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.

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

Dear Festival de Cannes team,

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

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

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

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

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

update post festival

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

What Actually Happened

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

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

Signs of Potential Conflict

Several factors suggest the concerns may have been justified:

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

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

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

Context and Mitigation

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

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

The issue with these reports is that they completely overlook the true reason behind the committee’s replacement: the controversy surrounding Kekatos’ Palme d’Or victory, which we have previously covered and outlined here. This is in addition to the fact that in recent months the Greek film industry was abuzz with alleged rumors about Vasilis Kekatos’ behavior both on and off set, which several Greek filmmakers have described to us as allegedly “toxic.” These allegations include allegedly failing to give proper credit to creative partners, public firings, and showing general disrespect toward cast and crew. Specific examples of this behavior were recounted to us as follows:

I have three very close associates, very esteemed as well, that had been working with Mr Kekatos and were either fired or quit because of his extremely bad behaviour. Although, as XXX said, we have not cooperated professionally with him, we did rent our company XXX to him for the shooting of his series, and I was very sad to see that his art director, had destroyed our company logo because *he* [Kekatos] insisted that they put another sticker on top of ours. This is minor, I guess, but the allegations and condemnations of his behaviour from our very legit associates are definitely true”

XX is right about Kekatos appropriating queer cinema as a straight guy…. He doesn’t pretend to be gay. He is very inappropriate with many women actually, outrageously flirting and some times in an insulting way. He is definitely a malignant narcissist and what is upsetting now, is that he is trying to become the poster boy for transparency and accuses the Ministry for shady behaviour in order to take peoples’ attention away from his own actions.”

Funny thing about Kekatos is that it is always ok for him to screw other people, but not so nice when somebody screws you :)”

While it is clear why the Greek Ministry of Culture wants nothing to do with Kekatos, it remains unclear why the local media continues to shield him while allowing misinformation to circulate. We urge the Greek film community to keep providing us with information about Kekatos so that we can ensure it is accurately reported. Our organization’s only purpose is to make sure that the film community retains its morality by showing no tolerance towards those that abuse their power and try to manipulate their way to success in the entertainment industry, or abuse others.

UPDATE: Following the publication of our initial article, several Greek filmmakers have reached out to us with insights into why the Cannes controversy has received limited coverage in Greek media. According to these sources, Eleni Kossyfidou and Panos H. Koutras, who are at the center of the Cannes incident, allegedly have strong connections within local media circles. These connections, our sources suggest, have effectively shielded them from scrutiny in Greek news outlets. It remains to be seen how long this protection would last.

The post GREECE: “Oscar Selection Chaos” – Real Story Ignored by Local and Global Media first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

Put simply, small and medium sized festivals, and those who work for them, grovel to the bigger festivals, and the people who run them, by selecting the same films as they do.

This approach is convenient for them for two reasons:

First, it means that they don’t have to spend time watching hundreds or thousands of films in order to create the lineup for their festivals.

Secondly, and more importantly, it signals to the “higher ups” in the ecosystem that they are willing to “play ball” with how the system is set-up. By doing so these individuals make themselves available for promotions within the greater system, from smaller festivals, to medium ones, and finally to the biggest festivals and other important companies or organizations.

Power flows from the top downwards:

The more “well connected” a filmmaker (or his producer) is, the wider the selection of his or her film will be within the broader ecosystem, not only because of personal relationships, but because smaller festivals want to be aligned with the prevailing “politics” and ongoing “day to day” business of running the industry’s “merry go round.”

By doing so, the programmers of the smaller festivals hope, and often succeed, in climbing up the industry’s ladder, getting closer and closer to the inner circle, where the real holders of power and distributors of resources are, namely the 3-4 biggest festivals, film funds, or large production or sales companies.

In other words: “power” and decision making is projected from the top of the pyramid downwards to the smaller players.

The smaller players, who want to align themselves with the system, must accept many of the films selected by the “big boys”, in order to become part of the “ecosystem” or they will simply stay out of it.

We refer to the industry as an “ecosystem”, and in a more cheeky way “the syndicate,” to point out the complexities of how power and influence flows through it, and to the fact that it is mostly a closed system, shut off to outsiders.

In reality, the European film industry is controlled by a small group of people who work across different festivals, sales companies, and other film-related organizations, who are all “following the steps” of the higher ups, for their personal benefit within the ecosystem’s employment market, and for the benefit of the smaller festivals that they the work for.

And, as we’ve noted above – it saves them from watching 10,000 submissions.

As a side note, the power in the industry is classically distributed – it is held and projected from a small circle outwards. The smallest circle includes a few dozen people, with each subsequent circle including more and more people, with decreasing amount of political importance.

As we’ve pointed out numerous times, this situation creates barriers for new entrants, limits creativity, and concentrates power and resources in the hands of few.

The image below is an example for how individuals often hold multiple roles in multiple organizations, concentering power, and slowly moving up, or inward, the ecosystem, towards the central holders of power and resources, who are sometimes referred in the industry as exactly what they are – “decision makers.”

If this type of analysis appeals to you, please consider contributing to the study of the film industry, by researching it towards a Master’s or Phd, and consider applying for financial support here.

