Abstract
This article examines how film diplomacy operates through sustained curatorial practice and audience development within arm's-length governance structures. Focusing on German Films Service + Marketing GmbH (German Films) and its collaboration with the Goethe-Institut through the Kino Program Türkiye (2015–2024), the study moves beyond symbolic understandings of cultural diplomacy to analyze its organizational, curatorial, and audience-oriented dimensions in practice. Methodologically, the study adopts a qualitative case study design based on document analysis, program-level data, and semi-structured interviews with institutional actors. Through thematic analysis, it traces how institutional architecture informs curatorial choices and audience development strategies.
The findings indicate that Kino's effectiveness derives from continuity, thematic coherence, and dialogic formats rather than short-term visibility or promotional spectacle. By foregrounding socially critical and plural representations of German cinema, the program fosters credibility and sustained exchange instead of one-directional national messaging. The article conceptualizes this practice as curatorial diplomacy, in which curatorial decisions structure the conditions of cultural encounter.
While focusing on the German Films–Kino framework as a case study, the article situates the analysis within broader discussions on institutional coordination, curatorial continuity, and audience strategy in international film promotion. In doing so, the article contributes to cultural management scholarship by showing how audience-centered curatorial practices can function as durable and ethically grounded instruments of film diplomacy.
Introduction
In contemporary international relations, soft power has increasingly been understood as a central diplomatic resource. Joseph Nye (2008) defines it as the capacity to shape the preferences of others through attraction rather than force or payment, positioning culture as a vital instrument of diplomacy. Cinema occupies a privileged role within this paradigm: as an artistic medium and a mass cultural form, it mobilizes affect, circulates values, and shapes public imaginaries of nations. Film festivals, touring programs, and curated screening initiatives have therefore become prominent sites of cultural diplomacy, not merely exhibiting films but structuring encounters between national cinemas and foreign publics through selection, framing, and mediated dialogue.
Despite a growing body of scholarship on cultural diplomacy and soft power (Melissen, 2005; Cummings, 2003; Bound et al., 2007), the organizational and programmatic dimensions of film diplomacy remain comparatively underexamined within cultural policy and cultural management research. Existing studies tend to privilege either macro-level international relations debates or textual analyses of national representation. Less attention has been paid to how intermediary organizations design programs, articulate curatorial rationales, and sustain audience engagement over time—particularly when operating within publicly funded yet arm's-length governance structures.
This institutional dimension becomes particularly relevant in transnational cultural contexts, including the German–Turkish case, where cultural relations are historically layered and socially interconnected. From early twentieth-century initiatives during the late Ottoman period to post-war educational, scientific, and artistic cooperation, German cultural engagement in Türkiye has been longstanding and visible (Gogus, 2015; Mommsen, 2018; Öğreten, 2023). Such continuity creates conditions for sustained exchange while also raising questions of representation, legitimacy, and institutional authority in moments of political sensitivity (Melissen, 2005; McGuigan, 2005). In this context, the credibility of film-based initiatives associated with German institutions depends not only on content, but also on curatorial framing, mediation practices, and local partnerships.
Against this backdrop, the Kino Program Türkiye offers a focused case through which institutional and curatorial dynamics can be examined. Co-organized by German Films Service + Marketing GmbH and the Goethe-Institut İstanbul since 2015, Kino operates as a recurring touring program grounded in thematic curation and dialogue-oriented formats rather than as a one-off national showcase. Its format combines program continuity with contextual adaptation, placing emphasis on discussion, critical reflection, and sustained audience relationships.
The German Films–Kino cooperation thus provides an opportunity to analyze how institutional design, curatorial strategy, and audience development intersect within a transnational cultural initiative. Rather than approaching film diplomacy solely as symbolic representation, this study foregrounds the organizational and curatorial infrastructures that shape the conditions of cultural encounter.
Empirically, the article draws on a qualitative case study combining document analysis, program-level data, and semi-structured expert interviews. These sources enable an integrated analysis of institutional structures, curatorial strategies, and audience-oriented practices within the Kino Program Türkiye. A detailed account of data collection and analysis procedures is provided in the methodology section.
The article examines how institutional architecture (including funding frameworks and governance arrangements) informs curatorial decisions (thematic priorities, genre selection, and the inclusion of diasporic voices) as well as audience development practices (geographical outreach, segmentation, educational partnerships, and hybrid formats). While centered on the German Films–Kino framework, the study situates the case within broader discussions on film diplomacy and cultural policy. It considers how institutional coordination, curatorial transparency, and sustained audience strategies inform debates on the international circulation of cinema.
In this article, the concept of curatorial diplomacy serves as an analytical lens to describe how curatorial decisions—such as film selection, thematic framing, and the design of audience interaction—function as diplomatic practices. Rather than transmitting a fixed national message, curatorial diplomacy operates through selection, contextualization, and sustained engagement over time. In the case of the Kino Program Türkiye, curatorial choices structure the conditions of cultural encounter and dialogue.
