 42
4.2.3 Ottaal and Rara at Lucas International Film Festival for Young Film Lovers ... 44
Conclusion ... 48
Appendix: Festival Participation... 52
Min Lilla Syster ... 52
Dhanak (Rainbow) ... 53
Ottaal (The Trap) ... 54
Rara ... 55
Introduction: Is the Festival Only for Adults?
‘Is the festival only for adults?’1 is a question posed by a group of children in an interview with the festival director of the Berlin International Film Festival (Berlinale): this question constitutes the founding myth for the Berlinale’s children’s film section in 1978. It was justified as children had thus far been marginalised or even ignored as festival audiences and children’s film was not on the programmers’ agendas.
This has changed since the late 1970s, and today there are a number of festivals with children’s film programming. But, although many children’s film festivals and sections have been around for decades, they are scarcely represented in academic as well as industry discourses as the director of the New York International Children’s Film Festival points out: ‘Sometimes I wish we didn’t have the word children in our name […]. A lot of times, people turn their noses up at the notion of movies for children – all the way from projectionists to film writers to even people who make films.’ 2 This viewpoint is doubtlessly influenced by the constant output of commercial children’s film favouring the harmless, forgoing narrative substance. The underrepresentation can also be attributed to the difficulty to pin down any definition for children’s film as a genre. There are various aspects that have to be taken into consideration when it comes to film for children: educational, psychological, personal, institutional, and cultural aspects play key roles in defining, selecting, and assessing children’s film. Festivals with a focus or sidebar on children’s film explicitly face these difficulties and take children into account as a serious audience which is entitled to quality film.3
Marianne Redpath, director of the Berlinale’s children’s film section Generation, states that ‘we are not trying to be educative or build the audience of tomorrow. Instead we take the approach that we are programming for our audience of today and that, if young people see certain types of films, that will create demand for varied programming in the future’4. But, doesn’t the process of curating, selecting, programming, and presenting specific films for young audiences inevitably influence and shape them and their viewing habit? And how does this concern particularly apply to children’s film?
1 Felsmann, Barbara. Blicke, Begegnungen, Berührungen. 25 Jahre Kinderfilmfest. Ed. Internationale
Filmfestspiele Berlin. Berlin: Jovis Verlag GmbH, 2002. 11.
2 Ebiri, Bilge: “Ebiri: Why is One of New York’s Best Film Festivals Mostly Unknown?” Vulture.com. March 21,
2014. New York Magazine. <http://www.vulture.com/2014/03/new-york-international-childrens-film-festival-great.html>. [Last accessed: June 24, 2018].
3 Krumholz, Felicia and Beatriz Moreira de Azevedo Porto Gonçalves. “Participation and Learning Trajectories
on the Rio International Film Festivals Section for Children and Young People.” Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy 7.4 (2012): 302-313. 303.
4 Sawyer, Clare. “The Kids Are All Right: Beyond the Mainstream in Berlinale’s Generation.” Screen Education 73
These questions are the outset and underlying threats for this thesis. They may be equally valid for film festival programming in general, but especially for programming for young audiences who are only beginning the process of learning about and understanding film.
Generation’s mission statement furthermore says that it aims at integrating young audiences into the ‘festival’s film-aesthetic discourse’ 5 and declares:
Generation speaks to well-defined audiences, but there are no conventional limits when it comes to the selection and programming of films. The section is home to cinematic works that are thematically and aesthetically linked to the experiences of children and young people. The programme encloses outstanding children’s and youth films as well as films for all target audiences that are also suitable for young people.6
This vaguely formulated statement triggers plenty of questions on the target audience, the programming practice, and the films themselves, which can be condensed into the main research questions of this thesis: how do Berlinale Generation Kplus and other international children’s film festivals conceptualise children’s film? To approach this question, I examine two main aspects of conceptualising children’s films in the festival context: programming and circulation of children’s film on the international film festival circuit.
The main case study of this thesis is the Berlinale’s children’s film section Generation Kplus. As part of one of the ‘A’-list festivals and a competitive section in its own right, Generation has a strict premiere policy. Every film screened at the section has to have its international premiere (outside the country of origin) in Berlin to be eligible. This makes Generation the starting point for many films on their trajectory through the international film festival network. Therefore, the section can be regarded as a trend-setter in festivals’ conceptions of children’s film.
Generation is divided into two subsections: Generation Kplus shows films for young children from the age of four, with most live-action feature films recommended for children from the age of nine. Generation 14plus targets audiences from the age of 14. In this thesis, I will focus solely on Generation Kplus as my objective is to study conceptions of children’s film, while ‘films intended for adolescents are a greyer area. Some ‘youth’ films, […], are closer in style and representation to ‘adult drama’ than to children’s film’7.
This study is built in four layers: in a first step, the historical development of film festival programming will be traced, in order to pinpoint the emergence and advancement of children’s film programming at festivals. In this chapter, I will trace the three developmental phases in film festival
5 “Generation.” Berlinale. Kulturveranstaltungen des Bundes in Berlin (KBB) GmbH.
<https://www.berlinale.de/en/das_festival/sektionen_sonderveranstaltungen/generation/index.html>. [Last accessed: June 24, 2018].
6 Idem.
7 Brown, Noel. The Children’s Film. Genre, Nation, and Narrative. New York: Columbia University Press, 2017.
programming described by Marijke de Valck, leading scholar in film festival studies. Whereas de Valck focusses on festival programming, Cindy H. Wong studies both global and local aspects of film festivals as well as their audiences.8 These aspects need to be taken into account in studying children’s film festivals in particular as they have to speak to both the global film industry and young local audiences. The first chapter furthermore studies the emergence of children’s film programming at festivals in historical perspective, noting the different factors that informed the inception of children’s film programming at festivals.
In a second step, I will analyse four films that held their international premiere at Berlinale Generation Kplus in 2015 and 2016, which all have been awarded with the two major prizes in this section: The Crystal Bear given out by the children’s jury and the Grand Prix of the international (professional) jury. These two juries can be considered as the voices of the two different main target audiences for the section: children and industry professionals. This selection of analysed films therefore allows to examine two different points of view on what makes an award-winning children’s film. The four films – which originate from India, Sweden, and Chile – stand pars pro toto for the international children’s film production outside the realm of commercial cinema.
In a third step, the four films will be put in relation to each other to uncover recurring patterns in narrative and film aesthetics and connect these to patterns within children’s film, as studied by Noel Brown in his book The Children’s Film. Genre, Nation, and Narrative and motifs of festival films as analysed by Cindy H. Wong. This analytical perspective is complemented by an account of the institutional framework of the section. Mainly relying on interviews with section director Marianne Redpath, the mission statement, and a book written by journalist Barbara Felsmann and published by the Berlinale in honour of the 25th anniversary of the section in 2002 – the question on how Generation Kplus conceptualises children’s film will be answered.
