Attending the Cartagena International Film Festival (FICCI) offers a clear vantage point from which to observe a phenomenon rarely addressed directly in the industry’s public discourse. Beyond the screenings and networking events, what emerges is the actual state of projects attempting to navigate the current ecosystem.
For years, the industry’s growth has been framed by a concept that now seems beyond reproach: the democratization of access. The surge in tools, incentives, platforms, and funding mechanisms has lowered the barriers to entry and transformed production conditions.
However, this increase in access has not necessarily been matched by a strengthening of the projects’ foundations.
Access is no longer the filter. Discernment is.
The problem evident at FICCI
Attending the Cartagena International Film Festival (FICCI) offers a clear vantage point from which to observe a phenomenon rarely addressed directly in the industry’s public discourse. Beyond the screenings and networking events, what emerges is the actual state of projects attempting to navigate the current ecosystem.
For years, the industry’s growth has been framed by a concept that now seems beyond reproach: the democratization of access. The surge in tools, incentives, platforms, and funding mechanisms has lowered the barriers to entry and transformed production conditions.
However, this increase in access has not necessarily been matched by a strengthening of the projects’ foundations.
Access is no longer the filter. Discernment is.
This behaviour—often justified as “exploration” or “flexibility”—is frequently the result of a lack of structural clarity. Exploration happens without a clear purpose, adjustments are made without a defined direction, and production proceeds without a foundation for future growth. As a result, the ecosystem is beginning to see a high volume of projects that advance through early stages but fail to ever truly solidify.
The problem is no longer a lack of production, but rather overproduction without sufficient criteria.
Inner clarity as a foundation
In this context, the problem is no longer a lack of production, but rather the rise of overproduction, lacking sufficient standards.
It is not merely a question of volume, but of projects that move forward simply because they have the means to do so, not necessarily because they are prepared to survive as viable ventures.
This has direct implications for resource allocation. Both public incentives and private investments are being funnelled into initiatives that have yet to reach the necessary level of structuring. At that point, they cease to be strategic bets and instead become decisions that are difficult to sustain over time.
When this dynamic repeats, the issue stops being an individual failure and becomes a structural one, affecting how the ecosystem validates which projects move forward and under what conditions.
In such a scenario, constant adaptation to trends or external requirements does not strengthen projects. On the contrary, it makes them dependent on volatile variables and erodes their ability to maintain a unique identity.
Building a project cannot be based solely on reacting to whatever the environment demands at any given moment. It requires a level of internal clarity that allows for interaction with the market without losing coherence. It means setting boundaries, making hard choices, and establishing a direction that does not rely on perpetual adjustments.
From this perspective, funding is not the starting point, but a consequence. It should not be used to leverage vague processes, but rather to support structures that have already been thought through, defined, and committed to.
For this reason, the current debate over platforms, formats, or distribution models is insufficient to explain the industry’s real challenges.
.
THE CRUCIAL POINT
It is not about access. It is about the ability to decide what is being built, on what basis, and with what realistic prospects for sustainability.
In an environment where barriers to entry have fallen, the differentiator is no longer who can produce, but who can build projects capable of enduring beyond their inception.
THE REAL RISK IS NOT PRODUCING MORE, BUT PRODUCING WITHOUT KNOWING WHY IT SHOULD BE PRODUCED
Comentarios recientes