ACE Producers:

Torino Film Lab staff page:

Cannes’ Residency Fall 2023:

The Israeli Film Fund social media banner:

Has gender politics in the film industry, mirroring society as a whole, has gone too far in correcting historical injustices, and is de facto engaged in illegal discrimination on the basis of gender, race and other physical characteristics? We’ve already touched on the subject here.

Historically, traditional liberalism pursued a society indifferent to race and color, focusing on individual merit and abilities.

People were encouraged to do their best, whoever they were, in a promise that society will treat them as equals, legally and otherwise. We were educated and told to be blind to people’s gender and race.

In the West, this has been the case since about 1970s, and for over 50 years. (Developing countries, and lower social and economic communities in the West, are completely excluded from this discussion.)

While traditional liberalism encouraged people to look at others as equal human beings rather than a mathematical sum of their gender + race + sexual orientation + nationality and other attributes they were born with, in 2020’s we have reverted to a place where people and their opportunities have been reduced to their identity, similar to the situation in Europe in the 1930’s:

For the past five years, white, straight, male writers and directors with experience and successful track records have been sidelined. We’ve essentially been told that because of our race and gender, we need not apply.

This may not be obvious at first glance. There sure seemed to be a lot of white dudes at the Golden Globes, right? Well, this doesn’t impact the top 2% of writers, showrunners, and directors since they’re in the rarified air where they get work no matter what.

And the saddest part of all this is that most of the people who would fill that room are some of the most liberal people I know—people who have gone out of their way to foster new and unique voices.

Anonymous letter – A VETERAN SCREENWRITER’S PLOT TWIST ON HOLLYWOOD’S DEI CULTURAL SHIFT – filmthreat.com

It’s crucial to distinguish ‘equality of opportunity’ from ‘equality of outcome.’ The latter suggests enforcing uniform outcomes through reverse discrimination with disregard to merit or personal abilities. This approach, which imposes “top-down” equality, masks the underlying issues of society, in education, the distribution of economic resources, etc, rather than addressing them directly.

This process is done with an extreme invasion to personal information and privacy, when people everywhere are now forced to expose data that they otherwise might not want to make public.

By focusing on superficial equality of outcome, it treats the symptoms rather than the root causes and promotes further division, discrimination and as a side effect, degrading of artistic output.

Some critics have labeled it as the ‘exclusion of POT’, that is, the exclusion of People of Talent, to the detriment of the industry, audiences, and society as a whole.

This phenomenon, socially violent and extreme, wide spread in society as whole, has unfortunately but expectedly, is now met with a backlash from the extreme Right of the political spectrum, with a huge increase in the support of extreme rightwing politicians everywhere, undermining and putting at risk the very existence of liberal democracies in the West, with Trump likely to win* the next US presidential elections, along with other autocrats and fascists all over the world.

[*Update November 2024 – this article was written almost a year before the US elections.]

Film Industry Watch advocates for unequivocal equality of opportunity in both the film industry and society broadly. We believe every individual deserves equal treatment, irrespective of gender, race, sexual orientation, or other characteristics. We support nurturing equal opportunities from the outset, emphasizing enhanced education and financial assistance for underprivileged sectors and communities.

The images on the page were taken from: https://www.torinofilmlab.it/teams and other public sources.

Related posts:

The post Gender Politics – Has the Industry Gone Too Far? first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

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

This approach is convenient for them for two reasons:

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

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

Power flows from the top downwards:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Before we delve into the details of this article, we want to remind our readers of a simple yet crucial fact: every year film festivals receive thousands of submissions. The most prestigious ones can receive as many as 15,000 submissions annually. As you go through the information below, please keep these staggering numbers in mind. We also remind our readers that the European film industry is financed by public funding worth hundreds of millions of Euros per year.

Consider this: how is it that, amid thousands of submissions from filmmakers, writers, directors, and producers, it’s always the same few who seem to be chosen repeatedly for various festivals or labs, and who secure funding opportunities? Meanwhile, the vast majority struggle to make a mark in the industry, with many not even having their films viewed. To quote one commenter, “If you think any film festival watches all the submissions, I have a bridge to sell you.”

