In a world that is fast-paced — where humans are expected to do more, absorb more, hustle harder, and take in as much information as possible — there’s a small but growing group of us who’ve cottoned on to something: in the end, stillness and slowing down might actually be more productive. More grounding, more interesting, and better for us overall.

And when it comes to storytelling, filmmaking, and the films I choose to watch, I feel the same way.

Give me long, quiet shots of absolute “nothingness.” Characters sitting in silence, looking out over cliffs, quietly applying makeup, moving through their room looking for a favourite pair of shoes. Couples glancing at each other with nothing left to say. And my personal favourite – Rooney Mara eating pie on the floor for six uninterrupted minutes — no music, no camera movement, no sound design — just grief, just time, just presence. 

Recently, we attended a screening of our short film Roniti at the 21st In the Palace Film Festival in Bulgaria. Being part of this Oscar-qualifying festival for short films was an honour, and as we watched the other entries, we were struck by their high quality.

However, a trend quickly emerged. As the credits rolled on these films, nearly every one boasted logos of funding bodies from countries like Spain, Italy, and across Asia, alongside sponsorships for camera packages, color correction facilities, and extensive crews.

In stark contrast, our short had a 30-second credit sequence. Our crew of seven managed both production and post-production, with most of us juggling multiple roles. I served as the writer, producer, director, cinematographer, and editor — typical of micro-budget filmmaking.

It made me question how much more viable it is to have funding support for your work. And do films with public funds actually perform better?