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

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.

In response to one of our latest articles, an anonymous filmmaker from Indonesia has stepped forward with a harrowing account of how nepotism, intimidation, and “feudalistic” power structures dominate her local film industry. In a candid letter sent to Film Industry Watch, this award-winning director (who cannot publicly reveal her identity or film titles due to safety concerns) describes an industry where “meritocracy barely stands a chance.” Her testimony echoes patterns of insider favoritism and conflicts of interest that we have reported in global festival circuits and paints a troubling picture of a creative field in which success often depends more on “kissing the ring” than on talent or integrity.

“Meritocracy Barely Stands a Chance”

New related post:

Hot Docs 2025 — When a Programmer’s Credits Creep onto The Screen

The Cost of Speaking Out – A Culture of Fear

One of the most disturbing aspects shared by our source’s letter and our ongoing investigations is the pervasive culture of fear that keeps this system running. People within the industry often know these injustices are happening. Filmmakers whisper privately about conflicts of interest, unfair jury decisions, or abusive gatekeepers. But few dare to speak openly. As our anonymous filmmaker explains, voicing criticism “even privately, can jeopardize careers, funding opportunities, and access to vital networks.” Careers can be destroyed on the basis of a rumor. A powerful insider need only brand someone a troublemaker or spread a defamatory story, and that person may quietly disappear from festival lineups or lose out on grants.

Indeed, our own reporting has encountered numerous individuals who insisted on anonymity for fear of retribution. Tips come in via private emails or off-the-record conversations, never publicly. In one striking anecdote, a Europe-based filmmaker told us how he greeted a well-connected producer at a Cannes party, a friend of Dominique Welinski, only to be met with a hostile snub: “She shot back, ‘I know who you are and I’ve heard everything about you!’ then turned on her heel and took off as if I were convicted of murder… I have no idea what made-up story was said about me, but considering who she’s close to, it seems like gossip was used as a weapon.” The implication was that he had been quietly blacklisted — maligned behind the scenes, possibly because he had been openly critical of the very network we’re discussing. “What are the implications of falling on the wrong side of someone as powerful as her… I can only guess,” he said. “It seems she uses gossip as a weapon.” This chilling story mirrors the “gossip, false accusations… used to silence people” that our Indonesian correspondent described. It shows how easily a career can be sabotaged by those who control the informal narratives in the film world.

The result is a widespread self-censorship. Many filmmakers and professionals feel they must publicly “play nice” — congratulating the winners, biting their tongue about unfair practices, perhaps hoping to be welcomed into the fold one day — or else risk being labeled as bitter or difficult, which would be career suicide. As our source observes, “politics – social alignment, affiliations, personal connections, and public signaling – carry more weight than talent, merit, or originality.”

In such an atmosphere, silence becomes the price of admission to an insider-dominated industry. This silence allows the misconduct to continue unchecked. It’s a vicious cycle: fear keeps people from calling out the problems, which in turn allows the problems to persist and the powerful to act with impunity.

Breaking the Silence

The anonymous Indonesian filmmaker concludes her letter with a mix of gratitude and resignation: “This is not a cry for help — it’s a thank you… Knowing that organizations like yours exist gives people like me a little more strength to keep going.” That gratitude is deeply humbling, but it also underscores how lonely and perilous it can be to challenge the status quo. For every one person who speaks up, there are dozens who feel they cannot.

Shining a light on these feudal dynamics is not about negativity or tearing down the film industry; it’s about saving it. Cinema, at its best, is an art form that should unite and inspire the world with fresh ideas and diverse voices. That cannot happen if the pipeline for new talent is clogged with gatekeepers playing favorites. It cannot happen if artists live in fear of offending power. It cannot happen if public resources meant for cultural development are siphoned off by nepotism.

Our source’s story, and the examples we’ve highlighted from Cannes to Jakarta, are calls to action. They tell us that transparency, accountability, and fairness must be more than slogans – they must be enforced through structural change. Festivals could start by adopting conflict-of-interest rules (for example, barring anyone who has a financial stake in a film from participating in its selection or awards). Funding bodies could implement blind evaluations to reduce favoritism. Whistleblower protections could be established in the arts sector to shield those who call out wrongdoing. These are just a few ideas, but the first step is acknowledging the problem openly, without fear.

Shattering a “closed circuit” culture will not be easy; those benefiting from it will resist. But the alternative is a world where “most voices are destroyed long before they are heard,” and that, to quote our letter writer, “should give us pause.” By amplifying testimonies like hers, we hope to chip away at the wall of silence. The future of film — the health of global cinema as an art and an industry — depends on breaking the feudal cycle and welcoming a new era where merit and integrity can truly shine.

Film Industry Watch remains committed to investigating these systemic issues. To our source in Indonesia: thank you for caring and for speaking out. Your voice has been heard, and it strengthens our resolve to bring about the change that so many in the filmmaking community desperately need. We encourage anyone with similar experiences or information to reach out (confidentially) and join this conversation. Only by working together can we ensure that the world of cinema lives up to its ideals of creativity, diversity, and fairness for all.

The post A Voice from Indonesia: A Filmmaker Exposes Feudalism and Fear in the Film Industry first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

New related post:

A Voice from Indonesia: A Filmmaker Exposes Feudalism and Fear in the Film Industry

Film Industry Watch recently received the following anonymous email exposing what appears to be another alleged case of conflict of interest in the film festival circuit – where a co-producer on films is working for and with a festival that selects the same films for inclusion in its program. The anonymous email states:

Our investigation confirms that at least in terms of credit listings, this seems to be correct. This shows a pattern of influence that extends beyond the previously documented case with Israeli filmmaker Yona Rozenkier. This new instance further demonstrates how the film industry sometimes operates on connections rather than merit, creating barriers for talented filmmakers without insider access.

From Factory to Competition

Last year, our publication documented how this producer maintains multiple influential positions within the film industry. She holds the dual position of curator and producer for the Factory program at Director’s Fortnight, a constituent part of the Cannes Film Festival, while also serving as a consultant for the festival’s L’Atelier and Residency programs. This concentration of influence created a clear conflict of interest in her work with Israeli director Yona Rozenkier.

