After Zelenskiy’s speech at the opening of this year’s Cannes, many criticisms were made to this approach of Cannes and caused many critics of Cannes to interpret this method as the continuation of the festival’s political activities. What is more interesting is that despite being aware of this level of opposition, Venice accepted Zelensky’s message in its opening to show that it cannot have a purely artistic performance and is basically a political festival.
Another strange thing that showed itself on the same day of the opening was the presence of Hillary Clinton on the red carpet of the festival, the reason for which has not yet been determined. Some consider this incident to be related to the issue of the 2024 American elections and have declared the support that the Clinton party is going to get from artists and Hollywood as the reason for this presence.
It is worth pondering that the managers of these festivals consider Fajr Festival and the policies of our film organization to be political and consider our country’s cinema and festival to be politicized. Of course, in the same period, we see that a film from Iran, regardless of its professional status, was accepted in the competition section just because of its director’s political activities.
This trend can be seen in the world’s biggest festival, which claims to be qualitative, even in the closing and awarding night, and this approach means that these festivals, with these political choices, take the place of high-quality films, and this trend cannot be befitting a world-renowned festival.
Of course, the boom of the Give My Money Back movement, which was launched on the sidelines of the Venice festival, as is the tradition every year, is an indication of the greater level of protest that is communicated by the audience of this festival to its directors based on these political games.