COMMODITE vs ENGAGEMENT

Suite à mon dernier intitulé L’Ecueil de la Double Virtualité , je reviens sur ce qui se joue actuellement entre le cinéma comme nous l’avons connu et ce que nous vivons actuellement avec l’arrivée des plateformes numériques comme Netflix. Les spécialistes de ce business parlent du “convenience” qui s’oppose au “commitment”. En d’autres termes, le succès de Netflix est lié au fait que il est “convenient”, c’est à dire “commode” pour celui qui regardait le film, contrairement au cinema comme nous l’avons connu jusqu’ici qui était un “commitment”, c’est à dire qu’il exigeait une forme d’ “engagement” de la part de celui qui prenait la décision de se rendre dans une salle de cinéma. Le succès de Netflix serait du au fait qu’il offre une forme “commode” de consommer les films contrairement aux “big fives” les cinq grand studios de Hollywood dont le business principal tournait autour des entrées en salle qui elles exigent un “commitment” de la part de celui qui décide d’aller regarder un film au cinéma. Qu’est-ce que cela veut dire pour nous? L’acte de regarder un film n’est plus une forme d’engagement, c’est à dire un parti pris mais plutôt un choix si c’en est encore un, de rester dans un confort où il n’y a plus besoin de faire un effort et de regarder ce qui se trouve à portée de main. Si l’effort d’aller vers le cinema disparait parce qu’il vous trouve sur place, l’effort de comprendre ce que l’auteur du film vous propose sera-t-il toujours là ou bien va-t-il lui aussi etre emporté par cet élan de paresse… La paresse physique rejoindrait ainsi la paresse intellectuel qui consiste à aller avec l’auteur du film là où il voudrait vous amener? Contrairement à la littérature, c’est l’auteur de cinema qui n’est pas bon quand le spectateur ne comprend pas le film. Pourtant quand le lecteur ne comprend pas livre, très souvent il s’en prend à lui-même, reconnaissant ses propres limites.Parce que le cinema était jusqu’ici cette forme de consommation passive où le seul effort était de se rendre dans la salle de cinema , et qui devait plaire à celui qui regarde au risque d’être taxé de “mauvais cinéaste”, il risque avec cette nouvelle passivité qui annule tout engagement de celui qui regarde de devenir ce qu’on a toujours craint qu’il soit, le médium de la paresse aussi bien intellectuelle que physique. Quelle posture donc pour celui qui le produit? Doit-il aider la plate-forme numérique dans cette entreprise de la “commodité” où doit-il être le dernier rempart de l’ “engagement”? A l’époque les gens du marketing faisaient une campagne qui nous disait “venez voir un film qui a coute 7000 dollars”, c’était le film El Mariachi de Roberto Rodriguez. Maintenant ils nous disent “regardez Netflix”, entre temps, le titre du film a disparu, n’en parlons pas du nom du réalisateur… On ne regarde plus El Mariachi, on regarde Netflix. Le fait qu’il n’y a plus d’engagement confirme qu’il y a une chose qui fait qu’on ne peut plus dire qu’il s’agit encore du cinema. Il faudrait donner à cela une autre dénomination. L’autre chose qui change, c’est que ce que nous regardons constitue de moins en moins un tout que notre cerveau absorbe en une fois… je veux parler du genre de la série. On allait au cinema, on regardait le film et on avait tout vu. Maintenant on le fait en pointillé avec notre vie quotidienne entre les épisodes; un peu comme on lit un livre qu’on absorbe difficilement en une fois, au vu de son volume, mais le livre n’est pas écrit sous un format different tenant en compte ce mode de consommation. Il est vrai qu’étant donné que c’est désormais Netflix que nous regardons, on peut poursuivre dans les transports le film commencé la veille chez soi; avec ce sentiment d’être dans un mode consommation continu. Avec à la différence du livre, le fait que le lecteur s’engage à lire et fait un effort physique contrairement à celui qui regarde Netflix qui est lui dans le confort et donc la facilité.Et si à fin tout ceci n’était que deux approches d’un même commerce qui a avant tout besoin de nous, qui comme un paresseux qui a besoin de commodité, qui comme un un gars qui va au cinéma cherchant une forme d’engagement? Et si nous auteurs de cinema et réalisateurs n’étaient que des promoteurs de cette commodité et de cet engagement qui n’existent avant tout que parce qu’ils sont générateurs de bénéfices? Et si finalement cette fonction de conteur dont le but était de nous prémunir de tout ce qui aurait menacé notre existence était désormais entre les mains d’un capitalisme du divertissement désormais “convinient” qui fait diversion empêchant tout un pays comme Nigeria qui produit plus de 1000 films par an, de voir une menace comme Boko Haram. Comment se fait-il qu’aucun du millier de films produit au Nigeria n’a vu venir Boko Haram? Si le cinema n’est pas capable de “montrer” que fait-il? L’engagement du spectateur qui décide d’aller regarder le film me doit-il pas être aussi un engagement du cinema lui à préserver l’Homme de tout ce qui le menace? Le cinema doit plus que jamais s’engager à protéger l’Homme et à s’occuper de lui.

