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.

Before we delve into the details of this article, we want to remind our readers of a simple yet crucial fact: every year film festivals receive thousands of submissions. The most prestigious ones can receive as many as 15,000 submissions annually. As you go through the information below, please keep these staggering numbers in mind. We also remind our readers that the European film industry is financed by public funding worth hundreds of millions of Euros per year.

Consider this: how is it that, amid thousands of submissions from filmmakers, writers, directors, and producers, it’s always the same few who seem to be chosen repeatedly for various festivals or labs, and who secure funding opportunities? Meanwhile, the vast majority struggle to make a mark in the industry, with many not even having their films viewed. To quote one commenter, “If you think any film festival watches all the submissions, I have a bridge to sell you.”

IMPORTANT NOTE: Please note that this article is not meant to be an ad hominem attack on any specific person. The individuals mentioned below 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. Also, to be clear, there are certainly much bigger fish in the swamp than the individuals listed below but we publish information which is available to us and which was brough to our attention. If you can disclose further information about other individuals or organizations, please contact us.

Is the Integrity of the European Film Industry Compromised?

Our argument is that the integrity of the European Film industry is highly compromised in that a loose affiliation of organizations which are run by the same or connected people use their power and influence in order to control the distribution of resources among themselves and those who are close to them, akin to a syndicate. To be clear, Film Industry Watch does not accuse the people mentioned below of belonging to a syndicate, but simply that the way the industry is set-up, is akin to one. Critics claim that the consequences of this structure, while not illegal, are highly immoral, and work to the detriment of the film industry as a whole, as well as its artistic output. 

The diagrams below serve as a visual illustration of the various organizations and individuals discussed in our articles and the intricate web connecting them. These charts reveal a highly insular system where influential figures in the industry engage in a sort of musical chairs or a revolving door: they occupy multiple roles, in different and multiple organizations, enabling them to further their own agendas and interests. This system not only creates barriers to entry for newcomers but also signals to others within the network their willingness to utilize their influence and reciprocate favors, benefiting those within this closed circle.

The charts below list individuals and organizations as examples of how the system operates. They show the relationships between decision-makers, producers, and the organizations that made the selection such as festivals, labs and film funds. These charts reveal that the producer of a chosen project is working with, or for, the selecting organization, the examples being Dominique Welinski (multiple organizations) , Melissa Malinbaum (Cannes short film section), and Ben Vandendaele (for NISI MASA).

The reason that these relationships – producer / decision maker – are highlighted in the examples below is that they are publicly documented. Other types of connections, like close friendships, commercial interests, or even bribes, are much harder to uncover due to their secretive nature. However, the bottom line remains the same – the selection, funding, and awarding of a project is rarely based on artistic merit, with the real reason being family connection, financial interests, friendships etc.

In festival selections and film funds public financing, in 90% of the cases, merit isn’t the main criterion. We can state these numbers with some confidence because, as we know, in all major festivals, submissions are not viewed. Only about 5-10% of feature film submissions and 1-2% of short film submissions are actually considered for selection from the total number of entries, based on direct recommendations from members of the network to the selection committee members. In national film funds, the numbers are similar, with about 5-10% of submitted projects actually being considered, with the financed projects making about 1%, with very little consideration to their actual merit. In some funds all the projects will be read and scored but in most cases those scores will not be taken into consideration. We will post proof of these claims in the near future.

This is not to say that it is absolutely impossible to break into the industry. However, you absolutely must “know someone” or “be someone” to enter into the pool of films or projects that will be considered. Without some connection to those people within the network, your project does not stand any chance because it will simply not be read or viewed. [Read this article about the Munich Film Festival for an example, as well as the Sundance may not be watching all submissions post] 

The following charts detail individuals and the organizations they work for, their positions, and how their positions has effected selection of projects they’ve been involved with, both within the organization and within the film ecosystem as a whole.

The first case is of producer Dominique Welinski who holds a multitude of roles in the industry. She works for the Cannes Film Festival, curates the Factory program at Cannes’ Director’s Fortnight, selects projects for Cannes’ L’atelier, works at the Jerusalem Film Lab, is a Jury in the Jerusalem Film Festivals, and served as a decision maker for the Torino Film Lab. She is also the Producer of Israeli Director Yona Rozenkier. For some whatever strange statistical anomality, Rozenkier has participated in ALL of the above events or programs and even had TWO films screened in Cannes in the same year (2019). Note that Welinski is the curator of the Factory, so she had invited her own director to the program PLUS had arranged for his short film to be in the Official Competition, while the other 7000 people who had submitted films don’t even get their films watched.

