Showing posts with label Bernard Chardère. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bernard Chardère. Show all posts

Monday, February 24, 2014

Bernard Chardère on Cahiers today

Positif's Bloc-Notes section is one of its more interesting features. It provides the reverse-shot of the critique section by allowing the magazine's main writers to divulge in more casual thoughts on life, society, films and film writing. Unlike Twitter or other social media outlets the Bloc-Notes position within Positif binds it to film history therefore the section greatly contributes to the magazine's editorial position.
In the July-August 2012 issue (N.617-618), in a rare guest appearance, Bernard Chardère in his Bloc-Notes, Mai en cinéma. 60 ans, verte jeunesse, chimes in on Cahiers. - D.D. 
***
Vendredi 25 
Cahiers, but what of? If I told you that I attentively read Cahiers du Cinéma you wouldn't believe me. And you would be right. There was a time where I skimmed their table of contents at the newsstands. But since their new publisher, it hasn't escaped me, even to my superficial eye, that their covers aren't even of films anymore but instead of graphic designs. This elicits interrogation: has Cahiers even given up on their veil that they care about cinema?

Bernard Chardère on the early years of Positif*








*Positive Liaisons: Correspondance des Auteurs 1952 - 1958 (Éditions Jean-Michel Place, 2000)

Wednesday, July 31, 2013

Bernard Chardère on 60 Years of Positif

“And perhaps there is also, in this, a reluctance to let us English-readers in on the juicier details of Positif's colourful history: it's easier by far to sweepingly sketch a fifty-year canon of great directors than to explain to a foreign (and sometimes frankly indifferent) audience the intricate divisions between factions of the French Left in the '50s, or the evolution of Surrealism as a cultural movement beyond the arty, glory days to which it is too often reduced.” – Adrian Martin on Positif 50 Years.

Positif, with its eleven issues a year, produces far more writing than any other film criticism magazine. Its large paper size and small margins allow it to cram far more into one page and entire issue than it even seems possible. (Its quantity might also have to do with its writer's pro bono work). Even though its party line is less strict than Cahiers, and there are variation in prose to account for its over-fifty member's writing style, there are historical factors to account for its humanistic, literary, philosophical, political and surrealist perspective.  

Positif with each new issue creates a hierarchy by prioritizing its film reviews, by placing them at the front of the magazine, in order of importance: review and an interview, review, notes. Its many other sections (e.g. Bloc-Notes, festival coverage, DVD and book reviews, Cinéma retrouvé etc.) offer an expansion of what is the actuality of cinema, aside from solely Parisian new releases, while also giving it room to impose its editorial position on alternative film-related projections and texts.

But there is a language barrier that is preventing it from being better known in the English world (cf. Cineaste's Review for some historical factors).

In Jonathan Rosenbaum's article Everyone's a Critic he brings up some of the differences between English and French film writing, highlighting that the European tradition builds upon the intellectual tradition of continental philosophy while in the U.S., industry journalism along with an anti-intellectualism democratization of media outlets restrict the discourse on difficult and foreign films.

In this setting, from the perspective of English film criticism, Positif appears as a untainted oasis, especially in contrast to the wide emergence of shallow and quickly-written film writing that pops up all of the time on the internet.

But it might seem beyond the point to be championing a mostly inaccessible French film magazine (cf. Positif's reception in North America) and to rag on English film writing, especially since it's not in a good state (e.g. jobs are being lost, there are less ones available etc.).  

Positif isn't perfect either: it can be too generous and not critical enough, it doesn't do enough to support small scale festival films that could really benefit from favorable reviews - French film criticism actively rails against a lot of these experimental narrative feature films - or young French cinema that struggles to get even made and then seen (cf. Jeunes cinéastes français).

But I still think that it is important to write about Positif ... so I will continue to do so.

