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.

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

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

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

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

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

Best,

XXXXX”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Israel’s 11 female nominees – Merit or Discrimination?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Women are not immune to prejudice or Hate

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

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

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

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

The post Gender Discrimination – Oppressed Voices from Turkey, US & Israel first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

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

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

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

The Numbers Speak for Themselves

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

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

Israel’s Film Industry – Merit or Discrimination?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Festival Gatekeepers Competing in Their Own Arena

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

Sam Spiegel: The Closed Loop

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

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

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

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

Netalie Braun: Power Beyond the Screen

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

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

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

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

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

A Hostile Environment for New Talent

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

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

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

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

This Is Not Inclusion — It’s Discrimination & Corruption

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

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

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

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

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

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

A follow up article is published here:

Related video – Attacking men for simply Existing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Key points

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

How strong is the evidence of gender bias / discrimination?

Assuming male and female filmmakers are equally talented:

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

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

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

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

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

Israel’s 11 female nominees – Merit or Discrimination?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Israel, RIP.

A follow-up to this article is published here:

Related VIDEOS:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Festivals in Question

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

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

Pulling the Film in Protest

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

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

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

Where Does Accountability Start?

The anonymous producer closes his email with a caustic directive:

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

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

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

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

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.

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

In addition, he is employed as a workshop leader in collaboration with the Ministry of Culture, the Rabinovitch Foundation, the Gesher Foundation and the Screenwriters’ Union[39]

13)   Suha Aref – סוהא עארף

14)   Gor Heller –  גור הלר

15)   Ronnie Kidar – רוני קידר

Her film “Sofolam” is among the 99 films that did not go through the approval process and received funding [45]

16)   Yevgeny Roman – יבגני רומן

17)   Idan Hubel – עידן הובל

18)   Tawfik (Agbariya) Abu Wail –   תאופיק (אגבאריה) אבו ואיל

19)   Mia Dreyfus – מיה דרייפוס

20)   Samdar Zamir – סמדר זמיר

21)   Verdit (Vidy) spent –  ורדית (וידי) בילו

Her film “The End of the Age of Innocence” is among the 99 films that did not go through the approval process and received funding [60]

22)   Kobi Mizrahi – קובי מזרחי

23)   Sherry Azuz- Berger – שרי עזוז- ברגר

24)   Dana Goldberg –  דנה גולדברג

25)   Esti Alamo-Wexler – אסתי עלמו-וקסלר

Related posts:

Supporting information and sources:

The original report was prepared in Hebrew and is available below. It includes 163 footnotes and links to sources and further information. More sources, links and screenshots are provided in the Hebrew version of this article.

The post ISRAEL: Decades Long Alleged Corruption at the Rabinowitz & Gesher Film Funds first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

The chart below is taken from the company registration records in Israel. On the left is the original, on right an automatic translation. It lists Lodi Boken as 51% owner in ‘Balshir International LTD’, with the other 49% of the stocks being owned by Naomi Schory, Kathriel Schory’s wife. The information below connects the three – Katriel Schory, Naomi Schory and Lodi Boken, as business partners.

The table below, also taken from the company registration records in Israel, lists Kathriel Schory as CEO and Naomi Schory as a manager at Balshir International LTD. The screenshots above and below connect the three as business partners and owners.

An automatic translation of the relevant part. Due to the quality of the screenshot, the translation isn’t perfect. We’ve been told that Schory’s means black, which is why the translated name says Kathard Black. The original reads Kathriel Schory.

The following is the film’s poster, listing the Israeli Film Fund as the financier of the film.

The following is a recent screenshot from the Israeli Film Fund website, listing the film with the 1,000,000 NIS awarded for the production of the film.

The following is a screenshot from the Israeli Film Fund website, listing a film from 1987 in which both Katriel Schory and Lodi Boken are listed as producers

The following is from the film’s poster, listing Boaz Schory as the composer. Boaz Schory is Katriel Schory and Naomi Schory’s son.

The film was produced by Tazfilm. Tazfilm produced three films, in 2012, 2014 and 2020. All three were funded by the Israeli Film Fund.

The film’s poster.

