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.

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.

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

Πρόσωπα κλειδιά που συνδέονται στη βραβευμένη ελληνική ταινία

Σε μια εκπληκτική αποκάλυψη, νέα στοιχεία δείχνουν ότι μια σύγκρουση συμφερόντων αμαύρωσε την Επίσημη Επιλογή Ταινιών Μικρού Μήκους του Φεστιβάλ Καννών 2019 και το ίδιο το βραβείο.

Το Χρυσό Φοίνικς κέρδισε η ελληνική ταινία μικρού μήκους «Η απόσταση ανάμεσα στον ουρανό κι εμάς» σε σκηνοθεσία Βασίλη Κεκάτου, και παραγωγή της Ελένης Κοσσυφίδου. Ο Πάνος Χ. Κούτρας, μέλος της κριτικής επιτροπής ταινιών μικρού μήκους του φεστιβάλ, είχε επαγγελματική σχέση με την Κοσσυφίδου, τουλάχιστον από το 2004, εκείνη είχε αναλαβει παραξωξος όλων των ταινιων του Κούτρα. Με άλλα λόγια, ο επί χρόνια παραγωγός του μέλους της κριτικής επιτροπής και της βραβευμένης ταινίας είναι το ίδιο πρόσωπο.

Η Ελένη Κοσσυφίδου και ο Πάνος Χ. Κούτρας είχαν συμμετάσχει στο παρελθόν στο Φεστιβάλ Κάννών με την μεγάλου μήκους ταινία «Ξένια» (2014), και αργότερα με το «Dodo» (2022). Και οι δύο είναι γνωστά ονόματα στο φεστιβάλ. Με άλλα λόγια, είναι απίθανο το φεστιβάλ να μην γνώριζε αυτή τη σύνδεση μεταξύ τους και είναι λογικό να υποθέσει κανείς ότι ο Κούτρας, δήθεν, προσκλήθηκε ως μέλος της κριτικής επιτροπής για να εξασφαλίσει ότι το βραβείο θα πάει στον Κεκάτο. Σε έναν κλάδο όπου ο νεποτισμός είναι κανονικοποιημένος, το να υποθέσουμε κάτι  διαφορετικό θα ήταν αν μη τι άλλο αφελές.

Επιπλέον, σε μια εκδήλωση στο Παρίσι μετά το φεστιβάλ, ο Κούτρας είπε σε αρκετούς άλλους σκηνοθέτες ότι «πέταξε τις ταινίες τους απο τις λίστες προβολών», οπότε δεν είχαν καμία ευκαιρία άλλα μέλη της κριτικής επιτροπής να μπορέσουν να τις δουν και να τις αξιολογήσουν. Η τοποθέτηση του Κούτρα ως μέλους της κριτικής επιτροπής και όχι ως επικεφαλή της κριτικής επιτροπής, διατηρεί μια εύλογη στάση άρνησης απο τους υπευθυνους του Φεστιβάλ.

Λεπτομέρής παρουσίαση σύγκρουσης συμφερόντων

Η νεοαποκαλυφθείσα σύγκρουση επικεντρώνεται στην Ελένη Κοσσυφίδου, παραγωγό της βραβευμένης ταινίας.

Η Κοσσυφίδου έχει μακροχρόνια επαγγελματική σχέση με τον Πάνο Κούτρα, Έλληνα σκηνοθέτη που υπηρέτησε στην κριτική επιτροπή στο τμήμα «Ταινίες μικρού μήκους» το 2019. Η συνεργασία τους χρονολογείται από το 2004, με την Κοσσυφίδου να είναι παραγωγός όλων των πρόσφατων μεγάλου μήκους ταινιών του Κούτρα, συμπεριλαμβανομένων των “Dodo” (2022), “Xenia” (2014) και “Strella” (2009). Η Κοσσυφίδου αρχικά υπηρέτησε ως Διευθύντρια Παραγωγής για την ταινία του Κούτρα το 2004 “Real Life”.

Συγκεκριμένα, η Κοσσυφίδου είιχε αναλάβει την παραγωγή και των δυο ταινιών του Κεκάτου, τη μικρού μήκους ταινία του 2018 “The Silence of the Dying Fish”, καθώς και τη βραβευμένη με τον Χρυσό Φοίνικα “The Distance Between Us and the Sky”.

