This year, the Cannes Film Festival not only had its eyes on the big screen, but also behind the scenes of French cinema. The fault lies in a scathing statement from the boss of Canal+, Maxime Saada, in response to professionals from the world of cinema who signed a column, published on May 11 in Libération, against influence and“growing influence” on the sector of Vincent Bolloré, far-right billionaire and majority shareholder of the group which owns the encrypted television channel.
“I will no longer work, I no longer want Canal to work with the people who signed this petition”launched Maxime Saada on May 17 in Cannes. A threat which sounds like a “black list” and which did not fail to provoke a little reaction, but also to make a lot of people tremble. Why so much fear? Is the Canal+ group really free to choose, or exclude, the films it finances?
The Canal footprint on all floors
If we had to sum up all this fuss in one sentence, it would be this: today, it is difficult to make cinema in France without going, directly or indirectly, through Canal+. Vincent Bolloré’s empire is present on every level.
To put it simply, a film requires money. Lots of money. To find them, a producer must look everywhere: thanks to public aid or through the National Center for Cinema and Animated Images (CNC), from investors, distributors, foreign producers, platforms or even television channels. A real puzzle, which is articulated on several levels.
As the newspaper Le Monde explains, Canal+ intervenes from the birth of a project, at level zero. With its production (and distribution) company StudioCanal and certain of its subsidiaries, the group can co-produce or directly finance a shoot. From the beginning of a film, we can already find the Canal imprint.
Second crucial level: distribution. It is a strategic position. The distributor is the one who decides how a film is presented to the public, from its promotion to its release in theaters. As you can imagine, a poorly distributed film is a guaranteed flop. With around 200 films financed per year, StudioCanal is a key player. And it’s far from over.
Leading broadcaster of French cinema
This is surely the most important point and where Canal+ weighs all its weight: broadcasting. In 2025, the group invested 163 million euros in 148 French films for broadcasting, or almost half of all broadcasters’ investments. An amount which earned it the title of leading broadcaster of French cinema.
Looking more closely, we are more likely to see a financier disguised as a broadcaster. A large part of this money actually arrives well before the films are released. The law requires channels like Canal+ to carry out compulsory pre-financing: that is to say, the purchase of broadcasting rights even before the films are shot. The broadcasters are therefore often the co-financers of the film from its conception.
In exchange, Canal+, in its dominant position, benefits from authorization to broadcast a film six months after its theatrical release, compared to twenty-two months for free channels. As you might have guessed, we were not into philanthropism.
If we had to do a quick recap, the power of Canal+ goes far beyond that of a simple broadcaster: the group is present from the beginning to the end of the channel, with considerable financial weight. Their choices necessarily influence what ends up being produced. And this is where the story gets tricky.
Concretely, the Canal+ group does not decide alone which films exist. It does not have a legal monopoly on French cinema. However, at each of these levels, Canal+ retains freedom of choice. Because the law dictates how much he must invest, not on whom.
A formidable power
As the group led by Maxime Saada represents a huge part of the financing of French cinema, its choices necessarily influence what ends up being produced. This is where the real power of Canal+ lies: by deciding which projects to pre-finance, which films to distribute, it can shape French cinema as much by its choices as by its refusals. Especially since having the support of the group on a project is also a guarantee of confidence for investors, who more easily embark on the adventure.
Canal+ can thus theoretically prefer certain directors, push for certain actors, favor more mainstream films, or choose not to finance this or that project. Ultimately, Canal+ therefore strongly influences the films that become financeable, as its place has become almost indispensable in the economy of French cinema.
This concentration of power poses a crucial question. What if Canal+’s film choices were one day no longer made on artistic or commercial criteria, but rather political or even ideological ones? This is where certain concerns of professionals in the sector are concentrated, who dared to name them in the column published in Libé. And who could, if Maxime Saada’s exit is to be believed, pay the price.
This fear is far from irrational. Vincent Bolloré, owner of the Canal+ group and eleventh richest person in France, is a figure as central as he is controversial. His media empire, which includes the CNews news channel, was patiently set up with the aim of waging an ideological war with one objective: to promote the opening up of the far right and hasten the union of the rights, summarizes France Inter. And this, in order to install the National Rally in power in 2027. If the influence of this ideological offensive on the content of the films is for the moment discreet, its “civilizational project” did not escape anyone.
Especially since this concentration of power in the French cinema landscape could further increase. “In October 2025, the Canal+ group acquired 34% of the capital of UGC, the third largest network of French cinemas, with the prospect of acquiring 100% of the shares by 2028. This is a new step in Vincent Bolloré’s expansion strategy”write the nearly 600 professionals in the forum.
And you have probably already visited a cinema in the UGC network, which owns fifty-five complexes in France and Belgium, including Les Halles in Paris, the busiest cinema in the world. In the future, the group could theoretically decide not only not to finance or distribute a film, but also not to program it in its theaters.
