Jacques Audiard, Audrey Diwan Among French Filmmakers Calling Out U.S. Directors' Attack on European Regulations: ‘Our Policies Should Not Serve as Scapegoats' (EXCLUSIVE)
While the Trump administration has sparked uproar in the European Union over the president's aggressive new trade policy, it's also fueled tensions between the U.S. and European film industries.
Jacques Audiard ('Emilia Perez'), Costa-Gavras ('Z'), Audrey Diwan ('Happening') and Claude Lelouch ('A Man and a Woman') are among the French filmmakers who have called out the the offensive led by the American film community against EU regulations, including the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMS), which forces foreign streaming services to invest a portion of their revenues into local productions.
More from Variety
Alice Rohrwacher to Preside Over Cannes Caméra d'Or Jury
Fatma Hassona, the Palestinian Protagonist of Cannes-Bound 'Put Your Soul on Your Hand and Walk,' Killed in Israeli Missile Strike
Lucio Castro's Cannes ACID Title 'Drunken Noodles' Boarded by M-Appeal (EXCLUSIVE)
In an open letter signed on behalf of France's two main film orgs, ARP (Authors, Directors, Producers) and SRF (Society of French Directors), French filmmakers said they were 'astonished' by the memorandum signed by the Directors Guild of America (DGA) and the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE).
The message, which was sent in March to the United States Trade Representative (USTR), underlined the 'disproportionate investment obligations' in European countries including France, Germany and Italy. The MPA also blamed these local content quotas and investment obligations for creating barriers, reducing residuals for their guild members, leading to job losses and runaway productions.
The filmmakers who signed the open letter — also including Cedric Klapisch and Stephane Demoustier, who have their latest movies playing at Cannes — argue that France's 'proactive cultural policy' and regulations are responsible for the country's healthy theatrical market, which has Europe's largest number of cinemas. They also pointed out that France's unique system of a levy on every movie ticket sold is 'highly beneficial to American films, which account for an average of 45% of our box-office, and for which France remains one of the leading markets.' In 2024, for instance, the French box office was largely bolstered by Disney tentpoles such as 'Inside Out 2' and 'Moana 2,' which sold 8.4 million and 6.7 million tickets, respectively, as well as 'Despicable Me 4' and 'Dune 2.'
Even independent American cinema also benefits from French regulations, the letter claimed, because U.S. indie movies tend to draw strong box office revenues in France.
That levy system was established in 1948 to support cultural diversity and has ultimately created a dynamic market where box office grosses are 'often higher than in countries with lower taxes.'
The French filmmakers also countered the MPA's argument suggesting that the recent decline in U.S. film production was caused by 'foreign taxes or legislative policies.'
'Hollywood strikes, studio decisions to move productions abroad, majors opting to scale back investments, inflationary environment and a global post-COVID market contraction may also explain this decline,' the French guilds said. 'Our policies should not serve as scapegoats for these strategic and industrial decisions, nor for the decline of the United States' production.'
While the French filmmakers vowed to see France 'remain a land of refuge and creation for stories in all their diversity,' they ended their letter suggesting their respective representatives meet at the Cannes Film Festival to 'pursue this discussion and build a united front.'
Alongside the DGA and IATSE, the Motion Picture Association, which represents the interests of Disney, Netflix, Paramount, Amazon Prime/MGM, Sony Pictures, Universal and Warner Bros., also criticized European regulations in a memo to the United States Trade Representative, which in turn prompted an open letter signed by a group of European Parliament members, led by France's Emma Rafowicz and addressed to the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, as well as commissioners Henna Virkkunen and Glenn Micallef. That letter urges them to protect the AVMS directive, saying it is 'currently under crossfire from American streaming platforms who would like unfettered access to the European market.'
In the backdrop of these tensions, Netflix has lodged an appeal with France's Council of State about France's windowing rules, which force the streamer to wait 15 months to access newly released films in spite of the fact that they invest 20% of their local turnover in French content.
Here's the letter from the ARP and SRF in full:
Honorable Members of the DGA,
Dear Colleagues,
We read with great interest and some astonishment your letter to the United States TradeRepresentative. We felt it was important to address some of your concerns and to reengage in a constructive dialogue about our respective sectors.
