For over ten years, I have been developing a film based on a famous Scandinavian novel that revolves around an intriguing love triangle that culminates in murder. I’ve made three other films during those ten years, but the nordic noir idea somehow keeps haunting me.

The film is ready for production so we submitted a production funding application to the Estonian Film Institute. As usual, we had to defend the film before the commission. We sat in front of the jury with the producer, and one of the decision-makers, a film director, started deconstructing our movie. For him, it was incomprehensible how such a relationship could work. Why is a sexy, beautiful, and smart 25-year-old woman together with a famous and handsome but much older – 50-year-old man? I was like, duh, these relationships happen (I’d experienced two similar ones in my youth), but the decision maker was determined it’s unrealistic because he had never been with a woman so much younger than himself. He was also questioning the woman’s motives. When it’s not head over heels falling in love from her side, why is she in it? This naivety was painful to watch, but I could not be sarcastic because he was a jury member, and I was the one pitching, so I had to be polite.

Also, this jury member believed the film would not work because the male lead should be more cynical and cruel. He said that there was no sharpness. Another authoritative commission member agreed, saying no one wants to watch this writer-turned-protagonist wail. He must be cynical. I replied that he does not have to be because the third member of the love triangle, the young alpha male, a mercenary, plays that role. Our protagonist is a writer, a poet, and a romantic contrasting and competing with the young “man of action”. I said it would help if they also read the novel to understand its psychology. They, of course, had not read the source.

I was completely tense after that feedback from the commission. I did not expect such feedback. None of our international partners and distributors had brought up such issues during all those years. My protagonist is a beta type, but the commission asks why he is not an alpha. It’s like having a blond protagonist but being asked why he’s not a brunette. Or your film is about a victim, and someone says it should be about the aggressor. Ludicrous.

After that negative experience with the commission, the producer and I discussed what had happened there. Basically, the commissioner’s personal issue was that he could not imagine such a love affair.

Such a rejection hurts your confidence. You understand things didn’t go well when you stepped out of that room. Only a little later did I realise how stupid the whole experience had been. The criticism came from an unexpected angle. And no questions were asked of the producer because everything was perfect, and there was nothing to complain about. What also hurts is that seven applications were in that round, and funding was given to five. So just ours and one other project were left out. 

In any case, we will resubmit this project in the next round and I will be more aggressive and not so polite when defending my film.