Tonight in Utrecht, the Golden Calves will be awarded, the Netherlands’ most prestigious film prizes, often described as the Dutch equivalent of the Oscars. It’s usually a festive evening that celebrates the art and craft of Dutch cinema with actors and producers.
But this year, the ceremony comes with an uncomfortable discussion.
Filmmaker Johan Nijenhuis, known for creating hugely popular mainstream films (such as Costa!, Verliefd op Ibiza and Onze Jongens), stirred up controversy when he suggested that the Golden Calf system contains a “perverse incentive.”
According to Nijenhuis, many of the jury members who decide on the awards are themselves financially dependent on government subsidies to make their films. That dependency, he argues, creates a subtle bias: by awarding prizes mainly to art-house or heavily subsidized productions, often with very limited audiences, the jury ends up legitimizing the very funding structure that supports their own work.
He also pointed out that millions of euros in public cultural funding go to films that “almost nobody goes to see,” while popular box-office successes rarely receive critical or institutional recognition.
A discomfort worth discussing
Whether one agrees with him or not, Nijenhuis touches on a real tension within the Dutch film industry. The majority of Dutch filmmakers rely, at least partly, on state funding through institutions such as the Netherlands Film Fund. That support is vital for artistic freedom and cultural diversity, but it can also lead to an inward-looking ecosystem where risk and renewal are filtered through bureaucratic approval.
So the question he raises is an important one:
Are awards truly celebrating artistic merit, or are they sometimes reinforcing the system that sustains them?
What the Golden Calf should stand for
To me, the Golden Calf should rise above that system. It should not serve as validation for how the Dutch film industry is funded, but as a celebration of craftsmanship, creativity, and meaningful development.
Whether a film reaches a million viewers or just a few thousand doesn’t matter as much as how it was made, the vision, the care, and the innovation behind it. That is what drives cinema forward.
Legitimacy and courage
Art, after all, thrives on courage, not comfort. Awards should encourage filmmakers to take creative risks, to tell stories that matter, and to reflect the world in fresh and compelling ways.
If the Golden Calves only confirm what is already safe or institutionally approved, they risk losing their spark, their ability to surprise and inspire.
That’s why I believe the award for Best Film should always honor quality, innovation, and artistic integrity, regardless of whether a film is “art” or “entertainment.” And without falling into the temptation of legitimizing a system through the prizes it gives.
What do you think?
Should the Netherlands’ most important film award focus on artistic excellence and innovation, or does Johan Nijenhuis have a point, that the industry sometimes rewards itself inside its own bubble?
Let me know on social media, share the post with your comments, or send me an email.
October 3th 2025
© Copyright Dolf Bekx