Finally, in step four, I will follow the four films’ respective trajectory on the film festival circuit in order to examine if other festivals follow the Berlinale’s lead in conceptualising children’s film. Thereby I will take a close look at the festivals and contexts in which these films have further been programmed. In order to cover the films’ course on the film festival circuit as completely as possible to be able to point to their afterlife, I chose films from the years 2015 and 2016 – as films that have entered the festival network at a later stage are still travelling from festival to festival.
In the introduction to his book Noel Brown argues that ‘children’s films are objects of pleasure, fascination and nostalgia for audiences of all ages, and their appeal cuts across boundaries of class, race, sex, language, culture and nation. […] Few forms of cinema polarise opinion in quite the
8 Wong, Cindy H. Film Festivals: Culture, People, and Power on the Global Screen. Piscataway: Rutgers University
same way or mean so many different things to different people at different stages in life.’ 9 This quote captures my motivation to write this thesis. Children’s film festivals and sections are crucial for the dissemination of children’s film with this power to attract attention, to polarise, to be debatable, and leave a lasting impression. Moreover, by inviting children to the cinema, taking them serious as an audience, and presenting challenging films, film festivals are important platforms for introducing children to film culture outside the realm of mainstream media.
Brown furthermore pinpoints the issue that ‘relatively few critics have addressed children’s films as serious texts. Even fewer have attempted to define what they are, and what they are not’10. While this thesis tangentially relates to the discussion of children’s film as a genre, the main objective is to understand how festivals perceive and promote films for children through their programming practices and the circulation of the films on the circuit in order to show the challenges faced by programmers and the strategies they employ in curating programmes for very specific and at the same time heterogeneous audiences. Throughout this thesis, the term children’s film is used in different contexts, definitions, and historical meanings. Unless explicitly attributed to another author, my use of the term dissociates itself from any notion of paternalism.
9 Brown, The Children’s Film 11. 10 Brown, The Children’s Film 11.
Chapter 1: Children’s Film at Festivals: Historical Perspective
This first chapter aims to outline when and why children’s film programmes were introduced at festivals. Firstly, I will take a look at the historical development of film festivals with its major trends and debates, especially concerning programming practices. Secondly, the influences that lead to the emergence of children’s programming in particular will be discussed and put into the context of the Berlinale’s children’s film section Generation.
1.1 Film Festival Programming in Historical Perspective
Film festivals as modes of exhibiting film only came into existence 40 years after the emergence of the medium. The first film festival was held as part of the Venice Biennale in 1932 and subsequently the major European festivals in Cannes (1946), Karlovy Vary (1946), Edinburgh (1947), and Berlin (1951) were established. Over the years, the festival network has grown, and today there are over 6.000 film festivals on the circuit worldwide.11 Media scholar Marijke de Valck argues that, in order to understand the continuing success of film festivals, it is important to understand their history. She maps out three major developmental phases in film festival history that will serve this chapter as the framework to discuss the main trends in film festival programming in historical perspective. Although specialised film festivals and programming within larger festivals did not emerge from the outset of film festival history, it is crucial to look at the development of early film festivals to understand how more varied, specialised programming in festivals came about.
The first developmental phase in film festival history described by de Valck began with the creation of the first recurrent film festival in Venice in 1932. Film festival programming at the early festivals was, according to de Valck, mainly influenced by geopolitical factors. Festivals were platforms for showcasing national cinemas in the tradition of world exhibitions and fairs. Countries were asked to submit films according to their position within the film industry, their size, and their relations with the festival’s homeland. Therefore, she argues, film festival programming mainly entailed compiling films that had been pre-selected by government bodies into coherent programmes.12 But early film festival programming was not only influenced by national governments, as Cindy H. Wong points out. While being entangled in geopolitical power struggles, festivals also had to develop their own aesthetic
11 Loist, Skadi: “Crossover Dreams: Global Circulation of Queer Film on the Film Festival Circuits.” Diogenes
62.1 (2015): 1-16 [57-72]. 5.
12 Valck, Marijke de. “Finding Audiences for Films: Festival Programming in Historical Perspective.” Coming
Soon to a Festival Near You: Programming Film Festivals. Ed. Jeffrey Ruoff. St. Andrews: St. Andrews Film
viewpoint and agenda. Both European avant-garde cinema and Hollywood were major influences. The notion of film as art, as propagated by European avant-garde film culture, was used to advocate for the creation of film festivals in the first place. In order to gain support, it was crucial to retain a relationship with the world’s most powerful film industry: Hollywood.13 Keeping close ties with the American film industry also guaranteed stars and glamour at their event, which festivals needed for public and media attention.
The first European film festivals’ strong focus on national cinema as well as their reliance on the Hollywood model of stars and glamour were increasingly criticised over the years and led to two parallel developments from the late 1960s up until the early 1980s. For one, more and more new festivals emerged ‘in reaction to social needs as well as to insufficiencies of established festivals and their traditional formats’14. These new festivals contested the hegemony of the major European festivals in different ways: by presenting films from marginalised or completely ignored cinema cultures to protest political influences, by showcasing the best films already screened at other festivals in order to oppose the hierarchical order dictated by the premiere status of the ‘A’-list festivals, or by building platforms for young, independent filmmakers to advocate for avant-garde cinema.15
For another, in light of the protest culture of 1968, the Cannes film festival was disrupted by protest, consequently leading into upheavals at the other two major festivals Venice and Berlin within the next few years with calls for reformation of these ‘A’-list festivals: instead of them being used as geopolitical standoff-platforms, film festivals had to serve international film culture.16 Reacting to these calls for reformation, film festivals launched into the second development phase, described by de Valck as ‘the age of the programmers’17. This phase was shaped by approaches to reorganise the major film festivals as independent institutions with programming practices that were based on cinephilia and its recognition of cinema as the artistic expression of an individual artist (auteur). Programming developed into an important cultural practice, with programmers taking centre stage in the festival structure: ‘With the turn to expert selection, festival programming was put in the service not only of the advancement of cinema as art but also of cinema as a political tool’18. The major film festivals followed the recently emerged smaller festivals in becoming more politically sensible and engaged. Marginalised issues, such as gender, race or ethnicity, as well as young, critical voices in filmmaking were included in the programmes in newly created sections. By updating and diversifying
13 Wong 39.
14 Loist, Skadi. “The Film Festival Circuit. Networks, Hierarchies, and Circulation.” Film Festivals: History, Theory,
Method, Practice. Eds. Marijke de Valck, Brendan Kredell and Skadi Loist. New York: Routledge, 2016. 49-64.56.
