In the film festival circuit, not every project arrives fully finished. Many promising films benefit from guidance in their late stages, which is why more festivals are establishing Works-in-Progress (WiP) Labs and Rough-Cut Consultations. These programmes invite selected filmmakers to share an unfinished cut of their film with seasoned industry mentors in a confidential, constructive environment. The goal is to refine these projects – from storytelling to technical elements – so that by the time they premiere, they truly shine. This article explores how festival producers can implement WiP labs and rough-cut consultations effectively, drawing on real experiences from festivals around the world.
What Are Works-in-Progress Labs and Rough-Cut Consultations?
Works-in-Progress Labs and Rough-Cut Consultations are initiatives typically run during a film festival’s industry section or as part of its year-round development programmes. In both, filmmakers present an unfinished film (often at rough-cut stage) to a select group of experts for feedback. A WiP Lab usually involves multiple projects workshopping together (sometimes over several days), while a rough-cut consultation might be a one-on-one session pairing a film team with a specific mentor. The common thread is providing expert feedback in a safe, non-public setting. For example, the Visions du Réel festival in Switzerland runs an intimate Rough Cut Lab for just four feature-length documentaries, where each film team works closely with experienced editors to discuss their current cut (www.visionsdureel.ch). Whether it’s a multi-project lab or a private consultation, the focus is on polishing the film – be it narrative structure, pacing, character development, music, or overall impact – before it is locked for completion.
These programs differ from public test screenings because they are closed-door and mentor-driven. At major festivals, WiP Labs often form part of the industry events where selected projects might even compete for finishing funds or awards. For instance, the Hong Kong International Film Festival’s HAF Work-in-Progress program showcases projects to industry insiders and offers awards for the best WiP, giving filmmakers an extra incentive to participate. Smaller or niche festivals, on the other hand, might organise a simpler consultation programme, perhaps inviting a veteran editor or director to review local filmmakers’ rough cuts in private meetings. Ultimately, any festival – large or small – can adapt the concept to support filmmakers and improve the calibre of films associated with the festival.
Inviting Projects That Will Benefit
A successful lab starts with selecting the right projects. Festival organisers should invite or accept applications from films that are far enough along to have a coherent rough cut, yet still open to change. Ideally these are projects that show great potential but need an extra push – perhaps the story isn’t flowing perfectly, the edit is overly long, or the director is seeking advice on music or distribution plans. Many festivals open a submission call for works-in-progress a few months before the event (often alongside their film submissions). Clear criteria should be set: for example, feature-length fiction and documentaries in post-production are common targets. India’s NFDC Film Bazaar (which runs a renowned WiP Lab in conjunction with the International Film Festival of India) traditionally selects a maximum of around 5–10 films each year for its lab (filmbazaarindia.com). They focus on debut or emerging directors from India and beyond, whose films would benefit from expert editing advice and industry exposure. By picking projects that have strong fundamentals but need refinement, festivals ensure the lab will genuinely elevate the films.
Geographical and thematic focus can also guide selection. Some festivals restrict eligibility to local filmmakers or certain regions as a way to nurture home-grown talent – for example, the Encounters South African International Documentary Festival runs a Rough Cut Lab Africa exclusively for African documentary projects, fostering a continent-wide network of storytellers (2024.encounters.co.za). Other festivals might focus on a genre or theme aligned with their identity (a Fantastic Film Festival could host a WiP lab for horror or sci-fi films in progress, for instance). It’s wise to choose projects that resonate with the festival’s audience and brand, since ideally those films will eventually screen at the festival (to the delight of audiences who can witness their evolution).
When inviting projects, emphasise the benefits: confidential expert feedback, mentorship, potential introductions to editors or distributors, and possibly a path to screen at the festival once completed. Filmmakers are often anxious about sharing unfinished work, so assuring them that this is a supportive, non-judgmental process is key. Highlight past success stories from your festival’s lab (or from similar programs elsewhere) to build trust. For example, if a previous WiP Lab participant later premiered at a major festival or won an award, let applicants know. One notable case is the film Shivamma from India – after taking part in a 2021 work-in-progress lab, it went on to win an award at the Busan International Film Festival 2022 (pib.gov.in). Such examples prove that receiving the right feedback during post-production can directly contribute to a film’s success.