Sign-up to our website to be informed when the final version of this article be published.

The post How Medium sized Festivals Grovel to the Big Boys, by Selecting the Same Films 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.

Our reports highlight festival biases: The BFI London Film Festival’s selection of many BFI-funded films in 2021 suggests preferential treatment. Similarly, TIFF’s 2022 lineup featured three documentaries executive produced by its programming head, Anita Lee, pointing to nepotism. At Cannes, the shift from Canal+ to a new sponsor drastically changed film representation, underscoring commercial influence on selections, and the awarding of a short Plame d’Or under suspicious circumstances.

The case of Netflix and filmmaker Carl Erik Rinsch exemplifies the tangible consequences of the industry’s over-reliance on festival prestige. Rinsch’s short film The Gift won awards at the 2010 Cannes Lions international advertising festival. The acclaim from this led to him being the planned director for a prequel to Alien and a remake of Logan’s Run, although both projects would move on to other hands. Netflix’s substantial investment in Rinsch’s project, based on his standing within the festival circuit, led to a significant financial loss of $55,000,000 without yielding a single episode. This incident demonstrates the risks of a system that prioritizes perceived marketability and festival accolades over substantive content evaluation and actual merit, which is completely lacking in today’s ecosystem where connections nepotism and politics reign supreme.

This cycle perpetuates a “loop from hell,” where the media and industry use festival selections and awards as a standard, further degrading the quality of work being produced. As producers and streaming giants like Netflix make hiring and financing decisions based on festival outcomes and attached names rather than the intrinsic quality of scripts and projects, the industry finds itself in a downward spiral of quality.

The reliance on festival recognition and industry connections over genuine artistic merit not only stifles diversity and innovation but misleads the public, who, influenced by the media’s portrayal, expect the festival-acclaimed films to be of a certain caliber, only to be frequently disappointed.

Addressing this issue requires a paradigm shift towards greater transparency, accountability, and a re-evaluation of the criteria and processes used to select and award films. Only by dismantling the current loop of influence and recognition can the film industry begin to cultivate a more authentic, diverse, and quality-driven landscape. This shift is not merely about restoring public trust or preventing financial missteps; it’s about preserving the art of cinema and ensuring it continues to reflect a wide array of voices and stories.

FURTHER READING: Connections, Nepotism & Politics Reign Supreme

The post Downward Spiral: How Festival Corruption, Media, Degrades Film Quality and Industry Standards first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

As mentioned in our article addressing the BFI London Film Festival we have highlighted a significant issue: in 2021, 19 films funded by the BFI dominated the lineup, severely limiting opportunities for independent filmmakers. This situation underscores the pervasive concerns about sponsorships and their role in creating conflicts of interest within the industry and in film festivals in particular. This issue is further highlighted in the case of the Cannes Film Festival and its 28 years partner, Canal+

Our analysis of feature films in the festival’s “Official Selection” and “Critics’ Week” from 2017 to 2022 reveals a notable trend involving production and financing entities. Canal+ had a significant presence with 85 films over these years. However, there was a sharp decline to just one film in 2022, coinciding with the end of its sponsorship and the emergence of TikTok as the new sponsor. This shift provides insight into how sponsorship changes can impact the representation of production and financing companies in prestigious festival lineups. Other organizations listed below are, of course, also sponsors of the festival, such as the CNC, the Ile-de-France fund, and Arte.

Additionally, in 2022, three films produced or co-produced by ‘Why Not Productions’ — ‘Deception,’ ‘Beginning,’ and ‘DNA’ — were selected to the festival. Notably, Mélissa Malinbaum, already mentioned here, works for the company as a producer (source), and is a member of the Cannes Short Film committee (source). This relationship spotlights concerns about equity for independent filmmakers who lack such connections, suggesting a potentially uneven playing field within the festival’s selection process.

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.

SOURCES:

https://web.archive.org/web/20211028014017/https:/www.festival-cannes.com/en/participer/prepare/partners
https://web.archive.org/web/20220315230007/https://www.festival-cannes.com/en/participer/prepare/partners
https://web.archive.org/web/20211028014017/https://www.festival-cannes.com/en/participer/prepare/partners
https://www.tellerreport.com/life/2021-12-17-cannes-2022–two-media-chosen-to-replace-the-historic-partner-canal-%2B.H1NXbw0KqY.html
https://americanmovies.news/tiktok-and-cannes-official-sponsor-and-short-film-competition/

Why Not Productions:

https://en.unifrance.org/directories/person/384945/melissa-malinbaum

https://pro.imdb.com/title/tt13613056/filmmakers

https://pro.imdb.com/title/tt12444572/companycredits

https://pro.imdb.com/title/tt7600716/filmmakers

https://www.festival-cannes.com/en/press/press-releases/cannes-2020-the-short-films-competition/

The post CASE STUDY: Cannes and Festival Sponsorships first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

Matthieu Darras and Wim Vanacker roles with these organizations are documented in their self published biographical information. In addition, Darras was programmer for the Cannes Critics’ Week, consultant for the Venice Film Festival, and worked for many other festivals. Vanacker, too, is member of the Selection Committee for the Official Short Film Competition of the Cannes Film Festival, and served and serves as a consultant and jury member for many other festivals as well.