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

Is the Integrity of the European Film Industry Compromised?

Our argument is that the integrity of the European Film industry is highly compromised in that a loose affiliation of organizations which are run by the same or connected people use their power and influence in order to control the distribution of resources among themselves and those who are close to them, akin to a syndicate. To be clear, Film Industry Watch does not accuse the people mentioned below of belonging to a syndicate, but simply that the way the industry is set-up, is akin to one. Critics claim that the consequences of this structure, while not illegal, are highly immoral, and work to the detriment of the film industry as a whole, as well as its artistic output. 

The diagrams below serve as a visual illustration of the various organizations and individuals discussed in our articles and the intricate web connecting them. These charts reveal a highly insular system where influential figures in the industry engage in a sort of musical chairs or a revolving door: they occupy multiple roles, in different and multiple organizations, enabling them to further their own agendas and interests. This system not only creates barriers to entry for newcomers but also signals to others within the network their willingness to utilize their influence and reciprocate favors, benefiting those within this closed circle.

The charts below list individuals and organizations as examples of how the system operates. They show the relationships between decision-makers, producers, and the organizations that made the selection such as festivals, labs and film funds. These charts reveal that the producer of a chosen project is working with, or for, the selecting organization, the examples being Dominique Welinski (multiple organizations) , Melissa Malinbaum (Cannes short film section), and Ben Vandendaele (for NISI MASA).

The reason that these relationships – producer / decision maker – are highlighted in the examples below is that they are publicly documented. Other types of connections, like close friendships, commercial interests, or even bribes, are much harder to uncover due to their secretive nature. However, the bottom line remains the same – the selection, funding, and awarding of a project is rarely based on artistic merit, with the real reason being family connection, financial interests, friendships etc.

In festival selections and film funds public financing, in 90% of the cases, merit isn’t the main criterion. We can state these numbers with some confidence because, as we know, in all major festivals, submissions are not viewed. Only about 5-10% of feature film submissions and 1-2% of short film submissions are actually considered for selection from the total number of entries, based on direct recommendations from members of the network to the selection committee members. In national film funds, the numbers are similar, with about 5-10% of submitted projects actually being considered, with the financed projects making about 1%, with very little consideration to their actual merit. In some funds all the projects will be read and scored but in most cases those scores will not be taken into consideration. We will post proof of these claims in the near future.

This is not to say that it is absolutely impossible to break into the industry. However, you absolutely must “know someone” or “be someone” to enter into the pool of films or projects that will be considered. Without some connection to those people within the network, your project does not stand any chance because it will simply not be read or viewed. [Read this article about the Munich Film Festival for an example, as well as the Sundance may not be watching all submissions post] 

The following charts detail individuals and the organizations they work for, their positions, and how their positions has effected selection of projects they’ve been involved with, both within the organization and within the film ecosystem as a whole.

The first case is of producer Dominique Welinski who holds a multitude of roles in the industry. She works for the Cannes Film Festival, curates the Factory program at Cannes’ Director’s Fortnight, selects projects for Cannes’ L’atelier, works at the Jerusalem Film Lab, is a Jury in the Jerusalem Film Festivals, and served as a decision maker for the Torino Film Lab. She is also the Producer of Israeli Director Yona Rozenkier. For some whatever strange statistical anomality, Rozenkier has participated in ALL of the above events or programs and even had TWO films screened in Cannes in the same year (2019). Note that Welinski is the curator of the Factory, so she had invited her own director to the program PLUS had arranged for his short film to be in the Official Competition, while the other 7000 people who had submitted films don’t even get their films watched.

We ask the reader to be reminded of the first paragraph of this article where we discuss the fact that each year thousands of films are submitted to these festivals or programs (about 7000-10,000 short films to Cannes, where Rozenkier’s short was selected). Does anyone believe that this is a coincidence and that the selection of Rozenkier’s projects in these events was by chance, rather due to the fact that his Producer is working for or with these organizations?

