The new Film Law continues advancing in the Congress, but still has a substantive negotiation ahead. As DEMÓCRATA reported, the working group intended to resume negotiations after the summer, and that has been the case. This Wednesday, it met to address the amendments from the parliamentary groups and confirm that there is still much work ahead: on the table are more than 460 proposals for modification to the articles and the groups expect to continue working in upcoming sessions.
The volume of changes largely explains the pace of the processing. The parliamentary record includes 463 amendments to the project, which aims to replace the current Film Law of 2007 and expand its scope to also incorporate the concept of audiovisual culture. The text, which surpassed the total debate in June, now faces one of the decisive phases: turning that broad catalog of proposals into a text that can gather the necessary support in Congress.
The meeting this Wednesday has not yet resulted in a definitive agreement on the main issues that separate the groups. The PSOE has continued working, according to parliamentary sources, to incorporate demands from the sector and move towards a consensus text. There is, for now, no new fixed date for the working group, although the intention is to reconvene it in the coming weeks. And it is precisely in that negotiation where some of the issues that can define the Spanish film model for the coming years are found.
The box office enters the debate on aid
One of the issues that has generated the most interest is the PP's proposal for the commercial performance of a film to be taken into account when granting certain public aids. The amendment does not establish that a good box office will automatically become a condition for receiving subsidies, but it does open the door to evaluating the results obtained by films in previous years.
The approach thus introduces a substantive debate about what film policy should reward: the economic performance of a production, its ability to attract viewers, or also other criteria linked to diversity, cultural creation, and the protection of projects with greater difficulties in accessing the market.
It is not the only front. The future law will also have to find a balance between production, distribution, and exhibition at a time when the ways of consuming cinema have changed radically since the approval of the current regulation.
The screen quota, another of the major knots
The screen quota is another of the points that can complicate the negotiation. Current legislation requires theaters to reserve at least 25% of their sessions for cinematographic works from member states of the European Union, with certain reinforced computation mechanisms.
The project proposes to modify that scheme, while several amendments seek to raise the percentage and expand the weight of European and Ibero-American productions. Among them, some proposals suggest raising the quota to 40% and reinforcing the presence of films in co-official languages.
The discussion directly affects exhibition halls, which must fit these obligations into a market conditioned by public demand, competition from platforms, and box office behavior.
How long a film should remain in theaters
The other major debate lies in the so-called exhibition window: the period that must elapse between the release of a film in theaters and its arrival on platforms or other distribution channels.
The registered proposals show very different positions. ERC proposes setting a minimum of four months, while other amendments place that period at 50 or 60 days.
This is not a minor issue. The duration of that window conditions the business model of theaters, but also the distribution and financing strategies of films. A longer window protects cinematic exploitation for a longer time; a shorter one allows platforms to incorporate titles earlier and adapt to current consumption habits.
The law will have to decide to what extent the legislator should intervene in that balance.
A law that wants to encompass the entire audiovisual ecosystem
The project goes beyond updating film subsidies. It also introduces changes in the institutional structure of the sector and expands the concept of audiovisual culture. Among the registered amendments, there are proposals related to the ICAA, the Spanish Film Archive, financing, tax incentives, the rights of professionals, artificial intelligence, or the representation of different sectors in decision-making bodies.
Precisely, artificial intelligence has become one of the new areas of discussion. Some amendments propose to limit access to certain public benefits of works generated totally or partially by AI, while others seek to introduce guarantees for professionals and creators in the face of the advance of these technologies.
There are also proposals related to equality, the prevention of sexual violence in filming, and the reservation of certain lines of aid for projects directed by women, young people, or produced in co-official languages.
The result is a regulation much broader than a simple update of the 2007 Film Law. And also a considerably more complex negotiation.
The challenge now: to turn 463 amendments into a law
The meeting of the working group leaves, therefore, a double message. The processing is still alive and the groups continue negotiating, but the text is still far from being considered closed. The more than 460 registered amendments are proof of the number of interests that converge in a regulation that aims to organize practically the entire audiovisual ecosystem.
The next session will be the one that allows us to see if the conversations begin to translate into concrete agreements. Until then, the main questions remain open: what weight will box office have in the aids, how much cinema must be programmed in the theaters, how long will the films remain in them before jumping to the platforms, and how will the legislation respond to technological changes and the linguistic reality of the sector.
The law is advancing, but it still has to pass the most complicated test: finding a balance between an industry that demands economic muscle, theaters that need an audience, and a cultural policy model that aims to ensure that Spanish and European cinema continues to have space in a market increasingly dominated by platforms.