Gaetan Bruel, the new president of the CNC, France’s National Film Board, has landed the job at a crucial time for the industry. While one of his goals is to boast the profile of France internationally and ramp up the volume of international shoots in the country, Bruel has, like most of the European film industry, been coping with a flow of alarming declarations by U.S. President Trump who proposed a 100% tariff on movies produced outside of the U.S.
The 37-year old executive, who knows the U.S. industry better than any of his predecessors at the CNC. Indeed, Bruel lived there for several years as the former head of French Cultural Services, a division of the French Embassy with a footprint in nine American cities, from 2019 to 2023, and worked hand-in-hand with the CNC to promote French talent and the country’s audiovisual sector in the U.S., as well as helped create Villa Albertine, a U.S. residency program for French creatives.
In an interview with Variety at the Cannes Film Festival, which kicks off today with Amelie Bonnin’s film “Leave One Day,” Bruel reacted to Trump’s declarations and pointed out “European cinema accounts for only 1% of theatrical admissions in the United States and American cinema accounts for 60% of admissions in Europe.” Without divulging any concrete plans about a potential counter-offensive, Bruel said France will “remain very vigilant and will react if we are affected.” Bruel also reacted to Netflix boss Ted Sarandos’s claim that the movie theater model “outdated,” arguing that Netflix should be more concerned about social media which he says “threatens both streaming and cinema,” and flagged a recent study that has found that cinema and streaming are “no longer mutually exclusive.”
On the week that saw iconic French actor Gerard Depardieu get an 18-month suspended sentence for sexual assault, Bruel also reacted to the Parliamentary commission which found that sexual harassement and sexual violence in the entertainment industry in France are “endemic.” Addressing the findings of the report and the country’s MeToo reckonning, Bruel highlighted the several key measures taken by the National Film Board over the last five years to curb sexual harassement through industry workshops and increase gender parity in front and behind the cameras, notably thanks to subsidy schemes.
What do you think of Trump’s proposed plan to tax 100% of films that are produced outside of the U.S.?
I would say that I perceive it, and France perceives it, with caution. On the one hand, there is consistency with what president Trump already said, and we can clearly see a strong focus on relocating film shoots. Here, we have to be honest and say that this is a concern for many countries, including France. How can we avoid runaway productions? How can we attract more projects? We all share the same goal. On the other hand, if this is consistent with a general discourse and strategy on the relocation of jobs to the U.S., it directly conflicts with what has always been the strategy and success of the American film industry which has always been about exporting movies massively, but also producing locally. Let’s not reduce a strategic debate into a debate simply focused on the question of costs. Is a model where Netflix produces 100% in the U.S. and continues to have 70% of its subscribers outside North America even possible? That’s where we are. It’s not just a debate about not producing in the U.S. because it would be too expensive. It’s about producing in the U.S. and around the world because, to have an industry that is relevant globally, you also have to produce locally.
From this point of view, cinema perhaps shows the limits of an isolationist vision in a totally inter-connected world where, incidentally, the United States is unrivaled in exporting movies. u When European cinema accounts for 1% of theatrical admissions in the United States and American cinema accounts for 60% of admissions in Europe, what positive impact can such a measure (as Trump’s proposed tariff plan on movies made outside of the U.S.) have? At this stage, we imagine that we are not the first to be targeted by this approach, but we remain very vigilant and will react if we are affected.
Do you feel that Trump’s real intention behind all this is to destroy Hollywood?
We all grew up with American cinema. If there is one thing that France and the U.S. have in common, it is the conviction that culture is universal, and cinema is an essential part to this conviction. We wonder where Hollywood is headed and from the perspective of France and Europe, there is a sincere hope that the American industry can keep thriving, because we have a clear interest in it. “When Hollywood catches a cold, the whole world of cinema catches a cold, in a way”. Some people say that the U.S. industry is going through a crisis that dates back before the return of Trump. Indeed, will the trend for series formats continue all the way to “Superman 48” and “X-Men 57” ? There is a fear that the traditional model of the studios will run out of steam. Again, from our perspective, that would not be good news because in an inter-dependent world, we need these films, and we crave for the remarkable creativity of Hollywood.
In any case, while the question of whether Trump’s return will have a positive or negative impact on the U.S. film industry is not yet settled, his first move hasn’t been made in the interests of the American industry, because clearly, if this decision is implemented, between the explosion in costs and the risk of retaliatory measures, it’s clear that American industry would have a lot to lose.
How can France remain attractive to foreign and U.S. productions?
