|
|
Something we like about the cinema
This movie was part of the official selection for the Cannes festival 2010. The originality of the mise en scène and the humanism of this most recent work by Mathieu Almaric “Tournée/On Tour” didn’t go unnoticed. All in all, French cinematographic culture is definitely breaking away from its image of a “film intello chiant à la française”, by now offering a wider variety of genres and forms for getting the message across. Tournée is also a bilingual film, with French and English spoken here and there.
 Ivanna Pinyak describes one of her favourite films of 2010 - "Tournée/On Tour" Just a very living movie
Joachim, a French producer – played by Mathieu Almaric himself – is pursuing his career in the US and takes a group of American “new burlesque” striptease performers on a tour of France, his home country. For almost 2 hours, spectators follow the troupe impressing and amazing the French audience, men and above all women, with their shows – an original blend of artistic expression, where beyond striptease are dance, singing and theatre, glamour and lots of humour, right from the stage of an American music-hall. The troupe leads us onto the stage and behind the curtains, keeping the magic and laughter of the show beyond the stage, on trains, in hotels, on the road.
Producer Joachim, back in his home country, is suddenly betrayed by a partner. He has no more stage to take his troupe to Paris, the dream of every woman and of every actress. So, in his search for a solution, he finally returns to his past life that he once left behind for good for a new continent: the Parisian world of TV production, with its passions and rivalries, his old friends and enemies, hopes and disappointments … He takes his children with him for a while, now grown up enough not to be left at a crèche in a public place. But they don’t feel enthusiastic about having fun with their father, who is incapable of managing his work and kids at the same time… The actresses, sometimes feeling abandoned, getting bored in hotels and trains, cheer up anyway, remaining full of life and positive energy.
Almost touching is the relationship between the stripteasers and their producer. He is the one to have the last word at rehearsal. Following his taste and experience, but not without protest, the women point out in one of the scenes: “We are with him for the tour of France, but in America we are individuals”. No domination, tyranny or such like. These women are bright individuals, strong personalities, meanwhile they are very natural – just as Americans can be, easy going and sensitive. They create their shows themselves, create them for women, inspiring women, revealing their imagination and giving them more self-esteem. This story is a true strip tease of human feelings, where mutual support and joy of life overcome the moments of melancholy, failure, disappointment and difficulties, as described by Mathieu Almaric.
Who’s sponsoring the Tour?
With expected income from tourism and love for the arts combined, the film was produced with the support of regional authorities (Regional Council of Pays de la Loire, as well as those of Haute-Normandie, Poitou-Charentes and Charente-Maritime) and shows us the sights and attractions of another France. The France most foreign tourists would probably never see, because they are running to Paris. Here “On Tour” the girls have everything but.
As to the European cinematographic industry, it remains healthy, as the European Union finances the best movies. “Tournée” is one of the films that enjoyed the support of MEDIA, the program of the European Commission worth 755 million euros over seven years (2007-13) which finances the distribution and promotion of audiovisual productions in Europe.
by Ivanna Pinyak
Over the last couple of years the word crisis must have become one the most most frequently pronounced words in the world. Just check for it in Google! Financial crisis, social crisis, European crisis, French football crisis…
The Crisis of Leadership: that was the title chosen for the 5th Summer University of Democracy organised by the Council of Europe and held this week. The annual event aims at bringing together young active citizens and decision makers in Politics, Economics, Society and Culture from the now 16 schools representing the “non-EU” Member States of the Council of Europe. Young leaders from Russia, Georgia, Bulgaria, Moldova, Kosovo, “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,” Serbia, Croatia, Romania, Armenia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania, Montenegro and Belarus, as well a number of international and European experts and prominent political figures exchanged their viewpoints on leadership and crisis.
Amongst the multitude of topics discussed, were: the crisis of leadership in the globalised and multipolar world, challenges for US president Obama and the problems of leadership in Europe, the Copenhagen summit and the crisis of the European project, the so-called frozen conflicts on the territories of the former Soviet Union countries and painful transformations in Russia.
The steady wide-ranging crisis – if that is what we face now – must have its reasons or its meaning. And the meaning of this is that actually the modern world is undergoing important changes. The way is changing so fast that we won’t have to wait our whole lives to figure out what happened. The changes are, and will be, so important, that, yes, we might not recognise the usual way of being in a couple of years.
It is actually fascinating to observe, to analyse, to predict the near future, and to project yourself, your community, your country and your continent into one of the possible scenarios of what tomorrow will be like.
