Venice Film Festival Changes Course To Reinstate Jury Press Conference: How It Went Down
The Venice Film Festival has reversed course and reinstated its opening jury press conference, days after telling Deadline the event had been scrapped due to a "scheduling conflict". The U-turn followed Deadline's reporting on the cancellation, which prompted a backlash from the press over concerns about transparency, given the press conference is a longstanding fixture for A-list festival juries.
Deadline had initially been told on Saturday that the conference would not go ahead, with a festival executive proposing a "more relaxed welcome cocktail" with journalists as an alternative. The festival confirmed the reversal on Sunday, days before the event opens on Wednesday and runs from 2–12 September. This year's jury, headed by Maggie Gyllenhaal, includes Kaouther Ben Hania, Daniel Blumberg, Francesco Casetti, Xavier Giannoli, Shahrbanoo Sadat and Johnnie To; the conference comes amid a wider trend of festivals seeking to avoid politically charged questions, following tense exchanges at Berlin and Venice's own jury conferences in recent years over issues including the Israel-Gaza war.
- Venice reversed decision to cancel its opening jury press conference
- Move followed Deadline's report and backlash over transparency concerns
- Festival runs 2–12 September, jury led by Maggie Gyllenhaal
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Reinstating the conference respects journalists’ role in scrutinising a major cultural event and gives the jury a shared, public forum to explain its approach. Because the conference is a longstanding fixture, cancelling it without a clear explanation risked undermining confidence in the festival’s openness; restoring it after the backlash addresses that concern.
The case against
Festival organisers may reasonably want to manage a demanding schedule and create a less formal welcome for jurors and journalists. Public conferences can also draw attention away from the films and put jurors under pressure to comment on contentious political issues beyond their remit, so organisers have an interest in setting a format that lets them focus on judging.