As the excitement builds for the International Film Festival Rotterdam (IFFR) 2025, starting less than two weeks from now, we virtually sat down with Stefan Borsos on Zoom. Borsos, a passionate festival programmer at IFFR with a keen eye for Southeast Asian cinema, reflected on the vibrant tapestry of Asian films and the unique stories waiting to be discovered, while navigating the complexities of cultural representation. A highlight this year is Sri Lankan filmmaker Rajee Samarasinghe’s film Your Touch Makes Others Invisible!, which has secured a spot in the Bright Future category.

Q: Going through this year’s IFFR selections, it is noticeable that there are many Asian films featured in the lineup, particularly from India and Southeast Asia. A wide variety of genres is on display as well. What makes these films special?
A: It’s important to remember that festivals like IFFR have different sections that showcase various types of films. While some people critique festivals for featuring popular films instead of solely supporting independent cinema, sections like Limelight are specifically designed to focus on more mainstream works rather than experimental or indie films.
For a program highlighting certain regions or countries, it’s crucial to present a wide selection. Rotterdam aims for a broad perspective, which means you can’t possibly cover the entirety of Indian cinema, much less South Asian cinema as a whole. What you see is just a snapshot of the diverse films being produced.
Sometimes, the films included in the lineup come together quite unexpectedly. For instance, last year we featured Ram’s film Seven Seas Seven Hills, and it was uncertain for a long time whether it would be ready in time due to extended post-production. We have to be adaptable, as films may arrive later than expected.
Balancing the interests of the festival, the artistic vision of a director like Vanja Kaludjercic, and the expectations of the filmmakers and audience is challenging. Audiences often look forward to discovering films that have gained recognition at other festivals.
Overall, I’m pleased to say that this year we’ve managed to include a healthy selection of South Asian films across all sections, and I believe that adds rich diversity to the festival.

Q: How are co-production collaborations, a director’s portfolio, and emerging economic possibilities due to socio-political situations in various countries impacting these selections?
A: Of course, we always aim for a variety of films, which can come from different parts of the country and include indie, experimental, and mainstream works. However, for me, the film itself is always the priority. While I recognize that distinctions exist and have their value, as a viewer I tend to watch everything.
I usually see the film first before making any decisions. There may be exceptions, like when the Hubert Bals Fund is co-producing or involved in funding, but generally, it’s my responsibility to assess the film and decide whether to present it to my colleagues for further discussion with the artistic director. I believe there should be no boundaries in terms of viewing different types of films.
Of course, I do have certain filmmakers that I follow, and I ask them if they have any new projects or recommendations. But I also explore widely and pay attention to what’s happening online, like on Facebook. Sometimes you can tell a lot just from a film’s poster, which might lead you to discover something interesting, even if it’s not good.
It’s a mix of many approaches to truly understand what’s happening in these countries. However, as an outsider, my perspective will always have its limitations, and it can be challenging to grasp the full scope of the film landscape.

Q: There were a few submissions from Sri Lanka for IFFR 2025, and Rajee Samarasinghe’s film Your Touch Makes Others Invisible! has been selected for the Bright Future category. What are your honest thoughts on the Sri Lankan submissions this year, including those that were disqualified?
A: It’s always a mixed bag. It’s not necessarily the case that certain films are bad, sometimes a film simply doesn’t resonate with me personally or with the selection committee. That can be a major reason why some films aren’t included.
As for the other films that were not submitted officially, there was a horror film and an interesting documentary connected to the Sri Lankan war that arrived very late in the process. Timing played a significant role this year, and it made the selection process particularly challenging. Unfortunately, there just wasn’t enough space for those films.
It’s important to clarify that there isn’t a general lack of quality in Sri Lankan films. Sometimes a film connects with me but doesn’t with my colleagues, and vice versa. Even if I really want to include a film in the program, it doesn’t always get through because others might disagree.
This year, there were only two official submissions, and one of them has a significant Italian component. This certainly doesn’t reflect the full range of what is being produced in Sri Lanka. I’m not exactly sure why the numbers were so low this year, especially considering that in 2023 we had great submissions for the Tiger Jury Awards and the NETPAC Awards.
I was hoping to feature at least two or three Sri Lankan films this time. If it were up to me, I would have included that horror film and the documentary without hesitation. The festival remains open to Sri Lankan filmmakers across all genres, mainstream, commercial, experimental, indie, documentary, and fiction.
We also have a couple of films from Bangladesh that show promise, including a documentary and a vibrant musical melodrama. I’d love to see something similar from Sri Lanka, but sometimes things just don’t work out, especially in the last couple of months when slot availability has been a struggle.

Q: Recently, you traveled to India and the Southeast Asian region to scout for new talent. How was your experience and what did you find?
A: Yes, I spent time traveling in Southeast Asia and South Asia, particularly in India, this past year, and I plan to return this year as well. I believe in making regular trips because while visiting festivals is beneficial, it’s essential to look beyond their selections.
There were times when programmers would only see films selected by festivals like MAMI for international festivals. While that approach can work, it often limits the opportunity to discover unique, out-of-the-box films. To truly find new talent, I think you need to engage with filmmakers personally.
Although I haven’t been to Sri Lanka yet, I strongly believe that doing everything from behind a desk won’t yield the best results. Visiting festivals is a great start, but to gain deeper insights – however limited – it’s crucial to experience the country and its people. Otherwise, it can lead to a narrow perspective, which isn’t healthy for discovering new voices in cinema.

