By FIW staff.

Film Threat has now weighed in on Film Industry Watch’s recent analysis of The Queen’s Gambit and the Nona Gaprindashvili controversy, amplifying the core point of our article while adding something equally important: this is not only dishonest storytelling, but increasingly boring storytelling.

Their discussion picked up on the heart of our argument. The Queen’s Gambit did not merely take dramatic license. It inserted a false statement about a real woman, Nona Gaprindashvili, erasing her documented achievements against male players in order to strengthen a cleaner ideological narrative. The distortion was not necessary for plot, character, or emotional truth. It served a message.

Film Threat agreed with that diagnosis, but pushed the conversation further. Their added point was that this pattern has now become so familiar that viewers can see it coming from a distance. Once certain ideological assumptions enter the frame, the range of possible outcomes narrows. The audience already knows who will be dignified, who will be diminished, who may help but never truly matter, and which version of history will be smoothed into place to support the approved theme.

That is the deeper problem.

A falsehood like the one used against Gaprindashvili does not remain confined to a single line of dialogue. It reveals a broader creative method. Complexity is stripped out. Cooperation is recoded as condescension. Competition is reinterpreted as hostility. Real history becomes raw material to be bent into a more politically legible shape. Men, collectively, are positioned not as fellow participants in human struggle, but as the necessary backdrop against which female success must be framed.

Film Threat highlighted exactly this mechanism. They singled out the phrase “manufacturing female grievance” from our original piece and treated it as the crux of the issue. That is because the pattern is now easy to recognize. When the facts do not supply enough victimhood, culture manufactures it. When reality shows cooperation between men and women, the cooperation is minimized. When history contains nuance, the nuance is removed.

And the result is not just dishonest. It is dramatically dead.

That was one of Film Threat’s sharpest additions. They argued that these stories have become predictable to the point of exhaustion. Viewers know the ideological boundaries in advance. They know which tensions may be explored and which cannot. They know which characters are permitted depth and which exist only to serve a moral arrangement. Instead of timeless storytelling, what remains is content stamped by the anxieties and orthodoxies of a very specific cultural moment.

That observation matters because defenders of this kind of writing often talk as if the only objection is political. It is not. The artistic objection is just as serious. A story that starts from ideological conclusions rather than human reality loses surprise, ambiguity, and dramatic freedom. It ceases to discover and begins to instruct.

Film Threat also connected this to a broader industry climate. In their discussion, they described an atmosphere in which attempts at ordinary collaboration can be reinterpreted through a grievance lens, with help recast as patronizing intrusion and expertise treated as suspect when it comes from the wrong kind of person. Whether one agrees with every anecdotal example they raised, the larger point lands: once a framework is built around status and grievance, ordinary professional relations are easily reclassified as domination narratives. This mentality does not produce better art. It produces paranoia, rigidity, and resentment.

That is what makes the Gaprindashvili case more than a historical footnote.

A real woman’s accomplishments were reduced in order to support a fictional woman’s symbolic importance. A public lie about a real person was defended as artistic expression. The show was then absorbed into the prestige system as enlightened, culturally important drama. Even after litigation, even after a court allowed the defamation claim to proceed, even after the case was settled, the episode remained unchanged. No public correction. No visible reckoning. Just silence, followed by continued acclaim.

Film Threat’s reaction confirms that more people are starting to see the pattern for what it is.

This is no longer just about one Netflix line, one show, or one lawsuit. It is about a mode of storytelling that treats factual truth as expendable whenever truth complicates ideology. It is about a cultural machine that flatters itself as progressive while quietly erasing inconvenient women, misrepresenting men, and training audiences to read cooperation as oppression.

And, as Film Threat rightly pointed out, it is also about craft.

Because even leaving aside the politics, this formula is tired.

It narrows character.
It narrows conflict.
It narrows history.
It narrows imagination.

Most of all, it narrows what stories are allowed to say about men and women sharing the same world.

The real scandal of The Queen’s Gambit is not only that it lied. It is that the lie was so useful to the system that almost no one inside that system seemed troubled by it. That is why reactions like Film Threat’s matter. They help expose not just a single distortion, but the institutional mindset that rewards distortion when it points in the approved direction.

Truth was available.
Complexity was available.
A better story was available.

They chose the slogan.

The post Film Threat Reacts to FIW’s Queen’s Gambit Analysis: When Ideology Replaces Truth, Storytelling Suffers first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

Popular YouTube channel Film Threat recently covered our article “Sundance’s Little Dirty Secret: How NYU’s Elite Grip is Crushing Indie Dreams” and added their analysis to the growing body of evidence that Sundance, while still claiming to champion “independent cinema” and underprivileged voices, is anything but. The Sundance Film Festival has long billed itself as the premier stage for fresh, diverse storytelling. But as our investigation revealed, that image may be a “glaring farce” – Sundance’s lineups are overwhelmingly dominated by alumni of NYU’s Tisch School of the Arts, one of the priciest and most elite film programs in the country. Film Threat’s commentary emphatically reinforced this point, with hosts Chris Gore and Alan Ng slamming Sundance for perpetuating an insider pipeline that “filters out” true indie voices. The picture that emerges is damning: Sundance appears less a democratic showcase of unknown talent and more an exclusive club reunion for those with the right connections and credentials.

An Elite Pipeline Exposed

Our original report laid out stunning statistics. In 2025, 143 NYU Tisch-affiliated filmmakers swarmed 39% of all Sundance projects – including half of the films in the U.S. Dramatic and Documentary Competition. By contrast, graduates of other top film schools like UCLA and USC were attached to far fewer entries. This lopsided representation is “not organic success, it’s systemic favoritism” as we wrote. Sundance’s vaunted labs and development programs have been similarly skewed. Five out of the 2025 Sundance Screenwriters Lab participants came from NYU, reinforcing what critics call a “networking on steroids” effect that turns Sundance into “an extension of NYU’s campus”. Such concentration of power in one school’s hands is unprecedented given the 1,300+ film programs across the United States. It’s “downright laughable,” we noted, that a single Manhattan-based institution could monopolize opportunities meant for a nation’s worth of diverse creators.

Even more troubling are allegations about how Sundance selects its films. The festival reportedly receives 14,000–16,000 submissions each year (with entry fees up to $125 per film), yet fewer than 1% are accepted. Insiders whisper that not every submission even gets a complete viewing – many entries may be unwatched or only partially viewed, while films with backdoor recommendations from elite circles get fast-tracked. As our article quipped, believing every film is fairly considered is “as naive as believing a lunar real estate scheme”. The result is an illusion of meritocracy: Sundance touts surface-level diversity stats (over 40% women directors, many filmmakers of color), but beneath that lies a “skin-deep” diversity. The same coastal, well-heeled enclave is producing those “diverse” voices, meaning indie has become “institutionally approved” rather than truly independent.

Film Threat’s hosts seized on these findings, expressing little surprise but plenty of frustration. “Does this surprise anybody?” Chris Gore asked rhetorically, noting that Sundance has always favored insiders to some extent – but it’s gotten far worse. “You always had to have an ‘in’, but there was a chance a random movie could make it through the process. [Now] it’s gotten more exclusionary,” Gore explained. The festival pumps out press releases about inclusion, yet “while they tout terms like diversity, there’s truly no content diversity, there’s no diversity of points of view,” he said pointedly. In Gore’s view, Sundance’s supposed independent selection is largely a sham – a curated showcase of the well-connected. He and his co-host agreed this insider game isn’t just unfair, it’s also hurting the art: “They’re being so exclusionary, only letting in people from NYU or people they know or based on the identity of the person who made the movie. And what ends up [happening] is the movies are not very good,” Gore observed bluntly. Sundance champions identity and pedigree over originality, and accordingly, “the movies at Sundance are underwhelming… They’re just not good movies because of favoritism”.

Quality Control: “Underwhelming” Films and Frustrated Filmmakers

One of the most striking critiques from the Film Threat discussion was how mediocre the Sundance slate has become in recent years, in the eyes of seasoned reviewers. “Every year you comment [that] I was whelmed,” Gore teased Alan Ng, referring to the forgettable quality of Sundance selections. Alan concurred: he shared that during the last festival, “I didn’t review a single film from Sundance ’cause… I was barely whelmed by anything I saw”. Comedies, he noted, had devolved into trivial silly fare, and nothing left a strong impression. When the supposedly best indie festival in the world consistently delivers lukewarm lineups, it raises serious questions about how those films got there in the first place. Gore and Ng’s answer? Favoritism and a closed feedback loop of elite tastes picking films that cater to the same. As Gore put it, the lack of genuine diversity of perspective means “the festival circuit is [no longer] where the best movies bubble to the surface. It’s just not.” In other words, truly innovative independent cinema isn’t getting a fair shot at Sundance – and perhaps is finding alternate paths outside the traditional festival gatekeepers.

The frustration among filmmakers is palpable. If Sundance is essentially pre-selecting films from its pet sources, what hope does a truly independent outsider have? Many in the film community have suspected this for years, and our exposé along with Film Threat’s coverage seems to validate those suspicions. On Reddit, one filmmaker reacted to the NYU revelation by writing: “The hard lesson was learning that the major festivals are 90% pre-programmed. Long gone are the days of movies like Napoleon Dynamite getting plucked from the middle of nowhere and starting a billion dollar career.” In other words, the era when an unknown could submit a brilliant film and launch a dream career at Sundance is effectively over. Another commenter didn’t mince words about the statistical improbability of Sundance’s NYU fixation: “Yeah, it’s beyond fishy. It’s statistically impossible. And it’s been an open secret for a long time. Every time I ask older filmmakers about Sundance, they all say not to bother, because you have to know somebody to get serious consideration.” This sentiment – that without connections “you have to know somebody” on the inside – reflects a growing cynicism among creators. Many now view Sundance as a pay-to-play illusion, where who you know (or where you studied) matters far more than raw talent.

Indeed, the Film Threat hosts raised the same concern. Alan Ng mused that Sundance’s submission process might even warrant legal scrutiny. “I smell… a class action lawsuit,” he said only half-jokingly. Filmmakers are paying hefty entry fees (often $80–$125 per under the assumption of a fighting chance. If, as alleged, thousands of those submissions aren’t truly given full consideration, that could be a serious breach of trust. “It feels like… you’re giving them $80 and your movie is not being seen,” Ng remarked in disbelief. With 16,000 hopefuls submitting each year, the idea that only NYU’s circle consistently produces all the “worthy” films is, frankly, absurd. “Is it possible that only [one] school is making the elite of the elite movies out of these 16,000?” Ng asked pointedly, before answering his own question: obviously not. Something is clearly wrong when Sundance’s selection shenanigans (as we dubbed them) allow such a skewed outcome.

Sundance’s Shrinking Relevance?

A powerful takeaway from Film Threat’s analysis is that Sundance may be undermining its own relevance through these practices. Gore argued that the festival circuit in general “is not as important as it used to be” for discovering great films. Part of the reason is technological and cultural shifts – filmmakers can self-distribute online or find audiences through smaller regional festivals. But another reason is self-inflicted: by narrowing the pipeline and uplifting what Gore called “bad indie movies because of favoritism and identity”, Sundance is “doing damage to their brand”. The hosts noted that high-profile festivals like Sundance, Toronto, Cannes, and SXSW still draw attention, but if they keep picking lackluster films from the same incestuous circle, filmmakers and cinephiles will simply look elsewhere. “The good news is you don’t need festivals,” Gore emphasized. Great films can and will find their way to audiences without passing through Park City’s elitist filter. In fact, many truly independent creators are already bypassing Sundance, opting for direct digital releases or alternative festivals rather than subjecting themselves to a rigged game.

The core issue, as summarized by our original piece and echoed by Film Threat, is one of credibility. Can Sundance continue to pretend it’s a champion of all indie voices when insiders see it as “a rigged game… propping up a privileged few”? The chorus of critics is growing louder. What was once whispered as an “open secret” is now shouted from YouTube shows and Reddit threads. Even industry veterans like Gore (who literally wrote the book on film festivals) concede that sending your film to Sundance blindly is naive. Unless Sundance undergoes a radical shake-up – “dismantle its elite dependencies… publish full selection stats… scout beyond NYC networks,” as our article implored– it risks losing the very thing that made it iconic: the independent spirit. For now, Sundance’s claim of being a meritocratic launchpad for all creatives rings hollow. In the words of one Reddit user, aimed at any hopeful without an NYU degree: “Good luck.”

