What If The Venice Film Festival Never Happened?

The Actual History

The Venice Film Festival (La Mostra Internazionale d'Arte Cinematografica della Biennale di Venezia) stands as the world's oldest film festival, first established in 1932. The festival emerged as part of the Venice Biennale, a prestigious cultural institution founded in 1895 that had previously focused on art exhibitions. Count Giuseppe Volpi di Misurata, then president of the Venice Biennale, spearheaded the creation of the film festival alongside Antonio Maraini and Luciano De Feo.

The inaugural festival opened on August 6, 1932, on the terrace of the Hotel Excelsior on the Venice Lido. Unlike modern film festivals with competitive categories, this first edition was conceptualized more as a gala or exhibition rather than a competition. The opening film was "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" by Rouben Mamoulian, and the festival showcased 25 feature films from nine countries.

The historical context of the festival's founding is significant—it emerged during Benito Mussolini's Fascist regime in Italy. Mussolini recognized cinema's potential as a propaganda tool and gave his blessing to the festival, seeing it as an opportunity to enhance Italy's cultural prestige and spread Fascist ideals. During the 1930s, the festival indeed became increasingly influenced by fascist and Nazi politics, particularly after the creation of the Venice Film Festival's main prize, the Coppa Mussolini (Mussolini Cup), in 1934.

After World War II, the festival underwent significant transformation. In 1949, under new leadership, the festival's highest prize became the Golden Lion (Leone d'Oro), named after the winged lion that symbolizes Venice. This marked a deliberate break from its fascist past and an attempt to restore artistic integrity.

Throughout its history, the Venice Film Festival has maintained its reputation as one of the "Big Three" film festivals alongside Cannes and Berlin. It has premiered countless influential films and launched or elevated the careers of many renowned directors. Films that received recognition at Venice often gained international attention and distribution, establishing the festival as a crucial platform for art cinema.

The festival has frequently been the site of controversy and political statements. Notable examples include the 1968 edition, which was disrupted by protests in solidarity with the student movements across Europe, and various instances where politically charged films sparked debate or diplomatic tensions.

In modern times, the Venice Film Festival continues to be held annually on the Venice Lido, typically in late August or early September. It features various competitive sections, with the main competition vying for the Golden Lion. The festival maintains its historical significance while adapting to changes in the film industry, including the rise of streaming platforms and digital cinema. It remains a pivotal event for premiering prestigious films that often go on to feature prominently in the awards season, including the Academy Awards.

Today, the Venice Film Festival represents not just a celebration of cinema but a living connection to the evolution of film as an art form through the tumultuous history of the 20th and 21st centuries. Its continued prestige underscores the cultural importance of film festivals in identifying, promoting, and preserving significant works of cinema.

The Point of Divergence

What if the Venice Film Festival had never been established in 1932? In this alternate timeline, we explore a scenario where the world's oldest film festival—the institution that would establish the very template for international film festivals—never came into existence.

The divergence might have occurred through several plausible mechanisms:

First, Count Giuseppe Volpi di Misurata might have failed to convince the Venice Biennale leadership to expand into cinema. The Biennale, established in 1895 as a prestigious fine arts exhibition, could have maintained its traditional focus on painting and sculpture, with key figures arguing that film—still a relatively young medium in the 1930s—lacked the artistic pedigree to warrant inclusion in such a venerable cultural institution. Without Volpi's successful advocacy, the concept of a dedicated film festival within the Biennale structure might have been indefinitely postponed or abandoned.

Alternatively, Mussolini's fascist regime might have withheld approval for the festival. Though historically Mussolini supported the festival for its propaganda potential, in this alternate timeline, his government might have been concerned about the international nature of cinema and the difficulty of controlling foreign films' content and messaging. Perhaps a more hardline faction within the fascist leadership feared that showcasing international cinema would introduce unwanted foreign influences to the Italian public, leading to the proposal's rejection.

A third possibility involves financial constraints. The early 1930s were marked by the Great Depression, whose effects reverberated globally. The Italian economy was not immune to these pressures. In this timeline, the economic calculations simply didn't add up—the Venice Biennale board might have determined that expanding into a new, untested festival format during economic hardship represented an unsustainable financial risk.

Whatever the specific mechanism, the result is the same: the cultural institution that would establish the very concept of the international film festival never materializes on the terrace of the Hotel Excelsior in August 1932. The ripple effects of this absence would fundamentally alter the development of cinema as both an art form and a global industry throughout the 20th century and beyond.

Immediate Aftermath

The Missing Launch Pad for European Cinema

The immediate consequence of Venice's absence would be felt most acutely in European cinema of the 1930s. Historically, the Venice Film Festival provided crucial international exposure for films like Jean Renoir's "La Grande Illusion" (1937), which despite emerging from a period of rising nationalism, presented a humanistic perspective that transcended national boundaries. Without Venice, such films would have lacked their primary international platform.

