The Washington National Opera filed a lawsuit on Thursday that demands more than $17 million from the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. The opera company claims it is owed millions in donations that have been withheld.

The lawsuit claims that after the opera company and the Kennedy Center parted ways in January, center officials have not returned more than $17 million in gifts and donations that belong to the opera company. The lawsuit lists the federal government as a defendant because the Kennedy Center was established by Congress.

According to the suit, the opera company and the Kennedy Center had a longstanding contract in which WNO produced its operas at the Kennedy Center, which in return, provided a number of services and other support for the opera company including managing its donations.

In late 2025, after approximately 15 years of affiliation, the suit claims that the Kennedy Center stopped performing the obligations of their agreement, which included marketing, fundraising and administrative support, as well as timely reporting on the growth of the opera company’s funds. When the opera company requested the Kennedy Center remedy the issue, center officials asked to sever ties.

“Five months have now passed since the termination of the affiliation, and the Kennedy Center still has not returned the funds to WNO,” reads the suit. “To the contrary, according to the Kennedy Center’s Chief Financial Officer, the Kennedy Center has put a significant portion of WNO’s money at risk by using it to collateralize the Kennedy Center’s line of credit.”

In an emailed statement responding to the lawsuit, Roma Daravi, a spokeswoman for the Kennedy Center, told The Times that the contract between the opera house and the center financially burdened the center for more than a decade. The statement claimed that taking into account the company’s endowment, an external accounting firm calculated that the opera company had “accumulated a $72 million deficit to the center” between 2011 and 2026.

“The Center has acted transparently and in the best interests of the public throughout this process,” the statement reads. “This lawsuit is meritless, and we plan to pursue a countersuit to defend the institution.”

The legal action comes during a tumultuous time for the Kennedy Center. Last year, President Trump fired the board and appointed himself chairman of the Kennedy Center.

In December, President Trump’s name was installed on the exterior of the center the day after his handpicked board of trustees voted to change the institution’s name to the “Trump-Kennedy Center.” Last month, a federal judge ordered President Trump’s name to be removed from the exterior of the building within two weeks and a halt to the Trump administration’s planned two-year closure of the venue.

On Friday, the court-ordered deadline for removing his name sparked widespread interest and crowds gathered outside the center. A live cam was also placed near the structure.

The Times arts editor Jessica Gelt contributed to this report.

Vague Visages’ SHARP: Moving Picture II review contains minor spoilers. This article covers the films Obsidian, Over Herd and Burn. Check out the VV home page for more film criticism, movie reviews and film essays.

In the city of Austin, keeping it “weird” is the name of the game. The coroner’s report on the counterculture’s demise is indeed fake news based on my recent screening of SHARP: Moving Picture II, a showcase of 20 experimental shorts, video art and non-narrative works from up-and-coming artists/filmmakers via the Hyperreal Film Club. This cavalcade of ambitious eccentricities and diasporic dreamers isn’t after your validation, nor should it be considered “main character energy.” Superficiality takes a back seat as the artists, in most cases, communicate their beliefs with mere glimpses and “flickers.”

Joseph Gonzalez of The Austin Chronicle nails the SHARP: Moving Picture II vibe, characterizing the filmmakers as having “something different to say about jagged edges of experience.” Nowhere is this truer than in the work of Jay aka j4_qv and his meditative one-shot Obsidian (2026). In under five minutes, the filmmaker allows viewers to ruminate on their own sharp edges and half-dreamt truths. To amplify this spiritual energy, Jay uses three massive indigenous monoliths, whose aura evokes not an inhospitable presence but rather a beguiling prologue for additional works to come. If one finds a fault in the work, it’s the diehard, fanboy nature of it all. Key shots throughout evoke “The Final Messenger” episode of Neon Genesis Evangelion (1995-96), while the music and backdrop resemble Toluca Lake of the Silent Hill video game franchise. All are admirable choices, and yes, the sound mixing rocks. Yet the cost of Jay’s approach is the lack of a distinct vantage point. Nevertheless, the artist’s thought-provoking and druid imagery hints at a breakout that’s to come.

SHARP: Moving Picture II Review: Related — Short Film Review: Marcellus Cox’s ‘Jamarcus Rose & Da 5 Bullet Holes’

The midsection is where several films’ themes, though vivid and suggestive, begin to lose focus and become repetitive. Several vignettes appear under variations of SHARP, such as Sharps or Shaaarrrrp, which weakens the sense of uniqueness. The inclusion of miscellaneous cartoon cat videos is perhaps an effort to bolster the broader theme of transition. One notable short, Burn, near the end of this section, follows a man who is not yet ready to confront or reveal his identity. In the course of roughly 10 minutes, Burn immerses viewers into his internal struggle, approaching the subject in a distinctly Kafkaesque way. The camera remains in a fixed point-of-view position, while various objects of torture — kitchen torches, rough plastics and cigarette butts — are used to evoke the sense of an itch that just can’t be scratched. Parallel shots of a silhouette and an array of women interrupt these tortuous images. There’s a lack of emotional connection to the subject and zero continuity with the events that transpire, rendering the whole episode a booming cry for help that’s stifled by the lack of internal or external dialogue. Viewers simply receive a brief glimpse of the protagonist’s inner torment.

