A boycott of Israeli filmmaker Nadav Lapid has led to his withdrawal from the Marseille International Film Festival. Lapid had been invited to serve on the festival jury in July but stepped down after pro-Palestinian filmmakers reportedly threatened to pull their films from the program if he participated.
Lapid is a prominent critic of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and has lived in France since 2021. Yet that does not seem to be enough for some activists, who argue that because his latest film, the excellent “Yes,” received partial funding from the Israeli Film Fund, he is complicit with the Israeli state.
The irony is that the film itself is a scathing satire of the radicalization of Israeli society and a fierce critique of the country’s artistic establishment and its response to Israeli violence in Gaza. So why boycott Lapid? A Cannes regular, he has been making provocative, thought-provoking cinema ever since his memorable 2011 debut, “Policeman.”
Is the boycott happening because Lapid, despite being anti-Netanyahu and effectively self-exiled, is Jewish? That is the question some people are asking on social media.
It is also worth noting that the Israeli Film Fund is largely composed of liberal figures who oppose Netanyahu’s government, and that there have been repeated attempts by government officials to withhold or revoke public funding from films and cultural projects that are critical of Israeli policies.
The controversy has now prompted more than 350 figures from the French film industry to sign an open letter condemning the boycott of Lapid. Among the signatories are actress Natalie Portman and directors Justine Triet and Jacques Audiard.
In their letter, published in Le Monde, the signatories called the boycott “an intellectual failure.” They argued that artists should not be judged solely by their nationality or held responsible for the actions of governments they actively oppose. Drawing comparisons to dissident Russian and Iranian filmmakers, they maintained that giving such artists a platform can exert greater pressure on authoritarian governments than excluding them.
Production on “Yes” was rocky. Cast and crew came and went. Some quit; others disappeared, citing sudden “fevers.” Lapid described the shoot as an underground operation: minimal gear, limited monitoring, and a pervasive sense of risk. The film is highly unique—a semi-musical, full-on satire that is at times dead serious and, in other stretches, utterly goofy. It’s well worth a look.