The statements by Carlos Pirovano, president of the National Institute of Cinema and Audiovisual Arts (INCAA), in a televised/online interview with Infobae laid bare his lack of understanding of the industry and his total lack of experience in the sector. In a context marked by the debate over labor reform and the future of funding for Argentine cinema, the official offered a series of mistaken and even contradictory definitions that reveal the government’s approach to the field. Rather than providing reassurance, the interview amplified concerns about the potential defunding of the system. Pirovano sought to tone down the debate by downplaying the impact of the changes. “It’s always overly dramatized. State funding comes from a democratic discussion, which is the budget,” he said, referring to the possible elimination of the earmarked allocations that currently sustain the Film Development Fund—allocations that, whether Pirovano likes it or not, are currently enshrined in law and that INCAA is violating by using those funds to finance the Treasury.

The head of INCAA, who has no prior experience in the audiovisual world, insisted that cinema would not be left without state support. “The Film Development Fund isn’t disappearing. The only difference is that before it was financed with specific resources, and now it would come from general revenues,” he said. However, the explanation failed to dispel criticism, since the current system operates autonomously and eventual dependence on the national budget would mean that cinema competes with other sectors in a context of austerity and a broader attack on culture.

The phrase that generated the most backlash was another. Asked about the number of productions in development—which he himself estimated at around 250 for 2026 and 2027, although there is no official data to support this—Pirovano said: “Argentinians don’t have time to watch 250 movies a year.” The statement amounts to a dismissal of the scale of local production and reflects the government’s lack of understanding of how the industry works, where not all films target the same circuits or respond to the same commercial logic.

The official tried to justify his stance with an efficiency argument. In his view, “Argentine cinema cannot function under a logic in which dozens or hundreds of projects are funded without guaranteeing that they actually reach audiences or generate cultural and economic impact,” a statement that, like others throughout the interview, does not explain how that goal would be achieved.

During the interview, Pirovano also defended eliminating the specific taxes that currently feed film funding. “You pay that tax anyway. Argentina has more than a hundred taxes. No modern country works like that. They need to be eliminated and priorities discussed in the budget,” he argued, despite his lack of knowledge. In reality, many so-called “modern” countries—such as France, Germany, and Denmark—are moving in the opposite direction, creating stronger financial incentives and expanding film funds to boost production and attract foreign investment. When asked by one of the journalists whether, under his own logic, cinema would still be funded by society through general taxation, the official avoided elaborating.

Another question focused on why the elimination of the earmarked funding scheme was extended until 2028. There, Pirovano admitted he had no clear explanation or information on the matter. The fact that the president of INCAA could not explain why the agency will retain its funding for two more years exposed another weakness in the government’s argument. Nor was there any reference to the funds INCAA placed in Treasury financial instruments in recent years or to their possible restitution.

The head of INCAA also criticized the current subsidy system and targeted previous administrations. “The law establishes subsidies based on box office. What was done before was an illegal advance: money was given before filming and then not recovered,” he said. He concluded: “The risk is private. Cinema is not a state activity; it’s a private activity with public support.” The definition ignores the strategic role the state itself has played in consolidating national production over decades.

Another segment that sparked debate was related to ticket prices. While defending the elimination of the 10% tax on tickets, he argued: “If you pay 10% on a ticket, you’re paying 700 pesos more. Ticket prices will go down.” Leaving aside how small that tax actually is, specialists note that this claim overlooks how exhibition prices are formed—shaped by inflation, operating costs, and commercial agreements—so there is no guarantee that a tax cut would translate into a real reduction for audiences… of 700 pesos (roughly, for example, half the price of a subway ride).

The interview revealed something deeper than a technical dispute. Pirovano’s statements reinforced the perception that the government is not only pushing for a structural change in film funding but doing so from a perspective that misunderstands how the industry operates. Beyond its cultural and educational value, Argentine cinema is an economic activity that generates skilled employment, investment, and international circulation. In that context, the head of INCAA’s remarks did more than spark controversy: they reinforced the sense that the debate is unfolding without a real understanding of what is being reformed.

Link entrevista completa