Sources

1. Film Industry Watch – “Sundance’s Little Dirty Secret: How NYU’s Elite Grip is Crushing Indie Dreams” (July 25, 2025). Film Industry Watch’s investigative article that first exposed the disproportionate presence of NYU Tisch alumni in the 2025 Sundance lineup and alleged systemic favoritism in the festival’s selection process.
2. Film Threat (YouTube) – “All Eyes on Elites – Sundance’s Dirty Secret” (Chris Gore & Alan Ng discussion). Transcript of Film Threat’s video segment reacting to the Film Industry Watch report, featuring Chris Gore’s and Alan Ng’s commentary on Sundance’s elitism, lack of diversity of viewpoints, and declining film quality due to favoritism.
3. Reddit – r/Filmmakers discussion, “Sundance’s Dirty Secret: How NYU’s Elite Grip is Crushing Indie Dreams.” Online forum thread where filmmakers discuss and react to the article’s claims. Notably, users highlight that major festivals are “90% pre-programmed” and that the era of unknown indies getting discovered (e.g., Napoleon Dynamite*) is “long gone,” reinforcing the notion of festival favoritism.
4. Reddit – r/FilmFestivals discussion, “Sundance’s Dirty Secret: How NYU’s Elite Grip is Crushing Indie Dreams.” Another community thread focused on film festivals, in which commenters call the Sundance situation “beyond fishy” and an “open secret.” One commenter notes that older filmmakers advise “you have to know somebody” at Sundance to have a real shot, underlining the prevalence of insider culture.

The post Sundance’s Hollow Indie Dream: What Film Threat and Filmmakers Already Know first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

Guest post by a concerned filmmaker & FIW staff

In one jarring scene of Promising Young Woman (2020), a young man gently lays an apparently drunk woman on a bed and begins unbuttoning her dress. “Shhh… you’re okay, you’re safe,” he whispers – a grotesque reassurance even as he pulls down her underwear without consent. Suddenly, she sits bolt upright, stone-cold sober: “I said: what are you doing?” she demands, fixing him with an icy stare. The predator freezes, terrified at being caught. This moment of tables-turning shock encapsulates a striking new archetype in today’s critically acclaimed cinema: men as predatory or pathetic figures, and women as their righteous reckoners or survivors. From indie festival darlings to Hollywood blockbusters, a growing roster of films is casting masculinity in a harsh light – depicting men as abusive, weak, absent, or broken, while positioning women as victims-turned-avengers or the moral centers of the story. And of course, the world is nothing if not ‘Black & White.’ Why wrestle with the messy complexity of gender dynamics when you can flatten it into the simplest cliché imaginable?

Abusive, Weak, or Absent: The New Male Stereotype on Screen

Recent award-winning and festival-circuit films have not been subtle about the state of their men. In Eliza Hittman’s drama Never Rarely Sometimes Always (2020), the men orbiting 17-year-old Autumn are ALL, with no exception, either useless or predatory. At her supermarket job, the sleazy manager dismisses Autumn’s illness and leers “It’s really just a few more hours… You can do it. Besides, I’d get lonely if you left” – a line dripping with inappropriate undertone. Later, as the girls turn in their registers, he even kisses Autumn’s hand through a money slot in a furtive act of harassment. Far worse has happened to Autumn behind the scenes: during a counseling session, she’s asked if her partner ever “made [her] have sex when [she] didn’t want to.” Autumn cannot even speak – the script notes “Autumn’s flood gates open. She breaks down” in tears. Pressed further – Has anyone forced you into a sexual act? – she finally chokes out, “Yeah,” confirming that a boy in her life raped her. The men in Autumn’s world, all of them, are either absent when needed or the source of trauma, whereas the moral agency lies entirely with Autumn and her female cousin who supportively accompanies her on a secret trip to get an abortion.

Film after film paints its male characters in a similarly dismal hue. Emerald Fennell’s acid-tinged thriller Promising Young Woman (2020) takes direct aim at “nice guys” who are anything but. Its parade of men are rapists or enablers: from the group of college bros who assaulted the heroine’s friend, to the former friend (now a doctor) who laughed it off, to the seemingly sweet new boyfriend who is ultimately revealed to have been complicit. The film’s biting opening illustrates this dynamic in miniature: Cassie, pretending to be obliterated by alcohol, is “rescued” by a man who coos assurances while attempting to take advantage of her incapacitation. Cassie suddenly drops her ruse, eyes clear and voice firm, scaring the hell out of him as she forces him to recognize his predatory behavior. In Promising Young Woman, men’s misdeeds are the central evil, and the avenging angel is a woman driven to drastic ends to expose them. Even basically decent men are portrayed as cowardly or culpable. “The message is that every man is guilty – if not of rape, then of complicity or willful ignorance – and it’s the women who bear the pain and seek justice,” writes one reviewer in summary of the film’s provocations.

In this new cinematic landscape, even when men aren’t outright villains, they are depicted as feckless, foolish, or fragile. Take last year’s Cannes Palme d’Or winner, Justine Triet’s Anatomy of a Fall (2023). The drama centers on a wife accused of killing her husband, Samuel, under murky circumstances. As the trial unspools, a damning portrait of the late husband emerges: Samuel was a frustrated writer suffering professional envy and depression, prone to paranoid behavior. He had been secretly recording his wife Sandra’s every word for months and grew “jealous” of her literary success. In a climactic court scene, the prosecution plays an audio recording of the couple’s final argument, in which Samuel’s composure collapses and an “explosion of violence” is heard. It’s suggested that he physically attacked Sandra (she was left with bruises), leading to the fall that killed him. The subtext is clear: Samuel is depicted as emotionally broken and volatile, a man who literally couldn’t handle being eclipsed by his wife. Sandra, by contrast, is portrayed as complex but ultimately more sympathetic – an intellectual and mother who maintains poise under pressure, effectively the moral center as the court (and audience) weigh her fate.

Anatomy of a Fall isn’t clever; it’s entry-level bait-and-switch. The script stacks obvious “she did it” breadcrumbs, loaded anecdotes, conveniently incriminating fragments, a neatly arranged trail of marital rot, and then smirks, “Gotcha! Misogyny!” as if the audience’s suspicion were proof of their bias rather than the direct result of the film’s own engineering. That’s not depth; it’s a cheap card trick where the magician palms the queen and then lectures you for noticing the deck.

The courtroom scaffolding promises rigor but mostly recycles surface-level ambiguity: pose a question, gesture at complexity, refuse resolution, call it profound. We’re never invited into genuine psychological opacity, just toggled between “look how guilty this looks” and “shame on you for thinking that.” The movie confuses withholding with nuance and moralizing with insight. It’s ambiguity for beginners, the kind that flatters the viewer for passing a test with only one answer: you’re problematic for believing the clues the film planted. Palme d’Or material? More like freshman workshop week: a draft that’s proud of its conceit, allergic to consequence, and convinced that wagging a finger at the audience equals complexity. If the standard is “structure that manipulates, then scolds,” congratulations, mission accomplished. If the standard is real ambiguity, genuine moral texture, and characters who exist beyond the needs of a thesis, this is a pass. Anatomy of a Fall indeed – that of European deep complex and nuanced cinema.

Even ostensibly lighthearted films reinforce the theme. Greta Gerwig’s blockbuster Barbie (2023) garnered attention for its candy-colored feminist subtext. In the film’s satirical reversal, Barbieland is a matriarchy where Barbies run everything and Kens are decorative sidekicks. But when Ken (played by Ryan Gosling) discovers the concept of “patriarchy,” he promptly leads an over-the-top male takeover that plunges Barbieland into a goofy dystopia of horse-inspired macho posturing. The depiction of Ken and his brethren is pointedly comical: vain, simple-minded, and easily manipulated by their own fragile egos. To defeat the Kens, the Barbies execute a clever plan – “We’ll distract them by pretending to be helpless and confused. Kens can’t resist a damsel in distress” one Barbie explains. The Barbies feign cluelessness to flatter the men, who immediately fall for it. In one scene, a brainwashed Ken leans over a Barbie to mansplain the difference between stock market CDs and music CDs: “Oh sweetheart, you are just so cute when you’re confused… CD stands for Certificate of Deposit,” he lectures while she bats her eyelashes in feigned awe. The ruse works perfectly – the duped Kens relinquish their grip on power without the women ever needing to use force. Barbie’s gleeful message is that when men do have power, they don’t know what to do with it besides impose absurd chauvinism – and savvy women can easily outsmart them. The film pointedly makes its heroine the moral and emotional anchor, while the men learn a lesson in humility.

And then there is Yorgos Lanthimos’s surreal feminist fable Poor Things (2023), which flips the Victorian Frankenstein trope to sly effect. The protagonist, Bella (Emma Stone), is a resurrected woman finding her independence in a world of leering or controlling men. Her “creator,” Dr. Baxter, is a grotesque but kind man who nonetheless literally keeps Bella under lock and key “for her own good.” When a slick male lawyer, Duncan Wedderburn, encounters Bella, he is so intrigued by this uninhibited woman that he spirits her away on a tour of debauchery across Europe. Duncan styles himself a liberator – upon meeting her, he dramatically declares, “You are a prisoner and I aim to free you… There is something in you, some hungry being, hungry for experience, freedom, touch”. But his version of “freedom” is to indulge in hedonistic sex and thrill-seeking on his terms. In one scene, after Bella enthusiastically beds him, Duncan can’t resist boasting about his sexual prowess. “At the risk of being immodest, you have just been thrice fucked by the very best,” he brags to her with smug self-satisfaction. Eventually, Duncan’s self-centered antics (including gambling away Bella’s money) prove him to be a shallow cad. Poor Things casts its men as either paternalistic “protectors” or libertine exploiters – and skewers both. Bella ultimately asserts her autonomy, rejecting the cages both kinds of men offer. The film’s feminist lens makes its sympathy clear: the men are foolish and corrupt; the woman is the one discovering authentic moral agency.

Sean Baker’s Anora turns a stripper’s Cinderella story into a demolition of male authority. Ani (Mikey Madison) marries Vanya, a pampered rich kid who proposes mostly to spite his parents. He is feckless, spineless, and quickly disappears once his oligarch family intervenes. In his place arrive thugs led by Toros, who bind Ani, sneer “this is the property of the Zakharovs,” and threaten to erase her pregnancy. Ani’s desperate scream of “RAPE!” forces the men to gag her with a scarf – a disturbing metaphor for silencing women in the #MeToo era.

Ani remains the only figure of moral clarity, publicly scorning Vanya for marrying her only to defy his mother. Even at the end, as she is forced into annulment, she reclaims dignity by naming the violence done to her. Every man in Anora is either abusive, cowardly, or complicit, while Ani alone has integrity. Unsurprisingly, critics rewarded this excoriation of masculinity with the Palme d’Or and Oscars – proof that vilifying men remains a reliable ticket to festival glory.

Ruben Östlund’s Triangle of Sadness gleefully dismantles masculinity from start to finish. Carl, a fragile male model, bickers over dinner bills and is later reduced to Abigail’s boy-toy in exchange for food. On the luxury yacht, rich men – from the drunken Marxist captain to the fertilizer tycoon – are grotesques, vomiting through storms or ranting drunken politics over the PA.

The final act on a deserted island flips power completely: Abigail, once the ship’s toilet-cleaner, declares herself “Captain,” doling out food while billionaires and influencers – especially the men – meekly comply. Carl prostitutes himself for pretzels, embodying male emasculation as comedy. The film won the Palme d’Or and Oscar nominations precisely because it revels in humiliating men and celebrating female dominance, a perfect fit for post-#MeToo festival tastes.

Across these examples – Never Rarely Sometimes Always, Promising Young Woman, Anatomy of a Fall, Barbie, Poor Things, Anora and Triangle of Sadness – a common pattern emerges. Men, in these stories, are overwhelmingly sources of harm or hindrances to women. They are rapists, abusers, overgrown boys or insecure wrecks. Women, by contrast, are victims who find strength, or caretakers who clean up the mess, or avengers delivering comeuppance. This trend is especially pronounced in prestige cinema and festival favorites, the very films that garner Oscars, Palmes d’Or, and critical acclaim. It’s as if Hollywood and the art-film circuit, in the wake of #MeToo, have collectively decided that the time of the heroic or even just complex, sympathetic male protagonist is over. Instead, filmmakers are holding up a mirror to the ugliness of “toxic masculinity” – and often making sure that mirror shatters on screen.

