The cinephile , in its etymological sense, is the love of cinema . The term appeared in France in the 1910s 1 , was published in the 1920s cinematographic magazines 2 and served first to designate a French cultural and intellectual movement that lasted until 1968 . Since the term emancipated to characterize any passion of the cinema, whatever its expression and its organization.
From the 1940s and mainly after the Second World War , an intellectual and cultural movement was born in France while the cinema enjoyed exceptional attendance. If cinema is then a popular pastime, its artistic recognition is far from being made. The cinephiles , lovers of the dark room and the discourse it entails, then oppose technicists who see cinema as an entertainment-based industry team: producer , writer , actor and director . In this system of majors controlling as much the productionof a film that its release in theaters , no author’s cinema was viable. Cinema buffs, both spectators and critics, accelerate the artistic recognition of cinema and thus allow auteur cinema to obtain a real possibility of expression.
The cinephilie remains the work, largely Parisian, of a few hundred enthusiasts. Often self-taught placed outside of all literary culture, philosophical or academic, moviegoers became yet intellectual authority recognized and knotted relationships with many film personalities 3 .
In 1945 , the cinema was already fifty years old. Five decades that did not pass without triggering some notable passions. Among the first to fall in love with what was still not the “7 th art,” Louis Delluc was at once critical (in the magazine Le Film which he is editor in 1917 ), theoretician and director cinema and creator of film clubs, from 1917 to 1924 . The 1930s and 1940s were marked by Roger Leenhardt and the relevance of his critical analysis of the cinema, so much so that posterity remains the “spiritual father of the New Wave” 4 .
1944 – 1951: Bazin generation
The real growth of a fledgling cinephile, dispersed, did not begin until the release in a cinema legitimation movement as art and as industry and dissemination of American cinema that caters to a wider audience 2 . Building on the many film clubs founded since the beginning of the century and especially after the First World War which sees the arrival of foreign filmmakers on Paris then world capital of artists and the “first wave” 5 French ( Louis Delluc , Germaine Dulac , Jean Epstein , Marcel L’Herbier), moviegoers also create at this time many film reviews to disseminate their ideas and make themselves known. Therefore, the expansion of film lovers is fast. Remaining highly intellectualized, it acquires the esteem of cinematographic criticism. The leaders of this emerging filmmaker will be André Bazin and Georges Sadoul .
In September 1944 , at the time of their reappearance, Les Lettres françaises is the most influential cultural weekly among French intellectuals. Open to the left, the magazine tends towards a communist militancy at the time of the Cold War .
1952 – 1958: the generation Truffaut
In 1950 , a new generation of film buffs is on the march, which will be nicknamed, later, the “children of the New Wave” or, since that time, “young Turks”, that of Rivette , Godard , Chabrol , Truffaut and Rohmer . Learning cinema and criticism at the film library of Henri Langlois , both private association that since 1936proposes to project, save and preserve the cinematographic heritage and one of the most popular places for movie buffs, these “young Turks” (also called later “children of the Cinémathèque”) will gather at the ciné-club of the Latin Quarter ( CCQL), led by Éric Rohmer . The small magazines that are broadcast there (the CCQL newsletter , first, and The Cinema Gazette in 1950 and 1951 3 ) allow them to deepen their experience of criticism.
At the same time, André Bazin , through the sessions of his network of film clubs called Jeunesses Cinématographiques , encourages moviegoers such as Alain Resnais and François Truffaut 6 , 3 .
In 1952 and 1951, respectively, appear the main reviewers of this period: Positif and Cahiers du cinéma . The latter, under the principal direction of André Bazin and Jacques Doniol-Valcroze , includes many young critics including “young Turks”. The new ideas that they have in cinema come into full expression only after the famous text by François Truffaut: “A certain trend of French cinema” 7 . A true pamphlet, this text, reviewed and corrected for two years before its publication in January 1954, denounces the “tradition of quality” 8 of French cinema and lays the foundation forauthors’ policy . Moreover its polemic tone, far from the didacticism of the usual cinema critics, will later be commonly used by the “young Turks”, to the chagrin of critics of the old fashion.
