Last Thursday, Channel 14 aired an investigative article by Akiva Bigman, entitled "Film Barons: How did the film industry in Israel become anti-Israel?"
Here is the summary: Every year, Israel grants a subsidy through the Ministry of Culture, about NIS 50 million, in favor of movies that meet the criterion of "Israeli creation."
Until the end of the 1970s, the state's system of supporting cinematographic works was subject to market forces.
At some point a new method was created: the support would not be given according to ratings or public sympathy considerations, but according to “quality” criteria.
Who determines quality?
According to the socialist system, not the customer.
Those responsible for distributing the money for the benefit of the creators are foundations whose heads (if you will, elite) determine who is for grace and who is for tribe.
The result: Most of the films that have received the support of the funds are anti-national in nature, undermining the image of Israel as the state of the Jewish people.
They do not correspond with Chaim and Shoshana from Rosh Pina, but flatter Hollywood stars with a progressive agenda, or antisemitic countries, for the awards and prestige they give.
The person who led this line for about 20 years was the director of the Israeli Film Fund, Katriel Shchori, under whose direction toxic and toxic cinematic works flourished.
Thus, for example, according to the testimony of Irit Linor, who at the time served as a lecturer, Katriel sided with providing support for a film that shows understanding for the motives of martyrs ("Paradise Now").
This all changed, at least in part, in 2015, when Miri Regev was appointed Minister of Culture.
Regev announced a reform of the industry, and established the creators from the industry on it.
Many remember the scene where the minister thundered in her voice against the audience of artists who tried to rip her words apart.
Yes, those who speak highly of "democracy" and "freedom of expression" have been observed responding with one voice, uniform, violent and tomorrow.
In contrast to Regev, the scene was shown in which the current Minister of Culture, Hili Trooper, is seen calming his voice and hinting at his predecessor: "I want to say to you: Thank you. Less shouting, less hatred. We have had enough of that in recent years."
Trooper received applause from the creators, Fat and Salta, who have always conveyed a message along the lines of: Be beautiful or get lost.
Along with the excellent research, it is important to echo some insights in favor of policymakers from the Zionist camp.
First, it must be understood: the field of culture is an effective channel of influence with long-term consequences for establishing the image of society.
Sometimes films and plays act as a shaky experience, and are used as powerful capsules of values, which in turn shape social attitudes, that is, shape public opinion.
Second, it is important to refresh: for the sake of policy - not for the sake of the so-called "second Israel" fiction that is fighting "First Israel", but it is a struggle of Jewish-democratic Israel against anti-democratic Israel, which seeks to advance the state of all its citizens.
Finally, it is important to remember: the entire poisonous "crop" of hazel has been in bloom for almost a decade, since 1977, that is, under right-wing governments.
This is a serious failure, perhaps embedded in the psychology of the conservative Israeli public.
Hence the lesson: a change of government is not a guarantee of change.
Only a leadership move, ie - bold politicians who mark in-depth goals for occupation, and especially muster courage against powerful centers of power - will drive structural change.
An interesting fact emerges here: the one who initiated such a move is Minister of Culture Regev (along with Ziv Maor, Eyal Bors and Amit Halevi).
Yes, Regev, who was labeled a mass and shrill, who won a ridiculous figure in "A Wonderful Land," will be recorded in the Chronicles as someone who displayed public courage.
And the question being asked is: Where were her predecessors in office?
Well, there were culture ministers from the right, some with impressive, refined appearances, who carry in their zeal a cultural fortune that corresponds well with the bronze (e.g., Limor Livnat).
But they did not have the courage, preferred industrial silence with the powerful elite (oh, how powerful!), That is - abandoned the arena, thus betraying their destiny.
There is concern that the current minister is going in that direction.
Were we wrong?
Fixed!
If you found an error in the article, we'll be happy for you to share it with us