The study asks: How do German Films and the Kino Program Türkiye operationalize audience development as a mechanism of cultural diplomacy? The emphasis is analytical rather than normative; the case is examined to understand institutional practice and curatorial governance.
In addressing this question, the article makes three interrelated contributions. First, it develops the concept of curatorial diplomacy by conceptualizing the curatorial act as a site where policy, management, and ethics intersect in the selection and framing of films for foreign publics. Second, it situates audience development within the broader field of arm's-length governance, demonstrating how institutional autonomy and professional expertise can coexist with publicly supported diplomatic objectives. Third, it reflects on the broader institutional questions related to coordination, curatorial continuity, and audience-oriented strategies.
Taken together, the analysis positions Kino not as an exceptional case but as an empirically grounded example of how film diplomacy can be structured through sustained programming, curatorial autonomy, and audience-centered practice.
Methodology and research design
This article uses an embedded qualitative case study design to examine how film diplomacy is enacted through institutional arrangements, curatorial practice, and audience development. The Kino Program Türkiye is analyzed as a case within the broader organizational cooperation between German Films and the Goethe-Institut İstanbul.
The study utilizes three primary data sources. First, document analysis drew on German Films' publicly available materials and reporting infrastructure (German Films Service + Marketing GmbH, 2018–2023a, 2018–2023b), alongside program documentation used in Kino's planning and communication. These sources were used to map institutional mandates, program framing, and the broader institutional context in which the program operates. Second, a program-level dataset was compiled for Kino Türkiye (2015–2024) to trace the distribution of screenings across cities and years, film formats (feature, documentary, short, animation), and audience-oriented formats (e.g., post-screening discussions, Q&As, panels). Third, the study conducted semi-structured expert interviews (n = 4) with institutional actors directly involved in Kino's design and implementation: two representatives from German Films (Simone Baumann; Fides Stark), a cultural relations officer at Goethe-Institut Ankara (Linda Rödel Çifçi), and the Kino curator in Türkiye (Engin Ertan). Participants were selected through purposive sampling based on decision-making responsibility and direct involvement in the program.
Materials were analyzed using thematic analysis. An initial inductive coding phase identified recurring patterns related to institutional autonomy, curatorial rationale, and audience-oriented practice. A subsequent deductive phase connected these themes to concepts from cultural diplomacy and audience development scholarship. Codes were consolidated into three analytic clusters: institutional architecture, curatorial logics, and audience development mechanisms. Insights from documents, dataset patterns, and interview accounts were considered together to strengthen the consistency of interpretation.
Ethical approval was obtained prior to the interviews, and all participants provided informed consent. The analysis draws on publicly available documentation and focuses on institutional structures and coordination mechanisms, prioritizing program design and institutional practice over audience reception data.
Conceptual framework
Key concepts of audience development
Audience development refers to the strategic efforts of cultural organizations to broaden, deepen, and diversify their publics through programming, mediation, education, and long-term relationship building. Rather than focusing solely on increasing attendance figures, it emphasizes the sustainability and quality of cultural participation (Maitland, 2000; Arts Council England, 2010). Within cultural policy and arts management, audience development encompasses interconnected practices such as programming, outreach, education, and audience care, positioning audiences as integral stakeholders rather than passive recipients of cultural content.
Although the term gained prominence in policy discourse from the 1990s onward, its normative foundations are rooted in longer-standing beliefs about the social and moral value of culture. Hadley (2021) situates contemporary audience-oriented strategies within a historical tradition that frames cultural participation as a public good linked to social inclusion and democratic legitimacy. Across the literature, audience development is consistently described as a balancing act between market-oriented imperatives of financial sustainability and participation-driven objectives foregrounding inclusion, diversity, and social justice (Kawashima, 2000; Hadley, 2021; Wlazeł, 2021).
Audience development is analytically distinct from both audience engagement and conventional arts marketing. While engagement refers to the lived experience of participation and interaction, and marketing often remains transactional and commercially oriented, audience development designates the strategic and organizational frameworks through which institutions seek to cultivate long-term relationships with their publics (Wlazeł, 2021). Even when marketing tools are deployed, audience development remains anchored in broader cultural and social objectives.
A widely used operational framework is provided by the European Commission's study on audience development, which identifies three strategic dimensions: expansion (attracting new participants), deepening (strengthening relationships with existing audiences), and diversification (reaching groups historically under-represented in cultural participation) (Bollo et al., 2017). These dimensions offer a practical analytical lens for examining how institutions design, justify, and evaluate international film programs.
Comparative policy research illustrates how these strategic dimensions have been operationalized in different national contexts. In the United Kingdom, audience development has long been embedded within cultural policy and institutional planning, with a strong emphasis on sustainability, participation metrics, and long-term relationship building (Cuenco-Amigo and Makai, 2017). Similarly, Australia's Creative Nation policy marked a shift from supply-oriented cultural provision toward demand-focused participation, introducing performance indicators such as attendance rates and audience retention as key evaluative tools (Rentschler, Radbourne, Carr, Rickard, 2001). Across these cases, audience development is framed not as an auxiliary activity but as a core institutional responsibility, integrated into governance structures and funding rationales. These examples underline that audience development operates simultaneously as a cultural, managerial, and policy-driven strategy.