For Positif's sixtieth anniversary they updated a little their classic format: First off they changed publishers from éditions Scope in Paris to Actes Sud at the Institut Lumière in Lyon (cf. Positif by Actes Sud), they slightly altered the magazine's format and layout, and they finally updated to color. Like usual these issues were of high quality (cf. Positif's sixieth Anniversary).

To correspond with Positif's sixtieth anniversary, its founder Bernard Chardère, contributed two essays back to back, after not having written in the magazine since 2005 (with the exception of an Hors-Séries about Cannes in 2007).

In Positif N.615, which has a still of Alain Resnais' Vou n'avez encore rien vu on its cover, Chardère has a nice dossier Les 60 ans de Positif: Notre travelingue en arrière et en couleurs which, in a laissez-faire graphic design, includes: a nice text, pictures of its first fifteen covers ("Je ne m'en suis occupé qu'à partir d'ici ... jusque-là."), portraits of its first group of writers (along with the names of their favorite filmmakers), old photographs of its comity sitting around a table, an advertisement for the new re-editions of its earliest issues, and a promotion for events celebrating its sixtieth anniversary.

In Chardère's text Ah, Quel Titre?! he discusses what he sees as the secret for the long life of Positif and the genesis of its title. Since Chardère's writing, like that in Positif in general, is more about writing style and tone (cf. Positif N.500: Bernard Chardère's Contribution) here is what he wrote in its original French because I would not even know how to translate such wonderful and wild writing, which he would push further in his Bloc-Notes Mai en Cinéma: 60 ans, verte jeunesse (Positif N.617-18). - D.D.
***
Ah, Quel Titre?! 
Il m'étonnera toujours, cet oiseau-là. Ce n'est pas qu'il renaît inlassablement de ses cendres - car le Phoenix, lui-même, avait été carbonisé, alors que Positif est resté parfois muet, mais vivant toujours - c'est qu'il parvient à changer déditeur sans la moindre solution de continuité, d'une livraison l'autre, tel un prestidigitateur tirant de son chapeau ce qu'il y a mis : le prochain numéro.
Cela, répété au fil du temps, une bonne douzaine de fois. Les éditeurs de la revue éclosent comme la fleur des champs, fondent comme neige au soleil, prospèrent, dépérissent... La revue, quoi qu'il en soit, quoi qu'il en coûte, poursui sur sa lancée, telle la flèche de Zénon (d'Élée. Bien que « les positivistes » préfèrent l'autre, de Celtium, plus social).
Ainsi les rayons du lecteur-type finissent-ils par ployer.
À ce propos, je devine qu'on attend de moi la révélation du secret du fondateur: comment avez-vous fait, il y a 60 ans? D'où tirez-vous (les premiers) cette vitalité, digne de La Revue des Deux Mondes (ou plutôt du Magasin Pittoresque, dont en saint-simonien véritable, j'ai la série dans ma bibliothèque)? Bien sûr, qu'il y ait une recette, un tour de main, comment le nier, mais l'essentiel fut simplement l'esprit d'équipe dans une incontestable suite dans les idées. Sans omettre la fidélité à un principe: la réunion du dimanche; inutile de chercher plus loin.
À coeur ouvert, récapitulons: solution de continuité, secret du fondateur, tour de main, esprit d'équipe, suite dans les idées, réunion du dimache. Qu'ajouter encore?
Ah, j'allais oublier...
Oui, j'allais oublier de divulguer, enfin, Le secret: quel titre?
Nous hésitions de concert, avril 1952; l'imprimerie s'impatientait. Je me revois - avais-je quitté mon duffle-coat? - arpentant de long en large la pièce exigüe où Guy Jacob avait rassemblé Irène Giraud, François Michel (ceux-ci peuvent encore témoigner), les Ottavi, Madeleine, Vivè-Pomme bien sûr, assurant que le plus inattendu, significatif, polysémique, était bien « Positif ».
Comme si vous y aviez été:
∙ de la pellicule négative on tire un positif...
∙ de même faudra-t-il, dans les films dont nous parlerons, souligner le meilleur...
∙ le reste - progressistes étaient nos coeurs juvéniles - à l'avenant.
Avec l'impression diffuse que l'on mécoutait dans un silence anormal. Les petits camarades, en effet, avaient rempli notre bouteille de marc du Bugey de quelque chose d'autre - pétrole lampant? vomito negro? - et au lieu de prêter attention à mes raisonnements, tous guettaient l'instant où je terminerai une phrase en vidant mon verre...
Ce petit fait vrai survint, salué avec applaudissements, brouhaha, et haut-le-coeur; du même coup, l'affaire fut entendue. Toutes objections oubliées; victoire à l'arraché: on l'appellerait décidément Positif.
Quel titre!
En nota bene, quelques clins d'oeil, à bons entendeurs salut, depuis le siège de la revue, retrouvé après 600 numéros. Il est vrai qu'en 1984 déjà, le responsable du transfert situait en 300 pages Les années lyonnaises de Positif dans L'Histoire contemporaine.
Acceptons-en l'augure et ajoutons aux maître-mot, à côté de marc du Bugey: Histoire contemporaine. Il ne tardera guère, le N°1000. Il n'y a plus qu'à l'écrire: le titre est là.