The same pattern has now emerged with Filipino filmmaker Arvin Belarmino. Our investigation confirms that:

1. Belarmino participated in the Directors’ Factory 2024 program, which is curated by Welinski, directing a short film called “SILIG” with Cambodian filmmaker Lomorpich Rithy
2. Belarmino’s film “Radikals” was selected for and competed at the 2024 Cannes Film Festival’s Semaine de la Critique (Critics’ Week) As you can see in the image below, she is listed as a “key contributor” to the film.
3. She is now a co-producer for Belarmino’s latest short film “AGAPITO,” which has been selected for the prestigious Official Selection – Short Film In Competition category at the 78th Cannes Film Festival

AN Established Pattern

This career acceleration mirrors what happened with Yona Rozenkier, where her production company DW produced or co-produced his works. Rozenkier’s short film “Butterflies” formed part of the Official Selection in 2019, while his subsequent short film “The Sign” was showcased during the Cannes Directors’ Fortnight—which she curates—the very same year.

Furthermore, Rozenkier’s feature film “Decompression” (also known as “The Dive“) featured within the L’Atelier program in 2017, which she advises on. His project “Siberia” (later renamed “Wild Animals”) was included in the 2020 Torino Film Lab program, where she served as a “Decision Maker”.

UPDATE 24/5 – a 2nd short in Cannes

Only after the publication of this article, thanks to another tip from our readers, Film Industry Watch realized that another short film which was produced by Welinski, Bleat! was selected for this years Critics Week. From Deadline: “The film is produced by Choo Mun Bel of Malaysia’s Sixtymac Pictures and co-produced by Malaysia’s Idio Sync Inc, founded by the director and Ahilan Subramaniam, French producer Dominique Welinski’s DW Productions and Bradley Liew of the Philippines’ Epicmedia Productions.” This is the 2nd film produced by the same festival insider that was selected to the 2025 edition.

2ND UPDATE 24/5 – A 2ND SHORT BY Arvin Belarmino

The following was posted as a comment on this article:

“There’s also one more Arvin Belarmino connection in the Official Selection for Festival de Cannes 2025. He is the Screenplay Writer for the Bangladeshi film ‘Ali’, which is also competing for the Short Film Palme d’Or.”

This information was quickly sourced here.

3RD UPDATE 25/5 – DEEP TIES

We received the following anonymous email:

“Dominique Welinski has deep ties with the producers from the Philippines who have several projects through the years in Cannes sections.
Welinski has ties with producer Bradley Liew who also produced Bleat! A Critics week judge is also worked with the winners prod co MOMO films.
The film Bleat! Was also received a grant from the company MOMO who has worked with the judge in the critics week.”

The following images were attached to the email:

4TH UPDATE – 28/5 – CANNES 2026 PARTICIPANTS ALREADY SELECTED?

A new comment to this article reads: “Directors Factory 2026 is taking place in Indonesia with Yulia Evina Bhara serving as Co-producer much like Bradley Liew did last year. So you can expect most of the names in this article or ones working [with] these names to be the favored Directors who will again have their films in Cannes because of their close connection with Welinski.”

Film Industry Watch will return to this comment in 2026 to demonstrate how it’s possible to predict film festival participants a full year in advance (!) possibly including one filmmaker selected for the Official Shorts Program who took part in Factory 2025.

What this tells us?

What this new information tells us is that there are overlapping personal and professional relationships between festival programmers, jurors, and producers whose films are selected or awarded – raising serious questions about fairness, transparency, and potential conflicts of interest in the selection process.

1. A Network of Repeated Collaborators with Strong Ties to Cannes Critics’ Week

Multiple figures—particularly Dominique Welinski, Yulia Evina Bhara, Bradley Liew, and Arvin Belarmino—appear to operate within a closely connected circle. These individuals frequently collaborate on films that are selected for La Semaine de la Critique (Critics’ Week) at Cannes.

2. Overlap Between Jury Members and Selected/Winning Projects

• Yulia Evina Bhara is a Critics’ Week jury member in 2025.
• She also collaborates with Momo Film Co, the company that won the Grand Prize in Critics’ Week 2025 (A Useful Ghost).
• Momo Film Co previously worked with her as a co-producer on Dreaming & Dying.
• This raises questions of impartiality, as jury members are professionally tied to production companies that are being judged.

3. Dominique Welinski’s Central Influence

• Welinski is named as a mentor and co-producer on multiple films selected at Cannes (e.g., Radikals, Bleat!).
• She is affectionately described by several filmmakers as “like a mother,” hosting dinners, giving career guidance, and securing opportunities.
• Posts and photos show her in informal, close settings with key team members behind selected projects—well beyond professional distance.
• She curates the Factory program and is involved in Critics’ Week and Directors’ Fortnight selections, suggesting institutional influence across sections.

4. Multiple Selections Within the Same Social-Professional Group

• Radikals (Critics’ Week 2024) was co-produced by Welinski, with a producer (Kristine De Leon) and director (Arvin Belarmino) who have long ties to her.
• Bleat! (2024) was also co-produced by Welinski and Bradley Liew—who also appears in a personal dinner photo with her.
• A Useful Ghost (2025 Grand Prize winner) is linked to Momo Films and Yulia Evina Bhara—again circling back to individuals with ties to Critics’ Week.

What It Suggests

This pattern suggests a tight-knit network of producers, mentors, and jury members who continuously collaborate, support, and elevate each other’s work within Cannes festival circuits. While collaboration is a normal part of any industry, the lack of transparency, repeated selections, and overlapping roles (mentor, co-producer, juror) point to a potential conflict of interest and a closed ecosystem where access and personal relationships may outweigh merit.