Contextualizing real-world statistics against the exaggerated portrayals of men in contemporary cinema

The gap between cinematic narrative and social reality is staggering. In the films surveyed above, male characters are overwhelmingly cast as predators, abusers, or enablers of violence, as though every man is complicit in misogyny. Yet hard data tells a very different story. Globally, only a small fraction of men are ever accused of sexual harassment, whether formally or informally. In the United States, for example, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) received around 7,600 sexual harassment charges in 2018, the first full year of #MeToo, representing less than 0.01% of the U.S. male population. Even when looking at a four-year span (2018–2021), the total number of men formally accused through EEOC charges remains well under 0.1% of American men.

Workplace HR complaints are more common than lawsuits but still affect only a small minority of men, research suggests perhaps 1–2% of employed men over several years will face such an allegation. Anonymous surveys cast a wider net: about 4% of men in a 2017 survey admitted to behavior they considered harassment. Even if we take the higher estimates, this still means the overwhelming majority of men, upwards of 90–95% worldwide, are never accused of harassment at all.

Now place those percentages beside the reality of male victimhood. Around 60–70% of the homeless in the U.S. are men, a silent crisis rarely dramatized in prestige cinema. Men also account for about 78% of homicide victims, and globally, men die by suicide at roughly three to four times the rate of women. They also make up the vast majority of workplace deaths, overdose fatalities, and combat casualties. In other words, men are not only disproportionately the accused in cultural narratives, but also disproportionately the victims in real life.

Now let’s look at relationships and Intimate partner violence – A large U.S. study of young adults found that about 24% of relationships had some violence; about half of those were reciprocal (both partners violent). But here is the real shocker – when Intimate partner violence was one-sided, women were the perpetrator in more than 70% of those cases – since this data goes against everything you’ve heard your entire life, here is the source, because we know you’re not going to believe us.

Contrast these statistics with the cinematic landscape. In Promising Young Woman, every man Cassie encounters is either a rapist, an accomplice, or a coward. In Never Rarely Sometimes Always, every male figure is absent, lecherous, or abusive. In Anora, Ani is surrounded entirely by exploitative or spineless men. Even comedies like Barbie and satires like Triangle of Sadness revel in reducing men to clowns, predators, or parasites. The cumulative effect is a vision of society where male toxicity is universal and male innocence nonexistent.

This disjunction matters. When films repeatedly suggest that men as a class are dangerous, complicit, or broken, they risk cementing a cultural script that far outstrips reality. Yes, harassment and abuse are serious problems, but they are perpetrated by a minority of men, often repeat offenders. Cinema, however, portrays them as the majority if not the entirety. Meanwhile, the real vulnerabilities of men, homelessness, suicide, homicide, are erased from the screen. The result is a distortion: audiences are invited to see “the problem” not as a subset of bad actors, but as masculinity itself.

In real life, not on screen, it’s actually safer to be a woman than a man

Bottom line (absolute numbers) – When you tally deaths and serious injuries, homicide, suicide, fatal work injuries, and ED-treated violence, men are harmed and killed in greater numbers overall. Women do suffer more sexual and partner/family violence, usually from a partner, ex partner, or family member, with only about 20-30% of sexual violence is done by strangers. Taking the full ledger into account, it’s clear that, on balance, it is much much safer to be a woman than a man, and they live, on average, five years longer too. In other words, these so-called “brave realist social dramas” are anything but. In truth, according to the hard facts, they’re closer to science fiction, fit to be shelved alongside Ad Astra, Inception, and Blade Runner. Turns out sci-fi movies can win Palme d’Ors after all.

All sources for this section at the end of this article.

Post-#MeToo Revenge and the Ideological Shift in Hollywood

These portrayals are no accident of individual storytelling but part of a broader ideological shift in Hollywood after the #MeToo movement. In late 2017, the Harvey Weinstein scandal and the #MeToo reckoning exposed the prevalence of sexual misconduct by powerful men, not just in entertainment but across society. The response from the creative community was swift and continues to reverberate: more films centering women’s perspectives, more brutal examinations of gender power imbalance, and unmistakably less patience for glorifying or excusing bad men. In fact, Hollywood has arguably turned cinema into a vehicle for advocacy, determined to dramatize the wages of male sin.

“Hollywood is now becoming its own loudest voice in helping to call out what a bad thing this is,” observes Robert Thompson, professor of popular culture at Syracuse University, referring to sexual harassment and abuse. By embedding #MeToo’s lessons into scripts and characters, filmmakers have essentially institutionalized the cultural reckoning within popular narratives. “The #MeToo movement was at the front lines… Then it becomes institutionalized by these films and TV shows which people will continue to watch years later,” Thompson notes, pointing out that fiction can serve as a long-lasting record of the era’s lessons. In other words, long after the news headlines of predatory bosses fade, movies like The Assistant or Promising Young Woman will remain to remind future viewers of the period when society finally said “enough” to men’s abuse of power.

Many creators are openly intentional about this mission. Kitty Green, writer-director of The Assistant (2019), based her film’s grim portrayal of a Weinstein-like boss on real testimonies and has said she wanted male viewers to feel a tad uncomfortable. “A lot of men come out feeling very uncomfortable,” Green noted of audience reactions, adding, “I think a little bit of discomfort is what we need right now if we want things to change.” Emerald Fennell, who wrote and directed Promising Young Woman, has similarly explained that her film is a pointed response to decades of endemic sexism. She deliberately filled it with situations drawn from real life: “There’s nothing in it that isn’t extremely commonplace,” Fennell said, emphasizing that the predatory behaviors depicted are all too familiar and widespread. That commonality is precisely the point – her film suggests the problem is all around us, in every nice guy at the bar.

The surge of female-led vengeance tales and social satires is so notable that even mainstream media began to notice a new subgenre. “In a post-#MeToo world: How better to find escapist fun than by ruthlessly dispatching awful men at the multiplex?” quipped the Washington Post’s Ann Hornaday, commenting on the wave of films inviting audiences to revel in women getting payback against brutish men. From stylish rape-revenge thrillers like Promising Young Woman to action flicks with female assassins mowing down male abusers, vengeance is presented as cathartic justice. These movies have a clear emotional aim: deliver satisfaction (or at least grim vindication) by punishing or overcoming the on-screen avatars of so called “toxic masculinity”. Hornaday noted that as gratifying as this can be, it has also become formulaic: a “dubious cycle of abusive men and the women savagely getting their own back” – to the point where it’s feeling “monotonous” and even “like its own form of toxicity.” In short, flipping the gender script – making women the heroes and men the villains – may redress an age-old imbalance, but if every story is framed as Women Good, Men Bad, even some feminists worry it creates a new kind of caricature.

Still, it’s clear that for now, Hollywood (and the independent film world) sees itself as having a moral mandate. The entertainment industry was, after all, ground zero for #MeToo; now it is using the tools of storytelling to reinforce the movement’s message. As one Reuters report put it, post-Weinstein, “Hollywood is… helping to call out” bad male behavior and embed these cautionary tales into the culture. We are essentially watching a form of cultural revenge play out on screen – a backlash against generations of male-dominated narratives. If the old Hollywood exalted the suave leading man, the new Hollywood often subjects him to a trial by fire (sometimes literally). No misdeed by a male character goes unpunished by the final reel; no female character’s suffering goes unavenged. In a sense, cinema itself has become a battleground in the gender wars, with filmmakers as the activists and each film a case study in the wages of “toxic masculinity.”

“Toxic Masculinity”: From Pop Psychology to Hollywood Gospel

Central to this ideological shift is the rise of the concept of “toxic masculinity.” Coined in academic and therapeutic circles decades ago, the term entered the popular lexicon in the 2010s and has since become a catch-all in media and Hollywood for the stereotypical behaviors of men that are deemed destructive – aggression, sexual entitlement, emotional repression, violence, you name it. Feminists have adopted “toxic masculinity” as shorthand to characterize the misogynist, abusive or emotionally stunted behaviors common in men. In public discourse (and often in these films), “toxic masculinity” doesn’t refer to individual bad actors so much as it indicts an entire system of social conditioning. It’s the idea that traditional norms of manhood – the old “boys don’t cry,” “might makes right,” “sow your wild oats” mentality – create a poison that spreads through men’s psyches and, by extension, hurts women and society.

Hollywood’s new narratives have embraced this concept with zeal. In film after film, the worst male characters are practically case studies in toxic masculinity: domineering, violent, unable to empathize – and ultimately pathetic. The Barbie movie outright name-checks “patriarchy” as Ken’s newfound religion, lampooning its absurdity. Promising Young Woman all but uses the phrase toxic masculinity in its premise (the lead character feigns helpless drunkenness precisely to expose men’s ingrained predatory responses). And behind the scenes, this viewpoint has been validated by mainstream institutions. In 2018, the influential American Psychological Association (APA) released its first-ever guidelines for therapists working with boys and men, and it pointedly declared that “traditional masculinity is psychologically harmful.” The APA warned that socializing boys to be stoic, competitive and aggressive leads to a host of problems– from mental illness to violence. In effect, the APA distilled “toxic masculinity” into an official stance: the time-honored traits of manhood (strength, stoicism, dominance) were recast as risk factors or pathologies to be curbed.

Critics have noted that this concept, once fringe, is now virtually orthodoxy in liberal media and entertainment. The term “toxic masculinity” itself might not be spoken within these films’ dialogue, but its ethos undergirds them. In press junkets and interviews, creatives frequently talk about examining or deconstructing toxic masculinity through their work. For many, it’s seen as a necessary re-education of the audience. But others argue it has become a blunt instrument, pathologizing all things male. “For conservatives, the concept of toxic masculinity knocks down the virtues and ways of life they hold dear: strength, honor, duty, and bravery,” one observer writes, noting how this rhetoric essentially recasts positive male attributes as negatives. Indeed, when every traditionally masculine trait is viewed with suspicion, culture edges toward implying that masculinity itself is a disease.

Nowhere was this cultural clash more evident than in the reaction to a certain shaving razor commercial in 2019. Gillette’s now-famous advertisement, launched in the heat of #MeToo, directly invoked the phrase “toxic masculinity” and urged men to be better – to intervene against harassment, to shed the old “boys will be boys” excuses. The ad showed scenes of bullying, catcalling, and boardroom sexism, asking pointedly: “Is this the best a man can get?”, a twist on the company’s classic slogan. The backlash was immediate and ferocious. Many men (and some women) blasted the ad as an unfair generalization that “implied most men were sexual harassers or violent thugs” and was merely virtue-signaling corporate pandering. Prominent conservative actor James Woods accused Gillette of “jumping on the ‘men are horrible’ campaign”. On YouTube, the commercial’s dislikes quickly far outnumbered likes. The Gillette saga is instructive: it revealed how polarized the concept of toxic masculinity had become. To one side, it was a long-overdue call for accountability; to the other, it felt like an all-out attack on male identity.

Hollywood’s current crop of films decidedly take the former stance – they presume toxic masculinity is real and pernicious, and they set out to critique or lampoon it. The result, intentionally or not, is that a lot of traditional male behavior now shows up on screen coded as “toxic.” Stoic, emotionally distant father figure? Likely he’ll be portrayed as failing his family (The Banshees of Inisherin and The Whale in recent years both depict lonely, taciturn men whose inability to communicate leads to personal tragedy). A man who loves flirting or womanizing? He’s probably going to be either a clown (the Kens in Barbie) or a villain (the charming date-rapists of Promising Young Woman). Even righteous anger or physical courage in a man – traits that for decades were the backbone of hero archetypes – are now often shown as double-edged or outright dangerous. This isn’t to say there are no positive male characters anymore; but in the films drawing the most buzz, those characters tend to be supporting players or deliberately non-traditional men (for example, Ken in Barbie only earns sympathy once he breaks down in tears and admits his insecurities – essentially when he relinquishes the performative “alpha male” mask).

