Digital resources in the Social Sciences and Humanities OpenEdition Our platforms OpenEdition Books OpenEdition Journals Hypotheses Calenda Libraries OpenEdition Freemium Follow us

Film Festivals, Cultural Capital, and Public Value

Zemaityte et al. (2024) present a pioneering quantitative analysis of the global film festival circuit, leveraging data from the Cinando platform to map festival networks, programming diversity, and public value creation between 2009 and 2021. By combining network analysis and vector embedding techniques, the study offers novel insights into the structural and cultural dynamics of 616 festivals, emphasizing their roles in shaping industry trends and societal values. This review evaluates the article’s contributions to extant scholarship, while situating it within broader academic discourse.

Cultural Implications

The study underscores film festivals as critical nodes of cultural exchange, facilitating the circulation of diverse narratives across linguistic, geographic, and thematic boundaries. By quantifying programming diversity, the authors reveal that festivals often act as counterpoints to commercial media’s Anglophone dominance, particularly through non-European language clusters (e.g., Asian and Latin American film sub-circuits).

However, the dataset’s European bias—stemming from Cinando’s origins at the Cannes Film Market—risks reinforcing Western-centric cultural hierarchies (Tomlinson, 1991). For instance, the prominence of European productions in festival programming (Fig. 4A) aligns with critiques of cultural imperialism, where global media systems prioritize Euro-American content (Appadurai, 1996). Nevertheless, the identification of niche B-list festivals (e.g., queer, documentary) highlights their role in amplifying marginalized voices, echoing de Valck’s (2007) assertion that festivals serve as “sites of cultural legitimization.”

By programming films from various countries and languages, festivals also promote multiculturalism. Yet, the dominance of European content in the dataset suggests a Western bias, which might marginalize non-European cultures. This aligns with existing critiques of global media (e.g., Tomlinson, 1991).

Economic Dimensions

The article discusses the economic impact of festivals, such as job creation and regional revenue. It also points out disparities in funding and recognition between A-list and B-list festivals. This connects to Bourdieu’s (1993) theory of cultural accumulation, where prestigious festivals attract symbolic and economic resources.

Thus, the study demonstrates festivals’ dual role as revenue generators and industry gatekeepers. A-list festivals like Cannes and Sundance drive regional economies through tourism and employment (e.g., Sundance 2023 created 1,608 jobs). The hierarchical distinction between A- and B-list festivals reflects Bourdieu’s (1993) concept of cultural capital, where prestige translates into economic advantage.

B-list festivals, though less resourced, contribute significantly to thematic diversity, suggesting a paradoxical economy where niche markets thrive despite structural inequalities. The authors’ regression models further reveal that temporal proximity—not geographic distance—predicts programming overlap, challenging assumptions about globalization homogenizing cultural outputs (Hannerz, 1996).

Political Considerations

The use of FIAPF accreditation to categorize festivals introduces a political hierarchy, reinforcing existing power structures. The authors mention that festivals are often publicly funded, which ties into debates about state intervention in cultural industries (Hesmondhalgh, 2019). Additionally, the focus on gender diversity in programming reflects broader political movements for equity in the arts.

The FIAPF accreditation requirements, thus, likely have a political dimension, as accreditation criteria may perpetuate exclusionary practices. For example, Sundance’s classification as a B-list festival despite its global influence underscores tensions between institutional hierarchies and industry perceptions. Public funding mechanisms, often tied to national cultural policies, further politicize festivals’ roles.

The authors link festivals to “dynamic public value” creation (Mazzucato et al., 2020), arguing that state support enables festivals to balance commercial and cultural mandates. However, the study overlooks how political regimes influence festival curation, a gap addressed by Iordanova’s (2009) work on post-Soviet film festivals.

Social Impact

The analysis of gender diversity shows gradual improvement but persistent inequalities, supporting existing research on gender disparities in film (Smith et al., 2019). The role of festivals in fostering social cohesion by showcasing diverse narratives is another key point, relating to Putnam’s (2000) concept of social capital.

