Venice Film Festival Scraps Jury Press Conference
Developing story first seen 3 hours ago
The Venice Film Festival has confirmed it will cancel its customary main jury press conference ahead of its 2026 edition, citing a scheduling conflict. The unusual break with protocol comes after political questions, particularly about the Israel-Gaza war, dominated press events at Venice and other major festivals, although organisers denied this influenced the decision.
Maggie Gyllenhaal will chair the international jury, alongside Kaouther Ben Hania, Daniel Blumberg, Francesco Casetti, Xavier Giannoli, Shahrbanoo Sadat and Johnnie To. Last year’s Venice jury press conference saw president Alexander Payne questioned extensively about Gaza, while similar tensions affected Berlin and Cannes; the festival runs from 2 to 12 September 2026.
- Venice confirms it has cancelled its main jury press conference.
- Organisers cite scheduling, not political pressure.
- The festival runs from 2 to 12 September.
New here? Start with this
The Venice Film Festival is one of the world’s oldest and most prominent film events. Held each year in the Italian city of Venice, it brings together new films, actors, directors, critics and industry figures from many countries.
A main international jury watches films competing for the festival’s top prizes, including the Golden Lion, and decides the winners. The jury is usually led by a chair and includes film-makers, performers and other cultural figures; its members are often introduced to journalists before the festival begins.
Major film festivals can also become places where wider public issues are discussed, because they attract international media and artists. In recent years, the Israel-Gaza war has led to questions and disagreements at cultural events, including over public statements and how organisers respond to political concerns.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of the cancellation can reasonably argue that a film festival’s jury should be able to focus on judging films rather than being drawn into live political disputes for which it has no shared mandate or expertise. If there is a genuine scheduling conflict, dispensing with one ceremonial media event is a practical way to protect a demanding programme and avoid putting individual artists under pressure to speak for institutions, nations or conflicts. This view prioritises artistic independence, orderly festival management and the right not to make public political declarations.
The case against
Critics can reasonably argue that cancelling an established press conference, particularly after recent political questioning, risks appearing to shield the festival and its prominent jury from legitimate scrutiny. Major cultural institutions shape public debate through whose work they platform and how they respond to humanitarian crises, so journalists may fairly seek transparent answers even when those questions are uncomfortable. This view prioritises accountability, open press access and the principle that cultural prestige should not create an exemption from difficult public discussion.
More coverage
Americas Cricket Entertainment Film Offbeat Sport Weird & Viral World