These organizations have been structured by individuals well-versed in navigating the intricacies of the film industry and its financing in Europe, enabling them to secure public funding effectively.

Once these organizations are established, they invite high-profile filmmakers, producers, sales agents, and festival employees (selection committee members) to assume various roles within their structures. This strategy is not merely about fostering talent and innovation but helps amplifying the organization’s, and the individuals who work for it, significance within the film industry’s broader ecosystem. Through this amplification, these entities gain privileged access to festival decision-makers, in fact some of them ARE festival decision-makers, thereby securing festival selection for the projects that had participated in their various initiatives. This creates a loop which enables the organizations to justify further public financial support:

1. Selection of projects to the self organized initiatives.
2. Selection of the same projects to film festivals, by the same people who manage these organizations and work for the festivals.
3. Justification for further public financing. Selection of new projects – the loop continues.

The process described here is emblematic of a ‘revolving door’ phenomenon, a cycle where producers, festival personnel, decision-makers in European national funds, and private investors create a self-sustaining loop of influence and promotion. Within this closed circuit, power and influence are commodities exchanged to advance personal projects and agendas. This system raises significant questions about transparency and fairness, particularly in light of the public funding that supports much of the European film industry.

The implications of such a system are manifold. On one hand, it leads to a homogenization of cinematic output, as the selection of projects is limited to a small number of people, those who make part of the network – A clear example of this can be seen here. On the other hand, it potentially erects barriers to entry for emerging filmmakers and those outside the established networks, stifling diversity and innovation. As these entities operate with public funds, there is a warranted expectation for them to uphold principles of fairness and equitable access, but this is simply not the case.

Recently we’ve reported that during Matthieu Darras’ tenure as the Artistic Director of the Torino Film Lab, his sister, Isabelle Collombat (formerly Isabelle Darras), participated in the lab’s initiatives on two separate occasions. This case serves as a glaringly example, epitomizing the widespread issues prevalent throughout the film industry, particularly within the European film ecosystem, as extensively documented in our numerous articles, embodying nepotism, shamelessly, in its purest form.

The role of key figures such as Darras and Vanacker is pivotal in this narrative. After stepping down from leading the Torino Film Lab in 2019, within weeks, he had established the Pop Up Residency, which serves the same function within the industry ecosystem.

These organizations draw significant amounts of money both from public sources, and from private investors, and present a powerful opportunity for film producers to enable the production of their projects. A vast amount of European films have been produced with the help of these organizations and the funding opportunities that they provide. The problem is that these organizations, as can be seen here, are tightly controlled by a small number of people who may use their decision making powers to gain influence over the industry and serve as powerful gate keepers with tremendous control.

As reported in 2019 Cannes Short Film Award individuals with multiple roles in the industry might find themselves in conflicts of interests, which, while not illegal, are at the minimum controversial practices.

It is important to stress that while systemic issues are being discussed, not every individual or project associated with these organizations is necessarily involved in such practices.

To recap, this instance involves a reciprocal relationship between Vassilis Kekatos, an artistic director of a self organized festival in Greece, and Wim Vanacker, member of the Cannes selection committee, who at the time was the Artistic Director of NISI MASA. Kekatos invited Vanacker to serve as a jury member at his festival in 2018. The same year, Vanacker had invited Kekatos and his producer, Eleni Kossyfidou, to participate in NISI MASA. Notably, Kossyfidou also served as a jury member at the same festival in 2018. A year later Kekatos, with a new short film, was invited to premire in Cannes, where Vanacker is a selection committee member. The new short film was also produced by Kossyfidou, the long standing producer of of Panos H. Koutras, who was a jury member in the committee that had made the decision on awarding Kekatos the Palme d’Or. (Koutras is quoted as telling other directors he had “removed their films from consideration”) This sequence of events illustrates a closed loop of reciprocal favors and positions, highlighting potential conflicts of interest and the intricate web of relationships in the industry.

Another rationale behind these organizations is to bypass national film funds, which may operate beyond the influence of these individuals. In several countries, these funds are specifically designed to deter or diminish nepotism. “Private” entities like the Torino Film Lab emerge as an alternative financing route, “by the producers, for the producers,” offering a platform where greater control and favoritism can be exercised, where the “revolving door” can operate with greater ease. (In other countries, a revolving door is the fund’s policy, as detailed here)

Much can be revealed about these organizations by how they display the names of their founders, members and participants. By prominently listing the organizers and participants on their websites, these groups are not just sharing information; they’re highlighting the exclusivity and prestige of membership. This tactic suggests that being part of these organizations is a privilege, reserved for a select few who are part of the industry’s power centers. Essentially, the lists serve as a symbol of status and influence, indicating that the organization’s primary purpose may be to maintain and elevate the elite status of its members rather than purely pursuing their publicized goals.

Enhanced control and influence is also exerted through the exclusion of individuals not part of the ‘select few.’ Those on the periphery understand the necessity of ‘playing the game’ to avoid marginalization, the process of ‘kissing the ring’. As the industry is dominated by a handful of festivals and key individuals, with major festivals choosing only a limited number of films annually, a narrow gateway to success is created, reinforcing the power of the established few and limiting diversity and opportunity for others.

