{"title":"Algiers-Buenos Aires-Montréal: third worldist links in the creation of the Latin American Filmmakers Committee (1974)","authors":"Mariano Mestman","doi":"10.3138/CJFS.24.2.29","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The papers and audiovisual records of the Rencontres internationales pour un nouveau cinema held in Montreal in June of 1974 provide insight into many aspects of a particular moment in international political cinema. One of the insights that emerges is the influence of a sort of \"cinematic Third Worldism\" on the way Latin American filmmakers in particular organized themselves- an influence that can also be seen more broadly within an extensive region of political filmmaking in the First World. Remember that during 1973-1974-the years when, according Fredric Jameson, the \"long decade of the sixties\" came to an end1-the Third World was highly visible in international geopolitics, as \"Third Worldism\" was in the focus of political filmmaking. Two events indicative of this are significant here: the Third World Filmmakers Meeting in Algiers in December 1973, whose goal was to form a committee (partially a corollary to the Fourth Conference of the Non-Aligned Countries in September of the same year); and the second meeting of that committee, held in May 1974 in Buenos Aires, that is, just a few days before the gathering in Montreal in June.2When we speak of \"cinematic Third Worldism,\" we are referring to a sort of political-cultural-cinematic trend that was adopted (with variations) by filmmakers and groups from different countries. In each national case (or even within each group), this trend often coexisted and was articulated with others (like Latin Americanism, Pan-Africanism, Pan-Arabism, Guevarism, Maoism, etc.), whose variations had extended to political cinema around the Third World and whose influence also extended to international political filmmaking. Cinematic Third Worldism was highly emphasized during the Montreal gathering, one of the most representative events of those years due to the quantity and quality of global political cinema groups present at the meeting.In the years previous, the films and political cinema documents of Latin Americans, Arabs, and Africans had forged an important niche for themselves in the film and political scene in Quebec. This could be seen, for example, in the way the journal Cinema Quebec promoted the writing of Andre Pâquet (and others) on Third Worldist cinemas, which he had encountered at different festivals (Berlin, Carthage, Leipzig, Mannheim, Pesaro, etc.). Several aspects of Third Worldism were emphasized in various issues of the journal as parallel with conditions of local cinema: an explicit outline of what problems they had in common, such as the \"colonial\" issue.3 In a dossier about African cinemas in Arabic, for example, Tahar Cheriaa (the founder and director of the Carthage Film Festival in 1966, the first dedicated to Arabic and African film) had justified the long-term solidarity and converging interests between Quebecois and African cinema, as both had suffered \"the same conditions of foreign domination\" and were in \"the same situation of underdevelopment and economic dependence\" (beyond the obvious differences in Quebec's favour, of course).4 Just after the conference, Fernand Dansereau made reference to the \"colonial\" nature of Quebec film,5 an interpretation that was adopted to a certain extent by the Comite d'action cinematographique (CAC), organizer of the Rencontres. Some months later, when many of CAC's members debated who should control Quebec film (as film institutions and laws related to the industry were being challenged), Pâquet drafted a long document whose very title evoked a deep national problem: \"Pour une decolonisation du cinema quebecois.\"6 Adopting a program similar to that which had been debated a year earlier at the Montreal conference, the paper situated Quebec as one of the so-called \"small countries\" (like those of northern Europe) and stated that it had to defend its cultural/film production against domination by large international companies in the industry as well as the Canadian government.From the very invitation to the Montreal conference, the strong influence of Third Worldism on the project is evident. …","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3138/CJFS.24.2.29","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The papers and audiovisual records of the Rencontres internationales pour un nouveau cinema held in Montreal in June of 1974 provide insight into many aspects of a particular moment in international political cinema. One of the insights that emerges is the influence of a sort of "cinematic Third Worldism" on the way Latin American filmmakers in particular organized themselves- an influence that can also be seen more broadly within an extensive region of political filmmaking in the First World. Remember