Michael Madsen: The Visit

Filmen er den første i DOXBIOs efterårsprogram med fire premierer. Katrina Schelin skriver om filmen i pressemeddelelsen:

”Filmen dokumenterer menneskets første møde med intelligent liv fra rummet – et møde, der endnu ikke har fundet sted. Siden opfindelsen af radiokommunikation har mennesket sendt signaler ud i rummet for at gøre andre civilisationer opmærksomme på vores eksistens. Med eksklusiv adgang til FN’s kontor for ”Anliggender vedrørende det ydre rum” og til militærstrateger og eksperter fra verdens førende rumforskningscentre udforsker filmen det første møde med en besøgende fra rummet. Konfrontationen mellem os og det ’fremmede’ begynder med de enkle spørgsmål: Hvorfor er I her? Hvordan tænker I? Hvad ser I i mennesket, som vi ikke ser i os selv? Filmen er en rejse ud over et jordisk perspektiv, som løfter sløret for menneskets frygt, håb og ritualer, og tvinger os til at konfrontere – ikke blot de fremmede livsformer – men i høj grad også vort eget selvbillede.

Michael Madsen har modtaget adskillige internationale priser og hans film inkluderer INTO ETERNITY (2010), TO DAMASCUS – A FILM ON INTERPRETATION (2005) og HALDEN PRISON (3D) (2014). Michael Madsen har stået bag flere af Københavns mest fornyende kunstprojekter. Er gæstelærer ved danske og internationale kultur- og uddannelsesinstitutioner bl.a. med ‘Workshop For Individuals With Absolutely No Idea For A Film’.”

Danmark 2015, 83 min. Produceret af Magic Hour Films. Filmen får premiere 2. september i en række heldige byers biografer. Se hvilke hos DOXBIO: http://www.doxbio.dk/

SYNOPSIS

This film documents an event that has never taken place – man’s first encounter with intelligent life from space”.With unprecedented access to the UN Office for Outer Space Affairs, the military, and experts from leading space agencies, the film explores a first contact scenario, beginning with the simplest of questions: Why are you here? How do you think? What do you see in humans that we don’t see in ourselves? A journey beyond a terrestrial perspective, revealing the fears, hopes, and rituals of a species forced not only to confront alien life forms, but also its own self image. (IDFA)

TRAILER

http://filmmakermagazine.com/89017-sundance-trailer-watch-michael-madsens-the-visit/#.VYayd_ntmko

Vi har på Filmkommentaren skrevet disse anmeldelser med videre af og om Michael Madsens film:

http://www.filmkommentaren.dk/blog/blogpost/2299/

Om Into Eternity skrev vi for eksempel: “Michael Madsen brugte og bruger stadigvæk tv-dokumentarens konvention til personligt essay med indsigt og alvor, som var det Enzensberger. Og Into Eternity er understøttet af samme litterære kvalitet, samme belæsthed, samme lette væv af æstetiske referencer. Der monteres ganske let, på højt forståelsesniveau. Tjernobyl ulykken behandles alvorligt og præcist på få sekunder, uafviseligt sådan spredtes det nukleare materiale…” Det må bestemt være relevant at se den film igen mens der ventes på premieren på The Visit. Som seriøs forberedelse. Den kan streames smukt og nemt og gratis på FILMCENTRALEN / FOR ALLE :

http://filmcentralen.dk/alle/film/eternity

ØV ØV

Den kommer flot, men der henvises til bibliotekernes streaming FILMSTRIBEN. Der klikker jeg mig glad hen. Men de har den tilsyneladende ikke. De henviser til Bibliotek.dk… Der noteres, at den findes i udlån, men ingen biblioteker har materialet, en anden post oplyser imidlertid, at den kan streames via mit bibliotek, hvis det har betalt abonnement til FILMCENTRALEN! Der er et link og så er jeg inde på en side på FILMSTRIBEN, hvorfra det ser ud til at filmen kan streames:

http://www.filmstriben.dk/bibliotek/film/details.aspx?id=9000000239

Men vist kun på biblioteket? Eller hvis jeg henter et link på biblioteket? Jeg havde glædet mig til at skrive hvor let det er at komme til at se den smukke film. I stedet må jeg ADVARE. Det er ikke så ligetil… Imidlertid er der gode gamle You Tube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4sqFyCHcbg

