Casanova sparks debate on Spanish state-funded cinema

Casanova and the cinema nobody watches: 381 tickets in 79 screens

Eduardo Casanova has once again put himself in the spotlight, this time due to statements asking that VOX voters not greet him on the street. The reaction was immediate and led to an uncomfortable question: who pays for the films he makes? Industry figures are stubborn. His documentary Enferma, released in 79 theaters, gathered about 381 total spectators and grossed nearly €2,900, according to circulating data. His previous fiction antiestéticature, La piedad (2023), stayed around 2,800 viewers. With these numbers, box office revenue doesn't even cover a week's payroll.

What is really being discussed

The trigger was a tweet with a screenshot of the actor and director's statements, where he distances himself from VOX voters. From there, the issue mutates. It stops being a social media controversy and becomes a reckoning with the financing model of Spanish cinema. Because the data hovering over the entire conversation is that Casanova's films do not sustain themselves with ticket sales, but with public money. The usual mechanism: direct subsidies and, above all, tax deductions that production companies sell to firms so they can lower their tax bill with Hacienda. Money that, it is argued, stops entering the State coffers for roads, healthcare, or whatever else.

There is a figure that summarizes the absurdity. Five viewers per screen and session. The projectionist, the ticket seller, the popcorn vendor, and two more. The recurring joke is that even abandoning the job during work hours better explains the capacity.

The argument of freedom and the wallet

The most repeated line is that of inconsistency: demanding freedom of expression while asking not to be greeted by those who vote differently. Another is more prosaic. If cinema is financed with everyone's taxes, including those of people who vote for VOX, the creator is getting paid by people he insults. The conclusion many draw: limit subsidies to left-wing voters, since they are the only ones who, according to this narrative, would consume the product.

Against that, the classic counterargument: culture is not measured by box office and auteur cinema needs public support to exist. It is a legitimate position, but it clashes with a detail. When the product finds no audience even in its own niche, the defense wobbles.

---

Medical treatment as a metaphor for everything

One of the sharpest twists in the matter is the health angle. Several messages calculate that antiretroviral treatment, consultations, and tests cost around €800 monthly per patient. The irony is evident: his films don't gross enough to cover that expense. Thus, criticism of the subsidy model mixes with the healthcare cost of a chronic disease, in a tone bordering on personal vendetta.

Here one must tread carefully. The €800 figure is a circulating calculation, not an official number. And the health of a specific person is not headline material. What is relevant journalistically is the underlying question: how much does it cost to maintain a cultural model that produces films without audiences?

The trajectory: from Aída to the BOE

Casanova became known in 2005 through the series Aída, where he played a nerdy adolescent who later came out of the closet. Since then, his career shifted towards directing and producing. His antiestéticatures have not found mass audiences and, according to the recurring narrative, their funding depends on the BOE (Official Gazette), meaning public money. The floating question: who keeps putting up the cash for his movies?

The background: a model that doesn't add up

Spanish cinema is financed largely by selling corporate tax deductions to companies. It is an opaque system for the average taxpayer, who sees how their money supports products they do not consume. The Casanova controversy is just the tip of the iceberg of a broader debate on public spending on culture and its real return.

With these elements, the question is not whether Casanova has the right to say what he says. The question is how long a model can be sustained where the creator insults part of those who pay him. That remains the deadlock.