It’s a remarkable cultural pivot. We’ve gone from James Bond seducing women and saving the day with nary a thought to his macho antics, to a landscape where a character like Bond is presented as a problematic relic or subverted as an object of critique. In essence, masculinity itself has been put on trial in our movies. And the verdict from the creative class, more often than not, is guilty as charged

Gender Politics and the Culture War on Masculinity

This cinematic trend doesn’t exist in a vacuum – it mirrors and feeds into a wider sociopolitical context. In American culture especially, gender has become intensely politicized terrain in recent years, with masculinity often in the crosshairs. The “war on men” that some commentators decry is in large part a reaction to the kind of messaging Hollywood is now amplifying, messaging that aligns closely with progressive, feminist-informed politics. Indeed, the U.S. Democratic Party’s messaging and left-leaning media in the Trump and post-Trump years have frequently portrayed traditional masculinity as something suspect or needing reform. Meanwhile, conservatives have seized on this to rally men to their side, arguing that the left is demonizing half the population.

The numbers suggest a growing gender divide in political affiliation. Young men have been veering rightward, while young women have trended even more to the left, creating a stark polarization. As of 2020, fewer than 4% of U.S. marriages were between one Republican and one Democrat – Americans are increasingly even choosing romantic partners along political lines. This hints at a deeper cultural split: many young women identify with feminism and social liberalism, whereas a lot of young men, feeling attacked or alienated by that rhetoric, are gravitating to more conservative or contrarian spaces. In an era when “the personal is political,” as the saying goes, one’s stance on masculinity has practically become a litmus test. Progressives often spotlight “toxic masculinity” as a societal ill – a problem to be addressed through education, corporate initiatives, and yes, representation in media. (For example, President Biden’s administration convened a Gender Policy Council, and while its focus is largely on women’s equality, it implicitly calls for reshaping male behavior too, such as engaging men to prevent gender-based violence.) Liberal cultural outlets like The New York Times and The Atlantic have run a slew of pieces on the “problem with men” in modern dating, education, and work – implying that men need to change or face being left behind. One viral NYT essay in 2025 described a “noticeable absence of men” in public life and dating, asking plaintively, “Men, where have you gone?”. Another introduced readers to the term “heterofatalism,” the bleak notion that straight relationships are doomed by men’s inadequacies, as single women vent about the dearth of “good men” willing to commit or even date earnestly. This media drumbeat paints a picture of masculinity in crisis – but crucially, it often frames it as a crisis men themselves have caused by not adapting to modern norms. In reality, many men, feeling unfairly blamed for crimes they did not commit, have chosen to ‘check out’ of dating in a society they increasingly perceive as hostile toward them.

On the other side of the aisle, conservative politicians and pundits have leaned into defending traditional masculinity, accusing the left and Hollywood of collectively waging a “war on men.” They see the constant critiques – in ads, op-eds, Oscar-winning films – as an unfair generalization at best, and at worst, an attempt to erase what they view as healthy masculine virtues. The outrage over the Gillette ad was one flashpoint. Another is the popularity of figures like psychologist Jordan Peterson and populist senators like Josh Hawley who openly talk about a “masculinity crisis” – albeit their concern is that men are being emasculated by a feminist, liberal culture. Hawley, for instance, gave a speech in late 2021 arguing that America’s men are in decline because of “the left’s attempt to deconstruct males” and has urged a return to traditional male virtues of strength and providership. Right-wing media often mocks or lambastes Hollywood productions that it perceives as emasculating men or unduly elevating women at men’s expense (the discourse around the Barbie movie on social media was a prime example, with some conservative commentators calling it “anti-man propaganda” for its satirical jabs at the patriarchy).

This tug-of-war rhetoric filters into the entertainment itself. It’s not a coincidence that Barbie included cheeky nods to real-world gender battles – the film knew it would be divisive and leaned into it humorously (e.g. having Ken literally discover patriarchy by name). Likewise, Promising Young Woman prompted heated debates between those who saw it as an empowering feminist fantasia and those (some male, some female) who felt it portrayed all men as monsters. The cultural backlash against masculinity that our film title references is very much part of a broader culture war, one in which the Democratic-leaning camp tends to view the elevation of women and critique of men as progress, and the Republican-leaning camp sees it as demonization and folly. After #MeToo, many Democratic politicians proudly aligned themselves with the “Believe Women” mantra and put forward policies to combat “toxic masculinity” in contexts like campus sexual assault and military training. Republicans, in turn, often scoff at the term “toxic masculinity” – some have even introduced resolutions to celebrate “National Masculinity Day” to honor positive male role models, implicitly pushing back on the notion that masculinity is inherently problematic.

The result of this political and cultural climate is that young men today receive mixed messages at best. Popular culture (movies, shows, ads) may tell them that their gender is suspect and they need to reform (be more sensitive, less aggressive, relinquish power). At the same time, countervailing voices tell them they are victims of a feminist agenda, and they should hold fast to traditional manhood or risk losing themselves. It’s no wonder that many men feel bewildered or embattled. They’re hearing both, “Step aside, you’ve had your turn,” and “Stand up, don’t let them beat you down.” And nowhere is this schizophrenic messaging more evident than in the realm of entertainment and media.

Lonely, Single, and Left Behind: The Real-World Consequences for Men

Amid this cultural crossfire, men are living through a quiet crisis. By numerous statistical measures, men in Western societies are struggling – in education, in relationships, in mental health – and the timing coincides with (though is not solely caused by) the post-#MeToo cultural climate. The portrayal of men as broken in films like Anatomy of a Fall or the hapless Kens of Barbie has uncomfortable echoes in real-world trends among males. Consider some of the data:

• Young men are increasingly single and socially disconnected. A recent Pew Research Center survey found that a whopping 63% of U.S. men under 30 report being single, nearly double the share of women in the same age group (34%). In generations past, young men were more likely to have a steady partner than young women (in part due to earlier marriage norms); now the script, pun intended, has flipped. Even more striking, most single young men aren’t even looking for relationships or dates. Between 2019 and 2022 – precisely as cultural messages about men’s toxicity grew louder – the percentage of single men under 30 who say they are actively seeking a romantic partner plummeted from 61% to 50%. In essence, half of young single men have just opted out of dating entirely. Social scientists tie this to a mix of factors: economic woes, porn and video game escapism, fear of rejection or #MeToo-style allegations, and an overarching sense of alienation. By contrast, single women’s interest in dating did not decline nearly as much in that period.
• Marriage and family formation have sharply declined for men. In the late 1970s, less than 10% of American men reached age 40 without ever being married. By 2021, that figure had tripled to 28%. Marriage rates are falling across the board, but again men seem to be pulling back more. Many men, especially working-class men, express uncertainty about their economic viability as husbands or disillusionment with the institution of marriage. The rise of voices disparaging men as inherently problematic might play a psychological role: some men question whether they’re wanted or valued in a committed partnership beyond their paycheck. We also see declining birth rates and fewer men becoming fathers, correlating with the marriage drop. It’s as if a large chunk of a generation of men is bowing out of the traditional adult milestones – some by choice, others by feeling unwelcome or unworthy.
• While loneliness affects both sexes, certain measures show men falling behind in social connection. An oft-cited statistic: In 1990, only 3% of men in the U.S. said they had no close friends. By 2021, 15% of men – five times as many – reported having no close friendships. This suggests modern life has become more isolating for everyone, but men have had a harder time maintaining support networks. Men also report fewer people they can confide in about personal problems compared to women. A Gallup poll found a quarter of young men (ages 15–34) say they feel lonely “a lot”, higher than the rate for young women (18%) in that survey.
• Educationally and economically, men are lagging. Women now earn about 70% of university degrees, leaving a growing cohort of undereducated young men. To a large extent this is the result of affirmative actions which was instituted in the 1970s, when the numbers have been reversed. But of course, today, nobody is calling to pause these advantages that women receive, not to mention on reversing them. Boys have higher dropout rates and lower college enrollment, and this education gap then feeds the dating gap (college-educated women often don’t want to “date down” educationally, leaving non-college men with fewer partner options – a dynamic some of those frustrated NYT essays allude to). On the job front, men have seen declines in labor force participation. A smaller proportion of “prime age” men (ages 25–54) are working today than in previous generations, in part due to the loss of manufacturing jobs and other traditionally male-dominated industries, but also because they know that they face unfair “reversed” discrimination and DEI policies.
• Mental health and suicide disparities are alarming. Men worldwide (and in the U.S.) die by suicide at roughly four times the rate of women. They also comprise the vast majority of overdose deaths and are disproportionately victims of alcohol-related illness – suggesting self-medicating behaviors. Part of this is long-standing (men have always had higher suicide rates, likely tied to methods used and societal pressures). But the concern is that as men’s social and economic prospects diminish, and as they internalize society’s messages about men being “problems,” their mental wellbeing may further erode. The APA warned that socializing boys to suppress emotions leads to damage, and indeed one could argue we are seeing it: a generation of young men who feel lost, angry, or without purpose. Some retreat into nihilism or resentful online subcultures (e.g. “incel” forums or anti-feminist Reddit channels), which only reinforces their alienation. Others simply check out of ambition and relationships, opting for a quiet life of minimal responsibilities – a trend documented in Japan (“hikikomori” hermits) and increasingly noted in Western countries too. The recent assassination of Charlie Kirk, by a young man who could easily be described as someone suffering from all of the above, is a case in point.
  

How much of this male malaise can be blamed on the “cultural backlash against masculinity” is up for debate. Certainly, economic and technological forces are huge factors. But it’s hard to ignore the feedback loop between cultural narratives and individual self-concept. If young men constantly encounter stories where men are brutish or superfluous, might it shape how they see themselves? When every role model in media seems to either be a flawed antihero who must be humbled or a doofus in need of correction, some men may just disengage rather than fight a tide that portrays them as the problem. The data on dating, for instance, suggests a resignation: many young men are not even trying to form relationships, possibly out of fear of rejection or of doing the “wrong” thing. (Notably, after #MeToo, surveys found a percentage of men – and women – felt less comfortable with casual flirting at work or approaching strangers, worried that behavior could be misinterpreted. One often cited effect of #MeToo was that men became reluctant to approach women in public for fear of crossing a line, being called “a creep”, or ending up as a TikTok video viewed and tens of millions of times.

This might be a net positive for women’s comfort, but it also could contribute to a chilling effect on men’s social initiation. Meanwhile, some of the more dire consequences hit not only men but society at large. For example, the loneliness and aimlessness of men can have political fallout – disaffected young men are often drawn to extremist ideologies or demagogic leaders who promise to restore their pride. There’s evidence of this in the rise of online misogynist movements, but also in broader politics: the gender gap in voting is at historic highs, with men more likely to support populist or right-wing candidates who explicitly push back on liberal social trends. This can further polarize and fragment communities. And on a very personal level, the struggles of men cascade onto the women and children around them: a generation of women faces a shortage of economically stable and emotionally available male partners, and millions of children are growing up with minimal or no involvement from their fathers (since unmarried, disengaged men often end up detached from family life).

In short, the “war on men” is not just a metaphor playing out in think-pieces and movies – it has flesh-and-blood consequences we can measure. Marriage rates down, male college attendance down, mental distress up, life satisfaction down. Whether one believes these outcomes are largely self-inflicted (men failing to adapt to a changing world) or exacerbated by a culture that gives young men few positive scripts to aspire to, the end result is the same: a lot of men are not thriving. They are, to borrow the title of a recent book by economist Nicholas Eberstadt, “men without work,” and perhaps without love or solidarity, too.

Recently even CNN has dedicated a whole hour to the subject with Rahm Emanuel, a member of the Democratic Party, who represented Illinois in the U.S. House of Representatives for three terms from 2003 to 2009 and was also White House chief of staff from 2009 to 2010 under President Barack Obama. He also served as Mayor of Chicago from 2011 to 2019. In the interview, Rahm raised the following points:

a Plea for Balance

The current narrative, wherein masculinity is so often equated with toxicity or inadequacy, poses the question: what vision of masculinity are we offering for the future? If boys and young men are told everything associated with traditional manhood is bad, do we risk creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of disengagement and resentment? Conversely, if we ignore the very real issues of sexism and abuse that #MeToo has highlighted, we risk sliding backwards into silence and complicity. The challenge – for filmmakers, for society – is to find a balance: to continue calling out and rejecting the genuinely toxic behaviors of a very small minority of men without tipping into a blanket vilification of men as a class.

For now, the films on our screens act less like a mirror than a hammer – striking at masculinity as though it were the root of society’s problems. They portray men primarily as aggressors and women as survivors, rarely pausing to acknowledge that men themselves are also hurting. The real-world data is stark: men make up the majority of the homeless, the majority of suicides, and nearly 90% of murder victims. Yet in culture and media, these realities are muted, while the narrative of male guilt is amplified.