After 1945 and in the 1950s, French cinema multiplies the literary adaptations and the films in costume, supported by recognized stars: Fernandel , Michel Simon , Jean Gabin , Gerard Philipe … Cinema of studio and screenwriters(of which the principal ones Jean Aurenche and Pierre Bost ), these films are characterized by their academicism and their lack of realism. François Truffaut also notices a contempt for the characters, often wanting or ridiculous, and a desecration of all values, especially by blasphemy (as opposed to the Jacques Prévert scenarios). This trend brings its share of certain masterpiece ( The Pleasure , of Max Ophüls , The Red and the Black , The Devil to the bodyand the red inn of Claude Autant-Lara or prohibited Games of René Clément ) and rewards international but remains for the “young Turks” “dad theater” that must be fought 3 .
Magazines created at about the same time, Cahiers du Cinéma and Positif quickly become antagonistic. If the Cahiers du cinéma , led by the “young Turks”, show a preference for American cinema, especially Series B, aesthetics, staging and authors, Positive meanwhile, led by Ado Kyrou and Bernard Chardère , is more influenced by surrealism , ideas, especially political and left (while the “young Turks” are rather right) 3 . Positive accuses the Cahiersto practice eclecticism and to defend reactionary conceptions. The Cahiers are then pushed to define a clear editorial line and to defend against this accusation of eclecticism. They then adopt the authors’ policy .
1959 – 1965: New Wave and early pitfalls
“At the end of 1959, we were in a dream, everything was happening in unimaginable conditions a year ago. The situation was abnormally good. It is normal that it has raised expectations, even a little delirious 9 . ”
This quote by François Truffaut from 1962 is indicative of the change experienced by film buffs at the passage of the New Wave . When many critics of the notebooks give up the magazine to go behind the camera, the hope is great. From 1959 to 1960, it was the triumph: 450,000 spectators for Les Quatre Cents Coups , 416,000 for Les Cousins , 380,000 for Breathless . The audience follows, the producers too, and the young writers have their hands free. However, between 1960 and 1961, the euphoria falls: Shoot the pianist attracts just 100,000 spectators, The Godelureaux , 53 000, and Lola , 35 000 3.
There are several reasons for this sudden drop in interest. First of all, Les Cahiers du cinéma , a magazine mainly focused on American cinema, does not change its editorial line and accompanies the wave without supporting it. Taking advantage of this reserve, the attacks are numerous: the editors of the Cahiers are in turn accused of favoring a new disastrous trend for cinemas or not to support the New Wave and to show anti-modernism. Then, doubt assumes the movie lovers, some encourage the New Wave , the others”Do not follow the” young Turks “when they move from theory to practice. Have they not rebuilt a new “quality of French cinema” , promoting the return of intellectuals while they had always defended in cinema direct cinema, classical, American 10 … ” . Finally, and most importantly, the Nouvelle Vague is accused of damaging French cinema and being responsible for the drop in cinema attendance (from 411 million in 1957, and despite a relative recovery in 1959-1960, it falls to 337 million in 1961) 3 .
Faced with this new context, Cahiers finally decided in 1962 to make a commitment to young French cinema. In December, a special issue is devoted to the Nouvelle Vague : “We are criticized for not speaking about young French cinema. This cinema is not only expensive but close, and there is always some modesty to talk about yourself. This New Wave, which we did better than to facilitate birth, we can neither judge it with the necessary objectivity, nor even consider it with sufficient hindsight. And yet, on the other hand, our journal can not afford to ignore the existence of a fact already promoted historical. So let us stop our scruples from now on . “But classical cinephile remains the dominant value, American cinema, especially of Series B, and political writers in standards 3 .
