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.

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.

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

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

Détails – Conflit d’intérêts révélé

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

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

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

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

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

Connexions dissimulées

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

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

Controverse Post-Festival

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

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

MISE À JOUR:

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

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

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

Conséquences pour l’industrie et l’intégrité du festival

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

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

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

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

Le producteur de ce film était Guillaume Dreyfus.

Sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overview

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

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

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

Summary of Key Findings

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

Conflict of Interest: Jury Member and Producer Relationship

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

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

• Strella
• Xenia
• Dodo

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

Kossyfidou also produced both of Kekatos’ short films:

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

This creates a direct overlap between:

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

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

Recorded Statements and Jury Conduct

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

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

In the same recordings:

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

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

Mechanism of Influence: Elimination Rather Than Promotion

There are two recognized ways to influence jury outcomes:

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

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

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

CRelationship Between Kekatos and Wim Vanacker

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

In 2018:

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

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

Industry Context and Broader Implications

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

Comparable cases at Cannes include:

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

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

Final notes:

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

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

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

Vasilis Kekatos Biography

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

SOURCES:

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

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

Sources:

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

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

All screenshots takes from public resources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Πρόσωπα κλειδιά που συνδέονται στη βραβευμένη ελληνική ταινία

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

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

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

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

Λεπτομέρής παρουσίαση σύγκρουσης συμφερόντων

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

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

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

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

Κρυφές συνδέσεις

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

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

Μεταφεστιβαλική διαμάχη

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

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

ΕΝΗΜΕΡΩΣΗ:

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

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

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

Επιπτώσεις για την ακεραιότητα του κλάδου και του Φεστιβάλ

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

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

Γάλλος παραγωγός της ταινίας ήταν ο Γκιγιόμ Ντρέιφους.

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

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

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

Sources:

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

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

All screenshots takes from public resources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IMPORTANT NOTE: Please note that this article is not meant to be an ad hominem attack on any specific person. The individuals mentioned and their positions in various organizations are used as examples for the way that the film industry operates. The positions, roles and professional relationship between individuals are public information. Sources are provided throughout the website. If you would like to report any inaccuracy please do not hesitate to contact us. Our aim is to improve and democratize the film industry by analyzing the way its institutions are set-up. In order to do so, we must list those organizations and the people who work for them or with them, and their relationship with each other. Also, to be clear, there are certainly much bigger fish in the swamp than the individuals listed below but we publish information which is available to us and which was brough to our attention. If you can disclose further information about other individuals or organizations, please contact us.

SOURCES:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IMPORTANT NOTE: Please note that this article is not meant to be an ad hominem attack on any specific person. The individuals mentioned and their positions in various organizations are used as examples for the way that the film industry operates. The positions, roles and professional relationship between individuals are public information. Sources are provided throughout the website. If you would like to report any inaccuracy please do not hesitate to contact us. Our aim is to improve and democratize the film industry by analyzing the way its institutions are set-up. In order to do so, we must list those organizations and the people who work for them or with them, and their relationship with each other. Also, to be clear, there are certainly much bigger fish in the swamp than the individuals listed below but we publish information which is available to us and which was brough to our attention. If you can disclose further information about other individuals or organizations, please contact us.

SOURCES:

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1179406/ – Listed as a Producer in Yona’s films.

https://www.festival-cannes.com/en/2017/l-atelier-2017/

https://cineuropa.org/en/newsdetail/372414/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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