Italian filmmakers would have been particularly affected. The festival had offered native directors the opportunity to showcase their work alongside international productions, facilitating artistic cross-pollination. In this alternate timeline, Italian cinema would have remained more isolated during the 1930s, with fewer opportunities for Italian directors to gain international recognition or to be influenced by global cinematic trends.

The absence of Venice would have created a void in the European cultural calendar. Film premieres would have been scattered across various movie theaters and small-scale events, lacking the concentrated attention and prestige that came with a dedicated festival. The concept of bringing together international critics, distributors, and filmmakers in one location to celebrate and evaluate new cinema would have remained unrealized during this critical period of film history.

Altered Propaganda Landscape

The fascist regime, having lost the propaganda opportunity that Venice historically provided, would likely have redirected its efforts toward more controlled cinematic ventures. We might have seen an intensification of direct state production of propaganda films rather than the more subtle approach of influencing international perceptions through festival curation.

Without Venice establishing the prototype of the politically influenced film festival, the relationship between politics and cinema would have developed along different lines. The fascist government might have focused more on controlling domestic film production and distribution rather than creating international cultural showcases.

Different Models of Film Exhibition

In the absence of Venice's festival model, alternative approaches to showcasing cinema would have emerged. Commercial film markets might have taken precedence over artistic exhibition. Hollywood studios, already dominant in the international market, would have had even greater influence over how films were presented globally, potentially accelerating American cinema's cultural hegemony.

Some organizations might have attempted smaller, less formalized film showcases, but without Venice's pioneering example, these would have lacked the template for how an international film festival should function. Film clubs and cine-societies might have taken on greater importance as venues for discussing and appreciating cinema as an art form.

Delayed Recognition of Cinema as High Art

Perhaps most significantly, the absence of Venice would have delayed cinema's acceptance as a legitimate art form deserving serious critical attention. The Venice Film Festival, by situating cinema within the prestigious context of the Venice Biennale, had helped elevate film from mere entertainment to recognized art. In this alternate timeline, this elevation would have been significantly delayed.

Critics and intellectuals would have had fewer opportunities to develop a sophisticated discourse around cinema. The absence of a prestigious competitive festival would have meant fewer occasions for formal recognition of artistic achievement in film, potentially slowing the development of film theory and criticism.

World War II Impact

As the 1930s progressed toward World War II, the absence of Venice would have had diplomatic implications as well. Historically, the festival became entangled in pre-war politics, with awards increasingly favoring films from Axis nations. Without Venice, these tensions would have played out in different cultural arenas.

By the late 1930s, as European nations mobilized for war, the absence of a major cultural event like Venice would have been less noticeable amid greater geopolitical concerns. However, the post-war reconstruction of European cultural life would unfold very differently without the precedent of Venice to build upon.

Long-term Impact

The Delayed Birth of Film Festival Culture

The most profound long-term consequence would be the delayed development of film festival culture. In our timeline, Venice established a model that Cannes (founded 1946) and Berlin (founded 1951) would later adapt and expand upon. Without Venice pioneering this format, the emergence of international film festivals would have been postponed by at least a decade.

When film festivals eventually emerged in the late 1940s or early 1950s, they would have developed under very different circumstances—shaped by Cold War politics rather than interwar cultural dynamics. The first major international film festival might have emerged in a different location altogether, perhaps in Switzerland or Sweden as neutral territories where East and West could showcase their cinema during the Cold War.

Alternative Geography of Film Prestige

Rise of Different Cultural Centers

In the absence of Venice, different cities might have emerged as the centers of film culture. Paris, with its already established cinephile culture and institutions like the Cinémathèque Française (founded 1936), might have become the primary arbiter of film prestige earlier and more definitively.

London, too, might have leveraged its position in the Anglophone world to establish a major festival earlier than it did historically with the London Film Festival (founded 1957). This could have created a more Anglo-American-centric film culture, potentially diminishing the influence of continental European aesthetic sensibilities on global cinema.

Altered Power Dynamics in Production and Distribution

Without the Venice-Cannes-Berlin festival axis establishing European cinema's prestige, Hollywood's dominance of global cinema would have been even more pronounced. American studios might have established their own international showcases, centered more on commercial potential than artistic merit, further consolidating their market control.

The concept of "art cinema" as a category distinct from commercial filmmaking would have evolved differently and perhaps more slowly. The absence of Venice's early recognition of film directors as artistic authors might have delayed the development of auteur theory and related approaches to film criticism.

Transformation of Film Awards Culture

Different Prestigious Accolades

Without the Golden Lion as one of cinema's oldest and most prestigious awards, other honors would have filled the vacuum. The Academy Awards (Oscars), already established in 1929, might have gained even greater international significance earlier, further centralizing American influence over global cinema recognition.

New awards might have emerged from different quarters—perhaps from film critics' associations or from the film industry itself—but they would have lacked the historical gravitas and cultural positioning that Venice's connection to the Biennale provided. The entire ecosystem of film awards and their relationship to artistic validation would have developed along different lines.

