-->
It is worth
bringing up the magazine’s rival Positif
to have a better understanding of what was unique to Cahiers in this period. They had both been around since the early
Fifties and their collective archives provide an impressive film history of the
periods since then. In their early years, during the height of the Cold and
Algerian War, Positif defended social
films while Cahiers isolated cinema
to study their auteur and Hollywood
studio films of predilection. In the early Sixties, Gérard Gozlan at Positif would criticize the guiding Cahiers maxim of Bazin’s Christian-spirituality
and then afterwards Cahiers, while
also getting mobilized with the political fervor of the times, would go on to a
decade-long hiatus of films as popular entertainment. Even though Positif would evolve, through different
editors and publishers over the years, they never had this extreme of an
identity crisis.
Positif
never had like Cahiers superstar film-critics,
nouvelle vague directors and a decade
of political mobilization. But once Toubiana would start to run the magazine as
a regularly monthly film magazine in the Eighties it would slowly start to
resemble more Positif. As well Positif, which kept a regular activity
throughout the Seventies, had an advantage over Cahiers as they had a head start on covering many of the directors
that would start to rise to prominence throughout the Eighties. The two
magazines would both attend the major film festivals Cannes and Venice; and
this French and European art-house cinema would be the centerpiece for both
magazines, while still being able to appreciate certain new American auteurs.
The
differences between both magazines are subtler in this period. Cahiers had the Journal section, Jean-Paul
Fargier and his writing on video-art, special travel issues (U.S.A., China,
U.S.R.R.), and significant American contributors like Bill Krohn, Bérénice
Reynaud, Jonathan Rosenbaum and Todd McCarthy. Historically Positif always preferred British cinema
which they did a better job at representing. Their collaborator from England in
this period was Mark le Fanu who would write on the subject. But they also
shared different conceptualizations of what was the ‘Classic’ period of cinema
and what was its ‘Modern’ period. There was always a side ‘Tradition française’ at Positif
and this was illustrated in their taste for Alain Resnais and Bertrand
Tavernier while Cahiers was more nouvelle vague and had their own
directors.
But
their rivalry never descended into the maelstrom of fights and name-calling of
their early years. It seems like both magazines had a good amicable working
relationship in this period. The rivalry is never explicitly brought up either.
Some of the new Cahiers critics –
Nicolas Saada, for example – would have even studied cinema in university under
like Michel Ciment. Toubiana and Cahiers
would even come to the support of Positif when they had a quarrel at the beginning of
the Nineties with its publisher regarding copyrights.
But
even though Michel Ciment and Paul-Louis Thirard would say that their rivalry
is something of the past to look at Positif
a little more closely it would appear that they still held a grudge against
their more ‘popular’ counterpart. Positif
begins the decade still on some of their old fights with some of the older Cahiers critics like Skorecki and
Commolli. They would also ridicule their serious Marxist film theory and that of
other magazines like Tel Quel. While Thirard,
and others from Positif, would
criticize Cahiers for the ignorance
of Positif and the books by some of
its writers. In Positif instead of
addressing Cahiers they preferred to
use the space in their magazine to promote smaller, newer film magazines. It
appears that the guiding principal at Positif
in the Eighties was to just ignore Cahiers.
And any time they do bring them up it is usually just in passing and
sarcastically in their ‘Encyclopedie Permanente du Cinematographie’ and ‘Autours
du cinema’ section; or when Cahiers
authors published new books.
The
Positif critics in this period are
older and more mature and since some of them were somehow connected to the
university academy their critiques resembled more to university essays. The Positif critiques, which were all
extremely well-written and insightful, would highlight the film’s directors
reoccurring themes, motifs and etc. It lacked some of the more poetic and
polemical prose of some of the Cahiers critiques
of this period. But still the Positif
archive of this period is really rich and full of rigorous close readings of
the major films and auteurs of this period. Where Positif was more positive,
Cahiers always distinguished itself
by hating to better to be able to
appreciate what it liked. Positif
would resent and accuse Cahiers of
having, or attempting to, have ties with the film industry and for promoting
heavily the films of its own directors. Positif
would also accuse Cahiers of a
certain snobbism and of being trendy. Positif would reproach Cahiers
for saying how they ‘discovered’ all of these filmmakers when in actuality it
was Positif, as they like to proclaim,
had done it first.
But
there is also less of an evolution at Positif
than at Cahiers which really changes
and grows through its different periods. Where Cahiers seems to grow there is an impression of Positif still being ‘stuck’ or
‘cemented’ in its views from the Fifties, regardless that they are writing
about new films.
