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

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

Beyond the Trophies: A Direct Hit on the Individual

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

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

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

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

The False Alibi of “Budget Cuts”

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

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

A Familiar Playbook

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

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

The Long-Term Cost

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

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

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

By Film Industry Watch and Kosovar Film Industry Insiders

For years, Kosovo’s film sector has celebrated rapid international success. That rise is funded in large part by public money administered by the Kosovo Cinematography Center (KCC). At the same time, DokuFest, the country’s most prominent festival, has evolved beyond curation into training and production through DokuLab.

Taken together, public records show a tight professional network in which festival leaders also appear in KCC decision-making roles while DokuFest-linked filmmakers receive KCC support. None of this is unusual in small markets. The question is transparency: when roles converge inside a publicly funded ecosystem, how are conflicts identified, managed and disclosed? 

Since 2023, Kosovo’s publicly funded film sector has experienced substantial shifts. Under new leadership at the Kosovo Cinematography Center (KCC), the country has issued three major funding cycles: Spring 2024, an unprecedented Feature-Only call in December 2024, and a full Spring 2025 call.

All three took place within a compressed regulatory period and under the same leadership.

Across these cycles, public records show a constellation of relationships between KCC decision-makers, DokuFest/DokuLab leadership, and a group of repeat beneficiaries whose collaborations, training roles, and festival ties significantly overlap.

None of these connections imply wrongdoing. But the patterns raise structural governance questions familiar to FIW readers: issues of transparency, recusal, and the management of alleged or perceived conflicts of interest in public funding. Similar dynamics have surfaced in FIW’s reporting on Greece’s Film Center, the Cannes Factory model, and governance disputes tied to London and Sundance, where reputational damage and creative stagnation often follow opaque decision-making.

1. KCC leadership and DokuFest/DokuLab: overlapping institutional roles:

Based on official KCC publications, DokuFest/DokuLab materials, and training program listings, the following overlaps are publicly documented:

Eroll Bilibani

• Chair of the KCC Board (appointed 2025)
• Long-time DokuFest executive
• Head of DokuLab
• Trainer in multiple DokuLab programs
• Several filmmakers he trained or collaborated with are beneficiaries in the 2024–2025 cycles

Nita Deda

• Member of the KCC Board (appointed 2025)
• Director of DokuFest (2016–2020)
• Co-curator of DokuNights 2025 with filmmaker Leart Rama, a four-time beneficiary
• Former producer of a short film by Rama

Blerta Zeqiri

• Director of KCC (appointed 2023)
• Former DokuLab lecturer whose training cohorts include multiple later KCC-funded filmmakers
• Entered office before the regulatory changes governing the 2024–2025 calls

Veton NurkollarI

• Artistic Director of DokuFest
• Member, KCC Film Certification Board 
• Past juror on KCC feature-film panels
• Professionally overlaps with several funded filmmakers
  

These overlaps do not imply misconduct. However, as FIW has noted in similar cases involving public film bodies problems arise when roles converge without published recusal procedures.

2. Repeat beneficiaries across 2024–2025: a concentrated cluster

Across Spring 2024, the Dec 2024 Feature-Only call, and Spring 2025, KCC’s own lists show that a small, interconnected group of filmmakers appear repeatedly as winners-often in collaboration with each other, often tied to DokuFest/DokuLab, and often working with the same producers, editors, or crew.

Below is a non-exhaustive summary based on public documents.

A. Leart Rama – director/producer

• Spring 2024: Short Film + Post-production
• Dec 2024: Feature Film
• Spring 2025: Feature Documentary
  
  Documented ties:
• DokuLab alumnus → later lecturer
• Seasonal collaborator with DokuFest
• Earlier short produced by Nita Deda (now KCC board member)
• Co-curator of DokuNights 2025 with Deda

B. Samir Karahoda – director/producer

• Spring 2024: Project Development
• Spring 2025: Feature Film
• Spring 2025: Short Film (producer)
  
  Ties:
• Short Film Programmer at DokuFest
• Collaborates repeatedly with beneficiaries in cinematography, editing, and production
• DP or collaborator on multiple cluster films

C. Valmira Hyseni – producer

• Spring 2024: Post-production
• Dec 2024: Feature Film
• Spring 2025: Script Development
  
  Ties:
• Line producer for Karahoda
• Producer for Rama’s Dec 2024 feature
• Production involvement with Gjinovci, Hasanaj and others

D. Ilir Hasanaj – producer/director

• Spring 2024: Feature Documentary
• Spring 2025: Avant-garde Feature Film
  
  Ties:
• Collaboration with Dea Gjinovci
• Member of the same production cluster

E. Dea Gjinovci – director / KCC jury member

• Spring 2024: Feature Documentary
  
  Ties:
• Lecturer at DokuLab
• Juror in 2025 for Short Film & Feature Documentary
• Worked with Karahoda, Hasanaj, and others

F. Edon Rizvanolli – Director/producer

• Spring 2024: Short Documentary
• Spring 2025: Feature Film
  
  Ties:
• DP work by Karahoda
• Film edited by Enis Saraci

G. Enis Saraci – Editor / Director

• Spring 2025: Short Film (director)
  
  Ties:
• Editor for all Karahoda films
• Editor for Rizvanolli
• Lecturer at DokuLab
   

Such concentrated clusters resemble patterns FIW has documented in other countries where mentorship pipelines, festival platforms and public funding bodies merge into a single influence sphere, often reducing diversity of artistic voices.

3. The institutional → beneficiary → collaborator pipeline

Public documents and the Interconnection Matrix provided by sources illustrate a repeating cycle:

1. DokuLab trains filmmakers (often taught by individuals later involved in KCC governance or juries)
2. Filmmakers apply to KCC
3. KCC leadership includes DokuFest/DokuLab executives
4. Filmmakers with prior ties to the festival/lab become repeat beneficiaries
5. Their collaborators (producers, editors, DPs) also become beneficiaries
6. Films are supported or platformed by DokuFest

FIW has reported similar dynamics in other European markets where a “festival–training–funding loop” results in structural barriers for outsiders and lowers creative pluralism-a concern echoed in FIW’s analyses of Cannes Factory, Cannes Critics’ Week pipelines, and several CI-cluster cases in Central Europe.

4. Public posts reinforce the perception of a close ecosystem

Public posts show:

• Nita Deda (KCC board) co-curating DokuNights 2025 with Leart Rama (four-time beneficiary)
• KCC posting promotional content for films made by cluster collaborators
• DokuFest providing support for films whose crew also secured KCC funds
• Overlapping appearances of the same individuals across premieres, labs, workshops, and festival side-events
   

These public interactions do not imply misconduct. However such overlaps can erode public trust even when all actions are lawful.

5. Core governance questions

The concerns raised here are structural, not personal. They reflect patterns FIW has documented across Europe, where revolving doors, lack of recusal transparency, and insular influence networks can contribute to declining industry credibility and narrower artistic output.

Key public-interest questions include:

1. Recusal & disclosure
• Were alleged conflicts of interest recorded when board members or jurors evaluated submissions from collaborators, trainees, or festival colleagues?
• Are recusal logs published?

 2. Transparency of evaluation
• Does KCC publish full applicant lists, jury rosters, scoring sheets, evaluation comments, and rationale for funding decisions?

 3. Cooling-off periods
• Should individuals with active festival, training, or production roles be temporarily restricted from evaluating or awarding funds to recent collaborators?

 4. Institutional firewalls
• What safeguards ensure that festival involvement does not create preferential treatment for certain applicants?

6. What would clarify the situation immediately

To shift discussion from perception to verification, FIW recommends that KCC publish the following for each call (2024–2025):

• Signed conflict-of-interest declarations
• Full juror and committee lists, with appointment dates
• Recusal logs and meeting minutes
• Complete applicant lists
• Scores, comments, and written rationales
• Grant amounts and final decisions
• Annual festival-support contracts, including DokuFest partnerships

Right of Reply

KCC, DokuFest, and all named individuals or companies are invited to reply. FIW will publish corrections, clarifications, or full statements in full or in relevant part. If any information is incomplete or inaccurate, we welcome official documentation and will amend the article promptly.

Share documents securely

FIW accepts confidential submissions, including:

• recusal logs
• jury score sheets
• meeting minutes
• internal correspondence
• festival partnership contracts

Legal Notice:

This article is based solely on publicly available information and documents provided by sources.
It reports verifiable facts and raises questions of alleged structural or perceived conflicts of interest in a publicly funded environment.
No allegation of illegal conduct is made. All persons and institutions are presumed to have acted lawfully and in good faith unless shown otherwise. FIW will update this report if credible corrections or official statements are provided.

Sources:

(All sources are public and were used to verify names, roles, film credits, funding results and institutional links.)

• KCC official funding results (Spring 2024)
• KCC Feature-Only call results (Dec 2024)
• KCC funding results (Spring 2025)
• Interconnection Matrix (DokuFest/KCC links)
• DokuFest “People” pages & DokuLab training program listings
• Public Instagram posts documenting DokuNights co-curation
• KCC Facebook communications regarding film premieres and festival support
• Public statements, festival credits, and press releases

FIW prior reports on:

• Greece Film Center conflicts & payment delays
• Cannes Factory structural overlaps
• Cannes Critics’ Week influence networks
• London Film Festival governance concerns
• Sundance selection pipeline dynamics
  

The post Inside Kosovo’s Film Funding Loop: The Same People Train, Curate, Judge – and Win first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

The Israeli film industry likes to talk about diversity, bold voices and creative risk. On paper, it is a vibrant scene. In reality, it is a tiny, self-reinforcing circuit of insiders who teach one another, fund one another, program one another, and then review one another’s work in the press.

Two recent reviews in the mainstream outlet Ynet, both written by the same critic and both praising films by his own colleagues at Tel Aviv University’s film department, reveal just how tight and self-referential that loop has become.

This is not an isolated anecdote. It fits neatly into decades-long pattern that FIW has already documented in detail in our report “ISRAEL: Decades Long Alleged Corruption at the Rabinowitz & Gesher Film Funds”: alleged revolving doors, readers who are also beneficiaries rotating between the two, overlapping festival juries and filmmakers, and public money circulating inside the same small circle of people. What we’re seeing now with academic critics and their colleagues is simply another branch of the same tree.

Case 1: “Nana Dauri” – the review that quietly admits the conflict, but only at the end of the review

The first example is “Nana Dauri” (“נאנדאורי”), directed by Eti Tsiko. Tsiko is a faculty member at the Steve Tisch School of Film and Television at Tel Aviv University. The critic who reviewed her film on Ynet, Shmulik Duvdevani, is also a faculty member at that same film school. He gives the film a glowing four-star review.

Buried towards the end of the piece he adds a casual aside: a brief “גילוי נאות” (“disclosure”) that they are colleagues at the university. For most readers, it’s a throwaway line. For anyone who cares about governance, it’s a red flag. A meaningful disclosure would be:

• placed at the top of the article, not hidden in the body towards the end of the review and
• ideally explaining why the critic chose to review a colleague’s film in the first place.

That doesn’t happen here. The conflict is “technically” acknowledged, but practically neutralized. Worse, this is not the only overlap. According to the Jerusalem Film Festival’s own publications, Tsiko also serves on the festival’s International Programming Committee. In other words, she is a gatekeeper at one of Israel’s major festivals, where her own films (in plural) compete and win.

Taken together – the hidden-in-plain-sight disclosure, the shared academic affiliation, the glowing review, and the programming role at the same festival where the film is rewarded – the structure is hard to ignore. This is not an open field, it’s a closed loop.

Case 2: “Kvish HaSArgeL” – when there isn’t even a disclosure

If the first case could be dismissed as a one-off lapse, the second one makes that impossible. On 2 February 2025, Ynet published another raving, four-star review by the same critic, Shmulik Duvdevani. This time, the subject was “Kvish HaSargel” (“כביש הסרגל”), a feature by Maya Dreifuss. Dreifuss is also a filmmaker and also a faculty member in the same Tel Aviv University film department. In this review, there is no disclosure at all. No mention of the fact that critic and director share the same institutional home. No hint that the review is of a colleague’s film. To the reader, it appears as purely independent judgment. To anyone looking at the structure, it is anything but.

When a critic reviews one colleague and buries the conflict in the end of the text, then reviews another colleague from the same department with no disclosure whatsoever – and both reviews are emphatically positive – what you have is not a coincidence. You have a pattern. And that pattern sits in a broader ecosystem FIW has already chronicled: a system where the same small number of people cycle through roles as project readers, fund beneficiaries, festival jurors, programmers, union heads who receive funding as directors, fund CEOs handing money to business partners, and now academic reviewers. It is an ecosystem designed to reward people already inside it.

The Israeli Film Club, Where Only Members are allowed In

From funds to festivals to film schools, the Israeli film industry operates as one small club. In our long-form investigation “ISRAEL: Decades Long Alleged Corruption at the Rabinowitz & Gesher Film Funds”, FIW documented:

• alleged revolving doors between film funds and the Israeli Film Council,
• readers who simultaneously evaluated scripts and received financing from the same funds,
• festival jurors whose own films were in competition at those festivals,
• fund CEOs and artistic directors allegedly intervening in funding rounds,
• and a disproportionate share of public money flowing to a small cluster of producers and companies.
• That report showed how public film funds can become self-serving machines: a handful of decision-makers allegedly shaping what gets made, who gets financed, and who gets shut out – year after year.
  
  Now add to this:
• university departments where key faculty direct films,
• critics at major outlets who are drawn from the same departments,
• faculty who sit on festival programming or guest roles,
• and those festivals serving as the main platform for “serious” Israeli cinema.

What we see now with Tel Aviv University, Ynet, and the Jerusalem Film Festival is the same logic in a different corner of the system. The critic doesn’t just happen to like two films. He is embedded in the same institutional network as their directors. One of those directors is also a programmer at a major festival. That festival, like others, has a documented history of overlapping jurors and filmmakers, including one who has been mentioned on the site multiple times in relation to other conflicts of interests. The funds feeding the industry have documented allegations of revolving doors between evaluators and beneficiaries.

At some point, we should stop calling this “unfortunate optics” and start calling it what it structurally is: a closed, self-congratulatory circle of a small group constantly validating, rewarding and amplifying one another, while presenting the result as objective merit and open competition.

What this means for anyone outside the circle

For filmmakers who did not study in the “right” school (there are only two of them), did not pass through the “right” labs, did not work for the funds, did not intern at the festivals, and do not share offices or corridors with the critics – in other words, not part of the circle – the message is clear: you are not really part of Israeli cinema’s inner ring. If you are an outsider – someone who didn’t pass through this network of film schools, funds, festivals, and media – your chances of breaking in are tiny. You are competing not just with other films, but with an entire web of institutional loyalties and mutual dependencies. And as our readers from Israel have told us repeatedly, this does not just shape who gets reviews or festival slots – it shapes who gets money, who gets distribution, who gets prizes, and ultimately, who gets to have a career.

Why disclosure and recusal are the absolute minimum

This is why disclosure is not a technicality. It is the bare minimum of honesty. A critic must tell readers when:

• they review a colleague’s work,
• they share an employer or department,
• they’ve worked with the filmmaker in another capacity.

A festival must tell audiences when:

• programmers have films in competition,
• jurors are connected to participating films,
• funders and decision-makers hold overlapping institutional roles.

Public funds must be transparent about:

• who reads,
• who decides,
• who sits on councils,
• and who receives the money.

Israel’s film ecosystem consistently fails on multiple points. The two Ynet reviews are simply the most visible, easy-to-understand examples.

Israel’s film institutions could take immediate steps to restore trust:

• Require prominent disclosures in all reviews where critic and filmmaker share an institutional home.
• Prohibit festival programmers from participating in competitions where their own films are present, or require full removal and transparent recusal.
• Publish the names and roles of festival committees, funds’ readers, and council members, along with their industry connections.
• Establish term limits and cooling-off periods for key roles in film funds and councils, as FIW has already recommended in relation to the Rabinowitz and Gesher funds.
• Treat conflicts of interest as a design problem, not an inconvenience.

None of this would prevent good films from being made. It would simply let audiences believe that when a film is praised or funded, it is because of what is on the screen – not who the director shares a coffee machine, a classroom, or a committee with.

Right of Reply

Tel Aviv University, Ynet, the Jerusalem Film Festival, the Rabinowitz Foundation, the Gesher Fund, and the individuals named in this article are invited to respond. FIW will publish clarifications or statements in full or in relevant part. All information in this report is based solely on publicly available records and materials submitted by readers. No allegation of unlawful conduct is made. All parties are presumed to have acted in good faith unless proven otherwise.

Share Information Securely – Confidential Submissions Are Welcome

FIW relies on filmmakers, insiders, students, and cultural workers who are willing to share what institutions prefer to keep quiet. If you have information about:

• undisclosed overlaps,
• film fund practices,
• festival juries and programming,
• academic–industry ties,
• or any other structural issues in Israeli cinema,
  

we encourage you to contact us – anonymously if necessary. We do not collect IP addresses or technical identifiers. You can submit securely at: https://filmindustrywatch.org/contact/

The post Friends Reviewing Friends: Conflicts of Interest in Israeli press & Cinema first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

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

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

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

A Divisive Film, An International Platform

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

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

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

Academy Pushes Back

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

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

A Ceremony Marked by Protest

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

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

Film Industry Watch: Continuing Coverage

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

What Comes Next?

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

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

SOURCES:

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

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

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

When Variety published “Disney’s Boy Trouble: Studio Seeks Original IP to Win Back Gen-Z Men” this week, it read like an inadvertent confession. After years of messaging that male audiences were passé, that “male and pale is stale” and “the future is female”, Disney now finds itself desperately courting the very demographic it spent a decade marginalizing.

The article, by Matt Donnelly, reveals Disney leadership “pressing Hollywood creatives in recent months” for projects specifically targeting young men, while offering the comfortable explanation that Gen-Z males are simply a “lonely, gaming-obsessed group hampered by COVID-19 lockdowns.” It’s a telling deflection that studiously avoids the more obvious cause of male audience abandonment.