We ask the reader to be reminded of the first paragraph of this article where we discuss the fact that each year thousands of films are submitted to these festivals or programs (about 7000-10,000 short films to Cannes, where Rozenkier’s short was selected). Does anyone believe that this is a coincidence and that the selection of Rozenkier’s projects in these events was by chance, rather due to the fact that his Producer is working for or with these organizations?

Further more, Rozenkier has recently been awarded funding for his next feature film by the Israeli Film Fund which is currently headed by Noa Regev. Noa’s previous job was the Artistic Director of the Jerusalem Film Festival, which Dominique Welinski works with and for, and which had selected for screening both of Rozenkier’s features.

Here it is important to explain that Dominique Welinski’s strength as a producer is not only in the roles and positions that she holds in these events, for the sole purpose of influencing ** selections of projects which she produces herself (such as Rozenkier’s films) but rather that these selections send a clear “signal” across the ecosystem that selection in these festivals and programs is highly dependent on personal networks and contacts. NO OTHER FOUL PLAY IS IMPLIED.

** Influencing in this regard simply means by the virtue of being a position holder in an important organization. No foul play needed, nor implied by us, in order to achieve this “influence.” It is achieved simply by holding an important role within the industry.

It could be imagined that Noa Regev, as the head of the Israeli Film Fund, would seek favors** with Welinski, hoping that Welinski would help films financed by the fund throughout the ecosystem.

The fact that Yona’s and Welinski’s two shorts were selected in Cannes in the same year, where Welinski works as an adviser, send a very clear signal across the network – success and selection in festivals and various programs are highly dependent on who you know, and the favors** you pay them. On the flip side, those in the industry also know that they should “watch out” to stay on good terms with Welinski’s, and other gatekeepers, or they might be ‘blacklisted’ and their careers tarnished.

** in the form of social currency – NO FAUL PLAY IS IMPLIED. It is not implied that actual currency is being exchanged.

The following chart further details the connections between Welinski and Regev across three distinct organizations. Firstly, at the Jerusalem Film Lab, Welinski serves as an adviser, and it was here that Rozenkier’s project was chosen and received an award.

Secondly, the Jerusalem Film Festival, under Noa Regev’s leadership as Artistic Director, selected both of Rozenkier’s feature films. This festival also hosts the pitching event of the Jerusalem Film Lab mentioned above.

Lastly, the Israeli Film Fund, now led by the same Noa Regev, recently granted Yona 2,000,000 Shekels (more than 500,000 Euro) for his next feature film production, funding that was given to only three films out of more than one hundred projects.

The intricate and overlapping relationships among these individuals and organizations are strikingly apparent. At this point it should be becoming increasingly evident why we argue that the structure of the European Film Industry more closely resembles that of a syndicate than a that of thriving healthy industry.

The following chart focuses on the Cannes Film Festival, highlighting the roles of selection committee members Wim Vanacker and Melissa Malinbaum. The following might be confusing, which is why a full chart has been provided below:

In 2017, ‘Gabriel’ by Oren Gerner, a short film produced by Melissa Malinbaum, was chosen to the festival. This selection came a year after the film’s participation in NISI MASA in 2016, during which time Wim Vanacker, ALSO a Cannes selection committee member, was its Artistic Director (if you’re confused already, use the chart below.)

The subsequent year, as Artistic Director Vanacker selected ‘The Silence of the Dying Fish’ by Vasilis Kekatos. In the following year, Kekatos’s ‘The Distance Between Us and the Sky’ entered the Cannes’ Shorts Official Competition. This film later won the Palme d’Or. It was later revealed that Eleni Kossyfidou, the film’s producer, had a longstanding professional relationship with Panos H. Koutras, a jury member on the awarding committee. Additionally as we’ve previously reported Kekatos had invited both Vanacker and Kossyfidou to be jury members at his own SEA NEMA Film Festival in 2017.

Here, we once again observe a glaring conflict of interest that extends over years and across various organizations.

