The festival experience is complicated. At the 2025 Venice Film Festival, the premiere of Kaouther Ben Hania's drama, The Voice of Hind Rajab, took place on September 3rd, receiving a standing ovation that lasted 23 minutes. This film revolves around the tragic killing of a five-year-old Palestinian girl, Hind Rajab, from Gaza. The film also has a very respectable 9.4/10 rating on IMDb. This raises the question: Are standing ovations a valid measure of artistic accomplishment, or are they merely symptomatic of the complexities of film festival culture?

Film festivals - with their red carpets, media frenzy, and canonical histories - can often appear to outsiders as bastions of artistic achievement. These are all about the art of film; it's all about honouring cinematic quality based on merit alone. The general acclaim from critics, audience appreciation, and significant awards all suggest a straightforward reading of diversity (including cultural diversity) and creativity. Film festivals are complex marketplaces or sites for lobbying influence and negotiations, whose importance stretches beyond the art of film or the cause of social justice. Film festivals fulfil far more important functions than simply serving as cultural showcases, and far more often than not, they operate as marketplaces, where careers are made, reputations are constructed, and awards can start to mean more than just artistic achievement. The critical systems that underpin selections, publicity, and awards are influenced by sponsorship agreements, political objectives, lobbying, and 'money changing hands' - which are invisible to the arts-loving public.

This article examines the unseen forces that shape today’s film festivals, drawing on reported examples, scholarly research, and anecdotal accounts from industry participants. It highlights how outcomes at festivals are driven by more than artistic endeavour, and include managed perception, monetary resources, international politics, and past relationships.

Orchestrated Ovations and Managed Perception
At the core of the festival spectacle is a well-kept secret: extended standing ovations are not typically displays of spontaneous love but are planned or orchestrated events. In Venice 2025, the extended applause for ‘The Voice of Hind Rajab’ was part of a broader trend of planning with audiences to create big moments, where organisers and publicists help move the audience to manufacture moments of impact. Or, many of the theatre seats are purposely filled with supporters and industry insiders, who are encouraged to clap loudly during key portions of the evening.

All of this orchestrated applause serves several purposes: it affects critics' reviews, influences jury members, fuels a positive narrative in the media, and creates several levels of "manufacturing buzz." All of this certainly makes a moment of value to deal with the press, but it also plays on a strategy of packaging audience and audience reaction as the real currency. Publicists for festivals boastfully share that they can engineer applause for over 15 minutes, as the audience's response seems to blur the difference between genuine love and a PR spectacle.

Financial Backing and Sponsorship Control
Film selection and programming are increasingly dependent on funding as an economic gatekeeping mechanism that favours projects with adequate funding. Well-funded films, backed by wealthy producers, distributors, or sponsors, can afford prime screening slots, high-profile premieres, and scores of press coverage. Filmmakers and projects that are well-resourced can leverage this commercial muscle to gain visibility and traction across the industry, far beyond the capabilities of independent or underfunded filmmakers.

On the other hand, talented filmmakers lacking connections or promotional resources are often constrained, resulting in their films being marginalised or released at unfavourable times. Economic influence undermines the meritocratic ideal of festivals by making the success of the festival contingent on both funding and creativity. As a result, the cultural discourse surrounding festival submissions defaults to viewing the amount of money allocated to promote and develop the film as a measure of the value of the potential art. Hence, the cultural narrative of the festival is not contrived purely from creative innovation, but by its funding.

Political and Geopolitical Influences in Programming
Film festivals are increasingly being used as sites of geopolitical diplomacy and political communication. In Venice 2025, there was considerable activism and political interventions from the group “Venice4Palestine.” This group sought to pressure the festival to include more films about the Palestinian experience in its programming. This illustrates that festivals are not neutral cultural sites; they are representative of enacting and reflecting global political struggles.

The programming, jury appointments, and the event's focus often result from diplomatic relationships. Countries that are friendly with the host country receive greater favour when their films are programmed; countries that are diplomatically or politically sensitive, or politically antagonistic, experience filtering or other suspensions from programming altogether. Geopolitical and geostrategic exclusions, like these, inform the discourses festival project, turning them into venues for international soft power and ways to negotiate culture.

Pay-to-Play Publicity and Review Manipulation
An unsettling trend short-circuiting the festival ecosystem is the commercialisation of film criticism and audience response. Research has shown that upwards of 70-80% of reviews in Bollywood (and increasingly in international film festivals) are being purchased through public relations agencies. These agencies have "rate cards" for advocacy, influencer campaigns, viral content, and manipulated social media buzz, creating a false sense of excitement.

Influencers who often lack relevant critical expertise are hired to promote films, and audience attendance numbers are inflated by purchasing tickets or coordinating groups of fans. This tactic muddies authenticity and turns critical endorsement and audience response into a commercialised product, rather than neutral assessments. The public's trust erodes as the distinction between authentic artistic success and manufactured hype becomes increasingly blurred.

Favouritism and Reputational Mandates
Another factor influencing festival results that goes unnoticed is favouritism. Filmmakers with previous festival success, strong reputations, or a long-standing history with the festival are often given preferential treatment. Suppose a director has work that has previously been part of any given festival. In that case, they are almost always guaranteed an invitation to participate with their next work-in-progress regardless of how the new film compares, artistically or otherwise, to other festival works.

