Film Industry Watch recently received the following account from a producer responding to our reporting on how public film funding in Europe is actually decided.

It is one testimony, not a court ruling. But it is also the kind of testimony we keep hearing, from different countries, in different forms, with the same basic architecture underneath: the same names, the same insiders, the same production companies, the same festivals, the same boards, and the same contempt for anyone who asks how the machine actually works.

According to the producer, the experience began in Cannes around nine years ago, after the release of an independent film in New Zealand. That release made them eligible to join a producers program. What followed, they say, was not an introduction to a merit-based cultural system, but to something far more revealing.

“In the daily round table conversations with the industry it soon became clear: indie film uses schemes. That’s what they actually teach you and call it.”

That line is worth pausing on. Publicly, European film funding is sold as cultural stewardship, support for talent, and the protection of artistic diversity. Privately, what many filmmakers encounter is something else: an insider structure dressed up as public service.

The producer says the atmosphere in Cannes was unmistakable.

“What struck me was the fact, everyone knew eachother. Like true buddies sharing a secret.”

That is a familiar description. One of the recurring problems in European film culture is that a closed circle is endlessly rebranded as an “ecosystem.” A network of recurring decision-makers is presented as a community. Structural concentration is reframed as professional trust.

And if you point out that the same people seem to rotate between funding bodies, festivals, production companies, juries, labs, and advisory positions, you are treated not as someone asking an obvious public-interest question, but as someone violating the etiquette of the room.

That is precisely what the producer describes. According to the email, things became tense when they asked why funding seemed to keep going to the same production companies, including companies connected to people sitting on boards and festivals.

“It became weird when I started asking questions about how funding always went to the same production companies that also sit in boards, festivals and are often producers them selves.”

The response, they say, was not transparency. It was deferral. A short, vague answer, followed by a suggestion that the matter be discussed privately at a Dutch Film Fund drinks event later that week.

“A fluffy 30 second answer ended by stating we should talk about this separately on the Dutch FilmFund drinks night.”

That detail says plenty on its own. Public money. Public institutions. Public-interest questions. Private drinks.

According to the producer, when they arrived at the event, they were not on the guest list and were treated like people trying to crash an important industry gathering. The same person who was supposed to explain the details allegedly passed by the entrance, did not acknowledge them, and offered no real answer once inside.

“But if I wanted I could come in and drink a free Heineken dutch beer.”

The image is almost too perfect: not an explanation, not accountability, not openness, just a free beer and a social brush-off. Later, the producer says, when they tried again to start the conversation, the woman in question “rolled her eyes and walked away.”

Then comes the central allegation in the email: that behind the soft language of industry development lies a much narrower production bottleneck.

“It’s like an oldfashion guild: you need to be able to work with one of the 3 production companies before applying for funding. If they don’t go along with it, no funding.”

That is the heart of it. If true, it means the issue is not merely favoritism at the margins. It means access itself is structured through a narrow gate. You are not really applying into an open field. You are being filtered through a small number of approved channels.

The producer goes further:

“The funding can only go through these companies, so they decide what is being produced.”

And then further still:

“The money is simply being shared between these companies and they roll the dice who is to win a price at what event.”

That is the producer’s allegation, and it should be read as such. But it lands because it fits a broader pattern many filmmakers already recognize: when funding, prestige, festival circulation, and institutional reputation all pass through overlapping networks, the claim that outcomes are purely artistic becomes harder and harder to take seriously.

The email also argues that the system’s influence does not stop at production.

“Next to that they fully control what’s playing in the film theaters since they do the funding. Hence we all get to see the same films in the whole of Europe.”

Again, the language is blunt. But the underlying point is hard to dismiss. If the same ecosystem shapes development, production, festival legitimacy, and distribution pathways, then what audiences see is not simply “the best work.” It is often the work that passed through the approved loop.

That has cultural consequences. The public is told it is being offered diversity, while in practice it is often being handed variation within a controlled range. Different countries, similar aesthetics. Different languages, similar ideological packaging. Endless talk of risk-taking from institutions built to minimize actual risk.

The producer’s description of how young talent is absorbed into this structure is particularly bleak.

“If you are talented you might end up at one of these 3 companies as a junior, sucked dry for great ideas and once your puppy trained and know the system you might be eligible to become a producer after 10 – 15 years and share in the revenue. A groom system at best.”

It is ugly language, but it captures a reality many emerging filmmakers describe more politely: semi-permanent apprenticeship, slow permission, endless gatekeeping, and a career ladder that often seems to reward compliance as much as talent. Public funding is meant to widen access. Too often, it appears to formalize dependence.

The producer ultimately decided to step back from the system altogether.

“So, after that experience we were taking 10 steps back from the industry.”

Instead of continuing to chase institutional approval, they say they turned toward direct audience access.

“Luckily YouTube is a great way to play your material we recently found out.”

After ten years behind a paywall, they put their film online. Their conclusion is striking not because it is idealistic, but because it is disillusioned.

“We decided that filmmaking is a passion and will never pay for our mortgage.”

That sentence alone says more about the actual economics of “supported cinema” than most industry panels do in an hour.

The email ends with the line that probably explains why so many institutions fear independent distribution, direct access, and voices that refuse to play along:

“I will never try and get funding anymore. I’m not a beggar that can’t choose. I’m a chooser that refuses to beg.”

There it is. The real insult to the system is not criticism. It is refusal.

Because systems like this do not merely run on money. They run on prestige hunger, dependency, and the belief that legitimacy lives inside the maze. The lab. The market badge. The drinks list. The closed-door panel. The nod from the people who already know each other.

The moment filmmakers stop believing that, the spell starts to weaken.

Not every funded film is corrupt. Not every producer inside the system is compromised. Not every institution operates in exactly the same way. But the pattern is now too familiar, and the testimonies too consistent, to dismiss as bitterness or misunderstanding.

Across Europe, the public is told it is funding artistic openness. Too often, it seems to be funding managed circulation within a narrow class of insiders.

The public pays for pluralism. It keeps getting repetition.

If you have seen similar patterns in film funds, festival programs, training labs, or public funding bodies, contact Film Industry Watch confidentially.

The post Another Producer Describes the Same Closed Loop in European Film Funding“Everyone knew each other. Like true buddies sharing a secret.” first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

By FIW staff

Film Industry Watch recently received an email from an anonymous industry source about Next Step Studio Indonesia, the new initiative tied to La Semaine de la Critique in Cannes. The source did not want to be identified. The reason was blunt:

“I am not writing this to be published as I am scared for my life and my career.”

FIW cannot independently verify the source’s personal fears. But the message captures something many filmmakers describe privately and almost never publicly: a system so small, so networked, and so punitive that even asking basic questions about favoritism can feel dangerous.

On paper, Next Step Studio Indonesia sounds like an admirable initiative. Critics’ Week says the program brings together eight emerging directors, four local and four international, to co-write and co-direct four short films in Indonesia. Those films are then presented in world premiere at Critics’ Week in Cannes as part of a dedicated “Next Step Presents” screening. The directors also pitch their first or second features to buyers, broadcasters, distributors and co-producers. Critics’ Week adds that the films are produced and financed locally, and that the 2026 Indonesia edition is co-produced by Yulia Evina Bhara and Dominique Welinski, funded by local institutions and the Jakarta government, in partnership with the French Embassy and the Institut Français in Indonesia. In other words, this is not a casual workshop. It is a publicly backed access platform with obvious market value.

That is exactly why the selection process matters. And that is exactly where the official material becomes strangely quiet. In the Critics’ Week announcement and the public Next Step materials reviewed by FIW, the institution explains what the program offers, how prestigious it is, and how it can launch careers. What FIW could not locate in those public-facing materials was a clearly stated application route, selection criteria, or recusal policy for this Indonesia edition. The announcement even notes that some of the international filmmakers involved in Next Step Studio come from the wider Next Step workshops orbit, which only deepens the sense of an already circulating pipeline rather than a clearly open field.

That absence would already be a problem. It becomes a much bigger one when one looks at the participants and the professional ties surrounding them.

In the official social-media announcement shared with FIW, Critics’ Week named the four Indonesian directors as Shelby Kho, Khozy Rizal, Reza Rahadian and Reza Fahriansyah, paired respectively with Sein Lyan Tun, Lam Li Shuen, Sam Manacsa and Ananth Subramaniam. The question FIW then asked was simple: how many of these names are already professionally connected to Yulia Evina Bhara, one of the co-producers of the program?

The answer is: enough to make this impossible to dismiss as bad optics alone.

Reza Fahriansyah has a publicly listed project, (Un)Holy, with Yulia Evina Bhara named as one of the producers, and KawanKawan Media listed as the production company. That is not a vague industry adjacency. That is a direct producing relationship.

Sein Lyan Tun also has a direct public project connection. Berlinale Talents lists The Beer Girl in Yangon with Yulia Evina Bhara as producer and Kawankawan Media among the production companies. Again, not rumor. Not gossip. A documented professional tie.

Sam Manacsa has likewise been publicly linked to a project involving Yulia. Variety reported that The Void is Immense in Idle Hours, directed by Sam Manacsa, is a Filipino-Indonesian co-production involving Yulia Evina Bhara.

The Shelby Kho connection is one step removed, but still revealing. Red Sea’s 2024 project materials list Shelby Kho’s Terbakar with Si En Tan as producer. Separately, official market and festival materials for Don’t Cry, Butterfly list Tan Si En and Yulia Evina Bhara together as producers on the same film. So even where the tie is not directly between the selected director and Yulia, it still runs through the same professional cluster.

This is where defenders of the system always reach for the same line: maybe these filmmakers are simply talented. Maybe the producer knows them because good producers work with strong people. Maybe there is nothing improper here.

That is not an answer. It is an evasion.

The issue is not whether these filmmakers have talent. The issue is whether a Cannes-linked, publicly backed, career-accelerating platform should be allowed to operate without clearly disclosed public safeguards while multiple selected participants already have direct professional ties to one of its co-producers. In any serious system, that is exactly when transparency should increase, not disappear.

And the incentives here are not abstract. Critics’ Week itself says these films get a Cannes premiere, professional events, unique visibility, meetings with international buyers and co-producers, and a possible trajectory beyond Cannes through festivals such as Sundance, Toronto and Clermont-Ferrand, with films often acquired by international television channels and platforms. This is not only cultural capital. It is economic capital. It creates future deal flow. It shapes who gets financed, who gets invited into the next lab, who gets introduced to sales agents, and who gets positioned as an “emerging voice” worth betting on.

This is also why FIW keeps returning to the same larger argument. The film industry’s deepest corruption problem is often not a suitcase of cash. It is network conversion: turning public credibility, institutional branding, taxpayer-backed prestige, and festival platforms into private career acceleration for the same recurring circles. The names change a little. The country changes. The language changes. The mechanism remains remarkably familiar.

FIW has documented versions of this pattern before. In Kosovo, we described an ecosystem in which the same people appeared to train, curate, judge and win within a publicly funded circuit. In previous reporting on Dominique Welinski, FIW examined how one person could simultaneously occupy influential roles around talent programs, curation and production. Critics’ Week itself now describes Welinski as the creator and curator of Next Step Studio, while FIW has previously raised questions about how such overlapping positions can distort fair access. This Indonesia edition does not appear from nowhere. It fits a pattern FIW has already been tracking across territories and institutions.

The concentration of influence around repeating names looks even more troubling when viewed in a broader gatekeeping context. Yulia Evina Bhara was a member of the Critics’ Week jury in 2025, and later served on the Busan International Film Festival competition jury. None of that proves wrongdoing in Next Step Studio Indonesia. But it does show how quickly festival power, producer status, jury visibility and career-launch infrastructure can accumulate around the same figures. The issue FIW keeps highlighting is not that successful people exist. It is that the same people keep appearing across selection, endorsement, production, mentoring and market access, while institutions provide too little public information for outsiders to assess where merit ends and network privilege begins.

The anonymous source who wrote to FIW described “blatant nepotism & favouritism” and a system in which many filmmakers are left “huffing and puffing trying to have a ‘shot’ or just get a tiny bit of ‘support’.” Those are allegations, not proven facts. But the documented overlaps are facts. The public funding is a fact. The Cannes exposure is a fact. The market benefits are a fact. The lack of clearly published selection safeguards in the materials FIW reviewed is also a fact. Put together, they are more than enough to justify public scrutiny.

So the answer from Critics’ Week should be simple.

Was there an open call?

If there was no open call, how were candidates identified?

Who made the final selections?

What recusal rules applied?

Were recent collaborators of the co-producers considered, and if so, under what safeguards?

What exactly were the public institutions funding: a transparent talent platform, or a relationship-driven pipeline whose key decisions remain largely invisible?

Until those questions are answered, Next Step Studio Indonesia looks less like a discovery platform than a familiar industry machine: publicly celebrated, softly defended, privately networked, and structured in a way that once again risks converting institutional legitimacy into insider advantage.

The film industry loves the word discovery.

Too often, what it actually means is internal promotion inside a closed loop.

Same logic. Same incentives. Same names.

New country. Same machine.

The post “I Am Scared for My Life and My Career”: Cannes Critics’ Week’s Next Step Studio Indonesia and the Same Closed Loop FIW Has Been Warning About first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

By FIW staff. Based on documents reviewed by Film Industry Watch and publicly available information, this article reflects analysis of patterns and structural dynamics within the short-film ecosystem.

Editor’s note: This article was updated to clarify the contractual structure described, including that the €7,000 figure relates to a capped cost framework rather than a fixed upfront fee. This article was also updated to ensure accuracy of description.

Right of reply: The individuals and organizations mentioned in this article are invited to respond. Any response received will be published or reflected in the article where appropriate. 3rd parties are invited to comment on this article as well, by contacting us.

For many young filmmakers, the most expensive part of making a film does not occur during production, but afterwards, at the point where access to festivals, distribution, and industry recognition is mediated by a small number of intermediaries. This article examines how financial arrangements, industry access, and institutional proximity can intersect within Europe’s publicly funded short-film ecosystem, and how, in that context, the line between paying for a service and navigating a system of gatekeeping can become difficult to disentangle. Similar concerns about fee structures, role overlap, and access to institutional pathways have been described by multiple filmmakers across different contexts within the European short-film ecosystem.

One example helps illustrate how these dynamics can operate in practice. In 2016, a filmmaker raised concerns after the structure of a Radiator IP Sales deal was, according to the filmmaker, understood to have changed materially at the contract stage. What had initially been discussed as a fixed upfront fee of €1,000–€1,500 plus commission was reflected in the draft agreement as a broader framework allowing up to €7,000 in combined marketing expenses, sales costs, and related fees. In today’s euro-area money, adjusted for inflation, that figure is roughly €9,300. The contract did not explicitly require that full amount to be paid upfront. Instead, it set out a cost structure – including a “non-accountable” one-time marketing fee – under which such amounts could be incurred and recouped, without a clear, pre-defined breakdown of how those costs would be calculated.

The agreement reviewed by Film Industry Watch includes a “non-accountable one-time Marketing Fee,” alongside a 35% commission and recoupable costs. The contract does not clearly specify the timing or mechanism by which that fee, or the wider cost structure, would be applied. While framed as part of recoupable expenses, its non-accountable nature distinguishes it from itemised, verifiable costs. As reflected in contemporaneous correspondence reviewed by FIW, the shift from a fixed upfront fee to a broader and less predictable cost structure was understood by the filmmaker as a significant and immediate financial consideration, rather than a purely contingent or distant recoupment. To be clear, there is nothing inherently unlawful about offering such a structure. The questions raised here relate to how such arrangements may operate in practice within the wider short-film ecosystem, particularly for early-career filmmakers navigating access to distribution and festivals.

The template reviewed by FIW grants the company a 35% commission on 100% of gross receipts, including money derived from awards. It allows Radiator to recoup marketing expenses and sales costs, and separately permits a “non-accountable one-time Marketing Fee” for market attendance, travel, and accommodation. It also grants executive producer credit to Ben Vandendaele and Bekke Films, and states that Radiator will be the preferred partner for the producer’s next short-film projects.

This is not just a story about one fee. It reflects a broader pattern described by filmmakers, in which the same names are perceived to recur wherever access is being mediated.

This is not the first time Film Industry Watch has published concerns about the conduct of a short-film distributor toward filmmakers. In a separate case previously reported by FIW, François Morisset of Salaud Morisset was accused by a filmmaker of demanding additional payments of €3,000 to €9,000 for an Oscar campaign that was not covered by the original six-year distribution agreement, and of allegedly reacting in a punitive and retaliatory manner when the filmmaker refused. FIW also reported that the filmmaker stated he felt compelled to seek the return of his rights, only to face an alleged demand for €20,000 in order to recover them.

Whether through extra fees, pressure tactics, selective promotion, or the leverage created by long-term control over a film’s future, a pattern described by filmmakers begins to emerge: once a young filmmaker hands over rights, the distributor can, in some cases, begin to function less as a service provider and more as a toll point within a bottleneck, positioned between the film and whatever opportunities remain.

The European short-film world presents itself as a benevolent ecosystem. It often uses the language of discovery, support, diversity, and “new voices.” However, many filmmakers describe a more constrained reality in practice. Resources are limited. Festival slots are limited. Lab placements are limited. Funding is limited. Distribution attention is limited. And where scarcity exists, power can concentrate around key points of access. Those who occupy these positions do not necessarily need extraordinary talent; they need to remain present where access is administered.

That is why this example is useful. It illustrates how these dynamics can operate in practice. The focus is not on any one individual, but on the structural conditions that allow similar arrangements to arise across the ecosystem.

The owner of Bekke Films and Radiator IP Sales appears across the short-film ecosystem in multiple roles: producer, consultant, industry expert, award-linked partner, festival-facing figure, and the person who sells “international distribution” to filmmakers seeking to move from one level to the next. In a more clearly separated system, these roles might be distinct. Within the European short-film ecosystem, they can, in some cases, overlap.

The relevance of this example lies in how clearly it reflects a broader structural pattern:

• a distributor model in which fee structures can involve significant costs for young filmmakers,
  
• which appears across multiple institutions,
• who is linked to awards and festival pathways,
  
• and whose name appears repeatedly in contexts where access is being mediated.
  

Film Industry Watch has previously documented Vandendaele’s recurring presence in NISI MASA / European Short Pitch, a programme identified by FIW as publicly funded and connected to wider European talent pipelines. Between 2016 and 2019, films produced by Bekke Films and associated collaborators were selected there, including Deer Boy, The Hoarder, Hunt, The Nipple Whisperer, Vengeance of the Vixens, and Creatures. In 2018, FIW documented that Vandendaele was linked to a selected film while also serving as a consultant to the same programme, and that Radiator IP Sales was involved in a Distribution Award within that same environment.

Taken individually, these roles may have independent explanations. Taken together, they may be seen to reflect a pattern in which the same intermediary appears across multiple functions within a structure presented as merit-based.

That is a point often raised by critics of the system. Individual relationships may be presented as independent and unproblematic in isolation: a consultancy here, a prize there, a festival collaboration elsewhere, a sales deal later. However, concerns tend to focus less on any single instance and more on how such relationships can accumulate over time. When viewed collectively, they may be perceived as creating networks of advantage that become increasingly influential.

It can begin to feel less like coincidence when the same individuals appear repeatedly wherever access is administered. In a sector defined by scarcity, familiar names often recur because they are already known to one another, connected through prior collaborations, and embedded within existing professional networks. Over time, this repetition can create the perception that a relatively small group occupies multiple positions across the system, moving between festivals, labs, juries, and advisory roles. From the outside, what may be explained individually as routine professional overlap can, in aggregate, give the impression of a system that is more closed than it first appears.

The issue is not any single individual, but the broader structural pattern in which the same names tend to surface in contexts where selections, prestige, and institutional access are administered. Used only as an example, figures such as Wim Vanacker are relevant in this context because they have been referenced across multiple reports where such roles and institutions intersect. FIW has noted this presence in proximity to recurring networks and programmes over time, which may be seen as consistent with the wider pattern described above. This reflects observations of a relatively small, familiar group moving across festivals, labs, juries, and advisory roles, reinforcing visibility and influence within an interconnected system.

The relationship between DokuFest and Radiator IP Sales is a good example of how that works in practice. DokuFest’s own public announcements show an ongoing collaboration with Radiator. In 2024, DokuFest wrote that it had “continued its collaboration with Radiator IP Sales” in addressing the challenge of international distribution for Kosovo-produced films, and that this partnership allows films in the National Competition to be considered for international distribution. It also publicly identified a representative of Radiator IP Sales as the person announcing the winner of the festival’s Distribution Award. DokuFest repeated the same basic structure in 2025.

This matters because it shows Radiator not simply buying films after the fact in an open market, but becoming part of the institutional pathway through which local films are symbolically elevated and linked to international circulation. In plain terms: the distributor is no longer standing outside the gate, it is positioned at it.

This is what a gatekeeping position can begin to look like.

When the same intermediaries appear across contracts, awards, festival partnerships, and talent pipelines, the distinction between service provider and gatekeeping function can begin to blur. For early-career filmmakers, this can create uncertainty as to whether they are paying for a market service or engaging with individuals already embedded in the structures that influence which projects advance.

As this dynamic becomes more common, contractual arrangements may be perceived differently. Rather than appearing as straightforward commercial agreements, they can raise questions about the underlying power relationship. In such contexts, filmmakers may feel they are not only paying for services, but engaging with actors who are also positioned within the broader ecosystem that shapes visibility, access, and opportunity. This can create a materially different power dynamic.

Defenders of such models often argue that these fees do not guarantee festival selections, awards, or industry access, and that they reflect standard marketing and distribution costs within a competitive international marketplace. That may be correct in a narrow contractual sense. However, the concerns expressed by filmmakers tend to focus less on formal guarantees and more on structural proximity. When intermediaries who provide paid services also appear repeatedly across institutions that influence visibility—such as festivals, talent labs, consulting roles, and industry awards – the distinction between a neutral market service and a gatekeeping position may become less clear. Even in the absence of any explicit promise of access, the resulting imbalance can be difficult for early-career filmmakers to navigate.

This dynamic is often described within the industry as “networking.” While the term suggests open and reciprocal exchange, some filmmakers describe it instead as a form of informal power: relationships and proximity that are difficult to quantify, regulate, or challenge. In this context, access is not typically framed as conditional or transactional in explicit terms. Rather, filmmakers may come to understand that certain individuals are more closely connected to pathways of visibility than others, and that proximity to those individuals carries perceived value.

This may help explain why some filmmakers describe a culture of caution within the ecosystem.

People outside the industry often imagine formal blacklists. However, many filmmakers describe a more informal and less visible dynamic. Rather than explicit exclusion, concerns are raised about how reputational labels—such as “difficult,” “ungrateful,” or “not collaborative”—can circulate within relatively small professional networks. In an environment where the same individuals appear across juries, labs, festivals, panels, market platforms, and advisory roles, such perceptions can, according to some filmmakers, have a disproportionate impact on future opportunities.

A commonly described experience is that formal sanctions are rarely necessary. Instead, filmmakers report becoming aware that challenging decisions, questioning fees, or resisting expectations of deference may affect how they are perceived within these networks. In this context, some describe a pressure to remain cooperative and aligned with prevailing norms, regardless of individual concerns.

These accounts point to a broader dynamic in which self-censorship can emerge within cultural industries shaped by scarcity. Where access to funding, festivals, and distribution is limited, and where professional relationships overlap across multiple institutional settings, filmmakers may feel incentivised to prioritise alignment and discretion over confrontation.

This dynamic becomes particularly significant in light of the public funding that underpins much of the European audiovisual sector. National institutions and EU programmes allocate substantial resources with the stated aim of supporting culture, plurality, and access. At the same time, public funding can also confer legitimacy on the systems through which it is distributed, positioning them as open and merit-based.

Where concerns arise is in the perception that a relatively small group of intermediaries appears repeatedly in positions where both value is extracted and access is administered. In such cases, critics argue that what is publicly funded as an open cultural ecosystem may, in practice, function in ways that resemble a more tightly interconnected network.

A contract like the Radiator template makes the logic brutally clear. The filmmaker finances the film, often through personal sacrifice. Then comes the distribution stage, where there may be:

• 35% commission,
  
• recoupable sales costs,
  
• recoupable marketing expenses,
  
• a separate non-accountable marketing fee,
  
• executive producer credit for the distributor,
  
• and an expectation of preferred future collaboration.
  

The filmmaker is not only being asked to pay now. They are being nudged toward a future in which the same gatekeeper remains attached to the next project too.

In that context, some filmmakers describe such arrangements as creating a form of dependency.

Early-career filmmakers are often described as being particularly exposed to these dynamics. More established producers may have greater capacity to negotiate terms, seek legal advice, or disengage from a given intermediary without significant consequence. By contrast, first- or second-time filmmakers may have already committed substantial personal resources to completing a project, and may approach the distribution stage with limited leverage, funding constraints, and a desire to avoid missteps. In this context, some filmmakers describe feeling particularly vulnerable to cost structures and expectations that they may not be in a strong position to challenge.

This example is not unique within Europe’s short-film ecosystem. FIW has previously reported on similar patterns of role overlap and institutional proximity. It is presented here because it illustrates, in a single case, a combination of elements that have been described elsewhere: a distribution model involving potentially significant costs for early-career filmmakers; contractual structures combining commission, expenses, and fees; repeated appearances within publicly funded talent platforms; and visible links to festival and industry pathways that may blur the distinction between market service and institutional influence.

Viewed individually, each element may have a reasonable explanation. Viewed collectively, some observers suggest they may reflect a broader structural dynamic within a system defined by scarcity, in which those positioned closest to key points of access are able to derive value from that position.

Industry participants may dispute this characterisation, and emphasise that such arrangements operate within standard commercial and professional frameworks. However, the concerns raised by filmmakers point to a different perspective, in which certain practices are experienced as part of a wider pattern rather than isolated transactions.

The central question, therefore, is not limited to whether a particular fee was higher than expected in a specific instance, or how it would be adjusted for inflation. Rather, it is why a publicly funded ecosystem appears, in some cases, to generate situations in which early-career filmmakers feel required to commit additional resources to intermediaries who are already positioned within the structures that influence access and visibility.

From this perspective, such arrangements may be viewed not only as commercial transactions, but as part of a broader system in which access, recognition, and progression are closely intertwined with existing networks.

Some filmmakers describe the underlying dynamic in simple terms:

make the film,
approach the bottleneck,
pay for access,
and proceed cautiously within the system.

Some filmmakers describe the dynamic more bluntly: that refusing to engage, or failing to align with the right networks, can carry professional consequences.

To be clear, this article is based on documents reviewed by Film Industry Watch, contemporaneous correspondence, and publicly available information. It also draws on information provided by members of the film community. Where experiences or allegations are referenced, they are presented as reported by those involved. The article reflects analysis of patterns, contractual structures, and institutional overlap within the short-film ecosystem. References to individuals and organisations relate to their documented roles and publicly observable activities. No findings of unlawful conduct are asserted.

If you are a filmmaker, producer, sales agent, or distributor who has experienced similar conduct, excessive fees, coercive pressure, retaliatory behavior, selective promotion, unequal treatment, conflicts of interest, or the leveraging of institutional access for private gain, Film Industry Watch would like to hear from you. You may contact us securely, and if necessary anonymously. Our aim is not to inflame gossip, but to document patterns, compare evidence, and expose the structures that keep so many filmmakers silent. If this system is as widespread as many privately claim it is, then the only way to break that silence is for more people to come forward.

The post Radiator IP Sales, €9300 & Questions Around Access in Europe’s Short-Film System first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

The Ministry of Culture, under the leadership of Minister Miki Zohar, has effectively pulled the plug. By cancelling nearly every long-standing state cultural prize for 2026, the ministry has wiped away roughly ₪5 million in support for literature, music, dance, and visual arts. While four prizes remain due to prior commitments, the rest have been erased from the calendar, leaving only a vague reassurance that future budgets “have not yet been decided.”

Make no mistake: this isn’t a “technical adjustment” or a clerical error. It is a structural intervention.

Beyond the Trophies: A Direct Hit on the Individual

To the casual observer, ₪5 million might seem like a rounding error in a national budget. But in the world of independent art, that money is life support. They represent the only direct line of state funding that bypasses the ‘gatekeepers,’ including the museums, the festivals, and the large institutional intermediaries.

When you cancel the Levi Eshkol Prize for literature, the Deborah Omer Prize for children’s books, or the Eric Einstein Prize for veteran artists, you aren’t just cutting costs. You are destroying:

• Financial bridges for creators who don’t have a steady paycheck.
• Independence from the need to please large institutional bosses.
• Recognition mechanisms that reward talent over organizational loyalty.

By sweeping these prizes off the table while leaving their return “up in the air,” the Ministry has replaced clear rules with absolute discretion. In this context, uncertainty isn’t just a byproduct; it is a tool used to discipline behavior.

The False Alibi of “Budget Cuts”

The Ministry’s defense, claiming this is a simple matter of fiscal pressure, is a convenient distraction. The real issue isn’t that they are cutting; it’s what they are choosing to kill and what they are choosing to keep.

True fiscal reform is transparent. It involves multi-year criteria and clearly defined replacement programs. What we see here is the opposite: a blanket cancellation with no framework for what comes next. This isn’t reform; it’s leverage. When a creator’s livelihood depends on the “future decisions” of a politician rather than a set of transparent rules, silence and compliance become the only rational survival strategies.

A Familiar Playbook

This decision fits perfectly into the trajectory FIW has warned about for years. It follows a clear three-step logic:

1. Shift power toward the Ministry: By weakening independent funding mechanisms (as we’ve seen in cinema), the government removes the “buffer” between art and politics.
2. Protect the giants, starve the individuals: Large institutions usually find a way to survive. It is the independent artists, the emerging creators, and the unaffiliated veterans who are left exposed.
3. Govern through silence: When support is no longer a right but a “possibility” to be revisited later, it creates a culture of self-censorship.
   

The Long-Term Cost

At Film Industry Watch, we have never been shy about criticizing the flaws in Israel’s cultural institutions. We have called out corruption, monopolization, and structural abuse at every turn. But replacing a flawed system with ministerial whim is not progress. It is regression.

State prizes were never perfect, but they were predictable and governed by rules. Turning them off doesn’t “clean up” the system; it simply turns culture into a loyalty test. Once art is governed by fear and political discretion, the damage to the national soul will last far longer than any single political term.

The post Turning Off the Oxygen: The Calculated Gutting of Israel’s State Cultural Prizes first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

By Film Industry Watch and Kosovar Film Industry Insiders

For years, Kosovo’s film sector has celebrated rapid international success. That rise is funded in large part by public money administered by the Kosovo Cinematography Center (KCC). At the same time, DokuFest, the country’s most prominent festival, has evolved beyond curation into training and production through DokuLab.

Taken together, public records show a tight professional network in which festival leaders also appear in KCC decision-making roles while DokuFest-linked filmmakers receive KCC support. None of this is unusual in small markets. The question is transparency: when roles converge inside a publicly funded ecosystem, how are conflicts identified, managed and disclosed? 

Since 2023, Kosovo’s publicly funded film sector has experienced substantial shifts. Under new leadership at the Kosovo Cinematography Center (KCC), the country has issued three major funding cycles: Spring 2024, an unprecedented Feature-Only call in December 2024, and a full Spring 2025 call.

All three took place within a compressed regulatory period and under the same leadership.

Across these cycles, public records show a constellation of relationships between KCC decision-makers, DokuFest/DokuLab leadership, and a group of repeat beneficiaries whose collaborations, training roles, and festival ties significantly overlap.

None of these connections imply wrongdoing. But the patterns raise structural governance questions familiar to FIW readers: issues of transparency, recusal, and the management of alleged or perceived conflicts of interest in public funding. Similar dynamics have surfaced in FIW’s reporting on Greece’s Film Center, the Cannes Factory model, and governance disputes tied to London and Sundance, where reputational damage and creative stagnation often follow opaque decision-making.

1. KCC leadership and DokuFest/DokuLab: overlapping institutional roles:

Based on official KCC publications, DokuFest/DokuLab materials, and training program listings, the following overlaps are publicly documented:

Eroll Bilibani

• Chair of the KCC Board (appointed 2025)
• Long-time DokuFest executive
• Head of DokuLab
• Trainer in multiple DokuLab programs
• Several filmmakers he trained or collaborated with are beneficiaries in the 2024–2025 cycles

Nita Deda

• Member of the KCC Board (appointed 2025)
• Director of DokuFest (2016–2020)
• Co-curator of DokuNights 2025 with filmmaker Leart Rama, a four-time beneficiary
• Former producer of a short film by Rama

Blerta Zeqiri

• Director of KCC (appointed 2023)
• Former DokuLab lecturer whose training cohorts include multiple later KCC-funded filmmakers
• Entered office before the regulatory changes governing the 2024–2025 calls

Veton NurkollarI

• Artistic Director of DokuFest
• Member, KCC Film Certification Board 
• Past juror on KCC feature-film panels
• Professionally overlaps with several funded filmmakers
  

These overlaps do not imply misconduct. However, as FIW has noted in similar cases involving public film bodies problems arise when roles converge without published recusal procedures.

2. Repeat beneficiaries across 2024–2025: a concentrated cluster

Across Spring 2024, the Dec 2024 Feature-Only call, and Spring 2025, KCC’s own lists show that a small, interconnected group of filmmakers appear repeatedly as winners-often in collaboration with each other, often tied to DokuFest/DokuLab, and often working with the same producers, editors, or crew.

Below is a non-exhaustive summary based on public documents.

A. Leart Rama – director/producer

• Spring 2024: Short Film + Post-production
• Dec 2024: Feature Film
• Spring 2025: Feature Documentary
  
  Documented ties:
• DokuLab alumnus → later lecturer
• Seasonal collaborator with DokuFest
• Earlier short produced by Nita Deda (now KCC board member)
• Co-curator of DokuNights 2025 with Deda

B. Samir Karahoda – director/producer

• Spring 2024: Project Development
• Spring 2025: Feature Film
• Spring 2025: Short Film (producer)
  
  Ties:
• Short Film Programmer at DokuFest
• Collaborates repeatedly with beneficiaries in cinematography, editing, and production
• DP or collaborator on multiple cluster films

C. Valmira Hyseni – producer

• Spring 2024: Post-production
• Dec 2024: Feature Film
• Spring 2025: Script Development
  
  Ties:
• Line producer for Karahoda
• Producer for Rama’s Dec 2024 feature
• Production involvement with Gjinovci, Hasanaj and others

D. Ilir Hasanaj – producer/director

• Spring 2024: Feature Documentary
• Spring 2025: Avant-garde Feature Film
  
  Ties:
• Collaboration with Dea Gjinovci
• Member of the same production cluster

E. Dea Gjinovci – director / KCC jury member

• Spring 2024: Feature Documentary
  
  Ties:
• Lecturer at DokuLab
• Juror in 2025 for Short Film & Feature Documentary
• Worked with Karahoda, Hasanaj, and others

F. Edon Rizvanolli – Director/producer

• Spring 2024: Short Documentary
• Spring 2025: Feature Film
  
  Ties:
• DP work by Karahoda
• Film edited by Enis Saraci

G. Enis Saraci – Editor / Director

• Spring 2025: Short Film (director)
  
  Ties:
• Editor for all Karahoda films
• Editor for Rizvanolli
• Lecturer at DokuLab
   

Such concentrated clusters resemble patterns FIW has documented in other countries where mentorship pipelines, festival platforms and public funding bodies merge into a single influence sphere, often reducing diversity of artistic voices.

3. The institutional → beneficiary → collaborator pipeline

Public documents and the Interconnection Matrix provided by sources illustrate a repeating cycle:

1. DokuLab trains filmmakers (often taught by individuals later involved in KCC governance or juries)
2. Filmmakers apply to KCC
3. KCC leadership includes DokuFest/DokuLab executives
4. Filmmakers with prior ties to the festival/lab become repeat beneficiaries
5. Their collaborators (producers, editors, DPs) also become beneficiaries
6. Films are supported or platformed by DokuFest

FIW has reported similar dynamics in other European markets where a “festival–training–funding loop” results in structural barriers for outsiders and lowers creative pluralism-a concern echoed in FIW’s analyses of Cannes Factory, Cannes Critics’ Week pipelines, and several CI-cluster cases in Central Europe.

4. Public posts reinforce the perception of a close ecosystem

Public posts show:

• Nita Deda (KCC board) co-curating DokuNights 2025 with Leart Rama (four-time beneficiary)
• KCC posting promotional content for films made by cluster collaborators
• DokuFest providing support for films whose crew also secured KCC funds
• Overlapping appearances of the same individuals across premieres, labs, workshops, and festival side-events
   

These public interactions do not imply misconduct. However such overlaps can erode public trust even when all actions are lawful.

5. Core governance questions

The concerns raised here are structural, not personal. They reflect patterns FIW has documented across Europe, where revolving doors, lack of recusal transparency, and insular influence networks can contribute to declining industry credibility and narrower artistic output.

Key public-interest questions include:

1. Recusal & disclosure
• Were alleged conflicts of interest recorded when board members or jurors evaluated submissions from collaborators, trainees, or festival colleagues?
• Are recusal logs published?

 2. Transparency of evaluation
• Does KCC publish full applicant lists, jury rosters, scoring sheets, evaluation comments, and rationale for funding decisions?

 3. Cooling-off periods
• Should individuals with active festival, training, or production roles be temporarily restricted from evaluating or awarding funds to recent collaborators?

 4. Institutional firewalls
• What safeguards ensure that festival involvement does not create preferential treatment for certain applicants?

6. What would clarify the situation immediately

To shift discussion from perception to verification, FIW recommends that KCC publish the following for each call (2024–2025):

• Signed conflict-of-interest declarations
• Full juror and committee lists, with appointment dates
• Recusal logs and meeting minutes
• Complete applicant lists
• Scores, comments, and written rationales
• Grant amounts and final decisions
• Annual festival-support contracts, including DokuFest partnerships

Right of Reply

KCC, DokuFest, and all named individuals or companies are invited to reply. FIW will publish corrections, clarifications, or full statements in full or in relevant part. If any information is incomplete or inaccurate, we welcome official documentation and will amend the article promptly.

Share documents securely

FIW accepts confidential submissions, including:

• recusal logs
• jury score sheets
• meeting minutes
• internal correspondence
• festival partnership contracts

Legal Notice:

This article is based solely on publicly available information and documents provided by sources.
It reports verifiable facts and raises questions of alleged structural or perceived conflicts of interest in a publicly funded environment.
No allegation of illegal conduct is made. All persons and institutions are presumed to have acted lawfully and in good faith unless shown otherwise. FIW will update this report if credible corrections or official statements are provided.

Sources:

(All sources are public and were used to verify names, roles, film credits, funding results and institutional links.)

• KCC official funding results (Spring 2024)
• KCC Feature-Only call results (Dec 2024)
• KCC funding results (Spring 2025)
• Interconnection Matrix (DokuFest/KCC links)
• DokuFest “People” pages & DokuLab training program listings
• Public Instagram posts documenting DokuNights co-curation
• KCC Facebook communications regarding film premieres and festival support
• Public statements, festival credits, and press releases

FIW prior reports on:

• Greece Film Center conflicts & payment delays
• Cannes Factory structural overlaps
• Cannes Critics’ Week influence networks
• London Film Festival governance concerns
• Sundance selection pipeline dynamics
  

The post Inside Kosovo’s Film Funding Loop: The Same People Train, Curate, Judge – and Win first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

The Israeli film industry likes to talk about diversity, bold voices and creative risk. On paper, it is a vibrant scene. In reality, it is a tiny, self-reinforcing circuit of insiders who teach one another, fund one another, program one another, and then review one another’s work in the press.

Two recent reviews in the mainstream outlet Ynet, both written by the same critic and both praising films by his own colleagues at Tel Aviv University’s film department, reveal just how tight and self-referential that loop has become.

This is not an isolated anecdote. It fits neatly into decades-long pattern that FIW has already documented in detail in our report “ISRAEL: Decades Long Alleged Corruption at the Rabinowitz & Gesher Film Funds”: alleged revolving doors, readers who are also beneficiaries rotating between the two, overlapping festival juries and filmmakers, and public money circulating inside the same small circle of people. What we’re seeing now with academic critics and their colleagues is simply another branch of the same tree.

Case 1: “Nana Dauri” – the review that quietly admits the conflict, but only at the end of the review

The first example is “Nana Dauri” (“נאנדאורי”), directed by Eti Tsiko. Tsiko is a faculty member at the Steve Tisch School of Film and Television at Tel Aviv University. The critic who reviewed her film on Ynet, Shmulik Duvdevani, is also a faculty member at that same film school. He gives the film a glowing four-star review.

Buried towards the end of the piece he adds a casual aside: a brief “גילוי נאות” (“disclosure”) that they are colleagues at the university. For most readers, it’s a throwaway line. For anyone who cares about governance, it’s a red flag. A meaningful disclosure would be:

• placed at the top of the article, not hidden in the body towards the end of the review and
• ideally explaining why the critic chose to review a colleague’s film in the first place.

That doesn’t happen here. The conflict is “technically” acknowledged, but practically neutralized. Worse, this is not the only overlap. According to the Jerusalem Film Festival’s own publications, Tsiko also serves on the festival’s International Programming Committee. In other words, she is a gatekeeper at one of Israel’s major festivals, where her own films (in plural) compete and win.

Taken together – the hidden-in-plain-sight disclosure, the shared academic affiliation, the glowing review, and the programming role at the same festival where the film is rewarded – the structure is hard to ignore. This is not an open field, it’s a closed loop.

Case 2: “Kvish HaSArgeL” – when there isn’t even a disclosure

If the first case could be dismissed as a one-off lapse, the second one makes that impossible. On 2 February 2025, Ynet published another raving, four-star review by the same critic, Shmulik Duvdevani. This time, the subject was “Kvish HaSargel” (“כביש הסרגל”), a feature by Maya Dreifuss. Dreifuss is also a filmmaker and also a faculty member in the same Tel Aviv University film department. In this review, there is no disclosure at all. No mention of the fact that critic and director share the same institutional home. No hint that the review is of a colleague’s film. To the reader, it appears as purely independent judgment. To anyone looking at the structure, it is anything but.

When a critic reviews one colleague and buries the conflict in the end of the text, then reviews another colleague from the same department with no disclosure whatsoever – and both reviews are emphatically positive – what you have is not a coincidence. You have a pattern. And that pattern sits in a broader ecosystem FIW has already chronicled: a system where the same small number of people cycle through roles as project readers, fund beneficiaries, festival jurors, programmers, union heads who receive funding as directors, fund CEOs handing money to business partners, and now academic reviewers. It is an ecosystem designed to reward people already inside it.

The Israeli Film Club, Where Only Members are allowed In

From funds to festivals to film schools, the Israeli film industry operates as one small club. In our long-form investigation “ISRAEL: Decades Long Alleged Corruption at the Rabinowitz & Gesher Film Funds”, FIW documented:

• alleged revolving doors between film funds and the Israeli Film Council,
• readers who simultaneously evaluated scripts and received financing from the same funds,
• festival jurors whose own films were in competition at those festivals,
• fund CEOs and artistic directors allegedly intervening in funding rounds,
• and a disproportionate share of public money flowing to a small cluster of producers and companies.
• That report showed how public film funds can become self-serving machines: a handful of decision-makers allegedly shaping what gets made, who gets financed, and who gets shut out – year after year.
  
  Now add to this:
• university departments where key faculty direct films,
• critics at major outlets who are drawn from the same departments,
• faculty who sit on festival programming or guest roles,
• and those festivals serving as the main platform for “serious” Israeli cinema.

What we see now with Tel Aviv University, Ynet, and the Jerusalem Film Festival is the same logic in a different corner of the system. The critic doesn’t just happen to like two films. He is embedded in the same institutional network as their directors. One of those directors is also a programmer at a major festival. That festival, like others, has a documented history of overlapping jurors and filmmakers, including one who has been mentioned on the site multiple times in relation to other conflicts of interests. The funds feeding the industry have documented allegations of revolving doors between evaluators and beneficiaries.

At some point, we should stop calling this “unfortunate optics” and start calling it what it structurally is: a closed, self-congratulatory circle of a small group constantly validating, rewarding and amplifying one another, while presenting the result as objective merit and open competition.

What this means for anyone outside the circle

For filmmakers who did not study in the “right” school (there are only two of them), did not pass through the “right” labs, did not work for the funds, did not intern at the festivals, and do not share offices or corridors with the critics – in other words, not part of the circle – the message is clear: you are not really part of Israeli cinema’s inner ring. If you are an outsider – someone who didn’t pass through this network of film schools, funds, festivals, and media – your chances of breaking in are tiny. You are competing not just with other films, but with an entire web of institutional loyalties and mutual dependencies. And as our readers from Israel have told us repeatedly, this does not just shape who gets reviews or festival slots – it shapes who gets money, who gets distribution, who gets prizes, and ultimately, who gets to have a career.

Why disclosure and recusal are the absolute minimum

This is why disclosure is not a technicality. It is the bare minimum of honesty. A critic must tell readers when:

• they review a colleague’s work,
• they share an employer or department,
• they’ve worked with the filmmaker in another capacity.

