Cannes Chief Thierry Frémaux on Hollywood Cutbacks, Festival Politics and Industry Upheaval: ‘Our Mission Is Very Simple — to Define What Cinema Will Be in 2026’ (EXCLUSIVE)
Thierry Frémaux often says he returns to Cannes each year like an athlete ready to defend the festival’s title as the reigning champion. In 2026, which marks his 25th year at the festival, that metaphor lands with particular force. As Hollywood navigates a period of upheaval, marked by consolidation, layoffs and growing risk aversion, the role of the Cannes Film Festival feels more charged than ever.
“Cinema is going through a period of great fragility amid the crisis in theatrical exhibition, the changing behavior of new generations of audiences, the ubiquity of other screens, the merger of U.S. studios, piracy and artificial intelligence — which can be another form of piracy — and so on,” Frémaux tells Variety in a wide-ranging interview at his Paris office. And yet, with half of the competition secured and 400 more films to watch, he says optimistically, “We’ve been seeing films that make us happy … Cinema is in a state of constant creativity and renewal.”
Last year’s Cannes crop shined thanks to its non-English-language movies such as Joachim Trier’s “Sentimental Value,” which won the Oscar for international feature and earned a best picture nod alongside Wagner Moura’s “The Secret Agent,” bringing Cannes’ 2026 Oscar nomination haul to 19 (also including Jafar Panahi’s “It Was Just an Accident,” Oliver Laxe’s “Sirat” and Ugo Bienvenue’s “Arco”). But with the industry navigating unprecedented changes, the lingering question remains: Will U.S. studios skip Cannes in 2026?
Frémaux is pushing back against any notion of retreat, and says there will be American films premiering on the Croisette, even if there’s no “Top Gun” or “Mission: Impossible” in the pipeline. “When Hollywood studios believe that a presence at Cannes is beneficial to them, they come,” he says. “Quantitatively, studios are producing fewer blockbusters and fewer auteur films than in the past.”
Still, some of the most anticipated U.S. titles won’t make the cut this year. Alejandro González Iñárritu’s “Digger” starring Tom Cruise and Christopher Nolan’s “The Odyssey” are simply “not ready,” he says, while Steven Spielberg’s potential return with “Disclosure Day” will depend on “many strategic factors” such as timing. The cost of attending Cannes is another factor, but Frémaux says — or rather, pleads — that studios don’t need to overspend to make an impact. “You can also travel light … A director and two actors are enough to showcase a film,” he says.
Ultimately, Frémaux is confident he’ll put together another exciting lineup with or without studios. “A year ago, uncertainty reigned for a long time, but what followed turned out to be wonderful,” he says. “We are dependent on nothing other than the films themselves, and the world of cinema is vast.”
The Cannes lineup will be unveiled on April 9 in Paris.
Having doubts is healthy. Dreaming, being bold and being ambitious are part of our job — just like doubting. On the last day of every festival, I make a potential list for the following year. It’s always exciting, but between potentiality and reality, you have to remain patient and clear-headed. And remind yourself that it’s a fortunate thing that an unexpected film or a surprise screening can change everything at any moment. That’s the case every year!
I find that cinema is in a state of constant creativity and renewal. Since January, we’ve been seeing films that make us happy; we can feel that artists and professionals are fully committed. That’s already a lot.For its part, Cannes never compromises on a certain artistic standard. Our mission is very simple to articulate: to define what cinema is. Or rather, for our current work: to define what it will be in 2026.
Cinema is going through a period of great fragility amid the crisis in theatrical exhibition, the changing behavior of new generations of audiences, the ubiquity of other screens, the merger of U.S. studios, piracy and artificial intelligence — which can be another form of piracy — and so on.
When Hollywood studios believe that a presence at Cannes is beneficial to them, they come. Quantitatively, studios are producing fewer blockbusters and fewer auteur films than in the past. But as 2025 proved capable of delivering “Sinners,” “Eddington,” “One Battle After Another,” “Marty Supreme,” “Hamnet,” etc. and with films by James Gray, Christopher Nolan, Steven Spielberg and Alejandro González Iñárritu on the way, there’s no reason to be pessimistic.