SOURCES:

https://intl.filmfund.org.il/

https://ica.justice.gov.il/GenericCorporarionInfo/SearchCorporation?unit=8

https://www.edb.co.il/company/297/

https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A0%D7%A2%D7%9E%D7%99_%D7%91%D7%9F_%D7%A0%D7%AA%D7%9F_%D7%A9%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%99

The post Former Head of the Israeli Film Fund Allegedly Awarded Funding to a Project Directed by his Wife’s Business Partner first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

According to Israeli press, Nadav Lpaid, an Israeli citizen, had moved his permanent residency to Paris (source). One of the reasons for this move might be that him and his producers are seeking funding from the CNC for his next feature, as a French resident. Legally, however, a person cannot be a permanent resident of two countries.

Despite this, and despite the fact that according to the mandate of the Israeli Film Funds, allowing funding only for Israeli full time residents, Lapid has recently received full production (not co-production) funding for his next feature.

The funding was awarded to only five projects, one of which as reported elsewhere on our site, to Yona Rozenkier, thanks to his connection between the head of the fund and his Cannes Producer, Dominique Welinski. In the highly competitive scene of the Israeli film industry, when so many talented filmmakers are competing for funding, this is another example for the problematic ways in which the Israeli scene operates, in a fashion resembling that of a revolving door, or a syndicate, with the head of the Producers Association Adar Shafran receiving funding as a director, and other such cases proving the validity of every claim made on this website.

To be clear, while we have no confirmation (yet) that Lapid received funding from the CNC, it is likely the case. The Israeli funding in question is NOT co-production funding but rather a “full” 2,000,000 NIS “production grant” reserved for Israeli residents. If Lapid is not a resident of Israel and does not spend more than 180 days in the country – awarding a full production grant for his next feature is completely against the rules. If he receives this type of funding twice, once in Israel and once in France, this is doubly problematic.

For context, keep in mind that these grants are worth millions of Euros in total, of public money, that ends up in the hands of the same people, over and over again and again. Also keep in mind the number of young filmmakers that don’t get a chance to make a feature, or even a short, just because they are not part of the “syndicate.”

We would like to highlight another interesting observation regarding the selection of films chosen to be funded. Among the five films that received funding, two are being produced by the same person, Kobi Mizrahi. Mr. Mizrahi is notably the producer for Yona Rozenkier, working alongside Dominique Welinski. Given the extensive pool of talented producers and diverse projects in Israel, it is quite remarkable that Kobi Mizrahi (who has a noted connection with Dominique Welinski, a figure well-recognized in the industry as per the information on this site) has been granted funding for two separate projects simultaneously.

Furthermore, we are curious about the specifics of the fund’s guidelines in this context. It raises a question as to whether the fund’s rules permit the submission, and subsequent awarding, of two films by the same producer concurrently. This observation is particularly interesting in light of the discussions on this website, which frequently touch upon the dynamics of industry networks and the applicability of favoritism to different groups within the industry, with the same people being selected or funded over and over.

This further strengthens our argument that the European Film Industry, and the Israeli one being a prime example, is structured like a syndicate more than a healthy thriving industry.

On a side note, our readers might not be aware that Lapid’s late mother was a famous Israeli film editor and his father, a respected author. In other words, part of his success can be attributed to his family contacts. These biographical facts match our reporting about the reasons for how and why filmmakers make it in this industry as demonstrated in our pyramid of considerations.

In an unrelated but very similar case, we will soon publish a report detailing how a father and daughter, Avi Nesher and his daughter Tom Nesher, received funding for feature films from the Rabinovitz fund, at the same time. Avi Nesher is said to have a carte blanche from the fund which is plagued with gossip of decades long conflict of interests. More to come on this subject in an upcoming expose. This is again a clear case of shameless nepotism and alleged corruption.

We once again remind our readers that the European film industry is financed by public funding worth hundreds of millions of Euros per year, all circulating to the same people (syndicate members), year after year.

Film Industry Watch has asked the Israeli Film Fund to comment, the request has been ignored.