A festival must tell audiences when:

• programmers have films in competition,
• jurors are connected to participating films,
• funders and decision-makers hold overlapping institutional roles.

Public funds must be transparent about:

• who reads,
• who decides,
• who sits on councils,
• and who receives the money.

Israel’s film ecosystem consistently fails on multiple points. The two Ynet reviews are simply the most visible, easy-to-understand examples.

Israel’s film institutions could take immediate steps to restore trust:

• Require prominent disclosures in all reviews where critic and filmmaker share an institutional home.
• Prohibit festival programmers from participating in competitions where their own films are present, or require full removal and transparent recusal.
• Publish the names and roles of festival committees, funds’ readers, and council members, along with their industry connections.
• Establish term limits and cooling-off periods for key roles in film funds and councils, as FIW has already recommended in relation to the Rabinowitz and Gesher funds.
• Treat conflicts of interest as a design problem, not an inconvenience.

None of this would prevent good films from being made. It would simply let audiences believe that when a film is praised or funded, it is because of what is on the screen – not who the director shares a coffee machine, a classroom, or a committee with.

Right of Reply

Tel Aviv University, Ynet, the Jerusalem Film Festival, the Rabinowitz Foundation, the Gesher Fund, and the individuals named in this article are invited to respond. FIW will publish clarifications or statements in full or in relevant part. All information in this report is based solely on publicly available records and materials submitted by readers. No allegation of unlawful conduct is made. All parties are presumed to have acted in good faith unless proven otherwise.

Share Information Securely – Confidential Submissions Are Welcome

FIW relies on filmmakers, insiders, students, and cultural workers who are willing to share what institutions prefer to keep quiet. If you have information about:

• undisclosed overlaps,
• film fund practices,
• festival juries and programming,
• academic–industry ties,
• or any other structural issues in Israeli cinema,
  

we encourage you to contact us – anonymously if necessary. We do not collect IP addresses or technical identifiers. You can submit securely at: https://filmindustrywatch.org/contact/

The post Friends Reviewing Friends: Conflicts of Interest in Israeli press & Cinema first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

By Film Industry Watch

Why Festival Gatekeepers Remain Unchecked Despite Alleged Conflicts of Interest

Over the past few years, Film Industry Watch has reported on what appear to be alleged structural conflicts of interest inside major international film-festival and talent-development programs. Several figures – including Dominique Welinski and, more recently, Yulia Evina Bhara – have been repeatedly referenced in public discussions about overlapping roles across curation, mentorship, jury role, production, and festival governance.

Despite these concerns, the individuals involved continue to hold influential positions. This article does not allege wrongdoing. Instead, it seeks to examine what it means for the film-festival ecosystem when publicly raised concerns about systemic conflicts seemingly result in little or no corrective action.

A Pattern Documented Through Public Records and Industry Testimonies

Film Industry Watch articles have previously outlined alleged overlaps in professional roles within the Cannes ecosystem. These include:

• Participation in festival-adjacent talent programs,
• Engagement as producers or co-producers on selected directors’ projects, and
• Ongoing long-term collaborations that continue across multiple films.

In “Cannes 2025: Anonymous Source(s) Reveal New Conflict of Interest at Cannes,” public credit sheets appeared to show that certain individuals maintained simultaneous roles as program architects, mentors, and producers.

These observations were based on publicly available information and anonymous testimonies from filmmakers. They do not imply unlawful conduct. They illustrate how festival-related power structures may become tightly interconnected.

Long-Term Producer–Director Pipelines

One recurring concern raised by filmmakers is that certain figures may not only produce shorts created inside curated programs but continue producing or collaborating on the same directors’ later projects. For example, public records indicate:

• Arvin Belarmino was involved in a Factory-style program curated by Welinski, after which she was credited on subsequent projects selected at Cannes.
• Yona Rozenkier appears in a similar pattern, collaborating across multiple films connected to festival-linked structures where Welinski has been publicly reported to hold advisory or curatorial roles.

These examples do not establish unethical behavior. They do, however, highlight alleged structural overlaps that may create the appearance of preferential pathways for certain filmmakers, with financial potential to the producers involved, which extends beyond the original curated / produced program, which some critics see as a problem in itself. The concern raised by some observers is that such collaboration can appear intertwined with festival selection environments, especially when those environments lack formal oversight or transparency mechanisms.

Yulia Evina Bhara: Producer and Jury Member

Public information confirms that Yulia Evina Bhara, founder of KawanKawan Media, served as a Critics’ Week jury member in 2025 while also being an active film producer.

This dual presence does not violate any published regulations. Many festivals appoint active producers as jurors.
However, when a producer is involved in multiple companies or collaborators operating inside the same festival ecosystem, some observers believe this could create the appearance of a conflict, even in the absence of misconduct. The dual roles have been questioned by filmmakers who believe that festival jurors should ideally be insulated from ongoing production relationships that intersect with the same institutional circuits.

Why Do Individuals Retain Their Positions Despite Concerns?

Several structural factors may explain the persistence of these arrangements:

1. Institutional Inertia and Mutual Dependence

Festivals often rely on experienced producers and curators who maintain international networks. Removing or replacing them could create operational instability.

2. Lack of Formal Definitions for “Conflict of Interest”

Many festivals do not maintain the kind of formalized ethics policies found in other industries. The absence of strict recusal protocols means that apparent conflicts may not be treated as actionable.

3. Closed Professional Networks

The system appears to rely heavily on long-standing relationships and recurring collaborations. Such patterns are not inherently unethical, but they can reduce the space for independent filmmakers outside these networks.

4. No External Oversight

There is no independent regulatory body for festival ethics. Accountability mechanisms are largely internal, informal, or non-existent.

For these reasons, even widely circulated concerns may not lead to meaningful structural change.

The Impact on Independent Filmmakers

For filmmakers without institutional backing or established industry relationships, these structural overlaps can contribute to a feeling that:

• Festival access is pre-shaped,
• Selection pipelines may be influenced by long-term relationships, and
• Formal transparency is limited.

Even if no legal wrongdoing occurs, the perception of limited access can have real consequences for emerging talent.

What Would Improve Transparency?

Our question to the film industry is this: aren’t enough people in the industry to jury or curate these programs OTHER than the producers who also produce the films and gain from them financially? Who are not ALSO working for the festival in multiple roles? Is the entire film industry the SAME 10-20 people?

Several non-punitive reforms could strengthen trust in festival systems:

• Clear disclosure of jury members’ and curators’ production partnerships;
• Formal recusal rules for evaluators with ongoing collaborations;
• Separation of festival-curated production programs from guaranteed premieres;
• Third-party oversight, even in voluntary form;
• Annual public reports on selection processes.

These steps promote transparency and fairness.

Conclusion: A System Resistant to Structural Change

The ongoing presence of individuals whose roles have been publicly questioned – not just in Film Industry Watch but across filmmaker communities – suggests that the broader system may prioritize continuity over introspection. The issue is not any one person. The issue is structural opacity, making it difficult for filmmakers and audiences to understand how decisions are made, how programs are linked, and how influence circulates. Film Industry Watch remains committed to reporting on such patterns – respectfully, factually, and with an emphasis on industry structures rather than personal accusation.

CALL FOR INFORMATION

If you are a filmmaker, industry worker, programmer, jury member, staffer, intern, or collaborator who has information, concerns, or documentation relating to alleged conflicts of interest or structural issues within film festivals, labs, agencies or production programs. you may contact Film Industry Watch anonymously. Encrypted / anonymous communication are available, your privacy and safety are our highest priority.

DISCLAIMER

Please report any error in the article. This article is based on publicly available information, filmmaker testimonies, and previously published reporting. It does not allege wrongdoing, illegal activity, or unethical conduct by any named individual or institution. All references to conflicts of interest refer to alleged or potential structural overlaps, not proven violations. The intention of this article is to encourage transparency and discussion within the film industry.

Sources:

https://variety.com/2025/film/festivals/cannes-critics-week-next-step-studio-indonesia-1236558526/
https://variety.com/t/yulia-evina-bhara/

https://filmindustrywatch.org/cannes-2025-strikes-again/
https://filmindustrywatch.org/is-canness-factory-a-pay%E2%80%91to%E2%80%91play-scheme/

The post Alleged Conflicts, Zero Consequences: How Cannes Insiders Stay in Control first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

Thanks to a comment left on a related article we’ve been informed that Cannes Critics’ Week has announced Next Step Studio Indonesia, a filmmaker incubator launching in 2026 that will produce four short films – all guaranteed to premiere at Critics’ Week. The initiative, created in partnership with Indonesian production company KawanKawan Media and French producer Dominique Welinski’s company DW, is described as an “evolution” of the former La Factory program that previously operated at Directors’ Fortnight.

While Critics’ Week frames the project as a bold expansion of its talent-development mission, this new iteration raises familiar questions about transparency, selection ethics, and the consolidation of influence inside the Cannes ecosystem.

As with earlier programs of this type, Next Step Studio operates at the intersection of curation and production – a model that has drawn increasing scrutiny from filmmakers who are asked to trust that Cannes remains a fair and open selection platform.

A Program That Guarantees a Cannes Premiere – Again

According to Variety, the four co-directed shorts – financed entirely by Indonesian institutional and municipal funds – will automatically premiere at Critics’ Week during a dedicated “Next Step Presents” showcase.

This structure mirrors the criticized logic of the former Factory program:

• Films are produced by the same individuals who help shape or influence festival programming
• National cultural institutions fund the productions upfront, while the Cannes premiere is treated as a built-in outcome
• The “selection” becomes procedural rather than competitive

Critics’ Week’s official framing calls this an “outreach initiative.” But the practical effect remains the same: a carve-out inside Cannes for films produced through a very specific set of relationships.

To be clear: this does not imply wrongdoing or rule-breaking. But it does reinforce an industry pattern in which institutional partnerships, not open submissions, determine what reaches Cannes screens.

Dominique Welinski’s Expanding Role Across Festival Pipelines

The program’s co-producer, Dominique Welinski, is central to this ecosystem. She is credited with originating the Factory concept, which has long blended curatorial influence, international talent scouting, public financing, and premiere guarantees.

With Next Step Studio now integrated inside Critics’ Week, Welinski’s influence extends into:

• Project selection and development
• Production of the short films
• A guaranteed Cannes platform for the films she helps produce

This double position – producer of films that debut in a section in which she maintains an ongoing structural partnership – echoes the concerns raised in earlier FilmIndustryWatch investigations.

Again, this is not an accusation of misconduct. But structural conflicts of interest do not require bad intent; they simply require overlapping roles that make transparency harder and gatekeeping easier.

A Closed Circuit or a Talent Pipeline?

The program will select eight directors: four Indonesian and four international. All pairs will co-write and co-direct 15-minute films funded entirely by Indonesian public bodies, including:

• Jakarta municipal authorities
• Indonesian cultural institutions
• The Institut Français d’Indonésie
• The French Embassy in Indonesia

In effect, a local government finances films that bypass the submission process and go straight to Cannes. Then, after their guaranteed premiere, these shorts often travel to Sundance, Toronto, Clermont-Ferrand, and sometimes to broadcasters and streamers.

One cannot ignore the repeated pattern:

1. Local government funds the films
2. A single curator-producer supervises development
3. Cannes guarantees a premiere slot
4. A small network of filmmakers benefit from international exposure
5. The same pipeline is replicated in multiple countries

The official narrative celebrates global exchange. Independent filmmakers might fairly ask whether this structure creates a parallel track where access depends less on open submissions and more on who controls the pipeline.

a Merit based Festival or a Production Studio Benefiting Festival employees?

Critics’ Week leadership describes the initiative as “a different formula but the same goal.” But the formula keeps evolving in a single direction:

• Festival sections partnering with producers
• Producers co-creating the films
• Films guaranteed Cannes premieres
• International institutions footing the bill
• A small group of recurring collaborators gaining repeated access

At what point does a festival section become a production studio with its own exhibition platform? Festivals exist to discover films – not to produce the films they will later showcase.
When both roles merge, even with the best intentions, the boundary between curation and self-selection becomes blurry.

The Big Picture: A System That Rewards Access Over Independence

More than 80 directors have passed through Factory-style programs over the last decade, and nearly 50 have completed their first features. That success rate is often cited as proof of the model’s value.

But what of the thousands of emerging filmmakers who submit films every year without the benefit of:

• institutional funding
• embassy partnerships
• festival-producer co-development
• pre-arranged Cannes premieres

The question is not whether Next Step Studio will help Indonesian filmmakers. It will.
The question is whether programs like these quietly reshape Cannes into an increasingly closed circuit, where access is mediated by a handful of influential producers and institutional partnerships rather than by open, equitable competition.

A Step Forward, or Another Step Away From Transparency?

Next Step Studio Indonesia may bring new voices to the global stage, and its intentions may be sincere. But sincerity does not eliminate structural conflicts. As more festival sections begin producing the films they screen, the need for transparency grows – not just in who is chosen, but how and why.

The industry deserves clarity.
Independent filmmakers deserve a level playing field.

And Cannes, as the world’s most symbolic film festival, deserves scrutiny when selection and production become entwined.

Film Industry Watch will continue monitoring this evolving model and its impact on festival access, fairness, and the broader filmmaking community.

SOURCES:

https://variety.com/2025/film/festivals/cannes-critics-week-next-step-studio-indonesia-1236558526

The post Cannes Critics’ Week’s “Next Step Studio Indonesia”: A New Pipeline or a New Conflict of Interest? first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

Popular YouTube channel Film Threat recently covered our article “Sundance’s Little Dirty Secret: How NYU’s Elite Grip is Crushing Indie Dreams” and added their analysis to the growing body of evidence that Sundance, while still claiming to champion “independent cinema” and underprivileged voices, is anything but. The Sundance Film Festival has long billed itself as the premier stage for fresh, diverse storytelling. But as our investigation revealed, that image may be a “glaring farce” – Sundance’s lineups are overwhelmingly dominated by alumni of NYU’s Tisch School of the Arts, one of the priciest and most elite film programs in the country. Film Threat’s commentary emphatically reinforced this point, with hosts Chris Gore and Alan Ng slamming Sundance for perpetuating an insider pipeline that “filters out” true indie voices. The picture that emerges is damning: Sundance appears less a democratic showcase of unknown talent and more an exclusive club reunion for those with the right connections and credentials.

An Elite Pipeline Exposed

Our original report laid out stunning statistics. In 2025, 143 NYU Tisch-affiliated filmmakers swarmed 39% of all Sundance projects – including half of the films in the U.S. Dramatic and Documentary Competition. By contrast, graduates of other top film schools like UCLA and USC were attached to far fewer entries. This lopsided representation is “not organic success, it’s systemic favoritism” as we wrote. Sundance’s vaunted labs and development programs have been similarly skewed. Five out of the 2025 Sundance Screenwriters Lab participants came from NYU, reinforcing what critics call a “networking on steroids” effect that turns Sundance into “an extension of NYU’s campus”. Such concentration of power in one school’s hands is unprecedented given the 1,300+ film programs across the United States. It’s “downright laughable,” we noted, that a single Manhattan-based institution could monopolize opportunities meant for a nation’s worth of diverse creators.

Even more troubling are allegations about how Sundance selects its films. The festival reportedly receives 14,000–16,000 submissions each year (with entry fees up to $125 per film), yet fewer than 1% are accepted. Insiders whisper that not every submission even gets a complete viewing – many entries may be unwatched or only partially viewed, while films with backdoor recommendations from elite circles get fast-tracked. As our article quipped, believing every film is fairly considered is “as naive as believing a lunar real estate scheme”. The result is an illusion of meritocracy: Sundance touts surface-level diversity stats (over 40% women directors, many filmmakers of color), but beneath that lies a “skin-deep” diversity. The same coastal, well-heeled enclave is producing those “diverse” voices, meaning indie has become “institutionally approved” rather than truly independent.

Film Threat’s hosts seized on these findings, expressing little surprise but plenty of frustration. “Does this surprise anybody?” Chris Gore asked rhetorically, noting that Sundance has always favored insiders to some extent – but it’s gotten far worse. “You always had to have an ‘in’, but there was a chance a random movie could make it through the process. [Now] it’s gotten more exclusionary,” Gore explained. The festival pumps out press releases about inclusion, yet “while they tout terms like diversity, there’s truly no content diversity, there’s no diversity of points of view,” he said pointedly. In Gore’s view, Sundance’s supposed independent selection is largely a sham – a curated showcase of the well-connected. He and his co-host agreed this insider game isn’t just unfair, it’s also hurting the art: “They’re being so exclusionary, only letting in people from NYU or people they know or based on the identity of the person who made the movie. And what ends up [happening] is the movies are not very good,” Gore observed bluntly. Sundance champions identity and pedigree over originality, and accordingly, “the movies at Sundance are underwhelming… They’re just not good movies because of favoritism”.

Quality Control: “Underwhelming” Films and Frustrated Filmmakers

One of the most striking critiques from the Film Threat discussion was how mediocre the Sundance slate has become in recent years, in the eyes of seasoned reviewers. “Every year you comment [that] I was whelmed,” Gore teased Alan Ng, referring to the forgettable quality of Sundance selections. Alan concurred: he shared that during the last festival, “I didn’t review a single film from Sundance ’cause… I was barely whelmed by anything I saw”. Comedies, he noted, had devolved into trivial silly fare, and nothing left a strong impression. When the supposedly best indie festival in the world consistently delivers lukewarm lineups, it raises serious questions about how those films got there in the first place. Gore and Ng’s answer? Favoritism and a closed feedback loop of elite tastes picking films that cater to the same. As Gore put it, the lack of genuine diversity of perspective means “the festival circuit is [no longer] where the best movies bubble to the surface. It’s just not.” In other words, truly innovative independent cinema isn’t getting a fair shot at Sundance – and perhaps is finding alternate paths outside the traditional festival gatekeepers.

The frustration among filmmakers is palpable. If Sundance is essentially pre-selecting films from its pet sources, what hope does a truly independent outsider have? Many in the film community have suspected this for years, and our exposé along with Film Threat’s coverage seems to validate those suspicions. On Reddit, one filmmaker reacted to the NYU revelation by writing: “The hard lesson was learning that the major festivals are 90% pre-programmed. Long gone are the days of movies like Napoleon Dynamite getting plucked from the middle of nowhere and starting a billion dollar career.” In other words, the era when an unknown could submit a brilliant film and launch a dream career at Sundance is effectively over. Another commenter didn’t mince words about the statistical improbability of Sundance’s NYU fixation: “Yeah, it’s beyond fishy. It’s statistically impossible. And it’s been an open secret for a long time. Every time I ask older filmmakers about Sundance, they all say not to bother, because you have to know somebody to get serious consideration.” This sentiment – that without connections “you have to know somebody” on the inside – reflects a growing cynicism among creators. Many now view Sundance as a pay-to-play illusion, where who you know (or where you studied) matters far more than raw talent.

Indeed, the Film Threat hosts raised the same concern. Alan Ng mused that Sundance’s submission process might even warrant legal scrutiny. “I smell… a class action lawsuit,” he said only half-jokingly. Filmmakers are paying hefty entry fees (often $80–$125 per under the assumption of a fighting chance. If, as alleged, thousands of those submissions aren’t truly given full consideration, that could be a serious breach of trust. “It feels like… you’re giving them $80 and your movie is not being seen,” Ng remarked in disbelief. With 16,000 hopefuls submitting each year, the idea that only NYU’s circle consistently produces all the “worthy” films is, frankly, absurd. “Is it possible that only [one] school is making the elite of the elite movies out of these 16,000?” Ng asked pointedly, before answering his own question: obviously not. Something is clearly wrong when Sundance’s selection shenanigans (as we dubbed them) allow such a skewed outcome.

Sundance’s Shrinking Relevance?

A powerful takeaway from Film Threat’s analysis is that Sundance may be undermining its own relevance through these practices. Gore argued that the festival circuit in general “is not as important as it used to be” for discovering great films. Part of the reason is technological and cultural shifts – filmmakers can self-distribute online or find audiences through smaller regional festivals. But another reason is self-inflicted: by narrowing the pipeline and uplifting what Gore called “bad indie movies because of favoritism and identity”, Sundance is “doing damage to their brand”. The hosts noted that high-profile festivals like Sundance, Toronto, Cannes, and SXSW still draw attention, but if they keep picking lackluster films from the same incestuous circle, filmmakers and cinephiles will simply look elsewhere. “The good news is you don’t need festivals,” Gore emphasized. Great films can and will find their way to audiences without passing through Park City’s elitist filter. In fact, many truly independent creators are already bypassing Sundance, opting for direct digital releases or alternative festivals rather than subjecting themselves to a rigged game.

The core issue, as summarized by our original piece and echoed by Film Threat, is one of credibility. Can Sundance continue to pretend it’s a champion of all indie voices when insiders see it as “a rigged game… propping up a privileged few”? The chorus of critics is growing louder. What was once whispered as an “open secret” is now shouted from YouTube shows and Reddit threads. Even industry veterans like Gore (who literally wrote the book on film festivals) concede that sending your film to Sundance blindly is naive. Unless Sundance undergoes a radical shake-up – “dismantle its elite dependencies… publish full selection stats… scout beyond NYC networks,” as our article implored– it risks losing the very thing that made it iconic: the independent spirit. For now, Sundance’s claim of being a meritocratic launchpad for all creatives rings hollow. In the words of one Reddit user, aimed at any hopeful without an NYU degree: “Good luck.”

Sources

1. Film Industry Watch – “Sundance’s Little Dirty Secret: How NYU’s Elite Grip is Crushing Indie Dreams” (July 25, 2025). Film Industry Watch’s investigative article that first exposed the disproportionate presence of NYU Tisch alumni in the 2025 Sundance lineup and alleged systemic favoritism in the festival’s selection process.
2. Film Threat (YouTube) – “All Eyes on Elites – Sundance’s Dirty Secret” (Chris Gore & Alan Ng discussion). Transcript of Film Threat’s video segment reacting to the Film Industry Watch report, featuring Chris Gore’s and Alan Ng’s commentary on Sundance’s elitism, lack of diversity of viewpoints, and declining film quality due to favoritism.
3. Reddit – r/Filmmakers discussion, “Sundance’s Dirty Secret: How NYU’s Elite Grip is Crushing Indie Dreams.” Online forum thread where filmmakers discuss and react to the article’s claims. Notably, users highlight that major festivals are “90% pre-programmed” and that the era of unknown indies getting discovered (e.g., Napoleon Dynamite*) is “long gone,” reinforcing the notion of festival favoritism.
4. Reddit – r/FilmFestivals discussion, “Sundance’s Dirty Secret: How NYU’s Elite Grip is Crushing Indie Dreams.” Another community thread focused on film festivals, in which commenters call the Sundance situation “beyond fishy” and an “open secret.” One commenter notes that older filmmakers advise “you have to know somebody” at Sundance to have a real shot, underlining the prevalence of insider culture.

The post Sundance’s Hollow Indie Dream: What Film Threat and Filmmakers Already Know first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

We recently received the following email, we will follow up on this with an additional post shortly:

“Following your post of December 26, 2023, this is an update that the BFI are continuing to select their own BFI-backed films for the BFI-backed London Film Festival (see related links below). In my opinion, this is a clear conflict of interest and astounding arrogance considering that filmmakers unrelated to the BFI (or for that matter other state-funded collaborators such as Film4, BBC, etc.) are encouraged to pay submission fees for consideration.

I’m not sure how many short and feature-length films have been selected for screening this year, but some are also in competition! Examples include ‘Tuesday’ (2023) from last year’s festival, and Rose of Nevada (2025) for this year’s event in October.

Related links:

https://www.screendaily.com/news/mark-jenkins-rose-of-nevada-acquired-for-uk-ireland-cinema-release/5209329.article

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/british-film-institute_bfibacked-nationallottery-activity-7377001510565752832-fRg1
https://filmindustrywatch.org/bfi-london-film-festival-potential-conflicts-of-interest/

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14682800

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt35674521

https://whatson.bfi.org.uk/lff/Online/default.asp

The post London Film Festival – conflicts of interest first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

We received the following email from a reader and are posting it as is for the time being. Please note that the content has not yet been independently verified through public records or third-party sources. We are currently working to obtain additional information and will update this post accordingly. The views and claims expressed in the email are those of the sender and do not necessarily reflect our views or imply their accuracy.

Dear Film Industry Watch team,

Here is some information about public funding in Kazakhstan.

Public funding of films in Kazakhstan has never been transparent. In 2019, the State Center for the Support of National Cinema (hereinafter “the Fund”) was established, subordinated to the Ministry of Culture. This Fund holds a pitch session once a year and selects film projects for state funding. But every year the pitch and selection of projects takes place with scandals and accusations of corruption. The Fund’s top management has changed 3 times since 2019. The first CEO is now under arrest. The second CEO was fired after a corruption scandal. The results of the pitch held in 2021 have been cancelled.

Since 2023, the Fund has legalized censorship and approved the topics on which films can be made with state funding. Applications for state funding can be submitted only for these topics approved by the Fund. Examples of topics from 2025: love for the homeland, family, military-patriotic films, healthy lifestyle and sports, Kazakh fairy tales, etc. (https://www.kazakhcinema.kz/tpost/dm13ax9ou1-tsentr-kino-napominaet-o-prioritetnih-te) The members of the Fund’s Expert Council, who select projects, always make sure that the scripts do not contain swear words, a bad image of Kazakhstan, a bad image of the Kazakh police and army (they say this during the pitch).

The selection of projects is carried out in several stages. The last stage before approval by the Kazakh Ministry of Culture is the selection by the Interdepartmental Commission. We could not find the composition of this commission, but it is known that it includes members of Parliament, officials of various Ministries, that is, people who are completely incompetent in the film industry. And the Fund’s Expert council, which selects projects during the pitch, consists of members of the ruling party or writers loyal to the ruling party and a small number of real filmmakers, of course loyal to the ruling party.

Considering that most of the films financed by the Fund are of little interest to major international festivals, last two years the Fund is very proud that its films are actively participating in Russian festivals and proudly announces this in the news.

2025 selection

In 2025, the pitch has already taken place and the list of selected projects must now be approved by the Ministry of Culture. 11 fiction feature film projects were selected. There is not a single female director among these 11 fiction projects. There is not a single director or producer among these 11 projects with a successful filmography, either at festivals or at the box office. The directors and producers of almost all the selected fiction projects had previously made TV-series for Kazakh state TV-channels. This is not surprising, since the current CEO of the Fund used to work at Kazakh state TV channels and he is completely incompetent in the film industry.

One of the selected projects (“Сыбыс”) is the first feature film with a 29-page script (only one member of the Fund’s Expert Council asked about the number of pages of the script). The director of this project is little known, but the producer received financing for another film from the Fund in 2023.

One of the most expensive selected projects is the feature film (“Кунес”) with the requested state funding in the amount of 559 million KZT (1 million USD). It was presented by the producer and the scriptwriter during the pitch and at the pitch they said that the director of the film is not yet known. We think this is the first case in world history when a project with a large budget is selected without even knowing who the director will be.

6 of the 11 fiction projects selected had directors or producers who had previously received Fund funding, and these Fund-financed films had not been successful at festivals or at the box office.

https://www.kazakhcinema.kz/page43211353.html – the official site of the State Center for the Support of National Cinema.

Thank you for your work and site.

All the best,

An independent Kazakh filmmaker

The post Kazakh State Center for the Support of National Cinema: Alleged corruption, favoritism, sexism, censorship & friendship with Russia. first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

Following the publication of our reader-submitted reports on May 30 and July 7, 2025, regarding Armenia’s new cash rebate scheme and broader developments in the country’s film sector (here and here), the Cinema Foundation of Armenia (CFA) has issued the following official response.

The CFA challenges key claims made in the reports, particularly those regarding the legality of Government Decision 412-N and the alleged conflict of interest involving its Executive Director. The Foundation defends its processes as legally grounded, transparent, and in line with international practice. It also clarifies the nature of its collaboration with international partners such as Netflix.

As always, Film Industry Watch remains open to publishing a range of perspectives, and we welcome further responses, documentation, or commentary from any individuals or institutions with relevant insight. The text of the CFA’s statement appears below:

Dear Editorial Board,

The Cinema Foundation of Armenia, in response to the articles published by you on May 30, 2025, titled “Armenia’s Cash Rebate Plan for Foreign Films Faces Legal and Ethical Challenges” and on July 7, 2025, titled “Armenia: Turbulence in the Local Film Industry”, finds it necessary to clarify a number of facts and to refute the one-sided and unfounded claims made in the publications.

The decision of the Government of the Republic of Armenia No. 412-N of April 10, 2025, “on approving the procedure and conditions for issuing, rejecting and terminating the cash rebate in the field of filmmaking, as well as the list of products, services, and works directly related to filmmaking that are included in the expenses eligible for cash rebate, along with the conditions and standards for defining and calculating the amount of financial expenses subject to rebate” stems from the terms of the Law of the Republic of Armenia “On Cinematography” and has been developed by the RA Ministry of Education, Science, Culture and Sports, the body implementing the sectoral policy, along with the involvement of other state administrative bodies, which have provided their opinions on the draft decision. The version submitted to the government took into account all opinions. The 35% rebate threshold falls within the legally permitted range (10–40%) and is implemented as an incentive mechanism, consistent with international practices.

Second, the article’s assumptions regarding a conflict of interest between the Executive Director of the Cinema Foundation and the company “People of Ar” do not reflect reality. Legally, the above-mentioned memorandums were preparatory and did not confirm any funding or support. Moreover, by the time of the project’s development and implementation, Davit Banuchyan had not yet assumed the position of Executive Director of the Cinema Foundation of Armenia, and therefore, no discriminatory decision was made. Additionally, the Foundation’s decision-making processes are governed by transparent oversight procedures involving independent experts and industry representatives.

Regarding the comments made about collaboration with Netflix, we must clarify that international partnerships are subject to confidential agreements and phased negotiations. Any information is published only upon mutual consent of the parties, with corresponding documentation in place. The Cinema Foundation of Armenia is not a party to those agreements. Therefore, the idea presented in the article that the Cinema Foundation operates through a closed or limited mechanism is fundamentally contrary to our mission and mode of operation. The Cinema Foundation functions based on the principles of open governance, professional assessment, and legal transparency, and will continue to ensure fair, professional, and legally defined funding procedures in the cultural field.

Respectfully,

Department of Public Relations
Cinema Foundation of Armenia
Address: 3A Teryan Street
Email: info@cfarmenia.am / pr@cfarmenia.am
Phone: +374 10522032
www.cfarmenia.am

Analysis of response:

Legality of Government Decision 412-N (10 April 2025)

CFA’s claim: The 25–35% rebate framework in Decision 412-N was developed lawfully, falls within the 10–40% range set by the Law on Cinematography, and incorporated feedback from relevant state bodies.

Analysis:
This is partially true, but slightly evasive.
The issue raised in the original report was not that 25–35% is outside the legal range, but that fixing the rebate within a narrower sub-range by government decision—rather than leaving it to project-specific evaluation—may contradict the law’s intent, which envisages a flexible 10–40% band.

Furthermore, internal Ministry of Finance documents (as cited in the original report) warned against adopting the fixed-range model without a corresponding amendment to the law. CFA’s response does not directly engage with that legal tension—nor with the procedural question of whether a subordinate act (412-N) can supersede the higher-ranking statute without a formal legislative change.

Conflict of interest regarding Davit Banuchyan and People of Ar

CFA’s claim: No conflict of interest exists. The memorandums were non-binding. Banuchyan had not yet taken office when they were signed, and decisions are made with expert input and oversight.

Analysis:
This glosses over key facts without fully resolving the concern.
It is correct that the four-party MoU involving People of Ar was signed in December 2023, and Banuchyan became acting director in May 2024. But the concern raised in the reports is about:

• The continuing public appearance of Banuchyan being listed on People of Ar’s website (as of 2025) as “Co-producer / Tax Rebate Supervisor”;
• The unusual alignment between the memorandum’s terms and the subsequent rebate rules;
• The close professional ties between Banuchyan and Arman Nshanian (People of Ar CEO), reinforced by documented joint appearances at closed-door meetings and site visits.
  

Even if no formal conflict exists under Armenian law, there remains an unresolved perception of overlapping roles that CFA’s statement does not address in detail. Simply asserting “no discriminatory decision was made” doesn’t disprove potential bias.

Netflix collaboration and confidentiality

CFA’s claim: Netflix-related negotiations are confidential; CFA is not a party to those agreements.

Analysis:
This is plausible and largely fair.
International partnerships often involve NDAs and staged negotiations. The original report criticized the vague and premature announcements of such deals, not the existence of confidentiality clauses per se.

Still, the CFA’s distancing itself from the process (“we are not a party to those agreements”) is notable—especially since its own public materials in late 2024 and early 2025 highlighted high-level talks with international streamers, giving the impression of active participation.

Conclusion

The CFA’s reply addresses some technical issues (legal range of rebates, signing dates), but largely sidesteps the core concerns: whether decision-making has been unduly influenced by private interests, whether rules were legally and transparently adopted, and whether public trust in the process has been sufficiently protected.

The post Rebuttal Regarding the Articles “Armenia’s Cash Rebate Plan for Foreign Films” and “Armenia: Turbulence in the Local Film Industry” first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

If you’ve ever tried to raise money for a film production, ask yourself this: how much easier would it be if the project you were pitching came with a guaranteed Cannes premiere through a curated program?

Back in February 2024, we received the following emails:

“We share your observation in the contents of your email. There are silent whispers indeed going around within the industry circle about film funding getting regulated by some decision makers themselves. These are not really expressed officially and with honesty so your email is a first to put it out there in writing. 

You may also want to investigate or at least look into the Director Factory in Cannes co-selected by a person whose company is the one also co-producing the funded short films of all the directors from the Philippines. We do not have first-hand information on how the Director Factory Phillippines are selected, but some filmmakers have expressed concerned about such conflict of interest. The producer is reported to have sought support from local government offices for film locations.

The lines are becoming very thin when people come together to forge alliances and collaborations but it’s becoming apparent that opportunities are now becoming exclusive within a circle of friends and colleagues. Please keep us anonymous as you look into this closely as we only receive information from filmmakers who come to our doors with this open information. 

A following email reads:

We are not sure about the mechanics of the Director’s Factory (and please let us know should you find out) but from what was shared by other filmmakers, Bianca Balbuena, founder of Epic Media, is part of the selection committee and co-organizer of the program. 

But at the same time, Epic Media is producing the films being mounted — [according to this source] soliciting finances from various sectors in the Philippines, including politicians. The film location of one of the films is in a resort in a remote south of the Philippines owned by a town’s Mayor. The Mayor’s family was solicited to give money in exchange of location promotion through the film. While the local government can provide manpower, logistics and location permit, it is not mandated to provide money to any private film company as it is anti-public trust. 

Maybe these things are legally done in other places, but some filmmakers believe there’s clearly conflict of interest if you’re co-organizing an international and prestigious program in Cannes to supposedly help filmmakers and young producers to stand up on their own, but for Epic Media to simultaneously manage the productions and handle financing in producing the curated films (by them) has raised concerns among some filmmakers about how best to safeguard impartiality in such high-profile programs. We are not sure though if Cannes Director Factory provides any grant support to the selected filmmakers or just a platform to launch their film when ready… reason maybe Epic Media was just trying to help… 

Dominique was not mentioned directly by the filmmakers, but some have raised questions about a possible association with Epic Media in the Philippines. At this time, we have not found evidence of such a connection.

And finally, another email reads:

The films I mentioned in our last emails will premiere soon at the Cannes’ fortnight this May. Producers (including relatives of the local politicians who gave money to the production house assigned by Cannes to produce the films) will all attend. 

At first, we didn’t know what to make of these emails. But after this year’s Cannes – where once again, the curator of the Factory program also happened to be the producer of a director with multiple films in the festival – the picture became clearer. Cannes’ Factory, according to some industry observers, has been described as resembling, allegedly, a pay-to-play model—raising concerns about equity and transparency.

pay-to-play in the world’s premiere film festival

So now, let us ask again – how much easier would it be if the project you were pitching came with a guaranteed Cannes premiere through a curated program?

Essentially, that’s what the Factory program offers – a mechanism to fund films that are guaranteed a screening at Cannes. The curator and producer of the program also serves as the producer of the films, which are often financed with public funds from the host countries. In many cases, this same producer worked with the directors as producer of their films, before the program, during the program, and continues to work with them after their participation in the Factory program, ensuring gains from the Cannes exposure which spans multiple years. The producer’s dual role – curating and producing films – has drawn attention to potential overlap between programming decisions and commercial benefit, though the model operates within festival rules.

The Uncomfortable Truth About Institutional Money and Festival Access

The Directors’ Factory program at Cannes’ Directors’ Fortnight represents a sophisticated form of what can be seen as a “pay-to-play-by-proxy” – a system where public institutions effectively purchase guaranteed festival slots through a complex web of cultural funding, private production deals, and curatorial control that concentrates unusual power in the hands of a single individual. Since its inception in 2013, the Factory has operated under a business model that, while technically legal and within festival guidelines, raises serious ethical questions about transparency, conflict of interest, and the commodification of one of cinema’s most prestigious platforms

How the System Actually Works

Created by a French producer which we will not name here, the Factory pairs eight emerging filmmakers – four from a host country and four international directors – to co-create four 15-minute short films that are guaranteed to open the Directors’ Fortnight each May. This guarantee exists before a single frame is shot, making it fundamentally different from the competitive submission process that governs most festival programming.

The funding pattern across Factory editions reveals the systematic involvement of public money. In Taiwan (2013), the Taipei Film Commission funded the program. The Nordic edition (2014) was backed by the Danish Film Institute, Finnish Film Foundation, and Copenhagen Film Fund, supplemented by equipment donations from companies seeking the Cannes exposure. Chile’s 2015 edition received support from CinemaChile and the country’s National Council for Culture and Arts. The 2024 Philippines edition was funded by the Quezon City Film Commission and other local government entities.

This creates what some describe as a “cultural diplomacy premium” – host countries and regions pay substantial sums for what they perceive as invaluable soft-power branding on cinema’s most photographed red carpet.

The Conflict of Interest at the Program’s Core

The most troubling aspect of the Factory model lies in the curators / producer dual role. The producer of the event simultaneously serves as:

• Curator: Selecting which filmmakers participate.
• Producer: Taking producer credits and retaining rights on all resulting films.
• Beneficiary: Profiting financially from projects they personally greenlit.
  
  

The pattern extends beyond the Factory itself. As we’ve seen, this producer has repeatedly leveraged her festival connections to advance the careers of specific directors she produces. Israeli filmmaker Yona Rozenkier, whom she produces, saw his films selected for Cannes Official Selection in 2019, followed by his short film screening at Directors’ Fortnight the same year, and his feature project included in L’Atelier—a program where she serves as consultant. Filipino director Arvin Belarmino followed a similar trajectory from Factory participant to Cannes competition.

The Business Model: Leveraging Prestige for Profit

This producer has been remarkably candid about the Factory’s commercial logic. As she explained: “We made the film and screened it in Cannes the first year… it worked. Since then I’ve changed the country every year… They end up with a short film in Cannes, and a Cannes stamp on their feature project”.

This “Cannes stamp” becomes a powerful fundraising tool. Local partners bankroll the shorts specifically to use the prestigious première to pitch the directors’ first features during the festival’s market, hoping the prestige will accelerate larger financing rounds. The Factory, some argue, functions more as a high-end networking and business development program than as a purely cultural exchange.

As long as powerful individuals can simultaneously control both the selection and monetization of festival programming, emerging filmmakers may find themselves navigating systems that, while legal, appear to favor those with existing institutional ties, raising broader questions about transparency, access, and how cultural prestige is distributed in today’s festival ecosystem.

A Sophisticated Cultural-Commercial Alliance

The relationship between this curator / producer and various bodies which are looking to fund films that will screen in Cannes represents more than simple co-production partnership. It constitutes a sophisticated alliance that:

1. Monetizes Cultural Diplomacy: Transforms public cultural funding into private commercial opportunities.
2. Leverages Institutional Access: Uses festival programming positions to create business opportunities.
3. Creates Systematic Pathways: Establishes predictable routes for filmmaker career advancement outside traditional merit-based selection.
4. Operates Across Multiple Territories: Develops a sustainable international business model based on institutional relationships rather than purely creative merit.
   

While not technically hidden, the full scope and financial implications of this partnership remain largely undisclosed to the public institutions providing funding and the filmmaking community competing for festival access. The relationship exemplifies how contemporary film festival culture increasingly operates through networks of institutional relationships rather than purely artistic considerations.

We would absolutely hate to publish anything which is not factual or accurate. If you find any mistake, be it a fact, or a logical error, or the interpretation of the facts presented, please contact us. All views expressed in this article are based on information provided by third parties and publicly available sources. We make no definitive claims about the conduct of any individual or organization. If you identify any factual inaccuracies, logical errors, or misinterpretations, we welcome your response and will promptly consider corrections.

SOURCES:

https://variety.com/2023/film/news/quinzaine-film-training-directors-factoryphilippines-1235803629

https://www.quinzaine-cineastes.fr/en/directors-factory-2024
https://variety.com/2024/film/news/cannes-directors-factory-philippines-1235953207/
https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/lifestyle/artandculture/908533/cannes-2024-directors-factory-philippines/story/
https://qcinema.ph/directors-factory-philippines
https://vogue.ph/lifestyle/bianca-balbuena-on-viet-and-nam-and-directors-factory/
https://cinando.com/en/Company/dw_28391/Detail
https://www.torinofilmlab.it/people/654851/Dominique-Welinski
https://www.imdb.com/news/ni64334535/
https://horsdubocal.eu/films/silig
https://www.epicmedia.ph/the-directors-factory-philippines
https://qcfilmcommission.ph/news-and-updates/quezon-city-film-commission-and-qcinema-launch-expanded-industry-programs-78th
https://www.philstar.com/entertainment/2024/11/19/2401168/after-cannes-and-qcinema-directors-factory-philippines-films-make-homecoming-premiere-dapitan
https://cinemadedemain.festival-cannes.com/en/networking/decision-makers/dominique-welinski-2/

The post Is Cannes’s Factory a pay‑to‑play scheme? first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

An update to this post – Oppressed Voices from Turkey, the US and Israel – is published here.

Earlier this month we published a detailed exposé on the gender imbalance and institutional corruption permeating Israel’s publicly funded cinema ecosystem. We showed how the Ophir Awards, the nation’s most prestigious film prize, had reached an extreme point of political manipulation – 11 women and just 1 man (not Jewish) nominated in writing and directing categories. It’s the kind of engineered imbalance that, if reversed, would provoke protests and formal inquiries. In Israel, it’s being marketed as progress. Israeli men, apparently, are good for one thing only – kill and be killed in wars.

Now, new information confirms that the discrimination is not an isolated incident – it has taken over Israel’s flagship festival, the 2025 Jerusalem Film Festival, currently taking place this week. The Israeli Narrative Feature Competition, long considered the highest national stage for fiction filmmaking, is now a tightly controlled showcase of identity politics, cronyism, and gatekeeping.

The Numbers Speak for Themselves

The 2025 Haggiag Award Competition features eight films, of which seven are directed or co-directed by women. Among the ten individual directors, only 1 is a male director, and 2 are co-directors with women. The screenwriting credits are skewed in the same way. Here is the breakdown:

Source: Times of Israel, 13 July 2025 (Haggiag Competition announcement)

Israel’s Film Industry – Merit or Discrimination?

Thanks to deep ties in the Israeli film industry we’ve been able to write a number of articles about the local scene. One of these articles details how Katriel Schory, long-time legendry and first CEO of the Israeli Film Fund who had been running it from its inception for more than twenty years, allegedly approved a production grant of 1,000,000 NIS for The Last Cinema Show in Bucharest, a film connected to his wife Naomi Schory and her business partner Lodi Boken, just before the end of his tenure. We’ve published several articles about the Israeli film funds – The Rabinovich fund, Gesher, and the “Israeli film fund” , detailing a culture of revolving doors and alleged nepotism that stretch for decades.

After Katriel Schory was succeeded, first by Lisa Shiloach-Uzrad, then by Noa Regev (former head of the Jerusalem Film Festival), and Dana Blankstein Cohen was appointed as head of the Jerusalem Sam Spiegel Film School, all women, there was a sudden and significant rise in the number of female filmmakers being funded, selected, and awarded across the Israeli film ecosystem. Let’s take a closer look at part of an email we received regarding our article covering the 10th edition of the Jerusalem Film Lab, held in 2020, an event where statistical analysis revealed a 99.984% probability that gender-based bias influenced its proceedings, including the selection of the winning projects:

…. I’ve taken part of the lab in a certain capacity and can confirm that your facts are correct. There were 8 female participants and 4 male. There were indeed three “Masterclasses” (though really they were just 90 minute Zoom chats, this lab too place during covid) with established filmmakers and all three were women. There were seven jury members, six women and one man, who was the head (or artistic director?) of Tribeca, a festival known for being quite woke. All four awards went to projects led by women, and I can confirm your impression: it felt like the entire event was engineered in a way that didn’t give the men a fair chance. I say this for two reasons:

1. During the event, after one of the male participants finished his pitch, which was for a project that was backed by major international producers, the jury didn’t ask him the usual two questions like they did with all the female participants. Instead they asked just one question which was about the film’s title basically accusing him of making up a name (which wasn’t true). Later when the filmmaker spoke about the research he had done for the script the head of the jury cut him off and said, “we don’t have any proof of that” (the director doing research) which was both rude and very strange.

