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.

By FIW staff.

Film Threat has now weighed in on Film Industry Watch’s recent analysis of The Queen’s Gambit and the Nona Gaprindashvili controversy, amplifying the core point of our article while adding something equally important: this is not only dishonest storytelling, but increasingly boring storytelling.

Their discussion picked up on the heart of our argument. The Queen’s Gambit did not merely take dramatic license. It inserted a false statement about a real woman, Nona Gaprindashvili, erasing her documented achievements against male players in order to strengthen a cleaner ideological narrative. The distortion was not necessary for plot, character, or emotional truth. It served a message.

Film Threat agreed with that diagnosis, but pushed the conversation further. Their added point was that this pattern has now become so familiar that viewers can see it coming from a distance. Once certain ideological assumptions enter the frame, the range of possible outcomes narrows. The audience already knows who will be dignified, who will be diminished, who may help but never truly matter, and which version of history will be smoothed into place to support the approved theme.

That is the deeper problem.

A falsehood like the one used against Gaprindashvili does not remain confined to a single line of dialogue. It reveals a broader creative method. Complexity is stripped out. Cooperation is recoded as condescension. Competition is reinterpreted as hostility. Real history becomes raw material to be bent into a more politically legible shape. Men, collectively, are positioned not as fellow participants in human struggle, but as the necessary backdrop against which female success must be framed.

Film Threat highlighted exactly this mechanism. They singled out the phrase “manufacturing female grievance” from our original piece and treated it as the crux of the issue. That is because the pattern is now easy to recognize. When the facts do not supply enough victimhood, culture manufactures it. When reality shows cooperation between men and women, the cooperation is minimized. When history contains nuance, the nuance is removed.

And the result is not just dishonest. It is dramatically dead.

That was one of Film Threat’s sharpest additions. They argued that these stories have become predictable to the point of exhaustion. Viewers know the ideological boundaries in advance. They know which tensions may be explored and which cannot. They know which characters are permitted depth and which exist only to serve a moral arrangement. Instead of timeless storytelling, what remains is content stamped by the anxieties and orthodoxies of a very specific cultural moment.

That observation matters because defenders of this kind of writing often talk as if the only objection is political. It is not. The artistic objection is just as serious. A story that starts from ideological conclusions rather than human reality loses surprise, ambiguity, and dramatic freedom. It ceases to discover and begins to instruct.

Film Threat also connected this to a broader industry climate. In their discussion, they described an atmosphere in which attempts at ordinary collaboration can be reinterpreted through a grievance lens, with help recast as patronizing intrusion and expertise treated as suspect when it comes from the wrong kind of person. Whether one agrees with every anecdotal example they raised, the larger point lands: once a framework is built around status and grievance, ordinary professional relations are easily reclassified as domination narratives. This mentality does not produce better art. It produces paranoia, rigidity, and resentment.

That is what makes the Gaprindashvili case more than a historical footnote.

A real woman’s accomplishments were reduced in order to support a fictional woman’s symbolic importance. A public lie about a real person was defended as artistic expression. The show was then absorbed into the prestige system as enlightened, culturally important drama. Even after litigation, even after a court allowed the defamation claim to proceed, even after the case was settled, the episode remained unchanged. No public correction. No visible reckoning. Just silence, followed by continued acclaim.

Film Threat’s reaction confirms that more people are starting to see the pattern for what it is.

This is no longer just about one Netflix line, one show, or one lawsuit. It is about a mode of storytelling that treats factual truth as expendable whenever truth complicates ideology. It is about a cultural machine that flatters itself as progressive while quietly erasing inconvenient women, misrepresenting men, and training audiences to read cooperation as oppression.

And, as Film Threat rightly pointed out, it is also about craft.

Because even leaving aside the politics, this formula is tired.

It narrows character.
It narrows conflict.
It narrows history.
It narrows imagination.

Most of all, it narrows what stories are allowed to say about men and women sharing the same world.

The real scandal of The Queen’s Gambit is not only that it lied. It is that the lie was so useful to the system that almost no one inside that system seemed troubled by it. That is why reactions like Film Threat’s matter. They help expose not just a single distortion, but the institutional mindset that rewards distortion when it points in the approved direction.

Truth was available.
Complexity was available.
A better story was available.

They chose the slogan.

The post Film Threat Reacts to FIW’s Queen’s Gambit Analysis: When Ideology Replaces Truth, Storytelling Suffers first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

In 2020, The Queen’s Gambit told viewers that a woman had never competed against men in serious chess competition. At the end of the show’s last episode a commentator says “There’s Nona Gaprindashvili, but she’s the female world champion and has never faced men“, implying that as the “female world champion” she had only won matches against other women. The line was presented casually, as historical background and a fact. It was also false. The truth? At the time depicted, 1968, Gaprindashvili had already played against at least 59 men.

The woman erased by that claim was Nona Gaprindashvili. Not a marginal figure. Not an exception quietly tucked away in footnotes. She was a world champion, a pioneer of modern chess, and by the time the series is set, she had already played and defeated dozens of male grandmasters in international tournaments. This was publicly documented, widely known in chess circles, and never in dispute. The statement in the show was not ambiguous. It was simply a deliberate lie.

Gaprindashvili sued Netflix for defamation. Netflix did not argue that the statement was accurate. Instead, it argued that the line was protected as artistic expression, despite referring to a real person and asserting a factual falsehood about her life. In 2022, a U.S. federal judge rejected Netflix’s attempt to dismiss the case, ruling that the claim could plausibly be defamatory. The case was later settled confidentially. No public apology followed. The episode remains unchanged. That is the factual baseline. Everything else is interpretation.

When Ideology Overrides Reality

The false line about Gaprindashvili was not required by the story. It did not advance the plot. It did not deepen character. It did not heighten drama. Its sole function was ideological.

The series sought to frame Beth Harmon’s success as occurring in a world where men categorically excluded women from competitive chess. That framing collapses under even minimal scrutiny. Chess was male-dominated largely because men participated in far greater numbers, not because women were universally barred. When women did compete at the highest levels, they did so publicly, visibly, and sometimes triumphantly.

Gaprindashvili herself embodied that complexity. Rather than engage with it, the show erased her to produce a cleaner feminist narrative. History was simplified to sharpen the moral contrast.
This is the recurring pattern. When ideology demands a story, accuracy becomes negotiable.

Why Getting the Facts Wrong Was Useful

Labeling The Queen’s Gambit a feminist corrective delivered three tangible benefits.
First, it made the show culturally insulated. Criticism could be dismissed as reactionary or unserious. Second, it amplified media coverage by framing the series as socially significant rather than merely entertaining. Third, it aligned the show with the ideological preferences of award institutions and cultural gatekeepers in the post-#MeToo era.
None of this required the framing to be true. It only needed to be legible.

The irony is that the show itself does not depict systematic male oppression. Beth Harmon is mentored by men, funded by men, trained by men, and supported by male competitors who treat her as a peer. Her primary obstacles are addiction, trauma, and self-discipline. These are internal struggles, not the result of exclusion by men.
That story, however, is not ideologically sharp enough. So history was adjusted to compensate.

Manufacturing Female Grievance

The Gaprindashvili line exposes how contemporary prestige storytelling often operates. Female success is no longer sufficient on its own. It must be framed as success achieved against men.

If men do not actively obstruct the protagonist, obstruction is supplied symbolically or retroactively. In this case, a real woman’s achievements were rewritten to imply that men were the barrier she never faced.

• The process follows a familiar script.
• Complexity is removed.
• Cooperation is reframed as condescension.
• Competition is recast as hostility.
• Historical data is ignored.
• Men, collectively, are positioned as the obstacle.

The result is a worldview in which female achievement only registers if male achievement is diminished.

The Polite Normalization of Anti-Male Narratives.

What makes The Queen’s Gambit instructive is not overt hostility toward men. It is the opposite. The message is delivered politely, wrapped in craftsmanship, prestige, and restraint.

Men are allowed to help, but rarely to matter. They are competent, but never central. Even when they support Beth, their role is framed as something she transcends rather than something shared. The crucial move comes when a historically accurate, male-inclusive reality is replaced with a false exclusionary one.

This is how anti-male sentiment spreads in contemporary culture. Not through caricature or rage, but through omission, distortion, and repetition.

The Gaprindashvili case is not a trivia dispute. It is a warning.

When major cultural institutions decide that ideological clarity matters more than factual accuracy, they do more than misrepresent the past. They train audiences to misread the present. Viewers are encouraged to assume injustice by default, to treat male participation as suspect, and to interpret female success primarily through grievance.

Cinema no longer merely reflects social beliefs. It actively manufactures them.

When those beliefs are built on falsehoods, especially falsehoods that erase cooperation between men and women, the damage is cultural, not cosmetic.

Facts Are Not Optional

There was no need to lie about Nona Gaprindashvili. Her real story was already extraordinary. Truth, however, did not serve the ideological arc the show wanted to sell.

That decision reveals the underlying mechanism. Feminist ideology in contemporary prestige media is not merely a viewpoint. It is a production strategy. It helps projects get greenlit, promoted, protected, and rewarded. When reality does not cooperate, reality is revised.

If audiences want honest storytelling again, stories that treat men and women as collaborators rather than adversaries, the demand must begin with something unfashionable and increasingly rare.

Facts first.

Please read our in depth analysis of The Humiliation of Men in Cinema, here.

The post How Prestige Television Rewrites History to Vilify Men 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.

A sprawling case in China has laid bare how easily film-finance pitches can turn into financial traps for ordinary investors. In February 2024, Chinese authorities disclosed an alleged film investment fraud that deceived more than 3,000 people nationwide and raised over 650 million yuan. Police in Lanzhou said the scheme involved four companies and 12 films. Five of those films had actually been released, which helped scammers lend credibility to their offers. Investigators allege the group exaggerated production budgets and box office projections, oversold “profit shares,” and diverted most funds into personal accounts. By early 2024, 45 suspects had been sent to prosecutors, with a public call for additional victims to come forward.

The mechanics were sophisticated but familiar. Promoters posing as stock “mentors” cultivated trust in WeChat and QQ groups, then pitched film stakes as a safer, higher-return alternative to volatile equities. Prospects were shown official-looking contracts and invited on photo-op “visits” to well-known production companies. The projects existed and the production companies were legally registered, yet the investor agreements bore figures far above actual budgets. A small portion of money reportedly went to genuine shares while the rest was siphoned off, leaving victims to discover too late that their contracts did not reflect the real economics of the films.

This is not a China-only problem. Across Asia, recent incidents show the same playbook: weaponizing the glamour and recognizability of film titles, festivals and celebrity-adjacent branding to create a veneer of legitimacy.In Hong Kong, One Cool Film Production, the company associated with actor Louis Koo, issued a public warning in May 2025 that scammers were using its name to solicit “movie investment” funds. The company stated it had not launched any such public investment platform or authorized third-party fundraising and urged the public to ignore solicitations trading on its brand. Even without money changing hands, reputational borrowing can prime victims to trust pitches that should have triggered skepticism.

In India, courts have directed police to register and investigate fraud complaints tied to purported film investments. In Varanasi, a hotelier alleged that more than ₹1.5 were scammed from him after he was promised producer credit and profits on a film project. An FIR has been registered and police say they are reviewing financial records. These are allegations under investigation and no court has determined guilt, but they illustrate how informal film-finance promises can escalate into criminal complaints when returns fail to materialize and documentation is contested.

Why film finance scams work – Scammers exploit several overlapping factors:

• Real titles and real companies. Tying offers to films that actually exist, or to registered entities, lowers defenses. The presence of trailers, posters, or festival listings is not evidence of a legitimate retail investment opportunity or of the terms being offered to you.
• Unverifiable projections. Budgets and box office forecasts are easy to inflate on paper. Unless you can validate figures with the producers and distributors of record, projections are just marketing.
• Private placements and gray zones. Many film deals are structured as private offerings that fall outside robust retail investor protections. Victims are often handed contracts that appear formal but are difficult to enforce or verify independently.
• Social proof and brand borrowing. WeChat or WhatsApp groups filled with “happy investors,” staged studio photo-ops, and the casual invocation of festival circuits or famous names can create a false sense of safety.
• “Guaranteed” returns. Any promise of fixed or quick profits, or refunds if a film underperforms or is delayed, is a red flag. Legitimate film investments are risky by nature and cannot be guaranteed.

What prudent investors can do

This is a cautionary report, not investment advice. If you are approached with a film deal:

1. Verify the issuer, not just the project. Confirm the legal identity of the entity selling you the stake. Ask for incorporation details and beneficial owners. Cross-check with official registries.
2. Demand chain-of-title and rights documentation. If you are buying into a specific film, ask for evidence that the issuer actually holds the rights or a contractual entitlement to sell the interests being offered.
3. Validate the numbers. Obtain written confirmation of budget, recoupment waterfall, and distributor commitments from counterparties named in the offering, not just from the salesperson.
4. Be wary of “producer credits” as compensation. Credits are not cash flows and are often non-exclusive or discretionary.
5. Insist on independent escrow and clean money flows. Your funds should go to a controlled account with conditions for release tied to verifiable production or acquisition milestones.
6. Walk away from guarantees. No reputable producer or sales agent guarantees box office returns or refunds of principal based on release timing.
7. Slow the process down. Scams rely on urgency. Take time to consult a lawyer experienced in film finance or a regulated financial professional.
8. Treat social media groups as marketing, not diligence. Screenshots of “profits,” group testimonials, and celebrity photos are not substitutes for audited statements or signed distribution contracts.

What this means for the industry

The vast majority of filmmakers and sales agents operate ethically, and private investment remains an important part of film financing. But the cases above show how the trappings of legitimacy can be misused against unsophisticated investors. Repeated warnings from authorities and studios point to a simple reality: if a film-investment pitch arrives via chat app, leans on brand names rather than verifiable contracts, and promises exceptional returns with minimal risk, the safest response is to disengage.

Scams evolve quickly, including through deepfake impersonations and doctored visuals. The best defense is verification at the source, skepticism toward guarantees, and professional advice before any funds move.

Sources:

China Daily report on Lanzhou case (web version): https://ex.chinadaily.com.cn/…/stories/WS65c43303a3104efcbdaea61a.html
Global Times summary of Lanzhou investigation: https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202401/1305882.shtml
One Cool Film Production warning via Yahoo Singapore: https://sg.style.yahoo.com/louis-koos-production-company-warns-065700294.html
The Standard Hong Kong note on fraudulent schemes using company names: https://www.thestandard.com.hk/hk-and-china-showbiz/article/303396/Actor-Louis-Koos-company-warns-of-fraudulent-investment-schemes
Times of India coverage of Varanasi FIR order (overview): https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/varanasi/varanasi-court-orders-fir-against-bhojpuri-actor-pawan-singh-3-others-over-rs-1-57-crore-film-investment-fraud-hotelier-alleges-threat-to-life/articleshow/123401555.cms
Times of India follow-up on FIR registration: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/bhojpuri/movies/news/fir-filed-against-bhojpuri-actor-pawan-singh-in-rs-1-57-crore-fraud-case-amidst-anjali-raghav-controversy-report/articleshow/123673043.cms
FTC advisory on investment scams targeting WeChat groups: https://consumer.ftc.gov/consumer-alerts/2023/05/investment-scam-targeting-wechat-groups

The post Film Investment Scams: The Risks Are Rising Across Asia first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

A powerful directors’ society has turned its weight against the technicians’ union that once stood beside it – exposing how institutional privilege can twist the language of the collective to protect individual power.

For decades, Argentina’s film industry was built upon a fragile but productive alliance between the DAC (Argentine Directors’ Association) and SICA (Union of Film Technicians). Together they fought for authors’ rights and fair working conditions, shaping a national cinema known as much for its artistry as its solidarity.
That alliance has now collapsed – and not by accident.

The DAC, a society that collects royalties for directors, has over time assumed a dual role as both collecting agency and professional association – a concentration of power permitted under Argentine law, but one that easily invites personal rule. What should be a collective representation of creative rights increasingly resembles a fiefdom, where authority serves the few rather than the many.

This became painfully clear when Horacio Maldonado, DAC’s Secretary General, decided to return to filmmaking after roughly two decades dedicated to administration. Without stepping down from his position, he launched a new film production in Buenos Aires – one that soon came under scrutiny for alleged labour irregularities.

According to SICA, auditors discovered that the production was operating under a “fraudulent cooperative structure” used to avoid standard labour contracts and contributions. The union filed a formal complaint with labour authorities, citing potential breaches of employment and constitutional rights.

Instead of addressing these allegations, DAC publicly sided with Maldonado, using its official communication channels to condemn the union. In a statement circulated throughout the industry, the association accused SICA of attacking Maldonado and announced that a criminal complaint would be filed against the union.

The director at the centre of the controversy thus remained in office while the technicians who raised concerns were painted as aggressors.

The irony is glaring. A society entrusted with managing directors’ collective royalties now deploys that platform to attack a workers’ union for demanding lawful labour practices. The DAC – created to defend creators — has been conscripted into shielding one of its own from accountability. The technicians, meanwhile, stand as the only side appealing to legality, transparency, and the constitutional right to fair work.

At the heart of this conflict lies a deeper flaw in Argentina’s cultural ecosystem: when collecting societies and trade unions blur their boundaries, power stops serving art or labour – and begins serving itself.

The Maldonado affair exposes not only one man’s arrogance but also a structural weakness that allows individuals to weaponise institutions built for the collective good.

After SICA reported its complaint to the Ministry of Labour and DAC announced its criminal filing, the message is stark: the solidarity that once defined Argentine cinema is eroding under the weight of its own hierarchies. The technicians’ union is not rebelling; it is resisting.

And in this story, resistance is the only thing that still feels collective.

Sources:

DAC: “Grave denuncia penal contra el SICA”

SICA: “Rodaje en cooperativa fraudulenta de importante directivo de la DAC”

Additional reporting: Infogremiales, COSITMECOS, DAC and SICA official communications.

Legal:

This article is based on information available in the public domain, including official communications by the DAC and SICA, as well as media coverage. All statements regarding alleged irregularities, complaints, or investigations are attributed to their original sources. Film Industry Watch and the author do not assert or imply any findings of guilt or legal liability. Readers are encouraged to consult primary documents and official rulings for verification as proceedings evolve. The views expressed herein are for informational and analytical purposes and do not constitute legal advice.

Poder, privilegio y pretensiones: Cuando los directores argentinos vuelven su gremio contra los trabajadores

Una poderosa sociedad de directores ha volcado su peso contra el sindicato de técnicos que antaño la apoyaba, exponiendo cómo el privilegio institucional puede distorsionar el lenguaje de lo colectivo para proteger el poder individual.

Durante décadas, la industria cinematográfica argentina se construyó sobre una frágil pero productiva alianza entre la DAC (Directores Argentinos Cinematográficos) y el SICA (Sindicato de la Industria Cinematográfica Argentina).
Juntos lucharon por los derechos de autor y por condiciones laborales justas, forjando un cine nacional conocido tanto por su arte como por su solidaridad.
Esa alianza hoy se ha roto — y no por casualidad.