15 Idem 56.
16 Valck, de “Finding Audiences for Films” 28. 17 Idem 29.
their programming practices, the major festivals not only reacted to the critique directed towards them but also secured their hegemony in the ever-growing festival circuit.19
The paradigm shift from the first to the second phase in film festival history ultimately paved the way for the third stage which, according to de Valck, began in the 1980s and lasts up until today. This phase again is characterised by two major developments: Had the festivals emerged in the second stage mainly contested the major festivals’ gaps and shortcomings in their programming practices, many of the festivals created from the 1980s specialised in genres or audiences marginalised or ignored by festivals, for example children’s film.20 With the addition of these new festivals, the international film festival network grew and diversified. In turn, festivals had to both compete for attention as well as work together in an increasingly competitive and globalised market.
With the efforts to establish the major festivals as independent institutions, initiated in the second developmental phase, film festivals became increasingly professionalised and gained authority. As important cultural institutions, they attracted larger audiences and the public attending the festivals became more diverse, which in turn meant that their programming had to become more varied in order to cater to all members of the audience: Cinephiles, industry professionals as well as the general public. Especially gaining the attention of the general public and building a loyal local audience became an important point on festivals’ agendas, as they were and still are ‘very important in the success of film festivals, not only financially but also in their role in creating and atmosphere to ensure the success of the festivals’21.
Festivals formed teams of programmers for a more varied input in the selection and programming process. They also started to closely work together with local institutions and city governments: ‘By the late 1990s, new film festivals became closely aligned with their host cities and communities, with film festivals serving as another venue to add to wider global culture offerings.’22
Wong points out that all film festivals are ‘sustained by a universalist discourse of art and aesthetics that transcend the festival or the nation. There is no film festival that does not see itself as devoting its energy and effort to the preservation and development of the art of cinema’ 23. Film festivals thus share a common goal that is informed by the notion of cinephilia which de Valck pinpoints as the driving force behind programming practices in the second phase of film festival history.
As cultural institutions, film festivals are agents in film industries as well as in cultural and political spheres. They both operate on a global and a local scale. They are embedded in discourses on
19 Wong 51. 20 Idem 53. 21 Idem 54. 22 Idem 60. 23 Idem 63.
globalisation as ‘the majority of film festivals today have global palettes and global ambitions’24 and as they have to assert themselves in an ever-growing competitive global film festival circuit. Despite the shared aim, festivals thus have to find ways to distinguish themselves to stay relevant in the global picture. At the same time, film festivals function on a local level as they ‘do not just showcase cinema, they actively build audiences and communities’25, by either showing a diverse programme that appeals to varied audiences or by strict specialisation to speak to specific communities.
While the ‘A’-list festivals still hold the dominant position in the festival network, smaller specialised festivals have found the niches within the larger system and have built their own well-sustained networks and communities. One of these specialised festival networks and its development will be the topic of the next chapter, in which I will take a look at the emergence of children’s film programming at festivals.
1.2 Children’s Film Festival Programming in Historical Perspective
Although Marijke de Valck pinpoints the emergence of festivals with children’s programming to the third development phase in film festival history which began around 198026, the first children’s film festivals and children’s film sections within larger festivals already emerged in the 1970s, in the second development phase de Valck maps out, as for example the Giffoni Film Festival in Giffoni Valle Piana in Italy in 1971, the Lucas International Film Festival for Young Film Lovers in Frankfurt am Main in 1974, as well as children’s film sidebars within larger festivals, for example at the International Film Festival Berlin in 1978. Studying the emergence of these early children’s film programmes from the perspective of film festival history, it can be argued that the programme diversification strategies employed by film festivals in the wake of the protests of the late 1960s and early 1970s not only uttered themselves in cinephile programming, but furthermore in targeting underrepresented audiences such as children as part of more politically engaged programming and a tendency to democratise festivals.
Although there were efforts to include children’s film at film festivals, children were not recognised as serious audiences. Even though Berlinale head Wolf Donner, for example, promised to include a children’s film programme which was named Cinema for People Aged Six and Up in 1978, this decision was accompanied by concerns by the festival itself and the media that a programme
24 Wong 60.
25 Rastegar, Roya. “Difference, Aesthetics and the Curatorial Crisis of Film Festivals.” Screen 53.3 (Autumn 2012): 310-317. 311.
26 Valck, Marijke de. Film Festivals. From Geopolitics to Global Cinephilia. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University
highlighting children’s film would not appeal to a large audience.27 Contrary to these concerns, the programme was a major success28, proving that there were receptive audiences for children’s film.
This had already been realised by commercial media culture which had developed a ‘broader and progressive cultural receptiveness to “juvenile” entertainment’29, as Noel Brown points out. With the emergence of multiplex cinemas that targeted young audiences in particular as well as the debut of the first cable television channel exclusively showing children’s programming Nickelodeon in 1977, children and young people were appreciated as profitable audiences. That young audiences were a valuable market was soon realised by the commercial film industry, which from the 1980s built specialised production units which were focused on a heavy output of so-called family films and family- orientated multimedia franchises. This development, as Brown argues, was of great importance for the global dominance of commercial family cinema from Hollywood today.30 This hegemony is not only imbued to theatrical releases but also the growing market for home viewing with VHS and later DVDs exclusively targeting children and families. Furthermore, children’s television developed beyond the one children’s channel Nickelodeon with more and more specialised television channels appearing on the map, such as Disney Channel.
These developments concurred with the bulk of children’s film festivals emerging in the 1980s and 1990s, as, amongst others, the Chicago International Children’s Film Festival (1983), Tiff Kids, the children’s film sidebar as well as a standalone children’s film festival helmed by the Toronto International Film Festival, the New York International Children’s Film Festival and the Golden Elephant International Children’s Film Festival in different cities in India, which all held their first editions in 1997.
Likewise, the Berlinale began to institutionalise its children’s film section in the 1980s. First of all, the heavy-handed name Cinema for People Aged Six and Up was changed to Kinderfilmfest in 1980. Including the word children into the name, the section explicitly acknowledged its target audience. The name-change, furthermore, set up the professionalisation and institutionalisation of the section, in order for it to become a central competitive section within rather than just an addendum to the Berlinale. This implied adjusting its organisation according to festival standards. In a first step, the selection regulations were updated matching those of the Berlinale’s other sections.31 These regulations, up until today, include that films are only eligible for participation if they have not been
27 Felsmann 13. 28 Idem 13.
29 Brown, Noel. “Family Entertainment and Contemporary Hollywood Cinema.” Scope: An Online Journal of Film
and Television Studies. 25 (February 2013): 1-22. 6.
<https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/scope/documents/2013/february-2013/brown.pdf>. [Last accessed: June 28, 2018].