Ensuring Confidentiality and a Safe Space
Because rough cuts are by definition not final products, confidentiality is paramount. Festivals must create a safe space so filmmakers feel comfortable sharing unfinished films without fear of negative publicity or idea theft. Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) are a standard tool: all mentors, staff, and observers involved should sign NDAs agreeing not to discuss or reveal anything about the projects outside the session. Many work-in-progress programs are explicitly closed to press and the public. For example, the CineLink Work in Progress at the Sarajevo Film Festival holds closed screenings of rough cuts exclusively for about 40 vetted industry professionals (like funders, sales agents, distributors, and festival programmers) (sarajevofilmfestival.ba). This ensures that feedback happens behind closed doors, and filmmakers don’t need to worry about unpolished scenes or temporary soundtracks being judged in the wrong context.
In practice, maintaining confidentiality goes beyond paperwork. Festival teams should brief all participants on the rules of engagement: no photography, no recording, and no social media mentions of the works-in-progress. If the lab is in-person, consider collecting electronic devices or enforcing “no phones” during screenings to prevent any sneaky recordings. If it’s online or hybrid, use secure streaming platforms and watermark the video with the viewer’s email or ID. These steps sound strict, but they reinforce the message that the festival is serious about protecting the filmmakers’ intellectual property and creative integrity. Trust is the foundation of a fruitful rough-cut session – when filmmakers trust the process, they are more open to candid feedback, which ultimately leads to better outcomes.
Creating a supportive atmosphere is equally important. Ground rules for feedback can help maintain a positive tone. Encourage mentors to balance critiques with positives, and to frame suggestions in a constructive manner (“Have you considered…?” rather than “This is wrong.”). It often helps to have a moderator (perhaps the lab coordinator) present to guide the discussion, making sure each expert gets to speak and the filmmaker has a chance to ask questions or clarify points. By clearly establishing a respectful, confidential environment, festivals can reassure participants that this is a creative sanctuary – a place where they can experiment, take risks, and address weaknesses without judgment.
Pairing Filmmakers with the Right Mentors
The core of any WiP Lab or consultation is the expert mentor team. Carefully pair each film with mentors whose expertise matches the project’s needs. In many cases, festivals assemble a panel of 3–5 mentors encompassing various specialties. For example, an ideal panel might include a seasoned film editor (to advise on pacing and story structure), a music composer or sound designer (to discuss score, soundscape, and how audio can elevate the film), and a sales agent or festival programmer (to give feedback on the film’s potential in the marketplace or festival circuit). At India’s Work-in-Progress Lab, the advisor panel has included renowned editors alongside festival directors, critics, and producers, ensuring that the filmmaker hears diverse perspectives on their rough cut. Similarly, some documentary labs bring in subject-matter experts or outreach specialists – for instance, Working Films and the Cucalorus Festival invite community organizers and activists to give input on social-issue docs, which provides insight into the film’s impact on real audiences (workingfilms.org).
Matching matters – if a project is a character-driven art-house drama, pairing its team with an editor known for tight, commercial thrillers might not be as helpful as pairing with an editor experienced in lyrical, slow-burn storytelling. Do your research on mentors’ backgrounds and make sure they’re briefed on the film’s context and the type of feedback that would be most constructive. It can be effective to ask filmmakers in advance what areas they most want help with (story, editing, music, marketing, etc.), and then choose mentors accordingly. Some festivals even assign a primary mentor to each project – for example, Film Bazaar’s lab assigns an international editor to guide the director and editor of the film through multiple editing sessions after the initial feedback screening. This primary mentor can dive deeper into the material, working one-on-one with the team to finesse the cut based on the group’s feedback.
It’s also valuable to involve distribution and sales mentors at some stage. A sales agent or distributor’s perspective can inform the filmmakers about how their rough cut might be perceived by buyers or what tweaks could improve its festival run potential. On occasion, a sales agent watching a work-in-progress might even express interest in picking up the film early – a huge win for the filmmakers. Festivals like Guadalajara International Film Festival have industry programmes (such as Guadalajara Construye) specifically aimed at connecting rough cuts with post-production funds and sales agents, helping Latin American filmmakers secure the resources to finish their films and reach global audiences. By bringing mentors from both the creative side and the business side, a rough-cut lab gives a project the best of both worlds: artistic enhancement and strategic positioning.
Structuring Feedback Sessions
A clear structure for the lab or consultation sessions keeps everyone focused and maximises the value of feedback. While formats vary, a typical WiP Lab schedule might look like this:
- Orientation: Introduce all mentors and filmmaker teams, review the ground rules (confidentiality, constructive critique guidelines), and clarify the goals of the lab. Setting expectations upfront helps everyone get on the same page.
