The conflict over the French model of support for cinema has become a symbolic confrontation about identity, the state, and cultural sovereignty. When Gaëtan Bruel, president of the National Center for Cinema and the Moving Image (CNC), rejected the latest initiative from the National Rally (RN), his argument targeted the heart of the debate: the CNC is not a simple classic subsidy apparatus funded by general tax revenues, but an economic cycle that takes place within the industry itself. Cinemas, television channels, streaming platforms, and internet providers finance the promotion of cinema through their contributions — precisely the actors who benefit from the audiovisual market.
Thus, Bruel defends not only an authority but also a model that France has considered an exception in Europe for decades. The RN, on its side, sees the CNC as a symbol of a supposedly ideological cultural world that the party has criticized for years as being dominated by the left. Behind this fiscal debate lies a fundamental conflict in cultural policy.
The CNC, Cornerstone of the French Cultural Model
Created in 1946, the CNC is one of the central institutions of French cultural policy. Its mission is to support film production, cinemas, series, animations, and increasingly digital audiovisual formats. Its particularity lies in its funding logic: unlike many European support systems, the CNC does not mainly rely on traditional budgets but on dedicated contributions from the sector.
This principle stems from a political idea deeply rooted in France since Charles de Gaulle and André Malraux: culture is not an ordinary commodity, but a strategic asset of national identity. Paris therefore very early developed mechanisms to protect its domestic market against the overwhelming domination of Hollywood.
This system has economic consequences. France today has the largest film industry in Europe. In 2024, 181.5 million cinema tickets were sold there; the market share of French productions reached a remarkable 44.8%. By comparison: in many European countries, American productions often dominate the market with market shares well above 70%. The French film industry produces several hundred films per year, thus maintaining an industrial infrastructure ranging from production companies to cinemas and technical professions.
Bruel’s argumentation is precisely based on these elements: without the CNC, the State would either have to intervene in a much more direct and costly way, or France would long-term accept a significant loss of importance of its national film production.
The RN’s attack: cultural policy as an ideological battleground
The RN’s initiative shows how much the political right now also positions itself in terms of cultural policy. The amendment by Deputy Matthias Renault openly aimed to eliminate the contributions allocated to the CNC. The text even spoke of “propaganda” — a term that reveals the ideological orientation of the proposal.
The RN thus follows a pattern observable in several European countries. Right-wing and far-right parties increasingly attack public cultural institutions, which they portray as circles of urban elites or progressive networks. Cultural support is no longer primarily seen as an economic or socio-political instrument but as a field of identity struggle.
This conflict has an important particularity in France. The country traditionally considers its cultural policy as an element of state sovereignty. While the United States mainly extends its cultural domination through market power, France has historically relied on political regulation and institutional protection. The famous “cultural exception” even became a diplomatic leitmotif in the 1990s debates on international trade agreements.
An attack on the CNC is therefore perceived by many cultural professionals not only as an austerity measure but as an attempt to reshape the French understanding of an autonomous cultural nation.
Between the need for reform and questioning of the system
However, the criticism of the CNC is not exclusively motivated by ideological reasons. Within the French state apparatus itself, debates have existed for years about the effectiveness, transparency, and financing logic of the authority. The Court of Auditors has repeatedly highlighted significant reservations and complex support mechanisms. Moreover, the CNC has already experienced budget cuts as part of the 2025 finance law, with the withdrawal of several hundred million euros from reserves.
This discussion highlights a structural problem of many French institutions: the country defends its instruments in cultural policy with great determination but often hesitates to engage in deep reforms. Critics notably denounce a strong concentration of aid on established producers, bureaucratic procedures, and a lack of transparency in selection decisions.
The real dividing line is therefore not between reform and status quo, but between reform and elimination. Even many detractors of the CNC acknowledge in principle the need for a strong national support system. The RN, on the other hand, questions the very legitimacy of the model.
Streaming platforms and the new media economy
A second 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 profoundly transformed. France reacted relatively early by also obliging these streaming platforms to contribute to the financing of national production.
This is where an international specificity of the French system lies. While many countries struggle to regulate global platforms, France already forces them to participate in local production. The CNC thus plays a role not only as a support institution but also as an instrument of economic regulation in the digital age.
For French politics, this is a matter of strategic autonomy. Audiovisual content is no longer just entertainment products, but elements of geopolitical influence. Series, films, and streaming offerings shape societal narratives, languages, and cultural perceptions on a global scale.
In this context, the debate about the CNC appears less provincial than it might seem at first glance. It is actually about whether European states can still assert autonomous cultural spaces in the global media market.
The political contradiction is evident: it is precisely a party that insists on national sovereignty and cultural identity that attacks an instrument that has ensured this autonomy for decades. The RN argues both fiscally and ideologically — but economically, a weakening of the CNC would benefit mainly international platforms and American studios.
Bruel’s formula, according to which France would “pay more and receive less” without the CNC, is therefore much more than a simple technical remark on budgetary mechanisms. It describes a possible scenario of cultural dependence. Without stable national support, not only would the number of French productions decrease, but in the long term, cinemas, producers, and creative networks could also lose significance.
The debate on the CNC thus exemplifies how cultural policy today is part of major geopolitical and social tensions. It is not just about films or funding, but about the question of how a European state wants to preserve its cultural autonomy in the era of global platform economies.
Author: P. Tiko