As a matter of facts, a film and audiovisual policy exists in France, within the EuropeanUnion, and in many countries around the world. Regarding France, it is thanks to ourmodel and its regulations that our market is so dynamic. Our proactive cultural policy hasenabled us to become the country with the highest number of movie theaters in Europe,and to attract a significant number of moviegoers. Yet this regulation is highly beneficialto American films, which account for an average of 45% of our box-office, and for whichFrance remains one of the leading markets. Our regulation also supports independentAmerican cinema, which very often finds its audience in France and which we will alwaysgladly welcome.
Thus, the good health of national markets is a sine qua non condition for maintaining adynamic market, not only in terms of audience but also in terms of infrastructure, andultimately in terms of box office revenue, TV and SVOD viewership, and so on, whichbenefits non-national works, American ones included. We are convinced that our modelsafeguards not only French creation but creation from all over the world.To give you a concrete example: thanks to France's cultural policy and to taxes collectedfrom all operators broadcasting films (both French and foreign), we have a youtheducation program about films, nurturing today's and tomorrow's large audience ofmoviegoers, and we can fund a wide range of actions promoting films creation anddistribution.
Our Film Admission Tax is a contribution collected on every ticket sold in French movietheaters. Established in 1948, in the post Second World War context of cultural andeconomic reconstruction, its purpose is to support the national film industry through itsredistribution mechanism. This earmarked tax system is relatively rare and is consideredas a model in Europe for supporting cultural diversity. While it primarily benefits Frenchfilms, international productions (including American ones) can also receive support undercertain conditions like co-producing with a French company, hiring French technicians orartists, and meeting language, shooting, or local expenses quotas. Films like Midnight inParis by Woody Allen or Inglourious Basterds by Quentin Tarantino have thereforereceived support from the CNC.
We create a more dynamic market, we achieve greater overall revenue thanks to our highnumber of spectators, which makes the tax highly profitable. As a result, France's totalgross is often higher than in countries with lower taxes, but fewer tickets sold.We are also quite surprised that such policies could be considered as 'unfair tradepractices,' especially since the United States are themselves very familiar withprotectionist policies: as early as 1918, the Webb-Pomerene Act created an exception toantitrust laws for exports, in other words allowed cartels to form provided that theyoperated outside the borders of the United States, thus enabling entertainment giants toreach a commercial agreement to jointly manage the broadcast of their films abroad, upuntil 2004. In 1946, the U.S. government agreed to cancel European debts in exchange forthe removal of quotas on French films in French movie theaters. And as recently as 2006,South Korea agreed to reduce its screen quota under a trade deal with the United States.
You express concerns about the relocation of film shoots due, for example, to taxcredits or obligations to invest in creation.
First, it is important to note that our regulations are non-discriminatory, sinceinvestment and broadcasting obligations have historically concerned local broadcastersand now apply to all players operating in France and Europe, whatever their nationality.Moreover, strategies adopted by studios and platforms to relocate film shoots predate theintroduction of obligations. This can be explained by tax credits, a practice implementedin all filmmaking countries with no exception: many states in the United States are proofof this. Lower production costs abroad are another factor, as seen in Canada, where manyAmerican films have been shot for the past twenty years. It also results from the industrialstrategy of certain streamers to address local audiences with local content, in the locallanguage, to expand their market share in each country. More than half of MPA membercompanies' revenues is generated outside the United States, clear evidence that thesecompanies have a strong ability to expand their reach on international consumers.
Of course, we regret the decrease in production in the United States since 2022. We believeit would be incorrect to attribute this solely to foreign taxes or legislative policies:Hollywood strikes, studio decisions to move productions abroad, majors opting to scaleback investments, inflationary environment, and a global post-Covid market contractionmay also explain this decline. Our policies should not serve as scapegoats for thesestrategic and industrial decisions, nor for the decline of the United States' production.At a time when the gap between the United States and the rest of the world iswidening, we believe it is more important than ever that we, European and Americanfilmmakers, remain united and supportive, continuing to foster mutually beneficialexchanges in our respective sectors for economic, political, and cultural reasons.
Since the early days of cinema, filmmakers on both sides of the Atlantic have admired,inspired, and collaborated continuously, driven by the same passion.We also share many common battles, for better recognition and appreciation of ourprofessions, to ensure that AI, which is playing a growing role in our industry, respectscopyright, and that the territoriality of rights in Europe continues to be a source of betterdistribution and circulation of works, and therefore of better revenue for your membersand ours.
You mention in your letter a 'global exchange of free speech': we are deeply committed toprotecting independence of creation and freedom of expression, values our modelupholds, to ensure we remain a land of refuge and creation for stories in all their diversity.We propose organizing a meeting between our organizations to pursue this discussionand build a united front. The Cannes Film Festival could be a great opportunity toexchange views on these matters together.