Then embarks on another fight, further disturbing the French cinephilie: the “battle for the modern”. This intellectual struggle is embodied in the Cahiers by the opposition of two personalities: Eric Rohmer on one side, guardian of the film-making tradition, and Jacques Rivette on the other, wishing to open the journal to the new realities of life. a changing cultural world, in film, music, painting and the humanities 3 . This opposition Anciens / Modernes is then a current problem, discussed well beyond the simple cinematographic framework. The culmination of this conflict of ideas, Rohmer leaves Cahiers , leaving Rivetteas “boss” of the magazine. The latter then makes every effort to fight against the spirit of cinephilia , limited to the only screen, unable to look aroundthe screen: it is necessary, according to him, to project the world and its stakes, both political and cultural. The cinema is then observed in other aspects, such as that of structuralism .
This new direction will bring some noticeable upheavals. In 1964 Cahiers changed their formula, giving up their famous yellow cover. In 1965, it is the authors’ policy that is buried in the December issue: “We no longer have the right to neglect happy accidents, in the name of the absolute of a policy of authors, because the time is come to consider an open cinema, that is to say non-dogmatic. Everyone, in his perspectives, keeps his chance. This is not a reversal of theories, alliances, but an approach to the totality of cinema 12 . ” In 1967, André S. Labartheburies the conceptual tool that was the strength of the yellow notebooks of classic cinema with its article “Death of a word: staging”:”We understand the embarrassment of our criticisms of the most representative works of recent years: they are the victims of their language. Since today’s movies talk less and less about staging, how could they, prisoners of the word, understand it? […] As entangled as everyone in exhausted concepts, what have we done? Well we have tried to adjust them to the new cinema – explaining, for example (quietly or furiously), that the staging is not only rendering, shit, but also the idea; […] short that the staging is not only the staging, but also the opposite of what we thought. It would be healthy to get rid of them as did the painting of the word “figurative” 13 . ”
1966 – 1968: end of a movement
In 1966, La Religieuse , a Jacques Rivette film based on a short story by Denis Diderot , was banned by Yvon Bourges against pressure from Catholic circles. Liberty, which until then had accompanied the cinephilie and his ideas, is lacking here. Then begins a forced entry into the political arena that marks a turning point in the history of the movement. It is for the cinema-goers “the loss of a state of innocence, the end of a youth: the entry in adult country 3 . “The censorship is lowered in 1967 – the film remains however prohibited under eighteen.
But the symbolic date marking the end of filmmaking as a movement coincides with the Langlois affair, a conflict between the Minister of Culture André Malraux and Henri Langlois , founder of the French film library. Under the pressure of the Ministry of Finance, André Malraux demands changes in the management of the Cinémathèque française and returns Henri Langlois February 9, 1968. A defense committee is formed, quickly counting the support of multiple national and international personalities (among others: Abel Gance , Jean Renoir , Marcel Pagnol , Jacques Tati , Fritz Lang, Josef von Sternberg , Roberto Rossellini , Akira Kurosawa , Charlie Chaplin , François Truffaut , Alain Resnais , Jean-Luc Godard , Jacques Rivette , Claude Chabrol , Jacques Doniol-Valcroze , Eric Rohmer , Jean-Pierre Leaud , Jerry Lewis and Jean Marais ) . This exceptional mobilization bears witness to the aura of Henri Langloisin cinematographic circles: for all, the director of the cinematheque, incarnation of the French film culture since 1940, is a true spiritual father of cinema 3 . Josef von Sternberg wrote: “I am very intrigued by your telegram. What did Langlois do? What intervention of the state? Of course, I support Langlois. Who would doubt the cinema itself? » 14
From petitions to demonstrations, directed mainly by the young filmmakers of the New Wave and from the offices of the newspaper Combat , especially under the action and pen of Henry Chapier , and the Cahiers , the fight finds its highest degree on February 14 , during the “Day of the batons. On this day, at the call of the “Children of the Cinémathèque”, three thousand people are gathered on the esplanade of Trocadero. Thirty busloads of police and mobile guards surround the neighborhood and prevent access to the cinematheque. The televisions are present (the French does not say anything, the foreigners spend the evening several minutes to the event). Protesters set off, first dams and first clashes in the gardens. The event changes direction and arrives at the crossroads of Avenue Albert-de-Mun , where the bulk of the security forces are stationed. The police charge then. We find wounded on the front of the demonstration. Godard , leader of maneuver, groggy, gives the order of dispersion. The troops are repressed but the spirit remains, and public opinion is on the side of the friends of Henri Langlois 3 .