The history of cinema is made up of cycles. In the late 1960s, as the studio system was coming to an end, we saw the emergence of Arthur Penn, Billy Friedkin, Francis Coppola and Jerry Schatzberg, followed by Marty Scorsese and Steven Spielberg. Or Clint Eastwood, faithfully produced by Warner. New generations will arrive soon; I’m convinced of it. We’ll have to let them blossom.
No, it doesn’t make us feel vulnerable. They’ve had a tremendous run in theaters around the world. But I think I can say that their presence at Cannes would have allowed them to reach an even wider audience. Ryan Coogler was discovered at Sundance and then at Un Certain Regard with his first film; I’m amazed by his career. Paul Thomas Anderson came to Cannes very early on, first at Un Certain Regard and then in competition with the fantastic “Punch-Drunk Love.” They’ll be back, I’m sure!
Hollywood films or simply American ones. “Anora” wasn’t a studio film; it won the Palme d’Or and took home the Oscar. And Sean Baker made a beautiful love declaration to movie theaters.
Where have you seen that the studios no longer come to Cannes? To analyze this properly, you have to look at a five-year period. You’ll then see that they’re all loyal, from Sony Columbia to Warner, from Paramount to Universal and Disney. Cannes continues to thrive alongside American cinema. The exchange with the studios is fruitful. We are dependent on nothing other than the films themselves, and the world of cinema is vast. The proof is that non-U.S. films from Cannes are increasingly present on the American market… and at the Oscars!
There have always been films from Cannes at the Oscars, including the first Palme d’Or, Delbert Mann’s “Marty” in 1955, but it has become stronger and more visible. The Academy is opening up more to international cinema. And international cinema is in Cannes’ DNA. So, “our” films are no longer competing solely for the best international feature film Oscar but in all categories. A run at Cannes is increasingly effective, both commercially at the box office and symbolically at the Oscars — I want to reiterate this to American producers.
Yes, even if there’s no “Top Gun” or “Mission: Impossible.” By the way, I’d like to thank Paramount again for playing along back then. It was a huge success. Just like Fox when “Moulin Rouge” opened the festival, or Warner bringing us Baz Luhrmann’s “Elvis.”
I don’t know. That will be his decision and Universal’s. A film’s release depends on many strategic factors. Sometimes Cannes fits into their strategy, and sometimes it doesn’t. I respect that.
Yes, but you can also travel light. A director and two actors are enough to showcase a film and delight the press and festival-goers. I want to say it again, even though I know full well that a big film… is a big film.
The films in our selection are rarely met with poor reception and the festival’s role is precisely to present films that invite discussion. Besides, we have good taste!
Frankly, it doesn’t anymore. I’m the first to wonder if Cannes is the right place for a particular film to have its world premiere on the Croisette. If I don’t think so, I’m not going to sacrifice a film’s life for a red carpet.
No, his film won’t be ready.
Same thing. I want to commend Chris Nolan for his commitment to his peers at the Directors Guild — I love seeing his films hit theaters. I was at the Grand Rex in Paris for the French premiere of “Oppenheimer”; it was an extraordinary night of cinema. I’m eagerly awaiting “The Odyssey.” With digital, directors work right up until the last minute; films are ready just a short time before their release. With 35 mm film, it was different: when I started out in 2001 — it’ll be 25 years this year! — you had to commit to a film in January to be sure it would be ready by May!
The film or James Gray? The film, not yet. But you know very well that if I had seen it, I wouldn’t tell you! We’ll meet on April 9; you’ll find out everything then.
No, absolutely not. Donald Trump is an elected president; the U.S. Constitution is strong, and the opposition is active. American cinema is free to operate as it sees fit. Distributors and producers like Neon and A24 are thriving; independent cinema is still very much alive, from big names to newcomers. Cannes, along with Sundance and other European festivals, offers them an international showcase. To survive, they desperately need international sales and global distribution. We are fully aware of our role: that of a showcase for cinema in general, and for American independent cinema in particular. More than ever, as the American market shrinks, these films must find a global audience. Festivals are also there to support this movement.
I’d rather not give my opinion on such a deal. I’ll simply say that the most important thing is that it brings out the best in Warner and the best in Paramount. They are two historic pillars of Hollywood.
We expressed our support for Tricia Tuttle and her teams in defending the Berlinale, which is an essential festival in our industry. We were not alone in doing so. We must not add to the tensions of the times by putting festivals at risk. Over there, Wim Wenders was the subject of excessive criticism. Let’s not forget that this is the man who said, while receiving an award at Cannes: “If we can change the images of the world, then perhaps we can change the world.” It is the most beautiful political statement one could hope for from a filmmaker.
