The Ministry of Culture, under the leadership of Minister Miki Zohar, has effectively pulled the plug. By cancelling nearly every long-standing state cultural prize for 2026, the ministry has wiped away roughly ₪5 million in support for literature, music, dance, and visual arts. While four prizes remain due to prior commitments, the rest have been erased from the calendar, leaving only a vague reassurance that future budgets “have not yet been decided.”

Make no mistake: this isn’t a “technical adjustment” or a clerical error. It is a structural intervention.

Beyond the Trophies: A Direct Hit on the Individual

To the casual observer, ₪5 million might seem like a rounding error in a national budget. But in the world of independent art, that money is life support. They represent the only direct line of state funding that bypasses the ‘gatekeepers,’ including the museums, the festivals, and the large institutional intermediaries.

When you cancel the Levi Eshkol Prize for literature, the Deborah Omer Prize for children’s books, or the Eric Einstein Prize for veteran artists, you aren’t just cutting costs. You are destroying:

• Financial bridges for creators who don’t have a steady paycheck.
• Independence from the need to please large institutional bosses.
• Recognition mechanisms that reward talent over organizational loyalty.

By sweeping these prizes off the table while leaving their return “up in the air,” the Ministry has replaced clear rules with absolute discretion. In this context, uncertainty isn’t just a byproduct; it is a tool used to discipline behavior.

The False Alibi of “Budget Cuts”

The Ministry’s defense, claiming this is a simple matter of fiscal pressure, is a convenient distraction. The real issue isn’t that they are cutting; it’s what they are choosing to kill and what they are choosing to keep.

True fiscal reform is transparent. It involves multi-year criteria and clearly defined replacement programs. What we see here is the opposite: a blanket cancellation with no framework for what comes next. This isn’t reform; it’s leverage. When a creator’s livelihood depends on the “future decisions” of a politician rather than a set of transparent rules, silence and compliance become the only rational survival strategies.

A Familiar Playbook

This decision fits perfectly into the trajectory FIW has warned about for years. It follows a clear three-step logic:

1. Shift power toward the Ministry: By weakening independent funding mechanisms (as we’ve seen in cinema), the government removes the “buffer” between art and politics.
2. Protect the giants, starve the individuals: Large institutions usually find a way to survive. It is the independent artists, the emerging creators, and the unaffiliated veterans who are left exposed.
3. Govern through silence: When support is no longer a right but a “possibility” to be revisited later, it creates a culture of self-censorship.
   

The Long-Term Cost

At Film Industry Watch, we have never been shy about criticizing the flaws in Israel’s cultural institutions. We have called out corruption, monopolization, and structural abuse at every turn. But replacing a flawed system with ministerial whim is not progress. It is regression.

State prizes were never perfect, but they were predictable and governed by rules. Turning them off doesn’t “clean up” the system; it simply turns culture into a loyalty test. Once art is governed by fear and political discretion, the damage to the national soul will last far longer than any single political term.

The post Turning Off the Oxygen: The Calculated Gutting of Israel’s State Cultural Prizes first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

In Israel, the crazy cuts both ways. The Israeli film industry was rocked this morning when Culture and Sports Minister Miki Zohar announced the government would halt public funding for the Ophir Awards, Israel’s top film honors. The announcement came less than 24 hours after The Sea (HaYam), a drama about a Palestinian boy’s dream of reaching the Mediterranean for the first time, swept the ceremony with five prizes, including Best Picture.

The Ophir Awards are Israel’s equivalent of the Academy Awards, and the Best Picture winner automatically becomes the country’s submission for the Best International Feature Film category at the Oscars.

Zohar released a sharply worded statement calling the ceremony “a disgraceful event spitting in the face of Israeli soldiers,” accusing the film of portraying the IDF and the State of Israel in a negative light. “There is no greater insult to Israeli citizens than this embarrassing and detached annual spectacle,” he declared. The Ministry confirmed that from 2026 onward, the Ophir Awards, funded through the Israeli Academy of Film and Television, will no longer receive state support.

A Divisive Film, An International Platform

The Sea, directed by Shai Carmeli Pollak and produced by Baher Agbaria, follows a boy from a village near Ramallah whose greatest wish is to see the sea in Tel Aviv. Thirteen-year-old Mohammed Gazawi, who won Best Actor, became the youngest recipient in Ophir history. “I wish for all the children of the world to live and dream without wars,” he said on stage.

Carmeli Pollak, who also won for Best Screenplay, used his acceptance speech to highlight the humanitarian toll of the Gaza war: “Just two days ago, a friend of mine in Gaza survived an airstrike that killed many people. He wrote me, ‘Today I went to the market and found nothing to eat. We boiled water with spices and drank it.’”

Actor Khalifa Natour, who won Best Supporting Actor, did not attend. In a statement read on his behalf, he described his horror at “the genocide taking place in Gaza,” adding that art felt meaningless in comparison.

Academy Pushes Back

While the Minister condemned the film, the Israeli Academy of Film and Television defended its independence. Chairman Asaf Amir emphasized that members, filmmakers and industry professionals, vote freely, guided by “a commitment to cinematic excellence, artistic freedom, and freedom of expression.”

Without naming Zohar directly, Amir noted: “At a time when parts of the international film community are calling to boycott us, the choice of this film is a resounding answer. I am proud that an Arabic-language film, created through collaboration between Jewish and Palestinian Israelis, will represent Israel at the Academy Awards.”

A Ceremony Marked by Protest

The awards night itself was politically charged. Dozens of filmmakers arrived wearing black shirts emblazoned with slogans such as “A Child is a Child” and “Stop the War.” Demonstrators outside the venue called for an end to the ongoing conflict.

Carmeli Pollak has long described his work as shaped by activism. In interviews, he has recalled participating in anti-separation wall protests in the West Bank and witnessing first-hand the gap between the pastoral setting of Palestinian villages and the intrusion of armed forces. “The longing for the sea was something I heard again and again,” he explained, noting that many Palestinians he met had never been able to visit the coast.

Film Industry Watch: Continuing Coverage

This latest clash follows Film Industry Watch’s recent reporting in Israeli Cinema Under Siege: Government Reforms, Alleged Corruption, and a Fight for Artistic Survival, which examined Minister Zohar’s broader reforms of Israel’s film funds, allegations of systemic corruption, and the growing struggle of independent filmmakers to survive, as well as systematic gender discrimination against Israel’s male filmmakers, as the crazy cuts both ways. The decision to defund the Ophir Awards further deepens the crisis, tying artistic recognition to political loyalty, and placing Israel’s once-celebrated cinema industry at a dangerous crossroads.

What Comes Next?

The Minister’s decision raises profound questions about the future of Israel’s most prestigious film prize, long regarded as a showcase of the country’s cinematic achievements. For many in the industry, the move represents not only an attack on artistic freedom but also a politicization of cultural institutions.

With The Sea now set to represent Israel in the international spotlight, including a likely Oscar campaign, the controversy is unlikely to fade soon. Instead, it underscores the growing tension between cultural expression and political pressure in Israeli cinema today.

SOURCES:

https://www.haaretz.co.il/gallery/cinema/2025-09-17/ty-article/00000199-568e-d45d-a3bf-ffcfed2f0000

https://e.walla.co.il/item/3781526

The post Israeli Culture Minister Pulls Funding from Ophir Awards After Palestinian-Themed Film “The Sea” Wins Top Prize first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

We received the following email from a reader and are posting it as is for the time being. Please note that the content has not yet been independently verified through public records or third-party sources. We are currently working to obtain additional information and will update this post accordingly. The views and claims expressed in the email are those of the sender and do not necessarily reflect our views or imply their accuracy.

Dear Film Industry Watch team,

Here is some information about public funding in Kazakhstan.

Public funding of films in Kazakhstan has never been transparent. In 2019, the State Center for the Support of National Cinema (hereinafter “the Fund”) was established, subordinated to the Ministry of Culture. This Fund holds a pitch session once a year and selects film projects for state funding. But every year the pitch and selection of projects takes place with scandals and accusations of corruption. The Fund’s top management has changed 3 times since 2019. The first CEO is now under arrest. The second CEO was fired after a corruption scandal. The results of the pitch held in 2021 have been cancelled.

Since 2023, the Fund has legalized censorship and approved the topics on which films can be made with state funding. Applications for state funding can be submitted only for these topics approved by the Fund. Examples of topics from 2025: love for the homeland, family, military-patriotic films, healthy lifestyle and sports, Kazakh fairy tales, etc. (https://www.kazakhcinema.kz/tpost/dm13ax9ou1-tsentr-kino-napominaet-o-prioritetnih-te) The members of the Fund’s Expert Council, who select projects, always make sure that the scripts do not contain swear words, a bad image of Kazakhstan, a bad image of the Kazakh police and army (they say this during the pitch).

The selection of projects is carried out in several stages. The last stage before approval by the Kazakh Ministry of Culture is the selection by the Interdepartmental Commission. We could not find the composition of this commission, but it is known that it includes members of Parliament, officials of various Ministries, that is, people who are completely incompetent in the film industry. And the Fund’s Expert council, which selects projects during the pitch, consists of members of the ruling party or writers loyal to the ruling party and a small number of real filmmakers, of course loyal to the ruling party.

Considering that most of the films financed by the Fund are of little interest to major international festivals, last two years the Fund is very proud that its films are actively participating in Russian festivals and proudly announces this in the news.

2025 selection

In 2025, the pitch has already taken place and the list of selected projects must now be approved by the Ministry of Culture. 11 fiction feature film projects were selected. There is not a single female director among these 11 fiction projects. There is not a single director or producer among these 11 projects with a successful filmography, either at festivals or at the box office. The directors and producers of almost all the selected fiction projects had previously made TV-series for Kazakh state TV-channels. This is not surprising, since the current CEO of the Fund used to work at Kazakh state TV channels and he is completely incompetent in the film industry.

One of the selected projects (“Сыбыс”) is the first feature film with a 29-page script (only one member of the Fund’s Expert Council asked about the number of pages of the script). The director of this project is little known, but the producer received financing for another film from the Fund in 2023.

One of the most expensive selected projects is the feature film (“Кунес”) with the requested state funding in the amount of 559 million KZT (1 million USD). It was presented by the producer and the scriptwriter during the pitch and at the pitch they said that the director of the film is not yet known. We think this is the first case in world history when a project with a large budget is selected without even knowing who the director will be.

6 of the 11 fiction projects selected had directors or producers who had previously received Fund funding, and these Fund-financed films had not been successful at festivals or at the box office.

https://www.kazakhcinema.kz/page43211353.html – the official site of the State Center for the Support of National Cinema.

Thank you for your work and site.

All the best,

An independent Kazakh filmmaker

The post Kazakh State Center for the Support of National Cinema: Alleged corruption, favoritism, sexism, censorship & friendship with Russia. first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

Following the publication of our reader-submitted reports on May 30 and July 7, 2025, regarding Armenia’s new cash rebate scheme and broader developments in the country’s film sector (here and here), the Cinema Foundation of Armenia (CFA) has issued the following official response.

The CFA challenges key claims made in the reports, particularly those regarding the legality of Government Decision 412-N and the alleged conflict of interest involving its Executive Director. The Foundation defends its processes as legally grounded, transparent, and in line with international practice. It also clarifies the nature of its collaboration with international partners such as Netflix.

As always, Film Industry Watch remains open to publishing a range of perspectives, and we welcome further responses, documentation, or commentary from any individuals or institutions with relevant insight. The text of the CFA’s statement appears below:

Dear Editorial Board,

The Cinema Foundation of Armenia, in response to the articles published by you on May 30, 2025, titled “Armenia’s Cash Rebate Plan for Foreign Films Faces Legal and Ethical Challenges” and on July 7, 2025, titled “Armenia: Turbulence in the Local Film Industry”, finds it necessary to clarify a number of facts and to refute the one-sided and unfounded claims made in the publications.

The decision of the Government of the Republic of Armenia No. 412-N of April 10, 2025, “on approving the procedure and conditions for issuing, rejecting and terminating the cash rebate in the field of filmmaking, as well as the list of products, services, and works directly related to filmmaking that are included in the expenses eligible for cash rebate, along with the conditions and standards for defining and calculating the amount of financial expenses subject to rebate” stems from the terms of the Law of the Republic of Armenia “On Cinematography” and has been developed by the RA Ministry of Education, Science, Culture and Sports, the body implementing the sectoral policy, along with the involvement of other state administrative bodies, which have provided their opinions on the draft decision. The version submitted to the government took into account all opinions. The 35% rebate threshold falls within the legally permitted range (10–40%) and is implemented as an incentive mechanism, consistent with international practices.

Second, the article’s assumptions regarding a conflict of interest between the Executive Director of the Cinema Foundation and the company “People of Ar” do not reflect reality. Legally, the above-mentioned memorandums were preparatory and did not confirm any funding or support. Moreover, by the time of the project’s development and implementation, Davit Banuchyan had not yet assumed the position of Executive Director of the Cinema Foundation of Armenia, and therefore, no discriminatory decision was made. Additionally, the Foundation’s decision-making processes are governed by transparent oversight procedures involving independent experts and industry representatives.

Regarding the comments made about collaboration with Netflix, we must clarify that international partnerships are subject to confidential agreements and phased negotiations. Any information is published only upon mutual consent of the parties, with corresponding documentation in place. The Cinema Foundation of Armenia is not a party to those agreements. Therefore, the idea presented in the article that the Cinema Foundation operates through a closed or limited mechanism is fundamentally contrary to our mission and mode of operation. The Cinema Foundation functions based on the principles of open governance, professional assessment, and legal transparency, and will continue to ensure fair, professional, and legally defined funding procedures in the cultural field.

Respectfully,

Department of Public Relations
Cinema Foundation of Armenia
Address: 3A Teryan Street
Email: info@cfarmenia.am / pr@cfarmenia.am
Phone: +374 10522032
www.cfarmenia.am

Analysis of response:

Legality of Government Decision 412-N (10 April 2025)

CFA’s claim: The 25–35% rebate framework in Decision 412-N was developed lawfully, falls within the 10–40% range set by the Law on Cinematography, and incorporated feedback from relevant state bodies.

Analysis:
This is partially true, but slightly evasive.
The issue raised in the original report was not that 25–35% is outside the legal range, but that fixing the rebate within a narrower sub-range by government decision—rather than leaving it to project-specific evaluation—may contradict the law’s intent, which envisages a flexible 10–40% band.

Furthermore, internal Ministry of Finance documents (as cited in the original report) warned against adopting the fixed-range model without a corresponding amendment to the law. CFA’s response does not directly engage with that legal tension—nor with the procedural question of whether a subordinate act (412-N) can supersede the higher-ranking statute without a formal legislative change.

Conflict of interest regarding Davit Banuchyan and People of Ar

CFA’s claim: No conflict of interest exists. The memorandums were non-binding. Banuchyan had not yet taken office when they were signed, and decisions are made with expert input and oversight.

Analysis:
This glosses over key facts without fully resolving the concern.
It is correct that the four-party MoU involving People of Ar was signed in December 2023, and Banuchyan became acting director in May 2024. But the concern raised in the reports is about:

• The continuing public appearance of Banuchyan being listed on People of Ar’s website (as of 2025) as “Co-producer / Tax Rebate Supervisor”;
• The unusual alignment between the memorandum’s terms and the subsequent rebate rules;
• The close professional ties between Banuchyan and Arman Nshanian (People of Ar CEO), reinforced by documented joint appearances at closed-door meetings and site visits.
  

Even if no formal conflict exists under Armenian law, there remains an unresolved perception of overlapping roles that CFA’s statement does not address in detail. Simply asserting “no discriminatory decision was made” doesn’t disprove potential bias.

Netflix collaboration and confidentiality

CFA’s claim: Netflix-related negotiations are confidential; CFA is not a party to those agreements.

Analysis:
This is plausible and largely fair.
International partnerships often involve NDAs and staged negotiations. The original report criticized the vague and premature announcements of such deals, not the existence of confidentiality clauses per se.

Still, the CFA’s distancing itself from the process (“we are not a party to those agreements”) is notable—especially since its own public materials in late 2024 and early 2025 highlighted high-level talks with international streamers, giving the impression of active participation.

Conclusion

The CFA’s reply addresses some technical issues (legal range of rebates, signing dates), but largely sidesteps the core concerns: whether decision-making has been unduly influenced by private interests, whether rules were legally and transparently adopted, and whether public trust in the process has been sufficiently protected.

The post Rebuttal Regarding the Articles “Armenia’s Cash Rebate Plan for Foreign Films” and “Armenia: Turbulence in the Local Film Industry” first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

An update to this post – Oppressed Voices from Turkey, the US and Israel – is published here.

Earlier this month we published a detailed exposé on the gender imbalance and institutional corruption permeating Israel’s publicly funded cinema ecosystem. We showed how the Ophir Awards, the nation’s most prestigious film prize, had reached an extreme point of political manipulation – 11 women and just 1 man (not Jewish) nominated in writing and directing categories. It’s the kind of engineered imbalance that, if reversed, would provoke protests and formal inquiries. In Israel, it’s being marketed as progress. Israeli men, apparently, are good for one thing only – kill and be killed in wars.

Now, new information confirms that the discrimination is not an isolated incident – it has taken over Israel’s flagship festival, the 2025 Jerusalem Film Festival, currently taking place this week. The Israeli Narrative Feature Competition, long considered the highest national stage for fiction filmmaking, is now a tightly controlled showcase of identity politics, cronyism, and gatekeeping.