La DAC, una sociedad que recauda regalías para directores, ha asumido con el tiempo un doble rol: agencia de gestión colectiva y asociación profesional.
Esa concentración de poder, permitida por la legislación argentina, invita fácilmente al ejercicio personalista de la autoridad.
Lo que debería ser una representación colectiva de derechos creativos empieza a parecerse a un feudo, donde el poder sirve a unos pocos en lugar de a la mayoría.

Esto quedó dolorosamente claro cuando Horacio Maldonado, secretario general de la DAC, decidió regresar a la dirección cinematográfica después de casi veinte años dedicados a la gestión institucional.
Sin renunciar a su cargo, lanzó una nueva producción en Buenos Aires que pronto fue cuestionada por presuntas irregularidades laborales.
Según SICA, los auditores detectaron que el rodaje operaba bajo una “cooperativa fraudulenta” utilizada para eludir contratos laborales y aportes obligatorios.
El sindicato presentó una denuncia formal ante las autoridades laborales, invocando posibles violaciones a los derechos laborales y constitucionales.

En lugar de abordar las acusaciones, la DAC salió públicamente en defensa de Maldonado, utilizando sus canales oficiales de comunicación para descalificar al sindicato.
En un comunicado difundido en toda la industria, la asociación acusó a SICA de atacar a Maldonado y anunció que presentaría una denuncia penal contra el sindicato.
Así, el directivo cuestionado permaneció en su cargo, mientras los técnicos que señalaron las irregularidades fueron retratados como agresores.

La ironía es evidente: una sociedad encargada de administrar las regalías colectivas de los directores utiliza ahora esa misma plataforma para atacar a un sindicato que exige prácticas laborales legales.
La DAC —creada para proteger a los creadores— ha sido reclutada para blindar a uno de los suyos frente a la rendición de cuentas.
Los técnicos, en cambio, son quienes apelan a la ley, la transparencia y el derecho constitucional a un trabajo justo.

En el fondo, este conflicto revela una falla más profunda del ecosistema cultural argentino: cuando las sociedades de gestión colectiva y los sindicatos confunden sus límites, el poder deja de servir al arte o al trabajo, y empieza a servirse a sí mismo.
El caso Maldonado expone no solo la arrogancia de un individuo, sino una debilidad estructural que permite a las personas convertir en arma las instituciones creadas para el bien común.

Tras la denuncia presentada por SICA ante el Ministerio de Trabajo y la denuncia penal anunciada por la DAC, el mensaje es contundente:
la solidaridad que alguna vez definió al cine argentino se erosiona bajo el peso de sus propias jerarquías.
El sindicato de técnicos no se rebela: resiste.
Y en esta historia, la resistencia es lo único que aún se siente verdaderamente colectivo.

Fuentes:

DAC: “Grave denuncia penal contra el SICA”

SICA: “Rodaje en cooperativa fraudulenta de importante directivo de la DAC”

Cobertura adicional: Infogremiales, COSITMECOS, y comunicados oficiales de DAC y SICA.

The post Power, Privilege and Pretenses: When Argentina’s Directors Turn Their Guild Against the Workers first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

As a SAG-AFTRA performer who’s spent decades on sets, from bit parts to leads, I’ve seen tech elevate or threaten our craft. With AI rising to erase us, the recent SAG-AFTRA statement on Tilly Norwood and OpenAI’s Sora 2 is a tepid, embarrassing defense, exposing leadership’s failure to grasp the existential threat of machine learning. This response reeks of complacency and naive praise—it’s time for a brutal reality check from the trenches, demanding real protections, not half-measures.

Start with Tilly Norwood: The union rightly calls her a “synthetic construct” from stolen work, but they don’t condemn the theft fiercely enough. AI models behind Tilly, pushed by profit-driven companies, train on our performances without consent, credit, or pay, stripping our rights. This is exploitation, not innovation. Tilly signals mass job loss, with agencies chasing fakes over talent. SAG-AFTRA’s soft stance ignores how AI guts opportunities for working actors while corporations profit. The misdirection? Leadership’s weak rally against this theft. As a performer, I know the soul in a role: AI devours it, and our union lets it.

On Sora 2: Praising the “cameo” opt-in is misguided, celebrating a crumb while the tool bulldozes us. Built on pilfered datasets, defending “opt-out” for copyright betrays us, it burdens performers to protect what’s ours, eroding IP. Opt-in is justice, not chaos; anything less invites abuse. OpenAI’s safeguards are window dressing, and SAG-AFTRA’s “dialogue” is capitulation. We need bans on replication without ongoing consent, not back-pats for flawed features.

The truth that audiences connect only with human performances is key, but SAG-AFTRA undermines it by not fighting harder. Fans bond with CGI like Gollum in the non-union non-jurisdictional “Lord of the Rings,” but that came from Andy Serkis’s human spark, AI can’t replicate it authentically. AI echoes expression hollowly, cheapening stories and severing connections. Tilly slams doors on performers, exploiting fakes while denying us tools. I’ve felt that spark; AI extinguishes it, and union rhetoric rings hollow without action.

The 2023 protections? Loophole-riddled jokes. Consent and pay sound good, but the absurd “name plus facial feature” rule is unenforceable, leadership’s cringeworthy examples like “Brad Pitt’s smile on Jennifer Aniston’s eyes” prove it. AI synthesizes from stolen data without such prompts, revealing no tech expertise. This distracts from deepfakes demanding bans. I pushed for, and SAG-AFTRA delegates approved, my resolution with Erik Nicolaisen, passed at convention, demanding AI/GAI disclosure in productions for transparency. But leadership undercuts it with complacency; we need teeth, not toothless clauses.

https://variety.com/2023/biz/news/sag-aftra-ai-zombies-artificial-intelligence-1235786210

Pushing laws like No FAKES or TRAIN Act is a start, but SAG-AFTRA risks too little without demanding prohibitions on unauthorized training and replicas. It’s survival, not overreach. Past adaptations fought for workers, not tech giants; leadership’s 2017 “threat” ID was lip service, lacking urgency. We deserve leaders building on disclosure wins by banning synthetics outright, not tiptoeing.

AI erases humanity from art. Sora 2 and Tilly are weapons crushing opportunities. SAG-AFTRA’s approach is surrender, demanding fresh leadership to confront it head-on.

Fellow members: Don’t wait for the union or “Rudy” to fumble this: take action now to safeguard your data, the real core issue here. SAG obsesses over likeness, but that’s already illegal to misuse without permission, and it’s mostly a celebrity problem – who’s stealing an unknown actor’s face? The true threat is your data: AI companies harvest it to generate original-looking actors that bear no resemblance to you, profiting off your essence while erasing your credit. Watermark your data, use opt-out registries, consult legal experts on contracts, and demand tools for digital control. Stay informed, vocal in meetings, and vote change. Force AI to serve us, not destroy us – protect it ourselves.

The post AI in Entertainment: A Wake-Up Call from the Front Lines first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

Guest post by a concerned filmmaker & FIW staff

In one jarring scene of Promising Young Woman (2020), a young man gently lays an apparently drunk woman on a bed and begins unbuttoning her dress. “Shhh… you’re okay, you’re safe,” he whispers – a grotesque reassurance even as he pulls down her underwear without consent. Suddenly, she sits bolt upright, stone-cold sober: “I said: what are you doing?” she demands, fixing him with an icy stare. The predator freezes, terrified at being caught. This moment of tables-turning shock encapsulates a striking new archetype in today’s critically acclaimed cinema: men as predatory or pathetic figures, and women as their righteous reckoners or survivors. From indie festival darlings to Hollywood blockbusters, a growing roster of films is casting masculinity in a harsh light – depicting men as abusive, weak, absent, or broken, while positioning women as victims-turned-avengers or the moral centers of the story. And of course, the world is nothing if not ‘Black & White.’ Why wrestle with the messy complexity of gender dynamics when you can flatten it into the simplest cliché imaginable?

Abusive, Weak, or Absent: The New Male Stereotype on Screen

Recent award-winning and festival-circuit films have not been subtle about the state of their men. In Eliza Hittman’s drama Never Rarely Sometimes Always (2020), the men orbiting 17-year-old Autumn are ALL, with no exception, either useless or predatory. At her supermarket job, the sleazy manager dismisses Autumn’s illness and leers “It’s really just a few more hours… You can do it. Besides, I’d get lonely if you left” – a line dripping with inappropriate undertone. Later, as the girls turn in their registers, he even kisses Autumn’s hand through a money slot in a furtive act of harassment. Far worse has happened to Autumn behind the scenes: during a counseling session, she’s asked if her partner ever “made [her] have sex when [she] didn’t want to.” Autumn cannot even speak – the script notes “Autumn’s flood gates open. She breaks down” in tears. Pressed further – Has anyone forced you into a sexual act? – she finally chokes out, “Yeah,” confirming that a boy in her life raped her. The men in Autumn’s world, all of them, are either absent when needed or the source of trauma, whereas the moral agency lies entirely with Autumn and her female cousin who supportively accompanies her on a secret trip to get an abortion.

Film after film paints its male characters in a similarly dismal hue. Emerald Fennell’s acid-tinged thriller Promising Young Woman (2020) takes direct aim at “nice guys” who are anything but. Its parade of men are rapists or enablers: from the group of college bros who assaulted the heroine’s friend, to the former friend (now a doctor) who laughed it off, to the seemingly sweet new boyfriend who is ultimately revealed to have been complicit. The film’s biting opening illustrates this dynamic in miniature: Cassie, pretending to be obliterated by alcohol, is “rescued” by a man who coos assurances while attempting to take advantage of her incapacitation. Cassie suddenly drops her ruse, eyes clear and voice firm, scaring the hell out of him as she forces him to recognize his predatory behavior. In Promising Young Woman, men’s misdeeds are the central evil, and the avenging angel is a woman driven to drastic ends to expose them. Even basically decent men are portrayed as cowardly or culpable. “The message is that every man is guilty – if not of rape, then of complicity or willful ignorance – and it’s the women who bear the pain and seek justice,” writes one reviewer in summary of the film’s provocations.

In this new cinematic landscape, even when men aren’t outright villains, they are depicted as feckless, foolish, or fragile. Take last year’s Cannes Palme d’Or winner, Justine Triet’s Anatomy of a Fall (2023). The drama centers on a wife accused of killing her husband, Samuel, under murky circumstances. As the trial unspools, a damning portrait of the late husband emerges: Samuel was a frustrated writer suffering professional envy and depression, prone to paranoid behavior. He had been secretly recording his wife Sandra’s every word for months and grew “jealous” of her literary success. In a climactic court scene, the prosecution plays an audio recording of the couple’s final argument, in which Samuel’s composure collapses and an “explosion of violence” is heard. It’s suggested that he physically attacked Sandra (she was left with bruises), leading to the fall that killed him. The subtext is clear: Samuel is depicted as emotionally broken and volatile, a man who literally couldn’t handle being eclipsed by his wife. Sandra, by contrast, is portrayed as complex but ultimately more sympathetic – an intellectual and mother who maintains poise under pressure, effectively the moral center as the court (and audience) weigh her fate.

Anatomy of a Fall isn’t clever; it’s entry-level bait-and-switch. The script stacks obvious “she did it” breadcrumbs, loaded anecdotes, conveniently incriminating fragments, a neatly arranged trail of marital rot, and then smirks, “Gotcha! Misogyny!” as if the audience’s suspicion were proof of their bias rather than the direct result of the film’s own engineering. That’s not depth; it’s a cheap card trick where the magician palms the queen and then lectures you for noticing the deck.

The courtroom scaffolding promises rigor but mostly recycles surface-level ambiguity: pose a question, gesture at complexity, refuse resolution, call it profound. We’re never invited into genuine psychological opacity, just toggled between “look how guilty this looks” and “shame on you for thinking that.” The movie confuses withholding with nuance and moralizing with insight. It’s ambiguity for beginners, the kind that flatters the viewer for passing a test with only one answer: you’re problematic for believing the clues the film planted. Palme d’Or material? More like freshman workshop week: a draft that’s proud of its conceit, allergic to consequence, and convinced that wagging a finger at the audience equals complexity. If the standard is “structure that manipulates, then scolds,” congratulations, mission accomplished. If the standard is real ambiguity, genuine moral texture, and characters who exist beyond the needs of a thesis, this is a pass. Anatomy of a Fall indeed – that of European deep complex and nuanced cinema.

Even ostensibly lighthearted films reinforce the theme. Greta Gerwig’s blockbuster Barbie (2023) garnered attention for its candy-colored feminist subtext. In the film’s satirical reversal, Barbieland is a matriarchy where Barbies run everything and Kens are decorative sidekicks. But when Ken (played by Ryan Gosling) discovers the concept of “patriarchy,” he promptly leads an over-the-top male takeover that plunges Barbieland into a goofy dystopia of horse-inspired macho posturing. The depiction of Ken and his brethren is pointedly comical: vain, simple-minded, and easily manipulated by their own fragile egos. To defeat the Kens, the Barbies execute a clever plan – “We’ll distract them by pretending to be helpless and confused. Kens can’t resist a damsel in distress” one Barbie explains. The Barbies feign cluelessness to flatter the men, who immediately fall for it. In one scene, a brainwashed Ken leans over a Barbie to mansplain the difference between stock market CDs and music CDs: “Oh sweetheart, you are just so cute when you’re confused… CD stands for Certificate of Deposit,” he lectures while she bats her eyelashes in feigned awe. The ruse works perfectly – the duped Kens relinquish their grip on power without the women ever needing to use force. Barbie’s gleeful message is that when men do have power, they don’t know what to do with it besides impose absurd chauvinism – and savvy women can easily outsmart them. The film pointedly makes its heroine the moral and emotional anchor, while the men learn a lesson in humility.

And then there is Yorgos Lanthimos’s surreal feminist fable Poor Things (2023), which flips the Victorian Frankenstein trope to sly effect. The protagonist, Bella (Emma Stone), is a resurrected woman finding her independence in a world of leering or controlling men. Her “creator,” Dr. Baxter, is a grotesque but kind man who nonetheless literally keeps Bella under lock and key “for her own good.” When a slick male lawyer, Duncan Wedderburn, encounters Bella, he is so intrigued by this uninhibited woman that he spirits her away on a tour of debauchery across Europe. Duncan styles himself a liberator – upon meeting her, he dramatically declares, “You are a prisoner and I aim to free you… There is something in you, some hungry being, hungry for experience, freedom, touch”. But his version of “freedom” is to indulge in hedonistic sex and thrill-seeking on his terms. In one scene, after Bella enthusiastically beds him, Duncan can’t resist boasting about his sexual prowess. “At the risk of being immodest, you have just been thrice fucked by the very best,” he brags to her with smug self-satisfaction. Eventually, Duncan’s self-centered antics (including gambling away Bella’s money) prove him to be a shallow cad. Poor Things casts its men as either paternalistic “protectors” or libertine exploiters – and skewers both. Bella ultimately asserts her autonomy, rejecting the cages both kinds of men offer. The film’s feminist lens makes its sympathy clear: the men are foolish and corrupt; the woman is the one discovering authentic moral agency.

Sean Baker’s Anora turns a stripper’s Cinderella story into a demolition of male authority. Ani (Mikey Madison) marries Vanya, a pampered rich kid who proposes mostly to spite his parents. He is feckless, spineless, and quickly disappears once his oligarch family intervenes. In his place arrive thugs led by Toros, who bind Ani, sneer “this is the property of the Zakharovs,” and threaten to erase her pregnancy. Ani’s desperate scream of “RAPE!” forces the men to gag her with a scarf – a disturbing metaphor for silencing women in the #MeToo era.

Ani remains the only figure of moral clarity, publicly scorning Vanya for marrying her only to defy his mother. Even at the end, as she is forced into annulment, she reclaims dignity by naming the violence done to her. Every man in Anora is either abusive, cowardly, or complicit, while Ani alone has integrity. Unsurprisingly, critics rewarded this excoriation of masculinity with the Palme d’Or and Oscars – proof that vilifying men remains a reliable ticket to festival glory.

Ruben Östlund’s Triangle of Sadness gleefully dismantles masculinity from start to finish. Carl, a fragile male model, bickers over dinner bills and is later reduced to Abigail’s boy-toy in exchange for food. On the luxury yacht, rich men – from the drunken Marxist captain to the fertilizer tycoon – are grotesques, vomiting through storms or ranting drunken politics over the PA.

The final act on a deserted island flips power completely: Abigail, once the ship’s toilet-cleaner, declares herself “Captain,” doling out food while billionaires and influencers – especially the men – meekly comply. Carl prostitutes himself for pretzels, embodying male emasculation as comedy. The film won the Palme d’Or and Oscar nominations precisely because it revels in humiliating men and celebrating female dominance, a perfect fit for post-#MeToo festival tastes.

Across these examples – Never Rarely Sometimes Always, Promising Young Woman, Anatomy of a Fall, Barbie, Poor Things, Anora and Triangle of Sadness – a common pattern emerges. Men, in these stories, are overwhelmingly sources of harm or hindrances to women. They are rapists, abusers, overgrown boys or insecure wrecks. Women, by contrast, are victims who find strength, or caretakers who clean up the mess, or avengers delivering comeuppance. This trend is especially pronounced in prestige cinema and festival favorites, the very films that garner Oscars, Palmes d’Or, and critical acclaim. It’s as if Hollywood and the art-film circuit, in the wake of #MeToo, have collectively decided that the time of the heroic or even just complex, sympathetic male protagonist is over. Instead, filmmakers are holding up a mirror to the ugliness of “toxic masculinity” – and often making sure that mirror shatters on screen.

Contextualizing real-world statistics against the exaggerated portrayals of men in contemporary cinema

The gap between cinematic narrative and social reality is staggering. In the films surveyed above, male characters are overwhelmingly cast as predators, abusers, or enablers of violence, as though every man is complicit in misogyny. Yet hard data tells a very different story. Globally, only a small fraction of men are ever accused of sexual harassment, whether formally or informally. In the United States, for example, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) received around 7,600 sexual harassment charges in 2018, the first full year of #MeToo, representing less than 0.01% of the U.S. male population. Even when looking at a four-year span (2018–2021), the total number of men formally accused through EEOC charges remains well under 0.1% of American men.

Workplace HR complaints are more common than lawsuits but still affect only a small minority of men, research suggests perhaps 1–2% of employed men over several years will face such an allegation. Anonymous surveys cast a wider net: about 4% of men in a 2017 survey admitted to behavior they considered harassment. Even if we take the higher estimates, this still means the overwhelming majority of men, upwards of 90–95% worldwide, are never accused of harassment at all.

