|
|
Traducción
La mondialisation de l'audiovisuel
Producteur, distributeur et exploitant, Marin Karmitz est un " homme à part " (1), il est le seul indépendant français à avoir réussi à bâtir un circuit cinématographique puissant, redouté. Il envisage aussi de créer une chaîne de télévision à vocation cinéphilique et civique. Ses récentes productions l'ont conduit en Europe centrale où il a produit les nouveaux films du Polonais Krzysztof Kieslowski et du Roumain Lucian Pintilié. Selon lui, le problème actuel n'est pas l'affrontement cinématographique avec l'Amérique, mais la partition entre un cinéma de riches véhiculant une propagande et qui existe ailleurs qu'aux Etats-Unis, et un cinéma de pauvres fait par des créateurs qui existe également aux Etats-Unis.
L'ensemble des productions nationales européennes sont dans une situation grave en raison de la mondialisation de l'audiovisuel, née après la chute du mur de Berlin. Cette mondialisation se traduit par le développement des nouvelles technologies et la concentration du secteur. Le marché est dominé par quatre multinationales d'origine américaine et par les deux pôles européens que sont Canal Plus/Havas et Bertelsman. Mais les groupes américains ont pour culture la production d'images, puis leur diffusion ; les groupes européens, et c'est leur faiblesse, sont avant tout des diffuseurs. Malheureusement, on ne fait pas suffisamment l'analyse du contenu et de l'idéologie envoyés par les Etats-Unis. Il s'agit là d'un système de propagande inédit à ce jour dans l'histoire de l'humanité. Tant qu'il y avait deux blocs, nous avions deux idées qui s'opposaient. Aujourd'hui, une seule idée domine. C'est une situation gravissime pour les démocraties européennes.
Les Etats ont un rôle important à jouer. Ils doivent mener une réflexion sur leur politique culturelle. Ces Etats, on le sait, sont affaiblis, n'ayant plus ni la maîtrise de la politique économique ni celle de la politique étrangère. Il reste deux domaines qu'ils se doivent de maîtriser : l'éducation nationale et l'audiovisuel. Chaque Etat européen possède encore un service public dont la mission est de défendre l'intérêt général face aux intérêts privés. A ma connaissance, aucune réflexion de ce type n'existe en Europe. Au contraire, on réduit les budgets de ces chaînes qui sont de plus en plus financées par la publicité, dans une logique commerciale. Quelle est la politique européenne en matière de culture ? La politique des quotas de diffusion ne peut fonctionner à échelle européenne tant que l'on ne posera pas le débat en termes idéologiques et non quantitatifs. On oublie constamment que l'image et le son sont porteurs d'idées. Les Etats-Unis ont bien compris ces enjeux. D'autres avant eux l'avaient également fait. Hitler l'avait compris, Staline aussi et même de Gaulle. Les effets de cette prise de pouvoir de l'image sont dévastateurs. On peut le constater dans la vie politique où l'on ne parle plus que par slogans, par petites phrases de 18 secondes.
On peut se demander si le rôle de l'industrie française est de financer l'industrie américaine. C'est pourtant ce qui se passe à travers les pré-achats massifs faits en matière de programmes satellite. Cet argent ne va pas dans la production. Tout comme ces sommes énormes englouties dans les programmes de câble, de satellite, de télévision de haute définition, ou pour le financement de la MGM ! C'est comme si l'on sacrifiait l'ensemble des industries de pointe européennes. Tout cela se fait dans un total mépris du citoyen et de la démocratie.
EL NACIMIENTO DEL CINE
There are 60 000 years, when men of Neandertal dared to adventure to the the darkest cave bottom for there ritualiser their fear of the infinite sky and the death, to invent gods and to discover the sacred; when they gaze at to paint on partitions of rocks, in light of torchlights with the earth of ocher and the coal of wood, of animal faces to the very stretched out shapes, stretched; and that they lit a fire then began to dance to the sound of the struck bones on stones, bring in their intended shades and flames scintillanteses analyzing their movements, it was as if faces on walls enlivened themselves sudden... Didn't they create the first room of movies then? This was not the first scrolling of pictures, the first representation to persistence rétinienne, the first movie of the reality of the world, between the fire-home of light and the parietal screen?