YouTube commentator The Critical Drinker wasted no time dismantling this narrative in his response video, delivering a characteristically blunt assessment: “You might utterly despise men and everything they represent. But when it comes to that increasingly uncomfortable meeting with the accountants every few months, well, it turns out that you kind of need them.”

His provocative analysis exposes a fundamental market reality that Hollywood has been reluctant to acknowledge: systematic audience alienation has measurable financial consequences.

The Pattern: Deconstruction as Creative Strategy

As we has documented in our previous gender-related investigations, the entertainment industry’s approach to male characters over the past decade represents a systematic pattern rather than isolated creative choices. The Critical Drinker’s inventory of “cultural assassinations” provides a stark illustration:

Luke Skywalker transformed from heroic mentor to “suicidal hermit” in The Last Jedi, a creative decision that triggered years of fan backlash and required repeated public explanations from director Rian Johnson. Even Mark Hamill has since shared alternative backstories he wished had informed Luke’s arc.

Thor repositioned as comic relief (“Fat Thor”) in Endgame, trivializing trauma for laughs in a way that sparked mainstream criticism about the normalization of body shaming, even from outlets typically supportive of Marvel’s creative choices.

Indiana Jones portrayed as a diminished, aging figure in Dial of Destiny, completing what many fans saw as the systematic de-mythologizing of cinema’s most beloved adventurer.

None of these choices is inherently wrong – heroes can and should face failure and growth. But the systematic nature of these deconstructions suggests institutional policy rather than organic storytelling evolution.

The Double Standard Test -Sex and the City Gender Swap

The Critical Drinker’s most piercing observation comes through a thought experiment that exposes Hollywood’s asymmetrical approach to gender representation. Imagine, he suggests, rebooting Sex and the City where half the female characters are gender-swapped, the glamour of Manhattan social life is replaced with muscle cars and gun ranges, and every episode includes lectures about “the challenges of modern life for men.”

The universal recognition that such a reboot would be ridiculed reveals the double standard at play. Studios treat male-focused storytelling as something that must be corrected or diluted, while female-focused content is allowed, rightfully, to remain true to its core audience.

This isn’t about opposing women’s stories or diverse representation. It’s about recognizing that segmented audiences are how successful entertainment works, as proven by both Top Gun: Maverick and Barbie, films that succeeded precisely because they embraced rather than apologized for their core demographics.

Industry-Wide Institutional Bias

Disney’s predicament reflects broader patterns Film Industry Watch has been tracking across the industry. Our previous investigations have documented similar systematic approaches to gender representation: our reporting on Israel’s Jerusalem Film Festival revealed an institutional climate where male filmmakers alleged systematic exclusion from programming and funding opportunities.

Similarly, our analysis of Israel’s Ophir Awards highlighted unusual demographic disparities, 11 female nominees to one male in key categories, that fueled perceptions of ideological considerations overriding merit-based selection.

These aren’t isolated incidents but manifestations of what we’ve identified as the systematic corruption of fairness in cultural institutions. When ideological signaling drives creative and curatorial decisions, audience trust inevitably erodes, and eventually, so do box office receipts.

The “Girl Boss” Problem and Universal Audience Rejection

The Critical Drinker’s analysis of the “girl boss” archetype reveals another dimension of Hollywood’s systematic miscalculation. These characters, invincible, untested, narratively frictionless, failed to resonate with any demographic, including the women they were ostensibly designed to attract.

The problem wasn’t strong female characters but checkbox character design. As we’ve documented in our previous analysis of thematic mandates in filmmaking, audiences can identify when characters exist to serve messaging rather than story. The resulting rejection spans gender lines because good storytelling transcends demographic categories.

Market Reality Meets Ideological Programming

The Variety article’s acknowledgment that Disney is actively soliciting “original IP” to court Gen-Z men represents more than creative repositioning, it’s an admission that ideological programming has market limits. When audience abandonment becomes measurable, studios face an uncomfortable choice between ideological consistency and commercial viability.

The article’s attempt to blame external factors, COVID lockdowns, social isolation, gaming culture, while ignoring content choices reveals the industry’s reluctance to acknowledge its own role in audience alienation. This mirrors patterns we’ve observed in other cultural institutions that prefer to attribute criticism to external factors rather than examine internal practices.

Three Rules for Audience Recovery

Based on both The Critical Drinker’s analysis and Film Industry Watch’s broader investigation of industry practices, effective audience recovery requires straightforward acknowledgments:

Allow demographic preferences without apology. Top Gun: Maverick succeeded by delivering on its promises to its core audience. Barbie worked because it embraced rather than diluted its perspective. Segmentation isn’t discrimination, it’s how entertainment markets function. Stop systematically diminishing legacy heroes. Writing compelling female characters doesn’t require demolishing male archetypes. The pattern of Luke, Thor and Indiana Jones represents institutional policy, not creative coincidence.

Restore aspirational masculinity as a legitimate archetype. The Critical Drinker’s call for “masculine heroes” doesn’t mean returning to one-dimensional stereotypes, but rather characters who are “smart, capable, assertive, confident, complex, and maybe even a bit dangerous”, the classic mentor/warrior/rogue spectrum that made multiple generations fall in love with cinema.

Merit Over Mandates

We supports authentic stories featuring all demographics and recognizes the importance of expanding opportunities for historically underrepresented voices. However, we maintain that genuine diversity emerges from creative freedom rather than institutional mandates. The systematic exclusion of certain perspectives, whether male experiences, traditional values, or politically neutral storytelling, represents the same corruption of fairness we’ve documented in festival programming and funding decisions. When institutions prioritize demographic representation over narrative excellence, they serve no audience well.

It is impossible to quantify how many compelling stories about male experiences, fatherhood, or traditional masculine virtues were never developed because they didn’t align with institutional preferences. The same creative constraints that exclude authentic male perspectives also limit the full spectrum of human experience that cinema exists to explore.

The Audience Speaks

The reaction to The Critical Drinker’s video underscores how deep the alienation runs. Top-voted comments describe the shift in blunt economic terms: “buy a steakhouse, turn it vegan, and then get mad at the customer for not liking it.” Others highlight how creators openly bragged about provoking male fans (“The She-Hulk writers bragged about deliberately making content to piss off male fans”), or note the simple calculus of disengagement (“They told me that franchises didn’t want my money anymore, I just did what I was told”).

Several comments echoed the broader trend beyond Disney: “Disney wanted to lecture, they lost. Gillette wanted to lecture, they lost. Bud Light wanted to lecture, they lost.” The recurring theme is not resistance to female characters or social change, but frustration with being lectured, ridiculed, or deliberately excluded. As one commenter summarized: “We were told to go away and did so. Good luck getting us back.”

This direct feedback reinforces the Drinker’s central claim: audience abandonment was not caused by external factors like gaming or lockdowns, but by a cultural strategy that treated customers as adversaries.

The Accounting Reckoning

Disney’s scramble to “win back Gen-Z men” isn’t mysterious, it’s mathematics catching up to messaging. When studios spend years reframing male audiences as a pathology and male heroes as punchlines, disengagement becomes the rational response.

The Critical Drinker’s core observation remains undeniable: “When you decide to treat half your audience as the enemy, that’s exactly what you turn them into.” Disney’s current predicament represents the inevitable outcome of systematic audience alienation in service of ideological signaling, with absolutely no merit or quality writing.

The question facing not just Disney but the broader entertainment industry is whether this expensive lesson will produce genuine course correction or merely cosmetic adjustments. Market forces suggest that audience preferences will ultimately prevail over institutional mandates, but the industry’s response to its own accounting crisis will determine whether that correction comes through internal reform or external market pressure.

As The Critical Drinker concludes, “men as a demographic are not all that difficult to please. Treat them with a bit of respect, give them the things that they enjoy, and you’ll be surprised how quickly they come around.” The same principle applies to all audiences: authentic storytelling that respects rather than lectures viewers will find its market regardless of demographic calculations. The entertainment industry’s path forward depends on whether it can rediscover the principle that built these valuable franchises in the first place: serving audiences rather than instructing them.

The post Gender Wars – The Vanishing Male Audience, Hollywood’s Self-Inflicted “Boy Trouble” first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

If you’ve ever tried to raise money for a film production, ask yourself this: how much easier would it be if the project you were pitching came with a guaranteed Cannes premiere through a curated program?

Back in February 2024, we received the following emails:

“We share your observation in the contents of your email. There are silent whispers indeed going around within the industry circle about film funding getting regulated by some decision makers themselves. These are not really expressed officially and with honesty so your email is a first to put it out there in writing. 

You may also want to investigate or at least look into the Director Factory in Cannes co-selected by a person whose company is the one also co-producing the funded short films of all the directors from the Philippines. We do not have first-hand information on how the Director Factory Phillippines are selected, but some filmmakers have expressed concerned about such conflict of interest. The producer is reported to have sought support from local government offices for film locations.

The lines are becoming very thin when people come together to forge alliances and collaborations but it’s becoming apparent that opportunities are now becoming exclusive within a circle of friends and colleagues. Please keep us anonymous as you look into this closely as we only receive information from filmmakers who come to our doors with this open information. 

A following email reads:

We are not sure about the mechanics of the Director’s Factory (and please let us know should you find out) but from what was shared by other filmmakers, Bianca Balbuena, founder of Epic Media, is part of the selection committee and co-organizer of the program. 

But at the same time, Epic Media is producing the films being mounted — [according to this source] soliciting finances from various sectors in the Philippines, including politicians. The film location of one of the films is in a resort in a remote south of the Philippines owned by a town’s Mayor. The Mayor’s family was solicited to give money in exchange of location promotion through the film. While the local government can provide manpower, logistics and location permit, it is not mandated to provide money to any private film company as it is anti-public trust. 

Maybe these things are legally done in other places, but some filmmakers believe there’s clearly conflict of interest if you’re co-organizing an international and prestigious program in Cannes to supposedly help filmmakers and young producers to stand up on their own, but for Epic Media to simultaneously manage the productions and handle financing in producing the curated films (by them) has raised concerns among some filmmakers about how best to safeguard impartiality in such high-profile programs. We are not sure though if Cannes Director Factory provides any grant support to the selected filmmakers or just a platform to launch their film when ready… reason maybe Epic Media was just trying to help… 

Dominique was not mentioned directly by the filmmakers, but some have raised questions about a possible association with Epic Media in the Philippines. At this time, we have not found evidence of such a connection.

And finally, another email reads:

The films I mentioned in our last emails will premiere soon at the Cannes’ fortnight this May. Producers (including relatives of the local politicians who gave money to the production house assigned by Cannes to produce the films) will all attend. 

At first, we didn’t know what to make of these emails. But after this year’s Cannes – where once again, the curator of the Factory program also happened to be the producer of a director with multiple films in the festival – the picture became clearer. Cannes’ Factory, according to some industry observers, has been described as resembling, allegedly, a pay-to-play model—raising concerns about equity and transparency.

pay-to-play in the world’s premiere film festival

So now, let us ask again – how much easier would it be if the project you were pitching came with a guaranteed Cannes premiere through a curated program?

Essentially, that’s what the Factory program offers – a mechanism to fund films that are guaranteed a screening at Cannes. The curator and producer of the program also serves as the producer of the films, which are often financed with public funds from the host countries. In many cases, this same producer worked with the directors as producer of their films, before the program, during the program, and continues to work with them after their participation in the Factory program, ensuring gains from the Cannes exposure which spans multiple years. The producer’s dual role – curating and producing films – has drawn attention to potential overlap between programming decisions and commercial benefit, though the model operates within festival rules.

The Uncomfortable Truth About Institutional Money and Festival Access

The Directors’ Factory program at Cannes’ Directors’ Fortnight represents a sophisticated form of what can be seen as a “pay-to-play-by-proxy” – a system where public institutions effectively purchase guaranteed festival slots through a complex web of cultural funding, private production deals, and curatorial control that concentrates unusual power in the hands of a single individual. Since its inception in 2013, the Factory has operated under a business model that, while technically legal and within festival guidelines, raises serious ethical questions about transparency, conflict of interest, and the commodification of one of cinema’s most prestigious platforms

How the System Actually Works

Created by a French producer which we will not name here, the Factory pairs eight emerging filmmakers – four from a host country and four international directors – to co-create four 15-minute short films that are guaranteed to open the Directors’ Fortnight each May. This guarantee exists before a single frame is shot, making it fundamentally different from the competitive submission process that governs most festival programming.

The funding pattern across Factory editions reveals the systematic involvement of public money. In Taiwan (2013), the Taipei Film Commission funded the program. The Nordic edition (2014) was backed by the Danish Film Institute, Finnish Film Foundation, and Copenhagen Film Fund, supplemented by equipment donations from companies seeking the Cannes exposure. Chile’s 2015 edition received support from CinemaChile and the country’s National Council for Culture and Arts. The 2024 Philippines edition was funded by the Quezon City Film Commission and other local government entities.

This creates what some describe as a “cultural diplomacy premium” – host countries and regions pay substantial sums for what they perceive as invaluable soft-power branding on cinema’s most photographed red carpet.

The Conflict of Interest at the Program’s Core

The most troubling aspect of the Factory model lies in the curators / producer dual role. The producer of the event simultaneously serves as:

• Curator: Selecting which filmmakers participate.
• Producer: Taking producer credits and retaining rights on all resulting films.
• Beneficiary: Profiting financially from projects they personally greenlit.
  
  

The pattern extends beyond the Factory itself. As we’ve seen, this producer has repeatedly leveraged her festival connections to advance the careers of specific directors she produces. Israeli filmmaker Yona Rozenkier, whom she produces, saw his films selected for Cannes Official Selection in 2019, followed by his short film screening at Directors’ Fortnight the same year, and his feature project included in L’Atelier—a program where she serves as consultant. Filipino director Arvin Belarmino followed a similar trajectory from Factory participant to Cannes competition.

The Business Model: Leveraging Prestige for Profit

This producer has been remarkably candid about the Factory’s commercial logic. As she explained: “We made the film and screened it in Cannes the first year… it worked. Since then I’ve changed the country every year… They end up with a short film in Cannes, and a Cannes stamp on their feature project”.

This “Cannes stamp” becomes a powerful fundraising tool. Local partners bankroll the shorts specifically to use the prestigious première to pitch the directors’ first features during the festival’s market, hoping the prestige will accelerate larger financing rounds. The Factory, some argue, functions more as a high-end networking and business development program than as a purely cultural exchange.

As long as powerful individuals can simultaneously control both the selection and monetization of festival programming, emerging filmmakers may find themselves navigating systems that, while legal, appear to favor those with existing institutional ties, raising broader questions about transparency, access, and how cultural prestige is distributed in today’s festival ecosystem.

A Sophisticated Cultural-Commercial Alliance

The relationship between this curator / producer and various bodies which are looking to fund films that will screen in Cannes represents more than simple co-production partnership. It constitutes a sophisticated alliance that:

1. Monetizes Cultural Diplomacy: Transforms public cultural funding into private commercial opportunities.
2. Leverages Institutional Access: Uses festival programming positions to create business opportunities.
3. Creates Systematic Pathways: Establishes predictable routes for filmmaker career advancement outside traditional merit-based selection.
4. Operates Across Multiple Territories: Develops a sustainable international business model based on institutional relationships rather than purely creative merit.
   

While not technically hidden, the full scope and financial implications of this partnership remain largely undisclosed to the public institutions providing funding and the filmmaking community competing for festival access. The relationship exemplifies how contemporary film festival culture increasingly operates through networks of institutional relationships rather than purely artistic considerations.

We would absolutely hate to publish anything which is not factual or accurate. If you find any mistake, be it a fact, or a logical error, or the interpretation of the facts presented, please contact us. All views expressed in this article are based on information provided by third parties and publicly available sources. We make no definitive claims about the conduct of any individual or organization. If you identify any factual inaccuracies, logical errors, or misinterpretations, we welcome your response and will promptly consider corrections.

SOURCES:

https://variety.com/2023/film/news/quinzaine-film-training-directors-factoryphilippines-1235803629

https://www.quinzaine-cineastes.fr/en/directors-factory-2024
https://variety.com/2024/film/news/cannes-directors-factory-philippines-1235953207/
https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/lifestyle/artandculture/908533/cannes-2024-directors-factory-philippines/story/
https://qcinema.ph/directors-factory-philippines
https://vogue.ph/lifestyle/bianca-balbuena-on-viet-and-nam-and-directors-factory/
https://cinando.com/en/Company/dw_28391/Detail
https://www.torinofilmlab.it/people/654851/Dominique-Welinski
https://www.imdb.com/news/ni64334535/
https://horsdubocal.eu/films/silig
https://www.epicmedia.ph/the-directors-factory-philippines
https://qcfilmcommission.ph/news-and-updates/quezon-city-film-commission-and-qcinema-launch-expanded-industry-programs-78th
https://www.philstar.com/entertainment/2024/11/19/2401168/after-cannes-and-qcinema-directors-factory-philippines-films-make-homecoming-premiere-dapitan
https://cinemadedemain.festival-cannes.com/en/networking/decision-makers/dominique-welinski-2/

The post Is Cannes’s Factory a pay‑to‑play scheme? 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.

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

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

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

What We Know

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

Have Information? Share It

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background: Legacy of Privatization and Its Fallout

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

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

Academic City: A Questionable Shift in Urban Planning

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

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

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

Academic City concept e-voting

Film Production Financing e-voting

High Education law e-voting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Banujian–Nshanian Nexus: Strategic Access

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

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

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

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

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

Legal and Institutional Implications

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Supporting visual and documentary evidence available.

Press coverage and photos of July 9. 2024

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

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

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

Academic City concept e-voting

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

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

Published by Armenian Film Industry Insiders.

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

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.

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

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

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

A new agency, an old relationship

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

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

Promises to Netflix, silence from Netflix

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

Potential fallout

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

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

Different Country, Same Story

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

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

Sources:

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

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

New related post:

A Voice from Indonesia: A Filmmaker Exposes Feudalism and Fear in the Film Industry

Film Industry Watch recently received the following anonymous email exposing what appears to be another alleged case of conflict of interest in the film festival circuit – where a co-producer on films is working for and with a festival that selects the same films for inclusion in its program. The anonymous email states:

Our investigation confirms that at least in terms of credit listings, this seems to be correct. This shows a pattern of influence that extends beyond the previously documented case with Israeli filmmaker Yona Rozenkier. This new instance further demonstrates how the film industry sometimes operates on connections rather than merit, creating barriers for talented filmmakers without insider access.