Further more, Rozenkier has recently been awarded funding for his next feature film by the Israeli Film Fund which is currently headed by Noa Regev. Noa’s previous job was the Artistic Director of the Jerusalem Film Festival, which Dominique Welinski works with and for, and which had selected for screening both of Rozenkier’s features.

Here it is important to explain that Dominique Welinski’s strength as a producer is not only in the roles and positions that she holds in these events, for the sole purpose of influencing ** selections of projects which she produces herself (such as Rozenkier’s films) but rather that these selections send a clear “signal” across the ecosystem that selection in these festivals and programs is highly dependent on personal networks and contacts. NO OTHER FOUL PLAY IS IMPLIED.

** Influencing in this regard simply means by the virtue of being a position holder in an important organization. No foul play needed, nor implied by us, in order to achieve this “influence.” It is achieved simply by holding an important role within the industry.

It could be imagined that Noa Regev, as the head of the Israeli Film Fund, would seek favors** with Welinski, hoping that Welinski would help films financed by the fund throughout the ecosystem.

The fact that Yona’s and Welinski’s two shorts were selected in Cannes in the same year, where Welinski works as an adviser, send a very clear signal across the network – success and selection in festivals and various programs are highly dependent on who you know, and the favors** you pay them. On the flip side, those in the industry also know that they should “watch out” to stay on good terms with Welinski’s, and other gatekeepers, or they might be ‘blacklisted’ and their careers tarnished.

** in the form of social currency – NO FAUL PLAY IS IMPLIED. It is not implied that actual currency is being exchanged.

The following chart further details the connections between Welinski and Regev across three distinct organizations. Firstly, at the Jerusalem Film Lab, Welinski serves as an adviser, and it was here that Rozenkier’s project was chosen and received an award.

Secondly, the Jerusalem Film Festival, under Noa Regev’s leadership as Artistic Director, selected both of Rozenkier’s feature films. This festival also hosts the pitching event of the Jerusalem Film Lab mentioned above.

Lastly, the Israeli Film Fund, now led by the same Noa Regev, recently granted Yona 2,000,000 Shekels (more than 500,000 Euro) for his next feature film production, funding that was given to only three films out of more than one hundred projects.

The intricate and overlapping relationships among these individuals and organizations are strikingly apparent. At this point it should be becoming increasingly evident why we argue that the structure of the European Film Industry more closely resembles that of a syndicate than a that of thriving healthy industry.

The following chart focuses on the Cannes Film Festival, highlighting the roles of selection committee members Wim Vanacker and Melissa Malinbaum. The following might be confusing, which is why a full chart has been provided below:

In 2017, ‘Gabriel’ by Oren Gerner, a short film produced by Melissa Malinbaum, was chosen to the festival. This selection came a year after the film’s participation in NISI MASA in 2016, during which time Wim Vanacker, ALSO a Cannes selection committee member, was its Artistic Director (if you’re confused already, use the chart below.)

The subsequent year, as Artistic Director Vanacker selected ‘The Silence of the Dying Fish’ by Vasilis Kekatos. In the following year, Kekatos’s ‘The Distance Between Us and the Sky’ entered the Cannes’ Shorts Official Competition. This film later won the Palme d’Or. It was later revealed that Eleni Kossyfidou, the film’s producer, had a longstanding professional relationship with Panos H. Koutras, a jury member on the awarding committee. Additionally as we’ve previously reported Kekatos had invited both Vanacker and Kossyfidou to be jury members at his own SEA NEMA Film Festival in 2017.

Here, we once again observe a glaring conflict of interest that extends over years and across various organizations.