SOURCES:

https://www.screendaily.com/news/nadav-lapid-project-yes-among-five-israel-film-fund-winners-exclusive/5182483.article

https://presspectiva.org.il/%D7%9C%D7%90-%D7%91%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%96-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%99%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A9-%D7%9C%D7%90-%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA%D7%A8-%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%97/

https://www.haaretz.co.il/magazine/panim/2021-08-12/ty-article-face/.highlight/0000017f-e84a-dc91-a17f-fccf165f0000

https://mo.ralc.co.il/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8-2139,1933-%D7%94%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A7-%D7%9C%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%93%D7%95%D7%93-%D7%94%D7%A4%D7%A7-%D7%A1%D7%A8%D7%98%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%9C.aspx

The post Is Nadav Lapid Receiving Full Production Funding from two Countries, Against the Rules? first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

Before we delve into the details of this article, we want to remind our readers of a simple yet crucial fact: every year film festivals receive thousands of submissions. The most prestigious ones can receive as many as 15,000 submissions annually. As you go through the information below, please keep these staggering numbers in mind. We also remind our readers that the European film industry is financed by public funding worth hundreds of millions of Euros per year.

Consider this: how is it that, amid thousands of submissions from filmmakers, writers, directors, and producers, it’s always the same few who seem to be chosen repeatedly for various festivals or labs, and who secure funding opportunities? Meanwhile, the vast majority struggle to make a mark in the industry, with many not even having their films viewed. To quote one commenter, “If you think any film festival watches all the submissions, I have a bridge to sell you.”

IMPORTANT NOTE: Please note that this article is not meant to be an ad hominem attack on any specific person. The individuals mentioned below 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. Also, to be clear, there are certainly much bigger fish in the swamp than the individuals listed below but we publish information which is available to us and which was brough to our attention. If you can disclose further information about other individuals or organizations, please contact us.

Is the Integrity of the European Film Industry Compromised?

Our argument is that the integrity of the European Film industry is highly compromised in that a loose affiliation of organizations which are run by the same or connected people use their power and influence in order to control the distribution of resources among themselves and those who are close to them, akin to a syndicate. To be clear, Film Industry Watch does not accuse the people mentioned below of belonging to a syndicate, but simply that the way the industry is set-up, is akin to one. Critics claim that the consequences of this structure, while not illegal, are highly immoral, and work to the detriment of the film industry as a whole, as well as its artistic output. 

The diagrams below serve as a visual illustration of the various organizations and individuals discussed in our articles and the intricate web connecting them. These charts reveal a highly insular system where influential figures in the industry engage in a sort of musical chairs or a revolving door: they occupy multiple roles, in different and multiple organizations, enabling them to further their own agendas and interests. This system not only creates barriers to entry for newcomers but also signals to others within the network their willingness to utilize their influence and reciprocate favors, benefiting those within this closed circle.

The charts below list individuals and organizations as examples of how the system operates. They show the relationships between decision-makers, producers, and the organizations that made the selection such as festivals, labs and film funds. These charts reveal that the producer of a chosen project is working with, or for, the selecting organization, the examples being Dominique Welinski (multiple organizations) , Melissa Malinbaum (Cannes short film section), and Ben Vandendaele (for NISI MASA).

The reason that these relationships – producer / decision maker – are highlighted in the examples below is that they are publicly documented. Other types of connections, like close friendships, commercial interests, or even bribes, are much harder to uncover due to their secretive nature. However, the bottom line remains the same – the selection, funding, and awarding of a project is rarely based on artistic merit, with the real reason being family connection, financial interests, friendships etc.

In festival selections and film funds public financing, in 90% of the cases, merit isn’t the main criterion. We can state these numbers with some confidence because, as we know, in all major festivals, submissions are not viewed. Only about 5-10% of feature film submissions and 1-2% of short film submissions are actually considered for selection from the total number of entries, based on direct recommendations from members of the network to the selection committee members. In national film funds, the numbers are similar, with about 5-10% of submitted projects actually being considered, with the financed projects making about 1%, with very little consideration to their actual merit. In some funds all the projects will be read and scored but in most cases those scores will not be taken into consideration. We will post proof of these claims in the near future.

This is not to say that it is absolutely impossible to break into the industry. However, you absolutely must “know someone” or “be someone” to enter into the pool of films or projects that will be considered. Without some connection to those people within the network, your project does not stand any chance because it will simply not be read or viewed. [Read this article about the Munich Film Festival for an example, as well as the Sundance may not be watching all submissions post] 

The following charts detail individuals and the organizations they work for, their positions, and how their positions has effected selection of projects they’ve been involved with, both within the organization and within the film ecosystem as a whole.