THE PITFALL OF DOUBLE VIRTUALITY

Looking at the number of festivals now taking place online because of the pandemic, I have the impression that the film world accepts the idea that this « virtual » way of consuming stories still fits with the very definition of cinema. Since cinema itself is a virtual world, can it be consumed virtually?Yet if since the dawn of time we have been telling stories to ourselves, here with images and sound – this is the definition of cinema – it is to rid Mankind of certain deviant practices … Cinema would therefore be a simulacrum. Like myths, it takes on the appearance of the reality that it claims to be in order to protect mankind from deviations that would cause it to lose its humanity. If cinema speaks to us as a virtual simulacrum, it is first of all because it speaks to our reality.Except that now that with this new practice of post-covid19 cinema our reality itself becomes more and more virtual. What is cinema still useful to us?By letting the virtual invade the real, we are in the process of removing barriers that should not be. Soon, our children will find themselves with the chicken from « Chicken Run » – an animated film from the 2000s – on their plate. And we, when we put our rib steak in the microwave to cook it, it will come out like a talking calf’s head and maybe say hello! In both cases, we and our children will eat animals that talk like we do. However, if the men of the past staged animals in their mythologies in the form of a simulacrum, which here is a form of metaphorical cannibalism, it was to better erect a barrier between them and us in reality. Faced with this threat of an increasingly virtual reality, what will be the part of the beautiful and the real in these stories, in this cinema that we will hear, live, eat and become? It is now a question of imagining a new form of cinema in which the frontiers are lifted and integrated into its practice by redefining new rules not only for cinema but for this real « virtualized » world. In fact it is a question of creating a new space where Men will be able to live their beautiful invented story. Men who will learn to practice a new art form: the art of living. And like any great art, it will also command us to « change our lives ».

L’ÉCUEIL DE LA DOUBLE VIRTUALITE

A regarder le nombre de festivals qui se déroulent désormais en ligne à cause de la pandémie, j’ai l’impression que le monde du cinéma accepte l’idée que ce mode de consommation “virtuelle” des récits cadre toujours avec la définition même du cinema. Le cinéma étant lui-même une virtualité, peut-il être consommé de manière virtuelle?Pourtant si depuis la nuit des temps, nous nous racontons des histoires, ici avec des images et du son – c’est la définition du cinéma – , c’est pour débarrasser l’Homme de certaines pratiques déviantes … Le cinéma serait donc un simulacre. Comme les mythes , il prend l’apparence de la réalité qu’il pretend être dans le but de prémunir les Hommes de dérives qui lui ferait perdre son humanité. Si le cinema nous parle comme simulacre virtuel, c’est d’abord parce qu’il parle à notre réel.Sauf que maintenant qu’avec cette nouvelle pratique du cinéma post-covid19 notre réel devient lui-même de plus en plus virtuel. A quoi nous sert encore le cinéma?En laissant le virtuel envahir le réel, nous sommes entrain de lever des barrières qui ne devraient pas l’être. Bientôt, nos enfants vont se retrouver avec le poulet de “Chicken Run” – film d’animation des années 2000 – dans leur assiette. Et nous-mêmes, quand nous allons mettre notre entrecôte dans le four à micro-onde pour la faire cuire, elle va ressortir comme une tete de veau qui parle et nous dira peut-être bonjour! Dans les deux cas, nos enfants et nous-mêmes, mangerons des animaux qui parlent comme nous. Pourtant si les hommes d’avant ont mis en scène les animaux dans leurs mythologies sous forme de simulacre qui est ici une forme de cannibalisme métaphorique, c’était pour mieux ériger une barrière entre eux et nous dans la réalité. Face à cette menace d’une réalité de plus en plus virtuelle, quelle sera la part du beau, et du vrai dans ces histoires, dans ce cinema que nous entendrons, que nous vivrons, que nous mangerons et que nous deviendrons? Il s’agit d’imaginer désormais une nouvelle forme de cinéma où les frontières levées seraient intégrées dans sa pratique en redéfinissant de nouvelles règles pas que pour le cinema mais pour ce monde reel “virtualisé ». En fait il s’agit de créer un nouvel espace où les Hommes seront capables de vivre leur belle histoire inventée. Des Hommes qui apprendront à pratiquer une nouvelle forme d’art: l’art de vivre. Et comme tout grand art, il nous commandera lui aussi de “changer de vie”.