Είναι προφανές ότι υπήρχε ξεκάθαρο οικονομικό κίνητρο για τον Κούτρα να απονείμει το βραβείο σε ταινία που είχε για παραγωγό, έναν δικό του παραγωγό, καθώς θα προσελκούσε χρηματοδότηση για μελλοντικά έργα.

Κρυφές συνδέσεις

Η σχέση Κοσσυφίδου, Κούτρα και Κεκάτου δεν αποκαλύφθηκε κατά τη διάρκεια του φεστιβάλ και ήρθε στο φως της δημοσιότητας μόλις πρόσφατα. Επιπλέον, φαίνεται ότι έγιναν σκόπιμες προσπάθειες να συγκαλυφθεί αυτή η σύνδεση. Το όνομα της Κοσσυφίδου προστέθηκε στη σελίδα της ταινίας στην Wikipedia μόλις στις 8 Ιουλίου 2021 – δύο χρόνια μετά την ολοκλήρωση του Φεστιβάλ – παρά το γεγονός ότι η Κοσσυφίδου ήταν η κύρια παραγωγός της ταινίας, σε μια προφανή πράξη απόκρυψης. Ωστόσο, όπως προαναφέρθηκε, είναι εύλογο να υποθέσουμε ότι η σύνδεση ήταν γνωστή στους ειδικούς του φεστιβάλ.

Κατά τη διάρκεια της εκδήλωσης, πηγές αναφέρουν ότι ο Κούτρας «χαριτολογώντας» είπε στους άλλους σκηνοθέτες που ήταν υποψήφιοι για το βραβείο ότι «θα μπορούσε να δωροδοκηθεί» – ένα σχόλιο που τώρα φαίνεται βαθιά ειρωνικό μετά από αυτές τις αποκαλύψεις.

Μεταφεστιβαλική διαμάχη

Σε μια εκδήλωση μετά το φεστιβάλ στο Παρίσι, ο Κούτρας φέρεται να είπε σε αρκετούς άλλους σκηνοθέτες ότι «πέταξε την ταινία [τους] αδιάφορα». Η απόφαση να βραβευτεί το «The Distance Between Us and the Sky» με τον Χρυσό Φοίνικα εξέπληξε τους παρευρισκόμενους και τους κινηματογραφιστές, καθώς η ταινία θεωρήθηκε ευρέως ως μια από τις πιο αδύναμες συμμετοχές στην κατηγορία.

Αξίζει να σημειωθεί ότι ένα εκπληκτικό 98% των Ελλήνων πολιτών πιστεύει ότι η διαφθορά είναι «ευρέως διαδεδομένη» στη χώρα τους, σύμφωνα με την τελευταία έρευνα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης για το θέμα.

ΕΝΗΜΕΡΩΣΗ:

Χάρη στη συνεισφορά των αναγνωστών, αποκαλύφθηκε ότι η σχέση μεταξύ του Επιτρόπου Επιλογής του Φεστιβάλ Καννών Wim Vanacker, και του νικητή του Χρυσού Φοίνικα 2019 Βασίλη Κεκάτου και της παραγωγού της ταινίας, Ελένης Κοσσυφίδου, η οποία είναι επίσης παραγωγός του μέλους της κριτικής επιτροπής του Φεστιβάλ Καννών Πάνου Χ. Κούτρα, χρονολογείται από το 2018, όταν ο Κεκάτος είχε προσκαλέσει τον Vanacker να υπηρετήσει ως μέλος της κριτικής επιτροπής στο δικό του SeaNema Open Air Film Festival, μαζί με την Κοσσυφίδου.

Όπως αναλύεται στο Wim Vanacker, Ben Vandendaele – NISI MASA σύγκρουση συμφερόντων, ο Κεκάτος είχε συμμετάσχει στο NISI MASA με την ταινία μικρού μήκους του 2018 «The Silence of the Dying Fish», την παραγωγή της οποίας είχε πάλι αναλάβει  η Κοσσυφίδου, όταν ο Vanacker υπηρετούσε ως Καλλιτεχνικός Διευθυντής του οργανισμού. Σύμφωνα με το παρακάτω άρθρο του 2018, ο Κεκάτος είχε προσκαλέσει τον Vanacker να υπηρετήσει ως μέλος της κριτικής επιτροπής σε ένα φεστιβάλ που είχε οργανώσει και ηγηθεί στο νησί της Κεφαλονιάς, ένα φεστιβάλ που διεξήχθη για τέσσερα χρόνια, αλλά δεν πραγματοποιήθηκε ξανά ύστερα από τη νίκη του Κεκάτου το 2019.