2. The lab was headed by a local producer who is known to be an activist. As an example for what I mean by that – during the George Floyd riots in the US this producer posted on Facebook something to the effect of “all women should unite and stand against male violence” implying something like that all men are violent or that only men are capable of violence, or something like that. I believe that after some backlash that post was deleted.

Israeli filmmakers are between a rock and a hard place. We want to support our female colleagues but what’s happening seems extreme. If they wanted to give all four awards to women they could have just announced it before or during the event and not let these poor guys prepare pitches, shoot scenes, and go through the motions. I’m pretty sure that the male filmmakers would have been fine with it. But why put up such a show? To humiliate?

This is not gender equality. It’s ideological overreach – an 87.5% female directorial slate following decades of male majority may sound like poetic justice to some, but to serious observers, it’s a sign that Israel has replaced corruption and some merit with corruption and gender metrics.

The Israeli Film Industry Is Not Just Biased – It’s Closed

This is not only about one festival lineup. This is about the system that produced it. The 2025 competition exposes the full extent of cronyism, insider domination, and ideological gatekeeping that now define the Israeli film scene.

Festival Gatekeepers Competing in Their Own Arena

Eti Tsicko, director of Nandauri, is listed as a member of the Jerusalem Film Festival’s International Programming Committee. In other words, she helped curate the very slate in which her film is now competing for Israel’s top prize. This kind of conflict of interest would be unthinkable in most democratic institutions, yet in Israel’s elite cultural circles, it goes unchecked and unchallenged. While Israel’s cultural elites – dominated by radical left-wing voices – are quick to denounce corruption in the right-wing government, they are themselves guilty of the very same abuses: cronyism, favoritism, and systemic discrimination.

Sam Spiegel: The Closed Loop

Five of the seven women directors are alumni of Jerusalem’s Sam Spiegel Film School or its International Film Lab:

• Michal Brezis
• Or Sinai
• Sharon Engelhart
• Veronica N. Tetelbaum
• Zohar Shahar (via Bezalel but linked to the Lab network)

The Sam Spiegel Lab holds its final project pitch session inside the Jerusalem Film Festival—just before the selection committees finalize the competition lineup. This gives its graduates insider visibility and privileged access that others simply cannot match.

What results is an echo chamber of mentors, funders, alumni and committee members rewarding each other in a tight, impenetrable loop—leaving little room for anyone outside the network, especially male newcomers.

Netalie Braun: Power Beyond the Screen

Among the most prominent names this year is Netalie Braun, whose film Oxygen is in competition. Braun is no outsider—she is deeply embedded in the Israeli cultural elite:

• She has taught film at Tel Aviv University, one of the two dominant film schools in the country.
• She has served as a juror at multiple Israeli and international festivals over the past decade.
• She has received repeated funding from public institutions for prior documentary work.
• Her father, as she noted in an interview, was a recipient of Israel’s highest military honor, giving her significant cultural capital from the outset.

While none of this is inherently wrong, it paints a picture of an industry where gatekeepers are also competitors, and where established insiders – especially women – benefit from a system they now openly control and manipulate in their favour.

For Israel’s male filmmakers – especially emerging talents – the message is clear: you will not be judged by your work, but by who you are. If you are not a woman, preferably with a minority background or institutional connection, your odds of selection are slim. This is not speculation. It’s borne out in the data:

Had these ratios been reversed, the outcry would be deafening.

A Hostile Environment for New Talent

Israel’s new generation of male filmmakers now faces a cultural landscape where:

• Selection committees are staffed by competitors,
• Film labs funnel their alumni directly into festivals,
• Funders favor identity politics over vision, and
• Criticism of this bias is labelled misogyny or bigotry.

This creates a climate of fear, resignation, and disengagement. Talented men are either discouraged from applying at all or feel forced to attach a female co-director simply to be considered. International festivals are increasingly seen as the only hope for fair assessment.

How can any healthy cultural ecosystem survive when half the population is told they’re unwelcome unless they play the identity game?

This Is Not Inclusion — It’s Discrimination & Corruption

Let’s be very clear: This is not about opposing female filmmakers. It’s about defending artistic freedom, transparency, and fairness.
Discrimination – whether against men or women – is wrong. And in Israel today, the institutional pendulum has swung so far left that it has abandoned the values it once claimed to fight for.

We urge Israeli cultural leaders, international partners, and the press to take a stand. Three immediate reforms should be implemented:

1. No festival selectors should be eligible for competition.
2. Blind first-round selection (no names, no gender) must become standard.
3. Gender caps should apply in both directions: no more than 60% of either sex.

Until then, the Jerusalem Film Festival, and the Israeli film industry as a whole, will remain not a celebration of cinema, but a case study in how identity politics, institutional cronyism, and unchecked favoritism can destroy the very meritocracy on which art depends.

Taken together, the features, shorts, and Ophir nominations form an undeniable through‑line: the Israeli film establishment has replaced open competition with an ideological quota system, reinforced by closed‑loop school networks and blatant conflicts of interest.

We thank the brave Israeli filmmakers who have spoken out and shared this crucial information. Israel is often said to “lead the world” – and sadly, it now leads in this disturbing new category: institutionalized discrimination against men. If you have additional information about Israel or similar trends in other countries, we encourage you to contact us.

A follow up article is published here:

Related video – Attacking men for simply Existing

The post Jerusalem Film Festival, a Celebration of Discrimination: How Israel’s Film Industry Is Punishing Its Men first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

Israeli Cabinet Moves To Dismantle Public Broadcaster’s Newsroom, Deepening Battle Over Press Freedom

A related post – An Oppressed Voice from Turkey – is published here.

While dozens of Israeli soldiers are killed each month in a war that appears to lead nowhere – prolonged primarily for political reasons, namely Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s survival – and while hundreds of innocent Palestinians die each week and 20 living Israeli hostages remain rotting underground, the Israeli government continues to pursue unrelated political agendas.

Just a few days ago, the Ministerial Committee for Legislation advanced a private bill proposed by Likud MK Galit Distel-Atbaryan that would slash the Israeli Public Broadcasting Corporation’s (Kan) budget by 40 percent, shut down its entire TV news division, and privatize the flagship Reshet Bet current-affairs radio station. The coalition has already signaled its support in a preliminary vote, virtually guaranteeing swift approval when the Knesset reconvenes.

The draft law goes further than previous attempts: Kan’s Channel 11 would be barred from airing any news or current-affairs content, the Arabic-language channel would be closed and replaced by just six daily hours of Arabic programming, and all seats on the broadcaster’s governing council would become political appointments. Supporters say Kan should focus on “Israeli heritage and culture.” Media unions call the plan a “death sentence” for the only newsroom in Israel that is neither commercially owned nor dependent on government advertising. We’ve already reported about the Right’s Wing government political takeover here.

Meanwhile, if you’re a male filmmaker who wasn’t sent to war, expect to be discriminated against & IGNORED

Meanwhile, if you’re an Israeli male filmmaker fortunate enough not to have been sent to war, or worse, die or be kidnapped, don’t expect funding or recognition for your work. As we’ve previously reported, while the right-wing government continues to break its own corruption records, Israel’s cultural institutions – controlled by left wing radicals – are engaging in blatant discrimination against male filmmakers, the same men sent to die in a senseless war. For several years, the Sam Spiegel Lab has reportedly been manipulated to systematically discriminate men. And now, thanks to contributions from our readers, we’ve learned that at the most recent Israeli “Academy Awards” (the Ophir Awards), 11 of the 12 major nominations – the Best Director and Best Screenwriter awards – went to women. The only male nominee among them was a Bedouin filmmaker (you could not make this up). Was it because all Israeli male filmmakers busy at war, too busy to write and direct? Or was something else at play here? Lets look at the numbers:

Latest Ophir Awards (35th ceremony, held 16 September 2024)
Categories: Best Director & Best Original Screenplay

Key points

• There are 11 individual nominees across the two categories (five directors, six screenwriters).
• Only one nominee is male – Yosef Abu Mediam, a Bedouin filmmaker – while the remaining ten nominees are female.
• Some filmmakers (Tom Nesher, Maya Kenig, Mia Dreyfus) are nominated in both categories, so the total number of distinct people is eight, but the total nominations listed above is eleven.

How strong is the evidence of gender bias / discrimination?

Assuming male and female filmmakers are equally talented:

P(≥ 11 women)  =  P(X=11)+P(X=12)  =  (1211)(0.5)11(0.5)1+(1212)(0.5)12  =  (12+1)×1212  =  134096  ≈  0.00317P(\text{≥ 11 women}) \;=\;P(X=11)+P(X=12) \;=\;\binom{12}{11}(0.5)^{11}(0.5)^{1} +\binom{12}{12}(0.5)^{12} \;=\;(12+1)\times\frac{1}{2^{12}} \;=\;\frac{13}{4096} \;\approx\;0.00317P(≥ 11 women)=P(X=11)+P(X=12)=(1112​)(0.5)11(0.5)1+(1212​)(0.5)12=(12+1)×2121​=409613​≈0.00317

• Probability: ≈ 0.317 % (about 1 chance in 315).

Under the simplest fairness model (50 % female probability per nomination), the chance of landing 11 women out of 12 is about 0.3%.

Such a low probability is typically read as strong statistical evidence that pure luck is unlikely to explain the pattern – i.e., some combination of gender bias, applicant-pool imbalance, or systematic factors is very probably at work. Clearly Israeli men are good for one thing only – being sacrificed as cannon fodder on the front.

And while we’re on the subject of discrimination, we recently reported that several Israeli film festivals rejected a Holocaust-themed film solely because its crew list lacked “Jewish-sounding names” – according to a report submitted by the film’s producer.

Israel’s 11 female nominees – Merit or Discrimination?

Thanks to deep ties in the Israeli film industry we’ve been able to write a number of articles about the local scene. One of these articles details how Katriel Schory, long-time legendry and first CEO of the Israeli Film Fund who had been running it from its inception for more than twenty years, allegedly approved a production grant of 1,000,000 NIS for The Last Cinema Show in Bucharest, a film connected to his wife Naomi Schory and her business partner Lodi Boken, just before the end of his tenure. We’ve published several articles about the Israeli film funds – The Rabinovich fund, Gesher, and the “Israeli film fund” , detailing a culture of revolving doors and alleged nepotism that stretch for decades.

After Katriel Schory was succeeded, first by Lisa Shiloach-Uzrad, then by Noa Regev (former head of the Jerusalem Film Festival), and Dana Blankstein Cohen was appointed as head of the Jerusalem Sam Spiegel Film School, all women, there was a sudden and significant rise in the number of female filmmakers being funded, selected, and awarded across the Israeli film ecosystem. Let’s take a closer look at part of an email we received regarding our article covering the 10th edition of the Jerusalem Film Lab, held in 2020, an event where statistical analysis revealed a 99.984% probability that gender-based bias influenced its proceedings, including the selection of the winning projects:

…. I’ve taken part of the lab in a certain capacity and can confirm that your facts are correct. There were 8 female participants and 4 male. There were indeed three “Masterclasses” (though really they were just 90 minute Zoom chats, this lab too place during covid) with established filmmakers and all three were women. There were seven jury members, six women and one man, who was the head (or artistic director?) of Tribeca, a festival known for being quite woke. All four awards went to projects led by women, and I can confirm your impression: it felt like the entire event was engineered in a way that didn’t give the men a fair chance. I say this for two reasons:

1. During the event, after one of the male participants finished his pitch, which was for a project that was backed by major international producers, the jury didn’t ask him the usual two questions like they did with all the female participants. Instead they asked just one question which was about the film’s title basically accusing him of making up a name (which wasn’t true). Later when the filmmaker spoke about the research he had done for the script the head of the jury cut him off and said, “we don’t have any proof of that” (the director doing research) which was both rude and very strange.

2. The lab was headed by a local producer who is known to be an activist. As an example for what I mean by that – during the George Floyd riots in the US this producer posted on Facebook something to the effect of “all women should unite and stand against male violence” implying something like that all men are violent or that only men are capable of violence, or something like that. I believe that after some backlash that post was deleted.

Israeli filmmakers are between a rock and a hard place. We want to support our female colleagues but what’s happening seems extreme. If they wanted to give all four awards to women they could have just announced it before or during the event and not let these poor guys prepare pitches, shoot scenes, and go through the motions. I’m pretty sure that the male filmmakers would have been fine with it. But why put up such a show? To humiliate?

Abortions Banned, Butt Plug Lessons In School Begin – a race to the Bottom (buttocks?)

Whether consciously or not, this blatant discrimination against men is a backlash from the radical-left ideologues who dominate Israel’s cultural institutions against the extreme policies of the country’s right-wing government. A similar race to the bottom is unfolding in the United States, where Democrats and Republicans keep outdoing one another’s excesses – from revoking women’s abortion rights on one side, to obliging eight-year-olds to attend drag shows and learn about Butt Plugs in school, on the other. In essence, the world is now run by deranged radicals from both sides of the political spectrum and it is only by speaking out against both that there is any chance for a change.

Tom Nesher, daughter of Avi Nesher, and the corruption of Israeli Cinema

As if war, a fascist-leaning government, a potential genocide, and radical gender discrimination weren’t enough, the latest list of female-dominated nominations at the Ophir Awards reveals yet another troubling aspect of the Israeli film industry: rampant corruption and blatant nepotism. Tom Nesher – unsurprisingly a product of the same Sam Spiegel Lab where 8 of the 12 participants, all 3 masterclass teachers, 6 of the 7 jury members, and ALL WINNERS were women (the probability of all four events happening under the assumption of a gender-neutral selection process, is just 0.0117%, meaning a 99.9883% chance for gender bias) – is the daughter of veteran filmmaker Avi Nesher. Despite being regarded by some as lacking in talent, according to Israeli film industry insiders, Avi Nesher has enjoyed carte blanche access to the Rabinowitz Film Fund, which we’ve also previously reported on extensively. This fund – one of two major public film funds in Israel that have been controlled by the same individuals for over two decades – is widely considered by industry insiders to be deeply corrupt. It is also the fund poised to benefit most from the recent public funding reforms that we’ve also covered. The reforms, which include revised criteria for film fund allocations, favor commercially-oriented films over artistic and niche productions. Documentaries, short films, student projects, and independent art-house films – long the hallmark of Israeli cinema – face severe funding cuts.

War, Censorship, and Cultural Capture – Israel’s Crises Exposes Breakdown Across Society

Decades ago, Israel was truly a remarkable country in every sense – driven by a spirit of resilience, innovation, and unity. It stood out as a beacon of democracy in a turbulent region, built by people who turned deserts into thriving cities, pioneered advances in agriculture, science, and technology, and fostered a vibrant cultural and intellectual life despite immense challenges. Those day are over.

In a campaign of calculated destruction second only in its moral depravity to Putin’s war on Ukraine, the right-wing coalition presses on, systematically dismantles press freedom through budget cuts and political appointments to public broadcasting, while the cultural radical left establishment appears equally captured by ideological extremism that prioritizes insane gender quotas and discrimination against men, over merit, on top of a heavy dose of nepotism and corruption.  

This institutional breakdown – where media independence dies under government pressure while artistic excellence becomes secondary to demographic engineering – represents a failure of Israeli society to maintain the democratic norms and meritocratic principles that once distinguished it in the region. 

As soldiers fall on distant battlefields and hostages remain in captivity, the energy devoted to these cultural and media wars exposes a political class more invested in controlling narratives than life itself. The tragedy is that both sides of this cultural battle are winning – at the expense of the democratic society they claim to defend, the lives of Israeli soldiers, regional security, and the lives of tens of thousands of Palestinian children.

An unrelated excerpt from today’s Israeli newspaper, reporting on heavy machinery operations in the Gaza Strip:

On social media, there are quite a few videos showing the activities of those involved in demolishing buildings in the Gaza Strip. “The owner of the equipment I operated was paid 5,000–5,500 shekels per day,” says Gadi (a pseudonym), who operated heavy machinery in Gaza for a year. “At first, I did it for the money. Later, for revenge. The work there is hard and very unpleasant. The army doesn’t operate with any sense. It just wants to destroy as much as possible and doesn’t care about anything. I worked for a salary. I don’t have the money to buy a machine that costs a million and a half shekels. I was taking home a salary of 30,000 shekels a month, I got a company car, and they rented me an apartment in Ashkelon.”

Israel, RIP.

A follow-up to this article is published here:

Related VIDEOS:

New Rule: Guilt By Civilization | Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO)

The post 11 Female Nominees, One Male: Inside Israel’s Ophir Awards, Chaos & Derangement first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

UPDATE July 31: A response to this article is published here:

Film Industry Watch is publishing the following user-submitted investigative report about potential issues in Armenia’s film industry. This material raises questions about transparency and conflicts of interest that deserve public attention.

In many ways, this case echoes patterns we’ve observed in our investigations into the Israeli and Greek film industries – where questions of transparency, favoritism, and conflicts of interest often arise around the distribution of public film funding. It also reflects a broader trend across parts of Europe, where cultural subsidies are vulnerable to politicization, insider networks, and a lack of independent oversight.

What We Know

Our fact-checking shows that about 75-80% of the basic facts check out – facts like official appointments, company roles, and key dates. Some of the more serious allegations (like specific financial damages and personal relationships) couldn’t be independently verified. Note that this is user-submitted content that we’re publishing as received. Film Industry Watch doesn’t guarantee the accuracy of every claim, the views expressed are those of the submitter(s), not ours.

Have Information? Share It

We encourage anyone with firsthand knowledge, additional evidence, or contrary documentation to post a comment or contact our editors. Constructive corrections and clarifications help strengthen the public record on developments in Armenia’s screen sector.

TL;DR – Combined Summary of Both Armenian Film Industry user submitted Investigation Reports

The paired reports sketch a single narrative: Armenia’s state film architecture was rebuilt in 2024 when Government Decision 618-A dissolved the National Cinema Center and installed producer-turned-official Davit Banujian at the helm of the new Cinema Foundation of Armenia (CFA). The May-2025 brief claims Banujian simultaneously holds a senior role at private outfit People of Ar - the company that signed a four-party memorandum promising cash-rebate support for three Til Schweiger projects in December 2023. It further contends he steered a series of rule changes that shifted Armenia’s statutory rebate range from 10-40 % to 25-35 % without amending the parent law, overriding Ministry of Finance warnings and issuing new funding procedures (Order 57-L) in April 2025 before the Ministry had approved them. The report warns that these moves create legal and corruption risks and market a still-unfinished incentive scheme to international producers.

The July-2025 brief widens the lens to Armenfilm, the once-state studio whose 2005 privatisation (later ruled a USD 10 m loss) was reversed in 2015. It tracks how Armenfilm was folded into the government’s planned Academic City arts cluster, master-planned by Germany’s gmp International, despite its six-kilometre detour from the campus core and suspiciously upbeat e-consultation scores. A closed 9 July 2024 planning meeting – attended by Banujian and People of Ar CEO Arman Nshanian but not the National Cinema Center—illustrates what the authors call preferential access for private allies. Subsequent ministerial tours of the gutted studio and talk of a public-private “revival” are framed as a second-round privatisation in all but name, reinforced by allegations of an unofficial “chief secretary,” data-access abuses, and political ties via Banujian’s MP spouse. Taken together, the documents argue that a tight circle is reshaping Armenia’s screen sector through opaque rule-making, selective partnerships, and repurposing of public assets – developments the authors say demand legal scrutiny and broader public oversight.

Privatization Reloaded: How the Banujian–Nshanian Tandem Gains Access to the Future of Armenian Armenfilm Film Studio

Investigative Report — June 2025 (Written and published by Armenian film industry insiders)

On June 16, 2025, the Minister of Education, Science, Culture, and Sports of the Republic of Armenia, Zhanna Andreasyan, visited the ruins of the once-iconic Armenfilm film studio. She was accompanied by Deputy Minister Daniel Danielyan and David Banujian, Director of the Armenian National Cinema Foundation (hereinafter “the Foundation”). The visit was portrayed as symbolic, yet it unveiled a pattern of decision-making and potential collusion, warranting renewed scrutiny into the Foundation’s leadership and its entanglements with private entities.

Background: Legacy of Privatization and Its Fallout

Armenfilm, formerly a state-owned film production facility, was privatized in 2005 and returned in 2015. According to a report released by the Prosecutor General’s Office on August 7, 2023, the privatization inflicted approximately USD 10 million in damages to the state and contributed to the decade-long stagnation of Armenian film production. Since its return to state ownership in 2015, the property has been administered by the State Property Management Committee — an agency whose appointed managers have lacked expertise in cinema.

Following the Prosecutor’s report, the Committee sought to deflect blame, while state actors quietly began recontextualizing Armenfilm as a “priority site” for a new governmental initiative: the Academic City.

Academic City: A Questionable Shift in Urban Planning

The Academic City program, introduced by the Government of Armenia, envisions the creation of thematic clusters for higher education institutions, including a dedicated “arts cluster.” Notably, the master planning and architectural concept of the Academic City is being developed by the German firm gmp International GmbH Architects and Engineers, raising additional concerns about the influence of foreign stakeholders in a highly politicized and locally sensitive project.

Initially, Armenfilm was designated as the launch site for the entire initiative. However, its geographic distance—approximately six kilometers—from the proposed core area of Academic City raises serious questions about functional integration and project feasibility.

The public consultation period for the Academic City concept formally closed on August 7, 2023, the same day the Prosecutor General’s Office released its report stating that Armenfilm’s 2005 privatization resulted in USD 10 million in damages to the state. Despite widespread opposition from academia, the cultural sector, and civic groups, the project received seemingly favorable ratings on the government’s e-voting platform. Subsequent investigations suggest these ratings were artificially inflated. Armenia’s e-consultation system lacks basic safeguards, and its results have been repeatedly manipulated to legitimize contentious policies — including those related to higher education reform and public film funding regulations which were signed by Banujian on April 18 of 2025 instead of the Ministry. This was against the law “On Cinematography” (art. 8 part 1 (10)).

Academic City concept e-voting

Film Production Financing e-voting

High Education law e-voting

July 9, 2024: The Closed-Door Meeting and the Presence of Private Interests

A particularly telling episode occurred on July 9, 2024, during a closed-door event dedicated to the Academic City project. The session included a discussion of the future of the Armenfilm territory within the framework of this broader government initiative.

According to available press coverage and photographic documentation from the event, David Banujian—formally acting as the Director of the Cinema Foundation of Armenia, which at the time existed only on paper—was present at the meeting. He was accompanied by People of Ar LLC private film producer Arman Nshanian. The two have previously been linked through their involvement in the controversial Cash Rebate program, raising red flags about recurring private interests operating within public policy spaces and promotion of so-called Netflix production in Armenia.

The nature of their relationship, however, appears to predate any formal collaboration through state structures. Numerous photographs publicly available on Banujian’s personal Instagram account tagged document a longstanding personal association with Nshanian—well before Banujian’s appointment as director of the Foundation. These images, some of which depict the two at industry-related events and in social settings, suggest close ties that may call into question the impartiality of subsequent state decisions involving Nshanian or his production ventures.

What makes their presence at the July 9 meeting even more conspicuous is the absence of Shushanik Mirzakhanyan, then Director of the National Cinema Center of Armenia (NCCA), the country’s official authority in charge of national film policy. While no representative of Armenia’s primary state film body was invited, a private producer with visible personal connections to a soon-to-be-appointed government fund director was granted privileged access to confidential deliberations.

According to Electronic Register, Cinema Foundation was reorganised on July 15 of 2024 and according to ESCS website Banujian was introduced to the staff of Cinema Foundation of Armenia only on July 24, 2024 by Minister Andreasyan and Deputy Minister Danielyan.

Instead of ensuring broad institutional representation and professional deliberation over the future of a key national asset, the event demonstrated preferential treatment for individuals aligned with specific private interests—effectively sidelining public institutions.

Banujian has since positioned himself as the champion of a new vision: reviving Armenfilm through public-private partnership. Yet given the legacy of failed privatization and the opaque manner in which recent decisions have been made, this proposal appears less a reform than a return to extractive practices under a different banner.

The Banujian–Nshanian Nexus: Strategic Access

David Banujian has been involved in shaping the cinematic agenda long before the Foundation became operational. His appearances alongside the Minister, coupled with his premature decision-making authority, indicate that his influence extended beyond formal mandates.

This influence is further magnified by political ties. Banujian’s spouse, Sona Ghazaryan, is a sitting Member of Parliament, raising concerns over potential conflicts of interest and preferential treatment in government processes.

Banujian is now promoting a new vision: Armenfilm’s redevelopment through a public-private partnership (PPP). However, given the studio’s traumatic history with privatization and the opacity surrounding current negotiations, this proposal is seen by many as privatization in disguise.

According to our findings, in July 2024 Banujian unofficially appointed an individual to serve as the Foundation’s Chief Secretary—a position that does not formally exist in the fund’s organizational structure. This individual, who was not officially employed for more than six months, nevertheless had unrestricted access to sensitive personnel records and confidential correspondence, including private information concerning both Foundation staff and external applicants. The unauthorized access raises substantial legal and ethical concerns, particularly with respect to data protection laws and administrative transparency.

This pattern reflects a governance model based on informal networks, blurred accountability, and selective access—one that places individuals with personal or political ties in privileged positions, often at the expense of institutional norms and legal safeguards.

Legal and Institutional Implications

The substitution of public institutions with private or semi-private entities in core cultural decisions undermines the principles of good governance, transparency, and cultural sovereignty. The lack of representation from the NCCA at critical planning stages suggests systemic exclusion of institutional expertise in favor of informal arrangements.

The Foundation’s involvement in programmatic rule-making—specifically, its unilateral issuance of state film funding guidelines—is a direct violation of Armenia’s Law on Cinematography. This alone merits legal review and possible revocation of those procedures.

Furthermore, the use of an unsecured e-governance system to simulate public consensus on controversial policies constitutes a breach of democratic process and may qualify as administrative misconduct under Armenian law.

The reappearance of familiar actors—David Banujian and Arman Nshanian—in state-sponsored initiatives demands public oversight. What appears as reform risks becoming a repetition of past failures, only with more sophisticated instruments and political cover.

The Armenian film industry deserves a future defined by professionalism, transparency, and lawful governance—not a return to the patterns that once crippled it.

In light of the facts presented, we urge the following:

• The Prosecutor General’s Office is encouraged to examine whether administrative misconduct, abuse of access to confidential data, and potential conflicts of interest occurred in the operations of the Foundation and its affiliated actors.
• Civil society, industry professionals, and the press must remain vigilant and demand transparency in cultural policymaking—especially where public assets and private profit intersect.
  
  

The future of Armenian cinema is not a private matter. It belongs to the public—and it is the public’s right to know how it is being shaped.

Supporting visual and documentary evidence available.

Press coverage and photos of July 9. 2024

https://escs.am/am/news/23362

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5JxqHKfECk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Px02DGv0IS0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lc17p2yJ2M0

Academic City concept e-voting

https://www.e-draft.am/en/projects/6013

High Education law e-voting
https://www.e-draft.am/en/projects/7684
Film Production Financing e-voting
https://www.e-draft.am/en/projects/8325
David Banujian Instagram
https://www.instagram.com/davidbanuchyan/

Published by Armenian Film Industry Insiders.

The post Armenia: Turbulence in the local Film Industry first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

This article was prompted by yet another recent anonymous email from Indonesia. Please keep contacting us with information.

Conflicts of Interest and Festival Credibility: The Case of Hot Docs 2025

The 32nd edition of Toronto’s Hot Docs festival closed last month with its usual flourish of sold-out screenings and late-night panels, but one question refuses to fade: how did two films produced by Gugi Gumilang, who also sits on the festival’s international programming team, end up in this year’s official selection?

Based between Jakarta and Berlin, he runs Indonesia’s non-profit In-Docs and its talent lab Docs by the Sea, joined Hot Docs as an international programmer in 2023, and was elected to the executive board of the Documentary Association of Europe in 2022. That combination of jobs grants him unusual reach: he can shepherd a project from early-stage mentoring in Southeast Asia straight onto North America’s largest documentary stage.

The potential conflict crystallized in April when Always—a feature on Taiwanese–Chinese family estrangement, crediting Gumilang as executive producer—bowed in Hot Docs’ World Showcase strand. Days later, My Therapist Said, I Am Full of Sadness, a Berlin-shot short that lists him as producer, screened in the Learning to Fly programme. Both entries were publicly promoted by the festival while the programmer behind them retained his seat on the selection committee. Hot Docs confirms that staff must declare conflicts internally, yet it offers no public recusal rule nor does it disclose which programmers vote on which titles.

Gumilang’s reach extends beyond Toronto. His next project, Oma, was pitched this spring at Cannes Docs within the Docs by the Sea showcase—another platform he helps to steer through In-Docs. The optics are blunt: a single individual can influence a film’s trajectory from rough-cut pitch to A-list festival slot while retaining a financial or creative stake in the outcome.

Context matters. Hot Docs has been fighting a credibility fire since March 2024, when ten programmers resigned en masse, calling the workplace “chaotic, unprofessional, [and] discriminatory.” The departures exposed governance gaps just as the festival was preparing its 2024 edition and left lingering doubts about internal oversight. Against that backdrop, the sight of a current programmer’s own films sailing through the 2025 line-up was always going to land badly.

The problem is not unique to Toronto. We recently reported about a similar case in Hungary. In 2022 TIFF weathered its own nepotism row after chief programmer Anita Lee appeared as executive producer on three Canadian documentaries in competition. The same year, Glasgow Short Film Festival faced scrutiny when programme director Sanne Jehoul’s distribution outfit Square Eyes accounted for seven of the festival’s selected shorts. And, of course, there is the case of Cannes 2019 short Palme d’Or handed to a friend of a jury member, whose producer produced the winning film. Each incident sparked brief outrage and then drifted off the news cycle, but none produced the industry-wide code of conduct many insiders say is overdue.

Why does any of this matter to audiences who simply want good films? Because the perception that insider projects receive preferential treatment chills the wider field. Independent filmmakers, particularly those outside Western funding hubs, say they already face long odds; add the suspicion that juries are judging their own work and the odds look stacked. Transparency International’s 2024 Corruption Perceptions Index gives Indonesia a score of 37/100, a reminder that robust guardrails are not a luxury in cultural industries that trade on soft power and public funding.

THE WAY BACK TO CREDIBILITY

No-one has accused Gumilang of strong-arming colleagues, and by most accounts both Always and My Therapist Said… found warm receptions on merit. But festivals live on trust. When the gatekeeper’s name appears in the opening credits, every filmmaker left on the cutting-room floor is entitled to ask who, exactly, made the call.

Festivals have ready-made tools to address the doubt. Publicly list staff conflicts. Publish a binding recusal protocol. Rotate selection committees so no single programmer can dominate a strand. Appoint an independent ombudsperson to field complaints. None of these fixes ban working producers from holding programming posts; they simply force sunlight onto the areas where money, mentorship and curatorial power overlap.

Hot Docs’ 2026 call for entries opens in September. If the festival wants filmmakers, and its own audience, to believe the playing field is level, it still has a short summer to put new rules on paper. Credibility is cheaper to keep than to buy back once it’s gone.

NOTE TO READER:

Please note that this article is not meant to be an ad hominem attack on any specific person. The individuals mentioned and their positions in various organizations are used as examples for the way that the film industry operates. The positions, roles and professional relationship between individuals are public information. Sources are provided throughout the website. If you would like to report any inaccuracy please do not hesitate to contact us. Our aim is to improve and democratize the film industry by analyzing the way its institutions are set-up. In order to do so, we must list those organizations and the people who work for them or with them, and their relationship with each other.

SOURCES:

https://hotdocs.ca/whats-on/hot-docs-festival/films/2025/always
https://hotdocs.ca/whats-on/hot-docs-festival/films/2025/my-therapist-said-i-am-full-of-sadness
https://in-docs.org/our-team/
https://www.aidc.com.au/whos-coming/gugi-gumilang/
https://povmagazine.com/hot-docs-programmers-resign-en-masse/
https://www.screendaily.com/news/hot-docs-programmers-explain-mass-resignation-festival-responds/5191928.article
https://breachmedia.ca/hot-docs-corporate-failed/
https://www.marchedufilm.com/programs/cannes-docs/docs-in-progress/docs-by-the-sea-showcase/
https://www.marchedufilm.com/projects/oma/
https://www.transparency.org/en/countries/indonesia
https://filmindustrywatch.org/nepotism-at-tiff-anita-lee-chief-programmer-executive-producer-on-three-of-five-tiff-selected-features/
https://filmindustrywatch.org/sanne-jehoul-conflict-of-interest-glasgow-short-film-festival-programmer-short-films-distribution-role-at-square-eyes/

The post Hot Docs 2025 — When a Programmer’s Credits Creep onto The Screen first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

In response to one of our latest articles, an anonymous filmmaker from Indonesia has stepped forward with a harrowing account of how nepotism, intimidation, and “feudalistic” power structures dominate her local film industry. In a candid letter sent to Film Industry Watch, this award-winning director (who cannot publicly reveal her identity or film titles due to safety concerns) describes an industry where “meritocracy barely stands a chance.” Her testimony echoes patterns of insider favoritism and conflicts of interest that we have reported in global festival circuits and paints a troubling picture of a creative field in which success often depends more on “kissing the ring” than on talent or integrity.

“Meritocracy Barely Stands a Chance”

New related post:

Hot Docs 2025 — When a Programmer’s Credits Creep onto The Screen

The Cost of Speaking Out – A Culture of Fear

One of the most disturbing aspects shared by our source’s letter and our ongoing investigations is the pervasive culture of fear that keeps this system running. People within the industry often know these injustices are happening. Filmmakers whisper privately about conflicts of interest, unfair jury decisions, or abusive gatekeepers. But few dare to speak openly. As our anonymous filmmaker explains, voicing criticism “even privately, can jeopardize careers, funding opportunities, and access to vital networks.” Careers can be destroyed on the basis of a rumor. A powerful insider need only brand someone a troublemaker or spread a defamatory story, and that person may quietly disappear from festival lineups or lose out on grants.

Indeed, our own reporting has encountered numerous individuals who insisted on anonymity for fear of retribution. Tips come in via private emails or off-the-record conversations, never publicly. In one striking anecdote, a Europe-based filmmaker told us how he greeted a well-connected producer at a Cannes party, a friend of Dominique Welinski, only to be met with a hostile snub: “She shot back, ‘I know who you are and I’ve heard everything about you!’ then turned on her heel and took off as if I were convicted of murder… I have no idea what made-up story was said about me, but considering who she’s close to, it seems like gossip was used as a weapon.” The implication was that he had been quietly blacklisted — maligned behind the scenes, possibly because he had been openly critical of the very network we’re discussing. “What are the implications of falling on the wrong side of someone as powerful as her… I can only guess,” he said. “It seems she uses gossip as a weapon.” This chilling story mirrors the “gossip, false accusations… used to silence people” that our Indonesian correspondent described. It shows how easily a career can be sabotaged by those who control the informal narratives in the film world.

The result is a widespread self-censorship. Many filmmakers and professionals feel they must publicly “play nice” — congratulating the winners, biting their tongue about unfair practices, perhaps hoping to be welcomed into the fold one day — or else risk being labeled as bitter or difficult, which would be career suicide. As our source observes, “politics – social alignment, affiliations, personal connections, and public signaling – carry more weight than talent, merit, or originality.”

In such an atmosphere, silence becomes the price of admission to an insider-dominated industry. This silence allows the misconduct to continue unchecked. It’s a vicious cycle: fear keeps people from calling out the problems, which in turn allows the problems to persist and the powerful to act with impunity.

Breaking the Silence

The anonymous Indonesian filmmaker concludes her letter with a mix of gratitude and resignation: “This is not a cry for help — it’s a thank you… Knowing that organizations like yours exist gives people like me a little more strength to keep going.” That gratitude is deeply humbling, but it also underscores how lonely and perilous it can be to challenge the status quo. For every one person who speaks up, there are dozens who feel they cannot.

Shining a light on these feudal dynamics is not about negativity or tearing down the film industry; it’s about saving it. Cinema, at its best, is an art form that should unite and inspire the world with fresh ideas and diverse voices. That cannot happen if the pipeline for new talent is clogged with gatekeepers playing favorites. It cannot happen if artists live in fear of offending power. It cannot happen if public resources meant for cultural development are siphoned off by nepotism.

Our source’s story, and the examples we’ve highlighted from Cannes to Jakarta, are calls to action. They tell us that transparency, accountability, and fairness must be more than slogans – they must be enforced through structural change. Festivals could start by adopting conflict-of-interest rules (for example, barring anyone who has a financial stake in a film from participating in its selection or awards). Funding bodies could implement blind evaluations to reduce favoritism. Whistleblower protections could be established in the arts sector to shield those who call out wrongdoing. These are just a few ideas, but the first step is acknowledging the problem openly, without fear.

Shattering a “closed circuit” culture will not be easy; those benefiting from it will resist. But the alternative is a world where “most voices are destroyed long before they are heard,” and that, to quote our letter writer, “should give us pause.” By amplifying testimonies like hers, we hope to chip away at the wall of silence. The future of film — the health of global cinema as an art and an industry — depends on breaking the feudal cycle and welcoming a new era where merit and integrity can truly shine.

Film Industry Watch remains committed to investigating these systemic issues. To our source in Indonesia: thank you for caring and for speaking out. Your voice has been heard, and it strengthens our resolve to bring about the change that so many in the filmmaking community desperately need. We encourage anyone with similar experiences or information to reach out (confidentially) and join this conversation. Only by working together can we ensure that the world of cinema lives up to its ideals of creativity, diversity, and fairness for all.

The post A Voice from Indonesia: A Filmmaker Exposes Feudalism and Fear in the Film Industry first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

Film Industry Watch recently received the following anonymous email:

Dear Editors,

As this year’s edition is Hungarian Friss Hus Budapest Short Film Festival’s first as an Oscar-qualifying festival, it might be important to shed some light on a conflict of interest that has been building up for 10 years around a producer whose shorts have been winning awards in nearly half of the festival’s 13 year run.

This same producer is the managing director of the festival and in earlier years, the international programmer, so has a lot of formal and informal power to influence the reception of his works.

The awarded films at Friss Hus, produced or co-produced by him (Gabor Osvath) are the following, in release order:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4190832/fullcredits/
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5653084/fullcredits/
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8155196/fullcredits/
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8150654/fullcredits/
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt13021784/fullcredits/
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt37125086/fullcredits/

(the one now eligible for the Oscar shortlist)

There were other shorts connected to him that were selected in or out of competition but not awarded, thus not mentioned here.

Wishing you the best to continue the important work that you do,
“Filmethics”

A statistical abnormality

Statistically, a single producer’s films sweeping almost half of the editions over 10 years, in a festival where 29-36 Hungarian shorts vie for two top prizes each year, is extremely rare without some systematic advantage. That “advantage” could be pure filmmaking excellence, but when the same person also happens to be Managing Director (and former programmer) of the festival, the data fit the conflict-of-interest hypothesis far better than random luck. First, let’s examine the facts. Gábor Osváth is indeed “programmer and managing director at the Friss Hus Budapest Film Festival” as can be seen below:

Claim-by-claim breakdown

Per-film check

What Are the Chances This Is Not a Conflict of Interest?

The Friss Hús Budapest Short Film Festival has had 13 editions in total. Out of those, films produced or co-produced by Gábor Osváth won major Hungarian awards in 6 separate years. That represents approximately 46% of all editions. What’s notable is that all 6 wins happened during the period starting in 2016, the same year Osváth joined the festival’s leadership – first as a programmer and later as managing director. This overlap, nearly half of the festival’s lifetime, occurred while he held influence over programming decisions. Even with conservative assumptions the odds of Gábor Osváth’s films winning six times in 13 editions by sheer luck hover between one in 100 000 and one in a billion. Statistically, the pattern is hard to explain without some kind of inside edge.

the film industry isn’t a meritocracy

Is it possible that Gábor’s films were simply the best in the festival and won purely on merit? Absolutely—it’s possible. And yes, a festival is a private entity and can technically do whatever it wants. But is it more likely that his films benefited from his position within the festival, perhaps by inviting jurors who were friends or colleagues, and even if not friends, filmmakers who then felt a sense of loyalty or obligation after being flown in, hosted, and welcomed by someone they know? That’s the more realistic question.

What readers should understand is that this isn’t some scandalous exception in the film industry, it’s often how things work. No-one involved thinks that they’re doing anything wrong – the film industry isn’t a meritocracy. It’s a web of relationships, favors, political agendas, gender wars, and informal influence – not a meritocracy. This happens everywhere, festivals big and small, and we previously reported on such cases at Cannes, Toronto and Sundance. Is it any wonder that so many films are mediocre, most TV shows feel like parodies of themselves, and Hollywood is in free fall? Just like in global politics – and nearly every other corner of society – moral standards are eroding. If a U.S. president can accept a $400 million plane as bribe, why would anyone expect a small film festival in Budapest to be immune from favoritism? Of course awards can be handed out based on friendships, loyalties, or quiet understandings. Why wouldn’t they be?

Not a bug but a feature of the system

As we argued elsewhere, this pattern is not a glitch but the default operating system of any field where resources are scarce. Political sociologist Robert Michels called it the iron law of oligarchy: as soon as a group controls a coveted resource—money, awards, festival slots, media oxygen – it tends to close ranks and circulate those goods internally. Admitting outsiders may enlarge the “pie” culturally, but it shrinks each insider’s share of influence, so boundary-keeping becomes rational self-defense.

This is where “soft power,” in Joseph Nye’s sense, takes over. Nye stresses that power is often exercised not through overt coercion but through attraction, hospitality, and the ability to make others want to say yes. Pierre Bourdieu refines the idea: cultural capital (prestige, festival laurels, press coverage) converts smoothly into economic capital, provided you stay inside the charmed circle that controls it. The exchange rate is invisible—but everyone in the network feels it.

Because the currency is access, corruption rarely looks like a suitcase of cash. Classic philosophers of power – Foucault on micro-discipline, Steven Lukes on the “third face” of power, even Mancur Olson on distributional coalitions agree that the most effective control is subtle, wrapped in mutual gratitude. A juror flown in, wined and dined, may feel no overt pressure, yet the social psychology of reciprocity (see Gouldner’s norm of the gift) whispers: return the favour. Gouldner’s norm of reciprocity is a social rule that dictates people should return favors or kindnesses they receive. It’s a core concept in sociology, suggesting that individuals feel obligated to repay beneficial actions with similar acts of kindness or support, leading to a more fair and smooth social exchange.

The cases we report on are predictable by-products of a scarce-resource ecology. Influence is accumulated by performing generosity – curating panels, sponsoring travel, handing out festival lanyards – while quietly expecting the soft return on investment. In a genuine meritocracy, the payoff from such favour trading would approach zero, because quality alone would decide outcomes. In a scarcity-driven, relationship-based system, however, the smartest strategy is not to make the best film, but to become indispensable to the people who decide what “best” means.

The Reality of Film Festival Selection: What Aspiring Filmmakers Need to Know

If you’re an aspiring filmmaker outside the inner circle of industry connections (and if you were in it, you’d probably already know), it’s important to understand how many major film festivals operate. In most large festivals, every selected film often owes its spot to personal connections – whether it’s a producer who’s friends with someone on the selection committee, an employee who knows a director personally, or an actor’s child turned director whose father’s agent has reached out to influential decision-makers. In the case of Friss Hus – the producer IS part of the selection team, which happened even in Cannes.

What makes this even more challenging is the sheer number of well-connected filmmakers competing for a very limited number of slots—usually just a dozen or two per festival. Many of these slots are already taken by films that have been selected at other festivals through similar networks. So, even if your film is outstanding, without the right contacts, it’s unlikely to be seen by the selection committee. Festivals like Sundance, Locarno, and Warsaw – just to name a few – aren’t worth the submission fee unless you already have a strong connection within the festival.

New Oscar-qualifying status

The festival’s new Oscar-qualifying status raises the stakes. In October 2024 the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences added Friss Hús to its official list of Oscar-qualifying festivals; from the 2025 edition onward, the winners of Best Hungarian Live-Action and Best Hungarian Animated Short are automatically eligible for Oscar consideration. This upgrade multiplies the soft-power value of each prize: an award now opens a direct pipeline to Hollywood visibility. When the gatekeeper who helps decide those winners is also a producer with films in the race, the potential conflict isn’t just local festival politics. We are aware that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences was made aware of this situation, and we do not expect them to do anything about it, as this is simply “business as usual” in the film industry. In fact, it makes more sense that festivals that award prizes or make selections based on merit would be “punished” as they would be completely out of line with how the system works and would pose a threat to the entire industry.