This dynamic may cut both ways

In at least one case it seems that this dynamic extends beyond nurturing hand-picked directors, suggesting it can also close doors. One filmmaker recalls a baffling encounter: “In Cannes 2021, at a party, I greeted Dominique and the producer who was with her. A little later, I ran into the producer at the bar and offered another friendly ‘hi.’ She shot back, ‘I know who you are and I’ve heard everything about you!’ then turned on her heel and took off as if I were convicted of murder. It was so rude and strange. I still have no idea what she was implying; the whole episode struck me as utterly surreal. What are the implications of falling on the wrong side of someone as powerful as her, who clearly does not shy of using her influence, I can only guess. It seems she uses gossip as a weapon, and I have no idea what made up story was said.’ he recalls. The filmmaker, well known to the individuals involved, and who has made his position clear on this subject, is from the same country as Mr. Rozenkier, believes that this have been her tactic for ensuring that Rozenkier would face “less competition” in the international festival circuit and in securing financing by the national film funds in the country. Considering the many conflicts of interest and signs of abuse of institutional power by the said individuals, this does not seem far fetched, and has never been denied. ‘There are hundreds of dedicated, honest, and hardworking people in the film industry. Unfortunately it is the encounters with the few problematic people that could have lasting consequences. It is no coincidence that those are the same individuals who are mentioned throughout your website multiple times in relations to many irregularities.’

Why This Matters: The Closed Circuit of Influence

This situation epitomizes the “revolving door” dynamic prevalent in the film industry, as illustrated in our previous reporting. A limited circle of individuals hold a variety of influential positions, rotating between being program curators, fund advisors, and producers. When a person holds multiple roles of power—simultaneously curating programs, advising on selections, and producing films—they create a closed circuit where their own productions gain significant advantages over outsiders. Such interconnections perpetuate a culture of exclusivity, hindering fresh talent from entering the field. This is precisely why the film industry’s artistic output suffers, artistic merit becomes secondary to personal connections and insider relationships. We remind our readers the case in which a short competition selection committee had her own produced short selected to the very same program that she helps selecting films for.

It’s important to note that “AGAPITO” is one of only 11 short films selected from 4,781 entries worldwide to compete for the Short Film Palme d’Or. The odds of selection are extremely low (0.23%), raising questions about whether Belarmino’s connection to his producer, who also works for and with Cannes, played a role in securing this coveted spot.

A System That Benefits Insiders

As our previous reporting has shown, the film industry is structured as a network of interconnected and affiliated organizations that benefit only those who are members of the network, distributing resources among each other. This case exemplifies how this system works.

When a producer is strategically positioned to utilizes their influence to advocate for the works of directors with whom they are professionally associated, it potentially disadvantages other filmmakers who lack analogous connections within the festival’s administration and broader film festival community.

A Culture of fear

All of the above information was submitted to us anonymously. The reason for this is telling: there exists a pervasive culture of fear within the film industry. Filmmakers, especially those without institutional power or protection, have come to understand that “politics” – social alignment, affiliations, personal connections, and public signaling – all carry more weight than talent, merit, or originality. Speaking out, even privately, can jeopardize careers, funding opportunities, and access to vital networks. The fact that individuals feel compelled to withhold their identities, even in confidential contexts like this, speaks volumes. It reveals a system where fairness is compromised, where honesty comes with professional risk, and where many feel that navigating unspoken rules is more important than the quality of their work. That alone should give us pause.

NOT A BUG, but A FEATURE of the system

This is not an isolated failure or an unfortunate exception; it is a structural feature of the system. As French philosopher Foucault observed, power and influence are not merely held or possessed — they circulates, embedded in relationships, institutions, and discourses. In the context of the festival circuit, power manifests not through transparent meritocratic evaluation, but through informal networks of exchange, influence, and symbolic capital (or real capital.) Individuals in certain positions convert cultural and social capital into concrete opportunities, under the guise of fairness or professionalism. When dealing with art, which is so called subjective (it really isn’t, but this is a subject for another article) it is especially easy to hide behind the vail of subjectivity, which is why the world of art is so incredibly corrupt.

A truly merit-based system would not allow these forms of “soft” power to generate such outsized influence. The current structure actively incentivizes gatekeeping, favor-trading, and performative allyship. These are not aberrations; they are mechanisms by which the system reproduces itself. It is not a bug, it is a feature of the system. In an age where anyone can make a film with a cheap camera or even a mobile phone, it is not only meant to produce power for insiders, but also to protect the system, and the limited resources within its influence (state funding, investors money etc) from outsiders, and ensure that the limited resources are circulating within a small group of insiders.

Why the Media Stays Silent?

Traditional media outlets don’t address these issues openly because they are deeply entwined with the very institutions they would need to scrutinize. Film festivals, production companies, and industry gatekeepers provide journalists with access – early screenings, exclusive interviews, red carpet events, and press passes. In many cases, media organizations rely on these relationships for advertising revenue and content. Criticizing the system risks losing access, damaging partnerships, and jeopardizing future coverage opportunities. As a result, all journalists choose silence or vague language over honest reporting. It’s not that they don’t see the problem – it’s that speaking out would come at a cost they’re unwilling or unable to pay.

The Bigger Picture or – what happened to cinema?

Ever wondered why so many films are, to put it politely, not great?

There is no shortage of talented filmmakers but a deeply entrenched culture of favoritism and quiet corruption keeps many of them in the shadows. While a well-connected few circulate among festivals and cocktail parties, congratulating one another, the art of cinema continues to wither. And now, with the rapid rise of AI-generated content threatening to further marginalize human creativity, the final blow to independent, original filmmaking will arrive sooner than anyone expected.

5TH UPDATE – 28/5 – Behind the Festival Curtain: Untangling the Web of Southeast Asian Collaborations at Cannes 2025

A new comment has been posted on this article. Below is an analysis and verification of the information it contains:

Who did what – in the context OF asia being a continent of 4.75 billion people:

Gogularaajan Rajendran really is both the editor of Bleat! and one of the eight filmmakers selected for Directors’ Factory 2024 (Philippines edition).

Don Josephus Raphael Eblahan likewise appears in the same Factory line-up (co-directing the short Cold Cut).

His short Vox Humana is officially presented as a Momo Film Co project with Alemberg Ang credited as co-producer; the film is being circulated with Momo’s support, but public records do not yet confirm it as a cash recipient of the annual Momo Distribution Grant—only that it is a Momo-backed title.

RIA (feature debut of Arvin Belarmino) lists Alemberg Ang as producer and Momo Film Co and Dominique Welinski / DW among its co-producers on the Cannes Critics’ Week “Next Step” page, confirming their partnership.

