Given the time commitment required, it is usually best to show 'La Commune' during a weekend. If there is insufficient time for discussion at the end, we would propose the main screening take place on a Saturday, with provisions for a discussion on the Sunday.

It is of course possible to screen 'La Commune' on a weekday evening, but presuming that it would not begin until 6:00 or 7:00 PM, we would recommend this proposal only if provision can be made for a discussion the following day (or evening).

A full-length screening in school. Again, there are several possibilities: 1) the school makes a special event of screening 'La Commune', and shows the film over one whole day, beginning at (say) 9:00 AM, with a pause for lunch, and concluding at the end of the school day, with a discussion the following day; 2) the film is shown in parts over 5-6 consecutive days, with a discussion after each part.

Showing extracts only: If time restrictions do not permit any of the above, another method for working with 'La Commune', either in schools or in public screenings, is to present several substantial extracts (15-20 minutes each), in conjunction with a debate about the Paris Commune and its relationship to today's society, globalisation, the crisis in the mass media, the civic process, how to bring about change, etc. Here the emphasis is obviously more on a discussion of these kinds of topics, rather than on 'La Commune'. Such an event could happen in a public venue over one evening, or in a school during one day. REBOND POUR LA COMMUNE can advise on a choice of extracts.

In these circumstances, I would also recommend that the event include the showing of an extract from 'The Universal Clock', a 1 hr 15 min documentary about the making of 'La Commune'; by Canadian filmmakers Geoff Bowie and Petra Valier. Their film presents substantial interviews with several of the actors, who discuss the meaning of creating a film in the fashion of 'La Commune'. 'The Universal Clock' also includes some revealing and candid interviews with media power-brokers, filmed during the 2000 MIP-TV festival in Cannes.

A series of films: The final suggestion for showing 'La Commune' is within the context of several of my earlier films, as part of an extended event over perhaps a week. In this case, I would recommend not only, for example 'Culloden' (1964) and 'Punishment Park' (1970), but also the aforementioned 'The Universal Clock' in its entirety.

The following are suggestions for themes which could be discussed after either school or public screenings of the entire film or extracts.

But I would first like to strongly recommend that any public screening of 'La Commune' be accompanied by extensive announcements within the local community, so that a discussion during and after the film be as broad as possible. The manner and process of the discussions needs to be open and non-hierarchical, and every effort must be made to avoid a traditional debate with panel 'experts' facing the audience. It is important to encourage a genuinely open discussion and tolerance for diverse opinions and points of view.

Present-day society is very maladroit at organizing non-hierarchical public discussions. Both collapsed Communism and (hopefully collapsing) global Capitalism are social systems which have proven to be deeply antithetical to genuine public debate (and are thereby a reflection of their forms of mass media). The current lack of a genuine 'third way' - an alternative social, political and economic process - and of a democratic debate about the possibility of such a process, particularly within the media, sits at the nucleus of today's global crisis. Which is why I keep emphasizing the importance of public discussions in connection with screenings of 'La Commune'.

In fact, an opening theme for a discussion during or following 'La Commune' might be just that - the whole concept of PUBLIC DEBATE. Does it exist in contemporary society? - if so, where? - what role does it play in decisions made by the 'systems' governing our lives? If (as I personally believe) there is little meaningful public debate, why is this so? And if it is so, why do the public accept it? Are we in fact living in (and under) a system which at least some of us would prefer to somehow change? What role does the media play in holding the present system in position? What about its role vis-à-vis social aggression, apathy, feelings of helplessness? Are these phenomena related to a lack of participation by the public in organizing (or choosing) the system in which they live?

What role did the Paris Commune play in challenging social conditions as they existed in 1871? What is the relationship between that event, and people's perception of the need for social change - and contemporary society? What about the fact that the subject of the Paris Commune is still marginalized by the French educational system, and by much of the French mass media?

In what way does 'La Commune' raise discussion on these issues?

The preceding are just some general, introductory topics! The following are more detailed - mostly in the form of direct questions to the audience. They are grouped into three sections: the Paris Commune of 1871, the crisis in the mass media and media education, and the film 'La Commune'. The symbol rr indicates a suggested set of questions. Occasionally I give a personal response (indicated by the symbol T ), but generally I ask the reader to refer 8 to certain sections in the website, which hopefully give some further idea of the complexity inherent in these brief questions.