The era of incontestable, charismatic leaders as seen during World War II has long gone. Since the world went multipolar, with the rise of new technologies and Internet, access to information has become very easy, everybody can take initiative and power of expression on blogs and social networks challenging the “official” media. The latter have to adapt to that new reality. Society is more informed and individuals are more educated on matters of global concern. Civil society, in some places called the 3rd sector becomes the real power and factor of influence. Even if you personally don’t think you are able somehow to influence large-scale decisions at this moment in time, your active stance and your opinion do matter in these circumstances. The crisis of leadership means that the globalised, multipolar world with its multitude of actors is no longer under the total control of any government.
Civil society, which is the active citizens’ movement, forms the real 3rd power. It can define trends, form a basis and thus influence further decisions taken on a political level. The European Union project is in crisis as it couldn’t be promoted by mere elites. Remember the non-votes? Now, the collective intelligence and voices of active citizens speaking up is something to remedy the lack of democracy in the EU, this is the key to help it keep going.
by Ivanna Pinyak
Generally, there are two kinds of people: those who love football and those who don’t. However, even those who don’t would definitely follow the most prestigious international championships or at least they would check the scores. The World Cup football championship is in the very centre of attention and 22 guys chasing a ball on the big screen might be the biggest action ever. Looks like no other large-scale event in sports, like the Tennis Grand Slam or the Olympic Games could have that strong an emotional impact on the population.
Ivanna is a freelance journalist, now living in Strasbourg after growing up in the Ukraine. She speaks Ukrainian, English, French, Polish and German. Her specific areas of interest are Human Rights and Europe. What’s remarkable about the World Cup?
First of all, the World Cup football championship is an effective international brand marketing of a nation. Consequently, supporting your national team is an act of patriotism. Your team’s performance in the World Cup is either a national hope and pride, or sorrow and disappointment. Sorry for France, feeling “blue” for the “bleus”.
Secondly, you can watch the national teams you’ve probably never seen playing before. North Korea was a real surprise: an excellent team, in good shape, strong in defence as well as in attack, they lost the game, but assured a last-minute honour-saving goal! 1:2 against Brazil, less outstanding this time, but still “Brazil”.
Thirdly, the World Cup is always the reason to raise some complex questions that accompany the event. This time everyone started to talk about South Africa. Media and public opinion would focus more interest onto this country, its culture, its people, their lives and their problems. The World Cup -2010 was also the reason to rewind the documentaries and investigations about corruption inside FIFA.
Finally, the European football championship winner is no longer the favourite in the World Cup competition. Let’s wish good luck to Spain! Europeans should cheer up, as Germans have shown a very promising start with that merciless score against Australia. But, why would I say Europeans? Does it seem to be the right identity for the world football competition?
A lot of progressive European citizens might have thought about it. Some friends of mine were wondering if football could ever overcome national ambitions. Or if the EU could ever afford a European football team to represent Europe for the next World Cup, instead of sending France, Slovakia, Germany and others… Nowadays it might sound like a pretty science-fiction scenario. While the European project’s future is so vague, who would wish to have a team as efficient and as quick as the European political process? On the other hand, who knows if the common European football team would see its chances – to win or even to be qualified for the championship – multiplied or divided proportionally to the number of Member States?
Anyway, however utopian might appear the idea, the day a single European football team plays in the World Cup, we’ll be talking of the true European identity. As the football identity is a consolidating factor.
Football is a moderating, generating and peace-keeping action.
The European Parliament, for example, has recently voted to keep on financing the International Funds for Ireland. The latter aims at reconciling the hostile communities in Northern Ireland while investing in sports and associative initiatives, “Football for Peace” being one of its most successful projects. The same sport-based initiative is being used to promote Jewish and Arab community relations and reconciliation. Football is passion, just like jealousy or hatred, in the origin of any conflict. Passion is what makes us complete, fun and vulnerable, split and united in what we share. Passion is irrational, but amongst all sorts of passions, more or less important or sustainable, football is a global one, and, thus, unifying.
 (c) NRK/EBU A contemporary of the European Community, this half-century-old mass cultural phenomenon emerged in the 1950s from an old and ruined continent as a post-war pull Europe together project, an idea to bring countries together in an international broadcasting network. Thus, every year the active member states of the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) send their “best song” to participate in one common television programme. Citizens of all EBU member states can enjoy its live broadcast and vote for their favourite song. As well as in Europe, the Eurovision Song Contest is watched on all the continents.