Un Cinema Post-Corona

Deja bien avant la pandémie du corona, de nombreux cineastes comme moi se sentaient deja à l’étroit dans le cinema tel qu’il se pratique actuellement. Il existe une cinématographie à la lisière de ce qu’on appelle aujourd’hui. Des films qui pour certains mettant en danger un certain type de cinema qu’on peut qualifier de classique et des films qui ouvrent aussi la voie à de nouvelles formes de cinéma. Il est important de fédérer ces cinéastes qui n’ont jamais considéré la construction du monde comme achevée et surtout des cinéastes, parce qu’ils racontent le monde de là où ils se trouvent sont dans la réinvention du cinéma. 

Si nous avons imaginé l’avènement d’un nouveau monde d’après covid-19, c’est parce que cette pandémie et sa gestion avec le confinement a été un choc psychologique qui nous a rappelé notre fragilité et notre dependance. Plus que des histoires sur le confinement, il s’agit plus d’un cinema qui prend en compte ce nouvel état mental qui serait à ranger du coté des traumatismes.   Ou encore un cinéma qui traiterait de ces traumatismes. Et donc de se débarrasser des choses vaines comme le tapis rouge, les paillettes, la célébrité… bref toutes ces choses qui parasitent et polluent l’idée meme d’un cinema au secours de l’homme menacé. 

Le cinéma comme divertissement… qui fait donc diversion c’est a dire qui nous détourne de l’essentiel et ne nous prepare pas à ces menaces perd de sa nécessité. Quelle place donner aux héros du quotidien comme on l’a vu avec le corps medical pendant la pandémie, face à cette surenchère des émotions en mondovision des recompenses aux stars du cinéma? A défaut d’être un peu plus humble, le cinema pourrait promouvoir l’idée que d’autres qui “augmentent” le monde dans le sens d’un certain humanisme sont ceux qui méritent vraiment les recompenses. 

Voilà pourquoi le cinema ne doit plus s’arrêter au cinéma. Il faut que le cinema sorte du cinéma et nous aide à accoucher de ce nouveau monde, créant ainsi des happy endings pour tous ceux qui sont victimes des souffrances provoquées par d’autres hommes.

Oui le monde a trop souffert en cette année 2020 et souffre encore beaucoup… pas que de la pandémie mais de beaucoup d’autres choses… Parce que l’homme est plus que jamais la cible, l’homme doit aussi être le sujet: sujet biologique car le terrorisme, la répression, la guerre comme la pandémie touche à son intégrité physique, sujet mental parce qu’il subit un traumatisme lié à comment toute cette violence l’atteint et comment il est en mesure de la surmonter ou pas…

La vision du cinéaste communiste Italien Francesco Maseli assistant de Visconti, lançant en 2007 à Ischia l’idée de la création de l’Alliance Mondiale du Cinéma pour protéger l’Homme et permettre son épanouissement à travers le cinema tombe à point nommé. Le cinema ne saurait rester indifferent face à toutes ces choses qui menacent l’homme. Il doit deployer tout son potentiel et son genie pour se remettre du cote de l’homme et non comme c’est la tendance du coté de la finance et de la technologie…

Le temps serait peut-être venu que cette ere nouvelle post-covid annoncée advienne et que le cinéma l’inaugure. Le cinema doit prendre les devants et produire ce language et des oeuvres permettant à l’homme à la fois de guérir, de se protéger et de se projeter; oeuvrant ainsi sur notre passé, present et futur.

Post-Corona Cinema

Long before the corona pandemic, many filmmakers like me already felt cramped in the cinema as it is currently practiced. There is a cinematography at the edge of what is now called cinema. Films that for some endanger a certain type of cinema that can be described as classic and films that also open the way to new forms of cinema. It’s important to federate these filmmakers who have never considered the construction of the world to be finished, and above all filmmakers, because they tell the world from where they are are are in the reinvention of cinema.

If we have imagined the advent of a new world according to covid-19, it is because this pandemic and its management with containment has been a psychological shock that has reminded us of our fragility and our dependence. More than stories about confinement, it is more about a cinema that takes into account this new mental state that should be put on the side of traumas. Or a cinema that deals with these traumas. And therefore to get rid of vain things like the red carpet, glitter, fame… in short all those things that parasitize and pollute the very idea of a cinema to the rescue of threatened man.

Cinema as entertainment… which therefore diverts us from the essential and does not prepare us for these threats loses its necessity. What place should we give to everyday heroes, as we saw with the medical profession during the pandemic, in the face of this overbidding of emotions in the world of world cinema with its awards to film stars? For lack of being a little more humble, cinema could promote the idea that others who « increase » the world in the sense of a certain humanism are those who really deserve the awards.

This is why cinema should no longer stop at the cinema. Cinema has to come out of cinema and help us give birth to this new world, creating happy endings for all those who are victims of the suffering caused by other men.