The Numbers Speak for Themselves

The 2025 Haggiag Award Competition features eight films, of which seven are directed or co-directed by women. Among the ten individual directors, only 1 is a male director, and 2 are co-directors with women. The screenwriting credits are skewed in the same way. Here is the breakdown:

Source: Times of Israel, 13 July 2025 (Haggiag Competition announcement)

Israel’s Film Industry – Merit or Discrimination?

Thanks to deep ties in the Israeli film industry we’ve been able to write a number of articles about the local scene. One of these articles details how Katriel Schory, long-time legendry and first CEO of the Israeli Film Fund who had been running it from its inception for more than twenty years, allegedly approved a production grant of 1,000,000 NIS for The Last Cinema Show in Bucharest, a film connected to his wife Naomi Schory and her business partner Lodi Boken, just before the end of his tenure. We’ve published several articles about the Israeli film funds – The Rabinovich fund, Gesher, and the “Israeli film fund” , detailing a culture of revolving doors and alleged nepotism that stretch for decades.

After Katriel Schory was succeeded, first by Lisa Shiloach-Uzrad, then by Noa Regev (former head of the Jerusalem Film Festival), and Dana Blankstein Cohen was appointed as head of the Jerusalem Sam Spiegel Film School, all women, there was a sudden and significant rise in the number of female filmmakers being funded, selected, and awarded across the Israeli film ecosystem. Let’s take a closer look at part of an email we received regarding our article covering the 10th edition of the Jerusalem Film Lab, held in 2020, an event where statistical analysis revealed a 99.984% probability that gender-based bias influenced its proceedings, including the selection of the winning projects:

…. I’ve taken part of the lab in a certain capacity and can confirm that your facts are correct. There were 8 female participants and 4 male. There were indeed three “Masterclasses” (though really they were just 90 minute Zoom chats, this lab too place during covid) with established filmmakers and all three were women. There were seven jury members, six women and one man, who was the head (or artistic director?) of Tribeca, a festival known for being quite woke. All four awards went to projects led by women, and I can confirm your impression: it felt like the entire event was engineered in a way that didn’t give the men a fair chance. I say this for two reasons:

1. During the event, after one of the male participants finished his pitch, which was for a project that was backed by major international producers, the jury didn’t ask him the usual two questions like they did with all the female participants. Instead they asked just one question which was about the film’s title basically accusing him of making up a name (which wasn’t true). Later when the filmmaker spoke about the research he had done for the script the head of the jury cut him off and said, “we don’t have any proof of that” (the director doing research) which was both rude and very strange.

2. The lab was headed by a local producer who is known to be an activist. As an example for what I mean by that – during the George Floyd riots in the US this producer posted on Facebook something to the effect of “all women should unite and stand against male violence” implying something like that all men are violent or that only men are capable of violence, or something like that. I believe that after some backlash that post was deleted.

Israeli filmmakers are between a rock and a hard place. We want to support our female colleagues but what’s happening seems extreme. If they wanted to give all four awards to women they could have just announced it before or during the event and not let these poor guys prepare pitches, shoot scenes, and go through the motions. I’m pretty sure that the male filmmakers would have been fine with it. But why put up such a show? To humiliate?

This is not gender equality. It’s ideological overreach – an 87.5% female directorial slate following decades of male majority may sound like poetic justice to some, but to serious observers, it’s a sign that Israel has replaced corruption and some merit with corruption and gender metrics.

The Israeli Film Industry Is Not Just Biased – It’s Closed

This is not only about one festival lineup. This is about the system that produced it. The 2025 competition exposes the full extent of cronyism, insider domination, and ideological gatekeeping that now define the Israeli film scene.

Festival Gatekeepers Competing in Their Own Arena

Eti Tsicko, director of Nandauri, is listed as a member of the Jerusalem Film Festival’s International Programming Committee. In other words, she helped curate the very slate in which her film is now competing for Israel’s top prize. This kind of conflict of interest would be unthinkable in most democratic institutions, yet in Israel’s elite cultural circles, it goes unchecked and unchallenged. While Israel’s cultural elites – dominated by radical left-wing voices – are quick to denounce corruption in the right-wing government, they are themselves guilty of the very same abuses: cronyism, favoritism, and systemic discrimination.

Sam Spiegel: The Closed Loop

Five of the seven women directors are alumni of Jerusalem’s Sam Spiegel Film School or its International Film Lab:

• Michal Brezis
• Or Sinai
• Sharon Engelhart
• Veronica N. Tetelbaum
• Zohar Shahar (via Bezalel but linked to the Lab network)

The Sam Spiegel Lab holds its final project pitch session inside the Jerusalem Film Festival—just before the selection committees finalize the competition lineup. This gives its graduates insider visibility and privileged access that others simply cannot match.

What results is an echo chamber of mentors, funders, alumni and committee members rewarding each other in a tight, impenetrable loop—leaving little room for anyone outside the network, especially male newcomers.

Netalie Braun: Power Beyond the Screen

Among the most prominent names this year is Netalie Braun, whose film Oxygen is in competition. Braun is no outsider—she is deeply embedded in the Israeli cultural elite:

• She has taught film at Tel Aviv University, one of the two dominant film schools in the country.
• She has served as a juror at multiple Israeli and international festivals over the past decade.
• She has received repeated funding from public institutions for prior documentary work.
• Her father, as she noted in an interview, was a recipient of Israel’s highest military honor, giving her significant cultural capital from the outset.

While none of this is inherently wrong, it paints a picture of an industry where gatekeepers are also competitors, and where established insiders – especially women – benefit from a system they now openly control and manipulate in their favour.

For Israel’s male filmmakers – especially emerging talents – the message is clear: you will not be judged by your work, but by who you are. If you are not a woman, preferably with a minority background or institutional connection, your odds of selection are slim. This is not speculation. It’s borne out in the data:

Had these ratios been reversed, the outcry would be deafening.

A Hostile Environment for New Talent

Israel’s new generation of male filmmakers now faces a cultural landscape where:

• Selection committees are staffed by competitors,
• Film labs funnel their alumni directly into festivals,
• Funders favor identity politics over vision, and
• Criticism of this bias is labelled misogyny or bigotry.

This creates a climate of fear, resignation, and disengagement. Talented men are either discouraged from applying at all or feel forced to attach a female co-director simply to be considered. International festivals are increasingly seen as the only hope for fair assessment.

How can any healthy cultural ecosystem survive when half the population is told they’re unwelcome unless they play the identity game?

This Is Not Inclusion — It’s Discrimination & Corruption

Let’s be very clear: This is not about opposing female filmmakers. It’s about defending artistic freedom, transparency, and fairness.
Discrimination – whether against men or women – is wrong. And in Israel today, the institutional pendulum has swung so far left that it has abandoned the values it once claimed to fight for.

We urge Israeli cultural leaders, international partners, and the press to take a stand. Three immediate reforms should be implemented:

1. No festival selectors should be eligible for competition.
2. Blind first-round selection (no names, no gender) must become standard.
3. Gender caps should apply in both directions: no more than 60% of either sex.

Until then, the Jerusalem Film Festival, and the Israeli film industry as a whole, will remain not a celebration of cinema, but a case study in how identity politics, institutional cronyism, and unchecked favoritism can destroy the very meritocracy on which art depends.

Taken together, the features, shorts, and Ophir nominations form an undeniable through‑line: the Israeli film establishment has replaced open competition with an ideological quota system, reinforced by closed‑loop school networks and blatant conflicts of interest.

We thank the brave Israeli filmmakers who have spoken out and shared this crucial information. Israel is often said to “lead the world” – and sadly, it now leads in this disturbing new category: institutionalized discrimination against men. If you have additional information about Israel or similar trends in other countries, we encourage you to contact us.

A follow up article is published here:

Related video – Attacking men for simply Existing

The post Jerusalem Film Festival, a Celebration of Discrimination: How Israel’s Film Industry Is Punishing Its Men first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

Israeli Cabinet Moves To Dismantle Public Broadcaster’s Newsroom, Deepening Battle Over Press Freedom

A related post – An Oppressed Voice from Turkey – is published here.

While dozens of Israeli soldiers are killed each month in a war that appears to lead nowhere – prolonged primarily for political reasons, namely Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s survival – and while hundreds of innocent Palestinians die each week and 20 living Israeli hostages remain rotting underground, the Israeli government continues to pursue unrelated political agendas.

Just a few days ago, the Ministerial Committee for Legislation advanced a private bill proposed by Likud MK Galit Distel-Atbaryan that would slash the Israeli Public Broadcasting Corporation’s (Kan) budget by 40 percent, shut down its entire TV news division, and privatize the flagship Reshet Bet current-affairs radio station. The coalition has already signaled its support in a preliminary vote, virtually guaranteeing swift approval when the Knesset reconvenes.

The draft law goes further than previous attempts: Kan’s Channel 11 would be barred from airing any news or current-affairs content, the Arabic-language channel would be closed and replaced by just six daily hours of Arabic programming, and all seats on the broadcaster’s governing council would become political appointments. Supporters say Kan should focus on “Israeli heritage and culture.” Media unions call the plan a “death sentence” for the only newsroom in Israel that is neither commercially owned nor dependent on government advertising. We’ve already reported about the Right’s Wing government political takeover here.

Meanwhile, if you’re a male filmmaker who wasn’t sent to war, expect to be discriminated against & IGNORED

Meanwhile, if you’re an Israeli male filmmaker fortunate enough not to have been sent to war, or worse, die or be kidnapped, don’t expect funding or recognition for your work. As we’ve previously reported, while the right-wing government continues to break its own corruption records, Israel’s cultural institutions – controlled by left wing radicals – are engaging in blatant discrimination against male filmmakers, the same men sent to die in a senseless war. For several years, the Sam Spiegel Lab has reportedly been manipulated to systematically discriminate men. And now, thanks to contributions from our readers, we’ve learned that at the most recent Israeli “Academy Awards” (the Ophir Awards), 11 of the 12 major nominations – the Best Director and Best Screenwriter awards – went to women. The only male nominee among them was a Bedouin filmmaker (you could not make this up). Was it because all Israeli male filmmakers busy at war, too busy to write and direct? Or was something else at play here? Lets look at the numbers:

Latest Ophir Awards (35th ceremony, held 16 September 2024)
Categories: Best Director & Best Original Screenplay

Key points

• There are 11 individual nominees across the two categories (five directors, six screenwriters).
• Only one nominee is male – Yosef Abu Mediam, a Bedouin filmmaker – while the remaining ten nominees are female.
• Some filmmakers (Tom Nesher, Maya Kenig, Mia Dreyfus) are nominated in both categories, so the total number of distinct people is eight, but the total nominations listed above is eleven.

How strong is the evidence of gender bias / discrimination?

Assuming male and female filmmakers are equally talented:

P(≥ 11 women)  =  P(X=11)+P(X=12)  =  (1211)(0.5)11(0.5)1+(1212)(0.5)12  =  (12+1)×1212  =  134096  ≈  0.00317P(\text{≥ 11 women}) \;=\;P(X=11)+P(X=12) \;=\;\binom{12}{11}(0.5)^{11}(0.5)^{1} +\binom{12}{12}(0.5)^{12} \;=\;(12+1)\times\frac{1}{2^{12}} \;=\;\frac{13}{4096} \;\approx\;0.00317P(≥ 11 women)=P(X=11)+P(X=12)=(1112​)(0.5)11(0.5)1+(1212​)(0.5)12=(12+1)×2121​=409613​≈0.00317

• Probability: ≈ 0.317 % (about 1 chance in 315).

Under the simplest fairness model (50 % female probability per nomination), the chance of landing 11 women out of 12 is about 0.3%.

Such a low probability is typically read as strong statistical evidence that pure luck is unlikely to explain the pattern – i.e., some combination of gender bias, applicant-pool imbalance, or systematic factors is very probably at work. Clearly Israeli men are good for one thing only – being sacrificed as cannon fodder on the front.

And while we’re on the subject of discrimination, we recently reported that several Israeli film festivals rejected a Holocaust-themed film solely because its crew list lacked “Jewish-sounding names” – according to a report submitted by the film’s producer.

Israel’s 11 female nominees – Merit or Discrimination?

Thanks to deep ties in the Israeli film industry we’ve been able to write a number of articles about the local scene. One of these articles details how Katriel Schory, long-time legendry and first CEO of the Israeli Film Fund who had been running it from its inception for more than twenty years, allegedly approved a production grant of 1,000,000 NIS for The Last Cinema Show in Bucharest, a film connected to his wife Naomi Schory and her business partner Lodi Boken, just before the end of his tenure. We’ve published several articles about the Israeli film funds – The Rabinovich fund, Gesher, and the “Israeli film fund” , detailing a culture of revolving doors and alleged nepotism that stretch for decades.

After Katriel Schory was succeeded, first by Lisa Shiloach-Uzrad, then by Noa Regev (former head of the Jerusalem Film Festival), and Dana Blankstein Cohen was appointed as head of the Jerusalem Sam Spiegel Film School, all women, there was a sudden and significant rise in the number of female filmmakers being funded, selected, and awarded across the Israeli film ecosystem. Let’s take a closer look at part of an email we received regarding our article covering the 10th edition of the Jerusalem Film Lab, held in 2020, an event where statistical analysis revealed a 99.984% probability that gender-based bias influenced its proceedings, including the selection of the winning projects:

…. I’ve taken part of the lab in a certain capacity and can confirm that your facts are correct. There were 8 female participants and 4 male. There were indeed three “Masterclasses” (though really they were just 90 minute Zoom chats, this lab too place during covid) with established filmmakers and all three were women. There were seven jury members, six women and one man, who was the head (or artistic director?) of Tribeca, a festival known for being quite woke. All four awards went to projects led by women, and I can confirm your impression: it felt like the entire event was engineered in a way that didn’t give the men a fair chance. I say this for two reasons:

1. During the event, after one of the male participants finished his pitch, which was for a project that was backed by major international producers, the jury didn’t ask him the usual two questions like they did with all the female participants. Instead they asked just one question which was about the film’s title basically accusing him of making up a name (which wasn’t true). Later when the filmmaker spoke about the research he had done for the script the head of the jury cut him off and said, “we don’t have any proof of that” (the director doing research) which was both rude and very strange.

2. The lab was headed by a local producer who is known to be an activist. As an example for what I mean by that – during the George Floyd riots in the US this producer posted on Facebook something to the effect of “all women should unite and stand against male violence” implying something like that all men are violent or that only men are capable of violence, or something like that. I believe that after some backlash that post was deleted.

Israeli filmmakers are between a rock and a hard place. We want to support our female colleagues but what’s happening seems extreme. If they wanted to give all four awards to women they could have just announced it before or during the event and not let these poor guys prepare pitches, shoot scenes, and go through the motions. I’m pretty sure that the male filmmakers would have been fine with it. But why put up such a show? To humiliate?

Abortions Banned, Butt Plug Lessons In School Begin – a race to the Bottom (buttocks?)

Whether consciously or not, this blatant discrimination against men is a backlash from the radical-left ideologues who dominate Israel’s cultural institutions against the extreme policies of the country’s right-wing government. A similar race to the bottom is unfolding in the United States, where Democrats and Republicans keep outdoing one another’s excesses – from revoking women’s abortion rights on one side, to obliging eight-year-olds to attend drag shows and learn about Butt Plugs in school, on the other. In essence, the world is now run by deranged radicals from both sides of the political spectrum and it is only by speaking out against both that there is any chance for a change.

Tom Nesher, daughter of Avi Nesher, and the corruption of Israeli Cinema

As if war, a fascist-leaning government, a potential genocide, and radical gender discrimination weren’t enough, the latest list of female-dominated nominations at the Ophir Awards reveals yet another troubling aspect of the Israeli film industry: rampant corruption and blatant nepotism. Tom Nesher – unsurprisingly a product of the same Sam Spiegel Lab where 8 of the 12 participants, all 3 masterclass teachers, 6 of the 7 jury members, and ALL WINNERS were women (the probability of all four events happening under the assumption of a gender-neutral selection process, is just 0.0117%, meaning a 99.9883% chance for gender bias) – is the daughter of veteran filmmaker Avi Nesher. Despite being regarded by some as lacking in talent, according to Israeli film industry insiders, Avi Nesher has enjoyed carte blanche access to the Rabinowitz Film Fund, which we’ve also previously reported on extensively. This fund – one of two major public film funds in Israel that have been controlled by the same individuals for over two decades – is widely considered by industry insiders to be deeply corrupt. It is also the fund poised to benefit most from the recent public funding reforms that we’ve also covered. The reforms, which include revised criteria for film fund allocations, favor commercially-oriented films over artistic and niche productions. Documentaries, short films, student projects, and independent art-house films – long the hallmark of Israeli cinema – face severe funding cuts.

War, Censorship, and Cultural Capture – Israel’s Crises Exposes Breakdown Across Society

Decades ago, Israel was truly a remarkable country in every sense – driven by a spirit of resilience, innovation, and unity. It stood out as a beacon of democracy in a turbulent region, built by people who turned deserts into thriving cities, pioneered advances in agriculture, science, and technology, and fostered a vibrant cultural and intellectual life despite immense challenges. Those day are over.

In a campaign of calculated destruction second only in its moral depravity to Putin’s war on Ukraine, the right-wing coalition presses on, systematically dismantles press freedom through budget cuts and political appointments to public broadcasting, while the cultural radical left establishment appears equally captured by ideological extremism that prioritizes insane gender quotas and discrimination against men, over merit, on top of a heavy dose of nepotism and corruption.  