The Eurovision’s popularity in Western Europe since its very start and until the late 1980s has been steadily decreasing over the last two decades, as the numbers of contest participants has grown. The 1990s brought important geopolitical change and new countries emerged on the European map and the Eurovision stage. With 7 participants in 1956, the Eurovision Song Contest has seen its enlargement year after year, 18 countries joined by the end of 1980s and it welcomed a further 26 members after the “iron curtain” drove into Europe. The latter has seriously shifted the Eurovision results.
Vote-for-neighbour principle
Observations prove a special voting manner. It’s not about the song; it’s about politics and about good neighbourhood policy. The population of one Balkan state would vote for another Balkan participant on Eurovision, Slavic countries would support one of their own, the former Soviet bloc countries would demonstrate solidarity, the same for the Baltic States, the Scandinavians would show complicity. From the early 1990s, France and its old European neighbours saw their score fall – except for last year when France finished 8th! Guess why? It was a smart choice of Patricia Kaas, somehow forgotten here, but extremely popular in the former Soviet countries, who, like Mireille Mathieu, entertains the rich men in private parties there. All in all, Western Europe lost its interest in the Eurovision Song Contest, while even greater importance then ever would be awarded to the song contest in the countries new to Eurovision. Well, I know few French friends who would follow Eurovision, for instance. With no will to compare the incomparable, let’s say the “fatigue” and decreasing interest in the European Union project in some older member states became evident, once the centre of gravity shifted in the enlarged Europe. However, the reasons for it might lay in the contest itself.
So where’s the song?
The principle of choosing the best representative and his/her song varies from country to country and from year to year. It could be either a famous singer or a band, or a fresh Star Academy product. Most participants would compose or translate their song into English, which can’t but render uniform the already standardised character of the competition. This tendency is somewhat criticised. If “l’accent donne du charme” (“the accent lends charm”), it’s definitely not the case for a song; already euro-standardised in genre, its original charm and authenticity is definitely lost in translation. Already used to the Eurovision Top 5 group, several Balkan countries are, however, proud to sing in their native languages. Watch the 2004 Eurovision number 2 – Serbia and Montenegro’s “Lane moje” – or the 2007 winner’s “Molitva”, for example.
The main criticism is actually about the Eurovision entry’s level. We do know celebrities who first appeared in public at the Eurovision Song Contest. ABBA conquered the world with Waterloo, Celine Dion took the most romantic hearts and Dana International’s star rose thanks to the Eurovision network broadcasts. On the other hand, some notorious national bands would even refuse to participate in the national selection, claiming the Eurovision to be below their level.
In fact, the genre of songs is quite common, a uniform and simple melody of the so-called “middle-of-the-road” Eurovision mainstream – or “pop de base” as one would say in French, or “popsa” (попса) as one would say it in Ukrainian – is supposed to suit the wide majority of international spectators. The pop-dance entries are regularly served with some ethnic spices. It’s been very trendy since the “Eurovision enlargement”.
 A song is to be distinguished by a spectacular show. (c) Indrek Galetin (EBU), Alain Douit (EBU) The contest winners and well-rated singers become famous, but most of the Eurovision songs are not remarkable enough. Once you’ve heard it, you forget it. So another stronger impact on a spectator is required: everything but the song, a visual storm. Splashes of colour, dance and acrobat tricks, boys and girls, drums and pianos, orchestras, actors and clowns. A song is to be distinguished by a spectacular show.
So here it is, the perfect Eurovision-appealing, winning song: very pop, better ethnic, rather in English but “VO” (original language) is OK too, and yes – the mere song is not enough! It’s about the show, the “entourage”, it’s about what goes with it on the stage, and the more the better!
Being different on Eurovision
It works sometimes! Turkey dared rock in 2004 and the band went Top 5. How about the Lithuanians laughing at themselves and at Eurovision in 2006? Who’d have thought that a team of national, non-singing celebrities (TV journalists etc) would step up with a song “We are the winners of Eurovision” and be well-scored. And of course, you remember Lordi from Finland, rock band in horrifying masks and costumes… A lot of people would give them a vote “just for fun”.
So, what does Eurovision mean to you? Is it some kind of secondary song contest or an important event to promote your country, its tourist facilities and attractions? Is it like a soccer game to share with your friends in a pub, in a screaming and challenging ambience, well, just for fun?
Ivanna is a freelance journalist, now living in Strasbourg after growing up in the Ukraine. She speaks Ukrainian, English, French, Polish and German. Her specific areas of interest are Human Rights and Europe. Look out for more articles from her in the near future!
|
|
Recent Comments