From Factory to Competition

Last year, our publication documented how this producer maintains multiple influential positions within the film industry. She holds the dual position of curator and producer for the Factory program at Director’s Fortnight, a constituent part of the Cannes Film Festival, while also serving as a consultant for the festival’s L’Atelier and Residency programs. This concentration of influence created a clear conflict of interest in her work with Israeli director Yona Rozenkier.

The same pattern has now emerged with Filipino filmmaker Arvin Belarmino. Our investigation confirms that:

1. Belarmino participated in the Directors’ Factory 2024 program, which is curated by Welinski, directing a short film called “SILIG” with Cambodian filmmaker Lomorpich Rithy
2. Belarmino’s film “Radikals” was selected for and competed at the 2024 Cannes Film Festival’s Semaine de la Critique (Critics’ Week) As you can see in the image below, she is listed as a “key contributor” to the film.
3. She is now a co-producer for Belarmino’s latest short film “AGAPITO,” which has been selected for the prestigious Official Selection – Short Film In Competition category at the 78th Cannes Film Festival

AN Established Pattern

This career acceleration mirrors what happened with Yona Rozenkier, where her production company DW produced or co-produced his works. Rozenkier’s short film “Butterflies” formed part of the Official Selection in 2019, while his subsequent short film “The Sign” was showcased during the Cannes Directors’ Fortnight—which she curates—the very same year.

Furthermore, Rozenkier’s feature film “Decompression” (also known as “The Dive“) featured within the L’Atelier program in 2017, which she advises on. His project “Siberia” (later renamed “Wild Animals”) was included in the 2020 Torino Film Lab program, where she served as a “Decision Maker”.

UPDATE 24/5 – a 2nd short in Cannes

Only after the publication of this article, thanks to another tip from our readers, Film Industry Watch realized that another short film which was produced by Welinski, Bleat! was selected for this years Critics Week. From Deadline: “The film is produced by Choo Mun Bel of Malaysia’s Sixtymac Pictures and co-produced by Malaysia’s Idio Sync Inc, founded by the director and Ahilan Subramaniam, French producer Dominique Welinski’s DW Productions and Bradley Liew of the Philippines’ Epicmedia Productions.” This is the 2nd film produced by the same festival insider that was selected to the 2025 edition.

2ND UPDATE 24/5 – A 2ND SHORT BY Arvin Belarmino

The following was posted as a comment on this article:

“There’s also one more Arvin Belarmino connection in the Official Selection for Festival de Cannes 2025. He is the Screenplay Writer for the Bangladeshi film ‘Ali’, which is also competing for the Short Film Palme d’Or.”

This information was quickly sourced here.

3RD UPDATE 25/5 – DEEP TIES

We received the following anonymous email:

“Dominique Welinski has deep ties with the producers from the Philippines who have several projects through the years in Cannes sections.
Welinski has ties with producer Bradley Liew who also produced Bleat! A Critics week judge is also worked with the winners prod co MOMO films.
The film Bleat! Was also received a grant from the company MOMO who has worked with the judge in the critics week.”

The following images were attached to the email:

4TH UPDATE – 28/5 – CANNES 2026 PARTICIPANTS ALREADY SELECTED?

A new comment to this article reads: “Directors Factory 2026 is taking place in Indonesia with Yulia Evina Bhara serving as Co-producer much like Bradley Liew did last year. So you can expect most of the names in this article or ones working [with] these names to be the favored Directors who will again have their films in Cannes because of their close connection with Welinski.”

Film Industry Watch will return to this comment in 2026 to demonstrate how it’s possible to predict film festival participants a full year in advance (!) possibly including one filmmaker selected for the Official Shorts Program who took part in Factory 2025.

What this tells us?

What this new information tells us is that there are overlapping personal and professional relationships between festival programmers, jurors, and producers whose films are selected or awarded – raising serious questions about fairness, transparency, and potential conflicts of interest in the selection process.

1. A Network of Repeated Collaborators with Strong Ties to Cannes Critics’ Week

Multiple figures—particularly Dominique Welinski, Yulia Evina Bhara, Bradley Liew, and Arvin Belarmino—appear to operate within a closely connected circle. These individuals frequently collaborate on films that are selected for La Semaine de la Critique (Critics’ Week) at Cannes.

2. Overlap Between Jury Members and Selected/Winning Projects

• Yulia Evina Bhara is a Critics’ Week jury member in 2025.
• She also collaborates with Momo Film Co, the company that won the Grand Prize in Critics’ Week 2025 (A Useful Ghost).
• Momo Film Co previously worked with her as a co-producer on Dreaming & Dying.
• This raises questions of impartiality, as jury members are professionally tied to production companies that are being judged.

3. Dominique Welinski’s Central Influence

• Welinski is named as a mentor and co-producer on multiple films selected at Cannes (e.g., Radikals, Bleat!).
• She is affectionately described by several filmmakers as “like a mother,” hosting dinners, giving career guidance, and securing opportunities.
• Posts and photos show her in informal, close settings with key team members behind selected projects—well beyond professional distance.
• She curates the Factory program and is involved in Critics’ Week and Directors’ Fortnight selections, suggesting institutional influence across sections.

4. Multiple Selections Within the Same Social-Professional Group

• Radikals (Critics’ Week 2024) was co-produced by Welinski, with a producer (Kristine De Leon) and director (Arvin Belarmino) who have long ties to her.
• Bleat! (2024) was also co-produced by Welinski and Bradley Liew—who also appears in a personal dinner photo with her.
• A Useful Ghost (2025 Grand Prize winner) is linked to Momo Films and Yulia Evina Bhara—again circling back to individuals with ties to Critics’ Week.

What It Suggests

This pattern suggests a tight-knit network of producers, mentors, and jury members who continuously collaborate, support, and elevate each other’s work within Cannes festival circuits. While collaboration is a normal part of any industry, the lack of transparency, repeated selections, and overlapping roles (mentor, co-producer, juror) point to a potential conflict of interest and a closed ecosystem where access and personal relationships may outweigh merit.

This dynamic may cut both ways

In at least one case it seems that this dynamic extends beyond nurturing hand-picked directors, suggesting it can also close doors. One filmmaker recalls a baffling encounter: “In Cannes 2021, at a party, I greeted Dominique and the producer who was with her. A little later, I ran into the producer at the bar and offered another friendly ‘hi.’ She shot back, ‘I know who you are and I’ve heard everything about you!’ then turned on her heel and took off as if I were convicted of murder. It was so rude and strange. I still have no idea what she was implying; the whole episode struck me as utterly surreal. What are the implications of falling on the wrong side of someone as powerful as her, who clearly does not shy of using her influence, I can only guess. It seems she uses gossip as a weapon, and I have no idea what made up story was said.’ he recalls. The filmmaker, well known to the individuals involved, and who has made his position clear on this subject, is from the same country as Mr. Rozenkier, believes that this have been her tactic for ensuring that Rozenkier would face “less competition” in the international festival circuit and in securing financing by the national film funds in the country. Considering the many conflicts of interest and signs of abuse of institutional power by the said individuals, this does not seem far fetched, and has never been denied. ‘There are hundreds of dedicated, honest, and hardworking people in the film industry. Unfortunately it is the encounters with the few problematic people that could have lasting consequences. It is no coincidence that those are the same individuals who are mentioned throughout your website multiple times in relations to many irregularities.’

Why This Matters: The Closed Circuit of Influence

This situation epitomizes the “revolving door” dynamic prevalent in the film industry, as illustrated in our previous reporting. A limited circle of individuals hold a variety of influential positions, rotating between being program curators, fund advisors, and producers. When a person holds multiple roles of power—simultaneously curating programs, advising on selections, and producing films—they create a closed circuit where their own productions gain significant advantages over outsiders. Such interconnections perpetuate a culture of exclusivity, hindering fresh talent from entering the field. This is precisely why the film industry’s artistic output suffers, artistic merit becomes secondary to personal connections and insider relationships. We remind our readers the case in which a short competition selection committee had her own produced short selected to the very same program that she helps selecting films for.

It’s important to note that “AGAPITO” is one of only 11 short films selected from 4,781 entries worldwide to compete for the Short Film Palme d’Or. The odds of selection are extremely low (0.23%), raising questions about whether Belarmino’s connection to his producer, who also works for and with Cannes, played a role in securing this coveted spot.

A System That Benefits Insiders

As our previous reporting has shown, the film industry is structured as a network of interconnected and affiliated organizations that benefit only those who are members of the network, distributing resources among each other. This case exemplifies how this system works.

When a producer is strategically positioned to utilizes their influence to advocate for the works of directors with whom they are professionally associated, it potentially disadvantages other filmmakers who lack analogous connections within the festival’s administration and broader film festival community.

A Culture of fear

All of the above information was submitted to us anonymously. The reason for this is telling: there exists a pervasive culture of fear within the film industry. Filmmakers, especially those without institutional power or protection, have come to understand that “politics” – social alignment, affiliations, personal connections, and public signaling – all carry more weight than talent, merit, or originality. Speaking out, even privately, can jeopardize careers, funding opportunities, and access to vital networks. The fact that individuals feel compelled to withhold their identities, even in confidential contexts like this, speaks volumes. It reveals a system where fairness is compromised, where honesty comes with professional risk, and where many feel that navigating unspoken rules is more important than the quality of their work. That alone should give us pause.

NOT A BUG, but A FEATURE of the system

This is not an isolated failure or an unfortunate exception; it is a structural feature of the system. As French philosopher Foucault observed, power and influence are not merely held or possessed — they circulates, embedded in relationships, institutions, and discourses. In the context of the festival circuit, power manifests not through transparent meritocratic evaluation, but through informal networks of exchange, influence, and symbolic capital (or real capital.) Individuals in certain positions convert cultural and social capital into concrete opportunities, under the guise of fairness or professionalism. When dealing with art, which is so called subjective (it really isn’t, but this is a subject for another article) it is especially easy to hide behind the vail of subjectivity, which is why the world of art is so incredibly corrupt.

A truly merit-based system would not allow these forms of “soft” power to generate such outsized influence. The current structure actively incentivizes gatekeeping, favor-trading, and performative allyship. These are not aberrations; they are mechanisms by which the system reproduces itself. It is not a bug, it is a feature of the system. In an age where anyone can make a film with a cheap camera or even a mobile phone, it is not only meant to produce power for insiders, but also to protect the system, and the limited resources within its influence (state funding, investors money etc) from outsiders, and ensure that the limited resources are circulating within a small group of insiders.

Why the Media Stays Silent?

Traditional media outlets don’t address these issues openly because they are deeply entwined with the very institutions they would need to scrutinize. Film festivals, production companies, and industry gatekeepers provide journalists with access – early screenings, exclusive interviews, red carpet events, and press passes. In many cases, media organizations rely on these relationships for advertising revenue and content. Criticizing the system risks losing access, damaging partnerships, and jeopardizing future coverage opportunities. As a result, all journalists choose silence or vague language over honest reporting. It’s not that they don’t see the problem – it’s that speaking out would come at a cost they’re unwilling or unable to pay.

The Bigger Picture or – what happened to cinema?

Ever wondered why so many films are, to put it politely, not great?

There is no shortage of talented filmmakers but a deeply entrenched culture of favoritism and quiet corruption keeps many of them in the shadows. While a well-connected few circulate among festivals and cocktail parties, congratulating one another, the art of cinema continues to wither. And now, with the rapid rise of AI-generated content threatening to further marginalize human creativity, the final blow to independent, original filmmaking will arrive sooner than anyone expected.

5TH UPDATE – 28/5 – Behind the Festival Curtain: Untangling the Web of Southeast Asian Collaborations at Cannes 2025

A new comment has been posted on this article. Below is an analysis and verification of the information it contains:

Who did what – in the context OF asia being a continent of 4.75 billion people:

Gogularaajan Rajendran really is both the editor of Bleat! and one of the eight filmmakers selected for Directors’ Factory 2024 (Philippines edition).

Don Josephus Raphael Eblahan likewise appears in the same Factory line-up (co-directing the short Cold Cut).

His short Vox Humana is officially presented as a Momo Film Co project with Alemberg Ang credited as co-producer; the film is being circulated with Momo’s support, but public records do not yet confirm it as a cash recipient of the annual Momo Distribution Grant—only that it is a Momo-backed title.

RIA (feature debut of Arvin Belarmino) lists Alemberg Ang as producer and Momo Film Co and Dominique Welinski / DW among its co-producers on the Cannes Critics’ Week “Next Step” page, confirming their partnership.

Momo Film Co and Yulia Evina Bhara have previously teamed up on two high-profile festival films:

Don’t Cry, Butterfly – Venice Critics’ Week 2024 winner.

Dreaming & Dying – dual Leopard winner at Locarno 2023.

Bradley Liew (Epicmedia) and DW Productions (Dominique Welinski) are indeed the lead producers of Directors’ Factory 2024.

Renoir (Cannes main competition 2025, dir. Chie Hayakawa) lists both Yulia Evina Bhara and Alemberg Ang among its co-producers in industry press and credit sheets, confirming that the pair now share a feature-length project.

From a continent of 4.75 billion (with a B) people, this is highly coincidental.

How often they show up:

It’s undeniable that Bhara, Liew, Ang, Momo Film Co., and DW appear regularly at major labs and markets—Cinéfondation Résidence, La Fabrique, Locarno Open Doors, Venice Critics’ Week, Quinzaine des Cinéastes, and more—and frequently collaborate with one another. However, they are not the only Southeast Asian names active on the global circuit; filmmakers like Anthony Chen, Mouly Surya, Phạm Thiên Ân, and Woo Ming-Jin, among others, also maintain a consistent international presence. That said, in a region representing nearly 4.75 billion people, the concentration of opportunities and visibility around a relatively small group raises very valid questions. Statistically, such dominance is hard to explain without acknowledging the influence of a closely connected network, one that may, intentionally, function as a gatekeeping ecosystem with limited entry points for newcomers.

Points that were inaccurate:
Jury leadership. The 2025 Cannes Critics’ Week jury is chaired by Spanish director Rodrigo Sorogoyen; Yulia Evina Bhara sits on the five-person jury but does not lead it.

“Only two SEA films.” This year’s Critics’ Week line-up contains at least two Southeast-Asian features (A Useful Ghost and RIA in development) and one SEA short (Bleat!). So the claim of exclusivity is not accurate.

Above is a network diagram that lays out the major nodes (people/companies and films/projects) and the lines of collaboration or influence between them. A few key patterns jump out visually:

• Momo Film Co. sits at the hub, linked to nearly every title and to multiple producers, underscoring its central role in this ecosystem.
• Yulia Evina Bhara, Alemberg Ang, and Dominique Welinski (DW) form a tightly knit triangle, each sharing at least one feature in common ( Renoir , RIA , Don’t Cry Butterfly , Dreaming & Dying ).
• Directors’ Factory 2024 connects a separate cluster—Rajendran, Eblahan, Liew, and DW—yet still loops back to Momo via other films.
• Even seemingly independent prize outcomes (Bleat! and A Useful Ghost) remain only a hop or two away from the same nucleus of producers and jurors.

In short, the “visual map” reinforces what the credit sheets suggest: a small, highly interconnected circle repeatedly occupies the same festival slots, award juries, and co-production banners—making it difficult for new voices to break in.

Award-giving coincidence:

The Critics’ Week Grand Prize was awarded to the Thai feature A Useful Ghost, with decisions made collectively by the jury chaired by Rodrigo Sorogoyen. The Queer Palm for Best Short Film – an independent award with a separate jury – went to Bleat!. While technically outside the Critics’ Week jury’s purview, the result is hardly surprising given the dense web of connections shared among the filmmakers, producers, and jurors involved.

Though Yulia Evina Bhara may not have directly influenced the Queer Palm outcome, she was involved in deliberations for A Useful Ghost, a film co-produced by companies she has collaborated with multiple times. It’s naive to assume that a single juror cannot steer discussion or tip a consensus, especially in a small, interwoven ecosystem like the one that dominates the Southeast Asian presence on the international circuit.

This points to a larger systemic flaw: festival juries should be completely free of any direct or indirect connection to the films in competition. That such conflicts of interest are tolerated—and even normalized—speaks to how insular and self-reinforcing the so-called “independent” film world has become. In any healthy cultural ecosystem, this would be a clear ethical breach. Here, it’s business as usual.

Take-away:

Almost every production link that the comment listed is genuine. The pattern is a tight, increasingly well-networked generation of SEA producers who pool resources across borders; international labs and sidebars actively encourage such clustering and degrade artistic output, let alone access to newcomers. This is another example of the issues that we keep raising on this website. We thank you for the contribution, please contact us for any additional information.

Source URLs:

https://www.quinzaine-cineastes.fr/en/directors-factory-2024

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleat%21

https://www.semainedelacritique.com/en/edition/2025/movie/bleat

https://www.momofilm.co/short-films/vox-humana

https://www.semainedelacritique.com/en/movie/ria

https://www.momofilm.co/features/ria

https://www.momofilm.co/features/dont-cry-butterfly

https://www.momofilm.co/features/dreaming-dying

https://gazettely.com/2025/05/entertainment/renoir-review

https://www.semainedelacritique.com/en/edition/2025/jury

https://www.nationthailand.com/life/entertainment/40050316

https://hype.my/2025/472879/malaysian-short-film-bleat-wins-queer-palm-award-at-cannes-film-festival-2025/

NOTE TO READER:

Please note that this article is not meant to be an ad hominem attack on any specific person. The individuals mentioned and their positions in various organizations are used as examples for the way that the film industry operates. The positions, roles and professional relationship between individuals are public information. Sources are provided throughout the website. If you would like to report any inaccuracy please do not hesitate to contact us. Our aim is to improve and democratize the film industry by analyzing the way its institutions are set-up. In order to do so, we must list those organizations and the people who work for them or with them, and their relationship with each other.