A healthier cultural conversation would separate bad behavior from manhood itself. It would recognize that condemning violence or abuse is necessary, but that vilifying masculinity as a whole is destructive and misleading. The current zeitgeist leans too heavily on accusation and too little on compassion.

In the meantime, the “war on men” in cinema reflects a broader hostility in society – a warning that traditional manhood is no longer celebrated, but caricatured. The challenge ahead is not to polarize further by painting one gender as oppressor and the other as victim, but to redefine relationships between the genders in a way that values both men and women.

Reactions to THE article

The popular YouTube channel Film Threat covered this article, and we’d like to highlight some of the more disheartening comments from its viewers.

The Film Threat cover of this article:

Sources:

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2005.079020
https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/gsh/2023/GSH23_ExSum.pdf
https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/gsh/2023/Global_study_on_homicide_2023_web.pdf
https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240110069
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cfoi.pdf
https://www.cardiff.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/2910480/Serious-Violence-in-England-and-Wales_Violence-Research-Groups-24th-Annual-Report_2024.pdf
https://ourworldindata.org/why-do-women-live-longer-than-men
https://www.unodc.org/unodc/data-and-analysis/world-drug-report-2024.html
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/natureofsexualassaultbyrapeorpenetrationenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2020

The post Cinema’s Formula for Awards & Festivals: The Humiliation and Vilification of Men first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

The Sundance Film Festival bills itself as the ultimate stage for independent cinema, a supposed democratizer of storytelling where fresh, diverse voices can break through. But scratch the surface, and you’ll find a glaring farce: an overwhelming dominance by alumni from NYU’s Tisch School of the Arts, a single institution in a country boasting over 1,000 film programs. This isn’t just an imbalance, it’s a blatant mockery of true independence, funneling opportunities through an exorbitantly priced New York pipeline while sidelining the rest of America’s creative talent. With NYU grads infiltrating nearly 40% of projects, Sundance risks becoming less a festival and more an exclusive alumni reunion, perpetuating elitism under the guise of inclusivity.

NYU’s Overreach: One School’s Absurd Monopoly in a Nation of Thousands

In a nation as vast as the United States, home to more than 1,300 film schools and programs, from community colleges to state universities, it’s downright laughable that one Manhattan-based powerhouse claims such outsized influence. NYU Tisch, with its eye-watering undergraduate tuition exceeding $72,000 annually, isn’t just expensive; it’s a gatekeeper that filters out aspiring filmmakers without deep pockets or urban connections. Yet, in 2025, 143 Tisch alumni, students, and faculty swarmed 39% of all Sundance projects, including half the films in the U.S. Dramatic and Documentary Competitions. Standouts like Hailey Gates (BFA Drama, 2012), whose Atropia snagged the 2025 U.S. Grand Jury Prize: Dramatic, and Rashad Frett (MFA Graduate Film, 2021), director of the Directing Award-winning Ricky, exemplify how this elite club reaps the rewards.

Compare that to other top schools: UCLA managed ties to 25 projects in 2025, while USC boasts alumni involvement but lacks the same blanket coverage. This isn’t organic success, it’s systemic favoritism. Sundance’s labs and intensives, meant to nurture emerging talent, routinely handpick Tisch alums; five were selected for the 2025 Screenwriters Lab alone. In a landscape with 828 colleges offering film and photography degrees, why does one school, representing a tiny fraction of the total, hoard such a massive slice? It’s not merit; it’s networking on steroids, turning Sundance into an extension of NYU’s campus rather than a national showcase.

• The “40%” or “39%” numbers refer to the share of total Sundance projects (all sections) with at least one NYU Tisch-affiliated team member.
• For U.S. Dramatic Feature directors alone, the true NYU grad percentage is 20–30% per year, since around 2015.
• The numbers in the article reflect total alumni participation across many roles and program categories, not only directing credits.
• 2011 was a notable outlier with a reported 90% NYU presence – a surge not replicated in subsequent years.

Selection Shenanigans: Transparency as Thin as Park City Air

Sundance rakes in 14,000-16,000 submissions yearly, charging fees up to $125 per entry, yet whispers from the industry suggest, allegedly – OF COURSE – not every film gets a fair shake. Filmmakers report entries going unwatched or only partially viewed, with selections skewed toward those with insider recommendations, often from elite networks like NYU. In forums and industry chats, creators decry a process where low acceptance rates (under 1% for features) mask biases, prioritizing pedigreed projects over raw innovation.

This opacity fuels the elitism: With NYU’s “Tisch on Main” events turning the festival into a schmoozefest, anonymous submissions from non-elite programs stand little chance. Critics on platforms like Reddit lambast this as a “pay-to-play” illusion, where expensive educations buy not just skills but festival fast-tracks. The result? A homogenized indie scene that echoes New York’s urban elite, ignoring the heartland voices from hundreds of overlooked schools. Is there any wonder that the art of film is dead and cinemas are empty?

The Revolving Door: How Influence Recycles Itself

The ties run deeper than alumni stats. Shared events and overlapping paths create a cozy loop: NYU hosts Sundance-adjacent gatherings, while Tisch grads like Sean Baker (Tangerine, a Sundance breakout) cycle back as mentors or influencers. Broader critiques highlight how top schools rotate talent into festival roles, fostering perceptions of favoritism. Though no outright scandals surface, this interconnected web, where academic credentials trump outsider ingenuity, undermines Sundance’s indie ethos, making it complicit in perpetuating class divides.

“Diversity” That’s Skin-Deep

Sundance pats itself on the back for demographics – over 40% women directors and strong POC representation in recent lineups, bolstered by initiatives like stipends for diverse journalists. But this progress is hollow when so many “diverse” filmmakers hail from the same pricey, coastal enclave. USC Annenberg studies praise Sundance as a pipeline for underrepresented groups, yet they also underscore the need for broader access beyond elite hubs. With thousands of programs nationwide churning out talent from diverse regions and backgrounds, NYU’s grip ensures “indie” often means “institutionally approved,” not truly independent.

This concentration isn’t just unfair – it’s absurd, a punchline in a country rich with cinematic potential from coast to coast. Sundance must dismantle its elite dependencies: Mandate lab spots for non-top-tier schools, publish full selection stats, and scout beyond NYC networks. Until then, the festival remains a rigged game, crushing the dreams of countless filmmakers while propping up a privileged few. Independent cinema deserves better than this echo chamber.

Such Concentration of Power is No Accident

Just this week, we spotlighted the Jerusalem Film Festival, where 5 out of 8 films in competition were helmed by directors with direct ties to the Sam Spiegel Film School or its affiliated labs – a telling example of how festival clout is hoarded by a single institution closely linked to the event’s management. Yet, as problematic as that is, the comparison with Sundance makes the American case all the more indefensible. Israel, after all, is a nation of just 9.7 million people with a handful of film schools; a degree of centralization, while not healthy, is at least structurally plausible in such a tiny ecosystem. But in the United States – a nation of 340 million, with over a thousand film programs – the stranglehold that NYU Tisch exerts over Sundance defies every norm of diversity, fairness, and open access.

This pattern is well-documented in social science literature, where elite closure and institutional capture are recognized as mechanisms that perpetuate inequality and stifle mobility. Pierre Bourdieu’s seminal concept of “cultural capital” explains how privileged groups monopolize not only material resources, but also access to taste, credentials, and social networks—ensuring that cultural fields like cinema reproduce existing hierarchies rather than disrupt them (Bourdieu, 1977). In Bourdieu’s framework, the prestige of schools like NYU or Sam Spiegel functions as a gatekeeping device, conferring legitimacy and opportunity disproportionately to insiders.

From an economic perspective, this dynamic mirrors what Robert Michels termed the “Iron Law of Oligarchy”: in any organization or industry, control and decision-making invariably become concentrated in the hands of a few, regardless of formal commitments to democracy or openness (Michels, 1911). This self-reinforcing concentration is further exacerbated by what Michael Useem describes as the “Inner Circle” of interconnected elites, whose reciprocal exchanges of opportunity and endorsement reinforce their dominance across institutions (Useem, 1984).

Contemporary research in network theory by scholars like Mark Granovetter further underscores how “the strength of weak ties” paradoxically fuels exclusion: in closed, high-trust circles, jobs and opportunities circulate through referral and informal ties, systematically excluding those outside the dominant clique (Granovetter, 1973). This is especially acute in creative and cultural sectors, where subjective assessment and informal recommendation play a central role in gatekeeping.

Together, these theories reveal that the present condition at Sundance – and in similar festivals and across the entire film industry ecosystem – reflects not random happenstance, but predictable, well-studied patterns of institutional behavior. Until explicit intervention disrupts these entrenched feedback loops, the promise of independent cinema as a truly open field will remain unfulfilled.

How Does the Corruption Work in Real Terms?

Corruption within this system isn’t usually a matter of explicit bribery or criminal conduct – it’s about the quiet machinery of informal favoritism, institutional inertia, and back-channel recommendation. If Sundance truly practiced what it preaches – openness, discovery, diversity – its lineup would naturally feature filmmakers from the vast array of educational programs throughout the United States. Yet, as the chart below makes clear, an incredible 51% of Sundance’s program is monopolized by alumni from just three elite film schools. In a nation with more than a thousand accredited film programs, this isn’t just a statistical glitch – it’s a structural feature.

Here’s how the machinery operates on the ground: most filmmakers don’t stand a chance because their films are not even watched by the real decision makers. As we’ve documented extensively – and as the case of high-profile outsiders like Obama’s daughter demonstrates – submissions don’t receive honest consideration. The vaunted “open call” is largely illusory. Only a tiny fraction of the 14,000 annual entries ever makes it to a programmer’s laptop, while the others are watched by volunteers or low paid students, so the festival can later claim that all films are being watched and considered. Certain films, probably no more than 200-300 per year, are “floated” to decision-makers not on merit, but by virtue of personal connections – friends, family, and, most crucially, colleagues and mentors from the same closed network of elite programs. To believe that every submission is scrupulously viewed is as naïve as believing in lunar real estate schemes. The reality is a process engineered for exclusion and plausible deniability. (If you don’t believe us – please contact us. We have a wonderful plot of land to offer you in an excellent location on the dark side of the moon which is now going for 45% off.)

The outcome is inevitable: year after year, Sundance becomes a mirror not of the nation’s artistic breadth, but of the entrenched, incestuous circles that orbit a handful of privileged institutions. The pipeline is not only narrowed by design – it is actively policed, ensuring that only those already holding the right keys even approach the gate. This isn’t just a distortion of opportunity. It’s a system of manufactured scarcity and institutional favoritism, masquerading as meritocracy – a “corruption” far deeper and more routine than the industry cares to admit.

We want to thank the filmmaker who had tipped us about this issue. Please continue to contact us about any wrongdoing in the industry, anywhere in the world.

Reactions to the article

Sources & Further Reading:

1. https://www.nyu.edu/admissions/financial-aid-and-scholarships/cost-of-attendance.html
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_film_schools_in_the_United_States
3. https://www.niche.com/colleges/search/best-colleges-for-film/
4. https://filmmaking.net/film-schools/
5. https://tisch.nyu.edu/alumni/tisch-at-sundance/2025-tisch-at-the-sundance-film-festival/alumni-affiliations.html
6. https://tisch.nyu.edu/grad-film/news/2024/grad-film-at-2025-sundance.html
7. https://www.tft.ucla.edu/tft-at-sundance-2025/
8. https://cinema.usc.edu/festivals/sundance/index.cfm
9. https://tisch.nyu.edu/alumni/alumni-news/tisch-alumni-2025-sundance-screenwriters-lab-and-intensive.html
10. https://www.sundance.org/festivals/sundance-film-festival/submit/
11. https://nofilmschool.com/who-watches-your-film-film-festivals
12. https://www.reddit.com/r/Filmmakers/comments/175me0v/the_dos_donts_and_uncomfortable_truths_of_film/
13. https://filmthreat.com/uncategorized/rejected-from-sundance-you-may-be-angry-but-that-doesnt-mean-youre-right/
14. https://tisch.nyu.edu/alumni/events/tisch-at-sundance-2025.html
15. https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/1/19/14267740/sundance-film-festival-explained-robert-redford
16. https://indiefilmhustle.com/sean-baker-tangerine-iphone-filmmaking/
17. https://assets.uscannenberg.org/docs/aii-study-sundance-institute-jan2019.pdf
18. https://www.vox.com/2016/1/29/10866582/sundance-diversity-film-festival
19. https://www.reddit.com/r/Filmmakers/comments/wucfja/what_are_the_pros_and_cons_of_usc_ucla_and_nyus/
20. https://www.quora.com/What-is-your-opinion-on-film-schools-like-USC-NYU-AFI-UCLA-etc-Do-you-think-they-are-worth-it-for-future-filmmakers-Why-or-why-not

Further reading:

Pierre Bourdieu, “Cultural Reproduction and Social Reproduction.” In Power and Ideology in Education, 1977.
Robert Michels, Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy, 1911.
Michael Useem, The Inner Circle: Large Corporations and the Rise of Business Political Activity in the U.S. and U.K., 1984.
Mark Granovetter, “The Strength of Weak Ties,” American Journal of Sociology, 1973.