The first case is of producer Dominique Welinski who holds a multitude of roles in the industry. She works for the Cannes Film Festival, curates the Factory program at Cannes’ Director’s Fortnight, selects projects for Cannes’ L’atelier, works at the Jerusalem Film Lab, is a Jury in the Jerusalem Film Festivals, and served as a decision maker for the Torino Film Lab. She is also the Producer of Israeli Director Yona Rozenkier. For some whatever strange statistical anomality, Rozenkier has participated in ALL of the above events or programs and even had TWO films screened in Cannes in the same year (2019). Note that Welinski is the curator of the Factory, so she had invited her own director to the program PLUS had arranged for his short film to be in the Official Competition, while the other 7000 people who had submitted films don’t even get their films watched.

We ask the reader to be reminded of the first paragraph of this article where we discuss the fact that each year thousands of films are submitted to these festivals or programs (about 7000-10,000 short films to Cannes, where Rozenkier’s short was selected). Does anyone believe that this is a coincidence and that the selection of Rozenkier’s projects in these events was by chance, rather due to the fact that his Producer is working for or with these organizations?

Further more, Rozenkier has recently been awarded funding for his next feature film by the Israeli Film Fund which is currently headed by Noa Regev. Noa’s previous job was the Artistic Director of the Jerusalem Film Festival, which Dominique Welinski works with and for, and which had selected for screening both of Rozenkier’s features.

Here it is important to explain that Dominique Welinski’s strength as a producer is not only in the roles and positions that she holds in these events, for the sole purpose of influencing ** selections of projects which she produces herself (such as Rozenkier’s films) but rather that these selections send a clear “signal” across the ecosystem that selection in these festivals and programs is highly dependent on personal networks and contacts. NO OTHER FOUL PLAY IS IMPLIED.

** Influencing in this regard simply means by the virtue of being a position holder in an important organization. No foul play needed, nor implied by us, in order to achieve this “influence.” It is achieved simply by holding an important role within the industry.

It could be imagined that Noa Regev, as the head of the Israeli Film Fund, would seek favors** with Welinski, hoping that Welinski would help films financed by the fund throughout the ecosystem.

The fact that Yona’s and Welinski’s two shorts were selected in Cannes in the same year, where Welinski works as an adviser, send a very clear signal across the network – success and selection in festivals and various programs are highly dependent on who you know, and the favors** you pay them. On the flip side, those in the industry also know that they should “watch out” to stay on good terms with Welinski’s, and other gatekeepers, or they might be ‘blacklisted’ and their careers tarnished.

** in the form of social currency – NO FAUL PLAY IS IMPLIED. It is not implied that actual currency is being exchanged.

The following chart further details the connections between Welinski and Regev across three distinct organizations. Firstly, at the Jerusalem Film Lab, Welinski serves as an adviser, and it was here that Rozenkier’s project was chosen and received an award.

Secondly, the Jerusalem Film Festival, under Noa Regev’s leadership as Artistic Director, selected both of Rozenkier’s feature films. This festival also hosts the pitching event of the Jerusalem Film Lab mentioned above.

Lastly, the Israeli Film Fund, now led by the same Noa Regev, recently granted Yona 2,000,000 Shekels (more than 500,000 Euro) for his next feature film production, funding that was given to only three films out of more than one hundred projects.

The intricate and overlapping relationships among these individuals and organizations are strikingly apparent. At this point it should be becoming increasingly evident why we argue that the structure of the European Film Industry more closely resembles that of a syndicate than a that of thriving healthy industry.

The following chart focuses on the Cannes Film Festival, highlighting the roles of selection committee members Wim Vanacker and Melissa Malinbaum. The following might be confusing, which is why a full chart has been provided below:

In 2017, ‘Gabriel’ by Oren Gerner, a short film produced by Melissa Malinbaum, was chosen to the festival. This selection came a year after the film’s participation in NISI MASA in 2016, during which time Wim Vanacker, ALSO a Cannes selection committee member, was its Artistic Director (if you’re confused already, use the chart below.)

