In an era of rising political tensions, the film industry is under fire. At this year’s Zurich Summit, creators and executives sounded the alarm about how partisan divides and assaults on free speech are reshaping cinema’s future. Artists now face relentless pressure from governments, media, and online movements, threatening to erode the very essence of storytelling.
Nathanaël Karmitz, head of French distributor mk2, which showcases films like Kleber Mendonça Filho’s The Secret Agent and Jafar Panahi’s A Simple Accident, warned that the link between politics and cinema is more fragile than ever. ‘Culture is under siege everywhere,’ he said, pointing to far-right Twitter accounts that systematically attack films and French cinema. ‘We have less press coverage, but the loudest voices on social media are the ones pushing back against movies. Is this a problem? Absolutely.’
Karmitz argued that filmmakers must take a stand, even if it means facing backlash. He cited recent efforts by French right-wingers to dismantle the CNC—a public film funding body—and privatize public TV. ‘This is a precarious ecosystem,’ he said. ‘These are the first steps toward illiberal systems. But I’m optimistic. People and artists will fight back.’
Kathleen Fournier, producer of Julian Assange’s The 6 Billion Dollar Man, noted that political filmmaking is struggling in the streaming age. ‘Many nuanced documentaries haven’t moved to platforms like Netflix,’ she explained. ‘What’s out there tends to be historical, true crime, or deeply personal stories.’ This shift leaves politically charged projects like The 6 Billion Dollar Man and The Voice of Hind Rajab without U.S. distribution. Yet Fournier believes new opportunities are emerging outside traditional studios. ‘There are agile, smaller distributors who are embracing this space,’ she said. ‘Conglomerates can dominate the media landscape, but humans crave stories—there will always be those who create alternative platforms.’
The production of The 6 Billion Dollar Man, which examines the U.S. government’s prosecution of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, was itself shaped by political pressure. Initially unafraid to include controversial material—like former President Trump’s past attacks on Assange—filmmakers debated self-censorship as political winds shifted toward a potential second Trump administration. ‘We decided to tell the story as we intended,’ Fournier said. ‘With facts, nuance, and complexity that audiences could handle.’
But risks extend beyond funding. Fournier’s team relocated the production to Berlin to avoid legal exposure in the U.K. and U.S., where journalists lack protections. ‘Germany isn’t immune to ideology,’ she noted, referencing the Gaza war’s impact on the project. ‘Even civic-minded nations can be swayed by political forces.’
This fragility underscores a broader uncertainty: Can political films still thrive in a polarized world? While some see hope in alternative platforms, others argue that audiences themselves are the ultimate safeguard. Artist International CEO David Unger pointed to the global success of Korean series on Netflix, saying, ‘Audiences will find good stories, regardless of where they come from.’
Yet film data expert Stephen Follows urged caution. ‘The 1970s had richer storytelling than the 1980s, and the 1990s saw a decline in complexity,’ he said. ‘The industry is risk-averse and cowardly. It needs agitators—because if we don’t act, it’ll make terrible choices.’
What do you think? Are we witnessing a new era for political cinema, or is this just a temporary setback? Share your views in the comments below.