- Rough Cut Screening: Each film’s team screens their work-in-progress. This could be the full rough cut (if time allows and usually if films are ~60–120 minutes) or key excerpts if time is tight. Ensure a proper screening setup – a good projector or high-resolution monitor, quality sound, etc. Even though it’s not final, the film should be presented as optimally as possible to give mentors a clear view of its potential.
- Initial Feedback Discussion: Immediately after the screening, give the panel of mentors the floor to share their first impressions. Some labs start with each mentor highlighting what already works well – identifying strengths can boost the filmmakers’ confidence and pinpoint assets to preserve. Then, the discussion can move to major issues or questions. It’s often useful to have a moderator lead this conversation so it remains balanced and on-topic. The filmmaker team is usually asked to listen without interrupting during this phase, but they might take notes.
- Filmmaker Q&A: After the mentors have spoken, allow the director (and editor/producer, if present) to ask clarifying questions. They might seek suggestions for specific problems (“I feel Act II is slow – any thoughts on tightening it?”) or get feedback on alternate scenes/endings if they have them. This Q&A ensures the filmmakers leave with actionable advice rather than vague comments.
- One-on-One Consultations: Many labs set aside time for individual consultations. For example, the director-editor duo might sit down with the editing mentor separately to go page-by-page through the edit decisions in detail, while the producer meets with the sales advisor to discuss festival strategy. These break-out sessions allow for deeper dives into technical or creative areas and can be tailored to each team’s needs. In some cases, a mentor might even do a live editing session with the filmmaker, experimenting with cutting a scene differently to demonstrate their point.
- Workshop Sessions: In multi-day residencies, workshops on specific topics can be included – e.g. a half-day group workshop on music licensing and scoring for rough cuts, or fine-tuning your film’s pacing where all participants share experiences on those issues. This encourages peer learning; filmmakers often discover they face similar challenges and can swap solutions.
- Recap & Next Steps: Conclude the lab with a wrap-up meeting. Here, each filmmaking team can summarize the top three takeaways they got and outline their plan moving forward (e.g. “We will do another edit pass focusing on trimming 10 minutes from the second act and hire a composer to create a more fitting score for the finale.”). Mentors can offer any last words of encouragement. It’s important to reiterate that the festival is invested in their success and will be eager to see the final cut. If possible, the organisers should also explain how they’ll stay in touch (perhaps a follow-up call in a few months or an open invite to reach out for advice).
Throughout this process, maintaining a clear feedback framework is key. Some festivals adopt formal methodologies for critique (such as the “sandwich” method of praise-critique-praise, or structured questionnaires for mentors to fill out). Others keep it informal but moderated. What matters most is that feedback is specific and constructive. Vague comments like “I didn’t like it” are not allowed – instead, mentors should be encouraged to pinpoint why something isn’t working and suggest solutions (“The pacing in the middle slows down – perhaps cut the sub-plot with the neighbor, or shorten those scenes to keep momentum.”). Also, respect the filmmakers’ vision; the aim is not to impose a different film on them but to help them achieve their intended story in the best way possible. With a well-structured session, filmmakers leave with a clear roadmap of improvements and, equally important, the motivation to execute them.
Logistics and Venue Considerations
When planning a WiP Lab or consultation program, logistical details can make or break the experience. First, consider when and where to hold the sessions. Many festivals choose to host labs during their festival dates as part of the industry track, which can be efficient – industry guests are already in town and can serve as mentors or observers. However, festival time is hectic; if resources allow, hosting the rough-cut lab a few weeks or months before the main festival (or as a standalone off-season event) can give staff more bandwidth to focus on it thoroughly. Some festivals, like Encounters in South Africa, have even opted for a virtual lab format. Going virtual (or hybrid) can greatly expand the pool of mentors and projects since no travel is required, but it demands good IT setup for streaming films and discussions securely.
Venue needs for an in-person lab include a comfortable screening room or studio with proper playback equipment. Keep the group small – often just the film team (director, editor, maybe producer) and the mentors (and a moderator). A 20-seat screening room or even a large boardroom with a big TV could suffice. Ensure privacy so that outsiders can’t wander in. For multi-day labs, a mix of spaces might help: a screening room for the movie, breakout rooms for individual consults, and a lounge area for informal mingling and downtime. The Cucalorus Works-in-Progress Lab in North Carolina, for example, uses its campus facilities to provide both screening areas and casual spaces where filmmakers can relax or even do a bit of editing during the residency.