We’d like to thank “Filmethics” for reaching out and remind our readers that they are welcome to contribute anonymously by getting in touch with us.

As always we invite the festival to contact us for a response and ask our readers to point out any mistakes or errors. Please share this article with all your filmmaking friends.

Sources:

The post Friss Hús Budapest Short Film Festival – a statistical abnormality first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

By Eugenio R. Bregman a Film Industry Watch contributor and Greek film industry insider.

Update:

A response by EKOMED has been made here.

Greece’s thriving film industry is at war with its own government-backed cultural agency. In an unprecedented petition, nearly 1,896 of the country’s top filmmakers, producers, and technicians — including Oscar nominee Yorgos Lanthimos and legendary director Costa-Gavras (that — have signed an open letter condemning what they call “systemic dysfunction, mismanagement, and broken promises” at the newly established Hellenic Center for Audiovisual Media and Creation (rebranded as EKOMED/Creative Greece).

Unless sweeping reforms are made by September 15, the industry warns, all options — including boycotts and public protest — are on the table.

FilmIndustryWatch.org has been raising red flags for months — and the pattern now emerging points to conduct that could warrant criminal investigation. At the Greek Film Center, state-subsidized evaluators — including Vasilios Kekatos — are alleged to have approved funding for their own projects, a blatant conflict of interest and a potential violation of both national and EU rules governing the use of public funds.

But the rot doesn’t stop there. Inside EKOMED and Creative Greece, the evidence points to more than mere mismanagement — it suggests a coordinated pattern of self-dealing, embezzlement risk, and political cronyism. Public money appears to have been funneled through a closed network of party-linked insiders , under the thin veneer of cultural support.

The core question now is no longer whether there was mismanagement — but whether fraud, abuse of office, and breach of fiduciary duty have occurred. Prosecutors should be looking hard. The smoke is thick. It’s time to find the fire.

The EKOMED board is stacked: four lawyers and a civil engineer — none with any serious background in intellectual property or the audiovisual sector they are meant to oversee. Their real qualification? Loyalty. All four lawyers are linked to the ruling New Democracy party, led by Kyriakos Mitsotakis — a regime whose tightening grip on Greece’s media and public funds now echoes Viktor Orbán’s Hungary more than any functioning democracy. Meanwhile, the head of Creative Greece, officially paid €20,000 a month according to the Government Gazette, has repeatedly failed to deliver even basic results. The pattern is clear: a political machine propping up loyalists while Greece’s filmmakers fight for survival.

Tensions Boil Over Between Greece’s Film Community

In Athens, the fragile relationship between Greece’s creative community and its newest cultural institution has snapped. For months — from May 2024 until February 20, 2025, when EKOMED effectively ground to a halt — a cold war had been brewing between Greece’s film and audiovisual industry and the newly minted Hellenic Center for Audiovisual Media and Creation (EKOMED), a creature of the Ministry of Culture. On paper, it was supposed to usher in a new era of opportunity. In reality, it stumbled out of the gate — crippled by dysfunction, trapped in bureaucracy, and bleeding credibility with every missed payment and broken promise. This week, that simmer turned to a full boil. In an extraordinary show of unity and scale, 1,896 artists and creators — including  names such as Yorgos Lanthimos, Costa-Gavras— released an open letter that reads like a collective vote of no-confidence in the institution’s leadership.

Their grievances? Long-standing ones, now laid bare: millions owed under the cash rebate system, backlogged approvals for pending projects (over 100+projects), and a funding pipeline riddled with delays. These aren’t isolated frustrations — they are systemic roadblocks that have been choking Greece’s resurgent film sector for more than a year.

And there’s more. The letter casts a harsh spotlight on the handling of European Union Structural Funds (NSRF) — a vital source of financing for almost all Greek productions, and many foreign ones as well. The signatories describe the fund as “inflexible” and “ill-suited” for the complex realities of modern audiovisual production.

Even sharper is the criticism of mismanagement within EKOMED itself: resources meant to promote Greek cinema abroad squandered; a new headquarters staffed, according to insiders, by officials lacking deep ties to the industry they are tasked to support.

Behind the Numbers: EKOMED’s Smoke and Mirrors as Greece’s Film Debt Crisis Deepens

The numbers sound impressive — at least on paper. According to EKOMED’s latest statement, the much-touted Greek cash rebate scheme has disbursed €148.4 million across 222 projects. Another 173 projects — both Greek and foreign — are locked into the system with legal repayment obligations north of €180 million.

But don’t be fooled. Many of these “commitments” are little more than promissory notes on unfinished productions, including Christopher Nolan’s Odyssey, still in post.

And the €100 million debt figure quoted in Variety? Insiders told Kathimerini the true overdue sum is around €40 million — still a staggering number — owed to 35 completed, audited projects that have been left in limbo. “Yes, there were delays,” says EKOMEDE CEO Leonidas Christopoulos, insisting “the issue has been resolved” and payments are on the way. But for producers who’ve heard this song before, the reassurance rings hollow.

The cracks are widening. High-profile cases like Pablo Larraín’s Maria — with €350,000 unpaid, part of a €3.2 million backlog owed to Greek company Heretic — are now embarrassing the country abroad. Another €1.15 million in Heretic projects remain stuck in approval limbo.

EKOMED now scrambles to promise a full online accounting of its obligations, waving the flag of “transparency.” But this is a PR move — and everyone knows it. The industry doesn’t want another spreadsheet. It wants its money.

Warning Lights Are Flashing

And key questions remain unanswered. The new rebate law clearly states that “…funds will be disbursed only if the granting authority possesses the necessary resources.” In other words: there are no guarantees. What happens when a project spends years in production, only to find the money gone when the final paperwork lands?

And what about the Kafkaesque bureaucracy that continues to stall approvals and payments? Have those roadblocks been cleared — or simply buried under new layers of political fog?

Greece has the talent. It has the locations. It has the momentum to be a true global film hub. But unless EKOMED — and the government behind it — stop playing games and start paying their debts, the message to the world will be loud and clear: Greece is open for business — just don’t expect to get paid!

OPEKEPE and EKOMED: Two Agencies, One Rotten System

At first glance, the scandals engulfing Greece’s OPEKEPE (Agricultural Payments Agency) and EKOMED(Hellenic Center for Audiovisual Media and Creation) might seem worlds apart — one tied to EU agricultural subsidies, the other to the glamorous world of film and audiovisual production.

But scratch the surface, and a familiar pattern emerges — a pattern that reveals how Greece’s public agencies have become machines for channeling taxpayer and EU funds into the hands of well-connected insiders.

Both scandals revolve around the same toxic playbook:

Rigged approvals: At OPEKEPE, investigators uncovered phantom farms, fake land declarations, and payments to ghost entities.
At EKOMED, state-subsidized evaluators like Vasilios Kekatos allegedly greenlit their own film projects, while party-linked lawyers and civil engineers sat on boards controlling millions in cultural funds.

Political protection networks: Both agencies show signs of being wrapped in political cronyism. In OPEKEPE’s case, local political networks allegedly shielded fraud rings siphoning off EU agricultural money. At EKOMED and Creative Greece, key positions were reportedly handed to New Democracy party insiders — with no expertise in intellectual property or audiovisual production — enabling a closed system of approvals and payouts.

Opacity and mismanagement: Both OPEKEPE and EKOMEDE operated behind walls of bureaucratic fog — stonewalling journalists and stakeholders, delaying payments, and publishing incomplete or misleading financial data. Producers, farmers, and EU auditors alike were left chasing missing funds and unanswered questions.

Erosion of public trust: Perhaps most damaging of all: both scandals have shredded trust — not just in the agencies involved, but in Greece’s ability to manage EU and public money.
European partners are watching. The European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) is probing OPEKEPE. Meanwhile, international film producers — from Hollywood to Berlin — are already backing away from EKOMED deals amid fears of non-payment.

The Bigger Picture

These are not isolated cases. They point to a deep systemic rot — a culture where public agencies become political fiefdoms, designed less to serve the public than to feed insiders and buy loyalty. From phantom farmland to ghost film funds, the scams vary — but the machinery is the same.

And unless Greece’s political leadership and judiciary confront this system head-on, the country risks far more than scandals. It risks its credibility across Europe — and its future as a trusted place to invest, to create, to build. As one EU official recently warned: “If the same networks are running agriculture, film, and culture — what sector will they poison next?”

An Institution Under Siege

None of these concerns are new — they’ve been reported, whispered, and debated across the industry and media for months. Nor are the responses from EKOMED leadership unexpected: assurances have been issued, timelines promised, solutions “in progress.”

But something fundamental has shifted. The trust, however tentative, that once linked Greece’s creative professionals with the powers that be, has eroded — perhaps beyond repair.

Words will no longer suffice. Only concrete actions, delivered swiftly, can begin to rebuild that fractured relationship. The stakes are not just financial — they are existential for a sector that has, in recent years, punched far above its weight on the global stage.

The Ministry of Culture headed by archaeologist Lina Mendoni, a trusted Kyriakos Mitsotakis collaborator, and EKOMED — now ensconced in a gleaming new headquarters in Kolonaki, in the heart of Athens — face a long and treacherous road ahead. ( Lina Mendoni is no elected politician. You won’t find her name on any ballot from the 2023 elections. An archaeologist by trade, she slipped into government through the side door—as a technocratic appointee, not a public mandate. And here’s the kicker: because she wasn’t elected, she’s not covered by the law that shields ministers with parliamentary immunity. No cloak of protection. No legal firewall. In the chess game of power, that makes her both vulnerable… and expendable)  The signs of dysfunction keep piling up. In a glaring display of amateurism, EKOMED changed its phone numbers — despite legal provisions allowing them to keep the originals. For ten days, production companies trying to reach the agency were met with dead landlines and radio silence, left in the dark about whether the numbers would be restored or replaced. It was a small fiasco, but it spoke volumes: how can an industry reliant on precision and communication trust an institution that can’t even manage to keep its phones working?

For their part, the artists and producers have issued a clear ultimatum: a full course correction must be in place by September 15. If not, they warn, “all options for action remain on the table” — an ominous sign that this clash could escalate further.

SOURCES:

The Odyssey,’ ‘Maria’ Filming Location Greece Hits Troubled Waters Over Ongoing Delays With 40% Cash Rebate

https://variety.com/2025/film/global/the-odyssey-greece-delays-cash-rebate-1236400655:

The initiative “Cinema in Greece – Zero Visibility”, signed by 1896 professionals in the audiovisual sector, requests from the Prime Minister, the Ministry of Culture and the competent body EKKOMED, ​​an immediate solution to the financial problems that have arisen for their survival.

https://flix.gr/news/oratotis-miden-apanta-sto-ekkomed.html

https://www.news247.gr/politismos/cinema/i-ellada-stin-teleftaia-thesi-tis-evropis-i-apantisi-ston-ekkomed-gia-ta-xrei/

The post Greece is open for business — just don’t expect to get paid! first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

The Armenian Government’s new promise to refund up to 35 percent of a producer’s local spending is being greeted at home not as a success story but as a textbook case of how public film money can be bent out of shape. Legal analysts say the Cabinet decree that launched the rebate clashes with the country’s own Cinematography Law, while watchdog groups point to a revolving door between the state body handing out the money and a single private production company that helped design the system.

The rebate was unveiled on 10 April, when Decision 412-N sailed through the Cabinet in a single sitting. It fixes a base refund of 25 percent and adds up to ten further percentage points for projects that market Armenia on screen, bringing the total to 35 percent. Yet Article 18 of the Cinematography Law already pegs the rebate corridor at 10 to 40 percent and stipulates that only Parliament may alter it. Government lawyers insist the narrower band merely “operationalises” the statute, but constitutional specialists consulted by Film Industry Watch say a decree cannot override primary legislation. If that view prevails in court, any rebate contracts signed under the decree would be void from day one.

Fiscal concerns surfaced even before the measure was adopted. According to a briefing note published this month by the Council of Europe’s European Audiovisual Observatory, the Ministry of Finance warned that the new rules expose the budget to open-ended liabilities. The objections were set aside; the decree was passed unchanged and will enter into force on 11 May.

A new agency, an old relationship

Responsibility for vetting rebate applications rests with the Cinema Foundation of Armenia (CFA), a public body created last year to replace the National Cinema Center. Its executive director, David Banuchyan, is also listed on the website of production-services outfit People of Ar LLC as co-producer and “tax rebate supervisor” and is credited there with having “played a crucial role in creating film laws and cash rebate programs.” In effect, the man who drafted the incentive now decides who receives it, while holding an active position in a firm that intends to use it.

That alignment is not accidental. Sixteen months before the CFA existed, the Ministry of Education, Science, Culture and Sport, several parliamentarians, the National Cinema Center and People of Ar signed a four-party memorandum of understanding pledging to secure rebate support for three English-language features involving German actor-director Til Schweiger. The document, dated 18 December 2023, promised cooperation on “all necessary sub-legislative acts” long before those acts were drafted.

Promises to Netflix, silence from Netflix

In selling the programme ministers have repeatedly cited an imminent “Netflix series” as evidence that the rebate is working. No such project appears in Netflix’s public newsrooms, investor filings or trade-press databases as of 30 May. The streaming platform declines to comment on productions that are not formally announced, but the absence of any reference after more than a year raises doubts about the government’s headline claim.

Potential fallout

Civil-society groups in Yerevan have filed complaints with the Corruption Prevention Commission and are preparing a constitutional petition aimed at suspending Decision 412-N. If the decree is struck down, the CFA would have no legal basis to reimburse foreign producers, leaving applicants in limbo. Even if the decree survives, any production company linked to foundation staff could face a conflict-of-interest investigation.

For international producers courted by the 35 percent headline figure, the message is unchanged: Armenia’s landscapes and crews may be attractive, but until the rebate’s legal footing and governance are secured, the scheme carries a risk premium that producers will have to price in.

Different Country, Same Story

From Tel Aviv to Mexico City, and now to Yerevan, Film Industry Watch keeps seeing the same playbook: a pot of public money meant to nurture filmmaking is ring-fenced by a tight circle of insiders who write the rules to suit themselves and then police their own compliance. Wherever public money is poured into filmmaking, we keep finding the same closed loop: insiders draft the rules, sit on the selection panels, and ultimately benefit from the very funds they oversee. In Greece, our September 2024 investigation revealed how senior figures at the Greek Film Center approved grants for films in which they themselves held stakes. In Israel, we traced a revolving door between the country’s two largest public film funds and private production companies, with executives switching seats while deals stayed in the family. In North Macedonia, whistle-blower director Milcho Manchevski documented what he called a “film-mafia” network inside the National Film Agency that sidelined outsiders. And in Ukraine, we showed how a million-dollar Netflix donation fell under the control of the same academy officials tasked with distributing it fairly. Armenia’s cash-rebate controversy follows the identical pattern: public money placed under the watch of a tight circle determined to guard both the purse strings and the keys to the door.

Film Industry Watch thanks the whistle-blower who supplied the documents behind this investigation. If you have credible information about how public film funds are being misused in your own country, contact us here.

Sources:

https://www.arlis.am/DocumentView.aspx?docid=202462
https://www.arlis.am/DocumentView.aspx?DocID=205494
https://merlin.obs.coe.int/article/10300
https://peopleofarproductions.com/about
https://escs.am/files/files/2023-12-19/131017682109f9c53a61ab33d06fbc1a.pdf
https://about.netflix.com/en/news

The post Armenia’s cash-rebate plan for foreign films faces legal and ethical challenges first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

Tatino Films: Structure and Operations

Tatino Films is a Paris-based company that established itself as a significant player in European cinema development. The company operates four major development initiatives with substantial public funding::

1. First Cut Lab (established 2015): A post-production workshop for films at the editing stage. According to the company’s website, “200 films from 50 countries have so far benefited from First Cut Lab.”
2. Pop Up Film Residency: A mentorship program for filmmakers in development, operating across multiple European locations.
3. Full Circle Lab (launched 2021): A comprehensive development program in France’s Nouvelle-Aquitaine region.
4. Pop Up Series Incubator (launched November 2024): A television development program offering €10,000 grants to five selected teams, explicitly “co-financed by the European Union and supported by La Région Grand Est and the Karlovy Vary International Film Festival.”
   

Each program receives public funding. The Full Circle Lab is financially supported by “the Agency Alca Nouvelle-Aquitaine and the Lot-et-Garonne Department”, creating a significant footprint in publicly-funded film development.

Leadership Network: Key Personnel and Connections

At the center of Tatino’s operations is founder and CEO Matthieu Darras, whose professional biography reveals a substantial network of festival connections. Darras has simultaneously held multiple influential positions in the European film festival circuit:

• Member of the feature film selection committee for La Semaine de la Critique (Cannes)
• Consultant for the Venice Film Festival
• Delegate for the San Sebastian Film Festival
• Artistic Director of Bratislava Film Festival
• Artistic Director of TorinoFilmLab until 2018

This concentration of roles across major European festivals creates connections between development, funding, and selection processes.

The Consultant Network: Festival Integration by Design

Using EU financing and public funds, the company staffs its various initiatives by recruiting key figures from within the European film industry – producers, festival programmers, jury members, heads of distribution companies and employees, and individuals affiliated with public film funds across different countries. These influential professionals are then appointed as selectors, advisors, or jurors within Tatino’s own programs. For example, the Tatino team includes several individuals with direct ties to major film festivals:

• Wim Vanacker serves as Editorial Consultant for First Cut Lab while simultaneously holding a position on the Official Short Film Competition Selection Committee at Cannes.
• Julie Marnay (Program Manager) previously managed short film selection at Cannes Critics’ Week.
• Naomi Levari (Editorial Consultant) is identified as a producer and development executive at Black Sheep Film Productions.
• Anastasia Hoppanova (Team Member) is identified on LinkedIn as “Writer, Director, Creative Producer.”
  

Tatino’s programs are explicitly integrated with festival structures:

• The Pop Up Series Incubator culminates in “a two-day industry showcase on 7 and 8 July at the Karlovy Vary International Film Festival.”
• First Cut Lab originated “in collaboration with When East Meets West” in Trieste in 2015 and maintains this relationship.

The EU Funding Connection

Tatino’s newest venture, Pop Up Series Incubator, exemplifies how EU cultural funding flows through these networks. According to Cineuropa’s reporting, the program is “co-financed by the European Union” and will select five teams to receive €10,000 grants each.

Similarly, Full Circle Lab receives backing from multiple public entities including “the Agency Alca Nouvelle-Aquitaine and the Lot-et-Garonne Department.”

Favoring Friends, Shutting Out Others

This far-reaching influence across the European—and by extension, global—film industry enables key individuals to promote friends or those seeking their favor, while systematically excluding others. Filmmakers without access to these networks may find themselves blocked from opportunities, not because of merit, but because they are unknown, inconvenient, or simply out of favor for reasons that may be personal, political, or entirely arbitrary. This dynamic fosters an environment where gatekeeping is based less on artistic value and more on proximity to power.

Expansion and Growth

Despite questions about potential conflicts of interest, Tatino continues expanding its influence. The November 2024 launch of Pop Up Series Incubator represents its move into television development with fresh EU funding.

According to reporting on the Full Circle Lab launch, the program immediately secured notable industry figures including Alexis Hofmann, head of acquisitions at Bac Films, creating additional industry connections.

Wim Vanacker’s Multiple Roles

The case of Wim Vanacker illustrates the interconnected nature of roles in the European film industry. Vanacker serves as Editorial Consultant for Tatino’s First Cut Lab while simultaneously holding a position on the Cannes Film Festival Short Film Competition Selection Committee.

Vanacker previously served as Head of Script Department at NISI MASA (now known as “European Short Pitch”). Reports have raised questions about potential conflicts of interest during his tenure there, particularly regarding connections to Belgian producer Ben “Bekke” Vandendaele.

Alleged example for Abuse of Power

A widely discussed, an example of an alleged potential abuse of power involves the controversy surrounding the awarding of the 2019 Cannes Short Film Palme d’Or. The winning film notably featured individuals connected to this tightly knit network, raising concerns about favoritism and conflicts of interest within the selection process. The award went to a film produced by the producer of a jury member in the competition, and was not disclosed to anyone at the time.

A Complex Industry Ecosystem

These paint a picture of a European film development landscape characterized by interconnected roles and relationships. Tatino Films has succeeded in establishing a significant presence across multiple development programs with substantial public funding. The company’s key personnel maintain connections across major festivals and funding bodies, raising legitimate questions about potential conflicts of interest in an industry largely supported by public funds. However, without additional verification, specific statistical claims about selection advantages and anonymous industry testimonials cannot be confirmed.

Why This Concentration of Power Harms the Film Industry

When the same small circle of individuals controls development funding, mentors projects in progress, and sits on festival selection committees, the industry’s gatekeeping mechanisms collapse into a single opaque funnel. Public money meant to nurture a plurality of voices is effectively filtered by insiders who can steer resources toward their own professional networks, crowding out emerging filmmakers without comparable access. This erodes trust in both funding bodies and festivals, deters risk-taking by reinforcing prevailing tastes, and ultimately narrows the diversity of stories that reach audiences. Left unchecked, such overlap converts healthy competition into institutionalized favoritism, undermining the cultural and economic vitality that public film support is intended to protect.

Sources:

https://lithuanianshorts.com/en/news/script-consultant-wim-vanacker-theres-something-satisfying-about-nourishing-new-talents-and-discovering-new-voices

https://www.semainedelacritique.com/en/nextstep-consultant/matthieu-darras_107

https://www.aol.com/tatino-films-launches-full-circle-175703289.html

https://cineuropa.org/en/newsdetail/470688

https://www.popupseriesincubator.com/about-us

https://www.linkedin.com/company/tatino-films

The post Tatino Films – coming soon first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

New related post:

A Voice from Indonesia: A Filmmaker Exposes Feudalism and Fear in the Film Industry

Film Industry Watch recently received the following anonymous email exposing what appears to be another alleged case of conflict of interest in the film festival circuit – where a co-producer on films is working for and with a festival that selects the same films for inclusion in its program. The anonymous email states:

Our investigation confirms that at least in terms of credit listings, this seems to be correct. This shows a pattern of influence that extends beyond the previously documented case with Israeli filmmaker Yona Rozenkier. This new instance further demonstrates how the film industry sometimes operates on connections rather than merit, creating barriers for talented filmmakers without insider access.

From Factory to Competition

Last year, our publication documented how this producer maintains multiple influential positions within the film industry. She holds the dual position of curator and producer for the Factory program at Director’s Fortnight, a constituent part of the Cannes Film Festival, while also serving as a consultant for the festival’s L’Atelier and Residency programs. This concentration of influence created a clear conflict of interest in her work with Israeli director Yona Rozenkier.

The same pattern has now emerged with Filipino filmmaker Arvin Belarmino. Our investigation confirms that:

1. Belarmino participated in the Directors’ Factory 2024 program, which is curated by Welinski, directing a short film called “SILIG” with Cambodian filmmaker Lomorpich Rithy
2. Belarmino’s film “Radikals” was selected for and competed at the 2024 Cannes Film Festival’s Semaine de la Critique (Critics’ Week) As you can see in the image below, she is listed as a “key contributor” to the film.
3. She is now a co-producer for Belarmino’s latest short film “AGAPITO,” which has been selected for the prestigious Official Selection – Short Film In Competition category at the 78th Cannes Film Festival

AN Established Pattern

This career acceleration mirrors what happened with Yona Rozenkier, where her production company DW produced or co-produced his works. Rozenkier’s short film “Butterflies” formed part of the Official Selection in 2019, while his subsequent short film “The Sign” was showcased during the Cannes Directors’ Fortnight—which she curates—the very same year.

Furthermore, Rozenkier’s feature film “Decompression” (also known as “The Dive“) featured within the L’Atelier program in 2017, which she advises on. His project “Siberia” (later renamed “Wild Animals”) was included in the 2020 Torino Film Lab program, where she served as a “Decision Maker”.

UPDATE 24/5 – a 2nd short in Cannes

Only after the publication of this article, thanks to another tip from our readers, Film Industry Watch realized that another short film which was produced by Welinski, Bleat! was selected for this years Critics Week. From Deadline: “The film is produced by Choo Mun Bel of Malaysia’s Sixtymac Pictures and co-produced by Malaysia’s Idio Sync Inc, founded by the director and Ahilan Subramaniam, French producer Dominique Welinski’s DW Productions and Bradley Liew of the Philippines’ Epicmedia Productions.” This is the 2nd film produced by the same festival insider that was selected to the 2025 edition.

2ND UPDATE 24/5 – A 2ND SHORT BY Arvin Belarmino

The following was posted as a comment on this article:

“There’s also one more Arvin Belarmino connection in the Official Selection for Festival de Cannes 2025. He is the Screenplay Writer for the Bangladeshi film ‘Ali’, which is also competing for the Short Film Palme d’Or.”

This information was quickly sourced here.

3RD UPDATE 25/5 – DEEP TIES

We received the following anonymous email:

“Dominique Welinski has deep ties with the producers from the Philippines who have several projects through the years in Cannes sections.
Welinski has ties with producer Bradley Liew who also produced Bleat! A Critics week judge is also worked with the winners prod co MOMO films.
The film Bleat! Was also received a grant from the company MOMO who has worked with the judge in the critics week.”

The following images were attached to the email:

4TH UPDATE – 28/5 – CANNES 2026 PARTICIPANTS ALREADY SELECTED?

A new comment to this article reads: “Directors Factory 2026 is taking place in Indonesia with Yulia Evina Bhara serving as Co-producer much like Bradley Liew did last year. So you can expect most of the names in this article or ones working [with] these names to be the favored Directors who will again have their films in Cannes because of their close connection with Welinski.”

Film Industry Watch will return to this comment in 2026 to demonstrate how it’s possible to predict film festival participants a full year in advance (!) possibly including one filmmaker selected for the Official Shorts Program who took part in Factory 2025.

What this tells us?

What this new information tells us is that there are overlapping personal and professional relationships between festival programmers, jurors, and producers whose films are selected or awarded – raising serious questions about fairness, transparency, and potential conflicts of interest in the selection process.

1. A Network of Repeated Collaborators with Strong Ties to Cannes Critics’ Week

Multiple figures—particularly Dominique Welinski, Yulia Evina Bhara, Bradley Liew, and Arvin Belarmino—appear to operate within a closely connected circle. These individuals frequently collaborate on films that are selected for La Semaine de la Critique (Critics’ Week) at Cannes.

2. Overlap Between Jury Members and Selected/Winning Projects

• Yulia Evina Bhara is a Critics’ Week jury member in 2025.
• She also collaborates with Momo Film Co, the company that won the Grand Prize in Critics’ Week 2025 (A Useful Ghost).
• Momo Film Co previously worked with her as a co-producer on Dreaming & Dying.
• This raises questions of impartiality, as jury members are professionally tied to production companies that are being judged.

3. Dominique Welinski’s Central Influence

• Welinski is named as a mentor and co-producer on multiple films selected at Cannes (e.g., Radikals, Bleat!).
• She is affectionately described by several filmmakers as “like a mother,” hosting dinners, giving career guidance, and securing opportunities.
• Posts and photos show her in informal, close settings with key team members behind selected projects—well beyond professional distance.
• She curates the Factory program and is involved in Critics’ Week and Directors’ Fortnight selections, suggesting institutional influence across sections.

4. Multiple Selections Within the Same Social-Professional Group

• Radikals (Critics’ Week 2024) was co-produced by Welinski, with a producer (Kristine De Leon) and director (Arvin Belarmino) who have long ties to her.
• Bleat! (2024) was also co-produced by Welinski and Bradley Liew—who also appears in a personal dinner photo with her.
• A Useful Ghost (2025 Grand Prize winner) is linked to Momo Films and Yulia Evina Bhara—again circling back to individuals with ties to Critics’ Week.

What It Suggests

This pattern suggests a tight-knit network of producers, mentors, and jury members who continuously collaborate, support, and elevate each other’s work within Cannes festival circuits. While collaboration is a normal part of any industry, the lack of transparency, repeated selections, and overlapping roles (mentor, co-producer, juror) point to a potential conflict of interest and a closed ecosystem where access and personal relationships may outweigh merit.

This dynamic may cut both ways

In at least one case it seems that this dynamic extends beyond nurturing hand-picked directors, suggesting it can also close doors. One filmmaker recalls a baffling encounter: “In Cannes 2021, at a party, I greeted Dominique and the producer who was with her. A little later, I ran into the producer at the bar and offered another friendly ‘hi.’ She shot back, ‘I know who you are and I’ve heard everything about you!’ then turned on her heel and took off as if I were convicted of murder. It was so rude and strange. I still have no idea what she was implying; the whole episode struck me as utterly surreal. What are the implications of falling on the wrong side of someone as powerful as her, who clearly does not shy of using her influence, I can only guess. It seems she uses gossip as a weapon, and I have no idea what made up story was said.’ he recalls. The filmmaker, well known to the individuals involved, and who has made his position clear on this subject, is from the same country as Mr. Rozenkier, believes that this have been her tactic for ensuring that Rozenkier would face “less competition” in the international festival circuit and in securing financing by the national film funds in the country. Considering the many conflicts of interest and signs of abuse of institutional power by the said individuals, this does not seem far fetched, and has never been denied. ‘There are hundreds of dedicated, honest, and hardworking people in the film industry. Unfortunately it is the encounters with the few problematic people that could have lasting consequences. It is no coincidence that those are the same individuals who are mentioned throughout your website multiple times in relations to many irregularities.’

Why This Matters: The Closed Circuit of Influence

This situation epitomizes the “revolving door” dynamic prevalent in the film industry, as illustrated in our previous reporting. A limited circle of individuals hold a variety of influential positions, rotating between being program curators, fund advisors, and producers. When a person holds multiple roles of power—simultaneously curating programs, advising on selections, and producing films—they create a closed circuit where their own productions gain significant advantages over outsiders. Such interconnections perpetuate a culture of exclusivity, hindering fresh talent from entering the field. This is precisely why the film industry’s artistic output suffers, artistic merit becomes secondary to personal connections and insider relationships. We remind our readers the case in which a short competition selection committee had her own produced short selected to the very same program that she helps selecting films for.

It’s important to note that “AGAPITO” is one of only 11 short films selected from 4,781 entries worldwide to compete for the Short Film Palme d’Or. The odds of selection are extremely low (0.23%), raising questions about whether Belarmino’s connection to his producer, who also works for and with Cannes, played a role in securing this coveted spot.

A System That Benefits Insiders

As our previous reporting has shown, the film industry is structured as a network of interconnected and affiliated organizations that benefit only those who are members of the network, distributing resources among each other. This case exemplifies how this system works.

When a producer is strategically positioned to utilizes their influence to advocate for the works of directors with whom they are professionally associated, it potentially disadvantages other filmmakers who lack analogous connections within the festival’s administration and broader film festival community.

A Culture of fear

All of the above information was submitted to us anonymously. The reason for this is telling: there exists a pervasive culture of fear within the film industry. Filmmakers, especially those without institutional power or protection, have come to understand that “politics” – social alignment, affiliations, personal connections, and public signaling – all carry more weight than talent, merit, or originality. Speaking out, even privately, can jeopardize careers, funding opportunities, and access to vital networks. The fact that individuals feel compelled to withhold their identities, even in confidential contexts like this, speaks volumes. It reveals a system where fairness is compromised, where honesty comes with professional risk, and where many feel that navigating unspoken rules is more important than the quality of their work. That alone should give us pause.

NOT A BUG, but A FEATURE of the system

This is not an isolated failure or an unfortunate exception; it is a structural feature of the system. As French philosopher Foucault observed, power and influence are not merely held or possessed — they circulates, embedded in relationships, institutions, and discourses. In the context of the festival circuit, power manifests not through transparent meritocratic evaluation, but through informal networks of exchange, influence, and symbolic capital (or real capital.) Individuals in certain positions convert cultural and social capital into concrete opportunities, under the guise of fairness or professionalism. When dealing with art, which is so called subjective (it really isn’t, but this is a subject for another article) it is especially easy to hide behind the vail of subjectivity, which is why the world of art is so incredibly corrupt.

A truly merit-based system would not allow these forms of “soft” power to generate such outsized influence. The current structure actively incentivizes gatekeeping, favor-trading, and performative allyship. These are not aberrations; they are mechanisms by which the system reproduces itself. It is not a bug, it is a feature of the system. In an age where anyone can make a film with a cheap camera or even a mobile phone, it is not only meant to produce power for insiders, but also to protect the system, and the limited resources within its influence (state funding, investors money etc) from outsiders, and ensure that the limited resources are circulating within a small group of insiders.

Why the Media Stays Silent?

Traditional media outlets don’t address these issues openly because they are deeply entwined with the very institutions they would need to scrutinize. Film festivals, production companies, and industry gatekeepers provide journalists with access – early screenings, exclusive interviews, red carpet events, and press passes. In many cases, media organizations rely on these relationships for advertising revenue and content. Criticizing the system risks losing access, damaging partnerships, and jeopardizing future coverage opportunities. As a result, all journalists choose silence or vague language over honest reporting. It’s not that they don’t see the problem – it’s that speaking out would come at a cost they’re unwilling or unable to pay.

The Bigger Picture or – what happened to cinema?

Ever wondered why so many films are, to put it politely, not great?

There is no shortage of talented filmmakers but a deeply entrenched culture of favoritism and quiet corruption keeps many of them in the shadows. While a well-connected few circulate among festivals and cocktail parties, congratulating one another, the art of cinema continues to wither. And now, with the rapid rise of AI-generated content threatening to further marginalize human creativity, the final blow to independent, original filmmaking will arrive sooner than anyone expected.

5TH UPDATE – 28/5 – Behind the Festival Curtain: Untangling the Web of Southeast Asian Collaborations at Cannes 2025

A new comment has been posted on this article. Below is an analysis and verification of the information it contains:

Who did what – in the context OF asia being a continent of 4.75 billion people:

Gogularaajan Rajendran really is both the editor of Bleat! and one of the eight filmmakers selected for Directors’ Factory 2024 (Philippines edition).

Don Josephus Raphael Eblahan likewise appears in the same Factory line-up (co-directing the short Cold Cut).

His short Vox Humana is officially presented as a Momo Film Co project with Alemberg Ang credited as co-producer; the film is being circulated with Momo’s support, but public records do not yet confirm it as a cash recipient of the annual Momo Distribution Grant—only that it is a Momo-backed title.

RIA (feature debut of Arvin Belarmino) lists Alemberg Ang as producer and Momo Film Co and Dominique Welinski / DW among its co-producers on the Cannes Critics’ Week “Next Step” page, confirming their partnership.

Momo Film Co and Yulia Evina Bhara have previously teamed up on two high-profile festival films:

Don’t Cry, Butterfly – Venice Critics’ Week 2024 winner.

Dreaming & Dying – dual Leopard winner at Locarno 2023.

Bradley Liew (Epicmedia) and DW Productions (Dominique Welinski) are indeed the lead producers of Directors’ Factory 2024.

Renoir (Cannes main competition 2025, dir. Chie Hayakawa) lists both Yulia Evina Bhara and Alemberg Ang among its co-producers in industry press and credit sheets, confirming that the pair now share a feature-length project.

From a continent of 4.75 billion (with a B) people, this is highly coincidental.

How often they show up:

It’s undeniable that Bhara, Liew, Ang, Momo Film Co., and DW appear regularly at major labs and markets—Cinéfondation Résidence, La Fabrique, Locarno Open Doors, Venice Critics’ Week, Quinzaine des Cinéastes, and more—and frequently collaborate with one another. However, they are not the only Southeast Asian names active on the global circuit; filmmakers like Anthony Chen, Mouly Surya, Phạm Thiên Ân, and Woo Ming-Jin, among others, also maintain a consistent international presence. That said, in a region representing nearly 4.75 billion people, the concentration of opportunities and visibility around a relatively small group raises very valid questions. Statistically, such dominance is hard to explain without acknowledging the influence of a closely connected network, one that may, intentionally, function as a gatekeeping ecosystem with limited entry points for newcomers.

Points that were inaccurate:
Jury leadership. The 2025 Cannes Critics’ Week jury is chaired by Spanish director Rodrigo Sorogoyen; Yulia Evina Bhara sits on the five-person jury but does not lead it.

“Only two SEA films.” This year’s Critics’ Week line-up contains at least two Southeast-Asian features (A Useful Ghost and RIA in development) and one SEA short (Bleat!). So the claim of exclusivity is not accurate.

Above is a network diagram that lays out the major nodes (people/companies and films/projects) and the lines of collaboration or influence between them. A few key patterns jump out visually:

• Momo Film Co. sits at the hub, linked to nearly every title and to multiple producers, underscoring its central role in this ecosystem.
• Yulia Evina Bhara, Alemberg Ang, and Dominique Welinski (DW) form a tightly knit triangle, each sharing at least one feature in common ( Renoir , RIA , Don’t Cry Butterfly , Dreaming & Dying ).
• Directors’ Factory 2024 connects a separate cluster—Rajendran, Eblahan, Liew, and DW—yet still loops back to Momo via other films.
• Even seemingly independent prize outcomes (Bleat! and A Useful Ghost) remain only a hop or two away from the same nucleus of producers and jurors.

In short, the “visual map” reinforces what the credit sheets suggest: a small, highly interconnected circle repeatedly occupies the same festival slots, award juries, and co-production banners—making it difficult for new voices to break in.

Award-giving coincidence:

The Critics’ Week Grand Prize was awarded to the Thai feature A Useful Ghost, with decisions made collectively by the jury chaired by Rodrigo Sorogoyen. The Queer Palm for Best Short Film – an independent award with a separate jury – went to Bleat!. While technically outside the Critics’ Week jury’s purview, the result is hardly surprising given the dense web of connections shared among the filmmakers, producers, and jurors involved.

Though Yulia Evina Bhara may not have directly influenced the Queer Palm outcome, she was involved in deliberations for A Useful Ghost, a film co-produced by companies she has collaborated with multiple times. It’s naive to assume that a single juror cannot steer discussion or tip a consensus, especially in a small, interwoven ecosystem like the one that dominates the Southeast Asian presence on the international circuit.

This points to a larger systemic flaw: festival juries should be completely free of any direct or indirect connection to the films in competition. That such conflicts of interest are tolerated—and even normalized—speaks to how insular and self-reinforcing the so-called “independent” film world has become. In any healthy cultural ecosystem, this would be a clear ethical breach. Here, it’s business as usual.

Take-away:

Almost every production link that the comment listed is genuine. The pattern is a tight, increasingly well-networked generation of SEA producers who pool resources across borders; international labs and sidebars actively encourage such clustering and degrade artistic output, let alone access to newcomers. This is another example of the issues that we keep raising on this website. We thank you for the contribution, please contact us for any additional information.

Source URLs:

https://www.quinzaine-cineastes.fr/en/directors-factory-2024

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleat%21

https://www.semainedelacritique.com/en/edition/2025/movie/bleat

https://www.momofilm.co/short-films/vox-humana

https://www.semainedelacritique.com/en/movie/ria

https://www.momofilm.co/features/ria

https://www.momofilm.co/features/dont-cry-butterfly

https://www.momofilm.co/features/dreaming-dying

https://gazettely.com/2025/05/entertainment/renoir-review

https://www.semainedelacritique.com/en/edition/2025/jury

https://www.nationthailand.com/life/entertainment/40050316

https://hype.my/2025/472879/malaysian-short-film-bleat-wins-queer-palm-award-at-cannes-film-festival-2025/

NOTE TO READER:

Please note that this article is not meant to be an ad hominem attack on any specific person. The individuals mentioned and their positions in various organizations are used as examples for the way that the film industry operates. The positions, roles and professional relationship between individuals are public information. Sources are provided throughout the website. If you would like to report any inaccuracy please do not hesitate to contact us. Our aim is to improve and democratize the film industry by analyzing the way its institutions are set-up. In order to do so, we must list those organizations and the people who work for them or with them, and their relationship with each other.

Sources for the main article:

1. https://filmindustrywatch.org/dominique-welinski/    
2. https://www.quinzaine-cineastes.fr/en/directors-factory-2024 
3. https://www.semainedelacritique.com/en/articles/about-emradikalsem
4. https://mb.com.ph/2024/5/2/filipino-short-film-radikals-selected-to-compete-at-cannes-63rd-semaine-de-la-critique 
5. https://www.heartofhollywoodmagazine.com/post/agapito-a-cinematic-marvel-imagined-by-the-brilliant-arvin-belarmino-and-kyla-romero-has-officially 
6. https://www.philstar.com/entertainment/movies/2025/05/06/2441076/filipino-short-filmmakers-compete-cannes-film-festival-2025 
7. https://filmfreeway.com/Butterflies641
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dive_(2018_film)
9. https://popupfilmresidency.org/project/yona-rozenkier-siberia/
10. filmindustrywatch.org    
11. https://letterboxd.com/film/radikals/
12. https://www.festival-cannes.com/en/f/agapito/
13. https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/lifestyle/artandculture/946126/young-filipino-filmmakers-heading-to-cannes-for-their-short-films-agapito-and-ali/story/
14. https://horsdubocal.eu/films/silig
15. https://deadline.com/video/cannes-critics-week-bleat-trailer-sixtymac-epicmedia/
16. https://filmindustrywatch.org/melissa-malinbaum/
17. https://deadline.com/2025/05/cannes-critics-week-winners-a-useful-ghost-imago-top-prizes-1236407401/

The post Cannes 2025: Anonymous Source(s) Reveal New Conflict of Interest at Cannes (updateS 1,2,3,4,5) first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

Hi, we are aware of a serious conflict of interest with the Un Certain Regard jury and wanted to highlight the below letter which we were intending to send before the festival began but were scared of potential professional reprisals. We wish to remain anonymous.

Dear Festival de Cannes team,

We, as concerned filmmakers, are writing to raise a matter of serious concern regarding the integrity of the Un Certain Regard competition at this year’s Cannes Film Festival. Specifically, we wish to address the appointment of Molly Manning Walker as jury president and the clear conflict of interest this may present.

Manning Walker maintains well-known and close personal and professional relationships with filmmakers Harris Dickinson and Harry Lighton, whose work is included in this year’s Un Certain Regard selection. It is widely understood that she may have viewed these films in advance of the festival and even offered feedback, and her ties to the directors are not incidental—they are longstanding, collaborative, and personal in nature.

This situation risks compromising the impartiality of the jury and the credibility of the awards process. More than that, it threatens to unfairly implicate the other members of the jury, who may find themselves overshadowed by a perception of partiality beyond their control. It also casts an unfortunate shadow over the filmmakers participating in good faith—particularly those who do not share personal relationships with members of the jury and who deserve the assurance of a level playing field. It feels unfair that they too should be drawn into this deception – we do not believe that this conflict of interest has been openly declared as were it to have been so Manning Walker would surely have been asked to step down.

In order to protect the integrity of the selection process, to uphold the principles of fairness, and to safeguard the reputations of both the filmmakers and jurors, we respectfully call on Manning Walker to step down from her role as jury president. We urge the Cannes Film Festival to reconsider her appointment and provide an impartial replacement.

This request is not made in criticism of Manning Walker’s artistic merit or personal character, but in defense of the transparency and neutrality that the Cannes Film Festival has long stood for.

update post festival

The anonymous letter from concerned filmmakers specifically highlighted potential conflicts of interest involving jury president Molly Manning Walker. The letter stated that Manning Walker maintained “well-known and close personal and professional relationships with filmmakers Harris Dickinson and Harry Lighton, whose work is included in this year’s Un Certain Regard selection”. The filmmakers expressed concern that she “may have viewed these films in advance of the festival and even offered feedback”.

What Actually Happened

The awards results show that both filmmakers specifically mentioned in the conflict of interest letter received prizes:

• Harris Dickinson’s “Urchin”: Frank Dillane won the Best Actor award for his performance in this film (Sources here and here)
• Harry Lighton’s “Pillion”: Won the Best Screenplay award (Sources here and here)

Signs of Potential Conflict

Several factors suggest the concerns may have been justified:

Direct Awards to Mentioned Filmmakers: Both Harris Dickinson and Harry Lighton, who were specifically named in the conflict of interest letter, received awards from the jury chaired by Manning Walker.

Media Commentary: Even entertainment industry publications noted the coincidence. Variety observed: “Whether due to Manning Walker’s influence or not, it was a successful evening for British cinema, as newcomer Harry Lighton won the Best Screenplay award”.

Pattern of British Success: The results showed unusually strong performance by British filmmakers, with multiple awards going to UK productions despite the international nature of the competition.

Context and Mitigation

The main Un Certain Regard Prize went to “The Mysterious Gaze of the Flamingo” by Chilean filmmaker Diego Céspedes, who appears to have no connection to Manning Walker. This suggests the jury didn’t completely favor Manning Walker’s associates for the top prize. However, the fact that both filmmakers specifically identified as having potential conflicts of interest with the jury president received awards raises questions about the process’s integrity, regardless of the artistic merit of their work. We remind our readers of the 2019 Short Film Awards, where the Palme d’Or was awarded to a film produced by someone with close ties to a jury member. That same jury member reportedly told the filmmakers after the festival that he had “thrown their films out of consideration.”