Other protest movements take place, proposals for conciliation are refused, and finally Henri Langlois is reinstated at the head of the film library on April 22 . Real May 68 before the time, going to be one of the factors of the stop of the Cannes festival that year, the case is considered the end of an era for the cinephilie. “CQFD: cinema has become something other than a commodity debited in specialized places. Cinephilia is not enough anymore. And defend the existence of the French Cinematheque, curiously, it is a political act 15 . ”
“A new era begins, marked by political commitment, fragmentation of audiences and genres, as well as the undivided domination of television: it is now the cinéphilies – plural, minority and protesters – which will maintain the love of cinema beyond the shock of the Langlois affair and May 1968. For some, classical cinema is certainly a refuge, but it will be lived on the mode of nostalgia, or melancholy – “the death of cinema” 3 . ”
The new image of cinephilia is far from satisfying the old moviegoers who, from the 1980s, publicly recall the existence of this culture in the process of being forgotten. In 1978, Skorecki initiated this movement of legitimation with his article Against the new filmmaker published in Les Cahiers du cinéma 16 . The following Serge Daney criticism 17 and Wenders , Godard , Garell on the side of the filmmakers. But it is really the sum of Antoine de Baecque ( The cinephilie: invention of a look, history of a culture 3) which defines and constructs this object of undeniable historical importance. If cinema is the art of the xx th century, the cinephile was in his eyes 18 .
Cinephilia was a culture because it has its own distinctive codes, its own speech 3 , 18 , 19 . To be a moviegoer was to be both a spectator and a critic. In this sense the cinephile was a practice of life, alone or in band, understood as a way to reflect the art and the world 20 .
The film buff is inseparable from the “dark room”, the only place that allows the vision of a film at this time, be it in a movie theater or in a film club (moviegoers are not enthusiastic about the reruns of a nascent television). In cinemas, moviegoers ritually place themselves in the first three rows to no longer see the frame and to be fully absorbed by the film, with no possible hindsight. 3 , 16. Because the necessary work of reflection must not hinder the first glance. We can consider three major aspects of filmmaking: first, the spectator’s enchantment (rapture, loss of self, fascination); then the recording (the contact of the real, the work pierced by the presence of the real, that does not find any form of editing); finally projection (there is no cinema outside the theater) 18 .
Criticism passes by the word, during the debates of the film clubs for example, but especially by the writing. Often written by and for moviegoers, magazines were an important factor in meeting film lovers. These periodicals also allowed critics to be recognized by the French critics of the moment. Among the most famous of these journals, let us note Les Lettres françaises and L’Ecran français who make themselves the apostle of the cinema with a public more and more vast, a dream of “popular cinephilie”, in particular by the film clubs within student networks, Catholic or labor unionism 21 ; Positive , demanding and militant filmmakerLes Cahiers du cinéma , leader of “cinephilie savante” (also known as “cinéphilie alphabée”), magazine that invents the concept of author 22 . Post modern cinephilia is characterized by magazines specialized in genre cinema , such as Screens of Asia , The Fantastic Screen , Mad Movies 23 .