Anything can happen! But the festival is solid; it benefits from the joint support of the Cannes City Hall and the State — support that has never wavered, even when we weathered storms, and I won’t go back as far as May ’68 when the event was halted. On its board of directors, headed by Iris Knobloch, all sectors of the film industry are represented, and their respect for the institution makes our team stronger. Welcoming the whole world to the Croisette is a source of pride for the entire country. And we also know that Cannes’ strength and prestige protects other festivals.
Let us never forget that Cannes was conceived in 1939, together with the U.S., as “the festival of freedom” in the face of Nazi and fascist threats. And it was reborn in 1946 amid postwar hope and the essential role of culture in rebuilding the world. These two visions are dear to us and remain relevant today.
Art and politics are closely intertwined. I admire Robert De Niro for taking risks to engage in American politics — and he’s not the only one. Bad Bunny gave a fine demonstration of this at the Super Bowl; Bruce Springsteen wrote a song after Minneapolis, just as Dylan did in the 1960s. Artists live in their time. Picasso is one of the greatest innovators of form in the history of painting, but one day he decided to get involved in the Spanish Civil War and painted “Guernica.” Without ever ceasing to be an artist. That’s democracy. But while some films are explicitly political, others are only so in an indirect way, and still others aren’t at all. All are worthy of respect.
Yes, we demand that artists have an opinion on every single subject, and when they speak out, they’re criticized on the grounds that they lack the expertise to judge current events. Social media doesn’t help matters. We should also question this artificial alliance between certain media outlets and certain influencers. Personally, I am shocked by the way the tragic situation in parts of the world is being exploited, as if filmmakers or festivals had the power to resolve it.
No. Our mission is to screen films, to allow artists to express themselves, and for the works to enrich the discourse of our time. Cannes must also ensure that all opinions are expressed with respect and tolerance. We maintain the same stance: at Cannes, politics is on the screen, in the films.
If my name is somewhat well-known, it is because of my position, and I must not exploit that. My opinions are those of the institution I represent. And I do not decide alone; I have open and necessary discussions with Cannes President Iris Knobloch and the board members. So I will refrain from giving my personal opinion, except to say that violence against civilians anywhere in the world is unacceptable. I believe everyone shares this view, even when it isn’t expressed.
The situation is becoming increasingly favorable for female directors. Fifteen years ago, when Cannes was questioned about the lack of female directors in competition, I said that the legitimate question was first and foremost about the place of women in cinema in general, that Cannes should be concerned about it but was merely a reflection of it. Since then, that place has been growing, and the 2026 festival will once again bear witness to it. But the process will be definitively complete when you stop asking me this question every year!
More than ever. But I believe we must no longer separate these two worlds, which are permeable to one another. Cinema is the art of experimentation. It’s the world of short films, the supportive learning process of debut features, theaters, and festivals. A feature film is a prototype. And filmmakers who got their start on streaming platforms, or those who make series, dream of making feature films. Cinema is everywhere. A music video, an advertisement, an online post — everyone draws inspiration from cinema.
AI is, as its name suggests, [is] artificial. There’s a lot of talk about it, but it will become normalized and integrated just like other technologies before it. In fact, films haven’t been made without the use of technology — which foreshadowed AI — for a long time now. But I stand in solidarity with screenwriters and actors who are rightly concerned about the misuse of AI.
Without revealing the selection process, we made him an offer that he didn’t accept. Venice was on the lookout, so he went there.
Yes, nothing new there. When a filmmaker protests, it’s always because his film wasn’t where he wanted it to be. It’s normal for him to be disappointed. But to go so far as to dismiss the past… Making a snide comment about the Cannes audience, which has always welcomed him warmly, was pointless and unfair. I was disappointed that it came from him. Two years ago, some newspapers published — with a certain degree of indulgence — the statements of Victor Erice, who was upset that his film wasn’t in competition. We’re used to that. But ultimately, it’s actually quite rare.
Jim has a wonderful history with Cannes. I prefer to remember the best of our shared adventures.
No, since it’s not ready. Now he has time… for next year!