This institutional breakdown – where media independence dies under government pressure while artistic excellence becomes secondary to demographic engineering – represents a failure of Israeli society to maintain the democratic norms and meritocratic principles that once distinguished it in the region. 

As soldiers fall on distant battlefields and hostages remain in captivity, the energy devoted to these cultural and media wars exposes a political class more invested in controlling narratives than life itself. The tragedy is that both sides of this cultural battle are winning – at the expense of the democratic society they claim to defend, the lives of Israeli soldiers, regional security, and the lives of tens of thousands of Palestinian children.

An unrelated excerpt from today’s Israeli newspaper, reporting on heavy machinery operations in the Gaza Strip:

On social media, there are quite a few videos showing the activities of those involved in demolishing buildings in the Gaza Strip. “The owner of the equipment I operated was paid 5,000–5,500 shekels per day,” says Gadi (a pseudonym), who operated heavy machinery in Gaza for a year. “At first, I did it for the money. Later, for revenge. The work there is hard and very unpleasant. The army doesn’t operate with any sense. It just wants to destroy as much as possible and doesn’t care about anything. I worked for a salary. I don’t have the money to buy a machine that costs a million and a half shekels. I was taking home a salary of 30,000 shekels a month, I got a company car, and they rented me an apartment in Ashkelon.”

Israel, RIP.

A follow-up to this article is published here:

Related VIDEOS:

New Rule: Guilt By Civilization | Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO)

The post 11 Female Nominees, One Male: Inside Israel’s Ophir Awards, Chaos & Derangement first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

UPDATE July 31: A response to this article is published here:

Film Industry Watch is publishing the following user-submitted investigative report about potential issues in Armenia’s film industry. This material raises questions about transparency and conflicts of interest that deserve public attention.

In many ways, this case echoes patterns we’ve observed in our investigations into the Israeli and Greek film industries – where questions of transparency, favoritism, and conflicts of interest often arise around the distribution of public film funding. It also reflects a broader trend across parts of Europe, where cultural subsidies are vulnerable to politicization, insider networks, and a lack of independent oversight.

What We Know

Our fact-checking shows that about 75-80% of the basic facts check out – facts like official appointments, company roles, and key dates. Some of the more serious allegations (like specific financial damages and personal relationships) couldn’t be independently verified. Note that this is user-submitted content that we’re publishing as received. Film Industry Watch doesn’t guarantee the accuracy of every claim, the views expressed are those of the submitter(s), not ours.

Have Information? Share It

We encourage anyone with firsthand knowledge, additional evidence, or contrary documentation to post a comment or contact our editors. Constructive corrections and clarifications help strengthen the public record on developments in Armenia’s screen sector.

TL;DR – Combined Summary of Both Armenian Film Industry user submitted Investigation Reports

The paired reports sketch a single narrative: Armenia’s state film architecture was rebuilt in 2024 when Government Decision 618-A dissolved the National Cinema Center and installed producer-turned-official Davit Banujian at the helm of the new Cinema Foundation of Armenia (CFA). The May-2025 brief claims Banujian simultaneously holds a senior role at private outfit People of Ar - the company that signed a four-party memorandum promising cash-rebate support for three Til Schweiger projects in December 2023. It further contends he steered a series of rule changes that shifted Armenia’s statutory rebate range from 10-40 % to 25-35 % without amending the parent law, overriding Ministry of Finance warnings and issuing new funding procedures (Order 57-L) in April 2025 before the Ministry had approved them. The report warns that these moves create legal and corruption risks and market a still-unfinished incentive scheme to international producers.

The July-2025 brief widens the lens to Armenfilm, the once-state studio whose 2005 privatisation (later ruled a USD 10 m loss) was reversed in 2015. It tracks how Armenfilm was folded into the government’s planned Academic City arts cluster, master-planned by Germany’s gmp International, despite its six-kilometre detour from the campus core and suspiciously upbeat e-consultation scores. A closed 9 July 2024 planning meeting – attended by Banujian and People of Ar CEO Arman Nshanian but not the National Cinema Center—illustrates what the authors call preferential access for private allies. Subsequent ministerial tours of the gutted studio and talk of a public-private “revival” are framed as a second-round privatisation in all but name, reinforced by allegations of an unofficial “chief secretary,” data-access abuses, and political ties via Banujian’s MP spouse. Taken together, the documents argue that a tight circle is reshaping Armenia’s screen sector through opaque rule-making, selective partnerships, and repurposing of public assets – developments the authors say demand legal scrutiny and broader public oversight.

Privatization Reloaded: How the Banujian–Nshanian Tandem Gains Access to the Future of Armenian Armenfilm Film Studio

Investigative Report — June 2025 (Written and published by Armenian film industry insiders)

On June 16, 2025, the Minister of Education, Science, Culture, and Sports of the Republic of Armenia, Zhanna Andreasyan, visited the ruins of the once-iconic Armenfilm film studio. She was accompanied by Deputy Minister Daniel Danielyan and David Banujian, Director of the Armenian National Cinema Foundation (hereinafter “the Foundation”). The visit was portrayed as symbolic, yet it unveiled a pattern of decision-making and potential collusion, warranting renewed scrutiny into the Foundation’s leadership and its entanglements with private entities.

Background: Legacy of Privatization and Its Fallout

Armenfilm, formerly a state-owned film production facility, was privatized in 2005 and returned in 2015. According to a report released by the Prosecutor General’s Office on August 7, 2023, the privatization inflicted approximately USD 10 million in damages to the state and contributed to the decade-long stagnation of Armenian film production. Since its return to state ownership in 2015, the property has been administered by the State Property Management Committee — an agency whose appointed managers have lacked expertise in cinema.

Following the Prosecutor’s report, the Committee sought to deflect blame, while state actors quietly began recontextualizing Armenfilm as a “priority site” for a new governmental initiative: the Academic City.

Academic City: A Questionable Shift in Urban Planning

The Academic City program, introduced by the Government of Armenia, envisions the creation of thematic clusters for higher education institutions, including a dedicated “arts cluster.” Notably, the master planning and architectural concept of the Academic City is being developed by the German firm gmp International GmbH Architects and Engineers, raising additional concerns about the influence of foreign stakeholders in a highly politicized and locally sensitive project.

Initially, Armenfilm was designated as the launch site for the entire initiative. However, its geographic distance—approximately six kilometers—from the proposed core area of Academic City raises serious questions about functional integration and project feasibility.

The public consultation period for the Academic City concept formally closed on August 7, 2023, the same day the Prosecutor General’s Office released its report stating that Armenfilm’s 2005 privatization resulted in USD 10 million in damages to the state. Despite widespread opposition from academia, the cultural sector, and civic groups, the project received seemingly favorable ratings on the government’s e-voting platform. Subsequent investigations suggest these ratings were artificially inflated. Armenia’s e-consultation system lacks basic safeguards, and its results have been repeatedly manipulated to legitimize contentious policies — including those related to higher education reform and public film funding regulations which were signed by Banujian on April 18 of 2025 instead of the Ministry. This was against the law “On Cinematography” (art. 8 part 1 (10)).

Academic City concept e-voting

Film Production Financing e-voting

High Education law e-voting

July 9, 2024: The Closed-Door Meeting and the Presence of Private Interests

A particularly telling episode occurred on July 9, 2024, during a closed-door event dedicated to the Academic City project. The session included a discussion of the future of the Armenfilm territory within the framework of this broader government initiative.

According to available press coverage and photographic documentation from the event, David Banujian—formally acting as the Director of the Cinema Foundation of Armenia, which at the time existed only on paper—was present at the meeting. He was accompanied by People of Ar LLC private film producer Arman Nshanian. The two have previously been linked through their involvement in the controversial Cash Rebate program, raising red flags about recurring private interests operating within public policy spaces and promotion of so-called Netflix production in Armenia.

The nature of their relationship, however, appears to predate any formal collaboration through state structures. Numerous photographs publicly available on Banujian’s personal Instagram account tagged document a longstanding personal association with Nshanian—well before Banujian’s appointment as director of the Foundation. These images, some of which depict the two at industry-related events and in social settings, suggest close ties that may call into question the impartiality of subsequent state decisions involving Nshanian or his production ventures.

What makes their presence at the July 9 meeting even more conspicuous is the absence of Shushanik Mirzakhanyan, then Director of the National Cinema Center of Armenia (NCCA), the country’s official authority in charge of national film policy. While no representative of Armenia’s primary state film body was invited, a private producer with visible personal connections to a soon-to-be-appointed government fund director was granted privileged access to confidential deliberations.

According to Electronic Register, Cinema Foundation was reorganised on July 15 of 2024 and according to ESCS website Banujian was introduced to the staff of Cinema Foundation of Armenia only on July 24, 2024 by Minister Andreasyan and Deputy Minister Danielyan.

Instead of ensuring broad institutional representation and professional deliberation over the future of a key national asset, the event demonstrated preferential treatment for individuals aligned with specific private interests—effectively sidelining public institutions.

Banujian has since positioned himself as the champion of a new vision: reviving Armenfilm through public-private partnership. Yet given the legacy of failed privatization and the opaque manner in which recent decisions have been made, this proposal appears less a reform than a return to extractive practices under a different banner.

The Banujian–Nshanian Nexus: Strategic Access

David Banujian has been involved in shaping the cinematic agenda long before the Foundation became operational. His appearances alongside the Minister, coupled with his premature decision-making authority, indicate that his influence extended beyond formal mandates.

This influence is further magnified by political ties. Banujian’s spouse, Sona Ghazaryan, is a sitting Member of Parliament, raising concerns over potential conflicts of interest and preferential treatment in government processes.

Banujian is now promoting a new vision: Armenfilm’s redevelopment through a public-private partnership (PPP). However, given the studio’s traumatic history with privatization and the opacity surrounding current negotiations, this proposal is seen by many as privatization in disguise.

According to our findings, in July 2024 Banujian unofficially appointed an individual to serve as the Foundation’s Chief Secretary—a position that does not formally exist in the fund’s organizational structure. This individual, who was not officially employed for more than six months, nevertheless had unrestricted access to sensitive personnel records and confidential correspondence, including private information concerning both Foundation staff and external applicants. The unauthorized access raises substantial legal and ethical concerns, particularly with respect to data protection laws and administrative transparency.

This pattern reflects a governance model based on informal networks, blurred accountability, and selective access—one that places individuals with personal or political ties in privileged positions, often at the expense of institutional norms and legal safeguards.

Legal and Institutional Implications

The substitution of public institutions with private or semi-private entities in core cultural decisions undermines the principles of good governance, transparency, and cultural sovereignty. The lack of representation from the NCCA at critical planning stages suggests systemic exclusion of institutional expertise in favor of informal arrangements.

The Foundation’s involvement in programmatic rule-making—specifically, its unilateral issuance of state film funding guidelines—is a direct violation of Armenia’s Law on Cinematography. This alone merits legal review and possible revocation of those procedures.

Furthermore, the use of an unsecured e-governance system to simulate public consensus on controversial policies constitutes a breach of democratic process and may qualify as administrative misconduct under Armenian law.

The reappearance of familiar actors—David Banujian and Arman Nshanian—in state-sponsored initiatives demands public oversight. What appears as reform risks becoming a repetition of past failures, only with more sophisticated instruments and political cover.

The Armenian film industry deserves a future defined by professionalism, transparency, and lawful governance—not a return to the patterns that once crippled it.

In light of the facts presented, we urge the following:

• The Prosecutor General’s Office is encouraged to examine whether administrative misconduct, abuse of access to confidential data, and potential conflicts of interest occurred in the operations of the Foundation and its affiliated actors.
• Civil society, industry professionals, and the press must remain vigilant and demand transparency in cultural policymaking—especially where public assets and private profit intersect.
  
  

The future of Armenian cinema is not a private matter. It belongs to the public—and it is the public’s right to know how it is being shaped.

Supporting visual and documentary evidence available.

Press coverage and photos of July 9. 2024

https://escs.am/am/news/23362

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5JxqHKfECk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Px02DGv0IS0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lc17p2yJ2M0

Academic City concept e-voting

https://www.e-draft.am/en/projects/6013

High Education law e-voting
https://www.e-draft.am/en/projects/7684
Film Production Financing e-voting
https://www.e-draft.am/en/projects/8325
David Banujian Instagram
https://www.instagram.com/davidbanuchyan/

Published by Armenian Film Industry Insiders.

The post Armenia: Turbulence in the local Film Industry first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

By Eugenio R. Bregman a Film Industry Watch contributor and Greek film industry insider.

Update:

A response by EKOMED has been made here.

Greece’s thriving film industry is at war with its own government-backed cultural agency. In an unprecedented petition, nearly 1,896 of the country’s top filmmakers, producers, and technicians — including Oscar nominee Yorgos Lanthimos and legendary director Costa-Gavras (that — have signed an open letter condemning what they call “systemic dysfunction, mismanagement, and broken promises” at the newly established Hellenic Center for Audiovisual Media and Creation (rebranded as EKOMED/Creative Greece).

Unless sweeping reforms are made by September 15, the industry warns, all options — including boycotts and public protest — are on the table.

FilmIndustryWatch.org has been raising red flags for months — and the pattern now emerging points to conduct that could warrant criminal investigation. At the Greek Film Center, state-subsidized evaluators — including Vasilios Kekatos — are alleged to have approved funding for their own projects, a blatant conflict of interest and a potential violation of both national and EU rules governing the use of public funds.

But the rot doesn’t stop there. Inside EKOMED and Creative Greece, the evidence points to more than mere mismanagement — it suggests a coordinated pattern of self-dealing, embezzlement risk, and political cronyism. Public money appears to have been funneled through a closed network of party-linked insiders , under the thin veneer of cultural support.

The core question now is no longer whether there was mismanagement — but whether fraud, abuse of office, and breach of fiduciary duty have occurred. Prosecutors should be looking hard. The smoke is thick. It’s time to find the fire.

The EKOMED board is stacked: four lawyers and a civil engineer — none with any serious background in intellectual property or the audiovisual sector they are meant to oversee. Their real qualification? Loyalty. All four lawyers are linked to the ruling New Democracy party, led by Kyriakos Mitsotakis — a regime whose tightening grip on Greece’s media and public funds now echoes Viktor Orbán’s Hungary more than any functioning democracy. Meanwhile, the head of Creative Greece, officially paid €20,000 a month according to the Government Gazette, has repeatedly failed to deliver even basic results. The pattern is clear: a political machine propping up loyalists while Greece’s filmmakers fight for survival.

Tensions Boil Over Between Greece’s Film Community

In Athens, the fragile relationship between Greece’s creative community and its newest cultural institution has snapped. For months — from May 2024 until February 20, 2025, when EKOMED effectively ground to a halt — a cold war had been brewing between Greece’s film and audiovisual industry and the newly minted Hellenic Center for Audiovisual Media and Creation (EKOMED), a creature of the Ministry of Culture. On paper, it was supposed to usher in a new era of opportunity. In reality, it stumbled out of the gate — crippled by dysfunction, trapped in bureaucracy, and bleeding credibility with every missed payment and broken promise. This week, that simmer turned to a full boil. In an extraordinary show of unity and scale, 1,896 artists and creators — including  names such as Yorgos Lanthimos, Costa-Gavras— released an open letter that reads like a collective vote of no-confidence in the institution’s leadership.

Their grievances? Long-standing ones, now laid bare: millions owed under the cash rebate system, backlogged approvals for pending projects (over 100+projects), and a funding pipeline riddled with delays. These aren’t isolated frustrations — they are systemic roadblocks that have been choking Greece’s resurgent film sector for more than a year.

And there’s more. The letter casts a harsh spotlight on the handling of European Union Structural Funds (NSRF) — a vital source of financing for almost all Greek productions, and many foreign ones as well. The signatories describe the fund as “inflexible” and “ill-suited” for the complex realities of modern audiovisual production.

Even sharper is the criticism of mismanagement within EKOMED itself: resources meant to promote Greek cinema abroad squandered; a new headquarters staffed, according to insiders, by officials lacking deep ties to the industry they are tasked to support.

Behind the Numbers: EKOMED’s Smoke and Mirrors as Greece’s Film Debt Crisis Deepens

The numbers sound impressive — at least on paper. According to EKOMED’s latest statement, the much-touted Greek cash rebate scheme has disbursed €148.4 million across 222 projects. Another 173 projects — both Greek and foreign — are locked into the system with legal repayment obligations north of €180 million.

But don’t be fooled. Many of these “commitments” are little more than promissory notes on unfinished productions, including Christopher Nolan’s Odyssey, still in post.

And the €100 million debt figure quoted in Variety? Insiders told Kathimerini the true overdue sum is around €40 million — still a staggering number — owed to 35 completed, audited projects that have been left in limbo. “Yes, there were delays,” says EKOMEDE CEO Leonidas Christopoulos, insisting “the issue has been resolved” and payments are on the way. But for producers who’ve heard this song before, the reassurance rings hollow.

The cracks are widening. High-profile cases like Pablo Larraín’s Maria — with €350,000 unpaid, part of a €3.2 million backlog owed to Greek company Heretic — are now embarrassing the country abroad. Another €1.15 million in Heretic projects remain stuck in approval limbo.

EKOMED now scrambles to promise a full online accounting of its obligations, waving the flag of “transparency.” But this is a PR move — and everyone knows it. The industry doesn’t want another spreadsheet. It wants its money.

Warning Lights Are Flashing

And key questions remain unanswered. The new rebate law clearly states that “…funds will be disbursed only if the granting authority possesses the necessary resources.” In other words: there are no guarantees. What happens when a project spends years in production, only to find the money gone when the final paperwork lands?

