Full Analysis Summary
Roy withdraws from Berlinale
Arundhati Roy announced she would withdraw from the 2026 Berlin International Film Festival after public exchanges at the Berlinale's jury press event.
The exchanges involved jury president Wim Wenders and other jurors arguing against overt political intervention by filmmakers.
Roy, who had been due to present a restored 1989 film In Which Annie Gives It Those Ones, described Wenders's comments as 'unconscionable' and said they silence discussion of what she called a 'genocide' in Gaza.
She said she was 'shocked and disgusted'.
The dispute crystallised around Wenders's line that while 'movies can change the world' they should 'stay out of politics' and act as a counterweight to political action, with similar formulations reported by several outlets.
Coverage Differences
Tone
Different outlets emphasise different emotional registers: The Guardian (Western Mainstream) foregrounds Roy’s moral condemnation and the phrase “unconscionable,” while Al Jazeera (West Asian) highlights Roy saying she was “shocked and disgusted,” and Countercurrents (Other) uses both “unconscionable” and “jaw‑dropping.” Each is reporting Roy’s own words rather than offering the outlet’s independent judgment.
Narrative Framing
Some sources frame the episode primarily as a clash over artistic freedom and festival norms (e.g., Tribune India), while others foreground the Gaza war and Roy’s allegation of genocide (e.g., TRT World and Mathrubhumi). All these sources report Roy’s claims rather than asserting the underlying events themselves.
Source Emphasis
Some outlets (e.g., Guardian, Al Jazeera, Hindustan Times) cite Wenders’s exact phrasing about staying out of politics and note the jury context; others (e.g., Mint) summarise Roy’s accusations of complicity by governments. Each outlet attributes statements to the named speakers.
Festival jury remarks
Festival jurors’ public remarks fuelled the specific clash.
Wim Wenders is reported as saying filmmakers must "stay out of politics," that cinema can "change the world" but should not enter politics directly, and that filmmakers are a "counterweight to politics."
At the same panel, juror Ewa Puszczyńska pushed back on expectations that the jury should take a political stance, calling it "a little bit unfair" to expect the jury to comment on government policy; some jurors emphasised the complexity and remit limits of their role.
These comments were presented in press-conference reporting across multiple outlets, prompting Roy’s decision.
Coverage Differences
Quotation Detail
Different reports quote Wenders’ formulations with small variations: The Guardian and Tribune India report “stay out of politics” and “counterweight to politics,” while TRT World and Mathrubhumi render similar phrases as “cannot really enter the field of politics” and “the counterweight to politics.” All outlets attribute these as Wenders’s statements.
Responsibility Framing
Some outlets (e.g., Guardian, South China Morning Post) include the jury’s defensiveness and Ewa Puszczyńska’s refusal to be drawn on Germany’s government position, while other outlets (e.g., Al Jazeera, News18) focus more narrowly on the binary “art should not be political” claim reported from the panel. Each source reports jurors’ words rather than endorsing them.
Scope of Reporting
Some sources add contextual notes about the jury’s international makeup and festival launch tensions (e.g., The Guardian mentions jurors from several countries), while shorter reports (e.g., News18) summarise the core exchange. The reportage differences reflect editorial length and focus, not factual contradiction.
Roy's statements on Gaza
Roy used her withdrawal to make expansive political claims about the Gaza war.
She called Israel’s actions "a genocide" and accused the United States, Germany and some European governments of complicity by supporting or funding Israel.
She warned that leading artists who remain silent "will be judged by history" and argued artists should oppose the war.
Those formulations appear consistently across West Asian, Asian and other outlets that quote Roy’s statement and her piece in The Wire.
Coverage Differences
Claim Attribution
All cited sources present the charge of “genocide” as Roy’s language: The Guardian, Al Jazeera and TRT World quote her describing events as “genocide” or “a genocide of the Palestinian people by the State of Israel.” None of the snippets present this as an independently verified legal finding — they consistently attribute it to Roy.
Emphasis on Complicity
Some outlets (e.g., Mint, Theweek.in, American Kahani) highlight Roy’s explicit naming of the United States, Germany and European governments as complicit; others focus more on her moral plea to artists and historical judgement. Each report quotes Roy’s claims rather than endorsing them.
Scope of Quotation
Different outlets include additional rhetorical lines — e.g., South China Morning Post notes Roy said “history will judge” and that she made her decision “with deep regret,” while Hindustan Times and News18 focus on her being “shocked and disgusted.” These are complementary quotations from the same statement.
Festival political tensions
The controversy sparked further festival fallout, including the withdrawal of restored films by two late Egyptian directors.
The Berlinale said it regretted those decisions while respecting them.
Reporting across sources says the episode reflects wider tensions in European cultural spaces about whether cultural platforms should take political positions.
Some outlets also noted that a number of high-profile guests have shown reluctance to take public political stances this year.
Observers and commentators quoted in several reports say the debate exposes persistent friction between artistic programming and geopolitics at major festivals.
Coverage Differences
Event Coverage
Some outlets explicitly mention the withdrawal of restored films by two late Egyptian directors (Mathrubhumi, TRT World), while others focus on the single high-profile pullout by Roy (News18, Hindustan Times). Both types of coverage are present in the record and report different facets of fallout.
Contextual Detail
Some reports add industry context such as reluctance from other guests (Mathrubhumi notes Neil Patrick Harris and Michelle Yeoh), while shorter pieces omit these details. These editorial choices affect the perceived scale of the controversy in each account.
Analytic Tone
Some outlets (e.g., FilmoGaz) frame the moment as scrutiny of festival management of political discourse, while mainstream outlets report statements and reactions more straightforwardly. Both approaches derive from the same set of events but emphasise different implications.
Differences in media coverage
Coverage differs by outlet type.
Western mainstream sources like The Guardian report the jury exchange and Roy's condemnation while noting the jury's international composition.
West Asian outlets such as Al Jazeera and TRT World foreground Roy's political denunciation and the Gaza allegation.
Regional Asian outlets (Mathrubhumi, Mint, Hindustan Times) highlight Roy's Booker status, Shah Rukh Khan connection to the restored film and the warning that "history will judge".
Alternative and other outlets (Countercurrents, Tribune India, American Kahani) stress the idea that insisting art be apolitical "shuts down urgent discussion".
These differences reflect editorial emphasis and audience, not contradictions in the quoted statements themselves.
Coverage Differences
Comparative Framing
Western mainstream (The Guardian) frames the episode as a rocky festival start and quotes both Wenders and Roy; West Asian outlets (Al Jazeera, TRT World) foreground Roy’s political denunciation; Other/alternative outlets (Countercurrents) underline the claim that calls to depoliticise art “shut down urgent discussion.” All cite the same source statements but select different emphases.
Local Detail
Regional Asian outlets (e.g., Mathrubhumi, Hindustan Times, Mint) add local-interest details — Booker Prize mention and Shah Rukh Khan’s film debut — that global outlets may omit. These are supplementary, locally salient details present in several regional reports.
Omission vs Emphasis
Some short reports (e.g., News18) omit context such as other film withdrawals or jury composition, while longer pieces (e.g., The Guardian, South China Morning Post) include more context. These are differences of scope rather than contradictory factual claims.