Laurits Munch-Petersen: Skyggen af en helt /2

Her på Filmkommentaren har Tue Steen Müller anmeldt ”Skyggen af en helt”. I dag har Asger Schnack en artikel i Information, som berører os, da den ikke alene anfægter biografiske oplysninger i filmen, men på et digterisk forstående grundlag diskuterer en vigtig grænse i den kunstneriske dokumentarfilm, grænsen mellem iscenesættelse og usandhed. Her er et par citater fra artiklen og et link til hele Asger Schnacks tekst:  

”Laurits Munch-Petersens film Skyggen af en helt, der netop har haft premiere, præsenteres som en dokumentarfilm. Det er klart, at det må være tilladt, når man laver en dokumentarfilm, at blande fiktion og fakta, i det hele taget at tage forskellige midler i brug, hvis det tjener til filmens bedste – altså sandhedens. En dokumentarfilm kan godt lege med virkeligheden, men…”

” ‘Nøglen til at forstå mysteriet begynder hos Laurits’ mormor, der efter Gustafs forsvinden skærer mindet om ham ud af sit liv og gør ham til tabu i det bornholmske hjem.’ Sådan hedder det på premierebiografens hjemmeside. Men det passer ikke! Det er muligt, at Laurits Munch-Petersen og hans mor opfatter det sådan, men det svarer ikke til andre vidners fortælling. Lisbet Munch-Petersen blev gift med maleren Paul Høm og stiftede ny familie, men det betød ikke, at Gustaf Munch-Petersen forsvandt fra hendes liv…”

http://www.information.dk/537115 

Senere, 24. juni, havde Laurits Munch-Petersen en replik i Information, hvor han blandt andet skrev:

“… Filmen er tænkt som et personligt og kærligt portræt af Gustaf og Lisbet og deres kærlighedshistorie oplevet gennem deres barnebarn. Filmen er et oprigtigt ønske om at beskrive konsekvenserne af denne kærlighedshistorie og Gustafs valg om at forlade sin gravide kone og lille datter uden at sige farvel, således at heltebilledet bliver nuanceret af den smerte, der efterfølgende har fundet sted, og som har farvet hele mit liv.”

http://www.information.dk/537520

Foto: Asger Schnack

Beyond the Fear in Jerusalem

Israeli filmmakers call to snub Jerusalem festival after docu on Rabin’s assassin pulled | i24news. Published June 17th 2015:

Israeli filmmakers are understood to be considering withdrawing en masse from participation in the Jerusalem Film Festival, following its organizers decision to comply with the demand of Culture Minister Miri Regev to nix the documentary film “Beyond the Fear” about Yigal Amir, the murderer of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, local media reported.

The hawkish Regev, who has generated widespread controversy in recent days over her pronouncements about funding culture and about Israeli-Arab theaters, said the festival would be held without support or funds from the government if the film was shown. Organizers agreed to have a special screening a few days prior to the festival. But “Beyond the Fear” will still take part in the festival’s official competition, Ynet reported… Read more:

http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/culture/75181-150617-film-on-rabin-s-assassin-partly-pulled-from-festival 

and more:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4669125,00.html

A comment by the producer of ” Beyond the Fear” Guntis Trekteris and his team will be published tomorrow.  

And latest:

Director Avi Mograbi (“Avenge but One of My Two Eyes”, “Happy Holiday Mr. Mograbi”) wrote: “I promise to not submit my next movie to the Jerusalem Film Festival. A management that does not fearlessly defend its content selection, even if it means resigning – I have no reason to believe that next time they won’t compromise in advance. Nor do I know that they will defend my movie if need be.”

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4670080,00.html

Anne Wivel: Slottet i Italien

Jeg glæder mig rigtig meget til Anne Wivels nye film med Per Kirkeby, Mand falder, som får premiere i DoxBio til november. Som forberedelse ser jeg Slottet i Italien fra 2000.

Det er her også Per Kirkeby, som spiller den store rolle som manden midt i livet, manden i krise. Som spiller rollen som sig selv.

Den handler også om Anne Wivel og hendes filmkunst. I et interview engang sagde hun ”… Jeg ønsker at filme disse konflikter. Jeg synes ikke en konflikt er en privat ting, den kan deles med alle og enhver. Når jeg har fået de medvirkendes accept, er de altid meget villige, givende og åbne…” Og så fortalte hun om Giselle (1991), hvor balletmesteren Henning Kronstam kommer i en konflikt, som på mange måder minder om Per Kirkebys. Det er Anne Wivel, som i sin instruktion og med sit greb tilvejebringer disse usædvanlige dybder af forståelse, som måske også kommer bag på de to mænd.