Any credible professional in the film industry would recognize that the selection of a film produced by a committee member for festival participation constitutes an undeniable conflict of interest that should have never taken place. We again remind our reader that while Cannes selects only 8-10 short films per year, they receive between 7000 to 10,000 submissions. NISI MASA, too, received dozens of submissions each year. To assume that the above detailed narrative is some kind of a coincidence is preposterous. (If you believe that it is a coincidence, please contact us, we have a brand new bridge to sell you)

We reiterate that all the information mentioned above is publicly available and accessible online. We argue that the majority of films and projects chosen for these events benefit from a high degree of favoritism that bears little relation to their artistic merit. Although it is straightforward to establish connections in the aforementioned cases, many such relationships remain concealed from public view and may be impossible to uncover without insider knowledge. We also repeat that this article is not meant to be an ad hominem attack on any specific person.

The next chart delves deeper into NISI MASA. Here we explore the case of producer Ben Vandendaele, a close friend of Wim Vanacker, who at the time served as Nisi Masa’s Artistic Director. This chart illustrates Vandendaele’s recurring success in getting his projects selected at NISI MASA events year after year, showcasing a pattern that raises questions about the nature of these selections.

In 2016, two of the films selected, ‘Deer Boy’ and ‘The Hoarder,’ were produced by Vandendaele. This pattern continued into 2017, with the selection of another two Vandendaele productions, ‘Hunt’ and ‘The Nipple Whisperer.’

The trend persisted in 2018 and 2019. In 2018, ‘Vengeance Of The Vixens,’ a film produced by Vandendaele’s company, was chosen, during a period when he was also consulting for the organization. In the following year, the film ‘Creatures,’ again a production under Vandendaele, was selected, while he maintained his consultancy role.

Importantly – some of these films are listed as having Vandendaele as their producers, others have “Bekke Films” listed as the production company, without Vandendaele’s names attached to them. However, “Bekke Films” is Vandendaele’s company, one and the same. This has been done, allegedly, to hide these facts, and perhaps to circumvent the NISI MASA rules that allow for only one project from the same producer to be selected each year. If such actions remind you that of a syndicate, almost like a mafia, you are not alone in these thoughts.

Vandendaele’s multifaceted involvement in the 2018 NISI MASA event is particularly noteworthy. Not only was he a producer of a selected film, but he also played a dual role as a consultant to the organization. Furthermore, he was involved in the decision-making process that led to the awarding of a Distribution Award to another project. Coincidentally, a film he produced was also an award recipient during the same event.

The connections extended to jury members as well. In 2017, Daria Vlasova, a member of the jury, was associated with a film represented by Bekke Films, Vandendaele’s company. Another jury member, Jérôme Nunes, had known ties to Vandendaele. Additionally, two films connected to jury member Marija Fridinovaitė were selected in the same year.

A particularly concerning instance of potential conflict of interest involved jury member Ola Jankowska. Vandendaele’s distribution company handled her film ‘Deer Boy,’ while she was serving as a jury member at the event.

The circumstances surrounding the award win for ‘Vengeance of the Vixens’ in 2018 also raise questions. The film, produced by Bekke Films (owned by Vandendaele), won an award at a time when Vandendaele was serving as a consultant for the event. This succession of events, involving repeated selections, multiple roles, and connections to jury members, suggests a pattern that goes beyond mere coincidence, just as all the other examples which we mentioned above.

It’s commonplace for individuals to work with various companies or organizations throughout their careers, and it’s not unusual for their paths to intersect with others. However, when you put all of these instances together as in the chart below, a closer analysis of these interactions uncovers a troubling pattern, a deeply ingrained network of relationships among certain individuals and organizations which is overly incestuous. This network is problematic because it fosters a culture of mutual back-scratching, where favors and advantages are exchanged freely, blurring the lines between personal, professional interests and artistic merit. What’s more alarming is the blatant nature of these entanglements; there’s little to no effort to conceal these conflicts of interest, indicating that such practices have become normalized and accepted within their circles. This situation raises significant concerns about integrity and fairness, suggesting a corrupt system where personal connections trump professional and ethical standards. These corrupt relationships are between festival organizers, film fund decision makers, sales agents, producers, directors, and finally the governmental agencies which fund them which accept the way in which the system is set-up, funding it with hundreds of millions of Euros each year, public tax payers money that ends up in the pockets of few, who guards their positions and access to resources, stifling access to newcomers and reducing the quality of the industry’s artistic output.

