TOPICAL ROUND TABLE- How can we keep classic cinema alive in an era of changing societal paradigms?

While the film industry is moving towards a general awareness of sexist and sexual violence and racism, it remains for those working in the field to continue the work begun by whistleblowers to enable the industry to move forward. Moderated by Sylvain Devarieux, journalist for Le film français, a round table discussion on Tuesday October 15 brought together Béatrice Boursier, Élodie Drouard, Romain Dubois and Laura Pertuy to discuss concrete solutions put in place by programmers to keep heritage cinema alive in an era of changing societal paradigms.

Programming problematic works: the first thoughts

As a real issue for both fresh and heritage cinema, the question of how to distribute works deemed problematic transcends the boundaries of the industry. While work is underway within the production teams, it remains for exhibitors, distributors and programmers to take up the baton. To this end, a number of ideas have already been put forward.

Laura Pertuy, administrative of the 50/50 collective, explained that a time for discussion was proposed to exhibitors during this year's Cannes Film Festival, as they felt alone and unsure of how to tackle the issue. A second discussion was organized, this time in La Rochelle, with a more diverse audience. 

Similarly, France Télévisions' programming teams, represented by Élodie Drouard, head of cinema editorial for the audiovisual institution, were asked to explore these issues. While the acquisition policy has not changed, there are now more discussions and reflections on the accompaniment of works that are difficult to show as they stand.

On the other hand, Romain Dubois, Marketing and Editorial Director at UniversCiné, reports a “reset” in the platform's acquisition process: the artists in question are no longer purchased, but their previously acquired films remain available. Indeed, the idea is not to “bury the works”, but to accompany them, adapting the work to be done for each film and each author, without positioning or promoting certain filmographies.

Concrete solutions still to be found

The round table participants unanimously agreed that it is not possible to arrive at a universal formula for dealing with problematic works, be they heritage or recent. For Béatrice Boursier, General Delegate of the SCARE, it's necessary to have nuance for each work, and to propose a response adapted accordingly. The solution of editorialization then becomes a favorite, in gazettes and with the introduction of cards at the time of broadcasting, the organization of debates in parallel with programming and editorial choices claimed by the organizations. Laura Pertuy recalls the screening of Roman Polanski's Chinatown at the Forum des Images, which was preceded by an announcement of the Forum's internal discussions and their disagreement with the screening, stating that from now on, anyone under indictment would no longer be invited to the Forum des Images.

As Romain Dubois and Élodie Drouard point out, editorial reinforcement is therefore necessary. Referring to the work of France Télévisions, the cinema editorial manager recounts that following the broadcast of an Alfred Hitchcock feature, a documentary on the director was programmed, highlighting his problematic behavior. For her, “you can show almost anything”, depending on the context, the viewpoint and the vision associated with it.  

Steps yet to be taken

While concrete solutions have been proposed, there is still a long way to go, particularly on the receiving end. Laura Pertuy reports, for example, that there is still a lack of results on viewers' reactions to the editorial content on offer: does it really have an impact, either negative or positive? For Béatrice Boursier, audience reaction is constant, always one way or the other, depending on the exhibitor's choice, providing no usable answer.

The economic stakes of a cinema deemed problematic are also superimposed on those of heritage cinema, as editorialization entails additional costs.

While programmers are still learning how to deal with these issues, there are still a number of unanswered questions, including that of tributes to artists. According to Élodie Drouard, for whom paying tributes means having to adapt just a few hours after the death of personalities, depending on the emotion they arouse, it is currently impossible to decide whether or not to pay tribute to problematic personalities.

Finally, some people see the removal of problematic works as a way of highlighting works that are not problematic. Finally, it's essential to be cautious and transparent with the public, as programmers make this a duty, which doesn't prevent debate - quite the contrary - and at the same time “opens up a virtuous circle by showing that it's a system that belongs to the past”, concludes Laura Pertuy.