Reviewed by Corey Noles
When Jim Jarmusch stepped up to the microphone at this year's Venice Film Festival, the legendary indie filmmaker delivered more than just the usual press conference pleasantries. The 72-year-old director behind classics like "Dead Man" and "Only Lovers Left Alive" found himself addressing a controversy that cuts right to the heart of modern filmmaking's ethical dilemmas—and it all centers around his distributor's choice of investors.
Jarmusch expressed being "disappointed and quite disconcerted" by Mubi's $100 million partnership with Sequoia Capital, but this isn't your typical filmmaker-versus-studio spat. This controversy illuminates something much bigger: how streaming platforms and distributors navigate growth while trying to maintain their artistic integrity and brand values.
Here's what happened: Mubi accepted $100 million from Silicon Valley venture capital firm Sequoia Capital earlier this year. For most companies, landing a nine-figure investment would be cause for celebration. But for a platform built on curating arthouse cinema and championing independent voices like Jarmusch's, this particular funding source has sparked an industry-wide conversation about money, morality, and what filmmakers are willing to accept in pursuit of their art.
The issue isn't just about Sequoia's deep pockets—it's about where else those pockets are invested. And that's where things get complicated.
What makes this Sequoia investment so controversial?
Let's break down the numbers that have filmmakers up in arms. Sequoia led a $100m investment in Mubi back in May, positioning the arthouse platform for significant expansion. But it's Sequoia's other portfolio companies that have created this ethical minefield.
Sequoia also invests in defense technology startup Kela, a company founded in July 2024 by four Israeli intelligence unit veterans. Now, venture capital firms invest in hundreds of companies, but what's particularly striking here is the timing and scale of these investments.
Sequoia led Kela's $10m seed-funding round last year, but that was just the beginning. Kela then secured $60m in additional funding, also backed by Sequoia, bringing the total investment in the military AI company to $100 million—exactly the same amount Sequoia invested in Mubi. This mirror investment pattern raises questions about Sequoia's strategic priorities: are they viewing entertainment platforms and military technology as complementary investments in their portfolio strategy?
What's Kela actually doing with all this money? Kela describes its goal as "redeploying techno-warrior talent back into the defense sector" through cyberwarfare and AI development. The company calls this an "urgent priority" following the October 7 attacks, which gives you a sense of both the timeline and the specific geopolitical context that's driving criticism.
How the film community is pushing back
The response from filmmakers has been swift and organized in a way that's becoming increasingly common in our social media age. Over 35 directors signed an open letter to Mubi criticizing its relationship with Sequoia, and the momentum has only grown from there. The number of signatories now stands at 63, nearly doubling since the letter first circulated—a growth pattern that suggests deepening industry concern rather than a fleeting controversy.
These aren't just vague expressions of concern, either. The filmmakers are making specific, actionable demands: they want Mubi to publicly condemn Sequoia for "genocide profiteering," remove Sequoia partner Andrew Reed from Mubi's board of directors, and respect programming guidelines set by the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel.
The controversy gained additional fuel from social media activity that's directly connected to the investment ethics issue. Sequoia partner Shaun Maguire drew widespread condemnation for alleged Islamophobic social media posts, demonstrating how individual partner conduct becomes part of the ethical evaluation when major investments are under scrutiny. The tech community took notice too—more than 1,000 technology workers signed an open letter calling for Maguire to be disciplined.
Meanwhile, Film Workers for Palestine responded with their own social media post expressing horror at the situation and demanding the investment be returned entirely. What started as concern about corporate funding sources has evolved into a broader conversation about accountability in the entertainment industry's financial relationships.
Mubi's response and the "dirty money" dilemma
Facing this mounting pressure, Mubi founder and CEO Efe Cakarel denied that his company was "complicit in the events occurring in Gaza" in a statement released last month. It's the kind of careful corporate language you'd expect, but Cakarel also tried to address the specific mechanics of how venture capital investments actually work.