The following are my personal choice; many other themes, opinions, and ideas far beyond the parameters and layout of this list will undoubtedly arise. Keeping this, and the wealth of discussion which will inevitably follow, in mind, I will make the following as brief as possible.

THE PARIS COMMUNE OF 1871

Is there a relationship between the events of the Paris Commune in 1871 and society today? If so, what? Can we bring any positive ideas, actions, salutary lessons from 1871 and apply them to today? If so, which ones? And how might this be achieved in practice?

Please refer to the introduction to Part III of the website for a brief summary of the Paris Commune, 1871.

How well-informed were you about the Paris Commune of 1871, before you saw this film? Did / does your school or university inform you about this event? If so, in what context and in what depth? Were there any judgments made about the Communards? Was the Commune expressed in any kind of modern context? Were you given information about the extent of the massacres committed by the government forces of Adolphe Thiers against the people of Paris? If you feel that you were not given adequate information about this event, by the French education system, or by the French mass media, why do you think this was so?

To what extent do scenes and statements from 'La Commune' represent - for you - the reality of what happened in 1871? To what extent are they - by contrast - a surrogate media experience? - and a manipulated one at that? Is any other media process possible? - especially one that leaves room for the spectator to intermix his / her opinions, feelings, questions? If so, to what extent does 'La Commune' achieve this? - or not? If you can imagine an item (or series of items) on the TV news, depicting the events of the Paris Commune, to what extent would they differ from our film?

Does our contemporary society have space (or a need) for films and TV programmes on 'difficult' subjects - such as the Paris Commune or the war in Algeria? Going beyond content and theme, do we need films with different aspirations and different processes, such as those expressed in 'La Commune'? If not, why not? If yes, why do we not see more of such films?

The preceding raises another question: are the ideas to produce a film about the Paris Commune in this way - i.e., the basic motivations for the film - different from what lies behind most films and programmes presented on TV?? If so, how? If not, what are the similarities in ideology or motivation behind all audiovisual media, 'La Commune' included ?

THE MASS AUDIOVISUAL MEDIA AND MEDIA EDUCATION

In the website, I describe a number of harmful results emerging from the practices and usage of the modern mass audiovisual media. Seven such results include: the Monoform (with its inherent abuse of time and space); the undemocratic relationship between the media and the public; violence on the screen; 'subterranean' harmful effects; a direct relationship to globalization and the environmental destruction of the planet; the marginalization of alternatives; and the lack of media and public debate.

Please see 'Lack of Debate and Knowledge', 'The Monoform and Centralization of Power', 'Repression in the MAVM', 'Language form - impact', 'Contempt, Paternalism and Power', 'The Gatekeeper Theory', 'The MAVM and Globalization', 'Media Violence and Sexism', and 'Popular Culture, Newsbroadcasting, Loss of History' in Part I of the website.

How many of the above issues were you previously aware of? Have you been given sufficient information on these issues by the MASS MEDIA to be able to critically debate them? If not, why not?

What connection do you make between the way in which the MASS MEDIA functions and your own well-being, including your place in society?

What is the connection between the MASS MEDIA and the state of our society in general?

Can the word 'democratic' be used to describe the relationship between the MASS MEDIA and yourself or the society in which you live, or the way in which the media shapes and presents films, and TV and radio programmes? If so, how is it democratic?

Keeping in mind the preceding questions concerning the role of the media (the Monoform, violence, the loss of history, undemocratic practices, the Gatekeeper theory, the MAVM and globalization, etc.) - did / do you receive adequate (or any) information on these issues from your school system? If not, why not?

Turning to MEDIA EDUCATION, in the website I describe a number of harmful practices, which I personally believe have contributed to a lack of critical thinking, and thus to the increasing public acceptance of the manipulative and hierarchical role played by the mass audiovisual media today. These practices in media education include: not critiquing the role of the media vis-à-vis consumerism and the environmental disasters facing the planet; accepting media violence; refusing to analyze the impact of the Monoform and the 'Universal Clock'; accepting - indeed encouraging - the use of the most hegemonic forms of audiovisual Popular Culture; marginalizing teachers who have tried to develop critical forms of media pedagogy over the past several decades; not asking students to examine alternative forms of media practice; and the wide-spread use throughout the secondary and tertiary sectors of methods which teach students to enter the mass media as compliant professionals to perpetuate the Hollywood narrative structure, with its hierarchical relationship to the audience.

