We chatted with Mathieu Ripka, the new director general of the ARP – Civil Society of Authors-Directors-Producers, on the occasion of the 34th edition of the Film Meetings (unspooling in Touquet-Paris-Plage between 6 and 8 November).

Cineuropa: Why is independence one of the main topics of this year’s Film Meetings?
Mathieu Ripka: We’re starting from the observation that certain pillars of French success and our ongoing adaptation to user habits are constantly coming under attack. Whether it’s a question of the CNC’s money, media chronology windows, tax credits, SOFICA companies or geo-blocking, everything which contributes to the success of French and European cinema is comes under regular attack, and often for ill-informed reasons. Everyone more or less agrees that Europe’s strength is in its diversity, that it’s important that people can represent themselves through their art and express themselves in their own way, and that this representation shouldn’t come from elsewhere. But, paradoxically, regulation is what makes diversity, creative freedom and independence possible. But it’s often characterised by off-putting or even reactionary words like geo-blocking, investment obligations, etc., which perturb certain liberals. There’s a de-correlation between these key principles, which everyone agrees on, and the rules which would allow us to meet these objectives (which aren’t only cultural, in fact, because they also have an economic basis). These days, talking about “cultural exception” in Brussels is tantamount to cursing! That’s not normal! So we need to teach people about these key principles and be specific about what exactly allows for this creative freedom when producing, funding and broadcasting films. We advocate for some really brilliant initiatives which are regularly attacked, even though we regularly prove the success of what we’re championing.

(El artículo continúa más abajo - Inf. publicitaria)

Takeovers of independent production companies by larger groups have increased in recent years. What is the ARP’s position in this regard?
We often hear that we need to consolidate to fight off the competition posed by GAFAMs. But what do we actually meant by this? A consolidation of broadcasters? And are these broadcasters carrying out the same work as GAFAMs? Not necessarily. But it’s a huge question for film production because, very often, independence allows us to carry forward a vision, creatively, in how the films – which are all prototypes – are constructed, which is hard when you’re part of a group and you have to report to forty or so people: the vision you carry forward is automatically diminished. Obviously, a film is a collective work and everyone gives their opinion, but it’s complicated when large groups are involved, because there are lots of constraints. Independence allows for diversity and diversity is our strong point.

That said, large corporations are all very different from one another. Federation isn’t Mediawan and Mediawan isn’t Banijay and Banijay isn’t UGC, and each of them could have their own reasons for creating works. What is clear, however, is that protecting independence is essential to protect the creative freedom which is our strength. One very recent example is A Little Something Extra which was turned down by the big groups because they weren’t bowled over by the subject-matter; an independent producer subsequently went for it and the film ended up reporting 10.7 million admissions in France. So we need to make sure we preserve the fabric of independent companies, some of which are being bought by groups without knowing what kind of result this will give in the long term. Because there’s always a risk with consolidation: if it fails, lots of companies will disappear, which obviously isn’t what I want.

To give another example, if you apply for a CNC advance on receipts and you’ve been given extensive capital to develop a screenplay - 100,000 or 150,000 euros, for example, because you’ve got a group behind you - and you find yourself faced with a genuinely independent producer who can’t take the risk of investing so much money in a screenplay, from this stage onwards your creative freedom is automatically impacted by a distortion of competition. Because the role of an advance on receipts should also be to allow for creative freedom. Should we brief the film commissions about this? Redefine the aims of advances on receipts? More broadly speaking, we need to think about the ways we can really protect independence, because that’s what really allows for creative freedom and which results in successful works like Anatomy of a Fall [+lee también:
crítica
tráiler
entrevista: Justine Triet
ficha de la película], The Story of Souleymane [+lee también:
crítica
tráiler
entrevista: Boris Lojkine
ficha de la película] and so many more. But, as I said, this ecosystem regularly comes under attack. So it’s really important to keep reminding people what this creative process involves and about its artisanal side and the prototype nature of each and every film.