Published by a university research center, Turkish Cultural Policy Report: A Civil Perspective states that Turkey “never had a written cultural policy, nor a comprehensive primary document providing direction for cultural life” (Ada [eds.] 2011:180), hence culture remained a supporting role at the level of state administration. The report also indicates that the state nevertheless defines the limits of cultural production instead of being responsible not only for the “regulation and infrastructure preparation” but also “preparing the ground for the production and distribution of culture at a national level” (ibid., 280; Siyahbant 2013:8). Though the 1982 constitution guarantees to protect artists and artistic freedom of expression by Articles 27 and 64, it has not been operating properly due to the disconnect from its ideals found in state bureaucrats’ arbitrary practices contingent upon ideology and practices of the given ruling government. All these accumulated and resulted in “members of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) taking an increasingly adversarial stance towards the arts” (Siyahbant, 2-3), with a notable example of the former minister of the interior ?dris Naim ?ahin’s claim that art is “the backyard of terrorism” in 2014. Combining the research on the rationale behind the state’s failure on active advocacy for culture and art with extensive analyses of cinema laws (of 2004 and 2019) and regulations (of 2004 and 2005), I focus on the impacts of state’s cultural policy on Turkish film industry after the 2000s, specifically on practices of filmmaking at stages of production, rating, and circulation of films. Using ethnographic data, i.e. interviews with people from the industry, including directors, producers, festival organizers, and film critics and addressing specific cases, I take another step forward to examine the intricate relationship between state and civil society organizations, the latter being “a sociocultural and sociopolitical construct to be studied in the making” (Kuzmanovic 2012:29). I scrutinize how different webs of coalitions and complicity between state and various non-state actors of civil society are influential in 1) the control, regulation, and cooperation of economic and cultural capitals, 2) how economic resources of the state such as ministry funds are allocated for certain projects based on political tendencies of cultural producers, and 3) how, in many cases, the actors and webs of coalitions can actively “delegitimize and discourage artistic expressions” (Karaca 2011:155) and precipitate multiple forms of film censorship in the name of cultural policies.