Sources for the main article:

1. https://filmindustrywatch.org/dominique-welinski/    
2. https://www.quinzaine-cineastes.fr/en/directors-factory-2024 
3. https://www.semainedelacritique.com/en/articles/about-emradikalsem
4. https://mb.com.ph/2024/5/2/filipino-short-film-radikals-selected-to-compete-at-cannes-63rd-semaine-de-la-critique 
5. https://www.heartofhollywoodmagazine.com/post/agapito-a-cinematic-marvel-imagined-by-the-brilliant-arvin-belarmino-and-kyla-romero-has-officially 
6. https://www.philstar.com/entertainment/movies/2025/05/06/2441076/filipino-short-filmmakers-compete-cannes-film-festival-2025 
7. https://filmfreeway.com/Butterflies641
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dive_(2018_film)
9. https://popupfilmresidency.org/project/yona-rozenkier-siberia/
10. filmindustrywatch.org    
11. https://letterboxd.com/film/radikals/
12. https://www.festival-cannes.com/en/f/agapito/
13. https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/lifestyle/artandculture/946126/young-filipino-filmmakers-heading-to-cannes-for-their-short-films-agapito-and-ali/story/
14. https://horsdubocal.eu/films/silig
15. https://deadline.com/video/cannes-critics-week-bleat-trailer-sixtymac-epicmedia/
16. https://filmindustrywatch.org/melissa-malinbaum/
17. https://deadline.com/2025/05/cannes-critics-week-winners-a-useful-ghost-imago-top-prizes-1236407401/

The post Cannes 2025: Anonymous Source(s) Reveal New Conflict of Interest at Cannes (updateS 1,2,3,4,5) first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

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

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

The Reforms: Prioritizing Commercial Success

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

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

Industry Outcry: An Attack on Freedom of Expression

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

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

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

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

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

Connecting the Dots: A Systemic Takeover

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

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

The Bigger Picture: A Threat to Israeli Culture

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

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

FURTHER READING:

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

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

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

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

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

A longer, full and much more detailed version of this article is available here.

In October 2021, acclaimed director Kostas Ferris, Silver Bear winner at Berlinale for Rembetiko and former Vice President of the Greek Film Center (GFC), testified at the Court of First Instance in Athens. Ferris, a key figure in Greek cinema, took the stand to address the ongoing issues of alleged corruption within the GFC. He served under Panos Loukakos, the GFC president at the time, and together they resisted pressures from deputy minister Nikolas Giatromanolakis, who was allegedly connected to author/director Apostolos Doxiadis. Doxiadis, from a wealthy family, exerted significant influence over the GFC’s operations, often behind the scenes, using his connections to right-wing Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis.

One key figure absent from the trial was Greek Film Center president Markos Holevas. Despite having a legal department, Holevas spent over €16,000 of public money on an external law firm to defend himself. Lawyers from various producers’ associations, including SAPOE and Tanweer Productions, attended the trial, as they had a vested interest in the outcome. For years, producers had been profiting handsomely from state subsidies before films were even produced, exploiting loopholes in the system to minimize payments to directors and screenwriters.

Ferris’s testimony shed light on the opaque practices of the Greek Film Center, which operates under Greek law as a publicly funded organization. According to Ferris, the GFC has consistently been criticized for inappropriate personnel decisions and non-transparent procedures regarding the allocation of film funding. Despite public claims that its processes followed European Union guidelines, Ferris disputed this, saying that GFC’s practices deviated significantly from those of other European film organizations.

In a complaint filed in May 2021, independent producers and directors demanded the GFC release the names of its evaluators, accusing them of using their positions to fund their own projects. The complaint cited several projects, including the animated short Kolokotronis, the Old Man of Moria, the Holocaust-themed docudrama Don’t Forget Me, and the short fiction film The Boat. Despite the high-quality proposals, they were given low scores, while evaluators granted themselves awards ranging from €2,500 to €200,000.

In a ruling that sparked outrage, the District Attorney ordered GFC president Pandelis Mitropoulos to release the names of the evaluators. The results revealed that four evaluators had clandestinely awarded themselves nearly half a million euros in state funding.

Among the projects that received controversial pre-approval were:

• Very Girlish Name Patty by George Georgopoulos (€200,000)
• Carmen’s Summer by Zacharias Mavroeidis (€190,000)
• Our Wild Days by Vasilios Kekatos (€2,500)
• The Last Taxi Driver by Stergios Paschos (€130,000)

In June 2021, Ferris exposed further mismanagement at the Greek Film Centers in interviews, accusing Holevas and his board of cronyism. Holevas had claimed a lack of qualified evaluators within the unions, which Ferris refuted, citing the thousands of active members in various Greek unions. Despite these accusations, Holevas and key figures in SAPOE, a small association of producers and directors, continued to dominate the funding process, enriching themselves at the expense of the wider film industry.

Several SAPOE members, including president Panos Papahatzis, received substantial funding for their projects. Papahatzis himself received €370,000 for three approvals, while other board members and their companies also benefited significantly. In total, SAPOE members were granted over €1.8 million out of the €4.45 million allocated by the GFC in two rounds of decisions.

The influence of SAPOE extended beyond the funding process, as evaluators were often assessing projects submitted by their collaborators. For instance, evaluator Stergios Paschos received funding for a feature-length project while a colleague of his was involved in another project funded by the GFC.

In February 2022, the Hellenic National Transparency Authority released a report on the GFC’s pre-approval process, highlighting the lack of transparency and the presence of conflicts of interest. The report recommended reforms to the selection process, including the creation of an Evaluators’ Registry and more detailed criteria for selection, to prevent future conflicts of interest.

In August 2024 yet another financial scandal by Kekatos and advertising/production company Foss Productions, owned by the Kotionis brothers, in the tune of approximately 1M euros

The board of directors of EKOME (The HELLENIC CASH BACK INITIATIVE) decided to cancel the prior approval of the series “Milky Way”, by Vassilis Kekatos, executive produced by Foss Productions and Stelios Koionis, and financed by MEGA TV channel, and the benefits granted from the tax incentive scheme (CASH REBATE) of article 71E of Law No. 4172/2013 (A’ 167), as in force, “because the completeness of the auditor’s report was not established, according to article 30 of the law. 4487/2017”.

The reason for this decision was that “the start of the investment project took place before the date of submission of the application for inclusion, in accordance with para. 5 of article 20 of Law no. 4487/2017”. The withdrawal was made one year after the investment has been certified. The budget approved amounted to EUR 2,252,435 and the withdrawn subsidy to EUR 900,974. Both Stelios Kotionis, as executive producer, and Vasilios Kekatos, as director, submitted declarations of honor to EKOME when Milky Way was entered into the cash-back incentive scheme, affirming that production had not yet started.

The alleged corruption at the Greek Film Center reached a breaking point in 2024 when a scandal erupted over Greece’s Oscar submission process. A committee, chosen by the Hellenic Film Academy (a private society) in collaboration with the GFC, was tasked with selecting the film to represent Greece at the Oscars. However, allegations of bias and favoritism arose, particularly concerning the selection of Kekatos, who had primarily directed short films, to lead the committee. The Ministry of Culture intervened, replacing certain members of the committee.

Furthermore, it is important to emphasize that the Ministry of Culture’s approach to replacing the committee members – originally appointed by a ministry employee while she was on vacation – lacked both transparency and the level of professionalism expected from such a key institution. The untransparent process, combined with the absence of communication regarding the criteria for selecting the replacements, has sparked serious concerns within the Greek film community, further eroding trust in the system. These failures highlight the broader issues of mismanagement and opacity that have troubled the Greek Film Center for years. Clearly, the internal investigation initiated by the Ministry of Culture is an attempt to address these insecurities and fears.

These scandals have exposed a deeply flawed system, where a small group of insiders has monopolized state film funding, marginalized many filmmakers, and eroded public trust in the Greek film industry. Calls for reform have intensified, with demands for greater transparency, meritocracy, and accountability in the film funding process.

For those who follow our website, the events detailed above are eerily similar to the ones we’ve previously reported concerning the Israeli Film Funds and are inline with how the European film ecosystem is organized, with a complete lack of transparency and proper guardrails against corruption and conflict of interests.

We encourage you to read the full and more detailed version of this article, which is available here.

LINKS AND SOURCES:

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

(Cinema paradiso of…. mismanagement).

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

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

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

In an interview with the Greek daily EFSYN, Kostas Ferris stated: “What is certain is that Mr. Holevas failed to forward the findings to the appropriate prosecutor, as required by the report from the General Accounting Office of the State and as ordered by the Minister. Instead, he handed the two evaluation reports to a lawyer of his own choosing, Mr. Alexandros Christidis, for re-evaluation. Moreover, he did not inform the Minister that in the Asprogerakas complaint, as well as in reports by certified public accountants Batsoulis, Androutsos, and Triantafyllou, his name was mentioned (please see page with arrow–Georgios Papalios, father-in-law of Apostolos Doxiadis name appears first) in connection with felonious activities. Therefore, he should have immediately resigned to allow for a proper investigation and the necessary cleansing of the Greek Film Center (GFC).

Numbers of Police IDs and passports on the legal complaint of Asprogerlas-Grivas have been erased because it violates Greek GDPR law about personal data.

Below is a report by certified public accountants from the accounting firm Sol found that the film ALPS by Yorgos Lanthimos, executive produced by Athena Rachel Tsangari, unlawfully received €300,000 instead of the €150,000 approved by the Board of Directors. GFC general manager Grigoris Karantinakis made this decision independently, without board approval, and drafted a private agreement between the GFC and Tsangari without consulting the GFC’s Legal Department. As a result, Karantinakis has been accused of a felony and bad faith in a complaint filed by the well-known lawyer Asprogerakas-Grivas. Markos Holevas is listed as number two on the first page of the complaint, which is 130 pages long. Identifying details such as IDs and passports have been omitted.

The post Alleged Corruption and Decadence at the Greek Film Center – Short version first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

By Hector Alejandro Morales, Film Industry Watch contributor and Greek industry insider. A shorter version of this article is available here.

A shocking new conflict of interest and financial scandal has surfaced at the Greek Film Center (GFC), involving film director Vasilios Kekatos and others, who served as evaluators for film funding proposals but also received substantial financial awards for their own projects, in the same call.

OCTOBER 18, 2021: At approximately 1:30 PM on October 18, 2021, celebrated Greek film director Kostas Ferris, Silver Bear winner at Berlinale for the feature film “Rembetiko”, former Vice President of the Greek Film Center, and a highly respected director, screenwriter, and lyricist, with over 10 feature films, 20 TV series, and numerous lifetime achievement awards to his name, including his role as lyricist for the iconic Aphrodite’s Child (the Vangelis band) album “666”, took the witness stand at the Court of First Instance in Athens, Greece. Ferris was also a founding member of FERA (the Federation of European Directors). Among others Ferris mentioned that he was a Vice President until recently at Greek Film Center under GFC president Panos Loukakos, a journalist/documentarian, where they refused to cave in to the illegal demands of 44 year-old minster Nikolas Giatromanolakis (Former Deputy Minister of Culture and Sports of Greece) so they were subsequently replaced by the deputy minister, who was a protege of author/director Apostolos Doxiadis, heir to the Doxiadis family fortune.

According to sources within the Greek production industry, Apostolos Doxiadis, was allegedly manipulative and acted as a secret advisor, influencing decisions behind the scenes alongside his father-in-law, bankrupt shipowner Giorgos Papalios. Both were closely tied to the right-wing current Prime Minister of Greece, Kyriakos Mitsotakis, with the Mitsotakis family also being their neighbors in the upscale Kolonaki neighborhood.

Markos Holevas, the president of Greek Film Center was nowhere to be seen at the trial but he had hired a law firm outside GFC, paying them over 16.000 euros plus VAT from public money at the time to defend himself (despite the fact that GFC had its own legal department). Lawyers from SAPOE (one of the five producers associations), and ESPEK ( the small association of producers-directors) and Tanweer Productions (owned by Lebanese distributor Joseph Samaan and headed by Dionysios Samiotis) were also present. What was at stake was the pre-approval of their state-owned subsidies. Allegedly for years middle men that called themselves “producers” (in reality they were line producers who were not risking any of their money, or property), made millions well in advance before a film, or a documentary was produced. The cheaper they could make a film, the better. The less they had to pay directors and screenwriters—or even nothing at all—the more ideal it was for them.

Ferris testified under oath: “…In the context of the dispute that arose within the Greek film community and the publicity it garnered in the print and electronic media for many weeks, I was informed that the Greek Film Center, a private legal entity under the supervision of the Ministry of Culture (ΥΠΠΟΑ), that operates under Law 3905/2010 and is therefore a public organization (funded by the Greek taxpayers). It is funded more than 80% by the public budget and is thus subject to specific operating conditions, transparency, and financial and administrative accountability. The organization has been under attack from both the print and electronic press, as well as the majority of the film community, for inappropriate personnel choices and non-transparent procedures regarding the pre-approval of funding for films, which do not exclude conflicts of interest.“

In an attempt to justify these procedures after the fact, the Greek Film Center extensively explained in press releases and via its website the procedures it followed. It publicly stated that the methods it used are the same as those followed by institutions responsible for audiovisual matters and funding in the European Union (27 Member States), namely the MEDIA DESK (now Creative Europe) program (headquartered in Brussels), and by the Council of Europe (based in Strasbourg with the participation  of the 39 “Member States) through its European film co-production funding program EURIMAGES.

The Greek Film Center’s positions on these issues—regarding the selection of evaluators/readers, the staffing of committees, and the evaluation procedures for the pre-approval of funding of films and production plans related to Creative Europe and EURIMAGES—are not accurate. “In fact, they are entirely false and inaccurate, and they directly contradict everything I know and have experienced in my collaborations with these European institutions…”

In a ten-page complaint submitted to the Athens District Attorney in early May 2021, three independent producers and directors requested that the Greek Film Center disclose the names of the evaluators/readers.

In their sworn statement, they asserted:

…three projects were submitted to the GFC – 1 feature-length documentary, 1 short fiction film, and 1 short length animated film:

1. “KOLOKOTRONIS, THE OLD MAN OF MORIA” Protocol Number 9193, dated 26/11/2020, was a 2D animation film project approximately 6 minutes in length, with screenplay and direction by me, and character design and illustrations by Nassos Vakalis (Emmy award winner, with 78 international awards and 270 festival participations for the short film Dinner for Few). The proposal was 112 pages long.
   
   
2. “DON’T FORGET ME, JEWISH MOTHERS WRITE TO THEIR CHILDREN FROM THE GHETTO OF THESSALONIKI” Protocol Number 7380/30-9-2020, a feature-length docudrama, focusing on the Salonica Holocaust where 59.000 Jews perished, starring the well-known film and television actress Maria Nafpliotou, based on the book of the same name by historian/researcher Dr. Leon Saltiel, under the auspices of the Central Board of Jewish Communities in Greece, the Jewish Museum of Greece, and the Chair of Jewish Studies at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. The proposal was about 100 pages long.
   
   
3. “THE BOAT,” A.P. 6025/3.8.2020, a short fiction film, 15 minutes long, with a screenplay by Aphrodite Vakalis and Nassos Vakalis, and directed by Nassos Vakalis, featuring well-known actors Christos Antoniou and Dimitris Piatas. The proposal was about 70 pages long.
   

In the announcement of the results on 30.3.2021 and 28.4.2021, we realized that the evaluators had awarded themselves amounts of €2,500, €130,000, €170,000, €190,000, and €200,000 respectively , in addition to the €5,000 compensation fee they received as readers (script evaluators), while they ensured, in absolute collaboration with the president of the Board who had appointed them, to give low scores (in order) to “cut out” their competitors!

These actions, ratified by the Board of the Greek Film Centre (GFC), are illegal, abusive, unethical, unprofessional, and caused a national and international uproar both on social media and among journalists, with publications in the print and electronic press. They are unprecedented globally, as even in the most underdeveloped countries, evaluators are expected to declare conflicts of interest and request recusal, not to self-award funding!”

The District Attorney ordered the president of the Greek Film Center and its managing director, Pandelis Mitropoulos, to release the names of the evaluators, the scores given to each project, and other relevant documents that Holevas withheld. It was uncovered that four evaluators had secretly competed against the other submitted projects and were awarded (awarded to themselves) half a million euros.

• VERY GIRLISH NAME PATTY
  Screenplay: GEORGE GEORGOPOULOS
  Direction: GEORGE GEORGOPOULOS
  Production: FALIRO HOUSE PRODUCTIONS
  Pre-approval funding amount: €200,000
  
  
• CARMEN’S SUMMER
  Screenplay: ZACHARIAS MAVROEIDIS, XENOPHON HALATSIS
  Direction: ZACHARIAS MAVROEIDIS
  Production: ATALANTE PRODUCTIONS (headed by the niece of Panos Papahatzis)
  Pre-approval funding amount: €190,000
  
  
• OUR WILD DAYS
  Screenplay: VASSILIS KEKATOS
  Direction: VASSILIS KEKATOS
  Production: BLACKBIRD PRODUCTION
  Funding amount: €2,500
  
  
• THE LAST TAXI DRIVER
  Screenplay: STERGIOS PASCHOS
  Direction: STERGIOS PASCHOS
  Production: FILMIKI PRODUCTIONS
  Pre-approval funding amount: €130,000
  

(Note: THE LAST TAXI DRIVER had an abysmal box-office of 2.111 tickets when it was distributed in the spring of 2024, and CARMEN’S SUMMER followed suit with 9.500 tickets at the box office).