Cinephile and political
The intellectual and artistic pursuit of film buffs does not prevent politics from mixing with ideas. The Cold War , in particular, leads to positions that can be reflected in criticism. The best-known example is George Sadoul , famous film critic and communist, who is a fervent anti-Hollywood and sometimes inculcates Stalin in some critics 3 :
“Let’s say right away what Soviet cinema owes to Stalin. In this other part of the world, films have ceased to be goods, they are national in their forms and socialist in their content. They have become exceptional means of ideological action and, made by “engineers of souls”, they are a remarkable lever to create a man of a new type. Hence the exceptional value of Soviet cinema today more than yesterday, in art and in history 24 . ”
Cinephile and religion
Much less present and confrontational than politics, religion has sometimes interfered with the cinephilia. We can note mainly here André Bazin , great critic of cinema and fervent catholic, but also Henri Agel , which tries to marry theology and theory of the cinema, as well as the numerous ecclesiastics passionate about cinema, animating sometimes film clubs, like the father Yves Renaud, the Abbe Gritti, the Abbe Ayfre or the father Jean Diard. The latter will found and animate in 1950 the film club of the Jesuit theologate of Chantilly, central point of this Catholic cinephilie:
“We are trying to do something a little serious in this area, especially to get our fathers to take a look at the matter, criticizing sufficiently the ideas and often narrow with regard to the cinema”
– father Jean Diard, letter to François Truffaut 3
Contribution of film lovers
The recognition of directors
At the time when “the director had very few rights and duties ” 16 , he was often considered as one of many film workers (especially Hollywood filmmakers), moviegoers agree that even more than actors or producers, the result of a film, its success, depends on this key figure. Throughout the cinematographic landscape, only the latter can imagine and create a work, thus giving the cinema its artistic character.
This desire to re-evaluate the “cursed” directors to their true extent sometimes led to extremes or confusion. Skorecki will say as follows:”There were errors and injustices; there is always when we play on the future: when we put on filmmakers we emerge from the shadows to make champions, the auction goes up quickly. Thus it was wrong to prefer the rigorous mathematical and haughty Keaton – cold comic, cold – to the irreducible mixture of meanness and tenderness Chaplin; wrong, too, to retain Japanese cinema only Mizoguchi – certainly a huge filmmaker -, while Kurosawa, if only for doing what is perhaps the most beautiful film in the world – Dodeskaden – is certainly to reevaluate; it was stupid to despise Wyler Buñuel or the benefit of false authors guys like Preminger or Minelli 16 . ”
The Hitchcock affair
Today considered a major filmmaker, Hitchcock was long for critics ‘ good doer “, a” perfect olivoudien technician “may be” master of suspense “, but not a real author 3 . Hitchcock also divided moviegoers, Andre Bazin example is not convinced 3 . It was not until the affirmation of the second generation of film lovers, that of the “young Turks”, that the recognition enterprise could take place.
In the 1950s, Cahiers du cinéma took a stand and stubbornly defended the filmmaker, establishing it as an example of the misunderstood genius and the author writing his work in the margins of the system. By 1960, most film buffs and critics had reviewed their judgment but the recognition remained incomplete: in France , the editors of Positif remained skeptical and denounced this genius which for them was only an invention of notebooks; the United States and especially in New York many critics share this opinion 3 .
This is why François Truffaut , ardent defender of Hitchcock and astonished at the reservations made against this director, decided to write a book destined to remove any ambiguity and to dedicate the filmmaker worldwide 3 . Result of an interview of 500 questions with the master, carefully prepared during four years, the ” Hitchbook ” will finally come out in 1966 and succeeds its bet, becoming at the same time the most famous film work of the world.
The politics of the authors
The New Wave
Eager for a cinema outside the limits imposed by the French quality , the “young Turks” launched shortly before 1960 in the realization. This dream cinema will be realized by the flagship films The Four Hundred Blows (released in 1959 ) and Breathless (released in 1960 ).
Cinema as art
Film lovers claimed the artistic quality of cinema at a time when it was not unanimous. Their commitment was decisive. In 1959, Godard will say, in the name of moviegoers:
“We won by admitting the principle that a Hitchcock film, for example, is as important as a book from Aragon. The authors of films, thanks to us, have definitely entered the history of art. “
– Jean-Luc Godard , Arts, April 22, 1959 26
Cinephilia fought against the censorship of states facing their responsibilities in the immediate aftermath of the war and the beginning of the cold war . Long before the introduction of memory duties , moviegoers discovered and transmitted the few cinematographic works existing on the Shoah , sometimes even within the national education.
