The courage to discuss – recognising and making use of “Brave Spaces” at film festivals

DOK.fest München – Q&A FRAGMENTE AUS DER PROVINZ – Audience | © DOK.fest München

Film festivals are not only places of cultural exchange and creative inspiration, but also stages for passionate discussion and debate. At a time of global unrest and a shift to the right in one’s own country, film festivals are particularly under pressure to take sides. It has almost become a rule for festivals to make a political statement before the festival opens. But is it the festival’s job to take a stand? What does it gain by doing so? And what kind of spaces and opportunities for bridging the social divide are being curtailed in the process?

As a filmmaker, it is perhaps necessary and above all fruitful to enter “Brave Spaces.” Isn’t engaging in controversial discussions part of the artistic process? In the best case, doesn’t it lead to a broadening of one’s own point of view, even if we don’t reach a consensus? Doesn’t the discussed word resonate on both sides? As long as we discuss in a respectful manner?

This article is not intended as a guide to proper debate. Rather, it is an attempt to ask whether we, as a society, have perhaps forgotten how to deal with controversy on an individual level. What does it mean to engage in a controversial discussion without losing your own composure? And to what extent can the concept of “Brave Spaces” offer a solution for creating room for controversy and gaining knowledge on both sides? The aim of such conversations should never be to prove that one person is right – that was never the original aim. More than ever, it is about consciously putting your own ego aside and having the courage to really understand – objectively – what is going on in the other person’s mind. It is about gaining knowledge – for both sides. With this in mind, the following ideas are not intended as a guide. They are intended to stimulate thought: How do I discuss? What is the art of discussion? How can public cultural events contribute to a vibrant culture of debate? And have we perhaps reached a point where talking is gold and silence is silver? Let’s talk – let’s discuss, and let’s do it now!

 

Never heard of it! What are these “Brave Spaces” anyway?

The term “Brave Spaces” was developed in response to the concept of “Safe Spaces.” “Safe Spaces” were set up in the 1970s and 1980s, particularly in the context of the feminist and LGBTQ+ movements in the United States. They provided protected spaces where marginalised groups could discuss free from discrimination and threats.

However, some educationalists and activists, including Brian Arao and Kristi Clemens, began to discuss how “Safe Spaces” alone might avoid having to face difficult or uncomfortable conversations.

“From Safe Spaces to Brave Spaces” is the title of an article published in 2013 by Brian Arao and Kristi Clemens in the book THE ART OF EFFECTIVE FACILITATION: REFLECTIONS FROM SOCIAL JUSTICE EDUCATORS, which deals with the principles and practices of the “art of effective facilitation,” particularly in the context of social justice. It focuses on the concept of “Brave Spaces,” as opposed to “Safe Spaces.” “Brave Spaces” offer not only protection, but also the challenge to engage openly and honestly with controversial issues. They promote courage and honesty by inviting participants to express their real thoughts and feelings, even if they are uncomfortable. At the same time, there is a strong emphasis on respectful listening to enable deeper understanding and empathy.

Facilitation in such spaces requires a willingness to engage in debate, where disagreement is seen as an opportunity for personal and communal growth. Participants are encouraged to reflect on their own biases and to take responsibility for their statements. The article offers practical tips for facilitators, including the need to set clear objectives, to create space for all voices and to use conflict constructively. Good preparation and flexibility are key to keeping the discussion focused and inclusive. Ultimately, the article aims to improve the art of moderating to enable a deeper understanding of the other and to connect even beyond.

“Brave Spaces” differ from “Safe Spaces” primarily in that they encourage participants to engage in uncomfortable discussions and to challenge their own prejudices and assumptions. The following principles are emphasised:

  1. Courage and honesty: Participants are encouraged to speak openly and honestly, even if their opinions seem unpopular or controversial.
  2. Respect and listening: It is important that all parties respect and actively listen to each other in order to promote understanding and empathy.
  3. Willingness to confront: It is accepted that confrontation and disagreement are part of the process and that, if handled respectfully, they can lead to growth and learning.
  4. Self-reflection and responsibility: Participants are encouraged to question their own prejudices and assumptions and to take responsibility for their words and actions.

“Brave Spaces” can be an important part of modern discussion and education practices. Not only do they contribute to personal understanding, but also to the strengthening of social democracy and social interaction. The idea of “Brave Spaces” is also being applied to some extent in Germany.  But how can we identify and use these spaces in the film industry – or even create them ourselves? And are there perhaps already some first steps in this direction within our industry?

 

DOK.fest München – Discussion / Q&A “Mit Rechten reden” (Talking to the Right) | © DOK.fest München

 

Festival scene: Where can we find aspects of “Brave Spaces” in our context?