Audience development is not a neutral or purely technical field; it is embedded in the political economy of culture and shaped by assumptions about public value, access, and legitimacy. Within cultural policy debates, audiences are not understood as pre-existing or self-evident groups, but as categories actively constructed through institutional logics, management practices, and governance frameworks. As Maitland (2019) argue, audiencehood functions less as a stable identity than as an institutional category produced through cultural policy, organizational priorities, and access structures.
Within this context, audience segmentation has emerged as a key organizational tool, enabling cultural institutions to differentiate between loyal, selective, and hard-to-reach audiences (Bollo et al., 2017). While such classifications are often presented as pragmatic instruments for programming and resource allocation, they are never merely technical. Decisions about which audiences to prioritize, cultivate, or neglect are shaped by normative assumptions concerning cultural value, legitimacy, and social hierarchy. Audience development, therefore, operates not only as a managerial strategy but also as a site where cultural power is negotiated.
These debates are frequently framed through the distinction between the democratization of culture and cultural democracy. The former prioritizes widening access to established cultural forms through public subsidy yet has long been criticized for reproducing existing hierarchies and dominant norms. Cultural democracy, by contrast, foregrounds participation, plurality, and institutional transformation, shifting attention from attracting audiences toward reconfiguring institutions in response to diverse social and cultural contexts (Hadley, 2021).
Empirical research from Northern and Central Europe illustrates how these political tensions materialize in institutional practice. Studies of German cultural organizations highlight a growing emphasis on diversity-oriented audience strategies, particularly in response to demographic change and migration (Allmanritter, 2018). Drawing on Birgit Mandel's analysis, Tröndle and Awischus (2022, pp. 1–27) demonstrate that German cultural organizations increasingly approach audience development as a long-term strategy aimed at building cultural bridges across diverse social and cultural backgrounds. Audience development, in this sense, becomes an institution-wide responsibility rather than an auxiliary marketing function.
Critical perspectives further emphasize that cultural diplomacy is not politically neutral. Cinema circulates within global hierarchies of visibility and capital, and even when framed as dialogue, transnational film promotion may reproduce structural asymmetries. For this reason, institutional design and curatorial transparency become central analytical concerns.
Such tensions become particularly visible in transnational cultural programs. Institutions engaged in international cultural circulation often articulate pluralist and democratic values while simultaneously operating from structurally privileged positions within the global cultural system. In this context, audience development functions as a mediating practice between cultural policy ideals, institutional authority, and local reception. The analytical question is therefore not simply whether audiences are reached, but how cultural encounters are structured and on whose terms.
Cultural, curatorial, and film diplomacy
Cultural policy encompasses the public strategies through which states and cultural institutions organize, support, and symbolically frame cultural life, including artistic production, education, diversity, and access (McGuigan, 2005; Hesmondhalgh, 2015). These strategies increasingly extend beyond national boundaries, shaping how culture is mobilized within international relations through practices commonly described as cultural diplomacy.
Within the soft power paradigm, cultural diplomacy relies less on direct persuasion than on long-term cultural contact and credibility (Nye, 2008; Melissen, 2005). Film festivals, touring programs, and curated screening initiatives occupy a particularly visible position within this field, as they combine symbolic representation with audience engagement and transnational circulation. Cinema thus functions not only as a cultural product, but as a mediated encounter between institutions, narratives, and publics.
Critical cultural theory cautions, however, that cultural diplomacy is never politically neutral. The Frankfurt School's critique of the culture industry foregrounds how cultural production remains embedded within capitalist and ideological structures, even when framed as autonomous or artistic (Adorno and Horkheimer, 2010). From this perspective, the international circulation of cinema may reproduce asymmetrical power relations as much as it enables dialogue. At the same time, normative frameworks articulated by organizations such as UNESCO position cross-border cultural exchange as a mechanism for protecting cultural diversity and fostering mutual understanding. Contemporary film diplomacy therefore operates within a tension between critique and normativity, representation, and reflexivity.
How this tension is negotiated depends largely on institutional design. Cultural diplomacy may be implemented through highly centralized state structures or through arm's-length organizations that combine public funding with professional autonomy (Ada, 2017). These arrangements shape curatorial independence, thematic orientation, and the capacity to develop long-term relationships with audiences—factors that are particularly salient in the field of film diplomacy.
In cultural policy scholarship, arm's-length governance refers to institutional arrangements in which publicly funded cultural bodies operate with a degree of professional autonomy from direct governmental control, while remaining accountable to public authorities (Madden, 2009). Rather than signaling the withdrawal of the state, this model reconfigures state involvement through intermediary institutions. Arm's-length governance, therefore, does not imply the absence of the state, but a mediated relationship between public funding and curatorial decision-making.