Now place those percentages beside the reality of male victimhood. Around 60–70% of the homeless in the U.S. are men, a silent crisis rarely dramatized in prestige cinema. Men also account for about 78% of homicide victims, and globally, men die by suicide at roughly three to four times the rate of women. They also make up the vast majority of workplace deaths, overdose fatalities, and combat casualties. In other words, men are not only disproportionately the accused in cultural narratives, but also disproportionately the victims in real life.

Now let’s look at relationships and Intimate partner violence – A large U.S. study of young adults found that about 24% of relationships had some violence; about half of those were reciprocal (both partners violent). But here is the real shocker – when Intimate partner violence was one-sided, women were the perpetrator in more than 70% of those cases – since this data goes against everything you’ve heard your entire life, here is the source, because we know you’re not going to believe us.

Contrast these statistics with the cinematic landscape. In Promising Young Woman, every man Cassie encounters is either a rapist, an accomplice, or a coward. In Never Rarely Sometimes Always, every male figure is absent, lecherous, or abusive. In Anora, Ani is surrounded entirely by exploitative or spineless men. Even comedies like Barbie and satires like Triangle of Sadness revel in reducing men to clowns, predators, or parasites. The cumulative effect is a vision of society where male toxicity is universal and male innocence nonexistent.

This disjunction matters. When films repeatedly suggest that men as a class are dangerous, complicit, or broken, they risk cementing a cultural script that far outstrips reality. Yes, harassment and abuse are serious problems, but they are perpetrated by a minority of men, often repeat offenders. Cinema, however, portrays them as the majority if not the entirety. Meanwhile, the real vulnerabilities of men, homelessness, suicide, homicide, are erased from the screen. The result is a distortion: audiences are invited to see “the problem” not as a subset of bad actors, but as masculinity itself.

In real life, not on screen, it’s actually safer to be a woman than a man

Bottom line (absolute numbers) – When you tally deaths and serious injuries, homicide, suicide, fatal work injuries, and ED-treated violence, men are harmed and killed in greater numbers overall. Women do suffer more sexual and partner/family violence, usually from a partner, ex partner, or family member, with only about 20-30% of sexual violence is done by strangers. Taking the full ledger into account, it’s clear that, on balance, it is much much safer to be a woman than a man, and they live, on average, five years longer too. In other words, these so-called “brave realist social dramas” are anything but. In truth, according to the hard facts, they’re closer to science fiction, fit to be shelved alongside Ad Astra, Inception, and Blade Runner. Turns out sci-fi movies can win Palme d’Ors after all.

All sources for this section at the end of this article.

Post-#MeToo Revenge and the Ideological Shift in Hollywood

These portrayals are no accident of individual storytelling but part of a broader ideological shift in Hollywood after the #MeToo movement. In late 2017, the Harvey Weinstein scandal and the #MeToo reckoning exposed the prevalence of sexual misconduct by powerful men, not just in entertainment but across society. The response from the creative community was swift and continues to reverberate: more films centering women’s perspectives, more brutal examinations of gender power imbalance, and unmistakably less patience for glorifying or excusing bad men. In fact, Hollywood has arguably turned cinema into a vehicle for advocacy, determined to dramatize the wages of male sin.

“Hollywood is now becoming its own loudest voice in helping to call out what a bad thing this is,” observes Robert Thompson, professor of popular culture at Syracuse University, referring to sexual harassment and abuse. By embedding #MeToo’s lessons into scripts and characters, filmmakers have essentially institutionalized the cultural reckoning within popular narratives. “The #MeToo movement was at the front lines… Then it becomes institutionalized by these films and TV shows which people will continue to watch years later,” Thompson notes, pointing out that fiction can serve as a long-lasting record of the era’s lessons. In other words, long after the news headlines of predatory bosses fade, movies like The Assistant or Promising Young Woman will remain to remind future viewers of the period when society finally said “enough” to men’s abuse of power.

Many creators are openly intentional about this mission. Kitty Green, writer-director of The Assistant (2019), based her film’s grim portrayal of a Weinstein-like boss on real testimonies and has said she wanted male viewers to feel a tad uncomfortable. “A lot of men come out feeling very uncomfortable,” Green noted of audience reactions, adding, “I think a little bit of discomfort is what we need right now if we want things to change.” Emerald Fennell, who wrote and directed Promising Young Woman, has similarly explained that her film is a pointed response to decades of endemic sexism. She deliberately filled it with situations drawn from real life: “There’s nothing in it that isn’t extremely commonplace,” Fennell said, emphasizing that the predatory behaviors depicted are all too familiar and widespread. That commonality is precisely the point – her film suggests the problem is all around us, in every nice guy at the bar.

The surge of female-led vengeance tales and social satires is so notable that even mainstream media began to notice a new subgenre. “In a post-#MeToo world: How better to find escapist fun than by ruthlessly dispatching awful men at the multiplex?” quipped the Washington Post’s Ann Hornaday, commenting on the wave of films inviting audiences to revel in women getting payback against brutish men. From stylish rape-revenge thrillers like Promising Young Woman to action flicks with female assassins mowing down male abusers, vengeance is presented as cathartic justice. These movies have a clear emotional aim: deliver satisfaction (or at least grim vindication) by punishing or overcoming the on-screen avatars of so called “toxic masculinity”. Hornaday noted that as gratifying as this can be, it has also become formulaic: a “dubious cycle of abusive men and the women savagely getting their own back” – to the point where it’s feeling “monotonous” and even “like its own form of toxicity.” In short, flipping the gender script – making women the heroes and men the villains – may redress an age-old imbalance, but if every story is framed as Women Good, Men Bad, even some feminists worry it creates a new kind of caricature.

Still, it’s clear that for now, Hollywood (and the independent film world) sees itself as having a moral mandate. The entertainment industry was, after all, ground zero for #MeToo; now it is using the tools of storytelling to reinforce the movement’s message. As one Reuters report put it, post-Weinstein, “Hollywood is… helping to call out” bad male behavior and embed these cautionary tales into the culture. We are essentially watching a form of cultural revenge play out on screen – a backlash against generations of male-dominated narratives. If the old Hollywood exalted the suave leading man, the new Hollywood often subjects him to a trial by fire (sometimes literally). No misdeed by a male character goes unpunished by the final reel; no female character’s suffering goes unavenged. In a sense, cinema itself has become a battleground in the gender wars, with filmmakers as the activists and each film a case study in the wages of “toxic masculinity.”

“Toxic Masculinity”: From Pop Psychology to Hollywood Gospel

Central to this ideological shift is the rise of the concept of “toxic masculinity.” Coined in academic and therapeutic circles decades ago, the term entered the popular lexicon in the 2010s and has since become a catch-all in media and Hollywood for the stereotypical behaviors of men that are deemed destructive – aggression, sexual entitlement, emotional repression, violence, you name it. Feminists have adopted “toxic masculinity” as shorthand to characterize the misogynist, abusive or emotionally stunted behaviors common in men. In public discourse (and often in these films), “toxic masculinity” doesn’t refer to individual bad actors so much as it indicts an entire system of social conditioning. It’s the idea that traditional norms of manhood – the old “boys don’t cry,” “might makes right,” “sow your wild oats” mentality – create a poison that spreads through men’s psyches and, by extension, hurts women and society.

Hollywood’s new narratives have embraced this concept with zeal. In film after film, the worst male characters are practically case studies in toxic masculinity: domineering, violent, unable to empathize – and ultimately pathetic. The Barbie movie outright name-checks “patriarchy” as Ken’s newfound religion, lampooning its absurdity. Promising Young Woman all but uses the phrase toxic masculinity in its premise (the lead character feigns helpless drunkenness precisely to expose men’s ingrained predatory responses). And behind the scenes, this viewpoint has been validated by mainstream institutions. In 2018, the influential American Psychological Association (APA) released its first-ever guidelines for therapists working with boys and men, and it pointedly declared that “traditional masculinity is psychologically harmful.” The APA warned that socializing boys to be stoic, competitive and aggressive leads to a host of problems– from mental illness to violence. In effect, the APA distilled “toxic masculinity” into an official stance: the time-honored traits of manhood (strength, stoicism, dominance) were recast as risk factors or pathologies to be curbed.

Critics have noted that this concept, once fringe, is now virtually orthodoxy in liberal media and entertainment. The term “toxic masculinity” itself might not be spoken within these films’ dialogue, but its ethos undergirds them. In press junkets and interviews, creatives frequently talk about examining or deconstructing toxic masculinity through their work. For many, it’s seen as a necessary re-education of the audience. But others argue it has become a blunt instrument, pathologizing all things male. “For conservatives, the concept of toxic masculinity knocks down the virtues and ways of life they hold dear: strength, honor, duty, and bravery,” one observer writes, noting how this rhetoric essentially recasts positive male attributes as negatives. Indeed, when every traditionally masculine trait is viewed with suspicion, culture edges toward implying that masculinity itself is a disease.

Nowhere was this cultural clash more evident than in the reaction to a certain shaving razor commercial in 2019. Gillette’s now-famous advertisement, launched in the heat of #MeToo, directly invoked the phrase “toxic masculinity” and urged men to be better – to intervene against harassment, to shed the old “boys will be boys” excuses. The ad showed scenes of bullying, catcalling, and boardroom sexism, asking pointedly: “Is this the best a man can get?”, a twist on the company’s classic slogan. The backlash was immediate and ferocious. Many men (and some women) blasted the ad as an unfair generalization that “implied most men were sexual harassers or violent thugs” and was merely virtue-signaling corporate pandering. Prominent conservative actor James Woods accused Gillette of “jumping on the ‘men are horrible’ campaign”. On YouTube, the commercial’s dislikes quickly far outnumbered likes. The Gillette saga is instructive: it revealed how polarized the concept of toxic masculinity had become. To one side, it was a long-overdue call for accountability; to the other, it felt like an all-out attack on male identity.

Hollywood’s current crop of films decidedly take the former stance – they presume toxic masculinity is real and pernicious, and they set out to critique or lampoon it. The result, intentionally or not, is that a lot of traditional male behavior now shows up on screen coded as “toxic.” Stoic, emotionally distant father figure? Likely he’ll be portrayed as failing his family (The Banshees of Inisherin and The Whale in recent years both depict lonely, taciturn men whose inability to communicate leads to personal tragedy). A man who loves flirting or womanizing? He’s probably going to be either a clown (the Kens in Barbie) or a villain (the charming date-rapists of Promising Young Woman). Even righteous anger or physical courage in a man – traits that for decades were the backbone of hero archetypes – are now often shown as double-edged or outright dangerous. This isn’t to say there are no positive male characters anymore; but in the films drawing the most buzz, those characters tend to be supporting players or deliberately non-traditional men (for example, Ken in Barbie only earns sympathy once he breaks down in tears and admits his insecurities – essentially when he relinquishes the performative “alpha male” mask).

It’s a remarkable cultural pivot. We’ve gone from James Bond seducing women and saving the day with nary a thought to his macho antics, to a landscape where a character like Bond is presented as a problematic relic or subverted as an object of critique. In essence, masculinity itself has been put on trial in our movies. And the verdict from the creative class, more often than not, is guilty as charged

Gender Politics and the Culture War on Masculinity

This cinematic trend doesn’t exist in a vacuum – it mirrors and feeds into a wider sociopolitical context. In American culture especially, gender has become intensely politicized terrain in recent years, with masculinity often in the crosshairs. The “war on men” that some commentators decry is in large part a reaction to the kind of messaging Hollywood is now amplifying, messaging that aligns closely with progressive, feminist-informed politics. Indeed, the U.S. Democratic Party’s messaging and left-leaning media in the Trump and post-Trump years have frequently portrayed traditional masculinity as something suspect or needing reform. Meanwhile, conservatives have seized on this to rally men to their side, arguing that the left is demonizing half the population.

The numbers suggest a growing gender divide in political affiliation. Young men have been veering rightward, while young women have trended even more to the left, creating a stark polarization. As of 2020, fewer than 4% of U.S. marriages were between one Republican and one Democrat – Americans are increasingly even choosing romantic partners along political lines. This hints at a deeper cultural split: many young women identify with feminism and social liberalism, whereas a lot of young men, feeling attacked or alienated by that rhetoric, are gravitating to more conservative or contrarian spaces. In an era when “the personal is political,” as the saying goes, one’s stance on masculinity has practically become a litmus test. Progressives often spotlight “toxic masculinity” as a societal ill – a problem to be addressed through education, corporate initiatives, and yes, representation in media. (For example, President Biden’s administration convened a Gender Policy Council, and while its focus is largely on women’s equality, it implicitly calls for reshaping male behavior too, such as engaging men to prevent gender-based violence.) Liberal cultural outlets like The New York Times and The Atlantic have run a slew of pieces on the “problem with men” in modern dating, education, and work – implying that men need to change or face being left behind. One viral NYT essay in 2025 described a “noticeable absence of men” in public life and dating, asking plaintively, “Men, where have you gone?”. Another introduced readers to the term “heterofatalism,” the bleak notion that straight relationships are doomed by men’s inadequacies, as single women vent about the dearth of “good men” willing to commit or even date earnestly. This media drumbeat paints a picture of masculinity in crisis – but crucially, it often frames it as a crisis men themselves have caused by not adapting to modern norms. In reality, many men, feeling unfairly blamed for crimes they did not commit, have chosen to ‘check out’ of dating in a society they increasingly perceive as hostile toward them.

On the other side of the aisle, conservative politicians and pundits have leaned into defending traditional masculinity, accusing the left and Hollywood of collectively waging a “war on men.” They see the constant critiques – in ads, op-eds, Oscar-winning films – as an unfair generalization at best, and at worst, an attempt to erase what they view as healthy masculine virtues. The outrage over the Gillette ad was one flashpoint. Another is the popularity of figures like psychologist Jordan Peterson and populist senators like Josh Hawley who openly talk about a “masculinity crisis” – albeit their concern is that men are being emasculated by a feminist, liberal culture. Hawley, for instance, gave a speech in late 2021 arguing that America’s men are in decline because of “the left’s attempt to deconstruct males” and has urged a return to traditional male virtues of strength and providership. Right-wing media often mocks or lambastes Hollywood productions that it perceives as emasculating men or unduly elevating women at men’s expense (the discourse around the Barbie movie on social media was a prime example, with some conservative commentators calling it “anti-man propaganda” for its satirical jabs at the patriarchy).

This tug-of-war rhetoric filters into the entertainment itself. It’s not a coincidence that Barbie included cheeky nods to real-world gender battles – the film knew it would be divisive and leaned into it humorously (e.g. having Ken literally discover patriarchy by name). Likewise, Promising Young Woman prompted heated debates between those who saw it as an empowering feminist fantasia and those (some male, some female) who felt it portrayed all men as monsters. The cultural backlash against masculinity that our film title references is very much part of a broader culture war, one in which the Democratic-leaning camp tends to view the elevation of women and critique of men as progress, and the Republican-leaning camp sees it as demonization and folly. After #MeToo, many Democratic politicians proudly aligned themselves with the “Believe Women” mantra and put forward policies to combat “toxic masculinity” in contexts like campus sexual assault and military training. Republicans, in turn, often scoff at the term “toxic masculinity” – some have even introduced resolutions to celebrate “National Masculinity Day” to honor positive male role models, implicitly pushing back on the notion that masculinity is inherently problematic.

The result of this political and cultural climate is that young men today receive mixed messages at best. Popular culture (movies, shows, ads) may tell them that their gender is suspect and they need to reform (be more sensitive, less aggressive, relinquish power). At the same time, countervailing voices tell them they are victims of a feminist agenda, and they should hold fast to traditional manhood or risk losing themselves. It’s no wonder that many men feel bewildered or embattled. They’re hearing both, “Step aside, you’ve had your turn,” and “Stand up, don’t let them beat you down.” And nowhere is this schizophrenic messaging more evident than in the realm of entertainment and media.

Lonely, Single, and Left Behind: The Real-World Consequences for Men

Amid this cultural crossfire, men are living through a quiet crisis. By numerous statistical measures, men in Western societies are struggling – in education, in relationships, in mental health – and the timing coincides with (though is not solely caused by) the post-#MeToo cultural climate. The portrayal of men as broken in films like Anatomy of a Fall or the hapless Kens of Barbie has uncomfortable echoes in real-world trends among males. Consider some of the data:

• Young men are increasingly single and socially disconnected. A recent Pew Research Center survey found that a whopping 63% of U.S. men under 30 report being single, nearly double the share of women in the same age group (34%). In generations past, young men were more likely to have a steady partner than young women (in part due to earlier marriage norms); now the script, pun intended, has flipped. Even more striking, most single young men aren’t even looking for relationships or dates. Between 2019 and 2022 – precisely as cultural messages about men’s toxicity grew louder – the percentage of single men under 30 who say they are actively seeking a romantic partner plummeted from 61% to 50%. In essence, half of young single men have just opted out of dating entirely. Social scientists tie this to a mix of factors: economic woes, porn and video game escapism, fear of rejection or #MeToo-style allegations, and an overarching sense of alienation. By contrast, single women’s interest in dating did not decline nearly as much in that period.
• Marriage and family formation have sharply declined for men. In the late 1970s, less than 10% of American men reached age 40 without ever being married. By 2021, that figure had tripled to 28%. Marriage rates are falling across the board, but again men seem to be pulling back more. Many men, especially working-class men, express uncertainty about their economic viability as husbands or disillusionment with the institution of marriage. The rise of voices disparaging men as inherently problematic might play a psychological role: some men question whether they’re wanted or valued in a committed partnership beyond their paycheck. We also see declining birth rates and fewer men becoming fathers, correlating with the marriage drop. It’s as if a large chunk of a generation of men is bowing out of the traditional adult milestones – some by choice, others by feeling unwelcome or unworthy.
• While loneliness affects both sexes, certain measures show men falling behind in social connection. An oft-cited statistic: In 1990, only 3% of men in the U.S. said they had no close friends. By 2021, 15% of men – five times as many – reported having no close friendships. This suggests modern life has become more isolating for everyone, but men have had a harder time maintaining support networks. Men also report fewer people they can confide in about personal problems compared to women. A Gallup poll found a quarter of young men (ages 15–34) say they feel lonely “a lot”, higher than the rate for young women (18%) in that survey.
• Educationally and economically, men are lagging. Women now earn about 70% of university degrees, leaving a growing cohort of undereducated young men. To a large extent this is the result of affirmative actions which was instituted in the 1970s, when the numbers have been reversed. But of course, today, nobody is calling to pause these advantages that women receive, not to mention on reversing them. Boys have higher dropout rates and lower college enrollment, and this education gap then feeds the dating gap (college-educated women often don’t want to “date down” educationally, leaving non-college men with fewer partner options – a dynamic some of those frustrated NYT essays allude to). On the job front, men have seen declines in labor force participation. A smaller proportion of “prime age” men (ages 25–54) are working today than in previous generations, in part due to the loss of manufacturing jobs and other traditionally male-dominated industries, but also because they know that they face unfair “reversed” discrimination and DEI policies.
• Mental health and suicide disparities are alarming. Men worldwide (and in the U.S.) die by suicide at roughly four times the rate of women. They also comprise the vast majority of overdose deaths and are disproportionately victims of alcohol-related illness – suggesting self-medicating behaviors. Part of this is long-standing (men have always had higher suicide rates, likely tied to methods used and societal pressures). But the concern is that as men’s social and economic prospects diminish, and as they internalize society’s messages about men being “problems,” their mental wellbeing may further erode. The APA warned that socializing boys to suppress emotions leads to damage, and indeed one could argue we are seeing it: a generation of young men who feel lost, angry, or without purpose. Some retreat into nihilism or resentful online subcultures (e.g. “incel” forums or anti-feminist Reddit channels), which only reinforces their alienation. Others simply check out of ambition and relationships, opting for a quiet life of minimal responsibilities – a trend documented in Japan (“hikikomori” hermits) and increasingly noted in Western countries too. The recent assassination of Charlie Kirk, by a young man who could easily be described as someone suffering from all of the above, is a case in point.
  

