The closing ceremony of the 36th edition of the Carthage Film Festival (JCC) did more than surprise audiences with its unusual format: it publicly and abruptly revealed a confiscation of speech at the very heart of a festival historically founded on expression and debate.
A Closing Ceremony Marked by Unease
During the closing ceremony of the 36th edition of the Carthage Film Festival, a sense of emptiness and strangeness immediately set in, both for spectators present in the theater and for those following the event from afar. The venue appeared sparsely filled and, more strikingly, several juries — at least two — were absent, not only from the stage but from the auditorium itself. The most visible absence was that of the Fiction Feature Films Competition jury, which normally stands at the very core of any closing ceremony.
The format of the ceremony itself only deepened the discomfort. Awards were announced quickly, without the reading of jury motivations and without any form of speech. The winners, called on stage, were not given microphones to thank or address the audience. This total absence of speech came as a shock. The contrast between the symbolic importance of a closing ceremony and the stark poverty of its staging was immediately perceived as problematic.
Immediate Questions and Public Reactions
That very evening and throughout the following day, questions multiplied. What had happened? Why were the juries absent? Why did the ceremony seem deprived of any form of speech, when the JCC has always claimed to be a space for expression and debate? These questions, initially whispered backstage and on social media, quickly took on a public dimension.
It was in this context that filmmaker Brahim Letaief’s open letter to the President of the Republic emerged. A member of the First Feature Jury – Tahar Chériaa Prize, he voiced the protest from within the festival’s own artistic bodies. With this gesture, the debate moved beyond organizational issues to enter an institutional and symbolic arena. Shortly afterward, the statement issued by the Fiction Feature Films Competition jury provided a precise and detailed explanation for its absence, confirming that it stemmed from a fundamental disagreement over the role of the jury and the suppression of its voice during the ceremony.
The successive publication of these two texts sparked widespread indignation. Filmmakers, industry professionals, and ordinary citizens alike expressed their incomprehension and anger at what was now perceived not as an isolated incident, but as an attack on the very principles upon which the festival was built.
A Professional Standpoint: Dorra Bouchoucha and the ARFT
In this climate, producer Dorra Bouchoucha felt compelled to publish her own statement, in both French and English. She stated that had the decision to deprive juries and award recipients of speech been known in advance, she would neither have attended the closing ceremony nor stood on stage to present or receive an award by proxy. She also specified that it was solely the live broadcast on national television that led her to remain and step on stage.
Above all, she stressed a fundamental point: she does not endorse what occurred and refuses to be associated with a process she considers contrary to her principles and to the very foundations of the JCC, which for nearly sixty years have been built as a space for free expression. By reminding readers that depriving the festival of this dimension amounts to altering its very essence, she echoed — from another angle — the concerns expressed by both the jury and Brahim Letaief.
In the same movement, the Tunisian Film Directors Association (ARFT) published a statement on December 22, 2025, asserting that the crisis experienced during this 36th edition could not be reduced to an isolated incident. The association pointed to structural dysfunctions and emphasized the need to safeguard the jury’s independence and maintain a clear separation between artistic decision-making and administrative intervention.
Through these successive statements, what emerges is not a simple, momentary disagreement over a ceremony, but a profound concern regarding the place afforded to artistic speech, the independence of juries, and the transparency of decision-making processes.
A Crisis of Trust with Lasting Consequences
In the medium term, the consequences of what occurred during this closing ceremony are likely to be both structural and symbolic. In the functioning of an international festival, fragilities do not arise solely from financial difficulties or organizational shortcomings, but above all when the bond of trust linking juries, filmmakers, producers, partners, and audiences begins to fracture. What unfolded in Carthage struck precisely at this bond, at its most sensitive point: the legitimacy of artistic speech.
Founded in 1966, the Carthage Film Festival is the oldest film festival in the Arab world and in Africa. From its inception, it was conceived as a militant festival, deeply political in the noblest sense of the term, designed as a space of visibility, debate, and freedom of expression for the cinemas of Africa, the Arab world, and the Global South. This history is not merely a backdrop; it defines the festival’s identity and shapes how its decisions are perceived, both in Tunisia and internationally.
The Risk of a Symbolic Downgrading of the Jury’s Role
One of the most serious consequences of this episode concerns the very place of the jury within the JCC. Even today, serving on a jury remains an honor and a strong symbolic commitment, involving significant personal investment and publicly assumed artistic responsibility.
Yet this 36th edition introduced a major doubt: that of the effective recognition of the jury’s role. When jurors publicly explain that their speech was prevented, that their motivations were not read, and that their presence on stage was rendered impossible, this is not merely a fleeting discomfort — it is a signal sent to all professionals who may be invited in the future.