Momo Film Co and Yulia Evina Bhara have previously teamed up on two high-profile festival films:

Don’t Cry, Butterfly – Venice Critics’ Week 2024 winner.

Dreaming & Dying – dual Leopard winner at Locarno 2023.

Bradley Liew (Epicmedia) and DW Productions (Dominique Welinski) are indeed the lead producers of Directors’ Factory 2024.

Renoir (Cannes main competition 2025, dir. Chie Hayakawa) lists both Yulia Evina Bhara and Alemberg Ang among its co-producers in industry press and credit sheets, confirming that the pair now share a feature-length project.

From a continent of 4.75 billion (with a B) people, this is highly coincidental.

How often they show up:

It’s undeniable that Bhara, Liew, Ang, Momo Film Co., and DW appear regularly at major labs and markets—Cinéfondation Résidence, La Fabrique, Locarno Open Doors, Venice Critics’ Week, Quinzaine des Cinéastes, and more—and frequently collaborate with one another. However, they are not the only Southeast Asian names active on the global circuit; filmmakers like Anthony Chen, Mouly Surya, Phạm Thiên Ân, and Woo Ming-Jin, among others, also maintain a consistent international presence. That said, in a region representing nearly 4.75 billion people, the concentration of opportunities and visibility around a relatively small group raises very valid questions. Statistically, such dominance is hard to explain without acknowledging the influence of a closely connected network, one that may, intentionally, function as a gatekeeping ecosystem with limited entry points for newcomers.

Points that were inaccurate:
Jury leadership. The 2025 Cannes Critics’ Week jury is chaired by Spanish director Rodrigo Sorogoyen; Yulia Evina Bhara sits on the five-person jury but does not lead it.

“Only two SEA films.” This year’s Critics’ Week line-up contains at least two Southeast-Asian features (A Useful Ghost and RIA in development) and one SEA short (Bleat!). So the claim of exclusivity is not accurate.

Above is a network diagram that lays out the major nodes (people/companies and films/projects) and the lines of collaboration or influence between them. A few key patterns jump out visually:

• Momo Film Co. sits at the hub, linked to nearly every title and to multiple producers, underscoring its central role in this ecosystem.
• Yulia Evina Bhara, Alemberg Ang, and Dominique Welinski (DW) form a tightly knit triangle, each sharing at least one feature in common ( Renoir , RIA , Don’t Cry Butterfly , Dreaming & Dying ).
• Directors’ Factory 2024 connects a separate cluster—Rajendran, Eblahan, Liew, and DW—yet still loops back to Momo via other films.
• Even seemingly independent prize outcomes (Bleat! and A Useful Ghost) remain only a hop or two away from the same nucleus of producers and jurors.

In short, the “visual map” reinforces what the credit sheets suggest: a small, highly interconnected circle repeatedly occupies the same festival slots, award juries, and co-production banners—making it difficult for new voices to break in.

Award-giving coincidence:

The Critics’ Week Grand Prize was awarded to the Thai feature A Useful Ghost, with decisions made collectively by the jury chaired by Rodrigo Sorogoyen. The Queer Palm for Best Short Film – an independent award with a separate jury – went to Bleat!. While technically outside the Critics’ Week jury’s purview, the result is hardly surprising given the dense web of connections shared among the filmmakers, producers, and jurors involved.

Though Yulia Evina Bhara may not have directly influenced the Queer Palm outcome, she was involved in deliberations for A Useful Ghost, a film co-produced by companies she has collaborated with multiple times. It’s naive to assume that a single juror cannot steer discussion or tip a consensus, especially in a small, interwoven ecosystem like the one that dominates the Southeast Asian presence on the international circuit.

This points to a larger systemic flaw: festival juries should be completely free of any direct or indirect connection to the films in competition. That such conflicts of interest are tolerated—and even normalized—speaks to how insular and self-reinforcing the so-called “independent” film world has become. In any healthy cultural ecosystem, this would be a clear ethical breach. Here, it’s business as usual.

Take-away:

Almost every production link that the comment listed is genuine. The pattern is a tight, increasingly well-networked generation of SEA producers who pool resources across borders; international labs and sidebars actively encourage such clustering and degrade artistic output, let alone access to newcomers. This is another example of the issues that we keep raising on this website. We thank you for the contribution, please contact us for any additional information.

Source URLs:

https://www.quinzaine-cineastes.fr/en/directors-factory-2024

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleat%21

https://www.semainedelacritique.com/en/edition/2025/movie/bleat

https://www.momofilm.co/short-films/vox-humana

https://www.semainedelacritique.com/en/movie/ria

https://www.momofilm.co/features/ria

https://www.momofilm.co/features/dont-cry-butterfly

https://www.momofilm.co/features/dreaming-dying

https://gazettely.com/2025/05/entertainment/renoir-review

https://www.semainedelacritique.com/en/edition/2025/jury

https://www.nationthailand.com/life/entertainment/40050316

https://hype.my/2025/472879/malaysian-short-film-bleat-wins-queer-palm-award-at-cannes-film-festival-2025/

NOTE TO READER:

Please note that this article is not meant to be an ad hominem attack on any specific person. The individuals mentioned and their positions in various organizations are used as examples for the way that the film industry operates. The positions, roles and professional relationship between individuals are public information. Sources are provided throughout the website. If you would like to report any inaccuracy please do not hesitate to contact us. Our aim is to improve and democratize the film industry by analyzing the way its institutions are set-up. In order to do so, we must list those organizations and the people who work for them or with them, and their relationship with each other.