How much of this male malaise can be blamed on the “cultural backlash against masculinity” is up for debate. Certainly, economic and technological forces are huge factors. But it’s hard to ignore the feedback loop between cultural narratives and individual self-concept. If young men constantly encounter stories where men are brutish or superfluous, might it shape how they see themselves? When every role model in media seems to either be a flawed antihero who must be humbled or a doofus in need of correction, some men may just disengage rather than fight a tide that portrays them as the problem. The data on dating, for instance, suggests a resignation: many young men are not even trying to form relationships, possibly out of fear of rejection or of doing the “wrong” thing. (Notably, after #MeToo, surveys found a percentage of men – and women – felt less comfortable with casual flirting at work or approaching strangers, worried that behavior could be misinterpreted. One often cited effect of #MeToo was that men became reluctant to approach women in public for fear of crossing a line, being called “a creep”, or ending up as a TikTok video viewed and tens of millions of times.

This might be a net positive for women’s comfort, but it also could contribute to a chilling effect on men’s social initiation. Meanwhile, some of the more dire consequences hit not only men but society at large. For example, the loneliness and aimlessness of men can have political fallout – disaffected young men are often drawn to extremist ideologies or demagogic leaders who promise to restore their pride. There’s evidence of this in the rise of online misogynist movements, but also in broader politics: the gender gap in voting is at historic highs, with men more likely to support populist or right-wing candidates who explicitly push back on liberal social trends. This can further polarize and fragment communities. And on a very personal level, the struggles of men cascade onto the women and children around them: a generation of women faces a shortage of economically stable and emotionally available male partners, and millions of children are growing up with minimal or no involvement from their fathers (since unmarried, disengaged men often end up detached from family life).

In short, the “war on men” is not just a metaphor playing out in think-pieces and movies – it has flesh-and-blood consequences we can measure. Marriage rates down, male college attendance down, mental distress up, life satisfaction down. Whether one believes these outcomes are largely self-inflicted (men failing to adapt to a changing world) or exacerbated by a culture that gives young men few positive scripts to aspire to, the end result is the same: a lot of men are not thriving. They are, to borrow the title of a recent book by economist Nicholas Eberstadt, “men without work,” and perhaps without love or solidarity, too.

Recently even CNN has dedicated a whole hour to the subject with Rahm Emanuel, a member of the Democratic Party, who represented Illinois in the U.S. House of Representatives for three terms from 2003 to 2009 and was also White House chief of staff from 2009 to 2010 under President Barack Obama. He also served as Mayor of Chicago from 2011 to 2019. In the interview, Rahm raised the following points:

a Plea for Balance

The current narrative, wherein masculinity is so often equated with toxicity or inadequacy, poses the question: what vision of masculinity are we offering for the future? If boys and young men are told everything associated with traditional manhood is bad, do we risk creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of disengagement and resentment? Conversely, if we ignore the very real issues of sexism and abuse that #MeToo has highlighted, we risk sliding backwards into silence and complicity. The challenge – for filmmakers, for society – is to find a balance: to continue calling out and rejecting the genuinely toxic behaviors of a very small minority of men without tipping into a blanket vilification of men as a class.

For now, the films on our screens act less like a mirror than a hammer – striking at masculinity as though it were the root of society’s problems. They portray men primarily as aggressors and women as survivors, rarely pausing to acknowledge that men themselves are also hurting. The real-world data is stark: men make up the majority of the homeless, the majority of suicides, and nearly 90% of murder victims. Yet in culture and media, these realities are muted, while the narrative of male guilt is amplified.

A healthier cultural conversation would separate bad behavior from manhood itself. It would recognize that condemning violence or abuse is necessary, but that vilifying masculinity as a whole is destructive and misleading. The current zeitgeist leans too heavily on accusation and too little on compassion.

In the meantime, the “war on men” in cinema reflects a broader hostility in society – a warning that traditional manhood is no longer celebrated, but caricatured. The challenge ahead is not to polarize further by painting one gender as oppressor and the other as victim, but to redefine relationships between the genders in a way that values both men and women.

Reactions to THE article

The popular YouTube channel Film Threat covered this article, and we’d like to highlight some of the more disheartening comments from its viewers.

The Film Threat cover of this article:

Sources:

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2005.079020
https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/gsh/2023/GSH23_ExSum.pdf
https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/gsh/2023/Global_study_on_homicide_2023_web.pdf
https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240110069
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cfoi.pdf
https://www.cardiff.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/2910480/Serious-Violence-in-England-and-Wales_Violence-Research-Groups-24th-Annual-Report_2024.pdf
https://ourworldindata.org/why-do-women-live-longer-than-men
https://www.unodc.org/unodc/data-and-analysis/world-drug-report-2024.html
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/natureofsexualassaultbyrapeorpenetrationenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2020

The post Cinema’s Formula for Awards & Festivals: The Humiliation and Vilification of Men first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

By Alexa Morden

In 2024, Film Industry Watch published a piece titled “The Disappearance of TSG Casting and Talent Status: A Tale of Uncertainty and Loss”, which raised important questions about the sudden vanishing of an agency that left some actors and parents of child actors unpaid, confused, and misled. At the time, there was no clear answer as to where TSG Casting had gone or what had happened to the people behind it.

Now, after weeks of investigation, victim outreach, and independent reporting, I have that answer: TSG Casting didn’t disappear, it rebranded. But the allegations and reports of withheld pay and unpaid fees followed. What started as a solo investigation into a agency sparked a BBC primetime news feature across the UK, exposing the scale of exploitation behind the fraudulent ‘Lucy Harrison Casting.’ This piece digs deeper, uncovering how the same behaviour was able to persist and resurface under new names for years – despite having already been exposed.

TSG Casting and Talent Status Group became Lucy Harrison Casting (LHC) — an agency that, as of 2025, is at the centre of multiple allegations of financial misconduct, fraud, misrepresentation, and legal intimidation. It seems the same woman who ran TSG is operating LHC under the alias “Lucy Harrison” — a name not connected to any Companies House filings or legal ownership of any business. In fact, “Lucy Harrison Casting” and its CEO “Lucy Harrison” don’t appear anywhere online outside of their own website, Facebook, and Instagram page.

It appears that this fabricated persona was used to continue a pattern of financial abuse with a layer of plausible deniability. I discovered all of this because I recognised the red flags in comments on social media, having already been at the heart of unearthing other industry malpractice over the past 18 months. This included the “Bodhi Talent Scandal,” where a con-artist agent used actors’ work and fake cancer charity workshops to steal money before being exposed, filing for bankruptcy, and disappearing.

I’ve learned to pick up on patterns of bad practice and the emotional manipulation that usually comes with them. It’s not hard for a rogue agent to take advantage of the hierarchy that exists in this industry — a hierarchy that often leaves actors feeling that if they speak out or ask questions, even when warranted, they are “rocking the boat” or risking their careers.

Through my experiences helping creatives facing wrongdoing in the entertainment and performing arts industries, I’ve found that malpractice and exploitation are not only rife but also enabled by an unregulated system that leaves those affected isolated, unsupported, and often silenced. Reports, if made, aren’t taken seriously, or if they are, organisations claim there’s only so much they can do.

So, it seems to come down to those of us outside the traditional structures being forced to do what no one else is doing — collecting evidence, connecting the dots, offering support, and making noise in the hope that the silence finally breaks.

This isn’t a job I ever expected, or wanted, to be doing, but when the industry refuses to protect its most vulnerable, we have no choice but to protect each other. That’s why I’m writing this article: so you can be equipped not only with this information but also with a roadmap of red flags to look out for — so you don’t become unwittingly caught up in something like this.

Even now, with regulatory bodies investigating LHC, reports being made to the police and Action Fraud, and an eye-watering running total of money owed, industry organisations still feel they can’t let LHC clients left in the lurch know why their agent is under investigation — or warn them about the steps they likely need to be taking if they’ve booked work via this agency.

LHC is even claiming to some clients that they intend to continue working as an agency, and to rejoin casting directories, under a new name. With no public notice, no safeguarding guidance, and no duty of care being shown to those still potentially at risk, what’s to stop them?

I’m just an actor — an actor who, seven years ago, started a podcast and online platform that speaks honestly about the realities of working in this business, and the parts that no one else tends to spotlight. I never set out to become an investigator, whistleblower, or advocate. But when people come to you with nowhere else to turn, or no one else who will listen — you listen. And you act.

Because silence, in this industry, protects abusers and enables cycles of exploitation. Speaking out protects others. It creates ripples, it gets people talking, and it helps to break harmful patterns.

When I began my sleuthing into “Lucy Harrison Casting” and the “well-known scammer” behind the agency (as described in an article I found on this very website), I was prepared to find dodgy dealings, questionable pasts, and mishandled money. What I didn’t expect was to hear mothers of child actors as young as two telling me stories about financial fraud.

What began as a few familiar warning signs soon grew into an archive of testimonies, documents, emails, and inconsistencies that could not be ignored.

There is so much to share in regards to this case, and you can hear the most important findings in “Lucy Harrison Casting: A Cautionary Tale” on The 98% podcast. But in a nutshell: Lucy Harrison Casting is not who, or what, it claimed to be. It is the latest in a string of agencies used to exploit actors, conceal financial misconduct, and avoid accountability.

What started as a few comments in a Facebook group regarding late payments and invoicing confusion around this agency led me to discover that LHC was using a company called “Happy House Productions” to handle their finances. Actors were told to invoice HHP in order to be paid for jobs. This is not standard practice and seemed to blur the lines of accountability over who was actually responsible for paying actors — a tactic that benefitted the agency, not the talent, who were waiting months, and in some cases years, for money owed.

Payments ranged from small recall fees to huge commercial buyouts. Typically, an agent invoices the production company directly. The payment is then deposited into a client account — a protected fund that the agent has no legal right to dip into. Once the agreed commission is taken, the remaining fee is sent to the actor, along with a remittance — a document showing the original payment amount, what was deducted, and what the actor has received.

When actors started chasing Lucy Harrison Casting for payment from jobs they had worked on, LHC claimed they had nothing to do with the finances and directed them to Happy House Productions instead, insisting the two companies were totally separate and unrelated. This has since been proven false, considering the director of HHP appears to be married to Marianna — the woman who seems to be operating Lucy Harrison Casting, and the same person previously behind TSG Casting.

Now that Happy House Productions has entered liquidation and is under investigation by regulatory bodies, LHC has shifted the narrative — stating they’ve been suspended from casting platform Spotlight due to HHP’s financial situation. LHC even tried to blame me (through unfounded legal threats) for “them” going into liquidation, with no mention of HHP at all. So, were they connected to Happy House or not? It seemed they couldn’t keep their own story straight.

They were also clearly unaware that I had already discovered a charge filed in January 2025 showing that Happy House Productions had entered into a financing agreement with Apollo Business Finance — a company that provides invoice financing, where a business receives most of the value of an invoice upfront from a third party, who later collects the full amount from the client and keeps a percentage as their fee.

We can learn a lot from this situation, which is why in my podcast episode I break down my armchair investigation from start to finish — so you can learn how to do your own due diligence when working with an agent. I walk through the red flags I spotted on the LHC website, what I uncovered through Companies House, and how to access public records that anyone can find. I also explain some of the laws and legalities around payments — things every actor should know, but that no one ever really teaches us.

For example, in the UK it is unlawful for an agent to hold onto an actor’s money for more than ten days. If a production company sends your fee to your agent, and that agent fails to transfer it to you within ten days, that is illegal. There is no reason for you not to have that money right away.

It is also illegal for an agent to access or use any money held in the client account. That money belongs to you, the client — not the agent. So, if an agent ever says they’re having “cash flow problems,” or are unable to pay invoices themselves, that is not to be taken lightly. An agent should never have cash flow issues, because the money coming in should be going directly back out to the actors who did the work, minus the agent’s agreed commission.

When Lucy Harrison Casting launched, some actors were told they needed to pay for headshots through the agency in order to be represented or put forward for work. It is unlawful in the UK for an agent to require any sort of fee or paid-for service to join the agency. No agent should ever make you pay upfront for classes, workshops, headshots, coaching, or admin fees as a condition of signing with them.

Dozens of actors have now reported tens of thousands of pounds in unpaid earnings. Some have discovered discrepancies between what LHC invoiced production companies and what they were told they were paid. Children have had wages withheld or stolen entirely. Some clients had no idea they were owed buyouts or re-air fees that were paid to the agent months ago — until they contacted production directly.

When challenged, LHC and Marianna seemed to resort to gaslighting, manipulation, and, in some cases, intimidation. As well as not being transparent with clients and misleading industry professionals (including casting directors), LHC even sent emails to Equity and Spotlight about a former client, in what appeared to be an attempt to keep her quiet about her experience. I’ve seen these shocking emails myself, described by the actor as “slanderous.” Instead, this actor thankfully used her voice to warn others in a whistleblowing interview on The 98%.

I also received threats personally — emails that seemed to be AI-generated legal jargon. They were sent, I believe, to scare me into not releasing the information I had gathered after I offered them a right to reply for the podcast episode, which I had aimed to release in good faith and in the interest of the public. I was somewhat expecting this kind of threatening language and intimidation, having seen it used as a tactic to silence people I had helped in the past. (I have since learned that just because someone threatens you with legal action doesn’t mean they have a case.)

I’ve even heard from other actors, and parents of child actors, about agents elsewhere threatening legal action for things such as speaking directly to production, or sharing their opinion on social media. (Things you are well within your rights to do. And FYI — there can be no “defamation case” if what you are sharing is true, especially when you have evidence.)

From small suggestions and prompts to clients, we now have investigations by government bodies and yet another liquidated company to add to the list of this rogue agent’s operations. But this story is not yet over, and many involved feel not enough is being done. More victims are coming forward each week, and legal proceedings may follow. But the main worry is that the people behind this years-long scam will simply continue, as they have before, while those they have exploited are left to deal with financial instability, shame, regret, a loss of confidence, and a sense of distrust that may never fully leave them — without much assurance that something like this won’t happen again.

Hopefully we, as an industry, can learn from this. Not just in regard to specific individuals from rogue agencies, but by looking more critically at how the system itself is allowed to operate. There must be change: actual regulation around who can become an agent, stricter codes of conduct, more safeguarding in place when things go wrong, and more scrutiny regarding people with sole management of other people’s money.

In the meantime, we as actors can start to take our power back. As Karis, the former LHC client, said on The 98%:

“I understand my worth. I understand my value. I have enough self-respect and integrity, confidence and dignity, to know when I can stand up and shout loudly. I won’t be taken advantage of.”

Speaking out makes a difference. Don’t let fear keep you small. Anyone who makes you feel like speaking out against wrongdoing will “ruin your career” is someone who benefits from the fear that myth creates. A good agent wouldn’t want you to feel intimidated — they would want you to feel empowered.

This all started unravelling because a few actors began speaking online, and then joined together to figure things out and seek help. Those who take advantage of others in this industry have benefitted from a system built on silence and fear for too long. The best way to dismantle that system is to use your voice — for yourself, and for others. Because the more we shine a light on what certain people would rather keep in the dark, the fewer places they have left to hide.

If you have been affected by Lucy Harrison Casting or an agency acting similarly, you are not alone. In the episode description of The 98% podcast exposing LHC, you’ll find a link with clear, practical next steps to take if an agent is withholding payment you are entitled to.

Listen to The 98% podcast wherever you get podcasts.
Follow @the98percentpod.

The 98% is now a newly registered Community Interest Company, created to continue advocacy, education, and awareness for actors navigating an unregulated industry. If you, or someone you know, is interested in financially supporting a grassroots organisation with the aim of protecting performers, promoting transparency, and providing support — please get in touch: the98percentpod@gmail.com.

Timeline

OCT 2022 — TSG Casting applied to voluntarily dissolve the agency on Companies House (believed to be due to complaints surfacing regarding late payments).

DEC 2022 — Some TSG clients receive an email from “Lucy Harrison” (reportedly Marianna — the woman who ran TSG — posing under an alias) saying she was “leaving” TSG and “starting her own agency,” Lucy Harrison Casting. No formal announcement is made to clarify TSG’s closure.

EARLY 2023 — LHC becomes active. Actors are pressured into purchasing headshots directly from the agency to be considered for work — an unlawful and unethical practice. Marianna attends certain photography sessions but introduces herself as “Lucy.”

MARCH 2023 — People are told Lucy is off on bereavement leave after the “sudden death of her mother.”

EARLY FEB 2024 — The 98% helps expose the conman agent behind “Bodhi Talent” and raises awareness around the issue of rogue agencies and bad practice.

LATE FEB 2024 — The 98% receives the first email from a former LHC client detailing how actors were required to pay for headshots with “Lucy” in order to be represented and put forward for work. LHC is reported to UK actor union Equity, but the complaint is dismissed.

JAN 2025 — Happy House Productions (the company handling the finances of LHC and payments to actors) enters into a charge agreement with Apollo Finance, a third-party financing company. This indicates the agency had borrowed against future earnings while still owing money to actors.

EARLY MAY 2025 — Social media chatter opens a dialogue regarding late payments and questionable correspondence from LHC and Happy House Productions.

MID MAY 2025 — LHC clients receive a round-robin email saying Lucy is “off work with PTSD after a sudden bereavement.” People are told on the phone it is Lucy’s mother that has died (again). Maz and Allison (the “bookers” at LHC) claim they do not have access to the accounts to pay people, but that Lucy will return at the end of June.

LATE MAY 2025 — Alexa of The 98% begins her armchair investigation into LHC, TSG, and the woman behind the agencies, Marianna. Advice is posted on social media about how to recover money owed. LHC clients begin requesting remittances from production companies. Discrepancies are confirmed between what was invoiced and what actors received — if money was ever received at all.

JUNE 2025 — Legal threats and libellous emails are issued from LHC in an attempt to silence those speaking out. The 98% publishes the episode unveiling information gathered. Regulatory bodies confirm that LHC and Happy House are the same entity. Investigations begin, and LHC is suspended from UK casting directory Spotlight. Happy House goes into liquidation, but some LHC clients receive an email saying LHC intends to continue under a new name (the same pattern as with TSG) and that Lucy won’t be returning. LHC cites an “online smear campaign.”