Don’t forget practicalities like equipment and materials. Test the film files ahead of time on the provided system to avoid technical glitches when playing a rough cut (nothing disrupts a feedback session like a file format issue or subtitles not working). Have spare cables, adaptors, speakers – all the A/V support ready. If the lab is virtual, do a tech rehearsal with each team to ensure their video upload or stream works smoothly and mentors know how to access it. Also consider translation needs: if your mentors and filmmakers don’t all share a first language, you may need interpreters or subtitles on the rough cut. Scheduling-wise, give some buffer in the programme – rough cuts often run long, and discussions can easily extend if fruitful. It’s better to have a relaxed pace than to rush through a film to stay on time.
Providing some hospitality goes a long way to set the right tone. Simple things like coffee/tea, snacks, or catered lunches during an all-day lab help everyone stay energised and signal that the festival cares about their comfort. If budgets permit, hosting a casual dinner or networking event after the work sessions can deepen the relationships between filmmakers and mentors (often the most valuable feedback and connections happen informally over a meal or coffee). These personal touches contribute to an atmosphere where mentors and filmmakers become collaborators in the film’s journey, rather than just transactional participants.
Budgeting and Sponsorship
Launching a works-in-progress lab does come with costs, but thoughtful planning and partnerships can keep it sustainable. Budget considerations include mentor honorariums or travel expenses, venue rental (if not using existing festival facilities), technical equipment, hospitality, and administrative overhead for managing submissions and schedules. If your festival is small, you might start with a micro-budget model: invite local mentors who are already coming to your festival (cover perhaps just an extra night of hotel and a modest stipend or gift), use your office screening room, and limit catering to coffee and pastries. Because the scale can be adjusted, even modest festivals can run a mini rough-cut consultation programme within their means.
For larger ambitions, look at sponsorship and grants. Many WiP initiatives secure sponsors from the film industry – a post-production studio might sponsor the lab in exchange for branding, or a software company (like an editing software maker) could provide cash or tech support. Some festivals offer an incentive to lab participants in the form of awards or services: e.g. finishing funds, free sound mixing or colour grading services, or a small cash prize for the project that shows the most promise. These can often be donated by partner companies or cultural funds. A good example is the work-in-progress competitions in events like Karlovy Vary Eastern Promises or Tallinn Black Nights, where winning projects receive in-kind post-production services from sponsor studios. Aligning your lab with a funding body’s goals can also help; for instance, a local arts council or film commission may grant funds if the lab supports domestic filmmakers or underrepresented voices.
Don’t forget the value of in-kind contributions. If you have loyal volunteers or staff with editing expertise, they might contribute time as assistant mentors or technical coordinators. Perhaps a local cinema or university film department can lend a screening room for free during the off-season. By leveraging community resources – much like how Cucalorus & Working Films partnered to use Cucalorus’s venue and Working Films’ expertise – you can reduce costs while strengthening ties with the community. Be sure to acknowledge partners loudly; giving credit and visibility to those who support the lab will make them more likely to continue (and it shows industry stakeholders that your festival is actively cultivating new talent).
Finally, consider generating some revenue or at least offsetting costs through the lab’s structure itself. Some festivals charge a small submission fee for WiP lab entries (Visions du Réel, for example, charges an entry fee for rough-cut lab applications), or a participation fee from selected projects (especially if the lab provides accommodation or extensive resources). If you go this route, keep fees reasonable and offer waivers or scholarships to ensure you’re not excluding great projects that have limited funds – talent and need should drive selection more than ability to pay. The goal is to make the lab beneficial and accessible, not a profit center. With creative budgeting and possibly phased growth, a works-in-progress programme can be maintained year after year, becoming a signature part of your festival.
Following Through to Completion
The lab may conclude after a few days, but the festival’s role doesn’t end when the workshop ends. To truly reap the rewards of a works-in-progress initiative, festival producers should follow the projects through to their completion – and even beyond. This starts with simple follow-up: check in with each participating team a few weeks or months later. Did they implement the feedback? How is the film progressing? Offering a second look or a brief consultation via email or call can be very encouraging to filmmakers in the slog of post-production. Some labs formalise this by scheduling an online check-in session or requiring filmmakers to submit an updated cut for additional notes from mentors. Even if resources are limited, a friendly email expressing continued support and asking if they need any further connections can make a difference.