That is the momentum of reputation, creating the festival's "mandate" effect, which sustains existing hierarchies and also makes it even more difficult for new, nascent, or outsider perspectives to become part of the festival's selection. As a result of this momentum, talent and creativity can take a backseat to brand names - taken together with the same 'good old boys' system; this layered approach seems to congeal into an insulated system that favours connections, reputations and crowdpleasing ideas while avoiding more creative risks.

Marginalisation of Independent and Emerging Filmmakers
The compounding factors of financial gatekeeping, political filtering, and entrenched favouritism disproportionately affect independent filmmakers and those without privilege more than others. Many creators lack the financial resources to execute large-scale PR campaigns or the connections to the various insiders who can help them access different festival platforms.

Despite producing exciting and culturally valid work, these films tend to garner less access, as they are dismissed within an ecosystem of structural inequity. This continues to shrink diversity and diminishes the festival's potential as a space for new artistic voices and social conversations to take place, thereby violating its self-positioning as a culturally democratic space.

Festivalization, Commercialisation, and Cultural Commodification
Film festivals are now complex cultural marketplaces. This shift is what academics refer to as “festivalization.” They are more than just a celebration of film as an art form; they are also vehicles for city branding, cultural diplomacy, and commercial negotiations. Major events, such as Venice and Cannes, are channelled through global networks of governments, corporations, cultural institutions, and sponsors.

All of these entities can exercise power and influence over programming and the festival. Economies of consideration, rather than purely artistic ones, are often preferred in terms of effort and political strategies (geopolitical). The films themselves are branded and enter into global cultural circuits, where red-carpet moments, speeches, and awards are performances that also play into politics and economics.

Opaque Jury Processes and Conflicts of Interest
Festival juries, curators, and decision-makers regularly operate within opaque structures with undisclosed conflicts of interest. Jury members may have commercial, political, or personal ties to competing films, casting doubt on their impartiality. Similarly, the industry relationships of curators could influence their selections, strengthening closed networks of influence.

Public calls for transparency regarding jury appointments, filmmaker disclosures of conflicts of interest, and public written statements about the criteria for selection services are becoming louder. Still, festivals continue to maintain secrecy, which breeds scepticism about the fairness of their decision-making and sustains perceptions of exclusionary “old boys’ clubs.”

Venice 2025: Specific Controversies Illustrating Power Dynamics
The 2025 Venice Film Festival encompassed many of these manifestations. Controversies arose in relation to films from filmmakers like Roman Polanski and Woody Allen (both of whom are polarising figures), and these incidents were not just problematic; they generated discussion about what art is versus what is suitable for the public. The selection and outcome of their films became sparks that ignited the debate about reconciling talent (or a talent dysphoria) with ethical obligation.

Political activism, especially in the Middle East, and the Gaza conflict in particular, presented even more complications. Groups like Venice4Palestine managed to be on site and represent the Palestinian voice, questioning the very role of the film festival as established, as well as its artistic activism. However, The Antique (a Georgian film) also had to have its screenings suspended after copyright challenges fueled by the nationalist state. These situations raised the question of censorship, specifically the degree to which civic and political rivalry, or civil strife, can impact the festival experience. These cases highlight the complexities of a festival's position, where the support of artistic presentation must be weighed against the landscape of diplomacy, ethics, and commercial realities.

Toward Greater Transparency, Diversity, and Reform
There are necessary reforms to provide legitimacy and cultural significance to film festivals.
• Transparency: It needs to be clear on how sponsorship comes into play in selecting jury members, and that the selection process is clearly delineated in an open statement of having public trust.
• Diversity: Include countering homogenization and bias so that juries and curatorial teams look like the public they need to represent, with respect to differences in cultures, genders, and social backgrounds.
• Ethical advertising practices: There needs to be guidelines in place to address that paid advertising and generated paid content or reviews are clearly defined - basically preventing becoming a glorified advertisement for a filmmaker - and hindering the flow of misinformation into public hype.
• Socially engaged independent cinema: Subscribe to restored funding and mentorship processes for independent and marginalised filmmakers, also need to create sections for these filmmakers (ie documentaries) in festival programming.
• Engagement and participation: Support grassroots festivals that provide local participation and are part of a sustainable cultural ecosystem- the model of inclusion allows local voices and opportunities.
• Navigating geopolitical influences: Being upfront about pressures, and steering festivals away from being subsidised stages within state and international diplomacy.

We need everyone involved in festivals (including filmmakers, critics, and paying audience members) to work together to demand accountability and inclusivity.

The Takeaway

Film festivals are an entertaining hodgepodge of creativity, glamour, and politics. Of course, you witness the glamorous premieres and unlikely characters pretending to be cooler than they actually are. Still, the reality is that half of the spectacle goes on beyond the curtain. These festivals bring together starstruck audiences, ambitious filmmakers, and interested industry types into a dazzlingly confusing environment, but let's not idealise this entire experience. Sometimes it has less to do with the films and more to do with who owes whom a favour, whose doing the favour or schmoozing, and who's in appropriate power behind the velvet rope.

By revealing these hidden realities and advocating for transparency and fair play among film festival stakeholders, festivals can regain their legitimacy as legitimate spaces where creativity is allowed to flourish beyond the shadows of control and influence. In an era where film festival culture increasingly reflects broader societal inequities, renewed vigilance and reform are necessary. Only then can festivals continue to surprise festival-goers with unexpected cinematic discoveries and act as dynamic sites for cultural exchange on a global scale.

Only with continuous vigilance and reform can film festivals continue to offer profoundly meaningful cinematic experiences and serve as models of cultural democracy in a rapidly shifting global context.