JULY 2025 — As actors and parents of child actors chase payment and ask production companies for remittances, evidence emerges that all manner of money had been withheld or stolen.

AUGUST 2025 — EASI continues to investigate. Some actors prepare to take Marianna and Edward Lightfoot to small claims court. LHC attempts to continue operating under “Happy House Media.” The website and Facebook page for LHC remain live — until the BBC covers the story.

Alexa Morden is an award-winning actor and founder of The 98% CIC — a newly registered Community Interest Company dedicated to advocacy, education, and systemic change in the entertainment industry. Through her coaching and consultancy service Acting With Alexa, Alexa supports actors in their craft and careers with empowerment and confidence. Through her podcast, online platform, coaching, and investigative work, she champions transparency, accountability, and the changes needed for a safer, fairer industry.

@alexa_morden | @the98percentpod | @acting.with.alexa

Legal Disclaimer

This article is an investigative report written by the author and published by Film Industry Watch for the purposes of public interest, transparency, and education within the entertainment industry. The content of this article is based on information obtained from publicly available records, direct communications, and accounts provided by individuals. Every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of the material presented.

All statements contained herein are made in good faith and are based on evidence available at the time of publication. Any expressions of opinion are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of Film Industry Watch. Neither the author nor Film Industry Watch intends to harm the reputation of any individual or organisation. If subsequent evidence emerges that materially alters the facts as reported, corrections or clarifications may be issued.

Nothing in this article should be taken as legal advice. Readers are encouraged to seek independent legal or professional guidance where necessary. If you find any error in the article, please contact us immediately.

To the fullest extent permitted by law, Film Industry Watch and the author disclaim all liability for any loss, damage, or inconvenience arising from reliance on the information contained in this publication.

The post Changing Names, Not Behaviour: Inside the LHC Scandal (The Disappearance of TSG Casting) first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

When Variety published “Disney’s Boy Trouble: Studio Seeks Original IP to Win Back Gen-Z Men” this week, it read like an inadvertent confession. After years of messaging that male audiences were passé, that “male and pale is stale” and “the future is female”, Disney now finds itself desperately courting the very demographic it spent a decade marginalizing.

The article, by Matt Donnelly, reveals Disney leadership “pressing Hollywood creatives in recent months” for projects specifically targeting young men, while offering the comfortable explanation that Gen-Z males are simply a “lonely, gaming-obsessed group hampered by COVID-19 lockdowns.” It’s a telling deflection that studiously avoids the more obvious cause of male audience abandonment.

YouTube commentator The Critical Drinker wasted no time dismantling this narrative in his response video, delivering a characteristically blunt assessment: “You might utterly despise men and everything they represent. But when it comes to that increasingly uncomfortable meeting with the accountants every few months, well, it turns out that you kind of need them.”

His provocative analysis exposes a fundamental market reality that Hollywood has been reluctant to acknowledge: systematic audience alienation has measurable financial consequences.

The Pattern: Deconstruction as Creative Strategy

As we has documented in our previous gender-related investigations, the entertainment industry’s approach to male characters over the past decade represents a systematic pattern rather than isolated creative choices. The Critical Drinker’s inventory of “cultural assassinations” provides a stark illustration:

Luke Skywalker transformed from heroic mentor to “suicidal hermit” in The Last Jedi, a creative decision that triggered years of fan backlash and required repeated public explanations from director Rian Johnson. Even Mark Hamill has since shared alternative backstories he wished had informed Luke’s arc.

Thor repositioned as comic relief (“Fat Thor”) in Endgame, trivializing trauma for laughs in a way that sparked mainstream criticism about the normalization of body shaming, even from outlets typically supportive of Marvel’s creative choices.

Indiana Jones portrayed as a diminished, aging figure in Dial of Destiny, completing what many fans saw as the systematic de-mythologizing of cinema’s most beloved adventurer.

None of these choices is inherently wrong – heroes can and should face failure and growth. But the systematic nature of these deconstructions suggests institutional policy rather than organic storytelling evolution.

The Double Standard Test -Sex and the City Gender Swap

The Critical Drinker’s most piercing observation comes through a thought experiment that exposes Hollywood’s asymmetrical approach to gender representation. Imagine, he suggests, rebooting Sex and the City where half the female characters are gender-swapped, the glamour of Manhattan social life is replaced with muscle cars and gun ranges, and every episode includes lectures about “the challenges of modern life for men.”

The universal recognition that such a reboot would be ridiculed reveals the double standard at play. Studios treat male-focused storytelling as something that must be corrected or diluted, while female-focused content is allowed, rightfully, to remain true to its core audience.

This isn’t about opposing women’s stories or diverse representation. It’s about recognizing that segmented audiences are how successful entertainment works, as proven by both Top Gun: Maverick and Barbie, films that succeeded precisely because they embraced rather than apologized for their core demographics.

Industry-Wide Institutional Bias

Disney’s predicament reflects broader patterns Film Industry Watch has been tracking across the industry. Our previous investigations have documented similar systematic approaches to gender representation: our reporting on Israel’s Jerusalem Film Festival revealed an institutional climate where male filmmakers alleged systematic exclusion from programming and funding opportunities.

Similarly, our analysis of Israel’s Ophir Awards highlighted unusual demographic disparities, 11 female nominees to one male in key categories, that fueled perceptions of ideological considerations overriding merit-based selection.

These aren’t isolated incidents but manifestations of what we’ve identified as the systematic corruption of fairness in cultural institutions. When ideological signaling drives creative and curatorial decisions, audience trust inevitably erodes, and eventually, so do box office receipts.

The “Girl Boss” Problem and Universal Audience Rejection

The Critical Drinker’s analysis of the “girl boss” archetype reveals another dimension of Hollywood’s systematic miscalculation. These characters, invincible, untested, narratively frictionless, failed to resonate with any demographic, including the women they were ostensibly designed to attract.

The problem wasn’t strong female characters but checkbox character design. As we’ve documented in our previous analysis of thematic mandates in filmmaking, audiences can identify when characters exist to serve messaging rather than story. The resulting rejection spans gender lines because good storytelling transcends demographic categories.

Market Reality Meets Ideological Programming

The Variety article’s acknowledgment that Disney is actively soliciting “original IP” to court Gen-Z men represents more than creative repositioning, it’s an admission that ideological programming has market limits. When audience abandonment becomes measurable, studios face an uncomfortable choice between ideological consistency and commercial viability.

The article’s attempt to blame external factors, COVID lockdowns, social isolation, gaming culture, while ignoring content choices reveals the industry’s reluctance to acknowledge its own role in audience alienation. This mirrors patterns we’ve observed in other cultural institutions that prefer to attribute criticism to external factors rather than examine internal practices.

Three Rules for Audience Recovery

Based on both The Critical Drinker’s analysis and Film Industry Watch’s broader investigation of industry practices, effective audience recovery requires straightforward acknowledgments:

Allow demographic preferences without apology. Top Gun: Maverick succeeded by delivering on its promises to its core audience. Barbie worked because it embraced rather than diluted its perspective. Segmentation isn’t discrimination, it’s how entertainment markets function. Stop systematically diminishing legacy heroes. Writing compelling female characters doesn’t require demolishing male archetypes. The pattern of Luke, Thor and Indiana Jones represents institutional policy, not creative coincidence.

Restore aspirational masculinity as a legitimate archetype. The Critical Drinker’s call for “masculine heroes” doesn’t mean returning to one-dimensional stereotypes, but rather characters who are “smart, capable, assertive, confident, complex, and maybe even a bit dangerous”, the classic mentor/warrior/rogue spectrum that made multiple generations fall in love with cinema.

Merit Over Mandates

We supports authentic stories featuring all demographics and recognizes the importance of expanding opportunities for historically underrepresented voices. However, we maintain that genuine diversity emerges from creative freedom rather than institutional mandates. The systematic exclusion of certain perspectives, whether male experiences, traditional values, or politically neutral storytelling, represents the same corruption of fairness we’ve documented in festival programming and funding decisions. When institutions prioritize demographic representation over narrative excellence, they serve no audience well.

It is impossible to quantify how many compelling stories about male experiences, fatherhood, or traditional masculine virtues were never developed because they didn’t align with institutional preferences. The same creative constraints that exclude authentic male perspectives also limit the full spectrum of human experience that cinema exists to explore.

The Audience Speaks

The reaction to The Critical Drinker’s video underscores how deep the alienation runs. Top-voted comments describe the shift in blunt economic terms: “buy a steakhouse, turn it vegan, and then get mad at the customer for not liking it.” Others highlight how creators openly bragged about provoking male fans (“The She-Hulk writers bragged about deliberately making content to piss off male fans”), or note the simple calculus of disengagement (“They told me that franchises didn’t want my money anymore, I just did what I was told”).

Several comments echoed the broader trend beyond Disney: “Disney wanted to lecture, they lost. Gillette wanted to lecture, they lost. Bud Light wanted to lecture, they lost.” The recurring theme is not resistance to female characters or social change, but frustration with being lectured, ridiculed, or deliberately excluded. As one commenter summarized: “We were told to go away and did so. Good luck getting us back.”

This direct feedback reinforces the Drinker’s central claim: audience abandonment was not caused by external factors like gaming or lockdowns, but by a cultural strategy that treated customers as adversaries.

The Accounting Reckoning

Disney’s scramble to “win back Gen-Z men” isn’t mysterious, it’s mathematics catching up to messaging. When studios spend years reframing male audiences as a pathology and male heroes as punchlines, disengagement becomes the rational response.

The Critical Drinker’s core observation remains undeniable: “When you decide to treat half your audience as the enemy, that’s exactly what you turn them into.” Disney’s current predicament represents the inevitable outcome of systematic audience alienation in service of ideological signaling, with absolutely no merit or quality writing.

The question facing not just Disney but the broader entertainment industry is whether this expensive lesson will produce genuine course correction or merely cosmetic adjustments. Market forces suggest that audience preferences will ultimately prevail over institutional mandates, but the industry’s response to its own accounting crisis will determine whether that correction comes through internal reform or external market pressure.

As The Critical Drinker concludes, “men as a demographic are not all that difficult to please. Treat them with a bit of respect, give them the things that they enjoy, and you’ll be surprised how quickly they come around.” The same principle applies to all audiences: authentic storytelling that respects rather than lectures viewers will find its market regardless of demographic calculations. The entertainment industry’s path forward depends on whether it can rediscover the principle that built these valuable franchises in the first place: serving audiences rather than instructing them.

The post Gender Wars – The Vanishing Male Audience, Hollywood’s Self-Inflicted “Boy Trouble” first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

In her recent video “Scientific research has big problems, and it’s getting worse,” physicist Sabine Hossenfelder delivers a devastating critique of modern scientific research. Her analysis reveals how economic incentives have inverted the relationship between merit and success, creating what she calls “the natural selection of bad science.” Hossenfelder identifies three critical problems: occasional outright fraud, growing organized scams, and most pervasively, a broken incentive structure that rewards researchers for producing easily citable but ultimately useless work rather than meaningful breakthroughs.

What makes Hossenfelder’s critique particularly illuminating is not just its accuracy about science, but how perfectly it maps onto the film industry’s own systemic corruption. Her observation that “the ‘winning strategy’ in science has become to be useless” could just as easily describe both Hollywood’s sequel addiction and European cinema’s thematic mandates. When she notes that “most scientists don’t see what they’re doing as wrong; they’ve been taught it’s standard practice,” she unwittingly diagnoses the same mentality that has normalized risk aversion, formulaic content, and ideological compliance throughout the global film industry.

The physicist’s analysis provides an unexpected roadmap for understanding how business-as-usual corruption degrades not just individual careers, but entire cultural systems, turning institutions meant to advance human knowledge or artistic expression into vehicles for channeling resources toward predetermined formulas, safe commercial bets, and approved social themes.

The Fashion Problem: How Trends Corrupt Both Science and Film

Hossenfelder identifies a crucial problem in scientific research: the tendency for “sexy” and “fashionable” topics to receive disproportionate funding, regardless of their scientific merit. Research projects are shaped less by intellectual merit, more by the chance to ride the latest trends and attract grants. As one researcher in her analysis notes: “Funding calls for ‘sexy projects'” that “skew/select specific trends, and then everyone jumps on the bandwagon”, creating bubbles that “suck funding away from other directions.”

The film industry exhibits identical “fashion” phenomena across both commercial Hollywood and art-house European cinema. Both systems have become systematically constrained by trending formulas that guarantee funding and recognition while crowding out genuine innovation.

Hollywood’s Commercial Fashion: The Superhero Industrial Complex

Hollywood exhibits this trend-following to an extreme through its endless remake cycle of superhero films, reliance on established intellectual property, and production of sequels and prequels. These are filmic equivalents of the “sexy research topics” Hossenfelder warns about: easy to sell, easy to justify, guaranteed to fit market expectations, and virtually guaranteed to absorb resources at the expense of original voices. The numbers tell the story of systematic creative degradation:

• The percentage of top-grossing films that are sequels or prequels more than doubled from 9% in 2005 to 22% in 2014
• By 2025, the vast majority of Hollywood’s box office is built on reboots, prequels, sequels, and spin-offs
• Of the 50 highest-grossing movies of all time, 41 are sequels, reboots, or remakes
  

Superhero movies and franchises like Marvel and DC have dominated Hollywood for decades, delivering reliable profits and merchandising opportunities but crowding out space for original works. Even as recent failures and “superhero fatigue” emerge, the industry clings to these formulas as safety nets, mirroring how unfalsifiable scientific trends persist for years despite declining returns.

This represents pure exploitation rather than innovation, closely paralleling science’s drift away from bold, challenging research toward “safe,” trendy topics that guarantee citations.

European Cinema’s Thematic Fashion: The Social Justice Mandate

If superhero franchises represent Hollywood’s commercial “scientific fashion,” European cinema has developed its own systematic trend-following through institutionalized diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) requirements and social justice mandates.

Major European cultural institutions now operate explicit thematic preferences:

• The Academy Awards’ “Representation and Inclusion Standards” mandate specific diversity criteria for Best Picture consideration, requiring central storylines about underrepresented groups including women, racial minorities, and LGBTQ+ communities
• European funding agencies through Creative Europe programmes prioritize projects dealing with predetermined social themes
• Festival programming increasingly emphasizes social justice narratives over artistic innovation
• Women-focused funding streams and gender quotas across Nordic countries channel resources toward female-centric films, sometimes resulting in female directors receiving higher average production budgets than their male counterparts
  

The result mirrors exactly what Hossenfelder describes in corrupted scientific research: resources flow overwhelmingly toward predetermined categories rather than genuine innovation, creating the same “bubble effects” that crowd out authentic artistic exploration.

Gender Takes Center Stage With 40–60% of Grand Prize winners: Trending Themes in Major Film Festival Awards

This industry-wide “fashion” for trending topics is reflected in how the world’s leading film festivals have selected their top prize winners over the last several years. Just as Hossenfelder points out science’s susceptibility to bandwagons, the film world is equally drawn to current themes, in particular, gender, identity, and social justice. A substantial and increasing share of Grand Prize or “Best Film” winners at the top ten international festivals now feature gender as a central theme, whether through women’s stories, LGBTQ+ identity, or direct engagement with issues of gender justice.

• At Cannes, Berlin, Venice, Locarno, Sundance, Toronto, San Sebastian, and beyond, major awards in recent years have frequently gone to films centered around female protagonists, feminist narratives, or broader gender and identity concerns.
• Examples include “Anatomy of a Fall” (Cannes), “Dreams (Sex Love)” and other gender-focused stories (Berlin), “Toxic” (Locarno), “Seagrass” (Toronto), and a succession of Sundance winners foregrounding women’s or LGBTQ+ themes.
• By sampling recent awards and jury statements, most film industry observers estimate that 40–60% of Grand Prize winners at major festivals since 2022 feature a gender or social justice theme, sometimes even more in certain years.
  

This pattern demonstrates how, much like in science, filmmakers now tailor their work for maximum festival and funding appeal—not simply for creative originality, but to align with prevailing themes of the moment.

To be clear, Film Industry Watch supports authentic stories about gender, social justice, and all underrepresented communities, and recognizes the vital importance of expanding opportunities for historically marginalized artists. However, we oppose any form of top-down censorship, mandated themes, or institutional requirements that force filmmakers to conform to predetermined narratives. True diversity and creative progress arise not from quotas or fashion, but from the freedom of artists to pursue their unique visions without pressure to align their work with external agendas. Championing social causes must never come at the cost of artistic independence or the wide spectrum of human experience that cinema exists to reflect. It is impossible to quantify how many compelling films exploring, for example, men’s experiences or fatherhood were never written, funded, or programmed simply because their themes did not align with prevailing trends. The same could be said for works examining rural life, aging, or apolitical human dilemma, stories that may be artistically vital but do not fit current institutional fashions. The chilling effect is real: when support and visibility are reserved for certain themes, countless original and meaningful projects are abandoned at the concept stage, depriving audiences of a true diversity of perspectives and stories.

The Echo Chamber Effect: When Formula Replaces Creativity

Both Hollywood’s commercial formulas and European thematic mandates create what Hossenfelder identifies as echo chamber effects, systems where the same ideas circulate endlessly without genuine innovation.

The consequences are identical across both systems: merit displacement and creative homogenization, where qualitative excellence and risky vision are sacrificed for formula, compliance, and instant recognition.

European Cinema: Different System, Similar Constraints

European cinema offers a partial counterpoint to Hollywood’s pure market logic through public funding bodies, tax incentives, and regional support that theoretically prioritizes creative diversity over commercial returns. The European model supports hundreds of smaller-scale productions and encourages cross-border co-productions, allowing for artistic exploration that commercial systems would reject.

However, European systems increasingly suffer from their own systematic constraints:

• Rising thematic quotas and festival mandates create new forms of creative limitation
• Gender-based funding requirements can restrict storytelling diversity
• Social justice programming priorities may exclude innovative work that doesn’t fit predetermined categories
• The prioritization of specific demographic narratives makes it harder to fund politically neutral or experimental content
  

As European agencies adopt quota-based and thematic models similar to Hollywood’s commercial formulas, the space for genuine artistic risk and innovation narrows across both systems.

The Business-As-Usual Normalization

Just as in corrupted scientific research, these distorting incentives have become completely normalized across the film industry. Decision-makers from studio executives to public funders justify risk-aversion and formulaic constraints as responsible, politically progressive, or economically necessary.

The Cultural Degradation

When systematic constraints dominate creative industries, the damage extends beyond individual careers to cultural degradation. Both science and film lose their essential social functions when constrained by trending formulas rather than authentic exploration. Science exists to advance human knowledge; cinema exists to reflect diverse human experiences and expand cultural understanding. When both become vehicles for following predetermined trends, whether commercial formulas or social messaging, rather than pursuing these core missions, society loses critical sources of genuine discovery and authentic artistic expression. The parallel is exact: just as corrupted scientific research misleads the public about genuine discoveries, systematically constrained cinema misleads audiences about the full spectrum of human experience and cultural possibility.