The post Sundance’s Little Dirty Secret: How NYU’s Elite Grip is Crushing Indie Dreams first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

Film Industry Watch received the following email, with certain details redacted to protect the filmmaker’s identity:

“Thanks for the information. If you are genuinely interested in hearing favoritism, censorship, or institutional bias in my own film community that I have witnessed here you go.

I’m a XXX grad residing in Turkey with multiple awards. My feature film screened at XXX etc. This year I applied to the Turkish National Film Fund with a bunch of other talented women who have had international recognition, 13 male directors and 0 female directors won the grant. 

When one of my friends faced the head of cinema in the ministry at the Cannes film festival he told her that she’s too pretty to direct, she should act instead.

I get that you are going through something and raise awareness but the rest of the world is still struggling with misogyny. I don’t know you or anyone working in Israel’s Ophir Awards. I assume my story is of no to little interest to you, so as yours to me. Please select your recipients wisely and try to be more emphatic towards your colleagues who have been without a doubt oppressed for longer by wider masses.

Best,

XXXXX”

Dear filmmaker – your story is very much of interest to us and we thank you for sharing it with us.

We are deeply appalled that in 2025, discrimination of any kind still persists. Let us be clear: all forms of discrimination, whether based on gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation, are completely unacceptable. This includes discrimination against women, men, black or white individuals, LGBTQ+ communities, Muslims, Jews, or anyone else.

In many parts of the world, discrimination against women remains widespread and must be actively challenged. We believe that no one should face prejudice or injustice simply for who they are. If you have experienced discrimination, regardless of your gender, race, or background, we urge you to reach out to us. You may do so anonymously or openly. Together, we must stand against all forms of injustice.

The world is in a constant state of flex. In many countries misogyny and discrimination against women is very much alive and kicking and it should be challenged forcefully. Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, Syria, Iraq, Somalia and Iran, are some of the worst offenders. In Iran, women suffer compulsory hijab laws, strict gender segregation, and harsh punishments for protesting. Women can’t attend major sporting events, face restrictions in travel without male permission, and are under constant surveillance. The 2022–2023 Mahsa Amini protests spotlighted widespread gender repression. In Saudi Arabia, although recent reforms allowed women to drive and obtain passports, male guardianship laws still limit autonomy. Gender segregation persists, and women need male permission for marriage and certain legal procedures.

In the West, after centuries of oppression, women finally enjoy legal equality, with Switzerland giving women the right to vote as late as 1971. 54 years later, women in the U.S. have steadily surpassed men in both educational achievement and, increasingly, economic standing. As of 2021, women made up 53.1% of adults aged 25 and over holding at least a bachelor’s degree, compared to 46.9% of men (Census.gov). Among younger adults (ages 25–34), the gap is even sharper: 47% of women hold bachelor’s degrees versus 37% of men (Wikipedia, Pew Research Center). This educational advantage translates into workforce dominance: by early 2024, women accounted for the majority of college-educated labor‐force members. When all measurable variables such as job title, education, experience, location, and industry are accounted for (often called the “controlled” or “adjusted” wage gap), the gender pay gap shrinks dramatically but does not vanish. In 2025, women earn on average about 99 cents for every dollar paid to men, that is, the adjusted wage gap globally is approximately 1% (SOURCE)

The oppression of women in the East, the vilification of men in the West

Despite the significant progress made in the West, recent years have seen a new narrative that insists women remain structurally oppressed, and that white men, in particular, must be held accountable for the historical privileges of their ancestors. Paradoxically, many of the voices promoting this view come from highly educated, economically privileged women who already enjoy full legal equality and social power.

Rather than addressing genuine gender inequality where it still exists – such as in Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, Syria, Iraq, and Somalia – this narrative appropriates the suffering of women in those regions to justify the pursuit of additional power, resources, and status in Western societies. In doing so, it conflates vastly different realities, and risks undermining the credibility of women’s rights discourse by framing modern Western men as oppressors in a context where legal and institutional gender parity has long been achieved.

The U.S., the EU, and many other nations maintain trade and diplomatic ties with countries like Iran, Iraq, and Pakistan, states that have made little progress on women’s rights. Meanwhile, Hamas, a group known for executing LGBTQ individuals by stoning, is at times treated as a political ally. And yet, in much of the cultural discourse, the supposed enemy remains: the white Western man.

Let’s be clear: in the modern West, today, not 50 years ago, not 200 years ago, not 500 years ago – today – privilege is economic. A wealthy, non-white lesbian woman living in Los Angeles enjoys far greater opportunities and access to resources than a poor white man living in the Appalachian Mountains. You’re free to disagree, but the facts will prove you wrong.

“being a Straight White Jewish Male in the doc world is a pretty lonely place to be”

Here is an additional comment that was recently posted on the site:

“I can tell you that being a Straight White Jewish Male in the doc world is a pretty lonely place to be. There are no grants at all for my demographic. There are no film festival categories. There are no “Support groups”. I understand there was a time when the pendulum was pinned in the Male preference position but that have swung all the way to the other side where White straight male filmmakers are vilified. It’s been over a decade where women, BiPC, LGBTQIA+ have been the majority of the Grant winners, Festival winner and accepteee. I don’t have a problem with that as it really sucked for women in our industry for a very long time. But there has to be a balance and right now there isn’t. And NO ONE is talking about this for fear of being canceled. I have seen films not even remotely the quality of my work on PBS, The Independent Lens, Sundance Channel and Sundance Lab, etc. all by women, BIPOC, LGBTQ. Again not complaining but come on. Some of those films were down right awful. Not because they were made by an underrepresented group[, because they were bad. Poor storytelling poor filmmaking. Just because you can make a film doesn’t mean you should. There are grants out there for first time filmmakers (of which i don’t qualify) every ethnic group under the sun (except Jewish) so i don’t qualify. All my films have been self funded because I can not get a grant. I am not bitter. I have just accepted that this is the way it is and i don’t see it changing anytime soon because in our current climate in the land of the free and the home of the brave speaking truth to power (any power. who ever is in charge) is a career ender.”

Both filmmakers, the female Turkish director and the male Jewish documentary maker, face the exact same form of oppression. They are both oppressed by a system built not on merit, but on discrimination, favoritism, corruption, and cronyism. Talent and integrity are sidelined in favor of connections and conformity of narratives, be it 1000s of years old misogyny, or however years old Misandry, which is the hatred of, aversion to, or prejudice against men. Both forms of discrimination are IDENTICAL. They are exercised in an attempt to maintain and/or expand control over resources, power and status by corrupt political elites.

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?

In a system long plagued by nepotism and cronyism, adding gender-based favoritism is just a small step further down in an already corrupt path. This is not far fetched.

The lab, the Ophir Awards, where 11 out of 12 nominations went to women, and the recent Jerusalem Film Festival, where the Israeli feature program included only one film by a male director (and two by female / male co-directors) and five women, are three separate events that appear to share a common throughline: systemic discrimination against men, by an industry now led by activists determined to “correct” a past injustice by creating a new one. These women were fully capable of reforming the corrupt system they inherited and creating a benevolent meritocracy- one where both women and men have an equal chance to share their stories. But… why would they? Where’s the personal gain – or the “fun” – in playing fair?

Women are not immune to prejudice or Hate

“With literally zero respect, go fuck yourself. For how many years were women not represented at all. Silenced. Women have finally been given a chance to to speak up and yeah we got stories. many years worth. You claim it’s not on merit because men are simply not handed it on a silver platter any more you have to actually fucking work for it. Welcome to the smallest taste of what has been dealt out and still currently happening. You want more men in the finalist list? Step the fuck up! Fuck you.”

This has nothing to do with “working for it.” In fact, it is the other way around. These selections in Turkey and Israel were made on the basis of gender. An arbitrary characteristic people are born with. If you believe that today’s male filmmakers, who have done nothing wrong, should “pay” or be punished for the privileges of their great-grandfathers, then something is deeply wrong with your way of thinking, and you are no different than the heads of the Turkish film industry who think that women should stay in the kitchen. Despite prevailing narratives, as the above quote shows, women can be bigots, racists, corrupt, violent – or simply wrong – too. We know, we know: that’s not something often said out loud, but it happens to be true.

Corruption, misogyny, bigotry, misandry, nepotism, and favoritism are all wrong, regardless of who commits them or who they target, no matter what some may believe. As we predicted nearly two years ago, such policies are harmful and lead to the marginalization of large segments of society driving many toward right-wing politics and further deepening the political divide.

If you feel you’ve been the victim of any form of wrongdoing in the film industry, we encourage you to reach out, anonymously or not.

The post Gender Discrimination – Oppressed Voices from Turkey, US & Israel 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.

Film Industry Watch continues its coverage of the simmering controversies around Israel’s cultural institutions.

Earlier this month an award-winning documentary producer sent Film Industry Watch a blistering note about his experience on the Israeli festival circuit. The filmmaker—who asked to remain anonymous to protect future projects—claims that three major festivals rejected his Holocaust-themed film for reasons that had nothing to do with artistic merit.

“After submitting my critically acclaimed film XXX … it became clear to me that the film industry in Israel is enduring serious issues, including extreme xenophobia.”

“I was told that this happened… on the basis that no Jewish surnames could be seen amongst my production team, all three festivals refused to screen the film.”

The Festivals in Question

The documentary was entered into Haifa International Film Festival, Doc Aviv, and Jerusalem Film Festival during the 2016–17 season. According to the filmmaker, a programmer inside one of those events privately admitted the film “never stood a chance.” The programmer’s alleged explanation? Programming slots for Holocaust testimonies were earmarked for productions with recognizably Jewish creative teams. None of the three festivals responded to our request for comment before press time. (We will update if they do.)

This report is in line with the many other reports we’ve previously made about Israel and its corrupt film industry. From extreme Gender Politics to political intervention and a revolving door policy in its film funds, it is no wonder that in recent years the Israeli film industry seen a decline in both artistic and commercial success.

Pulling the Film in Protest

Stung by the rejections, the producer says he yanked the film from further distribution – even though it had already screened to acclaim in Germany and elsewhere:

“I pulled the film completely in protest against Israel’s blatant xenophobia … The raw 400 hours of survivor testimony will never be shown again in any country.”

That self-imposed blackout is a gut-punch for historians and educators who rely on primary-source testimony. It is also a stark reminder that gate-keeping decisions reverberate far beyond a festival’s red carpet.

Where Does Accountability Start?

The anonymous producer closes his email with a caustic directive:

“Good luck making desperately needed changes. I would suggest re-educating these idiots.”

Harsh words, yes – but they underscore a frustration shared by many filmmakers who feel that Israel’s festival gatekeepers and film funds operate behind an opaque wall of personal networks, political optics, and, as the letter claims, ethnic litmus tests.

Film Industry Watch invites festival organisers, selection committees, and Israeli cultural bodies to respond. Transparent criteria and public dialogue would go a long way toward proving that the rejection of xxx —or any film—rests on curatorial judgement, not covert quotas. Until then, the silence risks speaking louder than any official programme.

The post ISRAEL – Inside the Gate-Keeping: One Filmmaker’s Fury at Israel’s Festival Circuit first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

In an era when diversity initiatives are hailed as a saving grace for the entertainment industry, independent filmmaker Cinema Timshel contends he has been pushed to the margins. Timshel, a documentarian based in Minneapolis, believes an emerging ideology he calls “identitarian social justice” is erecting new barriers, even as it aims to eliminate old ones. His story, particularly the years-long struggle to gain festival traction for his documentary No One Left to Offend: The Rise and Fall of the Church of Euthanasia, underscores the complexity of identity-based policies and the disputes they spark.

