The Big Question at Venice 2025: Are People Understanding the Films? | FirstShowing.net

The Big Question at Venice 2025: Are People Understanding the Films?

by Alex Billington
September 11, 2025

Have we lost the ability to actually comprehend and understand cinema? This was a question that came to mind often while spending 2 weeks covering the 2025 Venice Film Festival in Italy. I’ve been attending film festivals for the last 20 years, from Sundance to Cannes to Venice and back every single year; always watching new films, discussing & debating them, analyzing what is good or not, having conversations about cinema, and beyond. During Venice this year, there were a handful of movies that it seems many people did not quite understand. It is not a difference in opinion, or different feelings about the films. Nor is it a other interpretations, which happens often. It’s straight up misunderstanding – and it’s rather strange so many people were confused about what was being said in these films. Not every film is incredibly complex or hard to understand, many do have very obvious stories to follow (and that’s all good). But a few are being unfairly misinterpreted entirely and I think it’s time we talk about that. We’re in an era of anti-intellectualism where critical thinking is shunned – unfortunately this means some are missing the point of the films they watch.

One of the best aspects of the film festival experience is the way it brings many people together in one place resulting in greater in-person discussion among colleagues & friends. This means everyone gets into talking about and analyzing the films, especially critics. Festivals are very heated places for film critics – everyone seems to be hyper-critical, always questioning whether a film is even worthy of being at the festival to begin with. Everyone is waiting for different kinds of films: some critics want super artsy, experimental creations; others want profound slow cinema; others want something big and exciting; others just want to watch good films no matter what they are. There are always different reactions, different feelings about anything they’re showing. Not many expected Jim Jarmusch’s film Father Mother Brother Sister to win the Golden Lion top prize. It probably didn’t deserve to win it, though that is just my opinion. Obviously the jury at this year’s festival felt otherwise. The good thing is that Father Mother Brother Sister is not really a film someone can misunderstand. It’s literally about a father, a mother, and a brother & sister, commenting on family and the lies we tell and choices we make around other family members. Whether you enjoy that or not – up to you…

However, there is a difference between the idea of opinions & interpretations, and full-on misunderstanding & getting something wrong. Yes it’s possible. The four major films that some festival-goers seemed to have trouble with this year: Yorgos Lanthimos’ Bugonia, obviously because it is a Yorgos mindfuck with a bold third-act twist; Mona Fastvold’s The Testament of Ann Lee, mostly because it is presented as a story about a religion when it’s acting as commentary on much more than that specific topic; Kathryn Bigelow’s A House of Dynamite, which is absolutely not pro-America propaganda despite being set in America; and worst of all Luca Guadagnino’s After the Hunt, which almost everyone seems to be getting wrong. There’s a natural reluctance to use the word “wrong” in film analysis, as it can provoke a defensive reaction. But this hesitance has an unintended consequence: it can legitimize interpretations that are entirely detached from the film they claim to be analyzing. The scary truth is, some readings are simply inaccurate. When an interpretation ignores clear narrative evidence in favor of fabrication, it crosses a line from real analysis into something else entirely. There’s too much reaching in interpretations of cinema nowadays. We should feel confident in pointing this out, not to shut down debate, but to uphold the standards of thoughtful criticism.

Other films, like Olivier Assayas’ The Wizard of the Kremlin and Ildikó Enyedi’s Silent Friend, can be analyzed in a few different ways. Wizard is not just about Russia’s politics – it is also about mechanisms of propaganda & political manipulation in any country, with the lens focused sharply on Russia. In my humble opinion, the brilliant Silent Friend is about exploring sentience and how plants and trees communicate with humans; however it’s also a story about how people also need connection among each other and how human beings learn to build interpersonal relationships despite language barriers. Fastvold’s The Testament of Ann Lee tells the entirely true story of an 18th-century woman who invents her own religion. But the film is less concerned with the doctrines or cult-like aspects of her faith as it grows in America (showing the extreme pushback from others in America, too). Instead, it’s a much more profound commentary on how this woman fabricated a brand new worldview as a radical act of self-preservation, a means to escape the patriarchal hell of the era she was living in. This is evident in the way Amanda Seyfried’s character pretty much winks at the screen every time she defends her dogma, as if she knows it’s all nonsense but still abides by it anyway.

The “most offensive” film at Venice this year seems to be After the Hunt. However, I still claim this movie is being wildly misunderstood, and even if some people were able to pick up on the point it’s making / the message behind it, being upset at what it’s saying is also misguided. The film got scathing reviews, festival attendees left notes on the review board saying it was wrong and offensive and bad, claiming it’s backwards with regards to the #MeToo movement. Alas, if you seriously dig into the film, it’s entirely supportive of the #MeToo movement (the screenplay is written by a woman). I won’t give away or spoil it now but there are complex ideas in it. One idea which is not that complex and I figured most people would pick up – it doesn’t matter who the person is, if she’s rich or privileged or might have ulterior motives, if she was assaulted then we must believe her instead of making up excuses why her accusation should be dismissed. Yet that’s exactly what I kept hearing from many people when I asked their thoughts on the film. I kept prodding further in an attempt to figure out if they were making sense of the entire film. Few were able to explain properly. It also must be stated for the record – this movie is not an ambiguous “did he or didn’t he?” If you watch closely, there are a few scenes in the final act that literally confirm everything and explain what’s going on. Maybe some viewers don’t like this revelation so they get upset and claim that’s not the whole point? I’m not sure…

One example that confirms blatant misunderstandings is within the now infamous video making the rounds on social media from the Venice press junket for After the Hunt. An Italian journalist interviewing the three lead actors asks a completely asinine question about the Black Lives Matter and #MeToo movements being “done”. The actors, in all their wonderful grace, are taken aback by the question and thoughtfully respond by reminding her that neither of these are “done” and it’s all still ongoing. If a journalist can be this extremely wrong about these two major social issues of our time, clearly they were not able to understand this film at all (and its commentary on the #MeToo movement, etc). Of course me writing this point blank is going to ruffle some feathers. Of course someone is going to respond to this article with the cliche “there is no such thing as a wrong interpretation of a film.” “Anyone can interpret a film any way they want!” That’s the usual line. Nope – that’s bullshit. It’s a convenient cover-up and cliche way to never, ever deal with the possibility of making mistakes or misunderstanding a film or simply refusing to engage with what any movie is trying to say. As long as any viewer understands the film correctly, then they can interpret it and form their own opinion. Good or bad! If you understand what After the Hunt is saying and still don’t like it – then all good.

This wave of willful misreadings and revisionist takes on cinema isn’t happening in a vacuum. It is directly linked to greater societal decay: the resurgence of fascism, rampant illiteracy, a pervasive hostility towards critical thought, and the undeniable collapse of media literacy. Another example of all this is the way that Star Wars is being endlessly rethought nowadays – it turns out the Jedi are the bad guys and the Empire was just doing big business until these Rebel bastards blew up their Star Destroyer! How many people were on there that they just killed, huh?! Only an idiot would seriously consider this. What I find most surprising is the silence around this issue of misreading. There’s a palpable fear of pointing out when a take is factually incorrect, as if it makes you a pariah. Yes, calling out a flawed analysis can be disquieting. But I’m exhausted by a culture that allows blatant misunderstandings to go unchallenged simply because we’re afraid to state the obvious. Maybe it’s time to start. Maybe everyone at Venice needs to give After the Hunt another look…

Find more posts in: Discuss, Editorial, Venice 25