Under the spotlights of Cannes, a political and cultural crisis has appeared on the Croisette. After the publication of an anti-Bolloré column signed by nearly 600 cinema professionals, the declarations of the president of the Canal+ board of directors, Maxime Saada, claiming to no longer want to work with the signatories, caused a shock wave on the Croisette and well beyond the sector. Published in Libération on the eve of the opening of the Festival, the text denounced “the growing influence of the extreme right” on French cinema through the expansion of Vincent Bolloré’s group. An accusation which immediately ignited the debate because Canal+ occupies a central place in the financing of French cinema. The sector’s leading investor, the group alone represents 43% of broadcasters’ contributions to French films. In this context, Maxime Saada’s comments were perceived by part of the cinema world as much more than a knee-jerk reaction; they raise the question of freedom of expression in an industry largely dependent on a few large private groups. This Monday, May 18, on France Inter, the president of the National Cinema Center, Gaëtan Bruel, himself expressed his reservations: “In terms of freedom of expression, this raises questions. Because the right to criticism is part of this fundamental principle. HAS”
A platform that became a detonator
At the origin of the crisis, a forum denouncing the growing influence of Vincent Bolloré on the French cultural ecosystem. The signatories are particularly concerned about the strengthening of Canal+ in the capital of UGC, which would allow the Vivendi group to control the entire cinema chain, “from financing to the distribution” of works. Among the signatories are several major personalities of French cinema, such as Juliette Binoche, Adèle Haenel, Swann Arlaud, Arthur Harari and Jean-Pascal Zadi, they warn against “a fascist takeover of the collective imagination”. Accusations deemed unacceptable by Maxime Saada. are committed to defending the independence of Canal+ and the diversity of its choices,” he declared, before adding: “I no longer want Canal to work with the people who signed this petition.” During a producers’ brunch organized in Cannes, the manager also. denounced the qualifiers aimed at the channel: “If some come to qualify Canal+ as ‘cryptofascist’, then I cannot agree to collaborate with them.”
For several days, tension had already been building on the Croisette: “Zapper Bolloré” badges worn by certain festival-goers, sustained silence when the Canal+ logo appeared, then boos during certain screenings. In a press release, the Zapper Bolloré collective denounced “methods of intimidation worthy of the group’s majority shareholder”, recalling that the column published in Libération was not aimed at “the Canal+ teams”. One year before the presidential election, while the debates around the concentration of the media and the political influence of large private groups intensify, the controversy quickly left the cultural field alone.
“We still have the right to criticize Bolloré in democracy”
The controversy immediately went beyond the confines of cinema to become a political confrontation. On the left, socialist senator Adel Ziane, member of the Senate culture committee, sees in Maxime Saada’s declarations “a form of blacklist” worthy of “the worst years of McCarthyism.” “The 1950s are back. Artists are expressing themselves and, behind it, the immediate consequence is: “You will no longer work with Canal +,” he laments. According to him, this affair illustrates the pressure exerted by “the Bolloré galaxy”, already perceptible, he asserts, in the media and publishing.
Same concern on the part of Emma Rafowicz, socialist MEP and spokesperson for the PS, who calls for strengthening the protections of the European cultural exception in the face of the concentration of private groups. “We still have the right to criticize Bolloré in democracy,” she insists, denouncing an “almost gag procedure.” The elected official pleads for anti-trust measures in order to limit the concentration of the cultural sector: “Canal produces, broadcasts, distributes and could tomorrow screen films. In the end, everyone becomes hostage to the same financing chain.” In the cinema world, several professionals describe a climate of tension and fear. “People are terrified,” assures Emma Rafowicz, evoking a feeling of helplessness in the face of the economic weight of the group.
For communist senator Pierre Ouzoulias, member of the culture committee, the affair reveals a broader political strategy. “What some have not understood is that Bolloré has a clear, claimed, assumed political program: cultural hegemony,” he says. According to him, the billionaire uses “his immense fortune to advance an ideological project” in the media, publishing and now cinema. “Its desire is not to promote cultural pluralism. Either you are with him or you become his enemy,” he continues, believing that the crisis goes far beyond a simple quarrel between artists and broadcaster.
“You don’t bite the hand that feeds you”
On the right and the far right, the discourse is radically different. RN deputy Julien Odoul accuses the signatories of the platform of having crossed “a red line” by speaking of “fascist control”. “When we use this term, we are referring to Nazism,” he says, denouncing “a leftist caste” which attacks Canal + while benefiting from its funding. “There is an elementary principle, you don’t bite the hand that feeds you,” says the MP, believing that certain artists “want the butter, the butter money and the cream.” He targets in particular “a bobo fringe of the extreme left” accused of leading “wokist battles” against Vincent Bolloré and Canal + which have become according to him “symbols to be destroyed”. “When you engage in a political fight, you have to follow your logic to the end,” he concludes.
For his part, Senator LR Max Brisson, who defends the historic role of Canal + in the financing of French cinema. “The Canal group has always financed cinema in all its diversity. Was it normal to howl wolf before there was even a wolf?,” he asks. “If Canal’s money is dirty, let them go and get it elsewhere,” says the senator. For Max Brisson, this controversy above all reflects “the end of the moral magisterium of the cultural left”. “The left is tense because it is losing the cultural monopoly that it has exercised since the 1970s,” he believes, denouncing “lesson givers” who criticize the right while taking advantage of its funding. He nevertheless calls for appeasement: “Canal is essential to financing French cinema and cinema must remain that of diversity of talents and opinions.”
Laurent Lafon calls to “calm things down”
Faced with escalating tensions, several political leaders are now trying to defuse the crisis. This is particularly the case of Laurent Lafon, centrist senator and president of the Senate culture committee, who refuses for the moment to see Canal+ as a tool of ideological influence in cinema. “Canal+ has for years played an essential role in financing French cinema. It is important, for Canal as for the sector, to preserve this investment,” he emphasizes. The senator especially insists on the “eclecticism” of the films financed by the channel: “I have not noticed any particular ideological prism in the choices of films supported by Canal+. HAS”
Laurent Lafon, however, distinguishes the question of cinema from that of the Bolloré group’s media, notably CNews and Europe 1. “I have already said publicly that CNews had become an opinion channel, which raises the question of its place on TNT,” he recalls. But according to him, “this logic is not found today in the field of cinema.” The president of the culture committee therefore calls for “not to anticipate problems which, at this stage, have not occurred.” “If certain lines were crossed, we would obviously have to react, including on a legislative level. But to date, these lines have not been crossed in cinema,” he believes, pleading above all for “a dialogue with Canal+.”
An addiction
This year again, the group arrives in Cannes with 49 feature films purchased, pre-purchased or from its catalog. Certainly, the group’s investments have decreased by 155.6 million euros in 2025 compared to 220 million previously, but Canal remains the cornerstone of financing French cinema. This is precisely what makes the controversy so flammable. Especially since it comes at a time when several strategic issues are under negotiation: new media chronology, entry of Amazon Prime Video into cinema financing, rise in power of platforms and possible takeover of UGC by Vincent Bolloré.
From now on, the question is no longer just which films will be financed, but which artists will become financeable. The paradox is that Canal+ today continues to finance a wide variety of works and authors, including some of the most critical of the group. “In 2023, 47 of the 52 films aided by the advance on receipts from the CNC were co-financed by Canal+,” recalled Gaëtan Bruel in Le Monde. A haunting question now the Croisette: what will happen if certain actors, directors or producers become undesirable to the main financier of French cinema?