Το Χρυσό Φοίνικα κέρδισε η ελληνική ταινία μικρού μήκους «Η απόσταση ανάμεσα στον ουρανό κι εμάς» σε σκηνοθεσία Βασίλη Κεκάτου, και παραγωγή της Ελένης Κοσσυφίδου. Ο Πάνος Χ. Κούτρας, μέλος της κριτικής επιτροπής ταινιών μικρού μήκους του φεστιβάλ, είχε επαγγελματική σχέση με την Κοσσυφίδου, τουλάχιστον από το 2004, εκείνη είχε αναλαβει παραξωξος όλων των ταινιων του Κούτρα. Με άλλα λόγια, η επί χρόνια παραγωγός του μέλους της κριτικής επιτροπής και της βραβευμένης ταινίας είναι το ίδιο πρόσωπο.

Επιπτώσεις για την ακεραιότητα του κλάδου και του Φεστιβάλ

Αυτή η άγνωστη σύγκρουση εγείρει σοβαρά ηθικά ερωτήματα σχετικά με τη διαδικασία επιλογής και βράβευσης ταινιών του Φεστιβάλ Καννών. Σε μια εκδήλωση υψηλού προφίλ όπου εκατοντάδες κινηματογραφιστές διαγωνίζονται για διακρίσεις κύρους, η ανάγκη για αμερόληπτη κρίση είναι πρωταρχικής σημασίας.

Υπενθυμίζουμε στους αναγνώστες μας την περίπτωση της Mélissa Malinbaum – μέλους της επιτροπής επιλογής του Φεστιβάλ Καννών που είχε δημιουργήσει μια ταινία μικρού μήκους που επιλέχθηκε στο φεστιβάλ, και του Dominique Welinski που έχει επίσης πολλούς ρόλους, ως παραγωγός και υπεύθυνος λήψεως αποφάσεων, σε κάτι που μοιάζει σαν μια σύγκρουση συμφερόντων για το φεστιβάλ και τη βιομηχανία γενικότερα.

Γάλλος παραγωγός της ταινίας ήταν ο Γκιγιόμ Ντρέιφους.

Εάν έχετε περισσότερες πληροφορίες για αυτήν την ιστορία, ή οποιαδήποτε άλλη ιστορία της ελληνικής ή ευρωπαϊκής κινηματογραφικής βιομηχανίας, ΕΠΙΚΟΙΝΩΝΗΣΤΕ ΜΑΖΙ ΜΑΣ.

Ο οργανισμός μας είναι αφοσιωμένος στην αποκάλυψη των πραγματικών διαδικασιών λήψης αποφάσεων και της δυναμικής ισχύος στη βιομηχανία του κινηματογράφου. Το παρακάτω διάγραμμα παρέχει μια περίληψη αυτών των στοιχείων. Στόχος μας είναι να εκδημοκρατίσουμε την πρόσβαση και να παρέχουμε σε ταλαντούχους, αναδυόμενους νέους κινηματογραφιστές τις ευκαιρίες που δικαιωματικά τους αξίζουν για να επιτύχουν στον κλάδο.

Feedback and Corrections
If you believe your or company’s name was listed on this website unjustly, please CONTACT US.

Sources:

Wikipedia article history (Difference between revisions) showing how the names of the producers were added only in 2021:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Distance_Between_Us_and_the_Sky&diff=1032591270&oldid=904440713

All screenshots takes from public resources:

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://greekreporter.com/2022/07/20/greeks-believe-corruption-widespread/

The post Σύγκρουση συμφερόντων αμαυρώνει το βραβείο Χρυσού Φοίνικα του Φεστιβάλ Καννών για το 2019 για την ελληνική ταινία μικρού μήκους Η απόσταση ανάμεσα στον ουρανό κι εμάς του Βασίλη Κεκάτου. first appeared on Film Industry Watch.