Any credible professional in the film industry would recognize that the selection of a film produced by a committee member for festival participation constitutes an undeniable conflict of interest that should have never taken place. We again remind our reader that while Cannes selects only 8-10 short films per year, they receive between 7000 to 10,000 submissions. NISI MASA, too, received dozens of submissions each year. To assume that the above detailed narrative is some kind of a coincidence is preposterous. (If you believe that it is a coincidence, please contact us, we have a brand new bridge to sell you)

We reiterate that all the information mentioned above is publicly available and accessible online. We argue that the majority of films and projects chosen for these events benefit from a high degree of favoritism that bears little relation to their artistic merit. Although it is straightforward to establish connections in the aforementioned cases, many such relationships remain concealed from public view and may be impossible to uncover without insider knowledge. We also repeat that this article is not meant to be an ad hominem attack on any specific person.

The next chart delves deeper into NISI MASA. Here we explore the case of producer Ben Vandendaele, a close friend of Wim Vanacker, who at the time served as Nisi Masa’s Artistic Director. This chart illustrates Vandendaele’s recurring success in getting his projects selected at NISI MASA events year after year, showcasing a pattern that raises questions about the nature of these selections.

In 2016, two of the films selected, ‘Deer Boy’ and ‘The Hoarder,’ were produced by Vandendaele. This pattern continued into 2017, with the selection of another two Vandendaele productions, ‘Hunt’ and ‘The Nipple Whisperer.’

The trend persisted in 2018 and 2019. In 2018, ‘Vengeance Of The Vixens,’ a film produced by Vandendaele’s company, was chosen, during a period when he was also consulting for the organization. In the following year, the film ‘Creatures,’ again a production under Vandendaele, was selected, while he maintained his consultancy role.

Importantly – some of these films are listed as having Vandendaele as their producers, others have “Bekke Films” listed as the production company, without Vandendaele’s names attached to them. However, “Bekke Films” is Vandendaele’s company, one and the same. This has been done, allegedly, to hide these facts, and perhaps to circumvent the NISI MASA rules that allow for only one project from the same producer to be selected each year. If such actions remind you that of a syndicate, almost like a mafia, you are not alone in these thoughts.

Vandendaele’s multifaceted involvement in the 2018 NISI MASA event is particularly noteworthy. Not only was he a producer of a selected film, but he also played a dual role as a consultant to the organization. Furthermore, he was involved in the decision-making process that led to the awarding of a Distribution Award to another project. Coincidentally, a film he produced was also an award recipient during the same event.

The connections extended to jury members as well. In 2017, Daria Vlasova, a member of the jury, was associated with a film represented by Bekke Films, Vandendaele’s company. Another jury member, Jérôme Nunes, had known ties to Vandendaele. Additionally, two films connected to jury member Marija Fridinovaitė were selected in the same year.

A particularly concerning instance of potential conflict of interest involved jury member Ola Jankowska. Vandendaele’s distribution company handled her film ‘Deer Boy,’ while she was serving as a jury member at the event.

The circumstances surrounding the award win for ‘Vengeance of the Vixens’ in 2018 also raise questions. The film, produced by Bekke Films (owned by Vandendaele), won an award at a time when Vandendaele was serving as a consultant for the event. This succession of events, involving repeated selections, multiple roles, and connections to jury members, suggests a pattern that goes beyond mere coincidence, just as all the other examples which we mentioned above.

It’s commonplace for individuals to work with various companies or organizations throughout their careers, and it’s not unusual for their paths to intersect with others. However, when you put all of these instances together as in the chart below, a closer analysis of these interactions uncovers a troubling pattern, a deeply ingrained network of relationships among certain individuals and organizations which is overly incestuous. This network is problematic because it fosters a culture of mutual back-scratching, where favors and advantages are exchanged freely, blurring the lines between personal, professional interests and artistic merit. What’s more alarming is the blatant nature of these entanglements; there’s little to no effort to conceal these conflicts of interest, indicating that such practices have become normalized and accepted within their circles. This situation raises significant concerns about integrity and fairness, suggesting a corrupt system where personal connections trump professional and ethical standards. These corrupt relationships are between festival organizers, film fund decision makers, sales agents, producers, directors, and finally the governmental agencies which fund them which accept the way in which the system is set-up, funding it with hundreds of millions of Euros each year, public tax payers money that ends up in the pockets of few, who guards their positions and access to resources, stifling access to newcomers and reducing the quality of the industry’s artistic output.

