The Unnecessary Death of Festival Accessibility
By Marcos Codas
At the end of 2019, nobody could foresee what was about to happen. A global pandemic absolutely changed the landscape of all industries. It affected all lives. But we all tried to move on. Eventually, we tried to find ways to find a sense of normalcy, and as in-person movie screenings were prohibited, both horror and other genre film festivals opted to use digital distribution to screen films and get coverage. The year 2020 was a bit of a stumble, but by 2021, festivals and journalists had the system locked in. The change from in-person to virtual screenings had a lot of side effects, some good, some bad. And it certainly changed the landscape for a lot of independent, freelance journalists. However, in the past 12 months, we’ve seen a marked decrease in online screenings as festivals move back to an in-person format. And after speaking with over half a dozen disenfranchised and underprivileged film journalists working in horror and other genres, it is obvious that this change has affected them, and their ability to generate income and be competitive in a cut-throat industry.
Virtual Screenings Opened the Doors for Many
I’ve been thinking about this article for nearly 4 years now. As a freelance journalist based in Paraguay, attending film festivals in person was out of the question. I just could not compete with people in the United States, particularly those located near festival locations like Los Angeles.
Suddenly, COVID-19 happened, and for all the horrible things that it brought, it also leveled the playing field for film journalists. No longer was I at a disadvantage; we were all in the same boat. The process for selecting who was to cover a film or a festival did not rely on economics or geographic location but on merit.
I wanted to make sure this was not an opinion piece, however. So, I reached out to other movie journalists, sent out a short form, and gathered information.
“Due to the pandemic, in 2020 I was able to begin covering film festivals remotely. I had access I had never had before (been writing about movies since 2016). Since 2020, I’ve covered Tribeca, SXSW, Fantasia, Fantastic Fest, Salem Horror Fest, Chattanooga Film Fest, and more. Travel is difficult due to my disability, so that, plus finances have prevented me from attending fests.” — Michelle Swope
I’ve known Michelle since 2019, as we used to work together at Dread Central, one of America’s biggest horror websites, for a few years. Her festival coverage has been lauded by multiple outlets as being top-notch. And she got an opportunity only because of the possibility of remote screenings.
Michelle’s experience is echoed by other people I’ve spoken to, others who would not have had access to coverage had it not been for virtual screenings. Here’s another testimony from a film journalist who wished to remain anonymous:
“In the past, prior to becoming disabled, I did celebrity profile interviews with Oscar and Emmy winners. I also did festival coverage. I had editorials that landed the cover of numerous magazines. It felt incredible to be doing work I adored. Then came my diagnosis — a neurological disease that has caused nerve damage to my spinal cord, and over time has taken a toll on multiple organs.
Film was still the thing I loved and was passionate to continue. It was my home. It was a field where I could still feel like myself despite the new Hell I had entered.” — Journalist 5
Here are people who are highly regarded in their professional fields, getting opportunities because of virtual festival accessibility. This was a good thing. But it would not last.
Back to Normal (For Some)
As I mentioned before, festivals have been rolling back their virtual accessibility over the past 12 months. I’m not making this up out of thin air. Here’s a graph showing the opinion of all of the people interviewed for this piece about whether festivals have cut down on digital screeners:
Out of 7 people who replied to the survey (all of whom are professional film journalists with either full-time or part-time positions) all of them have seen a decline in accessibility in the past 12 months. Not only that but all of them have also been affected negatively by this change.
And you can tell just how much this impact has worsened an already bad situation for disadvantaged film journalists by reading some of the answers further. Here’s Michelle once more:
“Now, most fests have taken away virtual options and most outlets want writers to cover fests in person, meaning in 2023, it’s virtually impossible for me to cover film festivals, something I’ve really enjoyed and done a lot over the past few years. Access being denied to folks who are disabled, not financially able to attend fests in person, etc. is elitist, ableist, and makes it so only a select group of journalists are allowed to cover fests. I’ve worked very hard on festival coverage and am proud of the work I’ve been allowed access to do the past few years. Taking away accessibility has hurt me, and others, professionally and personally. Virtual options and hybrid festivals should have been the ‘norm’ a long time ago.”