In this respect, the study highlights that B-list festivals program more films by women directors and producers than A-list events (Fig. 5C). This aligns with Smith et al.’s (2019) findings on systemic gender disparities in Hollywood but contrasts with Sundance’s self-reported equity metrics (Smith et al., 2019).

Festivals also foster social cohesion by curating culturally diverse content, resonating with Putnam’s (2000) notion of social capital. However, the quantitative focus neglects qualitative audience impacts, such as how diverse programming influences public discourse—an area explored in ethnographic festival studies (Loist, 2016).

Theoretical and Methodological Contributions

The article references de Valck (2007) on festival networks and public value theory from Benington and Moore (2011). It could also benefit from engaging with more critical studies on globalization and cultural diversity, such as Appadurai (1996), to contextualize the findings.

The article, therefore, advances public value theory (Benington & Moore, 2011) by framing festivals as hybrid institutions that mediate market and societal interests. Methodologically, the use of vector embeddings to operationalize non-equidistant categories (e.g., thematic tags) offers a blueprint for analyzing cultural diversity in other domains.

However, the reliance on Cinando data risks survivorship bias, as unsuccessful submissions and smaller festivals are excluded. This limitation echoes concerns about “big data” privileging dominant actors in cultural analytics (Manovich, 2020).

The reliance on Cinando data might, thus, overlook smaller, non-European festivals, introducing a selection bias. Additionally, the focus on quantitative methods may neglect qualitative insights into audience experiences or festival curation practices, areas covered by Iordanova (2009).

Conclusion

Overall, the article makes significant contributions to understanding film festivals’ roles but could be strengthened by addressing its methodological limitations and engaging more deeply with critical cultural theories.

Zemaityte et al. (2024) provide, nevertheless, a groundbreaking empirical foundation for film festival studies, bridging quantitative methods and cultural theory. Their findings challenge assumptions about festival hierarchies while underscoring the need for equitable funding and inclusive curation.

Future research could integrate qualitative insights to explore audience reception and expand datasets to better represent Global South festivals. By situating festivals within innovation systems, the study invites policymakers to reimagine cultural funding as an investment in societal resilience.

References

Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. University of Minnesota Press.

Benington, J., & Moore, M. H. (Eds.). (2011). Public value: Theory and practice. Palgrave Macmillan.

Bourdieu, P. (1993). The field of cultural production. Columbia University Press.

de Valck, M. (2007). Film festivals: From European geopolitics to global cinephilia. Amsterdam University Press.

Hannerz, U. (1996). Transnational connections: Culture, people, places. Routledge.

Hesmondhalgh, D. (2019). The cultural industries (4th ed.). Sage.

Iordanova, D. (2009). The film festival circuit. In D. Iordanova & R. Rhyne (Eds.), Film festival yearbook 1: The festival circuit (pp. 23–39). St. Andrews Film Studies.

Loist, S. (2016). Queer film festivals: A history in numbers. In M. de Valck et al. (Eds.), Film festivals: History, theory, method, practice (pp. 217–233). Routledge.

Manovich, L. (2020). Cultural analytics. MIT Press.

Mazzucato, M., Conway, R., Mazzoli, E. M., Knoll, E., & Albala, S. (2020). Creating and measuring dynamic public value at the BBC. UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose.

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster.

Smith, S. L., Choueiti, M., & Pieper, K. (2019). Inclusion in the director’s chair: Analysis of director gender & race/ethnicity across the 1,200 top films from 2007–2018. USC Annenberg Inclusion Initiative.

Tomlinson, J. (1991). Cultural imperialism: A critical introduction. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Zemaityte, V., Karjus, A., Rohn, U., Schich, M., & Ibrus, I. (2024). Quantifying the global film festival circuit: Networks, diversity, and public value creation. PLoS ONE, 19(3), e0297404. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297404

[Written and edited by Pablo Markin. The initial draft has been generated using Chat, DeepSeek (February 19, 2025).]

[Support the Open Economics Blog: https://ko-fi.com/theopenaccessblogs.]


OpenEdition suggests that you cite this post as follows:
Pablo Markin (February 19, 2025). Film Festivals, Cultural Capital, and Public Value. Open Economics Blog. Retrieved April 28, 2025 from https://doi.org/10.58079/13cad


You may also like...