Sofia Short Fest has revealed the fourth member of the jury for its next edition in 2026: Toma Vasharov. Toma is a director, producer, and recipient of over 100 festival nominations and awards. Read on to find out what he had to say about cinema, himself, and life:

Your work repeatedly explores themes featuring characters who embody ideals parallel to the “little man” in Svetoslav Minkov’s work. Is there still a need to talk about the low points of our society’s moral development, and how cinema teaches us to be better people? Is there a message you haven’t yet conveyed to your audience, but would very much like to?
I hadn’t realized that my films address the “lows” of society’s moral development. And I don’t think I’ve ever tried to teach anyone to be better. I don’t like it when someone lectures. It’s hard for me to comment on this issue on that basis. For me, cinema is a language through which I tell various stories that have lodged in my soul. This language is universal and can reach more people. I don’t want to lecture anyone. I simply reveal my thoughts and observations to the audience because I think they’re worth sharing. I’m conducting something like an audiovisual monologue about the life I see, feel, and observe. As for messages, mine is always the same: the most important things in life are love and happiness. In my films, I try to tell stories about the anomalies in the human soul that arise from a lack of love and happiness. Most often because of loneliness. Spiritual, social, familial… Any kind of loneliness.

Are there objective criteria for determining whether a film is good, and if so, what criteria will you use as a judge?
For me, there is no such thing as an objective criterion for a film, a painting, a poem, or literature. The criterion is always subjective. And my subjective criterion is this: it must evoke emotion. I can feel emotion for many reasons—because of sincerity, dedication, passion, wisdom, love, empathy, and many others.

How do you view contemporary cinematic expression on a national and global scale, and is there anything that openly annoys you?
What annoys me most is imitation. Or the approach of “let’s make a movie that looks like a movie.” Or making it “like in the movies.” If I watch a film that strongly resembles one I’ve already seen—for example, a gang of criminals chasing each other through the streets in cars and the hero waking up sweaty at the end—I most likely won’t rate it highly precisely because the filmmaker is imitating other filmmakers. I don’t like insincerity, overacting, or underestimating the audience. Preaching, as I mentioned above. I’m sorry if anyone perceives my films as preachy.

What’s your recipe for a good film?
The filmmaker should be true to themselves.

Do you think the best films really do win at festivals? Is there something else that determines the outcome, such as politics, current events, or the handling of sensitive topics? How is consensus reached within a jury, and what “demons” lurk in that process?
As I mentioned earlier, I don’t believe in an objective, universal criterion. Every person is a small universe, and everyone has their own criteria, but that shouldn’t rule out the existence of other, different criteria. That’s called tolerance. At festivals, the jury selects films based on compromises regarding certain criteria and tolerance toward others. There is no such thing as “the best film.” “The one most highly rated by the jury”—that is the correct phrase, in my opinion. Of course, if the topic is timely, that could give it an advantage. Simply because the film might be more authentic, more original, and watched with greater interest. But no matter how topical it is, if there’s no emotion—it’s not my kind of film. And judging is an interesting experience. There’s always a lively discussion. I’ve never found myself in a conflict situation, though I’ve heard they happen. I hope it will be the same at SSF this time.

Your latest film, “The Premiere,” was selected for the first SSF and won the Audience Award. Do you think that sometimes, especially in the more pretentious debates on the topics of Bulgarian cinema, we underestimate the audience? At the same time, it is a fact that many high-quality films have low box office returns, which raises questions about the audience as well. To what extent can we trust the audience?
The general public around the world has been shaped by the film industry, or more specifically by Hollywood. Festival audiences differ from the general public because they have been trained to “read” and perceive cinema without prejudice or specific expectations. And this audience in Bulgaria is still relatively small. Because there are few festivals. In Spain alone, there are over 3,000 film festivals. In Bulgaria, there are just over a dozen. That is why the reception of films that have received high praise in places where the culture is highly developed can be disappointing here. And the audience should never be underestimated. Especially by the filmmakers.

Actually, does the audience drive cinema, or does cinema drive the audience?
This question is like the one about the chicken and the egg. In my opinion—neither one nor the other. I personally make films because I need to. That is, I’m in a dead end. And every time I try and think of how to make it so that as many people as possible see what I’m doing, because otherwise I’ll fall into depression. And that’s why I try to talk with humor about the sad things in life that arise from a lack of happiness and love. Because I know the audience loves humor. And I love it too, so we’re completely on the same page.

As an active artist, do you have an opinion on the issues discussed among your colleagues in the cultural sector?
I’m not sure which of the endless problems are being referred to in this question. If the question is about the criteria for which films and TV series should be funded, then I believe they should have high cultural and artistic value, rather than commercial value. Because the state should not fund private businesses intended to generate profits. In a country like Bulgaria, cinema with high artistic value is a cultural necessity that, if not funded, cannot exist in theory or in practice.

Let’s also talk about another factor—artificial intelligence. Are the effects of AI already being observed in cinema? Do you perceive it as a threat, or is it simply another tool with potential? Do you think there is a place for AI in creativity, and if so, how far do you think it should extend?
Yes, we’re seeing its effects. I’ve been using AI for a year and a half now. AI is a tool that makes life easier for professionals in every field. I don’t think it will happen anytime soon that it will replace large numbers of professionals, especially in cinema. It helps with both screenwriting and the development of dramaturgy. Time will tell what happens. For now, there’s no threat whatsoever. Or at least I don’t feel one.