Below is a closer look at the trials Timshel encountered while trying to screen his film, along with his broader claim that such difficulties are no coincidence. In his view, he is a casualty of policies and cultural attitudes that use racial and gender criteria to decide who gets a seat at the table, an issue we’ve touched upon both a year ago, and recently.

Being a Straight White Able-Bodied Male as a Major Disadvantage

Timshel is the first to acknowledge that the very idea of a white man being discriminated against in Hollywood raises eyebrows. Legendary directors – Spielberg, Scorsese, Nolan, and the Coen Brothers, to name a few – are still household names. And with that lineup dominating screens, skeptics wonder how Timshel can argue white men face any systemic roadblocks at all.

His answer is straightforward: “Everybody has to start somewhere.” While powerhouse talents can ride industry clout or brand-name success, Timshel says emerging white male filmmakers get a drastically different reception in an indie market he calls “rigged.” A wide range of arts nonprofits, film festival boards, and public grants, in his view, have codified “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) mandates in ways that exclude or sideline creators like him.

Their sin? Being born male, white and able bodied.

Despite finishing a previous documentary in 2014 and laboring for years on his latest project, Timshel says he has been rejected by every major film lab, grant, and festival to which he has applied in the past decade. While rejections are hardly rare in the competitive festival world, he insists the deck is stacked against him. He describes combing through festival lineups and funding announcements, only to find a conspicuous lack of white male directors compared to the portion who actually submit work.

Timshel points to one curious exchange that occurred while submitting No One Left to Offend to Sundance in 2022. To his surprise a longtime programmer reached out midway through deliberations, praising his film as “fascinating” and “wild,” and wondering if it should be entered as an episodic series rather than a traditional feature. Yet after that brief flurry of enthusiasm, No One Left to Offend was rejected – along with Timshel’s subsequent attempts to follow up.

He doesn’t claim outright proof of conspiracy; festivals have myriad reasons for turning down films. Yet Timshel describes the subsequent silence from that Sundance programmer, and thirty additional rejections from other festivals, as emblematic of an unspoken policy: programmers might like or even admire a project but fear wading into controversy that risks offending the ethos of identitarian social justice.

On paper, Timshel’s documentary covers raw, even outrageous, ground, enough to make any mainstream gatekeeper hesitate. No One Left to Offend chronicles the 1990s exploits of the Church of Euthanasia, a crew of performance artists and MIT engineers led by the cross-dressing provocateur Chris Korda. The group championed abortion rights and environmental awareness by staging intentionally inflammatory spectacles: carrying signs like “Eat a Queer Fetus for Jesus,” lampooning corporate greenwashing at Earth Day events, and even setting up a giant puppet that mimicked male ejaculation—just to mock a sperm bank.

Their slogans included “Save the Planet, Kill Yourself,” reflecting the group’s bizarre brand of performance-art activism. They provoked anti-abortion activists, confronted conservative Catholics, and boasted about sowing media confusion as a form of cultural sabotage. Timshel’s film, which runs more than two and a half hours, captures this spectacle in warts-and-all detail, offering neither condemnation nor apology.

Korda’s views add another layer of tension in a cultural environment sensitive to trans portrayal. Timshel’s footage shows Korda questioning medical transitions, calling them expensive and confining. Yet Korda also identifies as transgender and cross-dresses. This complicated stance—more personal rebellion than typical trans narrative—might not fit neatly into the identity-first frameworks common in certain film circles.And then there’s Nina Paley, an animator who appeared alongside the Church of Euthanasia on The Jerry Springer Show. Paley has been labeled a “TERF” (trans-exclusionary radical feminist) by her critics, spurring canceled screenings of her work and a permanent tarnish in many festival environments. Timshel keeps her in the final cut, though he wonders if her presence in the film has made it institutionally radioactive.

The Larger Landscape of Identitarian Social Justice

Early in his career, Timshel was involved in left-wing activism, including the Occupy Wall Street movement. At first, he relished what he saw as a populist wave concerned with class struggle and corporate power. But he recalls that over time, many activist circles devolved into bitter “oppression olympics,” where allegations of racism or sexism would lead to swift excommunications. According to Timshel, once that culture took hold, new rules on speech and identity grew so rigid that deeper issues of class, poverty, or free expression were drowned out.

He now sees that pattern replicated in institutional film. The new era, Timshel says, is dominated by the language of DEI—“diversity, equity, and inclusion”—but often operates like a pseudo-religion, zealously policing dissent. Organizations from The Ford Foundation to local nonprofits regularly tout achievements such as supporting “QTIBIPOC” creators (an umbrella acronym for Queer, Trans, Indigenous, Black, and People of Color). Timshel argues these well-meaning programs effectively erect a fresh set of identity-based quotas.

Timshel points to sensational stories like the uproar over Meg Smaker’s Jihad Rehab—a film labeled Islamophobic and hammered by critics who had never seen it. Though Jihad Rehab eventually premiered at Sundance, subsequent festivals withdrew. Smaker’s ordeal, Timshel believes, underscores the underlying fear: if your film is even rumored to “punch down” at a marginalized identity, it becomes a liability.

By contrast, Timshel says his own predicament has been more hushed but no less devastating. His sense is that festival programmers who appreciate his work still won’t risk an outcry. No One Left to Offend, featuring a trans protagonist with unorthodox opinions on gender, simply isn’t “the representation that trans people need right now,” as Timshel imagines the hypothetical critique.

Is it DEI or Discrimination?

In Timshel’s telling, the dilemma revolves around who determines “merit.” He concedes that Hollywood’s past shut out too many marginalized filmmakers and can be slow to respond. But he sees current practices as overcorrection—or worse, fresh prejudice disguised as progress.

He cites numbers from Sundance: in recent years, the percentage of female directors programmed in certain categories has often outstripped the percentage of female submissions. He also references press releases from arts nonprofits that highlight successful fellows by race, gender, and sexual orientation but rarely mention how many white men even made it past first-round eliminations.

Timshel wonders whether listing his own fractional Indigenous ancestry or calling himself “nonbinary” would have opened doors. Or if he’d relinquished directing credit and showcased a female co-creator, might the film have passed muster? Such hypothetical scenarios trouble him, suggesting a system that rewards the correct “checkboxes” above artistic excellence or curiosity.

A Storm in the Industry

Timshel’s frustrations highlight a broader reality for filmmakers of every background: the traditional pipelines for independent film—festivals, distributors, philanthropic grants—are narrowing. The streaming revolution has turned once-lucrative distribution deals into pennies per view. Younger audiences now favor social media over cinematic experiences. Meanwhile, philanthropic capital is guided by mission statements that Timshel says increasingly bow to the strictest version of social-justice orthodoxy.

That confluence, in his view, is choking out experimental or boundary-pushing work, especially if made by individuals who don’t align with the day’s favored identities or messaging. And while Timshel acknowledges that creators who aren’t white and male historically faced these headwinds, he sees the current approach as compounding the industry’s distress. In Timshel’s view, the cinematic establishment is letting old inequalities define decision making while punishing a new generation for crimes they never committed and benefits they never received.

Timshel foresees a bleak outcome: a splintered film culture where permissible “wokeness” is the ticket to mainstream festival approval. The danger, he warns, is that it may spark an equal and opposite backlash. He points towards the way white nationalism can thrive on feelings of betrayal, noting that marginal extremist groups can weaponize the resentments that DEI policies produce. Even more pressing to him is the death of robust artistic freedom—particularly in indie documentary, a genre that should probe complicated truths and uncomfortable stories.

Victimized by the “Flipped Script”

Critics of Timshel might ask if he’s just bitter about rejections or is blaming identity politics for a film that simply didn’t fit festival needs. But his record—and the personal praise from at least one top-tier programmer—suggests he might well be a casualty of an unwritten rule: “Don’t run material that could trigger controversy from the social justice left.”

He frames himself as a victim of an ideology that not only discriminates by race and gender but stifles common sense. Questions like “Should a documentary about a complicated trans figure get banned because it’s not the ‘right’ kind of trans story?” seem far from progressive in Timshel’s eyes—yet they reflect the closed-door climate he describes.

He is adamant that female and minority filmmakers deserve equitable access and expanded opportunity, but he believes that must not entail reverse discrimination. Referencing Martin Luther King Jr. and David Graeber, Timshel urges the film world to abandon gender and race based blame for past sins and focus on universal fairness and expanded opportunity for all. “It shouldn’t be about pushing anyone out,” he says, “the point is about making space for everyone without punishing entire categories of artists.”

Refusing to rely on festivals, Timshel plans to release his documentary online, possibly in segments behind a modest paywall. Although the marketing power of a big festival slot can’t be replicated through DIY distribution, he hopes that word of mouth will help him reach viewers who want something far from ordinary.

The Church of Euthanasia story, with all its ragged boundaries, might well intrigue fans of provocative documentaries. The film explores freedom of expression, the limits of transgression, and the line between activism and trolling. Some may condemn the group’s stunts, others may relish the countercultural punch. Still other may find themselves reflecting upon where the group went too far. Timshel is willing to let the audience decide—something he says is a hallmark of honest filmmaking.

In the midst of these battles, Timshel admits he isn’t holding his breath for any sweeping policy changes among large foundations. He does, however, hold out hope that enough creators, programmers, and viewers will tire of a system that appears to manage optics and kill art. He envisions a renewed spirit of class-based solidarity among all independent artists. Rather than fracturing into identity camps or appeasing corporate sponsors with safe messaging, Timshel calls for widespread open conversation—free from intimidation or fear of the label “bigot.”

He’s still reaching out to distribution contacts, curious whether there is a sympathetic champion waiting in the wings. For now, Timshel channels what he sees as a kind of semi-exile into future scripts and personal essays, convinced that in time, someone will see the irony of using so-called “inclusive” programs to turn him into an outsider.

Cinema Timshel may never pass the typical litmus tests that arts nonprofits favor in this era of identity-based gatekeeping. And his experience shows that simply being creative, persistent, and open to other viewpoints isn’t always enough. In telling his story, Timshel forces us to ask whether the industry’s newfound guardrails, though well intentioned, inadvertently cast out the very voices that once made independent film so freewheeling and vital.

He has yet to abandon faith in the transformative power of movies or in public curiosity for unusual stories. Rather, he issues a caution: true inclusivity can only flourish when institutions stop using reductive demographic categories to decide what merits an audience. What began as an effort to correct historical inequities, Timshel argues, has mutated into a lopsided system that punishes him for an identity he never chose.

Against the odds – and whether or not No One Left to Offend finds a conventional festival run – Timshel remains committed to forging his own path. If nothing else, his predicament raises a provocative question: in the name of progress, are we closing the door on sincere, if controversial, art?

For now, Timshel stands by his film, waiting for that moment when audiences are again ready to greet the messy, provocative side of documentary art with the curiosity it deserves. Until then, he remains one of many independent creators struggling to be heard, a casualty of a flipped script that, in the name of expanding representation, seems to have left common sense and true equality behind.

Disney executive admits anti-white hiring policy in secret footage

In a related incident, secret footage has surfaced showing a Disney executive admitting to discriminatory hiring practices under the guise of DEI policies. Michael Giordano, senior vice president of The Walt Disney Company, alleged that white males are often overlooked for positions within the company. Speaking candidly in the footage, Giordano stated, “Nobody else is going to tell you this but they’re not considering any white males for the job.”

Giordano also claimed that Disney employs strategic language to sidestep potential legal issues. In one instance, he alleged that a mixed-race candidate was rejected because he was “not visibly black enough” to meet the company’s desired image. “They want a certain percentage of the diversity here, a certain percentage there,” he explained, further questioning his own future prospects at Disney.

The footage, widely circulated on social media, has reignited debates about the fairness and legality of DEI policies in corporate hiring practices.

As we’ve warned almost a year ago, the backlash for making identity politics the “new left’s” core ideology, has now left us with an authoritarian President. Even before taking power, Trump is talking about annexing Canada, the Panama Canal and Greenland. As it turns out, alienating half of the population with progressive orthodoxy along with its censoriousness, thought-policing, and gaslighting has now been met with a devastating result. Who would have thought?