Breaking the Trend-Following Cycle

Hossenfelder’s analysis offers a roadmap for addressing systematic corruption in both fields:

Eliminate Trending Requirements: Just as scientific funding should prioritize research quality over fashionable topics, film funding should prioritize artistic merit over commercial formulas or thematic compliance.

Diversify Beyond Single Metrics: Moving beyond box office projections in commercial cinema and demographic checkboxes in art cinema toward holistic assessment of long-term cultural value.

Create Merit-Based Alternatives: Establishing funding and distribution pathways that evaluate projects on creative excellence rather than conformity to trending categories.

Transparency in Decision-Making: Requiring disclosure when programming and funding decisions prioritize trending considerations over artistic quality.

The Choice Between Authentic Art and Systematic Following

The most crucial insight from both critiques is that systematic trend-following destroys the diversity it claims to create. When Hollywood mandates superhero formulas and European institutions mandate social justice themes, they create identical constraints on creative expression, just with different trending requirements.

The choice is not between commercial success and artistic integrity, or between social progress and creative freedom. The choice is between systems that allow authentic voices to emerge naturally and systems that mandate what those voices must say or sell.

Both science and cinema suffer when institutional systems reward conformity to predetermined trends rather than authentic exploration of unknown territory. Whether those trends are commercial (superhero franchises) or ideological (social justice narratives), the systematic effect is identical: the suppression of genuine innovation in favor of safe, predictable, trend-following formulas.

People will continue wanting to make films and earn money, just as researchers want to conduct research and secure funding. The question is whether these legitimate career aspirations will be channeled through systems that reward authentic creativity and discovery, or through systematically corrupted networks that serve only trending formulas and connected insiders.

Understanding the parallel between scientific research’s trend-following corruption and the film industry’s systematic constraints offers hope: if the same problems afflict both fields, then solutions that restore merit-based evaluation might work across both systems. But this requires acknowledging that trending requirements, whether commercial or ideological, represent corruption of creativity, not progress toward genuine diversity or innovation.

The corruption of creativity through systematic trend-following isn’t inevitable, it’s a choice we make every time we prioritize fashionable formulas over authentic exploration. Both Hollywood’s superhero addiction and European cinema’s thematic mandates represent the same fundamental problem: systems that reward conformity to trending requirements rather than courage to explore unknown creative territory.

SOURCES:

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yPy3DeMUyI
2. https://www.politicalpandora.com/post/enshittification-superhero-movies
3. https://stephenfollows.com/p/hollywood-sequels-by-the-numbers
4. https://www.imd.org/research-knowledge/economics/articles/deja-vu-is-the-film-industrys-sequel-and-remake-addiction-a-sign-of-the-end/
5. https://www.oscars.org/awards/representation-and-inclusion-standards
6. https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/crea/wp-call/2022/call-fiche_crea-media-2022-codev_en.pdf
7. https://www.nfvf.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Gender-Matters-in-the-SAFI-Report.pdf
8. https://www.wmm.com/resources/film-festivals/
9. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2014/545705/EPRS_BRI(2014)545705_REV1_EN.pdf
10. https://www.cined.com/europe-vs-us-film-funding-game-go-episode-85/

The post The Corruption of Creativity: How Film Industry Incentives Mirror Science’s Systemic Breakdown 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.

The Sundance Film Festival bills itself as the ultimate stage for independent cinema, a supposed democratizer of storytelling where fresh, diverse voices can break through. But scratch the surface, and you’ll find a glaring farce: an overwhelming dominance by alumni from NYU’s Tisch School of the Arts, a single institution in a country boasting over 1,000 film programs. This isn’t just an imbalance, it’s a blatant mockery of true independence, funneling opportunities through an exorbitantly priced New York pipeline while sidelining the rest of America’s creative talent. With NYU grads infiltrating nearly 40% of projects, Sundance risks becoming less a festival and more an exclusive alumni reunion, perpetuating elitism under the guise of inclusivity.

NYU’s Overreach: One School’s Absurd Monopoly in a Nation of Thousands

In a nation as vast as the United States, home to more than 1,300 film schools and programs, from community colleges to state universities, it’s downright laughable that one Manhattan-based powerhouse claims such outsized influence. NYU Tisch, with its eye-watering undergraduate tuition exceeding $72,000 annually, isn’t just expensive; it’s a gatekeeper that filters out aspiring filmmakers without deep pockets or urban connections. Yet, in 2025, 143 Tisch alumni, students, and faculty swarmed 39% of all Sundance projects, including half the films in the U.S. Dramatic and Documentary Competitions. Standouts like Hailey Gates (BFA Drama, 2012), whose Atropia snagged the 2025 U.S. Grand Jury Prize: Dramatic, and Rashad Frett (MFA Graduate Film, 2021), director of the Directing Award-winning Ricky, exemplify how this elite club reaps the rewards.

Compare that to other top schools: UCLA managed ties to 25 projects in 2025, while USC boasts alumni involvement but lacks the same blanket coverage. This isn’t organic success, it’s systemic favoritism. Sundance’s labs and intensives, meant to nurture emerging talent, routinely handpick Tisch alums; five were selected for the 2025 Screenwriters Lab alone. In a landscape with 828 colleges offering film and photography degrees, why does one school, representing a tiny fraction of the total, hoard such a massive slice? It’s not merit; it’s networking on steroids, turning Sundance into an extension of NYU’s campus rather than a national showcase.

• The “40%” or “39%” numbers refer to the share of total Sundance projects (all sections) with at least one NYU Tisch-affiliated team member.
• For U.S. Dramatic Feature directors alone, the true NYU grad percentage is 20–30% per year, since around 2015.
• The numbers in the article reflect total alumni participation across many roles and program categories, not only directing credits.
• 2011 was a notable outlier with a reported 90% NYU presence – a surge not replicated in subsequent years.

Selection Shenanigans: Transparency as Thin as Park City Air

Sundance rakes in 14,000-16,000 submissions yearly, charging fees up to $125 per entry, yet whispers from the industry suggest, allegedly – OF COURSE – not every film gets a fair shake. Filmmakers report entries going unwatched or only partially viewed, with selections skewed toward those with insider recommendations, often from elite networks like NYU. In forums and industry chats, creators decry a process where low acceptance rates (under 1% for features) mask biases, prioritizing pedigreed projects over raw innovation.

This opacity fuels the elitism: With NYU’s “Tisch on Main” events turning the festival into a schmoozefest, anonymous submissions from non-elite programs stand little chance. Critics on platforms like Reddit lambast this as a “pay-to-play” illusion, where expensive educations buy not just skills but festival fast-tracks. The result? A homogenized indie scene that echoes New York’s urban elite, ignoring the heartland voices from hundreds of overlooked schools. Is there any wonder that the art of film is dead and cinemas are empty?

The Revolving Door: How Influence Recycles Itself

The ties run deeper than alumni stats. Shared events and overlapping paths create a cozy loop: NYU hosts Sundance-adjacent gatherings, while Tisch grads like Sean Baker (Tangerine, a Sundance breakout) cycle back as mentors or influencers. Broader critiques highlight how top schools rotate talent into festival roles, fostering perceptions of favoritism. Though no outright scandals surface, this interconnected web, where academic credentials trump outsider ingenuity, undermines Sundance’s indie ethos, making it complicit in perpetuating class divides.

“Diversity” That’s Skin-Deep

Sundance pats itself on the back for demographics – over 40% women directors and strong POC representation in recent lineups, bolstered by initiatives like stipends for diverse journalists. But this progress is hollow when so many “diverse” filmmakers hail from the same pricey, coastal enclave. USC Annenberg studies praise Sundance as a pipeline for underrepresented groups, yet they also underscore the need for broader access beyond elite hubs. With thousands of programs nationwide churning out talent from diverse regions and backgrounds, NYU’s grip ensures “indie” often means “institutionally approved,” not truly independent.

This concentration isn’t just unfair – it’s absurd, a punchline in a country rich with cinematic potential from coast to coast. Sundance must dismantle its elite dependencies: Mandate lab spots for non-top-tier schools, publish full selection stats, and scout beyond NYC networks. Until then, the festival remains a rigged game, crushing the dreams of countless filmmakers while propping up a privileged few. Independent cinema deserves better than this echo chamber.

Such Concentration of Power is No Accident

Just this week, we spotlighted the Jerusalem Film Festival, where 5 out of 8 films in competition were helmed by directors with direct ties to the Sam Spiegel Film School or its affiliated labs – a telling example of how festival clout is hoarded by a single institution closely linked to the event’s management. Yet, as problematic as that is, the comparison with Sundance makes the American case all the more indefensible. Israel, after all, is a nation of just 9.7 million people with a handful of film schools; a degree of centralization, while not healthy, is at least structurally plausible in such a tiny ecosystem. But in the United States – a nation of 340 million, with over a thousand film programs – the stranglehold that NYU Tisch exerts over Sundance defies every norm of diversity, fairness, and open access.

This pattern is well-documented in social science literature, where elite closure and institutional capture are recognized as mechanisms that perpetuate inequality and stifle mobility. Pierre Bourdieu’s seminal concept of “cultural capital” explains how privileged groups monopolize not only material resources, but also access to taste, credentials, and social networks—ensuring that cultural fields like cinema reproduce existing hierarchies rather than disrupt them (Bourdieu, 1977). In Bourdieu’s framework, the prestige of schools like NYU or Sam Spiegel functions as a gatekeeping device, conferring legitimacy and opportunity disproportionately to insiders.

From an economic perspective, this dynamic mirrors what Robert Michels termed the “Iron Law of Oligarchy”: in any organization or industry, control and decision-making invariably become concentrated in the hands of a few, regardless of formal commitments to democracy or openness (Michels, 1911). This self-reinforcing concentration is further exacerbated by what Michael Useem describes as the “Inner Circle” of interconnected elites, whose reciprocal exchanges of opportunity and endorsement reinforce their dominance across institutions (Useem, 1984).

Contemporary research in network theory by scholars like Mark Granovetter further underscores how “the strength of weak ties” paradoxically fuels exclusion: in closed, high-trust circles, jobs and opportunities circulate through referral and informal ties, systematically excluding those outside the dominant clique (Granovetter, 1973). This is especially acute in creative and cultural sectors, where subjective assessment and informal recommendation play a central role in gatekeeping.

Together, these theories reveal that the present condition at Sundance – and in similar festivals and across the entire film industry ecosystem – reflects not random happenstance, but predictable, well-studied patterns of institutional behavior. Until explicit intervention disrupts these entrenched feedback loops, the promise of independent cinema as a truly open field will remain unfulfilled.

How Does the Corruption Work in Real Terms?

Corruption within this system isn’t usually a matter of explicit bribery or criminal conduct – it’s about the quiet machinery of informal favoritism, institutional inertia, and back-channel recommendation. If Sundance truly practiced what it preaches – openness, discovery, diversity – its lineup would naturally feature filmmakers from the vast array of educational programs throughout the United States. Yet, as the chart below makes clear, an incredible 51% of Sundance’s program is monopolized by alumni from just three elite film schools. In a nation with more than a thousand accredited film programs, this isn’t just a statistical glitch – it’s a structural feature.

Here’s how the machinery operates on the ground: most filmmakers don’t stand a chance because their films are not even watched by the real decision makers. As we’ve documented extensively – and as the case of high-profile outsiders like Obama’s daughter demonstrates – submissions don’t receive honest consideration. The vaunted “open call” is largely illusory. Only a tiny fraction of the 14,000 annual entries ever makes it to a programmer’s laptop, while the others are watched by volunteers or low paid students, so the festival can later claim that all films are being watched and considered. Certain films, probably no more than 200-300 per year, are “floated” to decision-makers not on merit, but by virtue of personal connections – friends, family, and, most crucially, colleagues and mentors from the same closed network of elite programs. To believe that every submission is scrupulously viewed is as naïve as believing in lunar real estate schemes. The reality is a process engineered for exclusion and plausible deniability. (If you don’t believe us – please contact us. We have a wonderful plot of land to offer you in an excellent location on the dark side of the moon which is now going for 45% off.)

The outcome is inevitable: year after year, Sundance becomes a mirror not of the nation’s artistic breadth, but of the entrenched, incestuous circles that orbit a handful of privileged institutions. The pipeline is not only narrowed by design – it is actively policed, ensuring that only those already holding the right keys even approach the gate. This isn’t just a distortion of opportunity. It’s a system of manufactured scarcity and institutional favoritism, masquerading as meritocracy – a “corruption” far deeper and more routine than the industry cares to admit.

We want to thank the filmmaker who had tipped us about this issue. Please continue to contact us about any wrongdoing in the industry, anywhere in the world.

Reactions to the article

Sources & Further Reading:

1. https://www.nyu.edu/admissions/financial-aid-and-scholarships/cost-of-attendance.html
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_film_schools_in_the_United_States
3. https://www.niche.com/colleges/search/best-colleges-for-film/
4. https://filmmaking.net/film-schools/
5. https://tisch.nyu.edu/alumni/tisch-at-sundance/2025-tisch-at-the-sundance-film-festival/alumni-affiliations.html
6. https://tisch.nyu.edu/grad-film/news/2024/grad-film-at-2025-sundance.html
7. https://www.tft.ucla.edu/tft-at-sundance-2025/
8. https://cinema.usc.edu/festivals/sundance/index.cfm
9. https://tisch.nyu.edu/alumni/alumni-news/tisch-alumni-2025-sundance-screenwriters-lab-and-intensive.html
10. https://www.sundance.org/festivals/sundance-film-festival/submit/
11. https://nofilmschool.com/who-watches-your-film-film-festivals
12. https://www.reddit.com/r/Filmmakers/comments/175me0v/the_dos_donts_and_uncomfortable_truths_of_film/
13. https://filmthreat.com/uncategorized/rejected-from-sundance-you-may-be-angry-but-that-doesnt-mean-youre-right/
14. https://tisch.nyu.edu/alumni/events/tisch-at-sundance-2025.html
15. https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/1/19/14267740/sundance-film-festival-explained-robert-redford
16. https://indiefilmhustle.com/sean-baker-tangerine-iphone-filmmaking/
17. https://assets.uscannenberg.org/docs/aii-study-sundance-institute-jan2019.pdf
18. https://www.vox.com/2016/1/29/10866582/sundance-diversity-film-festival
19. https://www.reddit.com/r/Filmmakers/comments/wucfja/what_are_the_pros_and_cons_of_usc_ucla_and_nyus/
20. https://www.quora.com/What-is-your-opinion-on-film-schools-like-USC-NYU-AFI-UCLA-etc-Do-you-think-they-are-worth-it-for-future-filmmakers-Why-or-why-not

Further reading:

Pierre Bourdieu, “Cultural Reproduction and Social Reproduction.” In Power and Ideology in Education, 1977.
Robert Michels, Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy, 1911.
Michael Useem, The Inner Circle: Large Corporations and the Rise of Business Political Activity in the U.S. and U.K., 1984.
Mark Granovetter, “The Strength of Weak Ties,” American Journal of Sociology, 1973.

The post Sundance’s Little Dirty Secret: How NYU’s Elite Grip is Crushing Indie Dreams first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

Film Industry Watch received the following email, with certain details redacted to protect the filmmaker’s identity:

“Thanks for the information. If you are genuinely interested in hearing favoritism, censorship, or institutional bias in my own film community that I have witnessed here you go.

I’m a XXX grad residing in Turkey with multiple awards. My feature film screened at XXX etc. This year I applied to the Turkish National Film Fund with a bunch of other talented women who have had international recognition, 13 male directors and 0 female directors won the grant. 

When one of my friends faced the head of cinema in the ministry at the Cannes film festival he told her that she’s too pretty to direct, she should act instead.

I get that you are going through something and raise awareness but the rest of the world is still struggling with misogyny. I don’t know you or anyone working in Israel’s Ophir Awards. I assume my story is of no to little interest to you, so as yours to me. Please select your recipients wisely and try to be more emphatic towards your colleagues who have been without a doubt oppressed for longer by wider masses.

Best,

XXXXX”

Dear filmmaker – your story is very much of interest to us and we thank you for sharing it with us.

We are deeply appalled that in 2025, discrimination of any kind still persists. Let us be clear: all forms of discrimination, whether based on gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation, are completely unacceptable. This includes discrimination against women, men, black or white individuals, LGBTQ+ communities, Muslims, Jews, or anyone else.

In many parts of the world, discrimination against women remains widespread and must be actively challenged. We believe that no one should face prejudice or injustice simply for who they are. If you have experienced discrimination, regardless of your gender, race, or background, we urge you to reach out to us. You may do so anonymously or openly. Together, we must stand against all forms of injustice.

The world is in a constant state of flex. In many countries misogyny and discrimination against women is very much alive and kicking and it should be challenged forcefully. Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, Syria, Iraq, Somalia and Iran, are some of the worst offenders. In Iran, women suffer compulsory hijab laws, strict gender segregation, and harsh punishments for protesting. Women can’t attend major sporting events, face restrictions in travel without male permission, and are under constant surveillance. The 2022–2023 Mahsa Amini protests spotlighted widespread gender repression. In Saudi Arabia, although recent reforms allowed women to drive and obtain passports, male guardianship laws still limit autonomy. Gender segregation persists, and women need male permission for marriage and certain legal procedures.

In the West, after centuries of oppression, women finally enjoy legal equality, with Switzerland giving women the right to vote as late as 1971. 54 years later, women in the U.S. have steadily surpassed men in both educational achievement and, increasingly, economic standing. As of 2021, women made up 53.1% of adults aged 25 and over holding at least a bachelor’s degree, compared to 46.9% of men (Census.gov). Among younger adults (ages 25–34), the gap is even sharper: 47% of women hold bachelor’s degrees versus 37% of men (Wikipedia, Pew Research Center). This educational advantage translates into workforce dominance: by early 2024, women accounted for the majority of college-educated labor‐force members. When all measurable variables such as job title, education, experience, location, and industry are accounted for (often called the “controlled” or “adjusted” wage gap), the gender pay gap shrinks dramatically but does not vanish. In 2025, women earn on average about 99 cents for every dollar paid to men, that is, the adjusted wage gap globally is approximately 1% (SOURCE)

The oppression of women in the East, the vilification of men in the West

Despite the significant progress made in the West, recent years have seen a new narrative that insists women remain structurally oppressed, and that white men, in particular, must be held accountable for the historical privileges of their ancestors. Paradoxically, many of the voices promoting this view come from highly educated, economically privileged women who already enjoy full legal equality and social power.

Rather than addressing genuine gender inequality where it still exists – such as in Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, Syria, Iraq, and Somalia – this narrative appropriates the suffering of women in those regions to justify the pursuit of additional power, resources, and status in Western societies. In doing so, it conflates vastly different realities, and risks undermining the credibility of women’s rights discourse by framing modern Western men as oppressors in a context where legal and institutional gender parity has long been achieved.