that during 1973-1974-the years when, according Fredric Jameson, the "long decade of the sixties" came to an end1-the Third World was highly visible in international geopolitics, as "Third Worldism" was in the focus of political filmmaking. Two events indicative of this are significant here: the Third World Filmmakers Meeting in Algiers in December 1973, whose goal was to form a committee (partially a corollary to the Fourth Conference of the Non-Aligned Countries in September of the same year); and the second meeting of that committee, held in May 1974 in Buenos Aires, that is, just a few days before the gathering in Montreal in June.2When we speak of "cinematic Third Worldism," we are referring to a sort of political-cultural-cinematic trend that was adopted (with variations) by filmmakers and groups from different countries. In each national case (or even within each group), this trend often coexisted and was articulated with others (like Latin Americanism, Pan-Africanism, Pan-Arabism, Guevarism, Maoism, etc.), whose variations had extended to political cinema around the Third World and whose influence also extended to international political filmmaking. Cinematic Third Worldism was highly emphasized during the Montreal gathering, one of the most representative events of those years due to the quantity and quality of global political cinema groups present at the meeting.In the years previous, the films and political cinema documents of Latin Americans, Arabs, and Africans had forged an important niche for themselves in the film and political scene in Quebec. This could be seen, for example, in the way the journal Cinema Quebec promoted the writing of Andre Pâquet (and others) on Third Worldist cinemas, which he had encountered at different festivals (Berlin, Carthage, Leipzig, Mannheim, Pesaro, etc.). Several aspects of Third Worldism were emphasized in various issues of the journal as parallel with conditions of local cinema: an explicit outline of what problems they had in common, such as the "colonial" issue.3 In a dossier about African cinemas in Arabic, for example, Tahar Cheriaa (the founder and director of the Carthage Film Festival in 1966, the first dedicated to Arabic and African film) had justified the long-term solidarity and converging interests between Quebecois and African cinema, as both had suffered "the same conditions of foreign domination" and were in "the same situation of underdevelopment and economic dependence" (beyond the obvious differences in Quebec's favour, of course).4 Just after the conference, Fernand Dansereau made reference to the "colonial" nature of Quebec film,5 an interpretation that was adopted to a certain extent by the Comite d'action cinematographique (CAC), organizer of the Rencontres. Some months later, when many of CAC's members debated who should control Quebec film (as film institutions and laws related to the industry were being challenged), Pâquet drafted a long document whose very title evoked a deep national problem: "Pour une decolonisation du cinema quebecois."6 Adopting a program similar to that which had been debated a year earlier at the Montreal conference, the paper situated Quebec as one of the so-called "small countries" (like those of northern Europe) and stated that it had to defend its cultural/film production against domination by large international companies in the industry as well as the Canadian government.From the very invitation to the Montreal conference, the strong influence of Third Worldism on the project is evident. …
1974年6月在蒙特利尔举行的国际新电影大会(Rencontres internationales pour un nouveau cinema)的论文和视听记录,提供了对国际政治电影特定时刻的许多方面的洞察。其中出现的一个见解是一种“电影第三世界主义”对拉丁美洲电影制作人特别是组织自己的方式的影响——这种影响也可以在第一世界广泛的政治电影制作区域中更广泛地看到。请记住,在1973年至1974年期间——按照弗雷德里克·詹姆逊(frederic Jameson)的说法,这是“60年代漫长的十年”结束的年份——第三世界在国际地缘政治中非常明显,因为“第三世界主义”是政治电影制作的焦点。有两个事件表明了这一点:1973年12月在阿尔及尔举行的第三届世界电影人会议,其目标是成立一个委员会(部分是同年9月举行的第四次不结盟国家会议的必然结果);该委员会的第二次会议于1974年5月在布宜诺斯艾利斯举行,也就是说,就在6月蒙特利尔会议的几天前。2当我们谈到“第三世界主义电影”时,我们指的是一种政治-文化-电影的趋势,它被来自不同国家的电影制作人和团体采用(有变化)。在每个国家的情况下(甚至在每个群体中),这种趋势经常共存并与其他趋势(如拉丁美洲主义,泛非主义,泛阿拉伯主义,格瓦拉主义,毛主义等)相结合,其变体已经扩展到第三世界的政治电影,其影响也扩展到国际政治电影制作。由于出席会议的全球政治电影团体的数量和质量,蒙特利尔会议是那些年最具代表性的事件之一,电影第三世界主义在蒙特利尔会议上得到了高度强调。在此之前的几年里,拉丁美洲人、阿拉伯人和非洲人的电影和政治电影文献在魁北克的电影和政治舞台上为他们自己打造了一个重要的利基。这可以从《魁北克电影》(Cinema Quebec)杂志推广安德烈·帕斯凯(Andre p quet)(和其他人)关于第三世界主义电影的写作方式中看出,他在不同的电影节(柏林、迦太基、莱比锡、曼海姆、佩萨罗等)上遇到了这些电影。第三世界主义的几个方面在该杂志的各个问题中被强调为与当地电影的状况平行:明确概述了他们共同存在的问题,例如“殖民”问题例如,在一份关于阿拉伯非洲电影的档案中,塔哈尔·切里亚(Tahar Cheriaa, 1966年迦太基电影节的创始人和导演,第一个致力于阿拉伯和非洲电影的电影节)证明了魁北克和非洲电影之间的长期团结和共同利益,因为两者都遭受了“同样的外国统治条件”,并且处于“同样的欠发达和经济依赖的情况”(当然,除了魁北克的明显差异之外)就在会议结束后,Fernand Dansereau提到了魁北克电影的“殖民”性质,这一解释在一定程度上得到了行动电影摄影委员会(CAC)的认可,该委员会是法国电影节的组织者。几个月后,当许多CAC成员争论谁应该控制魁北克电影时(因为电影机构和与该行业相关的法律受到挑战),p起草了一份长长的文件,其标题引起了一个深刻的国家问题:“Pour une decolonisation du cinema quebecois”。该论文采用了一年前在蒙特利尔会议上讨论过的类似方案,将魁北克列为所谓的“小国”之一(就像北欧的那些国家一样),并声明魁北克必须捍卫其文化/电影生产,不受该行业大型国际公司和加拿大政府的支配。从参加蒙特利尔会议的邀请开始,第三世界主义对该项目的强大影响就显而易见了。…