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

This approach is convenient for them for two reasons:

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

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

Power flows from the top downwards:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The post How Medium sized Festivals Grovel to the Big Boys, by Selecting the Same Films first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

1. Cannes Film Festival : The integrity of the award processes at the Cannes Film Festival comes under scrutiny following the 2019 event. The prestigious Palme d’Or for short films was awarded to “La distance entre nous et le ciel,” produced by Eleni Kossyfidou, who had a longstanding professional relationship with jury member Panos Koutras. This undisclosed conflict of interest was not revealed during the festival, and there were indications of that attempts might have been made to conceal this connection. This is in addition to the 2022 Jury Controversy revolving the TikTok competition, following a resignation by jury president Rithy Panh. These incidents underscores a broader pattern within the industry where personal relationships and undisclosed conflicts of interest influence major film decisions. For further reading.
   
   
2. Film Festivals and Sponsorships: This situation underscores concerns about sponsorships and their role in creating conflicts of interest within the film festival selection process. Read our posts about the BFI London Film Festival relationship the British Film Institute and the relationship between Cannes and Canal+ and how the end of their 28 year sponsorship of the festival had effected film selection.
   
   
3. NISI MASA and European Short Pitch: Allegations of favoritism and conflict of interest have been raised against NISI MASA, particularly under Wim Vanacker’s tenure. This organization, significant in promoting emerging professionals within the European film industry, had repeatedly selected films produced by individuals like Ben Vandendaele, who held multiple roles within the organization itself. This situation is concerning, especially given the public funding involved.
   
   
4. Israeli Film Funding Organizations: Similar concerns are evident in Israeli film funding at The Israeli Film Fund, Gesher, and The Rabinovitch Foundation. A ‘revolving doors’ policy has been observed, where individuals involved in project evaluation and decision-making also receive funding for their projects. This has led to a tight circle of filmmakers consistently securing funding, limiting opportunities for new and diverse voices.
   
   
5. In the past decade and a half, the European film industry has witnessed the emergence of several key organizations, ostensibly designed as tools to support the film industry and filmmakers. However, a closer examination reveals a more complex narrative, one that intertwines issues of power, influence, control and finances. This narrative centers around a small cadre of individuals who have established entities such as the Torino Film Lab, Pop Up Residency, First Cut Lab, and the initiative formerly known as NISI MASA, now operating under the name European Short Pitch.

These cases highlight a need for greater accountability and transparency in the European film industry. The entanglement of a few influential individuals across different organizations, often without clear disclosure of their roles and interests, raises questions about the fairness of funding allocation and award distribution. This situation can stifle diversity and creativity, leading to a homogenous film landscape.

We are actively seeking more stories and instances of such practices within the film industry. If you have information or experiences related to these issues, we encourage you to contact us. Your insights can help shed light on these practices and contribute to fostering a more equitable and diverse film 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.

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

The post Special Report – favouritism, nepotism in the European film industry first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

Francois Morisset, the owner of Salaud Morisset, a short film distribution company, has reportedly been involved in contentious dealings over the distribution of the short films ASHMINA and ANNA in 2019, at the time when the two films were already under contract for distribution, for a period of six years.

In late 2019, in what appears to be a questionable move, Mr. Morisset proposed to orchestrate an Oscar campaign for ASHMINA, demanding additional payments between €3,000 and €9,000, contingent on the film’s success in the process. This demand, not covered in the original signed agreements, seemed to exploit his agency’s alleged role in distributing the previous year’s Oscar winner, SKIN. Being the distribution company of the films, promotion of the films was part of the original agreement, so Mr. Morisset’s request for extra funds can already be seen as running contrary to the spirit of the agreement.

The filmmaker, seeking clarity, contacted the director and producer of SKIN, the previous year’s Oscar winner. They both informed him that Mr. Morisset had allegedly no significant role in the film’s Oscar success and advised against the €3000-€9,000 payment. Consequently, the filmmaker respectfully declined Mr. Morisset’s offer.