The post CANNES 2025: Un Certain Regard, letter from concerned filmmakers (UPDATE 1) first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

The post Film Festival Jury Favoritism and Prior Connections first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

As wildfires scorch Los Angeles, leaving entire neighborhoods in ruin and the global film industry bracing for aftershocks, across the Atlantic, Greece presents its own brand of chaos. The state-run EKOMMED-Creative Greece, in a move as audacious as it is absurd, has just announced its financial co-sponsorship of the 2027 European Film Awards. The news lands like a bitter joke among film industry insiders—a press release dressed in grandeur while the foundation rots beneath.

Here’s the harsh reality: Creative Greece is broke. Its coffers are empty, unable to pay producers for completed TV shows and films, let alone provide the necessary pre-approvals for the 100-plus projects languishing in limbo. Yet, somehow, they have the gall to promise a glittering event for 2027, one they claim will be broadcast by the state network ERT and the European Broadcasting Union. Never mind that since May 2024, the platform for new project submissions has been shut down, a quiet admission that there’s no money for 2024 or 2025. But 2027? Wow! Miraculously, the funds will appear. Like magic.

By then, Leonidas Christopoulos, the ineffectual president of Creative Greece, will likely be long gone, as will the right-wing government of Kyriakos Mitsotakis. They’ll leave behind a legacy of empty promises and a film industry they turned into a hollow shell.

Standing beside Christopoulos in this farcical press announcement is Harris Doukas, the mayor of Athens. Once hailed as a progressive leader, Doukas now presides over a capital drowning in garbage, earning its reputation as one of Europe’s filthiest cities. And yet, here he is, beaming with delusion. He welcomes an event he claims will attract more productions to Athens, championed by the city’s so-called Film Office . But he’s blind to the obvious: serious producers won’t gamble their time or resources on a country that offers no financial stability, no infrastructure, and no guarantee of support. The reality on the ground is grim—Athens isn’t a hub for filmmaking; it’s a mirage.

This isn’t just incompetence; it’s theater. A performance designed to distract from the dysfunction beneath. But as the flames of mismanagement burn brighter, even this illusion is beginning to crumble.

MORE THAN A SHEER COINCIDENCE?

In the shadowy depths of Greek cinema politics, where ambition and influence collide, a tangled web of alliances and secretive deals is beginning to unravel. The stage was set when veteran  film critic, and EFA member, Panagiotis Timogiannakis posted on his Facebook on January 8, 2025 at 11:09 am local time) revealing exclusive details about Spiros Taraviras—an Athens-based director—who allegedly played a key role in securing Athens as the host city for the 2027 European Film Awards (EFA).

Taraviras wasn’t just a behind-the-scenes operator; he served on a committee, in August 2024,  handpicked by none other than Minister of Culture Iason Fotilas, the same Fotilas whose ministry approved Murderess (Fonissa), a Tanweer production, as Greece’s official entry for the Best International Picture Oscar. A connection? A coincidence? Or something more deliberate lurking behind the curtain?

But this is only the surface of a much deeper, darker story.

According to industry sources who wish to remain anonymous —hallmarks of a system shrouded in secrecy—Taraviras initially pitched the EFA event directly to Tanweer, attempting to link it to the company behind Murderess. When the proposal failed, despite Tanweer reportedly funding Taraviras’ “negotiations” across Europe, the narrative shifted. Enter, months later, Minister Fotilas, stepping in after the Oscars fiasco like a deus ex machina. Suddenly, the EFA event shifted from a private venture to a state-sponsored spectacle. The ruling party’s golden boys were positioned to amass millions and run, bolstered by the official seal of the Ministry of Culture and the unwavering support of the state-controlled broadcaster, ERT.

The ethical concerns here are undeniable. How can a director, serving on a committee appointed by the Minister of Modern Culture, engage in negotiations with a company whose production he actively influenced during the selection process—without disclosing such a clear conflict of interest to Ministry officials? The situation becomes even more alarming when we learn that this same committee member, who cast a vote for the Oscars submission, had previously worked for the nominee company, earning a fee of thousands of euros before the voting took place. Shouldn’t he have stepped aside from the entire process? Is this a case of diplomacy or outright duplicity? A conflict of interest or blatant misconduct?

The 2027 EFA event may glitter on the surface, but beneath lies the unmistakable stench of a system built on favors, influence, and backroom deals. This is not just about cinema and art—it’s about politics, control, and the bonfire of the vanities…

SOURCES:

https://www.radiotvlink.com/en/cinema/15783

The post Politics, Power & the Bonfire of Vanities: The 2027 (!) European Film Academy Event in Athens first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

(By Hector Alejandro Morales, Film Industry Watch contributor and Greek industry insider)

Μετά τη δημοσίευση του άρθρου «Κατηγορίες για Διαφθορά και Παρακμή στο Ελληνικό Κέντρο Κινηματογράφου» από το filmindustrywatch.org, το οποίο αποκάλυψε τις πρακτικές τύπου καρτέλ πίσω από τις κρατικές επιδοτήσεις στην Ελλάδα, αυξάνεται το κύμα δυσαρέσκειας για την κατάσταση της ελληνικής κινηματογραφικής βιομηχανίας και τους μηχανισμούς χρηματοδότησης της. Μετά το φιάσκο (της υποβολής εθνικής συμμετοχής) στα Όσκαρ Καλύτερης Διεθνούς Ταινίας, το Υπουργείο Πολιτισμού (Ιάσων Φωτήλας και Λίνα Μενδώνη) και ο Πρωθυπουργός Κυριάκος Μητσοτάκης απέτυχαν να τηρήσουν τις υποσχέσεις τους για αλλαγές. Τα βασικά σημεία που αναδεικνύουν τη συνεχιζόμενη έλλειψη προόδου και τις δομικές αναποτελεσματικότητες:

Αλλαγές Ηγεσίας με Ελάχιστο Αντίκτυπο

Οι αλλαγές ηγεσίας φαίνονται περισσότερο συμβολικές παρά ουσιαστικές, καθώς ο νέος διευθύνων σύμβουλος, Λεωνίδας Χριστόπουλος, συνεχίζει την ίδια αναποτελεσματική ατζέντα. Το Διοικητικό Συμβούλιο της Creative Greece αποτελείται από έναν πολιτικό μηχανικό και τέσσερις δικηγόρους—κανένας από τους οποίους δεν έχει καμία σχέση με την οπτικοακουστική παραγωγή—και όλοι είναι συνδεδεμένοι με το κυβερνών δεξιό κόμμα, τη Νέα Δημοκρατία.

Ο διευθύνων σύμβουλος Λεωνίδας Χριστόπουλος λαμβάνει τον εντυπωσιακό ετήσιο μισθό των 240.000 ευρώ, ενώ το υπόλοιπο διοικητικό συμβούλιο κερδίζει συνολικά 200.000 ευρώ ετησίως. Παρά τις πολυάριθμες ανακοινώσεις για φιλόδοξα σχέδια υποστήριξης ταινιών μεγάλου μήκους, βιντεοπαιχνιδιών και κινουμένων σχεδίων, ο Χριστόπουλος δεν έχει παραδώσει απτά αποτελέσματα. Η Creative Greece και η πρωτοβουλία Cash Back έχουν χάσει κάθε αξιοπιστία. Παρά τις υποσχέσεις ότι 110 εκατομμύρια ευρώ θα είναι διαθέσιμα το 2025 για την πρωτοβουλία Cash Back, επικρατεί πλήρης σιωπή σχετικά με τις προεγκρίσεις και τις πληρωμές για τα ολοκληρωμένα έργα. (Η Creative Greece απασχολεί πάνω από 180 εργαζόμενους, εκ των οποίων περίπου 70 εργάζονται για την πρωτοβουλία Cash Back, το πρώην ΕΚΟΜΕ– νυν ΕΚΚΟΜΕΔ/Creative Greece.

100+ Έργα σε Εκκρεμότητα

Περισσότερα από 100 έργα παραμένουν σε εκκρεμότητα στο πλαίσιο του προγράμματος Cash Back (το οποίο έχει μετονομαστεί σε Creative Greece), λόγω συστημικών αναποτελεσματικοτήτων στις διαδικασίες προέγκρισης και πληρωμής. Αυτό το αδιέξοδο εμποδίζει τη δημιουργικότητα και την πρόοδο του κλάδου, ιδιαίτερα για ανεξάρτητους και ανερχόμενους δημιουργούς. Με τους τρέχοντες ρυθμούς, φαίνεται εξαιρετικά απίθανο το Διοικητικό Συμβούλιο να εγκρίνει ή να χρηματοδοτήσει οποιοδήποτε έργο έως το τέλος Ιανουαρίου 2025, πόσο μάλλον να αντιμετωπίσει την εκκρεμότητα των πάνω από 100 αιτήσεων.

Καθυστερήσεις Χρηματοδότησης και Πλατφόρμας

Η αναστολή της χρηματοδότησης και οι καθυστερήσεις στην έναρξη της νέας πλατφόρμας αιτήσεων για το πρόγραμμα Cash Back έχουν επιδεινώσει περαιτέρω την κατάσταση. Ενώ η πλατφόρμα είχε αρχικά προγραμματιστεί να τεθεί σε λειτουργία την 1η Οκτωβρίου 2024, με βάση το ΦΕΚ, η έναρξη έχει πλέον αναβληθεί για τα τέλη Ιανουαρίου 2025. Αυτή η καθυστέρηση έχει παραλύσει τις κρίσιμες εξελίξεις στον κλάδο, με αποτέλεσμα οι περισσότερες συμπαραγωγές να επιλέγουν γειτονικές χώρες όπως η Ιταλία, η Μάλτα και η Βουλγαρία για γυρίσματα.

Προβλήματα στο Φεστιβάλ Ταινιών Μικρού Μήκους Δράμας

Το Φεστιβάλ Ταινιών Μικρού Μήκους Δράμας δέχεται επίσης έντονη κριτική για την εξάρτησή του από κρατικά επιδοτούμενες ταινίες του Ελληνικού Κέντρου Κινηματογράφου. Παρά την παραγωγή άνω των 400 ταινιών μικρού μήκους ετησίως, το φεστιβάλ συνεχίζει να προβάλλει τις ίδιες κρατικοδίαιτες ταινίες, προκαλώντας ανησυχίες για τη συμπερίληψη και τη διαδικασία επιλογής βάσει αξίας. Η εμμονική εμπλοκή των ίδιων προσώπων στο προσκήνιο και το παρασκήνιο διατηρεί μια νοοτροπία αποκλεισμού, ενώ η πρόσφατη προκήρυξη για νέο καλλιτεχνικό διευθυντή του φεστιβάλ δεν έχει εμπνεύσει ουδεμία εμπιστοσύνη.

Ένα Σύστημα σε Βαθιά Κρίση

Η διαρκής αδιαφορία για την πραγματική αξία και το ταλέντο, η χρηματοδότηση των μετριοτήτων και των διαπλεκόμενων, υπογραμμίζει ένα βαθύτερο πολιτιστικό και θεσμικό πρόβλημα, όπου οι ευκαιρίες είναι αποσυνδεδεμένες από τις ευρύτερες δυνατότητες του κλάδου. Είναι επιτακτική η ανάγκη για τολμηρές μεταρρυθμίσεις, διαφανείς διαδικασίες χρηματοδότησης και μια ανανεωμένη δέσμευση για αξιοκρατία, ώστε να αποκατασταθεί η εμπιστοσύνη και να ξεκλειδωθεί το πραγματικό δυναμικό της ελληνικής κινηματογραφικής βιομηχανίας.

English version:

FURTHER READING:

https://pasok.gr/ti-symbainei-sto-ekkomed

The post Συνεχίζεται το τέλμα στον ελληνικό κινηματογράφο! first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

Following our publication of the article “Corruption and Decadence in the Greek Film Center”, which exposed the cartel-like operations behind state subsidies in Greece, there is a growing wave of frustration with the state of the Greek film industry and its funding mechanisms. After the Best International Picture Oscars fiasco, the Ministry of Culture (Iason Fotilas and Lina Mendoni) and Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis failed to fulfill their promises for change. Several key points highlight the ongoing lack of progress and structural inefficiencies:

1. Leadership Changes with Minimal Impact
   Leadership transitions appear more symbolic than substantive, as the new CEO, Leonidas Christopoulos, continues the same ineffective agenda. The Board of Directors of Creative Greece comprises one civil engineer and four lawyers—none of whom have any connection to audiovisual production—and all are affiliated with the ruling right-wing party, New Democracy.
   CEO Leonidas Christopoulos earns an impressive €240,000 annually, while the rest of the board collectively takes home €200,000 per year. Despite numerous press releases boasting grand ambitions to support feature films, video games, and animation, Christopoulos has failed to deliver tangible results. Creative Greece and the Cash Back initiative have lost all credibility. Despite promises that €110 million will be available in 2025 for the Cash Back initiative, there is complete silence on pre-approvals and payment for completed projects. (Creative Greece has over 180 employees, with around 70 of them working on the Cash Back initiative.)
   
   
2. 100+ Stalled Projects
   Over 100 projects remain in limbo under the Hellenic Cash Back program (now rebranded as Creative Greece), stalled due to systemic inefficiencies in pre-approval and payment processes. This backlog hampers creativity and industry momentum, particularly for independent and emerging filmmakers. Given the current pace, it seems highly unlikely that the Board of Directors will approve or fund any projects by the end of January, let alone address the backlog of 100 stalled applications.
   
   
3. Funding and Platform Delays
   The suspension of funding and delays in launching the new applications platform for the Cash Back program have further aggravated the situation. Originally set to go live on October 1st, the platform’s launch has now been pushed to late January 2025, stalling critical developments across the sector. Meanwhile, most co-productions are choosing neighboring countries like Italy, Malta, and Bulgaria for filming.
   
   
4. Drama Short Film Festival Issues
   The Drama Short Film Festival continues to showcase predominantly state-subsidized films from the Greek Film Center, despite the production of over 400 short films annually. This raises serious concerns about inclusion and merit-based selection. The persistent involvement of the same decision-makers reflects entrenched gatekeeping. The recent call for a new festival director has done little to inspire confidence.

The pervasive disregard for genuine merit highlights a deeper cultural and institutional problem, where opportunities are disconnected from the industry’s broader potential. Urgent reforms are needed to address these systemic failures and restore trust in the Greek film industry.

Further reading:

https://www.lifo.gr/now/entertainment/festibal-dramas-apohorei-o-thanasis-neofotistos-apo-epikefalis-toy-spoydastikoy

https://pasok.gr/ti-symbainei-sto-ekkomed

The post Decadence & Dysfunction: A Call for Greek Film Reform first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

The Israeli film industry, once celebrated for its groundbreaking work on both local and international stages, now finds itself at a critical crossroads. Recent government reforms spearheaded by Minister of Culture and Sport, Miki Zohar, aim to overhaul the funding structure of Israel’s cinema funds, raising alarm among filmmakers. Critics argue that these reforms, introduced during a time of war and economic uncertainty, threaten to dismantle the very foundation of Israeli cinema. The controversy intensifies as these changes seem poised to bolster a system already rife with alleged corruption and monopolistic practices.

Related new article published July 10th 2025 – 11 Female Nominees, One Male: Inside Israel’s Chaos & Derangement

The Reforms: Prioritizing Commercial Success

At the heart of Zohar’s proposed reforms is a shift in funding priorities. The reforms, which include revised criteria for film fund allocations, favor commercially-oriented films over artistic and niche productions. Documentaries, short films, student projects, and independent art-house films—long the hallmark of Israeli cinema—face severe funding cuts.

Zohar argues that public funds should support films with broad audience appeal, eschewing those that cater to limited or international audiences. “Public money should return to the public,” he stated, emphasizing a focus on profitability and accessibility over critical acclaim or festival recognition. Yet, filmmakers caution that commercial success is inherently unpredictable, and forcing art to fit into a profit-driven model risks stifling creativity and diversity.

Industry Outcry: An Attack on Freedom of Expression

The proposed changes have sparked widespread backlash from filmmakers and industry professionals. A petition signed by over 1,500 filmmakers, including prominent names such as Ari Folman and Eran Kolirin, calls for an immediate halt to the reforms. The petition describes the move as a “cinematic coup,” accusing the government of attempting to control creative content and suppress artistic freedom. “After the reform, the stories of Israeli cinema will disappear, along with the industry that employs thousands,” the petition warns.

This crisis is compounded by ongoing challenges, including the war’s disruption of productions and an international boycott of Israeli films. Many fear that the reforms could deliver a fatal blow to an already struggling sector.

Alleged Corruption in the Film Funds: The Rabinovich and Gesher Foundations

Compounding the controversy is the revelation of alleged corruption within Israel’s two largest film funds: The Rabinovich Foundation for the Arts and the Gesher Multicultural Film Fund. Investigations have uncovered claims of systemic misconduct, including alleged conflicts of interest, insider favoritism, and financial irregularities.

Giora Eini, head of the Rabinovich Foundation since 1995, is accused of leveraging political connections to maintain control over hundreds of millions of shekels in film funding. Allegations include employing journalists as script readers to prevent negative coverage, manipulating evaluation processes, and fostering a monopolistic environment. The Rabinovich Fund, along with United King, a production and distribution company tied to Moshe Edery, allegedly controls a disproportionate share of the industry’s resources. Moshe Edery is also a good friend of Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel’s Right Wing parties. Nearly 50% of Rabinovich’s funding over recent years went to projects tied to Edery’s company, raising concerns about cronyism and mismanagement of taxpayer money, particularly in political context, in a country that is already going through a slow but constant erosion of its democratic institutions.

Connecting the Dots: A Systemic Takeover

Zohar’s reforms appear to funnel even more resources into this already embattled system, further empowering the alleged “cinema mafia.” By prioritizing commercial projects, the reforms align with the interests of those who have historically benefited from questionable practices. Critics argue that instead of diversifying funding and supporting emerging voices, the reforms will consolidate power within a small, insular group accused of draining public funds for personal gain.

Moreover, insiders claim that these reforms mirror long-standing patterns of favoritism and corruption. Members of the Israeli Film Council, tasked with oversight, have allegedly received funding from the very funds they regulate. Projects with low evaluator scores have mysteriously secured financing, and insider deals between fund managers and council members have eroded trust in the system.

The Bigger Picture: A Threat to Israeli Culture

This unfolding crisis raises broader concerns about the future of Israeli culture. Filmmakers warn that Zohar’s reforms, combined with alleged corruption, risk transforming Israeli cinema into a vehicle for commercial mediocrity, sidelining the artistic and critical voices that have defined its global reputation. As war and political turmoil continue to disrupt the nation, the creative sector finds itself fighting not only for survival but also for its integrity and identity.

For now, the Israeli film industry stands at a tipping point, with its fate resting on whether public outcry and international attention can halt the reforms and hold those responsible for alleged corruption accountable. Without systemic change, the vibrant, diverse stories of Israeli cinema risk being drowned out by a chorus of commercialism and cronyism.

FURTHER READING:

Articles from the Israeli press. You may automatically translate the articles using Chrome. Right click, and then “Translate Page.”

https://www.haaretz.co.il/gallery/galleryfriday/2024-04-25/ty-article-magazine/.highlight/0000018e-ffca-d64a-a9ae-ffebd7e40000

https://www.maariv.co.il/culture/movies/article-1121414

The post ISRAEL: The Takeover of Israeli Cinema: Politics, Corruption, and Cultural Erosion first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

A Short Tenure, Abruptly Ended

Ms. Rozwód, who had formerly managed cultural institutions in Lublin, was expected to prioritize open and rigorous selection processes for funding. Soon after her arrival, however, she says she faced intense pressure from ministry officials. One high-ranking individual allegedly called to advise her which film “ought to” receive grants, a practice Ms. Rozwód found inappropriate. At the same time, she was overseeing contract negotiations for Ministranci (“The Altar Servers”), a feature by the acclaimed filmmaker Piotr Domalewski. Though the film’s funding had been provisionally approved under the previous administration, Ms. Rozwód was later accused by the ministry of improperly signing off on the contract.

In an interview with the investigative outlet OKO.press, Ms. Rozwód recalled being summoned unexpectedly to the Ministry of Culture. She recounted a tense meeting in which she was told she could either resign or risk being reported to the prosecutor’s office for alleged violations of the Public Finance Act. Fearing irreparable harm to her reputation, she initially tendered her resignation. When she attempted to withdraw it and defend her actions, the ministry then proceeded with an official notification to prosecutors.

“I felt even more intimidated,” she told OKO.press. “If a minister believes they should file a complaint, they should do so openly, not threaten people behind closed doors.” She also spoke of her frustration that the decision to award the Ministranci grant was standard procedure; in her view, the film had cleared the necessary expert evaluations, and principal photography was already underway.

Mounting Allegations of Political Interference

The Polish Filmmakers’ Association (SFP) has decried Ms. Rozwód’s abrupt removal, describing it as further evidence of “political pressure” encroaching on the film institute. In a recent statement, the SFP expressed concern that this could undermine PISF’s founding principle: to support diverse cinematic projects on artistic merit rather than political considerations. industry representatives concur that the minister’s intervention appears designed to tighten governmental control over film funding, a fear underscored by the reinstatement of Kamila Dorbach, a close associate of Mr. Dydo, as well as the cultural vice-minister Andrzej Wyrobiec, as interim director. It is worth mentioning that Kamila Dorbach was working for PISF under Radosław Śmigulski 2019-2023 as a regular PR specialist.

Ms. Rozwód revealed that documents relevant to an investigation of the former director, Mr. Śmigulski, had gone missing at the institute. She pinned the disappearance on managerial oversights and criticized the ministry for failing to protect potentially incriminating records. In numerous interviews, she has also emphasized the need for PISF to be guided by independent experts rather than single-person decisions. “I wanted to lessen the director’s arbitrariness,” she told Gazeta Wyborcza, “so the ministry could not exert undue pressure to finance specific projects.”

Yet for many film professionals, the stakes are higher than one director’s fate. A young independent Polish filmmaker who wishes to remain anonymous recalls the former administration’s alleged misuse of  funds and lack of accountability, ‘blessed’ by the former Ministry of Culture, calling Ms. Rozwód’s removal “another sign that these old habits die hard.” Filmmakers, he says, had hoped that the country’s changing political landscape after the 15 Oct 2023 elections would usher in new standards of governance at PISF, as well as at the Ministry!

With Ms. Rozwód’s dismissal now endorsed by the PISF Council [though, it turns out that they did not have all relevant documents at their disposal], her legal recourses narrow. She has vowed to file law suit against the Ministry for illegal dismissal and against Minister Wróblewska for defamation, claiming that public statements about her alleged misconduct are baseless and damaging to her reputation. Meanwhile, the film institute continues to disburse large sums of public money—nearly 600 million złotys in 2024 alone—under a leadership arrangement that some in the industry see as a step backward.

For now, the Polish Filmmakers’ Association, along with a coalition of producers, directors, and festival organizers, is pushing for swift legislative changes that would codify PISF’s independence from political influence. They argue that the future of Polish cinema depends on a structure that ensures funding decisions are made openly, guided by rigorous evaluations of artistic merit, and upheld by transparent procedures. “We have suffered enough,” said our young anonymous source, echoing many of his colleagues. “If ever there was a moment to secure a truly independent film institute, that moment is now.”

Sources & Further Reading:

• Polish Filmmakers’ Association (SFP) Statement:
  Link
  
• OKO.press Investigative Article:
  Link
  
• Gazeta Wyborcza Interview with Karolina Rozwód:
  Link

The post POLAND: A Power Play at the PISF, Filmmakers Claim a Political Takeover first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

Kekatos has been mentioned on our site multiple times in connection with various scandals. These include allegations of manipulating the circumstances of his short film’s Palme d’Or win – specifically that the short was produced by the producer of a jury member on the awarding committee – as well as involvement in alleged corruption at the Greek Film Center, which included project readers awarding funding to themselves, and alleged accusations of toxic on-set behavior from fellow Greek filmmakers. Such reports describe alleged public firings, the alleged removal of properly earned credits (including that of a co-writer), and the appropriation of Greece’s LGBT community for personal gain, despite Kekatos himself not being a member of that community. The film’s producers were Eleni Kossyfidou (producer of jury member Panos H. Koutras) and French producer Guillaume Dreyfus. The controversy includes what seems like a concealment of Eleni Kossyfidou being the film’s producer until two years after the festival has ended. Kekatos was also recently removed from being the head of the committee selecting the Greek film to the Oscars, for the same reasons.

Kekatos’s Palme d’Or win in 2019 left many observers shocked, as the short itself, according to numerous sources, was deemed undeserving not only of the award, but even of participation in the competition. It later emerged that Wim Vanacker, a Cannes committee member who is also mentioned repeatedly on our site in connection with various controversies, had been a Jury Member and guest of Kekatos at a 2018 film festival that Kekatos organized in Greece, a full year before being invited to Cannes, by the same committee Vanacker servers in.

A voice recording of Jury member Panos H. Koutras recounting in his own words how he “pushed the other films out of consideration” is available here. By eliminating the competition Koutras ensured that the film produced by his own producer, will win the award. For all we know, someone might have been paid to include Kekatos’s new film in the program. With this kind of track record, who knows?

By featuring Our Wildest Days in their Generations program, the Berlin Film Festival appears to tacitly endorse these alleged behaviors. This decision further erodes public confidence in an industry that has been in decline for years – not just because of evolving audience tastes and technological changes, but also due to a pervasive culture of nepotism and corruption that undermines artistic integrity and drives audiences away. Instead of showcasing talented filmmakers whose work is genuinely deserving, the festival is seen as supporting allegedly corrupt figures who have advanced their careers through personal connections and manipulations of the industry, as detailed on our site.

The allegations referenced in this article are based on publicly available information, individual testimonies, and third-party sources. Nothing contained herein should be construed as definitive proof of wrongdoing, nor as legal, financial, or other professional advice. All opinions expressed are those of the respective sources. Readers are encouraged to conduct their own research.

About Vasilis Kekatos

Vasilis Kekatos is a Greek film director best known for his short film The Distance Between Us and the Sky, which won the Cannes Palme d’Or for Short Film in 2019. He later directed Our Wildest Days, his first feature, which was invited to the 2025 Berlinale.

Kekatos has been repeatedly mentioned in connection with alleged irregularities and favoritism within European film institutions. His name appears in reports concerning alleged conflicts of interest surrounding his Cannes win – including the participation of individuals linked to his producers – and in discussions of alleged governance issues at the Greek Film Center.

Further reading:

Conflict of Interest Taints 2019 Cannes Palme d’Or Award for The Distance Between Us and the Sky by Vasilis Kekatos

Alleged Corruption and Decadence at the Greek Film Center (FULL ARTICLE)

Wim Vanacker & Vassilis Kekatos – a two way relationship dating back to 2018

The post Berlinale Invites Greek Director Vasilis Kekatos, Sparking Industry Outrage first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

In his home country, however, red carpets have been replaced by rocky roads.

Manchevski says he is being targeted for retaliation because he exposed financial irregularities and conflicts of interest within North Macedonia’s Film Agency. Ironically, this is very public agency that helped Manchevski produce his classic 1994 debut, Before the Rain, which made him a star overnight and gave Macedonia its first-ever Oscar nomination.

Manchevski says he has uncovered a network of public officials, political party leaders and film executives that relies on corruption and persecution to control and rig the public financing of films.

“I learned about the structure of what happens inside the government and the film mafia: major kickbacks for every single project, fixed competitions, and state funds going to projects that do not deserve it by any criteria,” says Manchevski. “The kickbacks are usually 30 percent. They share the money with high-up people in political parties.”

Finally, after many years of collecting and broadcasting evidence of perpetual misconduct, Manchevski’s efforts are starting to pay off. His reports have been substantiated by the Ministry of Culture, State Audit Office, and State Commission for Prevention of Corruption (SCPC), as well as by prominent Berlin-based NGO Transparency International (TI). The “illegality and conflict of interest still persist,” TI has concluded. 

According to Sloboden Pecat (Free Press), the Ministry of Culture discovered the Film Agency gave its cronies €800,000 for 39 movies that were never made. And, the cronies kept the money with the help of falsified documents. The Ministry also found contract awards were rigged by people with conflicts of interest, and that the Agency was making illegal payments to the Society of Filmmakers of Macedonia for years. 

In November 2023 the SCPC called for the dismissal of Film Agency Director Bojan Lazarevski and filed criminal charges against him. Lazarevski and the Agency’s were the driving force behind the persecution of Manchevski. Lazarevski was dismissed soon after. 

The Ministry’s findings prove what Manchevski has been saying for years about corruption at the Film Agency. It also proves the legal action against Manchevski is retaliatory because he successfully exposed what he calls the country’s “film mafia.” The Southeast Europe Coalition on Whistleblower Protection has alerted embassies, EU officials and the media about these scandals. 

As further evidence of retaliation, the SCPC and other public institutions found no misconduct by Manchevski’s company Banana Film. Former Film Agency officials falsely accused the company of financial irregularities from many years ago, which is classic whistleblower retaliation tactic. Yet, the criminal complaint filed against Manchevski by former agency officials is frozen in time. The Whistleblower Coalition has received no response from the Public Prosecutor’s Office, despite several requests for information on why complaint has not been thrown out. 

National Icon Treated as Common Criminal

Manchevski is a household name in North Macedonia and prominent internationally. His films have won 90 awards, and have been distributed in more than 100 countries and screened at more than 350 festivals. He holds an honorary doctorate and has taught at film schools in Europe, Asia and the US. He has published essays, exhibited his photography and directed music videos. He’s been good for the Macedonian economy, bringing in €17 million in foreign investment to the country’s film industry.

Despite his stature, Manchevski says he is being treated like a common criminal. The Film Agency convinced the Culture Ministry to investigate his finances, going back many years to probe long-finished films. Even though no problems were found, the agency filed a criminal complaint against him. The Southeast Europe Coalition on Whistleblower Protection attempted to reach agency officials for an interview, but they have not responded.

This was just the beginning. Manchevski said the Film Agency is refusing to sign a contract for an ongoing film production that it already approved. And he said the agency is refusing to provide agreed-upon €140,000 in funding for the completed Kaymak, which the Culture Ministry said is illegal. Following its own investigation, TI determined the agency’s actions to be “vengeful.” The Southeast Europe Coalition has been advocating for all actions against Manchevski to stop and the funds he is owed to be paid in full.

Manchevski says his recent films have received less funding than those made by first-time directors, he says. “All my films receive less money from the Macedonian government than the sons of Macedonian directors, police chiefs and former government spokesmen.”

Media outlets controlled by the former ruling Social Democratic Union party (SDSM) have orchestrated a months-long smear campaign that he says is “brimming with lies and slander.”

“This has been disappointing but not surprising. I knew they would try things but I didn’t think they would be so unscrupulous,” he said. “Filmmakers are scared. If this sort of persecution can happen to me, who has significant international credentials, what should the younger or less prominent filmmakers expect? They fear for their careers and livelihoods.”

Portions of this article previously were published by the Southeast Europe Coalition for Whistleblower Protection, with support from the National Endowment for Democracy in Washington, DC. 

The post Out of the Shadows: Milcho Manchevski. Exposes Macedonia’s ‘Film Mafia’ first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

Πλήρης εκδοχή – Μια συντομότερη έκδοση αυτού του άρθρου είναι διαθέσιμη εδώ.

A short English version is available here (1200 words) A long English version is available here (4200 words)

Του Χέκτορ Αλεχάντρο Μοράλες, συνεργάτη του Film Industry Watch και γνώστη της ελληνικής κινηματογραφικής βιομηχανίας.

Ένα συγκλονιστικό νέο οικονομικό σκάνδαλο σύγκρουσης συμφερόντων έρχεται στο φως στο Ελληνικό Κέντρο Κινηματογράφου (ΕΚΚ), που εμπλέκει τον σκηνοθέτη Βασίλειο Κεκάτο και άλλους, οι οποίοι υπηρετούσαν ως αξιολογητές προτάσεων χρηματοδότησης ταινιών, ενώ παράλληλα έλαβαν σημαντικές χρηματικές επιχορηγήσεις για τα δικά τους έργα στην ίδια πρόσκληση υποβολής προτάσεων.

18 Οκτωβρίου 2021: Στις 18 Οκτωβρίου 2021, περίπου στις 1:30 μ.μ., ο διεθνώς καταξιωμένος Έλληνας σκηνοθέτης Κώστας Φέρρης, βραβευμένος με Αργυρή Άρκτο στο Φεστιβάλ Βερολίνου για την ταινία «Ρεμπέτικο», πρώην Αντιπρόεδρος του Ελληνικού Κέντρου Κινηματογράφου και ιδιαίτερα σεβαστός σκηνοθέτης, σεναριογράφος και στιχουργός με περισσότερες από 10 μεγάλου μήκους ταινίες, 20 τηλεοπτικές σειρές και πολυάριθμα βραβεία για το σύνολο του έργου του, όπως και τη συμμετοχή του ως στιχουργού στο εμβληματικό άλμπουμ «666» των Aphrodite’s Child (της μπάντας του Βαγγέλη Παπαθανασίου), κατέθεσε ως μάρτυρας στο Πρωτοδικείο Αθηνών, στην Ελλάδα. Ο Φέρρης ήταν επίσης ιδρυτικό μέλος της FERA (Ομοσπονδία Ευρωπαίων Σκηνοθετών).

Μεταξύ άλλων, ο Φέρρης ανέφερε ότι ήταν Αντιπρόεδρος στο Ελληνικό Κέντρο Κινηματογράφου μέχρι πρόσφατα, υπό την προεδρία του δημοσιογράφου/ντοκιμαντερίστα Πάνου Λουκάκου, που αρνήθηκαν να ενδώσουν στις παράνομες απαιτήσεις του 44χρονου υπουργού Νικόλα Γιατρομανωλάκη (πρώην Υφυπουργού Πολιτισμού και Αθλητισμού της Ελλάδας), με αποτέλεσμα να αντικατασταθούν από τον υφυπουργό, ο οποίος ήταν προστατευόμενος του συγγραφέα/σκηνοθέτη Αποστόλου Δοξιάδη, κληρονόμου της περιουσίας της οικογένειας Δοξιάδη.

Σύμφωνα με πηγές από τον χώρο της ελληνικής παραγωγής, ο Απόστολος Δοξιάδης, ο οποίος προβάλλει τον εαυτό του ως «ιδιοφυΐα», φέρεται να ήταν χειριστικός και να λειτουργούσε ως μυστικός σύμβουλος, επηρεάζοντας αποφάσεις παρασκηνιακά, μαζί με τον πεθερό του, τον πτωχευμένο εφοπλιστή Γιώργο Παπαλιό. Και οι δύο ήταν στενά συνδεδεμένοι με τον σημερινό δεξιό Πρωθυπουργό της Ελλάδας, Κυριάκο Μητσοτάκη, με την οικογένεια Μητσοτάκη να είναι γείτονές τους στην ακριβή γειτονιά του Κολωνακίου.

Ο Μάρκος Χολέβας, πρόεδρος του Ελληνικού Κέντρου Κινηματογράφου, δεν ήταν παρών στη δίκη, αλλά είχε προσλάβει δικηγορικό γραφείο εκτός ΕΚΚ, πληρώνοντας πάνω από 16.000 ευρώ συν ΦΠΑ από δημόσιο χρήμα για να υπερασπιστεί τον εαυτό του (παρά το γεγονός ότι το ΕΚΚ είχε δική του νομική υπηρεσία). Δικηγόροι από τη SAPOE (μία από τις πέντε ενώσεις παραγωγών), την ΕΣΠΕΚ (τη μικρή ένωση παραγωγών-σκηνοθετών) και την Tanweer Productions (που ανήκει στον Λιβανέζο διανομέα Joseph Samaan και διευθύνεται από τον Διονύση Σαμιώτη) ήταν επίσης παρόντες. Το ζήτημα ήταν η προέγκριση των κρατικών επιχορηγήσεών τους. Φέρεται ότι για χρόνια μεσάζοντες που αυτοαποκαλούνταν «παραγωγοί» (ενώ στην πραγματικότητα ήταν εκτελεστικοί παραγωγοί χωρίς να διακινδυνεύουν δικά τους χρήματα ή περιουσία) έβγαζαν εκατομμύρια πριν καν παραχθεί μια ταινία ή ένα ντοκιμαντέρ. Όσο πιο φθηνά μπορούσαν να παραγάγουν μια ταινία, τόσο το καλύτερο. Όσο λιγότερα έπρεπε να πληρώσουν σκηνοθέτες και σεναριογράφους —ή και καθόλου— τόσο πιο ιδανικό ήταν για αυτούς.

Ο Φέρρης κατέθεσε ενόρκως: «…Στο πλαίσιο της διαμάχης που προέκυψε στην ελληνική κινηματογραφική κοινότητα και της δημοσιότητας που αυτή έλαβε στον έντυπο και ηλεκτρονικό Τύπο επί πολλές εβδομάδες, ενημερώθηκα ότι το Ελληνικό Κέντρο Κινηματογράφου, ένα ιδιωτικό νομικό πρόσωπο υπό την εποπτεία του Υπουργείου Πολιτισμού (ΥΠΠΟΑ), που λειτουργεί σύμφωνα με τον Νόμο 3905/2010 και είναι επομένως δημόσιος οργανισμός (χρηματοδοτούμενος από τους Έλληνες φορολογούμενους), χρηματοδοτείται άνω του 80% από τον δημόσιο προϋπολογισμό και επομένως υπόκειται σε συγκεκριμένες προϋποθέσεις λειτουργίας, διαφάνειας, οικονομικής και διοικητικής λογοδοσίας. Ο οργανισμός έχει δεχθεί επιθέσεις τόσο από τον έντυπο και ηλεκτρονικό Τύπο όσο και από την πλειονότητα της κινηματογραφικής κοινότητας για ακατάλληλες επιλογές προσωπικού και αδιαφανείς διαδικασίες σχετικά με την προέγκριση χρηματοδότησης ταινιών, οι οποίες δεν αποκλείουν τις συγκρούσεις συμφερόντων.

Σε μια προσπάθεια να δικαιολογήσει εκ των υστέρων αυτές τις διαδικασίες, το Ελληνικό Κέντρο Κινηματογράφου εξήγησε εκτενώς μέσω δελτίων Τύπου και της ιστοσελίδας του τις διαδικασίες που ακολούθησε. Ανέφερε δημόσια ότι οι μέθοδοι που χρησιμοποιεί είναι ίδιες με εκείνες που ακολουθούν οι θεσμοί που είναι υπεύθυνοι για τα οπτικοακουστικά ζητήματα και τη χρηματοδότηση στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση (27 Κράτη Μέλη), δηλαδή το πρόγραμμα MEDIA DESK (σήμερα Creative Europe) με έδρα τις Βρυξέλλες, και το Συμβούλιο της Ευρώπης (με έδρα το Στρασβούργο και τη συμμετοχή 39 Κρατών Μελών) μέσω του προγράμματος χρηματοδότησης ευρωπαϊκών συμπαραγωγών EURIMAGES.

Οι θέσεις του Ελληνικού Κέντρου Κινηματογράφου για τα θέματα αυτά—σχετικά με την επιλογή αξιολογητών/αναγνωστών, τη στελέχωση των επιτροπών και τις διαδικασίες αξιολόγησης για την προέγκριση χρηματοδότησης ταινιών και σχεδίων παραγωγής ταινιών που σχετίζονται με το Creative Europe και το EURIMAGES—δεν είναι ακριβείς. Στην πραγματικότητα, είναι εντελώς ψευδείς και ανακριβείς και αντιβαίνουν άμεσα σε όλα όσα γνωρίζω και έχω βιώσει στις συνεργασίες μου με αυτούς τους ευρωπαϊκούς θεσμούς…»

Σε καταγγελία δέκα σελίδων που υποβλήθηκε στην Εισαγγελία Πρωτοδικών Αθηνών στις αρχές Μαΐου 2021, τρεις ανεξάρτητοι παραγωγοί και σκηνοθέτες ζήτησαν από το Ελληνικό Κέντρο Κινηματογράφου να αποκαλύψει τα ονόματα των αξιολογητών/αναγνωστών και τη βαθμολογία, υπό την απειλή φυλάκισης.

Στην ένορκη κατάθεσή τους, υποστήριξαν:

…Υποβάλαμε τρία έργα (1 μεγάλου μήκους ντοκιμαντέρ, 1 ταινία μικρού μήκους μυθοπλασίας και 1 ταινία μικρού μήκους κινουμένων σχεδίων):

“Κολοκοτρώνης, ο Γέρος του Μοριά” με αριθμό πρωτοκόλλου 9193, με ημερομηνία 26/11/2020, ήταν ένα έργο ταινίας κινουμένων σχεδίων 2D περίπου 6 λεπτών, με σενάριο και σκηνοθεσία δική μου, και σχεδιασμό χαρακτήρων και εικονογραφήσεις από τον Νάσο Βακάλη (βραβευμένο με Emmy, με 78 διεθνή βραβεία και 270 συμμετοχές σε φεστιβάλ για την ταινία μικρού μήκους Dinner for Few). Η πρόταση ήταν 112 σελίδες.

“Μη με Ξεχάσετε, Εβραίες Μητέρες γράφουν στα Παιδιά τους από το Γκέτο της Θεσσαλονίκης” με αριθμό πρωτοκόλλου 7380/30-9-2020, ένα μεγάλου μήκους ντοκιμαντέρ μυθοπλασίας, εστιασμένο στο Ολοκαύτωμα της Θεσσαλονίκης, όπου χάθηκαν 59.000 ‘Ελληνες Εβραίοι, με πρωταγωνίστρια τη γνωστή ηθοποιό του κινηματογράφου και της τηλεόρασης, Μαρία Ναυπλιώτου, βασισμένο στο ομώνυμο βιβλίο του ιστορικού/ερευνητή Δρ. Λεόν Σαλτιέλ, υπό την αιγίδα του Κεντρικού Ισραηλιτικού Συμβουλίου Ελλάδος, του Εβραϊκού Μουσείου Ελλάδος και της Έδρας Εβραϊκών Σπουδών του Αριστοτελείου Πανεπιστημίου Θεσσαλονίκης. Η πρόταση ήταν περίπου 100 σελίδες.

“Το Σκάφος” με αριθμό πρωτοκόλλου 6025/3.8.2020, μια ταινία μικρού μήκους μυθοπλασίας, διάρκειας 15 λεπτών, με σενάριο των Αφροδίτης Βακάλη και Νάσου Βακάλη, και σκηνοθεσία του Νάσου Βακάλη, με τους γνωστούς ηθοποιούς Χρήστο Αντωνίου και Δημήτρη Πιατά. Η πρόταση ήταν περίπου 70 σελίδες.

Στην ανακοίνωση των αποτελεσμάτων στις 30.3.2021 και 28.4.2021, συνειδητοποιήσαμε ότι οι αξιολογητές είχαν απονείμει στους εαυτούς τους ποσά ύψους €2.500, €130.000, €170.000, €190.000 και €200.000 αντίστοιχα, επιπλέον της αποζημίωσης των €5.000 που έλαβαν ως αναγνώστες (αξιολογητές σεναρίων), ενώ φρόντισαν, σε απόλυτη συνεργασία με τον πρόεδρο του Διοικητικού Συμβουλίου που τους διόρισε, να δώσουν χαμηλές βαθμολογίες (με σειρά προτεραιότητας) για να «κόψουν» τους ανταγωνιστές τους!

Αυτές οι ενέργειες, οι οποίες επικυρώθηκαν από το Διοικητικό Συμβούλιο του Ελληνικού Κέντρου Κινηματογράφου (ΕΚΚ), είναι παράνομες, καταχρηστικές, ανήθικες, αντιεπαγγελματικές και προκάλεσαν εθνικό και διεθνές σάλο τόσο στα μέσα κοινωνικής δικτύωσης όσο και μεταξύ των δημοσιογράφων, με δημοσιεύματα στον έντυπο και ηλεκτρονικό Τύπο. Είναι πρωτοφανείς παγκοσμίως, καθώς ακόμη και στις πιο υπανάπτυκτες χώρες, οι αξιολογητές καλούνται να δηλώνουν σύγκρουση συμφερόντων και να ζητούν εξαίρεση, όχι να χρηματοδοτούν τους εαυτούς τους!»

Η Εισαγγελία διέταξε τον πρόεδρο του Ελληνικού Κέντρου Κινηματογράφου και τον γενικό διευθυντή του, Παντελή Μητρόπουλο, να αποκαλύψουν τα ονόματα των αξιολογητών, τις βαθμολογίες που δόθηκαν σε κάθε έργο, και άλλα σχετικά έγγραφα που απέκρυπτε ο Χολέβας. Αποκαλύφθηκε ότι τέσσερις αξιολογητές συμμετείχαν κρυφά στους διαγωνισμούς μαζί με τα άλλα έργα και τους απονεμήθηκαν συνολικά μισό εκατομμύριο ευρώ.

