IFFI, other Film Festivals, and the Media: Partners or undesirables?

IFFI, other Film Festivals, and the Media: Partners or undesirables?

When the first film festival as held in Bombay in the year 1952, by the Films Division, 30 years after the first international film festival was held in Venice, nobody would have expected we would be holding the 55th edition in 2024. In the 50s and early 60s, festivals were not held in India regularly, only sporadically. In the 70s it became an annual feature, hence only 55 festivals are spread over 72 years. Since then, it has shifted base many times, undergone name changes, become a competitive festival, again reverted to a non-competitive one, and finally, a competitive one. In 2004, the State of Goa was granted the privilege to host the International Film Festival of India (IFFI) there. Though Goa is not a major film production city (in fact not even a minor film producing city), the powers at be must have had compelling reasons to shift it there, permanently.

IFFI is a government organised one, with earlier festivals solely a Ministry of Information and Broadcasting event. In its early stages, it had the active participation of the National Film Development Corporation (NFDC), earlier known as the Film Finance Corporation, with the FFC head being film festival Director. A Directorate of Film Festivals (DFF) was established later, with the responsibility of holding the National Film Awards and IFFI. The Goa (Panaji, the capital, is where IFFI is held) festival was held in collaboration with the Entertainment Society of Goa (ESG), formed as a semi-government body, for financial facilitation. DFF and ESG jointly held IFFI, with the cost shared, probably on a 50-50 basis. Now, DFF has been dissolved and NFDC has stepped in, as an umbrella organising, also taking under its wing the Films Division and may other divisions of the Ministry of Information and Broadcsting, that dealt directly with the art and science of cinema.

IFFI is the biggest film festival in India, with 10,000+ registrations of delegates. Media is welcomed here. They have a dedicated Media Centre, with work centres for computers, printers, copying machines, and Press Conferences. For several years, journalists were given the task of moderating press conferences, I being chosen to moderate some. That practice is now completely taken over by the PIB, and as a result, we often find the PIB staff or its chosen Moderators ill-equipped to deal with the task. There are buses and free auto-rickshaws plying between the main venue and other centres where screenings or events are held, a most welcome facility.

Besides facilities, the Media was treated to beverages and snacks, but this was subject to the budget allowing it. So, in some years, we had tea, coffee and snacks, all free, all unlimited. In other years, it was just tea and coffee, with some biscuits thrown in, for the early birds only, and at fixed hours. There were also ferry cruises, with cocktails and dinner. At most parties, the media was invited. Several countries hosted their own parties, and there the media was invited to breakfasts, lunches, cocktails and dinner. This last practice has been almost discontinued of late. The duration of the festival, which used to be 15 days long before 2004, has been curtailed to 9 days, the inaugural and closing days included. At most parties, media is not allowed, and at some, passes are either given on first-come, first-served basis, because, the Press Information Bureau (PIB) says it gets 10/20/50 passes only, to distribute among the media, and there are 150-300 (my rough estimate) journalists/photographers registered. Doesn’t anybody (PIB? Why not?) tell the hosts that there are, say 200, journalists, about 100 of might want to attend? On many occasions, none of these reach the media. Wonder who gets them, in the end.

The media is given a free cloth bag, the quality of which has fast deteriorated to a street hawker quality. Stitches are open in many places and the zips do not function. Earlier, it contained chocolates, pens and discount coupons to shops nearby. Now it is just the bag. Breakfast, lunch, evening snacks and dinner are never on the menu. All press releases and photographs/videos are easily available. You are not allowed to carry food or water into the auditorium, even you have restricted diet limitations. Water is available in plenty, everywhere, though. There is a cloak-room, where you can keep your belongings, including food and cameras. Food and beverages sold at the venues is very high-priced. There is a VIP lounge near the Media centre, as well as in the cinema premises, but journalists are not allowed access to either. IFFI does not host any journalists, except, maybe certain VIP journalists, who are given air-tickets, hotel says, food and personal transport cars.

Whatever the media gets, or, for that matter, VIP delegates get, is dictated by the budget. It is common sense to assume that prices of everything will go up every year. But I have had at least five Festival Directors tell me that, “This year, the budget has been slashed. Since I do not have access to the more recent budgets, retrieving the budget of the 2009 IFFI, I have a quote from Digamber Kamat, the then Chief Minister of Goa, and concurrently, the Chairman of ESG. “Last year (2008), Rs 11 crore were spent on the event, but this time has been brought down drastically, to around 5 crores." Why? Why should the government and its bodies, slash the IFFI budget at all? With increased participation of paying delegates, more films being made than ever before, all expenses being predictable and forecast, why should the budget be axed? Shouldn’t it be increased? Or even doubled?

