Over the last couple weeks, there has been an enormous amount written—from The New York Times to Le Monde to Haaretz, among other places—about a controversy centered on Nadav Lapid, an Israeli filmmaker living in France. Lapid has made several critically acclaimed films, including Synonyms, Ahed’s Knee, and, most recently, Yes, and his work has taken home jury prizes at the Berlinale and Cannes.

The recent controversy was focused on the FIDMarseille international film festival. There was a planned retrospective of Palestinian films at the festival this year. Meanwhile, Lapid was invited to head the jury. It was also decided that there would be an event honoring him, and that he would teach a master class. When a dozen filmmakers threatened to pull their films from the festival, Lapid withdrew as head of the jury. When that did not quell the protests, he decided to cancel the event and the master class, as well.

The response from many in the film world has largely been to rally around Lapid, with two letters published in Le Monde, one of them garnering over 350 signatures of high-profile figures in the industry. The letters allege that Lapid is being boycotted solely because of his identity. One of them declares, “Nothing justifies the silencing of an artist . . . the cultural boycott is an intellectual dead end that we must collectively overcome.”

Meanwhile, Film Workers for Palestine, allied with PACBI, which coordinates the academic and cultural boycott of Israel, published a translation of a statement by Palestine Will Save Cinema, pointing to the fact that Nadav Lapid’s latest film, Yes, received support from the Israeli Film Fund, was presented at the 2025 Cannes Film Festival as an Israeli co‑production, and competed for the Ophir Awards (akin to Israel’s Academy Awards). “States have always invested in cinema, literature, the arts, and festivals as instruments of influence and legitimacy. Cultural production does not circulate in a political vacuum. It contributes to the representation of nations, the construction of their international image, and the dissemination of their narratives,” they wrote. “This is precisely why cultural boycott exists. Not because artists are responsible for the crimes committed by their governments, nor because certain works should be prohibited, but because cultural institutions, funding systems, and distribution policies play a concrete role in states’ strategies of legitimation.” There can be no mistaking the content of Yes, which seeks to depict the depravity of Israeli society during the genocide. But it does open with the icon of Israel’s Ministry of Culture, due to the support it took from the Israeli Film Fund, which accounted for 13% of the film’s funding.

On this episode of On the Nose, Arielle Angel talks to Nadav Lapid about the recent controversy, and the two hash out some of their disagreements about cultural boycott.

Thanks to Jesse Brenneman for editing and to Nathan Salsburg for the use of his song “VIII (All That Were Calculated Have Passed).”

Media Mentioned and Further Reading

“‘Guilty by Virtue of My Identity,’” Nirit Anderman, Haaretz

Two letters in support of Nadav Lapid, published in Le Monde

Film Workers for Palestine translation of Palestine Will Save Cinema statement on FID Marseillle

Film Workers for Palestine Pledge to End Complicity

“What the NY Knicks Mania Reveals About Israelis and Collective Blame for Gaza,” Libby Lenkinski, Haaretz

“Thank You for Boycotting Me: As an Israeli Filmmaker, Here’s Why Global Pressure Amid Gaza Matters,” Avigail Sperber, Haaretz

“Paul Simon’s Graceland: the acclaim and the outrage,” Robin Denselow, The Guardian

“Non,” Catherine Haas, lundimatin

“Is the cultural boycott of Israel an effective political tool for the Palestinian cause?” on Radio France

“Israeli Grotesque,” Mitchell Abidor, Jewish Currents

Transcript forthcoming.