3rd Castres Short Film Festival: participative film

A louer Study day, during which I presented the first version of the film The unconscious actors. Participative projection.

A participatory film

The proposal I made to those present was, after the film was broadcast, to film, with the same phone, or their own phone, alternative purposes for the film. The 31st sequence shot of the film. Several groups were formed, and produced audiovisual objects. The alternate endings are the videos that are here below the movie.

Theory of Participation

My reflection is that when people are offered an “exercise” of shooting, there is always a communication of their universe. That’s why it seemed to me quite pertinent to propose, after the film was broadcast, a shoot on the same device, the clip. In order to really work on the relationship that is set up. At first glance, it seemed a bit theoretical: indeed, people have just seen the film, yes, but on the one hand they have to “digest” it, and on the other hand, the film is the result of a work approach that is very particular to me. Notably, for this one, a musical illustration that is very important. Some of the small films made during this first experiment really take on aesthetic or thematic traits, some are a little beside. And each one brings his own personality. When I saw them the first time, I did not immediately see the link. And with a little distance, I realize that, more than “alternate ends”, these little films are variations on the themes I propose in the film. Encounters, too, between my gaze, my proposal, and the gaze of each. So it opens up, it destabilizes the building, which is very good, because it helps to enrich it.

Feed the creative process

I realize, to review the little films, that there is a real bond that has been woven, not only an interpretation of my artistic proposal, but an exchange, from films to films, artistic expression. This meeting led me to see this film differently. I am editing the editing. The next projection-workshop will be with a new version of the film, probably a little shorter (I think between 45 and 50 minutes). The experience is original and has, it seems to me, made sense and much interest on the part of the participants. So, I will do it again, in order to clarify how, around the diffusion of a film, of the cinematographic screening device, we can inscribe a proposition of creative practice. There are, of course, a thousand ways of creating links between artists and participants, but it seems to me that this practice within the projection device itself has to be widened. In relation to this film in particular, for future experiments, I think perhaps to include also the musical creation in the device. For example, films should be made on a pre-existing musical soundtrack, or before or after shooting a musical band should be constructed in common. To dig too, to give more “fini” to the films of the participants, while maintaining a light and playful device.
thumbnail Benoît Labourdette
22 April 2009. Published by Leny Müh.

Study day, during which I presented the first version of the film The unconscious actors. Participative projection.

A participatory film

The proposal I made to those present was, after the film was broadcast, to film, with the same phone, or their own phone, alternative purposes for the film. The 31st sequence shot of the film.

Several groups were formed, and produced audiovisual objects. The alternate endings are the videos that are here below the movie.

Theory of Participation

My reflection is that when people are offered an “exercise” of shooting, there is always a communication of their universe. That’s why it seemed to me quite pertinent to propose, after the film was broadcast, a shoot on the same device, the clip. In order to really work on the relationship that is set up.

At first glance, it seemed a bit theoretical: indeed, people have just seen the film, yes, but on the one hand they have to “digest” it, and on the other hand, the film is the result of a work approach that is very particular to me. Notably, for this one, a musical illustration that is very important. Some of the small films made during this first experiment really take on aesthetic or thematic traits, some are a little beside. And each one brings his own personality. When I saw them the first time, I did not immediately see the link. And with a little distance, I realize that, more than “alternate ends”, these little films are variations on the themes I propose in the film. Encounters, too, between my gaze, my proposal, and the gaze of each. So it opens up, it destabilizes the building, which is very good, because it helps to enrich it.

Feed the creative process

I realize, to review the little films, that there is a real bond that has been woven, not only an interpretation of my artistic proposal, but an exchange, from films to films, artistic expression.

This meeting led me to see this film differently. I am editing the editing. The next projection-workshop will be with a new version of the film, probably a little shorter (I think between 45 and 50 minutes).

The experience is original and has, it seems to me, made sense and much interest on the part of the participants. So, I will do it again, in order to clarify how, around the diffusion of a film, of the cinematographic screening device, we can inscribe a proposition of creative practice. There are, of course, a thousand ways of creating links between artists and participants, but it seems to me that this practice within the projection device itself has to be widened.

In relation to this film in particular, for future experiments, I think perhaps to include also the musical creation in the device. For example, films should be made on a pre-existing musical soundtrack, or before or after shooting a musical band should be constructed in common. To dig too, to give more “fini” to the films of the participants, while maintaining a light and playful device.