Please accept, dear colleagues, our warmest regards,
ARP and SRF FilmmakersAmong our members: Costa-Gavras, Claude Lelouch, Jacques Audiard, Ce dric Klapisch,Euzhan Palcy, Radu Mihaileanu, Audrey Diwan, Ste phane Demoustier, Zoe Wittock, andothers.
Best of Variety
New Movies Out Now in Theaters: What to See This Week
What's Coming to Disney+ in April 2025
The Best Celebrity Memoirs to Read This Year: From Chelsea Handler to Anthony Hopkins
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
25 minutes ago
- The Hill
Updated Senate bill slashes wind and solar incentives – and adds a new tax
An updated draft of the Senate's megabill text slashes tax incentives for wind and solar energy – and adds a new tax on future wind and solar projects. The initial draft released by Senate Republicans earlier this month cut the credit for any wind and solar projects that did not 'begin construction' by certain dates, while the latest version bases incentives on when projects actually begin producing electricity — a much higher bar to clear. The first draft gave any project that began construction this year full credit, any project that began construction next year 60 percent credit and any project that began construction in 2027 20 percent of the credit, before they were phased out thereafter. The new legislation instead says that the credits will only apply to facilities that begin producing electricity before the end of 2027. In addition, it imposes a new tax on some wind and solar projects that are placed in service after 2027. The projects that will be taxed if a certain percentage of the value of their components come from China. The Democrats' 2022 Inflation Reduction Act included hundreds of billions of dollars in tax credits for low-carbon energy sources, including renewable energy. These subsidies were expected to massively reduce the U.S.' planet warming emissions. The GOP's cuts to the credits are expected to severely curtail those gains. If they pass, the cuts represent a win for the party's right flank, which has pushed for major cuts to the credits, and a loss for it's more moderate wing which has called for a slower phaseout. The renewables lobby slammed the changes as hampering the sector. 'In what can only be described as 'midnight dumping,' the Senate has proposed a punitive tax hike targeting the fastest-growing sectors of our energy industry. It is astounding that the Senate would intentionally raise prices on consumers rather than encouraging economic growth and addressing the affordability crisis facing American households,' Jason Grumet, CEO of the American Clean Power Association, said in a written statement. 'These new taxes will strand hundreds of billions of dollars in current investments, threaten energy security, and undermine growth in domestic manufacturing and land hardest on rural communities who would have been the greatest beneficiaries of clean energy investment,' he added.


Boston Globe
26 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Senate Republicans revise Trump's policy bill, scrounging for votes to pass it
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Republican leaders in the Senate are rushing to shore up support for the legislation so they can quickly pass it and send it to the House for final approval in time to meet the July 4 deadline Trump has set. An initial vote in the Senate could come later Saturday. Advertisement Party leaders are trying to appease two flanks of their conference. Some, including Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, said they could not support it without greater reassurances that the Medicaid cuts it contains would not hurt rural hospitals in their states. And fiscal hawks, including Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, have said they do not want to back legislation that would only increase the deficit. Advertisement The core of the bill remains the same. It would extend tax cuts passed by Republicans in 2017 and add some new ones Trump campaigned on, while slashing spending on safety-net programs, including Medicaid and food assistance. The biggest tax cuts and the biggest changes to those anti-poverty programs remained intact. Taken together, the bill would likely increase federal debt by more than $3 trillion over the next decade, though lawmakers are still shaping the bill and waiting on an official estimate from the Congressional Budget Office. With Trump demanding quick action, Republicans in Congress have intensified their efforts to push it through to enactment even as many of them — including several who voted for it in the House — have been open about their reservations about a measure they are concerned could be a political loser. The revisions released early Saturday were designed to allay some of those concerns. Senators, including Tillis and Susan Collins, R-Maine, had pressed for the inclusion of a rural hospital fund to help health care providers absorb the impact of a provision that would crack down on strategies that many states have developed to finance their Medicaid programs. Despite their pushback, that provider tax change remains in the bill, though lawmakers have delayed its implementation by one year. It is unclear whether a $25 billion compensation fund will be enough to win their votes. Collins had suggested that she wanted to provide as much as $100 billion to ensure that rural hospitals, which operate on thin margins, were not adversely affected. Advertisement But it appeared to be enough to win over at least one Republican holdout who had expressed concern about the Medicaid cuts — Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, who said he would vote for the bill and was confident that changes