Meet the Cannes Jury: What they revealed about the festival to come?
Wednesday, May 13, 2026 at 7:35AM by Elisa Giudici
Park Chan Wook and Chloe Zhao © Elisa Giudici
What kind of festival the 79th Annual Cannes Film Festival will be is something the films in Competition and the side sections will ultimately determine. But there’s little doubt that the final perception of Cannes - and the line between winners and losers - will also be shaped by the jury presided over by Park Chan-wook, who today faced the traditional opening press conference.
What became immediately clear is how prepared every juror was to answer politically charged or potentially controversial questions. After the turbulence of Berlin earlier this year, publicists and agents clearly did their homework: politics, Gaza, artificial intelligence and representation were all addressed with awareness and, in most cases, notable intelligence. It also helped that Paul Laverty quickly positioned himself as the most openly political voice on the panel, absorbing much of the pressure around the more sensitive topics...
So what kind of Palme d’Or might emerge from this jury? The quotes below offer a useful glimpse into the cinematic and political sensibilities of Park Chan-wook and his fellow jurors — sensibilities that will inevitably shape the final palmarès.
Park Chan-wook on giving something back to Cannes
When I first heard the news and told my wife, my first thought was actually that maybe I shouldn’t do it. I’ve been a juror here before, so I know how stressful being president of the jury can be. I spent about five minutes seriously thinking about whether I was ready for the responsibility. But then I reflected on my history with Cannes — screening my films here, receiving awards here — and I realised it was time to give something back to the festival.
When I was a juror in 2017, under Pedro Almodóvar’s presidency, I made wonderful memories. At the time I accepted this role, the rest of the jury hadn’t yet been selected, but I trusted Cannes would bring together incredible artists and collaborators. And once the lineup was revealed, I realised my trust was well placed. I’m certain we’ll have wonderful conversations throughout the festival.
Park Chan-wook on art and politics
I don’t think politics and art should be divided. It’s a strange concept to imagine them as being in conflict with one another. Just because a work of art contains a political statement doesn’t make it the enemy of art. At the same time, just because a film isn’t explicitly political doesn’t mean it should be dismissed. Of course, if a political message isn’t expressed artistically enough, then it simply becomes propaganda. So I don’t see art and politics as opposing concepts. As long as something is expressed artistically, it has value.
The Jury Meets the Press © Elisa Giudici
Paul Laverty on the myth of “apolitical” cinema
I belong to a generation that, believe it or not, still studied Greek. I don’t remember much of it now, but if you go back to the root of the word “politics,” to polis, it simply refers to the affairs of the city, how human beings live together. Not politics in the party-political sense, but in the deepest possible sense: how we treat one another. It seems to me that every story, whatever form it takes, contains questions of power, values and human relationships. It’s implicit in everything, like the air we breathe.
I’ve often found that people who claim to be “non-political” are actually among the most political — they just don’t realise it. Politics, power and values are present in every screenplay and every story, from comedy to tragedy. At the heart of it all there’s often the same question: “Am I my brother’s keeper?” The real issue is whether something is done well artistically or not. But politics is inseparable from storytelling.
Diego Céspedes on class and access to filmmaking
This festival means a lot to me. Cannes was actually the first city outside Chile that I ever really knew, because my short films screened here. I genuinely feel embraced by this festival, and I’m very grateful for that. And of course being here changes your life. I come from a small suburb of Santiago, and now I’m sitting alongside these incredible artists.
I’m also very political, and I believe we need to take political positions. I really hope cinema becomes more diverse, and that making films isn’t something only rich people get to do. I think I represent that possibility, and I hope we continue pushing in that direction. And yes, I feel I’m representing not only Chile but Latin America as a whole, and everyone who comes from backgrounds similar to mine.
Demi Moore on AI and human artistry
My instinct is that resistance alone won’t work, because AI is already here. Fighting against it completely feels like fighting a battle we probably can’t win. So I think the more valuable path is finding ways to work alongside it. As for whether we’re doing enough to protect ourselves creatively — honestly, I don’t know. Probably not. But at the same time, there’s ultimately nothing to fear in terms of true artistry, because AI can never replace where real art actually comes from. Real art comes from the soul, from spirit, from lived human experience. That’s something technology can imitate technically, but never truly recreate.
Demi Moore on women in Hollywood and the impact of The Substance
I think significant change has happened. But I don’t know if that means we’ve fully arrived yet. I still think it’s a work in progress. The response to The Substance was completely unexpected, especially the way it began here at Cannes. The reception the film received really opened something up for me in a profound way. It was honestly life-changing. So yes, the spring in my step is pretty buoyant right now.
Stellan Skarsgård’s dry response about career momentum
Well, the spring in my step is a bit limited at the moment. I had a stroke recently, and just climbing all these staircases here is difficult enough.
Park Chan-wook on the decentralisation of world cinema
The first time I came to Cannes was in 2004, and at the time Korean films only appeared occasionally at the festival. In just twenty years, a great deal has changed. Korean cinema is no longer at the margins of the global film industry. But I don’t think this happened only because Korean films became stronger. I think the centre of world cinema itself has expanded and become more willing to embrace films from different countries and cultures. That openness is why we now have several Korean films in Cannes this year that I personally have very high expectations for.
And of course I’m very happy about all of this. It’s also part of the reason I’m now able to be here as jury president. That said, I promise I will not be biased toward Korean films. I will judge everything very seriously.
Reader Comments (5)
I’m kind of rolling my eyes at Demi Moore’s prestige era.
By her telling, she was underestimated for decades—not pocketing tens of millions of dollars at a time to act badly in bad movies, never using that star power to develop herself as an artist. She has plenty of houses to show for it.
She’s a victim of Hollywood’s youth and beauty obsession (thinness, cosmetic surgery, social media narcissism) — not the ultimate poster girl for it, by her own choices.
She seems like a nice lady and I’m glad she got a good role. I just think it’s a weird case of trying to have it every which way.
I'm rolling my eyes at her lazy response to AI.
I'm living for her dress choices and it's a shame we have to tear a lady down,why do none of the guys this sort of take down.
I do agree with the developing herself bit but the roles dried up for her in 98.
I agree, Mr Ripley.
Is there any actress of Moore's generation who had the impact as a producer as Reese Witherspoon, Nicole Kidman, or Emma Stone? I don't recall those opportunities being available to women in the 1990s. Moore did try, sometimes successfully (Now and Then), sometimes unsuccessfully (GI Jane, Mortal Thoughts, both of which would have looked good on paper).
See, this is the insanity of the conversation — the idea that it simply wasn't possible for Demi Moore to have a more esteemed career in the 90s. It was the second golden age of independent cinema when her name and box office power could have greenlit any number of great projects (producer or not). Julianne Moore didn't exit the 90s with $100 million in the bank but she did have a CV of incredible work in movies that might not have gotten made without her.
It would be silly to list her contemporaries who managed it, and furthermore managed to give good performances in the big-budget movies they appeared in. She didn't, she's often distractingly bad — as recently as on Landman and Capote vs. The Swans.