Disruption in times of COVID-19? The hybrid film festival format

ABSTRACT

The first waves of the COVID-19 pandemic had unprecedented implications for cultural sectors. With film festivals, music concerts and other cultural events being postponed or even cancelled, there was an urgency to respond to changing circumstances. Cultural events increasingly relied on hybrid or online formats to remain accessible for audiences. Because such formats caused controversy about programming and release strategies, they were easily conceived of as having a disruptive impact on cultural sectors. This paper puts such assumptions about disruption into question. It focuses on the film festival sector, which is increasingly invested in strategies of online accessibility and audience reach. The research is specifically based on the hybrid festival format. Drawing on case studies of hybrid film festivals such as London, Ghent and Rotterdam, it argues that their strategies and operations should be understood from the perspective of cultural change rather than disruption.

KEYWORDS:

• Film festivals
• film industry
• VOD platforms
• hybrid events
• COVID-19

Film festivals in times of COVID-19

The first waves of the COVID-19 pandemic had a dramatic impact on film festivals. While film festivals are typically physically-sited events and in-person gatherings, many of them responded to disruptive circumstances and were organised in hybrid or online formats, or they were cancelled (Hanzlík & Mazierska, 2021). The hybrid format, whereby film festivals organise physical and online screenings, became the preferred alternative to the physical format (Han, 2021; Misek, 2021). Physical and online screenings are scheduled at the same time to enable audiences in cinemas and online to be part of a joined event, or they are scheduled at separate times to provide audience with more choice and viewing options. Tickets for online screenings are usually available on a pay-per-view transactional VOD (TVOD) basis, but some film festivals are also experimenting with subscription VOD (SVOD) options. During the pandemic, the hybrid format was particularly useful for film festivals to anticipate different scenarios, given the risk that cinemas could close at any point. The online format, in addition, was an alternative for both physical and hybrid festivals. Online festivals were typically organised in periods that cinemas were closed.

The transition to hybrid or online formats has triggered discussions about the direction that film festivals should take. For many participants in the film industry and audiences more generally, it is clear that physical, in-person festivals offer a specific and unique experience. There is a long tradition of film festival culture that revolves around the “big screen” cinema experience, which enables audiences to watch films collectively in high quality visuals and sound. In addition, physical, in-person festivals are specifically known as sites with bonding and networking objectives, where films new and old are introduced, promoted and build up a profile (De Valck, 2007; Wong, 2011).

Because the perception of the physical festival experience is deeply rooted in the concept of film festival culture, processes of innovation and modernisation are easily associated with the notion of disruption in the film festival sector. Innovation and modernisation can have serious implications for established business models and strategies, and therefore on the ways that films become accessible to audiences. One argument, for instance, is that the development of streaming platforms is posing a threat to the film festival sector. That argument is particularly made by the most powerful festivals with international appeal, such as Cannes, Venice, Berlin and Toronto, amongst others (Damiens & Valck, 2023; Loist, 2023). Such festivals are known as “premiere events” for new films in circulation, whereby they are the first to show films. The festival premiere is organised before the release opens up more widely: from the film festival circuit, to the theatrical cinema market, to the online market and elsewhere. That is understood as a conventional, staggered release strategy (Smits, 2019, p. 234). With the development of streaming platforms, however, other release strategies have developed alongside conventional, staggered strategies. For some films, release strategies are more directly (and sometimes exclusively) tailored for the online market. Netflix is particularly known for such direct release strategies (Smits, 2019, p. 174). In some cases they continue to release and premiere films through the most powerful film festivals, but in other cases they cut out film festivals and release films directly (and only) on Netflix, and that could be understood as a disruptive strategy. In the first waves of the pandemic, such disruptive release strategies became more common when cinemas temporarily closed and some of the most powerful film festivals were cancelled.