The U.S., the EU, and many other nations maintain trade and diplomatic ties with countries like Iran, Iraq, and Pakistan, states that have made little progress on women’s rights. Meanwhile, Hamas, a group known for executing LGBTQ individuals by stoning, is at times treated as a political ally. And yet, in much of the cultural discourse, the supposed enemy remains: the white Western man.

Let’s be clear: in the modern West, today, not 50 years ago, not 200 years ago, not 500 years ago – today – privilege is economic. A wealthy, non-white lesbian woman living in Los Angeles enjoys far greater opportunities and access to resources than a poor white man living in the Appalachian Mountains. You’re free to disagree, but the facts will prove you wrong.

“being a Straight White Jewish Male in the doc world is a pretty lonely place to be”

Here is an additional comment that was recently posted on the site:

“I can tell you that being a Straight White Jewish Male in the doc world is a pretty lonely place to be. There are no grants at all for my demographic. There are no film festival categories. There are no “Support groups”. I understand there was a time when the pendulum was pinned in the Male preference position but that have swung all the way to the other side where White straight male filmmakers are vilified. It’s been over a decade where women, BiPC, LGBTQIA+ have been the majority of the Grant winners, Festival winner and accepteee. I don’t have a problem with that as it really sucked for women in our industry for a very long time. But there has to be a balance and right now there isn’t. And NO ONE is talking about this for fear of being canceled. I have seen films not even remotely the quality of my work on PBS, The Independent Lens, Sundance Channel and Sundance Lab, etc. all by women, BIPOC, LGBTQ. Again not complaining but come on. Some of those films were down right awful. Not because they were made by an underrepresented group[, because they were bad. Poor storytelling poor filmmaking. Just because you can make a film doesn’t mean you should. There are grants out there for first time filmmakers (of which i don’t qualify) every ethnic group under the sun (except Jewish) so i don’t qualify. All my films have been self funded because I can not get a grant. I am not bitter. I have just accepted that this is the way it is and i don’t see it changing anytime soon because in our current climate in the land of the free and the home of the brave speaking truth to power (any power. who ever is in charge) is a career ender.”

Both filmmakers, the female Turkish director and the male Jewish documentary maker, face the exact same form of oppression. They are both oppressed by a system built not on merit, but on discrimination, favoritism, corruption, and cronyism. Talent and integrity are sidelined in favor of connections and conformity of narratives, be it 1000s of years old misogyny, or however years old Misandry, which is the hatred of, aversion to, or prejudice against men. Both forms of discrimination are IDENTICAL. They are exercised in an attempt to maintain and/or expand control over resources, power and status by corrupt political elites.

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?

In a system long plagued by nepotism and cronyism, adding gender-based favoritism is just a small step further down in an already corrupt path. This is not far fetched.

The lab, the Ophir Awards, where 11 out of 12 nominations went to women, and the recent Jerusalem Film Festival, where the Israeli feature program included only one film by a male director (and two by female / male co-directors) and five women, are three separate events that appear to share a common throughline: systemic discrimination against men, by an industry now led by activists determined to “correct” a past injustice by creating a new one. These women were fully capable of reforming the corrupt system they inherited and creating a benevolent meritocracy- one where both women and men have an equal chance to share their stories. But… why would they? Where’s the personal gain – or the “fun” – in playing fair?

Women are not immune to prejudice or Hate

“With literally zero respect, go fuck yourself. For how many years were women not represented at all. Silenced. Women have finally been given a chance to to speak up and yeah we got stories. many years worth. You claim it’s not on merit because men are simply not handed it on a silver platter any more you have to actually fucking work for it. Welcome to the smallest taste of what has been dealt out and still currently happening. You want more men in the finalist list? Step the fuck up! Fuck you.”

This has nothing to do with “working for it.” In fact, it is the other way around. These selections in Turkey and Israel were made on the basis of gender. An arbitrary characteristic people are born with. If you believe that today’s male filmmakers, who have done nothing wrong, should “pay” or be punished for the privileges of their great-grandfathers, then something is deeply wrong with your way of thinking, and you are no different than the heads of the Turkish film industry who think that women should stay in the kitchen. Despite prevailing narratives, as the above quote shows, women can be bigots, racists, corrupt, violent – or simply wrong – too. We know, we know: that’s not something often said out loud, but it happens to be true.

Corruption, misogyny, bigotry, misandry, nepotism, and favoritism are all wrong, regardless of who commits them or who they target, no matter what some may believe. As we predicted nearly two years ago, such policies are harmful and lead to the marginalization of large segments of society driving many toward right-wing politics and further deepening the political divide.

If you feel you’ve been the victim of any form of wrongdoing in the film industry, we encourage you to reach out, anonymously or not.

The post Gender Discrimination – Oppressed Voices from Turkey, US & Israel 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.

In response to the recent post “Omladinski Film Festival Sarajevo: Mounting Allegations of Non-Payment, Intimidation & Financial Mismanagement”, the festival sent us the following response:

Dear colleagues,

In response to the article published on your website regarding the Youth Film Festival Sarajevo (OFF) which was brought to our attention, we are writing to provide a formal rebuttal to the claims made by anonymous authors. We will respect that and will not publish full names.

Firstly, Mr. Muhamed Almughani, director of the film “An Orange from Jaffa”, has been fully paid the prize amount awarded to him, which is €1,000. The award was sponsored by the Festival’s main partner. The jury decided to allocate the remaining €500 of the €1,500 prize fund to another film. This prize structure was publicly communicated via our official website and social media channels as early as last year weeks before!

Furthermore, there is written correspondence from the producers and distributors of Mr. Almughani’s film requesting that the film not be screened, citing that Mr. Almughani did not hold the rights to it. Since he submitted a signed statement claiming rights ownership and the film had already been publicly announced, the Festival did not remove it. Had it not been published already, we would have withdrawn it.

As such, the Festival is now considering withdrawing the prize and requesting a refund from the mr. Almughani. All other accusations made by Mr. Almughani have already been handed over to legal counsel in Poland, where he currently resides. We have also reported an attempt of financial extortion to the local police.

As for the alleged “bribe” of €200, this was not a bribe nor a hush offer — it was a friendly gesture from the Festival as a goodwill compensation for what we understood to be a misunderstanding on the author’s side.

Regarding anonymous authors who claim they were not paid — these accusations are false and misleading. Consider the fact that the Festival hosts over 300 film professionals annually, which amounts to around 1,500 professionals in the past five years. Out of that number, only 5–6 individuals have ever raised such allegations. — In some of those cases, it is true that travel refunds were not processed immediately. However, this was due to authors failing to provide valid production company invoices or insisting on receiving payments via PayPal to avoid taxes or because they lacked legal production entities. Under Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Foreign Transaction Law, and due to the fact that we are not part of the SEPA payment system, banks in BiH cannot process such payments without proper documentation and invoices.

The media reports cited are not credible. Only one media outlet contacted us for a statement; all other allegations were published without any attempt to verify with the Festival.

The Festival holds all payment confirmations, email correspondence, and screenshots, but refrains from publishing them out of respect for confidentiality and business ethics. All screenshots released publicly have been shared by the authors themselves.

It is important to note that Mr. Almughani misled his colleagues by failing to disclose that he had been paid. As a result, several colleagues, acting in good faith, signed letters that have harmed the Festival’s reputation and slowed down payment transfers from sponsors and partners. This delay has impacted three authors from the 2024 co-production market whose payments, initially planned for June, have now been postponed until the end of the year.

Furthermore, your article contains incorrect claims. For the sake of public information: The Youth Film Festival Sarajevo is owned by a registered association. The Festival Director is not the sole decision-maker, nor the only authorized person involved, and the decisions are not made by any single individual. We therefore categorically reject the claims made in your article and formally request that this rebuttal be published in accordance with media standards. Also, your suggestions in the article regarding the revision have no legal grounds in Bosnia and Hezergovina, and you should consider remowing it. All Festival reports for 2024 and revisions came out clean as positive which was confirmed also by Federal Ministry of Culture and Sport.

Your current publication contains elements of defamation.

our accusations that Director Kenan Musić uses Facebook to publish rebuttals, screenshots of emails, and attacks on authors and authorities are entirely false. This can be publicly verified, as he has never made any such statements on Facebook — aside from sharing links.

We demand the immediate removal of this claim, as well as any other content for which you have no evidence.

Regarding the Festival Director’s and Festival team’s travels to other festivals — these trips are financed either directly by international partners or by the Festival itself. This applies to every trip taken this year where Director Musić and team members were officially invited. For each trip, there are formal invitations, confirmations of ticket purchases by the Festival or organizers, and all relevant documentation.

Furthermore, you reference a Reddit post from May, warning authors not to submit to the Festival. This only demonstrates how unfounded the accusations of a few individuals truly are — as this year the Festival received a record number of submissions, including during the June free waiver campaign.

For over 15 years, we have been building this Festival and its accompanying Industry Market with passion and dedication — for authors, professionals, and the wider community. OFF has become one of the most important cultural and industry events in Southeast Europe, a status recognized across the continent.

We have proven that OFF holds tremendous value for a large number of authors who return year after year and who continue to support us through difficult times.

The Festival invests tens of thousands of euros annually in travel and accommodation costs. Therefore, if the claims made were accurate, one must ask: How is it possible that 280 authors and professionals attend each year without issue, while only 3 complain?

This is the real question that needs to be asked when publishing such headlines.

This is not a threat — it is a formal warning that, as with any organization protecting its rights and reputation, our legal team will undertake all lawful actions against anyone who attempts to defame or damage the integrity of the Festival through false claims.

It is true that the Festival has faced financial challenges for years, primarily due to the inadequate support from some governmental and institutional structures towards cultural projects.

Nonetheless, the fact that we continue to organize the second-largest cultural event in the country speaks volumes about the quality of our management and leadership.

Recent events involving Mr. Almughani — who, in a phone conversation where he threatened staff and the Festival Director, confirmed receiving support from local industry elites who advised him how to escalate the issue publicly — only confirm our earlier warnings. Over the past year, we have repeatedly pointed to cases of theft, manipulation, and corruption in cultural funding processes. It was only a matter of time before retaliation would occur — now disguised under the narrative of “wronged authors.” (https://www.klix.ba/magazin/film-tv/umu-upozorava-odluke-fondacije-za-kinematografiju-su-uvod-u-uspostavu-monopola-u-filmskoj-umjetnosti/241216156 , https://www.klix.ba/magazin/film-tv/umu-trazi-hitno-ponistenje-odluke-fondacije-za-kinematografiju-i-smjenu-upravnog-odbora/241219187 etc.)

We maintain deep respect for short films, their creators, and young filmmakers and we fight publicly for it all the time, and for that reason we are under heavy attack for the last few years. We have demonstrated this commitment time and time again. Our approach remains unchanged: we will continue to collaborate with filmmakers and industry professionals who value the efforts and integrity of the Festival — and we will proudly continue to support them, as we always have.

The post Response from The Omladinski Film Festival Sarajevo 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.

Film Industry Watch continues its coverage of the simmering controversies around Israel’s cultural institutions.

Earlier this month an award-winning documentary producer sent Film Industry Watch a blistering note about his experience on the Israeli festival circuit. The filmmaker—who asked to remain anonymous to protect future projects—claims that three major festivals rejected his Holocaust-themed film for reasons that had nothing to do with artistic merit.

“After submitting my critically acclaimed film XXX … it became clear to me that the film industry in Israel is enduring serious issues, including extreme xenophobia.”

“I was told that this happened… on the basis that no Jewish surnames could be seen amongst my production team, all three festivals refused to screen the film.”

The Festivals in Question

The documentary was entered into Haifa International Film Festival, Doc Aviv, and Jerusalem Film Festival during the 2016–17 season. According to the filmmaker, a programmer inside one of those events privately admitted the film “never stood a chance.” The programmer’s alleged explanation? Programming slots for Holocaust testimonies were earmarked for productions with recognizably Jewish creative teams. None of the three festivals responded to our request for comment before press time. (We will update if they do.)

This report is in line with the many other reports we’ve previously made about Israel and its corrupt film industry. From extreme Gender Politics to political intervention and a revolving door policy in its film funds, it is no wonder that in recent years the Israeli film industry seen a decline in both artistic and commercial success.

Pulling the Film in Protest

Stung by the rejections, the producer says he yanked the film from further distribution – even though it had already screened to acclaim in Germany and elsewhere:

“I pulled the film completely in protest against Israel’s blatant xenophobia … The raw 400 hours of survivor testimony will never be shown again in any country.”

That self-imposed blackout is a gut-punch for historians and educators who rely on primary-source testimony. It is also a stark reminder that gate-keeping decisions reverberate far beyond a festival’s red carpet.

Where Does Accountability Start?

The anonymous producer closes his email with a caustic directive:

“Good luck making desperately needed changes. I would suggest re-educating these idiots.”

Harsh words, yes – but they underscore a frustration shared by many filmmakers who feel that Israel’s festival gatekeepers and film funds operate behind an opaque wall of personal networks, political optics, and, as the letter claims, ethnic litmus tests.

Film Industry Watch invites festival organisers, selection committees, and Israeli cultural bodies to respond. Transparent criteria and public dialogue would go a long way toward proving that the rejection of xxx —or any film—rests on curatorial judgement, not covert quotas. Until then, the silence risks speaking louder than any official programme.

The post ISRAEL – Inside the Gate-Keeping: One Filmmaker’s Fury at Israel’s Festival Circuit first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

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

The latest film from Vasilis Kekatos was funded with 488.596,99 € from the Cash Back Financing initiative in Greece (EKOME) and an additional 235.000 € from the Greek Film Center (GFC). All told, that’s 723.596,99 € in public funding — taxpayer money. Public funds. Yours and mine — flushed.

The total budget of the film Our Wild Days was 1.221.492,49 €, according to public records.

Kekatos allegedly helped orchestrate one of the boldest acts of state-funded artistic nepotism this side of the Parthenon. Cross-paneling, they called it — a cozy little club where evaluators approved grants for each other’s films while locking the doors on real, outside talent. But the generous support of public funds did not help Vasilis Kekatos. Our Wild Days has officially bombed at the Greek box office. Distributed by Cinobo, with 6,094 tickets sold across 25 cinemas in its first five days, it made about as much noise as a paperclip falling in a hurricane.

The film’s producer’s gross — if any? A glorious 14.016 € — before subtracting ads, DCPs, and whatever was spent printing posters no one looked at. That means the producers may have walked away with the financial equivalent of a good brunch in Mykonos. The film was produced by Eleni Kossyfidou.

So if you’re wondering what Greek cinema looks like in the age of crony culture and creative bankruptcy, look no further. It’s screening now. In 25 empty theaters.

Critics Raise Concerns Over Director’s Style and Storytelling Weaknesses

The director’s latest film has drawn notable criticism from several film critics for its narrative shortcomings and stylistic indulgences. Christos Mitsis of Athinorama highlights the film’s early momentum but criticizes its descent into repetitive, loosely connected vignettes that lack a cohesive narrative structure. He notes that dramatic turns are often weighed down by an unnecessary poetic pretension, leaving the film emotionally thin.

Greek outlet in.gr echoes this sentiment, pointing to the underdeveloped motivations behind the characters’ rebellious actions, suggesting that the script needed more refinement to fully flesh out its themes. News247 goes further, calling out “script inconsistency” and a lack of clear direction, noting that while the film gestures toward social commentary, it ultimately “loses its aim,” with characters remaining faint sketches rather than fully realized individuals.

Newsbomb.gr critiques the film’s preference for fantasy over realism, describing it as “a love letter to coming of age” that lacks grounding in lived experience, while Flix.gr labels it “a fairy tale for kids who don’t want to grow up,” with ghost-like protagonists who serve more as symbols than believable human beings.

SOURCES:

https://freecinema.gr/greek-box-office-how-to-train-your-dragon-flies-low/

https://www.athinorama.gr/cinema/3047469/elliniko-box-office-agries-meres-gia-iptamenous-drakous

https://flix.gr/news/berlinale-2025-our-wild-days-vasilis-kekatos.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Wildest_Days

https://flix.gr/reviews/berlinale-panorama-film-review.html

https://www.newsbomb.gr/media/kinimatografos

https://www.news247.gr/o-ko/sinema

https://www.in.gr/entertainment/cinema

https://www.athinorama.gr/cinema/reviews

The post Greece: Talented, independent filmmakers? Rejected. Visionary projects? Ignored. But Our Wild Days? That got the golden ticket. 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.

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.

Despite blockbuster productions like Star Wars, Indiana Jones, and Barbie, the UK’s film and TV sector faces mounting challenges. While the industry contributed over £17 billion in 2021 and employs around 300,000 people, independent studios and freelancers are struggling due to declining revenues, rising production costs, and shifting market dynamics.

Streaming services, falling ad revenues, and industry strikes have led to a 10% drop in commissioning and a £392 million revenue loss for UK production companies in 2023. Independent studios and freelancers are most at risk, with over 70% of small production companies facing closure by mid-2025.

Without urgent government support, the industry risks losing its status as a cultural powerhouse and key economic contributor.

The Film and TV Industry’s Economic Impact

The UK’s film and TV sector significantly boosts the economy, with domestic film production spending reaching £1.97 billion in 2022. Productions like Barbie alone injected £80 million and created 700 jobs.

A 2003 Communications Act helped UK TV exports grow seven-fold since 1998 by requiring broadcasters to source 25% of content from indie studios. As a result, UK studio space has doubled since 2019, attracting major investments from Sky, Warner Bros, and Netflix. By 2025, the UK will have the second-largest studio capacity after Hollywood.

The Rise of Streaming and Its Consequences

Streaming platforms like Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Disney+ have transformed the industry, with 59% of UK households now subscribed to Netflix. Streaming revenues doubled between 2018 and 2023, strengthening their dominance.

While streaming giants initially pumped money into UK productions, post-pandemic budget cuts and rising costs have reduced commissions, straining smaller studios. Disney alone cut £2.4 billion from its content budget in 2023. Meanwhile, the decline of traditional TV advertising has led to fewer commissions from UK broadcasters.

Challenges for UK Production Companies

The industry is battling rising costs, lower consumer demand, and global disruptions. The Writers Guild of America (WGA) and SAG-AFTRA strikes in 2023 led to a $5 billion loss in global revenues, affecting UK production firms reliant on Hollywood. Iconic studios like Euston Films, Label 1, and RDF have shut down, while indies are being squeezed by higher rents and energy costs.

The BBC is also struggling, cutting jobs and programming due to a government-imposed license fee freeze, forcing it to save £700 million annually. Meanwhile, private investors are hesitant to fund productions due to high borrowing costs.

Freelancers: The Hardest Hit

The crisis has severely impacted freelancers, who make up much of the industry’s workforce. A 2024 Bectu survey revealed that 68% of freelance screen workers are unemployed, and 75% are struggling with mental health issues due to financial uncertainty. A staggering 37% plan to leave the industry within five years, threatening its sustainability.