Cakarel clarifies that the profits Mubi generates "do not fund any other companies in Sequoia's portfolio." Instead, he explains, returns flow to Sequoia's limited partners—institutions like universities and pension funds—rather than directly funding other Sequoia-backed businesses like Kela. It's a technical distinction that may not satisfy critics, but it does highlight how complex these financial relationships actually are.
Jarmusch's take on the situation cuts deeper than the specific mechanics of venture capital, though. Jarmusch lamented that making any commercial art in the 21st century almost always involves taking what he called "dirty money." He didn't stop there: "If you start analyzing each of these film companies and their financing structures, you're going to find a lot of nasty dirt. It's all there."
This philosophical stance reveals something important about how veteran independent filmmakers view the industry's financial ecosystem. Jarmusch isn't just criticizing Mubi—he's acknowledging a systemic problem where artistic independence and corporate funding exist in constant tension. Jarmusch said he has spoken to Mubi about the issue and has worked well with the company in the past, suggesting this isn't about burning bridges but about navigating an impossible landscape.
What this means for streaming's future
This controversy illuminates a critical challenge that extends far beyond Mubi's specific situation. The platform, founded in 2007, has grown from a niche arthouse streaming service into an increasingly influential distributor and producer of independent films, recently valued at $1 billion.
But here's the thing about billion-dollar valuations in the streaming world—they require serious capital, and serious capital comes with serious complications. These valuations create what you might call "ethical pressure points"—companies need massive investments to compete, but those same investments can compromise the values that originally differentiated them. When Netflix or Disney faces similar scrutiny, they can point to diversified revenue streams and established market positions. But for platforms built on curatorial identity and creator relationships, investor choices become brand identity issues.
What's particularly interesting about this situation is how it differs from traditional Hollywood financing controversies. We're not talking about a major studio with decades of established relationships and diversified revenue streams. Mubi built its brand specifically around supporting independent, often politically conscious filmmakers. When your core value proposition involves artistic integrity and supporting underrepresented voices, your investors' other business relationships become part of your brand story whether you want them to or not.
In response to the backlash, Mubi is formalizing an Ethical Funding and Investment Policy and establishing an independent Arts Advisory Council to help set "clear criteria" for future funding partners. Cakarel adds that Mubi is expanding its support for artists at risk through a dedicated fund, "focusing on filmmakers working under conflict, displacement or censorship, including Palestinian filmmakers."
Where streaming ethics go from here
The Mubi-Sequoia situation represents more than just one platform's funding challenge—it's a preview of the ethical reckonings that streaming services will face as they mature and seek larger investments. The days when platforms could operate as simple content aggregators are over. Now they're expected to take positions on everything from content moderation to corporate responsibility, and their financial relationships are increasingly seen as extensions of their editorial values.
Jarmusch's response to the controversy offers a roadmap for how other creators might navigate similar situations. He's not calling for boycotts or dramatic gestures, but he's also not pretending the issue doesn't matter. Jarmusch said he has spoken to Mubi about the situation directly, treating it as a conversation between business partners rather than a public relations crisis to be managed.
His pragmatic acknowledgment of the "dirty money" reality facing all commercial artists doesn't excuse problematic funding relationships, but it does provide context for how difficult these decisions have become. Independent filmmakers need distribution platforms, and distribution platforms need investment capital. The question isn't whether to engage with corporate funding sources, but how to do so while maintaining some semblance of ethical consistency.
Mubi will not be parting ways with Sequoia Capital, but the platform's promise to implement ethical guidelines and create advisory structures suggests the industry is moving toward greater transparency about funding sources. Whether these measures will satisfy concerned filmmakers—or prevent similar controversies at other platforms—remains to be seen.
What's clear is that as streaming services continue consolidating cultural influence and seeking massive valuations, their financial relationships will face increasing scrutiny from the creative communities they serve. The Jarmusch-Mubi controversy may be just the beginning of a broader reckoning about how entertainment companies balance growth ambitions with the values that define their brands.
Comments
Be the first, drop a comment!