• Πολύ κοριτσίστικο όνομα Πάττυ Σενάριο: Γιώργος Γεωργόπουλος Σκηνοθεσία: Γιώργος Γεωργόπουλος Παραγωγή: Faliro House Productions Ποσό προέγκρισης: €200.000
• Το Καλοκαίρι της Κάρμεν Σενάριο: Ζαχαρίας Μαυροειδής, Ξενοφών Χαλάτσης Σκηνοθεσία: Ζαχαρίας Μαυροειδής Παραγωγή: Atalante Productions (με επικεφαλής την ανιψιά του Πάνου Παπαχατζή) Ποσό προέγκρισης: €190.000
• Οι Άγριες Μέρες Σενάριο: Βασίλης Κεκάτος Σκηνοθεσία: Βασίλης Κεκάτος Παραγωγή: Blackbird Production Ποσό χρηματοδότησης: €2.500
• Ο Τελευταίος Tαξιτζής Σενάριο: Στέργιος Πάσχος Σκηνοθεσία: Στέργιος Πάσχος Παραγωγή: Filmiki Productions Ποσό προέγκρισης: €130.000

(Σημείωση: Ο Τελευταίος Ταξιτζής είχε απογοητευτική προσέλευση στο ελληνικό box office με 2.111 εισιτήρια την άνοιξη του 2024, ενώ το Καλοκαίρι της Κάρμεν έκανε μόλις 9.500 εισιτήρια).

Ιστορικό: Οργή και Ασφαλιστικά Μέτρα κατά του ΕΚΚ

Τρεις ανεξάρτητοι σκηνοθέτες-παραγωγοί (Λεωνίδας Βαρδαρός, Δημήτριος Βόρρης, Γεώργιος Κεραμιδιώτης, που στη συνέχεια μπήκαν στη μαύρη λίστα του Χολέβα και του διοικητικού συμβουλίου του) κατέθεσαν ασφαλιστικά μέτρα κατά του Ελληνικού Κέντρου Κινηματογράφου, με τη στήριξη της Ένωσης Ελλήνων Σκηνοθετών και 600 υπογραφών κινηματογραφιστών.

Οι σκηνοθέτες-παραγωγοί ζητούσαν την προσωρινή αναστολή των αποφάσεων του ΕΚΚ από τις 30 Μαρτίου και 28 Απριλίου 2021, σχετικά με τις «Προεγκρίσεις Μικρού Μήκους, Μεγάλου Μήκους Ταινιών και Ντοκιμαντέρ», ισχυριζόμενοι ότι αυτές οι αποφάσεις ήταν παράνομες και παραβίασαν την Ελληνική νομοθεσία, τις οδηγίες της ΕΕ και τα άρθρα του Συντάγματος

Ιούνιος 2021: Οι κραυγαλέες αναλήθειες του Μάρκου Χολέβα και της ομάδας του

Ο Μάρκος Χολέβας, τότε πρόεδρος του Ελληνικού Κέντρου Κινηματογράφου (ΕΚΚ), ο οποίος εξαναγκάστηκε σε παραίτηση τον Ιούλιο του 2024 από την Υπουργό Πολιτισμού Λίνα Μενδώνη, ισχυρίστηκε στα μέσα ενημέρωσης ότι δεν μπορούσε να βρει αξιολογητές που να δραστηριοποιούνται στους τομείς της σεναριογραφίας, της σκηνοθεσίας και της παραγωγής, επειδή τα σωματεία δεν διέθεταν επαρκή αριθμό μελών. Γι’ αυτό, επέλεξε αξιολογητές αποκλειστικά από την ΕΣΠΕΚ, τον μικρό σύλλογο παραγωγών-σκηνοθετών, όπου ήταν ο ίδιος μέλος. Αυτό όμως απέχει πολύ από την αλήθεια: Το Σωματείο Ελλήνων Ηθοποιών (ΣΕΗ) έχει περίπου 4.000 μέλη, ενώ τα τρία σχετικά σωματεία έχουν περίπου 40 ενεργά μέλη στη ΣΑΠΟΕ, περίπου 70-80 στην ΕΣΠΕΚ (Ένωση Παραγωγών-Σκηνοθετών) και περίπου 130 στην Ένωση Ελληνικού Ντοκιμαντέρ (ΕΕΝ), πολλοί από τους οποίους είναι επίσης μέλη της ΕΣΠΕΚ. Η Ένωση Σκηνοθετών Ελλάδας (ΕΕΣ) έχει 1.200 μέλη, ενώ το Σωματείο Ελλήνων Τεχνικών Κινηματογράφου και Τηλεόρασης (ΕΤΕΚΤ) έχει 300 μέλη, σύνολο 1.700 μέλη. Η Ένωση Σεναριογράφων Ελλάδας έχει 330 μέλη, και η Ένωση Ελλήνων Παραγωγών (ιδρυθείσα από τον καταξιωμένο παραγωγό Γιώργο Σγουράκη) περιλαμβάνει περίπου 40-50 παραγωγούς. Ως εκ τούτου, ο συνολικός αριθμός μελών όλων αυτών των σωματείων ξεπερνά τα 6.500 μέλη.

Όσον αφορά τον Πάνο Παπαχατζή, πρόεδρο της ΣΑΠΟΕ εκείνη την εποχή και ιδιοκτήτη της Argonauts Productions—έλαβε τρεις εγκρίσεις συνολικού ύψους €370.000 (€170.000, €70.000 και €130.000, αντίστοιχα).

Το Διοικητικό Συμβούλιο της ΣΑΠΟΕ αποτελούνταν από τα εξής μέλη:

• Πάνος Παπαχατζής, Πρόεδρος της ΣΑΠΟΕ, έλαβε €370.000 μέσω τριών εγκρίσεων χρηματοδότησης.
• Φένια Κοσοβίτσα, Αντιπρόεδρος της ΣΑΠΟΕ, έλαβε €400.000 μέσω της εταιρείας της, Blonde Films (€200.000 + €200.000).
• Κωνσταντίνος Κοντοβράκης, Γενικός Γραμματέας, έλαβε €228.000 μέσω της εταιρείας του, Heretic Films, σε τρεις εγκρίσεις (€150.000, €60.000, €18.000).
• Αμάντα Λιβανού, Ταμίας της ΣΑΠΟΕ.
• Μαρία Δρανδάκη, Μέλος του ΔΣ, έλαβε €250.500 μέσω πέντε εγκρίσεων με την εταιρεία της, Homemade Films (€2.500, €6.000, €12.000, €200.000, €30.000).
• Κωνσταντίνος Βασιλάρος, Αναπληρωματικό Μέλος του ΔΣ.
• Ελένη Αφεντάκη, Αναπληρωματικό Μέλος του ΔΣ.

Η Ελεγκτική Επιτροπή της ΣΑΠΟΕ έλαβε τα εξής ποσά:

• Ιωάννα Μπολομύτη (ανιψιά του Παπαχατζή, εργαζόμενη και συστεγαζλόμενη στον ίδιο χώρο με τις εταιρείες Argonauts Productions, Athens Productions και Argonauts Crimes of the Future Productions), έλαβε €18.000 για έγκριση σεναρίου.
• Γιώργος Καρνάβας, συνεργάτης στην Heretic Films μαζί με τον Γενικό Γραμματέα της ΣΑΠΟΕ, Κωνσταντίνο Κοντοβράκη.
• Γιάννης Ιακωβίδης, ιδιοκτήτης της Black and Orange Films.

Συνολικά, τα παραπάνω μέλη της ΣΑΠΟΕ έλαβαν €1.266.500 μέσω μιας διαδικασίας χρηματοδότησης του Ελληνικού Κέντρου Κινηματογράφου, που έχει χαρακτηριστεί ως παράνομη, χωρίς διαφάνεια και χωρίς λογοδοσία.

Επιπλέον:

• Η Ελένη Κοσσυφίδου, πρώην πρόεδρος της ΣΑΠΟΕ και παραγωγός του σκηνοθέτη Βασίλη Κεκάτου (Blackbird Productions), έλαβε €20.500 (€2.500 για συγγραφή σεναρίου και €18.000 για ένα σενάριο). Η Κοσσυφίδου και ο Κεκάτος, μαζί με τον σκηνοθέτη Πάνο Χ. Κούτρα, ενεπλάκησαν στο σκάνδαλο σύγκρουσης συμφερόντων που αποκάλυψε το filmindustrywatch.org σχετικά με τη βράβευση της μικρού μήκους ταινίας του Κεκάτου στις Κάννες.
• Ο Γιώργος Τσουργιάννης, άλλο μέλος της ΣΑΠΟΕ, έλαβε €156.000 (€6.000 και €150.000).
• Ο Γιώργος Τσεμπερόπουλος, άλλο μέλος της ΣΑΠΟΕ, έλαβε €151.500 μέσω της εταιρείας του Filmiki Productions (η οποία αργότερα πωλήθηκε στον Κωνσταντίνο Αλαβάνο), μαζί με τον συνεργάτη του, Ευστάθιο Μουρδουκούτα (€2.500, €130.000, και €19.000).
• Η Φαίδρα Βόκαλη, άλλο μέλος της ΣΑΠΟΕ (Marni Films), έλαβε €132.000 μέσω τεσσάρων εγκρίσεων (€70.000, €17.000, €20.000, €25.000).
• Η Modiano S.A., που ανήκει στον Μίκυ Μοδιάνο, άλλο μέλος της ΣΑΠΟΕ, έλαβε €90.000 μέσω δύο εγκρίσεων (€60.000, €30.000).
• Η Stefi/Lynx Films, άλλο μέλος της ΣΑΠΟΕ, έλαβε €2.500.

Φέρεται ότι τα τακτικά μέλη της ΣΑΠΟΕ έλαβαν επιπλέον €552.500 μέσω της ίδιας αμφισβητούμενης διαδικασίας χρηματοδότησης από το ΕΚΚ. Αυτό ανεβάζει το συνολικό ποσό που απονεμήθηκε στα μέλη της ΣΑΠΟΕ στα €1.819.000 από τα €4.450.000 που διατέθηκαν από το ΕΚΚ σε δύο γύρους αποφάσεων. Ωστόσο, είναι σημαντικό να σημειωθεί ότι οι ταυτότητες πίσω από όλες τις εταιρείες που αναφέρονται στις δύο λίστες προέγκρισης χρηματοδότησης του ΕΚΚ δεν έχουν ακόμη πλήρως εξακριβωθεί. Περαιτέρω έρευνα μπορεί να αποκαλύψει ότι περισσότερα μέλη της ΣΑΠΟΕ επωφελήθηκαν από αυτή τη χρηματοδότηση. Υπήρχε επίσης ανησυχία για πιθανές συγκρούσεις συμφερόντων, όπου οι αξιολογητές μπορεί να αξιολογούσαν προτάσεις που υποβλήθηκαν από τους συνεργάτες τους, όπως παραγωγούς. Για παράδειγμα, η Filmiki Productions έλαβε χρηματοδότηση τόσο για ένα μεγάλου μήκους έργο (σε σκηνοθεσία του αξιολογητή Στέργιου Πάσχου, Ο Τελευταίος Οδηγός Ταξί) όσο και για μία μικρού μήκους ταινία (Roger), όπου, σύμφωνα με δηλώσεις του ΕΚΚ, μπορεί να εμπλεκόταν κάποιος συνεργάτης του αξιολογητή.

Όταν ο σκηνοθέτης Κώστας Φέρρης αποκάλυψε δημόσια το χάος, την κακοδιαχείριση και τη διαφθορά στο Ελληνικό Κέντρο Κινηματογράφου σε συνέντευξή του στην καθημερινή εφημερίδα ΕΦΣΥΝ, δέχθηκε κύμα νομικών απειλών από τα μέλη της ΣΑΠΟΕ. Για επτά συνεχόμενες ημέρες, έλαβε εξώδικα από κάθε μέλος του διοικητικού συμβουλίου της ΣΑΠΟΕ, μαζί με αγωγή για συκοφαντική δυσφήμιση από τον παραγωγό και πρόεδρο Πάνο Παπαχατζή. Τελικά, το Πολυμελές Πρωτοδικείο Αθηνών αθώωσε τον Φέρρη από όλες τις κατηγορίες.

(Σημείωση: Το 2023, ο Παπαχατζής συνεργάστηκε επίσημα με τον Κώστα Σάκκαρη, ο οποίος φέρεται να έχει διασυνδέσεις με το γραφείο του Πρωθυπουργού. Η κόρη του, πρωταθλήτρια τένις Αγγελική Σάκκαρη, είναι σε σχέση με τον γιο του Πρωθυπουργού).

ΦΕΒΡΟΥΑΡΙΟΣ 2022: Τα πορίσματα της Εθνικής Αρχής Διαφάνειας είναι πλήγμα για τις πρακτικές του Ελληνικού Κέντρου Κινηματογράφου, ιδιαίτερα για τον Μάρκο Χολέβα και τον Βασίλη Κεκάτο.

Μετά από εννέα μήνες, στα μέσα Φεβρουαρίου 2022, η Εθνική Αρχή Διαφάνειας δημοσίευσε έκθεση ελέγχου για τις αποφάσεις προέγκρισης του Διοικητικού Συμβουλίου του Ελληνικού Κέντρου Κινηματογράφου στις 30 Μαρτίου και 28 Απριλίου 2021, συνολικού ύψους €4.550.000.

Στις συγκεκριμένες αποφάσεις, εγκρίθηκαν τα έργα τεσσάρων αναγνωστών, οι οποίοι ήταν ταυτόχρονα και ανταγωνιστές, καταργώντας κάθε έννοια αμεροληψίας, διαφάνειας και ισότητας.

Η πολυσέλιδη έκθεση της Εθνικής Αρχής Διαφάνειας καταλήγει:

«…με στόχο τη διασφάλιση των αρχών της διαφάνειας και της αμεροληψίας στη λειτουργία του οργανισμού, προτείνεται στο Διοικητικό Συμβούλιο του Ελληνικού Κέντρου Κινηματογράφου:

1. Πριν τη διαδικασία επιλογής, να πραγματοποιείται δημόσια πρόσκληση εκδήλωσης ενδιαφέροντος ή σχετική ανάρτηση στην ιστοσελίδα του Ελληνικού Κέντρου Κινηματογράφου ή να υιοθετούνται άλλα μέτρα (π.χ., δημιουργία Μητρώου Αξιολογητών), τα οποία θα μπορούσαν να διασφαλίσουν την αύξηση του αριθμού των καταλληλότερων υποψηφίων και, κατά συνέπεια, την καλύτερη δυνατή επιλογή Αναγνωστών.
   
2. Επίσης, η καθιέρωση συλλογικού οργάνου λήψης αποφάσεων και η πιο αναλυτική περιγραφή των κριτηρίων επιλογής θα συνέβαλαν στην ενίσχυση της διαφάνειας και της αντικειμενικότητας της διαδικασίας…»

Σημειώνεται ότι το Ελληνικό Κέντρο Κινηματογράφου είχε ψευδώς δηλώσει στον ελληνικό Τύπο ότι «…ακολουθεί τις βέλτιστες πρακτικές των ευρωπαϊκών προγραμμάτων (Creative Europe, Eurimages)», ενώ είναι ευρέως γνωστό και δημοσιευμένο στο διαδίκτυο, ότι απαγορεύεται η συμμετοχή των ίδιων προσώπων ως αξιολογητών και ταυτόχρονα ανταγωνιστών (cross-paneling) — ακόμη και αν αυτό συμβαίνει σε διαφορετική κατηγορία — καθώς και οποιαδήποτε σύγκρουση συμφερόντων, όπως και γενικά οποιαδήποτε σχέση έως πρώτου βαθμού συγγένειας με υποψήφιες παραγωγικές εταιρείες και έργα κατά τους τελευταίους 18 μήνες, υπό την απειλή (και ποινή) ακύρωσης της χρηματοδότησης.

ΑΥΓΟΥΣΤΟΣ-ΣΕΠΤΕΜΒΡΙΟΣ 2024: Ο διεφθαρμένος κόσμος της φερόμενης ως διαπλεκόμενης «…μαφίας» της ψευδεπίγραφης «…ακαδημίας» καταρρέει… Η υποψηφιότητα της Ελλάδας για τα Όσκαρ αποκαλύπτει ένα σάπιο σύστημα, χωρίς διαφάνεια και αξιοκρατία.

Μια παράτυπη, παράνομη και προφανώς διεφθαρμένη ενέργεια μιάς υπαλλήλου του Υπουργείου Πολιτισμού που βρισκόταν σε καλοκαιρινές διακοπές, ανάγκασε τον υφυπουργό να αντικαταστήσει εν μέρει ορισμένα μέλη της προτεινόμενης επιτροπής υποψηφιότητας για τα Όσκαρ, τα οποία είχαν προταθεί από την αυτοαποκαλούμενη «Ελληνική Ακαδημία Κινηματογράφου», έναν ιδιωτικό, μη κερδοσκοπικό οργανισμό, ώστε να προλάβουν τις προθεσμίες.

Επιπλέον, είναι σημαντικό να τονιστεί ότι η προσέγγιση του Υπουργείου Πολιτισμού για την αντικατάσταση των μελών της επιτροπής – τα οποία είχαν αρχικά διοριστεί από υπάλληλο του υπουργείου ενώ βρισκόταν σε άδεια – στερούνταν διαφάνειας και του επαγγελματισμού που θα έπρεπε να αναμένεται από έναν τέτοιο κρίσιμο θεσμό. Η αδιαφανής διαδικασία, σε συνδυασμό με την έλλειψη επικοινωνίας σχετικά με τα κριτήρια επιλογής των αντικαταστάσεων, έχει προκαλέσει σοβαρές ανησυχίες στην ελληνική κινηματογραφική κοινότητα, υπονομεύοντας περαιτέρω την εμπιστοσύνη στο σύστημα. Αυτές οι αποτυχίες τονίζουν τα ευρύτερα προβλήματα κακοδιαχείρισης και αδιαφάνειας που έχουν ταλανίσει το Ελληνικό Κέντρο Κινηματογράφου εδώ και χρόνια. Είναι σαφές ότι η εσωτερική έρευνα που ξεκίνησε το Υπουργείο Πολιτισμού είναι μια προσπάθεια να αντιμετωπίσει αυτές τις ανασφάλειες και φόβους.

Ένα μεγάλο σκάνδαλο ξέσπασε, με ανακοινώσεις που δημοσιεύθηκαν σε μέσα ενημέρωσης που ανήκουν στην Penske Media Group (Deadline, Hollywood Reporter, Variety), καθοδηγούμενο από μια μικρή αλλά καλά οργανωμένη μειοψηφία προνομιούχων ατόμων (που απομυζούν τις κρατικές επιδοτήσεις του ΕΚΚ και της ΕΡΤ και της επιτροπής για το 1.5% για τον κινηματογράφο). Αυτά τα άτομα εκτόξευσαν προσβολές και συκοφαντίες τόσο κατά του υπουργείου όσο και κατά της συντριπτικής πλειονότητας των δημιουργών της κινηματογραφικής βιομηχανίας, οι οποίοι είχαν περιθωριοποιηθεί επί σειρά ετών. Αυτό θα μπορούσε να περάσει απαρατήρητο, αν ορισμένα πολιτικά κόμματα — κυρίως αυτά της αντιπολίτευσης — δεν είχαν ευθυγραμμιστεί άκριτα με τις διαμαρτυρίες αυτής της διεφθαρμένης ομάδας, προσβάλλοντας έτσι ολόκληρη την κοινότητα των Ελλήνων κινηματογραφιστών.

Για να κατανοήσουμε την πλήρη εικόνα, πρέπει να ξεκινήσουμε από την αρχή. Όλα ξεκίνησαν με το «Κίνημα της Ομίχλης», το οποίο διέσπασε σκηνοθέτες και το υπόλοιπο κινηματογραφικό σύνολο σε μικρές, ανταγωνιστικές ομάδες με συγκρουόμενα συμφέροντα. Ακολούθησε η βεβιασμένη ίδρυση της αδιαφανούς Ελληνικής Ακαδημίας Κινηματογράφου, που στερούνταν ποιοτικών κριτηρίων, και η εισαγωγή του καταστροφικού Νόμου 3905/2010 (Νόμος Γερουλάνου για τον Κινηματογράφο). Αυτός ο νόμος αποδόμησε ουσιαστικά το Ελληνικό Κέντρο Κινηματογράφου για μια δεκαετία, οδηγώντας σε κακοδιαχείριση και μια σειρά διοικητικών και οικονομικών σκανδάλων, όπως επιβεβαιώνουν οι ελεγκτικές αρχές. Ο νόμος επέτρεψε την άνοδο της διεφθαρμένης «Ομίχλης», η οποία εκμεταλλεύτηκε την ασάφεια και την εναλλαγή διοικήσεων του Ελληνικού Κέντρου Κινηματογράφου για να μονοπωλήσει την κινηματογραφική αγορά και να εξασφαλίσει κρατικές επιδοτήσεις, αποκλείοντας πολλούς από τους βασικούς δημιουργούς του ελληνικού κινηματογράφου και οδηγώντας στη συνολική παρακμή της βιομηχανίας.

Δεν είναι τυχαίο ότι κατά τη διάρκεια των 14 ετών εφαρμογής του Νόμου 3905/2010 — ενός νόμου που προέκυψε από τις μεθοδεύσεις της ομάδας της Ομίχλης και της «Ακαδημίας» το 2009 και το 2010 — διορίστηκαν, απομακρύνθηκαν ή παραιτήθηκαν τουλάχιστον 10 πρόεδροι, 7 γενικοί διευθυντές και πάνω από 70 μέλη των επταμελών Διοικητικών Συμβουλίων του Ελληνικού Κέντρου Κινηματογράφου, συχνά λόγω διοικητικών ή οικονομικών σκανδάλων. Τι υποδηλώνουν αυτές οι πρωτοφανείς αλλαγές προσωπικού, που δεν έχουν προηγούμενο σε καμία παρόμοια οργάνωση παγκοσμίως; Δείχνουν τη διεφθαρμένη επιρροή της ομάδας της Ομίχλης και της Ελληνικής «Ακαδημίας» Κινηματογράφου στον ελληνικό κινηματογράφο.

Δύο μικρές ενώσεις (μία των Σκηνοθετών-Παραγωγών, η ΕΣΠΕΚ, και μία από τις πέντε ενώσεις παραγωγών, η ΣΑΠΟΕ), με τη στήριξη του διοικητικού συμβουλίου της «…ακαδημίας» και εκμεταλλευόμενες τη στενή τους σχέση με το Ελληνικό Κέντρο Κινηματογράφου και τον πρώην πρόεδρο Μάρκο Χολέβα (που αναγκάστηκε να παραιτηθεί τον Ιούλιο του 2024), μονοπώλησαν τα κρατικά κονδύλια παραγωγής ταινιών. Απέκλεισαν όσο το δυνατόν περισσότερους «εκτός κλίκας» σκηνοθέτες, απορριπτοντας τους ως «….παρωχημένους».

Μια σειρά σκανδάλων, καταχρήσεων και παράνομων αποφάσεων οδήγησαν ακόμη και σε αγωγές, στις οποίες οι θιγόμενοι δικαιώθηκαν. Ωστόσο, το Διοικητικό Συμβούλιο του Κέντρου Κινηματογράφου συνέχισε τις μεροληπτικές πρακτικές του, κάνοντας μόνο επιφανειακές αλλαγές.

Δεν έγινε ποτέ σαφές βάσει ποιας λογικής δόθηκε στην περιβόητη «….ακαδημία» (μια ιδιωτική αστική μη κερδοσκοπική εταιρεία ΑΜΚΕ-που δεν είναι καν σωματείο) το δικαίωμα να προτείνει την επιτροπή και τις μεθόδους επιλογής της ταινίας που θα εκπροσωπήσει τη χώρα στα Αμερικανικά Βραβεία Ακαδημίας (Όσκαρ) κάθε χρόνο, χωρίς καν να ορίσει αντικειμενικά κριτήρια, όπως συνέβαινε και στη θολή διαδικασία επιλογής για τη χρηματοδότηση ελληνικών ταινιών, η οποία έχει προκαλέσει τόσα προβλήματα, αγωγές και νομικές μάχες.

Η απόλυτη σήψη απαιτεί πλέον ριζικές αλλαγές για να αποκατασταθεί η αξιοπιστία του ελληνικού κινηματογράφου και να δοθεί τέλος σε αυτή τη διαφθορά.

Ποτέ δεν διευκρινίστηκε βάσει ποιας λογικής δόθηκε στην περιβόητη και αμφιλεγόμενη «…ακαδημία» το δικαίωμα να ορίζει την επιτροπή και τις μεθόδους επιλογής της ταινίας που θα εκπροσωπεί τη χώρα στα Αμερικανικά Βραβεία Ακαδημίας (Όσκαρ) κάθε χρόνο, χωρίς καν να οριστούν αντικειμενικά κριτήρια, παρόμοια με τη θολή διαδικασία επιλογής για τη χρηματοδότηση ελληνικών ταινιών, που μας έχει προκαλέσει τόσα προβλήματα, αγωγές και νομικές μάχες.

Ο «υπερβάλλων ζήλος» μίας υπαλλήλου του Υπουργείου Πολιτισμού, προφανώς διεφθαρμένου και σε συνεργασία με την ομάδα των «εκ των έσω», προκάλεσε την έκρηξη του σκανδάλου και ώθησε τον υφυπουργό Σύγχρονου Πολιτισμού, Ιάσονα Φωτήλα, να αποκαταστήσει τη νομιμότητα. Και ξαφνικά, αυτοί που πιάστηκαν με τα χέρια στο «μέλι» ξέσπασαν με προσβολές, διαμαρτυρίες και πίεση στους συμμετέχοντες να υποστηρίξουν τις παράνομες ενέργειές τους!

Καθημερινά μέλη του Διοικητικού Συμβουλίου της Ελληνικής Ακαδημίας (ορισμένοι διακεκριμένοι, άλλοι όχι) ξεκίνησαν μια πρωτοφανή εκστρατεία δυσφήμισης της διαδικασίας, συκοφάντησης των ανταγωνιστών και πίεσης στους κινηματογραφιστές να αποσύρουν τις συμμετοχές τους. Παρουσίασαν μόνο μια μερική εκδοχή της αλήθειας, αποκρύπτοντας βασικά γεγονότα —συμπεριλαμβανομένης της συνεργασίας τους με συγκεκριμένους υπαλλήλους του υπουργείου για να χειραγωγήσουν την ηγεσία του υπουργείου και την επιλογή συγκεκριμένης ταινίας.

Ένας-ένας, οι διαπλεκόμενοι αποκαλύφθηκαν, βγαίνοντας από τις “…φωλιές” τους, προσβάλλοντας και προσπαθώντας να ανακτήσουν την χαμένη επιρροή τους, όπως είχαν κατά τα χρόνια της κυριαρχίας τους. Αλλά οι μάσκες έπεσαν, και ο ισχυρισμός τους ότι εκπροσωπούν ολόκληρη τη βιομηχανία —ενώ αποκαλούν τους επικριτές τους «ξεπερασμένους»— κατέρρευσε.

Η επιτακτική ανάγκη να αναθεωρηθεί ο παρωχημένος Νόμος Γερουλάνου (Νόμος 3905/2010) είναι πλέον προφανής. Όσο για τα μέλη της “…ακαδημίας”, αν πραγματικά επιθυμούν να προστατεύσουν τη φήμη των Ελλήνων κινηματογραφιστών, πρέπει να τροποποιήσουν το καταστατικό τους, να εφαρμόσουν δημοκρατικές διαδικασίες, να επικεντρωθούν αποκλειστικά σε πολιτιστικές δραστηριότητες χωρίς να διολισθαίνουν σε συνδικαλιστικές ή συντεχνιακές διαστρεβλώσεις, να εποπτεύουν το Διοικητικό Συμβούλιο και, πάνω απ’ όλα, να αποκαταστήσουν την ακεραιότητα που οι αληθινοί καλλιτέχνες θα έπρεπε να διαφυλάσσουν.

Η «…ακαδημία» είναι μια ιδιωτική εταιρεία που λειτουργεί με διαφορετικό καταστατικό από την Αμερικανική Ακαδημία Κινηματογράφου. Η απόφαση του Υπουργείου Πολιτισμού είναι επομένως δικαιολογημένη. Είναι λογικό ότι ένας σκηνοθέτης γνωστός κυρίως για ταινίες μικρού μήκους, όπως ο Κεκάτος, δεν θα έπρεπε να είναι επικεφαλής μιας επιτροπής που επιλέγει μια ταινία μεγάλου μήκους για να εκπροσωπήσει την Ελλάδα. Επιπλέον, εκτός από τη Φόνισσα, πολλές από τις άλλες ταινίες είναι εσωστρεφή “καλλιτεχνικά” πρότζεκτ, χρηματοδοτούμενα από Έλληνες φορολογούμενους, που όμως παρουσιάζουν σοβαρές ελλείψεις στην ερμηνεία, το σενάριο και τη σκηνοθεσία. Οι περισσότερες από τις 23 ταινίες, εξαιρουμένης της Φόνισσας, έχουν πουλήσει από 400 έως 16.000 εισιτήρια στα τοπικά ταμεία, ενώ οι πιθανότητες τους για πωλήσεις  στο εξωτερικό είναι σχεδόν μηδαμινές.

ΑΥΓΟΥΣΤΟΣ 2024: Ένα ακόμη οικονομικό σκάνδαλο από τον Κεκάτο και την διαφημιστική/παραγωγική εταιρεία Foss Productions, ιδιοκτησίας των αδελφών Κωτιώνη, ύψους περίπου 1 εκατομμυρίου ευρώ

Το Διοικητικό Συμβούλιο του ΕΚΟΜΕ αποφάσισε να ακυρώσει την έγκριση της σειράς “Milky Way” του Βασίλη Κεκάτου, σε εκτέλεση παραγωγής της Foss Productions και του Στέλιου Κωτιώνη, και χρηματοδότηση από το κανάλι MEGA, καθώς και τα οφέλη που χορηγήθηκαν από το φορολογικό κίνητρο του άρθρου 71Ε του Νόμου 4172/2013 (Α’ 167), όπως ισχύει, «επειδή δεν διαπιστώθηκε η πληρότητα της έκθεσης του ορκωτού ελεγκτή, σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 30 του Ν. 4487/2017».

Ο λόγος για αυτή την απόφαση ήταν ότι «η έναρξη του επενδυτικού έργου πραγματοποιήθηκε πριν από την ημερομηνία υποβολής της αίτησης για ένταξη, σύμφωνα με την παρ. 5 του άρθρου 20 του Ν. 4487/2017». Η ανάκληση έγινε ένα χρόνο μετά την πιστοποίηση της επένδυσης. Ο εγκεκριμένος προϋπολογισμός ανερχόταν σε €2.252.435 και η αποσυρθείσα επιδότηση σε €900.974.

Τόσο ο Στέλιος Κωτιώνης, ως εκτελεστικός παραγωγός, όσο και ο Βασίλης Κεκάτος, ως σκηνοθέτης, υπέβαλαν δηλώσεις του Νόμου 105 στο ΕΚΟΜΕ όταν το Milky Way εντάχθηκε στο σχήμα επιστροφής μετρητών, βεβαιώνοντας ότι η παραγωγή δεν είχε ακόμη ξεκινήσει.

Πολλοί στον χώρο αναρωτιούνται: Τι συμβαίνει στην Ελλάδα, τη φτωχότερη χώρα της ΕΕ; Ποιος προστατεύει αυτούς που εμπλέκονται σε αυτό το δίκτυο διαφθοράς που συνεχίζει να αντλεί κεφάλαια από το Ελληνικό Κέντρο Κινηματογράφου, το Eurimages, το Ταμείο Ανάκαμψης και Ανθεκτικότητας της ΕΕ και το Creative Europe; Γιατί ο Εισαγγελέας του Αρείου Πάγου και ο Ευρωπαίος Εισαγγελέας κλείνουν τα μάτια ενώ οι ευρωπαϊκές επιδοτήσεις ρέουν στις τσέπες ολίγων, σχηματίζοντας αυτό που φαίνεται να είναι ένα καρτέλ;

Σε άλλες χώρες της ΕΕ, τέτοια σκάνδαλα θα πυροδοτούσαν άμεση δράση — έρευνες, παραιτήσεις και ακόμη και απομάκρυνση υπουργών από τις θέσεις τους. Αλλά όχι στην Ελλάδα. Η διαφθορά είναι τόσο βαθιά που έχει κερδίσει το παρατσούκλι «….η Κολομβία των Βαλκανίων», υποδηλώνοντας την εκτεταμένη δικαστική και πολιτική διαφθορά. Παρά τα συσσωρευμένα στοιχεία και τη δημόσια κατακραυγή, οι ισχυροί παραμένουν ως επί το πλείστον αλώβητοι, και το σύστημα συνεχίζει να προστατεύει τους λίγους εις βάρος των πολλών.

Η αποτυχία των αρχών να αντιμετωπίσουν αυτά τα ζητήματα εγείρει σοβαρές ανησυχίες σχετικά με τη διακυβέρνηση, τη διαφάνεια και τη λογοδοσία, ειδικά καθώς οι δημόσιοι πόροι που προορίζονται για την υποστήριξη του πολιτισμού και των τεχνών διοχετεύονται στα χέρια μιας προνομιούχας ελίτ. Τίθεται το ερώτημα: Πόσο ακόμα μπορεί να συνεχιστεί αυτή η κατάσταση πριν η Ευρωπαϊκή ‘Ένωση ή άλλοι εποπτικοί φορείς παρέμβουν για να καταστήσουν τους υπεύθυνους υπόλογους;

SOURCES AND LINKS:

https://www.efsyn.gr/tehnes/sinema/114454_sinema-o-paradeisos-tis-kakodiaheirisis

(Cinema paradiso of…. mismanagement).

https://www.efsyn.gr/stiles/apopseis/444323_toys-piran-tin-mpoykia-ap-stoma-ki-ekeinoi-brizoyn-oloys-toys-alloys

(“Greek Film Academy: They took the bread out of their mouths, and now they are cursing… everyone else.” )

https://www.efsyn.gr/politiki/synenteyxeis/297119_antro-kakoyrgimaton-elliniko-kentro-kinimatografoy(‘The Greek Film Center is a den of felonies. “)

https://www.efsyn.gr/tehnes/art-nea/406645_i-apofasi-toy-protodikeioy-stin-ypothesi-papahatzi-kata-ferri

(Kostas Ferris is acquitted  for defamation of producer Panos Papahatzis after judgement of the Multi Member Court of First Instance of Athens).

https://www.efsyn.gr/stiles/apopseis/298945_oi-pseytes-kai-oi-kleftes-ton-proto-hrono-hairontai

(The Greek Film Center has seized and transported to unknown destination 2,500 film prints and negatives, previously held by the former FINOS FILMS/ACCELERE labs, without the knowledge or consent of their rightful owners).

https://typologies.gr/pagos-sto-milky-way/embed/#?secret=GeyQCj1p1d#?secret=AgXXR9eOsG

(The €900,000 EKOME cash-back subsidy for Vasilios Kekatos’ limited series “MILKY WAY” has been revoked due to legal violations).

https://tvxs.gr/news/ellada/300-ypografes-enantia-sti-diadikasia-aksiologisis-sto-elliniko-kentro-kinimatografoy

(300 filmmakers sign against the evaluation process of the Greek Film Center)

(Παρακάτω) παρατίθεται έκθεση από ορκωτούς λογιστές της λογιστικής εταιρείας Sol, η οποία διαπίστωσε ότι η ταινία ALPS του Γιώργου Λάνθιμου, σε εκτέλεση παραγωγής  της Αθηνάς Ραχήλ Τσαγγάρη, έλαβε παράνομα 300.000 € αντί για τα 150.000 € που είχαν εγκριθεί από το Διοικητικό Συμβούλιο του Κέντρου ΚΙνηματογράφου. Ο Γενικός Διευθυντής του ΕΚΚ, Γρηγόρης Καραντινάκης, πήρε αυτή την απόφαση μόνος του, χωρίς την έγκριση του Διοικητικού Συμβουλίου, και συνέταξε ιδιωτική συμφωνία μεταξύ του ΕΚΚ και της Τσαγγάρη ο ίδιος χωρίς να συμβουλευτεί το Νομικό Τμήμα του ΕΚΚ. Ως αποτέλεσμα, ο Καραντινάκης κατηγορείται για κακούργημα και δόλο σε καταγγελία που υπέβαλε ο γνωστός δικηγόρος Ασπρογέρακας-Γρίβας (πάνω). Ο Μάρκος Χολέβας αναφέρεται ως δεύτερος στη λίστα της πρώτης σελίδας της καταγγελίας, η οποία έχει 130 σελίδες. Τα στοιχεία ταυτοποίησης, όπως οι αριθμοί ταυτοτήτων και διαβατηρίων, έχουν παραλειφθεί.

Download

Download

The post Καταγγελίες για Διαφθορά και Παρακμή στο Ελληνικό Κέντρο Κινηματογράφου first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

Καινούργιο σκάνδαλο σύγκρουσης συμφερόντων και οικονομικών ατασθαλιών αποκαλύπτεται μετά από έρευνα —

Ο Βασίλης Κεκάτος και άλλοι τρεις, οι οποίοι είχαν αναλάβει τον ρόλο αναγνωστών και αξιολογητών προτάσεων, ήταν ταυτόχρονα και αποδέκτες οικονομικών επιχορηγήσεων στην ίδια πρόσκληση υποβολής προτάσεων, ενώ παράλληλα προέκυψαν και άλλα σκάνδαλα.

Του Χέκτορ Αλεχάντρο Μοράλες, συνεργάτη του Film Industry Watch και γνώστη της ελληνικής κινηματογραφικής βιομηχανίας.

Μια μεγαλύτερη, πλήρης και πολύ πιο λεπτομερής έκδοση αυτού του άρθρου είναι διαθέσιμη εδώ.

Τον Οκτώβριο του 2021, ο διεθνώς καταξιωμένος σκηνοθέτης Κώστας Φέρρης, βραβευμένος με Αργυρή Άρκτο στο Φεστιβάλ Βερολίνου για το “Ρεμπέτικο” και πρώην Αντιπρόεδρος του Ελληνικού Κέντρου Κινηματογράφου (ΕΚΚ), κατέθεσε στο Πρωτοδικείο Αθηνών. Ο Φέρρης, μια σημαντική προσωπικότητα του ελληνικού και διεθνούς κινηματογράφου, ανέβηκε στο βήμα για να καταθέσει ως μάρτυρας κατηγορίας για τα συνεχιζόμενα ζητήματα διαφθοράς εντός του ΕΚΚ. Υπηρέτησε υπό τον Πάνο Λουκάκο, τον τέως πρόεδρο του ΕΚΚ, και μαζί αντιστάθηκαν στις πιέσεις του υφυπουργού Σύγχρονου Πολιτισμού Νικόλα Γιατρομανωλάκη, ο οποίος φέρεται να είχε σχέσεις με τον συγγραφέα/σκηνοθέτη Απόστολο Δοξιάδη. Ο Δοξιάδης, προερχόμενος από εύπορη οικογένεια, ασκούσε σημαντική επιρροή στις δραστηριότητες του ΕΚΚ, συχνά παρασκηνιακά, χρησιμοποιώντας τις διασυνδέσεις του με τον δεξιό πρωθυπουργό Κυριάκο Μητσοτάκη.

Ένα βασικό πρόσωπο που απουσίαζε από τη δίκη ήταν ο πρόεδρος του Ελληνικού Κέντρου Κινηματογράφου, Μάρκος Χολέβας. Παρά το γεγονός ότι το ΕΚΚ διαθέτει νομική υπηρεσία, ο Χολέβας ξόδεψε πάνω από 16.000 ευρώ δημόσιου χρήματος σε εξωτερικό νομικό γραφείο για την υπεράσπισή του. Δικηγόροι από διάφορους συλλόγους και εταιρείες παραγωγών, όπως το ΣΑΠΟΕ, η ΕΣΠΕΚ και η Tanweer Productions, παρακολούθησαν τη δίκη, καθώς είχαν άμεσο συμφέρον για την έκβαση της. Επί χρόνια, οι εκτελεστές παραγωγοί αποκόμιζαν σημαντικά κέρδη από κρατικές επιχορηγήσεις πριν καν παραχθούν οι ταινίες, εκμεταλλευόμενοι νομικά κενά ώστε να μειώσουν, ή και να εκμηδενίσουν, τις αμοιβές προς τους σκηνοθέτες και σεναριογράφους.

Η κατάθεση του Φέρρη έριξε φως στις αδιαφανείς πρακτικές του Ελληνικού Κέντρου Κινηματογράφου, το οποίο λειτουργεί υπό το ελληνικό δίκαιο ως οργανισμός επιχορηγούμενος από δημόσια κονδύλια (με την μορφή του ΝΠΙΔ). Σύμφωνα με τον Φέρρη, το ΕΚΚ δεχόταν, και δέχεται, διαρκώς κριτική για ακατάλληλες επιλογές προσωπικού και μη διαφανείς διαδικασίες στην κατανομή των χρηματοδοτήσεων ταινιών. Παρά τους δημόσιους ισχυρισμούς ότι οι διαδικασίες του συμμορφώνονται με τις κατευθυντήριες γραμμές της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, ο Φέρρης το αμφισβήτησε, αναφέροντας ότι οι πρακτικές του ΕΚΚ αποκλίνουν σημαντικά από εκείνες άλλων ευρωπαϊκών κινηματογραφικών οργανισμών.

Σε ασφαλιστικά μέτρα που κατατέθηκαν τον Μάιο του 2021, ανεξάρτητοι παραγωγοί και σκηνοθέτες απαίτησαν από το ΕΚΚ να δημοσιοποιήσει τα ονόματα των αξιολογητών του, κατηγορώντας τους ότι χρησιμοποιούσαν τις θέσεις τους για να χρηματοδοτούν τα δικά τους έργα. Η καταγγελία ανέφερε συγκεκριμένα έργα, όπως την ταινία κινουμένων σχεδίων Κολοκοτρώνης, ο Γέρος του Μοριά, την ταινία ντοκιμαντέρ με θέμα το Ολοκαύτωμα Μην Με Ξεχάσετε και τη μικρού μήκους ταινία μυθοπλασίας Η Βάρκα. Παρά το υψηλό επίπεδο των προτάσεων, έλαβαν χαμηλές βαθμολογίες, ενώ οι αξιολογητές χορηγούσαν στον εαυτό τους επιχορηγήσεις που κυμαίνονταν από 2.500 έως 200.000 ευρώ.

Με απόφαση της η Εισαγγελία Αθηνών διέταξε τον διευθύνοντα σύμβουλο του ΕΚΚ, Παντελή Μητρόπουλο, να παραδώσει στους αιτούντες όλα τα ονόματα των αξιολογητών και τις βαθμολογίες. Τα έγγραφα αποκάλυψαν ότι τέσσερις αξιολογητές είχαν μυστικά χορηγήσει στον εαυτό τους σχεδόν μισό εκατομμύριο ευρώ από κρατική χρηματοδότηση. Τα δημοσιεύματα στον τύπο προκάλεσαν ακόμη μεγαλύτερη αγανάκτηση.

Μεταξύ των έργων που έλαβαν αμφιλεγόμενη προέγκριση ήταν:

• Ένα Πολύ Κοριτσίστικο Όνομα Πάττυ του Γιώργου Γεωργόπουλου (200.000 ευρώ)
• Το Καλοκαίρι της Κάρμεν του Ζαχαρία Μαυροειδή (190.000 ευρώ)
• Οι Άγριες Μέρες του Βασίλη Κεκάτου (2.500 ευρώ)
• Ο Τελευταίος Ταξιτζής του Στέργιου Πάσχου (130.000 ευρώ)

Τον Ιούνιο του 2021, ο Φέρρης αποκάλυψε περαιτέρω κακοδιαχείριση στο Ελληνικό Κέντρο Κινηματογράφου σε συνεντεύξεις του, κατηγορώντας τον Χολέβα και το διοικητικό του συμβούλιο για αναξιοκρατία, αδιαφάνεια και μεροληψία. Ο Χολέβας είχε ισχυριστεί ότι η έλλειψη καταρτισμένων αξιολογητών στα σωματεία τον έκανε να επιλέξει αξιολογητές μόνον από την ΕΣΠΕΚ, στην οποία ο ίδιος ήταν μέλος, κάτι που ο Φέρρης αντέκρουσε, αναφέροντας τα χιλιάδες ενεργά μέλη, πάνω από έξι χιλιάδες,στα ελληνικά συνδικαλιστικά σωματεία του οπτικοακουστικού κλάδου. Παρά τις κατηγορίες αυτές, ο Χολέβας και βασικά πρόσωπα της ΣΑΠΟΕ, ενός μικρού συλλόγου παραγωγών από τους πέντε συνολικά που υπάρχουν στην Ελλάδα, συνέχισαν να κυριαρχούν στη διαδικασία χρηματοδότησης, πλουτίζοντας εις βάρος της ευρύτερης κινηματογραφικής βιομηχανίας.