Deux
Deux Study day, during which I presented the first version of the film The unconscious actors. Participative projection.

A participatory film

The proposal I made to those present was, after the film was broadcast, to film, with the same phone, or their own phone, alternative purposes for the film. The 31st sequence shot of the film. Several groups were formed, and produced audiovisual objects. The alternate endings are the videos that are here below the movie.

Theory of Participation

My reflection is that when people are offered an “exercise” of shooting, there is always a communication of their universe. That’s why it seemed to me quite pertinent to propose, after the film was broadcast, a shoot on the same device, the clip. In order to really work on the relationship that is set up. At first glance, it seemed a bit theoretical: indeed, people have just seen the film, yes, but on the one hand they have to “digest” it, and on the other hand, the film is the result of a work approach that is very particular to me. Notably, for this one, a musical illustration that is very important. Some of the small films made during this first experiment really take on aesthetic or thematic traits, some are a little beside. And each one brings his own personality. When I saw them the first time, I did not immediately see the link. And with a little distance, I realize that, more than “alternate ends”, these little films are variations on the themes I propose in the film. Encounters, too, between my gaze, my proposal, and the gaze of each. So it opens up, it destabilizes the building, which is very good, because it helps to enrich it.

Feed the creative process

I realize, to review the little films, that there is a real bond that has been woven, not only an interpretation of my artistic proposal, but an exchange, from films to films, artistic expression. This meeting led me to see this film differently. I am editing the editing. The next projection-workshop will be with a new version of the film, probably a little shorter (I think between 45 and 50 minutes). The experience is original and has, it seems to me, made sense and much interest on the part of the participants. So, I will do it again, in order to clarify how, around the diffusion of a film, of the cinematographic screening device, we can inscribe a proposition of creative practice. There are, of course, a thousand ways of creating links between artists and participants, but it seems to me that this practice within the projection device itself has to be widened. In relation to this film in particular, for future experiments, I think perhaps to include also the musical creation in the device. For example, films should be made on a pre-existing musical soundtrack, or before or after shooting a musical band should be constructed in common. To dig too, to give more “fini” to the films of the participants, while maintaining a light and playful device.
thumbnail Benoît Labourdette
Eructation
Eructation Study day, during which I presented the first version of the film The unconscious actors. Participative projection.

A participatory film

The proposal I made to those present was, after the film was broadcast, to film, with the same phone, or their own phone, alternative purposes for the film. The 31st sequence shot of the film. Several groups were formed, and produced audiovisual objects. The alternate endings are the videos that are here below the movie.

Theory of Participation

My reflection is that when people are offered an “exercise” of shooting, there is always a communication of their universe. That’s why it seemed to me quite pertinent to propose, after the film was broadcast, a shoot on the same device, the clip. In order to really work on the relationship that is set up. At first glance, it seemed a bit theoretical: indeed, people have just seen the film, yes, but on the one hand they have to “digest” it, and on the other hand, the film is the result of a work approach that is very particular to me. Notably, for this one, a musical illustration that is very important. Some of the small films made during this first experiment really take on aesthetic or thematic traits, some are a little beside. And each one brings his own personality. When I saw them the first time, I did not immediately see the link. And with a little distance, I realize that, more than “alternate ends”, these little films are variations on the themes I propose in the film. Encounters, too, between my gaze, my proposal, and the gaze of each. So it opens up, it destabilizes the building, which is very good, because it helps to enrich it.

Feed the creative process

I realize, to review the little films, that there is a real bond that has been woven, not only an interpretation of my artistic proposal, but an exchange, from films to films, artistic expression. This meeting led me to see this film differently. I am editing the editing. The next projection-workshop will be with a new version of the film, probably a little shorter (I think between 45 and 50 minutes). The experience is original and has, it seems to me, made sense and much interest on the part of the participants. So, I will do it again, in order to clarify how, around the diffusion of a film, of the cinematographic screening device, we can inscribe a proposition of creative practice. There are, of course, a thousand ways of creating links between artists and participants, but it seems to me that this practice within the projection device itself has to be widened. In relation to this film in particular, for future experiments, I think perhaps to include also the musical creation in the device. For example, films should be made on a pre-existing musical soundtrack, or before or after shooting a musical band should be constructed in common. To dig too, to give more “fini” to the films of the participants, while maintaining a light and playful device.
thumbnail Benoît Labourdette
Indécision
Indécision Study day, during which I presented the first version of the film The unconscious actors. Participative projection.