Yes, the world has suffered too much in this year 2020 and is still suffering a lot… not only from the pandemic but from many other things… Because man is more than ever the target, man must also be the subject: a biological subject because terrorism, repression, war as well as the pandemic affects his physical integrity, a mental subject because he suffers a trauma linked to how all this violence affects him and how he is able to overcome it or not…

The vision of the Italian communist filmmaker Francesco Maseli, Visconti’s assistant, who in 2007 in Ischia launched the idea of the creation of the World Cinema Alliance to protect mankind and allow it to flourish through cinema, was timely. Cinema cannot remain indifferent to all those things that threaten mankind. It must deploy all its potential and its genius to recover the human side and not as is the trend in finance and technology …

Perhaps the time has come for this announced post-covid news to come and for cinema to inaugurate it. Cinema must take the lead and produce this language and works that allow man to heal, protect and project himself, working on our past, present and future.

QUAND NOUS DISONS CULTURE, NOUS PARLONS DE QUOI?

La colonisation avait pour objectif de nous faire changer de culture, l’indépendance… la vraie devait être un mouvement de renaissance culturelle. Après avoir moqué et ridiculisé nos culture, il fallait qu’on restaure nos identités perdues ou souillées. Nos pays devaient remettre nos culture et la culture en général au cœur de son projet de développement. Il fallait un volet culture pour chaque projet que ce soit la route, l’école, l’hôpital, l’entreprise… S’il n’y a pas de mot pour dire culture dans nos langues, c’est parce que la culture c’est nous. La culture ce ne sont pas les troupes qui vont accueillir le président à l’aéroport comme ils le faisaient à l’époque pour accueillir l’administrateur colonial, la culture ce n’est les femmes d’ambiance, celles là que les hommes appellent pour chanter quand eux les hommes ont fini de discuter de choses sérieuses, la culture ce n’est pas le spectacle d’un cabaret où le fonctionnaire qui a touché sa paye le 26 du mois se lève pour aller coller un billet sur les seins de la chanteuse… la culture c’est ces moments qui nous ont façonné voire engendré. Cette chanson de Cher Ami qui a fait que ma mère est tombée amoureuse de mon père et qu’ils m’ont mis au monde. La culture c’est le récit national celui qui raconte à nos enfants qui nous étions avant que le blanc ne vienne nous soumettre, la culture c’est raconter luttes de nos parents pour ne pas tomber sous la domination du blanc. les luttes pour rester nous-mêmes. La culture n’a pas de prix, la culture n’est pas une marchandise, voilà pourquoi tous les peuples qui aspirent à autre chose qu’à être des bouches et des ventres en font une priorité. Ils en font même une exception qu’ils appellent « exception culturelle » ce qui veut dire qu’on la traite comme une affaire exceptionnelle. Tout comme la société a besoin de politique, la culture a besoin d’une politique, la politique culturelle, c’est à dire l’ensemble des règles qui organisent le secteur comme l’administration qui a créé un statut du fonctionnaire, l’artiste a besoin d’un statut. Comme le fonctionnaire reçoit un revenu le 26, l’artiste a besoin d’un revenu. Comme le fonctionnaire a reçoit une retraite, l’artiste a besoin d’une retraite. Un pays qui a un peu de dignité ne peut pas laisser sa culture entre les mains de ce qui auparavant avaient décider de l’effacer. L’artiste vaut mieux que ces hommes d’affaires qui après tout ne sont que des Bayam Salam. Qu’ils achètent en Chine, en Turquie ou en France ils ne créent pas la richesse comme l’artiste avec sa seule inspiration transforme sa voix en dollars ! Et ils ne volent l’argent de personne. Il ne prennent la place de personne. C’est lorsque nous aurons mis la culture au centre du fonctionnement de notre pays que nous serons vraiment des gens libres.