It is crucial to emphasize the significant reliance of these organizations on public funding. They frequently receive substantial support from major entities like Creative Europe and Eurimages, as well as the Visegrad Fund and various national funds. Additionally, festivals and other institutions, which are themselves beneficiaries of public funds, such as the Cannes Film Festival, also contribute. This widespread use of public funds underscores the need for accountability and transparency in how these organizations operate and allocate resources.

Notice below how the logos of “When East Meets West” and “KVIFF”, where according to his own biography, Darras works for, appear as supporters on the websites of both “Pop Up Residency” and “First Cut Lab”, two seemingly different organizations, but who were founded and are managed by the same person – Darras.

Even while researching for this article, additional ties have been uncovered. For instance, Julie Marnay serves in dual roles: as Head of Programme at the European Short Pitch and as Program Manager at First Cut Lab. According to her biography, she had joined “Semaine de la Critique in 2010 where she became Responsible for Short Films and then Coordinator of Next Step, a programme created to support short filmmakers of the Cannes’ section towards their first feature film.” In other words these two distinct entities share key personnel, who also work at festivals, creating a significant degree of influence and sway within the industry, to select few.

It’s important to clarify that “power” in this context is born from the misuse of “influence.” Specifically, power arises when decision-making is compromised by bias or favoritism rather than being based solely on merit. When decisions are made fairly and impartially, power, in the sense of a manipulable resource, is not generated, because the decision-maker’s authority isn’t exploited for personal gain or to wield undue influence. Thus, power, as a currency for potential abuse, only emerges when control and influence are exercised improperly.

A different example for such use of power, other than in the example of the 2019 Cannes short film award, is demonstrated in the case of producer Dominique Welinski. Not surprisingly, she has participated in the Torino Film Lab, both as a Producer of a selected project, and as a “decision maker” multiple times. Her director, Yona Rozenkier, is pictured below as a participant at the Pop Up Residency.

Numerous hidden ties and connections likely exist. We urge individuals knowledgeable about the European film industry’s inner workings to come forward and share any information they possess. Your insights are invaluable. Please reach out to us with any details you can provide.

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.

SOURCES:

http://firstcutlab.eu/people/
https://popupfilmresidency.org/people/residents/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NISI_MASA#Origin
https://www.torinofilmlab.it
https://www.torinofilmlab.it/people/654851/Dominique-Welinski
https://www.europeanshortpitch.org/

The post CASE STUDY: The Concentration of Power, Influence & Control in the European Industry first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

As detailed in Wim Vanacker, Ben Vandendaele – NISI MASA conflicts of interests, Kekatos had participated in NISI MASA with his 2018 short film “The Silence of the Dying Fish”, which was produced by Kossyfidou as well, when Vanacker served as Artistic Director of the organization. According to the 2018 news article linked below, Kekatos had invited Vanacker to serve as Jury member in a festival that he had organized and lead on Kefalonia Island, a festival which had been held for four years, but did not take place since Kekatos’ win in 2019.

Jury members for festivals typically receive payment for their service. At the very least, they are invited to the festival with personal expenses paid, with all travel and accommodation costs covered by the organizers. In other words, Kekatos allegedly compensated Vanacker, a member of the Cannes Film Festival selection committee, a full year before Kekatos’s film ‘The Distance Between Us and The Sky’ was chosen for the Cannes Official Selection, to then win the Palme d’Or under controversial circumstances, as the film’s producer had a longstanding professional relationship with one of the Jury members.

This revelation sheds additional light on the web of connections and potential conflicts of interest within the festival’s selection process, the award given to the film, and the normalization and prevalence of such relationships in the industry.

We remind our readers the case of Mélissa Malinbaum – a Cannes selection committee member who had produced a short film selected to the festival, and Dominique Welinski who holds multiple roles as well, as a producer and decision maker, in what seems like a conflict of interest at the festival and the industry at large.

Continue to – Power, influence & control over the European industry.

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.

SOURCES:

https://popaganda.gr/art/seanema-open-air-film-festival-2018/

https://filmfreeway.com/SeaNemaOpenAirFilmFestival

https://cinemadedemain.festival-cannes.com/en/2020/cannes-2020-the-short-films-competition/

The post Wim Vanacker & Vassilis Kekatos – a two way relationship dating back to 2018 first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

Une révélation surprenante fait surface : de nouvelles preuves suggèrent qu’un conflit d’intérêts a entaché la sélection officielle du Festival de Cannes 2019 pour les courts métrages et le prix lui-même. La Palme d’Or a été décernée au court métrage grec “La distance entre le ciel et nous”, réalisé par Vasilis Kekatos et produit par Eleni Kossyfidou. Panos H. Koutras, membre du jury du court métrage du festival, entretient une relation professionnelle avec Kossyfidou depuis au moins 2004 – elle a produit tous ses films. En d’autres termes, la productrice de longue date du membre du jury et du film lauréat est la même personne.