SHARP: Moving Picture II Review: Related — Review: 2026 Oscar Nominees for Animated Short Film

The film presentation ended in a typical Generation Z-type scenario, not with an emo millennial scoff but with a stare. Henna Chou’s smart stroke Over Herd (2026) circumnavigates the typical deer-in-headlights, coming-of-age lecture, but rather than spoofing these situations, the director allows their featured friend to remain anonymous, by way of a bison serving as the avatar. The whole conversation of their complex and queer-coded relationship/friendship with their boss evolves as a mash-up of MTV’s Girl Code (2013-2018) and Cartoon Network’s Tim and Eric Awesome Show, Great Job! (2007-10). The deal seals itself largely because of the deliberate distortion of the vocal audio track. One can never be quite sure whether the audio comes from the bison or a non-diegetic source.

SHARP: Moving Picture II Review: Related — Borscht Belt Film Fest Review (Short): Joel Perez’s ‘Villa Encanto’

In the May 2026 issue of Time, Christopher Nolan suggests that all directors remain anonymous. Art should speak for itself and personalities should not overshadow the message. Given the lucrative yet superficial nature of Hollywood, such a statement may be wishful thinking. SHARP, however, may just hit the mark. The combination of teasing glimpses and the absence of titles and/or character names conveys the notion that “This is who I am — deal with it.” This isn’t to say that the feature creators are off the grid. The names of the artists/filmmakers can be found on the Hyperreal website, but the art trumps the personalities. In the spirit of philosopher John Locke, these individuals are not uniquely defined by their physical bodies but rather by their own conscious awareness and experiences. They should not need to round off any edges to suit others.

Peter Bell (@PeterGBell25) is a 2016 Master of Arts – Film Studies graduate of Columbia University School of Arts in New York City. His interests include film history, film theory and film criticism. Ever since watching TCM as a child, Peter has had a passion for film, always trying to add greater context to film for others. His favorite films include Chinatown, Blade Runner, Lawrence of Arabia, A Shot in the Dark and Inception. Peter believes movie theaters are still the optimal forum for film viewing, discussion and discovering fresh perspectives on culture.

SHARP: Moving Picture II Review: Related — Review: 2026 Oscar Nominees for Live-Action Short Film

Related

The Directors Guild of America’s national board on Friday unanimously recommended its membership vote in favor of a four-year contract with the major studios that would increase wages, boost contributions to its health plan and establish guardrails surrounding AI technology.

“We entered this negotiation with three main priorities: secure our Health Plan, protect jobs, and ensure that our members remain secure as AI continues to impact our industry,” DGA President Christopher Nolan said in a statement. “We succeeded in these areas and gained in many others.”

Under the proposed contract, major studios would increase their contributions to the DGA’s health plan by 24.4% over four years, the largest since the plan was founded. In return, the DGA would recommend changes to its plan’s trustees including “modest” increases to the eligibility threshold and annual premiums, the DGA said on Friday.

The contract also increases minimum salaries for most jobs by 2.5% in the first year and up 3% for each of the following years in the agreement. Directors of network non-prime time strip dramatic programs will see their minimum salaries increase 2.5% for each year .

The union, which represents more than 19,500 directors and their teams in movies, TV and commercials, said the agreement creates support for a federal production incentive to keep filming jobs in the U.S.

The proposed agreement secures a commitment that senior management at the major studios “would engage in meaningful advocacy for a federal production incentive above and beyond the ongoing lobbying efforts of the Motion Picture Association,” according to the DGA.

The contract also adds more rules around the use of AI technology, including requiring that directors oversee any footage created by artificial intelligence .

Studios will also be required to notify the DGA if an employer decides to license a director’s work to train a generative AI system to create new work. The agreement also establishes an employer-funded program to enhance directors’ AI skills, the union said.

“With these gains, a four-year Agreement was both appropriate and necessary to provide stability and potential for growth at a moment when the industry has been experiencing contraction,” Nolan said in a note to members on Friday.

The DGA and Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers reached the tentative contract earlier this week. At that time, AMPTP said “we appreciate the hard work and commitment of our guild partners in achieving a fair deal that helps advance a stable and successful entertainment industry.”

DGA members will have until June 25 at 5 p.m. to vote on the plan. If approved, the contract would go into effect July 1 and run through June 30, 2030.