Sources for the main article:

1. https://filmindustrywatch.org/dominique-welinski/    
2. https://www.quinzaine-cineastes.fr/en/directors-factory-2024 
3. https://www.semainedelacritique.com/en/articles/about-emradikalsem
4. https://mb.com.ph/2024/5/2/filipino-short-film-radikals-selected-to-compete-at-cannes-63rd-semaine-de-la-critique 
5. https://www.heartofhollywoodmagazine.com/post/agapito-a-cinematic-marvel-imagined-by-the-brilliant-arvin-belarmino-and-kyla-romero-has-officially 
6. https://www.philstar.com/entertainment/movies/2025/05/06/2441076/filipino-short-filmmakers-compete-cannes-film-festival-2025 
7. https://filmfreeway.com/Butterflies641
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dive_(2018_film)
9. https://popupfilmresidency.org/project/yona-rozenkier-siberia/
10. filmindustrywatch.org    
11. https://letterboxd.com/film/radikals/
12. https://www.festival-cannes.com/en/f/agapito/
13. https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/lifestyle/artandculture/946126/young-filipino-filmmakers-heading-to-cannes-for-their-short-films-agapito-and-ali/story/
14. https://horsdubocal.eu/films/silig
15. https://deadline.com/video/cannes-critics-week-bleat-trailer-sixtymac-epicmedia/
16. https://filmindustrywatch.org/melissa-malinbaum/
17. https://deadline.com/2025/05/cannes-critics-week-winners-a-useful-ghost-imago-top-prizes-1236407401/

The post Cannes 2025: Anonymous Source(s) Reveal New Conflict of Interest at Cannes (updateS 1,2,3,4,5) first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

According to Israeli press, Nadav Lpaid, an Israeli citizen, had moved his permanent residency to Paris (source). One of the reasons for this move might be that him and his producers are seeking funding from the CNC for his next feature, as a French resident. Legally, however, a person cannot be a permanent resident of two countries.

Despite this, and despite the fact that according to the mandate of the Israeli Film Funds, allowing funding only for Israeli full time residents, Lapid has recently received full production (not co-production) funding for his next feature.

The funding was awarded to only five projects, one of which as reported elsewhere on our site, to Yona Rozenkier, thanks to his connection between the head of the fund and his Cannes Producer, Dominique Welinski. In the highly competitive scene of the Israeli film industry, when so many talented filmmakers are competing for funding, this is another example for the problematic ways in which the Israeli scene operates, in a fashion resembling that of a revolving door, or a syndicate, with the head of the Producers Association Adar Shafran receiving funding as a director, and other such cases proving the validity of every claim made on this website.

To be clear, while we have no confirmation (yet) that Lapid received funding from the CNC, it is likely the case. The Israeli funding in question is NOT co-production funding but rather a “full” 2,000,000 NIS “production grant” reserved for Israeli residents. If Lapid is not a resident of Israel and does not spend more than 180 days in the country – awarding a full production grant for his next feature is completely against the rules. If he receives this type of funding twice, once in Israel and once in France, this is doubly problematic.

For context, keep in mind that these grants are worth millions of Euros in total, of public money, that ends up in the hands of the same people, over and over again and again. Also keep in mind the number of young filmmakers that don’t get a chance to make a feature, or even a short, just because they are not part of the “syndicate.”

We would like to highlight another interesting observation regarding the selection of films chosen to be funded. Among the five films that received funding, two are being produced by the same person, Kobi Mizrahi. Mr. Mizrahi is notably the producer for Yona Rozenkier, working alongside Dominique Welinski. Given the extensive pool of talented producers and diverse projects in Israel, it is quite remarkable that Kobi Mizrahi (who has a noted connection with Dominique Welinski, a figure well-recognized in the industry as per the information on this site) has been granted funding for two separate projects simultaneously.

Furthermore, we are curious about the specifics of the fund’s guidelines in this context. It raises a question as to whether the fund’s rules permit the submission, and subsequent awarding, of two films by the same producer concurrently. This observation is particularly interesting in light of the discussions on this website, which frequently touch upon the dynamics of industry networks and the applicability of favoritism to different groups within the industry, with the same people being selected or funded over and over.

This further strengthens our argument that the European Film Industry, and the Israeli one being a prime example, is structured like a syndicate more than a healthy thriving industry.

On a side note, our readers might not be aware that Lapid’s late mother was a famous Israeli film editor and his father, a respected author. In other words, part of his success can be attributed to his family contacts. These biographical facts match our reporting about the reasons for how and why filmmakers make it in this industry as demonstrated in our pyramid of considerations.

In an unrelated but very similar case, we will soon publish a report detailing how a father and daughter, Avi Nesher and his daughter Tom Nesher, received funding for feature films from the Rabinovitz fund, at the same time. Avi Nesher is said to have a carte blanche from the fund which is plagued with gossip of decades long conflict of interests. More to come on this subject in an upcoming expose. This is again a clear case of shameless nepotism and alleged corruption.

We once again remind our readers that the European film industry is financed by public funding worth hundreds of millions of Euros per year, all circulating to the same people (syndicate members), year after year.

Film Industry Watch has asked the Israeli Film Fund to comment, the request has been ignored.

SOURCES:

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

https://presspectiva.org.il/%D7%9C%D7%90-%D7%91%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%96-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%99%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A9-%D7%9C%D7%90-%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA%D7%A8-%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%97/

https://www.haaretz.co.il/magazine/panim/2021-08-12/ty-article-face/.highlight/0000017f-e84a-dc91-a17f-fccf165f0000

https://mo.ralc.co.il/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8-2139,1933-%D7%94%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A7-%D7%9C%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%93%D7%95%D7%93-%D7%94%D7%A4%D7%A7-%D7%A1%D7%A8%D7%98%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%9C.aspx

The post Is Nadav Lapid Receiving Full Production Funding from two Countries, Against the Rules? 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.

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.

It appears that there is a pervasive issue of a revolving doors policy within Israeli film funding organizations, notably “The Israeli Film Fund”, “Gesher” & “The Rabinovitch Foundation.”

This policy involves individuals who are both employed as project readers within these funds, serve as key decision-makers in the funding allocation process, who are also working filmmakers who receive financial support from the funds for their projects. This situation has resulted in a tight-knit circle of filmmakers consistently securing funding for their projects, leaving little room for emerging talent or those without direct connections to this inner circle. In Israel readers are often also employed as script consultants on submitted projects, so they, or their associates and close circle, can favorite the project that they work on as advisers.

In countries where merit is the actual deciding factor is such matters, full time readers, who are contracted for a set period of 2-3 years of full employment, who are also not working directors or producers, serve in such roles. This ensures maximum impartiality and the reduction of conflict of interests. These readers, unlike in Israel, are replaced periodically, not to allow them to concentrate too much power, which may lead to eventual corruption.