While contacts between different individuals and organizations within an industry is natural, we believe that in the examples detailed in this report the lines have been crossed. The current state of the European Film Industry is highly compromised due to the work of certain rotten apples that poison the system as a whole, without many of the industry members, and certainly not the public, realizing it.

We ask our readers to continue to share with us information about the industry so it can be analyzed, published and distributed to the public and the bodies that fund these organizations.

Further Reading:

SOURCES:

https://www.screendaily.com/news/nadav-lapid-project-yes-among-five-israel-film-fund-winners-exclusive/5182483.article

https://www.screendaily.com/news/jerusalem-film-festival-crowns-pitch-point-winners/5131282.article

https://jff.org.il/en/article/33752

https://www.festival-cannes.com/en/f/parparim/

https://www.torinofilmlab.it/people/705237/Yona-Rozenkier

https://www.festival-cannes.com/en/2017/l-atelier-2017/

https://popupfilmresidency.org/2020/01/13/pop-up-film-residency-in-athens/

https://www.cannescourtmetrage.com/en/actualites/cannes-2020-the-short-films-competition 

https://pro.imdb.com/title/tt8296610/ 

https://www.festival-cannes.com/en/f/gabriel/

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10214916/

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8791506/

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm3187519/

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm3267450/

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

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1179406/ – Listed as a Producer in Yona’s films.

https://www.festival-cannes.com/en/2017/l-atelier-2017/

https://cineuropa.org/en/newsdetail/372414/

https://variety.com/2020/film/global/torinofilmlab-scriptlab-1203490498/

https://www.torinofilmlab.it/people/654851/Dominique-Welinski

The post Is the Integrity of the European Film Industry Compromised? first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

NISI MASA, now called “European Short Pitch”, plays a significant role in promoting emerging professionals within the European film industry.

Over the years, concerns have been raised regarding potential alleged conflicts of interest, as highlighted in the example below. Additionally, it is important to consider the below information in the context of the numerous projects that are submitted annually for consideration – dozens of projects, if not more – which renders the below data a statistical impossibility, and indicates, allegedly, at favouritism and nepotism.

It is also important to recognize that the organization benefits from public funding provided by the European Union. This is not a private organization. It is funded with public tax payers money.

A series of potential conflicts of interest and favouritism within the NISI MASA organization, particularly involving an individual named Ben “Bekke” Vandendaele, the owner of Bekke Films and distribution company RADIATOR IP Sales. Here’s a breakdown to clarify the situation:

1. Repeated Selections of Ben Vandendaele’s Productions:
   • In the 2016 NISI MASA event, two films were produced by Ben Vandendaele, “Deer Boy” and “The Hoarder”.
   • In the 2017 NISI MASA event, two films produced by Ben Vandendaele, “Hunt” and “The Nipple Whisperer,” were selected.
   • In 2018, another film produced by Vandendaele’s company, “Vegeance Of The Vixens,” was selected, while he was working as a consultant in the organization.
   • In 2019, he again produced a film selected in the program “Creatures”, while again working as a consultant in the organization.
     
2. Multiple Roles in the Same Event:
   • In 2018, Ben Vandendaele played multiple roles:
     • He was a producer of a selected film.
     • He acted as a consultant to the organization.
     • He was involved in awarding a Distribution Award to a different project.
     • At the same time, he received an award for a film he produced.
       
3. Connections to Jury Members:
   • In 2017, Daria Vlasova, a jury member, was involved in a film where Bekke Films, owned by Vandendaele, was the agent.
   • Jury member Jérôme Nunes had connections to Ben Vandendaele.
   • In the same year, two films connected to jury member Marija Fridinovaitė were selected.
     
4. Potential Conflict of Interest with Jury Member Ola Jankowska:
   • Ben Vandendaele’s distribution company handled Ola Jankowska’s “Deer Boy,” while she was a jury member at the event.
     
5. Award Win Under Questionable Circumstances:
   • In 2018, “VENGEANCE OF THE VIXENS,” produced by Bekke Films (owned by Ben), won an award while Ben was also serving as a consultant.
6. Selection of a project produced by a fellow Cannes committee member:
   • GABRIEL Oren Gerner – Israel / France, produced by Melissa Malinbaum from Why Not Productions, which was later selected to the 2018 Official Selection in Cannes, where both Melissa Malinbaum & Wim Vanacker are members of the selection committee. In other words, a film produced by a fellow committee member, was selected to the festival.
     