Nu skildringen af maleren i det italienske slot. Lyden begynder før billedet. Det er fuglestemmer. Så ser vi malet murværk, brækkede nuancer i rødt og grønt. Og væggen har tydelige og betydningsfulde revner.

Og så pjattet mandesnak. De to mænd sidder og ler i et stort rum. Maleren og hans gæst. Instruktørens stemme høres, så vi fra nu ved, at hun også er til stede. Kvinden med kameraet hedder hun på forteksten. Man taler lettere, når man ved, det ikke skal bruges, det man siger, bemærker de to mænd, sikre på, at dette er en prøve. Og så kommer tavsheden, som den vigtige pause i dialogen, men ikke pause i filmens fortælling. Gæstens næste bemærkning er: ”Det skide kamera ser mere, end vi ser”. Kameraet afsøger nu loftet.

Så sidder maleren vrissen på briksen og siger, at indfald ikke kan gentages. Igen er han tavs. Tøver og siger, at han er forkølet og forvirret. Dagbogen er opgivet for første gang i 30 år. I tre årtier til nu har han bogført sit liv. Billedet viser, at bladene udenfor bevæger sig voldsomt i blæsten. Oliventræet vender den grå underside opad. De taler om farverne, som maleren altid vil bryde ned. Farver skal være præcise, ikke brilliante.

Så fortæller han om Vibeke. ”For dem, som stiger på romanen nu, så er hun min kone”, siger han. Og han fortæller om den skæbnesvangre begivenhed. Som har med huset, slottet, stedet og hende at gøre. Det handler altså om det gamle hus og rummene. Om to mænd og en kvinde, som filmer maleren og gæsten, hvis emner i hvert fald er seksualiteten og kønnet. Og arbejdet og tilstanden nu. Og om samværet dette sted. Som er kvindens sted og kærlighedens, måske.

Spørgsmålet stiller maleren til instruktøren: ”Er det sådan, det skal være? Alt det her pladder?” Hun svarer off: ”Jah…”, altså både ja og nej. Så fortæller maleren en anekdote fra Alma Mahlers selvbiografi. Da han er syg til sidst siger hun til ham, at når han bliver rask, skal de gå fra den åndelige kærlighed til den lidenskabelige. De skal begynde at røre ved hinanden, fortæller maleren. Jeg stiger på romanen her…

Danmark 2000, 95 min.

Slottet i Italien kan streames på bibliotekernes FILMSTRIBEN: http://www.filmstriben.dk/bibliotek/film/details.aspx?filmid=2334400900

Anne Wivel: Mand falder

DOXBIO har offentliggjort sit efterårsprogram med fire premierer. En af dem er Anne Wivels nye film Mand Falder. Katrina Schelin skriver om filmen:

”Anne Wivel har fulgt sin ven, maleren Per Kirkeby på nært hold, efter at han faldt ned ad en trappe og slog hovedet. Han havde tidligere overvundet følgerne af en hjerneblødning og to blodpropper, men faldet på trappen for to år siden resulterede i en hjerneskade, der forhindrer ham i at arbejde. Han har ikke bare mistet sin førlighed, men også evnen til at genkende farver og sågar sine egne kunstværker. Udover at fotografere er Anne Wivel også til stede som samtalepartner og følger Per Kirkeby, som kæmper for at vende tilbage, idet han samtidig erkender sine manglende fremskridt. For ham synes der at være lang vej tilbage, for kunsten er jo ikke blot et spørgsmål om at kunne male noget kønt og vellykket, det væsentlige ligger i overskridelsen af den gode smag. Det er dette hug, maleren savner.

I filmen møder vi foruden kunstneren, hans hustru, venner ogsamarbejdspartnere, men dens absolutte hovedperson er Per Kirkeby i et usædvanligt åbent møde med filminstruktøren AnneWivel og hendes kamera. Alt – fra hverdagens genoptræning til følelsesladede indsigter – lægges nøgternt frem.”

Isak Hoffmeyer skriver i programmet om Anne Wivel: ”Anne Wivels film er kendetegnet ved en særlig sensibilitet, der stikker dybere. De har alle en afgørende nøgternhed i udtrykket, som kan virke befriende, men nedenunder arbejder stærkere kræfter, følelsen for stoffet. Hendes film formidler et kunstnerisk syn på verden og bringer os tæt på stærke personligheder, som det var tilfældet med hendes seneste anmelderroste film Svend”.