Q: In one of your recent social media posts you mentioned that the next two big things in Asian popular cinema will be Vietnam and Mongolia. It’s a new trend that European festivals like IFFR are paying attention to popular cinema and various genres from this part of the world, whereas they have traditionally focused on art house cinema. Can you elaborate on that?
A: Popular cinema from Hong Kong has been prominent for quite some time, and we’ve also seen a bit from China, Taiwan, and South Korea. Japanese cinema has also played a significant role in Asian popular cinema, mostly from East Asia.
Now, we’re starting to see the emergence of industries in Vietnam and Mongolia. While I think Vietnam is slightly ahead, both countries are producing a lot of films. However, it’s interesting to note that there haven’t been any film submissions from these two countries yet. The research has primarily been driven by efforts from Rotterdam or my own visits to these countries to discover new films.
In recent years there has been an increase in film production, but these films haven’t reached international audiences yet. I believe there’s no reason why Vietnamese films, such as melodramas, action films, or horror, can’t be as successful as Korean films in markets like Germany, for instance. While melodramas and comedies tend to be a bit more challenging to market internationally, the potential is there.

Q: You have pointed out that South Asian cinema often appears to be influenced by a cinematic aesthetic reminiscent of that established by Apichatpong Weerasethakul, leading to a sense of fatigue among European film festival programmers. This constructive criticism from the West is quite necessary, especially since many South Asian filmmakers, including those from Sri Lanka, tend to create with a European audience in mind, seeking acceptance. How do you perceive this trend, and what are its implications for the future of South Asian cinema in European festivals?
A: Honestly, I think this criticism isn’t limited just to South Asian or Southeast Asian filmmakers, it also reflects the choices made by film programmers. They have been perpetuating a trend by selecting similar types of films for quite some time, which might contribute to this fatigue. From my perspective, there is weariness, but I can’t speak for all my colleagues.
When I started working for IFFR we made a conscious decision to choose films like Pebbles, which might not fit the traditional art house mold that’s typically accepted in festival circuits. While we could have selected a more conventional film, we wanted to show broader diversity. It wasn’t an easy choice, but it was important to us.
Pebbles does tell a village story, which can fall into a common stereotype about India. However, I believe it offers something different. The key issue is to avoid films that feel like they were made specifically for international film festivals to meet expectations. It’s essential to focus on individual quality rather than fitting into clichés.
We often question whether a film really needs a platform like IFFR or if it could succeed elsewhere. For mainstream commercial films, they may thrive in their home country but struggle to gain international recognition. In contrast, independent films often rely on festivals for distribution, especially when it is more challenging for them to secure any kind of distribution in their home countries.
Traditional festival films don’t necessarily benefit from being featured at IFFR, regardless of their quality. I believe we need to push for diversity and avoid falling into the same patterns that have led to this exhaustion.

Q: Like many aspects of today’s world, culture is no longer a source of spiritual enrichment; it has become commodified, much like identity politics. The more you emphasize your differences and separate yourself from the crowd to highlight your uniqueness, the greater the market for it. Many Asian countries, having experienced colonization, find themselves caught between Western civilization and their own cultural identities. This situation contributes to the lack of emphasis on human subjectivity and individual stories, which are often overshadowed by grand narratives. An anthropological lens can be crucial in understanding cinema in this part of the world. As a programmer specializing in Asian cinema, how do you view this?
A: That’s a complex question, and I’m still grappling with it myself. It does relate to colonialism, as foreign films are often seen as reflections of larger cultural contexts and histories. While I appreciate educational films that help audiences learn about different cultures, like this year’s Indonesian program, I believe not every story needs to serve that purpose. Sometimes, a film can simply be a narrative without needing to connect to a specific cultural background.
At IFFR, I understand the importance of being aware of these dynamics as a programmer. The key is to avoid imposing a particular lens on these films. For instance, while the Sri Lankan war might be a significant topic, it’s crucial for filmmakers and programmers alike to present a variety of stories that don’t always fall back on identity or context.
I’m happy to include Rajee Samarasinghe’s film in the program; it’s a fascinating work. However, achieving balance is important, and we should aim for a diverse representation. Sometimes, external pressures can limit how well we reflect a region or culture in our programming. Each year is a new opportunity to improve, and while this year’s lineup may have its challenges, I believe we can enhance it moving forward.

Q: Considering the inception of European film festivals, they have often functioned as restoration institutes for various cultures around the world. This could contribute to the cookie-cutter mold in cinema, especially in regions that struggle to convey personal experiences without relying on larger narratives. What are your thoughts on this?
A: This has been a strategy since the 1950s. With Japanese cinema, for example, there has always been some form of “othering.” Certain films are accepted, while others are overlooked. A contemporary Hong Kong director’s popular action films are showcased, but his comedies and melodramas often aren’t.
This situation involves many players, including filmmakers, production companies, and sales agents, all working to create a specific image or representation at festivals. Unfortunately, I don’t see significant changes since the 1950s, when Japanese cinema gained popularity. The expectations for Asian cinema have remained, and often their films feel like add-ons at festivals, supplementary to the main focus on European and U.S. cinema.
While there has been some progress, many U.S. and European festivals still don’t fully represent the quality and quantity of what is produced in Asia. It’s disappointing that Asian films are often marginalized.
At IFFR, we strive for a broader selection to counteract this trend, but it’s clear that the overall landscape reflects a limited appreciation for Asian cinema. There’s a need for more visibility and recognition of the rich stories and talents that exist in the region.