7. Selection of film by a director / producer duo, later to be involved in a major controversy:
   
   • Notably, Wim Vanacker serves on the Selection Committee for the Cannes film festival. In 2017, the film “The Silence of the Dying Fish” by Vasilis Kekatos of Greece, produced by Eleni Kossyfidou of Blackbird Production, was selected for participation in NISI MASA. Then, in 2019, another film by Vasilis Kekatos, The Distance Between Us and the Sky, also produced by Eleni Kossyfidou, was not only selected for Cannes but also won the prestigious short Palme d’Or. However, this achievement is shadowed by the conflict of interest arising from the fact that one of the jury members, Panos H. Koutras, has a longstanding professional relationship with Eleni Kossyfidou – she has been his producer for over 10 years. Meaning the winning film was produced by the producer a the jury member, in an undisclosed conflict of interest.

The above situations raises concerns about conflicts of interest and favouritism, where the same individual or their connected entities are involved in multiple roles such as a producer, distributor, consultant, and award-giver or recipient, potentially influencing the selection and award processes. This can undermine the integrity of the competition and the fairness of the selection and awarding processes.

Please note that Wim Vanacker and Ben Vandendaele are both from Belgium.

Raw information:

NISI MASA	Short film jury 2017
	Antoneta Alamat Kusijanovic (Croatia)
	Aristotelis Maragkos (Greece)
	Daria Vlasova (Russia)		Thanked for help on this film for which Ben Vanderdaele/Bekke Films was co- producer and sales agent http://www.deerboy.pl/en
	Marijana Verhoef (Serbia)
	Marija Fridinovaitė (Lithuania)		Film by her previous? production company was selected. previousy worked with producer of another selected film
	Ola Jankowska (Poland)		Thanked for help on Deer Boy, for which Ben Vandendaele is sales agent
	Eoin Maher (Dublin)
	Franco Dipietro (Italy)
	Gábor Osváth (Hungary)		His own film was selected
	Tom Floyd (N Ireland)
	Wim Vanacker (Dublin)
	Thelyia Petraki (Greece)
	Jérôme Nunes (France)		Connected to Bekke Films. Got a “thanks” credit on “Joy Palace” which was co-produced by Bekke Films. https://www.facebook.com/BekkeFilms/posts/973830642665937 Bekke Films shared a Page — feeling excited with Jerome Nunes and 4 others at Vlaams Audiovisueel Fonds. May 15, 2016 · Brussels, Belgium ·
	Koen de Jongh (Netherlands)
	Kostas Tagalakis (Greece)
	Final selection short film 2017	Producer
	Aya– Samuel Sultana, Stephanie Sant (Malta/France)	Shadeena Entertainment Martin Bonnici (TLF decision maker 2012)
	Blood Group – Daan Bunnik (Netherlands)	Bunnik’s own Production company: PRPL
	Encountering Samir– Rand Beiruty (Jordan/Germany)	None	Won ESP grant from Interforum Berlin 2016: https://www.interfilm.de/en/festival2016/interforum/script-pitch.html
	Fluid Border– Joana Vogdt (Germany)	Fayal Omer, Miko Film (Hamburg) & Joana Vogdt (Berlin)
	Golden Minutes– Saulius Baradinskas, Titas Laucius (Lithuania)	Viktorija Seniut (Viktoria Films), Martynas Mickenas (Baltic Productions) Co-Producer: Mirta Puhlovski (Slavica Film)	JURY MEMBER Marija Fridinovaitė worked for Baltic Productions. She also worked for NISI MASA at the same time in other capacities:
	Hospitalities– Ronan Posnic (France)	None
	Hunt– Senad Šahmanovic, Claudia Bottino (Montenegro/Belgium)	Ben Vandendaele (Belgium), Senad Sahmanovic (Montenegro)
	Lazarus– Emanuele Milasi (Italy)	None
	Riga’s Lilac– Lizete Upite (Latvia)	Richard Van Den Boom Papy 3D (France)
	The Figurant– Kamila Dohnalova, Jan Vejnar (Czech Republic)	Kamila Dohnalová Silk Films
	The Nipple Whisperer– Jan Van Dyck (Belgium)	Ben Vandendaele Handelskaai Bekke Films
	The Shift– Luka Popadic (Switzerland, Serbia)	Ognjen Glavonic / Franziska Sonder Non Aligned Films, Serbia & Radar Film GmbH, Switzerland
