The Berlin International Film Festival is navigating a growing controversy stemming from comments made about the role of politics in art, triggering a withdrawal from a prominent voice and prompting a defense from festival leadership. The situation, unfolding in the festival’s opening days, highlights the increasingly fraught landscape for artists addressing global conflicts.
The initial spark came during a press conference on , where jury president Wim Wenders responded to a question about the potential for film to effect political change. Wenders stated that “movies can change the world” but “not in a political way,” adding that film-makers “have to stay out of politics.” This sentiment was quickly criticized, most notably by Indian author Arundhati Roy, who subsequently withdrew from the festival on .
Roy’s departure was accompanied by a strongly worded rebuke, calling Wenders’ comments “unconscionable” and expressing concern over their potential reach. “To hear them say that art should not be political is jaw-dropping,” Roy said, arguing that such a stance effectively silences conversation about critical issues unfolding in real time. She emphasized the responsibility of artists to actively engage with and challenge injustice, particularly in the context of what she termed “a crime against humanity.”
The festival director, Tricia Tuttle, responded on with a statement defending the jury and its members. Tuttle acknowledged the frequency with which artists are asked to weigh in on political matters during festival press conferences, and asserted the right of artists to exercise free speech “in whatever way they choose.” She also cautioned against expecting artists to provide succinct answers to complex questions, particularly when those questions fall outside the scope of their work.
A festival spokesperson further elaborated, stating that the Berlinale felt compelled to defend its film-makers, particularly the jury, against what they described as a “media storm.” The spokesperson emphasized that comments were being taken “detached not only out of context of the full conversations but also from the lifetime of work and values these artists represent.”
The controversy extends beyond Wenders’ initial statement. Polish producer Ewa Puszczyńska faced questioning regarding the German government’s support for Israel, a line of inquiry she deemed “complicated” and “a bit unfair.” She maintained that individuals should not be held responsible for governmental decisions.
The situation at the Berlinale reflects a broader tension within the film industry regarding the intersection of art and activism. While some argue that art inherently carries a political dimension, others maintain that its primary function is aesthetic or emotional, and that imposing political expectations on artists can be limiting and unproductive. The festival’s response suggests a desire to protect the creative freedom of its participants, while also acknowledging the importance of engaging with pressing social and political issues.
Beyond the central debate, the festival has seen numerous high-profile guests fielding politically charged questions. US actor Neil Patrick Harris was asked about cinema’s potential to combat fascism, while UK actor Rupert Grint received a similar inquiry. Malaysian actor Michelle Yeoh was questioned about the political climate in the United States. These instances underscore the heightened sensitivity surrounding global events and the expectation that public figures will offer their perspectives.
Tuttle, in a communication titled “On Speaking, Cinema and Politics,” highlighted the diversity of artistic expression and political engagement. She argued that there are “many different kinds of art, and many different ways of being political,” and cautioned against criticizing artists for being unable to condense complex thoughts into soundbites. She also pointed to a media landscape increasingly focused on crisis, which can overshadow nuanced discussions about film and culture.
The Berlinale’s handling of this situation will likely be closely watched by other film festivals and industry stakeholders. The incident raises important questions about the responsibilities of artists, the role of institutions in fostering dialogue, and the challenges of navigating politically sensitive topics in a globalized world. As the festival progresses, it remains to be seen whether the controversy will subside or continue to shape the narrative surrounding this year’s event.