However in Israel the system is set up purposefully to allow the gatekeepers to use the distribution of resources as a currency, giving and accepting favors, in the form of project selections worth millions of Euros annually. This is done by hiring different readers, on a short term basis, who do not have an overview of the entire selection process, and who are not committed to the long term integrity of the organization. At the same time, the organization itself, does not have a commitment to truly take into account the readers scoring, and can end up funding projects on the basis of personal friendships and other interests, such as in, possibly and allegedly, the case of Yona Rozenkier and his Cannes employed producer, Dominique Welinski.

The Israeli film industry, locally referred to as “the swamp”, is widely recognized for its troubling issues with funding. A recent notable instance involves Adar Shafran, the head of the Israeli Producers Association. Despite his primary experience as a producer, Shafran controversially secured funding from The Israeli Film Fund for a directorial project, without qualification or experience for such a role. Nadav Lapid, who is not a full time resident of Israel, but recently received full production grant from the fund, possibly against the rules. Concurrently, The Rabinovitch Foundation awarded production funds to director Avi Nesher and, at the same time in a separate decision, to his daughter, Tom Nesher. And as we’ve reported elsewhere, the previous head of the fund, who had been in power for almost 30 years, has awarded production funding to his wife’s business partners as one of his last decisions on the job. These incidents are part of a broader pattern of alleged favoritism and nepotism that plagues the Israeli film industry, which the local filmmakers are fully aware of, but have little in their power to anything about.

The tables below illustrate films that have received funding, with each corresponding to individuals who have also been recipients of funding for their own project development or production from one of the funds. The accompanying columns display the periods during which these individuals worked as readers for the funds.

In summery, there were 9 fund readers that received funding while working for the funds, 20 readers who received funding near the time of their employment in the funds, and one reader that worked as a script editor on a funded project while working for a fund.

It is evident that individuals who have longstanding affiliations with these funds, serving as employees, consultants, readers, and decision-makers, enjoy a significant advantage over filmmakers who lack regular interaction with these organizations and have no access to the individuals in influential positions within them. This disparity raises concerns about fairness and equal opportunity within the Israeli film funding landscape. The Israeli Film Fund is currently lead by Noa Regev (נעה רגב), and Avital Bekerman (אביטל בקרמן) is Head of Development. Additional information about the fund can be read in our report concerning questions about the integrity of the European film industry.

Thanks to readers contribution we received the following conversation between two Israeli filmmakers, one of them very familiar with the Rabinovich fund, currently the biggest film fund in Israel, who was involved in a number of projects that received funding from the fund. The message reads:

I understand perfectly well. Rabinovich is a rigged game. If I could only tell you the whole truth…..”

The message doesn’t need interpretation or context, as it is quite clear.

Thanks to another readers contribution, the following is a conversation between Israeli writer and director Amir Manor, listed as a reader for the Israeli film fund five times between July 2019 and 2022 (source). In the last decade Manor served as a readers for the funds more than 20 times, and had so far received funding for three projects to date. In the following screenshot Manor informs the fellow filmmaker that he is likely to not get funding in the current round and that he will have to “wait for the next one.” This was told to the filmmaker before the deadline for the submissions was even closed while Manor was serving as reader for the fund, as if the results of submission had already been decided in advance.

To clarify, Manor had informed the filmmaker that he was reading for the fund voluntarily, without being asked about it, when it is quite clear that this the type of information that should not be disclosed in the first place. Why would a reader for a fund tell a filmmaker that he is “likely” not get the funding, before the submissions were even closed, and before any script had been read?

The filmmaker indeed did not receive funding from the fund as Manor predicted, nor in the next and final round, despite the script receiving the following scores, averaging 9 out of 10, simply because he is not part of the local clique, or “syndicate” of people belonging to the network, many of which are listed in the table at the bottom of this article, individuals who are both repeatedly hired by the fund as script readers or advisers, and granted production money by it.

It is important to note that Manor charges 10,000 Israeli Shekels ($2800) for feature script editing / consulting and prouds himself for being the script consultant on many projects that over the years had received funding for either development or production from the various Israeli film funds, funding worth millions of Euros.

A question is raised about a possible relationship between the fact that Manor is so deeply involved in the funds as a consultant / reader / temporary employee, while being paid to advise and edit scripts which are then submitted to receive funding from the very same funds.

In a completely unrelated but interesting note, in a forum post from 2008, Manor is accused of being “recorded lying and cheating in order to publish a false article.” These allegations were lodged against him while he was working as a journalist. These allegations are completely unrelated to the issues mentioned above, anecdotal, and were made by a 3rd party in 2008, yet in light of all the other articles and facts published on this website, it is difficult to not wonder if this is not part of a larger pattern of the ethical standards by the people who make up the film industry, which is the root cause for the reasons this website had to be established in the first place.

Also note that Manor is just one person – the list in the bottom of this article recounts the names of two dozen individuals who over the years repeatedly worked for the funds as readers and also receive funding from them as directors of feature films.

In addition, as part of our ongoing investigation into the Rabinovich Foundation, currently the largest film fund in Israel, an additional revolving door has been observed, one that involves the fund and members of the Israeli Film Council, the governmental body that distributes funding to the various Israeli Film Funds.

It appears that over the years several individuals have been employed by the Rabinovich Foundation, before, while or after serving as members of the Israeli Film Council, or that their projects received financial support by the fund.

As can be seen in the example below, Osnat Bukofzer, who currently works for the Rabinovich Foundation, has severed as a member of the Film Council for several years. In addition, Bukofzer manages the Israeli Pavilion in Cannes, which the Rabinovich Foundation finances. Having served as a member on the Israeli Film Council and making decisions that directly effect the amount of money that the fund received, this is a clear case of a conflict of interest, where favors are exchanged over a long period of time, in the form of employment and other positions within the industry. Our sources report that this is far from being the only case and that over the years several compromised council members have been working to promote the interests of the Rabinovich Foundation from within the council, including the former head of the council, who kept a very close relationship, (some say intimate, but this is alleged) with the head of the fund. The case of Bukofzer is just one examples of many that we will reveal in our upcoming article about the Rabinovich Foundation, known in the local industry as being completely corrupt, having been controlled by the same individuals for over 20 years.

