Acclaimed independent filmmaker Jim Jarmusch has publicly expressed his “disappointment and disquiet” regarding MUBI’s recent decision to accept funding from Sequoia Capital, a prominent Silicon Valley venture capital firm. The revelation, shared in a wide-ranging interview with TechCrunch published on August 31, 2025, shines a light on tensions between the ethos of independent cinema—long championed by Jarmusch—and the influx of mainstream tech investment into niche media platforms. MUBI, a global streaming service and film distributor focused on art-house, independent, and classic cinema, announced a $150 million Series E funding round led by Sequoia in late July, a move that has sparked debate within the independent film community.

Jarmusch, whose iconic works (including Stranger Than Paradise, Coffee and Cigarettes, and Only Lovers Left Alive) have long found a home on MUBI, framed his concern as a defense of the platform’s original mission. “MUBI wasn’t just another streaming service—it was a lifeline for films that don’t fit into the algorithms of Netflix or Amazon Prime,” he told TechCrunch. “It celebrated the weird, the slow, the uncommercial—the kind of work that keeps independent cinema alive. Now, with Sequoia coming in, I have to ask: What happens to that mission when a VC firm with a track record of scaling ‘disruptive’ businesses gets a seat at the table?”

The Core of Jarmusch’s Concern: Profit vs. Artistic Integrity

At the heart of Jarmusch’s frustration lies a fear that Sequoia’s investment could shift MUBI’s priorities away from artistic curation toward profit-driven growth—a tension that has long plagued independent media. Sequoia, known for backing tech giants like Apple, Google, and Airbnb, as well as more recent bets on AI and consumer apps, typically seeks significant returns on its investments, often pushing portfolio companies to scale rapidly or expand into new markets. For Jarmusch, this model clashes with the slow, deliberate pace of independent film distribution, where success is measured by cultural impact rather than subscriber numbers or revenue.

“Independent film isn’t about ‘scaling’—it’s about connection,” Jarmusch explained. “When I made Paterson, I didn’t care if it reached 10 million people; I cared if it reached the right people—those who would sit with it, think about it, talk about it. Sequoia’s playbook is built on growth at all costs, and I worry that MUBI will start making choices that prioritize subscriptions over the films themselves. Will they still pick a small Iranian indie over a more marketable docuseries? Will they cut back on restoring classic films because they don’t drive new sign-ups?”

His concerns are not unfounded. In recent years, several niche media platforms have shifted their strategies after securing VC funding: FilmStruck, a former streaming service for classic and independent films, shut down in 2018 after parent company WarnerMedia (then part of AT&T) prioritized more mainstream content; similarly, DocPlay, an Australian documentary platform, reduced its focus on obscure titles after a 2023 funding round. For Jarmusch, MUBI’s partnership with Sequoia risks joining this pattern.

MUBI’s Response: Balancing Growth and Mission

In response to Jarmusch’s comments, MUBI issued a statement emphasizing that Sequoia’s funding would “strengthen, not compromise” its commitment to independent cinema. The platform’s CEO, Efe Çakarel, noted that the investment would be used to expand MUBI’s global reach (particularly in emerging markets like India and Brazil), fund more original film productions, and enhance its restoration efforts for classic works.

“Sequoia didn’t invest in MUBI to change what we do—they invested because they believe in what we do,” Çakarel said. “Independent cinema is more important than ever, but it needs resources to compete in a crowded streaming market. This funding lets us bring more underrepresented filmmakers to global audiences, restore films that might otherwise be lost, and keep our platform accessible to viewers who can’t find this work anywhere else.”

Çakarel also pushed back on the idea that VC funding inherently undermines artistic integrity, pointing to MUBI’s retained control over curation. “Our team of film experts—people who’ve dedicated their lives to independent cinema—still makes every call on what we program,” he added. “Sequoia has no say in which films we pick, which restorations we fund, or which filmmakers we partner with. That was non-negotiable.”

The Independent Film Community Weighs In

Jarmusch’s critique has resonated with many in the independent film world, while others have defended MUBI’s decision as a necessary step for survival. Indie director Kelly Reichardt (First Cow, Certain Women), a frequent collaborator with Jarmusch, echoed his concerns: “MUBI was a place where you could trust that the films were there because someone loved them, not because they tested well. VC money changes the calculus—suddenly, every decision has to answer to investors, not to the art.”

Conversely, emerging filmmaker Raven Jackson (All Dirt Roads Taste of Salt) argued that MUBI’s growth could benefit underrepresented creators. “As a Black woman making independent films, I need platforms like MUBI to reach more people,” Jackson said. “If Sequoia’s money lets MUBI expand into countries where my work might not otherwise be seen, that’s a win. The key is holding MUBI accountable to its mission—not dismissing the funding outright.”

Film critic and historian B. Ruby Rich, who has written extensively on independent cinema, noted that the debate reflects a larger cultural shift. “For decades, independent film relied on grants, small distributors, and art-house theaters to survive,” Rich said. “Now, streaming is the main game, and that means partnering with entities that have money—whether that’s VC firms, tech companies, or studios. It’s a tightrope walk: you need the funds to exist, but you risk losing your soul in the process. Jarmusch is speaking for the part of the community that’s scared of falling off that tightrope.”

Jarmusch’s Hope for Accountability

While Jarmusch remains skeptical, he emphasized that his criticism is rooted in a desire to hold MUBI accountable—not to condemn the platform entirely. “I’ve loved MUBI for years, and I want it to succeed,” he said. “But success for MUBI shouldn’t mean becoming just another streaming service. It should mean doubling down on what makes it unique.”

He called on MUBI to be transparent about how it uses Sequoia’s funding, urging the platform to share regular updates on its curation choices, restoration projects, and support for emerging filmmakers. “If they can show that they’re still putting the films first—if they’re still taking risks on work that no one else will touch—then I’ll be the first to admit I was wrong,” Jarmusch added. “But until then, I think it’s important to ask the hard questions. The future of independent cinema depends on it.”

As MUBI moves forward with its expanded funding, the debate sparked by Jarmusch’s comments is likely to continue—a reminder of the fragile balance between art and commerce in an era where even niche platforms must answer to investors. For Jarmusch and others, the stakes are clear: MUBI’s choices could set a precedent for how independent media navigates the pressures of growth, and whether the ethos of independent film can survive in a world dominated by tech and VC.