For the first time, the Cannes International Series Festival, which opens this Friday, will award a special prize for documentaries. Four works have been selected in this new category, including Chevaline. Available in six episodes, the series returns to the drama that took place on the heights of Annecy, September 5, 2012. That day, a family and a cyclist were machine-gunned by a “shooter out of nowhere” , while they were walking “in the middle of the woods, far from the tourist routes”. Ten years later, the series “attempts to put the pieces of the puzzle back together”. Journalist Imen Ghouali, co-director of the documentary, spoke with 20 minutes on this subject.
You are three to have worked on this documentary, how did the collaboration take place?
Initially, it was Sébastien Deurdilly, the boss of Upside Film, who contacted me to work on this case. Initially as a showrunner, then as a director. You should know that upstream, Brendan Kennet [le créateur de la série] who is a journalist, had begun to clear the investigation by having worked a lot on the file. Then, Camille Bouvier-Lapierre, my co-director joined us. I started working on it last January, more than a year ago, both on the investigation, the writing of the episodes, the filming, the editing and all the manufacturing phases.
Why did you decide to make a documentary on the Chevaline massacre?
The idea was to say to oneself “How do you tell a judicial investigation that is spread over ten years? “. It’s an extraordinary case. And to complicate things a bit more, it’s still ongoing. So without outcome. I have been dealing with the judiciary for twenty years, in particular I work a lot for Let the accused enter. Normally, I am only interested in completed and judged cases since that allows to understand, to analyze, to come back to the psychology of each other. There, it is an absolutely heady mystery. To put it trivially, it’s a mystery that drives people crazy because it’s a quadruple murder, a “mass murder”, as the Americans say.
In France, apart from terrorist acts or family dramas, it is rare to have so many victims in a crime like this. And then, in this investigation, there is a colossal and meticulous work but it does not succeed. We still do not know today, more than ten years later, even the motive for these crimes. We don’t even know who was targeted. Was it family? Was it the cyclist? All of this really creates an enthralling enigma. Enigmas that last for decades, there are not many, apart from the Grégory affair.
For the purposes of the documentary, did you have to redo the whole investigation?
In a way, yes, since we went to question the witnesses, the magistrates, the investigators. We went to the field several times in Annecy, England. Afterwards, the goal was not to solve the investigation, the investigators themselves do not succeed. It was to take stock of all these tracks, each more credible than the other. Each time, we believe it. We say to ourselves “Yes, of course! “. But in the end, no. You should know that the English call this file “Yes… But” (Yes… But). Every time we hold something, we say to ourselves “yes, it’s good, there we are” well, no. It’s a file that is particularly interesting, almost intellectually disturbing because, globally in criminal cases, we always have an idea that we manage to prove or not. There, we have a multitude of all valid leads, the investigators work tirelessly but it comes to nothing. Really, it drives me crazy.
I imagine that this aspect had to be integrated into the documentary, so the series format was well suited…
Today, documentary series are appreciated because the series side allows you to serialize. It allows to bring a screenwriting, through which we wonder much more about the narration and the construction than during unit documentaries. At the end of each episode, you have to want to see the next one. There is a whole reflection to be had on the writing: how to tell the things by knowing that it is a business in progress? We cannot, either, allow ourselves to tell everything and anything or even to draw conclusions.
the goal was not to solve the investigation, the investigators themselves do not succeed. It was to take stock of all these tracks, each more credible than the other. »
You were referring to the Grégory affair which was the subject of a documentary series on Netflix, did that inspire you?
No, that didn’t cross my mind. But I know that the series format is of interest, starting with me as a viewer. Like everyone else, I devour a lot. When we talked about this case, we said to ourselves that there was material to make a series but how to make it interesting knowing that it is still a mystery. We had to find the right writing to make six episodes in which we learn things. Much has already been said or written. We wanted to do something that was both interesting and instructive about how an investigation unfolds.
How did you welcome this nomination for the CannesSéries festival?
Pretty good (laughs). We are especially proud that we are the only French documentary series that has been selected. We carry the flag (laughs). But we’re also the only “true crime” series in this competition, so I don’t know how that will be received by the jury.
Where can we see your documentary?
It was made for Canal Plus, so it will be broadcast in linear, on My Canal and all the group’s broadcast media, but I can’t give you a precise date yet (laughs). Probably in the fall…