Cineuropa sat down with Ahmed Shawky, an Egyptian film critic, the president of FIPRESCI and the head of CineGouna Funding. The programme, which is part of the CineGouna industry event organised during the El Gouna Film Festival in Egypt (24 October-1 November), consists of the development and presentation of 21 selected projects from the Arab world. Two of them are being produced by European countries, while eight are being co-produced with them. Shawky discusses the changes he has introduced since starting in the role, how he feels heading the event for the second year and the European partners’ input.

Cineuropa: You’re in charge of CineGouna Funding, previously known as CineGouna Springboard, for the second year. Another part of the industry programme has also changed its name from CineGouna Bridge to CineGouna Forum. Can you explain the rebranding?
Ahmed Shawky: It was a logical change. CineGouna started with two programmes, Springboard and Bridge, and then we had a market and other additions. It became a bigger programme that needed to be made clearer. The old names were confusing, also for me when I attended the festival as a guest. People just didn’t know which section was which, or what “Springboard” or “Bridge” were referring to. At first, I thought that CineGouna Bridge was a funding platform, and then it turned out it was Springboard… I think the new branding is easier to decipher and makes more sense, plus it’s more strongly connected to the nature of the programmes.

There are also other changes and adjustments to the CineGouna Funding programme, besides the name. What are you most satisfied with?
When I tackle a task like running a festival or a platform, I keep things as they are the first year to see how they function, what should be kept and developed, and what should be reevaluated. We had two major changes to the core of the programme. One was expanding the project selection committee. When I came in, the festival reached out to a mix of people who are experts working at the festival and independent experts. For the last two editions, I think the majority was the festival team – very independent, qualified and experienced, but in the end, representing the festival. This year, the majority of the committee are external consultants.

The second thing was introducing the development programme. Previously, CineGouna had three mentors/experts invited to consult on six or seven of the projects each. They had one day with the filmmakers to advise them about the pitching session that would take place the following day. Last year, I saw the problems inherent in that solution: if you invite three people, it’s like a jury; you need new names every year, and it’s getting difficult to find people who are qualified and ready to dedicate so much time and effort to it. Also, each project benefited from different experience, according to which mentor was assigned to it. So, you may be participating in the same platform as others, but you may have a better mentor than one of the competing projects. Timing was a problem, too – when a mentor works with a project one day before the pitching session, what impact can they make?

We replaced the three mentors with one: Paul Foley, a professor teaching in South Carolina, who is an experienced scriptwriter, development and pitching trainer, and who has worked with major US studios. We offered all of the projects a one-month development programme. Paul did collective sessions and individual ones with some of the projects, which gave them the opportunity to develop their pitch. We gave them time to change the material they sent to us, and we collated new pitches, synopses and statements that they developed to be included in the project book. I'm really proud of this – I can see that the filmmakers decided to change their synopsis, statement or producer’s note based on what they gained through the training programme. Even if a project doesn’t get any awards, it will already have gained something through this development programme.

Speaking of awards, are there any changes compared to the previous edition?
We are breaking records every year. Our records, that is – we don't compare ourselves to other players in the region. I think when this programme started in 2017, there was a total of $140,000 worth of cash and in-kind prizes. This year, it’s $400,000, including $200,000 in cash, which is a huge figure.  

Once again, you have European partners: the Documentary Association of Europe (DAE), TorinoFilmLab, Euro-Mediterranean Documentary Market (Medimed) and International Emerging Film Talent Association (IEFTA). Why is it important to include them?
Let’s say theoretically – although, practically, it’s impossible – that one of the projects gets all of the awards, but it’s still not enough to finalise the film. We know that we’re not the place where you can complete the funding of your film, but we are a place where you can get some support and, most importantly, get access to important platforms, and meet European distributors, festivals and labs. One project of ours will be invited to Medimed, one to the Rotterdam Lab, one to the online programme of the TorinoFilmLab and another to attend the EFM, while one becomes a member of DAE for one year. We’re establishing connections with important and influential events in Europe.