The "A-List" Debate: Does Formal Classification Matter in the Modern Film Festival Circuit?

As the 39th Tokyo International Film Festival (TIFF) kicks off, the global film community finds itself embroiled in a long-standing, if somewhat esoteric, debate: the relevance of the "A-list" designation. Earlier this year, the International Federation of Film Producers’ Associations (FIAPF) overhauled its accreditation system, replacing a complex, multi-tiered hierarchy with a single, streamlined list. By naming 17 festivals—including Tokyo—as official "A-list" events, the organization has ignited a conversation about prestige, programming power, and the nature of the cinematic experience.

However, for those tasked with evaluating the films at the heart of these events, the bureaucratic label is largely peripheral to the art itself. Rolf de Heer, the esteemed Australian director behind Bad Boy Bubby and Ten Canoes, who currently leads the Tokyo competition jury, expressed a sentiment shared by many in the industry: the label is a formal acknowledgment of a reality that has existed for decades.

The Evolution of Festival Hierarchy

For years, the term "A-list" was an industry colloquialism used by producers, sales agents, and talent managers to denote the most significant global gatherings—the festivals where premieres can define a film’s commercial and critical trajectory. In March, FIAPF formalized this shorthand. By consolidating their accreditation system, the federation recognized 17 festivals, including Cannes, Berlin, Venice, Toronto, Busan, Shanghai, Cairo, and Tokyo.

This move marks a significant shift in how international bodies perceive the festival circuit. For festivals like Toronto and Busan, which earned their first-ever inclusion in this elite tier, the designation serves as a validation of their growing influence. Yet, as de Heer noted during the Tokyo press conference, the official recognition is unlikely to fundamentally alter the DNA of these events.

"I think Tokyo has always been considered one of those festivals by most people who attend festivals," de Heer observed. "Tokyo was effectively an A festival. And so, in that sense, I don’t think it makes a lot of difference."

While de Heer maintains that the classification is largely symbolic, he concedes that it may carry weight in the competitive market for premier content. "It may help that it is officially now again ‘A,’ but I don’t think it changes the festival so much," he added. The implication is clear: the prestige of a festival is built by the quality of its programming and the enthusiasm of its audience, not by a designation printed on a letterhead.

The Audience Perspective: Beyond the Labels

While industry professionals often obsess over classifications, the average cinephile remains blissfully detached from the politics of film festivals. Korean producer Oh Jungwan, founder of Bom Film Productions—the powerhouse behind acclaimed titles such as The Foul King, A Tale of Two Sisters, and A Bittersweet Life—offered a refreshing perspective during the jury panel.

"I’m not a ‘film festival person,’" Oh admitted. "So I don’t know what is A-list or not. Maybe A-list means ‘good,’ but as an audience, we’re not going to the festival because of their A-list status. We just go to watch film and enjoy the feeling, the festival feeling."

This disconnect between institutional rankings and the visceral experience of filmgoers highlights a central tension in the industry. For the public, a film festival is a sanctuary for discovery, a place to engage with storytelling that exists outside the confines of mainstream commercial distribution. For the institutions, however, the label is a vital tool for securing international distribution deals and attracting high-profile talent.

Navigating the Jury Room: The Art of Consensus

The 39th Tokyo International Film Festival features a five-member jury tasked with selecting the recipient of the Tokyo Grand Prix from a competitive slate of 15 films. Alongside de Heer and Oh, the jury includes Japanese actor Watanabe Makiko (M/Other, Tokyo Vice), producer Alex Lo, and colorist Yov Moor.

The process of selecting a winner is rarely straightforward. It is a negotiation of taste, cultural background, and critical philosophy. When asked how a jury might resolve deep disagreements, de Heer remained optimistic about the collective process. "I’m with four other very reasonable people," he stated. "I’m sure we can find a way through that we don’t end up with some sort of lesser, compromised film, but a really interesting film that maybe some of us don’t like."

Oh, who is serving on the Tokyo jury for the second time, provided a humorous anecdote about the intensity of these deliberations. Recalling a previous experience, she noted, "I once argued for seven hours on behalf of a film. Every other jury member hated me." She added with a smile that she hoped she would not be forced to engage in a seven-hour battle with de Heer during this year’s iteration.

Economic Realities and Global Co-productions

Beyond the competition, the panel also delved into the pragmatic side of filmmaking, specifically the viability of Australia-Japan co-productions. De Heer was characteristically blunt about the logistical hurdles, arguing that financial-only co-productions—a model common in Europe—rarely yield the best results for his region.

"It makes no sense for a Japanese film to shoot in Australia, it makes no sense for an Australian film to shoot in Japan," de Heer argued. "Europe is very good at doing co-productions only on a financial basis, really. Australia is not so good at that."

However, he emphasized that natural, story-driven co-productions remain a vital avenue for international cinema. "If the scripts come, and if they are right," he noted, "where some things need to be shot in Japan and some things need to be shot in Australia, that will always be possible."

Alex Lo, whose film Heads or Tails? won Best Director at last year’s Tokyo festival, provided a more systemic view of the production landscape. He noted that producers across the U.S., Europe, and Asia are increasingly turning to co-productions as a necessity, often filling the gaps left by dwindling local government support. This suggests that while the "A-list" status might be a matter of prestige, the underlying economic engine of the festival world is shifting toward a more collaborative, globalized model of production.

Implications for the Future

As the Tokyo International Film Festival continues through November 4, the discourse surrounding the "A-list" designation serves as a reminder of how much the industry values validation. However, the comments from figures like de Heer and Oh underscore a fundamental truth: the strength of a festival lies in its ability to foster genuine connection between filmmakers and audiences.

Whether a festival carries the "A-list" label or not, its true worth is measured in the "festival feeling"—the magic of seeing a film that challenges, inspires, or simply delights. For the jurors in Tokyo, the immediate task is not to uphold the prestige of a category, but to identify the most compelling voices within their current selection.

In the final analysis, perhaps de Heer captured the essence of the debate best when he said, "It matters a great deal to some people, and not at all to others. And that is as it should be." In a landscape as diverse and sprawling as global cinema, there is room for both the institutional prestige of the A-list and the raw, unfiltered passion of the audience. As the Tokyo festival progresses, it remains a beacon for the latter, ensuring that regardless of the labels, the stories remain the priority.