30 Idem 2. 31 Felsmann 27.
screened outside their country of origin and consequently not been screened in any other European film festival. These statutes were installed to ensure the Berlinale’s hegemonic position as an ‘A’-list festival with premiere status. Furthermore, from 1981 the section was helmed by its own director. New section head Gabi Sikorski formulated her aims for the Kinderfilmfest as follows:
Just like adults, children should receive the full cinematic experience – with the same expenditure and sense of celebration. High quality films and top technical facilities are important as well as the usual trimmings – from comfortable seats and the curtain to the opening gong. The Kinderfilmfest should also become more glamorous and dignified. With special festival guests, the press, photographers, interviews with children, all that sort of thing.32
Sikorski implied a strong turn towards the entertainment factor of the programme, falling in line with the event-character inherent to the major film festival modelled on Hollywood’s allure. By staging, for example, elaborate premieres and press conferences, the festival aimed for prestige in the public’s and the media’s eyes. From this point onwards, the Kinderfilmfest opened with a lavish opening-celebration. Press conferences and screenings were held and a children’s meeting point installed in the section’s screening venue, where children could meet the filmmakers. Moreover, a professional jury was installed which would award the best films with the Grand Prix of the international jury.
In the statement Sikorski furthermore announced that children would be granted the same festival-going experience the usual festival audiences, cinephiles and industry professionals, were used to. Thereby she signalled that children were to be taken seriously as an audience at the festival. Sending out this signal was crucial after having been critiqued for not paying enough attention to their audience’s wishes and opinions before. 33 This push towards audience inclusion can be seen in line with film festivals’ attempts to democratise their programming. Rather than following ‘the (often idiosyncratic) taste of one man (and programmers then were mostly men)’34, festivals now, in the third development phase described by de Valck, expanded their horizons by taking input from teams of programmers into account as well as giving the audience platforms to voice their opinions.
The Kinderfilmfest asked the audience to fill out questionnaires after every screening and give their opinions, a practice that is still in place. Today, the surveys also function as method of selection for the children’s and youth juries. The questionnaires are evaluated and children and young people who, according to the section’s website, ‘write openly, honestly and vividly about their film experience’35 stand a chance to be invited to join the next edition’s jury. The children’s jury was first introduced at the Kinderfilmfest in 1986 and has since then given out awards, the Crystal Bear for the best film and the best short film as well as special mentions to other films that left an impression.
32 Felsmann 35. 33 In: Felsmann 75.
34 Valck, de “Finding Audiences for Films” 34. 35 “Generation.”, Berlinale.
This paradigm shift to recognise children as serious and lucrative audiences – which partly evolved from Hollywood’s and television’s targeting of young and family audiences – contributed to the creation of these specialised children’s film festivals in the 1980s and 1990s. On the one hand, they could point to the success of the Hollywood family film, which implied that young audiences were marketable, in order to justify their existence. On the other hand, these festivals positioned themselves against Hollywood’s family film: Whereas the family film stood for traditional cinematic values such as ‘narrative transparency, spectacle, emotive qualities, an optimistic message (culminating in a “happy ending”) and broad audience suitability’36, factors which enforced the film’s marketability, the emerging children’s film festivals underlined their shared aim to act as presenters and distributors of progressive independent cinema for children, which they labelled quality children’s film. Pointing to the lack of quality film for young audiences, the children’s film festivals since then function as an alternative distribution platform beyond the realm of commercial cinema distribution.
Today, in an international network of over 6.000 film festivals in total, the children’s film festivals only make up a small group: According to the European Children’s Film Association, a database service for European high-quality film for children, there are 149 film festivals with children’s film programming worldwide. 88 of these festivals are specialised children’s film festivals and 61 children’s film strands within larger festivals, both with general and specialised (e.g. documentary) programming.37 This seems to suggest that there are enduring prejudices against children’s film that have to do with the general connotation of this label with the Hollywood family film, its traditional values, and hegemonic position.
Most children’s film festivals and programmes are initiated, sustained, and are part of lager institutions: film festivals such as Berlinale Generation and TIFF Kids, and multimedia companies such as the Chicago International Children’s Film Festival which is part of the Chicago based multimedia non-profit ‘Facets’, or media educational institutions; the Lucas film festival in Frankfurt am Main, for example, is organised by the German Film Institute. The affiliation of children’s film festivals and programmes with different institutions speaks for the many different ways to think about children’s film, involving ‘a range of personal, pedagogical, critical, textual, institutional, and cultural/imperial points of view’38. One way film festivals think about children’s film is doubtlessly the educational stance, as all festivals are (although not helmed or coordinated by) associated with local and national educational institutions.
36 Brown, “Family Entertainment” 2.
37 An overview can be found here: “Festivals”. ECFAweb. European Children’s Film Association.
<http://www.ecfaweb.org/european-childrens-film-network/festivals/>. [Last accessed: June 24, 2018].
38 Wojcik-Andrews, Ian. Children’s Film: History, Ideology, Pedagogy, Theory. New York, London: Garland
The Berlinale’s children’s film section, for example, has been associated with educational institutions from its outset: the first editions were organised in collaboration with the Berlin Institute for Media Education. This partnership was not always fruitful due to the divide of opinions on what to highlight in the programme: the strong artistic stance of the festival or the educational mission of the institute. The section finally decided to foreground its own artistic agenda in the programme, and to implement the educational mission in school screenings. By introducing school screenings, the section could retain the important ties with local schools that provide audiences, as well as include the educational stance without it taking over and over-shading the whole programme.
Some of the festivals and sections within larger festivals are of international acclaim, are covered in international industry papers, and reach large audiences, not only (mainly local) children and young people, but also industry professionals, such as Berlinale Generation, the Chicago International Children’s Film Festival, the Giffoni Experience (previously festival), and Cinekid in Amsterdam. These festivals and sections are, similarly to the ‘A’-list festivals in the international network, important global platforms for the distribution of independent children’s film. In their double role as audience festivals as well as industry events, these children’s film festivals have to balance out their two functions: appealing to their local young audiences as well as staying relevant to the international film industry, especially distributors.
This area of tension is visible in the Berlinale’s children’s film section, which was in 2007 again renamed and rebranded to Generation. Over the years the section has developed from a small-scale project into a fully institutionalised competitive section with over 65.000 visitors per edition. 39 In order to accommodate and appeal to its growing audience, the section divided its programme into two subsections: one for children from the ages four to fourteen, called Generation Kplus and one for young people from the age of fourteen, named Generation 14plus. This division does not only allow the section to further broaden its reach but also to extend its programme: while the Kinderfilmfest showed around ten feature films and fifteen shorts in total, Generation now programmes around 60 titles, both short and feature length, spread out over the two subsections with fifteen feature length films and two to three short film programmes per subsection. Both subsections have two juries, representing the two main audiences: a children’s / youth jury and a professional international jury. By expanding the programme and maintaining its position as a competitive section within the festival, the section secures its hegemonic position in the competitive (children’s film) festival circuit.