There have been a lot of changes in France. The France of today is no longer the France your readers knew a few years ago, when France was basically a place to take a holiday and relax after a film shoot, rather than a place to come and shoot a film. Today, our strengths go far beyond the tax incentive, which is already one of the most attractive with a tax credit that can go up to i40% and with no annual cap on the incentive.
What about above-the-line costs? Can they be taken into consideration in the eligible expenses?
We’re not ruling anything out. What we envision for the future is a world where Americans will shoot more in the U.S. – the introduction of an ambitious tax rebate scheme in the U.S. would make sense indeed – but where Americans will continue to shoot abroad, because once again, they do so for reasons that are not just financial. Shoot a film about Paris or Venice in Las Vegas and it won’t be as successful! In this heightened competition, France, which has significantly strengthened its comparative advantages, can reinforce its positions. Today, we are not one of the industry’s 10 favorite filming destinations, as the industry is primarily interested in shooting in English-speaking countries. But our industry in France has become completely international, with teams who have worked on high-end and very successful U.S. projects in recent years. France has a lot to live for because, once again, it has changed a lot in a short space of time, and we don’t yet fully realize that. In particular, President Macron led us to invest heavily and quickly to modernise and double our production capacity. That means studios, backlots, VFX capabilities, virtual production facilities… You have a gigantic backlot that recreates Paris that is now fully operational, half an hour from the city. Furthermore, when a project comes to France to scout locations, the team has access that they simply don’t have in any other country. Thanks to France’s rather centralized organization (to say the least!), we can easily connect with any cultural institution, local authority to anticipate authorizations an explore the field of possibilities. We actually have the habit of suggesting a certain number of ideas, in a creative way, because the possibilities are infinite! France is basically a giant film set, and Louis XIV was probably the greatest film set designer of all time! Versailles is a high-end attraction that we all think we know. In fact, there are still dozens of highly secret parts of the Palace of Versailles, that have been sleeping since the death of our kings, waiting to be shown to the world for the first time. It’s just one example, among thousands. What France does better than others is that it also has completely insane natural settings. We are ready today to give people the craziest access to places, and we’re very eager to find the most creative solutions to make the contents absolutely unique. I would say that there is no other country that, in my opinion, takes the issue of welcoming projects and solving scouting problems so seriously, right up to the highest levels of our government.
What other competitive edge does France have?
We’ve become extremely competitive from an economic point of view. Some American friends were shocked when they heard that Coralie Fargeat’s “The Substance” was produced for $18 million in France when it would have cost $70 or $80 million to make it in the United States. Just a few years ago, there was a language issue with the technicians who didn’t speak English well enough but we have now a new generation, totally fluent, who has already worked on major U.S. projects. We just kept the French accent!. Our industries are also very connected in terms of production and cast, as many talent are going back and forth. Just look at the way Neon is now supporting Julia Ducourneau’s career on her new film, “Alpha” which is premiering in competition at Cannes.
What do you think of the DGA and MPA criticizing the French and European systems?
When you see that 60% of the European box office is grossed by American movies, I think the unfairness is to forget that Europe has always welcomed American films with open arms and will continue to do so because it is a cinema that we love and defend. Last year, 181 million people went to the cinema in France. That’s twice as much as in Germany, even though it’s a country with a larger population. That means that every French person goes on average more than three times a year. This situation, which means that American films have always had a very large audience in France, is the result of decades of mobilization by public actors like the CNC and private actors around a national consensus: we believe that access to films is a democratic issue. All French people should be able to access films, and notably have a movie theater close to home. As a result of this consensus, thanks to this public-private mobilization, 93.6% of French people live less than 30 minutes from a movie theater, and once again, they go an average of 3 times a year. What other country in the world makes it a national issue to ensure that anyonehas the possibility to go and watch an American movie next to his home? This model is embodied in particular by the media chronology system that protects movie theaters, where Warner and Disney are the two leading distributors almost every year. And to those who criticize this model, Cinema united president and CEO Michael O’Leary has given a definitive answer at CinemaCon recently.
What do you think of Ted Sarandos’ statement regarding the cinema that would be “out of fashion”?
It should be noted that Ted Sarandos has since corrected his remark, so we shouldn’t caricature his thinking. Netflix, in France in particular, has made the choice to be an active player in cinema. On the debate he raised: France is actually a country where we have very interesting data on the relationship between cinema and streaming in the post-Covid world. In the 2010’s, I think Ted Sarandos’ initial statement had some validity because the spectacular growth of streaming since 2010 has been at the expense of the cinema experience. However, today, we are no longer in a phase of market conquest, it’s more consolidation. We are now seeing two trends that directly contradict this vision. First of all, the two experiences are no longer mutually exclusive. Several recent studies show that those who have more than one streaming subscription are also those who go to the cinema the most, and vice versa. Furthermore, and above all, the real competition is elsewhere, and it threatens streaming as much as cinema if we look ahead: the latest Deloitte study on technological trends says that 57% of Gen-Z prefer video content watched on social networks to other video experiences, including cinema, streaming and video games all together.