A participatory film

The proposal I made to those present was, after the film was broadcast, to film, with the same phone, or their own phone, alternative purposes for the film. The 31st sequence shot of the film. Several groups were formed, and produced audiovisual objects. The alternate endings are the videos that are here below the movie.

Theory of Participation

My reflection is that when people are offered an “exercise” of shooting, there is always a communication of their universe. That’s why it seemed to me quite pertinent to propose, after the film was broadcast, a shoot on the same device, the clip. In order to really work on the relationship that is set up. At first glance, it seemed a bit theoretical: indeed, people have just seen the film, yes, but on the one hand they have to “digest” it, and on the other hand, the film is the result of a work approach that is very particular to me. Notably, for this one, a musical illustration that is very important. Some of the small films made during this first experiment really take on aesthetic or thematic traits, some are a little beside. And each one brings his own personality. When I saw them the first time, I did not immediately see the link. And with a little distance, I realize that, more than “alternate ends”, these little films are variations on the themes I propose in the film. Encounters, too, between my gaze, my proposal, and the gaze of each. So it opens up, it destabilizes the building, which is very good, because it helps to enrich it.

Feed the creative process

I realize, to review the little films, that there is a real bond that has been woven, not only an interpretation of my artistic proposal, but an exchange, from films to films, artistic expression. This meeting led me to see this film differently. I am editing the editing. The next projection-workshop will be with a new version of the film, probably a little shorter (I think between 45 and 50 minutes). The experience is original and has, it seems to me, made sense and much interest on the part of the participants. So, I will do it again, in order to clarify how, around the diffusion of a film, of the cinematographic screening device, we can inscribe a proposition of creative practice. There are, of course, a thousand ways of creating links between artists and participants, but it seems to me that this practice within the projection device itself has to be widened. In relation to this film in particular, for future experiments, I think perhaps to include also the musical creation in the device. For example, films should be made on a pre-existing musical soundtrack, or before or after shooting a musical band should be constructed in common. To dig too, to give more “fini” to the films of the participants, while maintaining a light and playful device.
thumbnail Benoît Labourdette
Pause clope
Pause clope Study day, during which I presented the first version of the film The unconscious actors. Participative projection.

A participatory film

The proposal I made to those present was, after the film was broadcast, to film, with the same phone, or their own phone, alternative purposes for the film. The 31st sequence shot of the film. Several groups were formed, and produced audiovisual objects. The alternate endings are the videos that are here below the movie.

Theory of Participation

My reflection is that when people are offered an “exercise” of shooting, there is always a communication of their universe. That’s why it seemed to me quite pertinent to propose, after the film was broadcast, a shoot on the same device, the clip. In order to really work on the relationship that is set up. At first glance, it seemed a bit theoretical: indeed, people have just seen the film, yes, but on the one hand they have to “digest” it, and on the other hand, the film is the result of a work approach that is very particular to me. Notably, for this one, a musical illustration that is very important. Some of the small films made during this first experiment really take on aesthetic or thematic traits, some are a little beside. And each one brings his own personality. When I saw them the first time, I did not immediately see the link. And with a little distance, I realize that, more than “alternate ends”, these little films are variations on the themes I propose in the film. Encounters, too, between my gaze, my proposal, and the gaze of each. So it opens up, it destabilizes the building, which is very good, because it helps to enrich it.

Feed the creative process

I realize, to review the little films, that there is a real bond that has been woven, not only an interpretation of my artistic proposal, but an exchange, from films to films, artistic expression. This meeting led me to see this film differently. I am editing the editing. The next projection-workshop will be with a new version of the film, probably a little shorter (I think between 45 and 50 minutes). The experience is original and has, it seems to me, made sense and much interest on the part of the participants. So, I will do it again, in order to clarify how, around the diffusion of a film, of the cinematographic screening device, we can inscribe a proposition of creative practice. There are, of course, a thousand ways of creating links between artists and participants, but it seems to me that this practice within the projection device itself has to be widened. In relation to this film in particular, for future experiments, I think perhaps to include also the musical creation in the device. For example, films should be made on a pre-existing musical soundtrack, or before or after shooting a musical band should be constructed in common. To dig too, to give more “fini” to the films of the participants, while maintaining a light and playful device.
thumbnail Benoît Labourdette
Schht
Schht Study day, during which I presented the first version of the film The unconscious actors. Participative projection.