Film diplomacy refers to the strategic use of cinema and film-related infrastructures as instruments of cultural diplomacy, shaping international visibility, narratives, and affective connections. Cinema occupies a distinctive position within cultural diplomacy due to its combination of narrative power, emotional resonance, and mass accessibility, circulating through festivals, markets, educational circuits, broadcast systems, and digital platforms (Etem, 2019; Lee, 2022).
Film diplomacy rarely operates through films alone. It depends on mediating institutions and sites of circulation—most notably film festivals and curated programs. Festivals function not merely as exhibition platforms, but as networked arenas where aesthetic value, national branding, industry interests, and cultural policy intersect (De Valck, 2007; Iordanova, 2011). For intermediary film institutions, festivals and touring programs constitute key infrastructures through which cultural diplomacy is operationalized alongside audience-oriented strategies.
How these theoretical and institutional dynamics are operationalized in practice depends largely on national cultural policy regimes and their intermediary institutions. These dynamics can be further examined through specific institutional configurations in practice.
Institutional context: arm's-length cultural diplomacy and the German films model
Rather than indicating political neutrality, German Films Service and the Kino case highlight a more mediated and reflexive form of cultural diplomacy within an existing institutional framework.
Germany's foreign cultural policy (Auswärtige Kulturpolitik) has historically been shaped by an emphasis on long-term cultural exchange, institutional continuity, and international cooperation (Herrschner, 2018). While cultural policy initiatives were initially oriented toward education and cultural outreach, a decisive transformation took place after the Second World War, when cultural diplomacy was redefined as a tool for dialogue, reconciliation, and reintegration into the international community.
Today, Germany's cultural diplomacy is implemented through a dense institutional network that includes the Goethe-Institut, the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD), the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, and—within the cinema sector—German Films Service + Marketing GmbH. Founded in 1951, the Goethe-Institut functions as a central actor in Germany's international cultural presence through language education, cultural programming, and long-term transnational partnerships. Although these organizations are formally non-governmental, they are structurally integrated into public funding frameworks and operate in close coordination with broader foreign cultural policy objectives, while retaining professional and programmatic autonomy.
Within this institutional landscape, German Films occupies a distinctive position as the organization responsible for the international promotion of German cinema. Organized as a limited liability company (GmbH), it is mandated to support the international circulation of German feature films, documentaries, and short films across festivals, markets, and educational contexts. Notably, film promotion is framed not merely as industrial support, but as a form of cultural representation, frequently articulated through commitments to diversity, plurality, and democratic values. These priorities are reinforced through curated initiatives and labels deployed in festival and market environments (germanfilm.de, n.a.).
In practical terms, this mandate extends beyond festival visibility to include coordinated presence at major film markets (such as Cannes and the European Film Market), industry networking platforms, targeted promotional campaigns, and structured information services for international programmers and distributors. Through these activities, German Films operates simultaneously as a promotional agency, an information hub, and a policy-aligned cultural intermediary.
As emphasized by German Films’ managing director Simone Baumann, the organization defines its role not as a cultural authority but as a professional intermediary focused exclusively on cinema. Television and serial content fall outside its remit; instead, German Films concentrates on feature films, documentaries, short films, and animation, collaborating closely with festivals, sales agents, distributors, and cultural institutions (Baumann, interview, 2024). This sector-specific focus enables a high degree of expertise while maintaining institutional distance from direct state representation.
Such specialization also allows the organization to develop long-term professional networks with international festival programmers, sales agents, and cultural institutions, reinforcing continuity and credibility across territories.
German Films’ strategic orientation is articulated through a value framework that foregrounds democracy, plurality, and artistic freedom. These principles are not framed as abstract ideals but are operationalized through concrete activities, including thematic programming, festival partnerships, and the international circulation of films addressing social and political issues. According to Baumann and Stark, German Films places particular emphasis on democratic and pluralist values in its international positioning, especially considering contemporary political developments (Baumann; Stark, interviews, 2024).
Empirically, German Films’ institutional capacity is supported by a robust system of reporting and data collection. Annual publications such as German Films Abroad: Facts and Figures document the international performance of German cinema across territories, genres, and audience figures, providing a transparent empirical basis for strategic decision-making. These reports indicate that between 2018 and 2023, German films reached audiences in more than 60 countries annually, with animation and documentary formats playing a particularly significant role in international audience expansion.
This reporting infrastructure is complemented by a comprehensive digital information platform that provides searchable databases of German films, downloadable press kits, festival line-ups, and market intelligence. The systematic availability of up-to-date catalogues, statistics, and promotional materials enhances institutional transparency and facilitates professional access for international stakeholders. In this sense, German Films’ digital architecture functions not merely as communication support but as an integral component of its international circulation strategy.