“To be a film buff, it was simply to swallow, parallel to that of the school, another school program, modeled on the first, with the yellow Notebooks as a red thread and some” adult “smugglers who, with the discretion of the conspirators, meant that there was a world to discover and perhaps nothing less than the world to live in. Henri Agel – professor of letters at Lycée Voltaire – was one of those singular smugglers. To avoid the chore of Latin lessons as much as he did, he put the following choice to the vote: or spend an hour on a Livy text or see films. The class, which voted for the cinema, came out regularly pensive and trapped of the obsolete cinema-club. By sadism and probably because he had the copies, Agel was projecting small films that would seriously deny teenagers. It wasThe Blood of the Beasts of Franju and above all, Night and fog of Resnais . It was therefore through cinema that I knew that the human condition and the industrial butchery were not incompatible and that the worst had just happened. “
– Serge Daney , No. 4 of Trafic , 1992 17
A new image
If from 1940 to 1968 filmmaking can be considered as a movement by its common characteristics, since the term is used to designate expressions or organizations of a passion for cinema more diverse and contrasted, so less solidarity. Pursuing an intellectual and artistic search or turning to the collection or the encyclopedism, the cinephilie became a malleable international culture, adaptable around the first definition “the cinephilie is the love of the cinema” . This new image, distinct from the French film movement, makes it possible to recognize film lovers from all times and from all countries.
Place of expression
|United States 27||20.5||14.2||6.6||4.6||5.1||4.8||5.2||4.7|
In France, one of the oldest movie theaters still in operation is L’Idéal Cinema-Jacques Tati d ‘ Aniche , whose first session took place on November 23, 1905.
A film festival is a film festival . This event consists of the projection of a set of short or feature films in a given place and for a limited duration in time. These projections are generally open to the public but sometimes they are reserved for critics , journalists or professionals 29 .
The film festival is the first meeting between a work, its creators and its audience, if it takes place before the national release of the film 30 . Sometimes it will be the only one, if the encounter fails. It is therefore a key moment in the life of a film. This moment of exposure can be violent. For the director and the producer , the reaction of the public – even if informed – to the presentation of the film can be the source of a deep questioning or a national and sometimes international consecration, such as the Golden Lion at the Mostra from Venice , the Golden Bear at the Berlinale or the Palme d’Or at the Cannes Film Festival31 .
The role of film festivals is twofold. They make it possible to find “nuggets” at the same time and they are also machines to make known, to promote the selected films 32 . The example of the Cannes Film Festival is striking: the films in competition and out of competition will be distributed in France and will be seen by producers , distributors and critics from around the world 33 . In the same way, during the fifteen days of the festival, the Marché du film takes place, which allows artists who lack the means to find a distributor. A film festival allows to present a work to the world 34 .
Thus, along the film industry, film festivals are located downstream of the production of films (moment of creation) and upstream of the exploitation (time of theatrical screening ). More specifically, the most important international festivals are immediately downstream of production. The festivals of national or regional influence take place shortly before the distribution in the room .
Most festivals follow an annual or biennial regularity 33 . In addition to matters of practical organization, this rhythm makes it possible to preserve an exceptional character to the event.
Here is a chart showing the number of festivals in Europe in 1996 33 :
A fairly recent technology, the Internet plays a big role in today’s film lovers. A great community tool, it allows moviegoers to find themselves on websites or forums that reflect their image. The Internet has become an important place for professional critics offered by traditional media. It is also an important expression space for many webzines and bloggers, on which we find a multitude of information (reviews, explanations of film [ archive ] , news, photos …) [ref.necessary] .
Film critic Ciné-club Author’s policy Nouvelle Vague Cinematographic attendance
- Antoine de Baecque , Cinephilie, invention of a look, history of a culture, 1944-1968 , Fayard, ( ISBN 2213615071 )
- Laurent Jullier and Jean-Marc Leveratto , Cinephiles and Cinephilia: History and the Future of Film Culture , Armand Colin,, 224 p. ( ISBN 9782200244453 )
On other Wikimedia projects:
- cinephile , on the Wiktionary
- Cinephiles in France [ archive ]
- Cinephilie, diaries [ archive ] , broadcast of May 11, 2005 on radio France Culture
- News of the new cinephilie [ archive ] , broadcast of May 12, 2005 on radio France Culture
Notes and references
- ↑ The first occurrence of the word cinematophile appears in a specialized journal in the late 1900s.