In the medium term, this signal may have a deterrent effect. Renowned filmmakers might hesitate to accept jury invitations or impose stricter conditions regarding the respect of their role and voice. This risk is all the more concerning given that the JCC, unlike some regional festivals, lacks the ability to regularly attract major international figures, as the Cairo International Film Festival has done with Naomi Kawase or Nuri Bilge Ceylan. Should the symbolic prestige of the jury role erode, the entire institutional architecture of the festival would be weakened.
The Readability of Awards and the Question of Artistic Legitimacy
A second consequence concerns the readability and symbolic value of the awards themselves. Historically, the JCC has built its reputation on the clarity of its artistic choices and the legitimacy of its palmarès. When the award process becomes opaque or appears disconnected from those who made the decisions, that legitimacy is undermined.
The question raised by Brahim Letaief regarding the Tanit d’Honneur awarded to the film The Voice of Hind Rajab is central in this respect. If this question arose publicly, it was precisely because the jury was deprived of speech and unable to explain its motivations during the closing ceremony. Contacted by phone, the president of the Fiction Feature Films Competition jury, Najwa Najjar, confirmed that the Tanit d’Honneur was indeed awarded by the jury. Nevertheless, the very fact that this question could emerge publicly reveals a crisis in the readability of the decision-making process and challenges a critical red line: the separation between artistic decision-making and administrative authority.
The Erasure of Artistic Debate and the Injustice Done to Films
Another major consequence of this closing ceremony was the near-total erasure of artistic debate. In the aftermath of a festival, discussions should normally focus on the films, the jury’s choices, and critical disagreements. Instead, attention shifted almost exclusively to the ceremony itself and the controversies it generated.
This situation is unfair to the professionals whose role is to extend the life of films through analysis, but above all to the award recipients, who were deprived both of speech on stage and of the media attention that a JCC prize is meant to provide. Films have only a limited window to exist in the public sphere. By allowing the closing ceremony to overshadow the works entirely, the festival ended up speaking about itself rather than about cinema.
Festival Memory and the Fear of a Precedent
Beyond immediate effects, this episode is likely to become embedded in the collective memory of the Carthage Film Festival. As an institution, the JCC rests as much on its archives as on a professional memory shaped by crises, ruptures, and defining moments that durably structure the relationship between jurors, filmmakers, and the festival.
This 36th edition risks being remembered less for its films than as a moment of rupture. More troubling still, it introduces the fear of a precedent: if jury speech could be silenced once, there is no guarantee it will not happen again. In cultural institutions, such precedents are particularly corrosive, fostering doubt, mistrust, and lasting changes in behavior.
Once damaged, institutional trust cannot be repaired through technical or communication adjustments. It leaves durable traces and shapes perceptions of subsequent editions. This silent but persistent memory constitutes one of the most serious risks facing the JCC.
An International Reading and Tunisia’s Cultural Image at Stake
This episode immediately prompted an international reading that went far beyond the scope of a poorly managed closing ceremony. The multilingual circulation of the jury’s statement, Brahim Letaief’s open letter, and Dorra Bouchoucha’s public stance placed the event within a global discursive space.
In international cultural circles, festivals are seen as barometers of the relationship between culture, power, and freedom of expression. Carthage holds a singular place in the imagination of the Arab, African, and Global South cinematic worlds. When international jurors state that their speech was prevented, and Tunisian professionals feel compelled to speak publicly in defense of fundamental principles, the signal extends well beyond cinema.
This international reading directly affects Tunisia’s cultural image. The JCC has long embodied a cultural showcase rooted in debate, engagement, and freedom of expression. This symbolic capital, built over decades, is now fragile.
It is not a matter of asserting that this image is definitively compromised, but rather that it has entered a zone of uncertainty. In international cultural fields, uncertainty is often more damaging than a clearly stated position. Silence, lack of clarification, or diluted responsibility allow lasting interpretations to take hold. When freedom of speech appears capable of being suspended, even temporarily, the entire national cultural narrative is affected.
A Call for Clarification
What occurred during the closing ceremony of the 36th edition of the JCC cannot be erased or reduced to a simple organizational malfunction. Because it was public and widely disseminated, this episode calls for clarification commensurate with the festival’s history.
Born as a militant festival, deeply political in the noblest sense, the Carthage Film Festival was conceived as a space of resistance, debate, and freedom of expression for the cinemas of Africa, the Arab world, and the Global South. This dimension is its very DNA. Depriving it of that, even momentarily, alters its fundamental nature.
The question raised by this 36th edition therefore goes far beyond a closing ceremony. It challenges the very future of the JCC: will it remain faithful to what it has always been — a space of freedom and speech — or will it allow this essence to be gradually weakened?
Neïla Driss