While contacts between different individuals and organizations within an industry is natural, we believe that in the examples detailed in this report the lines have been crossed. The current state of the European Film Industry is highly compromised due to the work of certain rotten apples that poison the system as a whole, without many of the industry members, and certainly not the public, realizing it.

We ask our readers to continue to share with us information about the industry so it can be analyzed, published and distributed to the public and the bodies that fund these organizations.

Further Reading:

SOURCES:

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

https://www.screendaily.com/news/jerusalem-film-festival-crowns-pitch-point-winners/5131282.article

https://jff.org.il/en/article/33752

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

https://www.torinofilmlab.it/people/705237/Yona-Rozenkier

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

https://popupfilmresidency.org/2020/01/13/pop-up-film-residency-in-athens/

https://www.cannescourtmetrage.com/en/actualites/cannes-2020-the-short-films-competition 

https://pro.imdb.com/title/tt8296610/ 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The post Is the Integrity of the European Film Industry Compromised? first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

2014 – Audience Design Workshop   –  TorinoFilmLab  (Turin, Brignogan/Brittany)

2013  – Adaptlab workshop   with director-screenwriter Razvan Radulescu –  TorinoFilmLab  (Turin, Copenhagen, Lyon)

These are listed on Isabelle’s personal website which can be accessed here.

Critics have raised concerns about the seemingly problematic nature of her being invited not once, but twice, to participate in the Labs programs, in an organization where her brother serves as the Artistic Director. The familial ties to Matthieu Darras inevitably cast doubt on the impartiality of her selection.

This case serves as a glaringly example, epitomizing the widespread issues prevalent throughout the film industry, particularly within the entire European film ecosystem, as extensively documented in our numerous articles, embodying nepotism, shamelessly, in its purest form.

Furthermore, reports suggest that Darras, in his capacity as Artistic Director at TFL, has reportedly been pursuing established producers, encouraging them to apply to TFL. Allegations indicate that he not only offered personal invitations but also provided preferential treatment by extending application deadlines.

This strategy was implemented to enhance the credibility of TFL and secure future public funding, at the expense of assisting young producers and directors who would benefit significantly more from the exposure provided by TFL than those already established producers and projects.

Film Industry Watch is keenly focused on the Torino Film Lab, which appears to have a recurring issue with favoritism within the European film landscape. This issue contributes to reinforcing established power centers and select individuals over merit, transparency, and genuine support of independent cinema, emerging talents, and young filmmakers. Such practices prioritize transactions of favors within the industry among already established and influential entities, at the expense of fostering genuine diversity and opportunity.

As we undertake a comprehensive examination of the Torino Film Lab and its practices spanning the last two decades, we invite anyone with information about this organization to please reach out and contact us.

Further reading:

SOURCES:

At the Torino Film Lab website: https://www.torinofilmlab.it/people/653835/Isabelle-Collombat

Matthieu Darras Biography

Matthieu Darras is a central figure in European and international film, leading several high-profile initiatives in film development and consultancy. Known for founding the European Network of Young Cinema, NISI MASA, Darras currently directs influential programs such as First Cut Lab, Pop Up Film Residency, and Full Circle Lab. His roles with major film festivals, including Cannes Critics’ Week and the Venice Film Festival, have further solidified his position within established European film networks.

As the Artistic Director of Torino Film Lab (TFL), however, Darras’ leadership has faced scrutiny, with allegations of favoritism and nepotism casting doubt on the transparency and impartiality of TFL’s selection processes. His ongoing influence across these platforms has sparked industry-wide conversations about equity and inclusivity, particularly regarding the role of entrenched figures in shaping opportunities for new voices within European cinema.

The post Torino Film Lab – Family Ties and Favoritism during Matthieu Darras’ tenure as the Artistic Director first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOURCES:

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

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