A Conversation with Venice

The latest news regarding my second feature, Marriage A-la-Mode, comes from the Venice Film Festival. I have a long history of rejections from Venice; I submitted almost all of my short films there, paid hundreds of dollars (euros, in fact), and was rejected every time. In 2022, when I completed my first feature, A Hero of Our Time (2023), one of the festival programmers discovered it, expressed interest, and recommended that I submit the film to Venice.

At the time, he directed me to a professional association in Turkey that collectively submits Turkish films for Venice. He wanted to follow an institutional procedure and evaluate the film from that specific pool, as they have an agreement with the association. He also mentioned that I wouldn’t have to pay the festival submission fee if I went through them.

However, I decided not to go that way for two reasons. First, they wanted a copy of the film, not the link, and I didn’t know who at the association might get access to a copy. So I wasn’t comfortable taking that risk. In Turkey, films can leak online very easily among certain groups before their premiere. I actually experienced this firsthand later on; a group got access to the film, and they even rated it on a film database before it officially premiered. Second, since I wasn’t a member of that association, I would have had to pay them a fee anyway.

Instead, I paid the application fee directly to the festival and made an independent official submission. I didn’t ask the programmer for a fee waiver, either. Later, the programmer personally informed me that while he liked the film very much, he couldn’t reach a consensus with the selection committee. So, the film was rejected. Okay, fair enough.

Fast Forward to Today

Recently, upon finishing my second film, Marriage A-la-Mode, I sent a message to everyone in my network to let them know the film was complete. This was meant as a simple update, but also to provide transparency regarding the exact date of the film’s completion. I wanted everyone to know that the film was completed on a specific date. And since I don’t have the media backing to announce it widely, I sent personal emails to document the completion and keep people informed. There was no request or demand involved; it was just a way to say: I kept rolling and finished another film.

The same programmer replied, saying he wanted to see the film, and asked for a direct link. Normally, the standard workflow goes like this: the programmer checks the link, perhaps takes a quick look at the film, expresses their interest or disinterest, and then, if they want you to submit it, they direct you to the submission process, or they ghost you.

Nothing Changed

Here, I have no desire to use cunning tactics to cut ahead of another filmmaker. That is why I never ask them to watch my film. But if they express a wish to do so, I am, of course, happy to accept. Even if nothing else comes of it, a programmer might well become a potential audience of my work. Since he had explicitly expressed that he would watch the film and was already familiar with my first feature, I sent him the link, and I expected him to watch it directly. I thought he might give some brief feedback. But he didn’t watch the film. Instead, he directed me to the same professional association he had suggested years ago and told me to submit the film through them so he could watch it alongside the other films in that pool.

Once again, he emphasized that I wouldn’t have to pay a submission fee if I went through them. But that’s simply not true, since I am not a member; I would still have to pay the association a fee, and it is a significant amount this year. Furthermore, I hadn’t even decided that I wanted to make an official submission; he just asked for the link to view the film, which was the premise I had agreed to.

But that’s still okay; I explained in detail why I preferred not to send it through that association. I also told him that I prefer not to pay festival submission fees anymore (I clarified that I wasn’t asking him for a fee waiver, either). I indicated that I would still be happy if he watched it personally (as he had initially requested). And lastly, I said I would have appreciated his advice on my situation at that point.

He didn’t respond to me. I don’t know whether he watched the film or not. There is no penalty, consequence, or accountability for him saying, “Send me the link, I’ll watch it”, and then ghosting me without final resolution. Meanwhile, sharing a private link to my film is a big deal to me; it is not something I do lightly, especially since the film hasn’t been released yet. And when I voice something I don’t like, it’s professional suicide. But I choose to speak up: If I can’t maintain my integrity, making films is completely meaningless to me anyway.

Well, this 4-year conversation ended here for now. Of course, I’ll knock on that programmer’s door again once I finish my next film. Not to get inside, but to declare: I am here, I am alive, and I am making films. Probably he will have the same role at Venice because the diversity they promote doesn’t extend to them; it’s always the same people in the same roles.

Fun Facts

By the way, the selection has already been announced. Let’s take a statistical look at the Orizzonti section of Venice (where my film would likely have been included had it been considered), to see how things played out.

There are 19 feature films. According to synopses, 16 films (84%) center their subjects on crisis narratives such as murder, ecological collapse, police brutality, marginalized immigrants, dictatorship, torture, social unrest, neo-colonialism, systemic homophobia, and psychological trauma. This supports my observation: festivalism still highly relies on suffering and sociopolitical subjects, which lack thematic diversity.

15 films (78.9%) rely directly on European-centric institutions (Eurimages, HBF, MBB, ACE, TFL, etc.) for production, funding, or development. Global South productions (from Thailand, Bangladesh, Cameroon, Iran) are produced by Western funding mechanisms. Specifically, 11 are only European, 4 are European-backed co-productions, 3 are USA-backed co-productions, and 1 is a USA production. In other words, the selection lacks a single film (like mine) that stands independent of the Western Film Industry Hegemony.

Methodological Note: The statistics presented are based exclusively on publicly available, verifiable sources, including official festival synopses, production credits, publicly disclosed financing and co-production information, and records of participation in publicly announced script labs, development labs, and co-production markets. Any broader conclusions or interpretations are my own: I don’t claim to be objective, but I claim I am rational and reasonable.

Controlled Diversity

I see this result as a form of controlled diversity, produced in filtered laboratories, that upholds the status quo rather than challenging it. But art does not always come from institutional validation; it sometimes seeps through the cracks. While I acknowledge the realities of the industry and the need for standards, the selection should include at least two or three films free from those mechanisms to preserve art’s inherent potential. Perhaps that could offer a glimmer of hope for filmmakers like me. But no, the doors are closed.

They do not tolerate even the slightest resistance. My first feature film met with significant resistance and was ignored; but as the years passed, the film found its context, and I began receiving feedback from master directors to ordinary viewers: acknowledging it as a good piece of cinema. Even though I do not seek direct validation, to me, I have already received it from the highest quarters. But, unfortunately, this is still not enough to enter the festival game; being good and making good cinema – the core prerequisites – do not guarantee your inclusion in it.

I am not a hermit or ascetic; they well know me and my films, and I, of course, try to make myself seen in possible ways. Still, I am facing similar resistance with my second film, even from those who appreciated my first. To me, this is so natural. It shows that I am doing something new, avoiding self-repetition and sparking debate, but, sadly, most doors remain closed.

Forever Ignored

Festivals handle my criticisms very well. They disarm direct criticism simply by ignoring it. Instead of arguing against critiques or censoring dissenting voices, the system uses a strategy of silent absorption. When you challenge their structures or offer a new cinematic language, they don’t fight back; they just turn a blind eye and act as if the criticism was never made. This is how they protect their status quo, without ever having to defend it.

Meanwhile, they practice a form of silent assimilation: they take radical or disruptive ideas from the screenplay stage, smooth over their dangerous edges in film labs, and repurpose them for their own benefit. They sell them as radical views. As for the filmmakers, some are not even aware of it because they practice self-censorship.

And whatever these major festivals do, the smaller ones copy them. We now have a new group of marginalized and excluded filmmakers who are forced to accept the roles assigned to them rather than pursue their own artistic agendas. That’s The Elephant in the Room for the art of cinema, and I don’t see any steps taken toward change. We are currently going through a sterile and calculated phase driven by guaranteed formulas for success. But if that bubble ever bursts and people go looking for something fresh and real, I will be waiting right there in the fortress I have built for myself.