In the opening days of the 2026 Berlin International Film Festival, organisers issued a lengthy defence of their jury after remarks by jury president Wim Wenders about art and politics sparked a media backlash and prompted Indian author Arundhati Roy to withdraw on Friday. The festival said a “media storm” had swept the Berlinale in its first 48 hours and defended filmmakers against what it described as decontextualised reporting. Wenders had told reporters that “movies can change the world” but “not in a political way,” adding that film-makers “have to stay out of politics.” Festival director Tricia Tuttle and a spokesperson responded later in the weekend to restate the festival’s position on artists’ freedom of expression and the limits of expectations placed on guests at press conferences.
Key takeaways
- The Berlinale released a statement defending its jury and jury president after widespread criticism in the festival’s first 48 hours.
- Wim Wenders said at the opening press conference that “movies can change the world” but “not in a political way,” and that film-makers “have to stay out of politics.”
- Polish producer Ewa Puszczyńska described questions tying artists to government policy as “complicated” and “a bit unfair,” saying creators cannot be held responsible for government decisions.
- Arundhati Roy withdrew from the festival on Friday, calling the suggestion that art should avoid politics “jaw-dropping” and unconscionable.
- Festival head Tricia Tuttle penned a statement, “On Speaking, Cinema and Politics,” stressing that artists should decide when and how to speak and should not be expected to provide soundbites on every geopolitical issue.
- Pressers across the festival have featured politically oriented questions to guests including Charli XCX, Neil Patrick Harris, Rupert Grint and Michelle Yeoh, drawing broader attention.
- The Berlinale warned that some circulated remarks were taken out of the full conversational context and the lifetime of the artists’ work and values.
Background
The Berlinale is one of the world’s major film festivals and places a jury at the centre of awards and programming decisions; its jury president is a highly visible representative during the opening days. Film festivals increasingly face scrutiny when global crises land on the public agenda, with journalists and activists pressing cultural figures to comment on political developments that may have little direct link to the films on show. Recent international conflict and heightened public debate about accountability have intensified pressure on festivals, curators and juries to clarify their positions or to use their platforms as forums for protest or solidarity.
Organisers must balance the expectations of diverse stakeholders: filmmakers seeking to promote creative work, audiences who expect both artistry and conscience, governments that sometimes view cultural diplomacy as strategic, and media outlets that amplify controversy. Past festival seasons have seen departures, boycotts and public statements when artists or events were perceived to take or avoid political stands. That history has conditioned both journalists’ line of questioning and festival teams’ crisis responses in moments when politics appears to collide with culture.
Main event
The exchange that triggered the controversy occurred at the Berlinale opening press conference when a reporter asked whether films could effect political change. Wenders replied that cinema can alter the world but “not in a political way,” and that filmmakers should “stay out of politics,” remarks that were rapidly circulated and criticised. Polish producer Ewa Puszczyńska, asked separately about her views on government support for Israel, said questions tying a producer to state policy were “complicated” and “a bit unfair,” noting creators cannot be held responsible for sovereign decisions.
Arundhati Roy responded by withdrawing from the festival and issuing a sharp rebuke, saying that to claim art should not be political was “jaw-dropping” and risked silencing conversation about what she described as ongoing crimes against humanity. Her decision and language amplified coverage and placed pressure on the festival to clarify whether the comments represented the jury’s collective stance or individual views taken out of context.
Late on Saturday, Tricia Tuttle circulated a public communication titled “On Speaking, Cinema and Politics,” which argued for nuance and defended artists’ right to choose how and when to speak. A festival spokesperson framed the controversy as a media storm in the festival’s first 48 hours, asserting that some remarks had been detached from fuller exchanges and the body of the artists’ work. Tuttle emphasised that artists should not be expected to condense complex opinions into brief soundbites at press events.
Analysis & implications
The episode underscores a continuing tension at major cultural events: reporters and audiences increasingly demand that artists comment on geopolitical crises even when those crises are not the subject of their films. Festivals must weigh reputational risk from perceived silence against backlash for hosting figures who express views that others find objectionable. In this case, Wenders’ distinction between art’s impact and explicit political engagement reopened debates about what responsibility filmmakers owe during humanitarian crises and whether cultural platforms can ever be neutral.
For the Berlinale, immediate fallout includes reputational scrutiny and the potential for further withdrawals or protest actions in the current festival program. Organisers may respond by tightening press-management protocols, offering clearer guidance to guests, or convening panels to address the role of art in political discourse. Longer term, programming committees could face pressure to foreground politically engaged cinema or, conversely, to protect artists from being construed as spokespeople for causes beyond their work.
The incident may also affect how journalists frame questions at future festivals: editors and reporters must balance the public’s appetite for accountability with fairness to artists present to discuss specific films. A media environment “dominated by crisis,” as Tuttle put it, reduces space for nuanced conversations about craft and culture unless those conversations can be folded into a news agenda, potentially narrowing coverage of film on artistic terms.
Reactions & quotes
“To hear them say that art should not be political is jaw-dropping. It is a way of shutting down a conversation about a crime against humanity even as it unfolds before us in real time.”
Arundhati Roy — author (on withdrawing from the Berlinale)
Roy’s withdrawal and statement framed the exchange as a moral failing by cultural figures who, she argued, should use their platforms in moments of crisis. Her words were widely shared and became a focal point for criticism of the jury’s comments.
“Artists are free to exercise their right of free speech in whatever way they choose. Artists should not be expected to comment on all broader debates … unless they want to.”
Tricia Tuttle — Berlinale director
Tuttle’s public communication sought to protect artists from being compelled into on-the-record positions on every political question posed to them, while also defending the festival’s broader commitment to diverse kinds of political expression in film.
“Movies can change the world, but not in a political way … we have to stay out of politics.”
Wim Wenders — jury president (at the opening press conference)
Wenders’ comments, which he made while addressing the question of cinema’s power to influence society, were the catalyst for the dispute and for subsequent debate over the function of art during humanitarian emergencies.
Unconfirmed
- Whether specific Wenders remarks were selectively edited in circulation; festival officials say context was missing, but a full transcript has not been published by the organisers.
- How many other invited guests considered withdrawing; public records show Roy’s withdrawal, but broader internal discussions among attendees remain private.
- The extent to which governmental pressure shaped press questions at the festival remains unverified.
Bottom line
The Berlinale controversy highlights an intensifying expectation that artists answer for geopolitical events and the countervailing claim that they should not be compelled to speak on every issue. Wenders’ comments and Roy’s subsequent withdrawal crystallised that tension and forced the festival to defend both individual artists and the institution’s handling of media scrutiny. Organisers face a short-term reputational test and a longer-term decision about how to manage press forums and the festival’s public posture on political matters.
Audiences and industry stakeholders will watch whether the Berlinale adopts new protocols for press engagement, whether more figures distance themselves, and how programming choices reflect or resist calls for political accountability. For now, the dispute serves as a reminder that cultural platforms are rarely experienced as neutral in moments of international crisis, and that festival leaders must navigate competing demands for artistic freedom, moral clarity and fair media coverage.