Αρκετά μέλη της ΣΑΠΟΕ, συμπεριλαμβανομένου του προέδρου Πάνου Παπαχατζή, έλαβαν σημαντική χρηματοδότηση για τα έργα τους. Ο ίδιος ο Παπαχατζής έλαβε 370.000 ευρώ για τρεις προεγκρίσεις, ενώ και άλλα μέλη του διοικητικού συμβουλίου και οι εταιρείες τους ωφελήθηκαν σημαντικά. Συνολικά, από μια πρόχειρη έρευνα, τα μέλη της ΣΑΠΟΕ έλαβαν πάνω από 1,8 εκατομμύρια ευρώ από τα 4,45 εκατομμύρια ευρώ που κατανεμήθηκαν από το ΕΚΚ σε δύο γύρους αποφάσεων.

Η επιρροή της ΣΑΠΟΕ επεκτάθηκε πέρα από τη διαδικασία χρηματοδότησης, καθώς οι αξιολογητές συχνά αξιολογούσαν έργα που υποβάλλονταν από τους συνεργάτες τους. Για παράδειγμα, ο αξιολογητής Στέργιος Πάσχος έλαβε χρηματοδότηση για ένα μεγάλου μήκους έργο, ενώ ένας συνεργάτης του συμμετείχε σε άλλο έργο που χρηματοδοτήθηκε από το ΕΚΚ.

Τον Φεβρουάριο του 2022, η Εθνική Αρχή Διαφάνειας δημοσίευσε μια έκθεση για τη διαδικασία προέγκρισης του ΕΚΚ, υπογραμμίζοντας την έλλειψη διαφάνειας και την παρουσία συγκρούσεων συμφερόντων. Η έκθεση πρότεινε μεταρρυθμίσεις στη διαδικασία επιλογής, συμπεριλαμβανομένης της δημιουργίας Μητρώου Αξιολογητών και πιο λεπτομερών κριτηρίων για την επιλογή, για να αποτραπούν μελλοντικές συγκρούσεις συμφερόντων.

Τον Αύγουστο του 2024, ένα ακόμη οικονομικό σκάνδαλο ξέσπασε με τον Κεκάτο και την εταιρεία διαφήμισης/παραγωγής Foss Productions, που ανήκει στους αδελφούς Κωτιώνη, ύψους περίπου 1 εκατομμυρίου ευρώ.

Το διοικητικό συμβούλιο του ΕΚΟΜΕ (Hellenic Cash Back Initiative) αποφάσισε να ακυρώσει την προέγκριση της σειράς Milky Way του Βασίλη Κεκάτου, την οποία παρήγαγε η Foss Productions και ο Στέλιος Κοτιώνης, και χρηματοδοτήθηκε από το κανάλι MEGA TV, καθώς και τα οφέλη που χορηγήθηκαν από το καθεστώς φορολογικών κινήτρων (CASH REBATE) του άρθρου 71Ε του Νόμου 4172/2013 (Α’ 167), όπως ισχύει, “επειδή δεν διαπιστώθηκε η πληρότητα της έκθεσης του ελεγκτή, σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 30 του νόμου 4487/2017”.

Ο λόγος για την απόφαση αυτή ήταν ότι “η έναρξη του επενδυτικού έργου πραγματοποιήθηκε πριν από την ημερομηνία υποβολής της αίτησης ένταξης, σύμφωνα με την παρ. 5 του άρθρου 20 του Νόμου 4487/2017”. Η απόσυρση της προέγκρισης έγινε έναν χρόνο μετά την πιστοποίηση της επένδυσης. Ο εγκεκριμένος προϋπολογισμός ανερχόταν σε 2.252.435 ευρώ και η ανακληθείσα επιδότηση σε 900.974 ευρώ. Τόσο ο Στέλιος Κοτιώνης, ως εκτελεστής παραγωγός, όσο και ο Βασίλης Κεκάτος, ως σκηνοθέτης, υπέγραψαν και υπέβαλαν υπεύθυνες δηλώσεις του Νόμου 105 στο ΕΚΟΜΕ όταν το Milky Way εντάχθηκε στο καθεστώς επιστροφής κεφαλαίων, επιβεβαιώνοντας ότι η παραγωγή, κατά την ημερομηνία κατάθεσης της αίτησης ένταξης στον ΕΚΟΜΕ, δεν είχε ακόμη ξεκινήσει.

Η διαφθορά στο Ελληνικό Κέντρο Κινηματογράφου έφτασε σε οριακό σημείο τον Αύγουστο 2024, όταν ξέσπασε σκάνδαλο σχετικά με τη διαδικασία επιλογής της ταινίας που θα εκπροσωπούσε την Ελλάδα στα Όσκαρ. Μια επιτροπή, η οποία επιλέχθηκε από την Ελληνική Ακαδημία Κινηματογράφου (μια ιδιωτική εταιρεία με τη μορφή της μη κερδοσκοπικής/Α.Μ.Κ.Ε.) σε συνεργασία με το ΕΚΚ, ήταν υπεύθυνη για την επιλογή της ταινίας. Ωστόσο, προέκυψαν κατηγορίες για μεροληψία και ευνοιοκρατία, ιδιαίτερα σχετικά με την επιλογή του Βασίλη Κεκάτου, ο οποίος είχε κυρίως σκηνοθετήσει ταινίες μικρού μήκους, ως προέδρου της επιτροπής. Το Υπουργείο Πολιτισμού παρενέβη άμεσα, αντικαθιστώντας όλα τα μέλη της επιτροπής.

Επιπλέον, είναι σημαντικό να τονιστεί ότι η προσέγγιση του Υπουργείου Πολιτισμού για την αντικατάσταση των μελών της επιτροπής – που είχαν αρχικά διοριστεί από υπάλληλο του υπουργείου κατά τη διάρκεια της άδειάς της – στερείται τόσο διαφάνειας όσο και του επαγγελματισμού που αναμένεται από έναν τόσο σημαντικό θεσμό. Η μη διαφανής διαδικασία, σε συνδυασμό με την απουσία ενημέρωσης σχετικά με τα κριτήρια επιλογής των αντικαταστατών, προκάλεσε σοβαρές ανησυχίες στην ελληνική κινηματογραφική κοινότητα, υπονομεύοντας περαιτέρω την εμπιστοσύνη στο σύστημα. Αυτές οι αποτυχίες αναδεικνύουν τα παράκεντρα εξουσίας, και τα ευρύτερα ζητήματα κακοδιαχείρισης και αδιαφάνειας που ταλαιπωρούν το Ελληνικό Κέντρο Κινηματογράφου εδώ και χρόνια. Είναι προφανές ότι η εσωτερική έρευνα (ΕΔΕ) που ξεκίνησε το Υπουργείο Πολιτισμού στοχεύει στην αντιμετώπιση αυτών των χρόνιων παθογενειών και ανησυχιών.

Αυτά τα σκάνδαλα αποκάλυψαν ένα σύστημα βαθιά ελαττωματικό, όπου μια μικρή ομάδα παραγόντων, μονοπωλεί τη χρηματοδότηση του κράτους για τον κινηματογράφο, περιθωριοποιώντας πολλούς άξιους δημιουργούς και υπονομεύοντας την εμπιστοσύνη του κοινού στην ελληνική κινηματογραφική βιομηχανία. Οι εκκλήσεις για μεταρρυθμίσεις έχουν ενταθεί, με απαιτήσεις για μεγαλύτερη διαφάνεια, αξιοκρατία και λογοδοσία στη διαδικασία χρηματοδότησης ταινιών.

Σας συστήνουμε να διαβάσετε την πλήρη και πιο λεπτομερή έκδοση αυτού του άρθρου, η οποία είναι διαθέσιμη εδώ.

SOURCES AND LINKS:

https://www.efsyn.gr/tehnes/sinema/114454_sinema-o-paradeisos-tis-kakodiaheirisis

(Cinema paradiso of…. mismanagement).

https://www.efsyn.gr/stiles/apopseis/444323_toys-piran-tin-mpoykia-ap-stoma-ki-ekeinoi-brizoyn-oloys-toys-alloys

(“Greek Film Academy: They took the bread out of their mouths, and now they are cursing… everyone else.” )

https://www.efsyn.gr/politiki/synenteyxeis/297119_antro-kakoyrgimaton-elliniko-kentro-kinimatografoy(‘The Greek Film Center is a den of felonies. “)

https://www.efsyn.gr/tehnes/art-nea/406645_i-apofasi-toy-protodikeioy-stin-ypothesi-papahatzi-kata-ferri

(Kostas Ferris is acquitted  for defamation of producer Panos Papahatzis after judgement of the Multi Member Court of First Instance of Athens).

https://www.efsyn.gr/stiles/apopseis/298945_oi-pseytes-kai-oi-kleftes-ton-proto-hrono-hairontai

(The Greek Film Center has seized and transported to unknown destination 2,500 film prints and negatives, previously held by the former FINOS FILMS/ACCELERE labs, without the knowledge or consent of their rightful owners).

https://typologies.gr/pagos-sto-milky-way/embed/#?secret=GeyQCj1p1d#?secret=AgXXR9eOsG

(The €900,000 EKOME cash-back subsidy for Vasilios Kekatos’ limited series “MILKY WAY” has been revoked due to legal violations).

https://tvxs.gr/news/ellada/300-ypografes-enantia-sti-diadikasia-aksiologisis-sto-elliniko-kentro-kinimatografoy

(300 filmmakers sign against the evaluation process of the Greek Film Center)

(Παρακάτω) παρατίθεται έκθεση από ορκωτούς λογιστές της λογιστικής εταιρείας Sol, η οποία διαπίστωσε ότι η ταινία ALPS του Γιώργου Λάνθιμου, σε εκτέλεση παραγωγής  της Αθηνάς Ραχήλ Τσαγγάρη, έλαβε παράνομα 300.000 € αντί για τα 150.000 € που είχαν εγκριθεί από το Διοικητικό Συμβούλιο του Κέντρου ΚΙνηματογράφου. Ο Γενικός Διευθυντής του ΕΚΚ, Γρηγόρης Καραντινάκης, πήρε αυτή την απόφαση μόνος του, χωρίς την έγκριση του Διοικητικού Συμβουλίου, και συνέταξε ιδιωτική συμφωνία μεταξύ του ΕΚΚ και της Τσαγγάρη ο ίδιος χωρίς να συμβουλευτεί το Νομικό Τμήμα του ΕΚΚ. Ως αποτέλεσμα, ο Καραντινάκης κατηγορείται για κακούργημα και δόλο σε καταγγελία που υπέβαλε ο γνωστός δικηγόρος Ασπρογέρακας-Γρίβας (πάνω). Ο Μάρκος Χολέβας αναφέρεται ως δεύτερος στη λίστα της πρώτης σελίδας της καταγγελίας, η οποία έχει 130 σελίδες. Τα στοιχεία ταυτοποίησης, όπως οι αριθμοί ταυτοτήτων και διαβατηρίων, έχουν παραλειφθεί.

Download

Download

The post Καταγγελλίες για Διαφθορά και Παρακμή στο Ελληνικό Κέντρο Κινηματογράφου first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

By Hector Alejandro Morales, Film Industry Watch contributor and Greek industry insider.

A longer, full and much more detailed version of this article is available here.

In October 2021, acclaimed director Kostas Ferris, Silver Bear winner at Berlinale for Rembetiko and former Vice President of the Greek Film Center (GFC), testified at the Court of First Instance in Athens. Ferris, a key figure in Greek cinema, took the stand to address the ongoing issues of alleged corruption within the GFC. He served under Panos Loukakos, the GFC president at the time, and together they resisted pressures from deputy minister Nikolas Giatromanolakis, who was allegedly connected to author/director Apostolos Doxiadis. Doxiadis, from a wealthy family, exerted significant influence over the GFC’s operations, often behind the scenes, using his connections to right-wing Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis.

One key figure absent from the trial was Greek Film Center president Markos Holevas. Despite having a legal department, Holevas spent over €16,000 of public money on an external law firm to defend himself. Lawyers from various producers’ associations, including SAPOE and Tanweer Productions, attended the trial, as they had a vested interest in the outcome. For years, producers had been profiting handsomely from state subsidies before films were even produced, exploiting loopholes in the system to minimize payments to directors and screenwriters.

Ferris’s testimony shed light on the opaque practices of the Greek Film Center, which operates under Greek law as a publicly funded organization. According to Ferris, the GFC has consistently been criticized for inappropriate personnel decisions and non-transparent procedures regarding the allocation of film funding. Despite public claims that its processes followed European Union guidelines, Ferris disputed this, saying that GFC’s practices deviated significantly from those of other European film organizations.

In a complaint filed in May 2021, independent producers and directors demanded the GFC release the names of its evaluators, accusing them of using their positions to fund their own projects. The complaint cited several projects, including the animated short Kolokotronis, the Old Man of Moria, the Holocaust-themed docudrama Don’t Forget Me, and the short fiction film The Boat. Despite the high-quality proposals, they were given low scores, while evaluators granted themselves awards ranging from €2,500 to €200,000.

In a ruling that sparked outrage, the District Attorney ordered GFC president Pandelis Mitropoulos to release the names of the evaluators. The results revealed that four evaluators had clandestinely awarded themselves nearly half a million euros in state funding.

Among the projects that received controversial pre-approval were:

• Very Girlish Name Patty by George Georgopoulos (€200,000)
• Carmen’s Summer by Zacharias Mavroeidis (€190,000)
• Our Wild Days by Vasilios Kekatos (€2,500)
• The Last Taxi Driver by Stergios Paschos (€130,000)

In June 2021, Ferris exposed further mismanagement at the Greek Film Centers in interviews, accusing Holevas and his board of cronyism. Holevas had claimed a lack of qualified evaluators within the unions, which Ferris refuted, citing the thousands of active members in various Greek unions. Despite these accusations, Holevas and key figures in SAPOE, a small association of producers and directors, continued to dominate the funding process, enriching themselves at the expense of the wider film industry.

Several SAPOE members, including president Panos Papahatzis, received substantial funding for their projects. Papahatzis himself received €370,000 for three approvals, while other board members and their companies also benefited significantly. In total, SAPOE members were granted over €1.8 million out of the €4.45 million allocated by the GFC in two rounds of decisions.

The influence of SAPOE extended beyond the funding process, as evaluators were often assessing projects submitted by their collaborators. For instance, evaluator Stergios Paschos received funding for a feature-length project while a colleague of his was involved in another project funded by the GFC.

In February 2022, the Hellenic National Transparency Authority released a report on the GFC’s pre-approval process, highlighting the lack of transparency and the presence of conflicts of interest. The report recommended reforms to the selection process, including the creation of an Evaluators’ Registry and more detailed criteria for selection, to prevent future conflicts of interest.

In August 2024 yet another financial scandal by Kekatos and advertising/production company Foss Productions, owned by the Kotionis brothers, in the tune of approximately 1M euros

The board of directors of EKOME (The HELLENIC CASH BACK INITIATIVE) decided to cancel the prior approval of the series “Milky Way”, by Vassilis Kekatos, executive produced by Foss Productions and Stelios Koionis, and financed by MEGA TV channel, and the benefits granted from the tax incentive scheme (CASH REBATE) of article 71E of Law No. 4172/2013 (A’ 167), as in force, “because the completeness of the auditor’s report was not established, according to article 30 of the law. 4487/2017”.

The reason for this decision was that “the start of the investment project took place before the date of submission of the application for inclusion, in accordance with para. 5 of article 20 of Law no. 4487/2017”. The withdrawal was made one year after the investment has been certified. The budget approved amounted to EUR 2,252,435 and the withdrawn subsidy to EUR 900,974. Both Stelios Kotionis, as executive producer, and Vasilios Kekatos, as director, submitted declarations of honor to EKOME when Milky Way was entered into the cash-back incentive scheme, affirming that production had not yet started.

The alleged corruption at the Greek Film Center reached a breaking point in 2024 when a scandal erupted over Greece’s Oscar submission process. A committee, chosen by the Hellenic Film Academy (a private society) in collaboration with the GFC, was tasked with selecting the film to represent Greece at the Oscars. However, allegations of bias and favoritism arose, particularly concerning the selection of Kekatos, who had primarily directed short films, to lead the committee. The Ministry of Culture intervened, replacing certain members of the committee.

Furthermore, it is important to emphasize that the Ministry of Culture’s approach to replacing the committee members – originally appointed by a ministry employee while she was on vacation – lacked both transparency and the level of professionalism expected from such a key institution. The untransparent process, combined with the absence of communication regarding the criteria for selecting the replacements, has sparked serious concerns within the Greek film community, further eroding trust in the system. These failures highlight the broader issues of mismanagement and opacity that have troubled the Greek Film Center for years. Clearly, the internal investigation initiated by the Ministry of Culture is an attempt to address these insecurities and fears.

These scandals have exposed a deeply flawed system, where a small group of insiders has monopolized state film funding, marginalized many filmmakers, and eroded public trust in the Greek film industry. Calls for reform have intensified, with demands for greater transparency, meritocracy, and accountability in the film funding process.

For those who follow our website, the events detailed above are eerily similar to the ones we’ve previously reported concerning the Israeli Film Funds and are inline with how the European film ecosystem is organized, with a complete lack of transparency and proper guardrails against corruption and conflict of interests.

We encourage you to read the full and more detailed version of this article, which is available here.

LINKS AND SOURCES:

https://www.efsyn.gr/tehnes/sinema/114454_sinema-o-paradeisos-tis-kakodiaheirisis

(Cinema paradiso of…. mismanagement).

https://www.efsyn.gr/stiles/apopseis/444323_toys-piran-tin-mpoykia-ap-stoma-ki-ekeinoi-brizoyn-oloys-toys-alloys

(“Greek Film Academy: They took the bread out of their mouths, and now they are cursing… everyone else.” )

https://www.efsyn.gr/politiki/synenteyxeis/297119_antro-kakoyrgimaton-elliniko-kentro-kinimatografoy(‘The Greek Film Center is a den of felonies. “)

In an interview with the Greek daily EFSYN, Kostas Ferris stated: “What is certain is that Mr. Holevas failed to forward the findings to the appropriate prosecutor, as required by the report from the General Accounting Office of the State and as ordered by the Minister. Instead, he handed the two evaluation reports to a lawyer of his own choosing, Mr. Alexandros Christidis, for re-evaluation. Moreover, he did not inform the Minister that in the Asprogerakas complaint, as well as in reports by certified public accountants Batsoulis, Androutsos, and Triantafyllou, his name was mentioned (please see page with arrow–Georgios Papalios, father-in-law of Apostolos Doxiadis name appears first) in connection with felonious activities. Therefore, he should have immediately resigned to allow for a proper investigation and the necessary cleansing of the Greek Film Center (GFC).

Numbers of Police IDs and passports on the legal complaint of Asprogerlas-Grivas have been erased because it violates Greek GDPR law about personal data.

Below is a report by certified public accountants from the accounting firm Sol found that the film ALPS by Yorgos Lanthimos, executive produced by Athena Rachel Tsangari, unlawfully received €300,000 instead of the €150,000 approved by the Board of Directors. GFC general manager Grigoris Karantinakis made this decision independently, without board approval, and drafted a private agreement between the GFC and Tsangari without consulting the GFC’s Legal Department. As a result, Karantinakis has been accused of a felony and bad faith in a complaint filed by the well-known lawyer Asprogerakas-Grivas. Markos Holevas is listed as number two on the first page of the complaint, which is 130 pages long. Identifying details such as IDs and passports have been omitted.

The post Alleged Corruption and Decadence at the Greek Film Center – Short version first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

By Hector Alejandro Morales, Film Industry Watch contributor and Greek industry insider. A shorter version of this article is available here.

A shocking new conflict of interest and financial scandal has surfaced at the Greek Film Center (GFC), involving film director Vasilios Kekatos and others, who served as evaluators for film funding proposals but also received substantial financial awards for their own projects, in the same call.

OCTOBER 18, 2021: At approximately 1:30 PM on October 18, 2021, celebrated Greek film director Kostas Ferris, Silver Bear winner at Berlinale for the feature film “Rembetiko”, former Vice President of the Greek Film Center, and a highly respected director, screenwriter, and lyricist, with over 10 feature films, 20 TV series, and numerous lifetime achievement awards to his name, including his role as lyricist for the iconic Aphrodite’s Child (the Vangelis band) album “666”, took the witness stand at the Court of First Instance in Athens, Greece. Ferris was also a founding member of FERA (the Federation of European Directors). Among others Ferris mentioned that he was a Vice President until recently at Greek Film Center under GFC president Panos Loukakos, a journalist/documentarian, where they refused to cave in to the illegal demands of 44 year-old minster Nikolas Giatromanolakis (Former Deputy Minister of Culture and Sports of Greece) so they were subsequently replaced by the deputy minister, who was a protege of author/director Apostolos Doxiadis, heir to the Doxiadis family fortune.

According to sources within the Greek production industry, Apostolos Doxiadis, was allegedly manipulative and acted as a secret advisor, influencing decisions behind the scenes alongside his father-in-law, bankrupt shipowner Giorgos Papalios. Both were closely tied to the right-wing current Prime Minister of Greece, Kyriakos Mitsotakis, with the Mitsotakis family also being their neighbors in the upscale Kolonaki neighborhood.

Markos Holevas, the president of Greek Film Center was nowhere to be seen at the trial but he had hired a law firm outside GFC, paying them over 16.000 euros plus VAT from public money at the time to defend himself (despite the fact that GFC had its own legal department). Lawyers from SAPOE (one of the five producers associations), and ESPEK ( the small association of producers-directors) and Tanweer Productions (owned by Lebanese distributor Joseph Samaan and headed by Dionysios Samiotis) were also present. What was at stake was the pre-approval of their state-owned subsidies. Allegedly for years middle men that called themselves “producers” (in reality they were line producers who were not risking any of their money, or property), made millions well in advance before a film, or a documentary was produced. The cheaper they could make a film, the better. The less they had to pay directors and screenwriters—or even nothing at all—the more ideal it was for them.

Ferris testified under oath: “…In the context of the dispute that arose within the Greek film community and the publicity it garnered in the print and electronic media for many weeks, I was informed that the Greek Film Center, a private legal entity under the supervision of the Ministry of Culture (ΥΠΠΟΑ), that operates under Law 3905/2010 and is therefore a public organization (funded by the Greek taxpayers). It is funded more than 80% by the public budget and is thus subject to specific operating conditions, transparency, and financial and administrative accountability. The organization has been under attack from both the print and electronic press, as well as the majority of the film community, for inappropriate personnel choices and non-transparent procedures regarding the pre-approval of funding for films, which do not exclude conflicts of interest.“

In an attempt to justify these procedures after the fact, the Greek Film Center extensively explained in press releases and via its website the procedures it followed. It publicly stated that the methods it used are the same as those followed by institutions responsible for audiovisual matters and funding in the European Union (27 Member States), namely the MEDIA DESK (now Creative Europe) program (headquartered in Brussels), and by the Council of Europe (based in Strasbourg with the participation  of the 39 “Member States) through its European film co-production funding program EURIMAGES.

The Greek Film Center’s positions on these issues—regarding the selection of evaluators/readers, the staffing of committees, and the evaluation procedures for the pre-approval of funding of films and production plans related to Creative Europe and EURIMAGES—are not accurate. “In fact, they are entirely false and inaccurate, and they directly contradict everything I know and have experienced in my collaborations with these European institutions…”

In a ten-page complaint submitted to the Athens District Attorney in early May 2021, three independent producers and directors requested that the Greek Film Center disclose the names of the evaluators/readers.

In their sworn statement, they asserted:

…three projects were submitted to the GFC – 1 feature-length documentary, 1 short fiction film, and 1 short length animated film:

1. “KOLOKOTRONIS, THE OLD MAN OF MORIA” Protocol Number 9193, dated 26/11/2020, was a 2D animation film project approximately 6 minutes in length, with screenplay and direction by me, and character design and illustrations by Nassos Vakalis (Emmy award winner, with 78 international awards and 270 festival participations for the short film Dinner for Few). The proposal was 112 pages long.
   
   
2. “DON’T FORGET ME, JEWISH MOTHERS WRITE TO THEIR CHILDREN FROM THE GHETTO OF THESSALONIKI” Protocol Number 7380/30-9-2020, a feature-length docudrama, focusing on the Salonica Holocaust where 59.000 Jews perished, starring the well-known film and television actress Maria Nafpliotou, based on the book of the same name by historian/researcher Dr. Leon Saltiel, under the auspices of the Central Board of Jewish Communities in Greece, the Jewish Museum of Greece, and the Chair of Jewish Studies at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. The proposal was about 100 pages long.
   
   
3. “THE BOAT,” A.P. 6025/3.8.2020, a short fiction film, 15 minutes long, with a screenplay by Aphrodite Vakalis and Nassos Vakalis, and directed by Nassos Vakalis, featuring well-known actors Christos Antoniou and Dimitris Piatas. The proposal was about 70 pages long.
   

In the announcement of the results on 30.3.2021 and 28.4.2021, we realized that the evaluators had awarded themselves amounts of €2,500, €130,000, €170,000, €190,000, and €200,000 respectively , in addition to the €5,000 compensation fee they received as readers (script evaluators), while they ensured, in absolute collaboration with the president of the Board who had appointed them, to give low scores (in order) to “cut out” their competitors!

These actions, ratified by the Board of the Greek Film Centre (GFC), are illegal, abusive, unethical, unprofessional, and caused a national and international uproar both on social media and among journalists, with publications in the print and electronic press. They are unprecedented globally, as even in the most underdeveloped countries, evaluators are expected to declare conflicts of interest and request recusal, not to self-award funding!”

The District Attorney ordered the president of the Greek Film Center and its managing director, Pandelis Mitropoulos, to release the names of the evaluators, the scores given to each project, and other relevant documents that Holevas withheld. It was uncovered that four evaluators had secretly competed against the other submitted projects and were awarded (awarded to themselves) half a million euros.

• VERY GIRLISH NAME PATTY
  Screenplay: GEORGE GEORGOPOULOS
  Direction: GEORGE GEORGOPOULOS
  Production: FALIRO HOUSE PRODUCTIONS
  Pre-approval funding amount: €200,000
  
  
• CARMEN’S SUMMER
  Screenplay: ZACHARIAS MAVROEIDIS, XENOPHON HALATSIS
  Direction: ZACHARIAS MAVROEIDIS
  Production: ATALANTE PRODUCTIONS (headed by the niece of Panos Papahatzis)
  Pre-approval funding amount: €190,000
  
  
• OUR WILD DAYS
  Screenplay: VASSILIS KEKATOS
  Direction: VASSILIS KEKATOS
  Production: BLACKBIRD PRODUCTION
  Funding amount: €2,500
  
  
• THE LAST TAXI DRIVER
  Screenplay: STERGIOS PASCHOS
  Direction: STERGIOS PASCHOS
  Production: FILMIKI PRODUCTIONS
  Pre-approval funding amount: €130,000
  

(Note: THE LAST TAXI DRIVER had an abysmal box-office of 2.111 tickets when it was distributed in the spring of 2024, and CARMEN’S SUMMER followed suit with 9.500 tickets at the box office).

Background: Outrage and Injunction Against the Greek Film Center

Three independent directors-producers (Leonidas Vardaros, Dimitrios Vorris, Georgios Keramidiotis that were later blacklisted by Holevas and his board of directors) have filed a class action demanding an injunction against the Greek Film Center supported by the Directors Guild of Greece and  600 signatures of filmmakers. The injunction request concerned the recent pre-approval decisions made by the Board of Directors of the Greek Film Center on March 30 and April 28, 2021, where four evaluators/readers (Vasilios Kekatos, Stergios Pashos, Zacharias Mavroeidis, Georgios Georgopoulos) had also submitted in the same categories and were granted approval for themselves for projects worth up to €522.500

The directors-producers sought the temporary suspension of the Greek Film Center’s decisions from March 30 and April 28, 2021, concerning the “Pre-approvals of Short Films, Feature Films, and Documentaries,” claiming these decisions were illegal and violated local law, EU directives, and constitutional principles. They also requested a halt to any disbursement of funds or, alternatively, the suspension of the projects approved for Vasilios Kekatos, Stergios Pashos, Zacharias Mavroeidis, and Georgios Georgopoulos until a final ruling was made by the judge.

JUNE 2021: The blatant falsehoods of Markos Holevas and company

Markos Holevas, then president of the Greek Film Center (GFC), who was forced to resign in July 2024 by the minister of culture Lina Mendoni, claimed in the media that he was unable to find evaluators active in the fields of screenwriting, directing, and producing because the unions lacked sufficient members. And that’s why he picked evaluators from ESPEK only, the small association of producers-directors where he was a member. This couldn’t be further from the truth: The Greek Actors’ Union (SEI) has approximately 4,000 members, while the three relevant unions have around 40 active members in SAPOE, about 70-80 in ESPΕΚ (the Association of Producers-Directors), and approximately 130 in the Greek Documentary Association (EEN), many of whom are also members of ESPΕΚ. The Greek Directors’ Guild (EES) 1.200 members, and the Greek Film TV Technicians’ Union (ΕΤΕΚΤ) had 300 members, totalling 1,700 members. The Hellenic Screenwriters Guild has 330 members, and the Greek Producers’ Union (founded by respected producer Geiorgos Sgourakis) includes around 40-50 producers. Therefore, the combined membership of all these three unions exceeded 6,500 members.

As for Panos Papahatzis, president of SAPOE back then and owner of Argonauts Productions-he received three approvals amounting to €370,000 (€170,000, €70,000, and €130,000, respectively).

The SAPOE Board consisted of the following members:

• Panos Papahatzis, President of SAPOE, received €370,000 through three funding approvals.
  
  
• Fenia Kosovica, Vice President of SAPOE, received €400,000 through her company, Blonde Films (€200,000 + €200,000).
  
  
• Konstantinos Kontovrakis, General Secretary, received €228,000 through his company, Heretic Films, across three approvals (€150,000, €60,000, €18,000).
  
  
• Amanda Livanou, Treasurer of SAPOE.
  
  
• Maria Drandaki, Board Member, received €250,500 through five approvals with her company, Homemade Films (€2,500, €6,000, €12,000, €200,000, €30,000).
  
  
• Konstantinos Vasilaros, Alternate Board Member.
  
  
• Eleni Afentaki, Alternate Board Member.

The SAPOE Audit Committee received the following amounts:

• Ioanna Bolomyti (Papahatzis’ niece, working under the same roof with Argonauts Productions, Athens Productions, and Argonauts Crimes of the Future Productions) received €18,000 for script approval.
  
  
• Giorgos Karnavas, a partner in Heretic Films alongside SAPOE’S General Secretary Konstantinos Kontovrakis.
  
  
• Yiannis Iakovidis, owner of Black and Orange Films.

In total, the aforementioned SAPOE board members received €1,266,500 through what has been described as an illegal process of Greek Film Center funding that lacked transparency and accountability.

Additionally:

• Eleni Kossyfidou, a former SAPOE President and producer for director Vasilis Kekatos (Blackbird Productions), received €20,500 (€2,500 for scriptwriting and €18,000 for a script). Kossyfidou and Kekatos, along with director Panos H. Koutras, were involved in the conflict of interest scandal exposed by filmindustrywatch.org regarding Kekatos’ short film award at Cannes.
  
  
• Giorgos Tsourgiannis, another SAPOE member, received €156,000 (€6,000 and €150,000).
  
  
• Giorgos Tseberopoulos, another SAPOE member, received €151,500 through his company Filmiki Productions (later sold to Konstantinos Alavanos), along with his partner, Efstathios Mourdoukoutas (€2,500, €130,000, and €19,000).
  
  
• Faidra Vokali, another SAPOE member (Marni Films), received €132,000 through four approvals (€70,000, €17,000, €20,000, €25,000).
  
  
• Modiano S.A., owned by Micky Modiano, another SAPOE member, received €90,000 through two approvals (€60,000, €30,000).
  
  
• Stefi/Lynx Films, another SAPOE member, received €2,500.

It was alleged that the SAPOE regular members received an additional €552,500 through the same questionable EKK funding process. This brings the total sum awarded to SAPOE members to €1,819,000 out of the €4,450,000 allocated by the EKK in two rounds of decisions. However, it is important to note that the identities behind all the companies listed in the two GFC pre-approval funding lists have not yet been fully identified. Further investigation may reveal that more SAPOE members benefited from this funding.There was and also  concern about potential conflicts of interest, where evaluators may have been assessing proposals submitted by their collaborators, such as producers. For example, Filmiki Productions received funding for both a feature-length project (directed by evaluator Stergios Pashos, The Last Taxi Driver) and a short film (Roger), where, according to GFC statements, a collaborator of the evaluator may have been involved.

When director Costas Ferris publicly exposed the chaotic mismanagement and alleged corruption at the Greek Film Center in an interview with the daily newspaper EFSYN, he faced a wave of legal threats from SAPOE members. Over the course of seven consecutive days, he received cease-and-desist letters from each member of the SAPOE board, along with a defamation lawsuit from producer and  president Panos Papahatzis. Ultimately, the Athens Multi-Member Court acquitted Ferris of all charges. 

(Note: In 2023 Papahatzis officially joined forces with Κostas Sakkaris, who, allegedly,  has strong connection to the Greek prime minister’s office. His daughter tennis champion Angeliki Sakkari is in a relationship with the prime minister’s son).

FEBRUARY 2022: The Hellenic National Transparency Authority’s findings are a blow for Greek Film Center’s practices and especially present Markos Holevas and Vasilios Kekatos

After nine months, in md-February 2022, the National Transparency Authority’s published an audit report on the pre-approval decisions of the Board of Directors of the Greek Film Center, on March 30 and April 28, 2021, totaling 4.550.000 euros, has been completed.

In these specific decisions, the projects of four readers, who were simultaneously competitors, were approved, thus abolishing any notion of impartiality, transparency, and equality.

The multi-page report from the National Transparency Authority concludes:

“…with the aim of ensuring the best safeguarding of the principles of transparency and impartiality in the operation of the organization, it is recommended to the Board of Directors of the Greek Film Center:

1. Prior to the selection process, there should be a public call for expression of interest or a related posting on the Greek Film Center’s website, or other measures (e.g., the creation of an Evaluators’ Registry) should be adopted, which could ensure an increase in the number of the most suitable candidates and, consequently, the best possible selection of Readers. Furthermore, the designation of the decision-making body (possibly a collective one) and a more detailed description of the selection criteria would contribute to enhancing the transparency and objectivity of the process.
   
   
2. It should consider the possibility of requiring each Reader to confirm, for each proposal being evaluated, that there is no incompatibility or conflict of interest in their case, with a corresponding declaration on the electronic platform through which the evaluation process now takes place, taking into account the evaluators’ code of conduct model included in the EU Grants – Model contract for EU Experts by the European Commission.”

It is noted that the Film Center had falsely claimed to the Greek press that “…it follows the best practices of European programs (Creative Europe, Eurimages),” where it is widely, and internationally, known and posted on the web that cross-paneling (an evaluator being simultaneously a competitor and judging a candidate film, even in a different category), conflict of interest, and generally any relationship up to first-degree relatives with candidate production companies and projects over the past 18 months are prohibited, under penalty of funding cancellation.

AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 2024: The corrupt world of the “academy” mafia is falling apart… Greece’s Oscar submission exposed a broken system devoid of transparency and meritocracy

An irregular, illegal, and evidently corrupt action by a Ministry of Culture employee forced the Deputy Minister to partially replace certain members of the proposed Oscar nomination committee, which had been suggested by the misnamed Hellenic Film “…academy,” a private, not-for-profit society, in order to meet the deadlines.

Furthermore, it is important to emphasize that the Ministry of Culture’s approach to replacing the committee members – originally appointed by a ministry employee while she was on vacation – lacked both transparency and the level of professionalism expected from such a key institution. The untransparent process, combined with the absence of communication regarding the criteria for selecting the replacements, has sparked serious concerns within the Greek film community, further eroding trust in the system. These failures highlight the broader issues of mismanagement and opacity that have troubled the Greek Film Center for years. Clearly, the internal investigation initiated by the Ministry of Culture is an attempt to address these insecurities and fears.

A major scandal erupted, with press releases published in outlets owned by Penske Media Group (Deadline, Hollywood Reporter, Variety), led by a small but well-organized minority of privileged individuals. These individuals hurled insults and slander at both the ministry and the vast majority of the film industry’s creators, who had long been marginalized. This might have gone unnoticed if certain political parties — particularly those in opposition — hadn’t uncritically aligned themselves with the protests of this corrupt group, thereby insulting the entire community of Greek filmmakers.

To understand the full picture, we must start from the very beginning. It all started with the “Fog Movement,” which splintered directors and the rest of the film industry into small, competing groups with conflicting interests. This was followed by the hasty establishment of the opaque Hellenic Film Academy, lacking qualitative criteria, and the introduction of the destructive Law 3905/2010 (the Geroulanos Film Law). This law effectively dismantled the Greek Film Center for a decade, resulting in mismanagement and a series of administrative and financial scandals, as confirmed by auditing authorities. The law enabled the rise of the corrupt “Fog” group, which exploited its vagueness and the turnover of Greek Film Center Boards to monopolize the film market and secure state subsidies, excluding many of the key figures in Greek cinema and leading to the industry’s overall decline.

It’s no coincidence that during the 14 years of Law 3905/2010 — a law brought into being by the manipulations of the Fog group and the “Academy” in 2009 and 2010 — at least 10 presidents, 7 managing directors, and more than 70 members of the seven-member Boards of Directors at the Greek Film Center were appointed, dismissed, or resigned, often due to administrative or financial scandals. What do all these unprecedented personnel changes, unparalleled in any similar organization worldwide, signify? They illustrate the corrupt influence of the Fog group and the Hellenic Film “Academy” over Greek cinema.

Two small associations (one of Directors-Producers, ESPEK, and one of the five producer associations, SAPOE), backed by the “Academy’s” board and capitalizing on their close relationship with the Greek Film Center and former president Markos Holevas (who was forced to resign on July 2024), monopolized state film production funds. They excluded as many “outsider” directors as possible, dismissing them as “outdated.”

A series of scandals, abuses, and illegal decisions even led to lawsuits, in which the wronged parties were vindicated. Yet, the Film Center’s Board continued its biased practices, making only superficial adjustments.

It was never made clear by what logic the infamous “….academy’ was given the right to nominate the committee and the methods for selecting the film that would represent the country at the American Academy Awards (Oscars) each year, without even defining objective criteria, similar to the opaque selection process for funding Greek films, which has caused us so many problems, lawsuits and legal battles.

The “excessive zeal” of a Culture ministry employee, evidently corrupt and in cahoots with the group of insiders, triggered the scandal’s explosion and prompted Deputy Minister of Culture Jason Fotilas to restore legality. And suddenly, those caught with their hands in the cookie jar erupted with insults, protests, and pressure on participants to support their illegal actions!

Ordinary members and Board members of the Hellenic Academy (some prominent, others not) launched an unprecedented campaign to discredit the process, slander competitors, and pressure filmmakers to withdraw their entries. They presented only a partial version of the truth, concealing key facts—including their collusion with certain ministry employees to manipulate the ministry’s leadership.

One by one, the corrupt insiders emerged from their hideouts, revealing themselves through insults and offenses, convinced they could regain their lost influence as they had in their years of dominance. But the facade crumbled, and their claim to represent the entire industry—while dismissing their critics as “outdated”—fell apart.

The urgency to revise the outdated Geroulanos Film Law has now become evident. As for the Academy members, if they genuinely wish to protect the reputation of Greek filmmakers, they must amend their bylaws, implement democratic procedures, focus the Academy solely on cultural activities without drifting into syndicalist or guild-like distortions, oversee the Board of Directors, and, above all, restore the integrity that true artists should uphold.

The Hellenic Film “..academy” is a private society that operates under different bylaws and statutes than the American Academy. The Ministry of Culture’s decision is therefore justified; it is reasonable that a filmmaker known primarily for short films, like Kekatos, should not be in charge of a committee selecting a feature-length film to represent Greece. Moreover, aside from Fonissa/Murderess, many of the other films are arthouse projects funded by Greek taxpayers, yet they face significant shortcomings in acting, screenplay, and direction. Most of the 23 films, excluding Fonissa, have sold between 400 and 16,000 tickets at the local box office.

AUGUST 2024: Another financial scandal by Kekatos and advertising/production company Foss Productions, owned by the Kotionis brothers, in the tune of approximately 1M euros

The board of directors of EKOME (HELLENIC CASH BACK INITIATIVE) decided to cancel the approval of the series “Milky Way”, by Vassilis Kekatos, executive produced by Foss Productions and Stelios Koionis, and financed by MEGA TV channel, and the benefits granted from the tax incentive scheme (CASH REBATE) of article 71E of Law No. 4172/2013 (A’ 167), as in force, “because the completeness of the auditor’s report was not established, according to article 30 of the law. 4487/2017”.

The reason for this decision was that “the start of the investment project took place before the date of submission of the application for inclusion, in accordance with para. 5 of article 20 of Law no. 4487/2017″. The withdrawal was made one year after the investment had been certified. The budget approved amounted to EUR 2,252,435 and the withdrawn subsidy to EUR 900,974.

Both Stelios Kotionis, as executive producer, and Vasilios Kekatos, as director, submitted declarations of honor to EKOME when Milky Way was entered into the cash-back incentive scheme, affirming that production had not yet started.

Many in the industry are left questioning: What is happening to Greece, now the poorest country in the EU? Who is protecting those involved in this web of alleged corruption that continues to siphon funds from the Greek Film Center, Eurimages, the Recovery and Resilience Fund of the European Union and Creative Europe? Why are the District Attorney of the Supreme Court and the European Prosecutor turning a blind eye while European subsidies flow into the pockets of a select few, forming what appears to be a cartel?

In other EU countries, such scandals would trigger swift action—investigations, resignations, and even ministers stepping down from their positions. But not in Greece. Corruption runs so deep that it has earned the nickname “the Colombia of the Balkans,” highlighting the pervasive judicial and political corruption. Despite mounting evidence and public outcry, those in power remain largely untouched, and the system continues to protect the few at the expense of the many.

The failure of authorities to address these issues raises serious concerns about governance, transparency, and accountability, especially as public funds meant to support culture and the arts are funneled into the hands of a privileged elite. It begs the question: How long can this go on before the EU or other oversight bodies step in to hold those responsible accountable?

For those who follow our website, the events detailed above are eerily similar to the ones we’ve previously reported concerning the Israeli Film Funds and are inline with how the European film ecosystem is organized, with a complete lack of transparency and proper guardrails against corruption and conflict of interests.

LINKS AND SOURCES:

https://www.efsyn.gr/tehnes/sinema/114454_sinema-o-paradeisos-tis-kakodiaheirisis

(Cinema paradiso of…. mismanagement).

https://www.efsyn.gr/stiles/apopseis/444323_toys-piran-tin-mpoykia-ap-stoma-ki-ekeinoi-brizoyn-oloys-toys-alloys

(“Greek Film Academy: They took the bread out of their mouths, and now they are cursing… everyone else.” )

https://www.efsyn.gr/politiki/synenteyxeis/297119_antro-kakoyrgimaton-elliniko-kentro-kinimatografoy(‘The Greek Film Center is a den of felonies. “)

https://www.efsyn.gr/tehnes/art-nea/406645_i-apofasi-toy-protodikeioy-stin-ypothesi-papahatzi-kata-ferri

(Kostas Ferris is acquitted  for defamation of producer Panos Papahatzis after judgement of the Multi Member Court of First Instance of Athens).

https://www.efsyn.gr/stiles/apopseis/298945_oi-pseytes-kai-oi-kleftes-ton-proto-hrono-hairontai

(The Greek Film Center has seized and transported to unknown destination 2,500 film prints and negatives, previously held by the former FINOS FILMS/ACCELERE labs, without the knowledge or consent of their rightful owners).

(The €900,000 EKOME cash-back subsidy for Vasilios Kekatos’ limited series “MILKY WAY” has been revoked due to legal violations).

https://tvxs.gr/news/ellada/300-ypografes-enantia-sti-diadikasia-aksiologisis-sto-elliniko-kentro-kinimatografoy

(300 filmmakers sign against the evaluation process of the Greek Film Center)

Below is a report by certified public accountants from the accounting firm Sol found that the film ALPS by Yorgos Lanthimos, executive produced by Athena Rachel Tsangari, unlawfully received €300,000 instead of the €150,000 approved by the Board of Directors. GFC general manager Grigoris Karantinakis made this decision independently, without board approval, and drafted a private agreement between the GFC and Tsangari without consulting the GFC’s Legal Department. As a result, Karantinakis has been accused of a felony and bad faith in a complaint filed by the well-known lawyer Asprogerakas-Grivas. Markos Holevas is listed as number two on the first page of the complaint, which is 130 pages long. Identifying details such as IDs and passports have been omitted.

The post Alleged Corruption and Decadence at the Greek Film Center (FULL ARTICLE) first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

Why Write for Film Industry Watch?

