Armenia’s proposed cinema law sparks backlash over state control

By Angela Hassassian

Following a year of friction between the film industry and the state, a proposed domestic law introduced last month has sparked a new wave of controversy in Armenia. At the heart of the dispute is a provision that would allow the Cinema Foundation of Armenia, a state-funded organization tasked with preserving, restoring, and promoting Armenian film heritage while supporting the production of new films, to act as a collective manager of authors’ property rights. Critics claim this move effectively nationalizes creative output.

The draft law fundamentally redefines the two primary categories of local production: National Films and Minority Co-productions. 

For projects that receive the bulk of their funding from the state, the proposed changes would remove long-standing requirements for directors and screenwriters to be Armenian citizens, introduce looser language criteria, and allow property rights to be transferred directly to the state. 

Critics argue these changes move Armenia away from the European model of independent production and back toward a Soviet-style state-controlled system. 

“For example,” explains film producer Karine Simonyan, “the mandatory requirement for a film director and screenwriter to be a citizen of the Republic of Armenia has been completely removed from the current law.”

According to her, foreign directors and screenwriters might dominate state funded projects, causing films to lose their national character.

“Armenian cultural emphasis will decrease, young local specialists will lose opportunities, which is especially dangerous for the developing film industry,” she says. 

While the draft law loosens the requirements for National Films by removing the Armenian citizenship mandate for directors, it simultaneously imposes a rigid hiring mandate for Minority Co-Productions. In these international partnerships, the Armenian state acts as a minority funder so that Armenian citizens can participate as junior partners on foreign projects. 

According to Clause 13 of the draft, “For a project to qualify for support as a ‘Minority Co-production,’ at least three individuals from the creative team (including the screenwriter, director, editor, cinematographer, etc.) must be citizens of the Republic of Armenia.”

“Producing a high-quality feature-length fiction film takes, on average, five years, and within the realities of the Armenian film market, this is not feasible without international co-production,” says film producer Sona Margaryan.

The draft law also creates a direct conflict with international standards by replacing the established “points system” for determining a film’s nationality with a rigid citizenship mandate. While European frameworks allow for creative flexibility in casting and crew selection, the proposed Armenian law would force producers to either accept state funding or forgo it while pursuing international partnerships. 

“For co-productions, the primary and highest guiding framework remains the European Convention on Cinematographic Co-production,” said Margaryan.

Lastly, under the European Convention on Cinematographic Co-Production, property rights are traditionally shared among partners in proportion to their investment. However, by allowing the Armenian state to take control of these rights, the draft law would make it impossible for local producers to guarantee ownership for their foreign collaborators.

By weakening a producer’s control over property rights, industry professionals warn that Armenia risks making itself an ineligible partner for European film funds and distributors. 

“The amendments they are proposing are fundamentally incompatible with international co-production standards, the European Convention, and even the protections for creative rights enshrined in our own Constitution,” said producer, writer, and actress Armine Anda.

A Year of Uneasy Collaboration

Last spring, sudden changes to the Cinema Foundation’s funding regulations triggered widespread outrage, leading to the formation of a professional working group consisting of film producers and directors. 

After overcoming initial hurdles, that group successfully collaborated with the Ministry of Education, Science, Culture, and Sports, as well as the Cinema Foundation of Armenia, to finalize the regulations for the 2026 funding cycle. The industry viewed the cooperation as a sign of progress, a belief that was shattered on March 6 when the Ministry unexpectedly published a separate, sweeping draft of the primary Law on Cinematography on the e-draft platform, without any input from the working group. 

“We successfully collaborated with the Ministry to fix the immediate funding regulations for this spring, but they have completely bypassed us on the much more critical Law on Cinematography," film producer and President of ArmDoc Arevik Avanesyan tells CivilNet. “We are in a bizarre situation where the state is implementing our collaborative work for the Foundation on one hand, while on the other, it is advancing a damaging draft of the law that was written without our involvement.” 

Clause 1 of the proposed regulation defines the Cinema Foundation of Armenia as the sole national body responsible for organizing competitions and distributing state support. 

While the state frames this as “streamlining,” producers see it as restrictive. Clause 55 of the draft stipulates that, “The state funding contract with a producer shall be unilaterally terminated by the National Body if the film's director is changed... financial resources provided up to the point of termination must be returned to the National Body.”

The professional community warns that these amendments could isolate Armenian cinema from the world market, transforming the state from a supporter of the arts into a competitor.

Earlier this month, the ArmDoc Association and dozens of prominent filmmakers issued an open letter to the government, arguing that there is an inherent conflict of interest when the same body that distributes funding also holds the rights to the resulting work.

“[This draft] pushes us back toward an outdated and failed state-centric model,” the letter stated.  “We do not want a document to be adopted and circulated that deals a blow to the future and international reputation of Armenian cinema.”

Transparency and Technical Failures

The process of introducing the law has been as controversial as its content. The draft was published on March 6 on e-draft.am, the official platform for public discussion, but the website was riddled with glitches, preventing many professionals from submitting their feedback.

Despite the technical obstacles, nearly all submitted comments from the community have received the same template response from the Ministry: “noted” or “will be further considered,” with no substantive feedback provided.

In their open letter, the ArmDoc association and its signatories, including prominent directors like Vahé Yan and Silva Khnkanosian, have demanded the immediate withdrawal of the draft. They argue that the 2021 Law on Cinematography, which the community waited years for, should be fully implemented before any major amendments are considered. 

This domestic roadblock comes at a time of peak international potential. In late March, eight Armenian film professionals returned from Copenhagen after participating in the “Delegations meet Delegations” program at CPH:DOX, one of the world’s most renowned documentary film festivals. Led by Arevik Avanesyan and Tamara Stepanyan of the Armenian Cinematographers Guild, the delegation spent three days networking with 19 global delegations to foster future international collaborations. 

Their participation, supported by International Media Support (IMS) and the European Audiovisual Entrepreneurs (EAVE) CHANGE program, represented a significant milestone in the professionalization and internationalization of Armenian documentary film. However, back in Yerevan, the community fears that the very law meant to support them may instead shut the door on the global stage.