Sofia Short Fest is the first film festival with a specific practice in jury selection. At each edition, the jury selects one of its members to be a jury member at the next edition. In 2026, this honor falls to Martina Apostolova. On this occasion, we talk to her about our second edition and her observations from the first.

Last year, you were part of the jury at both Sofia Short Fest and Golden Rose. What did you learn about Bulgarian cinema?
At first glance, I would say that I didn't learn much that was new. At the same time, I am quite surprised. This means that there is diversity and color. I am concerned that the years before the 1990s continue to occupy our artists, even those who are from a different generation and did not personally experience the socialist regime. But I also understand that for them this is an exotic and attractive theme, and that their attraction seems to be more to the style than to the society. I also learned that Bulgarian cinema is not ready for comedy.

In addition to your powerful roles in Irina and Phi 1.618, you also have a distinct presence in short films, such as Slava Doicheva's cult classic Marriage. How do you determine when a story should be told in a short film?
This is a very difficult question for me, one that I often ask myself. I admire the masters of the short story in general, regardless of the art form. Being able to tell a complete story in a few minutes is really a high bar, and I still can't explain the underestimation of short films. I hope that festivals like Sofia Short will change the audience's understanding and interest. A film doesn't have to be 120 minutes long to be exciting; sometimes short, precise, and clear is much more stunning than long-winded. I believe in "trimming" and simplifying scripts, and if that leads to shortening the film, there's nothing wrong with that.

Are there objective criteria for determining whether a film is good, and if so, what are your criteria as a jury member?
I have had the pleasure of being a jury member many times, in different countries, for different programs (short films, feature films, documentaries, animation), and I have always been guided first and foremost by the emotion I feel after or while watching a film. I often (if not always) take notes. It is important for me to remember the feelings I have while watching. From there on, purely professionally, I follow the acting, I take note of whose ideas and insights belong to whom (director, actor, cinematographer, screenwriter). It is always difficult for me, and I always try to be very objective, because the very effort to create a film is a tremendous success and achievement.
Realizing that everyone has their own taste, I try to abstract myself from my personal preferences and ultimately see where the "heart" of the film lies.

Does Bulgarian cinema suffer from stereotypes?
Definitely. And not only cinema, but also the audience. It is difficult for us to break out of the familiar and stop dwelling on topics that are no longer so relevant. It is difficult for us to accept new styles—of storytelling, filming, acting. Anything different is perceived as pretentious and whimsical, rather than as a new wave. If the narrative is not textbook-perfect, we say, "What kind of writing is this? I didn't understand a thing." If it's handheld, we say, "It gave me a headache." And these are not new things. We simply do not allow the revolution to happen, and this is precisely because of the stereotypes that we are stuck in – both as creators and as an audience.

Do you believe that the best films truly win festivals? Are there other determining factors, such as politics, current events, or sensitive topics? How is consensus achieved within a jury, and what challenges are involved in this process?
Discussing the final decisions with my colleagues is my favorite part of being on the jury. I had a seven-hour debate about the big winner in the competition program at the Bari Film Festival. It was a wonderful experience because we all defended our favorites so passionately and with such irrefutable arguments that our whole world turned into cinema. In the end, of course, we reached a consensus. I wouldn't say that the "best film" always wins. In most cases, the winner is also the "most relevant." Lately, politics has played a huge role in the evaluation of cinema. The big devil is personal preference, which I mentioned above. That's why it's very important to be open to other people's arguments and understand why someone "likes" a particular film more than you do. In most cases, somehow, everyone agrees on the big winner, and that is a sufficient argument. But when there is no clear favorite, it is very difficult. Then you have to consider relevance, politics, and "topical issues."

Let's discuss another factor—artificial intelligence. Are there already noticeable effects of AI in cinema and theater? Do you perceive it as a threat, or is it simply another tool with potential? Is there a place for AI in creativity, and if so, how far do you think it should go?
I don't see much of an impact in cinema yet, for the simple reason that most filmmakers are opposed to the excessive use of AI in their work. Perhaps it is very necessary in the technical part, but in the creative and artistic part, it is impossible for me—firstly because art, in my opinion, is born more out of pain and suffering, in general—out of emotion, and these feelings are somewhat foreign to AI. Everything else is secondary. Art is the creation of an artifact born of experience, emotion, excitement—everything that is inherent in human beings. It is the same in theater, if not more so, because theater is a living art. Perhaps as part of the set design, costumes, multimedia, but again under the "command" of the creator. I believe that AI should be used as a tool to save time, but not as a means to take credit for ourselves. Art is a craft that requires an exceptional and solely intellectual process, inspiration, original thought, and collective work. And it is not ARTIFICIAL. It is something that cannot be entered as a "prompt" into a computer program.

In light of the recent massive protests in the country, in which the students from NATFA made a strong impression, the question reasonably arises: what is the role of popular figures in such processes? Is it right for us, as citizens, to expect them to take an active stance, even when this could cost them dearly?
I am a bit extreme in this regard, and I was recently angered by the silence of several popular figures on the issue of a recently passed education law. Public figures are expected to lead society, to be the voice of reason, to "open the eyes" of other people, and to use the voice and platform that they are fortunate enough to have (and with the power of the vox populi). Without fear. Because, for me, being a bystander does not mean being innocent. Indifference infuriates me. That doesn't mean sticking your nose everywhere, but when you are a role model and you are convinced of the truth, there is nothing wrong with speaking it out loud. To fight misinformation. It costs a lot when you're alone in the fight, but tell me, if we see the faces we see every night on the small screen or buy tickets to the theater to see them live on stage, if we feel equal to them, shoulder to shoulder, doesn't that give us a collective strength that, in any case, means hope?

The protests created a powerful momentum and seemed to achieve a certain goal. But what comes next?
This energy must not subside, but must reach its conclusion, and that conclusion is justice. I am an idealist in this regard. But the struggle does not end with a resignation. There is still a lot of work to be done. We are aware that the rot runs much deeper than we think. There is a justice system to fix, there is corruption, there are abuses that require tirelessness and strong foundations. For me, the protests must not stop, and we as a society must continue to hold our elected politicians accountable. We must simply seek and defend our rights as citizens of this country.

Do you have a position on the issues that the independent cultural sector raises with institutions? What is the next useful step for the creative community?
There is also much work to be done regarding the independent cultural sector. For starters, there should be an official register of all artists who fall into this category—independent, freelance artists. There are guilds, but there is no unity, no strong lobby. In a country where culture, education, and healthcare are at the bottom of the list, with the lowest budgets, this is very difficult. The work of artists is greatly underestimated and undervalued, which is why there is despair and helplessness in these circles. But these institutions also need a general reform. And adequate administration that understands the needs of the sector. Better even than their own minister.