And what about the Kafkaesque bureaucracy that continues to stall approvals and payments? Have those roadblocks been cleared — or simply buried under new layers of political fog?

Greece has the talent. It has the locations. It has the momentum to be a true global film hub. But unless EKOMED — and the government behind it — stop playing games and start paying their debts, the message to the world will be loud and clear: Greece is open for business — just don’t expect to get paid!

OPEKEPE and EKOMED: Two Agencies, One Rotten System

At first glance, the scandals engulfing Greece’s OPEKEPE (Agricultural Payments Agency) and EKOMED(Hellenic Center for Audiovisual Media and Creation) might seem worlds apart — one tied to EU agricultural subsidies, the other to the glamorous world of film and audiovisual production.

But scratch the surface, and a familiar pattern emerges — a pattern that reveals how Greece’s public agencies have become machines for channeling taxpayer and EU funds into the hands of well-connected insiders.

Both scandals revolve around the same toxic playbook:

Rigged approvals: At OPEKEPE, investigators uncovered phantom farms, fake land declarations, and payments to ghost entities.
At EKOMED, state-subsidized evaluators like Vasilios Kekatos allegedly greenlit their own film projects, while party-linked lawyers and civil engineers sat on boards controlling millions in cultural funds.

Political protection networks: Both agencies show signs of being wrapped in political cronyism. In OPEKEPE’s case, local political networks allegedly shielded fraud rings siphoning off EU agricultural money. At EKOMED and Creative Greece, key positions were reportedly handed to New Democracy party insiders — with no expertise in intellectual property or audiovisual production — enabling a closed system of approvals and payouts.

Opacity and mismanagement: Both OPEKEPE and EKOMEDE operated behind walls of bureaucratic fog — stonewalling journalists and stakeholders, delaying payments, and publishing incomplete or misleading financial data. Producers, farmers, and EU auditors alike were left chasing missing funds and unanswered questions.

Erosion of public trust: Perhaps most damaging of all: both scandals have shredded trust — not just in the agencies involved, but in Greece’s ability to manage EU and public money.
European partners are watching. The European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) is probing OPEKEPE. Meanwhile, international film producers — from Hollywood to Berlin — are already backing away from EKOMED deals amid fears of non-payment.

The Bigger Picture

These are not isolated cases. They point to a deep systemic rot — a culture where public agencies become political fiefdoms, designed less to serve the public than to feed insiders and buy loyalty. From phantom farmland to ghost film funds, the scams vary — but the machinery is the same.

And unless Greece’s political leadership and judiciary confront this system head-on, the country risks far more than scandals. It risks its credibility across Europe — and its future as a trusted place to invest, to create, to build. As one EU official recently warned: “If the same networks are running agriculture, film, and culture — what sector will they poison next?”

An Institution Under Siege

None of these concerns are new — they’ve been reported, whispered, and debated across the industry and media for months. Nor are the responses from EKOMED leadership unexpected: assurances have been issued, timelines promised, solutions “in progress.”

But something fundamental has shifted. The trust, however tentative, that once linked Greece’s creative professionals with the powers that be, has eroded — perhaps beyond repair.

Words will no longer suffice. Only concrete actions, delivered swiftly, can begin to rebuild that fractured relationship. The stakes are not just financial — they are existential for a sector that has, in recent years, punched far above its weight on the global stage.

The Ministry of Culture headed by archaeologist Lina Mendoni, a trusted Kyriakos Mitsotakis collaborator, and EKOMED — now ensconced in a gleaming new headquarters in Kolonaki, in the heart of Athens — face a long and treacherous road ahead. ( Lina Mendoni is no elected politician. You won’t find her name on any ballot from the 2023 elections. An archaeologist by trade, she slipped into government through the side door—as a technocratic appointee, not a public mandate. And here’s the kicker: because she wasn’t elected, she’s not covered by the law that shields ministers with parliamentary immunity. No cloak of protection. No legal firewall. In the chess game of power, that makes her both vulnerable… and expendable)  The signs of dysfunction keep piling up. In a glaring display of amateurism, EKOMED changed its phone numbers — despite legal provisions allowing them to keep the originals. For ten days, production companies trying to reach the agency were met with dead landlines and radio silence, left in the dark about whether the numbers would be restored or replaced. It was a small fiasco, but it spoke volumes: how can an industry reliant on precision and communication trust an institution that can’t even manage to keep its phones working?

For their part, the artists and producers have issued a clear ultimatum: a full course correction must be in place by September 15. If not, they warn, “all options for action remain on the table” — an ominous sign that this clash could escalate further.

SOURCES:

The Odyssey,’ ‘Maria’ Filming Location Greece Hits Troubled Waters Over Ongoing Delays With 40% Cash Rebate

https://variety.com/2025/film/global/the-odyssey-greece-delays-cash-rebate-1236400655:

The initiative “Cinema in Greece – Zero Visibility”, signed by 1896 professionals in the audiovisual sector, requests from the Prime Minister, the Ministry of Culture and the competent body EKKOMED, ​​an immediate solution to the financial problems that have arisen for their survival.

https://flix.gr/news/oratotis-miden-apanta-sto-ekkomed.html

https://www.news247.gr/politismos/cinema/i-ellada-stin-teleftaia-thesi-tis-evropis-i-apantisi-ston-ekkomed-gia-ta-xrei/

The post Greece is open for business — just don’t expect to get paid! first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

The Armenian Government’s new promise to refund up to 35 percent of a producer’s local spending is being greeted at home not as a success story but as a textbook case of how public film money can be bent out of shape. Legal analysts say the Cabinet decree that launched the rebate clashes with the country’s own Cinematography Law, while watchdog groups point to a revolving door between the state body handing out the money and a single private production company that helped design the system.

The rebate was unveiled on 10 April, when Decision 412-N sailed through the Cabinet in a single sitting. It fixes a base refund of 25 percent and adds up to ten further percentage points for projects that market Armenia on screen, bringing the total to 35 percent. Yet Article 18 of the Cinematography Law already pegs the rebate corridor at 10 to 40 percent and stipulates that only Parliament may alter it. Government lawyers insist the narrower band merely “operationalises” the statute, but constitutional specialists consulted by Film Industry Watch say a decree cannot override primary legislation. If that view prevails in court, any rebate contracts signed under the decree would be void from day one.

Fiscal concerns surfaced even before the measure was adopted. According to a briefing note published this month by the Council of Europe’s European Audiovisual Observatory, the Ministry of Finance warned that the new rules expose the budget to open-ended liabilities. The objections were set aside; the decree was passed unchanged and will enter into force on 11 May.

A new agency, an old relationship

Responsibility for vetting rebate applications rests with the Cinema Foundation of Armenia (CFA), a public body created last year to replace the National Cinema Center. Its executive director, David Banuchyan, is also listed on the website of production-services outfit People of Ar LLC as co-producer and “tax rebate supervisor” and is credited there with having “played a crucial role in creating film laws and cash rebate programs.” In effect, the man who drafted the incentive now decides who receives it, while holding an active position in a firm that intends to use it.

That alignment is not accidental. Sixteen months before the CFA existed, the Ministry of Education, Science, Culture and Sport, several parliamentarians, the National Cinema Center and People of Ar signed a four-party memorandum of understanding pledging to secure rebate support for three English-language features involving German actor-director Til Schweiger. The document, dated 18 December 2023, promised cooperation on “all necessary sub-legislative acts” long before those acts were drafted.

Promises to Netflix, silence from Netflix

In selling the programme ministers have repeatedly cited an imminent “Netflix series” as evidence that the rebate is working. No such project appears in Netflix’s public newsrooms, investor filings or trade-press databases as of 30 May. The streaming platform declines to comment on productions that are not formally announced, but the absence of any reference after more than a year raises doubts about the government’s headline claim.

Potential fallout

Civil-society groups in Yerevan have filed complaints with the Corruption Prevention Commission and are preparing a constitutional petition aimed at suspending Decision 412-N. If the decree is struck down, the CFA would have no legal basis to reimburse foreign producers, leaving applicants in limbo. Even if the decree survives, any production company linked to foundation staff could face a conflict-of-interest investigation.

For international producers courted by the 35 percent headline figure, the message is unchanged: Armenia’s landscapes and crews may be attractive, but until the rebate’s legal footing and governance are secured, the scheme carries a risk premium that producers will have to price in.

Different Country, Same Story

From Tel Aviv to Mexico City, and now to Yerevan, Film Industry Watch keeps seeing the same playbook: a pot of public money meant to nurture filmmaking is ring-fenced by a tight circle of insiders who write the rules to suit themselves and then police their own compliance. Wherever public money is poured into filmmaking, we keep finding the same closed loop: insiders draft the rules, sit on the selection panels, and ultimately benefit from the very funds they oversee. In Greece, our September 2024 investigation revealed how senior figures at the Greek Film Center approved grants for films in which they themselves held stakes. In Israel, we traced a revolving door between the country’s two largest public film funds and private production companies, with executives switching seats while deals stayed in the family. In North Macedonia, whistle-blower director Milcho Manchevski documented what he called a “film-mafia” network inside the National Film Agency that sidelined outsiders. And in Ukraine, we showed how a million-dollar Netflix donation fell under the control of the same academy officials tasked with distributing it fairly. Armenia’s cash-rebate controversy follows the identical pattern: public money placed under the watch of a tight circle determined to guard both the purse strings and the keys to the door.

Film Industry Watch thanks the whistle-blower who supplied the documents behind this investigation. If you have credible information about how public film funds are being misused in your own country, contact us here.

Sources:

https://www.arlis.am/DocumentView.aspx?docid=202462
https://www.arlis.am/DocumentView.aspx?DocID=205494
https://merlin.obs.coe.int/article/10300
https://peopleofarproductions.com/about
https://escs.am/files/files/2023-12-19/131017682109f9c53a61ab33d06fbc1a.pdf
https://about.netflix.com/en/news

The post Armenia’s cash-rebate plan for foreign films faces legal and ethical challenges first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

The Money’s Gone. The Industry’s Collapsing. And Nobody’s Talking.

For the past ten months, the complete shutdown of funding for film and television productions—whether already in progress or still in pre-production—by EKOME/Creative Greece has thrown the industry into a downward spiral. Add to that the endless delays in launching the new application platform for the Cash Back program, and what do we have? Chaos.

This platform was supposed to go live on October 1, 2024—officially. But here we are, creeping into February 2025, and nothing. And the kicker? The Ministry of Culture and Creative Greece have made it abundantly clear: they won’t approve or pay for anything—at least until June 2025.

The consequences? Dead projects. Abandoned productions. A mass exodus of international co-productions—Italy, Malta, Bulgaria are now the go-to locations. Greece? A joke. Films waiting for pre-approval? Films wrapped for over a year? There’s no money to pay for them. None. Zero.

And let’s talk about those big Hollywood productions.
Why did Christopher Nolan’s Odyssey shoot in Morocco and Malta?
Why is Mel Gibson’s The Passion sequel being filmed in Malta?
They could have been shot in Greece. They should have been shot in Greece.

But everyone in the business already knows: EKOME/Creative Greece doesn’t pay. And why isn’t the CEO Leonidas Christopoulos and his Board of Directors addressing this? Why aren’t they answering for the missing funds?

The truth is the treasury is empty. More than 150 million euros missing.

And let’s be real: you can’t have a film industry without money. Throwing a few 5,000 and 10,000 euro sponsorships at festivals while there’s a 150 million euro black hole is like tossing a bucket of water on a burning skyscraper.

Forty percent. That’s the magic number when you compare Greece and Malta. Both playing the same game, both dangling that lucrative rebate, hoping to lure the big productions, the Hollywood dollars, the European auteurs. But numbers on paper don’t tell the whole story—what matters is how fast and how clean that money flows.

Here’s where Malta shakes things up. They open the gates. Feature films, TV dramas, animation—sure. But they go further. Reality shows, game shows, the unscripted circus of modern entertainment. Greece? Not interested. They keep it classical, highbrow, no room for the unscripted chaos of reality TV.

The price of entry. In Greece, you need to lay down €200,000 for a feature film before you even step into the ring. Malta? They cut that number in half—€100,000. The message is clear: smaller productions, indies, risk-takers—come here. We’ve got space for you.

And the result? Greece is bleeding talent. The dreamers, the creators, the visionaries—they’re all leaving.

They’re taking their stories to Malta, to Bulgaria, to Italy—anywhere but here. Because you can’t build an industry on broken promises.

While Malta rolls out the red carpet, Greece lets its own filmmakers rot in limbo. And with every delay, with every unanswered call, the world takes notice.

The studios? They’ve moved on. The investors? Gone. And the local industry? Dismantled, piece by piece, by bureaucratic indifference.

This isn’t just a crisis. This is cultural suicide.

And yet – silence.

Greek Film Industry Further reading:

The post Greece’s Film Industry Collapse: Missing Millions, Broken Promises, and a Deafening Silence first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

As wildfires scorch Los Angeles, leaving entire neighborhoods in ruin and the global film industry bracing for aftershocks, across the Atlantic, Greece presents its own brand of chaos. The state-run EKOMMED-Creative Greece, in a move as audacious as it is absurd, has just announced its financial co-sponsorship of the 2027 European Film Awards. The news lands like a bitter joke among film industry insiders—a press release dressed in grandeur while the foundation rots beneath.

Here’s the harsh reality: Creative Greece is broke. Its coffers are empty, unable to pay producers for completed TV shows and films, let alone provide the necessary pre-approvals for the 100-plus projects languishing in limbo. Yet, somehow, they have the gall to promise a glittering event for 2027, one they claim will be broadcast by the state network ERT and the European Broadcasting Union. Never mind that since May 2024, the platform for new project submissions has been shut down, a quiet admission that there’s no money for 2024 or 2025. But 2027? Wow! Miraculously, the funds will appear. Like magic.

By then, Leonidas Christopoulos, the ineffectual president of Creative Greece, will likely be long gone, as will the right-wing government of Kyriakos Mitsotakis. They’ll leave behind a legacy of empty promises and a film industry they turned into a hollow shell.

Standing beside Christopoulos in this farcical press announcement is Harris Doukas, the mayor of Athens. Once hailed as a progressive leader, Doukas now presides over a capital drowning in garbage, earning its reputation as one of Europe’s filthiest cities. And yet, here he is, beaming with delusion. He welcomes an event he claims will attract more productions to Athens, championed by the city’s so-called Film Office . But he’s blind to the obvious: serious producers won’t gamble their time or resources on a country that offers no financial stability, no infrastructure, and no guarantee of support. The reality on the ground is grim—Athens isn’t a hub for filmmaking; it’s a mirage.

This isn’t just incompetence; it’s theater. A performance designed to distract from the dysfunction beneath. But as the flames of mismanagement burn brighter, even this illusion is beginning to crumble.

MORE THAN A SHEER COINCIDENCE?

In the shadowy depths of Greek cinema politics, where ambition and influence collide, a tangled web of alliances and secretive deals is beginning to unravel. The stage was set when veteran  film critic, and EFA member, Panagiotis Timogiannakis posted on his Facebook on January 8, 2025 at 11:09 am local time) revealing exclusive details about Spiros Taraviras—an Athens-based director—who allegedly played a key role in securing Athens as the host city for the 2027 European Film Awards (EFA).

Taraviras wasn’t just a behind-the-scenes operator; he served on a committee, in August 2024,  handpicked by none other than Minister of Culture Iason Fotilas, the same Fotilas whose ministry approved Murderess (Fonissa), a Tanweer production, as Greece’s official entry for the Best International Picture Oscar. A connection? A coincidence? Or something more deliberate lurking behind the curtain?

But this is only the surface of a much deeper, darker story.

According to industry sources who wish to remain anonymous —hallmarks of a system shrouded in secrecy—Taraviras initially pitched the EFA event directly to Tanweer, attempting to link it to the company behind Murderess. When the proposal failed, despite Tanweer reportedly funding Taraviras’ “negotiations” across Europe, the narrative shifted. Enter, months later, Minister Fotilas, stepping in after the Oscars fiasco like a deus ex machina. Suddenly, the EFA event shifted from a private venture to a state-sponsored spectacle. The ruling party’s golden boys were positioned to amass millions and run, bolstered by the official seal of the Ministry of Culture and the unwavering support of the state-controlled broadcaster, ERT.

The ethical concerns here are undeniable. How can a director, serving on a committee appointed by the Minister of Modern Culture, engage in negotiations with a company whose production he actively influenced during the selection process—without disclosing such a clear conflict of interest to Ministry officials? The situation becomes even more alarming when we learn that this same committee member, who cast a vote for the Oscars submission, had previously worked for the nominee company, earning a fee of thousands of euros before the voting took place. Shouldn’t he have stepped aside from the entire process? Is this a case of diplomacy or outright duplicity? A conflict of interest or blatant misconduct?