	The Silence of the Dying Fish– Vasilis Kekatos (Greece)	Eleni Kossyfidou Blackbird Production	Read more about this relationship here.
	Tina and Sandy– Hani Damazet (Croatia)	Mirta Puhlovski slavica film
	Under the volcano there is always a man sleeping– Sameh Alaa (Egypt/Belgium)	Muhammad Taymour, Metropolis
	Vesela loves chocolate– Stefka Mancheva (Bulgaria	Vanya Rainova Portokal
work in progess pitch
	BANALITY Balazs Simonyi – Hungary	Gabor Osvath, Nora Alfoldi Filmfabriq	Gabor Osvath is on the 2017 jury
	BATHHOUSE Laurynas BareiĹĄa – Lithuania	Klementina Remeikaite (Afterschool)	Klementina previously worked with jury member Marija Fridinovaitė
	GABRIEL Oren Gerner – Israel / France	Melissa Malinbaum Why Not Productions
	I’LL PROBABLY NEVER SEE YOU AGAIN Mitja Mlakar – Slovenia	Mojca Pernat Filmfactory
	MALVA AND LESHY Marcin Karolewski – Poland	Olga Cyganiak Juice Ltd
	ESP Selection Committee 2018
	Emanuele Milasi (Italy)
	Eoin Maher (Ireland, UK)
	Jan Vejnar (Czech Republic)
	Jerome Nunes (France)
	Kostas Tagalakis (Greece)		Worked as location manager on film “Sto Spiti” in which Marisha Triantafyllidou was an actress
	Lizete Upite (Latvia)
	Marija Fridinovaite (Lithuania, France)
	Mitja Mlakar (Slovenia)
	Rand Beiruty (Jordan, Germany)
	Wim Vanacker (Belgium, France)
ESP 2018 CONSULTANTS	Ben Vandendaele
	David Verdurme
	ESP Final Selection 2018	Producer
	Beyond the River– Galaxy Spanos (Greece, Switzerland)	Maria Repousi Wholewave
	Deer– Istvan Hevesi (Hungary)	László Józsa, Speak Easy Project, Focus Fox
	Divine in his creatures– Katarina Stankovic (Serbia)	None
	Drawing Shadows– Maxence Vassilyevitch (France)	Les Films de la Capitaine – Laurine Pelassy (France)	Pelassy produced Memoria, a film selected in ESP 2016
	Elena– Birutė Sodeikaitė (Lithuania)	Agne Adomene, Artshot
	Gila Who Walks Alone– Yuval Shapira (Romania, Israel)	Ilya Marcus
	Home Sweet Home– Michalina Fabijanska, Agata Puszcz (Poland)	Katarzyna Fukacz, Tito Productions
	Maissa– Lea Triboulet (France, Spain)	None
	Pale Saint– Rhys Jones (UK, Ireland)	Alexander Polunin
	Rizi– Stella Kyriakopoulos, Marisha Triantafyllidou (Greece, Spain)	Fani Skartouli Either/Or Productions
	Sedra– Judita Gamulin (Croatia)	Rea Rajčić, Eclectica (Croatia)
	The Inheritance– Mihnea Rares Hantiu (Romania)	Oana Furdea
	the Rudeness of a German Lady– Silva Capin (Croatia)	Rea Rajčić, Eclectica (Croatia)
	Trampoline– Kristian Sjerbo (Denmark)	Maria Moller Kjeldgaard Production company: Manna Film (Denmark) Co-producer: Mélissa Malinbaum, Face Nord Films (France)
	Vegeance Of The Vixens– Leander Hanssen, Niels Snoek (Belgium)	Bekke Films
	When bodies fall from the sky– Yenni Lee (Norway	Ronny Fritsche Zentropa Sweden and Nina Barbosa (Barbosa Film)
Work in progress pitch	Eva -Xheni Alushi (Albania / Switzerland)	Noah Bohnert, LetterBox Collective (Switzerland)
	QUXUROBA – Teymur Gambarov (Azerbaijan / Russia)	Memuar Films, Fil Production,Etienne Ricaud
	Soy tu Papa – Garrick J Lauterbach (The Netherlands / Switzerland / Mexico)	Noah Bohnert,Letterbox Collective, Fidelio Films (Mexico)
	TINA & SENDY Hani Domazet (Croatia)	Mirta Puhlovski, Slavica Film	Film was in final selection NISI MASA 2017
	ESP Winners 2018
Best Pitch	THE INHERITANCE by Mihnea Rares Hantiu – Romania
	THE RUDENESS OF A GERMAN LADY by Silva Capin – Croatia
	VENGEANCE OF THE VIXENS by Leander Hanssen Jr – Belgium	Bekke films
The Aubagne International Film Festival award	ELENA by Biruté Sodeikaité – Lithuania
Gear award by 2K4K Film Rental Waclaw Maczynski	DIVINE IN HIS CREATURES by Katarina Stankovic – Serbia
Works-in-Progress Awards
Distribution Award – Radiator IP Sales – Ben Vandendaele (Belgium)	QUXUROBA by Teymur Gambarov – Azerbaijan/Russia
Image Award Poznanska Wytwornia Filmowa (Poznan Motion Pictures) – Anita Trzyna providing image postproduction (Poland)	QUXUROBA by Teymur Gambarov – Azerbaijan/Russia
Mastering award – The Fridge (Belgium)	QUXUROBA by Teymur Gambarov – Azerbaijan/Russia