Danmark 2015, 120 min.

Filmen får premiere onsdag, 11. november i en række heldige byers biografer. Se hvilke hos DOXBIO: http://www.doxbio.dk/

Foto: Isak Hoffmeyer

Anne Wivel har fødselsdag

Det Danske Filminstitut skriver i dag under overskriften “Anne Wivel – dansk dokumentarfilms mor”: FØDSELSDAG. Filminstruktør Anne Wivel fylder 70 år den 18. juni. FILMupdate har bedt to filmkolleger skrive en hilsen. De to er Mikala Krogh og Tue Steen Müller.

Mikala Krogh skriver: “Hvis jeg skal tænke på en scene, et enkelt øjeblik, der er summen af Anne Wivels samlede værker af dokumentarfilm, så er det scenen, hvor Heidi Ryom står sammenbøjet med hænderne på knæene, i kulissen af Det Kongelige Teaters gamle scene, efter sin kraftpræstation i “Giselle”. Lyset, skyggerne og framingen, det hele går op i en højere enhed, og som beskuer føler man sammen med solodanserinden både hendes udmattelse og glæde ved at have givet alt, hvad hun har i sig af kunstnerisk styrke og fysisk vilje. Det er et helt unikt øjeblik, Anne Wivel lader os være vidne til…” (Læs videre på FILMupdate, link forneden)

Tue Steen Müller skriver: “Allerede i 1980’erne, da jeg rejste rundt i ind- og udland for Statens Filmcentral, var mit standardsvar på, hvem der er de betydeligste danske dokumentarister, Jørgen Leth, Jon Bang Carlsen og Anne Wivel – den trio, som dansk dokumentarismes aktuelle succes hviler på.

Jeg klikker ind på Det Danske Filminstituts filmdatabase og ser den lange, lange liste over Annes film som instruktør, producer, konsulent, manuskriptforfatter. Filmografien kan ses som et katalog over dokumentarfilmens store udtryksmæssige spændvidde. “Gorilla, gorilla”, “Den lille pige med skøjterne” og “Vand”, alle fra 80’erne, er tavse, iagttagende kortfilm, fine små poetiske perler, hvorimod der snakkes uafladeligt i vérité-filmene “De tavse piger”, “Motivation” og “Ansigt til ansigt”. Sidstnævnte er 165 minutter lang (!), optaget på 16mm på Pastoralseminariet, et hovedværk i dansk film, inspireret af amerikanske Frederick Wiseman, men med sin helt egen tone og enkelhed… (Læs videre på FILMupdate, link forneden)

http://www.dfi.dk/Nyheder/FILMupdate/2015/Juni/Anne-Wivel-dansk-dokumentarfilms-mor.aspx  

Tarkovsky Award to Herz Frank and Maria Kravchenko

To receive an award at a festival that carries the name of Andrey Tarkovsky… Ego Media’s Guntis Trekteris proudly announces that

““Beyond The Fear” by Herz Frank and Maria Kravchenko (photo of the two) got Documentary Grand Prix in Andrey Tarkovsky International Film Festival “Zerkalo” (Mirror). Congratulations to director Maria Kravchenko, our co-producer Vitaly Mansky and the team!”

And to Trekteris himself, indeed, I can add.

The synopsis of the film: Decisions made by the protagonists of the film change their life irreversibly. Yigal Amir at the age of 26 assassins the Israeli Prime Minister. He is sentenced to life imprisonment and becomes the most hated criminal of the state. Larisa, an émigré from Russia, a mother of four, divorces her husband to marry the assassin and give birth to his son. In the course of many years the authors of the film are trying to understand this complicated story until one of them – Herz Frank – does not live to see his film finished, remaining on the threshold of the eternal secret of life, death and love…

