Here’s a bold statement: Art and politics are inseparable, yet some insist they should never mix. But when a prestigious film festival’s chief jurist declares that filmmakers must ‘stay out of politics,’ it sparks a fiery debate—and one renowned author isn’t staying silent. Arundhati Roy, the acclaimed Indian writer, has dramatically withdrawn from the Berlin International Film Festival (Berlinale) in response to these comments, leaving many to wonder: Can art truly exist in a political vacuum? And this is the part most people miss—her decision isn’t just about words; it’s about the power of art to confront injustice head-on.
The controversy began on Thursday when the festival’s jury, led by German filmmaker Wim Wenders, faced questions about the conflict in Gaza. Wenders, while acknowledging that ‘movies can change the world,’ drew a sharp line, stating they should not do so ‘in a political way.’ He went on to argue that filmmakers are ‘the counterweight of politics,’ implying that overtly political art undermines their role. But here’s where it gets controversial—Roy calls this stance ‘unconscionable,’ accusing it of silencing conversations about crimes against humanity, particularly the ongoing crisis in Gaza.
In her withdrawal statement, Roy, who was set to attend a screening of her restored 1989 film In Which Annie Gives It Those Ones, didn’t hold back. The Booker Prize winner described the notion that art should avoid politics as ‘jaw-dropping.’ She emphasized that artists, writers, and filmmakers have a moral duty to address atrocities like the genocide in Gaza, which she believes is being supported by governments, including Germany’s. ‘If the greatest filmmakers and artists of our time cannot stand up and say so,’ she warned, ‘history will judge them.’
But Wenders isn’t alone in his views. Jury member Ewa Puszczyńska, producer of the Oscar-winning film The Zone of Interest, called the question of Germany’s support for Israel ‘complicated’ and ‘a bit unfair.’ She argued that while art can provoke thought, creators cannot control how audiences interpret it. ‘There are many other wars where genocide is committed,’ she noted, ‘and we do not talk about that.’
This clash of perspectives raises a thought-provoking question: Is political art a responsibility or an overstep? Roy’s stance is clear—art must challenge power, especially when lives are at stake. Yet, others argue that art’s role is to inspire, not to take sides. And this is where you come in—what do you think? Should artists and filmmakers actively engage with politics, or is there merit in keeping art apolitical? Let’s spark a conversation in the comments.
As for Roy, her decision to withdraw isn’t just a protest; it’s a statement about the role of art in society. Reflecting on her film, she described it as ‘whimsical’ and ‘sweet,’ a stark contrast to the gravity of her message. But perhaps that’s the point—art, in all its forms, has the power to both delight and disrupt. The question is, are we willing to let it?