Corruption in the Israeli film industry is not a bug, but a feature of the system.

In the example below, also sent by readers of the site, a former employee of the Jerusalem Film Festival, then headed by the current head of the Israeli Film Fund Noa Regev, had both received funding for a short film and then had it screened in the festival where she was employed. While not illegal in any way, this is simply another example of how insular the Israeli film industry is and why newcomers find it so difficult to get their films made or screened, when employees, friends or family take up most of the available opportunities. The two following screenshots are the very definition of a “revolving door.”

The “revolving door” system explained above is of course not limited to Israel, and is part of a wider issue that plagues the European (and global) film industry in its entirety. The following comments were left on a related post on Reddit, mentioning Norway, Slovakia, Italy and Australia as other countries where the system is set-up in the same way. Film Industry Watch receives emails daily from every corner of the world, describing a similar situation, in multiple countries. The reason nepotism, favoritism and other ills plague the film industry everywhere is that Art, on the face of it, is subjective, allowing the ‘decision makers’ to essentially do whatever they want, resulting in the following descriptions of other local film industry scenes:

A revolving doors policy within film funding organizations, where the same individuals both evaluate project proposals and receive funding for their own projects, can degrade the quality of films being made in several ways:

1. Lack of diversity: This practice tends to perpetuate a narrow pool of filmmakers who consistently receive funding, often leading to a lack of diversity in terms of voices, perspectives, and storytelling approaches. New and innovative voices from emerging filmmakers may struggle to break into the industry, resulting in a stagnant and homogenous film landscape.
   
   
2. Stifling creativity: When a select group of individuals repeatedly receives funding, they may become complacent or risk-averse in their creative choices. The fear of jeopardizing future funding opportunities can discourage experimentation and the exploration of new ideas, resulting in formulaic or safe filmmaking.
   
   
3. Limited exposure to fresh talent: Talented filmmakers who do not have connections within the established inner circle may go unnoticed or face difficulties in getting their projects funded. This can result in missing out on potentially groundbreaking and unique cinematic voices that could contribute to the enrichment of the industry.
   
   
4. Reduced accountability: When those who evaluate and allocate funds are also recipients of funding, it can create a conflict of interest. There may be less scrutiny and accountability in the decision-making process, as individuals may be inclined to support projects from colleagues or acquaintances rather than solely based on the merit of the project.
   

In summary, a revolving doors policy in film funding organizations can result in a less diverse, less innovative, and less accountable film industry. It limits opportunities for emerging talent, stifle creative exploration, and prioritize personal connections over the quality of film projects, ultimately impacting the richness and diversity of films being made.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Please note that this article, like all other articles on this site, is not meant to be an ad hominem attack on any specific person. The individuals mentioned in this article 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 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. If you would like to contribute additional information, please contact us.

1)      Amir Manor – עמיר מנור

2)      Lee Gilat – לי גילת

3)      Amnon Zelait – אמנון זלאייט

4)      Tal Granite – טל גרניט

5)      Sharon Maimon – שרון מימון

6)      Efrat Korem – אפרת כורם

7)      Dita Geri – דיתה גרי

8)      Israela Shaar – ישראלה שאער מעודד

9)      Netali Brown – נטעלי בראון

10)   Raphael Balolo – רפאל בלולו

11)   Leon Prodovsky –   לאון פרודובסקי

12)   Eric Caplon –אריק קפלון

In addition, he is employed as a workshop leader in collaboration with the Ministry of Culture, the Rabinovitch Foundation, the Gesher Foundation and the Screenwriters’ Union[39]

13)   Suha Aref – סוהא עארף

14)   Gor Heller –  גור הלר

15)   Ronnie Kidar – רוני קידר

Her film “Sofolam” is among the 99 films that did not go through the approval process and received funding [45]

16)   Yevgeny Roman – יבגני רומן

17)   Idan Hubel – עידן הובל

18)   Tawfik (Agbariya) Abu Wail –   תאופיק (אגבאריה) אבו ואיל

19)   Mia Dreyfus – מיה דרייפוס

20)   Samdar Zamir – סמדר זמיר

21)   Verdit (Vidy) spent –  ורדית (וידי) בילו

Her film “The End of the Age of Innocence” is among the 99 films that did not go through the approval process and received funding [60]

22)   Kobi Mizrahi – קובי מזרחי

23)   Sherry Azuz- Berger – שרי עזוז- ברגר

24)   Dana Goldberg –  דנה גולדברג

25)   Esti Alamo-Wexler – אסתי עלמו-וקסלר

Sources:

Israeli film fund selection committees in the last 5 years – https://www.filmfund.org.il/ContentPage?id=49

[1] https://www.nevo.co.il/law_html/law01/p202k2_001.htm

[2] Source: Tafen report, 2017

[3] Source: Tafen report, 2017

[4] List of lecturers at the Rabinovich Foundation 2013-2017 from the foundation’s website

[5] Source: Tafen report, 2017

[6]https://www.facebook.com/amir.manor/posts/pfbid032sPqqUpqnfzCTnUjRDDZN263H28iyPPXkR6Nc3Fzh3o1eHwJxFNKbXHmdeMvUtakl

[7]https://www.filmfund.org.il/films/?id=&nom=003776&film=%D7%90%D7%A0%D7%99%20%D7%9C%D7%90%20%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%9F%20%D7%90%D7%A0%D7%99%20%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%91%D7%95%D7%98

[8] https://drive.google.com/open?id=1XplRVgAO59g18A5YyOnG0FWwow_fLQOU

[9] https://www.cinemaproject.org.il/ns/index.php?option=com_phocadownload&view=category&download=19

[10] Source: Tafen report, 2017

[11]https://niveshetcohen.com/%D7%91%D7%99%D7%AA/%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%A2%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%A8-%D7%9E%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%A8/

[12] https://www.filmfund.org.il/films/?id=&nom=002482&film=%D7%94%D7%A7%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%AA

[13] https://www.cinemaproject.org.il/ns/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=650:2016-12-08-09-31-08&Itemid=77

[14] https://www.cinemaproject.org.il/ns/index.php?option=com_phocadownload&view=category&download=19