Hazem Alhamwi: From My Syrian Room

The Season of Destruction

His thick black hair, trimmed at the front and sides, drew attention to the solemnity of his eyes. Age had not touched his temples, yet his face was marked by the deeply drawn lines, characteristic of a poet born in the wrong decade. His heavy pouches, tokens of the habitual night visitors, harbored the reserves of unshed tears. Sitting next to his old friend Hazem, he cast his eyes on Hazem’s drawing. Following the wanderings of the ink pencil, he could not let his eye drift from the urban ruins that had swallowed the white of the canvas. There was no hint of color. Nor did it seem to have any beginning or end. “Is it as easy to draw destruction as it is actually to destroy?”, the man uttered, addressing the question to Hazem. “It sells at the moment. It is the season,” Hazem answered hesitantly. The two men chuckled, but their laughter soon ceded, dissolving into heavy silence. “The season of destruction,” the man repeated as the train of thoughts shifted through his face. “Destruction is difficult, even here.” Staring intently at the object of his creation, Hazem added: “Destruction creates some extraordinary details.” An agonizing silence settled in once again, only to find relief in the ruffle of air. As if smothered by the question that should have long been answered, the man dropped at last: “Where are the people in this drawing?” “Under the rubble,” Hazem responded quietly.

With this heart-wrenching dialogue opens an author-driven film From My Syrian Room by Hazem Alhamwi. Born in Damascus in 1980, Alhamwi studied Painting at the Faculty of Fine Arts. He pursued his formal education in Theater Criticism at the Syrian Higher Institute of Dramatic Arts where he discovered his passion for cinema, which in turn brought him to the Arab Institute of Film where he studied under the supervision of the acclaimed Syrian director Omar Amiralay.

Before the feature-length documentary From My Syrian Room came the series Childhood of the Place and experimental productions The Right Side of that Road and Blue Coma, to name a few. Something that features perhaps in all of his films is a sense of escape from captivity, which never slips into emptiness but attempts to find beauty in the exile of humanity. To put it in the words of the Syrian critic Khalil Sweileh, Alhamwi moves away from the “nationalist concerns” strained by the political ideologies toward the “uprising of the ego” that offers space “to play, to distress and rejoice, to make mistakes and succeed.” In this regard, Alhamwi represents the new wave of Arab filmmakers whose films are different from the sober films of the past that had no sense of play. In the interview with the Palestinian Hungarian journalist Nadia Muhanna, Alhamwi concurred that there was a lot of experimentation in his oeuvre because he liked to work on the unexpected: “Making a film is like going on an ego trip where I discover a lot of inner treasures. The ego is very demanding but it also has a lot to give.”

Alhamwi’s latest film From My Syrian Room was shot in 2012 when the winds of hope were blowing through Syria after 40 years of political stagnation. It was the spring of the Arab discontent, when people, young and old, demanded liberation and democratization. Yet when the unrest erupted, the whole world witnessed violence and death venturing onto the streets of Syria. “In the early months of the uprisings,” Alhamwi recalled, “I was overtaken by a deep feeling of the certainty of death looming near me, around me. How can it not be when it was claiming lives [on] the streets next to mine?”

In the wake of these turbulent events, as if wanting to leave traces of his life, Alhamwi retreated to his room and turned to painting and filmmaking. Nuanced monochrome tones, associative motives, and journeys into the imaginative worlds were his salvation. His personal, intimate memories interwove into the heavy collective memories of violence that roamed the streets of his homeland. However, that violence was not new or alien. “I have known it well,” the filmmaker explained, “I have seen it in schools, in families, and [on] the […] streets. Today it is simply rising to the surface.”

History of Forgiving, Not Punishing

While his fellow country-men emerged from their closed rooms, exposing their anger and standing up to the bullets, Alhamwi was not on the streets. When I first met Alhamwi in Berlin in the winter of 2014, he told me that he had always believed that one could not be an artist and a general at the same time. What one might call a mere feebleness of character or even cowardice, for Alhamwi it was a matter of choosing the right path, the right direction. The filmmaker recounted that since the outbreak of the revolution every time he had faced the violent behavior, the place demanded him to pick a side, stance, or an opinion. It pressured him. He felt a special kind of loneliness as the society he belonged to was rejecting him. The main question that lay before him, which also fueled the film, was not whether one was pro or against the Assad regime, but whether one was pro or against the war. He said: “I know a lot of people working against the dictatorship, but they employ the same tool – the tool of violence. […] People used to ask me which side I support. They assumed if I was against the Assad regime, I was on the side of the rebels. In fact, I opposed both. Back in Syria, they used to call me a dreamer. I accept to be a dreamer because I refuse to be a victim of the culture of violence. I wish the film to be honest about what is happening in the manner of art as non-violent human expression.”