- ↑ a and b Christophe Gauthier , The passion of the cinema: Cinephiles, cinema-clubs and specialized rooms in Paris from 1920 to 1929 , Afrhc,, 391 p. ( ISBN 2900791294 )
- ↑ a , b , c , d , e , f , g , h , i , j , k , l , m , n , o , p , q , r , s , t , u and v of Baecque 2003
- ↑ cinema.encyclopedia – Leenhardt [ archive ]
- ↑ Expression of criticism Noël Burch in reference to the “New Wave”
- ↑ Resnais was an active member of one of the film club , Truffaut will be used as private secretary by Bazin in 1949
- ↑ François Truffaut , ” A Certain Tendency of French Cinema ,” Les Cahiers du Cinéma , n o 31,
- ↑ Term coined by Jean-Pierre Barrot in Seven years of French cinema, Le Cerf, 1953, “A tradition of quality”, pp26-37
- ↑ François Truffaut , Les Cahiers du Cinema , No. 138, December 1962
- ↑ André S. Labarthe , Readers, The Cahiers du Cinema , No. 107
- ↑ Eric Rohmer , Les Cahiers du Cinema , No. 138, December 1962
- ↑ Michel Mardore, Les Cahiers du Cinema 172, November 1965
- ↑ André S. Labarthe , Cahiers du Cinema , No. 195, November 1967
- ↑ Archive Truffaut Films du Carrosse, file “Cinematheque” motion of support to Henri Langlois, 10 February 1968
- ↑ Pierre Kast , Les Cahiers du Cinema , No. 200, April 1968
- ↑ a , b , c and d Louis Skorecki , ” against the new cinephile ” Cahiers du cinéma , n o 293, ( read online [archive ] )
- ↑ a and b Serge Daney , No. 4 Traffic 1992.
- ↑ a , b and c Critique of Antoine de Baecque, The cinephile, by Jan Baetens [ archive ]
- ↑ The Cinephilie [ archive ] , lelitteraire.com
- ↑ Andre Habib , ” The two lights: the splendours and miseries movie ” Hors Champ , ( read online [archive ] )
- ↑ Gwénaëlle Le Gras, Genevieve Sellier, Cinemas and cinéphilies popular in postwar France: 1945-1958 , New World Publishing,, 383 p.
- ↑ Lawrence Jullier, Jean-Marc Leveratto, Cinéphiles and cinéphilies: a history of cinematic quality , Armand Colin,, p. 67
- ↑ Lawrence Jullier, Jean-Marc Leveratto, Cinéphiles and cinéphilies: a history of cinematic quality , Armand Colin,, p. 189
- ↑ Georges Sadoul , the French Letters , December 8, 1949
- ↑ The American Cinema of Cinephilia in Search [ archive ] , Cairn International
- ↑ Jean-Luc Godard , Arts, April 22, 1959
- ↑ a , b , c , d and e Source: CNC (quoted by René Bonell in the 25 th picture (Ed Gallimard).
- ↑ Source: CNC (quoted by René Bonell in the 25 th . Image (Ed Gallimard) – Figures from France in 1985 and 1995 have been adjusted from the calculated data in the table above (see cinema attendance ), as they were offset, strongly for 1995, with reality (respectively 3.4 and 3.0 cited by René Bonell in his table for 1985 and 1995)
- ↑ For example, some projections of the Cannes Film Festival are reserved for professionals and accredited critics
- ↑ ( fr ) University of Artois, ” The other cinema [ archive ] “, accessed March 18, 2008
- ↑ Festival considered international: ” berlinale [ archive ] “, ” Venice Film Festival [ archive ] ” and ” Cannes [ archive] “, accessed March 18, 2008
- ↑ ( fr ) European Audiovisual Observatory, ” Study of the phenomena of film festivals [ archive ] “, accessed March 19, 2008
- ↑ a , b and c ( en ) Cinemanageria, ” The Film Festivals [ archive ] “, accessed March 19, 2008
- ↑ ( en ) « Official website of the Film Market [ archive ] », Cannes Film Market, section: Presentation of the Market, accessed June 9, 2007