Goya 2026: Political Gala and Subsidy Debate

Goya 2026: the gala that turned cinema into a political rally

The red carpet at the 2026 Goya Awards served to do more than hand out statuettes. The award ceremony and activist speeches blended with mentions of the war in the Middle East, the genocide in Gaza, and the international political situation. The result was a gala that, according to much of the reactions collected, resembled more a political event than a cinematic celebration. The question hovering over it is simple: how much of that discourse is sustained by box office revenue and how much by subsidies?

From award to plea: what was said on stage

Director Daniel Guzmán was one of the names of the night. He criticized that “Europe is looking the other way” in the face of “invasions” and “abductions” attributed to the United States and mentioned “the genocide of Gaza, the invasion of a sovereign people like Venezuela, the ICE.” The intervention spread rapidly and became one of the most commented moments.

He was not the only one. Actor Alberto San Juan attacked Franco with a phrase that also circulated quickly: “The least important thing about Franco is that he was short, fat, and had a squeaky voice. Better that he had a look like his being, than an atrocious genocidaire.” Luis Tosar and Rigoberta Bandini, for their part, made a plea for peace and the condemnation of the war and the genocide in Gaza. Actress Nora Hernández, when presenting “La cena,” pointed out that with that film “people have laughed a lot at Franco.”

Host Gonzalo Miró also left his political moment by mentioning “a prosecutor general convicted without evidence.” And Paula Vázquez, on the red carpet, declared herself an admirer of Susan Sarandon and related the actress’s political opinions to having been blacklisted.

The double standard pointed out by critics

A part of the reactions pointed to the funnel law. It was argued that many of those who go on stage to criticize the United States or Israel remain silent about Spain’s internal problems, and that the Franco card has become a recurrent resource. “They are going to talk about everything except cinema,” summarized one of the messages.

Another focus was coherence. Several messages recalled that Daniel Guzmán had had an occupation problem in one of his properties, which gave rise to comments about the difference between public discourse and private management. “Pogre who when they occupy their properties becomes a right-winger,” summarized an intervention. The eviction, according to several messages, had taken place with the help of acquaintances.

The contrast with box office revenue was another of the axes. Some maintain that much of the awarded films do not reach 1,000 euros in receipts and that this did not prevent the speeches. The most repeated proposal: withdraw public subsidy and force them to seek capitalist partners as in Hollywood.

The international context that overshadowed the gala

The gala coincided with a moment of international tension. The Prime Minister, Pedro Sánchez, commented on the attack by Israel and the United States on Iran: “We have been enjoying levels of peace and prosperity for decades that have suddenly been undermined (...) How is it possible that one can intervene by bombing hospitals or schools?” That declaration circulated in parallel with the gala speeches and fueled the sense that the event had become an extension of the political debate.

The comparison with other conflicts also appeared. “Amateurs compared to Israel who are getting bombed,” noted a message, referring to the harshness of the conflict. The mention of the drug traffickers from La Cañada Real, introduced by journalist Jaime Ballesteros, added another layer to the cocktail of references.

What Spanish cinema is at stake

The underlying debate is not new: whether subsidized cinema must also be militant cinema or whether box office revenue should be the only judge. The figures handled by critics point to a disconnect between the profession’s discourse and the real consumption of films. Defenders of the current system maintain that the subsidy is what allows for cinema that would not depend solely on the market.

What seems clear is that the gala left more political headlines than cinematic ones. And that, once again, the name of Franco was the protagonist on a night that, on paper, was about films.

How much longer can a model that rewards what almost no one sees be sustained?