Guest Post
The Psychology of Connection Addiction: Why Networking, Not Talent, Wins in the Film Industry
In the glittering world of cinema, it’s tempting to believe that talent, originality, and a groundbreaking script will be enough to break through. Yet the harsh truth? Networking often triumphs over talent. This article delves into the psychological and ethical dimensions of connection addiction in cinema, how personal relationships, hidden alliances, and systemic loopholes distort artistic merit and perpetuate entrenched inequalities. Time and again, promising projects are sidelined simply because their creators lack access to influential social circles. This entrenched favoritism not only narrows the industry’s creative horizons but also reinforces a cycle where privilege continually reproduces privilege.
The Human Bias Toward In-Group Favoritism
Social psychologists have long documented in-group bias, the tendency to favor those we see as part of our own social circle. In the film industry, this translates to casting favors, funding deals, and festival recognition often flowing through established networks. Despite the meritocratic myth, prestige and access remain tightly knit within elite circles, where referrals and introductions are the currency that truly matters.
Producers are more inclined to back a director referred by a known colleague even if a newcomer’s project is objectively more innovative. Festival selectors, studio executives, and financiers cultivate trust within their in-groups, perpetuating a system that privileges who you know over what you know.
Connections vs. Quality: When Funding Follows Familiarity
Let’s consider the journey of many aspiring filmmakers. A script arrives at Studio A with detailed notes, high production value potential, and fresh vision, but from an unknown writer. Meanwhile, a less compelling pitch arrives via a trusted intermediary, and it receives significant early-stage funding. The result? Mechanics of nepotism displace creativity at the funding table.
The underlying psychology is deceptively simple: backing a familiar name reduces perceived risk. It’s not just smart business, it’s risk aversion shrouded in comfort. But this mindset acts like quicksand, trapping the industry in cycles of sameness and shutting out new voices.
Conflict of Interest in European Festival Juries
The lack of transparency in festival juries is particularly troubling. Numerous European festivals Berlinale, Locarno, and Venice, have faced scrutiny for jury members promoting films from their associates, often without disclosure. In some cases, jurors who’d recently worked with competing directors had determinative votes, yet their affiliations were never publicized.
One well-known example involves the 2017 Locarno Film Festival, where a juror’s former collaborator took home the top award, raising questions about whether impartiality was even possible. Similarly, at Berlinale 2019, criticism emerged after it was revealed that a jury member had ongoing financial ties with a producer whose film won a prestigious prize.
Such patterns aren’t isolated; they are systemic. Reports on Film Industry Watch have highlighted how these hidden alliances distort fair competition, further entrenching elite networks while blocking truly innovative works from emerging voices.
Ethical Concerns: Reincarnating Companies to Dodge Blame
Financial maneuvering is another facet of connection addiction. Some producers, when confronted with unsustainable debt, dissolve their existing companies and re-emerge under fresh names, often retaining the same management teams. Investors find themselves chasing shell entities rather than responsible backers, and the creative teams left behind struggle to obtain credit or legal recourse.
The collapse of Germany’s A Company Film Licensing International in 2014 is a stark case. After leaving creditors and creative collaborators unpaid, former executives reappeared in new ventures just months later, continuing in the same market. This pattern isn’t rare. It speaks to broader ethical issues: the industry’s reliance on personal trust over regulatory oversight allows such behavior to thrive.
Blackboxing the Industry: The Reality for Unconnected Young Directors
For emerging directors without powerful connections, the film world feels like a locked box. Despite festivals and contests billed as open to all, behind-the-scenes conversations, referral-only pitch rounds, and invitation-based labs create gatekeepers. Young talents report that even successful festival screenings don’t guarantee funding for their next project unless they plug into the right social webs.
Consider the case of young Romanian filmmaker Ivana Mladenovic, who struggled for years to secure post-production funding despite critical acclaim. Her breakthrough only came when a well-established producer from the Berlinale network endorsed her work. For many, the lesson is clear: talent alone rarely opens doors.
This structural issue has psychological effects, too. Talented candidates report self-doubt and imposter syndrome. They internalize systemic rejection, believing the fault lies in their work rather than the system. Worse, they may self-censor innovation in hopes of fitting into the “safe” mold preferred by the gatekeepers they see on the jury panels or in boardrooms.
Famous Cases: Networking Outshines Vision
In Europe, the Cannes Film Festival has long been accused of favoring directors with longstanding relationships with its selectors. The 2021 controversy over Leos Carax’s Annette winning Best Director despite divided reviews raised eyebrows, as Carax’s decades-old festival ties were well-known. Meanwhile, lesser-known yet bold works like Juho Kuosmanen’s Compartment No. 6 initially struggled to gain traction until high-profile producers stepped in.
In Hollywood, Harvey Weinstein’s infamous influence in the Oscars race showed just how much networking, lobbying, and social capital could sway awards. Films like Shakespeare in Love triumphed over technically superior contenders, demonstrating how aggressive connection-building, not raw artistry, often determines “success.”
The Psychology Behind Connection Addiction
From a psychological standpoint, connection addiction stems from human preference for familiarity and risk mitigation. People derive psychic comfort from working with known individuals. They see connections as proxies for trust shortcuts that bypass formal vetting. It’s a type of cognitive bias, a social heuristic that, in this domain, compromises objectivity and stifles diversity.
Indeed, the industry values networking so highly that knowledge of navigating social circles often outweighs directorial skill in hiring decisions. Industry insiders speak of “soft skills,” which often mean appearances at post-screening parties, unobtrusive name-dropping, or even alumni network prestige.
Toward Solutions: Promoting Ethics and Transparency
Addressing connection addiction requires multi-faceted efforts:
- Jury Transparency: Festivals must implement mandatory disclosure of affiliations and ensure that jurors with conflicts recuse themselves. Publicly accessible declarations can ensure that awards reflect merit, not favoritism.
- Funding Windows for New Voices: Public or privately funded “blind pitching” programs (no names, no resumes) would help ideas stand on merit. Some European grants have experimented with this, and the early outcomes show genuine surprises.
- Legal Accountability for Producer Practices: Regulations could limit rolling over liabilities post-bankruptcy, and targeted rules might hold management personally responsible for unpaid debts or failure to honor contracts.
- Mentorship Without Gatekeeping: Senior industry figures might sponsor programs pairing young directors with diverse backgrounds, but without future funding strings attached.
Lastly, everyone with a prestigious connection, veterans, stars, producers, should consider stepping aside occasionally, passing the mic to a new voice. If the system is truly about art, let it be art, not favoritism.
Where We Go from Here
The psychological allure of networks, the addictive pull of shared wine over shared vision, dominates much of the cinematic ecosystem.
Beneath the surface of lights, camera, action lies a web of relationships that determines whose film gets financed, whose reaches a jury’s eye, and whose is never seen.
Understanding connection addiction means recognizing our cognitive blinders. It’s about insisting, demandingly, that cinema live up to its ideal, a celebration of human expression in all its diversity, not just who knows whom.
For a deeper dive into festival politics, production ethics, and more real-world examples of conflicts of interest, visit Film Industry Watch for ongoing investigations and expert analysis.