The
two important pieces for Positif in
this period are both by Michel Ciment (its current chief editor): there is one
on the tasks of film criticism and the other one is a polemic on Godard’s Soigne ta droite (N.324). Ciment, even
this early on in being at Positif (he
started in the Sixties) is starting to cement himself as a major figure at Positif. His then wife Janine would be
there too in this period – helping with translations – and is described as an
important collaborator.
Godard
would be the major opposition between both magazines in this period. Where
Godard at Cahiers is a major guiding
reference then at Positif they couldn’t
care less about him. His films were generally not even reviewed in this period.
This is why Ciment’s critique especially stands out.
In
Ciment’s critique Je vous salue Godard
he calls Godard out for some of his more obnoxious and untrue public
statements. Ciment wrote, “On the media scene Jean-Luc Godard incarnates the
modern buffoon but there’s no longer a king.” Ciment highlights Godard’s media
interviews and how he makes fun of everyone and is never contradicted. Ciment
finds it sad that at Cannes the reception is less on Godard’s films than his
press conferences. For Ciment, Godard “incarnates a period where creation is
only a pretext for a chatter of the social, political and the aesthetics.”
Ciment especially disagrees with Godard (and he has been repeating this ever
since) that cinema and storytelling is dead. Ciment does not see a personal
evolution in Godard’s films as he would see in Bergman in his contemporaneously
new book The Magic Lantern. Ciment wrote,
“By never being put into question, Godard has trapped himself in a vicious
circle and has refused to change since he’s convinced that there’s nothing to
change.” It is a significant essay for Positif
although unfortunately it is stylistically rough and has a lot of typos.
But
the Positif fight seems to be less
with Cahiers than with film criticism
in the popular press whether that is Le
Monde, Variety and Nouvel Obs. Their
aim is to try to improve film criticism in the general French film journalism
sphere. This is two-fold: there is a pedantic criticism towards lazy writing
and misinformation but there’s also a self-righteous ‘we’re right, and they’re
wrong’ attitude about it. Positif
never really had critics who became directors but instead they had a lot of
authors and cultural industry employees that would emerge.
Ciment’s
essay on film criticism is from the dossier France:
Des Deniers Critiques aux Premier Films and the title of his piece is De la critique dans touts ses etats a
l’etat de la critique (March 1987, N.313) which he dedicates to his wife
Jeannine, who would have just passed away (‘En
souvenir de Jeannine et de son exigence’).
In
it he argues with a popular press article by Michel Boujut (producer of Cinema Cinema) who complains that film
critics lacks the ability to appreciate films. The emphasis is on the
profession of critics/journalist. Ciment argues that film criticism matters and
that the importance of criticism is an old debate that goes all of the way back
to Balzac and Aristotle. Ciment reaffirms, “Criticism must not worry about the
public… The critic must be able to address what he felt and explain this
through his tools - knowledge and words.” Ciment even uses a Cahiers turn of phrase, “Le travelling n’est plus une affaire de
morale mais de tickets vendus.”
Ciment
is against this rush to be relevant. In this period Positif would have a lot of important dossiers on the history of cinema. Positif would publish dossiers on Frank Capra (to coincide with a
major new Cinémathèque Française retrospective) and early silent films like those
of the Lumière brothers (Positif’s
founder Bernard Chardère would also establish the Lumière Institute in Lyon).
Leos
Carax is also a site of contestation regarding a modern French cinema and how
to ‘publicitize’ films by making them ‘events’.
“Mauvias Sang, where there is an
undisputable talent, becomes one of the best films of film history, which we’ve
seen since Noir et Blanc by Blaire
Devers, which came out… only two weeks ago. New cinematographic film events
take place at such an accelerated rates. So the film by Carax, which Cahiers, dedicated numerous long texts
in two successive issues, and that is compared here and there to Murnau, Joyce,
Vigo, Picasso, Welles and Schonberg would then be in a few months in most of
the lists of the ten best films of the year in a lot of the publications,
especially by its collaborators in Cahiers
and their other outlets.”
Ciment
criticizes Telerama for being too
lenient (“four new masterpieces every week, they say” and he worries about the
temptation of journals to become less serious magazines to increase their sales
and reach a larger public. What Ciment is arguing for is the necessity to find
alliances to be able to put on exciting screenings and to publish serious film
criticism in France. This is what is necessary.