THE THRILL OF BEING SEEN


Dear white friends, there are truths we must tell each other. On January 11, 2018, I published a text entitled DON’T TALK ABOUT US. https://bekolopress.wordpress.com/…/…/06/dont-talk-about-us/
I was addressing the Berlin Film Festival, which had certainly selected my film AFRICA, THOUGHT IN MOTION but had rejected two other of my projects, the series OUR WISHES about German colonization in Cameroon and MIRACULOUS WEAPONS about a black man sentenced to death in South Africa. I rebelled against this systematic cleansing of images that involved black and white. This image that all of you are obliged to watch is an image that is being cleaned from our screens. What do we expect from cinema? That it produces in us a certain comfort I imagine… That it hides the unbearable crimes that take place before our eyes? We filmmakers must all say thank you, Judeah Reynolds. Judeah Reynolds is the little girl who showed us what’s going on while we are busy watching the thousands of movies on Netflix that show us nothing. Judeah Reynolds deserves more than any Oscar because the essential mission of cinema is to show.
In this text at the Berlinale I asked why do you mind those films that ask the question « how are we going to live together », black and white…?
In fact what is happening here is what Sartre is talking about in the Orphée Noir, when he says that « Here are… standing men watching us and I wish you to feel as I do the grasp of being seen. For the white man has enjoyed three thousand years the privilege of seeing without being seen. « What is this cinema in which you cannot be seen? A cinema that doesn’t show. What is it? And who are these spectators who want to remain comfortable and are afraid of being « seen »? Isn’t a festival there to produce that « thrill » that Sartre talks about in order to start a conversation? When we’re talking about relationships, it’s hard not to mention Fanon, who feels that the encounter between the African and the white man has made the African sick. Even if he does not evoke it in this way, he also says in fact that this same encounter made the white man even sicker. While we think of the relationship as a therapy, one of the sick people tries to escape from it and very often poses as a doctor despite his condition.
How can we not see in this unbearable image of this white policeman coming in to kill a black man in front of our eyes, the image of a sick white man?
If tomorrow the conversation that I asked the Berlinale to have will one day be possible between black and white, it will only be because the white man has been caught in the act of committing a crime. And this flagrante delicto, which the French government would like to make impossible by prohibiting the filming of the police from now on.
I am happy to have challenged you, the Berlinale team, to demand this conversation which is the subject of my film MIRACULOUS WEAPONS and the series OUR WISHES. We have thousands of movies on Netflix that show us nothing. And yet we all watch Netflix. My indignation against the Berlinale came from a desire to improve « the relationship » in a world where we all have no relationship at all. I ended by saying that « Our world is sick with racism, for a better living-together therapy more than ever before, suffer a little that we too talk about you. » #miraculousweapons

LE SAISISSEMENT D’ETRE VU


Chers amis blancs, il est des vérités qu’on doit se dire. Le 11 janvier 2018, je publiais un texte intitulé NE PARLE PAS DE NOUS. https://bekolopress.wordpress.com/?s=berlinale+ Je m’adressais au Festival de Berlin qui certes avait sélectionné mon film AFRIQUE LA PENSEE EN MOUVEMENT mais avait rejeté deux autres de mes projets, la série OUR WISHES sur la colonisation Allemande au Cameroun et MIRACULOUS WEAPONS sur un noir condamné à mort en Afrique du Sud. Je m’insurgeais contre ce nettoyage systématique d’images qui impliquent blancs et noirs. Cette image que vous avez tous été obligés de regarder est une image qui est nettoyée de nos écrans. Qu’attendons-nous du cinema? Qu’il produisent en nous un certain confort j’imagine… Qu’il cache ces crimes insoutenables qui se déroulent pour autant sous nos yeux? Nous cineaste devons tous te dire Merci Judeah Reynolds. Judeah Reynolds est cette fillette qui nous a montré ce qui passe pendant que nous sommes occupés à regarder les milliers de films sur Netflix qui ne nous montrent rien. Judeah Reynolds mérite bien plus que tous oscars car la mission essentielle du cinema est de montrer.
Dans ce texte à la Berlinale je demandais pourquoi ces films qui posent la question de « comment allons-nous vivre ensemble » blancs et noirs vous dérangent…?
En fait ce qui se passe ici c’est ce dont parle Sartre dans l’Orphée Noir, quand il dit que « Voici…. des hommes debout qui nous regardent et je vous souhaite de ressentir comme moi le saisissement d’être vu. Car le blanc a joui trois mille ans du privilège de voir sans qu’on le voie. » Qu’est-ce que ce cinema dans lequel on ne vous voit pas? Un cinéma qui ne montre pas. qu’est-ce que c’est? Et qui sont ces spectateurs qui veulent rester confortable et qui ont peur d’être “vus”? Un festival n’est-il pas là pour produire ce “saisissement” dont parle Sartre afin d’engager la conversation? Lorsque nous parlons de relation, difficile de ne pas évoquer Fanon qui trouve que la rencontre entre l’Africain et le blanc a rendu l’Africain malade. Même s’il ne l’évoque pas de cette manière, il dit aussi en fait que cette même rencontre a rendu le blanc encore plus malade. Alors que nous envisageons la relation comme une thérapie, l’un des malades essaye d’y échapper et très se souvent se pose médecin malgré son état.
Comment ne pas voir dans cette image insoutenable de ce policier blanc entrer de tuer un noir sous nos yeux, l’image d’un homme blanc malade?
Si demain la conversation que je demandais à la Berlinale sera un jour possible entre le blanc et le noir, ce sera uniquement parce que le blanc a été pris en flagrant délit de crime. Et ce flagrant délit que le gouvernement français voudrait rendre impossible en interdisant qu’on filme désormais la police.
Je suis heureux d’avoir vous avoir “challenge”, vous l’équipe de la Berlinale afin d’exiger cette conversation qui est le sujet de mon film MIRACULOUS WEAPONS et la série OUR WISHES. Nous avons des milliers de films sur Netflix qui ne nous montrent rien. Et pourtant nous regardons tous Netflix. Mon indignation contre la Berlinale venait d’une volonté d’améliorer “la relation” dans un monde où tout nous même à la non-relation. Je terminais en disant que “Notre monde est malade de racisme, pour une thérapie collective plus que jamais indispensable pour un meilleur vivre-ensemble, souffrez un peu que nous aussi, nous parlions de vous.” #miraculousweapons , #ourwishes, #jeanpierrebekolo.

