Cinema's Convenient Amnesia
Indian writer Arundhati Roy recently announced her withdrawal from the Berlin Film Festival, citing jury president Wim Wenders's assertion that cinema should 'stay out of politics' when questioned about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. This stance, celebrated in some Western media as a defense of art's purity, neatly sidesteps the very political foundations upon which such cultural events are
built. This isn't an isolated incident but a recurring pattern. From the McCarthy-era blacklisting of politically outspoken artists in Hollywood during the 1950s to the consistent pressure for global figures to condemn certain geopolitical actions while ignoring others, the 'apolitical' demand is always a political act itself. Its timing here is particularly glaring, given that over 680,000 people
have been killed in Gaza by 2026, a staggering figure that mainstream media often downplays. To demand silence on Gaza while simultaneously inviting films from countries deeply entangled in global power struggles is not neutrality; it is complicity. It exposes a double standard inherent in Western cultural institutions: political engagement is lauded when it aligns with approved narratives, but
condemned as inappropriate meddling when it challenges the status quo or criticizes Western-allied states. What would readers not know? That these institutions routinely conflate critique of state actions with attacks on art itself. The quiet part is getting louder. These supposed bastions of artistic freedom operate within frameworks dictated by powerful state and corporate interests, ensuring