email print share on Facebook share on Twitter share on LinkedIn share on reddit pin on Pinterest

Florence Gastaud • General Delegate of the ARP

"The economy of cinema is often a reflection of society”

by 

- Florence Gastaud, the General Delegate of the ARP, which organises the Dijon Encounters, deciphers the sometimes contentious mutations of French cinema

Florence Gastaud • General Delegate of the ARP

Shard, incisive and a realist, Florence Gastaud, the general delegate of the ARP (the civil society of Authors-Directors-Producers), one of the most influent professional associations in French cinema, delivers her analysis of the current mutations taking place in the French and European industry. Meeting on the eve of the 23rd Cinematographic Encounters of Dijon (October 24-26, 2013 – read the article), the annual and highly praised rendez-vous for reflection and anticipation for professionals.

(The article continues below - Commercial information)

Cineuropa: The French cinematographic industry was this year shaken by multiples tensions. What are the causes behind this?
Florence Gastaud: There were many chaotic debates and exchanges: Vincent Maraval’s editorial which pointed the finger at the sector’s economy, the debate surrounding the collective convention, that on the Lescure report (“Contribution to cultural policies in the digital era”) and the fight over cultural exception. These four events result from the same idea: it is a matter of urgency for us to reconsider ourselves. People often say that the French model is the most virtuous and mutually beneficial: it is undoubtedly the case but that doesn’t mean that we cannot make ourselves more efficient, to avoid it deteriorating with time, and especially to make it more coherent with a changing, globalised and digital economy. All these collective clashes are the sign of a time of change, and change is always a bit contentious, because of the fear of losing a model and that of not being able to create a new one.

The over-concentration of funding for certain films and the related controversy about the profitability of movies: what is your opinion on these delicate topics?
Vincent Maraval’s editorial did not ask for all films to be profitable and there is obviously a category of films for which that question should not be brought up: a sort of research and development for the emergence of young talents. Generally, for culture, profitability shouldn’t be our first concern. However, there is an increase in the cost of films, which is hurting everyone, and a concentration of funding on a certain number of big movies that owe it to others to make money. It is not about questioning the very existence of these big machines, but rather their way of collecting funding on sometimes ridiculous levels. For a blockbuster to be profitable, we should maybe question our ability to produce for the international market. Is the 25-30 M€ cost of a film like Turf [+see also:
trailer
film profile
]
really justifiable and will it make sense internationally? The economy of cinema is often a reflection of society: there are the rich, the middle class and the more fragile films. We can’t pride ourselves on having a virtuous and mutually beneficial system and watch as the richest productions grab increasingly more funding. This poor distribution indeed hurts the middle class and the fragile films, which are most often now made with bits and pieces.

You expressed concerns about the next Cinema Communication of the European Union.
We do not understand the motivations behind a text carried by a Commission coming to the end of its mandate on a topic, which is far from being consensual. We have the impression that the Commission is too removed from the economic reality on the ground. We see that European coproductions exist and that there are 1000 ways of motivating these relations. Producers need to be trusted, as well as distributors and the technical industries, which cannot only think through the territorialisation of funding and the dissemination of goods and services. It is already difficult enough now to maintain a system of public funding in the European territories so if on top of it all the Cinema Commission questions its very basis, we could understand that regions and local authorities could for example decide not to continue funding cinema.

(The article continues below - Commercial information)

(Translated from French)

Did you enjoy reading this article? Please subscribe to our newsletter to receive more stories like this directly in your inbox.

Privacy Policy