Robert Guédiguian is on all fronts (from the left). His film Twist in Bamako , in theaters since Wednesday, looks back on the attempt to set up a socialist regime in Mali in 1962. The director with the warm accent also signs Will the Lendemains sing again?, book of fascinating discussions on politics with journalist Christophe Kantcheff, published by Les Liens qui libéré.
A good opportunity to ask the filmmaker to comment on the news and to deliver his prognosis as to the left’s chances for the future presidential election.
“Twist à Bamako” has been released in theaters, but can you imagine that it could be produced by a platform like Prime Video or Netflix?
In principle, I am against it. I defend the idea that a film is released first in theaters for an audience that chooses to watch it attentively, then that it goes on television where it will undoubtedly be watched in a less respectful manner. Now, if I can’t produce a film other than on a platform and I am guaranteed that I will have complete freedom over the content, I will say yes. What matters is being able to express your ideas.
Do you think that the cinema can still be a political weapon?
It is a way of moving, of “setting in motion” if we take the etymology of this verb. We more often appeal to emotions than to directly political arguments, even if we sometimes manage to slip in a little analysis, just to question reality and make the viewer question. A film can serve as a banner. In all movements, we need songs, signs that tell about the movement in which we are located. It’s like music that accompanies a walk. I saw the titles of some of my films on banners in demonstrations. I am proud of it even if it involves responsibilities that I am well aware of when I speak.
Don’t you have the impression, by your commitment, that you are only preaching to converts?
It is not bad to preach to converts because they have to stay that way! Since we basically agree between people who want to go to the same place, we can talk about the details, try to improve things. I will not convince someone who wants to vote Zemmour. This person is not going to see my movies and not buy my book anyway. I try to bring together people who are already acquired to confront them in their ideas and keep them in action.
Speaking of ideas, how did you react to the release of Emmanuel Marcon who says he wants to “piss off” the unvaccinated French?
It is customary for these language differences, but this does not happen when you are President of the Republic. Using swear words to put oneself at what he considers to be the level of the voters, or to think that if we do not let ourselves be governed it is because we do not understand what is happening, shows the same contempt. I think above all that Macron is stimulating the discussion on the vaccine pass so that we avoid talking about purchasing power.
Do you understand the reactions of people who oppose the vaccine?
We will have to take the time to analyze what happened to arrive at such a refusal, far from the passions that divide France for the moment. What worries me is that the rejection of a form of knowledge can be certified, legitimate. As if the point of view of a bistro owner – and I have nothing against this profession – is found on the same level as that of a professor at the Collège de France on the same subject. It seems serious to me. “When the pupils do not listen to the teachers, it is the beginning of tyranny”, said Plato.
Doesn’t this mistrust correspond to a more general mistrust of authority?
Indeed, I bring it back to a general societal question which means that we no longer believe anyone. That we no longer believe the politicians, okay, but we no longer believe the scientists, the teachers, our parents… It starts to do a lot. There has to be, at some point, a structuring of the world, even if it means revolting afterwards. There can be no revolution without a basic structure.
Do you agree with the current sanitary measures?
I have no religion on this subject. I am triply vaccinated and I see that all countries are trying to find a solution to solve this damn situation. Whatever may be said, the French are disciplined: although we talk a lot about those who protest, they are not numerous. We are one of the most vaccinated countries in the world. What is certain is that all measures must be lifted as soon as the epidemic stops. We can accept the principle of controls, even if we are reluctant on this subject, but it must be transitory.
Do you think the world can still change despite globalization?
The current circumstances – climate upheaval, pandemic – would rather be conducive to producing a counter-culture, a “counter-society” into which the left could rush into. I believe that “to something bad is good”. If the left takes a real pants off in the presidential election, it will be necessary for the leaders, the staffs and the militants to revise their copy, return to the fundamentals and finally unite on a community of ideas.
The union of the left as we talk about it today, don’t you believe it?
The left is in bad shape. In my opinion, it’s screwed up for the presidential election. It would take an earthquake to make things right. Only a miracle would push the left to unite. And I don’t believe it. If there is no miracle, there will be no union of the left in the Presidential election. For me, the union of the left is that of ALL the left, I insist on capital letters. And without Mélenchon, it would have no meaning. It seems to me impossible to achieve this.
Did you believe it at one time?
Yes, when Mélenchon almost scored 20% in the 2017 presidential election, it was great news that reminded me of a similar score from the Communist Party in the 1970s. That Sunday night, if he had made a statement by saying that he opened the doors by placing himself as leader of the left, he would have been a hit. This is what François Mitterrand would have done, I am convinced of it. But Mélenchon divides the world into two: the people and the “caste”. It doesn’t work that way. The people as a mass no longer exist because no one has the same interests. We have to get used to it and rather try to bring together the different sensitivities by relying on what remains of common bases.
Can this failure explain the rise of the far right?
Yes, because faced with the collapse of the left, many people are convinced that we could try something else. As if putting everything on the backs of immigration could erase their misfortunes and see a solution. It’s rubbish, but we immediately understand what it is. The left no longer has such a clear, crisp and precise slogan. Above all, it no longer carries any hope of an immediate solution.
Is the passage through an extreme right government essential for the left to reinvent itself?
I never believed in the victory of the extreme right in France, which does not prevent me from fighting against these ideas. I do not believe that the worst can lead to improvements. The worst always brings the worst!
How do you explain that people are going to vote less and less?
Candidates say a lot of bullshit and a lot of times it doesn’t fly very high. Take Hidalgo and his idea of doubling the salaries of teachers… And this is not the only one that is neither realistic, nor poetic, nor lyrical, nor philosophical. Often the candidates have no vision. It is not motivating.
Are you pessimistic about the future?
I refuse to be. This certain failure of the left in the Presidential election must lead to a reflection for the legislative elections. If we want change, we absolutely have to say to ourselves that it would be unacceptable for there not to be a very large and massive union in the legislative elections. There has never been any change in France without an alliance between reformist and revolutionary currents. The rebels, what remains of the Communist Party and the Socialist Party and the environmentalists must unite. Otherwise they will never get power. There has been no historical example to the contrary for 150 years. But to the question posed by the title of my book Will the Lendemains sing again?, I force myself to answer “yes”, if only to find the courage to continue the fight.