Beyond the most powerful festivals, there are many more specialised and localised film festivals. Although such festivals are less reliant on festival premieres, they were also affected by the pandemic. Some of them were cancelled, while others took advantage of online opportunities in the first waves of the pandemic, and transitioned to hybrid or online formats. While it is tempting to understand their transition to alternative formats within an analytical framework of disruption, we need to develop a better understanding of the supposedly disruptive effects of such formats. Clearly, the pandemic had a disruptive impact on physical festivals, but to what extent should hybrid or online festivals be understood in relation to disruption? Are hybrid and online festivals disruptive for the business of physical festivals, including the most powerful festivals? Is the process of value creation for films disrupted by hybrid and online release strategies? For some commentators, it is not the business models of hybrid and online festivals that disrupt physical festivals, but it is the assumption that online screenings have a negative impact on the prominent and long-standing reputation of film festivals. As Misek (2021) noted in September 2021: “The purist argument that online screenings devalue physical film festivals has been often repeated over the last 18 months, mostly by people who organize and attend them”. Instead of disruption, this argument can be understood in relation to the continuing process of cultural change in our increasingly online society, whereby the development of streaming culture has consequences for the perception of film as a medium.

The notions of disruption and change are consistently employed in discourse about the transformative nature of cultural sectors, but they describe different processes with different consequences for film festivals. Cultural change, in this context, is a reflection of the way that today’s society takes shape, rather than a disturbing or upsetting influence. This purpose of this paper is to enhance our thinking of disruption and cultural change in times of the pandemic.

Given online developments in the film festival sector, there is a tendency to analyse hybrid and online festivals in opposition to physical festivals. While that might be a useful starting point, there is also a need to separate hybrid festivals from online festivals. They too engage with online screenings in different ways, and with different purposes. There is a need to acquire an understanding of their organisational processes and practices. In particular, little is known about hybrid festivals in relation to disruption and cultural change, because they are based on a combination of physical and online logics. It is this hybrid festival format that will be analysed in depth in this paper.

Methodology

This paper draws on case-studies of three well-known film festivals in Europe: BFI London Film Festival (UK), International Film Festival Rotterdam (Netherlands) and Film Fest Ghent (Belgium). They were organised in hybrid format in the period between October 2020 and June 2021,¹ and belong to the category of European flagship festivals with national and international appeal, situated between the most powerful festivals and more specialised and localised festivals. As such, they are key events with the highest audience attendance among film festivals in their respective national markets. In the year preceding the pandemic, Rotterdam achieved a large number of 340,000 in-person attendees, London achieved 178,000 in-person attendees and Ghent achieved 100,000 in-person attendees (Dalton, 2022; IFFR, 2020; Film Fest Ghent, 2023). During the first year of the pandemic, however, their in-person attendees figures for film festival screenings decreased dramatically due to COVID-19 circumstances. Rotterdam was still able to achieve a significant number of 270,898 audience members, but most of these watched films online (92.3%) rather than in-person (7.7%) (IFFR, 2021). London achieved 141.253 audience members, but that was also largely composed of online attendees (BFI, 2020). Ghent was able to hold on to a greater extent to physical viewings: while 38.000 audience members watched films in-person, only 8.000 audience members watched films online (Film Fest Ghent, 2023).

These various figures give a general impression of the effects of the pandemic on audience attendance, and invite us to analyse more closely which circumstances and measures have shaped their festival strategies. I therefore analysed their decision-making and strategic direction, focussing specifically on their preparation and planning, the role of their online platforms, and their programming strategies. I asked several questions: what were some of the considerations for organising hybrid festivals? How did hybrid festivals create online platforms? And what is the relationship between physical and online festival screenings?

The research is primarily based on three expert interviews with Tricia Tuttle (Director, BFI London Film Festival), Vanja Kaludjercic (Director, International Film Festival Rotterdam), Marijke Vandebuerie (Director, Film Fest Ghent) and Wim de Witte (Head of Programming, Film Fest Ghent). Interviews were undertaken over Zoom, with each of them lasting for between one and two hours. They were part of a research project that I have conducted in collaboration with Thessaloniki International Film Festival in Spring 2021.² Information from interviews was complemented with information from news articles in the media and the trade press, and from the websites and online platforms of the film festivals to acquire a fuller understanding of their profiles and strategies. For reasons of clarity, the research was based on feature films (including documentaries) rather than other forms of screen content or interactive content, including short films, television series, immersive art and extended reality (XR).

In terms of methodological challenges, the decision of festivals to organise hybrid editions in times of the pandemic was of course based on specific circumstances and measures in national markets, subject to changes in different periods throughout the year. The closure of cinemas, or restricted audience capacity in cinemas, could for instance mean that festivals prepared for different scenarios to build in more certainty. Information from interviews were therefore particularly useful to acquire deeper insight into their decision-making in specific circumstances.