Eleni Kossyfidou et Panos H. Koutras avaient déjà participé à Cannes avec son long métrage “Xenia” (2014), puis avec “Dodo” (2022). Tous deux sont des noms connus du festival. Autrement dit, il est peu probable que le festival ne soit pas au courant de cette connexion, et il est logique de supposer que Koutras, soi-disant, a été invité comme membre du jury pour garantir que le prix ira à Kekatos. Dans une industrie où le népotisme est normalisé, supposer le contraire serait extrêmement naïf. De plus, lors d’un événement de projection post-festival à Paris, Koutras a déclaré à plusieurs autres réalisateurs qu’il avait “écarté leur film”, donc ils n’avaient aucune chance d’être pris en compte par les autres membres du jury. Le fait de positionner Koutras comme membre du jury plutôt que comme président du jury maintient une plausible déniabilité.

Détails – Conflit d’intérêts révélé

Le conflit d’intérêts nouvellement découvert se concentre sur Eleni Kossyfidou, productrice du film primé.

Kossyfidou entretient une longue relation professionnelle avec Panos Koutras, un cinéaste grec qui a siégé au jury de la section “Courts métrages” en 2019. Leur collaboration remonte à 2004, Kossyfidou ayant produit tous les longs métrages récents de Koutras, dont “Dodo” (2022), “Xenia” (2014) et “Strella” (2009).

Kossyfidou a d’abord été directrice de production du film “Real Life” de Koutras en 2004.

Notamment, Kossyfidou a produit les deux films de Kekatos, le court métrage “The Silence of the Dying Fish” en 2018, en plus de “La distance entre le ciel et nous” lauréat de la Palme d’Or.

Il est évident qu’il y avait un clair motif financier pour que Koutras attribue le prix à un film produit par sa propre productrice, car cela attirera des fonds pour de futurs projets.

Connexions dissimulées

La relation entre Kossyfidou, Koutras et Kekatos n’a pas été divulguée pendant le festival et n’est devenue publique que récemment. De plus, il semble que des tentatives délibérées ont été faites pour dissimuler ce conflit ; le nom de Kossyfidou n’a été ajouté à la page Wikipedia du film que le 8 juillet 2021 – plus de deux ans après la fin du festival – alors que Kossyfidou était la principale productrice du film, en un acte de dissimulation évident. Cependant, comme mentionné ci-dessus, il est raisonnable de supposer que la connexion était connue des insiders du festival.

Pendant l’événement, des sources rapportent que Koutras a “blagué” en disant aux autres réalisateurs qui étaient en lice pour le prix qu’il “pouvait être corrompu” – un commentaire qui semble profondément ironique à la lumière de ces révélations.

Controverse Post-Festival

Lors d’un événement de projection post-festival à Paris, Koutras aurait dit à plusieurs autres réalisateurs qu’il avait “jeté leur film à la poubelle”. La décision d’attribuer la Palme d’Or à “La distance entre le ciel et nous” a surpris les participants et les cinéastes, car le film était largement considéré comme l’une des entrées les plus faibles de la sélection.

Pour contexte, il est intéressant de noter que 98 % des citoyens grecs pensent que la corruption est “répandue” dans leur pays, selon le dernier sondage de l’Union européenne sur le sujet.

MISE À JOUR:

Grâce à la contribution des lecteurs, il a été révélé que la relation entre Wim Vanacker, membre du comité de sélection du Festival de Cannes, Vassilis Kekatos, le lauréat de la Palme d’Or 2019, et la productrice du film, Eleni Kossyfidou, qui est également la productrice de Panos H. Koutras, membre du jury du Festival de Cannes, remonte à 2018, lorsque Kekatos avait invité Vanacker à siéger comme membre du jury de son propre festival de cinéma en plein air, le SeaNema Open Air Film Festival, avec Kossyfidou.

Comme détaillé dans les conflits d’intérêts entre Wim Vanacker, Ben Vandendaele et NISI MASA, Kekatos avait participé à NISI MASA avec son court métrage 2018 “The Silence of the Dying Fish”, également produit par Kossyfidou, lorsque Vanacker était directeur artistique de l’organisation. Selon l’article de presse 2018 ci-dessous, Kekatos avait invité Vanacker à siéger comme membre du jury dans un festival qu’il avait organisé et dirigé sur l’île de Kéfalonie, un festival qui avait eu lieu pendant quatre ans, mais qui n’a pas eu lieu depuis la victoire de Kekatos en 2019.

Les membres du jury des festivals reçoivent généralement une rémunération pour leurs services. À tout le moins, ils sont invités au festival avec leurs frais de déplacement et d’hébergement pris en charge par les organisateurs. Autrement dit, Kekatos aurait compensé Vanacker, membre du comité de sélection du Festival de Cannes, un an avant que le film de Kekatos “La distance entre le ciel et nous” ne soit sélectionné pour la sélection officielle du Festival de Cannes, pour ensuite remporter la Palme d’Or dans des circonstances controversées, car la productrice du film avait une longue relation professionnelle avec l’un des membres du jury.

