YOUNG NORDIC VOICES THINK TANK REPORT 2025
I. INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT Launched in 2024 by Reykjavík International Film Festival (RIFF), Young Nordic Voices – Think Tank was created to provide emerging Nordic creatives with a space to articulate their experiences, concerns, and hopes within a rapidly changing film landscape. The inaugural edition demonstrated a clear need for such a platform, opening conversations around sustainability, access, inclusion, and the evolving conditions of contemporary filmmaking. In 2025, the initiative returned in a more focused and locally grounded format. This edition invited 15 Iceland-based participants between the ages of 18 and 30 to take part in a one-day working session held at the Nordic House in Reykjavík, in conjunction with RIFF Industry Days. Rather than functioning as a panel or lecture, the Think Tank was intentionally designed as an informal, participatory roundtable—prioritizing dialogue, exchange, and peer learning over hierarchy or presentation.
At the core of the session was the theme “The Invisible Middle: Not a Student, Not a Pro — Now What?” This framing reflects a shared reality among many emerging filmmakers: a transitional phase marked by uncertainty, precarity, and a lack of clearly defined pathways into sustainable professional practice. While participants often possess strong creative identities and formal training, they face an ecosystem that relies heavily on informal knowledge, personal sacrifice, and self-initiation. This report captures the collective insights that emerged during the Think Tank. It is intended both as a reflection of young voices within the Icelandic film community and as a tool to inform future programming, funding priorities, and institutional practices. By synthesizing lived experience with structural analysis, the report seeks to contribute to a more inclusive, transparent, and sustainable film ecosystem.
II. FORMAT The Young Nordic Voices Think Tank took place on 2 October 2025 at the Nordic House Conference Room. The closed session brought together 15 Iceland-based participants with diverse backgrounds and aspirations, including students nearing graduation, early-career professionals, and individuals seeking entry points into the film industry. The session unfolded in two interconnected parts. The first consisted of an open roundtable discussion among participants, moderated by Pipaluk K. Jørgensen (director, producer, and festival founder) and Arnar Már Vignisson (director, writer, and educator). This conversation centered on the theme of the “Invisible Middle” and encouraged participants to speak candidly about their experiences, doubts, and ambitions.
In the second part of the session, invited mentors from the Icelandic and international film industry joined the group for a participatory dialogue. These mentors included: • Erlendur Sveinsson (Director, Iceland) • Francisco Dias (Director and Programmer, Portugal) • Valentina Bronzini (Sales Agent & Senior Festivals Manager, Italy/Germany) Rather than delivering formal presentations, mentors engaged directly with participants’ questions, reflections, and ideas, sharing insights from their own professional journeys and demystifying aspects of the industry.
III. THE INVISIBLE MIDDLE: TRANSITION, IDENTITY, AND PRECARITY A central theme of the Think Tank was the anxiety surrounding the transition from education into professional life. Participants consistently described graduation not as a clear launch point, but as a moment of heightened uncertainty. While many had developed strong creative identities— identifying as writers, directors, editors, or cinematographers—they expressed limited understanding of how to translate these identities into sustainable livelihoods. Early-career practice was overwhelmingly described as self-initiated. Participants spoke of making films with friends, working across multiple roles, and financing projects through personal savings or debt. Institutional structures, such as funding schemes or formal entry-level positions, were often perceived as distant or inaccessible, particularly in the early stages of a career. Economic precarity emerged as a defining condition of this phase. Making films was described as requiring long periods of unpaid labor, personal financial risk, and extended timelines between production and completion. Success, when it occurred,
was frequently framed as coming “at a cost,” rather than as the result of a stable or supportive system. Alongside financial instability, participants highlighted the emotional toll of earlycareer filmmaking. Rejection—particularly from festivals—was experienced as deeply personal, especially when films were autobiographical or self-funded. Several participants described how a single rejection could destabilize confidence and interrupt creative momentum. Emotional resilience was treated as a necessary professional skill, yet one that is largely unsupported by existing structures. A recurring survival logic was the advice to “always have the next project.” While this forward momentum can function as a psychological buffer, it also reflects an environment in which pausing, resting, or reflecting is perceived as risky. The Invisible Middle, as articulated by participants, is therefore not only a professional gap, but an emotional and economic pressure zone.
IV. ACCESS, GATEKEEPING, AND INFORMAL POWER STRUCTURES CREATIVE DEVELOPMENT BEYOND EDUCATION Participants repeatedly emphasized that access to opportunities within the film industry is shaped less by formal criteria than by informal networks and relationships. Networking was widely acknowledged as essential, yet also described as emotionally demanding and, at times, uncomfortable. Many expressed a desire to reframe networking as genuine human connection rather than strategic self-promotion. In small film ecosystems such as Iceland’s, access was described as paradoxical. On one hand, proximity and scale can make people seem “reachable.” On the other, long-standing collaborations and trusted inner circles can make it difficult for newcomers to enter established networks. Success was often perceived as dependent on being visible, present, and socially embedded over time.