And Michelle’s not alone. Here are some more answers from journalists who wish to remain anonymous:
“As a severely immunocompromised critic, it is unsafe for me to attend large gatherings indoors while COVID is still happening (because it is still happening) which means film festivals are a no-go. Without digital screeners or digital access to film festivals, I have to wait until films become available on streaming. Not only does that mean I am unable to provide timely coverage, but it also means that as an editor, I have had to learn to be very okay with having every last detail of a film spoiled before I can see it in order to edit articles written by my team who have seen the film.” — Journalist 3
“For us who aren’t able to physically attend a lot of these events, it’s akin to never being allowed to sit at any tables, let alone the cool kids’. Why make marginalized people suffer just because they are marginalized?” — Journalist 4
This experience from a heavily immunocompromised journalist has so many heartbreaking details, it makes for a sobering read:
“Festivals, however, started to be out of the running for me. Most festivals claim to be handicap accessible or disability friendly, and sometimes even use that as what I see [is] a gross promotional tool — what I mean by this is, statements of wanting to be inclusive and asking for disabled writers, often is just a fake show. The days are incredibly long, making it hard for anybody with a chronic illness to find a moment to do their IV, injections, etc. The spaces are crowded and difficult to navigate. Being handicap accessible is not as simple as “oh, there’s a wheelchair ramp” or “oh, there’s an elevator.” Accessibility can mean a variety of things depending on the disability or illness a person has.
Masking protocols have dropped at many festivals, effectively making it unsafe for anyone with a weakened immune system. There was a time during the pandemic that virtual festivals opened up an avenue for us disabled journalists to do what we loved again, while also leaving a wider window to view the films and be safe from crowds. I still love the excitement of an in-person festival, but, if it’s not safe or accessible, then virtual becomes a disabled journalists only option — and now — unfortunately, even that option is significantly shrinking.” — Journalist 5
And the heartbreak just keeps coming the more you read:
“As a multiply-disabled woman covering festivals, it is much harder to be able to cover all aspects of a festival now that people are rolling back their virtual spaces. I depend on virtual platforms to be able to review films and then interview filmmakers. This inaccessibility has very real consequences for me, as I lose listeners and engagement because of reduced opportunities.” — Journalist 6
Now It’s the Time to Ask Hard Questions
Why are we enforcing policies that clearly diminish the opportunities of already disadvantaged, but well-regarded journalism professionals? What is it that festivals gain by restricting access and making a difficult career even more difficult for the people who need it most? Or what do they lose by allowing this type of access?
These are questions that I plan to address more fully as I conduct a similarly in-depth data collection process with people who run festivals.
However, I’ve been able to get an insider’s perspective thanks to a fellow journalist who also works closely with festivals.
“[Virtual screenings] are great for access but it really affects the bottom line. It’s not like [REDACTED] and other fests are making a lot to begin with. Good to have access for critics and some fans that can’t attend, for sure. But then publicists have to strike a line between in-person reviews that usually skew a lot more positive. I don’t think some people covering [festivals] remotely realize that every time they hit the pause button or scrub a screener, it’s logged.” — Journalist 7 / Festival Coordinator
The financial aspect is definitely something I was aware of. I’ve known about the costs of hosting secure, encrypted virtual screenings (to prevent piracy), and it’s not a cheap endeavor, for sure.
But should this come at the cost of accessibility? Inclusion has never been cheap or easy, but it’s always been the right thing to do.
What Does the Future Hold?
Honestly, I’m not too optimistic. Unless there’s an open movement speaking up against the negative impact the lack of virtual coverage has on disadvantaged film journalists, there will be no change. Many of us (as seen during the data collection process for this article, ie: anonymity) are afraid of negative repercussions if we speak out. The field is already very competitive, and if we’re not only disadvantaged but also seen as “difficult to work with,” we run a real risk of losing even more work.
Having said that, I hope this article serves as a first step toward initiating a wider discussion between festival organizers, distributors, and journalists. I am hopeful that distributors and organizers, having seen the testimony of those affected by their decisions, will take that testimony into account during the planning of future events. I also hope that fellow journalists will speak up and back up their disadvantaged colleagues: BIPOC, disabled journalists, journalists living on the verge of poverty, international journalists…surely our colleagues will join our plea.
At the risk of sounding corny, if ever there was a moment to quote John Lennon, it is this one:
So, you may say I’m a dreamer. But I hope I’m not the only one. 🩸
About
Marcos is a Paraguayan-Canadian multimedia producer, writer, filmmaker, and game developer. He is the former assistant editor at Dread Central and has been an entertainment journalist for over 15 years. He is an unashamed fan of found footage films, handheld gaming, and restoring old vehicles, which he does in his spare time.
Follow MANOR on Bluesky, Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest, Threads, TikTok, X, YouTube, and other sites via Linktree.
© 2023 Manor Entertainment LLC
