SPECIFIC CINEMA

SUPPORT MEASURES

TAKEN DURING

THE HEALTH CRISIS

FLASH AUDIT

September 2021

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In the context of the health crisis, the Court decided to launch an audit which, while

respecting its professional standards, is distinguished by the speed of its investigation. This

work is presented as a first inventory of the specific financial effort made in favour of the cinema

sector in the context of the health crisis.

The audit first recalls the

effects of the health crisis on the cinema sector

: cinemas

closed (162 days in 2020), filming interrupted (at least during the 1

st

lockdown), etc. The crisis

affected the entire sector, industry professionals (producers, distributors, cinema operators)

but also other stakeholders (authors, festivals, technical industries).

The crisis has also

disrupted public institutions

: the resources of the National Centre for Cinema and Animated

Image (CNC), which are partly based on the tax on cinema tickets and on the tax on advertising

broadcast by television, were greatly reduced during the first lockdown. The Institute for the

Financing of Cinema and Cultural Industries (IFCIC) saw the cash flow of its loan funds

reduced by the suspension of repayment deadlines, which prevented it from granting new

financing.

Faced with the health crisis, the public authorities reacted quickly with emergency

measures (the financing of which was included in the amended finance laws of July, then

November 2020) and by drawing up a stimulus plan, registered in the initial finance law for

2021. This scheduling was called into question by the second lockdown from October 2020,

extended in December until 19 May 2021.

Tracking the measures taken is therefore in itself

a complex exercise, because the mechanisms had to be adapted and completed on

several occasions

, until the measures announced by the Minister of Culture last May.

The financial effort made in favour of the cinema and audiovisual industry is

exceptional: €402 million for the CNC (i.e. the equivalent of nine months of expenditure

by this organisation in 2019) and €51.6 million for the IFCIC.

Most of this expenditure is

aimed at making the CNC’s existing automatic or selective support more favourable, and at

strengthening the players in the sector, whose financial stability had been shaken, and at

ensuring the orderly restart of the sector (for example, by dea

ling with the issue of the “wall of

films” when it reopens). In this regard, the distinction between emergency and stimulus

measures is not clear.

By taking into account the expenses in favour of the technical industries sector (€10 M),

the “youth and talents of the future” (€6 M) and “Export and attractiveness” (€8 M) funds,

the

expenditure that falls under a genuine “investment for the future” rationale is low

(between €20 M and €25 M)

. The structuring effect of this “stimulus” plan therefore appears

to be very limited. Beyond the fact of having avoided defaults, the question of whether this aid

has favoured or accompanied structural changes in the sector deserves to be asked.

Lastly,

the question of the additionality of these sectoral measures in relation to

the general state aid system has not been asked

. No mechanism to control possible windfall

effects was put in place by the administrations, except in the case of cinema operators, for

which an anti-abuse clause made it possible to check that the amounts paid by the general

and sectoral schemes did not exceed the turnover losses of each company.

After coming to the aid of professionals affected by the crisis,

the public system must

now reorient itself towards the future: the constitution of more solid companies, the

development of high-level technical infrastructures, exports, the attractiveness of

France.

Many mechanisms are in place (IFCIC loans and guarantees, Plan

Touch

of BPI