Rather than implementing a centralized audience development unit, German Films adopts a decentralized, partner-oriented approach. Audience engagement strategies are largely shaped in collaboration with local partners—festivals, Goethe-Instituts, and cultural venues—who possess contextual knowledge of national and regional publics. As Stark notes, this model allows programming decisions to remain sensitive to local cultural dynamics while benefiting from German Films’ financial, logistical, and promotional support (Stark, interview, 10 July 2024).
The organization's role is therefore infrastructural rather than directive: it supplies resources, access, data, and strategic coordination, while allowing curatorial mediation to unfold within locally grounded cultural ecosystems.
This institutional architecture is particularly visible in touring and curated programs such as the Kino Program Türkiye. While German Films provides financial backing, film access, and strategic coordination, curatorial responsibility is shared with local partners, enabling a balance between institutional continuity and contextual adaptation. In this sense, German Films functions less as a directive cultural actor than as an enabling infrastructure for audience-centered and dialogic forms of film diplomacy.
The German–Turkish context provides an important transnational setting in which these institutional dynamics unfold. In particular, long-standing cultural and institutional linkages shape the conditions under which recurring film initiatives such as Kino operate.
While the program operates in Türkiye and interacts with local exhibition infrastructures, this article does not offer a systematic comparison between German and Turkish cultural policy regimes. References to the Turkish context are included only to situate the program's reception environment and institutional setting.
Findings: the Kino Program Türkiye as an expanded case of institutionalized curatorial film diplomacy
Building on this conceptual framework, the findings examine how these dynamics materialize in practice, demonstrating how cultural diplomacy operates through program-based curatorial and audience-oriented processes.
The Kino Program Türkiye is analytically significant precisely because it responds to these tensions through reflexive curatorial strategies that foreground dialogue, social critique, and plural representation. Rather than treating audiences as passive targets of cultural promotion, Kino positions them as participants in an ongoing process of cultural exchange.
In this sense, the Kino case does not resolve the tension identified in critical cultural theory, but makes it empirically visible, demonstrating how cultural diplomacy operates through negotiation rather than neutrality, and how curatorial practices function as key sites where this negotiation unfolds.
Institutional continuity and spatial expansion
The Kino Program Türkiye represents a significant departure from conventional models of film-based cultural promotion, which often rely on short-term festivals, commemorative screenings, or one-off national cinema weeks. Initiated in 2015 through cooperation between German Films and the Goethe-Institut Istanbul, Kino was conceived explicitly as a long-term, repeatable cultural program rather than a symbolic showcase.
This temporal continuity constitutes one of Kino's defining characteristics. Cultural diplomacy initiatives frequently suffer from discontinuity, with programming shaped by shifting political priorities, budgetary constraints, or institutional turnover. Kino, by contrast, has been organized on a regular basis for nearly a decade, maintaining a consistent curatorial orientation and a clearly articulated mission. Contemporary German cinema is presented not as a celebratory national narrative, but as a site of dialogue, reflection, and social critique.
Institutionally, Kino operates through a division of responsibilities between German Films and the Goethe-Institut. German Films contributes industry expertise, international festival knowledge, and strategic oversight of film selection, while the Goethe-Institut provides local infrastructure, venue partnerships, and audience outreach through its established cultural networks. In addition to this institutional division of responsibilities, the program's curatorial framework is shaped by Engin Ertan, who acts as an independent programmer in Türkiye. Rather than functioning as a centrally imposed model, this configuration enables professional coordination while allowing curatorial decisions to remain locally grounded, responsive to contextual conditions, and relatively autonomous.
Importantly, Kino does not impose a uniform format across Türkiye. Instead, it functions as a modular program, allowing host cities to adapt screenings, discussions, and accompanying events to local cultural ecosystems. This flexibility aligns with contemporary cultural policy approaches that emphasize contextual sensitivity and audience responsiveness over standardized cultural export (Hadley, 2021). Beyond institutional continuity, Kino's significance is also reflected in its spatial strategy.
Between 2015 and 2024, Kino progressively expanded its geographical reach beyond Ankara and Istanbul to include cities such as İzmir, Diyarbakir, Eskişehir, and Gaziantep. This expansion is not merely logistical but carries institutional and cultural implications within the framework of cultural policy.
Audience research consistently identifies access as a primary barrier to cultural participation (Bollo et al., 2017). By touring the program to regions with limited exposure to international arthouse cinema, Kino directly addresses this structural inequality. In cities such as Diyarbakir and Gaziantep—where cultural infrastructures are often constrained by economic, institutional, or political factors—Kino screenings frequently constitute rare opportunities for sustained engagement with contemporary European cinema.
This strategy resonates with the paradigm of the democratization of culture, which seeks to distribute existing cultural forms more equitably across social and geographic space. At the same time, Kino moves beyond a purely distributive logic by integrating dialogue-based formats such as panels, post-screening discussions, and Q&A sessions. Through these practices, audiences are positioned not as passive recipients but as active participants invited to interpret, debate, and contextualize films within their own social and political environments. In this sense, Kino combines elements of cultural democratization with principles associated with cultural democracy.