The subsequent year, as Artistic Director Vanacker selected ‘The Silence of the Dying Fish’ by Vasilis Kekatos. In the following year, Kekatos’s ‘The Distance Between Us and the Sky’ entered the Cannes’ Shorts Official Competition. This film later won the Palme d’Or. It was later revealed that Eleni Kossyfidou, the film’s producer, had a longstanding professional relationship with Panos H. Koutras, a jury member on the awarding committee. Additionally as we’ve previously reported Kekatos had invited both Vanacker and Kossyfidou to be jury members at his own SEA NEMA Film Festival in 2017.

Here, we once again observe a glaring conflict of interest that extends over years and across various organizations.

Any credible professional in the film industry would recognize that the selection of a film produced by a committee member for festival participation constitutes an undeniable conflict of interest that should have never taken place. We again remind our reader that while Cannes selects only 8-10 short films per year, they receive between 7000 to 10,000 submissions. NISI MASA, too, received dozens of submissions each year. To assume that the above detailed narrative is some kind of a coincidence is preposterous. (If you believe that it is a coincidence, please contact us, we have a brand new bridge to sell you)

We reiterate that all the information mentioned above is publicly available and accessible online. We argue that the majority of films and projects chosen for these events benefit from a high degree of favoritism that bears little relation to their artistic merit. Although it is straightforward to establish connections in the aforementioned cases, many such relationships remain concealed from public view and may be impossible to uncover without insider knowledge. We also repeat that this article is not meant to be an ad hominem attack on any specific person.

The next chart delves deeper into NISI MASA. Here we explore the case of producer Ben Vandendaele, a close friend of Wim Vanacker, who at the time served as Nisi Masa’s Artistic Director. This chart illustrates Vandendaele’s recurring success in getting his projects selected at NISI MASA events year after year, showcasing a pattern that raises questions about the nature of these selections.

In 2016, two of the films selected, ‘Deer Boy’ and ‘The Hoarder,’ were produced by Vandendaele. This pattern continued into 2017, with the selection of another two Vandendaele productions, ‘Hunt’ and ‘The Nipple Whisperer.’

The trend persisted in 2018 and 2019. In 2018, ‘Vengeance Of The Vixens,’ a film produced by Vandendaele’s company, was chosen, during a period when he was also consulting for the organization. In the following year, the film ‘Creatures,’ again a production under Vandendaele, was selected, while he maintained his consultancy role.

Importantly – some of these films are listed as having Vandendaele as their producers, others have “Bekke Films” listed as the production company, without Vandendaele’s names attached to them. However, “Bekke Films” is Vandendaele’s company, one and the same. This has been done, allegedly, to hide these facts, and perhaps to circumvent the NISI MASA rules that allow for only one project from the same producer to be selected each year. If such actions remind you that of a syndicate, almost like a mafia, you are not alone in these thoughts.

Vandendaele’s multifaceted involvement in the 2018 NISI MASA event is particularly noteworthy. Not only was he a producer of a selected film, but he also played a dual role as a consultant to the organization. Furthermore, he was involved in the decision-making process that led to the awarding of a Distribution Award to another project. Coincidentally, a film he produced was also an award recipient during the same event.

The connections extended to jury members as well. In 2017, Daria Vlasova, a member of the jury, was associated with a film represented by Bekke Films, Vandendaele’s company. Another jury member, Jérôme Nunes, had known ties to Vandendaele. Additionally, two films connected to jury member Marija Fridinovaitė were selected in the same year.

A particularly concerning instance of potential conflict of interest involved jury member Ola Jankowska. Vandendaele’s distribution company handled her film ‘Deer Boy,’ while she was serving as a jury member at the event.

The circumstances surrounding the award win for ‘Vengeance of the Vixens’ in 2018 also raise questions. The film, produced by Bekke Films (owned by Vandendaele), won an award at a time when Vandendaele was serving as a consultant for the event. This succession of events, involving repeated selections, multiple roles, and connections to jury members, suggests a pattern that goes beyond mere coincidence, just as all the other examples which we mentioned above.