Many children’s film festivals exclusively operate on a national or local level. Their focus mainly lies on making independent children’s film accessible to local audiences. On the industry level, they are interesting to national (or local) broadcasting stations as television remains the largest
distributor for independent children’s film beyond the festivals. These smaller festivals often are second or third stations for the films successfully showcased in the other, larger festivals.
In sustaining a network for the circulation and presentation of films for children, children’s film festivals and sections work towards a common aim: to build a platform for the production and distribution of quality children’s film as an alternative to Hollywood’s commercial family film.
Chapter 2: Establishing Children’s Film: Film Analyses
Noel Brown asserts in his book The Children’s Film. Genre, Nation and Narrative that ‘in order for a film to be established popularly as a children’s film, it must – somehow – be recognisable as such, meeting established expectations regarding what a children’s film is’40. Consequently, he argues, children’s film ‘must possess a set of textual and associative significations that differentiate it from cinema intended primarily for adult audiences’41. This means that there must be certain narrative and/or aesthetic features that recur in films targeted towards young audiences in order for them to be acknowledged as children’s films.
Assuming that there are such recurrent patterns, in this chapter, I will analyse four films that held their international premiere at the Berlinale’s children’s film section Generation Kplus. These films have been awarded with the major prizes of the section: The Crystal Bear given out by the section’s children’s jury and the Grand Prix of the international jury. Then, in chapter three, the four films are compared in order to point out recurrent film aesthetic and narrative patterns. As the conception of children’s film is not only tied to the filmic texts but also the institutional framework in which they are presented, the results of the analysis are tied in with the institutional framework of Berlinale Generation Kplus, in order to make conclusions about the section’s conception of children’s film.
The analyses of the four films contain – next to detailed synopses – examinations of the themes and issues discussed in the films and the most prominent film aesthetic means to convey these, including cinematography, editing, and sound. I argue that, in order to function as children’s films, the filmic texts have to create common ground between their protagonists and the young audiences, aiming for an ‘imaginative engagement […] normally conflated under the term “identification”’42. Murray Smith proposes, instead of using the general term identification, three levels of emotional engagement of audiences: recognition, alignment, and allegiance which form the structure of sympathy.43 In the analyses of the films, I follow Smith’s proposal. Complementing the narrative, I thereby focus on the film aesthetic techniques, cinematography, editing, and sound. The aim is to point to the ways in which these films create recognition, alignment, and allegiance between their protagonists and the (young) audience by means of storytelling and aesthetic devices.
40 Brown, The Children’s Film 26. 41 Idem 27.
42 Smith, Murray. “Altered States: Character and Emotional Response in the Cinema.” Cinema Journal 33.4
2.1 Min Lilla Syster (Dir. Sanne Lenken. Sweden/Germany 2015)
Sanne Lenken has taken part in the Berlinale’s campus for up-and-coming filmmakers, Berlinale Talents, and presented her short film Äta Lunch at Berlinale Generation 14plus in 2013. Her first feature-length film Min Lilla Syster was programmed at Berlinale Generation Kplus in 2015. The film examines the ‘volatile intersections between sisterhood, eating disorders and gender driven-body issues’44 from the perspective of twelve-year-old Stella. The sensitive exploration of these complex themes won the film the Crystal Bear given out by the children’s jury which stated that ‘the film’s unique perspective, stunning performances and challenging theme really touched our hearts’45.
Stella is a (seemingly) content twelve-year-old. She lives with her busy, often absent but loving parents and older sister Katja in a not further specified Swedish town. The family dynamic is set up within the first few minutes of the film: Katja, a talented figure skater, is clearly front and centre of the parent’s attention and Stella’s role model. Stella imitates her sister, for example in wanting to become a figure skater, although she evidently doesn’t have the talent for it. The sisters generally have a close and loving relationship. At the same time, Katja, being aware of her sister’s admiration, likes to wield her influence over her sister. She frequently bursts into aggressive fits that she lets out on her parents and Stella. The family accepts this behaviour by blaming it on the constant stress Katja is under in advancing her figure skating career and performing well in school. One night, Stella catches her sister in the bathroom throwing up her dinner. Her initial reaction is to tell her parent’s what she witnessed, but Katja blackmails her into keeping the secret: if she tells the parents, Katja will expose the inappropriate poems Stella writes about Katja’s 35-year-old figure skating coach with whom the twelve-year-old is in love. Stella is thus forced to silently watch her sister’s eating disorder spiralling out of control while the parents stay oblivious to the situation. She finally breaks her silence and lets her parents in on her secret. The parents, overwhelmed with the situation, give in to Katja’s wish not to seek professional help and believe her that she can beat the illness by herself. But the situation escalates quickly when the parents force feed Katja who in turn runs away and is found by Stella on the ice skating rink, where she finally collapses. The ending of the film fast forwards to a few weeks after the event, when Stella visits her sister in the hospital for the first time. The sisters have apparently been estranged for a while but reform their bond cautiously with Stella promising to return for a visit the following week.
44 Dalton, Stephen. “’My Skinny Sister’ (‘Min lilla syster’): Gothenburg Review.” The Hollywood Reporter. April 2,
2015: n.pag. <https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/my-skinny-sister-min-lilla-770010>. [Last accessed: June 24, 2018].
45 “Press Releases 2015.” Berlinale. February 14, 2015. Kulturveranstaltungen des Bundes in Berlin (KBB) GmbH.
<https://www.berlinale.de/en/archiv/jahresarchive/2015/08_pressemitteilungen_2015/08_pressemitteilunge n_2015detail_1_27862.html>. [Last accessed: June 24, 2018].
Min Lilla Syster literally translates into my little (or small) sister. The English distribution title
is My Skinny Sister. The original title implies that the film takes in the older sister’s point of view to look onto Stella. It points to Stella as the focal point of the story but not as the storyteller. The English title suggests the opposite, that the story is told from Stella’s point of view looking onto her older sister and hints at the issue of eating disorder discussed in the film. Both titles and their different implications, however, point to the question whether the audience is meant to identify with the protagonists or the subject of the film.
The film makes it clear from the first scene that the story is told from Stella’s perspective as she is the focus of the cinematography from the opening shot. A hand-held camera is used which evokes a sense of reality, contrary to elaborate camera movements (crane shots etc.) that are often used to embellish and heighten the dramaturgy of a film. The hand-held camera is often employed in documentaries and with its inherent instability being hand-held and its ability to stay close to the happenings and the protagonists implies a sense of authenticity. In Min Lilla Syster the use of a hand-held camera not only allows to stay close to and move around with Stella, but also gives the film the air of a documentary and implicitly suggests that a realistic story is being told.