While geographic expansion addresses questions of access, the program's curatorial logic shapes how meaning and representation are negotiated within this expanded space.
In Diyarbakir, the program relied on local film clubs and civil-society partners, enabling Kino to reach audiences beyond established festival circuits. The curator describes strong local ownership that supported continuity over time (Ertan, interview 2024). This indicates that Kino's geographic expansion is not simply about increasing reach, but about adapting curatorial mediation to local cultural infrastructures. In cities with limited access to international arthouse cinema, partnerships with film clubs, NGOs, and local venues function as an audience-development mechanism: they lower entry barriers, create trust, and make repeat attendance possible. In this sense, spatial expansion becomes an institutional strategy for building publics, not only distributing films.
Moreover, Children's screenings organized with local NGOs functioned as an entry point not only for young audiences but also for parents, expanding the program's social reach.
Curatorial logic and the reframing of national cinema
Kino's curatorial logic lies at the core of its diplomatic effectiveness. Building on the analytical lens of curatorial diplomacy introduced earlier, this section operationalizes the concept through observable curatorial practices rather than treating it as an abstract principle. As mentioned before, rather than promoting German cinema as a coherent or affirmative national product, the program consistently foregrounds plurality, critique, and reflexivity. Film selection privileges thematic relevance and social resonance over box-office performance or symbolic national prestige.
This orientation becomes visible in concrete audience-oriented practices. To illustrate how these principles are operationalized in practice, Kino screenings are regularly accompanied by moderated Q&A sessions with filmmakers, scholars, or invited guests, foregrounding dialogue rather than one-directional cultural presentation. These discussions frequently extend beyond film aesthetics to address social, political, and historical themes raised by the films, encouraging audiences to position themselves as active interlocutors rather than passive viewers.
In addition to post-screening discussions, Kino incorporates panel formats developed in collaboration with local partners such as universities, film societies, and independent cultural spaces. These panels bring together filmmakers, academics, and civil society actors, creating discursive settings that connect cinematic texts to locally grounded debates and concerns. Such formats reflect a shift from event-based exhibition toward sustained audience engagement through contextualization and exchange.
In the Kino Program Türkiye, curatorial diplomacy becomes observable through four interrelated practices: (1) thematic curation prioritizing social critique; (2) the inclusion of diasporic and transnational filmmakers within the frame of national cinema; (3) program continuity across multiple years and cities; and (4) the systematic integration of dialogic, audience-centered formats. Together, these practices enable curatorial decisions to operate as diplomatic acts, shaping the conditions under which cultural encounter, dialogue, and interpretation take place. Interview evidence further suggests that curatorial sensitivity to local cultural dynamics shaped programming decisions in specific cities. As noted by Ertan (interview, 2024), films addressing Kurdish identity and minority perspectives were strategically programmed in Diyarbakir, where such themes resonate with local audiences. This indicates that curatorial diplomacy does not operate as a fixed export model but adapts to socio-cultural contexts, allowing thematic proximity to facilitate dialogue.
Across successive editions, several thematic clusters recur with notable consistency:
migration and transnational identity, reflecting both Germany's socio-demographic reality and its historical relationship with Turkiye, social justice and institutional critique, addressing issues such as class inequality, state violence, and environmental conflict, gender, plurality, and LGBTIQ + perspectives, often foregrounding female, and queer narratives, historical memory and ethical reckoning, particularly Germany's engagement with authoritarianism and past violence. the inclusion of diverse film formats (feature films, documentaries, short films, and animation), enabling broader accessibility and audience diversification.
Films such as Exil (Visar Morina, 2020), Phoenix (Christian Petzold, 2014), System Crasher (Nora Fingscheidt, 2019), and Nahschuss (Franziska Stünkel, 2021 exemplify this curatorial approach and reflect recurring thematic patterns within the program. By returning to migration, gender, social justice, and historical reckoning across years, Kino frames German cinema as a field of ongoing social negotiation. This is diplomatically significant: instead of ‘selling’ a coherent national image, the program builds credibility through reflexivity and critique, reducing the risk of being read as promotional spectacle.
This curatorial restraint is analytically significant: by resisting overt national self-promotion, Kino enhances its credibility and mitigates the risk of being perceived as instrumental or propagandistic.
One of Kino's most distinctive contributions lies in its implicit redefinition of German cinema. The program consistently includes works by filmmakers with migrant backgrounds, particularly those of Turkish descent. Directors such as İlker Çatak occupy a prominent position within Kino's programming, illustrating how German cinema is framed not as ethnically homogeneous but as transnational, hybrid, and plural.
This curatorial orientation reflects broader shifts in German cultural policy since the early 2000s, when Germany formally acknowledged its status as an immigration society. By foregrounding diasporic and post-migrant voices, Kino challenges essentialist notions of national cinema and aligns with cultural democracy principles that emphasize diversity, representation, and plurality.