It’s commonplace for individuals to work with various companies or organizations throughout their careers, and it’s not unusual for their paths to intersect with others. However, when you put all of these instances together as in the chart below, a closer analysis of these interactions uncovers a troubling pattern, a deeply ingrained network of relationships among certain individuals and organizations which is overly incestuous. This network is problematic because it fosters a culture of mutual back-scratching, where favors and advantages are exchanged freely, blurring the lines between personal, professional interests and artistic merit. What’s more alarming is the blatant nature of these entanglements; there’s little to no effort to conceal these conflicts of interest, indicating that such practices have become normalized and accepted within their circles. This situation raises significant concerns about integrity and fairness, suggesting a corrupt system where personal connections trump professional and ethical standards. These corrupt relationships are between festival organizers, film fund decision makers, sales agents, producers, directors, and finally the governmental agencies which fund them which accept the way in which the system is set-up, funding it with hundreds of millions of Euros each year, public tax payers money that ends up in the pockets of few, who guards their positions and access to resources, stifling access to newcomers and reducing the quality of the industry’s artistic output.

While contacts between different individuals and organizations within an industry is natural, we believe that in the examples detailed in this report the lines have been crossed. The current state of the European Film Industry is highly compromised due to the work of certain rotten apples that poison the system as a whole, without many of the industry members, and certainly not the public, realizing it.

We ask our readers to continue to share with us information about the industry so it can be analyzed, published and distributed to the public and the bodies that fund these organizations.

Further Reading:

SOURCES:

https://www.screendaily.com/news/nadav-lapid-project-yes-among-five-israel-film-fund-winners-exclusive/5182483.article

https://www.screendaily.com/news/jerusalem-film-festival-crowns-pitch-point-winners/5131282.article

https://jff.org.il/en/article/33752

https://www.festival-cannes.com/en/f/parparim/

https://www.torinofilmlab.it/people/705237/Yona-Rozenkier

https://www.festival-cannes.com/en/2017/l-atelier-2017/

https://popupfilmresidency.org/2020/01/13/pop-up-film-residency-in-athens/

https://www.cannescourtmetrage.com/en/actualites/cannes-2020-the-short-films-competition 

https://pro.imdb.com/title/tt8296610/ 

https://www.festival-cannes.com/en/f/gabriel/

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10214916/

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8791506/

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm3187519/

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm3267450/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Distance_Between_Us_and_the_Sky

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1179406/ – Listed as a Producer in Yona’s films.

https://www.festival-cannes.com/en/2017/l-atelier-2017/

https://cineuropa.org/en/newsdetail/372414/

https://variety.com/2020/film/global/torinofilmlab-scriptlab-1203490498/

https://www.torinofilmlab.it/people/654851/Dominique-Welinski

The post Is the Integrity of the European Film Industry Compromised? first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

It appears that there is a pervasive issue of a revolving doors policy within Israeli film funding organizations, notably “The Israeli Film Fund”, “Gesher” & “The Rabinovitch Foundation.”

This policy involves individuals who are both employed as project readers within these funds, serve as key decision-makers in the funding allocation process, who are also working filmmakers who receive financial support from the funds for their projects. This situation has resulted in a tight-knit circle of filmmakers consistently securing funding for their projects, leaving little room for emerging talent or those without direct connections to this inner circle. In Israel readers are often also employed as script consultants on submitted projects, so they, or their associates and close circle, can favorite the project that they work on as advisers.

In countries where merit is the actual deciding factor is such matters, full time readers, who are contracted for a set period of 2-3 years of full employment, who are also not working directors or producers, serve in such roles. This ensures maximum impartiality and the reduction of conflict of interests. These readers, unlike in Israel, are replaced periodically, not to allow them to concentrate too much power, which may lead to eventual corruption.

However in Israel the system is set up purposefully to allow the gatekeepers to use the distribution of resources as a currency, giving and accepting favors, in the form of project selections worth millions of Euros annually. This is done by hiring different readers, on a short term basis, who do not have an overview of the entire selection process, and who are not committed to the long term integrity of the organization. At the same time, the organization itself, does not have a commitment to truly take into account the readers scoring, and can end up funding projects on the basis of personal friendships and other interests, such as in, possibly and allegedly, the case of Yona Rozenkier and his Cannes employed producer, Dominique Welinski.