In the next section of this paper, I will first provide a broader context to describe the functions of film festivals in relation to processes of continuity and change. Some of these functions are specifically associated with the physical experience, while others are specifically associated with the online experience, and others with both the physical and online experience. Having established that context, the empirical analysis of this paper will focus on the hybrid film festival editions organised by London, Rotterdam and Ghent. It will be situated within the analytical framework of disruption and cultural change. I will argue that the strategies and operations of hybrid festivals should be understood from the perspective of cultural change rather than disruption.

Film festival functions

With the development of the COVID-19 pandemic, discussions about the functions of film festivals have taken different directions. Some of the functions of physical festivals are now also important functions of online festivals. There is then a tendency to analyse how online festivals recreate, replicate, or reflect physical festivals (Brunow, 2020; Hobbins-White & Limov, 2020; Peirano & Ramírez, 2023). On the other hand, some of the functions of physical festivals are difficult to replicate online, and vice versa. In this section, I will provide insight in such various festival functions. These festival functions are specifically analysed for the category of European flagship festivals with international and national appeal, where London, Ghent and Rotterdam belong to.

I start with functions that continue to be exclusively associated with physical festivals and are difficult to recreate online. Some of them are already acknowledged in the introduction section of the paper, and are here included to provide a comprehensive analysis of festival functions. First, at the heart of the physical format are ideological expectations that tell us what film festival culture should be like. Physical festivals are about bringing audiences together within a physical space in order to remind of the power of a collective, big screen, cinema experience, in combination with sentiments or emotions that arise from that experience. It is often argued that the in-person experience is something special and unique, something that can only be experienced in full at physical festivals (Han, 2021).

Second, flagship festivals are often sites for international, European, national and/or regional premieres of high-profile films that are introduced and promoted through the festival circuit. Gatekeepers such as sales agents and distributors develop strategies to release films across a large number of festivals. A physical, in-cinema festival premiere is particularly important to generate cultural value, providing a stepping-stone for wider distribution in national and international markets (Loist, 2016, p. 52; Smits, 2019, p. 2). The festival premiere became subject for discussion in the film industry during the first waves of the pandemic. Because online festival premieres were often expected to have less impact than physical festivals, distributors decided in most cases to postpone the festival premiere if physical screenings were cancelled. However, some distributors also experimented with online-only premieres (Hanzlík and Mazierska, 2021, p. 6).

Third, physical festivals add value to the cultural economy of cities, regions and/or countries. They make use of one or more cinema venues, as well as event locations for industry professionals, and bars or restaurants in the locality. They also organise transportation and accommodation for festival guests – including directors, creative talent and jury members. Physically-sited events continue to rely on in-person gatherings, although there is more awareness for climate change, sustainability and the environment, and online-only events can reduce costs (Peirano & Ramírez, 2023).

While physical festivals provide a specific experience and often are praised for their cultural and social values, several functions can also be recreated online. Those functions overlap with the physical format, even if some of these take slightly new or different forms in the online market. The primary objective of such functions is to provide additional opportunities for film professionals and audiences to participate in, and engage with, film festivals. I discuss five such functions. First, while the collective, big screen, cinema experience is difficult to recreate online, it is possible to provide a collective viewing experience for online audiences. Academic commentators have criticised the assumption that online festivals screenings are limited to an isolated, home viewing experience. They argue instead that there are opportunities to bring together online communities of festival audiences. Brunow (2020, p. 340), for example, found that a feeling of togetherness can be achieved through “ … the interplay of multimodal forms of engagement: via social media, an online platform, via chat entries, tweets, gestures, participation in live discussions, or streaming oneself watching the livestream” (my emphasis). In particular, “live” screenings, whereby online audiences watch films at the same time, are an important part of the collective viewing experience. The online screening could thus add another dimension to the live experience.

Second, festivals are competitive events, who work with festival juries to add prestige and recognition for their festival profile and their filmmakers (Mathieu & Bertelsen, 2011). Films are selected for various competition programmes, with the “official competition” or “main competition” being amongst the most prestigious programmes. Physical, in-person prize ceremonies could be replicated online, even though an online ceremony might not have the same emotional value as the in-person prize ceremony. Third, film festivals are attended by journalists, critics, the trade press and other media. They watch physical film screenings, write reviews and report about knowledge-sharing events, amongst other activities. Such screenings, as well as videos produced by festivals, are often also accessible online for the media. Online links to screenings and videos may be provided to the media if festivals are not attended in person. That is a way through which physical festivals can offer online access.