That’s not contradictory. Films funded by Amazon, Apple or Mubi are released in theaters, and even Netflix films in the U.S. Everyone is fighting for the theater — including the platforms — because they know that a theatrical release is irreplaceable, with all that it entails: critics, the audience, posters in the streets, the mythology to come. The creation of legend through cinema is unique. I still believe that as long as there are filmmakers who want to make films for the big screen, cinema will remain alive.
On this issue, Cannes has only one principle: films in the competition must be released in French theaters. As for the rest, there are a thousand ways to create a wonderful festival without going through the competition. And having principles, showing firmness, means staying true to the festival’s tradition. A tradition that knows how to evolve. We ban selfies on the red carpet: this decision, which was very misunderstood at the time, is now unanimously supported.
Yes, to put theaters and audiences in the spotlight. And this boosts the opening film’s career in cinemas: In 2025, “Leave One Day,” a feature debut which was directed by a female director, enjoyed a tremendous run thanks to this.
Our choices depend on the proposals we receive. When the opportunity arises, productions are in the running. We were the ones who proposed “Leave One Day,” much to the surprise of its director. We know the Cannes crowd.
We only present series when they are created by film directors: David Lynch, Jane Campion, or recently Valeria Golino. It doesn’t seem like the opportunity will arise in 2026.
I cannot answer that. You’ll have to ask the production team, who are currently working on it.
The jury’s composition follows several rules: first, gender parity, with four women and four men to accompany the president. Next, geographical representation so that our universalist convictions are reflected there as well. Finally, it must include members from other film professions besides actors and directors. The jury will be finalized around mid-April.
He is one of the great masters of our time, and with “Old Boy” in 2004, he legitimized the presence of genre cinema in the competition. Along with Bong Joon-ho and Lee Chan-dong, he is a leading representative of South Korea, a country that is a vast landscape of cinema and modernity. We are delighted to have him with us.
We haven’t banned anything. We simply reiterated our rules, which have remained unchanged for a long time and are subject to French law. The ban on exhibitionism or nudity is nothing new; it’s in the law.
It’s March, and we’re still waiting for many films. As I told you, we’re seeing some great things.
That’s what makes the festival legendary. The excitement comes from the artists themselves. The announcement that Peter Jackson or Barbra Streisand are coming, for example, already makes you want to be on the Croisette, doesn’t it?
About half.
Like last year, we’ll be approaching 3,000 feature films. As you know, we’ll watch them all! As I speak, there are 400 in the screening room. I’m heading back!
“Cinema is going through a period of great fragility amid the crisis in theatrical exhibition, the changing behavior of new generations of audiences, the ubiquity of other screens, the merger of U.S. studios, piracy and artificial intelligence — which can be another form of piracy — and so on,” Frémaux tells Variety in a wide-ranging interview at his Paris office. And yet, with half of the competition secured and 400 more films to watch, he says optimistically, “We’ve been seeing films that make us happy … Cinema is in a state of constant creativity and renewal.”
Last year’s Cannes crop shined thanks to its non-English-language movies such as Joachim Trier’s “Sentimental Value,” which won the Oscar for international feature and earned a best picture nod alongside Wagner Moura’s “The Secret Agent,” bringing Cannes’ 2026 Oscar nomination haul to 19 (also including Jafar Panahi’s “It Was Just an Accident,” Oliver Laxe’s “Sirat” and Ugo Bienvenue’s “Arco”). But with the industry navigating unprecedented changes, the lingering question remains: Will U.S. studios skip Cannes in 2026?
Frémaux is pushing back against any notion of retreat, and says there will be American films premiering on the Croisette, even if there’s no “Top Gun” or “Mission: Impossible” in the pipeline. “When Hollywood studios believe that a presence at Cannes is beneficial to them, they come,” he says. “Quantitatively, studios are producing fewer blockbusters and fewer auteur films than in the past.”
Still, some of the most anticipated U.S. titles won’t make the cut this year. Alejandro González Iñárritu’s “Digger” starring Tom Cruise and Christopher Nolan’s “The Odyssey” are simply “not ready,” he says, while Steven Spielberg’s potential return with “Disclosure Day” will depend on “many strategic factors” such as timing. The cost of attending Cannes is another factor, but Frémaux says — or rather, pleads — that studios don’t need to overspend to make an impact. “You can also travel light … A director and two actors are enough to showcase a film,” he says.