Altered Career Trajectories

Countless filmmakers whose careers were launched or significantly boosted by Venice recognition would have followed different paths. Directors like Akira Kurosawa (whose "Rashomon" won the Golden Lion in 1951, bringing Japanese cinema to Western attention) might have received international recognition much later or through different channels.

Similarly, entire national cinemas that gained international visibility through Venice—such as Indian cinema with Satyajit Ray's work or Iranian cinema in later decades—might have remained more regionally contained for longer periods. The global cross-pollination of cinematic styles and approaches would have proceeded more slowly and along different vectors.

Impact on Italian Cultural Prestige

Diminished Italian Cultural Influence

Italy's position in post-war European cultural life would have been significantly diminished. The Venice Film Festival had given Italy a prominent role in international cultural affairs even after the fall of fascism. Without this platform, Italy's cultural recovery and international prestige in the post-war era would have been more limited.

The Italian film industry itself would have developed differently. The neorealist movement of the 1940s and early 1950s, while still likely to emerge from the conditions of post-war Italy, would have struggled more to gain international recognition without Venice as a launching pad. Directors like Roberto Rossellini, Vittorio De Sica, and Federico Fellini might have found different, perhaps more limited, paths to global audiences.

Alternative Development of the Venice Biennale

The Venice Biennale as a whole would have evolved differently without its film component. Perhaps it would have expanded into other art forms earlier—music, dance, or even eventually television and digital media—in ways that maintained its relevance but created a very different cultural institution than the one we know today.

Cinema in the Age of Globalization

Different Festival Ecosystem by the Digital Age

By the time we reach the 1990s and 2000s, the global film festival ecosystem would look markedly different. Without Venice's historical role, film festivals might have developed in a more decentralized fashion, potentially giving greater prominence to regional festivals in Asia, Latin America, and Africa earlier than occurred in our timeline.

The relationship between film festivals and the emerging digital platforms of the 21st century would have evolved differently as well. Without the established prestige hierarchy headed by Venice, streaming services like Netflix might have found it easier to gain legitimacy for their original productions, potentially accelerating the disruption of traditional film distribution models.

Altered Film Canon Formation

Perhaps most fundamentally, the very canon of films considered historically important would differ significantly. Venice played a crucial role in determining which films received critical attention and historical preservation. Without its influence, different films might have been elevated to canonical status, creating an alternate understanding of cinema's historical development.

By 2025, we would inhabit a world where film culture had developed along fundamentally different lines—perhaps more commercially oriented, perhaps more fragmented regionally, certainly with different institutional centers of power and prestige—all stemming from the absence of that first film festival on the Venice Lido in 1932.

Expert Opinions

Dr. Maria Antonelli, Professor of Film History at the University of Rome and author of "European Cinema: Institutions and Influence," offers this perspective: "Had the Venice Film Festival never been established, the entire relationship between cinema and cultural institutions would have developed along radically different lines. The very concept that films should be evaluated collectively, in competition, by an international jury of experts—this wasn't inevitable. It was a paradigm established by Venice that has shaped how we experience, evaluate, and canonize cinema for nearly a century. Without Venice pioneering this approach, cinema might have remained longer in a cultural ghetto—appreciated commercially but not taken seriously as an art form deserving of institutional recognition. The delayed legitimization of film as high culture would have had profound effects on everything from film preservation efforts to university film studies programs."

Professor James Harrington, Chair of Festival Studies at UCLA's School of Theater, Film and Television, suggests a different angle: "The absence of Venice would have created a vacuum that would eventually have been filled—but likely not until after World War II, and probably in a different country altogether. My research indicates France would have been the most likely candidate to establish the first major international film festival in this alternate timeline, perhaps as early as 1946 or 1947. But crucially, this festival would have emerged in the context of the Cold War rather than fascist cultural politics. The entire political economy of film festivals would have developed with different ideological underpinnings. We might have seen a more explicitly East-West competitive dynamic in festival culture from the beginning, rather than the somewhat more subtle political influences that actually shaped the festival world's development."

Dr. Yumiko Tanaka, Director of the Institute for Cinema and Media Studies in Tokyo, provides a non-Western perspective: "From an Asian vantage point, the absence of Venice would have most significantly affected the timeframe in which non-Western cinemas were discovered by international audiences. Venice played a crucial role in introducing Japanese, Indian, and later Chinese and Iranian cinema to Western critics and audiences. Without this platform, I believe Asian cinema's global recognition would have been delayed by at least a decade, with profound consequences for how these film traditions developed. Filmmakers like Kurosawa and Ray might have continued making films primarily for domestic audiences for much longer, potentially resulting in work less influenced by international exchange. The entire global conversation around cinema would have been poorer and more parochial without Venice initiating the international festival model that facilitated cross-cultural cinematic dialogue."