Fourth, film festivals organise industry markets with restricted access for industry participants, such as producers, sales agents, distributors, exhibitors, film festivals, screen agencies, international press and other stakeholders in the film industry (Loist, 2016). In addition to physical industry markets, there have been experiments for several years with online industry markets. For instance, Taillibert and Vinuela (2021, p. 10) discuss the development of the French platform Festival Scope Pro, who organised hybrid and online industry markets for several festivals. Similarly, Cannes developed the online platform Cinando in the past decade to enable industry participants to watch films online, in addition to their physical, in-person market. During the first wave of the pandemic, Cannes was amongst the first festivals to pivot to an online version of their industry market in June 2020, while their regular film festival was cancelled. And in 2021, they pivoted to a hybrid industry market, with four days of online screenings organised three weeks before the start of the physical, in-person festival market (Lemercier, 2021). Several film festivals are now working with online industry markets as an extension of their physical industry markets.

Fifth, it is common that introductions and after talks such as question and answer sessions (Q&As) are organised with film directors and creative talent. While such events are usually organised for physical film screenings, they can also be used by film festivals as part of online strategies to become more accessible for online audiences (Stevens, 2017). YouTube, for example, is a popular online platform that festivals use to make such events available for free. In addition, red-carpet presentations, award ceremonies, industry talks and panel discussions can become available on online platforms. These online events can become available in coordination with physical events, as a live experience and/or on an on-demand basis. The live experience can also be used to stimulate online audience engagement, for instance by taking part in live chats and social media interactions (Brunow, 2020, p. 340). Such online events can thus be understood as another extension of physical festivals.

Having established which functions of physical formats are relatively easy and relatively difficult to recreate online, it is also important to acknowledge festival functions from the perspective of online logics. Several distinctive festival functions have appeared with the development of the online market that are difficult to recreate in the physical market. These functions also add something to film festivals and the audiences they speak to. I discuss three such functions. First, online logics provide opportunities to access films on an on-demand basis. In comparison to the physical market, the assumption is often that audiences in the online market have more authority and flexibility in terms of when, where and which to watch films. Second, there are opportunities for festivals to expand their audience base (Brunow, 2020; Peirano & Ramírez, 2023; Taillibert & Vinuela, 2021). Online access, of course, enables festivals to reach out to a nation-wide audience, well-beyond the core crowd of attendees in their physical festival editions. The online dimension thus provides opportunities to make festivals more accessible and inclusive for audiences. There are, however, also restrictions in terms of online audience reach. Vallejo and Taillibert (2023), for instance, describe that there is often a limited number of tickets available for online screenings, while Burgess and Stevens (2023) describe that geo-blocking measures are often in place to prevent that films become accessible beyond national borders.

Third, there are online opportunities for film festivals to reach diverse audience groups, in line with equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) criteria. As Brunow (2020, p. 339) notes: “ … not everybody has equal chance to participate in an offline film festival edition: people might not be able to afford the necessary costs for travel, accommodation, or tickets, or they might have health issues that prevent them from being in a crowd or in the dark, enclosed cinema space”. Online platforms provide an attractive alternative for this audience group for reasons of accessibility, but also because of the various viewing options that platforms can provide. Brunow (2020, p. 339), for instance, notes that closed caption (CC) subtitles, sign language (SL) interpretation and audio-description (AD) can enrich viewing experiences for specific audience groups.

Overall, what has become clear in this section is that the various festival functions are challenging our thinking of how they should be understood in the current era. While this is a general overview of festival functions, many of these functions are also part of the subsequent empirical analysis about the hybrid festival format. That will provide a more in-depth understanding of the forms that such functions can take under specific circumstances. I will begin with an analysis of how the London, Rotterdam and Ghent festivals prepared for their hybrid film festivals.

Planning and preparation

There is of course a long period of organisational work and communication that precedes festival editions. That usually starts with information about festivals dates, film submission deadlines for filmmakers, and nowadays the format they intend to work with. The film festival format impacts on the preparation process of the festival team and the skills that are needed, as well as on relationships with festival partners, directors, creative talent and other guests.