The 2027 EFA event may glitter on the surface, but beneath lies the unmistakable stench of a system built on favors, influence, and backroom deals. This is not just about cinema and art—it’s about politics, control, and the bonfire of the vanities…

SOURCES:

https://www.radiotvlink.com/en/cinema/15783

The post Politics, Power & the Bonfire of Vanities: The 2027 (!) European Film Academy Event in Athens first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

(By Hector Alejandro Morales, Film Industry Watch contributor and Greek industry insider)

Μετά τη δημοσίευση του άρθρου «Κατηγορίες για Διαφθορά και Παρακμή στο Ελληνικό Κέντρο Κινηματογράφου» από το filmindustrywatch.org, το οποίο αποκάλυψε τις πρακτικές τύπου καρτέλ πίσω από τις κρατικές επιδοτήσεις στην Ελλάδα, αυξάνεται το κύμα δυσαρέσκειας για την κατάσταση της ελληνικής κινηματογραφικής βιομηχανίας και τους μηχανισμούς χρηματοδότησης της. Μετά το φιάσκο (της υποβολής εθνικής συμμετοχής) στα Όσκαρ Καλύτερης Διεθνούς Ταινίας, το Υπουργείο Πολιτισμού (Ιάσων Φωτήλας και Λίνα Μενδώνη) και ο Πρωθυπουργός Κυριάκος Μητσοτάκης απέτυχαν να τηρήσουν τις υποσχέσεις τους για αλλαγές. Τα βασικά σημεία που αναδεικνύουν τη συνεχιζόμενη έλλειψη προόδου και τις δομικές αναποτελεσματικότητες:

Αλλαγές Ηγεσίας με Ελάχιστο Αντίκτυπο

Οι αλλαγές ηγεσίας φαίνονται περισσότερο συμβολικές παρά ουσιαστικές, καθώς ο νέος διευθύνων σύμβουλος, Λεωνίδας Χριστόπουλος, συνεχίζει την ίδια αναποτελεσματική ατζέντα. Το Διοικητικό Συμβούλιο της Creative Greece αποτελείται από έναν πολιτικό μηχανικό και τέσσερις δικηγόρους—κανένας από τους οποίους δεν έχει καμία σχέση με την οπτικοακουστική παραγωγή—και όλοι είναι συνδεδεμένοι με το κυβερνών δεξιό κόμμα, τη Νέα Δημοκρατία.

Ο διευθύνων σύμβουλος Λεωνίδας Χριστόπουλος λαμβάνει τον εντυπωσιακό ετήσιο μισθό των 240.000 ευρώ, ενώ το υπόλοιπο διοικητικό συμβούλιο κερδίζει συνολικά 200.000 ευρώ ετησίως. Παρά τις πολυάριθμες ανακοινώσεις για φιλόδοξα σχέδια υποστήριξης ταινιών μεγάλου μήκους, βιντεοπαιχνιδιών και κινουμένων σχεδίων, ο Χριστόπουλος δεν έχει παραδώσει απτά αποτελέσματα. Η Creative Greece και η πρωτοβουλία Cash Back έχουν χάσει κάθε αξιοπιστία. Παρά τις υποσχέσεις ότι 110 εκατομμύρια ευρώ θα είναι διαθέσιμα το 2025 για την πρωτοβουλία Cash Back, επικρατεί πλήρης σιωπή σχετικά με τις προεγκρίσεις και τις πληρωμές για τα ολοκληρωμένα έργα. (Η Creative Greece απασχολεί πάνω από 180 εργαζόμενους, εκ των οποίων περίπου 70 εργάζονται για την πρωτοβουλία Cash Back, το πρώην ΕΚΟΜΕ– νυν ΕΚΚΟΜΕΔ/Creative Greece.

100+ Έργα σε Εκκρεμότητα

Περισσότερα από 100 έργα παραμένουν σε εκκρεμότητα στο πλαίσιο του προγράμματος Cash Back (το οποίο έχει μετονομαστεί σε Creative Greece), λόγω συστημικών αναποτελεσματικοτήτων στις διαδικασίες προέγκρισης και πληρωμής. Αυτό το αδιέξοδο εμποδίζει τη δημιουργικότητα και την πρόοδο του κλάδου, ιδιαίτερα για ανεξάρτητους και ανερχόμενους δημιουργούς. Με τους τρέχοντες ρυθμούς, φαίνεται εξαιρετικά απίθανο το Διοικητικό Συμβούλιο να εγκρίνει ή να χρηματοδοτήσει οποιοδήποτε έργο έως το τέλος Ιανουαρίου 2025, πόσο μάλλον να αντιμετωπίσει την εκκρεμότητα των πάνω από 100 αιτήσεων.

Καθυστερήσεις Χρηματοδότησης και Πλατφόρμας

Η αναστολή της χρηματοδότησης και οι καθυστερήσεις στην έναρξη της νέας πλατφόρμας αιτήσεων για το πρόγραμμα Cash Back έχουν επιδεινώσει περαιτέρω την κατάσταση. Ενώ η πλατφόρμα είχε αρχικά προγραμματιστεί να τεθεί σε λειτουργία την 1η Οκτωβρίου 2024, με βάση το ΦΕΚ, η έναρξη έχει πλέον αναβληθεί για τα τέλη Ιανουαρίου 2025. Αυτή η καθυστέρηση έχει παραλύσει τις κρίσιμες εξελίξεις στον κλάδο, με αποτέλεσμα οι περισσότερες συμπαραγωγές να επιλέγουν γειτονικές χώρες όπως η Ιταλία, η Μάλτα και η Βουλγαρία για γυρίσματα.

Προβλήματα στο Φεστιβάλ Ταινιών Μικρού Μήκους Δράμας

Το Φεστιβάλ Ταινιών Μικρού Μήκους Δράμας δέχεται επίσης έντονη κριτική για την εξάρτησή του από κρατικά επιδοτούμενες ταινίες του Ελληνικού Κέντρου Κινηματογράφου. Παρά την παραγωγή άνω των 400 ταινιών μικρού μήκους ετησίως, το φεστιβάλ συνεχίζει να προβάλλει τις ίδιες κρατικοδίαιτες ταινίες, προκαλώντας ανησυχίες για τη συμπερίληψη και τη διαδικασία επιλογής βάσει αξίας. Η εμμονική εμπλοκή των ίδιων προσώπων στο προσκήνιο και το παρασκήνιο διατηρεί μια νοοτροπία αποκλεισμού, ενώ η πρόσφατη προκήρυξη για νέο καλλιτεχνικό διευθυντή του φεστιβάλ δεν έχει εμπνεύσει ουδεμία εμπιστοσύνη.

Ένα Σύστημα σε Βαθιά Κρίση

Η διαρκής αδιαφορία για την πραγματική αξία και το ταλέντο, η χρηματοδότηση των μετριοτήτων και των διαπλεκόμενων, υπογραμμίζει ένα βαθύτερο πολιτιστικό και θεσμικό πρόβλημα, όπου οι ευκαιρίες είναι αποσυνδεδεμένες από τις ευρύτερες δυνατότητες του κλάδου. Είναι επιτακτική η ανάγκη για τολμηρές μεταρρυθμίσεις, διαφανείς διαδικασίες χρηματοδότησης και μια ανανεωμένη δέσμευση για αξιοκρατία, ώστε να αποκατασταθεί η εμπιστοσύνη και να ξεκλειδωθεί το πραγματικό δυναμικό της ελληνικής κινηματογραφικής βιομηχανίας.

English version:

FURTHER READING:

https://pasok.gr/ti-symbainei-sto-ekkomed

The post Συνεχίζεται το τέλμα στον ελληνικό κινηματογράφο! first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

Following our publication of the article “Corruption and Decadence in the Greek Film Center”, which exposed the cartel-like operations behind state subsidies in Greece, there is a growing wave of frustration with the state of the Greek film industry and its funding mechanisms. After the Best International Picture Oscars fiasco, the Ministry of Culture (Iason Fotilas and Lina Mendoni) and Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis failed to fulfill their promises for change. Several key points highlight the ongoing lack of progress and structural inefficiencies:

1. Leadership Changes with Minimal Impact
   Leadership transitions appear more symbolic than substantive, as the new CEO, Leonidas Christopoulos, continues the same ineffective agenda. The Board of Directors of Creative Greece comprises one civil engineer and four lawyers—none of whom have any connection to audiovisual production—and all are affiliated with the ruling right-wing party, New Democracy.
   CEO Leonidas Christopoulos earns an impressive €240,000 annually, while the rest of the board collectively takes home €200,000 per year. Despite numerous press releases boasting grand ambitions to support feature films, video games, and animation, Christopoulos has failed to deliver tangible results. Creative Greece and the Cash Back initiative have lost all credibility. Despite promises that €110 million will be available in 2025 for the Cash Back initiative, there is complete silence on pre-approvals and payment for completed projects. (Creative Greece has over 180 employees, with around 70 of them working on the Cash Back initiative.)
   
   
2. 100+ Stalled Projects
   Over 100 projects remain in limbo under the Hellenic Cash Back program (now rebranded as Creative Greece), stalled due to systemic inefficiencies in pre-approval and payment processes. This backlog hampers creativity and industry momentum, particularly for independent and emerging filmmakers. Given the current pace, it seems highly unlikely that the Board of Directors will approve or fund any projects by the end of January, let alone address the backlog of 100 stalled applications.
   
   
3. Funding and Platform Delays
   The suspension of funding and delays in launching the new applications platform for the Cash Back program have further aggravated the situation. Originally set to go live on October 1st, the platform’s launch has now been pushed to late January 2025, stalling critical developments across the sector. Meanwhile, most co-productions are choosing neighboring countries like Italy, Malta, and Bulgaria for filming.
   
   
4. Drama Short Film Festival Issues
   The Drama Short Film Festival continues to showcase predominantly state-subsidized films from the Greek Film Center, despite the production of over 400 short films annually. This raises serious concerns about inclusion and merit-based selection. The persistent involvement of the same decision-makers reflects entrenched gatekeeping. The recent call for a new festival director has done little to inspire confidence.

The pervasive disregard for genuine merit highlights a deeper cultural and institutional problem, where opportunities are disconnected from the industry’s broader potential. Urgent reforms are needed to address these systemic failures and restore trust in the Greek film industry.

Further reading:

https://www.lifo.gr/now/entertainment/festibal-dramas-apohorei-o-thanasis-neofotistos-apo-epikefalis-toy-spoydastikoy

https://pasok.gr/ti-symbainei-sto-ekkomed

The post Decadence & Dysfunction: A Call for Greek Film Reform first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

The Israeli film industry, once celebrated for its groundbreaking work on both local and international stages, now finds itself at a critical crossroads. Recent government reforms spearheaded by Minister of Culture and Sport, Miki Zohar, aim to overhaul the funding structure of Israel’s cinema funds, raising alarm among filmmakers. Critics argue that these reforms, introduced during a time of war and economic uncertainty, threaten to dismantle the very foundation of Israeli cinema. The controversy intensifies as these changes seem poised to bolster a system already rife with alleged corruption and monopolistic practices.

Related new article published July 10th 2025 – 11 Female Nominees, One Male: Inside Israel’s Chaos & Derangement

The Reforms: Prioritizing Commercial Success

At the heart of Zohar’s proposed reforms is a shift in funding priorities. The reforms, which include revised criteria for film fund allocations, favor commercially-oriented films over artistic and niche productions. Documentaries, short films, student projects, and independent art-house films—long the hallmark of Israeli cinema—face severe funding cuts.

Zohar argues that public funds should support films with broad audience appeal, eschewing those that cater to limited or international audiences. “Public money should return to the public,” he stated, emphasizing a focus on profitability and accessibility over critical acclaim or festival recognition. Yet, filmmakers caution that commercial success is inherently unpredictable, and forcing art to fit into a profit-driven model risks stifling creativity and diversity.

Industry Outcry: An Attack on Freedom of Expression

The proposed changes have sparked widespread backlash from filmmakers and industry professionals. A petition signed by over 1,500 filmmakers, including prominent names such as Ari Folman and Eran Kolirin, calls for an immediate halt to the reforms. The petition describes the move as a “cinematic coup,” accusing the government of attempting to control creative content and suppress artistic freedom. “After the reform, the stories of Israeli cinema will disappear, along with the industry that employs thousands,” the petition warns.

This crisis is compounded by ongoing challenges, including the war’s disruption of productions and an international boycott of Israeli films. Many fear that the reforms could deliver a fatal blow to an already struggling sector.

Alleged Corruption in the Film Funds: The Rabinovich and Gesher Foundations

Compounding the controversy is the revelation of alleged corruption within Israel’s two largest film funds: The Rabinovich Foundation for the Arts and the Gesher Multicultural Film Fund. Investigations have uncovered claims of systemic misconduct, including alleged conflicts of interest, insider favoritism, and financial irregularities.

Giora Eini, head of the Rabinovich Foundation since 1995, is accused of leveraging political connections to maintain control over hundreds of millions of shekels in film funding. Allegations include employing journalists as script readers to prevent negative coverage, manipulating evaluation processes, and fostering a monopolistic environment. The Rabinovich Fund, along with United King, a production and distribution company tied to Moshe Edery, allegedly controls a disproportionate share of the industry’s resources. Moshe Edery is also a good friend of Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel’s Right Wing parties. Nearly 50% of Rabinovich’s funding over recent years went to projects tied to Edery’s company, raising concerns about cronyism and mismanagement of taxpayer money, particularly in political context, in a country that is already going through a slow but constant erosion of its democratic institutions.

Connecting the Dots: A Systemic Takeover

Zohar’s reforms appear to funnel even more resources into this already embattled system, further empowering the alleged “cinema mafia.” By prioritizing commercial projects, the reforms align with the interests of those who have historically benefited from questionable practices. Critics argue that instead of diversifying funding and supporting emerging voices, the reforms will consolidate power within a small, insular group accused of draining public funds for personal gain.

Moreover, insiders claim that these reforms mirror long-standing patterns of favoritism and corruption. Members of the Israeli Film Council, tasked with oversight, have allegedly received funding from the very funds they regulate. Projects with low evaluator scores have mysteriously secured financing, and insider deals between fund managers and council members have eroded trust in the system.

The Bigger Picture: A Threat to Israeli Culture

This unfolding crisis raises broader concerns about the future of Israeli culture. Filmmakers warn that Zohar’s reforms, combined with alleged corruption, risk transforming Israeli cinema into a vehicle for commercial mediocrity, sidelining the artistic and critical voices that have defined its global reputation. As war and political turmoil continue to disrupt the nation, the creative sector finds itself fighting not only for survival but also for its integrity and identity.

For now, the Israeli film industry stands at a tipping point, with its fate resting on whether public outcry and international attention can halt the reforms and hold those responsible for alleged corruption accountable. Without systemic change, the vibrant, diverse stories of Israeli cinema risk being drowned out by a chorus of commercialism and cronyism.

FURTHER READING:

Articles from the Israeli press. You may automatically translate the articles using Chrome. Right click, and then “Translate Page.”

https://www.haaretz.co.il/gallery/galleryfriday/2024-04-25/ty-article-magazine/.highlight/0000018e-ffca-d64a-a9ae-ffebd7e40000

https://www.maariv.co.il/culture/movies/article-1121414

The post ISRAEL: The Takeover of Israeli Cinema: Politics, Corruption, and Cultural Erosion first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

A Short Tenure, Abruptly Ended

Ms. Rozwód, who had formerly managed cultural institutions in Lublin, was expected to prioritize open and rigorous selection processes for funding. Soon after her arrival, however, she says she faced intense pressure from ministry officials. One high-ranking individual allegedly called to advise her which film “ought to” receive grants, a practice Ms. Rozwód found inappropriate. At the same time, she was overseeing contract negotiations for Ministranci (“The Altar Servers”), a feature by the acclaimed filmmaker Piotr Domalewski. Though the film’s funding had been provisionally approved under the previous administration, Ms. Rozwód was later accused by the ministry of improperly signing off on the contract.

In an interview with the investigative outlet OKO.press, Ms. Rozwód recalled being summoned unexpectedly to the Ministry of Culture. She recounted a tense meeting in which she was told she could either resign or risk being reported to the prosecutor’s office for alleged violations of the Public Finance Act. Fearing irreparable harm to her reputation, she initially tendered her resignation. When she attempted to withdraw it and defend her actions, the ministry then proceeded with an official notification to prosecutors.

“I felt even more intimidated,” she told OKO.press. “If a minister believes they should file a complaint, they should do so openly, not threaten people behind closed doors.” She also spoke of her frustration that the decision to award the Ministranci grant was standard procedure; in her view, the film had cleared the necessary expert evaluations, and principal photography was already underway.

Mounting Allegations of Political Interference

The Polish Filmmakers’ Association (SFP) has decried Ms. Rozwód’s abrupt removal, describing it as further evidence of “political pressure” encroaching on the film institute. In a recent statement, the SFP expressed concern that this could undermine PISF’s founding principle: to support diverse cinematic projects on artistic merit rather than political considerations. industry representatives concur that the minister’s intervention appears designed to tighten governmental control over film funding, a fear underscored by the reinstatement of Kamila Dorbach, a close associate of Mr. Dydo, as well as the cultural vice-minister Andrzej Wyrobiec, as interim director. It is worth mentioning that Kamila Dorbach was working for PISF under Radosław Śmigulski 2019-2023 as a regular PR specialist.

Ms. Rozwód revealed that documents relevant to an investigation of the former director, Mr. Śmigulski, had gone missing at the institute. She pinned the disappearance on managerial oversights and criticized the ministry for failing to protect potentially incriminating records. In numerous interviews, she has also emphasized the need for PISF to be guided by independent experts rather than single-person decisions. “I wanted to lessen the director’s arbitrariness,” she told Gazeta Wyborcza, “so the ministry could not exert undue pressure to finance specific projects.”

Yet for many film professionals, the stakes are higher than one director’s fate. A young independent Polish filmmaker who wishes to remain anonymous recalls the former administration’s alleged misuse of  funds and lack of accountability, ‘blessed’ by the former Ministry of Culture, calling Ms. Rozwód’s removal “another sign that these old habits die hard.” Filmmakers, he says, had hoped that the country’s changing political landscape after the 15 Oct 2023 elections would usher in new standards of governance at PISF, as well as at the Ministry!