Unexpectedly, Mr. Morisset’s response to this decision allegedly took a vindictive turn. The filmmaker noticed that ASHMINA was not included in the list of Oscar “predictions” in Mr. Morisset’s company emails, suggesting a retaliatory stance by Mr. Morisset. These actions, appearing to be both punitive and unprofessional, paint a certain picture of Mr. Morisset’s alleged business conduct.

The removal of ASHMINA from the company’s email predictions list by Mr. Morisset not only seems to be a petty and childish act of vengeance but also one that could potentially harm the film’s prospects. This action, which could be seen as a form of bullying, is not only unprofessional but also ostensibly ridiculous, reflecting a spiteful response to the filmmaker’s refusal to comply with the additional payment demands, not included in the original agreement.

Such behavior not only undermines the professional integrity of Mr. Morisset’s company but also had put the film at a disadvantage, depriving it of deserved recognition and opportunities in a crucial phase of its Oscar campaign. This approach, seemingly aimed at strong-arming the filmmaker, casts a shadow on the fairness and ethical standards of Mr. Morisset’s business practices.

In addition, when a different film by the same filmmaker, ANNA, won the prestigious BIFA award, Mr. Morisset did not acknowledge this achievement on his agency’s social media, allegedly deviating from his usual practices. This seemed a punitive reaction to the filmmaker’s refusal to pay the additional amount for ASHMINA, a different film (!!!).

The exclusion of ASHMINA from the email signature, a cost-free and routine inclusion in the company’s correspondence, can only be interpreted as a petty, absurd, and vindictive attempt to strong-arm the filmmaker into complying with the unwarranted payment demand.

Significantly, BONOBO, a film produced by Mr. Morisset himself, was included in these Oscar predictions, displaying different treatment to films produced by his own company, and other films. Moreover, the list of “predicted” films comprised recent signings by Mr. Morisset’s company. In stark contrast to the filmmaker’s situation, these other films were not subjected to the additional Oscar promotion fees that Mr. Morisset had aggressively sought from the filmmaker.

This discrepancy allegedly highlights a clear bias in Mr. Morisset’s promotional strategies, allegedly favoring his own productions, and newly signed films.

Later, in a chat screenshot from November 12, 2019, the producer of the short film HARBOR, another film that had found itself in a similar situation, is shown finalizing a “confidential agreement” with Mr. Morisset:

In a screenshot from November 21, 2019, it’s evident that after the confidential deal, HARBOR was incorporated into the selection of films promoted by Mr. Morisset’s company. This update notably erased any direct mention of the Oscars, severing the previously implied connection between extra payments and promotion efforts.

Crucially, it must be emphasized that two films from the filmmaker, ASHMINA and ANNA, already under a six-year agreement with Mr. Morisset’s firm, were still conspicuously missing from the company’s signature. This omission represents, allegedly, a blatant, senseless, and retaliatory tactic aimed at pressuring the filmmaker into agreeing to the unwarranted financial demands.

Following what are alleged to be unethical actions by Mr. Morisset, the filmmaker became concerned about the potential impact on his two films, ANNA and ASHIMA for the rest of the six year agreement. The refusal to meet Mr. Morisset’s additional payment demands seemed to place the filmmaker in a coercive situation, without any control over his films, now under the hands of someone who had displayed an illogical and unethical behaviour.

In response, the filmmaker requested that Mr. Morisset return the rights to the two films. Allegedly, Mr. Morisset agreed to this, but only under the condition of receiving a €20,000 payment from the filmmaker.

At this juncture, the films’ producer, Mr. Dominic Davey took to Facebook to detail Mr. Morisset’s actions. This post, which outlines the alleged misconduct, remains accessible online and is screenshot below:

Ultimately, prompted by the social media post from Mr. Davey, Mr. Morisset conceded to relinquish the rights to the two films back to the filmmaker, waiving the previously demanded €20,000 payment.