The London, Rotterdam and Ghent festivals anticipated different scenarios in the first stages of the pandemic, which they experienced as a disruptive period of immense and unprecedented upheaval. They have always been physical-only festivals, but their business was disrupted by COVID-19 lockdowns, policy restrictions and cinema closures. The hybrid film festival format became their preferred alternative because it is based on both physical and online screenings, and thus offered the possibility and flexibility to pivot quickly to other formats in case of changing circumstances. Their decision to organise hybrid festivals was not a strategy developed in advance to disrupt other festivals, but it was developed during the pandemic. The hybrid format also became more common for many other festivals in the first waves of the pandemic, even if it required substantial work to organise physical and online events. Most festivals were also relatively inexperienced with online platforms.

Given the impact of COVID-19, when did London, Ghent and Rotterdam decide to organise a hybrid edition? London made the decision about four months in advance of their festival in October 2020, as Festival Director Tricia Tuttle notes: “I started with my team planning multiple versions of the festival, so we had three or four viable models that had different financial structures, different operational structures, different staffing structures, and by June 2020 we decided to be hybrid”. Interestingly, that was during a period in the summer when cinemas in England were closed due to COVID-19 regulations and other festivals were organised online-only. Their decision to organise a hybrid festival was therefore ambitious, even though there were expectations that cinemas would reopen by the end of the summer. The physical dimension of the hybrid festival was a decisive factor in their decision-making, as Tricia Tuttle notes: “When we locked our model, the cinemas were closed but we knew that all the cinemas were moving towards that sort of hopeful day of opening either in late August or early September. We knew that it would happen about four to six weeks before the London Film Festival. And we wanted to be part of a sort of ‘back to cinemas’ campaign”.

Ghent notes that they were convinced from the beginning that a hybrid festival would be sensible given disruptive COVID-19 circumstances. Their Festival Programmer Wim de Witte notes: “We had a preference for physical screenings and adopted strict security measures to make that happen. It was clear to us that the online platform was out of necessity for when we would have no other choice than going online”. That proved to be an important strategy because new COVID-19 measures were introduced in Belgium throughout the Ghent film festival in October 2020, with a serious impact on physical screenings and gatherings. De Witte notes: “It meant that we had to cancel some of the late-night screenings and there were new restrictions at the end of the festival. We needed to decrease audience capacity in cinemas and we had to change some of the locations for certain screenings”.

The Rotterdam film festival in January 2020 edition was organised just before the pandemic emerged. For their 2021 edition, they were therefore able to take advantage of a relatively long preparation period into the pandemic. They decided in September 2020 to organise their festival in 2021 in two parts (IFFR, 2021). The first part was an online-only festival in February 2021 with a programme of 43 feature films and 22 short films. The second part was a hybrid festival in June 2021 with a programme of 77 feature films and 52 short films. The decision to organise a fully online version was necessary because cinemas were closed in February 2021, but they were able to organise a hybrid version when cinemas were open in June 2021. Because the Rotterdam film festival celebrated their 50th year anniversary in 2021, the physical dimension of the hybrid festival was particularly important to give audiences the opportunity to participate in-person and watch films in physical cinemas.

As part of the Rotterdam film festival in February 2021, an online version of the Rotterdam industry market (called IFFR Pro) was organised. An online version made sense because other industry markets, including Cannes in June 2020, were also organised online, and most of the industry participants were familiar with a virtual marketplace. Such online industry markets provided a solution for the international community of industry professionals to conduct business in countries where COVID-19 interventions complicated physical, in-person meetings.

The two-part model developed by Rotterdam, with the online festival in February 2021 and a hybrid festival in June 2021, should be understood in relation to the possibilities that the hybrid festival format has to offer. Rotterdam initially prepared for a hybrid festival in February 2021, but was forced to organise an online festival due to lockdowns and cinemas closures. This is then an example of a film festival that took advantage of the possibility to pivot from the hybrid format to the online format under pressure of disruptive circumstances. That transition was relatively straight-forward because the online dimension was already a part of the hybrid format.