With Ms. Rozwód’s dismissal now endorsed by the PISF Council [though, it turns out that they did not have all relevant documents at their disposal], her legal recourses narrow. She has vowed to file law suit against the Ministry for illegal dismissal and against Minister Wróblewska for defamation, claiming that public statements about her alleged misconduct are baseless and damaging to her reputation. Meanwhile, the film institute continues to disburse large sums of public money—nearly 600 million złotys in 2024 alone—under a leadership arrangement that some in the industry see as a step backward.

For now, the Polish Filmmakers’ Association, along with a coalition of producers, directors, and festival organizers, is pushing for swift legislative changes that would codify PISF’s independence from political influence. They argue that the future of Polish cinema depends on a structure that ensures funding decisions are made openly, guided by rigorous evaluations of artistic merit, and upheld by transparent procedures. “We have suffered enough,” said our young anonymous source, echoing many of his colleagues. “If ever there was a moment to secure a truly independent film institute, that moment is now.”

Sources & Further Reading:

• Polish Filmmakers’ Association (SFP) Statement:
  Link
  
• OKO.press Investigative Article:
  Link
  
• Gazeta Wyborcza Interview with Karolina Rozwód:
  Link

The post POLAND: A Power Play at the PISF, Filmmakers Claim a Political Takeover first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

Πλήρης εκδοχή – Μια συντομότερη έκδοση αυτού του άρθρου είναι διαθέσιμη εδώ.

A short English version is available here (1200 words) A long English version is available here (4200 words)

Του Χέκτορ Αλεχάντρο Μοράλες, συνεργάτη του Film Industry Watch και γνώστη της ελληνικής κινηματογραφικής βιομηχανίας.

Ένα συγκλονιστικό νέο οικονομικό σκάνδαλο σύγκρουσης συμφερόντων έρχεται στο φως στο Ελληνικό Κέντρο Κινηματογράφου (ΕΚΚ), που εμπλέκει τον σκηνοθέτη Βασίλειο Κεκάτο και άλλους, οι οποίοι υπηρετούσαν ως αξιολογητές προτάσεων χρηματοδότησης ταινιών, ενώ παράλληλα έλαβαν σημαντικές χρηματικές επιχορηγήσεις για τα δικά τους έργα στην ίδια πρόσκληση υποβολής προτάσεων.

18 Οκτωβρίου 2021: Στις 18 Οκτωβρίου 2021, περίπου στις 1:30 μ.μ., ο διεθνώς καταξιωμένος Έλληνας σκηνοθέτης Κώστας Φέρρης, βραβευμένος με Αργυρή Άρκτο στο Φεστιβάλ Βερολίνου για την ταινία «Ρεμπέτικο», πρώην Αντιπρόεδρος του Ελληνικού Κέντρου Κινηματογράφου και ιδιαίτερα σεβαστός σκηνοθέτης, σεναριογράφος και στιχουργός με περισσότερες από 10 μεγάλου μήκους ταινίες, 20 τηλεοπτικές σειρές και πολυάριθμα βραβεία για το σύνολο του έργου του, όπως και τη συμμετοχή του ως στιχουργού στο εμβληματικό άλμπουμ «666» των Aphrodite’s Child (της μπάντας του Βαγγέλη Παπαθανασίου), κατέθεσε ως μάρτυρας στο Πρωτοδικείο Αθηνών, στην Ελλάδα. Ο Φέρρης ήταν επίσης ιδρυτικό μέλος της FERA (Ομοσπονδία Ευρωπαίων Σκηνοθετών).

Μεταξύ άλλων, ο Φέρρης ανέφερε ότι ήταν Αντιπρόεδρος στο Ελληνικό Κέντρο Κινηματογράφου μέχρι πρόσφατα, υπό την προεδρία του δημοσιογράφου/ντοκιμαντερίστα Πάνου Λουκάκου, που αρνήθηκαν να ενδώσουν στις παράνομες απαιτήσεις του 44χρονου υπουργού Νικόλα Γιατρομανωλάκη (πρώην Υφυπουργού Πολιτισμού και Αθλητισμού της Ελλάδας), με αποτέλεσμα να αντικατασταθούν από τον υφυπουργό, ο οποίος ήταν προστατευόμενος του συγγραφέα/σκηνοθέτη Αποστόλου Δοξιάδη, κληρονόμου της περιουσίας της οικογένειας Δοξιάδη.

Σύμφωνα με πηγές από τον χώρο της ελληνικής παραγωγής, ο Απόστολος Δοξιάδης, ο οποίος προβάλλει τον εαυτό του ως «ιδιοφυΐα», φέρεται να ήταν χειριστικός και να λειτουργούσε ως μυστικός σύμβουλος, επηρεάζοντας αποφάσεις παρασκηνιακά, μαζί με τον πεθερό του, τον πτωχευμένο εφοπλιστή Γιώργο Παπαλιό. Και οι δύο ήταν στενά συνδεδεμένοι με τον σημερινό δεξιό Πρωθυπουργό της Ελλάδας, Κυριάκο Μητσοτάκη, με την οικογένεια Μητσοτάκη να είναι γείτονές τους στην ακριβή γειτονιά του Κολωνακίου.

Ο Μάρκος Χολέβας, πρόεδρος του Ελληνικού Κέντρου Κινηματογράφου, δεν ήταν παρών στη δίκη, αλλά είχε προσλάβει δικηγορικό γραφείο εκτός ΕΚΚ, πληρώνοντας πάνω από 16.000 ευρώ συν ΦΠΑ από δημόσιο χρήμα για να υπερασπιστεί τον εαυτό του (παρά το γεγονός ότι το ΕΚΚ είχε δική του νομική υπηρεσία). Δικηγόροι από τη SAPOE (μία από τις πέντε ενώσεις παραγωγών), την ΕΣΠΕΚ (τη μικρή ένωση παραγωγών-σκηνοθετών) και την Tanweer Productions (που ανήκει στον Λιβανέζο διανομέα Joseph Samaan και διευθύνεται από τον Διονύση Σαμιώτη) ήταν επίσης παρόντες. Το ζήτημα ήταν η προέγκριση των κρατικών επιχορηγήσεών τους. Φέρεται ότι για χρόνια μεσάζοντες που αυτοαποκαλούνταν «παραγωγοί» (ενώ στην πραγματικότητα ήταν εκτελεστικοί παραγωγοί χωρίς να διακινδυνεύουν δικά τους χρήματα ή περιουσία) έβγαζαν εκατομμύρια πριν καν παραχθεί μια ταινία ή ένα ντοκιμαντέρ. Όσο πιο φθηνά μπορούσαν να παραγάγουν μια ταινία, τόσο το καλύτερο. Όσο λιγότερα έπρεπε να πληρώσουν σκηνοθέτες και σεναριογράφους —ή και καθόλου— τόσο πιο ιδανικό ήταν για αυτούς.

Ο Φέρρης κατέθεσε ενόρκως: «…Στο πλαίσιο της διαμάχης που προέκυψε στην ελληνική κινηματογραφική κοινότητα και της δημοσιότητας που αυτή έλαβε στον έντυπο και ηλεκτρονικό Τύπο επί πολλές εβδομάδες, ενημερώθηκα ότι το Ελληνικό Κέντρο Κινηματογράφου, ένα ιδιωτικό νομικό πρόσωπο υπό την εποπτεία του Υπουργείου Πολιτισμού (ΥΠΠΟΑ), που λειτουργεί σύμφωνα με τον Νόμο 3905/2010 και είναι επομένως δημόσιος οργανισμός (χρηματοδοτούμενος από τους Έλληνες φορολογούμενους), χρηματοδοτείται άνω του 80% από τον δημόσιο προϋπολογισμό και επομένως υπόκειται σε συγκεκριμένες προϋποθέσεις λειτουργίας, διαφάνειας, οικονομικής και διοικητικής λογοδοσίας. Ο οργανισμός έχει δεχθεί επιθέσεις τόσο από τον έντυπο και ηλεκτρονικό Τύπο όσο και από την πλειονότητα της κινηματογραφικής κοινότητας για ακατάλληλες επιλογές προσωπικού και αδιαφανείς διαδικασίες σχετικά με την προέγκριση χρηματοδότησης ταινιών, οι οποίες δεν αποκλείουν τις συγκρούσεις συμφερόντων.

Σε μια προσπάθεια να δικαιολογήσει εκ των υστέρων αυτές τις διαδικασίες, το Ελληνικό Κέντρο Κινηματογράφου εξήγησε εκτενώς μέσω δελτίων Τύπου και της ιστοσελίδας του τις διαδικασίες που ακολούθησε. Ανέφερε δημόσια ότι οι μέθοδοι που χρησιμοποιεί είναι ίδιες με εκείνες που ακολουθούν οι θεσμοί που είναι υπεύθυνοι για τα οπτικοακουστικά ζητήματα και τη χρηματοδότηση στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση (27 Κράτη Μέλη), δηλαδή το πρόγραμμα MEDIA DESK (σήμερα Creative Europe) με έδρα τις Βρυξέλλες, και το Συμβούλιο της Ευρώπης (με έδρα το Στρασβούργο και τη συμμετοχή 39 Κρατών Μελών) μέσω του προγράμματος χρηματοδότησης ευρωπαϊκών συμπαραγωγών EURIMAGES.

Οι θέσεις του Ελληνικού Κέντρου Κινηματογράφου για τα θέματα αυτά—σχετικά με την επιλογή αξιολογητών/αναγνωστών, τη στελέχωση των επιτροπών και τις διαδικασίες αξιολόγησης για την προέγκριση χρηματοδότησης ταινιών και σχεδίων παραγωγής ταινιών που σχετίζονται με το Creative Europe και το EURIMAGES—δεν είναι ακριβείς. Στην πραγματικότητα, είναι εντελώς ψευδείς και ανακριβείς και αντιβαίνουν άμεσα σε όλα όσα γνωρίζω και έχω βιώσει στις συνεργασίες μου με αυτούς τους ευρωπαϊκούς θεσμούς…»

Σε καταγγελία δέκα σελίδων που υποβλήθηκε στην Εισαγγελία Πρωτοδικών Αθηνών στις αρχές Μαΐου 2021, τρεις ανεξάρτητοι παραγωγοί και σκηνοθέτες ζήτησαν από το Ελληνικό Κέντρο Κινηματογράφου να αποκαλύψει τα ονόματα των αξιολογητών/αναγνωστών και τη βαθμολογία, υπό την απειλή φυλάκισης.

Στην ένορκη κατάθεσή τους, υποστήριξαν:

…Υποβάλαμε τρία έργα (1 μεγάλου μήκους ντοκιμαντέρ, 1 ταινία μικρού μήκους μυθοπλασίας και 1 ταινία μικρού μήκους κινουμένων σχεδίων):

“Κολοκοτρώνης, ο Γέρος του Μοριά” με αριθμό πρωτοκόλλου 9193, με ημερομηνία 26/11/2020, ήταν ένα έργο ταινίας κινουμένων σχεδίων 2D περίπου 6 λεπτών, με σενάριο και σκηνοθεσία δική μου, και σχεδιασμό χαρακτήρων και εικονογραφήσεις από τον Νάσο Βακάλη (βραβευμένο με Emmy, με 78 διεθνή βραβεία και 270 συμμετοχές σε φεστιβάλ για την ταινία μικρού μήκους Dinner for Few). Η πρόταση ήταν 112 σελίδες.

“Μη με Ξεχάσετε, Εβραίες Μητέρες γράφουν στα Παιδιά τους από το Γκέτο της Θεσσαλονίκης” με αριθμό πρωτοκόλλου 7380/30-9-2020, ένα μεγάλου μήκους ντοκιμαντέρ μυθοπλασίας, εστιασμένο στο Ολοκαύτωμα της Θεσσαλονίκης, όπου χάθηκαν 59.000 ‘Ελληνες Εβραίοι, με πρωταγωνίστρια τη γνωστή ηθοποιό του κινηματογράφου και της τηλεόρασης, Μαρία Ναυπλιώτου, βασισμένο στο ομώνυμο βιβλίο του ιστορικού/ερευνητή Δρ. Λεόν Σαλτιέλ, υπό την αιγίδα του Κεντρικού Ισραηλιτικού Συμβουλίου Ελλάδος, του Εβραϊκού Μουσείου Ελλάδος και της Έδρας Εβραϊκών Σπουδών του Αριστοτελείου Πανεπιστημίου Θεσσαλονίκης. Η πρόταση ήταν περίπου 100 σελίδες.

“Το Σκάφος” με αριθμό πρωτοκόλλου 6025/3.8.2020, μια ταινία μικρού μήκους μυθοπλασίας, διάρκειας 15 λεπτών, με σενάριο των Αφροδίτης Βακάλη και Νάσου Βακάλη, και σκηνοθεσία του Νάσου Βακάλη, με τους γνωστούς ηθοποιούς Χρήστο Αντωνίου και Δημήτρη Πιατά. Η πρόταση ήταν περίπου 70 σελίδες.

Στην ανακοίνωση των αποτελεσμάτων στις 30.3.2021 και 28.4.2021, συνειδητοποιήσαμε ότι οι αξιολογητές είχαν απονείμει στους εαυτούς τους ποσά ύψους €2.500, €130.000, €170.000, €190.000 και €200.000 αντίστοιχα, επιπλέον της αποζημίωσης των €5.000 που έλαβαν ως αναγνώστες (αξιολογητές σεναρίων), ενώ φρόντισαν, σε απόλυτη συνεργασία με τον πρόεδρο του Διοικητικού Συμβουλίου που τους διόρισε, να δώσουν χαμηλές βαθμολογίες (με σειρά προτεραιότητας) για να «κόψουν» τους ανταγωνιστές τους!

Αυτές οι ενέργειες, οι οποίες επικυρώθηκαν από το Διοικητικό Συμβούλιο του Ελληνικού Κέντρου Κινηματογράφου (ΕΚΚ), είναι παράνομες, καταχρηστικές, ανήθικες, αντιεπαγγελματικές και προκάλεσαν εθνικό και διεθνές σάλο τόσο στα μέσα κοινωνικής δικτύωσης όσο και μεταξύ των δημοσιογράφων, με δημοσιεύματα στον έντυπο και ηλεκτρονικό Τύπο. Είναι πρωτοφανείς παγκοσμίως, καθώς ακόμη και στις πιο υπανάπτυκτες χώρες, οι αξιολογητές καλούνται να δηλώνουν σύγκρουση συμφερόντων και να ζητούν εξαίρεση, όχι να χρηματοδοτούν τους εαυτούς τους!»

Η Εισαγγελία διέταξε τον πρόεδρο του Ελληνικού Κέντρου Κινηματογράφου και τον γενικό διευθυντή του, Παντελή Μητρόπουλο, να αποκαλύψουν τα ονόματα των αξιολογητών, τις βαθμολογίες που δόθηκαν σε κάθε έργο, και άλλα σχετικά έγγραφα που απέκρυπτε ο Χολέβας. Αποκαλύφθηκε ότι τέσσερις αξιολογητές συμμετείχαν κρυφά στους διαγωνισμούς μαζί με τα άλλα έργα και τους απονεμήθηκαν συνολικά μισό εκατομμύριο ευρώ.

• Πολύ κοριτσίστικο όνομα Πάττυ Σενάριο: Γιώργος Γεωργόπουλος Σκηνοθεσία: Γιώργος Γεωργόπουλος Παραγωγή: Faliro House Productions Ποσό προέγκρισης: €200.000
• Το Καλοκαίρι της Κάρμεν Σενάριο: Ζαχαρίας Μαυροειδής, Ξενοφών Χαλάτσης Σκηνοθεσία: Ζαχαρίας Μαυροειδής Παραγωγή: Atalante Productions (με επικεφαλής την ανιψιά του Πάνου Παπαχατζή) Ποσό προέγκρισης: €190.000
• Οι Άγριες Μέρες Σενάριο: Βασίλης Κεκάτος Σκηνοθεσία: Βασίλης Κεκάτος Παραγωγή: Blackbird Production Ποσό χρηματοδότησης: €2.500
• Ο Τελευταίος Tαξιτζής Σενάριο: Στέργιος Πάσχος Σκηνοθεσία: Στέργιος Πάσχος Παραγωγή: Filmiki Productions Ποσό προέγκρισης: €130.000

(Σημείωση: Ο Τελευταίος Ταξιτζής είχε απογοητευτική προσέλευση στο ελληνικό box office με 2.111 εισιτήρια την άνοιξη του 2024, ενώ το Καλοκαίρι της Κάρμεν έκανε μόλις 9.500 εισιτήρια).

Ιστορικό: Οργή και Ασφαλιστικά Μέτρα κατά του ΕΚΚ

Τρεις ανεξάρτητοι σκηνοθέτες-παραγωγοί (Λεωνίδας Βαρδαρός, Δημήτριος Βόρρης, Γεώργιος Κεραμιδιώτης, που στη συνέχεια μπήκαν στη μαύρη λίστα του Χολέβα και του διοικητικού συμβουλίου του) κατέθεσαν ασφαλιστικά μέτρα κατά του Ελληνικού Κέντρου Κινηματογράφου, με τη στήριξη της Ένωσης Ελλήνων Σκηνοθετών και 600 υπογραφών κινηματογραφιστών.

