As the official selections for the Festival de Cannes approach, we observed a published article by an author presenting himself in his professional capacity within Morocco’s film production sector, posing a seemingly simple question: will Moroccan cinema be present at this global event, or will it remain on the sidelines?
The question itself is legitimate. Acknowledging the gap between ambition and international positioning is a necessary step for any serious debate. Emphasizing that access to major festivals is not accidental, but results from a long process of writing, directing, producing, and distributing, is a fundamentally sound diagnosis.
However, a careful reading reveals that the text does more than pose a question: it also redraws the criteria for the answer. The author places an almost singular criterion of success: entry into the official competition. Implicitly, this diminishes the value of other paths—film markets, parallel sections, co-productions—as if these presences were “without decisive impact.” This is not merely a technical remark, but a reordering of legitimacy within the cinematic field.
The deeper issue lies in the angle adopted. The text focuses on the final result—presence or absence—without sufficiently addressing the “decision chain” that produces this result. It speaks of “us” generally, but does not specify: who is this “us”? Where does responsibility begin and end?
In the film industry, results are not created at the screening moment, but in prior stages: project selection, artistic direction, production design, and building international promotion paths. At the core of this chain, there is a key professional role that determines the ceiling and horizon of a project from the start. Here, the critical question arises: can we limit ourselves to diagnosing the result without examining the roles that produce it?
The text goes far in critiquing “formal presence,” mentioning the logic of “support instead of market” and “achievement instead of positioning.” However, it stops short of a full analysis: it does not explain how projects are built, selected, or directed toward an international horizon. Thus, the critique remains selective in its perspective.
The timing of publication is also significant. Published before the announcement of selections, the text influences professional sentiment. In case of absence, the diagnosis becomes a pre-justification; in case of presence, it appears as an exception confirming the rule. The text therefore assumes a dual function: framing the debate in advance, while maintaining distance from the centers of decision.
This does not negate the importance of the questions raised but underscores the need to broaden them. Instead of limiting the question to “Why are we not chosen?”, a complementary question must be asked: How do we produce from the start what can be chosen? Who decides this? International positioning is built at the beginning, in what can be called the “professional kitchen” where the nature and limits of a project are determined.
Moroccan cinema does not lack talent, but it suffers from blurred responsibility allocation when it comes to results. Effective critique must cover all stages of the chain without exception, not illuminate only a part.
In the end, this is not about condemning or defending the discourse, but about redirecting the debate to its real depth: who asks the question… and who holds the keys to the answer?
?
