The denial of public funding for Simone Manetti’s documentary ‘Giulio Regeni – Tutto il male del mondo’ has ignited a controversy, highlighting the intricate relationship between politics and culture. This case, which has gained significant public and institutional prominence, touches upon interconnected issues such as the functioning of ministerial commissions and the management of collective memory.
At the heart of the controversy is the decision by the Cinema Commission of the Ministry of Culture (MiC) to deny funds to the documentary. The film aims to shed light on the kidnapping, torture, and killing of Italian researcher Giulio Regeni, which occurred in Cairo in 2016. The denial of funding has raised serious doubts regarding the recognition of the project’s symbolic and civic value, considered crucial for reconstructing events and preserving their memory for future generations, especially given the ongoing incomplete official investigations. The commission consisted of former League deputy Benedetta Fiorini, MedFilm Festival founder and artistic director Ginella Vocca, essayist and curator Pier Luigi Manieri, producer Pasqualino Damiani, and lawyer Giacomo Ciammaglichella.
The documentary recounts the events through the testimonies of Giulio’s parents, Claudio Regeni and Paola Deffendi, and lawyer Alessandra Ballerini, as well as judicial records. Produced by the independent company Ganesh Produzioni and distributed in Italian cinemas by Fandango starting February 2, 2026, the film received the ‘Nastro della Legalità 2026’ (Ribbon of Legality 2026) and was widely screened, including at 76 Italian universities and with a presentation planned at the European Parliament. Despite this recognition and its ranking as the first among excluded titles (36th out of 118 evaluated films) with a high score, it was deemed ‘Not worthy of public support’. The funding request was 131,000 euros out of a total budget of 328,000 euros.
This decision triggered a strong backlash. Opposition parties brought the case to Parliament, with an interpellation signed, among others, by Elly Schlein, secretary of the Democratic Party, challenging the transparency of evaluation criteria and warning of politicization risks. The denial of funding was interpreted as an inexplicable move, perhaps a worrying signal regarding the government’s stance on sensitive issues, also recalling the case of Mario Paciolla, an Italian UN volunteer killed in Colombia in 2020, whose case is also being followed by lawyer Ballerini.
Concurrently, tension also escalated within other selective funding commissions. Massimo Galimberti, a member of the commission for debut films and young authors, and Paolo Mereghetti, from the screenwriting commission, resigned, even though they were not directly involved in evaluating the documentary. Galimberti cited an ‘environmental incompatibility’ regarding the analysis methods and criteria adopted, while Mereghetti justified his decision as a stand ‘for consistency’.
Subsequently, a third resignation followed: Ginella Vocca, a member of the documentary commission itself. In a letter to Culture Minister Alessandro Giuli, Vocca stated she had strongly opposed the funding denial, deeming it ‘wrong in every respect,’ both during meetings and in writing. She explained that she initially remained in her position to avoid hindering the commission’s work but decided to resign after the Minister’s statements in Parliament.
Minister Giuli, addressing the Chamber during question time, attempted to frame the issue as procedural. While stating he did not agree with the decision on the Regeni documentary ‘neither on an ideal nor moral level,’ he insisted it was not a political choice but a result of the commissions’ autonomy. He also pointed out that the project had been rejected in previous funding applications in 2024 and 2025.
The Undersecretary for Culture, Lucia Borgonzoni, also commented, reiterating the commissions’ total independence but expressing her disagreement with ‘many choices.’ She stated that ‘several titles, both admitted and denied funding, are questionable, and we’re not just talking about the Regeni documentary in detail. In particular, I am deeply struck by the rejection of the last screenplay by one of the greatest Italian masters, Bernardo Bertolucci. These choices certainly do not reflect the Ministry’s line in any way.’
However, this institutional stance, which seeks to separate the political from the technical sphere, has not appeased the discussion. Instead, it has intensified the debate on the overall functioning of selective contributions, raising questions about evaluation criteria, commission composition, and the balance between decision-making autonomy and public accountability.
The Regeni documentary case, due to its profound symbolic significance, has exacerbated these tensions. The denial of funds for a work addressing one of the most tragic events in recent Italian history, the subsequent resignations of commission members, public statements, and media attention, indicate that the decision extends beyond a mere technical or production evaluation. It raises broader questions about the role of institutions—not just cultural ones—in defining priorities and values, and in shaping civic memory and its representation.
While exclusions from selective funding are not new, these funds are intended for works with fewer commercial prospects, not for already successful productions like Paola Cortellesi’s ‘C’è ancora domani’. They represent a limited portion of the system (approximately 13% of public cinema funds in 2025, or 90 million out of 700 million euros) and are distributed among hundreds of projects. In the first session of the year, only 117 out of 330 evaluated works received funding.
Selective contributions complement other mechanisms, such as automatic funds based on production results and tax credits, which cover approximately 60% of total resources. In recent years, however, the significance of discretionary allocations has grown, consequently increasing the commissions’ responsibility.