Οι σκηνοθέτες-παραγωγοί ζητούσαν την προσωρινή αναστολή των αποφάσεων του ΕΚΚ από τις 30 Μαρτίου και 28 Απριλίου 2021, σχετικά με τις «Προεγκρίσεις Μικρού Μήκους, Μεγάλου Μήκους Ταινιών και Ντοκιμαντέρ», ισχυριζόμενοι ότι αυτές οι αποφάσεις ήταν παράνομες και παραβίασαν την Ελληνική νομοθεσία, τις οδηγίες της ΕΕ και τα άρθρα του Συντάγματος

Ιούνιος 2021: Οι κραυγαλέες αναλήθειες του Μάρκου Χολέβα και της ομάδας του

Ο Μάρκος Χολέβας, τότε πρόεδρος του Ελληνικού Κέντρου Κινηματογράφου (ΕΚΚ), ο οποίος εξαναγκάστηκε σε παραίτηση τον Ιούλιο του 2024 από την Υπουργό Πολιτισμού Λίνα Μενδώνη, ισχυρίστηκε στα μέσα ενημέρωσης ότι δεν μπορούσε να βρει αξιολογητές που να δραστηριοποιούνται στους τομείς της σεναριογραφίας, της σκηνοθεσίας και της παραγωγής, επειδή τα σωματεία δεν διέθεταν επαρκή αριθμό μελών. Γι’ αυτό, επέλεξε αξιολογητές αποκλειστικά από την ΕΣΠΕΚ, τον μικρό σύλλογο παραγωγών-σκηνοθετών, όπου ήταν ο ίδιος μέλος. Αυτό όμως απέχει πολύ από την αλήθεια: Το Σωματείο Ελλήνων Ηθοποιών (ΣΕΗ) έχει περίπου 4.000 μέλη, ενώ τα τρία σχετικά σωματεία έχουν περίπου 40 ενεργά μέλη στη ΣΑΠΟΕ, περίπου 70-80 στην ΕΣΠΕΚ (Ένωση Παραγωγών-Σκηνοθετών) και περίπου 130 στην Ένωση Ελληνικού Ντοκιμαντέρ (ΕΕΝ), πολλοί από τους οποίους είναι επίσης μέλη της ΕΣΠΕΚ. Η Ένωση Σκηνοθετών Ελλάδας (ΕΕΣ) έχει 1.200 μέλη, ενώ το Σωματείο Ελλήνων Τεχνικών Κινηματογράφου και Τηλεόρασης (ΕΤΕΚΤ) έχει 300 μέλη, σύνολο 1.700 μέλη. Η Ένωση Σεναριογράφων Ελλάδας έχει 330 μέλη, και η Ένωση Ελλήνων Παραγωγών (ιδρυθείσα από τον καταξιωμένο παραγωγό Γιώργο Σγουράκη) περιλαμβάνει περίπου 40-50 παραγωγούς. Ως εκ τούτου, ο συνολικός αριθμός μελών όλων αυτών των σωματείων ξεπερνά τα 6.500 μέλη.

Όσον αφορά τον Πάνο Παπαχατζή, πρόεδρο της ΣΑΠΟΕ εκείνη την εποχή και ιδιοκτήτη της Argonauts Productions—έλαβε τρεις εγκρίσεις συνολικού ύψους €370.000 (€170.000, €70.000 και €130.000, αντίστοιχα).

Το Διοικητικό Συμβούλιο της ΣΑΠΟΕ αποτελούνταν από τα εξής μέλη:

• Πάνος Παπαχατζής, Πρόεδρος της ΣΑΠΟΕ, έλαβε €370.000 μέσω τριών εγκρίσεων χρηματοδότησης.
• Φένια Κοσοβίτσα, Αντιπρόεδρος της ΣΑΠΟΕ, έλαβε €400.000 μέσω της εταιρείας της, Blonde Films (€200.000 + €200.000).
• Κωνσταντίνος Κοντοβράκης, Γενικός Γραμματέας, έλαβε €228.000 μέσω της εταιρείας του, Heretic Films, σε τρεις εγκρίσεις (€150.000, €60.000, €18.000).
• Αμάντα Λιβανού, Ταμίας της ΣΑΠΟΕ.
• Μαρία Δρανδάκη, Μέλος του ΔΣ, έλαβε €250.500 μέσω πέντε εγκρίσεων με την εταιρεία της, Homemade Films (€2.500, €6.000, €12.000, €200.000, €30.000).
• Κωνσταντίνος Βασιλάρος, Αναπληρωματικό Μέλος του ΔΣ.
• Ελένη Αφεντάκη, Αναπληρωματικό Μέλος του ΔΣ.

Η Ελεγκτική Επιτροπή της ΣΑΠΟΕ έλαβε τα εξής ποσά:

• Ιωάννα Μπολομύτη (ανιψιά του Παπαχατζή, εργαζόμενη και συστεγαζλόμενη στον ίδιο χώρο με τις εταιρείες Argonauts Productions, Athens Productions και Argonauts Crimes of the Future Productions), έλαβε €18.000 για έγκριση σεναρίου.
• Γιώργος Καρνάβας, συνεργάτης στην Heretic Films μαζί με τον Γενικό Γραμματέα της ΣΑΠΟΕ, Κωνσταντίνο Κοντοβράκη.
• Γιάννης Ιακωβίδης, ιδιοκτήτης της Black and Orange Films.

Συνολικά, τα παραπάνω μέλη της ΣΑΠΟΕ έλαβαν €1.266.500 μέσω μιας διαδικασίας χρηματοδότησης του Ελληνικού Κέντρου Κινηματογράφου, που έχει χαρακτηριστεί ως παράνομη, χωρίς διαφάνεια και χωρίς λογοδοσία.

Επιπλέον:

• Η Ελένη Κοσσυφίδου, πρώην πρόεδρος της ΣΑΠΟΕ και παραγωγός του σκηνοθέτη Βασίλη Κεκάτου (Blackbird Productions), έλαβε €20.500 (€2.500 για συγγραφή σεναρίου και €18.000 για ένα σενάριο). Η Κοσσυφίδου και ο Κεκάτος, μαζί με τον σκηνοθέτη Πάνο Χ. Κούτρα, ενεπλάκησαν στο σκάνδαλο σύγκρουσης συμφερόντων που αποκάλυψε το filmindustrywatch.org σχετικά με τη βράβευση της μικρού μήκους ταινίας του Κεκάτου στις Κάννες.
• Ο Γιώργος Τσουργιάννης, άλλο μέλος της ΣΑΠΟΕ, έλαβε €156.000 (€6.000 και €150.000).
• Ο Γιώργος Τσεμπερόπουλος, άλλο μέλος της ΣΑΠΟΕ, έλαβε €151.500 μέσω της εταιρείας του Filmiki Productions (η οποία αργότερα πωλήθηκε στον Κωνσταντίνο Αλαβάνο), μαζί με τον συνεργάτη του, Ευστάθιο Μουρδουκούτα (€2.500, €130.000, και €19.000).
• Η Φαίδρα Βόκαλη, άλλο μέλος της ΣΑΠΟΕ (Marni Films), έλαβε €132.000 μέσω τεσσάρων εγκρίσεων (€70.000, €17.000, €20.000, €25.000).
• Η Modiano S.A., που ανήκει στον Μίκυ Μοδιάνο, άλλο μέλος της ΣΑΠΟΕ, έλαβε €90.000 μέσω δύο εγκρίσεων (€60.000, €30.000).
• Η Stefi/Lynx Films, άλλο μέλος της ΣΑΠΟΕ, έλαβε €2.500.

Φέρεται ότι τα τακτικά μέλη της ΣΑΠΟΕ έλαβαν επιπλέον €552.500 μέσω της ίδιας αμφισβητούμενης διαδικασίας χρηματοδότησης από το ΕΚΚ. Αυτό ανεβάζει το συνολικό ποσό που απονεμήθηκε στα μέλη της ΣΑΠΟΕ στα €1.819.000 από τα €4.450.000 που διατέθηκαν από το ΕΚΚ σε δύο γύρους αποφάσεων. Ωστόσο, είναι σημαντικό να σημειωθεί ότι οι ταυτότητες πίσω από όλες τις εταιρείες που αναφέρονται στις δύο λίστες προέγκρισης χρηματοδότησης του ΕΚΚ δεν έχουν ακόμη πλήρως εξακριβωθεί. Περαιτέρω έρευνα μπορεί να αποκαλύψει ότι περισσότερα μέλη της ΣΑΠΟΕ επωφελήθηκαν από αυτή τη χρηματοδότηση. Υπήρχε επίσης ανησυχία για πιθανές συγκρούσεις συμφερόντων, όπου οι αξιολογητές μπορεί να αξιολογούσαν προτάσεις που υποβλήθηκαν από τους συνεργάτες τους, όπως παραγωγούς. Για παράδειγμα, η Filmiki Productions έλαβε χρηματοδότηση τόσο για ένα μεγάλου μήκους έργο (σε σκηνοθεσία του αξιολογητή Στέργιου Πάσχου, Ο Τελευταίος Οδηγός Ταξί) όσο και για μία μικρού μήκους ταινία (Roger), όπου, σύμφωνα με δηλώσεις του ΕΚΚ, μπορεί να εμπλεκόταν κάποιος συνεργάτης του αξιολογητή.

Όταν ο σκηνοθέτης Κώστας Φέρρης αποκάλυψε δημόσια το χάος, την κακοδιαχείριση και τη διαφθορά στο Ελληνικό Κέντρο Κινηματογράφου σε συνέντευξή του στην καθημερινή εφημερίδα ΕΦΣΥΝ, δέχθηκε κύμα νομικών απειλών από τα μέλη της ΣΑΠΟΕ. Για επτά συνεχόμενες ημέρες, έλαβε εξώδικα από κάθε μέλος του διοικητικού συμβουλίου της ΣΑΠΟΕ, μαζί με αγωγή για συκοφαντική δυσφήμιση από τον παραγωγό και πρόεδρο Πάνο Παπαχατζή. Τελικά, το Πολυμελές Πρωτοδικείο Αθηνών αθώωσε τον Φέρρη από όλες τις κατηγορίες.

(Σημείωση: Το 2023, ο Παπαχατζής συνεργάστηκε επίσημα με τον Κώστα Σάκκαρη, ο οποίος φέρεται να έχει διασυνδέσεις με το γραφείο του Πρωθυπουργού. Η κόρη του, πρωταθλήτρια τένις Αγγελική Σάκκαρη, είναι σε σχέση με τον γιο του Πρωθυπουργού).

ΦΕΒΡΟΥΑΡΙΟΣ 2022: Τα πορίσματα της Εθνικής Αρχής Διαφάνειας είναι πλήγμα για τις πρακτικές του Ελληνικού Κέντρου Κινηματογράφου, ιδιαίτερα για τον Μάρκο Χολέβα και τον Βασίλη Κεκάτο.

Μετά από εννέα μήνες, στα μέσα Φεβρουαρίου 2022, η Εθνική Αρχή Διαφάνειας δημοσίευσε έκθεση ελέγχου για τις αποφάσεις προέγκρισης του Διοικητικού Συμβουλίου του Ελληνικού Κέντρου Κινηματογράφου στις 30 Μαρτίου και 28 Απριλίου 2021, συνολικού ύψους €4.550.000.

Στις συγκεκριμένες αποφάσεις, εγκρίθηκαν τα έργα τεσσάρων αναγνωστών, οι οποίοι ήταν ταυτόχρονα και ανταγωνιστές, καταργώντας κάθε έννοια αμεροληψίας, διαφάνειας και ισότητας.

Η πολυσέλιδη έκθεση της Εθνικής Αρχής Διαφάνειας καταλήγει:

«…με στόχο τη διασφάλιση των αρχών της διαφάνειας και της αμεροληψίας στη λειτουργία του οργανισμού, προτείνεται στο Διοικητικό Συμβούλιο του Ελληνικού Κέντρου Κινηματογράφου:

1. Πριν τη διαδικασία επιλογής, να πραγματοποιείται δημόσια πρόσκληση εκδήλωσης ενδιαφέροντος ή σχετική ανάρτηση στην ιστοσελίδα του Ελληνικού Κέντρου Κινηματογράφου ή να υιοθετούνται άλλα μέτρα (π.χ., δημιουργία Μητρώου Αξιολογητών), τα οποία θα μπορούσαν να διασφαλίσουν την αύξηση του αριθμού των καταλληλότερων υποψηφίων και, κατά συνέπεια, την καλύτερη δυνατή επιλογή Αναγνωστών.
   
2. Επίσης, η καθιέρωση συλλογικού οργάνου λήψης αποφάσεων και η πιο αναλυτική περιγραφή των κριτηρίων επιλογής θα συνέβαλαν στην ενίσχυση της διαφάνειας και της αντικειμενικότητας της διαδικασίας…»

Σημειώνεται ότι το Ελληνικό Κέντρο Κινηματογράφου είχε ψευδώς δηλώσει στον ελληνικό Τύπο ότι «…ακολουθεί τις βέλτιστες πρακτικές των ευρωπαϊκών προγραμμάτων (Creative Europe, Eurimages)», ενώ είναι ευρέως γνωστό και δημοσιευμένο στο διαδίκτυο, ότι απαγορεύεται η συμμετοχή των ίδιων προσώπων ως αξιολογητών και ταυτόχρονα ανταγωνιστών (cross-paneling) — ακόμη και αν αυτό συμβαίνει σε διαφορετική κατηγορία — καθώς και οποιαδήποτε σύγκρουση συμφερόντων, όπως και γενικά οποιαδήποτε σχέση έως πρώτου βαθμού συγγένειας με υποψήφιες παραγωγικές εταιρείες και έργα κατά τους τελευταίους 18 μήνες, υπό την απειλή (και ποινή) ακύρωσης της χρηματοδότησης.

ΑΥΓΟΥΣΤΟΣ-ΣΕΠΤΕΜΒΡΙΟΣ 2024: Ο διεφθαρμένος κόσμος της φερόμενης ως διαπλεκόμενης «…μαφίας» της ψευδεπίγραφης «…ακαδημίας» καταρρέει… Η υποψηφιότητα της Ελλάδας για τα Όσκαρ αποκαλύπτει ένα σάπιο σύστημα, χωρίς διαφάνεια και αξιοκρατία.

Μια παράτυπη, παράνομη και προφανώς διεφθαρμένη ενέργεια μιάς υπαλλήλου του Υπουργείου Πολιτισμού που βρισκόταν σε καλοκαιρινές διακοπές, ανάγκασε τον υφυπουργό να αντικαταστήσει εν μέρει ορισμένα μέλη της προτεινόμενης επιτροπής υποψηφιότητας για τα Όσκαρ, τα οποία είχαν προταθεί από την αυτοαποκαλούμενη «Ελληνική Ακαδημία Κινηματογράφου», έναν ιδιωτικό, μη κερδοσκοπικό οργανισμό, ώστε να προλάβουν τις προθεσμίες.

Επιπλέον, είναι σημαντικό να τονιστεί ότι η προσέγγιση του Υπουργείου Πολιτισμού για την αντικατάσταση των μελών της επιτροπής – τα οποία είχαν αρχικά διοριστεί από υπάλληλο του υπουργείου ενώ βρισκόταν σε άδεια – στερούνταν διαφάνειας και του επαγγελματισμού που θα έπρεπε να αναμένεται από έναν τέτοιο κρίσιμο θεσμό. Η αδιαφανής διαδικασία, σε συνδυασμό με την έλλειψη επικοινωνίας σχετικά με τα κριτήρια επιλογής των αντικαταστάσεων, έχει προκαλέσει σοβαρές ανησυχίες στην ελληνική κινηματογραφική κοινότητα, υπονομεύοντας περαιτέρω την εμπιστοσύνη στο σύστημα. Αυτές οι αποτυχίες τονίζουν τα ευρύτερα προβλήματα κακοδιαχείρισης και αδιαφάνειας που έχουν ταλανίσει το Ελληνικό Κέντρο Κινηματογράφου εδώ και χρόνια. Είναι σαφές ότι η εσωτερική έρευνα που ξεκίνησε το Υπουργείο Πολιτισμού είναι μια προσπάθεια να αντιμετωπίσει αυτές τις ανασφάλειες και φόβους.

Ένα μεγάλο σκάνδαλο ξέσπασε, με ανακοινώσεις που δημοσιεύθηκαν σε μέσα ενημέρωσης που ανήκουν στην Penske Media Group (Deadline, Hollywood Reporter, Variety), καθοδηγούμενο από μια μικρή αλλά καλά οργανωμένη μειοψηφία προνομιούχων ατόμων (που απομυζούν τις κρατικές επιδοτήσεις του ΕΚΚ και της ΕΡΤ και της επιτροπής για το 1.5% για τον κινηματογράφο). Αυτά τα άτομα εκτόξευσαν προσβολές και συκοφαντίες τόσο κατά του υπουργείου όσο και κατά της συντριπτικής πλειονότητας των δημιουργών της κινηματογραφικής βιομηχανίας, οι οποίοι είχαν περιθωριοποιηθεί επί σειρά ετών. Αυτό θα μπορούσε να περάσει απαρατήρητο, αν ορισμένα πολιτικά κόμματα — κυρίως αυτά της αντιπολίτευσης — δεν είχαν ευθυγραμμιστεί άκριτα με τις διαμαρτυρίες αυτής της διεφθαρμένης ομάδας, προσβάλλοντας έτσι ολόκληρη την κοινότητα των Ελλήνων κινηματογραφιστών.