Our organization is dedicated to unveiling the true decision-making processes and power dynamics within the film industry. The chart below provides a comprehensive summary of these elements. Our goal is to democratize access and provide talented, emerging young filmmakers with the opportunities they rightfully deserve to succeed in the industry.

Wim Vanacker Biography

Wim Vanacker is a Belgian filmmaker, producer, and script consultant known for his involvement in the short films The Naked Leading the Blind (2013), Endgame (2011), and The Mechanism of Love (2011). After an initial career in psychology, working with drug addiction in Dublin, he transitioned to filmmaking, studying at EICAR in Paris. His involvement in the European film industry deepened through his work with NISI MASA, where he became Head of the Script Department and managed the MEDIA-funded European Short Pitch initiative.

Vanacker has also been a member of the Selection Committee for the Official Short Film Competition at the Cannes Film Festival, a role that has sparked controversy due to allegations of conflicts of interest and favoritism during his tenure. He has maintained influential positions across various film industry platforms, including serving as a script consultant and programmer. Despite his achievements, his professional relationships and roles have drawn criticism in recent years, particularly in relation to questions about transparency and fairness within festival selection processes.

Ben Vandendaele Biography

Ben “Bekke” Vandendaele is a Belgian film producer and distributor, best known as the founder of Bekke Films, a Brussels-based production company, and Radiator IP Sales, an international short film distribution and sales agency. Through Radiator IP Sales, he has built one of Europe’s most prominent short film distribution catalogues, representing titles across festivals including Cannes, Berlinale, Sundance, and Locarno. His producing credits include co-productions spanning Belgium, Poland, Montenegro, and other European countries, with films such as “Deer Boy,” “Hunt,” “The Nipple Whisperer,” and “Vengeance of the Vixens” – many of which were developed or selected through NISI MASA’s European Short Pitch program.

Vandendaele has also been active as a consultant, jury member, and award presenter at various European short film labs and festivals, including European Short Pitch, where he served as a consultant in 2018 and 2019. His dual role as producer and distributor, combined with his presence on selection panels and industry juries, has drawn scrutiny regarding potential conflicts of interest – particularly given the recurrence of Bekke Films and Radiator IP Sales-affiliated projects within programs where he has held advisory or decision-making positions. Despite these concerns, he remains a central figure in the European short film distribution landscape.

SOURCES:

Sources:

1. https://www.europeanshortpitch.org/films
2. https://www.festival-cannes.com/en/press/press-releases/the-short-films-selections-at-the-71st-festival-de-cannes/
3. https://www.festival-cannes.com/en/press/press-releases/cannes-2020-the-short-films-competition/
4. https://www.flandersimage.com/titles/the-nipple-whisperer
5. https://www.centralafilm.pl/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/DEER_BOY_ANG.pdf
6. https://polishshorts.pl/en/news/2864/deer_boy_wins_european_short_pitch
7. https://www.midpoint-institute.eu/en/person/senad-9t0lpY
8. https://www.imdb.com/fr/title/tt11575400/companycredits/
9. https://arteurbanacollectif.com/en/cinema/european-short-pitch/

The post NISI MASA alleged conflicts of interests under the tenure of Wim Vanacker first appeared on Film Industry Watch.