DON’T TALK ABOUT US

Posted on January 11, 2018 by Jean-Pierre Bekolo

This is the indirect message that the Berlinale, which is wrapping up its programme for the next festival, is sending to me as an African filmmaker. Indeed, of the three projects that the Berlinale executives asked me to submit, how is it that the two films that talk about « relationship » were eliminated? One would think that this festival, in addition to the other criticisms that have been levelled at it, positions Germany in the « non-relation » at a time when, however, in view of migration, this is more important than ever.

Why does the question « how are we going to live together » bother Germans? The first film commissioned by the Berlinale is precisely about the beginning of the relationship, the so-called « first encounter » between Germans and Africans; those first encounters that led to colonialism, when we know that we have not yet come out of colonialism; its title OUR WISHES. The second is about the relationship between whites and blacks against a backdrop of negritude and apartheid MIRACULOUS WEAPONS. The third is the discussion of African intellectuals in Dakar by Achille Mbembe and Felwine Sarr LA PENSEE EN MOVEMENT. You don’t need to draw a picture to understand which one interested the executives of the Berlinale, who cannot deny that they « love » the continent… but how do they love it? Because the comfort of the German public seems to be the editorial line, anything that would make them uncomfortable must be removed. The Berlinale would be comfortable with its audience when we talk about « us », when we tell our stories about Africans… without looking at them « white people ». The Berlinale, which also manages a financing fund for « world films » World Cinema Fund, thus influencing films upstream, confirms this line that insidiously tells us « Tell us about you, but above all don’t talk about us ».

In fact what is happening here is what Sartre talks about in L’Orphée Noir, when he says that « Here are… standing men watching us and I wish you to feel as I do the grasp of being seen. For the white man has enjoyed three thousand years the privilege of seeing without being seen. « What is this cinema in which you cannot be seen? A cinema that doesn’t show. What is it? And who are these spectators who want to remain comfortable and are afraid of being « seen »? Isn’t a festival there to produce that « seizure » that Sartre talks about in order to start a conversation? When we’re talking about relationships, it’s hard not to mention Fanon, who feels that the encounter between the African and the white man has made the African sick. Even if he does not evoke it in this way, he also says in fact that this same encounter made the white man even sicker. While we think of the relationship as a therapy, one of the sick people tries to escape from it and very often poses as a doctor despite his condition.

Beyond the many opportunisms to which we filmmakers are subjected, due to the need for funding and promotion, it is important that we denounce the drifts of practices in our sector that influence in one way or another the world we all want to improve, otherwise what binds us in this cinema community between Africans and Europeans despite asymmetrical economic power relations, the beers we drink in festivals or a certain idea of how we can improve « the relationship » in a world where everything ourselves is not related. When you know the amount of Western productions that talk about Africa, you can’t operate these small censorships on the basis of your small individual comforts. Our world is sick with racism, for a collective therapy more than ever indispensable for a better living-together, suffer a little that we too speak of you.

APPLIED FICTION, A THEORY OF EXPLANATION OF THIS WORLD OF BY A FILMMAKER.   

Applied fiction is therefore based on the principle that we live in a world where the course of life is written, acted and watched by men. It also includes the behaviour of those who do not know what is going on. Hence the first principle of what I call Applied Fiction.

APPLIED FICTION1ST PRINCIPLE OF APPLIED FICTION

All human societies are made up of four categories of people: those who write what their contemporaries are experiencing, those who play what has been written, those who watch and those who do not know what is going on.

2ND PRINCIPLE OF APPLIED FICTION

The second principle tells him that anyone in a lower category aspires to move up to the category above. Thus, he who does not know what is happening aspires to become a spectator who only aspires to become an actor who himself would like to be a screenwriter. Men are always attracted in the direction of greater knowledge. Thus, he who does not know what is happening will evolve towards the closest level of knowledge, that is, becoming a spectator. The spectator will evolve to be an actor and the actor to be a screenwriter.

THE VIEWDERS 

History having taught us that invisible screenwriters are not always honest and do not always work for the good of humanity, Hitler is an example of this, so there is a category to be created among the spectators who do not aspire to be actors but possibly screenwriters themselves, except that their scripts would only be critical re-readings of the scripts of previous or contemporary screenwriters. They are « viewders ». A bit like James Joyce re-reading The Odyssey when he wrote Ulysses. We could even go further by introducing the « screenwriter’s sermon ». By writer, I mean any person who holds a power that can influence the « dynamic architecture » of human daily life.

A WORLD IN FOURTH DIMENSIONS

Everything comes down to saying that the world has four dimensions: the conceived world, which calls on religion and morals, the played world, which is more in the realm of politics, economics and social organisation, the viewed world, which calls on art and science, and finally the ignored world, which calls on education.