Για να κατανοήσουμε την πλήρη εικόνα, πρέπει να ξεκινήσουμε από την αρχή. Όλα ξεκίνησαν με το «Κίνημα της Ομίχλης», το οποίο διέσπασε σκηνοθέτες και το υπόλοιπο κινηματογραφικό σύνολο σε μικρές, ανταγωνιστικές ομάδες με συγκρουόμενα συμφέροντα. Ακολούθησε η βεβιασμένη ίδρυση της αδιαφανούς Ελληνικής Ακαδημίας Κινηματογράφου, που στερούνταν ποιοτικών κριτηρίων, και η εισαγωγή του καταστροφικού Νόμου 3905/2010 (Νόμος Γερουλάνου για τον Κινηματογράφο). Αυτός ο νόμος αποδόμησε ουσιαστικά το Ελληνικό Κέντρο Κινηματογράφου για μια δεκαετία, οδηγώντας σε κακοδιαχείριση και μια σειρά διοικητικών και οικονομικών σκανδάλων, όπως επιβεβαιώνουν οι ελεγκτικές αρχές. Ο νόμος επέτρεψε την άνοδο της διεφθαρμένης «Ομίχλης», η οποία εκμεταλλεύτηκε την ασάφεια και την εναλλαγή διοικήσεων του Ελληνικού Κέντρου Κινηματογράφου για να μονοπωλήσει την κινηματογραφική αγορά και να εξασφαλίσει κρατικές επιδοτήσεις, αποκλείοντας πολλούς από τους βασικούς δημιουργούς του ελληνικού κινηματογράφου και οδηγώντας στη συνολική παρακμή της βιομηχανίας.

Δεν είναι τυχαίο ότι κατά τη διάρκεια των 14 ετών εφαρμογής του Νόμου 3905/2010 — ενός νόμου που προέκυψε από τις μεθοδεύσεις της ομάδας της Ομίχλης και της «Ακαδημίας» το 2009 και το 2010 — διορίστηκαν, απομακρύνθηκαν ή παραιτήθηκαν τουλάχιστον 10 πρόεδροι, 7 γενικοί διευθυντές και πάνω από 70 μέλη των επταμελών Διοικητικών Συμβουλίων του Ελληνικού Κέντρου Κινηματογράφου, συχνά λόγω διοικητικών ή οικονομικών σκανδάλων. Τι υποδηλώνουν αυτές οι πρωτοφανείς αλλαγές προσωπικού, που δεν έχουν προηγούμενο σε καμία παρόμοια οργάνωση παγκοσμίως; Δείχνουν τη διεφθαρμένη επιρροή της ομάδας της Ομίχλης και της Ελληνικής «Ακαδημίας» Κινηματογράφου στον ελληνικό κινηματογράφο.

Δύο μικρές ενώσεις (μία των Σκηνοθετών-Παραγωγών, η ΕΣΠΕΚ, και μία από τις πέντε ενώσεις παραγωγών, η ΣΑΠΟΕ), με τη στήριξη του διοικητικού συμβουλίου της «…ακαδημίας» και εκμεταλλευόμενες τη στενή τους σχέση με το Ελληνικό Κέντρο Κινηματογράφου και τον πρώην πρόεδρο Μάρκο Χολέβα (που αναγκάστηκε να παραιτηθεί τον Ιούλιο του 2024), μονοπώλησαν τα κρατικά κονδύλια παραγωγής ταινιών. Απέκλεισαν όσο το δυνατόν περισσότερους «εκτός κλίκας» σκηνοθέτες, απορριπτοντας τους ως «….παρωχημένους».

Μια σειρά σκανδάλων, καταχρήσεων και παράνομων αποφάσεων οδήγησαν ακόμη και σε αγωγές, στις οποίες οι θιγόμενοι δικαιώθηκαν. Ωστόσο, το Διοικητικό Συμβούλιο του Κέντρου Κινηματογράφου συνέχισε τις μεροληπτικές πρακτικές του, κάνοντας μόνο επιφανειακές αλλαγές.

Δεν έγινε ποτέ σαφές βάσει ποιας λογικής δόθηκε στην περιβόητη «….ακαδημία» (μια ιδιωτική αστική μη κερδοσκοπική εταιρεία ΑΜΚΕ-που δεν είναι καν σωματείο) το δικαίωμα να προτείνει την επιτροπή και τις μεθόδους επιλογής της ταινίας που θα εκπροσωπήσει τη χώρα στα Αμερικανικά Βραβεία Ακαδημίας (Όσκαρ) κάθε χρόνο, χωρίς καν να ορίσει αντικειμενικά κριτήρια, όπως συνέβαινε και στη θολή διαδικασία επιλογής για τη χρηματοδότηση ελληνικών ταινιών, η οποία έχει προκαλέσει τόσα προβλήματα, αγωγές και νομικές μάχες.

Η απόλυτη σήψη απαιτεί πλέον ριζικές αλλαγές για να αποκατασταθεί η αξιοπιστία του ελληνικού κινηματογράφου και να δοθεί τέλος σε αυτή τη διαφθορά.

Ποτέ δεν διευκρινίστηκε βάσει ποιας λογικής δόθηκε στην περιβόητη και αμφιλεγόμενη «…ακαδημία» το δικαίωμα να ορίζει την επιτροπή και τις μεθόδους επιλογής της ταινίας που θα εκπροσωπεί τη χώρα στα Αμερικανικά Βραβεία Ακαδημίας (Όσκαρ) κάθε χρόνο, χωρίς καν να οριστούν αντικειμενικά κριτήρια, παρόμοια με τη θολή διαδικασία επιλογής για τη χρηματοδότηση ελληνικών ταινιών, που μας έχει προκαλέσει τόσα προβλήματα, αγωγές και νομικές μάχες.

Ο «υπερβάλλων ζήλος» μίας υπαλλήλου του Υπουργείου Πολιτισμού, προφανώς διεφθαρμένου και σε συνεργασία με την ομάδα των «εκ των έσω», προκάλεσε την έκρηξη του σκανδάλου και ώθησε τον υφυπουργό Σύγχρονου Πολιτισμού, Ιάσονα Φωτήλα, να αποκαταστήσει τη νομιμότητα. Και ξαφνικά, αυτοί που πιάστηκαν με τα χέρια στο «μέλι» ξέσπασαν με προσβολές, διαμαρτυρίες και πίεση στους συμμετέχοντες να υποστηρίξουν τις παράνομες ενέργειές τους!

Καθημερινά μέλη του Διοικητικού Συμβουλίου της Ελληνικής Ακαδημίας (ορισμένοι διακεκριμένοι, άλλοι όχι) ξεκίνησαν μια πρωτοφανή εκστρατεία δυσφήμισης της διαδικασίας, συκοφάντησης των ανταγωνιστών και πίεσης στους κινηματογραφιστές να αποσύρουν τις συμμετοχές τους. Παρουσίασαν μόνο μια μερική εκδοχή της αλήθειας, αποκρύπτοντας βασικά γεγονότα —συμπεριλαμβανομένης της συνεργασίας τους με συγκεκριμένους υπαλλήλους του υπουργείου για να χειραγωγήσουν την ηγεσία του υπουργείου και την επιλογή συγκεκριμένης ταινίας.

Ένας-ένας, οι διαπλεκόμενοι αποκαλύφθηκαν, βγαίνοντας από τις “…φωλιές” τους, προσβάλλοντας και προσπαθώντας να ανακτήσουν την χαμένη επιρροή τους, όπως είχαν κατά τα χρόνια της κυριαρχίας τους. Αλλά οι μάσκες έπεσαν, και ο ισχυρισμός τους ότι εκπροσωπούν ολόκληρη τη βιομηχανία —ενώ αποκαλούν τους επικριτές τους «ξεπερασμένους»— κατέρρευσε.

Η επιτακτική ανάγκη να αναθεωρηθεί ο παρωχημένος Νόμος Γερουλάνου (Νόμος 3905/2010) είναι πλέον προφανής. Όσο για τα μέλη της “…ακαδημίας”, αν πραγματικά επιθυμούν να προστατεύσουν τη φήμη των Ελλήνων κινηματογραφιστών, πρέπει να τροποποιήσουν το καταστατικό τους, να εφαρμόσουν δημοκρατικές διαδικασίες, να επικεντρωθούν αποκλειστικά σε πολιτιστικές δραστηριότητες χωρίς να διολισθαίνουν σε συνδικαλιστικές ή συντεχνιακές διαστρεβλώσεις, να εποπτεύουν το Διοικητικό Συμβούλιο και, πάνω απ’ όλα, να αποκαταστήσουν την ακεραιότητα που οι αληθινοί καλλιτέχνες θα έπρεπε να διαφυλάσσουν.

Η «…ακαδημία» είναι μια ιδιωτική εταιρεία που λειτουργεί με διαφορετικό καταστατικό από την Αμερικανική Ακαδημία Κινηματογράφου. Η απόφαση του Υπουργείου Πολιτισμού είναι επομένως δικαιολογημένη. Είναι λογικό ότι ένας σκηνοθέτης γνωστός κυρίως για ταινίες μικρού μήκους, όπως ο Κεκάτος, δεν θα έπρεπε να είναι επικεφαλής μιας επιτροπής που επιλέγει μια ταινία μεγάλου μήκους για να εκπροσωπήσει την Ελλάδα. Επιπλέον, εκτός από τη Φόνισσα, πολλές από τις άλλες ταινίες είναι εσωστρεφή “καλλιτεχνικά” πρότζεκτ, χρηματοδοτούμενα από Έλληνες φορολογούμενους, που όμως παρουσιάζουν σοβαρές ελλείψεις στην ερμηνεία, το σενάριο και τη σκηνοθεσία. Οι περισσότερες από τις 23 ταινίες, εξαιρουμένης της Φόνισσας, έχουν πουλήσει από 400 έως 16.000 εισιτήρια στα τοπικά ταμεία, ενώ οι πιθανότητες τους για πωλήσεις  στο εξωτερικό είναι σχεδόν μηδαμινές.

ΑΥΓΟΥΣΤΟΣ 2024: Ένα ακόμη οικονομικό σκάνδαλο από τον Κεκάτο και την διαφημιστική/παραγωγική εταιρεία Foss Productions, ιδιοκτησίας των αδελφών Κωτιώνη, ύψους περίπου 1 εκατομμυρίου ευρώ

Το Διοικητικό Συμβούλιο του ΕΚΟΜΕ αποφάσισε να ακυρώσει την έγκριση της σειράς “Milky Way” του Βασίλη Κεκάτου, σε εκτέλεση παραγωγής της Foss Productions και του Στέλιου Κωτιώνη, και χρηματοδότηση από το κανάλι MEGA, καθώς και τα οφέλη που χορηγήθηκαν από το φορολογικό κίνητρο του άρθρου 71Ε του Νόμου 4172/2013 (Α’ 167), όπως ισχύει, «επειδή δεν διαπιστώθηκε η πληρότητα της έκθεσης του ορκωτού ελεγκτή, σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 30 του Ν. 4487/2017».

Ο λόγος για αυτή την απόφαση ήταν ότι «η έναρξη του επενδυτικού έργου πραγματοποιήθηκε πριν από την ημερομηνία υποβολής της αίτησης για ένταξη, σύμφωνα με την παρ. 5 του άρθρου 20 του Ν. 4487/2017». Η ανάκληση έγινε ένα χρόνο μετά την πιστοποίηση της επένδυσης. Ο εγκεκριμένος προϋπολογισμός ανερχόταν σε €2.252.435 και η αποσυρθείσα επιδότηση σε €900.974.

Τόσο ο Στέλιος Κωτιώνης, ως εκτελεστικός παραγωγός, όσο και ο Βασίλης Κεκάτος, ως σκηνοθέτης, υπέβαλαν δηλώσεις του Νόμου 105 στο ΕΚΟΜΕ όταν το Milky Way εντάχθηκε στο σχήμα επιστροφής μετρητών, βεβαιώνοντας ότι η παραγωγή δεν είχε ακόμη ξεκινήσει.

Πολλοί στον χώρο αναρωτιούνται: Τι συμβαίνει στην Ελλάδα, τη φτωχότερη χώρα της ΕΕ; Ποιος προστατεύει αυτούς που εμπλέκονται σε αυτό το δίκτυο διαφθοράς που συνεχίζει να αντλεί κεφάλαια από το Ελληνικό Κέντρο Κινηματογράφου, το Eurimages, το Ταμείο Ανάκαμψης και Ανθεκτικότητας της ΕΕ και το Creative Europe; Γιατί ο Εισαγγελέας του Αρείου Πάγου και ο Ευρωπαίος Εισαγγελέας κλείνουν τα μάτια ενώ οι ευρωπαϊκές επιδοτήσεις ρέουν στις τσέπες ολίγων, σχηματίζοντας αυτό που φαίνεται να είναι ένα καρτέλ;

Σε άλλες χώρες της ΕΕ, τέτοια σκάνδαλα θα πυροδοτούσαν άμεση δράση — έρευνες, παραιτήσεις και ακόμη και απομάκρυνση υπουργών από τις θέσεις τους. Αλλά όχι στην Ελλάδα. Η διαφθορά είναι τόσο βαθιά που έχει κερδίσει το παρατσούκλι «….η Κολομβία των Βαλκανίων», υποδηλώνοντας την εκτεταμένη δικαστική και πολιτική διαφθορά. Παρά τα συσσωρευμένα στοιχεία και τη δημόσια κατακραυγή, οι ισχυροί παραμένουν ως επί το πλείστον αλώβητοι, και το σύστημα συνεχίζει να προστατεύει τους λίγους εις βάρος των πολλών.

Η αποτυχία των αρχών να αντιμετωπίσουν αυτά τα ζητήματα εγείρει σοβαρές ανησυχίες σχετικά με τη διακυβέρνηση, τη διαφάνεια και τη λογοδοσία, ειδικά καθώς οι δημόσιοι πόροι που προορίζονται για την υποστήριξη του πολιτισμού και των τεχνών διοχετεύονται στα χέρια μιας προνομιούχας ελίτ. Τίθεται το ερώτημα: Πόσο ακόμα μπορεί να συνεχιστεί αυτή η κατάσταση πριν η Ευρωπαϊκή ‘Ένωση ή άλλοι εποπτικοί φορείς παρέμβουν για να καταστήσουν τους υπεύθυνους υπόλογους;

SOURCES AND LINKS:

https://www.efsyn.gr/tehnes/sinema/114454_sinema-o-paradeisos-tis-kakodiaheirisis

(Cinema paradiso of…. mismanagement).

https://www.efsyn.gr/stiles/apopseis/444323_toys-piran-tin-mpoykia-ap-stoma-ki-ekeinoi-brizoyn-oloys-toys-alloys

(“Greek Film Academy: They took the bread out of their mouths, and now they are cursing… everyone else.” )

https://www.efsyn.gr/politiki/synenteyxeis/297119_antro-kakoyrgimaton-elliniko-kentro-kinimatografoy(‘The Greek Film Center is a den of felonies. “)

https://www.efsyn.gr/tehnes/art-nea/406645_i-apofasi-toy-protodikeioy-stin-ypothesi-papahatzi-kata-ferri

(Kostas Ferris is acquitted  for defamation of producer Panos Papahatzis after judgement of the Multi Member Court of First Instance of Athens).

https://www.efsyn.gr/stiles/apopseis/298945_oi-pseytes-kai-oi-kleftes-ton-proto-hrono-hairontai

(The Greek Film Center has seized and transported to unknown destination 2,500 film prints and negatives, previously held by the former FINOS FILMS/ACCELERE labs, without the knowledge or consent of their rightful owners).

https://typologies.gr/pagos-sto-milky-way/embed/#?secret=GeyQCj1p1d#?secret=AgXXR9eOsG

(The €900,000 EKOME cash-back subsidy for Vasilios Kekatos’ limited series “MILKY WAY” has been revoked due to legal violations).

https://tvxs.gr/news/ellada/300-ypografes-enantia-sti-diadikasia-aksiologisis-sto-elliniko-kentro-kinimatografoy

(300 filmmakers sign against the evaluation process of the Greek Film Center)

(Παρακάτω) παρατίθεται έκθεση από ορκωτούς λογιστές της λογιστικής εταιρείας Sol, η οποία διαπίστωσε ότι η ταινία ALPS του Γιώργου Λάνθιμου, σε εκτέλεση παραγωγής  της Αθηνάς Ραχήλ Τσαγγάρη, έλαβε παράνομα 300.000 € αντί για τα 150.000 € που είχαν εγκριθεί από το Διοικητικό Συμβούλιο του Κέντρου ΚΙνηματογράφου. Ο Γενικός Διευθυντής του ΕΚΚ, Γρηγόρης Καραντινάκης, πήρε αυτή την απόφαση μόνος του, χωρίς την έγκριση του Διοικητικού Συμβουλίου, και συνέταξε ιδιωτική συμφωνία μεταξύ του ΕΚΚ και της Τσαγγάρη ο ίδιος χωρίς να συμβουλευτεί το Νομικό Τμήμα του ΕΚΚ. Ως αποτέλεσμα, ο Καραντινάκης κατηγορείται για κακούργημα και δόλο σε καταγγελία που υπέβαλε ο γνωστός δικηγόρος Ασπρογέρακας-Γρίβας (πάνω). Ο Μάρκος Χολέβας αναφέρεται ως δεύτερος στη λίστα της πρώτης σελίδας της καταγγελίας, η οποία έχει 130 σελίδες. Τα στοιχεία ταυτοποίησης, όπως οι αριθμοί ταυτοτήτων και διαβατηρίων, έχουν παραλειφθεί.

Download

Download

The post Καταγγελίες για Διαφθορά και Παρακμή στο Ελληνικό Κέντρο Κινηματογράφου first appeared on Film Industry Watch.