From an audience perspective, this strategy proves particularly effective in the Turkish context. Turkish viewers often experience these films not as distant or foreign texts but as relational narratives that resonate with shared histories of migration, belonging, and exclusion. This perceived proximity enhances emotional engagement and facilitates dialogue, transforming screenings into sites of mutual recognition rather than cultural distance.
These representational strategies are closely interwoven with Kino's audience development approach, to which the analysis now turns.
Audience development as embedded practice
Kino's impact cannot be understood without attention to its systematic and embedded approach to audience-oriented practices, which are integrated across all stages of the program rather than treated as ancillary concerns.
Audience segmentation is further reflected in Kino's spatial and institutional choices. While screenings in Ankara primarily address a loyal, festival-oriented audience, programs hosted in venues such as Sinematek/Sinema Evi in Istanbul appeal to more selective cinephile publics. Collaborations with universities and cultural centers outside major metropolitan hubs aim to reach younger and less institutionally embedded audiences. Together, these practices demonstrate how audience development within Kino functions not as a generic outreach strategy but as a curatorial tool aligned with dialogue, plurality, and long-term engagement.
Continuity and Loyal Audiences; In Ankara, Kino has cultivated a stable base of loyal audiences through consistent annual programming. Repetition, predictability, and curatorial coherence foster trust and familiarity, encouraging audiences to return over multiple years. The recurring inclusion of filmmakers such as Christian Petzold further reinforces this continuity, enabling audiences to follow auteur trajectories and deepen their engagement over time. Christian Petzold's recurring presence—through films such as Phoenix (2014), Transit (2018), Undine (2020), and Roter Himmel (2023)—demonstrates how sustained auteur programming contributes to cumulative audience formation. Interviews suggest that certain directors became anticipated figures within the program, creating expectations that extended beyond individual screenings. Repeated programming of the same auteur functions as a retention mechanism: it enables audiences to recognize stylistic signatures, anticipate new works, and follow artistic trajectories over time. In audience-development terms, this shifts the program from one-off attendance to cumulative engagement, as viewers return not only for individual films but for an ongoing curatorial relationship.
A similar pattern can be observed in İlker Çatak's trajectory within the program. Introduced initially through his short film Fidelity (2014), Çatak later returned with his feature films Es war einmal Indianerland (2017), Räuberhände (2021), and most recently Das Lehrerzimmer (2023), Germany's Academy Award submission. This cumulative presence allowed audiences to follow the development of a filmmaker across formats and thematic phases, reinforcing recognition, continuity, and loyalty.
Selective and Young Audiences: The program also targets selective and younger publics through partnerships with universities, film schools, and German-language high schools. In İzmir, for instance, screenings integrated into educational contexts illustrate how cinema can function simultaneously as a cultural experience and pedagogical material. The screening of Das Lehrerzimmer (Ilker Çatak, 2023) in cooperation with German-language high schools in İzmir provides a concrete example of this segmentation strategy. The film's focus on ethics, institutional responsibility, and moral ambiguity resonated with educational contexts, allowing discussions to extend beyond film appreciation into pedagogical debate. By situating the screening within formal learning environments, Kino transformed exhibition into mediated educational engagement, strengthening its long-term audience cultivation among younger publics.
Such practices correspond with Kawashima's (2006) notion of audience education and support long-term cultural sustainability (Alnasser and Jing Yi, 2023).
Participation and Interaction: Post-screening discussions, director talks, and panel events are treated as core components rather than supplementary additions. These formats create spaces for disagreement, interpretation, and reflection, aligning with the European Commission's emphasis on participation and co-creation as central dimensions of contemporary audience strategies (Bollo, 2017).
Children and Future Audiences: Finally, Kino's collaboration with local NGOs to organize children's animation screenings signals a long-term investment in future audiences. Introducing cinema as a cultural practice at an early age contributes to habit formation and cultural literacy, reinforcing the sustainability dimension of audience-oriented cultural policy.
The integration of audience development strategies was further tested during the COVID-19 pandemic.
As shown in Table 1, the transition to online formats due to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 prompted Kino to experiment with digital and hybrid formats, reconfiguring not only exhibition but also the program's audience development infrastructure. Online and hybrid components temporarily expanded geographic reach and lowered access barriers, especially for audiences outside the main touring circuit. At the same time, interviews with program organizers indicate a clear preference for returning to in-person screenings as soon as conditions allowed, reflecting a widely noted tension in cultural participation: digitalization can extend reach, yet may weaken the collective, situated experience through which cinematic publics form and sustain themselves (Bourdieu et al., 1991; Walmsley and Walmsley, 2019).
Program snapshots and audience development mechanisms (Kino Türkiye).
Crucially, Kino's pandemic response functioned as a period of institutional learning rather than a temporary workaround. Digital tools were adopted as supplementary mechanisms to support communication, audience outreach, and partnership coordination, without replacing the program's core emphasis on cinema as a shared, dialogue-oriented practice. Rather than displacing curatorial diplomacy, digitalization recalibrated its operational toolkit, strengthening mediated discussion and contextual framing while preserving the relational premise of the program (Zagrebelnaia, 2021; Hagedorn-Saupe et al., 2015).