In the German film festival scene, there are already a number of events that stand out for their openness to controversial discussions and social issues and thus offer elements of “Brave Spaces.” The following two film festivals will be presented as examples of best practice:

DOKfest München is a major documentary film festival in Germany, characterised by a wide range of documentary films and a strong commitment to social issues. During the festival, discussion forums and q&a sessions are held to discuss the films within the context of current social concerns. At the 39th festival, democracy was the focus of attention in the light of current events. The series “DOK.focus Democrazy” dealt with the divergent forces within European democracies. In a kind of extended question and answer session entitled “Mit Rechten reden” (Talking to the Right) on the film FRAGMENTE AUS DER PROVINZ (FRAGMENTS FROM THE PROVINCE, director: Martin Weinhart), the festival deliberately opened the floor to controversy from various sides. The film follows people in a village in Thuringia as they take a stand against right-wing extremism in their community, as well as following the far-right politician Hans Georg Maaßen during his election campaign. But it is precisely this strong ambivalence that is currently playing out in our society as well as in our films. The artistic director and managing director of DOKfest Munich, Daniel Sponsel, calls for a healthy tolerance of ambivalence, i.e., the ability to recognise ambivalence, to bear it and to remain capable of acting within it.

What is missing at all points is a healthy tolerance of ambivalence. Given everything we know about the world, a heterogeneous understanding of the world is possible and reasonable in one and the same person. The comprehensive socio-political debate that underlies the task of creating a perspective should be conducted intensively and controversially, rather than leaving it to the institutions and bureaucracy. Doing one thing does not mean giving up the other. Daniel Sponsel, FILMDIENST

In addition to presenting controversial or ambivalent films in order to promote a so-called tolerance of ambivalence, festivals or such “space openers” also have a responsibility to ensure that the discussions that take place are facilitated professionally, objectively and carefully.

 

The Max Ophüls Prize Film Festival in Saarbrücken, currently under the direction of Svenja Böttger and programme director Theresa Winkler, is known for its inventiveness and innovative concepts. For its 45th edition, the festival trained its team of facilitators in how to handle films with strong discussion potential. In addition to a handout for so-called micro-discourses, the team received objective formulations for critical questions about certain films, as well as a small set of rules for the role of the facilitator. These guidelines recommend that the host/presenter welcomes the audience to the cinema hall, while stressing the importance of respect and appreciation, even during critical debate. In addition, it is suggested that the host should not take a position but should first delegate critical questions to the audience in order to actively include the attendants’ knowledge and willingness to engage in dialogue. Finally, it is not the responsibility of the facilitator to reach a consensus at the end of an event. And it is precisely these rules for the facilitator’s understanding of the role that serve an important aspect of “Brave Spaces.” But what is it that individuals need in order to be able to discuss controversial issues in a constructive way? What can we do, independently of major cultural events, to create or shape these spaces?

 

45. Max Ophüls Prize Film Festival – moderator team | © Max Kullmann
from left to right: top row: Mark Stöhr, Dieu Hao Do, Desirée Ackermann, Richard Manualpillai, Tabea Hohensee, Isabel Sonnabend. bottom row: Mara Luka, Tessa Hart, Derya Demir, Petra Michelle Nérette, Andrea Schwemmer, Sven Ilgner

 

How to controverse: What is needed to create good controversies, which at best will lead us to new insights?

First things first: Let’s focus on what we can change and influence. We have no control over how others behave. We also have no control over how the facilitator sets up the room. But we can make a difference with our own approach. What attitude do we adopt towards others in a space like an audience discussion after a politically challenging or even critical film? What stance is at times effective? The following points can help you to remain calm and not lose your head during a good controversy, or to dedicate yourself to clever arguments instead of emotions.

In any case, it takes an attitude! Let’s take a closer look at the following recommendations for action:

 

  1. Inform yourself! This may sound simple, but many people fail at this first hurdle: Do your homework and read up on the subject. Use a variety of trusted sources. If you’re not sure about a source’s credibility – don’t worry. Here is a little help.
  2. Trustworthy sources! How to identify reliable sources and debunk fake news:
  • Check the date! Because sometimes old news is taken out of context and purposely misused.
  • Check the source! Is there a legal disclaimer on the site, or are references such as studies or other major news outlets cited?
  • Check the title and content of the article! Is the content highly exaggerated in its choice of words or is it more factual? Reliable news sources tend to write in a balanced and objective way, rather than in a sensationalist manner.
  • Check the images and videos! Are the images up to date? Use the reverse search function and embed the images in Google. Can you find the images and videos on other reputable sites?
  • Search for other coverage! Who else has reported on this? If there is only one source, it may be an unconfirmed or unreliable report.
  1. Listen actively! It sounds so simple, yet it is so difficult. Listening – really listening! There are three key points to active listening: 1. observe, 2. understand, 3. respond.