At Film Industry Watch, we delve into the real issues affecting the global film community – nepotism, financial scams, sexual misconduct, and unfair labor practices. We aim to shed light on the dark corners of the industry, making it safer and more transparent for all. By joining our team of writers, you’ll have the unique opportunity to help us create meaningful change while getting paid for your expertise.

What We’re Looking For:

• Filmmakers with Industry Experience: You’ve worked in film and know its inner workings.
• Passion for Storytelling: Help us reveal the truths that shape the industry and expose misconduct.
• Writing Skills: A clear, concise, and compelling writing style that engages our readership.

What You’ll Gain:

• Platform for Your Voice: Contribute to a widely read and respected publication that is making waves in the film world.
• Compensation: We value your time and knowledge, and you’ll be paid for every article you write, typically hundreds of Dollars or Euros per article.
• Be Part of a Movement: Join a community dedicated to improving transparency and fairness within the industry.

Topics We Cover:

Our articles span a variety of issues that impact the global film industry, including:

• Nepotism and power dynamics
• Discrimination and harassment
• Financial scams and conflicts of interest
• Filmmaking processes and industry trends

If you’re passionate about using your voice to uncover the realities behind the glitz and glamour of the film world, we want to hear from you.

How to Apply:

Ready to make an impact with your writing? Contact us today to submit your application. Let us know about your experience in the film industry and why you’re interested in contributing to Film Industry Watch. In addition, send suggestions for articles you could write based on your own sources and experience as you’ll be expected to bring in the stories that you will write about.

The post We’re Hiring! Join Film Industry Watch and Share Your Industry Insights first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

The issue with these reports is that they completely overlook the true reason behind the committee’s replacement: the controversy surrounding Kekatos’ Palme d’Or victory, which we have previously covered and outlined here. This is in addition to the fact that in recent months the Greek film industry was abuzz with alleged rumors about Vasilis Kekatos’ behavior both on and off set, which several Greek filmmakers have described to us as allegedly “toxic.” These allegations include allegedly failing to give proper credit to creative partners, public firings, and showing general disrespect toward cast and crew. Specific examples of this behavior were recounted to us as follows:

I have three very close associates, very esteemed as well, that had been working with Mr Kekatos and were either fired or quit because of his extremely bad behaviour. Although, as XXX said, we have not cooperated professionally with him, we did rent our company XXX to him for the shooting of his series, and I was very sad to see that his art director, had destroyed our company logo because *he* [Kekatos] insisted that they put another sticker on top of ours. This is minor, I guess, but the allegations and condemnations of his behaviour from our very legit associates are definitely true”

XX is right about Kekatos appropriating queer cinema as a straight guy…. He doesn’t pretend to be gay. He is very inappropriate with many women actually, outrageously flirting and some times in an insulting way. He is definitely a malignant narcissist and what is upsetting now, is that he is trying to become the poster boy for transparency and accuses the Ministry for shady behaviour in order to take peoples’ attention away from his own actions.”

Funny thing about Kekatos is that it is always ok for him to screw other people, but not so nice when somebody screws you :)”

While it is clear why the Greek Ministry of Culture wants nothing to do with Kekatos, it remains unclear why the local media continues to shield him while allowing misinformation to circulate. We urge the Greek film community to keep providing us with information about Kekatos so that we can ensure it is accurately reported. Our organization’s only purpose is to make sure that the film community retains its morality by showing no tolerance towards those that abuse their power and try to manipulate their way to success in the entertainment industry, or abuse others.

UPDATE: Following the publication of our initial article, several Greek filmmakers have reached out to us with insights into why the Cannes controversy has received limited coverage in Greek media. According to these sources, Eleni Kossyfidou and Panos H. Koutras, who are at the center of the Cannes incident, allegedly have strong connections within local media circles. These connections, our sources suggest, have effectively shielded them from scrutiny in Greek news outlets. It remains to be seen how long this protection would last.

The post GREECE: “Oscar Selection Chaos” – Real Story Ignored by Local and Global Media first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

The article announcing the firing:

“Publicly, filmmakers spoke about Radosław Śmigulski either well or not at all. Many stories were never told.

I must admit that I write this with undisguised satisfaction: Radosław Śmigulski has been dismissed from his position as director of the Polish Film Institute . This information was announced at a conference on Thursday by the Minister of Culture, Bartłomiej Sienkiewicz. This is great news for many Polish filmmakers, for whom the last few years have been associated with constant fear.”


SOURCES:

https://kultura.onet.pl/film/wiadomosci/apel-do-ministra-sienkiewicza-w-sprawie-pisf-popada-w-ruine/t1zpy7v

https://wyborcza.pl/7,101707,30878413,arogancja-i-buta-na-szczescie-robert-smigulski-nie-bedzie-juz.html

The post POLAND: A Success Story – Polish Film Institute Falling Into Ruin, Corrupted Head Fired first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

The post How Corruption and Greed Led to the Downfall of Rock Music first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

The film Institute at national level is I.C.A.A, organization that depends on the Ministry of Culture of Spain; at the regional level there are other institutions, such as AGADIC (Galicia), I.C.I.C (Catalonia) and others in the Basque Country, Andalusia, Comunidad de
Madrid, etc. Any production company can request public funds at the national and regional level, applying to the institution and/or regional television that correspond geographically. Likewise, the State forces private television stations to invest a % of their profits in Spanish Cinema and there also a law on tax incentives; but in both cases these possible sources of private funds are irrelevant
because they are insignificant and anecdotal when it comes to finance Art-House Cinema.

The huge problem in Spain, in the management of public funds for Cinema, is the implementation of a regular nepotism and arbitrariness. Furthermore, the Cinema Subsidies Law, both at national and regional level, is precariously designed, favoring producers that already have resources, instead to help those that don’t have them, and discriminating companies by an unfair and absurd criteria that prevent participatory equality. The Spanish State has created a series of legal mechanisms that should theoretically guarantee the transparency of competitive participation to access to limited public funds, but actually it’s just a protocol façade, distributing money without rigor and randomly according to convenience and cronyism. The majority of film projects are not valued accordingly, and the reports, if they exist, they are not shared a priori with the interested parties, in addition to be executed by anodyne commissions and unqualified civil servant teams. In this sense, none of the people on the AGADIC evaluation commission in 2023 had experience in the creation or production of fiction feature films, or in the writing of film scripts, if we mention two relevant disciplines in order of being qualified to give a report with consistent evaluation content. This commission was made up by Fernando Jesús Rodríguez Madriñán, representative of Televisión de Galicia, journalist with two essays on cinema; Carmen Belas Becerra, production manager and documentary film director; Olimpia Pont Chafer, film consultant in programming at film festivals and sales.

This institutional modus operandi of poorly designed laws and untrained officials, among other deficiencies, has been consolidated for decades; it is a sophisticated corrupt system that protects itself, leaving no trace in most cases. Many film professionals, who know this situation, remain silent or are ignored if they complain, as is my case. The only evidence I can provide about this unfortunate
situation is the testimony of my professional experience.

As a filmmaker and producer I have been in the world of cinema for more than 25 years. I’ve made short films, documentaries and feature films, many times self-financing my productions, for which I have received more than 20 awards at national and international festivals. But for reasons unrelated to my entrepreneurship and the quality of my work, I’ve been doomed to official ostracism. During
the last few years, Spanish public organizations have denied me 27 grants for public financing, applied to Televisión Española, Television of Galicia, Xunta de Galicia AGADIC and the Ministry of Culture, ICAA.

My previous films had a media impact, they generated jobs and have contributed a different vision to the cultural spectrum. The Shadow of the Sun received the Audience Award at 43th Malaga Film Festival; Machulenco, First Prize at the Festival del Sol in Canarias, selected at the 46th New York Film Festival; Heart of Darkness, Best Director at the 6th International Panorama of Independent Filmmakers of Thessaloniki; Borsh, the Shelter, First Prize at the 9th Annual Twin Rivers Media
Festival in the USA, among others.

During the last few years I’ve applied for public financing for five art-house independent fiction feature films, titled Circular Paths, The Master of the Waves, Benedicto, The Strip and Ilakku. None of these films have been able to be produced due to the lack of Spanish public funds, despite the fact that each and every one of these proposals has the support of international institutions, such as
Sundance Institute, they’ve been selected in prestigious film forums and workshops, as Equinoxe in Germany, Ficci Frames and PrimEchange in India, PFM in London, they’ve being granted with development funds from the European Union Media Program, have the support of distributors such as Ajay Kumar Kumari and Dori Media Group, platforms such as Filmin & Cameo, signing of co-
production agreement with international companies, such as Fresco Films, etc. These projects have also the participation commitment of quality technicians, actresses and actors of recognized national and international prestige, such as Ángela Molina (Honor’s Goya 2021), Luis Zahera (Goya 2019 “El Reino”), Morris (Feroz Award “Fariña”), Daniel Freire (“Lucía y el sexo”, “Campeones”) and the Bollywood actors Virendra Saxena and Vikas Shrivastav, among others. Despite the support of these
organizations, international institutions, actors and technicians, corroborated with commitment letters and contracts, none of these projects of proven quality have being supported by public funds in Spain.

In front of the rejection of said grants, I have drafted 15 official administrative appeals, requesting motivation and reports from the corresponding evaluation commissions. After years of waiting, ICAA have rejected 3 of these appeals for hypothetical formal defects and have still not responded reliably to the rest of these complains. Neither public televisions, nor public institutions have yet answered to my writings, violating the Spanish Subsidies Law 1/2016, of January 18, and Law 19/2013, of December 9, related to transparency, access to public information and good governance, which oblige them to motivate and respond to the producer within a maximum period of 6 months. The ICAA also violates said Law by not informing individually when a project has been rejected,
causing producers don’t have updated knowledge of said rejections in order to exercise the right to present claims within the deadlines stipulated by the Administration. In 2021 I already expressed my official complaint to Mr. José Manuel Rodríguez Uribes, Minister of Culture and Sports, about this and other matters related to the precarious design of the ICAA Subsidies Law, but the only thing I received 8 months later was a self-defensive anonymous letter without signature, protected only by the seal of the institution itself, without answers to my questions, nor showing self-criticism and less appreciating my effort of feedback. In 2023 Mr. Jacobo Sutil Nesta, director of AGADIC replied to one of my text allegations of Benedicto and The Master of the Waves, providing incoherent, disrespectful and subjective reports, both written after the official final decision, which makes it clear that the system of granting funds in this case was executed without consensual criteria and randomly. These reports were subsequently manipulated in a new resolution of the Appeal for Reinstatement, signed in this case by the President of the Governing Council of AGADIC, Mr. Román Rodríguez González.

In the cases of public financing requested to Televisión Española and Televisión de Galicia, I have consecutively received, for years and for each of my projects, emails of this kind: “After the reunion of the last committee, we inform you that your project “X” has been rejected (…)“. It is acceptable for a private platform or television they send only a brief notification by email. But it is illegal, at least in
Spain, the public television sends notifications without detailing any motivation because their decisions. In 2021, after receive the second rejection email of Circular Path’s project from Televisión Española, signed by Mr. Fernando López Puig, director of the Cinema Area, I wrote him a letter requesting motivations about the reason for the new rejection; I’m still waiting for an answer. In
addition I made a telephone enquiry to the deputy director of the film department, who informed me that, unfortunately with the resources available, they should first of all support the “established” filmmakers. Ms. Monserrat Besada, Content Service Director of Televisión de Galicia, personally expressed “why would they co-finance my films if there are film directors more famous than me”,
despite unofficially this person told me my feature-length scripts had received outstanding reports, both for The Master of the Waves, as well as for Circular Paths or Benedicto. In these cases, Televisión Española and Televisión de Galicia have openly expressed their favoritism, lack of motivation and transparency.

Up to this point I have mentioned only a few names of people from all the institutions and organizations with which I have dealt. Some of these people are no longer in office. This is not the problem of an isolated corrupt individual, but of a corrupt system as a whole, with institution directors, deputy directors, coordinators and other kind of personnel who rotate periodically,
depending on ever-changing political conveniences. Due to this regrettable situation, currently it is almost impossible to produce quality independent films in Spain with public money, due to the unsatisfactory cultural policy and laws of the State, the
institutional control of content against freedom of expression, due the lack of impartiality and the common practice of a naturally accepted shameless governmental nepotism.

Cinema is culture, counter-culture, art, entertainment, criticism and self-criticism of the society. Making films with everyone’s money cannot be the privilege of a few, but rather a right accessible to all citizens equally, both in Spain and all around the world.

David Blanco, filmmaker

www.domusfilms.com

The post SPAIN: Nepotism and Arbitrariness by David Blanco, filmmaker first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

“I am an independent filmmaker with 6 feature films made, and I am [not] surprised by your statement about corruption at film festivals, because in Mexico it is regrettable. In Mexico there are several festivals with the capacity to award films eligible for the Oscars. Buying a prize for this purpose is very easy, festivals are almost entirely private businesses, which are governed by the highest bidder. For the same reason, preventing films like mine from seeing the light of day is just as easy. As far as I know, openly declared by juries and festival directors, I am on a blacklist. Freedom of creation and freedom of expression in cinema is increasingly restricted and trampled on, and festivals serve to close the door and the commercial path to uncomfortable films.”

Source:

The post MEXICO – Festival Corruption, Buying Oscar Qualifying Awards first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

The conflict of interest arises as Giurgiu’s roles in the Romanian film scene are multifaceted. Not only is he a director, but he is also the founder and leader of the organization that oversees the Gopos. His influence extends further as the president of the Transilvania International Film Festival (TIFF), Romania’s largest film festival, which routinely features his own films, both as director and producer. Notably, Freedom (Libertate) and other productions from Giurgiu have been included in TIFF program, potentially generating profit.

Further illustrating the depth of Giurgiu’s influence, a film he produced, Moromeții 2, dominated the Gopos in 2019 by winning 9 awards. Additionally, two documentary features produced by his former partner and producer, Oana Giurgiu, won the award for best documentary in both 2016 and 2023.

The distribution and production of these films are closely linked to Giurgiu’s other business interests. Most films produced under his company, Libra Film, are distributed through the same channels, and many international titles in their roster have been featured at TIFF. Remarkably, each of Giurgiu’s productions has been included in TIFF’s selections: in 2019, Parking, directed by Giurgiu, was the festival’s opening film, and in 2012, his feature Of Men and Snails also served as the opening film. This creates a sort of monopoly, dominating the local industry, making it harder for smaller producers and films to gain funding, attention or awards.

This vertical integration from film production through to festival presentation, distribution, and the local awards, are all or mostly financed with public funding, a fact that has not escaped the attention of industry observers.

This sequence of film production, festival screening, and distribution is financed by public funding. Despite the apparent conflict of interest, such practices have become normalized within the Romanian film industry, with limited public discussion or critique. This situation is further supported by the behavior of other influential figures in the industry.

Sources: Official websites of the Gopo Awards, TIFF, Libra Film, and Transilvania Film, along with IMDb. Screenshots will be added shortly.

The post ROMANIA: Alleged Conflicts of Interest in Romanian Film Awards Highlight Industry Practices first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

אנו מודים לחברי תעשיית הקולנוע הישראלית ששיתפו אותנו במידע זה. יש להדגיש כי המידע הבא מתייחס לחשדות בלבד, והוא מבוסס על שיחות עם חברי התעשייה בישראל. אנחנו מבקשים מהקוראים לשתף את המידע עם יוצרי קולנוע מישראל והעולם, גרסה באנגלית לשיתוף נמצאת כאן – הפיצו אותה עם חברי התעשייה בעולם. מטרה נוספת של פרסום מידע זה היא ליצור בסיס מוצק למחקר אקדמאי בנושא בקרו בעמוד הבא לפרטים נוספים

מי שמוצא טעות במידע מוזמן ליצור קשר

An English version of this article is available here, please share it with members of the film industry. Film Industry Watch encourages our readers to not cooperate or partner with bodies or individuals involved in unethical practices.

:משה אדרי

מפיק ומפיץ סרטים, מבכירי תעשיית הקולנוע הישראלית, יושב ראש דירקטוריון חברת .”NMC” יחד עם אחיו, לאון, רכשו בתי קולנוע ברחבי הארץ והקימו את חברת “יונייטד קינג” המפיצה כיום סרטים ישראליים ובינלאומיים רבים. בתחילת שנות ה-2000, יחד עם לאון אחיו, יזמו והקימו את רשת ה”סינמה סיטי” ברחבי הארץ

בשנים 2021-2015 השקיעו שתי הקרנות הגדולות סכום מצטבר של 261,347,115₪ בהפקת סרטים עלילתיי

בסך הכל קיבל משה אדרי (כמפיק) משתי קרנות אלו בלבד סכום של  104,333,500₪ בגין 85 סרטים שהפיק, המהווים 35% מסך השקעות הקרנות

85 סרטים הופקו ע”י אדרי, כשמתוכם 68 (78%) נתמכו על-ידי קרן רבינוביץ’, והיתר (22%) נתמכו על-ידי קרן הקולנוע

49% מכלל הכספים שחילקה קרן רבינוביץ’ לסרטים, ניתנו לסרטים שהפיק אדרי \ יונייטד קינג

סכומי השקעות הקרנות בסרטים שהפיק אדרי מהווים 37% מסך ההשקעות הכולל בסרטים באותן שנים

אתי כהן: בשנים 1999-2021 כיהנה בתפקיד מנהלת המחלקה

והמועצה לקולנוע במשרד התרבות

המועצה הישראלית לקולנוע היא מועצה מייעצת, שהוקמה ב-2000, מכוח חוק הקולנוע. תפקידה לייעץ לממשלת ישראל ולמשרד התרבות והספורט בתחומי הקולנוע והשפעתה רבה, משום שבין השאר היא היועצת לשר בנוגע למדיניות בתחום הקולנוע

סופר שראש מינהל תרבות תפס אותה מדווחת נתונים שגויים, והעמיד אותה על מקומה. טענה שזוהי טעות דפוס

הכסף מגיע במנות ומחולק לגופים לפי שקלול הבקשות שלהם והגודל של הקרן- סיפור ידוע הוא כי כתריאל שחורי תפס אותה בשקר כשטענה שהכסף לא הגיע, וכשניצל את קשריו באוצר ובירר מדוע מתעכב, טענו כי הכסף התקבל כרגיל. מתברר שחילקה אותו, רובו ככולו, לעיני ולנווה (או רק לעיני). כהן ננזפה ונקבעו הוראות טיפול מיוחדות. מרגע זה ואילך הכסף יכול להיות מחולק רק בהוראתה של חשבת המשרד שמיר. כתריאל הוכרח לבצע עימה סולחה

שנה לאחר תקרית זו, קיבלה פרס עובדת מצטיינת. סופר כי כהן לכאורה הייתה מדברת עם עיני במהלך הישיבות. סופר שהיתה לכאורה מתלחששת, יוצאת החוצה והוא מכתיב לה פתרונות והחלטות. כל החומרים שלהם היו לכאורה עוברים אליו

חשד שלכאורה סידרה לחברת מועצה מכהנת, נועם שנהב (שחקנית), להיות מנחה בפסטיבל ירושלים בתחילת הקדנציה שלה. כהונתה של חברה זו אף הוארכה, ללא קשר ליעילותה, אלא רק בגלל חברותה הקרובה עם אתי. שמועות אף סוברות כי סידרה לה לכאורה תפקיד בסרטו של אבי נשר (תמונות הניצחון, 2021)
כנראה אתי הייתה משתמשת בנועם להגיד את דבריה ושיירשמו תחת שמה בפרוטוקולי הישיבות

סופר שלכאורה היתה נוהגת ללחוש לחברי המועצה את דבריה, ואז לציין לפרוטוקול כי חברי מועצה מסוימים אמרו את הדבר- “מכניסה את מילותיה לפיותיהם”. נראה כי מונחית על-ידי עורך-דין

כהן לא הופיעה בפרוטוקולים של מועצת הקולנוע הישראלי במשך שנים רבות. מה שאמרה- לא מופיע, אפילו לא רשומה כנוכחת

על פי גורמים בתעשיה חשדות לכאורה לסיכול אחריות מימוש המועצה בעניין כשירות לקטורים – התנהלות קלוקלת בנושא לקטורים, שהובילה לקבלתם

האוטומטית של מעל ל-300 מועמדים ללא דיקתם ביניהם מרבית הלקטורים המוכרים שמועסקים רבות בקרנות, כפי שהוזכרו מעלה

חשד לכאורה בהתערבות מלאכותית בהחלטת מועצת הקולנוע בנושא מאגר הלקטורים 

חשד לכאורה שפעלה לביטול\דחיית ישיבות מועצת הקולנוע בכדי לא לפגוע בחבריה הקרובים

חשד לכאורה שקיימה ישיבות מועצה תוך הסתרה מיו”ר המועצה ובזמן היות העובדת בחופשה כפויה

חשד לכאורה בהתערבות מגמתית בישיבות מועצת הקולנוע לטובת קרן רבינוביץ’ וגשר

חשד לכאורה שפעלה להשמטה מכוונת של שמה מהנוכחים בישיבות מועצת הקולנוע

קיים חשד כי סייעה לחברי המועצה מכהנים לקבלת תפקידים שונים בפסטיבלים

:בתאריך ה-29.04.2020 הוגשה תלונה משמעתית נגד כהן בגין הנושאים הבאים

לכאורה סיכול אחריות מימוש המועצה בעניין כשירות לקטורים

ניסיון לביטול ישיבת המועצה ב-9.12.19

לכאורה קיום ישיבה בתחום סמכות המועצה תוך הסתרתה מיו”ר המועצה ובזמן היות העובדת בחופשה כפויה

נטען כי בשנה האחרונה להגשת התלונה, מבצעת כהן עבירות משמעת לכאורה וכי נעשו ניסיונות לפתור את הסוגיות במשרד התרבות, אך ללא הצלחה שכן ההסכמות שהושגו אינן מיושמות

12(ה) לחוק מסמיך את המועצה לדון בכשירותם של מועמדים לכהן כלקטורים (בוחני בקשות לתמיכה) עבור קרנות הקולנוע

לפי פסקה 12(ה)(4), אם חלפו חודשיים מיום שאדם הגיש בקשה להיכלל במאגר הלקטורים והמועצה לא קיבלה החלטה בעניינו, הוא ייכלל אוטומטית במאגר הלקטורים

כהן לכאורה פרסמה את טופס הבקשה להיכלל כלקטור באתר המשרד במועד שאינו ידוע ליו”ר המועצה

לכאורה לא כללה אישורי לקטורים בסדרי ישיבות

טענה כי אינה יכולה להתפנות לטיפול בבקשות שכן עליה לטפל “בנושאם שוטפים”, ואף סירבה לכאורה לבצע אודותיהן ישיבה בטענה כי “הבקשות לא עובדו”

כהן סירבה לכאורה לענות כמה זמן חלף מהבקשה הראשונה, למרות שנתבקשה

כשהתכנסה ועדת המשנה  לבחינת מאגר הלקטורים, לא נכחה בפגישה ולא הכינה עבורה חומרים

בתאריך 28.12.20 התקבל במשרדו של שר התרבות והספורט דאז, חילי טרופר, מכתב בנושא בקשת הארכת כהונתה של כהן

במכתב נכתב כי הארכת כהונתה היא בגין הסיבות הבאות: משבר הקורונה שפקד את העולם , הוצאה לפועל של תכנית תקציבית מיוחדת ומורכבת להפקות שנפגעו עקב הקורונה, צירוף ישראל לארגון Eurimages ולתכנית “Creative Media” באירופה שיזמה בתקופה כהונתה ונשענת על קשריה האישיים

הבקשה נחתמה על ידי 31 אנשים מהתעשייה בתפקידים שונים

ראשי הקרנות היחידים שחתומים על מכתב זה הינם גיורא עיני (רבינוביץ’) וזיו נווה (גשר). חתומים בנוסף שני בעלי תפקידים נוספים מקרן רבינוביץ’ וקרן גשר- יואב אברמוביץ’ (סמנכ”ל קרן רבינוביץ’) ומרים זיגבה (סמנכ”לית קרן גשר)

מספר חברי מועצה שכיהנו תחתיה: פרופ’ דוד אלכסנדר (יו”ר מועצת הקולנוע לשעבר), מנשה סמירה (יו”ר מועצת הרשות השנייה לשעבר), דוד זינדר (סמנכ”ל לשעבר בויצ”ו חיפה), אסנת בוקופצר, אריה צ’רנר

:חשד לניפוח הכנסות בקרן רבינוביץ

החל משנת 2017 נרשמות בקרן הכנסות מיונייטד קינג ו\או שת”פ עם התאחדות ענף הקולנוע בסכומים הבאים

במקביל נרשמה הוצאה בספרי רבינוביץ’ בסכום זהה

רישום מסוג זה יכול להעיד על ניסיון לניפוח הכנסות מלאכותי לכאורה בכדי לעמוד באמות מידה ו\או קריטריונים שונים

לא ניתן לאמת את המידע בדוחות הכספיים של קרן רבינוביץ’ מול יונייטד קינג (חברה פרטית) שדוחותיה הכספיים אינם פתוחים לציבור

חשד לרישום כוזב בדוחות הכספיים

כן נבחן המידע אל מול הדיווחים בדוחות הכספיים של הקרן לעידוד הסרט הישראלי

בשנת 2019 קיים פער בין ההוצאות המדווחות בקרן רבינוביץ’ בסך 2.25 מיליון ש”ח אל מול ההוצאות שדווחו בקרן לעידוד הסרט הישראלי בסך 1 מיליון ₪ בלבד

פער זה יכול להצביע לכאורה על דיווח כוזב לכאורה על ידי קרן רבינוביץ

בשנים 2014 ו-2019 הוחלט על תיקון המבחנים לחלוקת כספי תמיכות בתחום הקולנוע (הוראת שעה), במקביל לאותם תיקונים ניתן להבחין בגידול משמעותי בסך התמיכות בקרן רבינוביץ’ ב- 9% ו- 29% בהתאמה

נוכחות מנהלים אומנותיים כלקטורים בוועדות- כפי שהוזכר מעלה, כפי שהוזכר מעלה, ישנם יועצים אומנותיים שנכחו הן בשלבי הבקשות עצמן, והן בשלבי הערר

מטעם קרן רבינוביץ’, נכחו יואב אברמוביץ’ ב-26 בקשות, גיורא עיני ב-4 בקשות ונחמן אינגבר ב- 4 בקשות

:גיורא עיני וקרן רבינוביץ

מכהן כמנכ”ל הקרן מאז שנת 1995, לכן לפי הוראת השעה בנושא מבחנים לחלוקת כספי תמיכות בתחום הקולנוע , עליו לסיים את הקדנציה בשנת 2023 לפחות, או בשנת 2025, לאחר אישור כהונה נוספת של שנתיים מהדירקטוריון (מניין של 6 שנים סך-הכול משנת 2019)

הפעלת קשריו של מר עיני לכאורה על מנת לקדם את האינטרסים של קרן

חשדות על תערבות לכאורה של אתי כהן בכל התהליכים במועצת הקולנוע להסתרה מתוחכמת מאוד לאורך השנים על-ידי קידום שינויי חקיקה מתמשכים לאורך השנים

חשדות על שימוש לכאורה בחברי מועצה–ניגודי עניינים לאורך השנים, יצירת תלות כלכלית / עסקית על מנת לקדם הצבעות המטיבות בצורה ברורה עם אותן קרנות (כולל גשר)

חשדות על שימוש לכאורה במידע פנים (מתוך משרד התרבות) והעברתו למר גיורא עיני

עם השנים, תקצוב רב יותר מהמדינה מגיע לקרן זו, מפני שעיני מכיר את כללי המשחק המשפטיים ואת התבחינים והקריטריונים לקבלת המימון ושימוש לכאורה ב”קומבינות מכל הסוגים.” הקרן חולשת על תחומים רבים יותר משאר הקרנות, כגון: סרטים קצרים, וסרטי סטודנטים

שיטות הפעולה לכאורה של גיורא לתקיפת אנשים שמנוגדי אינטרסים לאלו שלו והפלתם הן: א) בדיקה על האדם המדובר, הוצאת תיקים אודותיו; ב) טענות לניגוד עניינים

בשנת 2012/2013, באחת מוועדות המשנה שהוקמו שמטרתן ניקוד על-פי איכות וכמות בקרנות, העניק חבר מועצה ניקוד נמוך לקרן רבינוביץ’. בפרוטוקול אסור לציין לעולם מי הצביע וכיצד, אלא כי ההצבעה התבצעה ברוב קולות/ בפה אחד. הדבר הגיע לאוזניו של עיני, הוא הזמין את אותו חבר מועצה לביתו כדי ליצור ניגוד עניינים – ולמחרת התפרסם הדבר בתקשורת והיועצת המשפטית של משרד התרבות נישלה את אותו אדם מתפקידו במועצה

נותן לאנשים שמעוניינים להיות אצלו לקטורים, לרשום כי הם מהפריפריה על מנת לקבל העדפה, בטענה שלא בודקים את הדבר לאמיתו

לכאורה היו עושים תיקונים מסיביים חדשים שהיו נחקקים לפי ההערות הבקשות של זיו נווה וגיורא עיני, לרוב. לא היו מוציאים לשימוע כשהם היו מגישים, אלא מפרסמים את התיקונים בצורה סופית

תיקוני חקיקה שאושרו בגרסתם הסופית, ללא שימוע: קרה פעמיים- לאחרונה, משרד התרבות הודה שגיורא עיני ביקש את התיקון. הייתה שיחת זום של ראשי הקרנות האזוריות והארציות וראשי משרד

:יואב אברמוביץ

מפיק סרטים, תסריטאי ומבקר קולנוע ישראלי , מכהן כמנכ”ל משותף בקרן רבינוביץ’ משנת 2019

משמש כמנהל האמנותי של הקרן מאז שנת 2015, לכן לפי הוראת השעה בנושא מבחנים לחלוקת כספי תמיכות בתחום הקולנוע , עליו לסיים את הקדנציה בשנת

2023 לפחות, או בשנת 2025, לאחר אישור כהונה נוספת של שנתיים מהדירקטוריון (מניין של 6 שנים סך-הכול משנת 2019)

:קרן גשר וזיו נווה

זיו נווה היא במאית ומפיקת סרטים דוקומנטריים לשעבר המכהנת כיום כמנכ“לית קרן גשר לקולנוע רב תרבותי. נחשבת לחברה טובה של אתי כהן, מנהלת מחלקת הקולנוע במשרד התרבות ומנהלת מועצת הקולנוע הישראלית לשעבר. ד”ר דניאל טרופר, אביו חילי טרופר, שר התרבות, הקים את קרן גשר. ביום בו שמעה נווה על מינויו של טרופר, התייצבה במשרדו ו”סגרה עניינים” נחשבת לחברה טובה של טרופר

בשנים 2014 ו-2019 הוחלט על תיקון המבחנים לחלוקת כספי תמיכות בתחום הקולנוע (הוראת שעה), במקביל לאותם תיקונים ניתן להבחין בגידול משמעותי בסך התמיכות בקרן גשר ב- 149% ו- 82% בהתאמה

כפי שהוזכר מעלה, ישנם יועצים אומנותיים שנכחו הן בשלבי הבקשות עצמן, והן בשלבי הערר. מטעם קרן גשר, נכח שרון שמיר ב-6 בקשות שכאלו

לכאורה, נווה, עיני וכהן היו נפגשים בפסטיבל קאן, וסוגרים כיצד תיראה השנה הבאה של הקולנוע הישראלי (לא ניתן לאמת מידע זה)

נווה הצליחה להכניס סעיף שבו כתוב כי יש להעניק ניקוד מיוחד לקרן שמתמחת בקולנוע ייעודי (משמע, יוצרים פריפריאליים: דרוזים, צ’רקסים, אתיופים); סעיף שדי ברור שהיא ועיני הגו על מנת שתוכל לקבל כסף נוסף לקרן שהיא היחידה שיכולה להתעסק בתחום שכזה. על הנייר מציגים זאת כעידוד קולנוע פריפריאלי

נשמעו טענות שהעסיקה חברי מועצה מכהנים כלקטורים

אורן רייך –  עבד גם בקרן יהודה ושומרון, וגם כיועץ בשתי הקרנות האזוריות בדרום, מופיע באתר של “גשר” בנוסף. “גשר” טוענים כי אין לו קשר ליהודה ושומרון יותר, וכעת מנותקת “כאילו” משתי הקרנות האזוריות בדרום

קרן “גשר” פרסמה אדם שכיהן כלקטור, שלמעשה לא היה לקטור

טענות שקרן גשר פעלה לאגד גורמים שיהיו רגולטורים שלה 

קרן גשר הייתה חביבה על לימור לבנת במהלך כהונתה כשרת התרבות – העבירה להם כספים רבים מתקנות תקציביות אחרות, מלבד הכסף שהועבר להם דרך מועצת הקולנוע

בשנת 2014 הוגש בג”ץ נגד עיני בנושא תיקון חקיקתי שיצא בגרסתו הסופית ללא שימוע, תיקון שהיטיב עם נווה ועיני, והכשיל את הקרנות האחרות. התיקון אושר

:דלתות מסתובבות בין חברי מועצת הקולנוע לקרנות הקולנוע

:שני חברי מועצה שקיבלו מימון מקרנות על סרטים / סדרות שיצרו בעודם מכהנים בתפקיד

יאיר רוה: בעודו מכהן כחבר מועצת הקולנוע , קיבל תמיכה לסדרה שיצר בשם “קטמנדו” (2012) מקרן גשר . בנוסף, קיבל תמיכה לסרט “שרון עמרני: זכרו את השם” (2010) מקרן רבינוביץ

ארנון צדוק: בעודו מכהן כחבר מועצה , קיבל תמיכה על סרטו “ניקה” (2010) מקרן רבינוביץ

 :שלושה חברי מועצה שעבדו וקיבלו שכר ביוזמות של קרנות בעודם מכהנים בתפקיד

חוה דיבון: בעודה מכהנת כחברת מועצה , שימשה כחונכת בחממת הקולנוע לנשים חרדיות בשנת 2012 ביוזמת קרן גשר

מרלין וניג: בעודה מכהנת כחברת מועצה , שימשה כחונכת ויועצת בחממת הקולנוע לנשים חרדיות בשנת 2012 ביוזמת קרן גש 

הרב ישראל גליס: בעודו מכהן כחבר מועצה , הועסק כיועץ בחממת הקולנוע לנשים חרדיות בשנת 2012 ביוזמת קרן גשר, וכן ליווה סדנה מקבילה לגברים מהמגזר החרדי

 :שישה חברי מועצה שלקחו חלק בסרטים שקיבלו מימון מקרנות בעודם מכהנים בתפקיד

אסנת בוקופצר: בעודה מכהנת כחברת מועצת הקולנוע , שימשה כפוסט פרודקשן ויח”צ של הסרט באבא ג’ון (2015) שקיבל את תמיכתן של קרן רבינוביץ’ וקרן “גשר” , בנוסף, מתפקדת כמנהלת קשרי החוץ של קרן רבינוביץ’ החל משנת 2017

נועם שנהב: בעודה מכהנת כחברת מועצה , שיחקה בסרטים “תמונת הנצחון” (2021) ו”המנצחים [אופוריה]” (2021) שקיבלו תמיכה מקרן רבינוביץ 

גולן אזולאי: בעודו מכהן כחבר מועצה , שיחק בסרט “עקרה” (2022) אשר קיבל תמיכה מקרן רבינוביץ

 :אריה צ’רנר

בעודו מכהן כחבר מועצה, שיחק בסרט “הקפות” (2014) אשר קיבל תמיכה מקרן הקולנוע הישראלי

בעודו מכהן כחבר מועצה, שיחק בסרט “חתונה מנייר” (2015) אשר קיבל תמיכה מקרן גשר, קרן מקור וקרן הקולנוע הישראל

בעודו מכהן כחבר מועצה, שיחק בסרט “קאפו בירושלים” (2015) אשר קיבל תמיכה מקרן הקולנוע של הרשות לפיתוח ירושלים, קרן הקולנוע וקרן גש

בעודו מכהן כחבר מועצה, שיחק בסרט “חדרי הבית” (2016) אשר קיבל תמיכה מקרן רבינוביץ’ וקרן הקולנוע של הרשות לפיתוח ירושלים

בעודו מכהן כחבר מועצה, שיחק בסרט “פוקסטרוט” (2016) אשר קיבל תמיכה מקרן הקולנוע

בעודו מכהן כחבר מועצה, שיחק בסרט “החטאים” (2016) אשר קיבל תמיכה מקרן רבינוביץ’ וקרן הקולנוע של הרשות לפיתוח ירושלים

בעודו מכהן כחבר מועצה, שיחק בסרט “מכתוב” (2017) אשר קיבל תמיכה מקרן הקולנוע וקרן הקולנוע של הרשות לפיתוח ירושלים

בעודו מכהן כחבר מועצה, שיחק בסרט “ליידי טיטי” (2018) אשר קיבל תמיכה קרן רבינוביץ’ והקרן החדשה לקולנוע וטלוויזיה

שיחק בסרט “”VOICE OVER (2018) אשר קיבל תמיכה מקרן גשר וקרן רבינוביץ’ , בעודו מכהן כחבר מועצה

בעודו מכהן כחבר מועצה, שיחק בסרט “שחקים” (2019) אשר קיבל תמיכה מקרן הקולנוע 

גבריאל עמרני גור: בעודו מכהן כחבר מועצה , שיחק בסרט “גט” (2014) אשר קיבל תמיכה מקרן הקולנוע הישראלי, בנוסף, שיחק בסרט “מסע הטבעת” (2016)  אשר קיבל תמיכה מקרן הקולנוע הישראלי

עירית קפלן: בעודה מכהנת כחברת מועצה, שיחקה בסרט “לב שקט מאוד” (2016) אשר קיבל תמיכה מקרן רבינוביץ’, בנוסף, שיחקה בסרט “להציל את נטע” (2016) אשר קיבל תמיכה מקרן הקולנוע הישראלי

:ענבל שוקי

בעודה מכהנת כחברת מועצה , עיצבה תלבושות ואיפרה בסרטים הבאים: “בתולים” (2022), “חומוס פול טריילר” (2022)- סרטים שקיבלו את תמיכת קרן הקולנוע הישראלי, “השתיקה” (2022), “גן קופים” (2023)- סרטים שקיבלו את תמיכת קרן רבינוביץ’

מניפולציה לכאורה של ניקוד פרוייקטים להכשיל אותם מלהתקדם לסבב שני

על מנת למנוע מפרויקטים שהנהלת הקרן לא מעוניינת לתמוך בהם לעלות לסיבוב שני, קוראי הפרויקטים מקושרים בקרן מעניקים לכאורה לפרויקטים אלו ציונים נמוכים יותר כדי להפחית באופן מלאכותי את הציון הממוצע שלהם, ומיישרים קו עם רצונות המנהלים. לדוגמה, הנה פרויקט שקיבל ציון ממוצע של 8.8/10 על פני עשר ביקורות שונות אך זכה לציון 5/10 בחוו”ד רבינוביץ במטרה לחבל בסיכוי של הפרויקט לעלות לסבב השני. התיאורים בסקירת רבינוביץ חסרים פירוט וביקורת ספציפית כמו “תסריט צפוי” בניגוד מוחלט ליותר מעשר חוודים אחרים לאותו פרויקט. פעולה זאת משאירה יותר מקום וסיכוי לפרוייקטים של מקושרים שהקרן רוצה לתמוך בהם, לדוגמה הפרוייקט של תום נשר, אביה, או כל אחד מהמקושרים האחרים, ללא קשר לאיכויות של הפרוייקטים שלהם

 שותפים ביצירת סרטים שהציגו בפסטיבל בעודם מכהנים במקביל כשופטים בתחרות

פסטיבל ירושלים

נילי פלר: כיהנה כשופטת בתחרות הסרטים הבינלאומית בשנת 2021, במקביל באותה שנה, הוקרנו בפסטיבל שני סרטים שערכה “איפה אנה פרנק” ו”מותו של הקולנוע ושל אבא שלי גם”

הילה מדליה: כיהנה כשופטת בקטגוריית קולנוע ישראלי קצר בשנת 2021, ובמקביל באותה שנה, הוקרן  בפסטיבל סרט שהפיקה בשם “למה אמרתי אני – בחזרה לפרשת חנית קיקוס”

שי גולדמן: כיהן כשופט בתחרות הסרטים הבינלאומית בשנת 2021, ובמקביל באותה שנה, צילם את הסרט “הנה אנחנו” שהוקרן בפסטיבל

פסטיבל חיפה

דרור מורה: כיהן כשופט בתחרות קולנוע ישראלי תיעודי בשנת 2022, ובמקביל באותה שנה, הוקרן בפסטיבל סרטו “מסדרונות הכוח”

סער יוגב: כיהן כשופט בתחרות קולנוע ישראלי עלילתי בשנת 2021, ובמקביל באותה שנה, הוקרן בפסטיבל סרט שהפיק בשם “פתח תקווה”

עינת גלזר זרחין: כיהנה כשופטת בתחרות “עוגן הזהב” בשנת 2021, ובמקביל באותה שנה, הוקרן בפסטיבל סרט שערכה בשם “תוכנית א”

1 שותפה ליצירת סרט שהועסקה בפסטיבל במקביל: אתי ציקו, שהועסקה החל משנת 2014 בפסטיבל ירושלים בתפקיד “Head of Guests & Hospitality” והציגה סרט קצר בשם “רוסו” בשנת 2021

:לקטורים ולקטורה – דלתות מסתובבות

חוק הקולנוע בשנת 1999 מגדיר לקטור כבעל תפקיד במוסד, שבתוקף תפקידו שותף להערכה, לבחינה או לברירה של בקשות המוגשות למוסד לסיוע בהפקת סרטים. נתונים כלליים בטווח השנים 2016-2012

כל לקטור מקבל בין 20-30 תסריטים סה”כ. בשלב הראשוני ההגשה היא אנונימית, כל תסריט מקבל מספר והלקטור מנקד מבלי לדעת במי מדובר, מנקדים כל תסריט ובוחרים מתוך 196 תסריטים לדוגמה 40 תסריטים בעלי הניקוד הגבוה ביותר – לאחר מכן מתקיים דיון על התסריטים שנבחרו וכבר אז נחשפים שמות היוצרים

464 סרטים אושרו לתמיכה על-ידי הקרנות

99 סרטים קיבלו תמיכה מקרנות ללא כל משוב מלקטורים, המהווים 21% מכלל הסרטים שנתמכו ( 99/464)

האחים אדרי היו מעורבים בהפקת 24 סרטים מתוך ה-99 (67% מתוך אותם 24 סרטים היו בתמיכת קרן רבינוביץ’)

כ – 5% מהבקשות שהוגשו, ואשר קיבלו משוב כללי שלילי או בינוני, קיבלו תמיכה באותו מועד

מנהלים אמנותיים נוכחים כלקטורים בקרנות גשר ורבינוביץ

בקרן גשר נכח המנהל בכ – 72% מהבקשות בהן דנו 

ובקרן רבינוביץ’ נכחו המנהלים בכ – 45% מהבקשות בהן דנו

בקרן גשר ובקרן רבינוביץ’ ישנם לקטורים אשר נכחו הן בדיון המקורי בבקשה לתמיכה והן בערר שהתקיים בגין אותה בקשה

נוכחות מנהלים אומנותיים כלקטורים בוועדות- בהתאם לדיווחי קרן רבינוביץ בשנים 2021-2013 לא נרשמו שמותיהם של יואב אברמוביץ’ ונחמן אינגבר כלקטורים בקרן. כלומר, הדיווח שהועבר לוועדה אינו תואם את הדיווח שהועבר באתר הקרן

הרכב הלקטורה בבקשות לעומת עררים- במהלך השנים 2016-2012 קרן רבינוביץ’ וקרן גשר היו הקרנות היחידות בהן נמצאו לקטורים שהופיעו הן בוועדה המקורית לבחינת הבקשה והן בשלב הערר

בקרן רבינוביץ’, יואב אברמוביץ’ נכח ב-26 בקשות, גיורא עיני ב-4 בקשות ונחמן אינגבר ב- 4 בקשות בקרן גשר- שרון שמיר נכח ב-6 בקשות

לקטורים שהועסקו פעמים רבות בקרנות, חשדות לניגודי עניינים, חוסר מנהל תקין ודלתות מסתובבות

למנהלי הקרנות היה חשוב שבסיבובים הראשונים, אנשיהם יכללו במאגר

ישנה תלונה במשטרה על סרט שקיבל תמיכה, אך לא הומלץ ע”י הלקטורים

היה ניסיון להעביר שינוי שכל הלקטורים משתכרים באופן זהה, אך זה לא צלח. בקרן רבינוביץ’ לקטור יכול לקבל 250 ₪ לתסריט. השתכרות נאה מאוד לחודש אחד בשנה

לקטורה מיטיבה עם יוצרים כיוון שאם הם “מתיישרים” עם דעתו של מנהל הקרן, הוא יכול לזכור אותם לטובה כשיגישו תסריטים, ובכך לקבל תמיכה (=מימון) ביצירותיהם מה שקורה בפועל פעמים רבות