From the earliest Berlinale, South Asian cinema has been part of the festival for over seven decades. For South Asian filmmakers the Berlinale was synonymous with the tireless advocacy of the festival’s South Asian delegate Meenakshi Shedde. As the festival enters a new era under the leadership of Tricia Tuttle, a significant transition has taken place behind the scenes. Anu Rangachar, a seasoned programmer, producer, and distributor with deep roots in both the Mumbai and international film circuits, succeeded Meenakshi Shedde in this pivotal role. Rangachar brings a multifaceted perspective to the table, one that balances the artistic rigor of a curator with the pragmatic sensibilities of an independent producer. In this interview, Rangachar discusses the structural shift she hopes to see in regional cinema, the myth of the ‘quota logic’, and how films from smaller industries like Nepal and Sri Lanka are finding their rightful place at the heart of global cinematic discussion.
AK: You are succeeding Meenakshi Shedde, who was a formidable advocate for South Asian cinema for more than two decades. How do you plan to build upon her legacy while bringing your own distinct curatorial ‘stamp’ to the festival? And how do you describe your role as a delegate to the festival?
AR: Meenakshi Shedde’s association with the festival for more than two decades is clearly significant, and her sustained engagement with South Asian cinema helped build visibility and continuity over time. That contribution absolutely deserves recognition. That said, I don’t really see this as a handover. It feels more like a continuation of a process that has long been in place at the Berlinale, which is an old institution with a very clear curatorial framework, and the foundational requirements of how films are discovered, evaluated and selected are set by the festival itself.
It’s also helpful to clarify the role of a delegate. Delegates discover films, stay closely engaged with the region, and bring work to the programming team with context and insight. The selection decisions, however, are made collectively by the Berlinale programmers, as they always have been. That part of the process doesn’t change with individual appointments.
Where things naturally differ is in working style. Each delegate brings their own perspective, networks, and their work rhythm to the role. So it’s not about reshaping or changing direction, but about how each delegate works within that framework; how I watch films, how I talk about them, and how I engage with filmmakers and the industry on the ground – all those are my very own, working within a strong institutional structure with room for individual styles and always keeping the festival’s curatorial process at the centre.
Since my background also spans world cinema programming beyond South Asia, along with experience as a co-producer of independently made Indian films, and having also worked in acquisition and distribution for both South Asian and international titles, that broader perspective shapes how I see South Asian cinema today and how I contextualise it within a global conversation.
AK: With Tricia Tuttle now leading the festival, there is a renewed energy toward diverse storytelling. In your early discussions with the programming team, how has the festival’s appetite for South Asian narratives evolved for the 2026 edition?
AR: In my early discussions with Tricia and the core team, what stood out was a real openness to South Asian cinema, and an awareness of how much the region keeps shifting and expanding. Tricia has a deep interest in South Asia and travelled to India last year to engage directly with filmmakers and producers on the ground. There’s no fixed idea of what South Asia should look like on screen. It’s more about staying responsive to what filmmakers are doing right now. My role is to help that process by bringing in films thoughtfully and situating them clearly, so they’re engaged with as cinema first, rather than as geography.
AK: South Asia is a vast and varied region. While Indian cinema often dominates the conversation, how do you plan to increase the visibility of filmmakers from Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, and the Maldives?
AR: South Asia’s diversity is something the Berlinale has consistently taken seriously, and the guiding principle has always been artistic vision rather than geography or industry size. While Indian cinema often appears more visible, that visibility largely reflects the scale of production and not a curatorial preference. What matters, ultimately, is the strength and clarity of a film’s cinematic language. A very telling example was the selection of the Nepalese film Shambhala, which was selected for the Berlinale’s main Competition in 2024. That choice speaks volumes. It is proof that films from smaller industries are not only seen but are at the very centre of the festival’s curatorial discussions when the work demands it.
From a delegate’s perspective, the task is not to prefer one sub-region over another, but to engage with all of South Asia with the same seriousness and curiosity. There is no quota logic at play here and the bar is the same for everyone. When filmmakers from any part of the region bring forward work with a strong artistic vision, the festival has been repeatedly receptive, regardless of how small or under-resourced their national industries may be.
AK: As a producer of independent films yourself, what specific advice are you giving to South Asian indie filmmakers to ensure their submissions stand out in a pool of thousands of global entries?
AR: It’s important for me to be very clear about roles. As a delegate, I cannot and don’t wear my producer’s hat. In fact, at the moment I’m also consciously pausing my work as a producer. Those responsibilities have to remain separate and that clarity is essential.
Having said that, I am always careful not to give filmmakers advice on how to make it into a particular festival or a selection. That kind of guidance can be misleading and adds unnecessary pressure. There is no fixed formula for festival selections, since it’s a very dynamic process shaped by many moving parts and every festival edition responds to a different set of films and circumstances and their outcomes often have little to do with the intrinsic value of a film.
What I do, however, do often, regardless of which hat I’m wearing, is to encourage filmmakers to exercise patience and to have a sense of self-preservation, to be gentle with themselves during the submission process since this process can be emotionally demanding. Rejections are very much part of the landscape, but they are definitely not a reflection of failure. If one festival doesn’t work out, it doesn’t invalidate the film. It’s important not to lose confidence or momentum, but to keep going, to persevere and to trust that it will eventually find the right audience.
Speaking from my experience as a producer, I’ve always been drawn to filmmakers with a strong, clearly articulated vision and the patience to stay with it. The work that endures is rarely engineered to please or to second-guess the system. It comes from conviction, perseverance, and a willingness to sit with uncertainty. If filmmakers continue to develop their voice and give the work the time it needs, it will find its home, whether with a programmer, a festival, or an audience ready to discover it. To me that is far more sustainable than trying to stand out in a pool of thousands. The goal is not to stand out immediately, it’s to stay in the conversation long enough for the work to be truly seen.
AK: A decade from now, what would ‘success’ look like for you in this role? Is it a South Asian film winning the Golden Bear, or is it a more systemic change in how the region is integrated into the global festival circuit?
AR: I wouldn’t want to wait a decade. South Asian cinema already has a significant presence at the global film festival circuit. South Asian films are traveling widely, being programmed and engaging international audiences across many major festivals. So for me, success isn’t defined by a single symbolic moment or a prize. Of course, recognition at that level is very meaningful and can impact the film and the filmmakers’ onward journey in a huge way, but it’s not the only measure I am working toward.
What I would really hope to see is a more structural shift. Particularly at the level of distribution and wider circulation of such films both locally and internationally. That’s where South Asian cinema still faces its biggest challenges. Festivals and markets have been doing the work for some time, what needs to catch up is the ecosystem that allows films to circulate, be sustained, and be seen beyond the premiere moment. If, in the near future, South Asian films are not only premiering well but also consistently finding distributors, sales support, and long-term audiences both at home and globally, that would feel like real success to me. That’s the kind of integration that actually changes things.