THE COMMENTARY CULTURE

Our knowledge of the world and daily events is made through the media, so that they become an extension of our daily environment. It is the theatre of actors and spectators where the intermediaries are journalists. Having neither the time nor the means to dissect the available information in depth, we are content with a comment made by a third party. For example, we will not go and see all the films advertised in a newspaper, we will read the reviews and most often it will be all we will have left of those films that we have not seen but for which we will have had a summary report. If there were ten films that were advertised and we saw one, there would be nine films left, of which we would only have kept one journalist’s review. This is why the applied fiction writer does not just write his invisible story. He also writes the summary report or even the critique of his story, because that may be all that some people will retain.

TRANSACTIONS AROUND FICTION

The phenomenon we are witnessing in the stock market today is completely related to the stories that are told to the people who buy and sell the shares. We buy and sell based on a story we’ve heard. The phenomenon is all the more important as companies are becoming more and more virtual. The most speculative shares are those of internet companies because they feed only on fiction. We have also seen the phenomena of mergers or downsizing that are nothing more than stories that investors believe. Believing that they are following a certain reality, they actually create it according to the « principle of reflexivity ». The principle of reflexivity is a principle that is based on the principle that behind every action there is a reaction. In the same way as we act on the world, the world acts on us and lives towards it. 

Applied fiction leads individuals to act according to the story they hear, but at the same time, their behaviour acts on the story that becomes reality. In the beginning, the story is neither true nor false, it is a story. We are beings whose need for fiction shapes the world we live in.

FICTIONALIZED PROFESSIONS

Fiction in one’s profession and therefore the lives of others is the way to reach the highest level. Thus, the company that will produce the best story will see its stock explode. Even the tramp who approaches you on the street is aware that depending on the story he tells you, he will get the part he wants. More and more scams are organised around fiction. They make you believe in banking transactions that will multiply your money.

What is most surprising is the disbelief of the people who believe in it. Who among us hasn’t yet been fooled by a bum? We have an insatiable need for fiction, and when faced with a story, we remain children. That is why fiction is a formidable weapon or protection when it is used in everyday life. We are witnessing another phenomenon, that of the history within us, which leads us to ignore the inevitable scientifically proven.

LIVING IN CINEMA

The survival instinct that manifests itself through commercial activity in reality as well as in the media pushes the human being to a new type of communication with what it includes (impatience, limited listening, body language…). What will be left of the human? Only the future will tell us if humans were able to adapt to the pressure of the conditions created for legal entities such as companies. The question we have to ask ourselves is, what makes this way of life such a great story? In my opinion it is not. At least, the story is simplistic and Manichean. There are no shadows, no complexities. « Predictable. » How can you qualify a person’s desire to make money? That’s why it’s important that a discipline like applied fiction has a place in our daily lives, so that we can be, according to the circumstances, the Cid taking off his glove to give alms to a leper (Barby d’Aurevilly), Raskolnikov kneeling before Sonia the prostitute (Crime and Punishment). Thus applied fiction aims to help humans to understand, understanding is loving and loving that which resembles us the least reveals the most of ourselves. Also our life will question society about the presence of evil in it and consequently about the responsibility of institutions. It gives back a romantic ambition to our life. In this way, the story of human life will perhaps escape the bad station novel that is proposed to it; a novel forged by the commonplace of the moment by substituting it for a sublime original work, telling a story that is literature. Proust vs. Delly, Tournier vs. Guy

of the Cars, the fight is uneven. Living the poems with actions and feelings of the characters evolving in his universe, instead of just writing or reading them. And to learn in a crisis, that instead of going towards greater clarity, towards the dissipation of darkness as Holmes would do, why not try to start from a clear situation, restore uncertainty, provoke the thick fog where certainties will disappear and the initial situation will be swallowed up. Undo the enigma in order to better redo it. Isn’t this the « magic » that man needs? Carmen and her « if I love you, beware » are much more relevant to crimes of passion than a coroner’s report or the expectations of a magistrate who may never have known passion. 

Applied fiction considers all human life to be an enigma, it does not seek to shed light on a man’s shadowy areas as psychoanalysis does. For they are his strength.

PEOPLE’S CINEMAS

Why did Moses, according to Freud, need to make God invisible? To make his story last for thousands of years. No image has lasted as long in the human imagination as the absence of an image. This emptiness gives free rein to the most important fiction, religious faith. Imagine the power of the « God is Great! » of Ayathollah Khomeini’s revolution. It may not be a story in the technical sense with a beginning, a middle and an end, but it is the very thing that is the origin of stories. Imagine how many people have recognised themselves in « the civilising mission of France! » The number of changed destinies, tragedies, happiness behind this projection into fiction. Wasn’t Lenin’s biggest mistake « socialist realism », the absence of fiction? A country writes its history by assigning itself a role, a mission, by celebrating its heroes. This is how new characters feel endowed with this mission and create the destiny of this country. It is great politicians who define this destiny, in short a story that their fellow citizens must live. Of that order. France eminently represents the analytical, revolutionary, secular, irreligious period of humanity, and it is because of its powerlessness even in religion that it is linked with this sceptical indifference to the formulas of the past.