[15] https://gesherfilmfund.org.il/Catalog/#film-catalog

[16] https://www.cinemaproject.org.il/ns/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=693:2017-07-26-10-13-13&Itemid=77

[17] https://cinemaofisrael.co.il/%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%99-%D7%97%D7%95%D7%9C/

[18] https://cinemaofisrael.co.il/%D7%92%D7%A0%D7%A7%D7%A9%D7%9F-48/

[19] https://www.cinemaproject.org.il/ns/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=680:2017-07-26-10-13-13&Itemid=77

[20] https://www.cinemaproject.org.il/ns/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=734:2017-07-26-10-13-13&Itemid=77

[21] https://www.edb.co.il/title/t0014554/cast/

[22] https://www.cinemaproject.org.il/ns/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=823:2017-07-26-10-13-13&Itemid=77

[23] https://cinemaofisrael.co.il/%D7%A1%D7%93%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%9D/

[24] https://www.cinemaproject.org.il/ns/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=776:2017-07-26-10-13-13&Itemid=77

[25] https://www.edb.co.il/title/t0015168/cast/

[26] https://www.cinemaproject.org.il/ns/index.php?option=com_phocadownload&view=category&download=19

[27]https://www.filmfund.org.il/films/?nom=002808&film=%D7%94%D7%A0%D7%A9%D7%A3

[28]Source: Tafen report, 2017

[29]https://www.cinemaproject.org.il/ns/index.php?option=com_phocadownload&view=category&download=19

[30] https://www.cinemaproject.org.il/ns/index.php?option=com_phocadownload&view=category&download=19

[31] https://www.cinemaproject.org.il/ns/index.php?option=com_phocadownload&view=category&download=19

[32] https://www.cinemaproject.org.il/ns/index.php?option=com_phocadownload&view=category&download=19

[33]https://www.filmfund.org.il/films/?nom=002808&film=%D7%94%D7%A0%D7%A9%D7%A3

[34] Source: Tafen report, 2017

[35] https://www.cinemaproject.org.il/ns/index.php?option=com_phocadownload&view=category&download=19

[36] https://www.cinemaproject.org.il/ns/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=827:2016-12-08-10-37-17&Itemid=74

[37] https://www.cinemaproject.org.il/ns/index.php?option=com_phocadownload&view=category&download=19

[38]https://web.archive.org/web/20211107234038/https://www.filmfund.org.il/films/?id=&nom=002924&film=Home%20%D7%94%D7%95%D7%9D

[39](https://www.cinemaproject.org.il/ns/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=422&catid=56&Itemid=467)

[40]https://www.filmfund.org.il/films/?nom=3620&film=%D7%95%D7%99%D7%9C%D7%94%20%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%90%20(%D7%A9%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%A9%20%D7%90%D7%97%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA)

[41]https://www.filmfund.org.il/films/?nom=003938&film=%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%98%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%9D%20%D7%91%D7%A1%D7%A4%D7%A7

[42] https://cinemaofisrael.co.il/%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%98%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%91%D7%A1%D7%A4%D7%A7/

[43]https://www.filmfund.org.il/films/?nom=003818&film=%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%A4%D7%97%D7%94

[44] https://timeout.co.il/%D7%9E%D7%91%D7%95%D7%A1%D7%A1-%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%A1%D7%99%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%A8-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%96%D7%9D-%D7%A1%D7%98%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%99-%D7%95%D7%99%D7%93-%D7%9E%D7%91%D7%99%D7%90-%D7%90%D7%AA/

[45] Source: Tafen report, 2017

[46] https://gesherfilmfund.org.il/Catalog/#film-catalog

[47]https://www.filmfund.org.il/films/?nom=002762&film=%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%AA%20%D7%A8%D7%A7%D7%A2

[48] https://gesherfilmfund.org.il/Catalog/#film-catalog

[49] https://gesherfilmfund.org.il/Catalog/#film-catalog

[50] https://www.habama.co.il/Pages/Event.aspx?Subj=4&Area=1&EventId=3758

[51]https://www.filmfund.org.il/films/?nom=002791&film=%D7%97%D7%A1%D7%9F%20%D7%94%D7%97%D7%9B%D7%9D

[52] https://www.cinemaproject.org.il/ns/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=819:2017-07-26-10-13-13&Itemid=77

[53] https://gesherfilmfund.org.il/Catalog/#film-catalog

[54] https://www.edb.co.il/title/t0016311/cast/

[55]https://www.haifaff.co.il/%D7%A1%D7%A8%D7%98%D7%99%D7%9D/7194/%D7%A2%D7%9C_%D7%9B%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%90_%D7%94%D7%91%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%99_%D7%99%D7%95%D7%A9%D7%91%D7%AA_%D7%90%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%94

[56] https://www.bezalel.ac.il/events/3070

[57]https://www.haifaff.co.il/%D7%A1%D7%A8%D7%98%D7%99%D7%9D/7194/%D7%A2%D7%9C_%D7%9B%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%90_%D7%94%D7%91%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%99_%D7%99%D7%95%D7%A9%D7%91%D7%AA_%D7%90%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%94

[58] https://gesherfilmfund.org.il/Catalog/#film-catalog

[59] https://jer-cin.org.il/he/movie/18525

[60] Source: Tafen report, 2017

[61] https://gesherfilmfund.org.il/Catalog/#film-catalog

[62] https://cinemaofisrael.co.il/%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%91%D7%99-%D7%9E%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%97%D7%99/

[63] https://www.cinemaproject.org.il/ns/index.php?option=com_phocadownload&view=category&download=19

[64] https://www.facebook.com/TelAvivUniversityFilmTVSchool/posts/2354090558010267/

[65] https://gesherfilmfund.org.il/Catalog/#film-catalog

[66] https://goldbergdana.com/about/

[67] https://www.bezalel.ac.il/events/3070

[68] https://www.bezalel.ac.il/events/3070

[69] https://www.forumtarbut.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Division-Managers.pdf

[70] https://www.israelhayom.co.il/article/757483

https://www.linkedin.com/in/osnat-bukofzer-4895862b/details/experience/

The post Revolving Doors At The Israeli Film Funds Headed by Noa Regev, Film Council member Osnat Bukofzer Alleged Conflict of Interest and more 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.

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.