To focus on Stella’s perspective, the cinematographer often employs close-ups. The close-up is useful to showcase sentiments without having to rely on spoken explanations. This method again alludes authenticity as the immediate, unfiltered feelings of the protagonist are put on display. In Min
Lilla Syster close-ups are used to focus on Stella and display her emotions and immediate reactions to
situations in capturing her face. One reaction shot of Stella’s face, for example, shows her contemplatively touching her nose after having been shown a photograph of a female historical figure with a prominent nose, considered ugly by her classmates. Stella, who is prone to compare herself to her older sister, is very insecure about her own appearance, and this shot points to her insecurities.
Stella having to deal with the difficult situation of keeping her sister’s secret is also mainly conveyed through close-ups. Besides laying focus on Stella with this camera technique, it is also a means to isolate her from the other characters with her being the only one visible on screen in certain moments. This speaks for the situation she is put in by having to keep her sister’s illness from their parents: being alone, unable to act on and speak about her feelings, fears, and anxieties she faces. This is an effective means to emphasise the pressure Stella feels being blackmailed into keeping a secret from her parents all the while having to silently watch her sister being ill. By staying close to Stella and focusing on her emotions and reactions through close-ups the audience gains access to Stella’s emotions, and is therefore encouraged to align itself with Stella.46
46 ‘Alignment describes the process by which spectators are placed in relation to characters in terms of access
The sister’s complicated relationship is conveyed by means of juxtapositions. The decision to cast two physically different actresses is the most obvious of the contrasts employed. Katja, being in her late teens and a competitive, semi-professional athlete, is hailed as the star of the family and is, as pointed out by different people in the film, an attractive young woman. Stella, on the other hand, is still more child than teenager both physically and mentally. She strives to look and be like her older sister. Furthermore, the editing functions as means to convey the sisters’ dynamic, between having a close, loving relationship, the older sister wielding power over the younger, and both of them keeping a dangerous secret. This correlation is disclosed by hard cutting scenes of the two sisters having fun with scenes of Katja bursting into her aggressive fits and the sisters fighting. This editing technique furthermore emphasises the unpredictability of Katja’s behaviour towards her family, which only Stella and the audience realise at first is due to her eating disorder. Again, the film’s aim to establish a link between audiences and the protagonist Stella is reinforced here by letting the audience in on the secret.
The sound design of the film – corresponding to the cinematography – is kept simple. There is only a minimalistic non-diegetic score which is used to underline contemplative moments rather than to heighten the dramatics of climatic scenes. To heighten the tension of the pivotal scene near the end of the film, diegetic sound is employed: when Stella finds her sister on the ice rink after she has run away, the sound of the skates relentlessly circling on the ice mixed with Stella’s pleads for her sister to stop create a powerful soundscape. By mostly relying on the diegetic sound, the sound design in unison with the cinematography underlines the authentic depiction of the plot.
In Min Lilla Syster the film aesthetic devices are employed to create a relatable experience for audiences. By opting for a hand-held camera and depending on diegetic sound, the film suggests that it is depicting reality in exploring themes familiar to audience members: family and sibling dynamics, being a teenager and gender-related body issues. By telling the story from twelve-year-old Stella’s point of view, the film aims for a sense of allegiance between the (young) audience and Stella. Experiencing her sister’s illness and the ramifications for the family from her perspective makes the difficult issues discussed in the film understandable for young audiences.
2.2 Dhanak (Rainbow) (Dir. Nagesh Kukunoor. India 2015)
Dhanak is the first film by Nagesh Kukunoor presented at the Berlinale. The film was
programmed at Berlinale Generation Kplus in 2015. Mainly focusing on the relationship between siblings, the film also hints at various socio-political issues. The film won the international jury’s Grand Prix for best film with the following explanation:
This dynamically-directed film delivers joy and heartbreak in equal measure – the young brother and sister at its heart and the unbreakable love between them are irresistible. As we journey across the
country with these two young people, we become deeply invested in their quirky “against all odds” quest. We were constantly surprised by the twists and turns in their journey, and the unusual eccentric characters that await them at each and every juncture! Filled with colour, magic, music, spontaneity and a plenty of emotion, this film lives up to its name and delivers a celebration of live to savour long after the end credits roll!47
Dhanak tells the story of ten-year-old girl Pari and her eight-year-old brother Chotu who live with their
aunt and uncle in a small village in the Northern Indian desert state Rajasthan after their parents have passed away. The siblings are inseparable and ever since Chotu has lost his eyesight at age four Pari takes care of him. Her care goes so far that she willingly fails her grades at school (although she is one of the best pupils) in order to be held back, so she can go to the same class as her brother. Both children are movie-lovers. On their daily walk to school they make up stories with their favourite heroes. Pari favours romantic lead Shah Rukh Khan and Chotu action hero Salman Khan.
Pari has promised her brother that he will gain back his eyesight and that she will show him a rainbow by his ninth birthday which is fast approaching. But the family is poor and has no money for an operation. After discovering a poster in the local cinema with her hero Shah Rukh Khan promoting a charity to give visually impaired people their eyesight back, Pari is convinced that he is the only one who can help her brother. She writes and posts letters to Shah Rukh Khan every day until the postman refuses to play along anymore, dismissing her belief that the letters will actually reach the movie star. When word reaches the village that Shah Rukh Khan will shoot his next film in the Rajasthan desert, Pari and her brother embark on a journey to go see the film star on location 300 km away from their home. On their journey, they have several encounters with people willing to help as well as people trying to deceive them. When they finally reach the filming location, the production has already moved on. On a final track through the desert both break down dehydrated. They are taken to the hospital by a rich stranger who also pays for Chotu’s operation. Pari is convinced it was Shah Rukh Khan although it is never disclosed who the stranger is. The film ends with Chotu being able to see again on his ninth birthday.
Dhanak is a multi-layered film drawing inspiration from and paying tribute to both the road
movie genre and Indian Bollywood cinema. It makes a point about the power of cinema all the while commenting on social issues in contemporary Indian society, amongst others the position of girls, child labour, poverty, and religion. Within this web of multi-layered references the two children Pari and Chotu and their quest through the desert always remain the centrepiece. This is conveyed in the cinematography: wide-angle shots are used to showcase the vastness of the desert the children have to find their way through. At the same time, the children are mostly in the centre of these wide-angle shots, highlighting that they are the focal point of the film as well as showcasing their close relationship
as they stand together and move in a close unit through the seemingly endless emptiness. This cinematographic technique helps the audience to recognise the mutual dependency of the siblings. Furthermore, close-ups are used to reinforce the audience’s recognition of the protagonists’ emotions: before his eye-operation, for example, Chotu is shown in close-up. He re-arranges his hair after it has been washed and combed for the operation, showing that he is nervous. Especially in the last scene, when the camera takes Chotu’s point of view to experience with him the first thing he sees after his operation, the recognition sways into allegiance as the audience experiences this emotional moment from Chotu’s perspective.