For all three festivals, it was clear that physical screenings remained a key part of their planning and preparation. But it was also clear that COVID-19 circumstances were uncertain and policy restrictions such as lockdowns and restricted cinema attendance put limits on the capacity of festivals to pivot to a physical-only format. The hybrid format provided certainty at a time of unprecedented upheaval. In the next sections, I will focus more specifically on the role of online festival platforms in relation to disruption and cultural change.

Working with online platforms

There is much to learn about film festival engagement with online platforms. Online festival screenings have opened up a market for a range of technology companies with expertise of platform interfaces, visual designs and other online functions. In particular, so-called external platform providers became hugely popular in the first waves of the pandemic. They create white-label platforms for film festivals that are tailored and personalised to their demands. The existence of such external platform providers is nothing new. They create online opportunities as part of processes of cultural change and modernisation in the film industry. Long before the pandemic, some film festivals were already working with external platform providers to facilitate online industry screenings and press screenings for their industry markets (Taillibert & Vinuela, 2021). But what changed in the first waves of COVID-19 is that festivals also started to organise online screenings for the general film audience, which resulted in a growing demand for the services of external platform providers. Many film festivals in Europe began to work with external platforms providers such as Festival Scope and Shift72.³

Ghent, for example, worked with Shift72 to organise the online dimension of their hybrid festival, even though they also explored collaborations with local platforms in Belgium, as Wim de Witte (Ghent) notes:

We never really considered the idea of developing an [in-house] platform just for ourselves. We had positive conversations with local platforms in Belgium, but one was in the midst of a transition to a new platform and another one was more focused on television series. We also knew that several festivals used Shift72, and also that sales agents might be more at ease with film festival branded platforms because festival audiences know that those films are new and have not been on the platform before, which can be the case with existing [in-house] platforms.

The comparison that de Witte refers to in this quote is one between external (white-label) platforms and in-house platforms. In some cases, festivals create their own in-house platform. Both types of platforms have benefits and drawbacks in terms of strategy, costs, technological expertise, brand building and organisational work. For Ghent, collaborating with an external platform provider was a secure and relatively low-cost solution, as de Witte explains: “Working with Shift72 was affordable and it did what we expected it would do”. Like most hybrid festivals, their online screenings were perceived of as a one-off extension of the festival. It was thus also a short-term solution, with the scenario in mind that they would return to the physical-only format in the following year. Their online platform was developed only to cope with disruptive COVID-19 circumstances.

Rotterdam and London, in addition, worked with in-house platforms. Rotterdam created the platform IFFR Unleashed in 2016 and London is part of the British Film Institute (BFI), who created the platform BFI Player in 2014. The first relationships and cross-collaborations with their platforms were developed in the years preceding the pandemic. Such relationships can also be perceived in relation to processes of cultural change and modernisation in the film industry, whereby festivals are taking advantage of online opportunities to support the films they introduce to audiences. For some of the films shown in their physical film festivals, they have provided access on their online platforms throughout the year, as part of a larger collection of films. Their online platforms have thus become an extension of their physical festivals. As Festival Director Vanja Kaludjercic (Rotterdam) notes: “IFFR Unleashed is a year-round complement to the festival, in terms of providing more visibility to the filmmakers that we are passionate about and want to support”. London has developed a similar collaboration with the BFI Player.

Critically, because Rotterdam and London decided to organise hybrid festivals, it was necessary to create specific platforms for their festivals, which then operated alongside their existing online platforms. Kaludjercic (Rotterdam) and Tuttle (London) describe the development of a festival platform as an ambitious project. While they were able to exert creative control over their festival platform interface and design, they experienced challenges with the platform structure. The conversion from an existing platform structure to a new platform structure for film festivals is often complex, as Tuttle (London) notes: “One of the drawbacks for us was that BFI player is designed to be a SVOD and TVOD platform for film lovers rather than a festival premiere platform, so we had to build new functionality for our festival platform. The BFI Player team did a great job, but it was challenging”.

Kaludjercic (Rotterdam) also notes that it required significant effort to create the festival platform:

The demands with what we had to come up with to accommodate for digital screenings required a lot of technical development without so much of a research stage. What worked a lot in our favour was teaming up with other Dutch film festivals, such as IDFA and Cinekid, who were thinking in the same direction. So we teamed up and put teams together that were developing these digital screenings for us. And we also received support from the Netherlands Film Fund for that.