Ultimately, Frémaux is confident he’ll put together another exciting lineup with or without studios. “A year ago, uncertainty reigned for a long time, but what followed turned out to be wonderful,” he says. “We are dependent on nothing other than the films themselves, and the world of cinema is vast.”
The Cannes lineup will be unveiled on April 9 in Paris.
Having doubts is healthy. Dreaming, being bold and being ambitious are part of our job — just like doubting. On the last day of every festival, I make a potential list for the following year. It’s always exciting, but between potentiality and reality, you have to remain patient and clear-headed. And remind yourself that it’s a fortunate thing that an unexpected film or a surprise screening can change everything at any moment. That’s the case every year!
I find that cinema is in a state of constant creativity and renewal. Since January, we’ve been seeing films that make us happy; we can feel that artists and professionals are fully committed. That’s already a lot.For its part, Cannes never compromises on a certain artistic standard. Our mission is very simple to articulate: to define what cinema is. Or rather, for our current work: to define what it will be in 2026.
Cinema is going through a period of great fragility amid the crisis in theatrical exhibition, the changing behavior of new generations of audiences, the ubiquity of other screens, the merger of U.S. studios, piracy and artificial intelligence — which can be another form of piracy — and so on.
When Hollywood studios believe that a presence at Cannes is beneficial to them, they come. Quantitatively, studios are producing fewer blockbusters and fewer auteur films than in the past. But as 2025 proved capable of delivering “Sinners,” “Eddington,” “One Battle After Another,” “Marty Supreme,” “Hamnet,” etc. and with films by James Gray, Christopher Nolan, Steven Spielberg and Alejandro González Iñárritu on the way, there’s no reason to be pessimistic.
The history of cinema is made up of cycles. In the late 1960s, as the studio system was coming to an end, we saw the emergence of Arthur Penn, Billy Friedkin, Francis Coppola and Jerry Schatzberg, followed by Marty Scorsese and Steven Spielberg. Or Clint Eastwood, faithfully produced by Warner. New generations will arrive soon; I’m convinced of it. We’ll have to let them blossom.
No, it doesn’t make us feel vulnerable. They’ve had a tremendous run in theaters around the world. But I think I can say that their presence at Cannes would have allowed them to reach an even wider audience. Ryan Coogler was discovered at Sundance and then at Un Certain Regard with his first film; I’m amazed by his career. Paul Thomas Anderson came to Cannes very early on, first at Un Certain Regard and then in competition with the fantastic “Punch-Drunk Love.” They’ll be back, I’m sure!
Hollywood films or simply American ones. “Anora” wasn’t a studio film; it won the Palme d’Or and took home the Oscar. And Sean Baker made a beautiful love declaration to movie theaters.
Where have you seen that the studios no longer come to Cannes? To analyze this properly, you have to look at a five-year period. You’ll then see that they’re all loyal, from Sony Columbia to Warner, from Paramount to Universal and Disney. Cannes continues to thrive alongside American cinema. The exchange with the studios is fruitful. We are dependent on nothing other than the films themselves, and the world of cinema is vast. The proof is that non-U.S. films from Cannes are increasingly present on the American market… and at the Oscars!
There have always been films from Cannes at the Oscars, including the first Palme d’Or, Delbert Mann’s “Marty” in 1955, but it has become stronger and more visible. The Academy is opening up more to international cinema. And international cinema is in Cannes’ DNA. So, “our” films are no longer competing solely for the best international feature film Oscar but in all categories. A run at Cannes is increasingly effective, both commercially at the box office and symbolically at the Oscars — I want to reiterate this to American producers.
Yes, even if there’s no “Top Gun” or “Mission: Impossible.” By the way, I’d like to thank Paramount again for playing along back then. It was a huge success. Just like Fox when “Moulin Rouge” opened the festival, or Warner bringing us Baz Luhrmann’s “Elvis.”
I don’t know. That will be his decision and Universal’s. A film’s release depends on many strategic factors. Sometimes Cannes fits into their strategy, and sometimes it doesn’t. I respect that.
Yes, but you can also travel light. A director and two actors are enough to showcase a film and delight the press and festival-goers. I want to say it again, even though I know full well that a big film… is a big film.
The films in our selection are rarely met with poor reception and the festival’s role is precisely to present films that invite discussion. Besides, we have good taste!