Below are additional screenshots, shedding light on what are alleged to be questionable business practices by Mr. Morisset. This information provides further insight into the manner in which Mr. Morisset reportedly conducts his business dealings.

The post Salaud Morisset Short Film Distribution ALLeged Questionable Business Practices first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Raw information:

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

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

Wim Vanacker Biography

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

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

SOURCES:

Sources:

https://issuu.com/emiliep/docs/esp_book-projects_2016

The post NISI MASA alleged conflicts of interests under the tenure of Wim Vanacker 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.

Recent reports have brought to light concerns regarding gender bias at The Jerusalem Film Lab’s 10th lab event, held in 2020. (Another case from 2024 is reported here) Statistical analysis indicates a probability of 99.984% for gender-based bias influencing the proceedings of the event, including the selection of winning projects at the event. The details of this calculation are presented below. During this period, the film lab was lead by Aurit Zamir, an Israeli producer.

Event Overview: In this event, 12 feature film projects were selected for a year-long workshop. To assess alleged gender bias, we assume that there are an equal number of male and female filmmakers with comparable talent levels. Below are the relevant details concerning the event:

Project Selection:

• Of the twelve selected projects:
  • 8 were led by Women.
  • 4 were led by Men.

Over the 12 months period, three guests were invited to speak at the event:

• Eliza Hittman (Female)
• Joan Tewkesbury (Female)
• Alma Har’el (Female)

At the end of the event, seven jury members were invited to select the award winners:

• Frédéric Boyer (Male)
• Maya Amsellem (Female)
• Sandrine Brauer (Female)
• Ifat Irani (Female)
• Dea Kulumbegashvili (Female)
• Aranka Matits (Female)
• Ziv Naveh (Female)

Four Award Winners were selected:

• Netalie Braun (Female)
• Marianna Brennand Fortes (Female)
• Myrsini Aristidou (Female)
• Odeya Rosnak (Female)
  
  The total probability of all four events happening under the assumption of a gender-neutral selection process, is just 0.0117%, meaning a 99.9883% chance for gender bias. The exact calculation is presented below.

Interestingly, in a 2019 Facebook post (one year before the event) Aurit Zamir expressed interest in the gender distribution within the film industry, specifically exploring potential biases. The post indicated a preoccupation with gender in industry roles. However, as it can be seen above, during the Film Lab’s 10th event in 2020, instead of making decisions based on merit, as it would be expected, there have been a significant and unnatural inclination towards a certain gender in the selection of participants, speakers, jury members, and award winners.

Film Industry Watch advocates for unequivocal equality of opportunity in both the film sector and society broadly. We believe every individual deserves equal treatment, irrespective of gender, race, sexual orientation, or other characteristics. It’s crucial to distinguish ‘equality of opportunity’ from ‘equality of outcome.’ The latter suggests enforcing uniform outcomes through reverse discrimination. Instead, we support nurturing equal opportunities from the outset, emphasizing enhanced education and financial assistance for underprivileged communities.

Historically, traditional liberalism pursued a society indifferent to race and color, focusing on individual merit and abilities. However, the contemporary narrative often emphasizes identity—race, gender, and other inherent attributes—over merit. This approach, which imposes “top-down” equality, masks the underlying issues of society rather than address them directly. By focusing on superficial equality of outcome, it treats the symptoms rather than the root causes and promotes further division and discrimination. It’s essential to tackle society’s foundational problems to achieve genuine, lasting equality.

For this lab, it would have been more transparent and respectful for the organizers to openly state their intention to support the women in the group by dedicating the awards to them. This would have allowed the men to make an informed decision about their participation, rather than obliging them to engage in what might feel like a predetermined and unfair process. Such upfront communication could prevent the waste of time and the perception of bias, ensuring a more honest and respectful environment for all participants.

