The conflict over the French model of support for cinema has long become a symbolic clash over identity, state, and cultural sovereignty. When the president of the CNC Gaëtan Bruel rejected the latest initiative of the Rassemblement National (RN), his argument targeted the heart of the debate: the Centre national du cinéma et de l’image animée (CNC) is not a traditional grant apparatus funded by general public funds, but an economic circuit internal to the sector itself. Cinema, television networks, streaming platforms, and internet service providers finance support for cinema with their taxes — that is, precisely those actors who benefit from the audiovisual market.
With this, Bruel defends not only an institution but a model that France has interpreted for decades as a cultural exception in Europe. The RN, on the other hand, sees the CNC as a symbol of an allegedly ideologically oriented cultural sector, which the party has criticized for years as dominated by the left. Behind the fiscal debate lies therefore a fundamental conflict of cultural policy.
The CNC as the centerpiece of the French cultural model
Founded in 1946, the CNC is one of the central institutions of French cultural policy. Its task is to promote film production, cinemas, series, animations, and increasingly also digital audiovisual formats. Its particularity lies in its financing logic: unlike many European support systems, the CNC is not mainly based on traditional budget funds, but on sector-specific taxes.
This principle follows a political idea deeply rooted in France since the time of Charles de Gaulle and André Malraux: culture is not considered a normal commodity, but a strategic asset of national identity. For this reason, Paris early developed mechanisms to protect the domestic market from the overwhelming dominance of Hollywood.
The system has economic consequences. Today France has the largest film industry in Europe. In 2024, 181.5 million cinema tickets were sold; the market share of French productions stood at a remarkable 44.8%. In comparison: in many European countries, American productions often dominate with shares well above 70%. The French film industry produces several hundred films each year and thus supports an industrial infrastructure that ranges from production companies to cinemas, up to technical professions.
Bruel’s argument fits precisely into this context: if the CNC were to disappear, the State would have to intervene in a much more direct and costly way, or France would accept in the long term a massive loss of importance of its national production.
The RN’s Attack: Cultural Policy as an Ideological Battleground
The RN initiative shows how the right is now positioning itself also on cultural policy. The proposed amendment by deputy Matthias Renault openly aimed at abolishing the taxes assigned to the CNC. The justification even spoke of “propaganda” — a term that reveals the ideological direction of the proposal.
In doing so, the RN follows a pattern observable in several European countries. Right-wing and far-right parties increasingly attack public cultural institutions, which they portray as environments of urban elites or progressive networks. Cultural support is no longer primarily seen as an economic or socio-political tool, but as a battleground for identity.
In France, this conflict is particularly sensitive. The country traditionally considers its cultural policy as part of state sovereignty. While the USA exercises its cultural dominance primarily through market power, France has historically focused on political control and institutional protection. The famous “exception culturelle” — the cultural exception — became a foreign policy topic in the 1990s in debates on international trade agreements.
An attack on the CNC is therefore interpreted by many cultural operators not simply as a cost-saving measure, but as an attempt to restructure France’s identity as an autonomous cultural nation.
Between the need for reform and a systemic issue
However, criticisms of the CNC are by no means exclusively ideological. Even within the French state apparatus, there have been years of debates about the efficiency, transparency, and funding logic of the institution. The Court of Auditors has repeatedly highlighted high reserves and complex support mechanisms. Moreover, the CNC has already been financially cut within the framework of the 2025 budget law; several hundred million euros of reserves have been withdrawn.
This discussion points to a structural problem of many French institutions: the country strongly defends its cultural policy tools, but often avoids radical reforms. Critics complain about a strong concentration of support funds towards established producers, bureaucratic procedures, and lack of transparency in selections.
The real dividing line, therefore, is not between reform and status quo, but between reform and abolition. Even many critics of the CNC accept in principle the need for a strong national support system. The RN, on the other hand, questions the legitimacy of the model itself.
Streaming platforms and the new media economy
A second decisive strategic factor adds to this: the digitization of the audiovisual market. With Netflix, Disney+, Amazon Prime Video, and other platforms, the global media economy is radically changing. France reacted relatively early, also obliging streaming providers to finance national production.
This is precisely where an international peculiarity of the French system lies. While many states struggle to regulate global platforms, France already requires them to contribute to domestic production. Therefore, the CNC functions not only as a support institution but also as an economic regulatory tool in the digital age.
For French politics, this is a matter of strategic autonomy. Audiovisual content is no longer just entertainment products, but part of geopolitical influence. Series, films, and streaming offerings shape social narratives, languages, and cultural perceptions worldwide.
In this context, the dispute over the CNC appears less provincial than it seems at first glance. In reality, it is a question of whether European states can still assert autonomous cultural spaces in a global media market.
The political contradiction is evident: precisely a party that emphasizes national sovereignty and cultural identity attacks a tool that has guaranteed this autonomy for decades. The RN argues both in fiscal and ideological terms — however, a weakening of the CNC could especially benefit international platforms and American studios.
Bruel’s formula, according to which France without the CNC “will pay more and get less,” is therefore more than a simple technical reference to budget mechanisms. It describes a possible scenario of cultural dependency. Without stable national support, not only would the number of French productions decrease, but in the long term cinema, producers, and creative networks would also lose importance.
The dispute over the CNC thus exemplifies how cultural policy today is part of broader geopolitical and social conflicts. It is not just about films or support funds, but the question of how a European state wants to preserve its cultural autonomy in the era of global platform economies.
Author: P. Tiko