The professional network became the scene of an unusual exchange regarding INCAA’s surplus and state funding
Nuevo
Agregar La Derecha Diario en
Compartir:
On LinkedIn, a network where political issues are rarely discussed, a producer and screenwriter shared a critical analysis of the recent surplus of the INCAA. In his post, he warned that the positive balance was not due to efficiency, but to a "spending paralysis":
"Money came in, but it didn't go toward its main purpose (...) INCAA's mission is to promote national cinema. If it doesn't invest in production, even if it accumulates money, it's failing its function."
El posteo que encendió la polémica: “El superávit del INCAA: qué significa realmente”
The author spoke of a "fictitious surplus" and compared the situation to a family that stops paying for food, electricity, and education to artificially save money.
The immediate response: "Mediocre projects"
The first to respond was a user named Marcelo, who sparked the controversy:
"The surplus means that my tax money stopped being deposited in mediocre projects. (...) They've funded garbage that nobody wants to watch, wasting my taxes."
Usuarios cuestionaron el financiamiento estatal: “Proyectos mediocres”, “60% de pobreza” y “si la película es buena, se financia sola”.
His stance set the tone for the discussion and was supported by other comments that rejected state funding for cinema in a country with 60% poverty.
From cinema to politics
The discussion escalated with even harsher statements. A user wrote:
Another added: "I'm not interested in my money ending up in the hands of INCAA and production companies of questionable taste... I fully support that if you want to have a business like cinema, it should be at your own risk, like any other company."
The defense: from Homo Argentum to Coppola
Amid the criticism, a voice emerged defending cultural funding and directly referencing Guillermo Francella's film:
"This 'libersatanic' sect follows the principles of imperialist conquerors (...) This is clearly seen in Francella's latest film, Homo Argentum, where the open goal is to continue disparaging the national identity. (...) In all serious countries in the world, cultural and artistic productions are funded, especially those by newcomers."
Pablo apuntó contra Francella: “Homo Argentum busca denostar al ser nacional”
The same user recalled that great directors like Coppola, Spielberg, or Campanella received support at the beginning of their careers and warned:
"It's very easy for Francella to get private funding today because he's already established, but he forgets his beginnings in cinema when he was a house salesman. Memory."
The clash between Marcelo and Julio
The debate intensified when Julio challenged Marcelo: "Share the links to the films you've made so we can all learn how not to make failures. (...) Fund yourself and invest in a psychologist."
Marcelo didn't remain silent and replied harshly: "It's not my fault you're like this. You must be a 'villero,' if not in fact, at least at heart. (...) For 27 years I've been working in high-level management. Something I imagine you don't know about."
Julio retrucó a Marcelo: “Pasá los enlaces de las películas que hiciste” Marcelo defendió su postura: “El Estado no debe chupar la sangre como un parásito”.
Beyond LinkedIn
The exchange revealed a divide: on one side, those who defend state investment in culture; on the other, those who demand that Argentine cinema be sustained by the market and not by taxes.
The objective fact is that INCAA closed 2024 and so far in 2025 with a surplus, although largely by not implementing support policies. For some, a sign of financial health; for others, proof that the institute should stop being funded with state money and reinvent itself under market rules.
