By FIW staff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is not an answer. It is an evasion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

So the answer from Critics’ Week should be simple.

Was there an open call?

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

Who made the final selections?

What recusal rules applied?

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

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

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

The film industry loves the word discovery.

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

Same logic. Same incentives. Same names.

New country. Same machine.

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

By Film Industry Watch and Kosovar Film Industry Insiders

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eroll Bilibani

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

Nita Deda

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

Blerta Zeqiri

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

Veton NurkollarI

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

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

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

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

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

A. Leart Rama – director/producer

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

B. Samir Karahoda – director/producer

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

C. Valmira Hyseni – producer

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

D. Ilir Hasanaj – producer/director

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

E. Dea Gjinovci – director / KCC jury member

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

F. Edon Rizvanolli – Director/producer

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

G. Enis Saraci – Editor / Director

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

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

3. The institutional → beneficiary → collaborator pipeline

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

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

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

4. Public posts reinforce the perception of a close ecosystem

Public posts show:

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

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

5. Core governance questions

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

Key public-interest questions include:

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

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

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

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

6. What would clarify the situation immediately

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

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

Right of Reply

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

Share documents securely

FIW accepts confidential submissions, including:

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

Legal Notice:

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

Sources:

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

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

FIW prior reports on:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Israeli Film Club, Where Only Members are allowed In

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

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

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

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

What this means for anyone outside the circle

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

Why disclosure and recusal are the absolute minimum

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

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

A festival must tell audiences when:

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

Public funds must be transparent about:

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

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

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

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

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

Right of Reply

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

Share Information Securely – Confidential Submissions Are Welcome

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

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

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

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

By Film Industry Watch

Why Festival Gatekeepers Remain Unchecked Despite Alleged Conflicts of Interest

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

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

A Pattern Documented Through Public Records and Industry Testimonies

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

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

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

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

Long-Term Producer–Director Pipelines

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

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

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

Yulia Evina Bhara: Producer and Jury Member

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

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

Why Do Individuals Retain Their Positions Despite Concerns?

Several structural factors may explain the persistence of these arrangements:

1. Institutional Inertia and Mutual Dependence

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

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

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

3. Closed Professional Networks

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

4. No External Oversight

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

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

The Impact on Independent Filmmakers

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

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

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

What Would Improve Transparency?

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

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

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

These steps promote transparency and fairness.

Conclusion: A System Resistant to Structural Change

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

CALL FOR INFORMATION

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

DISCLAIMER

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

Sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Program That Guarantees a Cannes Premiere – Again

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

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

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

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

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

Dominique Welinski’s Expanding Role Across Festival Pipelines

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

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

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

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

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

A Closed Circuit or a Talent Pipeline?

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

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

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

One cannot ignore the repeated pattern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Big Picture: A System That Rewards Access Over Independence

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

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

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

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

A Step Forward, or Another Step Away From Transparency?

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

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

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

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

SOURCES:

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

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

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.