{"id":4673,"date":"2026-08-15T03:18:00","date_gmt":"2026-08-15T03:18:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/diplomatique.ma\/en\/?p=4673"},"modified":"2026-08-15T15:19:20","modified_gmt":"2026-08-15T15:19:20","slug":"public-support-for-moroccan-cinema-when-rejecting-a-film-becomes-a-crisis-of-trust","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/diplomatique.ma\/en\/public-support-for-moroccan-cinema-when-rejecting-a-film-becomes-a-crisis-of-trust\/","title":{"rendered":"Public Support for Moroccan Cinema: When Rejecting a Film Becomes a Crisis of Trust"},"content":{"rendered":"

The announcement of the results of the second 2026 session for public support to Moroccan film production has brought the relationship between filmmakers and state funding back into the spotlight. The controversy took on a sharper dimension after director and screenwriter Idriss Chouika reacted to the rejection of his feature film project Sarab Rimal<\/em>, going so far as to announce his decision to leave the country and put his production company up for sale. In response, Amine Nassour, president of the Moroccan Cinematographic Centre\u2019s committee for supporting cinematic works, defended the selection process, stressing that the committee could not approve every application and that rejecting a project was neither a judgment on its creator nor a prohibition against making the film.<\/p>\n

The two sides are essentially talking about the same issue from two very different positions. For the committee, the task is to weigh more than fifty projects in each session and select only a limited number in certain categories, while taking into account diversity in genres, generations and cinematic experiences. For a filmmaker whose project has been rejected, however, the decision is not always experienced with the same administrative distance, particularly when the film has required years of work and preparation and public support represents one of the principal means of moving from a script to actual production.<\/p>\n

That is where the real tension lies. It is perfectly reasonable to say that everyone cannot receive public support, just as the rejection of a project does not, by itself, prove corruption or favoritism. But the legitimacy of the selection process leaves another question unanswered: is the explanation given to the project holder clear enough for him or her to understand why the project was rejected?<\/strong> In the case of Sarab Rimal<\/em>, the rejection decision, according to the document published by Chouika, referred to the film\u2019s \u201cinsufficiently strong dramatic structure\u201d and the need for greater \u201cdramatic credibility\u201d in its events. Such assessments may be sufficient within a professional deliberation, but they become less convincing when communicated to the filmmaker without explaining more precisely what weaknesses led to the project being eliminated.<\/p>\n

This does not mean that the committee must justify its decision until every filmmaker is personally satisfied. It means that transparency is not limited to publishing the names of those who receive funding; it also requires making the reasoning behind rejection understandable<\/strong>. When public money is involved, the obligation of professional justification becomes more important, particularly in an artistic field where there is no mathematical formula capable of producing a definitive answer, but rather judgments, criteria and competing assessments.<\/p>\n

Chouika\u2019s reaction raises another issue. Challenging a professional decision is a legitimate right, particularly when a filmmaker believes that the reasons given are inadequate. But his open letter went further, describing members of the committee as \u201chuman monsters\u201d and accusing them of lacking conscience and ethics. At that point, it becomes necessary to distinguish between the right to challenge a decision, which is legitimate, and accusing individuals or an institution of wrongdoing, which requires evidence. The rejection of a project is not, in itself, proof that the process was compromised. On this point, Nassour is justified in arguing that anyone with evidence of corruption should take it to the courts rather than turn every disputed result into a general accusation.<\/p>\n

Defending the committee, however, should not mean closing the door to criticism. An institution managing public funds must be able to convince professionals that its decisions are based on projects rather than personalities, and that differences in outcomes do not conceal personal considerations. That trust cannot be built simply by pointing out that the committee has eleven members. It is built through clear criteria, meaningful explanations and the possibility for a filmmaker to understand why another project was considered stronger.<\/p>\n

The Sarab Rimal<\/em> case therefore goes far beyond the dispute between Idriss Chouika and the support committee. It raises a broader question about the very model used to finance Moroccan cinema. Public support should not be viewed as the only route to production, as Nassour pointed out, and some producers already choose to finance their films privately, taking the risk of testing them directly with audiences. But that reality does not mean that every project can easily attract private investment. Some films, particularly those with artistic, cultural or historical ambitions, may struggle to find investors willing to assume their financial risks. The real question is therefore not whether cinema needs public support, but how that support can be made fair and transparent without turning it into an automatic entitlement for every project submitted<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

A rejected project can therefore be entirely normal within a system where resources are limited. What becomes problematic is the loss of confidence in the way that rejection is reached and explained. If a filmmaker leaves the process knowing that the project was not selected, understanding why, and knowing what could be improved, rejection becomes part of a professional journey. If the filmmaker leaves convinced that the decision was opaque or personal, disagreement can quickly turn into a rupture with the institution.<\/p>\n

That is why the Sarab Rimal<\/em> controversy deserves to be viewed beyond the question of who is right and who is wrong. The committee must preserve the independence of its decisions, filmmakers must retain the right to criticize and challenge them, and the state must continue strengthening a support system that is more transparent and accountable. Cinema does not only need public money to finance films; it also needs trust in the way public money is allocated, and in the distinction between a project being rejected and a filmmaker being judged.<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The announcement of the results of the second 2026 session for public support to Moroccan film production has brought the relationship between filmmakers and state funding back into the spotlight. The controversy took on a sharper dimension after director and screenwriter Idriss Chouika reacted to the rejection of his feature film project Sarab Rimal, going […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":4674,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[112,121],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4673","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-cinema-diplomacy-cultural-diplomacy","category-cultural-diplomatic-analysis-of-artistic-texts"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/diplomatique.ma\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4673","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/diplomatique.ma\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/diplomatique.ma\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/diplomatique.ma\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/diplomatique.ma\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4673"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/diplomatique.ma\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4673\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4675,"href":"https:\/\/diplomatique.ma\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4673\/revisions\/4675"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/diplomatique.ma\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4674"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/diplomatique.ma\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4673"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/diplomatique.ma\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4673"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/diplomatique.ma\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4673"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}