Monday, July 29, 2013

Positif N.500: Bernard Chardère's Contribution

To celebrate the 50th anniversary of Positif, for their 500th issue (Oct. 2002), the editors prepared a special issue. In it, the feature section was full of previously unpublished documents from famous filmmakers (e.g. Kubrick, Marker, Kiarostami, Cronenberg etc.), reflections by 87 collaborators on their participation with the magazine, and their favorite ten films from this period. The impressive roster of contributors included: Bernard Chardère, Gilles Jacob, Bertrand Tavernier, Michel Ciment, Michael Henry Wilson, Philippe Rouyer, Laurent Vachaud, Pierre Berthomieu, and others.

A noteworthy contribution to the section Cinquante Ans de Cinema is Bernard Chardère’s (which I translated below, along with his top ten). These early issues of Positif that he describes have long been shrouded in mystery since they are unavailable in Canada (cf. Positif in Canada). Luckily, they were recently re-printed as Les nouvelles éditions de Positif (Nouvelles Éditions Jean-Michel Place): Positif n° 1 à 15 and Positif n° 16 à 31. Now we just need to get them over here! - D.D.

***
1952: Bernard Chardère
For the sake of the cause (Cosa Nostra), if I had to evoke the year 1952, where to start? Perhaps with the projections "with a presentation and discussion," the heirs of the "conferences with a projection" from the times of the magic lanterns.The first orders for Positif came from the dense network of cine-clubs that were spread across the country (which dried out all of the original versions). In Paris, the profession was organized with an iron fist, without velvet gloves, by the unions, and for anyone interested in joining they would have had to first go through the L'Institut des hautes études cinématographiques (IDHEC). Another thing to take into consideration, in regards to discoveries I mean, would be the lines of inquiry around the cinema, and there were two major camps: the Catholics, who went about it in their traditional ways - morality, censorship, etc. - looked for an emancipation, at least aesthetic (Téléciné, Henri Agel ...), and there were the communists, guided by historian Georges Sadoul and the French weekly L'Écran français, who professed their faith to denounce, in a herculean effort, any Hollywood production. The only exception, Orson Welles, who was both loved at a time, without reticence, by Positif and Cahiers.
 
The table of contents from the issues of this era are filled with a majority of texts about Italian Neorealism, English comedies, and the rediscovery of Soviet and German classics. While also highlighting the incredible mass of mediocre French films: it wasn't famous, our own Saturday night cinema. In the streets and in print, with a critical point of view such was our intellectual responsibility (Leenhardt, Astruc, Kast ...), to consider the unfortunate state of our cinema. What to do? But to escape with Avalanche (Segard), Le bagnard (Rozier) Bel Amour (Campaux), Bille de clown (Wall), Boite de nuit (Rode), Boniface somnambule (Labro), Bouquet de joie (Cam).