When talking with Alhamwi, it became clear that he was wary of any political (mis)use of his film. He said that the memory, in which he had let us in, was heavy and belonged to the people of Syria as much as it belonged to him. “Therefore, it is critical that the film marks a new chapter of history of forgiving, not punishing,” the filmmaker noted.

Alhamwi confessed that in making this film he had had quite a hard time to keep balance in portraying fear and oppression without resorting to a violent image. To negate death and violence that had insinuated themselves into the modern definition of normality, Alhamwi turned to visual metaphors as cinematic means to color his thoughts and sentiments on the war. By employing some of the classic subjects of time-lapse photography, i.e. plants growing and flowers opening, the filmmaker painted the tragic picture of the war. For instance, when we hear people chanting on the streets, a plant is growing tall in its ambitious task to reach efflorescence. When the war breaks out and we hear gunshots confronting gunshots, the verdant promise is reclining shyly.

Early in the film, Alhamwi introduces us to his faithful friend – a turtle – to whom he devotes a monologue. Inside the shell of the reptile, Alhamwi finds a metaphor for himself: For “34 consecutive autumns” he, too, was inhibited to express his pain to the outside world. The streets often left him at mercy of fear, compelling him at once to swallow the child of his own creation – a caricature of Hafez Al-Assad’s face – when the armed forces appeared in sight. Drawing in his room was the only space where he could express this pain and preserve the human being inside him – playing, singing, and drawing, trying to create something beautiful, something useful.

The film, too, came from his room. For over ten years, a canvas and a camera were his close friends. They helped him document the life he lived and witnessed. They staged incursions past his room into the rooms of others, people whom he trusted and who trusted him — his family, teachers, and friends. In the film, they all reflect on their lives shaped by the regime that had tamed their minds and defined how they loved.

Blue That Does Not Resemble the Sky

Stories of Alhamwi and his family haunt us long after watching the film. They compel us to explore the complexities of family relations and how a political system can influence the course of our lives. Perhaps, the story of Alhamwi’s father might come to redefine our understanding of a good citizen, who then the former editor of the Ba’ath newspaper refused the perks of endorsing the regime, resigned, and opened a dairy shop. Perhaps, the story of Alhamwi’s friend Ghassan Jbaai might help us gauge the degree of man’s resilience, who once a theater writer and poet then a political criminal, serving a decade-long prison sentence, stripped cigarette boxes of their silver paper and used animal bones for a pen to write down ideas and even create a morning newspaper. Perhaps, the numerous stories of Alhamwi’s teacher and friends might make us comprehend the degree of loss in a war time. In the hard edges of the teacher’s honest eyes and deep folds of her amber-colored face, we are reminded of schools, robbed of innocence, and childhood, stolen from our children. Children who dream of playing violin at the seaside, alone and at peace. Children who play marbles in spite and in the face of the war, yet their marbles are now replaced by empty bullet cartridges. Children who inherit prison sentences while dictators inherit states.

Alhamwi’s composed camera follows him to the school he attended as a boy. The filmmaker comes to the realization that nothing has changed: The desks and the massive black gate are the same; the slogans and the songs for the President are the same, except for the President’s first name. At last, Alhamwi does catch sight of one thing that has changed: The color of the students’ uniforms. With much poetry in his words and pain in his voice, he notes: “We wore an earth-tone color that does not resemble the earth. Now they are in a blue that does not resemble the sky.”

As Alhamwi’s camera withdraws from the deserted classrooms, an eerie feeling lingers at the school: Benches left stranded of no use, handcrafted birds that walk, and wrinkled airplanes cast off hurriedly onto the wooden floor. The film closes with the night enveloping the raging sky of Damascus. And as the city pretends to sleep, Alhamwi’s camera roams the streets, eavesdropping to the man’s humming in mellifluous Arabic: “Stop talking about civilization. Stop singing for history. If you cannot make pens and erasers, you should not be proud of your weapons.”

France / Syria / Germany / Qatar 2014, 70 min.

MIFF 2015 Programme Announced/ 2

The catalogue foreword to the “Free Thought” documentary section of the Moscow International Film Festival (June 19-26) is written by curators Sergey Miroshnichenko and Grigory Libergal. Their text is a reflection on ”patriotism”, that is a theme in several of the films. And maybe also an elegant tongue-in-cheek commentary to the country they live in. Read it:

Patriotism is such a meaningful and positive word, just like “patriot”. Probably they are the backbone of any state. But is there a code permitting to define a patriot? And can this right be delegated to one person or even one organization? This year’s program gives ample food for thought in this respect.