Background: Outrage and Injunction Against the Greek Film Center

Three independent directors-producers (Leonidas Vardaros, Dimitrios Vorris, Georgios Keramidiotis that were later blacklisted by Holevas and his board of directors) have filed a class action demanding an injunction against the Greek Film Center supported by the Directors Guild of Greece and  600 signatures of filmmakers. The injunction request concerned the recent pre-approval decisions made by the Board of Directors of the Greek Film Center on March 30 and April 28, 2021, where four evaluators/readers (Vasilios Kekatos, Stergios Pashos, Zacharias Mavroeidis, Georgios Georgopoulos) had also submitted in the same categories and were granted approval for themselves for projects worth up to €522.500

The directors-producers sought the temporary suspension of the Greek Film Center’s decisions from March 30 and April 28, 2021, concerning the “Pre-approvals of Short Films, Feature Films, and Documentaries,” claiming these decisions were illegal and violated local law, EU directives, and constitutional principles. They also requested a halt to any disbursement of funds or, alternatively, the suspension of the projects approved for Vasilios Kekatos, Stergios Pashos, Zacharias Mavroeidis, and Georgios Georgopoulos until a final ruling was made by the judge.

JUNE 2021: The blatant falsehoods of Markos Holevas and company

Markos Holevas, then president of the Greek Film Center (GFC), who was forced to resign in July 2024 by the minister of culture Lina Mendoni, claimed in the media that he was unable to find evaluators active in the fields of screenwriting, directing, and producing because the unions lacked sufficient members. And that’s why he picked evaluators from ESPEK only, the small association of producers-directors where he was a member. This couldn’t be further from the truth: The Greek Actors’ Union (SEI) has approximately 4,000 members, while the three relevant unions have around 40 active members in SAPOE, about 70-80 in ESPΕΚ (the Association of Producers-Directors), and approximately 130 in the Greek Documentary Association (EEN), many of whom are also members of ESPΕΚ. The Greek Directors’ Guild (EES) 1.200 members, and the Greek Film TV Technicians’ Union (ΕΤΕΚΤ) had 300 members, totalling 1,700 members. The Hellenic Screenwriters Guild has 330 members, and the Greek Producers’ Union (founded by respected producer Geiorgos Sgourakis) includes around 40-50 producers. Therefore, the combined membership of all these three unions exceeded 6,500 members.

As for Panos Papahatzis, president of SAPOE back then and owner of Argonauts Productions-he received three approvals amounting to €370,000 (€170,000, €70,000, and €130,000, respectively).

The SAPOE Board consisted of the following members:

• Panos Papahatzis, President of SAPOE, received €370,000 through three funding approvals.
  
  
• Fenia Kosovica, Vice President of SAPOE, received €400,000 through her company, Blonde Films (€200,000 + €200,000).
  
  
• Konstantinos Kontovrakis, General Secretary, received €228,000 through his company, Heretic Films, across three approvals (€150,000, €60,000, €18,000).
  
  
• Amanda Livanou, Treasurer of SAPOE.
  
  
• Maria Drandaki, Board Member, received €250,500 through five approvals with her company, Homemade Films (€2,500, €6,000, €12,000, €200,000, €30,000).
  
  
• Konstantinos Vasilaros, Alternate Board Member.
  
  
• Eleni Afentaki, Alternate Board Member.

The SAPOE Audit Committee received the following amounts:

• Ioanna Bolomyti (Papahatzis’ niece, working under the same roof with Argonauts Productions, Athens Productions, and Argonauts Crimes of the Future Productions) received €18,000 for script approval.
  
  
• Giorgos Karnavas, a partner in Heretic Films alongside SAPOE’S General Secretary Konstantinos Kontovrakis.
  
  
• Yiannis Iakovidis, owner of Black and Orange Films.

In total, the aforementioned SAPOE board members received €1,266,500 through what has been described as an illegal process of Greek Film Center funding that lacked transparency and accountability.

Additionally:

• Eleni Kossyfidou, a former SAPOE President and producer for director Vasilis Kekatos (Blackbird Productions), received €20,500 (€2,500 for scriptwriting and €18,000 for a script). Kossyfidou and Kekatos, along with director Panos H. Koutras, were involved in the conflict of interest scandal exposed by filmindustrywatch.org regarding Kekatos’ short film award at Cannes.
  
  
• Giorgos Tsourgiannis, another SAPOE member, received €156,000 (€6,000 and €150,000).
  
  
• Giorgos Tseberopoulos, another SAPOE member, received €151,500 through his company Filmiki Productions (later sold to Konstantinos Alavanos), along with his partner, Efstathios Mourdoukoutas (€2,500, €130,000, and €19,000).
  
  
• Faidra Vokali, another SAPOE member (Marni Films), received €132,000 through four approvals (€70,000, €17,000, €20,000, €25,000).
  
  
• Modiano S.A., owned by Micky Modiano, another SAPOE member, received €90,000 through two approvals (€60,000, €30,000).
  
  
• Stefi/Lynx Films, another SAPOE member, received €2,500.

It was alleged that the SAPOE regular members received an additional €552,500 through the same questionable EKK funding process. This brings the total sum awarded to SAPOE members to €1,819,000 out of the €4,450,000 allocated by the EKK in two rounds of decisions. However, it is important to note that the identities behind all the companies listed in the two GFC pre-approval funding lists have not yet been fully identified. Further investigation may reveal that more SAPOE members benefited from this funding.There was and also  concern about potential conflicts of interest, where evaluators may have been assessing proposals submitted by their collaborators, such as producers. For example, Filmiki Productions received funding for both a feature-length project (directed by evaluator Stergios Pashos, The Last Taxi Driver) and a short film (Roger), where, according to GFC statements, a collaborator of the evaluator may have been involved.

When director Costas Ferris publicly exposed the chaotic mismanagement and alleged corruption at the Greek Film Center in an interview with the daily newspaper EFSYN, he faced a wave of legal threats from SAPOE members. Over the course of seven consecutive days, he received cease-and-desist letters from each member of the SAPOE board, along with a defamation lawsuit from producer and  president Panos Papahatzis. Ultimately, the Athens Multi-Member Court acquitted Ferris of all charges. 

(Note: In 2023 Papahatzis officially joined forces with Κostas Sakkaris, who, allegedly,  has strong connection to the Greek prime minister’s office. His daughter tennis champion Angeliki Sakkari is in a relationship with the prime minister’s son).

FEBRUARY 2022: The Hellenic National Transparency Authority’s findings are a blow for Greek Film Center’s practices and especially present Markos Holevas and Vasilios Kekatos

After nine months, in md-February 2022, the National Transparency Authority’s published an audit report on the pre-approval decisions of the Board of Directors of the Greek Film Center, on March 30 and April 28, 2021, totaling 4.550.000 euros, has been completed.

In these specific decisions, the projects of four readers, who were simultaneously competitors, were approved, thus abolishing any notion of impartiality, transparency, and equality.

The multi-page report from the National Transparency Authority concludes:

“…with the aim of ensuring the best safeguarding of the principles of transparency and impartiality in the operation of the organization, it is recommended to the Board of Directors of the Greek Film Center:

1. Prior to the selection process, there should be a public call for expression of interest or a related posting on the Greek Film Center’s website, or other measures (e.g., the creation of an Evaluators’ Registry) should be adopted, which could ensure an increase in the number of the most suitable candidates and, consequently, the best possible selection of Readers. Furthermore, the designation of the decision-making body (possibly a collective one) and a more detailed description of the selection criteria would contribute to enhancing the transparency and objectivity of the process.
   
   
2. It should consider the possibility of requiring each Reader to confirm, for each proposal being evaluated, that there is no incompatibility or conflict of interest in their case, with a corresponding declaration on the electronic platform through which the evaluation process now takes place, taking into account the evaluators’ code of conduct model included in the EU Grants – Model contract for EU Experts by the European Commission.”

It is noted that the Film Center had falsely claimed to the Greek press that “…it follows the best practices of European programs (Creative Europe, Eurimages),” where it is widely, and internationally, known and posted on the web that cross-paneling (an evaluator being simultaneously a competitor and judging a candidate film, even in a different category), conflict of interest, and generally any relationship up to first-degree relatives with candidate production companies and projects over the past 18 months are prohibited, under penalty of funding cancellation.

AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 2024: The corrupt world of the “academy” mafia is falling apart… Greece’s Oscar submission exposed a broken system devoid of transparency and meritocracy

An irregular, illegal, and evidently corrupt action by a Ministry of Culture employee forced the Deputy Minister to partially replace certain members of the proposed Oscar nomination committee, which had been suggested by the misnamed Hellenic Film “…academy,” a private, not-for-profit society, in order to meet the deadlines.

Furthermore, it is important to emphasize that the Ministry of Culture’s approach to replacing the committee members – originally appointed by a ministry employee while she was on vacation – lacked both transparency and the level of professionalism expected from such a key institution. The untransparent process, combined with the absence of communication regarding the criteria for selecting the replacements, has sparked serious concerns within the Greek film community, further eroding trust in the system. These failures highlight the broader issues of mismanagement and opacity that have troubled the Greek Film Center for years. Clearly, the internal investigation initiated by the Ministry of Culture is an attempt to address these insecurities and fears.

A major scandal erupted, with press releases published in outlets owned by Penske Media Group (Deadline, Hollywood Reporter, Variety), led by a small but well-organized minority of privileged individuals. These individuals hurled insults and slander at both the ministry and the vast majority of the film industry’s creators, who had long been marginalized. This might have gone unnoticed if certain political parties — particularly those in opposition — hadn’t uncritically aligned themselves with the protests of this corrupt group, thereby insulting the entire community of Greek filmmakers.

To understand the full picture, we must start from the very beginning. It all started with the “Fog Movement,” which splintered directors and the rest of the film industry into small, competing groups with conflicting interests. This was followed by the hasty establishment of the opaque Hellenic Film Academy, lacking qualitative criteria, and the introduction of the destructive Law 3905/2010 (the Geroulanos Film Law). This law effectively dismantled the Greek Film Center for a decade, resulting in mismanagement and a series of administrative and financial scandals, as confirmed by auditing authorities. The law enabled the rise of the corrupt “Fog” group, which exploited its vagueness and the turnover of Greek Film Center Boards to monopolize the film market and secure state subsidies, excluding many of the key figures in Greek cinema and leading to the industry’s overall decline.

It’s no coincidence that during the 14 years of Law 3905/2010 — a law brought into being by the manipulations of the Fog group and the “Academy” in 2009 and 2010 — at least 10 presidents, 7 managing directors, and more than 70 members of the seven-member Boards of Directors at the Greek Film Center were appointed, dismissed, or resigned, often due to administrative or financial scandals. What do all these unprecedented personnel changes, unparalleled in any similar organization worldwide, signify? They illustrate the corrupt influence of the Fog group and the Hellenic Film “Academy” over Greek cinema.

Two small associations (one of Directors-Producers, ESPEK, and one of the five producer associations, SAPOE), backed by the “Academy’s” board and capitalizing on their close relationship with the Greek Film Center and former president Markos Holevas (who was forced to resign on July 2024), monopolized state film production funds. They excluded as many “outsider” directors as possible, dismissing them as “outdated.”

A series of scandals, abuses, and illegal decisions even led to lawsuits, in which the wronged parties were vindicated. Yet, the Film Center’s Board continued its biased practices, making only superficial adjustments.

It was never made clear by what logic the infamous “….academy’ was given the right to nominate the committee and the methods for selecting the film that would represent the country at the American Academy Awards (Oscars) each year, without even defining objective criteria, similar to the opaque selection process for funding Greek films, which has caused us so many problems, lawsuits and legal battles.

The “excessive zeal” of a Culture ministry employee, evidently corrupt and in cahoots with the group of insiders, triggered the scandal’s explosion and prompted Deputy Minister of Culture Jason Fotilas to restore legality. And suddenly, those caught with their hands in the cookie jar erupted with insults, protests, and pressure on participants to support their illegal actions!

Ordinary members and Board members of the Hellenic Academy (some prominent, others not) launched an unprecedented campaign to discredit the process, slander competitors, and pressure filmmakers to withdraw their entries. They presented only a partial version of the truth, concealing key facts—including their collusion with certain ministry employees to manipulate the ministry’s leadership.

One by one, the corrupt insiders emerged from their hideouts, revealing themselves through insults and offenses, convinced they could regain their lost influence as they had in their years of dominance. But the facade crumbled, and their claim to represent the entire industry—while dismissing their critics as “outdated”—fell apart.

The urgency to revise the outdated Geroulanos Film Law has now become evident. As for the Academy members, if they genuinely wish to protect the reputation of Greek filmmakers, they must amend their bylaws, implement democratic procedures, focus the Academy solely on cultural activities without drifting into syndicalist or guild-like distortions, oversee the Board of Directors, and, above all, restore the integrity that true artists should uphold.

The Hellenic Film “..academy” is a private society that operates under different bylaws and statutes than the American Academy. The Ministry of Culture’s decision is therefore justified; it is reasonable that a filmmaker known primarily for short films, like Kekatos, should not be in charge of a committee selecting a feature-length film to represent Greece. Moreover, aside from Fonissa/Murderess, many of the other films are arthouse projects funded by Greek taxpayers, yet they face significant shortcomings in acting, screenplay, and direction. Most of the 23 films, excluding Fonissa, have sold between 400 and 16,000 tickets at the local box office.

AUGUST 2024: Another financial scandal by Kekatos and advertising/production company Foss Productions, owned by the Kotionis brothers, in the tune of approximately 1M euros

The board of directors of EKOME (HELLENIC CASH BACK INITIATIVE) decided to cancel the approval of the series “Milky Way”, by Vassilis Kekatos, executive produced by Foss Productions and Stelios Koionis, and financed by MEGA TV channel, and the benefits granted from the tax incentive scheme (CASH REBATE) of article 71E of Law No. 4172/2013 (A’ 167), as in force, “because the completeness of the auditor’s report was not established, according to article 30 of the law. 4487/2017”.

The reason for this decision was that “the start of the investment project took place before the date of submission of the application for inclusion, in accordance with para. 5 of article 20 of Law no. 4487/2017″. The withdrawal was made one year after the investment had been certified. The budget approved amounted to EUR 2,252,435 and the withdrawn subsidy to EUR 900,974.

Both Stelios Kotionis, as executive producer, and Vasilios Kekatos, as director, submitted declarations of honor to EKOME when Milky Way was entered into the cash-back incentive scheme, affirming that production had not yet started.

Many in the industry are left questioning: What is happening to Greece, now the poorest country in the EU? Who is protecting those involved in this web of alleged corruption that continues to siphon funds from the Greek Film Center, Eurimages, the Recovery and Resilience Fund of the European Union and Creative Europe? Why are the District Attorney of the Supreme Court and the European Prosecutor turning a blind eye while European subsidies flow into the pockets of a select few, forming what appears to be a cartel?

In other EU countries, such scandals would trigger swift action—investigations, resignations, and even ministers stepping down from their positions. But not in Greece. Corruption runs so deep that it has earned the nickname “the Colombia of the Balkans,” highlighting the pervasive judicial and political corruption. Despite mounting evidence and public outcry, those in power remain largely untouched, and the system continues to protect the few at the expense of the many.

The failure of authorities to address these issues raises serious concerns about governance, transparency, and accountability, especially as public funds meant to support culture and the arts are funneled into the hands of a privileged elite. It begs the question: How long can this go on before the EU or other oversight bodies step in to hold those responsible accountable?

For those who follow our website, the events detailed above are eerily similar to the ones we’ve previously reported concerning the Israeli Film Funds and are inline with how the European film ecosystem is organized, with a complete lack of transparency and proper guardrails against corruption and conflict of interests.

LINKS AND SOURCES:

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

(Cinema paradiso of…. mismanagement).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Below is a report by certified public accountants from the accounting firm Sol found that the film ALPS by Yorgos Lanthimos, executive produced by Athena Rachel Tsangari, unlawfully received €300,000 instead of the €150,000 approved by the Board of Directors. GFC general manager Grigoris Karantinakis made this decision independently, without board approval, and drafted a private agreement between the GFC and Tsangari without consulting the GFC’s Legal Department. As a result, Karantinakis has been accused of a felony and bad faith in a complaint filed by the well-known lawyer Asprogerakas-Grivas. Markos Holevas is listed as number two on the first page of the complaint, which is 130 pages long. Identifying details such as IDs and passports have been omitted.

The post Alleged Corruption and Decadence at the Greek Film Center (FULL ARTICLE) first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

The article announcing the firing:

“Publicly, filmmakers spoke about Radosław Śmigulski either well or not at all. Many stories were never told.

I must admit that I write this with undisguised satisfaction: Radosław Śmigulski has been dismissed from his position as director of the Polish Film Institute . This information was announced at a conference on Thursday by the Minister of Culture, Bartłomiej Sienkiewicz. This is great news for many Polish filmmakers, for whom the last few years have been associated with constant fear.”


SOURCES:

https://kultura.onet.pl/film/wiadomosci/apel-do-ministra-sienkiewicza-w-sprawie-pisf-popada-w-ruine/t1zpy7v

https://wyborcza.pl/7,101707,30878413,arogancja-i-buta-na-szczescie-robert-smigulski-nie-bedzie-juz.html

The post POLAND: A Success Story – Polish Film Institute Falling Into Ruin, Corrupted Head Fired first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

The post How Corruption and Greed Led to the Downfall of Rock Music first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

During the Berlin film market, Noa Regev, newly appointed head of the Israeli Film Board, organized a gathering that many saw as a tone-deaf display of excess. Reports from attendees describe a scene of opulence, with abundant food and an endless stream of cocktails, all funded by the Israeli Film Fund. This starkly contrasts with the dire situation on the ground in Israel, where thousands are displaced and struggling to survive.

“How can they be so deaf to the realities at home?” one attendee lamented. “While everyone is donating homes or money to help the homeless in Israel, the Film Board took a group of filmmakers out of the country on a paid holiday. It’s an insult to those suffering.”

Critics argue that the event was not just poorly timed but also misaligned with the current needs of Israeli society. With hostages and war dominating the national discourse, the lack of acknowledgment or discussion about these pressing issues at the gathering further fueled the backlash.

The decision to proceed with this gathering, perceived as frivolous and insensitive, has put the Israeli Film Board under intense scrutiny. As the film community grapples with these revelations, many are calling for accountability and a reassessment of how cultural funds are allocated during times of national crisis.