Cost emerged as a significant barrier to access. Festival attendance, submission fees, and travel expenses were frequently cited as obstacles that disproportionately affect emerging filmmakers. While festivals are often framed as open and accessible spaces, participants noted that the ability to fully participate assumes economic flexibility that many do not have. The Think Tank also surfaced a broader critique of the myth of meritocracy. Festival selection and career progression were described as contingent on factors such as timing, geography, and existing relationships, rather than on quality alone. While participants did not reject the value of excellence, they questioned narratives that obscure the structural conditions shaping opportunity.
V. CREATIVE DEVELOPMENT BEYOND EDUCATION Creative identity among participants was often rooted in early encounters with cinema—films, directors, and viewing experiences that left lasting emotional impressions. This cinephilia-based formation was contrasted with the more structured demands of professional environments, particularly in television and serialized formats. A recurring tension emerged between intuitive, personal storytelling and industrial structures such as acts, formats, and development frameworks. While some participants found these structures constraining, others described them as stabilizing and instructive. The challenge lay in navigating these demands without losing authorship or creative motivation.
Notably, participants highlighted the absence of a strong writers’ room culture within the Icelandic context. Writers’ rooms were described as rare but valuable spaces for collective learning, creative exchange, and professional development. In response to this gap, some practitioners had initiated informal or self-organized writing labs— workarounds that point to both innovation and unmet institutional needs. Education was frequently reframed not as a guarantee of employment, but as a period of time—time to experiment, build community, and develop a voice. Degrees were seen as optional accelerators rather than definitive pathways, reinforcing the non-linear nature of film careers.
VI. FESTIVALS AS CULTURAL, EDUCATIONAL, AND INDUSTRY INFRASTRUCTURE Across the discussion, festivals emerged as central nodes within the film ecosystem— not only as exhibition platforms, but as spaces for learning, networking, and future project development. Participants and mentors alike emphasized that festivals operate as strategic ecosystems, shaped by programming needs, thematic considerations, and institutional constraints. The hierarchical nature of the festival landscape was openly acknowledged. A-list festivals, regional festivals, and niche events serve different functions, and selection was described as dependent on fit rather than merit alone. Understanding this logic was seen as crucial, yet such knowledge is rarely formalized or widely shared.
Short film circuits were framed as relationship infrastructures. The value of a short film was often tied less to accolades than to the ability of filmmakers to attend festivals, engage in conversations, and build long-term connections. Without this physical presence, a film risked becoming “just a laurel.” At the same time, the system was described as under strain. Mentors noted the overwhelming volume of submissions—often numbering in the thousands—which has led to increasingly industrialized selection processes and, in some cases, the closure of open calls. This systemic overload raises questions about sustainability and access for emerging voices.
VII. SHORT FILMS AS CAREER PATHWAYS — AND THEIR LIMITS Short films were widely understood as essential entry points into the industry. Participants described them as calling cards, proofs of authorship, and platforms for pitching future work. However, their economic and professional limits were equally clear. Distribution pathways for short films were described as opaque and informal, relying on niche distributors or personal networks. While shorts can generate visibility and
relationships, they rarely provide financial sustainability. Participants expressed uncertainty about how long to invest in a single short film and when to move on. This ambiguity highlights the need for clearer institutional guidance around the role of short films within broader career trajectories—particularly for filmmakers seeking to transition into features or television.
VIII. CULTURAL REPRESENTATION, AUTHORSHIP, AND ETHICAL POWER Discussions around cultural representation underscored the importance of authorship and agency. Participants and mentors articulated a shared principle: nothing about us without us. This stance reflects concerns about extractive storytelling practices, particularly in regions that attract international interest.
Geographic identity was framed as both an opportunity and a vulnerability. While cultural specificity can be a strength within festival contexts, it also carries the risk of stereotyping or external appropriation. Participants emphasized the need for institutions to ensure that local voices are not only consulted, but empowered as creators and decision-makers.
IX.TOWARD INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE: GAPS, RESPONSIBILITIES, OPPORTUNITIES Taken together, the discussions point to a film ecosystem that places significant responsibility on individuals to navigate complexity, absorb risk, and sustain motivation. While personal resilience and initiative are valued, participants consistently identified gaps where institutional support could make a meaningful difference. Key areas for potential institutional action include: 1. Clearer post-education pathways and entry points 2. Structured mentorship around festivals, distribution, and markets
3. Support for collective development spaces, such as writers’ rooms 4. Greater transparency around access, costs, and decision-making processes 5. Recognition of emotional labor and earlycareer burnout risks The Think Tank itself demonstrates the value of creating spaces where emerging voices can speak openly and be heard. Embedding such participatory formats more consistently within festivals, funding bodies, and training institutions could contribute to more responsive and inclusive policies.
X. CONCLUSION & NEXT STEPS The Young Nordic Voices Think Tank offers a collective snapshot of early-career filmmaking in Iceland today—one marked by creativity, commitment, and cultural engagement, but also by uncertainty and structural fragility. By centering the voices of those navigating the Invisible Middle, this report highlights both the challenges and the possibilities inherent in the current system.
As RIFF and its partners continue to shape future programming and industry engagement, the insights gathered here invite ongoing dialogue and reflection. Supporting emerging filmmakers is not only a matter of individual opportunity, but of sustaining the cultural vitality and diversity of cinema itself.
SPECIAL THANKS