What Can Be Done?

The UK government must act to stabilize the industry. Proposed measures include:

1. Regulating Streaming Platforms – Adopting France’s model, which requires Netflix and Disney to reinvest 20-25% of domestic revenues into local productions.
2. Supporting Freelancers – Introducing an unemployment benefits scheme similar to France’s intermittent du spectacle, offering financial security for creative workers.
3. AI Regulation and Industry Protection – Ensuring responsible AI use in scriptwriting to prevent further disruption and protect creative jobs.

The UK’s film and TV sector stands at a crossroads. Without intervention, the industry could see lasting damage. With the right policies, however, it can reclaim its place as a global powerhouse for film and television.

SOURCE:

https://www.economicsobservatory.com/why-is-the-uk-film-and-television-sector-struggling

The post The UK Film and TV Industry: Challenges and Uncertain Future first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

The Money’s Gone. The Industry’s Collapsing. And Nobody’s Talking.

For the past ten months, the complete shutdown of funding for film and television productions—whether already in progress or still in pre-production—by EKOME/Creative Greece has thrown the industry into a downward spiral. Add to that the endless delays in launching the new application platform for the Cash Back program, and what do we have? Chaos.

This platform was supposed to go live on October 1, 2024—officially. But here we are, creeping into February 2025, and nothing. And the kicker? The Ministry of Culture and Creative Greece have made it abundantly clear: they won’t approve or pay for anything—at least until June 2025.

The consequences? Dead projects. Abandoned productions. A mass exodus of international co-productions—Italy, Malta, Bulgaria are now the go-to locations. Greece? A joke. Films waiting for pre-approval? Films wrapped for over a year? There’s no money to pay for them. None. Zero.

And let’s talk about those big Hollywood productions.
Why did Christopher Nolan’s Odyssey shoot in Morocco and Malta?
Why is Mel Gibson’s The Passion sequel being filmed in Malta?
They could have been shot in Greece. They should have been shot in Greece.

But everyone in the business already knows: EKOME/Creative Greece doesn’t pay. And why isn’t the CEO Leonidas Christopoulos and his Board of Directors addressing this? Why aren’t they answering for the missing funds?

The truth is the treasury is empty. More than 150 million euros missing.

And let’s be real: you can’t have a film industry without money. Throwing a few 5,000 and 10,000 euro sponsorships at festivals while there’s a 150 million euro black hole is like tossing a bucket of water on a burning skyscraper.

Forty percent. That’s the magic number when you compare Greece and Malta. Both playing the same game, both dangling that lucrative rebate, hoping to lure the big productions, the Hollywood dollars, the European auteurs. But numbers on paper don’t tell the whole story—what matters is how fast and how clean that money flows.

Here’s where Malta shakes things up. They open the gates. Feature films, TV dramas, animation—sure. But they go further. Reality shows, game shows, the unscripted circus of modern entertainment. Greece? Not interested. They keep it classical, highbrow, no room for the unscripted chaos of reality TV.

The price of entry. In Greece, you need to lay down €200,000 for a feature film before you even step into the ring. Malta? They cut that number in half—€100,000. The message is clear: smaller productions, indies, risk-takers—come here. We’ve got space for you.

And the result? Greece is bleeding talent. The dreamers, the creators, the visionaries—they’re all leaving.

They’re taking their stories to Malta, to Bulgaria, to Italy—anywhere but here. Because you can’t build an industry on broken promises.

While Malta rolls out the red carpet, Greece lets its own filmmakers rot in limbo. And with every delay, with every unanswered call, the world takes notice.

The studios? They’ve moved on. The investors? Gone. And the local industry? Dismantled, piece by piece, by bureaucratic indifference.

This isn’t just a crisis. This is cultural suicide.

And yet – silence.

Greek Film Industry Further reading:

The post Greece’s Film Industry Collapse: Missing Millions, Broken Promises, and a Deafening Silence 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.

A group of more than 40 set builders and scenic painters are alleging that they have been left unpaid for work on two major television projects, the working title “Fixer” and a separate series referred to as “The Associates.” Both projects involved Helix 3D, a construction company now reportedly facing liquidation, which has left workers collectively owed over £250,000. Concerns are mounting that crew members will not see any of this money, despite completing the set work over the summer and right up to the start of filming.

Multiple crew members claim to have been hired by Helix 3D to build and paint sets for “Fixer” (a big-budget gangster drama said to include stars Tom Hardy, Dame Helen Mirren, and Pierce Brosnan) and “The Associates.” The workers, many of whom put in overtime and six-day workweeks, report that they have not been paid for up to a month’s worth of labor. This news is particularly distressing as it unfolded just before the holiday season.

People are missing up to a month’s wages, and just before Christmas, it’s absolutely disgusting,” said one scenic painter.

For many, the problem is compounded by the fact that Helix 3D allegedly has a history of unpaid invoices and has “done this before,” according to several individuals who have previously worked with the company.

Helix 3D’s Apparent Liquidation and Shuttered Operations

Helix 3D’s chief executive, Brian Dowling, reportedly informed crew members via WhatsApp that it was unlikely they would be paid before Christmas. Helix 3D’s website and social media have been taken down, and its workshop is said to be up for sale.

• Helix 3D had been paid by the production companies behind the shows, 101 Studios and MTV Studios, for the construction work.
• A “devastating” message from Dowling signaled that the company could not fulfill the owed wages, citing financial difficulties and the impending sale of its offices.

Bectu (the broadcasting union) has been contacted by several of the unpaid workers to coordinate a “mass claim” against Helix 3D. The union is urging all those affected to get in touch and share details about when and where they worked, in hopes of negotiating with production companies and applying collective pressure.

Tom Hardy’s Intervention and Paramount’s Response

In a surprising turn, actor Tom Hardy, 47, reportedly offered to personally cover the wages owed to the crew on “Fixer,” in which he is set to star. According to a source close to Hardy:

“He offered to [pay]. But the production and Paramount have sorted the payment.”

Paramount, upon learning of the crew’s plight, stepped in swiftly to ensure the workers would receive compensation in time for Christmas. A source at Paramount said it was “outraged” to hear about the non-payment situation and acted to rectify it immediately.

Chris Hudson, an official representing Bectu, wrote a letter to Brian Dowling criticizing Helix 3D’s treatment of its workers. In the letter, Hudson stated:

“Our members deserve to be treated with dignity and respect and compensated on time for their work. It is wholly unacceptable that they are facing significant financial precarity, particularly ahead of Christmas.”

Hudson emphasized that financial liquidity problems—caused by an office sale or other issues—were not valid justifications for withholding wages. He further noted the lack of transparency regarding Helix 3D’s finances, saying such a situation should have been foreseeable.

Bectu continues to collect statements and documentation from the unpaid workers, encouraging them to share details via email. The goal is to compile a detailed timeline and push for direct contact with the relevant production companies, increasing the likelihood that affected workers will eventually be compensated.

As Helix 3D reportedly heads into liquidation, many crew members are left uncertain about their prospects of receiving the full amount owed. Some worry that individuals associated with Helix 3D might form a new entity and proceed with future projects—like a second season of “The Associates”—while crew members from the first round remain unpaid.

The high-profile involvement of Paramount and Tom Hardy signals that major stakeholders are taking the issue seriously, at least for “Fixer.” However, the unsettled debts for “The Associates” and other ongoing or past Helix 3D projects remain in limbo. In the meantime, Bectu and affected workers are coordinating to ensure that this situation does not go unnoticed, calling on the film and TV community to spread the word and advocate for fair payment practices.

How to Help and Get Involved

• Spread the Word: Those affected hope to pressure Helix 3D and any future spin-off companies to address unpaid wages.
• Contact Bectu: If you or someone you know has worked for Helix 3D without payment, email Bectu with details (dates, project names, locations).
• Stay Informed: Monitor film and TV industry forums or union newsletters for updates on collective actions or possible legal remedies.

SOURCES:

Tom Hardy offers to pay wages of crew on Guy Ritchie series after company failure:
https://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/tom-hardy-offers-pay-set-crew-guy-ritchie-series-the-associate-paramount-b1200454.html

The statements made in this article are based on first-hand accounts, statements from crew members, union representatives, and publicly available information. While Paramount has confirmed that it is stepping in to pay wages for “Fixer,” details regarding Helix 3D’s financial status have not been independently verified, and no definitive ruling of wrongdoing has been made by a legal authority. Readers are encouraged to conduct their own research, seek professional advice where necessary, and approach the information presented here with due diligence.

The post UK: Construction Crew Left Unpaid on Major TV Projects, Helix 3D Faces Liquidation first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

Sundance has never been about championing quality films. It’s essentially insider trading of filmmaking. The [friends of the] same people that run Sundance have investments in the films that win.”

An insider explains:

Search ‘Sundance labs emergency funding the Witch’ and it should come up. Basically Sundance labs is their “for profit non profit side” of things. So you have a little bit of funding and you need more so you got Sundance and they will invest in your film and connect you with investors they know. Then they turn around and let your film win Sundance as marketing for it. And they claim to be non profit but they are all double dipping on the for profit side of things

As mentioned above, as an illustrative example shared by the source, is Robert Eggers’ The Witch. While the film went on to garner critical acclaim, the narrative behind its “win” at Sundance paints a questionable picture:

It received emergency funding from Sundance’s close friends. Then it goes to somehow win the non-profit Sundance competition. This is all public knowledge.”

It appears that the allegations stem from the fact that the CEO at the time of Cinereach, a nonprofit production company involved in financing The Witch (now former CEO), also served as a Trustee of the Sundance Institute. Notably, the film was released in 2015, the same year the CEO joined the festival’s board of Trustees. As a nonprofit organization, Cinereach relies on philanthropic funding and pays salaries to its employees. However, when a nonprofit production company is closely linked to a film festival, particularly with its CEO serving as a Trustee, and the festival awards recognition to films produced or financed by that company, it raises legitimate concerns about a potential conflict of interest. The film received a grant from the Sundance Institute, was subsequently programmed, and later awarded at the festival. While such practices may be considered “business as usual” in the film industry, it is largely because such dealings have been normalized over time. Many tens of thousands of filmmakers are trying to receive recognition in film festivals, not having their producers on the board of Trustees of the same festivals.

Why This May Be Seen as a Conflict of Interest

A conflict of interest arises when an individual in a position of authority or influence (in this case, a Trustee at a film festival) has personal or professional ties to certain projects that the festival supports or awards. For critics, the concern is that the decision-making process—whether it involves choosing which films receive grants, which are programmed, or which earn festival awards—could be swayed by relationships and vested interests rather than by purely artistic or meritocratic considerations.

1. Power and Influence: Trustees of a major festival like Sundance often have substantial clout in deciding or influencing programming, funding priorities, and award selections. If the same Trustee also helms or financially benefits from a production entity financing a competing film, questions arise about whether it truly receives impartial evaluation.
   
   
2. Nonprofit Status: Both the festival (through the Sundance Institute) and Cinereach operate under nonprofit models. Nonprofits are generally expected to adhere to higher standards of transparency and ethical responsibility, precisely because they benefit from philanthropic and public trust. The appearance of any intermingled financial or career interests can erode that trust.
   
   
3. Limited Opportunities: Many filmmakers vie for the chance to premiere and compete at prestigious festivals like Sundance. When a film associated with a powerful insider is seemingly “fast-tracked” or favored, even by appearance, it can discourage or overshadow deserving independent films that lack comparable connections.
   
   
4. Normalization of Industry Practices: The film industry has long tolerated a degree of nepotism and insider dealings, often shrugged off as “just how things work.” However, such practices can leave the door open to real or perceived conflicts of interest, which, if unaddressed, may further entrench a system that primarily benefits those with direct ties to industry power brokers.

The Quality Conundrum: 500 Shorts, Only 5 Worth Remembering?

Our source, who has attended nearly a decade’s worth of Sundance screenings, especially shorts, paints a grim picture of the festival’s creative standards:

Out of the probably 500 I have seen at Sundance now, I would say only 5 are memorable or quality. Your average Vimeo staff pick is lightyears better than your average Sundance short.”

This anecdote aligns with previous criticisms that Sundance has shifted focus away from curating truly stellar works, favoring projects that satisfy strategic, political, or financial interests. By maintaining a large pool of subpar or formulaic films—“checking off certain criteria” for feel-good representation or activist branding—the festival can ensure that the heavily promoted favorites (in which Sundance insiders may have a stake) stand out by comparison.

A Self-Fulfilling Prophecy of Mediocrity

According to these allegations, Sundance’s programming strategy is less a quality-driven selection process and more a carefully managed spectacle designed to bolster the success of films in which the festival’s insiders are already invested. This environment, critics say, not only robs deserving talent of their moment in the spotlight, but also erodes the public’s trust in what should be a champion of cinematic innovation.

My conspiracy theory is they intentionally get ‘bad’ films that check off certain criteria… to make sure the films they have investments in win.”

A Call for Greater Accountability

Our stance at Film Industry Watch has been and remains clear: festivals must be bastions of authenticity and meritocracy, offering a fair platform for emerging artists. The allegations of an “entertainment-based pyramid scam” strike at the heart of what film festivals are meant to represent, a celebration of creativity unfettered by cronyism and corporate machinations.

We sincerely thank our readers for consistently sharing valuable information with us. We will update the article as we verify the information further and gather additional details.

Sources:

https://www.sundance.org/blogs/news/sundance-institute-adds-five-new-trustees-2015/

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4263482/companycredits

Legal Disclaimer:

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 and do not necessarily reflect the views of this publication. We make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of the information provided, other than the information contained in the sources. Readers are encouraged to conduct their own research and consult appropriate professionals for advice specific to their circumstances. The publication disclaims all liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on the information contained in this article.

The post Is Sundance Selling Out? Allegations of Insider Deals and Cronyism 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.

In an era when diversity initiatives are hailed as a saving grace for the entertainment industry, independent filmmaker Cinema Timshel contends he has been pushed to the margins. Timshel, a documentarian based in Minneapolis, believes an emerging ideology he calls “identitarian social justice” is erecting new barriers, even as it aims to eliminate old ones. His story, particularly the years-long struggle to gain festival traction for his documentary No One Left to Offend: The Rise and Fall of the Church of Euthanasia, underscores the complexity of identity-based policies and the disputes they spark.

Below is a closer look at the trials Timshel encountered while trying to screen his film, along with his broader claim that such difficulties are no coincidence. In his view, he is a casualty of policies and cultural attitudes that use racial and gender criteria to decide who gets a seat at the table, an issue we’ve touched upon both a year ago, and recently.

Being a Straight White Able-Bodied Male as a Major Disadvantage

Timshel is the first to acknowledge that the very idea of a white man being discriminated against in Hollywood raises eyebrows. Legendary directors – Spielberg, Scorsese, Nolan, and the Coen Brothers, to name a few – are still household names. And with that lineup dominating screens, skeptics wonder how Timshel can argue white men face any systemic roadblocks at all.

His answer is straightforward: “Everybody has to start somewhere.” While powerhouse talents can ride industry clout or brand-name success, Timshel says emerging white male filmmakers get a drastically different reception in an indie market he calls “rigged.” A wide range of arts nonprofits, film festival boards, and public grants, in his view, have codified “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) mandates in ways that exclude or sideline creators like him.

Their sin? Being born male, white and able bodied.

Despite finishing a previous documentary in 2014 and laboring for years on his latest project, Timshel says he has been rejected by every major film lab, grant, and festival to which he has applied in the past decade. While rejections are hardly rare in the competitive festival world, he insists the deck is stacked against him. He describes combing through festival lineups and funding announcements, only to find a conspicuous lack of white male directors compared to the portion who actually submit work.

Timshel points to one curious exchange that occurred while submitting No One Left to Offend to Sundance in 2022. To his surprise a longtime programmer reached out midway through deliberations, praising his film as “fascinating” and “wild,” and wondering if it should be entered as an episodic series rather than a traditional feature. Yet after that brief flurry of enthusiasm, No One Left to Offend was rejected – along with Timshel’s subsequent attempts to follow up.

He doesn’t claim outright proof of conspiracy; festivals have myriad reasons for turning down films. Yet Timshel describes the subsequent silence from that Sundance programmer, and thirty additional rejections from other festivals, as emblematic of an unspoken policy: programmers might like or even admire a project but fear wading into controversy that risks offending the ethos of identitarian social justice.

On paper, Timshel’s documentary covers raw, even outrageous, ground, enough to make any mainstream gatekeeper hesitate. No One Left to Offend chronicles the 1990s exploits of the Church of Euthanasia, a crew of performance artists and MIT engineers led by the cross-dressing provocateur Chris Korda. The group championed abortion rights and environmental awareness by staging intentionally inflammatory spectacles: carrying signs like “Eat a Queer Fetus for Jesus,” lampooning corporate greenwashing at Earth Day events, and even setting up a giant puppet that mimicked male ejaculation—just to mock a sperm bank.

Their slogans included “Save the Planet, Kill Yourself,” reflecting the group’s bizarre brand of performance-art activism. They provoked anti-abortion activists, confronted conservative Catholics, and boasted about sowing media confusion as a form of cultural sabotage. Timshel’s film, which runs more than two and a half hours, captures this spectacle in warts-and-all detail, offering neither condemnation nor apology.

Korda’s views add another layer of tension in a cultural environment sensitive to trans portrayal. Timshel’s footage shows Korda questioning medical transitions, calling them expensive and confining. Yet Korda also identifies as transgender and cross-dresses. This complicated stance—more personal rebellion than typical trans narrative—might not fit neatly into the identity-first frameworks common in certain film circles.And then there’s Nina Paley, an animator who appeared alongside the Church of Euthanasia on The Jerry Springer Show. Paley has been labeled a “TERF” (trans-exclusionary radical feminist) by her critics, spurring canceled screenings of her work and a permanent tarnish in many festival environments. Timshel keeps her in the final cut, though he wonders if her presence in the film has made it institutionally radioactive.

The Larger Landscape of Identitarian Social Justice

Early in his career, Timshel was involved in left-wing activism, including the Occupy Wall Street movement. At first, he relished what he saw as a populist wave concerned with class struggle and corporate power. But he recalls that over time, many activist circles devolved into bitter “oppression olympics,” where allegations of racism or sexism would lead to swift excommunications. According to Timshel, once that culture took hold, new rules on speech and identity grew so rigid that deeper issues of class, poverty, or free expression were drowned out.

He now sees that pattern replicated in institutional film. The new era, Timshel says, is dominated by the language of DEI—“diversity, equity, and inclusion”—but often operates like a pseudo-religion, zealously policing dissent. Organizations from The Ford Foundation to local nonprofits regularly tout achievements such as supporting “QTIBIPOC” creators (an umbrella acronym for Queer, Trans, Indigenous, Black, and People of Color). Timshel argues these well-meaning programs effectively erect a fresh set of identity-based quotas.