“So far three festivals ruined by the Israeli Film Industry so between your report and this, they had better get it all sorted as they are becoming a liability for anyone to take on board. The Israelis are super talented and deserve to be represented in a far superior and safer manner. They deserve more.”

Read more about the Israeli Film Industry, here.

The post ISRAEL: Controversial Gathering by Israeli Film Board Lead by Noa Regev Sparks Outrage Among European Filmmakers first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

אנו מודים לחברי תעשיית הקולנוע הישראלית ששיתפו אותנו במידע זה. יש להדגיש כי המידע הבא מתייחס לחשדות בלבד, והוא מבוסס על שיחות עם חברי התעשייה בישראל. אנחנו מבקשים מהקוראים לשתף את המידע עם יוצרי קולנוע מישראל והעולם, גרסה באנגלית לשיתוף נמצאת כאן – הפיצו אותה עם חברי התעשייה בעולם. מטרה נוספת של פרסום מידע זה היא ליצור בסיס מוצק למחקר אקדמאי בנושא בקרו בעמוד הבא לפרטים נוספים

מי שמוצא טעות במידע מוזמן ליצור קשר

An English version of this article is available here, please share it with members of the film industry. Film Industry Watch encourages our readers to not cooperate or partner with bodies or individuals involved in unethical practices.

:משה אדרי

מפיק ומפיץ סרטים, מבכירי תעשיית הקולנוע הישראלית, יושב ראש דירקטוריון חברת .”NMC” יחד עם אחיו, לאון, רכשו בתי קולנוע ברחבי הארץ והקימו את חברת “יונייטד קינג” המפיצה כיום סרטים ישראליים ובינלאומיים רבים. בתחילת שנות ה-2000, יחד עם לאון אחיו, יזמו והקימו את רשת ה”סינמה סיטי” ברחבי הארץ

בשנים 2021-2015 השקיעו שתי הקרנות הגדולות סכום מצטבר של 261,347,115₪ בהפקת סרטים עלילתיי

בסך הכל קיבל משה אדרי (כמפיק) משתי קרנות אלו בלבד סכום של  104,333,500₪ בגין 85 סרטים שהפיק, המהווים 35% מסך השקעות הקרנות

85 סרטים הופקו ע”י אדרי, כשמתוכם 68 (78%) נתמכו על-ידי קרן רבינוביץ’, והיתר (22%) נתמכו על-ידי קרן הקולנוע

49% מכלל הכספים שחילקה קרן רבינוביץ’ לסרטים, ניתנו לסרטים שהפיק אדרי \ יונייטד קינג

סכומי השקעות הקרנות בסרטים שהפיק אדרי מהווים 37% מסך ההשקעות הכולל בסרטים באותן שנים

אתי כהן: בשנים 1999-2021 כיהנה בתפקיד מנהלת המחלקה

והמועצה לקולנוע במשרד התרבות

המועצה הישראלית לקולנוע היא מועצה מייעצת, שהוקמה ב-2000, מכוח חוק הקולנוע. תפקידה לייעץ לממשלת ישראל ולמשרד התרבות והספורט בתחומי הקולנוע והשפעתה רבה, משום שבין השאר היא היועצת לשר בנוגע למדיניות בתחום הקולנוע

סופר שראש מינהל תרבות תפס אותה מדווחת נתונים שגויים, והעמיד אותה על מקומה. טענה שזוהי טעות דפוס

הכסף מגיע במנות ומחולק לגופים לפי שקלול הבקשות שלהם והגודל של הקרן- סיפור ידוע הוא כי כתריאל שחורי תפס אותה בשקר כשטענה שהכסף לא הגיע, וכשניצל את קשריו באוצר ובירר מדוע מתעכב, טענו כי הכסף התקבל כרגיל. מתברר שחילקה אותו, רובו ככולו, לעיני ולנווה (או רק לעיני). כהן ננזפה ונקבעו הוראות טיפול מיוחדות. מרגע זה ואילך הכסף יכול להיות מחולק רק בהוראתה של חשבת המשרד שמיר. כתריאל הוכרח לבצע עימה סולחה

שנה לאחר תקרית זו, קיבלה פרס עובדת מצטיינת. סופר כי כהן לכאורה הייתה מדברת עם עיני במהלך הישיבות. סופר שהיתה לכאורה מתלחששת, יוצאת החוצה והוא מכתיב לה פתרונות והחלטות. כל החומרים שלהם היו לכאורה עוברים אליו

חשד שלכאורה סידרה לחברת מועצה מכהנת, נועם שנהב (שחקנית), להיות מנחה בפסטיבל ירושלים בתחילת הקדנציה שלה. כהונתה של חברה זו אף הוארכה, ללא קשר ליעילותה, אלא רק בגלל חברותה הקרובה עם אתי. שמועות אף סוברות כי סידרה לה לכאורה תפקיד בסרטו של אבי נשר (תמונות הניצחון, 2021)
כנראה אתי הייתה משתמשת בנועם להגיד את דבריה ושיירשמו תחת שמה בפרוטוקולי הישיבות

סופר שלכאורה היתה נוהגת ללחוש לחברי המועצה את דבריה, ואז לציין לפרוטוקול כי חברי מועצה מסוימים אמרו את הדבר- “מכניסה את מילותיה לפיותיהם”. נראה כי מונחית על-ידי עורך-דין

כהן לא הופיעה בפרוטוקולים של מועצת הקולנוע הישראלי במשך שנים רבות. מה שאמרה- לא מופיע, אפילו לא רשומה כנוכחת

על פי גורמים בתעשיה חשדות לכאורה לסיכול אחריות מימוש המועצה בעניין כשירות לקטורים – התנהלות קלוקלת בנושא לקטורים, שהובילה לקבלתם

האוטומטית של מעל ל-300 מועמדים ללא דיקתם ביניהם מרבית הלקטורים המוכרים שמועסקים רבות בקרנות, כפי שהוזכרו מעלה

חשד לכאורה בהתערבות מלאכותית בהחלטת מועצת הקולנוע בנושא מאגר הלקטורים 

חשד לכאורה שפעלה לביטול\דחיית ישיבות מועצת הקולנוע בכדי לא לפגוע בחבריה הקרובים

חשד לכאורה שקיימה ישיבות מועצה תוך הסתרה מיו”ר המועצה ובזמן היות העובדת בחופשה כפויה

חשד לכאורה בהתערבות מגמתית בישיבות מועצת הקולנוע לטובת קרן רבינוביץ’ וגשר

חשד לכאורה שפעלה להשמטה מכוונת של שמה מהנוכחים בישיבות מועצת הקולנוע

קיים חשד כי סייעה לחברי המועצה מכהנים לקבלת תפקידים שונים בפסטיבלים

:בתאריך ה-29.04.2020 הוגשה תלונה משמעתית נגד כהן בגין הנושאים הבאים

לכאורה סיכול אחריות מימוש המועצה בעניין כשירות לקטורים

ניסיון לביטול ישיבת המועצה ב-9.12.19

לכאורה קיום ישיבה בתחום סמכות המועצה תוך הסתרתה מיו”ר המועצה ובזמן היות העובדת בחופשה כפויה

נטען כי בשנה האחרונה להגשת התלונה, מבצעת כהן עבירות משמעת לכאורה וכי נעשו ניסיונות לפתור את הסוגיות במשרד התרבות, אך ללא הצלחה שכן ההסכמות שהושגו אינן מיושמות

12(ה) לחוק מסמיך את המועצה לדון בכשירותם של מועמדים לכהן כלקטורים (בוחני בקשות לתמיכה) עבור קרנות הקולנוע

לפי פסקה 12(ה)(4), אם חלפו חודשיים מיום שאדם הגיש בקשה להיכלל במאגר הלקטורים והמועצה לא קיבלה החלטה בעניינו, הוא ייכלל אוטומטית במאגר הלקטורים

כהן לכאורה פרסמה את טופס הבקשה להיכלל כלקטור באתר המשרד במועד שאינו ידוע ליו”ר המועצה

לכאורה לא כללה אישורי לקטורים בסדרי ישיבות

טענה כי אינה יכולה להתפנות לטיפול בבקשות שכן עליה לטפל “בנושאם שוטפים”, ואף סירבה לכאורה לבצע אודותיהן ישיבה בטענה כי “הבקשות לא עובדו”

כהן סירבה לכאורה לענות כמה זמן חלף מהבקשה הראשונה, למרות שנתבקשה

כשהתכנסה ועדת המשנה  לבחינת מאגר הלקטורים, לא נכחה בפגישה ולא הכינה עבורה חומרים

בתאריך 28.12.20 התקבל במשרדו של שר התרבות והספורט דאז, חילי טרופר, מכתב בנושא בקשת הארכת כהונתה של כהן

במכתב נכתב כי הארכת כהונתה היא בגין הסיבות הבאות: משבר הקורונה שפקד את העולם , הוצאה לפועל של תכנית תקציבית מיוחדת ומורכבת להפקות שנפגעו עקב הקורונה, צירוף ישראל לארגון Eurimages ולתכנית “Creative Media” באירופה שיזמה בתקופה כהונתה ונשענת על קשריה האישיים

הבקשה נחתמה על ידי 31 אנשים מהתעשייה בתפקידים שונים

ראשי הקרנות היחידים שחתומים על מכתב זה הינם גיורא עיני (רבינוביץ’) וזיו נווה (גשר). חתומים בנוסף שני בעלי תפקידים נוספים מקרן רבינוביץ’ וקרן גשר- יואב אברמוביץ’ (סמנכ”ל קרן רבינוביץ’) ומרים זיגבה (סמנכ”לית קרן גשר)

מספר חברי מועצה שכיהנו תחתיה: פרופ’ דוד אלכסנדר (יו”ר מועצת הקולנוע לשעבר), מנשה סמירה (יו”ר מועצת הרשות השנייה לשעבר), דוד זינדר (סמנכ”ל לשעבר בויצ”ו חיפה), אסנת בוקופצר, אריה צ’רנר

:חשד לניפוח הכנסות בקרן רבינוביץ

החל משנת 2017 נרשמות בקרן הכנסות מיונייטד קינג ו\או שת”פ עם התאחדות ענף הקולנוע בסכומים הבאים

במקביל נרשמה הוצאה בספרי רבינוביץ’ בסכום זהה

רישום מסוג זה יכול להעיד על ניסיון לניפוח הכנסות מלאכותי לכאורה בכדי לעמוד באמות מידה ו\או קריטריונים שונים

לא ניתן לאמת את המידע בדוחות הכספיים של קרן רבינוביץ’ מול יונייטד קינג (חברה פרטית) שדוחותיה הכספיים אינם פתוחים לציבור

חשד לרישום כוזב בדוחות הכספיים

כן נבחן המידע אל מול הדיווחים בדוחות הכספיים של הקרן לעידוד הסרט הישראלי

בשנת 2019 קיים פער בין ההוצאות המדווחות בקרן רבינוביץ’ בסך 2.25 מיליון ש”ח אל מול ההוצאות שדווחו בקרן לעידוד הסרט הישראלי בסך 1 מיליון ₪ בלבד

פער זה יכול להצביע לכאורה על דיווח כוזב לכאורה על ידי קרן רבינוביץ

בשנים 2014 ו-2019 הוחלט על תיקון המבחנים לחלוקת כספי תמיכות בתחום הקולנוע (הוראת שעה), במקביל לאותם תיקונים ניתן להבחין בגידול משמעותי בסך התמיכות בקרן רבינוביץ’ ב- 9% ו- 29% בהתאמה

נוכחות מנהלים אומנותיים כלקטורים בוועדות- כפי שהוזכר מעלה, כפי שהוזכר מעלה, ישנם יועצים אומנותיים שנכחו הן בשלבי הבקשות עצמן, והן בשלבי הערר

מטעם קרן רבינוביץ’, נכחו יואב אברמוביץ’ ב-26 בקשות, גיורא עיני ב-4 בקשות ונחמן אינגבר ב- 4 בקשות

:גיורא עיני וקרן רבינוביץ

מכהן כמנכ”ל הקרן מאז שנת 1995, לכן לפי הוראת השעה בנושא מבחנים לחלוקת כספי תמיכות בתחום הקולנוע , עליו לסיים את הקדנציה בשנת 2023 לפחות, או בשנת 2025, לאחר אישור כהונה נוספת של שנתיים מהדירקטוריון (מניין של 6 שנים סך-הכול משנת 2019)

הפעלת קשריו של מר עיני לכאורה על מנת לקדם את האינטרסים של קרן

חשדות על תערבות לכאורה של אתי כהן בכל התהליכים במועצת הקולנוע להסתרה מתוחכמת מאוד לאורך השנים על-ידי קידום שינויי חקיקה מתמשכים לאורך השנים

חשדות על שימוש לכאורה בחברי מועצה–ניגודי עניינים לאורך השנים, יצירת תלות כלכלית / עסקית על מנת לקדם הצבעות המטיבות בצורה ברורה עם אותן קרנות (כולל גשר)

חשדות על שימוש לכאורה במידע פנים (מתוך משרד התרבות) והעברתו למר גיורא עיני

עם השנים, תקצוב רב יותר מהמדינה מגיע לקרן זו, מפני שעיני מכיר את כללי המשחק המשפטיים ואת התבחינים והקריטריונים לקבלת המימון ושימוש לכאורה ב”קומבינות מכל הסוגים.” הקרן חולשת על תחומים רבים יותר משאר הקרנות, כגון: סרטים קצרים, וסרטי סטודנטים

שיטות הפעולה לכאורה של גיורא לתקיפת אנשים שמנוגדי אינטרסים לאלו שלו והפלתם הן: א) בדיקה על האדם המדובר, הוצאת תיקים אודותיו; ב) טענות לניגוד עניינים

בשנת 2012/2013, באחת מוועדות המשנה שהוקמו שמטרתן ניקוד על-פי איכות וכמות בקרנות, העניק חבר מועצה ניקוד נמוך לקרן רבינוביץ’. בפרוטוקול אסור לציין לעולם מי הצביע וכיצד, אלא כי ההצבעה התבצעה ברוב קולות/ בפה אחד. הדבר הגיע לאוזניו של עיני, הוא הזמין את אותו חבר מועצה לביתו כדי ליצור ניגוד עניינים – ולמחרת התפרסם הדבר בתקשורת והיועצת המשפטית של משרד התרבות נישלה את אותו אדם מתפקידו במועצה

נותן לאנשים שמעוניינים להיות אצלו לקטורים, לרשום כי הם מהפריפריה על מנת לקבל העדפה, בטענה שלא בודקים את הדבר לאמיתו

לכאורה היו עושים תיקונים מסיביים חדשים שהיו נחקקים לפי ההערות הבקשות של זיו נווה וגיורא עיני, לרוב. לא היו מוציאים לשימוע כשהם היו מגישים, אלא מפרסמים את התיקונים בצורה סופית

תיקוני חקיקה שאושרו בגרסתם הסופית, ללא שימוע: קרה פעמיים- לאחרונה, משרד התרבות הודה שגיורא עיני ביקש את התיקון. הייתה שיחת זום של ראשי הקרנות האזוריות והארציות וראשי משרד

:יואב אברמוביץ

מפיק סרטים, תסריטאי ומבקר קולנוע ישראלי , מכהן כמנכ”ל משותף בקרן רבינוביץ’ משנת 2019

משמש כמנהל האמנותי של הקרן מאז שנת 2015, לכן לפי הוראת השעה בנושא מבחנים לחלוקת כספי תמיכות בתחום הקולנוע , עליו לסיים את הקדנציה בשנת

2023 לפחות, או בשנת 2025, לאחר אישור כהונה נוספת של שנתיים מהדירקטוריון (מניין של 6 שנים סך-הכול משנת 2019)

:קרן גשר וזיו נווה

זיו נווה היא במאית ומפיקת סרטים דוקומנטריים לשעבר המכהנת כיום כמנכ“לית קרן גשר לקולנוע רב תרבותי. נחשבת לחברה טובה של אתי כהן, מנהלת מחלקת הקולנוע במשרד התרבות ומנהלת מועצת הקולנוע הישראלית לשעבר. ד”ר דניאל טרופר, אביו חילי טרופר, שר התרבות, הקים את קרן גשר. ביום בו שמעה נווה על מינויו של טרופר, התייצבה במשרדו ו”סגרה עניינים” נחשבת לחברה טובה של טרופר

בשנים 2014 ו-2019 הוחלט על תיקון המבחנים לחלוקת כספי תמיכות בתחום הקולנוע (הוראת שעה), במקביל לאותם תיקונים ניתן להבחין בגידול משמעותי בסך התמיכות בקרן גשר ב- 149% ו- 82% בהתאמה

כפי שהוזכר מעלה, ישנם יועצים אומנותיים שנכחו הן בשלבי הבקשות עצמן, והן בשלבי הערר. מטעם קרן גשר, נכח שרון שמיר ב-6 בקשות שכאלו

לכאורה, נווה, עיני וכהן היו נפגשים בפסטיבל קאן, וסוגרים כיצד תיראה השנה הבאה של הקולנוע הישראלי (לא ניתן לאמת מידע זה)

נווה הצליחה להכניס סעיף שבו כתוב כי יש להעניק ניקוד מיוחד לקרן שמתמחת בקולנוע ייעודי (משמע, יוצרים פריפריאליים: דרוזים, צ’רקסים, אתיופים); סעיף שדי ברור שהיא ועיני הגו על מנת שתוכל לקבל כסף נוסף לקרן שהיא היחידה שיכולה להתעסק בתחום שכזה. על הנייר מציגים זאת כעידוד קולנוע פריפריאלי

נשמעו טענות שהעסיקה חברי מועצה מכהנים כלקטורים

אורן רייך –  עבד גם בקרן יהודה ושומרון, וגם כיועץ בשתי הקרנות האזוריות בדרום, מופיע באתר של “גשר” בנוסף. “גשר” טוענים כי אין לו קשר ליהודה ושומרון יותר, וכעת מנותקת “כאילו” משתי הקרנות האזוריות בדרום