At the beginning the protagonist of the Chinese film “Young Patriot” is an enthusiastic advocate of orthodox patriotism. But these feelings undergo several tests in real life. Finally extending his knowledge of the world and the history of his country the main character finds space for another kind of patriotism , the conscious one! The mayor of a mining Chinese town is another example of such a person (“The Chinese Mayor”)

On the other hand, who is Edward Snowden, the protagonist of “CitizenFour”? is he a patriot or a traitor? Did he disclose a state secret or did he try to protect the citizens of his country?

Generally speaking, when we try to protect our nearest and dearest, how do we determine the moment when a monster starts growing inside us the way it happened to the characters of “Cartel Land”? When we strictly adhere to the rules, customs, ideology, are we not losing freedom like in Alex Gibney’s “Going Clear: Scientology And The Prison Of Belief’?

We are proud and glad that documentary filmmakers of the world discuss these topics. And we are glad to present to you our truly free program “Free Thought” as part of the 37th Moscow International Film Festival. We hope that after the screenings of these films you will look at the problems of the world and our country with open eyes. And that your patriotism will be conscious and inseparable from the word “conscience”.

http://www.moscowfilmfestival.ru/miff37/eng/ 

Le documentaire est le cœur du service public

French documentarians have written a letter to France Télévisions to make the public service channels improve the conditions for the genre. It was published in the newspaper Libération last week. It is a very well written and argued article that could very well be used in lobbying campaigns in other countries – and on a European level. Sooo… good reading on a quite Sunday, if you master the language!

Le documentaire est le cœur du service public ! Et, il devrait battre encore plus fort…

A la télévision, le documentaire soumis à de trop fortes pressions.

Alors que France Télévisions vient de changer de présidence, le service public doit réaffirmer son engagement pour la production et la diffusion du film documentaire. Il a son public et remplit une fonction sociale.

Le genre documentaire joue un rôle essentiel dans le cœur de nos concitoyens. Il bat fort dans les écoles, les universités, les bibliothèques, les musées, les salles de cinéma… Et il bat fort encore sur tous les écrans de nos foyers. Un cœur vif tant il porte en lui l’identité de notre société, ses valeurs et ses questionnements. Un cœur solide tant il est vecteur d’innovation, tant il stimule un secteur et un marché du travail important.

En l’auscultant d’un peu plus près, on s’apercevrait bien vite que ce cœur s’arrêterait de battre sans le service public. France Télévisions et toutes les chaînes du groupe contribuent grandement à son oxygène. Cela lui est même vital.

Les 1.186 heures de nouveaux films financés et produits en 2014 par l’ensemble des chaînes du service public, offrent une grande diversité de sujets et de formes, une pluralité de points de vue et de narrations.

Les rapports avec nos interlocuteurs des chaînes publiques, se sont considérablement simplifiés ces dernières années. L’équilibre vertueux du trinôme “auteur – producteur – diffuseur” n’a cessé de s’améliorer et participe au dynamisme du secteur.

Le documentaire s’inscrit comme un genre fédérateur et populaire. Il accumule les succès critiques et les succès publics. Il rassemble entre 3 et 4 millions de téléspectateurs pour les évènements de prime-time, entre 500 et 800.000 pour les cases régulières, de seconde ou de troisième partie de soirée.

Le documentaire n’a jamais aussi bien rempli sa fonction sociale, en contribuant à stimuler les débats, à éclairer le public sur des sujets aussi fondamentaux que la violence, l’homophobie, la petite enfance, le harcèlement à l’école, le droit des femmes, l’immigration, la prison etc… que l’on a retrouvé récemment dans les cases Infrarouge de France 2 ou Le monde en face sur France 5. Les espaces dédiés au genre offrent des écritures variées et souvent innovantes. Pour le plus grand nombre.

Cependant, les auteurs reprochent une tendance à la standardisation de certaines de nos productions, et soulignent un trop grand manque d’audace au sein de notre filière.

1

Certaines thématiques ont peu à peu quasiment disparu des grilles de programme de France Télévision. C’est le cas du documentaire scientifique ou du film d’art, dont un savoir-faire pourtant tant reconnu s’étiole par manque de débouchés. Alors que nos chercheurs sont régulièrement récompensés (Prix Nobel, médaille Fields…). Alors que partout en France, nos musées, nos grandes expositions sont remplis de succès et de publics toujours plus importants.