When observing, it is important to show the person that you are present (maintaining eye contact, nodding in agreement, allowing pauses in the conversation). Understanding means letting the other person know that you are also listening (asking questions, summarising what has been said, responding to requests). When responding, it is important to make sure, both for yourself and for the audience, that you have understood correctly. (check your understanding, mirror the feelings of the other person without being patronising).

  1. Take your time! Cutting corners hurts and gets you nowhere! Assume that it will be complex. If time is pressing because the next screening is about to start, offer to continue the discussion in the foyer. Invite others to continue the discussion or controversy.
  2. Ask questions! Assume that the other person is doing their best to help you understand what is important to them. This principle is also called the “principle of charity” or “benevolent interpretation.”
  3. When emotions run high! Of course, a discussion like this can quickly become emotional because when it comes to issues that affect us, especially political topics, we feel our identity is under attack. It triggers the fight-or-flight response. Here are four ways to respond appropriately when you notice that you or the person you are talking to is becoming uncontrollably heated:
  • “This topic is important to me, and I would like to talk about it as clearly as possible, so let’s continue the conversation later.”
  • “Could you please repeat what you just said?”
  • “Where did you get this information from?”
  • “On a scale of 1-10, how sure are you of your point of view?”

The main purpose of these statements and questions is to create a simple pause for thought during which you can take a quick breath.

  1. Reflect on your own position! Are you aware of “confirmation bias”? We tend to select information that supports our position. This makes it difficult to critically question your own position. So be critical! Be aware of your own biases. We tend to favour information that supports our existing beliefs. Be open to other perspectives.
  2. Don’t force it! Seek consensus, yes! Force it, no! Stay calm – easier said than done. But in the end, no one wins if one side tries desperately to convince the other. At the very moment when the swelling feeling of “How can I make him/her understand otherwise?!” arises, it might be better to take a deep breath and sit down. Or ask the whole room: “Who else agrees with me? Hands up.” You can then share with them afterwards, and don’t have to leave the room feeling all alone with your frustration.
  3. STOP! There are limits! Of course, there are limits to the expression of opinion and controversial discussion. And they begin where inhumane statements start. At this point, only ONE clear message will help: “I accept different opinions, but inhumane statements cross a line. Let’s remain respectful.” Or a little stronger: “This discussion can only continue if we remain respectful. Your repeated inhumane comments are unacceptable. Please stop, or I will be forced to end the conversation.”

Of course, at first these points may seem daunting, complex, and require courage and certainly a pinch of self-control. But perhaps one of the nine recommendations for action, well stored in your head or in your smartphone notes, will be enough to get you into the “Brave Space.” Because the next discussion at the next film festival is bound to arise!

 

Pleasure in debate rather than pressure to confess: a call for open discussions at film festivals

Film festivals offer us a valuable opportunity to engage in open and courageous dialogue. Especially at a time of rising political and social tensions, it is more important than ever to have controversial discussions while remaining respectful. Unlike discussions in the anonymity of the Internet, conversations in “Brace Spaces” provide space for real engagement. Far from the abbreviated virtual signalling where social media profile pictures show what we stand for without entering into direct dialogue, the first battle lines are already drawn, making respectful debate more difficult from the outset. “Brave Spaces,” on the other hand, allow for an open exchange based on personal encounters and constructive debate. They are places where we can face these challenges without losing our composure. Those who dare to engage in controversial discussions not only foster their own growth, but also strengthen our democracy by building bridges between different opinions. Let us have the courage to create and actively use these spaces and rediscover the art of debate – for the sake of a vibrant and diverse film culture and a strong, democratic society.

 

Further Sources

  • Arao, Brian / Clemens, Kristi: “From Safe Spaces to Brave Spaces – A new Way to Frame Dialogue Around Diversity and Social Justice”, aus Landreman, Lisa M. (Hg.): The Art of Effective Facilitation: Reflections from Social Justice Educators. Sterling, Virginia: Stylus Publishing, LLC ; Washington, DC: ACPA, 2013.
  • Dressler: Sag was! Mischen und Einmischen gegen Rechtspopulismus – Ein Gesprächskartenspiel von Diskursiv – LINK
  • Menasse, Eva: Alles und nichts sagen – Vom Zustand der Debatte in der Digitalmoderne. Köln 2023.
  • Schopenhauer, Arthur: Die Kunst, Recht zu behalten.
  • von Kempis, Franzi: Anleitung zum Widerspruch. Klare Antworten auf populistische Parolen, Vorurteile und Verschwörungstheorien. München 2019

featured image: 45. Filmfestival Max Ophüls Preis – Opening | © Oliver Dietze