Forum Festival – Panel II – “Film Criticism and Film Institution”

The rapid growth of various types of film institutions in Indonesia, ranging from those that serve as means of production, appreciation, study, archiving, distribution, and network development, to the consciously experimenting (in any form) of the global film field, extending from the most formal realms, such as institutions that are endorsed by or represents a country, to the industrial realm, such as the association of film workers, as well as to alternative spheres, such as community and independent individual. The positive impact following the mandate of the Act opens new questions for film criticism, both regarding the workmanship and artistry, as well as on the important institutional factors that support it. There is a need to expand the scope of criticism to see the relationship between formal and non-formal institutions that concern about film, as well as to provoke critical awareness of existing institutions about their respective strategic positions within the broader range of cultural political activities. This is because institutional actualization seems to indicate significant changes in terms of the status and forms of organizational management of film practitioners, as well as their reciprocal influence on the development of film forms, languages and aesthetics and the mode of organizing film events. What can we understand from these actual phenomena within the framework of film criticism, or about the criticism of the film itself, which may also be institutionalized in particular sections?

The rapid growth of various types of film institutions in Indonesia, ranging from those that serve as means of production, appreciation, study, archiving, distribution, and network development, to the consciously experimenting (in any form) of the global film field, extending from the most formal realms, such as institutions that are endorsed by or represents a country, to the industrial realm, such as the association of film workers, as well as to alternative spheres, such as community and independent individual. The positive impact following the mandate of the Act opens new questions for film criticism, both regarding the workmanship and artistry, as well as on the important institutional factors that support it. There is a need to expand the scope of criticism to see the relationship between formal and non-formal institutions that concern about film, as well as to provoke critical awareness of existing institutions about their respective strategic positions within the broader range of cultural political activities. This is because institutional actualization seems to indicate significant changes in terms of the status and forms of organizational management of film practitioners, as well as their reciprocal influence on the development of film forms, languages and aesthetics and the mode of organizing film events. What can we understand from these actual phenomena within the framework of film criticism, or about the criticism of the film itself, which may also be institutionalized in particular sections?