In this configuration, digitalization operates as infrastructural support rather than curatorial substitution. While online formats expanded access, Kino's diplomatic value remained anchored in co-presence and discussion-based mediation, enabling the program to extend its reach without compromising its identity.
This section shows that audience development within the Kino Program operates at the intersection of cultural policy, institutional power, and curatorial practice. In the context of transnational film diplomacy, it becomes a key site where democratic ideals, representational politics, and organizational responsibility are actively negotiated. This insight is central to understanding the audience-oriented and curatorial logic of the Kino Program Türkiye, which approaches audiences not as instruments of national promotion but as interlocutors in a reflexive process of cultural exchange.
Within this context, the Kino case functions less as a transferable template than as an empirically grounded illustration of how institutional continuity, articulated curatorial rationale, and sustained audience engagement can be operationalized within a publicly supported cultural framework. The case highlights institutional features—such as curatorial autonomy, transparent selection rationales, and sustained audience work—that may inform ongoing discussions on international film promotion under varying governance conditions.
The program demonstrates that sustainable film diplomacy depends on:
institutional autonomy, transparent and merit-based curation, long-term audience strategies, and dialogue-oriented programming.
Overall, the Kino case shows that film diplomacy becomes operational at the level of program design: continuity, thematic coherence, and mediated dialogue produce long-term audience relations and institutional credibility. In this sense, Kino demonstrates that film diplomacy is not an abstract policy intention, but a program-based practice structured through continuity, curation, and audience mediation.
Discussion and conclusion
The analysis demonstrates that sustainable film diplomacy emerges not from scale or symbolic visibility, but from the alignment of institutional design, curatorial coherence, and embedded audience strategy. The Kino Program Türkiye illustrates how these dimensions operate together in practice and how curatorial decisions become operational sites of diplomacy.
First, institutional continuity enables cumulative audience formation. Nearly a decade of recurring programming created conditions for trust, anticipation, and recognition. The repeated inclusion of auteurs such as Christian Petzold demonstrates how sustained auteur programming shifts engagement from isolated attendance to longitudinal cultural participation. Similarly, İlker Çatak's trajectory within the program illustrates how curatorial continuity constructs evolving relationships between filmmaker and audience. Rather than presenting disconnected titles, Kino cultivated recognition over time, strengthening both loyalty and interpretive depth. In this configuration, audience development operates as a long-term relational strategy rather than a short-term attendance goal.
Second, the case shows that curatorial diplomacy operates through contextual sensitivity rather than national branding. Interview evidence indicates that programming decisions were adapted to local socio-cultural dynamics, particularly in cities such as Diyarbakir, where themes related to minority identity resonated differently than in metropolitan contexts. This suggests that curatorial diplomacy is not a fixed export model, but a mediated process shaped by local infrastructures, partnerships, and thematic proximity. The diplomatic function therefore resides less in projecting a stable national image and more in structuring the conditions under which dialogue becomes possible.
Third, audience development functions as an embedded structural component rather than an auxiliary activity. Educational collaborations in İzmir, children's screenings organized with local NGOs, venue-based segmentation strategies, and moderated discussion formats demonstrate how exhibition can transition into mediated engagement. These practices reflect expansion, diversification, and deepening strategies that are institutionally integrated rather than episodic. Audience development, in this sense, is not a marketing add-on but a constitutive element of program design.
The pandemic period further clarifies this institutional logic. While digital and hybrid formats temporarily expanded geographic reach, they were incorporated as infrastructural supplements rather than replacements. Digitalization recalibrated communication, outreach, and mediation practices, yet the program's diplomatic value remained anchored in co-presence and discussion-based interaction. This distinction underscores that technological adaptation can extend access without redefining the curatorial core of a cultural initiative.
Taken together, these findings support the conceptualization of curatorial diplomacy as a program-based practice structured through continuity, thematic framing, and audience mediation. Curatorial diplomacy becomes observable where film selection, repetition, contextualization, and dialogue are systematically aligned with institutional frameworks that allow professional autonomy and long-term planning.
These observations carry broader institutional implications. This study remains limited by uneven data availability across contexts and its focus on a single case study and does not attempt a symmetrical audience reception analysis. Future research could extend this inquiry through longitudinal audience studies, reverse-case examinations of film circulation in different national contexts, or comparative analyses across additional institutional settings.
In conclusion, the Kino case suggests that film diplomacy becomes durable when institutions invest in continuity, articulated curation, and long-term audience engagement. In such configurations, cinema functions less as a vehicle of representation and more as a structured framework for sustained cultural encounter. Curatorial decisions, when embedded within stable institutional architectures, do not merely select films; they shape the terms of interpretation, participation, and trust through which cultural diplomacy acquires credibility over time.
Footnotes
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.