Frankly, it doesn’t anymore. I’m the first to wonder if Cannes is the right place for a particular film to have its world premiere on the Croisette. If I don’t think so, I’m not going to sacrifice a film’s life for a red carpet.
No, his film won’t be ready.
Same thing. I want to commend Chris Nolan for his commitment to his peers at the Directors Guild — I love seeing his films hit theaters. I was at the Grand Rex in Paris for the French premiere of “Oppenheimer”; it was an extraordinary night of cinema. I’m eagerly awaiting “The Odyssey.” With digital, directors work right up until the last minute; films are ready just a short time before their release. With 35 mm film, it was different: when I started out in 2001 — it’ll be 25 years this year! — you had to commit to a film in January to be sure it would be ready by May!
The film or James Gray? The film, not yet. But you know very well that if I had seen it, I wouldn’t tell you! We’ll meet on April 9; you’ll find out everything then.
No, absolutely not. Donald Trump is an elected president; the U.S. Constitution is strong, and the opposition is active. American cinema is free to operate as it sees fit. Distributors and producers like Neon and A24 are thriving; independent cinema is still very much alive, from big names to newcomers. Cannes, along with Sundance and other European festivals, offers them an international showcase. To survive, they desperately need international sales and global distribution. We are fully aware of our role: that of a showcase for cinema in general, and for American independent cinema in particular. More than ever, as the American market shrinks, these films must find a global audience. Festivals are also there to support this movement.
I’d rather not give my opinion on such a deal. I’ll simply say that the most important thing is that it brings out the best in Warner and the best in Paramount. They are two historic pillars of Hollywood.
We expressed our support for Tricia Tuttle and her teams in defending the Berlinale, which is an essential festival in our industry. We were not alone in doing so. We must not add to the tensions of the times by putting festivals at risk. Over there, Wim Wenders was the subject of excessive criticism. Let’s not forget that this is the man who said, while receiving an award at Cannes: “If we can change the images of the world, then perhaps we can change the world.” It is the most beautiful political statement one could hope for from a filmmaker.
Anything can happen! But the festival is solid; it benefits from the joint support of the Cannes City Hall and the State — support that has never wavered, even when we weathered storms, and I won’t go back as far as May ’68 when the event was halted. On its board of directors, headed by Iris Knobloch, all sectors of the film industry are represented, and their respect for the institution makes our team stronger. Welcoming the whole world to the Croisette is a source of pride for the entire country. And we also know that Cannes’ strength and prestige protects other festivals.
Let us never forget that Cannes was conceived in 1939, together with the U.S., as “the festival of freedom” in the face of Nazi and fascist threats. And it was reborn in 1946 amid postwar hope and the essential role of culture in rebuilding the world. These two visions are dear to us and remain relevant today.
Art and politics are closely intertwined. I admire Robert De Niro for taking risks to engage in American politics — and he’s not the only one. Bad Bunny gave a fine demonstration of this at the Super Bowl; Bruce Springsteen wrote a song after Minneapolis, just as Dylan did in the 1960s. Artists live in their time. Picasso is one of the greatest innovators of form in the history of painting, but one day he decided to get involved in the Spanish Civil War and painted “Guernica.” Without ever ceasing to be an artist. That’s democracy. But while some films are explicitly political, others are only so in an indirect way, and still others aren’t at all. All are worthy of respect.
Yes, we demand that artists have an opinion on every single subject, and when they speak out, they’re criticized on the grounds that they lack the expertise to judge current events. Social media doesn’t help matters. We should also question this artificial alliance between certain media outlets and certain influencers. Personally, I am shocked by the way the tragic situation in parts of the world is being exploited, as if filmmakers or festivals had the power to resolve it.
No. Our mission is to screen films, to allow artists to express themselves, and for the works to enrich the discourse of our time. Cannes must also ensure that all opinions are expressed with respect and tolerance. We maintain the same stance: at Cannes, politics is on the screen, in the films.
If my name is somewhat well-known, it is because of my position, and I must not exploit that. My opinions are those of the institution I represent. And I do not decide alone; I have open and necessary discussions with Cannes President Iris Knobloch and the board members. So I will refrain from giving my personal opinion, except to say that violence against civilians anywhere in the world is unacceptable. I believe everyone shares this view, even when it isn’t expressed.