קרן “גשר” פרסמה אדם שכיהן כלקטור, שלמעשה לא היה לקטור

טענות שקרן גשר פעלה לאגד גורמים שיהיו רגולטורים שלה 

קרן גשר הייתה חביבה על לימור לבנת במהלך כהונתה כשרת התרבות – העבירה להם כספים רבים מתקנות תקציביות אחרות, מלבד הכסף שהועבר להם דרך מועצת הקולנוע

בשנת 2014 הוגש בג”ץ נגד עיני בנושא תיקון חקיקתי שיצא בגרסתו הסופית ללא שימוע, תיקון שהיטיב עם נווה ועיני, והכשיל את הקרנות האחרות. התיקון אושר

:דלתות מסתובבות בין חברי מועצת הקולנוע לקרנות הקולנוע

:שני חברי מועצה שקיבלו מימון מקרנות על סרטים / סדרות שיצרו בעודם מכהנים בתפקיד

יאיר רוה: בעודו מכהן כחבר מועצת הקולנוע , קיבל תמיכה לסדרה שיצר בשם “קטמנדו” (2012) מקרן גשר . בנוסף, קיבל תמיכה לסרט “שרון עמרני: זכרו את השם” (2010) מקרן רבינוביץ

ארנון צדוק: בעודו מכהן כחבר מועצה , קיבל תמיכה על סרטו “ניקה” (2010) מקרן רבינוביץ

 :שלושה חברי מועצה שעבדו וקיבלו שכר ביוזמות של קרנות בעודם מכהנים בתפקיד

חוה דיבון: בעודה מכהנת כחברת מועצה , שימשה כחונכת בחממת הקולנוע לנשים חרדיות בשנת 2012 ביוזמת קרן גשר

מרלין וניג: בעודה מכהנת כחברת מועצה , שימשה כחונכת ויועצת בחממת הקולנוע לנשים חרדיות בשנת 2012 ביוזמת קרן גש 

הרב ישראל גליס: בעודו מכהן כחבר מועצה , הועסק כיועץ בחממת הקולנוע לנשים חרדיות בשנת 2012 ביוזמת קרן גשר, וכן ליווה סדנה מקבילה לגברים מהמגזר החרדי

 :שישה חברי מועצה שלקחו חלק בסרטים שקיבלו מימון מקרנות בעודם מכהנים בתפקיד

אסנת בוקופצר: בעודה מכהנת כחברת מועצת הקולנוע , שימשה כפוסט פרודקשן ויח”צ של הסרט באבא ג’ון (2015) שקיבל את תמיכתן של קרן רבינוביץ’ וקרן “גשר” , בנוסף, מתפקדת כמנהלת קשרי החוץ של קרן רבינוביץ’ החל משנת 2017

נועם שנהב: בעודה מכהנת כחברת מועצה , שיחקה בסרטים “תמונת הנצחון” (2021) ו”המנצחים [אופוריה]” (2021) שקיבלו תמיכה מקרן רבינוביץ 

גולן אזולאי: בעודו מכהן כחבר מועצה , שיחק בסרט “עקרה” (2022) אשר קיבל תמיכה מקרן רבינוביץ

 :אריה צ’רנר

בעודו מכהן כחבר מועצה, שיחק בסרט “הקפות” (2014) אשר קיבל תמיכה מקרן הקולנוע הישראלי

בעודו מכהן כחבר מועצה, שיחק בסרט “חתונה מנייר” (2015) אשר קיבל תמיכה מקרן גשר, קרן מקור וקרן הקולנוע הישראל

בעודו מכהן כחבר מועצה, שיחק בסרט “קאפו בירושלים” (2015) אשר קיבל תמיכה מקרן הקולנוע של הרשות לפיתוח ירושלים, קרן הקולנוע וקרן גש

בעודו מכהן כחבר מועצה, שיחק בסרט “חדרי הבית” (2016) אשר קיבל תמיכה מקרן רבינוביץ’ וקרן הקולנוע של הרשות לפיתוח ירושלים

בעודו מכהן כחבר מועצה, שיחק בסרט “פוקסטרוט” (2016) אשר קיבל תמיכה מקרן הקולנוע

בעודו מכהן כחבר מועצה, שיחק בסרט “החטאים” (2016) אשר קיבל תמיכה מקרן רבינוביץ’ וקרן הקולנוע של הרשות לפיתוח ירושלים

בעודו מכהן כחבר מועצה, שיחק בסרט “מכתוב” (2017) אשר קיבל תמיכה מקרן הקולנוע וקרן הקולנוע של הרשות לפיתוח ירושלים

בעודו מכהן כחבר מועצה, שיחק בסרט “ליידי טיטי” (2018) אשר קיבל תמיכה קרן רבינוביץ’ והקרן החדשה לקולנוע וטלוויזיה

שיחק בסרט “”VOICE OVER (2018) אשר קיבל תמיכה מקרן גשר וקרן רבינוביץ’ , בעודו מכהן כחבר מועצה

בעודו מכהן כחבר מועצה, שיחק בסרט “שחקים” (2019) אשר קיבל תמיכה מקרן הקולנוע 

גבריאל עמרני גור: בעודו מכהן כחבר מועצה , שיחק בסרט “גט” (2014) אשר קיבל תמיכה מקרן הקולנוע הישראלי, בנוסף, שיחק בסרט “מסע הטבעת” (2016)  אשר קיבל תמיכה מקרן הקולנוע הישראלי

עירית קפלן: בעודה מכהנת כחברת מועצה, שיחקה בסרט “לב שקט מאוד” (2016) אשר קיבל תמיכה מקרן רבינוביץ’, בנוסף, שיחקה בסרט “להציל את נטע” (2016) אשר קיבל תמיכה מקרן הקולנוע הישראלי

:ענבל שוקי

בעודה מכהנת כחברת מועצה , עיצבה תלבושות ואיפרה בסרטים הבאים: “בתולים” (2022), “חומוס פול טריילר” (2022)- סרטים שקיבלו את תמיכת קרן הקולנוע הישראלי, “השתיקה” (2022), “גן קופים” (2023)- סרטים שקיבלו את תמיכת קרן רבינוביץ’

מניפולציה לכאורה של ניקוד פרוייקטים להכשיל אותם מלהתקדם לסבב שני

על מנת למנוע מפרויקטים שהנהלת הקרן לא מעוניינת לתמוך בהם לעלות לסיבוב שני, קוראי הפרויקטים מקושרים בקרן מעניקים לכאורה לפרויקטים אלו ציונים נמוכים יותר כדי להפחית באופן מלאכותי את הציון הממוצע שלהם, ומיישרים קו עם רצונות המנהלים. לדוגמה, הנה פרויקט שקיבל ציון ממוצע של 8.8/10 על פני עשר ביקורות שונות אך זכה לציון 5/10 בחוו”ד רבינוביץ במטרה לחבל בסיכוי של הפרויקט לעלות לסבב השני. התיאורים בסקירת רבינוביץ חסרים פירוט וביקורת ספציפית כמו “תסריט צפוי” בניגוד מוחלט ליותר מעשר חוודים אחרים לאותו פרויקט. פעולה זאת משאירה יותר מקום וסיכוי לפרוייקטים של מקושרים שהקרן רוצה לתמוך בהם, לדוגמה הפרוייקט של תום נשר, אביה, או כל אחד מהמקושרים האחרים, ללא קשר לאיכויות של הפרוייקטים שלהם

 שותפים ביצירת סרטים שהציגו בפסטיבל בעודם מכהנים במקביל כשופטים בתחרות

פסטיבל ירושלים

נילי פלר: כיהנה כשופטת בתחרות הסרטים הבינלאומית בשנת 2021, במקביל באותה שנה, הוקרנו בפסטיבל שני סרטים שערכה “איפה אנה פרנק” ו”מותו של הקולנוע ושל אבא שלי גם”

הילה מדליה: כיהנה כשופטת בקטגוריית קולנוע ישראלי קצר בשנת 2021, ובמקביל באותה שנה, הוקרן  בפסטיבל סרט שהפיקה בשם “למה אמרתי אני – בחזרה לפרשת חנית קיקוס”

שי גולדמן: כיהן כשופט בתחרות הסרטים הבינלאומית בשנת 2021, ובמקביל באותה שנה, צילם את הסרט “הנה אנחנו” שהוקרן בפסטיבל

פסטיבל חיפה

דרור מורה: כיהן כשופט בתחרות קולנוע ישראלי תיעודי בשנת 2022, ובמקביל באותה שנה, הוקרן בפסטיבל סרטו “מסדרונות הכוח”

סער יוגב: כיהן כשופט בתחרות קולנוע ישראלי עלילתי בשנת 2021, ובמקביל באותה שנה, הוקרן בפסטיבל סרט שהפיק בשם “פתח תקווה”

עינת גלזר זרחין: כיהנה כשופטת בתחרות “עוגן הזהב” בשנת 2021, ובמקביל באותה שנה, הוקרן בפסטיבל סרט שערכה בשם “תוכנית א”

1 שותפה ליצירת סרט שהועסקה בפסטיבל במקביל: אתי ציקו, שהועסקה החל משנת 2014 בפסטיבל ירושלים בתפקיד “Head of Guests & Hospitality” והציגה סרט קצר בשם “רוסו” בשנת 2021

:לקטורים ולקטורה – דלתות מסתובבות

חוק הקולנוע בשנת 1999 מגדיר לקטור כבעל תפקיד במוסד, שבתוקף תפקידו שותף להערכה, לבחינה או לברירה של בקשות המוגשות למוסד לסיוע בהפקת סרטים. נתונים כלליים בטווח השנים 2016-2012

כל לקטור מקבל בין 20-30 תסריטים סה”כ. בשלב הראשוני ההגשה היא אנונימית, כל תסריט מקבל מספר והלקטור מנקד מבלי לדעת במי מדובר, מנקדים כל תסריט ובוחרים מתוך 196 תסריטים לדוגמה 40 תסריטים בעלי הניקוד הגבוה ביותר – לאחר מכן מתקיים דיון על התסריטים שנבחרו וכבר אז נחשפים שמות היוצרים

464 סרטים אושרו לתמיכה על-ידי הקרנות

99 סרטים קיבלו תמיכה מקרנות ללא כל משוב מלקטורים, המהווים 21% מכלל הסרטים שנתמכו ( 99/464)

האחים אדרי היו מעורבים בהפקת 24 סרטים מתוך ה-99 (67% מתוך אותם 24 סרטים היו בתמיכת קרן רבינוביץ’)

כ – 5% מהבקשות שהוגשו, ואשר קיבלו משוב כללי שלילי או בינוני, קיבלו תמיכה באותו מועד

מנהלים אמנותיים נוכחים כלקטורים בקרנות גשר ורבינוביץ

בקרן גשר נכח המנהל בכ – 72% מהבקשות בהן דנו 

ובקרן רבינוביץ’ נכחו המנהלים בכ – 45% מהבקשות בהן דנו

בקרן גשר ובקרן רבינוביץ’ ישנם לקטורים אשר נכחו הן בדיון המקורי בבקשה לתמיכה והן בערר שהתקיים בגין אותה בקשה

נוכחות מנהלים אומנותיים כלקטורים בוועדות- בהתאם לדיווחי קרן רבינוביץ בשנים 2021-2013 לא נרשמו שמותיהם של יואב אברמוביץ’ ונחמן אינגבר כלקטורים בקרן. כלומר, הדיווח שהועבר לוועדה אינו תואם את הדיווח שהועבר באתר הקרן

הרכב הלקטורה בבקשות לעומת עררים- במהלך השנים 2016-2012 קרן רבינוביץ’ וקרן גשר היו הקרנות היחידות בהן נמצאו לקטורים שהופיעו הן בוועדה המקורית לבחינת הבקשה והן בשלב הערר

בקרן רבינוביץ’, יואב אברמוביץ’ נכח ב-26 בקשות, גיורא עיני ב-4 בקשות ונחמן אינגבר ב- 4 בקשות בקרן גשר- שרון שמיר נכח ב-6 בקשות

לקטורים שהועסקו פעמים רבות בקרנות, חשדות לניגודי עניינים, חוסר מנהל תקין ודלתות מסתובבות

למנהלי הקרנות היה חשוב שבסיבובים הראשונים, אנשיהם יכללו במאגר

ישנה תלונה במשטרה על סרט שקיבל תמיכה, אך לא הומלץ ע”י הלקטורים

היה ניסיון להעביר שינוי שכל הלקטורים משתכרים באופן זהה, אך זה לא צלח. בקרן רבינוביץ’ לקטור יכול לקבל 250 ₪ לתסריט. השתכרות נאה מאוד לחודש אחד בשנה

לקטורה מיטיבה עם יוצרים כיוון שאם הם “מתיישרים” עם דעתו של מנהל הקרן, הוא יכול לזכור אותם לטובה כשיגישו תסריטים, ובכך לקבל תמיכה (=מימון) ביצירותיהם מה שקורה בפועל פעמים רבות

1. עמיר מנור:

2. לי גילת:

3. אמנון זלאייט:

4. טל גרניט:

5. שרון מימון:

6. אפרת כורם:

7. דיתה גרי:

8. ישראלה שאער מעודד:

9. נטעלי בראון:

10. רפאל בלולו:

11. לאון פרודובסקי:

12. אריק קפלון:

בנוסף, מועסק כמנחה סדנת עבודה בשיתוף משרד התרבות, קרן רבינוביץ’, קרן גשר ואיגוד התסריטאים 

13. סוהא עארף:

14. גור הלר:

15. רוני קידר:

סרטה “סופעולם” הוא מבין 99 הסרטים שלא עברו תהליך לקטורה וקיבלו מימון

16. יבגני רומן:

17. עידן הובל:

18. תאופיק (אגבאריה) אבו ואיל:

19. מיה דרייפוס:

20. סמדר זמיר:

21. ורדית (וידי) בילו:

סרטה “סוף עידן התמימות” הוא מבין 99 הסרטים שלא עברו תהליך לקטורה וקיבלו מימון

22. קובי מזרחי:

23. שרי עזוז- ברגר:

24. דנה גולדברג:

25. אסתי עלמו-וקסלר:

מקורות – במסמך המצורף מקורות שונים. כל האמור בעמוד זה ובמסמך הם חשדות לכאורה שמבוססים על שיחות עם חברי תעשיה ומקורות גלויים. כל מי שמוצא טעות במידע מוזמן ליצור קשר עם האתר. המידע סופק לאתר ע”י קוראים והאתר לא לוקח אחריות על תוכן הדברים. כל מי שיש מידע נוסף מתבקש ליצור קשר עם האתר, גם אנונימית

Film Industry Watch Featured on Film Threat:
“A Gold Mine of Material” – Chris Gore

The post תעשיית הקולנוע בישראל – ריכוזיות וחשד לניגודי עניינים ושחיתות לכאורה לאורך עשרות שנים – קרן רבינוביץ וקרן גשר first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

Following our report on the revolving doors at the Israeli Film Fund, where a significant portion, if not the majority, of feature film financing is allocated to a small group of individuals affiliated with the fund, either as script readers or in other capacities, we have been approached by Israeli filmmakers who have shared further details with us, especially concerning Israel’s largest film fund, The Rabinovich Foundation for the Arts, and the smaller Gesher Fund, depicting the Israeli film industry as allegedly being highly corrupt, insular, and monopolistic.

The following information was provided by highly knowledgeable members of the Israeli Film industry, readers, as well as public information. Please use this report as a blueprint for reporting corruption or conflict of interests in your own countries and contact us with such information. This article is also meant to be used for further academic study, and as an example for the type of academic research that we’re interested to promote. Please visit our scholarships page for more details.

Alleged Corruption at the Rabinovich Film Fund

Since 1995 the Rabinovich film fund has been led by Giora Eini, an individual with significant connections who has maintained close relationships with the late Israeli Prime Ministers Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres. The following report details accusations of alleged corruption and conflicts of interest in various forms.

For background and context, Israel has established multiple film funds with the intention of them to compete with one another. Each year the Israeli Film Council, a governmental body, decides how much funding each fund will receive, based on different criteria, decided by the Council.

In addition, over the years, Giora Eini has employed the leading film journalists in Israel—Yair Raveh, Erez Dvorah, Ron Fogel, and others—as reader and employees in the fund so they would allegedly & seemingly protect and promote him, the fund, and the films it financed, and never expose to the public the information contained in this page. Eini, a lawyer and politician, is known to have allegedly told Katriel Schory (former head of the other Israeli film fund), “You care about the industry, I only care about the money,” and that he couldn’t care less about the film industry itself or film as an art. What interests him is “winning” in the game that he plays, regardless of whether it’s a film fund or shoe manufacturing. As it is well known, one allegedly rotten apple is enough to corrupt and destroy an entire system; the allegedly rotten apple infects everything around it, with allegedly destructive results and nearly impossible to escape the grip of someone who apparently (allegedly) values power and personal and professional benefit as his highest and only value. An example of alleged control over key people and roles in the system through the creation of alleged conflict of interest and economic dependency is Adar Shafran, head of the Israeli Producers Union. On one hand, Shafran received repeated financing from the Rabinowitz Fund as a producer, and later from the Israeli Film Fund as a director (which he was not qualified in). Simultaneously, Shafran is supposed to represent the producers and the interests of the entire industry before those exact entities—a situation that allegedly resembles the operation of a banana republic, where all role holders act in unison to allegedly preserve the allegedly corrupt system and their personal power, by each protecting the other’s power and status. As these lines are being written, it has just been announced that Moshe Edri, a close friend to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s family, will be this year’s Israel Prize laureate for the Lifetime Achievement Award. This decision should surprise no one, as those involved in alleged corruption are always busy distributing roles, money, and awards among themselves in a cyclical manner. Because Eini apparently also allegedly controls the journalists themselves, as well as allegedly the heads of the unions, and the members of the Film Council, and anyone who could threaten his long-held alleged control over budgets of hundreds of millions of shekels, it is upon the Israeli film industry members themselves to spread the information on this page and demand a change in the identity of the heads of the film funds, and to establish that the identity of the heads of the funds should be legally fixed in advance for a limited time of no more than two to three years.