Let's stick to the letter B: for example, to highlight some directors that we championed. What to do, if not, to fall into the arms of American cinema? (which we are offered in France, only which that is deemed "worthy" to export, let's remember).

So in this context we decided to take out our pens. In the six issues from 1952, Positif devoted articles to L'Auberge rouge (Autant-Lara), L’Ange bleu (Sternberg) La Carrose d'or (Renoir), Le Christ interdit (Malaparte), Deux sous d’espoir (Castellani), La Grande Vie (Schneider), Le Fleuve (Renoir), Miracle à Milan (De Sica), Los Olvidados (Buñuel), Orphée (Cocteau), Othello (Welles), Pas de paix sous les oliviers (De Santis), Rashomon (Kurosawa), Subida al cielo (Buñuel), Les Vacances de M. Hulot (Tati). There was equally major studies on the national cinemas of Spain, Italy, Russia; articles on Bresson and Renoir, Donskoï, Duvivier, Epstein, Vigo, Welles and an entire issue on Huston (African Queen, The Asphalt Jungle, The Treasure of Sierra Madre, The Red Badge of Courage, We Were Strangers).

"You were the first, really, to liberate films from the intellectual empire of the Critics, to open them up towards life, and into the real world," reassures us today an obsever without any indulgences, Georges Goldfayn. It's true though that we believed in cinema as a generous humanism, which we put to use, in a random order, to discover life, and as a way to improve it, and at the same time, with a crazy love for this unique form of expression, and an appetite to learn its many-fold components and masters.

Positif's layout and format was conceived spontaneously.
There were excesses, omissions, blunders, certainly: the failings of youth. What has been done is done! Our choices as an emerging magazine must have corresponded to ... something: incomplete, they would contribute, one stone at a time, or if not towards a definition of a "general line", or at least to the creation of a common spirit. This all just happened as we were putting together more issues after its initial launch, it continues to be enriched today, as it was fifty year ago, a great response to the most skeptical of its founders.

Well we want to authorize this, after this message, the archaeology, to draw a personal reverence to film criticism, saluting, the chef editor Ciment, and the publisher Paul Louis Thirard and everyone else on the team, that I would have had the pleasure to read during the first few years of the second century of the cinema. The first years: always the best...
***
Bernard Chardère's ten favorite films of the past fifty years, in no order: Il Grido (Antonioni), Él (Buñuel), The Dead (Huston), Hamlet (Kosintzev), 8 ½ (Fellini), Lancelot du Lac (Bresson), The Night of the Hunter (Laughton), Smiles of a Summer Night (Bergman), 3 Women (Altman), Les vacances de Monsieur Hulot (Tati).

Thursday, July 18, 2013

Bernard Chardère's first Positif Editorial

The only store in Toronto that sells Positif is La Maison de la Presse Internationale in Yorkville. The magazine ships one month behind, unlike Cahiers, whose new issues arrive the month they are published. The Canadian university periodicals of Positif go back to the early 80s, while Cahiers' entire catalog is easily accessible. In New York City, no stores sell Positif, while you can find Cahiers at St. Mark's Bookshop. And the only place in North America to celebrate Positif's 60th anniversary was the Rendez-Vous with French Cinema 2012 at the Film Society Lincoln Center.

These points illustrate the lack of visibility Positif has in North America.

Present-day English-language film criticism grew out of journalism, alt-weeklies, leftist politics, academia, art criticism, and now with the internet, bloggers (cf. American Movie Critics). To speak in generalizations, the two major streams of American film criticism are infotainment, and on the other hand, serious criticism, which focuses on foreign and independent films. One group unconditionally praises everything while in the other, skepticism towards the mainstream embitters and creates resentment. These two groups hardly ever meet. The fissure between these two polarities is, for example, the reason why one of the master filmmakers of our time, Steven Spielberg, has still not received the critical appreciation that he deserves in the United States, unlike in France (Cf. Berthomieu on Spielberg).