Long sequences of the two kids trekking through the desert are intercut with scenes of the various encounters with strangers along the way: a religious leader with ties to Shah Rukh Khan, a lost American tourist, a nomad woman who saves the children from a child trafficker, a fortune teller, and a strange mute man driving an imaginary bus through the desert who helps the children reach their destination. These encounters with these almost mythological figures gives the story the character of a fairy tale. At the same time, the interactions serve as a commentary on socio-political issues.
Staying true to its title, which is the Urdu word for rainbow, it also literally serves as the colour scheme of the film, mainly conveyed in clothing. All characters are dressed in vibrant, colourful garments that set them apart from the monochromatic brown of the desert. The colour-scheme of the film also functions as a nod to the Bollywood musical, renowned for its colourfulness. The citation of Indian cinema is furthermore underlined by the sound design. The film has a cheerful extra-diegetic score, but the spotlight is put on the diegetic sound which also functions as a plot device: whenever the siblings stumble upon strangers on their journey, Chotu breaks into song – reciting traditional Rajasthani songs – attracting the strangers’ attention that leads to interaction.
The reference to Bollywood cinema is moreover used to characterise the two children. Pari and Chotu adore Indian cinema and the two most prominent leading actors: Chotu admires the action star Salman Khan for his strength, fearlessness and independence. Despite his impairment, Chotu is also the more bold, boisterous and adventurous of the two siblings. Pari idolises Shah Rukh Khan for being the sensible romantic hero that overcomes every obstacle, including giving her brother back his eyesight. Correspondingly, Pari – as the older sibling and caretaker – is more attentive and cautious than her brother. By immersing themselves into the alternative realities created in their favourite films, the children evade the harsh reality of their own lives. Here, the film can be seen as a reflection upon Smith’s structure of sympathy and the shifting construction of recognition, alignment and allegiance: although Chotu can’t see, he has recognised Salman Khan as a hero, has formed an alignment only through Pari’s live-translation of what is visible on screen, and finally formed an allegiance with the action hero, replicating his character traits and behaviour. The audience, in turn, comes to understand
Pari and Chotu through the children’s allegiance with their favourite movie stars. Consequently, the audience is encouraged to form an alignment with the children.48
In Dhanak both the narrative and the film aesthetic devices allude to the idea of ‘magic realism’49: a colourful, fairy tale-like world based on the narratives and aesthetics of Bollywood cinema. On the surface, the film might allude to classical children’s films with its optimism and happy ending, but it goes beyond that with its reflection on the power of cinema. The cinema does not only serve as an influence for the film’s aesthetics, but as a reference point for the audience to understand the protagonists Pari and Chotu. The cinema is the red line that guides through the multi-layered film: First, by Pari and Chotu building a cinematic world for themselves in a real environment ridden with problems (which are only hinted at). Then, by the children going to the cinema and Pari finding the poster with Shah Rukh Khan, the action is put into motion. Finally, by Pari believing it was actually the movie star Shah Rukh Khan who paid for her brother’s operation, cinema is suggested as a helper.
2.3 Ottaal (The Trap) (Dir. Jayarai Rajastekharan. India 2015)
Jayarai Rajastekharan had already been part of the Berlinale in 2011 with his feature
Karunam (Pathos) which was presented in the section Forum. In 2016, he was invited to present his
film Ottaal at Generation Kplus. Ottaal deals with the complex themes of social injustice, children’s rights, and the issue of child labour in India. These difficult issues did not daunt the young audience. The film was awarded with the Crystal Bear given out by the children’s jury which stated that ‘this exceptional movie touched us all with its irresistible images of nature, laid-back music and amazingly gifted actors. The unique way of filming certain details blew us away. We think it’s important that such a sad and serious topic be tackled in a movie, though the film also managed to capture the humour and joy of life’50.
Ottaal is an adaption of Anton Chekhov’s short story Vanka, which is about a young boy
writing a letter to his grandfather, pleading to free him from his life in child labour and take him back home. The film similarly opens with a young boy writing a letter to his grandfather, before the film jumps in time to tell the back story. The boy is eight-year-old Kuttappayi who has been orphaned after his parents committed suicide. He now lives with his grandfather in the South Indian backwaters where
48 ‘Recognition and alignment require only that the spectator understand that these traits and mental states
make up the character.’ In: Smith 42.
49 Leydon, Joe. “Film Review: Dhanak (Rainbow).” Variety. July 8, 2016: n.pag. Variety Media, LLC.
<http://variety.com/2016/film/reviews/dhanak-review-rainbow-1201810465/>. [Last accessed: June 24, 2018]. 50 “Press Releases 2016.” Berlinale. February 20, 2016. Kulturveranstaltungen des Bundes in Berlin (KBB)GmbH. <https://www.berlinale.de/en/archiv/jahresarchive/2016/08_pressemitteilungen_2016/08_pressemitteilunge n_2016detail_32918.html>. [Last accessed: June 24, 2018].
they raise flocks of ducks and lead a harmonious life in the scarcely populated water landscape. Kuttappayi befriends Tintu, the son of a wealthy local hotel owner. Contrary to Kuttappayi, who is smart and eager to learn but too poor to afford going to school, Tintu goes to school every day. The two boys start exchanging their knowledge respectively acquired in school and in nature: Tintu lends Kuttappayi his books and Kuttappayi in turn teaches Tintu about living in nature.
Kuttappayi leads a sheltered and happy life until his grandfather falls ill. Realising he can’t take care of his grandson for much longer, the boy’s future suddenly is very uncertain. At first, Tintu’s mother offers to take the boy in and let him work in the hotel, but Tintu’s father refuses. Left with no other choice, the grandfather has to leave his grandsons’ future to his boss, knowing that he will sell the boy into child labour. He tells Kuttappayi that he will be sent to school and that he can come back to visit whenever he wants. In reality, Kuttappayi is sent to work in a firework factory where he has to work hours on end and is heavily abused. The film ends where it started with Kuttappayi writing the letter to his grandfather, describing the horrors he has to live through every day and begging the grandfather to take him home.