The Israeli film industry, locally referred to as “the swamp”, is widely recognized for its troubling issues with funding. A recent notable instance involves Adar Shafran, the head of the Israeli Producers Association. Despite his primary experience as a producer, Shafran controversially secured funding from The Israeli Film Fund for a directorial project, without qualification or experience for such a role. Nadav Lapid, who is not a full time resident of Israel, but recently received full production grant from the fund, possibly against the rules. Concurrently, The Rabinovitch Foundation awarded production funds to director Avi Nesher and, at the same time in a separate decision, to his daughter, Tom Nesher. And as we’ve reported elsewhere, the previous head of the fund, who had been in power for almost 30 years, has awarded production funding to his wife’s business partners as one of his last decisions on the job. These incidents are part of a broader pattern of alleged favoritism and nepotism that plagues the Israeli film industry, which the local filmmakers are fully aware of, but have little in their power to anything about.

The tables below illustrate films that have received funding, with each corresponding to individuals who have also been recipients of funding for their own project development or production from one of the funds. The accompanying columns display the periods during which these individuals worked as readers for the funds.

In summery, there were 9 fund readers that received funding while working for the funds, 20 readers who received funding near the time of their employment in the funds, and one reader that worked as a script editor on a funded project while working for a fund.

It is evident that individuals who have longstanding affiliations with these funds, serving as employees, consultants, readers, and decision-makers, enjoy a significant advantage over filmmakers who lack regular interaction with these organizations and have no access to the individuals in influential positions within them. This disparity raises concerns about fairness and equal opportunity within the Israeli film funding landscape. The Israeli Film Fund is currently lead by Noa Regev (נעה רגב), and Avital Bekerman (אביטל בקרמן) is Head of Development. Additional information about the fund can be read in our report concerning questions about the integrity of the European film industry.

Thanks to readers contribution we received the following conversation between two Israeli filmmakers, one of them very familiar with the Rabinovich fund, currently the biggest film fund in Israel, who was involved in a number of projects that received funding from the fund. The message reads:

I understand perfectly well. Rabinovich is a rigged game. If I could only tell you the whole truth…..”

The message doesn’t need interpretation or context, as it is quite clear.

Thanks to another readers contribution, the following is a conversation between Israeli writer and director Amir Manor, listed as a reader for the Israeli film fund five times between July 2019 and 2022 (source). In the last decade Manor served as a readers for the funds more than 20 times, and had so far received funding for three projects to date. In the following screenshot Manor informs the fellow filmmaker that he is likely to not get funding in the current round and that he will have to “wait for the next one.” This was told to the filmmaker before the deadline for the submissions was even closed while Manor was serving as reader for the fund, as if the results of submission had already been decided in advance.

To clarify, Manor had informed the filmmaker that he was reading for the fund voluntarily, without being asked about it, when it is quite clear that this the type of information that should not be disclosed in the first place. Why would a reader for a fund tell a filmmaker that he is “likely” not get the funding, before the submissions were even closed, and before any script had been read?

The filmmaker indeed did not receive funding from the fund as Manor predicted, nor in the next and final round, despite the script receiving the following scores, averaging 9 out of 10, simply because he is not part of the local clique, or “syndicate” of people belonging to the network, many of which are listed in the table at the bottom of this article, individuals who are both repeatedly hired by the fund as script readers or advisers, and granted production money by it.

It is important to note that Manor charges 10,000 Israeli Shekels ($2800) for feature script editing / consulting and prouds himself for being the script consultant on many projects that over the years had received funding for either development or production from the various Israeli film funds, funding worth millions of Euros.

A question is raised about a possible relationship between the fact that Manor is so deeply involved in the funds as a consultant / reader / temporary employee, while being paid to advise and edit scripts which are then submitted to receive funding from the very same funds.

In a completely unrelated but interesting note, in a forum post from 2008, Manor is accused of being “recorded lying and cheating in order to publish a false article.” These allegations were lodged against him while he was working as a journalist. These allegations are completely unrelated to the issues mentioned above, anecdotal, and were made by a 3rd party in 2008, yet in light of all the other articles and facts published on this website, it is difficult to not wonder if this is not part of a larger pattern of the ethical standards by the people who make up the film industry, which is the root cause for the reasons this website had to be established in the first place.

Also note that Manor is just one person – the list in the bottom of this article recounts the names of two dozen individuals who over the years repeatedly worked for the funds as readers and also receive funding from them as directors of feature films.