Conséquences pour l’industrie et l’intégrité du festival

Ce conflit non divulgué soulève de graves questions éthiques quant au processus de sélection et de récompense des films du Festival de Cannes. Dans un événement de haut niveau où des centaines de cinéastes se disputent des distinctions prestigieuses, l’exigence d’un jugement impartial est primordiale.

Les révélations sur la relation entre Kekatos, Kossyfidou, Koutras et Vanacker suscitent des inquiétudes quant au potentiel d’influence indue et de favoritisme dans le processus décisionnel du festival. Le fait que le conflit n’ait pas été divulgué et que le nom de Kossyfidou n’ait pas été ajouté à la page Wikipedia du film avant deux ans après la fin du festival suggère une tentative délibérée de dissimuler la relation.

Il ne s’agit pas des premières allégations d’inconduite au Festival de Cannes. En 2018, Mélissa Malinbaum, membre du comité de sélection, a été accusée d’un conflit d’intérêts car elle avait produit un court métrage sélectionné pour le festival. De plus, Dominique Welinski a occupé plusieurs postes au festival, notamment celui de producteur et de décideur, ce qui a également soulevé des inquiétudes quant au potentiel de conflits d’intérêts.

Il ne s’agit pas des premières allégations d’inconduite au Festival de Cannes. En 2018, Mélissa Malinbaum, membre du comité de sélection, a été accusée d’un conflit d’intérêts car elle avait produit un court métrage sélectionné pour le festival. De plus, Dominique Welinski a occupé plusieurs postes au festival, notamment celui de producteur et de décideur, ce qui a également soulevé des inquiétudes quant au potentiel de conflits d’intérêts.

Le producteur de ce film était Guillaume Dreyfus.

Sources:

Historique de l’article Wikipédia (Différence entre les révisions) montrant comment les noms des producteurs n’ont été ajoutés qu’en 2021:

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

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

Commentaires et corrections
Si vous pensez que votre nom ou celui de votre entreprise a été répertorié injustement sur ce site Web, veuillez NOUS CONTACTER.

The post Conflit d’intérêts entache le prix de la Palme d’Or 2019 du court métrage “La distance entre le ciel et nous” de Vasilis Kekatos first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

Evidence suggests a conflict of interest marred the 2019 Cannes Film Festival’s Official Selection for Short Films, and the award itself. The Palme d’Or went to the Greek short film ‘The Distance Between Us and the Sky,’ directed by Vasilis Kekatos, produced by Eleni Kossyfidou and French producer Guillaume Dreyfus.

Editorial note: The facts made on this page are based on public production credits and information, with sources and screenshots provided at the bottom of this page.

Overview

Evidence indicates that the 2019 Cannes Film Festival Official Selection for Short Films, and the awarding of the Short Film Palme d’Or, may have been compromised by undisclosed conflicts of interest and irregular jury conduct.

The Palme d’Or was awarded to The Distance Between Us and the Sky, directed by Vasilis Kekatos, produced by Eleni Kossyfidou, with French producer Guillaume Dreyfus.

At the center of the concerns is the role of Panos H. Koutras, a member of the 2019 Short Film Jury, who has maintained a long-standing professional relationship with Kossyfidou, the producer of the winning film.

Summary of Key Findings

1. A multi-year professional relationship existed between Vasilis Kekatos and Wim Vanacker, a member of the Cannes selection committee, dating back to at least 2018. This relationship included reciprocal professional engagements prior to the 2019 selection.
2. Eleni Kossyfidou, producer of The Distance Between Us and the Sky, is the long-time producer of Panos H. Koutras, a sitting jury member in the competition that awarded the film.
3. Kossyfidou was not introduced at Cannes to other filmmakers as the producer of the film. Her producer credit was added to the film’s Wikipedia page only in 2021, more than two years after the award, raising concerns regarding concealment of material relationships.
4. At a post-festival screening event in Paris, Koutras reportedly told several competing directors that he had “pushed [their] films out of consideration” during jury deliberations.
5. Audio recordings from the same Paris event document:
   • Koutras stating, “as a joke,” that he “could be bribed.”
   • Another director replying, “I told you I don’t have my wallet on me,” followed by “I was wearing a dress.”
   • Koutras stating that he had been “very opposed” to several films and that he was “alone” in those objections.
   • In the same recordings, Koutras explicitly acknowledges opposing other films during deliberations, an admission made in his own voice.
6. These statements support an allegation of manipulation by elimination: rather than solely advocating for a preferred film, Koutras allegedly opposed competing entries one by one until only the film produced by his own producer remained viable for consensus.
7. A broader pattern of opacity is identified:
   • In 2018, a short film (Gabriel) produced by a Cannes selection committee member was selected from over 7,000 submissions.
   • In 2019, another selected short film (Parparim) credited a producer who was also an employee of the Cannes Film Festival.
   • These incidents suggest repeated governance failures across multiple years.
8. Additional concerns involving Wim Vanacker, reported separately, demonstrate recurring issues of transparency involving the same individuals across different institutions and projects.

Conflict of Interest: Jury Member and Producer Relationship

The central undisclosed conflict concerns the relationship between Panos H. Koutras and Eleni Kossyfidou.