The gate-keepers of what passes as "good" film criticism have at stake the moral superiority of their evaluations that would be undermined if the oppositional reviews published by Positif were better known. In this setting the marginalization of Positif becomes an urgent concern as it hides its aesthetic and editorial position.

It does not even seem like Positif is on anyone's radars. It rarely appears discussed on social media outlets like Facebook and Twitter (except for its rare contributors that are on it) and Michel Ciment even speaks about how Positif's dossiers are created in opposition to the internet. There are also some well-researched blogs dedicated to Positif like Nightswimming or the periodical index Calindex.

On the other hand, Cahiers which has more visibility, is unfairly being lacerated, accused all over again of fetishizing mainstream Hollywood, without any attempt to understand its many subtleties. The common finger-wagging refrain being that: can you believe that Cahiers likes so and so? Or can you believe that Cahiers doesn't like so and so? For an example see Tony Rayns attack on Stéphane Delorme in the June issue of Sight & Sound.

All the while Positif proposes a counter-balance to Cahiers as it offers a more comprehensive, authoritative and generous overview of contemporary releases as well as the history of cinema.

In Positif 50 Years: Selections from the French Film Journal, which was published by the Museum of Modern Art to celebrate its 50th anniversary, there are many original English translations of Positif film reviews. The book is divided by decades: there are six reviews from the '50s, seven reviews from the '60s, fifteen reviews from the '70s, four from the '80s, and twelve from the '90s. In the book's introduction, the magazine is described as,
“Positif has consistently championed independently spirited, idiosyncratic, and original cinema from America, France, and around the world. It has maintained that cinema is an art like other plastic and performing disciplines, and it situates filmmakers not only within the history and culture of cinema but also within the general development of modernism. In the last decade, Positif was among the first to detect the emergence of a new generation of Asian filmmakers.”
The founder of Cahiers, André Bazin, became a martyr figure, and his ontological approach to cinema, What Is Cinema?, has become a standard academic text. All the while Positif's founder, Bernard Chardère, has almost been totally ignored, even though he has been immensely prolific. A major difference between Bazin (Cahiers) and Chardère (Positif) is their geographic and religious views: Chardere's Lyonais Jansenism proposes an open humanism while Bazin's Parisien Catholicism is more dogmatic. Chardère, in a video for Positif's 40th anniversary, says "We will say positive things about the films. Talk about its good qualities. It's humanity," and "We have to save the images, these old films. It's not easy, were a minority."

The eighty-three year old Bernard Chardère seems to be getting more attention now. He is a writer and editor of more than a dozen film books, a filmmakers in his own right, the founder of the Institut Lumière in Lyon, and is the subject of a new book - Carole Aurouet's Bernard Chardère, 60 ans de cinéma.

The following is the first editorial of Positif (May ’52) by it’s founder Chardère, Why We Are Going to Fight from Positif 50 Years. Ciment writes of it, “Bernard Chardère, a literature student, founded Positif in Lyon at the age of twenty-two with the help of a number of friends. In his editorial in the first issue, he provides the broad outlines that the journal intends to cover over the coming years of film history in the making.”
***
Why We Are Going to Fight by Bernard Chardère (Positif No.1, May 1952)
Introduction

You’re Going To Say:
Not another film magazine (and yet another preface!) when so many others have fallen by the wayside … Doesn’t it matter that the market you are breaking into has no more readers?
Decentralization is very nice when you’re talking about it from Paris, but in a city where sponsors can’t even support an undefeated soccer team…
What affiliations, what skills, what money? You are doomed to being ephemeral, so we won’t buy you.