Ottaal imagines the life of the boy in Chekhov’s short story before he was put in his desolate
situation. The opening shot of the film hints at the boy’s fate, by showing Kuttappayi writing his letter in a small room that is overcrowded with young boys lying on the floor sleeping. The opening shot and the title of the film which translates into The Trap suggest an unhappy ending also to audiences who are not familiar with Chekhov’s story. In the opening shot Kuttappayi recites his letter describing his desolate situation in voice-over.
The film is segmented into two narrative layers – the past and the present – that are visualised differently. Whereas the film recounts the past according to the slow paced daily life in the scarcely populated, idyllic landscape of the backwaters, in the harsh present of Kuttappayi’s life the film suddenly turns loud and hectic. This juxtaposition is mainly conveyed by the cinematography and the editing: in the past portion of the film the camera lingers in long sequences on the idyllic landscape as well as the boy and his grandfather in their daily routine. There are hardly any visible cuts, creating the illusion of one continuous flow resulting in a calm atmosphere.
The present, on the other hand, is represented by a shaky hand-held camera as well as hard cuts between scenes, which allude rush and confusion. The sound furthermore underlines the contrast between the two time-layers. A quiet score alternating with the diegetic sounds of nature – the ducks quacking, the chirping of crickets, etc. – accompanies the past. The diegetic sound attached to the present consists of a cacophony of city and factory sounds, such as cars honking, exploding fireworks, the foreman’s shouting, and children crying.
These juxtapositions are means to convey Kuttappayi’s feelings of shock and confusion when he is forcefully taken out of his peaceful and happy environment and, against his will, is forced to work
under miserable conditions and subsequently serves to influence the audience’s emotional response. The audience, having gained access to ‘the character’s state of mind, understanding the context of the character’s actions, and having morally evaluated the character on the basis of this knowledge’51 over the course of the film by means of the extended flash-back, at this point has built an allegiance with Kuttappayi who is the innocent victim of his social circumstances.
2.4 Rara (Dir. Pepa San Martin. Chile/Argentina 2016)
Pepa San Martin had been present at the Berlinale before, at Berlinale Shorts with La Ducha in 2011. Rara – based on a true story – is her first feature-length film and was presented at Generation Kplus in 2016. The film fictionalises the experience of a Chilean judge who lost custody of her children due to her sexual orientation.52 The film reflects upon family life from the perspective of the twelve-year-old daughter and thereby themes as identity, tolerance, love, loyalty as well as pain in the family context are discussed. Rara was awarded with the Grand Prix for best film by the international jury with the following statement:
From its opening shot we get an accurate and thoroughly enjoyable glimpse into an adolescent’s life as she grapples with the everyday problems of growing up. Each scene in this powerful film is carefully constructed with complete economy of movement and script. The characters and relationships are etched flawlessly depicting a modern reality that both reflects the time we live in as well as makes us question the very concept of a perfect family. The acting, the script and above all the direction keep us totally engrossed in this beautiful tale of loyalty, despair, hope and ultimately love in its many forms.53
After their parents’ divorce, twelve-year-old Sara and her younger sister Cata live with their mother Paula and her girlfriend Lia. They lead a harmonious, sometimes chaotic life. The girls have a loving relationship with both their mother Paula and her girlfriend Lia, who is as much in charge of parental duties as the girls’ mother. Sara and Cata go visit their father Victor and his new wife regularly. The girls are seemingly fine with their family arrangement, but Sara is aware of the prejudices against her mother’s sexual orientation with teachers being irritated by a drawing made by Cata depicting her family with two mothers, and her friends wondering if she will become lesbian herself. Moreover, as she turns thirteen, puberty is advancing and with it conflicting feelings and mood-swings. Sara has to navigate her new feelings towards boys, she experiments with make-up and planning her thirteenth birthday party becomes a matter of highest priority to her and her best friend Pancha. All the while, Sara’s home-life becomes more tumultuous. She is frequently annoyed by her mother, the neediness of her younger sister, the chores she has to do at home, and her family life in general.
51 Smith 41.
52 Holland, Jonathan. “’Rara’: Berlin Review.” The Hollywood Reporter. February 15, 2016: n.pag.
<https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/rara-berlin-review-865182.> [Last accessed: June 24, 2018]. 53 “Press Releases 2016.”, Berlinale.
Moreover, Sara is more alert of people’s prejudices and misconceptions about her family’s situation and the outright homophobia Paula and Lia are confronted with, which makes her feel even more uncomfortable about her family life. Sara complains to her father and after a fight she has with her mother is at his doorstep. Also, she decides to give her birthday party at his house. These developments prompt Victor to think that his daughters live in an unhealthy environment. Although Sara and Cata insist that they are happy at home, Victor attempts to gain custody so his daughters can move in with him and his wife. The ensuing custody-battle between the girls’ parents is only hinted at. Paula is tense and gets angry quickly while Lia tries to keep everything at bay and Sara and Cata have to come to terms with the situation as it is decided that they have to move into their father’s house. The film ends with Paula, Lia, Sara, and Cata in the car on their way to the father’s house. The film cuts to black before they get out of the car and Paula saying: ‘Okay, let’s go.’
The film’s title Rara translates into ‘strange’, which can be interpreted as a reference to Sara’s strange and conflicting feelings upon hitting puberty, as the twelve-year-old is the focal point of the film. This is established in the opening sequence in which the camera follows Sara through the school building for several minutes. Close-ups are used to convey Sara’s inner life as they mostly show her looking into a mirror studying her own face, which points to her undergoing change, having difficulties to recognise herself and feeling strange.
In wide-angle, static camera shots the family dynamics in both Paula’s and Victor’s households are studied. The two families are often shown sitting at the table and the camera captures everyone’s expressions and reactions to the conversations held. By not moving in on the characters but staying at a distance in these family-situations, the camera is clearly positioned as an observer. This contributes to the naturalistic effect the film aims at as the camera stays still and the protagonists move around it, in and out of the shot, closer by or more far away without the camera interfering. The wide-angle, static camera shot is also employed in situations in which Paula and Lia have to deal with people’s intolerance and Sara noticing: one scene, for example, shows the family in a restaurant. Sara is positioned in the foreground sitting at the table, her mother in the background talking to an acquaintance who suddenly becomes dismissive when Paula introduces Lia. The audience’s attention is directly drawn to Sara, who is visibly uncomfortable and embarrassed with the situation. This scene is also an example for the insinuations the film works with, especially in conveying the parents’ custody battle.
Instead of explaining to Sara and Cata and thus also to the audience what is happening, they have to read the signs: Paula being distraught, the children being interviewed by a psychologist, the parents in heated discussions whenever they meet. This approach is effective to communicate to audiences how the children are left in the dark and the parents’ failure to recognise how the unclear situation confuses the children. This is reinforced with Cata recurrently asking Sara what is going on