Kossyfidou has produced all of Koutras’ feature films since 2004, including:

• Strella
• Xenia
• Dodo

She initially served as production manager on Koutras’ 2004 film Real Life. Their professional partnership spans nearly two decades.

Kossyfidou also produced both of Kekatos’ short films:

• The Silence of the Dying Fish
• The Distance Between Us and the Sky

This creates a direct overlap between:

• a jury member,
• his long-time producer,
• and the winning film.

Such an arrangement presents a clear financial and professional incentive for a jury member to favor a film produced by his own producer, particularly where future funding, prestige, and project development are implicated.

Recorded Statements and Jury Conduct

At a post-Cannes screening event in Paris, Koutras addressed several competing directors. According to witnesses and audio recordings:

• Koutras stated that he had “pushed [their] films out of consideration.”
• He told attendees that he had been “very opposed” to certain films and that he was “alone” in these objections.
• In jury practice, a strong objection by a single juror often renders a film non-viable, as juries tend to converge on consensus rather than confrontation.

In the same recordings:

• Koutras is heard saying that he “could be bribed,” described by him as a joke.
• Another director replies, “I told you I don’t have my wallet on me,” followed by “I didn’t have my phone either.”

These recordings are cited as direct evidence of Koutras’ own account of his actions during deliberations.

Mechanism of Influence: Elimination Rather Than Promotion

There are two recognized ways to influence jury outcomes:

1. Active promotion of a favored film.
2. Systematic elimination of competing films through objection.

The recordings support the latter. By opposing multiple films, Koutras allegedly narrowed the field until consensus could only form around The Distance Between Us and the Sky.

This conclusion is based not on inference, but on Koutras’ own recorded statements.

CRelationship Between Kekatos and Wim Vanacker

Further reporting establishes that the professional relationship between Kekatos, Kossyfidou, and Wim Vanacker predates Cannes 2019.

In 2018:

• Kekatos invited Vanacker to serve as a jury member at the SeaNema Open Air Film Festival, organized by Kekatos on Kefalonia.
• Kossyfidou also participated in the same event.
• Vanacker was at the time Artistic Director of NISI MASA, where Kekatos’ film The Silence of the Dying Fish was presented.

Festival jury participation typically involves compensation, travel, and accommodation. This establishes a material professional benefit conferred one year prior to Cannes 2019.

Industry Context and Broader Implications

According to a European Union survey, 98 percent of Greek citizens believe corruption is widespread in Greece. While this statistic does not establish guilt, it contextualizes public sensitivity to conflicts of interest.

Comparable cases at Cannes include:

• Mélissa Malinbaum, a selection committee member whose produced short film was selected.
• Dominique Welinski, who holds overlapping roles as producer and decision-maker.

These examples reinforce concerns regarding structural governance failures rather than isolated incidents.

Final notes:

The undisclosed relationships, recorded admissions, delayed credit disclosures, and recurring selection irregularities raise serious questions about the integrity of the 2019 Cannes Short Film competition. The evidence presented does not rely on anonymous accusations or speculative interpretation. It consists of:

• documented production histories,
• contemporaneous statements by involved parties,
• and audio recordings in which a jury member describes his own conduct.

Together, these elements warrant scrutiny by the festival, the industry, and the public.

Vasilis Kekatos Biography

Vasilis Kekatos is a Greek film director and screenwriter recognized for his 2019 short film The Distance Between Us and the Sky, which won the Palme d’Or and Queer Palm for best short film at the Cannes Film Festival. His body of work includes The Silence of the Dying Fish (2018) and Retrograde, with his films featured in festivals such as Locarno, Sundance, and Telluride. In addition to filmmaking, Kekatos has worked in art photography, including a cover for Greek Vogue. In 2023, he released the teen drama series Milky Way, and he is in production on his debut feature film Our Wildest Days.

SOURCES:

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.

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 Conflict of Interest Taints 2019 Cannes Palme d’Or Award for The Distance Between Us and the Sky by Vasilis Kekatos, Guillaume Dreyfus, Eleni Kossyfidou 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.

An alleged conflict of interest arises when an individual’s personal interests potentially interfere with their ability to act in the best interests of the organization or event they are serving. In legal terms, conflicts of interest are typically discussed in fiduciary law, where a person is obligated to act in the best interest of another person or organization. A classic legal example of a conflict of interest is an attorney who tries to represent both parties in a dispute. Similarly, in this case, Malinbaum is serving both as a producer for a specific film and as a member of the selection committee for the festival where the film is screened.

When a producer, such as Malinbaum, is in a position to influence the selection of films at a festival and uses that position to promote a film they have produced, it can be perceived as an alleged conflict of interest. This is because the selection should be made based on the quality and merits of the films, not the personal or financial interests of members of the selection committee. Furthermore, this situation could disadvantage other filmmakers who lack similar connections within the festival organization.

Thus, the dual roles of Malinbaum, both as a producer of ‘Gabriel’ and as a member of the Cannes Film Festival short film committee, create a clear alleged potential for conflict of interest. This has, allegedly, serious implications for the fair and transparent functioning of such a prestigious festival, possibly undermining the integrity of the selection process. Please note the similarity with the alleged case of Producer Dominique Welinski.

