Last year, around this time, you expressed doubts about the upcoming edition, which turned out to be a success. How do you feel this year?

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!

A year ago, uncertainty reigned for a long time, but what followed turned out to be wonderful. Once the Selection is shown at Cannes, it belongs to the press, the public, and the professionals, who in turn transform it. Their reception and their analysis provide many answers to our questions.

And what does it look like for May 2026?

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.

No doubts?

Yes, because 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.

Most outlets have been reporting that studios will not have a presence at Cannes this year. Does the current state of the U.S. industry—with layoffs and consolidations—make it harder for them to attend Cannes?

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.

Does the fact that “Sinners” and “One Battle After Another” didn’t screen at a festival make Cannes feel vulnerable?

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!

You say that Cannes isn’t dependent on anyone, but at the same time, the festival benefits from the presence of Hollywood films…

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 declaration of love to movie theaters.

But can Cannes really remain the world’s biggest festival without American studios?

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!

It’s true that we’ve seen more Cannes movies nominated at the Oscars in recent years.

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.

So, will there still be American films this year?

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.”

Will Spielberg return to Cannes with “Disclosure Day”?

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.

Beyond timing, isn’t it also a question of cost?

Yes, but you can also travel light. A director and two actors are enough to showcase a film and delight the press and festivalgoers. I want to say it again, even though I know full well that a big film… is a big film.

Nothing to do with the fear of being panned by critics?

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!

When it does happen, it’s sometimes brutal.

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. If I don’t think so, I’m not going to sacrifice a film’s life for a red carpet.

Will Alejandro González Iñárritu come with his next film starring Tom Cruise?

No, his film won’t be ready.

And what about Christopher Nolan?

Same thing. Chris Nolan, whose commitment to his peers at the Directors Guild I would like to commend, likes 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!

Do you think James Gray might return to the festival with his next film? Have you had a chance to see it yet?

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.

Does Donald Trump’s policy in the United States and internationally lead you to question the place of American cinema at Cannes?

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.

Speaking of the market shrinking, what did you think of the Warner acquisition?

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.

In Berlin, the geopolitical situation sparked much debate and an intervention by the German government that nearly cost Tricia Tuttle her job. What did you think of this crisis?

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. In Berlin, 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.

Could such a situation happen in Cannes?

Anything can happen! But the Festival is solid; it benefits from the joint support of 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 protect 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.

Major festivals are often marked by artists making political statements. How do you handle that at Cannes

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.

But now actors and filmmakers are also put on the spot at press conferences. Some may be inclined to skip them in the future.

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. 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.

And given the current international tensions, are you worried that this year’s Cannes Film Festival will be particularly turbulent?

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.

You’re answering cautiously…

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.

Do you consider that festivals are more important than ever today?

Absolutely. Festivals are essential as artistic, commercial, and media events. In music, dominated by streaming and new consumption patterns, artists are returning to the stage. Festivals are the stage of cinema. Watching a great film on the big screen is our way of experiencing entertainment. Festivals create gatherings. There are countless ones around the world. They inhabit cities; they bring people together. Elected officials and governments support them; private partners rush to join in. For two weeks, Cannes becomes the center of the global film industry, just as Berlin, Venice, San Sebastian, Toronto, Busan, Tokyo, Red Sea, Sundance, and others do in turn. We are all in the same business.

What role do you give to emerging talent in your selection?

A prominent place. Cannes has always had two fundamental missions: to celebrate great auteurs and to make discoveries. Films like “The Substance” by Coralie Fargeat or last year’s “Sound of Falling” by Masha Schilinski were unexpected, and their selection put their directors’ names on the map of world cinema. We are constantly on that path.

There are also directors like Kleber Mendonça Filho and Joachim Trier, who were once discoveries and have become classics…

And are now practically veterans! They arrived with their debut films and have reached maturity. We should also commend the festivals that welcome young newcomers and do the initial work of discovery, sometimes even before we do.

We continue to explore global cinema with dedication, humility, and enthusiasm. If a film is in the Official Selection, it’s because it has something distinctive. We can justify any of our choices. I believe we can be proud of those from recent years.

So the challenge is really to maintain this balance between established filmmakers, confirmed talents, and new discoveries?

Yes, always. Otherwise, the panorama would be incomplete. In the past, people used to say, “It’s always the same people.” We don’t hear that anymore. Everyone understands that we are loyal to our filmmakers just as major literary publishers are to theirs. The Festival has always been a welcoming home for great directors, ever since Bergman and Fellini. The Cannes pantheon is wonderful. Cannes is a home they built with their own hands, with their films. The Festival will always welcome them, one way or another.

You always have a few French movies in competition. Since Hamaguchi or Farhadi’s latest films shot in France, will they be considered French films?

We prioritize the artist’s nationality. If a great writer leaves his country to write a novel elsewhere, it’s still his own work. Even if he shoots in France, Hamaguchi remains a Japanese filmmaker, just as Asghar Farhadi remains an Iranian filmmaker. They have their own methods, their own style, their own voice. Their own culture.

In recent years, you’ve often included a debut film in the competition. Will that still be the case this year?

We’ll do so if the opportunity arises.

The presence of female directors in the competition has increased over the past ten years. How do you see this in 2026?

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!

Can Cannes still discover the great filmmakers of the future in the age of streaming platforms?

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.

Are you worried about AI?

AI is, as its name suggests, 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.

You said that Cannes was loyal to its filmmakers. But last year, Jim Jarmusch presented his film in Venice. What happened?

Without revealing the selection process, we made him an offer that he didn’t accept. Venice was on the lookout, so he went there.

But after his Golden Lion, he took a few jabs at you…

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 deep down, it’s actually quite rare.

Do you regret not selecting him?

He has a wonderful history with Cannes. I prefer to remember the best of our shared adventures.

We’ve heard that Ruben Östlund’s next film won’t be ready. Have you seen a cut?

No, since it’s not ready. Now he has time… for next year!

You defend the movie theater, but a significant portion of major auteur films today are funded by streaming platforms.

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.

Can Cannes remain true to its principles without evolving on this issue?

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.

The Festival has a rule that the opening film must be released in theaters in France on the same day.

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 directed by a female director, enjoyed a tremendous run thanks to this.

This rule inevitably limits your choices, especially when it comes to big movies.

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.

Will there be a series presented at Cannes this year?

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.

The next season of “The White Lotus” will be filmed on the French Riviera, with a plot centered around the Cannes Film Festival. What discussions have you had with Mike White and HBO regarding this?

I cannot answer that. You’ll have to ask the production team, who are currently working on it.

This year’s jury will be chaired by Park Chan-wook. Can you give us any hints about the jury’s composition?

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.

A word about Park Chan-wook?

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.

Last year, you banned “naked dresses” on the red carpet. Why did you make that decision? Are you considering other changes to the festival rules?

We haven’t banned anything. We simply reiterated our rules, which have remained unchanged for a long time and are subject to French law.

What is the status of the selection today?

It’s March, and we’re still waiting for many films. As I told you, we’re seeing some great things.

You like to build excitement…

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?

At this point, how many films have you already selected for the Competition?

About two-thirds.

And out of all the feature films received, how many do you still have left to watch?

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!