We Say:
You like the movies: you also know that film is an art. It took fifty years for the professors to admit it; in another half-century students will be writing theses that attempt to reconstruct lost masterpieces. But whose fault was it that they disappeared? It is up to us to do something against the merchants of the mediocre.
            That is the role of a film magazine: apart from what it has of interest to each individual reader, it acts as a witness for us all, we the masses. To be sure, it is a minority mass, but “the minority is always right.” What Henrik Ibsen meant to say was, “We’ll always be right.”
            The “battle” is a specific one: the magazine needs to last. A film magazine becomes more important as time goes by. You may not have seen a particular film, and you may not have purchased the issue of Positif that discusses it, but you will see the film one day…. Then a friend who happens to have a copy of our magazine borrowed from someone else will lend it in turn to you. We wish to remind you, however, that if you read this copy, borrowed from someone else, to get the information you need, we will be unable to survive. We hate to remind you of this so early on, but without your subscriptions we can do nothing.

We Don’t Want:
-       To be a news magazine. Although our main office is in Lyon and no film news come from anywhere but the first-run theaters in Paris, our team has enough people with access to the latest professional screenings who are able to keep up with the most-current projects. But Positif will not in any way attempt to be a film daily; we will have as much to say about Jean Renoir’s The Rules of the Game as his The River (let alone The Golden Coach, which is based on Prosper Mérimée’s novel Le Carrosse du Saint-Sacrement). Not only that, but as a general rule, you need to screen a film more than once before you can talk about it. And although film-festival summaries are indispensable, and we have nothing against them, we would prefer to do something else.

-       Be a retrospective magazine. We will not focus tenderly and exclusively on the silent era. When the cinema was silent, we were barely learning to speak, and when The Jazz Singer came out, most of us knew nothing about the movies. We like the masterpieces of 1920. But we also believe masterpieces are still being produced today and that it is important to say so, if only to make sure that there will be some tomorrow. We want to reach a broad public rather than a few circles of initiates (or people who believe they are). It is an ambitious dream, but the fact that Diary of a Country Priest was such a widespread success indicates that we ought not to despair over the taste of the “masses.”

-       A “youth magazine.” While it is true that members of our team might be described as young, we refuse to focus on scandal, to wallow in anarchy, or to parade the flotsam and jetsam of a difficult puberty. Likewise, we will mistrust peremptory judgments, capital punishments, and mere summaries, just as we will be cautious about enthusiastic infatuations for the three random sublime minutes in an otherwise idiotic film; in other words, we will attempt to avoid all of the false audacity that does such a poor job of covering up inexperience and ignorance, to which we willingly admit.

We Want:
-       Discoveries rather than rehashes, even subtle ones. Shedding light on the unknown John Huston is far more useful than trotting out the usual clichés about The Devil’s Envoy for the nth time.
-       Interesting contributions, in particular from those who do not often get an opportunity to express themselves: the makers of films that we admire. Doesn’t a single sentence from Jean Renoir have more resonance than a hundred books of exegesis?
-       An improved layout: it will be what you make of it. It is your subscriptions and your friend’s subscriptions that will make it possible to increase the number of pages, the number of photographs, and the quality of the paper.
-       Last, we would not want to be unworthy of film criticism. Here we salute our elders: Cahiers du Cinéma, on a solid footing in the wake of the sadly missed Jean-Georges Auriol, Sight and Sound, Bianco e Nero … However (more modestly perhaps), it is from Raccords that we would like to pick up the torch. Like Gavin Lambert’s Sequence in England, the magazine published by our friend Gilles Jacob recently disappeared. And yet “no one died,” and you will find a few names here soon … It is only natural that there is a link between us and Jacob’s magazine. Rather than starting from scratch after a fade-out, Positif will hit the screen as a fade-in.

Wednesday, July 10, 2013

Bernard Chardère sur 40 ans de Positif

Here is a video from 1992 of Positif's founder Bernard Chardère reflecting on his career and the history of the magazine. - D.D.