benefit his state at least in the short term. A new provision allowing 'individuals in a noncontiguous state' to be exempt from enforcing new work requirements imposed on SNAP, formerly known as food stamps, appeared aimed at mollifying Murkowski of Alaska. Her state would be hit with billions of dollars in nutrition assistance costs as a result of the legislation, and she had cited the provision as one of her chief concerns. The bill also includes new health provisions designed to benefit Alaska, as well as new tax benefits for fishers in the state's waters. Some of the changes were aimed at appealing to members of the House, where Republicans from high-tax states like New York have threatened to sink the bill if it does not include a substantial increase in the state and local tax deduction, currently capped at $10,000. Senate Republicans, skeptical of the deduction, still ultimately decided to match the House plan to lift the cap to $40,000. But while the House made the increase permanent, the Senate keeps it for only five years, allowing it to snap back to $10,000 in 2030. The newest draft makes even sharper cuts to subsidies for wind and solar power, something that Trump and other conservatives had explicitly called for this past week. It remains to be seen whether those changes could cause friction with Republicans who have publicly supported green energy credits, including Tillis, Murkowski and Sen. John Curtis of Utah. Advertisement Previously, the Senate proposed allowing companies that were building wind and solar farms to claim a tax credit worth at least 30% of their costs if they started construction this year, with a phaseout over two years. But the revised bill would require companies place their projects 'in service' by the end of 2027 to claim the tax break. The bill would also impose additional taxes on renewable energy projects that receive 'material assistance' from China, even if they don't qualify for the credit. Because China dominates global supply chains, those new fees could affect a large number of projects. The new Senate measure would more quickly end tax credits for electric vehicles, doing away with them by Sept. 30. It would also slow the phaseout of a lucrative tax credit to make hydrogen fuels, allowing such projects to qualify if construction were started by the end of 2027, instead of by the end of this year. The bill also includes a provision written by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, to sell as much as 1.225 million acres of federal land across the American West in order to build housing. Earlier versions of that proposal that would have auctioned off even more acreage had drawn fierce opposition from conservative hunters and outdoorsmen, and Republican senators from Montana and Idaho had said they would not vote for it. This article originally appeared in


The Hill
30 minutes ago
- The Hill
Nikki Haley hails Trump for US strikes but warns ‘Iran is not done'
Former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley offered her first praise for President Trump in several months in a Monday op-ed in Israel Hayom, an Israeli right-wing newspaper. She congratulated his decision to strike three Iranian nuclear sites but warned of further retaliation from Iran. 'Those in America that worry about why these strikes took place should understand that those strikes were a move to keep Americans safer. That was a move to take out one of the threats that Iran has used against Americans for years,' Haley wrote in the outlet owned by Republican megadonor Miriam Adelson. Israel Hayom is distributed in Hebrew and is also available online in English. The op-ed is a rare public appearance for Haley, who has largely faded from public view since the 2024 election. When she has spoken on Trump's foreign policy decisions in recent months, she has often criticized them, panning him for a phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin and slamming his acceptance of a Qatari jet. In the opinion piece, however, Haley praised Trump's decision as 'very well done' while arguing that the United States should continue to be hawkish on Iran for the sake of both America and Israel. 'A safe and secure Israel helps us have a safe and secure America,' she wrote, arguing that the chance of diplomacy with Tehran was thin. 'They always say they want to talk, but the action doesn't match what they want to do,' she wrote. 'Trump was right that while you could kick this can down the road if you wanted, the threat would only get bigger.' She also took aim at the United Nations after Secretary-General António Guterres said he was 'gravely alarmed' by the strikes, accusing the international arbiter of failing to condemn Iran's moves on ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons. Haley finished by warning that America and Israel both needed to remain on guard. 'Americans need to be vigilant of our military bases in the region. We need to be vigilant of cyber attacks that could come our way through Iran. Iran is not done,' she wrote. As Trump's ambassador to the United Nations during his first term, Haley made the case both to him and to the global stage that the United States should back out of its 2015 nuclear deal with Iran. In the 2024 Republican presidential primary, during which she attempted to criticize the president, she also positioned herself as both a staunch defender of Israel and a Middle East hawk. After being the last of Trump's primary challengers to bow out, Haley failed to secure a place in his administration (she claimed she wanted no part in it). She is currently at the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank, and making her way around the speaker circuit.