FRANCE, A FICTION

It may be that one day France, having fulfilled its role, will become an obstacle to the progress of humanity and disappear, for the roles are profoundly distinct; he who has made the analysis does not make the synthesis. To each his own work, such is the law of history. France will have been the great revolutionary instrument; will it be powerful for religious rebuilding?

The future will know.

In any case, it will have sufficed, for its glory, to sketch a face of humanity.

Renan E. L’Avenir de la Science 1890 (Paris, Calmann-Levy, 1910.) P. 318

Or some other kind,

It’s only a step, but it is made by France; and, in a given time,

every step France takes, the world will take. This is so true that, when she makes haste, the world revolts against her, and takes her to task, finding it even easier to fight her than to follow her. Therefore France’s policy must be a guiding policy and always be summed up in two words: never walk slowly enough to stop Europe, never walk fast enough to prevent Europe from joining.

Hugo V. The Rhine. Lettres A Un Ami 1842 (Paris, Ollendorff, 1906.) P. 466

To close.

And when Brittany will be no more, France will be; and when France will be no more,

mankind will still be, and eternally it will be said: Once upon a time, there was a noble country,

sympathetic to all beautiful things, whose destiny was to suffer for mankind and fight for it. Renan, The Future of Science: p.221

WE’LL ALL BE ACTORS

Where does an actor’s character begin and end for a spectator?

How many times have we been in front of an actor who doesn’t know us and go towards him as if he were an old friend with a big smile? Or the fact that through a TV commercial, we are challenged and perform an act of consumption in the real world, makes it clear that we are obliged to consider the virtual world on the same level as the real world. This is the question that applied fiction tries to answer. The actor needs to occupy the space of applied fiction. This space is a mixture of the virtual and real worlds. It is populated by people who are alive, dead or who have existed only in the imagination of its creators. The first objective of a person wanting to exist would therefore be to be born. It does not matter how one is born. « Any publicity is good publicity ». To be a citizen of this space, one must mainly have been recorded, recreated or told by the media images, texts or sounds. The space itself is subject to the same rules as the actors. At a time when Hollywood is no longer satisfied with the cinematographic space to make its actors evolve, and when its practices rub off on other professions, it is important to question what will remain natural and spontaneous in our daily lives.

If the century that is coming to an end has seen the camera at one end and television at the other, with the satellites in between, develop as the main tool of applied fiction, thus making men from all over the world spectators, the century that is beginning will aim to make these spectators actors. A process that had already begun with the television remote control. This process will be further developed with the mobile phone on one side, our daily space on the other with its plethora of gadgets, all of which will be transmitted via the Internet.

The mobile phone would be a kind of remote control in everyday life that would allow people to help themselves by dialling a number displayed on a drinks dispenser, and payment would be associated with the telephone bill.

We can imagine other scenarios. A jacket made of sensors connected to a mobile phone would make it possible to send ultrasound (and therefore visual) information at a given frequency, for example to a centre recording data for each person. This centre would make it possible to monitor the health of all individuals. Which brings us to the main tool that has been at the very basis of human evolution: memory.

THE HOLES OF DEPENDENCY

We can also see the dependency that men have on the holes that are: eyes, mouth, nose, ears, sex, anus and skin. Let’s mention the products that the holes consume in bulk:

Eyes: television, movies, photos, computers..,

books, newspapers…

Ears: music, sound system, TV-cinema sounds, lyrics,

phones, walkman, computers…

Mouth: food, drink/alcohol, tobacco, drugs,

medicine, water…

The nose: air, smells, drugs…

Sex: condoms, trimmings…

Anus: toilet paper…

Skin: water, cream, clothes, razors, jewelry…

The producers of everything that the holes consume « write » every day what

we live. The greater the competition and the more you master the science, the more important the hole conditioning is. For example, getting the eyes to look at only one type of image, the ears to listen to only one type of sound, the mouth to eat only one type of food etc…

On top of that, holes can be infected by air, food, sex, drugs, tobacco, water, medicines, television, religion (sects), writing, pictures… Today there are several industries living from these infections. To top it all off, what is written in this way for mankind is tragic in the Aristotelian sense of the word. Doesn’t he say, « A good story should arouse fear and pity? »

It is in this sense that applied fiction is part of all consumer industries.

FICTION LIVES

The purpose of our life is not to create a story; it is to live because every life is already a story. Some are original, others are « remakes », déjà vu; others are a formula for life written by others. It’s not by chance that the first time you meet an original individual, you feel like asking « what’s his story? ».