This means that where streaming seems to be triumphing today, in reality it is also threatened by a trend – which we are already seeing with the growing reluctance to subscribe, the very worrying resurgence of piracy via IPTV. In any case, rather than prophesying the end of cinema, which has already been said dozens of times in vain, rather than imagining competition between the big and small screens, this is an invitation to look at the challenges shared by cinema and streaming. Raising a new generation of viewers, forging a new relationship with screens and images, is the greatest of these challenges.
On this matter, France is about to embark on a major overhaul of its cinema education systems. What’s at stake for you?
In France, education is the first budget of the nation. Since the 19th century, our education system has given an important place to the arts, through two disciplines, singing and drawing – which became musical education and visual arts after the Second World War. We’re working on a far-reaching reform to bring “image education” into schools, and to make cinema the core of this image education.
Why do you want to do this? We made a simple observation: there’s a huge paradox. We’ve never spent so much time on our screens, but we’ve never spent so little time seeing moving picture on them. We’ve entered a new stage in the civilization of images. Images are everywhere, but they are increasingly empty, manipulated and negative. While cinema and TV series have the power to awaken, stimulate curiosity and educate, in the infinite loop of social networks, the image often becomes a tool for confinement and manipulation. To put it another way, the moving image, which is the greatest gift that the 19th century gave to the 20th, and which was the foundation of a relationship with truth and a certain beauty of the world, today finds itself the agent of a crusade against it. It is therefore urgent to enable our young people to regain control over their screens, and to invent a new relationship with images for them and with them. It’s a civilizational challenge. How can we do this? In France, we’re going to bring image education into schools, and make cinema the heart of this education. We already have a massive program, “Ma classe au cinéma”, which enables 20% of our pupils (K 12 equivalent, aged 6 to 17) to go and see 3 films a year at the cinema. We want to ensure that 100% of our students not only go to the cinema to see several films a year, but also develop a cinephilic culture, familiarize themselves with the practice, and thus regain control over their screens.
In short, we want to make France, which is already a great cinema country, the leading nation in image education. And take this opportunity to show that cinema, when we have confidence in its democratic role, has a great future.
A Parliamentary commission recently unveiled a report on France’s entertainment industry which found that on sexual violence and sexual harassement was endemic in these cultural sectors. What’s your take on that?
Cinema has always had a mission to inspire, but in the past it has too often done so at the cost of behaviors that can no longer be tolerated today. Yes, the conditions under which a work is produced matters. What I mean is that sexual and sexist violence are present in all our societies. They are not unique to the world of cinema, but they find a slightly more favorable environment in the world of cinema because there is a combination of risk factors: precariousness, it is a profession driven by passion, reputational issues, the specific conditions of filming… It’s quite paradoxical, and it’s this paradox that is unbearable. To say that culture is more conducive to sexual violence is unbearable, because culture, in reality, promises to be a place of openness to others, of dialogue and respect. Once again, there is this mission to set an example, which means that when you believe in cinema, when you love cinema, when you believe in its power to make things better, there is a somewhat instinctive rejection when you see the revelation of our behaviour in other times. So it’s not just a moral issue, you could say, in terms of what we expect of human beings. Not only this kind of behaviour is simply unacceptable, but also, from the perspective of the future of our industries, if we don’t listen to this, we risk fuelling a form of disaffection among the general public.
What has the CNC done to curb sexual violence in the film industry, concretely?
Five years ago, we decided to make all CNC aid conditional on training in the prevention and combating of this violence. In five years, we have trained 6,800 business leaders, producers, distributors and operators, i.e. 100% of business leaders active in France. Since January, we have extended this requirement to all professionals working on film sets. In five months, we have trained 5,000 people. We are in the process of implementing an extremely ambitious awareness-raising program in all our schools and we will continue to do so, particularly with regard to gender equality, where the figures are not yet satisfactory. At the same time, employment law has been changed to introduce many new obligations for the producers: in particular to protect children during filming, to regulate scenes of intimacy and casting… So I’d say that this parliamentary committee of inquiry was very welcome. It has given victims a voice and encouraged them to continue speaking out. But it has confirmed that we were pioneers, five years ago, while offering new paths to continue and amplify our action
