As independent filmmakers, we often find ourselves submitting projects to festivals, hoping for that one big break. Yet, most of us face rejection, and the reasons aren’t always clear. On the other hand, it is typical to hear these comments from film professionals or movie-goers:
“I watched it. The quality is fine, but didn’t we have this kind of film decades ago?”
“It’s a good film, but I don’t feel it reflects my life struggles.”
“I don’t think it deserves the award.”
And then people start to blame the festival board or jury for not picking the truly innovative projects.
It was a mystery to me how films are chosen at festivals. I didn’t understand the selection process until I had the chance to attend an intimate panel discussion at the B3 Festival in Frankfurt, hearing directly from someone who organizes local film funds. Her candid explanation revealed why our expectations about festival selections might be misaligned. That’s when I realized we tend to focus too much on the practical function of an organization and overlook the human side behind the authoritative titles.
Note: This information comes from a panel discussion with Anna Schoeppe, the managing director at Hessen Film & Media. I hope to provide you a glimpse of the landscape on the other side of the door. Please take it with a grain of salt and make sure to ask around for a more comprehensive understanding.
How Does the Festival Organizer Decide Which Film Projects to Invest In?
Basically, they pick projects that genuinely need their support, where the funding plays a critical role. If they don’t support the project, no one else will.
As a filmmaker, you need to prove that your project has a unique bond with the festival — just like in a relationship, there needs to be real chemistry. If the connection is genuine, it works; otherwise, it could be damaging for both sides.
When making the decision, all jury members have to agree on the chosen projects, which means finding common ground. Some of them may have to compromise their personal preferences.
They also need to manage the risk for the festival head. They can’t select all innovative but risky projects. Instead, they tend to curate a list that includes both secure choices (projects already selected by big festivals like Cannes or Berlinale) and niche projects with less authoritative backing.
The underlying logic is this: to keep the festival running, the head of the festival needs to prove its success and value by showing the government that the films they select have promising quality. How do they prove that? By highlighting the number of projects that have been to major festivals like Cannes, Berlinale, or Venice. Selecting films that have already gained recognition from these big festivals helps them survive.
Hearing the panelist explain this issue made me appreciate the people who run these festivals for the first time. I finally understood what they mean when they say, “The result does not reflect the quality of your work,” after rejecting a submission. The resigned look on the panelists’ faces as they spoke about their limitations in funding reminded me:
After all, most of us are individuals trying to make a living and support our families while pursuing our dreams.
So, what’s the takeaway?
Building a genuine connection with festivals and understanding their constraints might increase your chances. Take the advantage if your films are selected. Here are some questions you could ask them — the festival organizer and audiences there — just to provide examples:
Why did they pick your film? What do they like about them?
How would they describe your film using 3 only words?
Which part or element of the film they feel connect to? In what way?
Sometimes, it is good to simply listen. And even if your project doesn’t get picked, it doesn’t mean it lacks value — sometimes, the timing or alignment just isn’t right. It is important to keep trying and be prepared to fail hundreds times before finding a home for your work.
At last, I want to send my love and appreciation to the panelists at B3 Festival. Thank you for the honest and intimate discussions.
Comentários