A participatory film

The proposal I made to those present was, after the film was broadcast, to film, with the same phone, or their own phone, alternative purposes for the film. The 31st sequence shot of the film. Several groups were formed, and produced audiovisual objects. The alternate endings are the videos that are here below the movie.

Theory of Participation

My reflection is that when people are offered an “exercise” of shooting, there is always a communication of their universe. That’s why it seemed to me quite pertinent to propose, after the film was broadcast, a shoot on the same device, the clip. In order to really work on the relationship that is set up. At first glance, it seemed a bit theoretical: indeed, people have just seen the film, yes, but on the one hand they have to “digest” it, and on the other hand, the film is the result of a work approach that is very particular to me. Notably, for this one, a musical illustration that is very important. Some of the small films made during this first experiment really take on aesthetic or thematic traits, some are a little beside. And each one brings his own personality. When I saw them the first time, I did not immediately see the link. And with a little distance, I realize that, more than “alternate ends”, these little films are variations on the themes I propose in the film. Encounters, too, between my gaze, my proposal, and the gaze of each. So it opens up, it destabilizes the building, which is very good, because it helps to enrich it.

Feed the creative process

I realize, to review the little films, that there is a real bond that has been woven, not only an interpretation of my artistic proposal, but an exchange, from films to films, artistic expression. This meeting led me to see this film differently. I am editing the editing. The next projection-workshop will be with a new version of the film, probably a little shorter (I think between 45 and 50 minutes). The experience is original and has, it seems to me, made sense and much interest on the part of the participants. So, I will do it again, in order to clarify how, around the diffusion of a film, of the cinematographic screening device, we can inscribe a proposition of creative practice. There are, of course, a thousand ways of creating links between artists and participants, but it seems to me that this practice within the projection device itself has to be widened. In relation to this film in particular, for future experiments, I think perhaps to include also the musical creation in the device. For example, films should be made on a pre-existing musical soundtrack, or before or after shooting a musical band should be constructed in common. To dig too, to give more “fini” to the films of the participants, while maintaining a light and playful device.
thumbnail Benoît Labourdette
Un
Un Study day, during which I presented the first version of the film The unconscious actors. Participative projection.

A participatory film

The proposal I made to those present was, after the film was broadcast, to film, with the same phone, or their own phone, alternative purposes for the film. The 31st sequence shot of the film. Several groups were formed, and produced audiovisual objects. The alternate endings are the videos that are here below the movie.

Theory of Participation

My reflection is that when people are offered an “exercise” of shooting, there is always a communication of their universe. That’s why it seemed to me quite pertinent to propose, after the film was broadcast, a shoot on the same device, the clip. In order to really work on the relationship that is set up. At first glance, it seemed a bit theoretical: indeed, people have just seen the film, yes, but on the one hand they have to “digest” it, and on the other hand, the film is the result of a work approach that is very particular to me. Notably, for this one, a musical illustration that is very important. Some of the small films made during this first experiment really take on aesthetic or thematic traits, some are a little beside. And each one brings his own personality. When I saw them the first time, I did not immediately see the link. And with a little distance, I realize that, more than “alternate ends”, these little films are variations on the themes I propose in the film. Encounters, too, between my gaze, my proposal, and the gaze of each. So it opens up, it destabilizes the building, which is very good, because it helps to enrich it.

Feed the creative process

I realize, to review the little films, that there is a real bond that has been woven, not only an interpretation of my artistic proposal, but an exchange, from films to films, artistic expression. This meeting led me to see this film differently. I am editing the editing. The next projection-workshop will be with a new version of the film, probably a little shorter (I think between 45 and 50 minutes). The experience is original and has, it seems to me, made sense and much interest on the part of the participants. So, I will do it again, in order to clarify how, around the diffusion of a film, of the cinematographic screening device, we can inscribe a proposition of creative practice. There are, of course, a thousand ways of creating links between artists and participants, but it seems to me that this practice within the projection device itself has to be widened. In relation to this film in particular, for future experiments, I think perhaps to include also the musical creation in the device. For example, films should be made on a pre-existing musical soundtrack, or before or after shooting a musical band should be constructed in common. To dig too, to give more “fini” to the films of the participants, while maintaining a light and playful device.
thumbnail Benoît Labourdette
Download

You will find here some traces of the diffusion of Benoît Labourdette’s films off the Internet: exhibitions, screenings, festivals... coming and past. Non-exhaustive list.

Into section Distribution of films