Can we say that “Anatomy of a fall” is a “subsidized” Palme d’or?

Ungrateful, the Palme d’Or? Since Saturday May 27, Justine Triet, director of the film Anatomy of a fall, took advantage of the presentation of his prize at the end of the Cannes Film Festival to fire red balls at government policy, supporters of the presidential majority criticize the filmmaker for his lack of recognition. In subtext, the idea that a film benefiting from public aid should spare the State which financed it.

“This film could not have seen the light of day without our French film funding model, which allows for a diversity that is unique in the world. Let’s not forget it », thus tweeted Culture Minister Rima Abdul-Malak. “Anatomy of the ingratitude of a profession that we help so much…”, outbid the minister delegate for industry, Roland Lescure. Charles Sitzenstuhl, Renaissance MP for Bas-Rhin, meanwhile quipped on the “living room rebels” who would ignore that, far from the neoliberalism criticized by the director, France “subsidizes its cinema industry with public funds”.

“To carry our opinions yes, but do not forget thanks to whom we can work and carry out our fights”, extended Deborah Abisror-de Lieme, secretary general of the Renaissance group at the National Assembly, pointing out the support provided to the production of the film by the National Cinema Center (CNC) and the public channel France 2. For his part, Emmanuel Macron s refrained from publicly congratulating the winner, Justine Triet, as he had done in 2021 when the Frenchwoman Julia Ducournau had been rewarded.

Behind this almost unanimous condemnation on the part of the presidential majority, however, hides a big misunderstanding about the nature of aid for film production and what it entails.

A multitude of funders

Anatomy of a fall was carried out with a total budget of 6.2 million euros, half of which comes from public entities. Its director, Justine Triet, claims it by the way: “Without this cultural exception, I would not be here in front of you! », she reminded during his acceptance speech, while calling to protect this exception.

According to the film’s financing plan published by the specialized site Full screenthe various contributions come from the following sources:

• National public aid: 500,000 euros in advance on receipts granted by the CNC and 1.2 million euros in tax credit granted on the favorable opinion of the CNC.
• Public aid from local authorities: €150,000 in non-reimbursable aid from the Nouvelle-Aquitaine region, €90,000 from the Charente-Maritime department and €270,000 in co-production aid from the Auvergne-Rhône- Alps Cinema.
• Public audiovisual: 450,000 euros in aid for co-production by France 2 Cinéma and 450,000 euros in presale for broadcast on France 2.
• Private funds: these come from presales for private television (Canal+, 1.2 million euros), from distributors (MK2 and Le Pacte, 380,000 euros), from companies financing cinematographic or audiovisual works ( 720,000 euros) and production companies (Les Films de Pelléas and Les Films de Pierre, 91,000 euros).

The film’s receipts therefore come 35.7% from public institutions, or 50.2% if we add the contributions of France 2, a company owned by the State. This does not mean, however, as several members of the majority suggest, that the work was subsidized by the State, and that its director should mechanically be indebted to it.

The reality is much more complex: certain amounts paid may be reimbursed, or grant certain operating rights; and none offers a right of scrutiny to the State.

The National Cinema Center, an independent body

Since its creation in October 1946, the CNC has been an independent public establishment. It does not depend directly on the government, and, above all, it is financially autonomous. Indeed, contrary to what has been said, a film financed by the CNC is not funded by taxes from French taxpayers, but by a tax system on the film industry. This essentially redistributive system is based in particular on a tax levied on the sale of cinema tickets. So Hollywood blockbusters or hits like Super Mario Bros. contribute to filling the French cinema financing fund. Publishers and distributors of television services, such as streaming platforms, have had to pay a similar tax since 2010.

In addition, the “advance on ticketing receipts” of 500,000 euros from which Anatomy of a fall is not unilateral aid. As the name of this system suggests, the CNC can partially reimburse itself with the receipts from the film (from 25% to 80% of the sums advanced, depending on the case, minus a deductible of 50,000 euros). Concretely, if the Palme d’or is a major success in theaters, its producers will have to reimburse some 350,000 euros to the CNC.

The tax credit of 1.2 million euros which the film benefited from comes from the state budget. This device makes it possible to indirectly finance cinematographic creation by reducing the tax bill of the companies producing the film.

However, the granting of this tax credit does not depend on the government but, here again, on the CNC, whose an independent committee of experts decides whether a film is eligible, according to various criteria (filming in France, promotion of the French language or a French regional language, etc.). This tax credit can cover up to 80% of a film’s total budget, up to a limit of 30 million euros. The one obtained by Anatomy of a fall covers less than 20% of its budget.

For communities, investments for employment

The participation of the Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes Cinéma agency and aid from the Nouvelle-Aquitaine region and the Charente-Maritime department are conditional on filming or post-production in the regions and departments concerned. This allows these territories to enhance their architectural and natural heritage, highlighted in the film, but above all to support local film industries, and more broadly the economy.

For example, the filming of scenes in chalets in Savoie and Isère d’Anatomy of a fall would have brought in 700,000 euros in direct expenses – hotels, technicians, various filming costs – according to the director of Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes Cinéma, Grégory Faes, quoted by France 3 region. This regional agency being also co-producer of the film, it can claim part of its receipts, on the exploitation in theaters or on television, for example.

Public broadcasting, a producer doubly interested

Finally, it is wrong to compare the support of France 2 to a public subsidy. By spending 450,000 euros on “presales”, the public channel ensured the primacy of the television broadcast ofAnatomy of a falljointly with Canal+, which disbursed 1.2 million euros.

As for the 450,000 euros disbursed by France 2 Cinéma as co-producer, they entitle it to part of the film’s receipts.