We urge organizations championing equality through a “top-down” approach and focusing on ‘equality of outcome’ to be transparent about their objectives and methodologies. It’s important that they clearly communicate their intentions beforehand, enabling potential participants to make a well-informed decision about whether to engage with their programs. This proactive transparency is crucial for maintaining trust and respect among all involved.

Gender Bias Calculation:

To calculate the gender bias in this event, we need to consider the distribution of opportunities (project selections, speaker invitations, jury positions, and award selection) between men and women. Since we’re assuming that there are an equal number of male and female filmmakers and equal talent levels, any significant deviation from a 50/50 distribution might indicate a bias. The calculation was done twice, by two different mathematicians, to ensure that the method used, and results, are correct:

Gender-biasDownload

Second calculation by a different mathematician, to ensure accuracy.

JFL
Download

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.

About Aurit Zamir:

Aurit Zamir is an Israeli film‐producer, screenwriter and educator known for her work through production company Gum Films and her role as director of the Sam Spiegel International Film Lab (Jerusalem) beginning in January 2020. She is a graduate of the Sam Spiegel Film & Television School and also works as a mentor and script editor in film education.

Related posts:

https://filmindustrywatch.org/israels-jff-the-festival-of-discrimination-how-israels-film-industry-is-punishing-its-men/

https://filmindustrywatch.org/inside-israels-chaos-war-without-end-media-crackdowns-and-a-corrupt-broken-film-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: Statistically Significant Gender Bias at The Jerusalem Film Lab first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

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

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

Détails – Conflit d’intérêts révélé

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

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

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

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

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

Connexions dissimulées

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

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

Controverse Post-Festival

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

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

MISE À JOUR:

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

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

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

Conséquences pour l’industrie et l’intégrité du festival

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

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

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

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

Le producteur de ce film était Guillaume Dreyfus.

Sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overview

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

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

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

Summary of Key Findings

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

Conflict of Interest: Jury Member and Producer Relationship

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

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

• Strella
• Xenia
• Dodo

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

Kossyfidou also produced both of Kekatos’ short films:

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

This creates a direct overlap between:

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

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

Recorded Statements and Jury Conduct

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

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

In the same recordings:

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

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

Mechanism of Influence: Elimination Rather Than Promotion

There are two recognized ways to influence jury outcomes:

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

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

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

CRelationship Between Kekatos and Wim Vanacker

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

In 2018:

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

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

Industry Context and Broader Implications

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

Comparable cases at Cannes include:

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

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

Final notes:

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

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

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

Vasilis Kekatos Biography

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

SOURCES:

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

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

Sources:

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

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

All screenshots takes from public resources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

The person in question, an individual who had alleged dealings with a company called Film Volt, and a person named Mark Busby, were experiencing intense moments due to their recent interactions with this organization. They found that Film Volt and Mark Busby had allegedly breached significant agreements and that these agreements were made in the name of nonexistent companies.

The person in question had encountered issues with contracts and realized that Film Volt and Mark Busby had allegedly misled them by claiming to represent companies that did not actually exist. This raised concerns about the legitimacy and credibility of Film Volt and Mark Busby’s operations.

Feeling frustrated and misled, the person in question sought to share their experience and warned others about their dealings with Film Volt and Mark Busby. They hoped to raise awareness about the lack of proper contracts and non-payment issues in the entertainment industry and encourage others to be cautious when dealing with similar organizations. The person in question was determined to take appropriate action to address the breaches in agreements and seek a resolution for the situation they were facing.

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

The post Film Volt first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

One crew member, who had been threatened with a court claim, finally managed to receive partial payment. However, during a screening, they met with other crew members who confirmed that none of them had been paid yet. This situation is incredibly upsetting to them. While they understand that clients can be difficult, they believe that starting a project without ensuring enough funds to pay the crew and others is unacceptable.

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

The post Picture Farms first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

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

The post  Flex Singh first appeared on Film Industry Watch.