Timshel’s original post can be accessed here:

https://cinematimshel.substack.com/p/ideologically-out-of-line-and-insufficiently

Other resources:

For further thoughts we strongly recommend Sam’s Harris recent talk from his podcast Making Sense – The Reckoning (Episode #391):

The post When Liberals are Caught in the DEI Crossfire: On Identitarian Social Justice, Sundance & Donald Trump first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

Was looking at the Sundance narrative shorts line up for 2024. Out of the 34 films. 14-15 of the directors are prior Sundance or BIG 5 alumni. Some of the rest include Emmy winning writers making their directorial debut, established music video directors with Black Eyed Peas, Beyonce etc. credits making their foray into or coming back to narrative filmmaking after a break. And even a film by Barack Obama’s daughter (whose bio page is left empty) and another by Jodie Foster’s wife.”

In a recent video by Film Threat, linked below, respected critic Chris Gore delivers a harsh but necessary verdict on the current state of the Sundance Film Festival, one that Film Industry Watch supports and has previously reported on.

Gore’s analysis lays bare the unsettling reality: a once-vibrant showcase for exceptional independent cinema has devolved into a festival more concerned with identity based criteria than artistic excellence:

“The roster of films are less about the quality of the films and more about checking the box of identity – ‘this is a great movie because it was shot by a female filmmaker who’s queer, who’s in a wheelchair'”

Sundance’s programing now seems guided less by merit and more by a desire to “check the boxes” of certain demographic categories. While representation in film is important, giving priority to filmmakers purely for their identity, rather than their talent, undercuts the very definition of an “independent” festival. By Gore’s account, and our own reporting, one can no longer trust Sundance’s selections to highlight groundbreaking storytelling or innovative filmmaking. Instead, filmmakers’ backgrounds too often serve as substitutes for narrative strength, craftsmanship, or genuine creative risk-taking.

“If you’re a woman of color queer filmmaker, you are beating the generic white guy straight filmmaker every day of the week. You don’t even have to make a good film – you’ll get considered”

Gore also exposes another uncomfortable truth: the festival’s calendar position – kicking off just after the awards season hubbub – makes Sundance less relevant than ever. Major studios no longer need the festival for prestige. They now leverage Sundance simply for short-term buzz before dumping their films onto streaming platforms, effectively pushing aside smaller independent projects that can’t compete with corporate marketing machines. This commercial infiltration further erodes Sundance’s credibility, leaving it as a convenient publicity stopover rather than a genuine champion of new cinematic voices.

At Film Industry Watch, we’ve repeatedly warned that these industry shifts have not only weakened Sundance’s influence but also the very ecosystem it once supported. Publicists struggle to drum up interest for true indie films, and journalists, ourselves included, can confirm that investment in Sundance coverage rarely yields returns. As Gore astutely points out, the democratization of distribution means filmmakers no longer rely on the festival to find a home for their work. Without this gatekeeping role, Sundance’s claim to importance is dubious at best.

“The choices of films feel more activist-driven than… from a true filmmaking standpoint.”

Looking ahead, Sundance’s impending move from its longtime home in Park City only amplifies these concerns. The festival’s charm, once intimately tied to its unique setting, risks evaporating as it relocates. Instead of clinging to its original spirit of discovery and authenticity, Sundance appears poised to become yet another high-profile industry event, bland, corporate, and detached from its founding mission.

Chris Gore’s assessment aligns with the evidence we’ve gathered at Film Industry Watch. Sundance has abandoned its core purpose, prioritizing superficial identity politics and hype over quality and integrity. Gore is right – and until the festival’s organizers face these criticisms head-on, Sundance will continue its steady decline, ultimately betraying the very artists and audiences it was created to serve.

Further reading:

The post SUNDANCE IS DEAD: A Downward Spiral of Failing Standards first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

Film Industry Watch champions unequivocal equality of opportunity within the film industry and society at large. We assert that every individual deserves equal treatment, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic. We urge filmmakers globally to report any discrimination, targeting any individual based on gender, race, or any other distinction.

Additionally, we encourage organizations aiming to support specific groups to clearly state their policies and intentions, rather than suggesting impartiality where bias exists.

SOURCE:

https://www.facebook.com/jerusaleminternationalfilmlab

The post ISRAEL: Continuous Gender Bias at the Jerusalem Film Lab headed by Dana Blankstein and Mor Eldar first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

ACE Producers:

Torino Film Lab staff page:

Cannes’ Residency Fall 2023:

The Israeli Film Fund social media banner:

Has gender politics in the film industry, mirroring society as a whole, has gone too far in correcting historical injustices, and is de facto engaged in illegal discrimination on the basis of gender, race and other physical characteristics? We’ve already touched on the subject here.

Historically, traditional liberalism pursued a society indifferent to race and color, focusing on individual merit and abilities.

People were encouraged to do their best, whoever they were, in a promise that society will treat them as equals, legally and otherwise. We were educated and told to be blind to people’s gender and race.

In the West, this has been the case since about 1970s, and for over 50 years. (Developing countries, and lower social and economic communities in the West, are completely excluded from this discussion.)

While traditional liberalism encouraged people to look at others as equal human beings rather than a mathematical sum of their gender + race + sexual orientation + nationality and other attributes they were born with, in 2020’s we have reverted to a place where people and their opportunities have been reduced to their identity, similar to the situation in Europe in the 1930’s:

For the past five years, white, straight, male writers and directors with experience and successful track records have been sidelined. We’ve essentially been told that because of our race and gender, we need not apply.

This may not be obvious at first glance. There sure seemed to be a lot of white dudes at the Golden Globes, right? Well, this doesn’t impact the top 2% of writers, showrunners, and directors since they’re in the rarified air where they get work no matter what.

And the saddest part of all this is that most of the people who would fill that room are some of the most liberal people I know—people who have gone out of their way to foster new and unique voices.

Anonymous letter – A VETERAN SCREENWRITER’S PLOT TWIST ON HOLLYWOOD’S DEI CULTURAL SHIFT – filmthreat.com

It’s crucial to distinguish ‘equality of opportunity’ from ‘equality of outcome.’ The latter suggests enforcing uniform outcomes through reverse discrimination with disregard to merit or personal abilities. This approach, which imposes “top-down” equality, masks the underlying issues of society, in education, the distribution of economic resources, etc, rather than addressing them directly.

This process is done with an extreme invasion to personal information and privacy, when people everywhere are now forced to expose data that they otherwise might not want to make public.

By focusing on superficial equality of outcome, it treats the symptoms rather than the root causes and promotes further division, discrimination and as a side effect, degrading of artistic output.

Some critics have labeled it as the ‘exclusion of POT’, that is, the exclusion of People of Talent, to the detriment of the industry, audiences, and society as a whole.

This phenomenon, socially violent and extreme, wide spread in society as whole, has unfortunately but expectedly, is now met with a backlash from the extreme Right of the political spectrum, with a huge increase in the support of extreme rightwing politicians everywhere, undermining and putting at risk the very existence of liberal democracies in the West, with Trump likely to win* the next US presidential elections, along with other autocrats and fascists all over the world.

[*Update November 2024 – this article was written almost a year before the US elections.]

Film Industry Watch advocates for unequivocal equality of opportunity in both the film industry and society broadly. We believe every individual deserves equal treatment, irrespective of gender, race, sexual orientation, or other characteristics. We support nurturing equal opportunities from the outset, emphasizing enhanced education and financial assistance for underprivileged sectors and communities.

The images on the page were taken from: https://www.torinofilmlab.it/teams and other public sources.

Related posts:

The post Gender Politics – Has the Industry Gone Too Far? first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

Recent reports have brought to light concerns regarding gender bias at The Jerusalem Film Lab’s 10th lab event, held in 2020. (Another case from 2024 is reported here) Statistical analysis indicates a probability of 99.984% for gender-based bias influencing the proceedings of the event, including the selection of winning projects at the event. The details of this calculation are presented below. During this period, the film lab was lead by Aurit Zamir, an Israeli producer.

Event Overview: In this event, 12 feature film projects were selected for a year-long workshop. To assess alleged gender bias, we assume that there are an equal number of male and female filmmakers with comparable talent levels. Below are the relevant details concerning the event:

Project Selection:

• Of the twelve selected projects:
  • 8 were led by Women.
  • 4 were led by Men.

Over the 12 months period, three guests were invited to speak at the event:

• Eliza Hittman (Female)
• Joan Tewkesbury (Female)
• Alma Har’el (Female)

At the end of the event, seven jury members were invited to select the award winners:

• Frédéric Boyer (Male)
• Maya Amsellem (Female)
• Sandrine Brauer (Female)
• Ifat Irani (Female)
• Dea Kulumbegashvili (Female)
• Aranka Matits (Female)
• Ziv Naveh (Female)

Four Award Winners were selected:

• Netalie Braun (Female)
• Marianna Brennand Fortes (Female)
• Myrsini Aristidou (Female)
• Odeya Rosnak (Female)
  
  The total 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. The exact calculation is presented below.

Interestingly, in a 2019 Facebook post (one year before the event) Aurit Zamir expressed interest in the gender distribution within the film industry, specifically exploring potential biases. The post indicated a preoccupation with gender in industry roles. However, as it can be seen above, during the Film Lab’s 10th event in 2020, instead of making decisions based on merit, as it would be expected, there have been a significant and unnatural inclination towards a certain gender in the selection of participants, speakers, jury members, and award winners.

Film Industry Watch advocates for unequivocal equality of opportunity in both the film sector and society broadly. We believe every individual deserves equal treatment, irrespective of gender, race, sexual orientation, or other characteristics. It’s crucial to distinguish ‘equality of opportunity’ from ‘equality of outcome.’ The latter suggests enforcing uniform outcomes through reverse discrimination. Instead, we support nurturing equal opportunities from the outset, emphasizing enhanced education and financial assistance for underprivileged communities.

Historically, traditional liberalism pursued a society indifferent to race and color, focusing on individual merit and abilities. However, the contemporary narrative often emphasizes identity—race, gender, and other inherent attributes—over merit. This approach, which imposes “top-down” equality, masks the underlying issues of society rather than address them directly. By focusing on superficial equality of outcome, it treats the symptoms rather than the root causes and promotes further division and discrimination. It’s essential to tackle society’s foundational problems to achieve genuine, lasting equality.

For this lab, it would have been more transparent and respectful for the organizers to openly state their intention to support the women in the group by dedicating the awards to them. This would have allowed the men to make an informed decision about their participation, rather than obliging them to engage in what might feel like a predetermined and unfair process. Such upfront communication could prevent the waste of time and the perception of bias, ensuring a more honest and respectful environment for all participants.

We urge organizations championing equality through a “top-down” approach and focusing on ‘equality of outcome’ to be transparent about their objectives and methodologies. It’s important that they clearly communicate their intentions beforehand, enabling potential participants to make a well-informed decision about whether to engage with their programs. This proactive transparency is crucial for maintaining trust and respect among all involved.

Gender Bias Calculation:

To calculate the gender bias in this event, we need to consider the distribution of opportunities (project selections, speaker invitations, jury positions, and award selection) between men and women. Since we’re assuming that there are an equal number of male and female filmmakers and equal talent levels, any significant deviation from a 50/50 distribution might indicate a bias. The calculation was done twice, by two different mathematicians, to ensure that the method used, and results, are correct:

Gender-biasDownload

Second calculation by a different mathematician, to ensure accuracy.

JFL
Download

Our organization is dedicated to unveiling the true decision-making processes and power dynamics within the film industry. The chart below provides a comprehensive summary of these elements. Our goal is to democratize access and provide talented, emerging young filmmakers with the opportunities they rightfully deserve to succeed in the industry.

About Aurit Zamir:

Aurit Zamir is an Israeli film‐producer, screenwriter and educator known for her work through production company Gum Films and her role as director of the Sam Spiegel International Film Lab (Jerusalem) beginning in January 2020. She is a graduate of the Sam Spiegel Film & Television School and also works as a mentor and script editor in film education.

Related posts:

https://filmindustrywatch.org/israels-jff-the-festival-of-discrimination-how-israels-film-industry-is-punishing-its-men/

https://filmindustrywatch.org/inside-israels-chaos-war-without-end-media-crackdowns-and-a-corrupt-broken-film-industry/

Feedback and Corrections
If you believe your or company’s name was listed on this website unjustly, please CONTACT US.

The post CASE STUDY: Statistically Significant Gender Bias at The Jerusalem Film Lab first appeared on Film Industry Watch.