The prehistoric men quit underground cave to conquer the world and they invented the writing, then they redefined the sacred in light of étois and they invented the theater, and it is only later six hundred centuries, December 28, 1895, on occasion of the first public sitting of the Louis brothers and Augustus Lumière, to the Indian lounge of the Big Coffee, 14, boulevard of the Capucineses, in Paris, for the sum of 1 franc, that the modern men returned in the black of the ancestral cave, to the mechanical spotlight fires and facing the white canvas of the beaded screen, for a new symbolic representation of the world, called cinematograph.
And this cinematograph - there invented his/her/its shapes, his/her/its grammar, his/her/its aesthetic, his/her/its production, his/her/its word, his/her/its music, to become par excellence the popular art and to seduce crowds of the four corners of the world,, quickly. The movies, art of the emotion, universal art, raconteur of histories, inventor of dreams, carrier of questioning and confrontations, new god creator, actors,.
Whereas the cinematograph has just celebrated his/her/its first century, men left little by little his/her/its protective cave and actors disappear, replaced by faces sterilized of advertising models and organizers of sets televised, forgery gods without beauty and without soul imposed by the new masters of the Earth to the multinational business head. Those there seized of the lights of Hollywood, they vested to circuits, networks, hoses, screens, and it is their pictures that leave to conquer the world henceforth.
On partitions of the contemporary cave, the drawing of the mammoth, of the tiger to teeth of saber, the trace of the artist's fingers, have been erased, erased by products standardized to the loud colors, to the aggressive movements, to effects redundant, modern mercantile icons. Weapons are also there, printed, omnipresent, but it is not about more of the fine sword of the Three Musketeers to gestures in arabesques, nor of the saber elegant of the red Corsair, nor of the Winchester carbine 73 flight to James Stewart. It is rifles to pump, of the 37 magnum, of bazookas that " snipe at " to all goes in the noise and blood, while accumulate deaths.
To his/her/its beginnings, the movies was an attraction of fair, a popular entertainment accessible to all. A few later, in America, a handful of emigrants of the Old Continent, adventurers, business men and artists, contributed to invent Hollywood, and, with their European counterparts, they ennobled the attraction of entertainers to the rank of " 7th art ". This art became universal, living, himself nourishing of the diversity of the world... Every country " made " his/her/its movies, it replayed his/her/its history there, it expressed filigreed there the imaginary of his/her/its people.
When men quit the cave for boxes to pictures of dining rooms, cinematographies of the world died out one after the other, letting in Hollywood and his/her/its industry the hegemony of screens. The in love with producers stars and happy endses gave up their armchair of leather and their cigar to technocrats and bankers, while the Hollywood system reached an apogee in financial ratio terms, until the perversion. Movies have some more and more elevated budgets; actors, script writers, producers, agents require seals still more mirobolantses; returns must be to the comely therefore, implying of marketing strategies every more elaborate time, an increase of the advertising investments, the marchandisation; that that conducted to restrict approaches, points of view, styles, to simplify dialogues, in order to be pleasing to the biggest number and to go in the sense of internationalization.
All it generates an inflation of the spectacular Disneyland way, The War of stars or Waterworld, an amplification of the violence and the special effects, stereo Dolby, surround, movements, speed, color, imposing productions, gigantic travellingses - what costs more and more dear... Spiral without end that, of a certain way and by an abridgment worthy of the best film installation, brings back us to the famous word of Rohmer " Eric: A travelling is business of morals... "
As one can put itself the question: facing all industrial products that invade screens, where the " morals " can be submitted to the system who only generates him, that it is that the " film " morals?