Since they would not be inclined (pray, why not?) to slice off the cost under other heads, the axe always falls on the media. The recently concluded Mumbai Film Festival, organised by MAMI, did exactly that. But all said and done, IFFI is the one festival where you would want to be. With festivals regularly held in Mumbai (mainly Third Eye, MAMI and Mumbai International Film Festival, which used to be held bi-annually by the Films Division), Kolkata, Thiruvananthpuram, Pune and Bengaluru, IFFI is now getting a run for its money. I know of many media personalities who skip IFFI and attend one or more of these festivals. Jaipur has two festivals, held almost concurrently. Bengaluru is lavish. Not having attended the festivals in other cities, except Pune (very moderate affair, though I attended it twice, a long time ago), I cannot comment about them.

Playing a big role in spreading the events far and wide, with several platforms, like print, electronic, digital and social media, coverage of international film festivals is humungous, and done in every language that is spoken in this country. Festival-going journalists can be divided into some categories. Firstly, the well-off, either by heritage or by high positions, in publications or media set-ups. They can be, and are, usually, sponsored by their publications, which they might even own or edit. So, the festival has to spend nothing on them. There are not many such individuals, but a few would easily qualify. The second category is of staffers, who are allotted this duty, after all considerations, and might need accreditation as a given, to meet the budget restriction.  Festivals spend nothing on them. Thirdly, there are freelancers, who are given a specific amount for a specified coverage, and have to manage within that fee, or dig into some of their own resources. These, too, will need free accreditation. IFFI does not provide any subsidy for them. Lastly, there are the veteran journalists, who are either very poorly paid or not paid at all by their publishers. This category has to bear travel, stay and food expenses on their own. And Panaji, or, for that matter, entire Goa, is an expensive place, being a tourist haven.

It is these journalists/critics, the majority of who have an ocean of knowledge about cinema and film festivals, but are not getting their due from publishers. They are great film buffs, who have seen thousands of meritorious films from the world and interacted with some cinema greats, who would very much like to attend an event like IFFI. So, they pull out their savings and make the trip, digging a deeper hole in their pockets every year. Sadly, this is the most ignored lot among journalists. Sometimes they are denied even accreditation, sometimes they find the travel cost very high, and hotels and food too costly, and do not go at all. Organisers should be gracious enough to bear their entire cost of coming to the festivals, or, at least, subsidise it, to enable their participation. Names can be vetted on the basis of their earlier participation at IFFI, their writings and their age. I tried to take-up this cause a few years ago, but the powers that be backed out of their own promise without even so much as an apology.

This is as far as IFFI goes. But since the advent of the year 2010, there are hundreds of festivals held in every calendar year, all over the country, from BIG, to Small to very small. Some invite journalists, others don’t. Some invite only local media and some allow free accreditation for all journalists, but no subsidy of any other kind. A few provide accommodation, but I know of only one festival that used to invite me, pay for my train ticket and include me in their lunch and dinner invitees list. The invitations stopped coming since last year. One cannot ignore the fact that unless they have good films and star names, it will be difficult to attract sponsors, and holding the festival itself might not be possible. Since they pay for the above expenses, they have no money left for journalists. Some festivals include films only after accepting a fee and telling the makers to come on their own. The Carrot is dangling at the closing ceremony, where ALL of them are given some award or the other, with sparse participation of any other film-folk or cineastes. This adds to their resumes, and other festivals might be impressed by their ‘achievement’, along with pictures of the awards ceremony and a certificate, resulting in more participation.

I have a feeling, based on some vicarious knowledge, that such festivals shun the media, because they either fear getting exposed, or do not want to waste precious money on the undesirables. So, they only invite those media-persons who can bring in big names, in return for their free participation and expenses paid. Maybe the personalities charge a bomb, but either forego their fees or reduce it substantially, due to their relations with the media-person. They need not invite every journalist, and not many will want to travel to distant places and spend a week or two out of town. But compare the media participation at Cannes 2024 and IFFI. Cannes had 4,000 journalists from 2,000 publishing houses.

IFFI has about 10% of that number (exact figures not available). Although this should not be taken as a yardstick, some regulars to Cannes say that you need Rs. 1,50,000 to Rs. 2,00,000, to attend the Cannes Film Festival, with modest accommodation. Can a film festival like IFFI not subsidise the cost of veteran journalists, who will not spend more Rs. 20,000, all inclusive? Although this figure seems tiny in these expensive times, considering rail (and not air) travel and accommodation and food at state guest houses, it would not go beyond this figure. Even if 5 journalists are chosen every year, the cost would be Rs. 1,00,000. If the cost is more than Rs. 20,000 each, subsidise the trip only to the tune of Rs. 20,000! With a budget of tens of crores, Rs. 1,00,000 seems an infinitesimal dot. And though I am 73, have been reviewing films since 1969, have attended 46 IFFIs, edited festival bulletins, and represent a website that specialises in covering film festivals, a rarity at IFFI, I am not making a case for myself. Let the more experienced, more aged and those who have attended more IFFIs than me, get the benefit first.

Film festival organisers, here is a humble suggestion. Please realise the worth of the media. Treat them as partners, not undesirables.