IMPORTANT NOTE: 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. 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.

SOURCES:

https://www.cannescourtmetrage.com/en/actualites/cannes-2020-the-short-films-competition – A list of selection committee at the Cannes Film Festival.

https://pro.imdb.com/title/tt8296610/ – The film Gabriel on IMDB. Producer: Melissa Malinbaum.

https://www.festival-cannes.com/en/f/gabriel/ – Gabriel on the official Cannes website.

‘Gabriel’ in Cannes’ official website, the film was part of the Official Selection in 2018:

Melissa listed as a selection committee member on Cannes’ official website:

Melissa listed Gabriel’s IMDB page as the sole Producer of the film.

‘Gabrial’ on Cannes’ website – note that the name of the producer is absent in this case, allegedly to avoid detection.

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.

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

The post Questions concerning a Producer working for the selection committee at Cannes first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

A more recent (May 2025) article about this subject was published here.

Dominique Welinski maintains a multitude of influential roles within the film industry, generating a potential conflict of interest.

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. Beyond this, she serves as a consultant for the festival’s L’Atelier and Residency programs. Parallel to these roles, Welinski acts as the producer for Yona Rozenkier, an Israeli director. Considering her position at the Cannes Film Festival, it can be understood that her she had great influence in incorporating Rozenkier’s films and projects into the festival’s roster. Examples include Rozenkier’s short film ‘Butterflies’ forming part of the Official Selection in 2019 while his subsequent short film ‘The Sign’ showcased during the Cannes Directors’ Fortnight, which she curates, the very same year.

His feature film ‘Decompression’ (also known as ‘The Dive’) featured within the L’Atelier program in 2017, which Welinski advises on. Moreover, Welinski’s reach extends to the role of a “Decision Maker” at the Torino Film Lab, where Rozenkier’s project ‘Siberia’ was included in the 2020 program. The Torino Film Lab, as a whole, operates as a revolving door, where on one year producers act as “Decision Makers” and the next year, their projects are selected for participation, and where the Artistic Director had invited his sister to participate, not once, but twice.

Questions surface when a producer, such as Welinski, is strategically positioned to directly shape the selection of films at a festival and utilizes that sway to advocate the works of a specific director with whom they are professionally associated. This scenario could be interpreted as a conflict of interest, potentially disadvantaging other filmmakers who lack analogous connections within the festival’s administration and broader film festival community.

Welinski’s influence is wide, extending to, among many others, the Jerusalem Film Festival, which she is affiliated with, where Rozenkier’s films have been screened and awarded. She also lends her expertise as an adviser to the Jerusalem Sam Spiegel Film Lab, where Rozenkier’s project has been hosted. Given that the Cannes Film Festival holds the mantle as the world’s premier film festival, Welinski’s power and position are widely acknowledged within the industry. Her ability to leverage this authority to advance her professional and financial interests has led many industry professionals to seek her endorsement and reciprocate favors within their respective organizational roles.

Furthermore, there is reason to believe that Welinski may have used her influence to harm the career of another filmmaker who, in her view, posed a threat to the success of “her own director,” Rozenkier.

Such overlapping roles pose a fundamental conflict of interest that undermines the fairness and integrity of film festival selections. When individuals in positions of power – such as festival curators or committee members – also serve as producers or maintain close professional relationships with the filmmakers they champion, impartial decision-making becomes compromised. This can create an uneven playing field, reducing opportunities for filmmakers who lack similar connections while reinforcing a culture of favoritism. Over time, such practices erode public trust in the festival’s credibility and may deter fresh voices and innovative works from entering the industry’s most prestigious platforms.

Hence, allegedly, Dominique Welinski represents an example of how power dynamics within the film industry can be exploited to, allegedly, advance personal agendas and financial objectives. The potential repercussions of such alleged dynamics deserve comprehensive scrutiny and ethical consideration.

Please note the similarity with the alleged case of Producer Mélissa Malinbaum, who produced a film selected for Cannes short film competition, where she serves as a committee member. Similarly, the relationship between another selection committee, Wim Vanacker, and Greek filmmaker Vasilis Kekatos winner of the short Palme d’Or in 2019.

For further reading, see this case study or our latest post about the European Film Industry being set up like a syndicate, here.

IMPORTANT NOTE: 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. 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.

SOURCES:

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

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

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

Dominique listed as a “Decision Maker” on the Torino Film Lab website, which details her roles at the Cannes Film Festival:

IMDB page lists Dominique as a Producer on Yona’s films:

Yona’s short ‘Parparim’ at the Cannes Film Festival:

Yona’s feature project Decompression (The Dive) took part at Cannes’ L’Atelier. Dominique is part of the committee that decides which films will participate in the program.

Yona’s film The Sign takes part of Cannes’ Factory. The program is produced by Dominique.

Yona’s feature ‘Siberia’ takes part of the Torino Film Lab, where Dominique is a ‘Decision Maker’.

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.

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

The post CASE STUDY – Producer & Festival Decision Maker – Dominique Welinski’s Multiple Conflict of Interests Roles in the Industry first appeared on Film Industry Watch.