We’ve got some
good directors in Canada. To make a short list there’s Jean-Marc Vallée, Guy
Maddin, David Cronenberg, Denis Côté, Sarah Polley, Stéphane Lafleur, Kazik
Radwanski, Igor Drljača, Matt Johnson, Yonah Lewis, Calvin Thomas, Pavan Moondi,
Luo Li, and Andrew Cividino. TIFF recently put together their Canada’s All-TimeTop Ten List which includes Atanarjuat,
Mon oncle Antoine, The Sweet Hereafter, Léolo, Jésus de Montréal, Goin’ Down
the Road, Dead Ringers, C.R.A.Z.Y., My Winnipeg, Stories We Tell and Les Ordres. All good films. They’ll be
organizing special screenings this summer at the Lightbox to correspond with
the list, which has just been published in the new issue of Montage. But these eleven titles are
just the tip of the iceberg in terms of note-worthy Canadian cinema. TIFF again
has an annual Canada’s Top Ten and there are the Canadian Screen Awards which
highlight some of the best Canadian films each year. There are exciting films
festivals in Toronto like TIFF, Hot Docs and Images where they even play a lot
more Canadian films. There are serious film magazines like Cinema Scope, Point of View, and 24 Images where these films are discussed and the directors
interviewed. I’m not one to necessarily be too patriotic but we have it pretty
good here and our national cinema is pretty impressive in its diversity.
There’s even now a National Canadian Film Day. There’s something to be proud of
in all of this.
The only place
that you can find Jean-Marc Vallée’s Les
Fleurs Magiques on video is at the Cinémathèque
québécoise. It’s one of his early short films. What’s so impressive about it is
how it anticipates many of his later themes and stylistics. If Vallée speaks about an affinity for Les Bons
débarras it's in this film where it’s the most present. If there’s a
running theme throughout Vallée’s cinema it is of loving so much that it hurts just like Manon in the film of Francis
Mankiewicz. In Les Fleurs Magiques
there’s a little boy (Marc-André Grondin; fascinating to see just as a child)
who wants to help cure his father from being a drunk. The boy is also really
close to his mother, who he admires for her good nature and strong qualities. 
Also at the Cinémathèque
was a Sébastien Raymond photography exhibition Un temps d’acteur which included behind-the-scenes photographs from C.R.A.Z.Y.
and Café de Flore. What’s so
impressive about these is how they display Vallée’s process, contemplation and
precision. In one photograph he’s in a church standing behind Michel Côté and
analyzing its rhythm to best direct the scene. In another Côté is standing
outdoors by a trailer getting into character before an emotional confrontation
with his son. There’s introspection and personal drive that goes into making these
works and this comes across through the photographs. The ones of Paris for Café de Flore are especially
interesting to see the solitude and intimacy of a Vallée set.
The films of Rafaël
Ouellet are sad. In them the world is grim and people aren’t happy. This is a
given. If the working class characters in Camion
were depressed then Gurov and Anna
can reassure us that the middle
class also has its problems. It’s about an English professor Ben who,
obsessed with Chekhov’s The Lady with
the Dog, decides to have an affair with one of his students Mercedes. If
this story of a perverted old creep trying to get with one of his students
sounds familiar it’s since it is. Gurov
and Anna especially recalls the chamber dramas of a Bergman or an Allen. Luckily
there’s more to it. The filmmaking and its atmosphere are exceptional. Ouellet
is able to transcend some of the film’s clichés to get at the heart of things and to the human condition. Seeing Ben slowly loose control of his life and have his wife and lover, who become better writers than he is, leave him touches
upon the frailty and vulnerability of modern masculinity. There is a side Winter Sleep to Gurov and Anna. When Ben walks around Montreal in his awkward winter
coat and hat, creeping around street corners there is an air of Nosferatu about him. But what's especially
noteworthy is Sophie Desmarais as Mercedes. It’s a complex role and Desmarais gives her depth. Her sweet and artistic air within a
confusing and troubling modern life in Montreal especially recalls the earlier Carole Laure
performances in the films of Gilles Carle. There’s a couple of great scenes of
Desmarais on a stage at a café reading some Checkov. She gives the words a
whole new meaning through her interpretation and emphasis. If Québécois cinema already has
its musicians (Stéphane Lafleur), Hollywood types (Jean-Marc Vallée), and
outsiders (Denis Côté) then with Gurov and
Anna Rafaël Ouellet places himself as one of its foremost playwright director. 