In addition, as part of our ongoing investigation into the Rabinovich Foundation, currently the largest film fund in Israel, an additional revolving door has been observed, one that involves the fund and members of the Israeli Film Council, the governmental body that distributes funding to the various Israeli Film Funds.

It appears that over the years several individuals have been employed by the Rabinovich Foundation, before, while or after serving as members of the Israeli Film Council, or that their projects received financial support by the fund.

As can be seen in the example below, Osnat Bukofzer, who currently works for the Rabinovich Foundation, has severed as a member of the Film Council for several years. In addition, Bukofzer manages the Israeli Pavilion in Cannes, which the Rabinovich Foundation finances. Having served as a member on the Israeli Film Council and making decisions that directly effect the amount of money that the fund received, this is a clear case of a conflict of interest, where favors are exchanged over a long period of time, in the form of employment and other positions within the industry. Our sources report that this is far from being the only case and that over the years several compromised council members have been working to promote the interests of the Rabinovich Foundation from within the council, including the former head of the council, who kept a very close relationship, (some say intimate, but this is alleged) with the head of the fund. The case of Bukofzer is just one examples of many that we will reveal in our upcoming article about the Rabinovich Foundation, known in the local industry as being completely corrupt, having been controlled by the same individuals for over 20 years.

Corruption in the Israeli film industry is not a bug, but a feature of the system.

In the example below, also sent by readers of the site, a former employee of the Jerusalem Film Festival, then headed by the current head of the Israeli Film Fund Noa Regev, had both received funding for a short film and then had it screened in the festival where she was employed. While not illegal in any way, this is simply another example of how insular the Israeli film industry is and why newcomers find it so difficult to get their films made or screened, when employees, friends or family take up most of the available opportunities. The two following screenshots are the very definition of a “revolving door.”

The “revolving door” system explained above is of course not limited to Israel, and is part of a wider issue that plagues the European (and global) film industry in its entirety. The following comments were left on a related post on Reddit, mentioning Norway, Slovakia, Italy and Australia as other countries where the system is set-up in the same way. Film Industry Watch receives emails daily from every corner of the world, describing a similar situation, in multiple countries. The reason nepotism, favoritism and other ills plague the film industry everywhere is that Art, on the face of it, is subjective, allowing the ‘decision makers’ to essentially do whatever they want, resulting in the following descriptions of other local film industry scenes:

A revolving doors policy within film funding organizations, where the same individuals both evaluate project proposals and receive funding for their own projects, can degrade the quality of films being made in several ways:

1. Lack of diversity: This practice tends to perpetuate a narrow pool of filmmakers who consistently receive funding, often leading to a lack of diversity in terms of voices, perspectives, and storytelling approaches. New and innovative voices from emerging filmmakers may struggle to break into the industry, resulting in a stagnant and homogenous film landscape.
   
   
2. Stifling creativity: When a select group of individuals repeatedly receives funding, they may become complacent or risk-averse in their creative choices. The fear of jeopardizing future funding opportunities can discourage experimentation and the exploration of new ideas, resulting in formulaic or safe filmmaking.
   
   
3. Limited exposure to fresh talent: Talented filmmakers who do not have connections within the established inner circle may go unnoticed or face difficulties in getting their projects funded. This can result in missing out on potentially groundbreaking and unique cinematic voices that could contribute to the enrichment of the industry.
   
   
4. Reduced accountability: When those who evaluate and allocate funds are also recipients of funding, it can create a conflict of interest. There may be less scrutiny and accountability in the decision-making process, as individuals may be inclined to support projects from colleagues or acquaintances rather than solely based on the merit of the project.
   

In summary, a revolving doors policy in film funding organizations can result in a less diverse, less innovative, and less accountable film industry. It limits opportunities for emerging talent, stifle creative exploration, and prioritize personal connections over the quality of film projects, ultimately impacting the richness and diversity of films being made.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Please note that this article, like all other articles on this site, is not meant to be an ad hominem attack on any specific person. The individuals mentioned in this article 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 organization is dedicated to unveiling the true decision-making processes and power dynamics within the film industry. The chart below provides a comprehensive summary of these elements. Our goal is to democratize access and provide talented, emerging young filmmakers with the opportunities they rightfully deserve to succeed in the industry. If you would like to contribute additional information, please contact us.

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