One of the best ways to support completion is to integrate lab projects into the festival’s future programming. If a film achieves a strong final cut, the festival should consider premiering it in the next edition or at least giving it a spotlight. This creates a clear pipeline: the lab directly feeds finished films into the festival lineup. Not only does this reward the filmmakers for their hard work, but it also gives the festival a great marketing story – “This year’s gala film was developed in our rough-cut lab last year.” Audiences love behind-the-scenes narratives, and it underscores the festival’s commitment to nurturing talent. However, curators must balance this with quality control; a lab project shouldn’t get a free pass to screen if it ultimately doesn’t meet the festival’s standards. Often though, labs increase the odds of quality. As noted earlier, numerous films that go through such programmes end up premiering at top international festivals, a testament to how effective feedback can elevate a project.
Additionally, track the long-term results and celebrate them. If a lab alumnus wins an award at another festival or secures distribution, share that news on your festival’s social media and press releases – with their permission, of course – giving credit to the lab’s role in their journey. This not only makes your festival look good; it also acknowledges the hard work of the filmmakers and mentors. Building an alumni network can be valuable: invite past participants and mentors back in future years, perhaps as guest speakers or even as new mentors. They can share their experiences with the next cohort (“Last year we were in your shoes, and here’s what we learned…”). This creates a cycle of mentorship that keeps on giving.
Finally, be prepared to learn and adapt. Gather feedback from the filmmakers and mentors about the lab itself – what worked in the process and what could be improved. Just as the films improve through feedback, so can the lab programme. Maybe mentors felt they needed more time with each film, or participants wanted more networking opportunities. Use these insights to refine the framework for next time. By iterating on the format each year, you ensure that your works-in-progress lab remains effective, relevant, and responsive to the needs of the filmmaking community.
Key Takeaways
- Foster a Development Culture: Film festivals are not just showcase events – they can play a crucial role in developing films. Works-in-progress labs and rough-cut consultations allow festival producers to directly help filmmakers elevate their projects, strengthening the festival’s reputation as a champion of new talent.
- Select Projects Wisely: Choose films in post-production that will truly benefit from feedback. Focus on works that align with your festival’s scope (be it regional filmmakers, specific genres, or themes) and have a solid foundation that expert input can polish further.
- Ensure Confidentiality: Create a safe, closed environment for rough cuts. Use NDAs, closed-door sessions, and strict no-recording rules so that filmmakers feel secure sharing unfinished work. Confidentiality builds trust and encourages honest dialogue.
- Match Teams with Expert Mentors: Pair each film with mentors (editors, composers, producers, sales agents, etc.) suited to its needs. A mix of creative and industry perspectives helps address storytelling issues and also guide the film’s path to audiences. Be deliberate in mentor selection and prep them for constructive feedback.
- Structured, Supportive Feedback: Implement a clear framework for feedback sessions – from screening to group critique to one-on-one consultations. Moderation and ground rules keep feedback productive. Aim for actionable insights and encourage mentors to offer solutions, not just identify problems.
- Mind the Logistics: Plan the lab timing and venue to maximize focus. Ensure you have the technical setup for screening rough cuts properly (both in-person or online). Provide a comfortable, distraction-free space and consider amenities (food, breaks) to keep everyone engaged.
- Budget and Partners: Factor in the costs (mentor fees, venue, equipment) and seek sponsors or partners to support the lab. In-kind contributions (like donated space or services) and possibly entry fees can help. Even a small festival can start with a modest lab – scale it to your means and grow from there.
- See It Through: Don’t just host the lab and forget about the projects. Follow up and support the filmmakers as they finish their films. If their completed work is strong, integrate it into your festival lineup or help it get seen elsewhere. Promote the successes of your lab alumni, which in turn promotes your festival’s impact.
- Learn and Evolve: Treat each lab edition as a learning experience for your team. Collect feedback on the process and refine it. As the film industry changes (e.g. new distribution trends, remote collaboration tools), adapt your lab’s focus to continue providing relevant, practical help to filmmakers.
By investing effort into works-in-progress labs and rough-cut consultations, film festival producers can nurture the next generation of filmmakers, improve the quality of films showcased, and strengthen bonds within the filmmaking community. It’s a win-win: filmmakers get the expert guidance they desperately need at a critical stage, and festivals enhance their cultural value far beyond the days of the screenings – helping to create the very films that audiences will celebrate in the years to come.
14th September 2025