The situation is becoming increasingly favorable for female directors. Fifteen years ago, when Cannes was questioned about the lack of female directors in competition, I said that the legitimate question was first and foremost about the place of women in cinema in general, that Cannes should be concerned about it but was merely a reflection of it. Since then, that place has been growing, and the 2026 festival will once again bear witness to it. But the process will be definitively complete when you stop asking me this question every year!
More than ever. But I believe we must no longer separate these two worlds, which are permeable to one another. Cinema is the art of experimentation. It’s the world of short films, the supportive learning process of debut features, theaters, and festivals. A feature film is a prototype. And filmmakers who got their start on streaming platforms, or those who make series, dream of making feature films. Cinema is everywhere. A music video, an advertisement, an online post — everyone draws inspiration from cinema.
AI is, as its name suggests, [is] artificial. There’s a lot of talk about it, but it will become normalized and integrated just like other technologies before it. In fact, films haven’t been made without the use of technology — which foreshadowed AI — for a long time now. But I stand in solidarity with screenwriters and actors who are rightly concerned about the misuse of AI.
Without revealing the selection process, we made him an offer that he didn’t accept. Venice was on the lookout, so he went there.
Yes, nothing new there. When a filmmaker protests, it’s always because his film wasn’t where he wanted it to be. It’s normal for him to be disappointed. But to go so far as to dismiss the past… Making a snide comment about the Cannes audience, which has always welcomed him warmly, was pointless and unfair. I was disappointed that it came from him. Two years ago, some newspapers published — with a certain degree of indulgence — the statements of Victor Erice, who was upset that his film wasn’t in competition. We’re used to that. But ultimately, it’s actually quite rare.
Jim has a wonderful history with Cannes. I prefer to remember the best of our shared adventures.
No, since it’s not ready. Now he has time… for next year!
That’s not contradictory. Films funded by Amazon, Apple or Mubi are released in theaters, and even Netflix films in the U.S. Everyone is fighting for the theater — including the platforms — because they know that a theatrical release is irreplaceable, with all that it entails: critics, the audience, posters in the streets, the mythology to come. The creation of legend through cinema is unique. I still believe that as long as there are filmmakers who want to make films for the big screen, cinema will remain alive.
On this issue, Cannes has only one principle: films in the competition must be released in French theaters. As for the rest, there are a thousand ways to create a wonderful festival without going through the competition. And having principles, showing firmness, means staying true to the festival’s tradition. A tradition that knows how to evolve. We ban selfies on the red carpet: this decision, which was very misunderstood at the time, is now unanimously supported.
Yes, to put theaters and audiences in the spotlight. And this boosts the opening film’s career in cinemas: In 2025, “Leave One Day,” a feature debut which was directed by a female director, enjoyed a tremendous run thanks to this.
Our choices depend on the proposals we receive. When the opportunity arises, productions are in the running. We were the ones who proposed “Leave One Day,” much to the surprise of its director. We know the Cannes crowd.
We only present series when they are created by film directors: David Lynch, Jane Campion, or recently Valeria Golino. It doesn’t seem like the opportunity will arise in 2026.
I cannot answer that. You’ll have to ask the production team, who are currently working on it.
The jury’s composition follows several rules: first, gender parity, with four women and four men to accompany the president. Next, geographical representation so that our universalist convictions are reflected there as well. Finally, it must include members from other film professions besides actors and directors. The jury will be finalized around mid-April.
He is one of the great masters of our time, and with “Old Boy” in 2004, he legitimized the presence of genre cinema in the competition. Along with Bong Joon-ho and Lee Chan-dong, he is a leading representative of South Korea, a country that is a vast landscape of cinema and modernity. We are delighted to have him with us.
We haven’t banned anything. We simply reiterated our rules, which have remained unchanged for a long time and are subject to French law. The ban on exhibitionism or nudity is nothing new; it’s in the law.
It’s March, and we’re still waiting for many films. As I told you, we’re seeing some great things.
That’s what makes the festival legendary. The excitement comes from the artists themselves. The announcement that Peter Jackson or Barbra Streisand are coming, for example, already makes you want to be on the Croisette, doesn’t it?
About half.
Like last year, we’ll be approaching 3,000 feature films. As you know, we’ll watch them all! As I speak, there are 400 in the screening room. I’m heading back!