Would not this be what differentiates a manufacturer's artist, a producer of a clever maker, a film-maker of a good technician, a look of an effect, a point of view of a dramatization, a movie of a spectacle,? Would not this be what differentiates a works of a product? Would not be this the same gas of the movies... ?
It could be, for example, a " morals of the production ", as at Fritz Lang (Mr. the Cursed, Smugglers of Moonfleet), for that every plan was an absolute requirement, at that justifications, lights, movements of device, the depth of field, decors, splices had to participate, as much as actors, of the construction of the narration...
It could be, also, a " morals of the look ", as at the producer Iranian Abbas Kiarostami (through olive trees) and the big documentaristeses that are Johan Sieve Keuken der (Amsterdam, Global Village) and Robert Kramer (Walk Walk tea), where the producer let go his/her/its look to the thread of the narration, give the time to the camera to create a length, to construct a space, offering so their luck to his/her/its characters and his/her/its movie to exist...
It could be, again, a " poetic " morals, as at Wim Wenders (Wings of the desire, Lisboa Story) or in movies of Carné and Préverts (The day rises, Embankment of mists), when heroes are workers or angels with wings, in black and white, talking as of poets, suffering as of humans and telling the world...
It could be, in short, a " morals of the mythology of the movies ", the one that one discovers in movies of Clint Eastwood (Pitiless, A world perfects, On Madison's road), spectacular, nostalgic works, often violent, to the picture of the country that they describe, but measured out as learnedly of humor and derision, because the producer-actor knew how to take to full hands the such Hollywood kinds the western, the thriller, the melodrama, or same his/her/its own myth, to play their codes and to return their sense to the only profit of the movies. What is some him of the production, of the look, of poetry? That is some him of the movies when one attends Independence Day, March Attacks! or Visitors?
All is maybe from the cave in Hollywood that a simple history of mythology. To be a room between the real world and the ideal world that he/it carries in his/her/its heart and of which he/it dreams, there where is revealed his/her/its humanity constantly, the man always needed to tell histories, the histories of men and gods, and places to invent them: the cave, the theater, the temple, the stadium, arenas, the cathedral, the room of movies...
Truth of the world and reality of shades
Let's RECALL OURSELVES Plato's Cave, metaphor on the difference between the appreciable and the intelligible. He/it is not sufficient any more to go up six hundred centuries before our era, but four only: prisoners are linked in a cave since still, ignoramus all of the outside world, their field of vision confined to a partition in front of them, as of spectators owing a screen. Alone a light coming from a fire behind them projects on the wall shades of characters passing the long of a path situated between them and the home of light. For prisoners of the cave, the only truth of the world is the reality of shades that moves on the wall before them... Why would doubt some them?
There is not if a long time again, men liked to move through the City to watch together in the black a film movie to twenty-four pictures by second, in the magic of the luminous bundle. There was the room, there was the screen, there was the shared emotion, and it was for each of spectators a certain way to discern the world; all these multiple looks converged toward a picture fed of the artist vision, and it was this exchange, these different points of view that gave to pictures a sense. Today, men are alone in front of their midget screen, while pictures flow of all parts, surround them, attract them, seduce them, as as many pleasures to take in the instant.
On time where icons vested to partitions of the such electronic underground cave the Gremlinses of Joe Dante invading the room where passes Half note-snow and the seven dwarf, this are not anymore men but pictures themselves that escaped of the cave to standardize the world.
They engulf themselves on the new freeways to numeric compression, out of all production, to the contempt of all look and all poetry, free of the artist's power, dangerously accessible. As one can put itself the question: is he/it again time for us, simple citizens of the world, virtual prisoners of a consensual society to vocation bargains, is he/it again time to act so that these pictures don't represent the unique truth?
El lenguaje del cine|Historia del cine|Actividades|Diccionario|Objetivos del Proyecto|Educar para la imagen|Lectura de imágenes|El guión|