Enfin, nous perdons du terrain dans les grands rassemblements internationaux et nos films désertent les meilleurs festivals. Pas de productions françaises cette année à Sundance. De moins en moins à Amsterdam, à Toronto, à Nyon ou à Sheffield. Il n’y a pas si longtemps pourtant, France Télévision obtenait deux oscars (Un coupable idéal en 2002 et La Marche de l’Empereur en 2005) grâce à des films produits pour ses antennes !

A qui la faute ?

Une forte pression persiste au niveau de l’engagement des projets, pour lesquels nous sommes totalement dépendants du score et des parts de marchés escomptés. Cela ne rend pas service à l’offre et à la prise de risque.

Il faut relâcher la pression de l’audience avant que ce cœur ne lâche.

Le documentaire n’est pas un genre de l’instantané. Il ne vit pas seulement de l’événement, il ne vit pas seulement du jour et de l’heure de sa diffusion. Son impact demeure dans un temps et un espace beaucoup plus long, et plus important. La seule mesure quantitative de l’audience est devenue totalement désuète. A l’heure du numérique et de la ‘dé-linéarisation’, il serait judicieux de prendre en compte tous les outils qui mesurent aujourd’hui la pertinence et l’attachement d’un téléspectateur à son programme. Des méthodes existantes, comme le “Qualimat”, devraient être systématisées.

La mesure d’un tel impact améliorerait d’autant mieux les nouveaux modes de consommation et les accès aux contenus sur tous types d’écrans. Une nouvelle vie du genre documentaire est à penser sur le web, via des plateformes dédiées, qui rende son accès facile, permanent, constituant peu à peu une encyclopédie de notre temps, avec l’ampleur que pourrait lui donner la puissance du Groupe France Télévisions. Avec l’objectif de retrouver le lien avec des publics qui ont déserté la télévision. Notamment les jeunes, qui se tournent plus naturellement vers le web et les réseaux sociaux.

Après les années dites télé-réalité, les années qui ont vu arriver les nouvelles chaînes de la TNT ont bousculé le paysage audiovisuel dans son ensemble et le genre documentaire n’y a pas échappé. Ces nouvelles chaînes n’ont jamais rempli les engagements patrimoniaux qu’elles avaient pris au moment

2

d’obtenir leurs fréquences. Beaucoup de leurs programmes sont injustement libellés documentaires. Des films “vite faits, mal faits”, vite produits pour pas cher, sans réelle valeur patrimoniale. Ces programmes ont tiré l’ensemble de la création vers le plus facile, vers le plus opportun. Tout simplement vers le bas.

Des programmes fabriqués à la chaîne, diffusés dans un flux quasiment continu, ayant pour effet une fragmentation de l’audience et un brouillage de l’offre qualitative.

Le genre documentaire se distingue des autres genres, notamment de l’information, des magazines et des jeux, parce qu’il porte en lui certaines spécificités immuables. Son temps de conception et de fabrication est long (celui de l’écriture, du développement, de la production). Le point de vue de ses créateurs reste singulier. Chaque film est unique et difficile – voire impossible – à copier.

Les films documentaires peuvent ainsi avoir un rôle conjuguant information et émotion, de telle manière qu’ils trouvent chez les spectateurs un écho puissant. Ajoutons qu’ils peuvent aussi avoir une dimension d’ouverture au vaste monde : ne serait-il pas opportun qu’une des chaines de service public, par exemple France 5, se fasse le vecteur régulier de documentaires de création coproduits avec d’autres pays ? Des sociétés françaises pourraient ainsi partager leur savoir faire en accompagnant et en coproduisant ces œuvres dans une logique d’échange, d’ouverture et de réciprocité.

Avec un cœur revitalisé, le documentaire français a de l’avenir, ses forces sont vives et ses talents nombreux

Signataires

Christine Camdessus (Alegria Productions), Fabienne Servan-Schreiber (Cinétévé), Dominique Barneaud (Bellota films), Matthieu Belghiti (What’s Up Films), Fabrice Coat (Program 33), Alexandre Brachet (Upian), Alexandre Cornu (les Films du Tambour de soie), Luc-Martin Gousset (Point du Jour), Olivier Mille (Artline Films), Patrick Winocour (Quark Productions).

Première parution :

Libération du lundi 8 juin 2015

Contact presse : dom@bellotafilms.fr