Tuttle and Kaludjercic are thus referring to the technological development of their festival platforms. Creating their own platforms was a natural extension of collaborations that were already in place with colleagues from their online platforms. It helped to intensify such collaborations and stimulate collective thinking. Similar to Ghent, the London and Rotterdam festivals were also responding to disruptive COVID-19 circumstances, but in-house festival platforms aren’t necessary designed for the short term. They can also be a solution for initiatives with online festival screenings in the future. The next section explores the role of online festival screenings as part of hybrid festivals.

Festival programming and live screening events

How did the hybrid format impact on the programming of festival films? London, Ghent and Rotterdam were organised in such a way that the live experience remained an important part of their festivals. Where possible, films were shown at the same time in cinemas and online. As Wim de Witte (Ghent) notes: “We also wanted to create a festival atmosphere on the online platform, and this was partly created by making some titles available at certain time slots during the festival”. The purpose of their live online screenings was to reflect the collective viewing experience of physical screenings.

Tricia Tuttle (London) and Vanja Kaludjercic (Rotterdam) note that their online platforms were also used to add something to the traditional in-cinema experience. Several options on their platforms helped to increase audience engagement before and after screenings, including waiting rooms with chat options, introductions to screenings, and Q&A sessions after screenings. For Tuttle (London), social media provided opportunities to raise attention for films: “We encouraged audiences to have a conversation around films at the same time, feedback their thoughts via social media platforms, share thinking around films and respond to each other”. Social media conversations on platforms such as Twitter and Facebook are nothing new, but London strategically organised the process of generating word-of-mouth talk in coordination with time-specific, live screening events.

For Kaludjercic (Rotterdam), online screening events provided opportunities to involve more creative talent of films in Q&A sessions: “Usually we have the film’s director in the cinema, but it is rare to have more cast and crew involved. Online, however, it is easier to also involve actors and screenwriters, so all of the sudden we could connect with more people”. While audiences were provided with more perspectives from creative talent, it also opened up opportunities for themselves to become more engaged. The assumption here is that audiences are more comfortable if they can ask questions in online chats rather than in-person interactions. In addition, the moderator of the Q&A session can follow up on questions raised in live chats. It is thus an approach that could be used to engage with audiences in cinemas and online.

While the live experience remained an important part for London, Ghent and Rotterdam, they also note that there were restrictions in terms of the type of films being shown and the programming of those films on specific days and times during the festival. The live experience was particularly useful for films in the festival programme that were expected to receive most of the attention for audiences. For example, Tricia Tuttle (London) noted that films from established directors such as Christian Petzold were instant press talking points. But other films needed more time to develop awareness amongst audiences. The online dimension could be used to make such films available online for an extended period, such as a 72-hour online viewing window, or for the full duration of the festival. It offered therefore more flexibility for festivals to develop audience strategies for different types of films.

Another limitation of the live experience is that some films were programmed on days and times throughout the festival when audience participation was expected to be relatively modest. In particular, audience engagement with live screening events and generating word-of-mouth talk in the morning or afternoon of a working day during the week was more challenging than in the evening or in the weekend. Live screening events were thus to some extent reliant on the festival programme and planning. That reliance could also affect the number of live screenings organised as part of the festival, with festivals only having so many time slots available during their editions.

In addition, the programming of festival films was reliant on negotiations with rights holders such as sales agents and distributors, who developed different release strategies for films shown in hybrid festivals. Of course, their films became available for physical, in-cinema screenings, but by no means all of those films became available for online screenings. Ghent, for example, showed 140 films in their physical programme, but only 60 of those films were also available in their online programme. Festival Director Marijke Vandebuerie (Ghent) explains this difference: “The films that were shown online were dependent on having the approval from rights holders to put them online, which means that the online programme is not always representative for the whole programme of the festival”. The online dimension was thus an extension rather than a reflection of the physical festival. Rotterdam, on the contrary, developed a policy that required rights holders to show films in the physical and online format, even if it had a restricting impact on the films shown at the festival. Vanja Kaludjercic (Rotterdam) notes: “Showing films only online was always a fall-back scenario for us. We could not include films if online rights were not part of deals with rights holders”.