Please see 'Education and the Democratic Crisis'; 'Vocational Media Training'; Pretend 'critical education' in Part I.

If you feel that you do / did receive adequate information from your school system on the role of the mass media, is / was it in a form that you could describe as being genuinely critical? If not, why not? Do your teachers seem to know (or want to know) what is happening behind the scenes in the media? If so, do they inform you? What was / is the relationship between your teachers and the media popular culture? Is there a 'critical information gap', not only between the media and the public, but between teachers and students?

Are teachers who want to use alternative ways of looking at the media, marginalized in today's education system?

Please refer to 'Marginalization within media education' in Part I.

If your teachers help / helped you to understand how the media functions (and manipulates), do / did they help or encourage you to consider alternative processes of media communication? Do / did these processes include active participation by the public in any way?

Please see 'Alternatives, Choices, the Public' and 'Make Media Choice a Human Right' in Part I.

'LA COMMUNE'

Can you identify some of the ways in which the form and process of 'La Commune' differ from that of 'standard' TV, radio and cinema?

Please refer to 'Filming 'La Commune' - before, during and after' in Part III of the website. rr

Keeping in mind the factors described in this section, do you feel that the manner in which 'La Commune' was made presents a viable and alternative way for creating public TV? If not, why not?

Can you see it as an alternative way of presenting HISTORY on the screen? Can you go further, and see 'La Commune' as a way of re-connecting people with history in general, and more specifically with their own history? If not, why not?

Are there elements in 'La Commune', and / or the way it was made, and / or the way in which you experienced the film, which - for you - keep it within the standard hierarchical relationship between media and public? If so, can you identify them?

Please see 'Centralizing? Collective? - or both?' in Part III.

What about the length of the film? What do you feel about it? Are there any positive experiences that you gained because of the length of the film? If so, what? Do you feel that 'La Commune' would (or could) have been the same film - or a 'better' film - if it was reduced to two hours, or even down to the increasingly standard TV format of 52 minutes?

Please refer to 'The Universal Clock', and the length of 'La Commune' and 'The marginalization of 'La Commune' in France' in Part III.

If you think that 'La Commune' should be shorter, do you also feel that the film should be withheld from French TV screens until such time as it is reduced? If so, would you make the same decision for TV programmes (e.g., long-running American series such as DALLAS, etc.) which in fact have a total length of many hundreds of hours?

A group of the people who acted in 'La Commune' have stayed together since the filming in July 1999, and have formed an association in France called REBOND POUR LA COMMUNE. Their aim is not only to help screen the film and to resist its marginalization by the MAVM, but to develop and encourage debate, alternative creative processes, and a public form of the media.

What do you think of this endeavour? Does this collective response to 'La Commune' indicate that there are extended and interactive forms of media process possible - i.e., alternatives to sitting in an armchair and watching a filmmaker (or media conglomerate) 'communicate' something to us? Or is the relationship between the mass media and the public locked forever in a traditional, hierarchical 'them-to-us' process which can never change?

Here I would like to quote from the statement of intent by REBOND POUR LA COMMUNE which is printed at the end of the website (and which refers to the detailed information in the various sections under Part III) : "Seeing the difficulties which a film of such scope encounters: the insidious censoring by ARTE on TV and their refusal to distribute the film on video, the marginalizing of the work, the refusal of French film distributors to release the film, the silence in the media... This asks questions of our capacity to prolong and develop the process of resistance and participation. This is why our Association also sets itself the objective of developing communal experience by the creation of places and spaces where discussions which propose thought, reflection, and organization against the abuse of power by the dominant mass media can take place. To initiate, propose and organize collective projects and debates around the questions which 'La Commune (Paris 1871)' raises for us. To create free speech, with or without the institutions... A 'wide-angle' vision rather than 'tele-objective'."

Peter Watkins, Vilnius, Lithuania
© March 2001

Rebond pour la Commune
74 rue de la Folie Méricourt 75011 Paris
Tél./Fax : 01.73.73.82.21
rebond.org
e-mail : lerebond@free.fr