I Helped Pick National Endowment for the Arts Grant Recipients. Trump Eliminated Many of Them

by

This year at Cannes Film Festival, Jafar Panahi, winner of Palme d’Or, delivered a strong statement against artistic censorship with his film “It Was Just an Accident.” Remarkably, this highly praised movie was produced shortly following his seven-month imprisonment where a group of former prisoners capture their tormentor. Throughout his career, Panahi has faced attempts to limit his work through undercover tactics that could serve as guidance for Americans in today’s climate.

If you find this measure extreme, consider the impact on recent National Endowment for the Arts grants, essential for America’s film industry. These cuts seem to be aimed at stifling anything but blatantly patriotic works from American artists. This strategy is doomed given the vocal and diverse nature of the artistic community, and it’s not an unheard-of approach globally. Censorship has crept into the fabric of American cinema.

In numerous other nations, attempts to curtail creativity and turn it into propaganda can result in filmmakers finding creative workarounds within the system. Some recent instances of this can be seen at this year’s Cannes Film Festival. Before we delve into that, let’s first discuss the short-term effects of the attack on the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA).

The impact of the organization might seem modest compared to international movie funding abroad. If you randomly choose a film from the Cannes lineup, chances are you’ll notice numerous opening credits pointing to production resources from various European countries, with numerous national film funds involved. Unlike these nations, America hasn’t had a public financing body on such a grand scale, but for quite some time it did have the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA).

Prior to the Cannes festival, the Trump administration rescinded numerous NEA grants that various recipients, ranging from theaters to arts organizations, had been anticipating. Previously, I was part of an NEA panel tasked with selecting a handful of these finalists. Unfortunately, I can’t disclose the specific entities involved. However, many of them were essential components of the infrastructure vital for cinema to flourish in America’s less populated areas: The list encompassed film clubs, festivals, screening series, and collective endeavors that maintained a broad reach for moviegoing beyond mainstream commercial releases.

These funds seldom surpass tens of thousands of dollars, yet they are crucial for maintaining organizations that nurture grassroots filmmaking. These initiatives play a vital role in keeping the American public and artists connected to movies within our nation’s entertainment landscape. The distribution of these funds was carried out under unusual circumstances, often kept private due to a confidentiality agreement. However, I believe this agreement has been rendered void by the cancellations.

The entire process was democratic in nature. NEA administrators distributed numerous applications for panelists to evaluate, and they emphasized the importance of providing not just numerical scores but also detailed written feedback for each one. Afterwards, a series of Zoom meetings took place, which enabled more intricate deliberations when making decisions. Essentially, the U.S. government entrusted the task of fostering arts to the creative community.

During the decision-making process, no one relied on the term “DEI” (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) to support their choices. However, the upcoming administration later asserted that this principle was a significant factor in canceling numerous grants. Conversely, the discussions frequently revolved around geographic balance, with applicants from less-served art communities across various states like New Mexico and Florida receiving preferential treatment. Meanwhile, well-established institutions in large cities often received approval without issue, based on their evident institutional requirements.

Since panelists were required to offer written critiques alongside each application submission, they couldn’t just glance through applications looking for eye-catching phrases. Instead, they carefully examined each proposal, considering not just the specific requirements but also how each applicant presented their case. This meticulous review process led us to assemble a shortlist of the top 10 contenders in early June. This list comprised a major university along with several film festivals and financial institutions from various regions of the country. Although some of these entities focused on underrepresented groups, they offered more than just support – they made significant contributions to their respective fields. Interestingly, despite the talk about tariffs and job losses due to foreign film production, these resources would have fostered increased local production. However, their cancellation can be seen as a form of implicit censorship and a missed chance for economic development.

This year’s Cannes film selection served as a surprising lesson, highlighting how some filmmakers maneuver around their own authoritarian challenges to creative freedom. It’s only at Cannes where one could draw swift comparisons between Iran, Israel, and Ukraine. All three nations showcased significant cinematic pieces that tackle life under oppressive rule, even though these countries maintain control over the narratives they allow to be told.

In simpler terms, Panahi’s movie “It Was Just an Accident” is a powerful critique of the country’s ruling system. Notably, few filmmakers have faced as much government disapproval as Panahi, who has cleverly managed to produce films despite being formally forbidden from doing so.

In a creative twist, filmmaker Jafar Panahi produced his diary-like movie titled “This Is Not a Film” while under house arrest. Meanwhile, his acclaimed film “Taxi” was filmed within a taxi cab driven by him around Tehran. Despite being imprisoned for approximately seven months between 2022 and 2023, Panahi continued his work upon release and made the movie “It Was Just an Accident” with his customary ingenuity. As per reports, Panahi submitted the project to Iran’s Ministry of Culture for shooting permits by labeling it as a documentary. Sometimes, one must bend the rules to create art that is worth fighting for.

Next, we have Nadav Lapid’s film titled “Yes“, which focuses on a couple from Tel Aviv who are at odds due to the conflict in Gaza. Lapid has been known for his critical perspective on his country through acclaimed works like “Policeman” and “Syndromes“. However, “Yes” is a new project from him since the October 7 attack. This film offers a bold and startling portrayal of a society that continues to live in ease despite the atrocities happening just outside their doorstep.

As a passionate film enthusiast, I found myself immersed in the challenging role of directing a movie amidst the aftermath of Israel’s Gaza invasion. Due to the guerrilla-like circumstances, I had to seek financing alternatives, primarily from France, and received additional aid from the independent Israel Film Fund. To bypass the restricted backing at home, where the government was apprehensive about my project during such a contentious period, I obtained a secondary citizenship in France, thereby securing international funding.

Over time, censorship has become increasingly prevalent in Israeli society, with the government frequently adopting a stern stance against any suggestion of pro-Palestinian views in homegrown art. Lapid’s latest film indeed contains such sentiments, but it presents these perspectives through two main characters who are clearly at odds with their loyalties. This storytelling method seems to have been used as a means to overcome the obstacles required for the movie’s production.

One more instance showcases a subtler form of censorship. In 2023, Ukrainian filmmaker Sergei Loznitsa was expelled from the Ukrainian Film Academy following his criticism of the decision to exclude Russian films from the European Film Awards. In an open letter at that time, he stated, “Many friends and fellow filmmakers, who are Russian, have spoken out against this senseless war. They, like us, are victims of this aggression.

In Loznitsa’s latest film, titled “Two Prosecutors“, we find the next step of the narrative. This movie is set within the context of the Soviet Union during 1937 and presents a chilling drama. A fresh law graduate embarks on a mission to clear an imprisoned prosecutor who has been wrongfully accused by Stalin’s regime. As an optimistic idealist who trusts in justice, our young protagonist becomes disoriented as he navigates through a nightmarish maze of prison cells, seeking out the accused – who has accepted his destiny. Although shrouded in melancholic undertones, Loznitsa’s compelling film suggests that righteousness lurks within the constraints of institutional order, silently working its way past bureaucratic hurdles to bring about change for the better.

In the United States, there’s an abundance of tales waiting to be shared, even if financial restrictions may impede their progress. To ensure your work remains authentic, you might need to ask for help internationally, keep the main point under wraps initially, or operate discreetly – these are valuable insights from this year’s Cannes Film Festival that apply to America.

Read More

2025-05-30 16:25