French cinema was shaken to its core just days ahead of the iconic Cannes Festival that took place between 12-23 May, as more than 600 professionals signed a petition protesting against the ever-growing hold of conservative businessman Vincent Bolloré on the country’s film industry.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Hollywood stars Javier Bardem and Ken Loach are among those who have since added their names to the petition, which includes names such as esteemed French actresses Adèle Haenel and Juliette Binoche.
The petition, which now counts almost 3,500 signatures, was initiated by the collective “Zapper Bolloré”, which translates to “Zap away from Bolloré”, calling out “the growing influence of the far-right” inside France’s film industry. It singles out Bolloré, who is the largest stakeholder of the country’s biggest film producer, Canal+.
The 74-year-old media mogul has been accused of using his empire to promote reactionary and far-right ideas.
In 2025, the Canal+ group announced that it had acquired a 34% stake in the UGC cinema chain, while also signalling its intention to pursue “a potential takeover” of the group in 2028.
“By leaving French cinema in the hands of a far-right figure, we risk not only a homogenisation of films, but also a fascist grip on the collective imagination,” read the petition, published in French media outlet Libération.
Threats made by Canal+ CEO
In response to the petition, Maxime Saada, chief executive of Canal+, stated that the group should cease its collaboration with film professionals who signed the petition during an event for film producers held at the Cannes festival on 17 May.
“I experienced that petition as an injustice toward the Canal+ teams, who are committed to defending the independence of Canal+ and the full diversity of its choices,” Saada said.
“I will no longer work with, and I no longer want Canal to work with the people who signed that petition,” he added.
Euronews contacted the Canal+ group to ask whether Saada’s threats would be carried through, but representatives declined to comment.
For many industry professionals and commentators, Saada’s comments amount to boycott threats, which could constitute a possible violation of freedom of speech.
In an address made to the National Assembly, socialist deputy Céline Hervieu accused Bolloré of “quashing freedom of speech and of creativity”, while French actress Adèle Exarchopoulos stated, “you cannot be afraid of losing your job simply for expressing a collective concern.”
Do Saada’s comments amount to a boycott threat?
“Those who signed the petition spoke out and exercised their right to freedom of speech, sharing their fears about a particular group”, Yann Personnic, a Paris-based lawyer specialised in media and intellectual property law, told Euronews.
Personnic notes however that Saada’s comments are not an actual direct violation of France’s freedom of speech laws, as the media executive is also entitled to speak freely. For him, the thornier question revolves around where the law stands if Saada were to follow through with his threat.
“This would come into conflict with certain legal principles, notably non-discrimination in the workplace,” Personnic said. “One cannot discriminate against people or refuse to work with them based on their political opinions. If a distinction was made on this basis between two possible collaborators — disrupting a possible economic partnership — this could constitute a legal offence.”
“This principle applies to both employees in the context of employment law, but also to potential independent producers with whom contracts could be signed.”
Despite this, it would be difficult for signatories of the petition to prove any such discrimination before the courts.
“If the Canal+ group says ‘I do not want to work with you because you signed that open letter’, that is obviously reprehensible; but if it says ‘I will not work with you, I will not take part in this film for such-and-such artistic or financial reasons’ – reasons that are specific to it but legitimate – then that cannot hold be held against them.”
“That is why, in practice, we could not put forward non-discriminatory arguments, but perhaps argue that the hidden intention behind them is discrimination. But you cannot always prove that; it is up to the person who made the decision. Ultimately, it is a question of evidence and proof.”
A legal obligation for Canal+ to produce diverse range of films
As the debate in France centres around Bolloré’s political stance, legal experts warn that Canal+ remains bound to a string of legal obligations designed to protect media pluralism in France.
“While Canal+ is free to work with the individuals that it wants to work with, it has a legal obligation to invest in work produced in the French language, to work with independent productions, within set budgets — in short, obligations in general,” said Personnic.
France’s 1986 foundational legislation governing freedom of communication is a fundamental cornerstone upon which TV channels are required to ensure the pluralistic expression of different schools of thought and to promote diversity.
In the background, key figures in French cinema have attempted to defuse the heated situation, with France’s audiovisual regulatory body Arcom calling on all sides to “engage in dialogue” and to “lower the temperature”.
The French Society of Film Directors (SRF), which comprises around 500 filmmakers, also put forward a proposal for “mediation” between the signatories of the petition and the film teams at Canal+, with the aim of “rebuilding trust”.
It remains to be seen what the outcome of these efforts will be.