The statements from Vandebuerie and Kaludjercic tell us something important about the role of rights holders in relation to disruption. Rights holders decide if films become available for online screenings in hybrid festivals. That often depends on the profile and visibility of films in the marketplace. The more visible and competitive films usually become available for physical festival screenings only, even if they are shown in hybrid festivals. For less visible and competitive films in the marketplace, however, it is more common that they become available for physical and online screenings. Because they are less likely to secure wide distribution, hybrid film festivals can play a more active role in making such films more accessible to general audiences. The role of online screenings for hybrid festivals should be understood in support of such less competitive films, rather than as having a disruptive impact on the value creation process of those films.

There is more to say about audience reach in terms of specific circumstances that the London, Ghent and Rotterdam festivals experienced. They note that their capacity in cinemas was restricted because of COVID-19 measures, with the result that physical screenings were primarily attended by a niche audience of cinephiles. Vanja Kaludjercic (Rotterdam) notes: “The Dutch government limited the capacity in cinemas to thirty people. When we put the numbers together, it was clear that it had a big impact on accessibility and it made our event small and exclusive, which is something we did not want to be”. Tricia Tuttle (London) makes the same argument about audience accessibility: “We wanted the festival to be available to public audiences and you know if we were to just deliver a physical film festival with 35% capacity, you are servicing a very small, elite audience, so that was a big driver for us to organise a hybrid festival”. Through the process of accessibility, they were thus able to develop an audience strategy based on inclusivity rather than exclusivity. And, as noted in the beginning of this paper, this strategy worked given that the majority of their audiences watched films online rather than in-person.

Disruption and cultural change

The empirical analysis has provided more clarity about the concepts of disruption and cultural change in the first waves of the pandemic. Of course, the business of festivals was disrupted by COVID-19 lockdowns, policy restrictions and cinema closures, but this paper set out to explore if the strategies and operations of hybrid festivals were also disruptive. While disruption is easily associated with processes of innovation and modernisation, this study found little evidence of a disruptive impact. The London, Rotterdam and Ghent festivals were not designed to disrupt the business of other festivals, nor did they have a disruptive impact on the process of value creation of films. This study found instead that processes of innovation and modernisation are part of the continuing development of cultural change.

Cultural change can be generally described in relation to the transformative nature of cultural sectors. Online technologies and streaming culture have provided opportunities for alternative business models and strategies. Several interrelated developments have come to the surface in this paper that are part of the process of cultural change. First, collaborations between festivals and online platforms were established long before the pandemic, as part of the development of online technologies. Second, online platforms have enabled festivals to become more accessible for films and audiences. Accessibility is an important aspect of streaming culture in the online era. Third, hybrid festivals acknowledged the value of live streaming events and social media in order to enhance audience engagement.

A logical effect of these three developments in the film festival sector is that the public perception of film festival culture has changed. Online logics have become a more important part of the culture that film festivals produce. At the same time, that is a development which we can also see in other sectors of the film industry, and in other cultural sectors (Davies, 2021; Frenneaux & Bennett, 2021; Gu et al., 2021). The continuing process of cultural change means that physical and online logics can co-exist in increasingly productive ways in today’s society. There is a future for the hybrid film festival format. While the physical-only format will continue to structure and shape most film festivals, the hybrid format offers an alternative that requires further trying and testing to assess its potential. Some festivals, such as Ghent, have returned to the physical-only format; others festival, such as London, have embraced the hybrid format since the pandemic.

Acknowledgments

I am grateful for interviews with Marijke Vandebuerie (Film Fest Ghent), Wim de Witte (Film Fest Ghent), Tricia Tuttle (BFI London Film Festival) and Vanja Kaludjercic (International Film Festival Rotterdam).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

I acknowledge support from the CONEX-Plus programme funded by Universidad Carlos III de Madrid and the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 801538.

Notes

1 In several European countries, the second or third wave of the COVID-19 pandemic took place in the period between October 2020 and June 2021.

2 The research project was undertaken to provide insight in the strategic direction that European film festivals have taken during the COVID-19 pandemic. An industry report was presented at the Thessaloniki International Film Festival in November 2021 (Smits, 2021).

3 Festival Scope and Shift72 also developed a partnership because of the increased demand from film festivals. Many European festivals worked with Festival Scope, but their platforms were hosted by Shift72 (Vallejo & Taillibert, 2023). Other festivals, such as Ghent, were directly organised through Shift72, or through Festival Scope.