The accusation of alleged corruption were made in the following areas:

1. Alleged Revolving doors between the The Rabinovich Fund and members of the Israeli Film Council.
   
   These alleged conflicts of interest, spanning years, were orchestrating economic and business dependence with council members in order to promote votes that benefited the fund, as well as the Gesher fund, over the other funds. These include:
   
   
   • 2 Film Council members received funding from the Rabinovich fund for films or a TV series that they created while in office.
   • 3 Film Council members worked and were paid by the Rabinovich fund for initiatives while in office.
   • 6 Film Council members took part in films that received funding from the Rabinovich film fund while in office.
   • 1 Film Council members was employed as a reader by the Rabinovich Fund after her term in office.
     
     Additional and detailed information regarding these allegations are further detailed below, in a separate section.
     
     
2. Alleged Revolving Doors policy between project readers who were employed by the funds, who also received funding for their projects (full article here.)
   
   
   • 20 reader received funding for films close to the time of their employment by the funds.
   • 9 readers received funding for films at the same time they were were employed by the funds.
   • 1 reader served as a script consultant, while employed by the fund, while the project was funded.
   • 7 filmmakers who were writers or directors in films that they presented in Israeli film festivals, while simultaneously serving as jury members in the same festivals.
   • 1 writer / director was employed at a festival while it was selected to be screened in the same festival.
     
     
3. Alleged use of insider information:
   
   Inside information from within the Ministry of Culture which was passed to the CEO of the fund, Giora Eini, by the former head of the Israeli Film Council, Eti Cohen, along with Cohen’s alleged intervention and support of the fund, in all processes at the Film Council, with a very sophisticated concealment over the years. This is in conjunction to an alleged romantic relationship between the two. This includes continuous promotion of legislative changes in favour of the fund, over many years.
   
   
4. Alleged or suspected “falsification of corporate documents” (רישום כוזב במסמכי תאגיד):
   
   A criminal offense, where the fund had registered income and expenses in identical amounts, over several years, in order to create a false representation of the fund’s activity and increase it’s income artificially, so it would justify receiving more funding the following year.
   
   The funds were received by UnitedKing film, a long time partner of the fund which is owned by Moshe Edery, as detailed below, as well as from the ‘Israeli Association of Filmmaking.’
   
   
5. Alleged Participation of the fund’s Artistic Director or CEO of the fund, against the rules, as readers in the project evaluation committees and in the appeal stages:
   
   On behalf of the Rabinovitch Foundation, Yoav Abramovich was present in 26 applications, Giora Eini in 4 applications and Nachman Ingeber in 4 applications. According to the reports of the Rabinovitz Foundation in the years 2013-2021, the names of Yoav Abramovich and Nachman Ingeber were not listed as directors of the foundation. That is, the report submitted to the Film Council do not match the report submitted on the foundation’s website.
   
   
6. Accusation of an alleged monopoly in film production and distribution, with financing coming from the Israeli tax payer:
   
   Moshe Edery – one of the senior leaders of the Israeli film industry, together with his brother, Leon, purchased theaters throughout the country and founded the “UnitedKing” company, which today distributes many Israeli and international films. In the early 2000s they founded the “Cinema City” chain, the largest cinema chain in Israel. In other words – Moshe Edery is a producer, distributor, and also owner of the largest cinema chain in Israel, a monopoly in film production, distribution and exhibition of films, which is financed, to a large extent, by the Israeli film funds, in the form of production financing given to films he is involved with as a producer and distributers:
   
   
   
   • In the years 2015-2021, the two major funds invested – The Rabinowitz Fund, and the Israeli Film Fund, invested an aggregate amount of NIS 261,347,115 (66,071,422 Euros) in the production of feature films.
     
     Out of these amounts, in total, Moshe Edry (as a producer) received from the two funds a sum of 26,376,655 Euro for 85 films he produced, which constitute 35% of the funds’ total investments. From the 85 films which were produced by Edry, 68 (78%) were supported by the Rabinovitch Fund, and the rest (22%) were supported by the Israeli Film Fund.
     
     
   • A staggering 49% of all funds distributed by the Rabinovitch Foundation were given to films produced by Edry and distributed by United King.
     
     The funds’ investment amounts in films produced by Adri constitute a staggering 37% of the total investments in films in those years. In other words, 37% of the total amount invested in film production by the Israeli film funds, went to films produced by this monopoly. Note that UnitedKing is the same company mentioned above in relation to the falsification of corporate documents (point 4 above.)
     
     
7. Funding for films without readers scoring, alleged nepotism and alleged corruption:
   
   Funding of films in the years 2012-2016: 464 films were approved for support by the funds. 99 of the films received support from the funds without any feedback from readers, which make up 21% of all supported films. The Adri brothers were involved in the production of 24 films out of the 99 (67% of those 24 films were supported by the Rabinovich Foundation.)
   
   In addition, about 5% of the project applications that were submitted, and that received general negative or moderate feedback, received support from the funds despite their low scores.
   
   • Against “good practice”, the Artistic Directors were present or employed as project readers for the funds: at the Gesher Fund, the Artistic Director or CEO were present or employed in approximately 72% of the funded applications. At the Rabinovich Foundation, the Artistic Director or CEO were present or employed in about 45% of the funded applications.
     
     This is done so the CEO or Artistic Director can influence the work of the so called “independent” readers, who are themselves, as we’ve shown, were compromised. This influence is important as it allows the CEO or Artistic directors to divert the funding to projects that they favors for personal reasons, rather than for artistic merit.
     
     
   • During the years 2012-2016, the Rabinovich Fund and the Gesher Fund were the only funds in which script readers appeared both in the original committee to examine the applications and in the appeal stage. According to our sources, when projects that Giora Eini wanted to support were not supported by the script readers, and did not receive a high enough average, the producers of those films, usually involving Moshe Edery, were asked to appeal, and then Giora Eini would approve funding for the projects himself.
     
     This “loop hole” was used for several years until it was discovered by the filmmakers community and new rules were put in place to prevent this abuse of power by the head of the fund.
     
     
8. Eti Cohen – held the position of Director of the Film department at the Israeli Ministry of Culture 1999-2021 – which overseas the work of the Film Council
   
   Allegedly, Cohen thwarted the Council’s responsibility regarding the qualification of project readers by automatically accepting over 300 candidates without their examination, among them most of the recognized readers which were employed extensively by funds, as mentioned above. In addition she is accused of:
   
   • Acting to cancel or postpone meetings of the Film Council in order to promote the interests of her allies when there was not a majority of compromised members in the meetings.
     
     
   • Held Film Council meetings without the knowledge of the council’s chairman and while some employee or members were on forced leave. This was done to further the interests of the Rabinovitch and Gesher Foundations.
     
     
   • Consistent intervention in the meetings of the Film Council in favor of the Rabinovitch and Gesher Foundations.
     
     
   • Allegedly acted to deliberately omit her name from those present at the Cinema Council meetings, as it was against the rules, or in order to hide the fact that she was working to further the interests of these two funds.
     
     
   • Alleged suspected assistance to some incumbent film council members to get various positions at film festivals or other roles, in order to later receive favors in promoting her agendas, which were to further the interests of the Rabinovitch and Gesher Foundations.
     
     The interference by Eti Cohen in the work of the Film Council parallels changes in the criteria influencing how funds were distributed to the various film funds in the years 2014 and 2019. These changes resulted in an increase of 9% and 29% in the funding allocated to the Rabinovitch film fund.
     
     
9. Ziv Neve and the Gesher Fund:
   
   
   • Ziv Neve is a former documentary film director and producer who currently serves as CEO of the Gesher Fund for Multicultural Cinema. Dr. Daniel Trooper, the father of Hili Trooper, the Minister of Culture at the time, established the Gesher Foundation. According to the allegations, when Trooper was appointed as the Minister of Culture, Ziv Neve showed up at his office and “closed a deal” to favour the fund (which the minister’s father had established), and is considered a good friend of Minister Trooper.
     
     
   • In 2014 and 2019, when it was decided to change the criteria influencing how funds were distributed to the various film funds, the changes resulted in a significant increase in the total amount of support to the Gesher Fund, by 149% and 82% respectively. This was done on the account of the other funds.
     
     
   • In the Gesher Fund too, artistic consultants or the Artistic Director were present both during the project application stages themselves, and during the appeal stages, against the rules. On behalf of the Gesher Fund, Sharon Shamir was present six times.
     
     
   • Ziv Neve is considered a good friend of Eti Cohen, director of the Film Department at the Ministry of Culture and former director of the Israeli Film Council. According to our sources, every year, Neve, Eini and Cohen would allegedly meet at the Cannes Film Festival, and plan how the next year of Israeli cinema will look like. In other words, the head of the two funds, and the person responsible for the Israeli Film Council, which makes decisions relating to the financing of these two funds, would allegedly meet and conspire as to what projects or filmmakers or producers would receive financing the following year, and other such matters.
     
     
   • Neve managed to pass a ruling that supported film fund that specialize in projects by peripheral creators, a clause that was clearly created in order to support the Gesher Foundation, as it is the only fund dedicated to those types of projects. This was presented as a measure encouraging peripheral cinema but was designed to help Gesher Foundation for personal reasons.
     
     
   • Alleged claims that Neve employed serving Film Council members as project readers.
     
     
   • The different film funds are supposed to be completely separated from each other. However, Oren Reich, who worked both at the Yehuda and Samaria Fund, and as a consultant at the two regional funds in the south, also appeared on the Gesher Fund website as working for the fund. The Gesher Fund claims that it no longer has no connection to Judea and Samaria fund anymore, and has cut off their links with the two regional funds.
     
     
   • The Gesher Fund was caught publishing on their website that a certain individual severed as a reader on the fund, who in fact, he didn’t.
     
     
   • The Gesher Fund was a favorite of Limor Livnat during her tenure as Minister of Culture – Livnat transferred additional funding to the fund, from external budgets, on top of the funding allocated to the fund through the Film Council.
     
     
   • In 2014, a case was filed to the Israeli Supreme Court against Eini regarding a legislative amendment that passed in the Film Council without a proper hearing, an amendment that benefited Neve and Eini (the Rabinowitz and Gesher funds) , legislation that was discriminatory against the other funds. Despite the appeal to the Supreme Court, the amendment came into effect.
     
     
10. Alleged manipulation of project’s scoring in order to fail them from advancing for consideration.
    
    In order to prevent projects that the fund’s management does not want to support from advancing to the second round of consideration, project readers who are part of the fund allegedly give these projects lower scores to artificially reduce their average scoring. For instance, here is a project that received an average score of 8.8/10 across ten different reviews but scored only 5/10 in this specific Rabinowitz review. The purpose was to sabotage the project’s chance of advancing to the second round of consideration. The descriptions in the Rabinowitz review lack detail and specific criticism, offering only generalities such as “plot is lacking.” This is in stark contrast to the more than ten other reviews for the exact same project.
    
    

Alleged Revolving doors between the The Rabinovich Fund & Members of the Israeli Film Council:

The following is detailed information about the revolving doors between the film funds, and members of the Israeli Film Council, which is responsible for ongoing decisions relating to financing of the various Israeli film funds. These connections are a blatant conflict of interest and a form of institutional corruption. This is not a “bug”, but a feature of the Israeli film financing system. As you can see below, this did not happen once or twice but multiple times, with multiple council members:

1. Two Film Council members who received funding from foundations for films/series they created while in office:
   
   
   • Yair Rave (יאיר רוה): Received support, while serving as a member of the Film Council, for a series he created called “Kathmandu” (2012) from the Gesher Foundation. In addition, he received support for the film “Sharon Amarni: Remember the Name” (2010) from the Rabinovitch Fund.
     
     
   • Arnon Zadok (ארנון צדוק): eeceived support for his film “Nika” (2010) from the Rabinovitch Foundation, while serving as a council member.
     
2. Three Film Council members were paid by and employed by funds while in office:
   
   
   • Eve Divon (חוה דיבון): served as a mentor in the film incubator for ultra-Orthodox women in 2012 at the initiative of the Gesher Foundation, while serving as a council member.
     
     
   • Merlin Venig (מרלין וניג): served as a mentor and consultant in the film incubator for ultra-Orthodox women in 2012 at the initiative of the Gesher Foundation, while serving as a council member.
     
     
   • Rabbi Israel Galis (הרב ישראל גליס): served as a mentor and consultant in the film incubator for ultra-Orthodox women in 2012 at the initiative of the Gesher Foundation, while serving as a council member. In addition, was employed in a mentor in a similar incubator, mentoring Orthodox men.
     
     
3. Six council members took part in films that received funding from foundations while in office:
   
   
   • Osnat Bukoptzer (אסנת בוקופצר): served as post-production producer and in PR for the film Baba John (2015) which received funding from the Rabinovitch Foundation and the Gesher Foundation, while serving as a member of the Film Council. In addition, she serves as the director of external relations for Rabinovitch Foundation since 2017.
     
     
   • Noam Shanhav (נועם שנהב): participated as an actress in the films “Portrait of Victory” (2021) and “The Winners [Euphoria]” (2021) which received financing from the Rabinovich Foundation, while serving as a council member.
     
     
   • Golan Azulai (גולן אזולאי): participated as an actor in the film “Barrenness” (2022) which received support from the Rabinovitch Fund, while serving as a council member.
     
     
   • Aryeh Cherner (אריה צ’רנר):
     
     
     • Participated as an actor in the film “Circles” (2014) which received support from the Israel Cinema Fund while serving as a council member.
       
       
     • Participated as an actor in the film “Paper Wedding” (2015) which received support from the Gesher Fund, the Makor Fund and the Israeli Cinema Fund, while serving as a council member.
       
       
     • Participated as an actor in the film “Capo in Jerusalem” (2015) which received support from the Jerusalem Development Authority Film Fund, the Cinema Fund and the Gesher Fund, while serving as a council member.
       
       
     • In addition, participated in the following films – “The Rooms of the House” (2016), “Foxtrot” (2016), “The Sins” (2016), “Makatub” (2017), “Lady Titi” (2018), “Voice Over” (2018), “Shakhim” (2019), while serving as a council member, films which were funded by the Rabinovitch Fund, Jerusalem Development Authority Film Fund, Israeli Film Fund, and the New Film and Television Fund, in various combinations.
       
       
   • Gabriel Amrani Gur (גבריאל עמרני גור): participated as an actor in “Get” (2014) and “The Journey of the Ring” which received support from the Israel Cinema Fund, while serving as a council member.
     
     
   • Irit Kaplan (עירית קפלן): participated in “A very quiet heart” (2016) and “Saving Neta” (2016) which received support from the Israel Film Fund, while serving as a council member.
     
     
   • Inbal Shuki (ענבל שוקי): Designed costumes and makeup in the following films: “Virgins” (2022), “Hummus Full Trailer” (2022) – films that received the support of the Israel Film Fund, “The Silence” (2022), “Monkey Garden” (2023) – films that received the support of the Rabinovitch Foundation, while serving as a council member.
     
     
4. Ravital Belly Zimmering (רביטל בללי צימרינג) – a film council member who was employed as a project reader after her term in office.

Alleged Corruption at the Jerusalem & Haifa Film Festivals

In the cases below, filmmakers who participated in the production of certain films that were presented at the festivals, were simultaneously serving as jury members in the competition at the event:

1. Jerusalem Film Festival: (while Noa Regev, currently the head of the Israeli Film Fund, was serving as the CEO of the festival. This goes to show how small and insular the Israeli film industry really is)
   
   
   • Neely Fleur (נילי פלר) – served in the jury of the international film competition in 2021 while two films she edited “Where is Anne Frank” and “The death of the cinema and of my father too” were screened at the festival and took part of the competition.
     
     
   • Hilla Medalia (הילה מדליה): served as jury in the Israeli short film category in 2021 while a film she produced called “Why did I say – back to the Hanit Kikos case” was screened at the festival.
     
     
   • Shay Goldman (שי גולדמן) served as jury in the international film competition in 2021, while the film “Here We Are”, which he worked on as a Director of Photography, was screened at the festival.
     
     
   • In addition, Ety Itsco (אתי ציקו) presented a short film in the festival (“Rousseau” in 2021) while working at the festival as “Head of Guests & Hospitality”. Ashe was employed starting in 2014 at the Jerusalem Festival.
     
     
     
2. The Haifa Film Festival:
   
   
   • Dror More (דרור מורה) – served as jury in an Israeli documentary film competition in 2022 while his film “Corridors of Power” was screened at the festival.
     
     
   • Saar Yogev (סער יוגב) – served as a jury in an Israeli feature film competition in 2021 while a film he produced called “Petah Tikva” was screened at the festival.
     
     
   • Einat Glazer Zarchin (עינת גלזר זרחין) – served as a jury in the “Golden Anchor” competition while a film she edited called “Plan A” was screened at the festival.

Project Evaluators Who Received Project Financing Repeatedly by The Same Funds They Work For

Alleged conflict of interest and corruption by creating a revolving door between project evaluators and filmmakers who themselves work for the funds. It is important for the fund managers that in the first round of evaluation, their “people” would make the pool of evaluators who grade projects, to ensure that only projects that they would like to support (regardless of merit, based on financial reasons, family ties, friendships etc) would receive high scores and would advance to the second round of evaluations. Being an evaluator benefits filmmakers because they “align” with the fund manager’s needs, who then remember them favorably when they submit scripts, and thus receive support and funding for their projects.

A complaint was files with the Israeli police about a film that received funding, but was not scored highly or recommended by the evaluators.

Below is a table listing Israeli filmmakers who also worked as evaluators for the funds, while receiving funding from them, creating a revolving door:

1)      Amir Manor – עמיר מנור

2)      Lee Gilat – לי גילת

3)      Amnon Zelait – אמנון זלאייט

4)      Tal Granite – טל גרניט

5)      Sharon Maimon – שרון מימון

6)      Efrat Korem – אפרת כורם

7)      Dita Geri – דיתה גרי

8)      Israela Shaar – ישראלה שאער מעודד

9)      Netali Brown – נטעלי בראון

10)   Raphael Balolo – רפאל בלולו

11)   Leon Prodovsky –   לאון פרודובסקי

12)   Eric Caplon –אריק קפלון