From
the time he became the chief editor of Cahiers
in 1981 until his departure in 1992 Toubiana wrote and published an estimated
230 articles which includes editorials, critiques, interviews and journal. What
stands out from his critiques is how they are able to canonize films and
directors into the Cahiers canon just
by the fact that he was writing about
them. The films that Toubiana wrote major critiques for stand out as ‘Événements’ as the film would usually be
featured on the cover and the director would be interviewed. They would also
later be cross-referenced as important films for that year. These critiques
stand out both due to the strength and interest of Toubiana’s writing but also
due to the fact that he was the patron
of Cahiers. As a journalist-critic
Toubiana usually cites interviews within his critiques and there is a loose
quality to them. He cites dialogue from memory and acknowledges that it might
not be exactly correct. It’s a writing that’s not always precise. There is also
a lot of gastronomical references in his critiques which is a trait that recalls
the earlier writing of Claude Chabrol. The critiques provide examples of what
were considered are the most important French and international films of the
year. There were two important areas of interest for Toubiana’s editorship of Cahiers in the Eighties – these are
French cinema and the Cannes Film Festival.
Of
the first area of interest, French cinema, Toubiana wrote “It is French cinema
that is our conjecture.” The French
film industry was the terrain that Cahiers
could most efficiently engage with and could help shape. The Eighties
marked the return of French cinema at Cahiers.
The important directors to spark
this return are the older nouvelle vague
directors with Godard and Truffaut at the forefront and then Rivette, Rohmer
and Chabrol. Even though Truffaut died early on in the decade he would still
retain an immense importance for Toubiana. There was a special Truffaut
memorial issue. His life and films would
be honored, in the culture at larger and at Cahiers,
with the re-release of Les Deux Anglaises
as well as by the publication of Truffaut-related books like Hitchcock/Truffaut and his Correspondences.
This
encounter with Truffaut also sparked a return towards an industrial French
cinema. Among Toubiana’s best critiques are the ones where he brings a new generation
of French directors into Cahiers pantheon.
Toubiana published major texts, whether critiques or interviews, on the
following French directors: Alain Corneau, Claude Miller, André Téchiné, Robert
Guédiguian, Claude Chabrol, François Truffaut, Robert Bresson, Raymond
Depardon, Jean-Pierre Mocky, Maurice Pialat, Bertrand Blier, Jean-Jacques
Beineix, Claude Berri, Louis Malle, Jean-Luc Godard, Michel Deville, Pascal
Thomas, Jacques Demy, Tonie Marshall, Georges Rouquier, Jean-Marie Straub and
Danièle Huillet, Marguerite Duras, Leos Carax, Éric Rohmer, Patrice Chéreau,
Jean-Claude Brisseau and Paul Vecchiali.
The
second important area of interest for Toubiana and Cahiers in this period was the Cannes film festival. It was
according to Toubiana “the grand window into world cinema” and through it the
magazine could encounter and analyze emerging directors and the trends of
contemporary cinema. By its coverage of the Cannes Festival, the biggest media
event on film, Cahiers could evaluate
the state of world cinema while at the same time improving Cahiers’ own visibility.
Toubiana
started to cover the Cannes film festival in 1981 and he continued to do so
throughout his tenure. In 1992 was even invited to the festival as a jury
member and this experience disillusioned him with regards to it. Toubiana also
covered the Venice film festival but which he saw as second-rate due the lesser
quality of the films. Italy film didn’t
benefit as much from government subsidies for culture which France had and
which Cannes benefitted from.
The
festival coverage stands out for being critical rather than sensationalist
publicity for the festival. The mediocrity of many of the films was mentioned
and a there was frustration about the festival’s disregard for smaller but more
difficult films. The directors favored by Cahiers
were put in opposition to negatively viewed academic directors showing at
the festival. The criticism by Cahiers of
some of the film festival practices made its relationship with the festivals a
little tendentious at times. This strong and dissident coverage towards the
festival was rare within the often self-congratulating cultural sphere.
Toubiana’s
first Cannes coverage, Un film-surprise
dans un festival sans, was critical of the festival. “It was a sad celebration,”
wrote Toubiana. “What bothers us the most this year are the films. There is a
nearly total absence of cinema, of the strong moments of cinema.” Toubiana
complained how the role of criticism was weakening in the face of the film’s
publicity and promotional machines. This demanded in response an increased
intensity in film criticism.
Toubiana
criticized a ‘dumb’ Mel Brooks film which received a popular reception and
instead highlighted Skolimowski’s Haut-les-main
which he discusses alongside Godard’s Ici
et ailleurs. Toubiana wrote, “It’s their secret. They are manifesto and
testament films about cinema. They pose Bazinian questions par excellence: What is this cloth which drapes over all of the
images? What motivates the movement of characters? What is a cinematic image?”
Serge
Daney had encouraged this dissidence. In a Journal contribution from 1987 Daney
brings up how the 40th anniversary of Cannes was over-saturated with
media. Daney sees the discourse of this over-mediatized festival as full of
clichés that ends up not doing it justice. This is a failure. The dissidence of
Cahiers is in opposition to the
popular press and the polite notes of many professional journalists reviewing
the festival. Daney argued that Cannes needs more criticism and less promotion,
It
will not be enough as long as the television media will only present a soft positive perspective on everything that
unfolds on the Cannes stages. What
is important is doubt, criticism and a negation. These taboos and criticism are
actually what makes a film festival. There needs to be dirt, debates, polemics,
proclamations and swoons because without these the festival would only be a simulacrum
and nothing but noise. The festival only works through its negative moments – through a process that denies it. This is
necessary for it to finally becoming itself. Through this negation there can
finally be an event at the festival.
***
No comments:
Post a Comment