(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
From the debut with Titicut Follies In 1967, which depicted a mental hospital for criminals, American documentary filmmaker Frederick Wiseman has devoted much of his career to making films from various institutions. With his studies of, among others, hospitals, universities and military organizations created the well-known direct cinemadirector a school for observational "institutional films".
Here at home, Margreth Olin is among the filmmakers who have followed this tradition. IN Dei soft hands og The cruelty of youth she portrayed a retirement home and a secondary school respectively, while her latest and most accomplished observational film, Childhood, shows the play in a nursery.
French filmmaker Claire Simon's latest documentary The Graduation is also one such "fly on the wall" movie from an institution. Here, Simon points the camera at a central institution in his own industry, namely the state-run French film school La Fémis – and more specifically its intense and extensive recording rounds.
Thus, the distributor should have chosen a more direct translation of the original title The Contest (which means "the competition") rather than the film's misleading international title The Graduation. First and foremost because Simon's documentary is not about the school's graduation, but about the process of selecting new student coals. But also because it focuses on just that competition one must through to be accepted at the well-reputed educational institution, which can boast names such as Louis Malle, Theo Angelopoulos, Costa-Gavras, Claire Denis, François Ozon, Sólveig Anspach and our own Eskil Vogt among his former students.
Comprehensive process. The school's entrance exams extend over several months. Naturally, these tests take different forms depending on the preferred field of study, which embraces from script and directing via clips and sound design to film distribution and cinema management. The candidates for the various lines are considered by professionals from the industry, in line with the school's peculiar philosophy of not having regular teachers, but instead hiring filmmakers and other performers in the sector to share their experiences.
This two-hour film consists of a series of longer sequences from different parts of the selection process, presented chronologically from first attendance to final decision – and subsequent portrayal of the lucky selected. A more obvious choice might have been to follow the same candidates throughout the race, but Simon's focus is on working with, and thinking about, the selections. Consequently, it is more about the recording committees than the applicants, in a film that gives the viewer the opportunity to evaluate the evaluation itself – or at least reflect on this form of selection.
If you are to find tomorrow's innovators of film art, you have to be open to a certain portion of madness.
Talent Competition. The selection committees must necessarily make judgments based on discretion and subjectivity, and ultimately the decisions may rest on the ability of the various committee members to argue their favorites. Occasionally, the process may almost appear as a competition in talent à la Idol or X-Factor where the candidates try to impress a jury, who will then evaluate their abilities and potential (in this case, albeit after the candidate has left the room). But then also these admission rounds are basically a talent competition, and only a taste of the competition that awaits the students after they possibly complete the education.
However, the applicant's talent need not be completely redeemed, as he or she will probably develop further during the study period. In order to assess how the candidate will work in this process and then in the industry, the committee must also make a far-reaching evaluation of his or her personality.
When considering a relatively eccentric candidate, one of the committee members expresses their fear of "refusing a Cronenberg" – with the Canadian filmmaker as an example of the "crazy but brilliant" artist. Here, the film faces a significant challenge in such selections: If one is to find tomorrow's innovators of film art, one must be open to a certain portion of madness, and personalities that are unlikely to be obedient pattern students. At the same time, one must bear in mind that making films – probably more than any other art form – requires good communication and collaboration skills. And then maybe most of all with directors.
With his consistently observational approach, filmmaker Simon – who is also the film's main photographer – has come close to the various interviews and evaluations. For those involved, it is obviously a both demanding and vulnerable situation that is documented on film, at the same time as it is a process of some public interest.
There is no human right to make movies – or to get a place at a prestigious film school.
The undersigned then filmed the film at the documentary film festival in Thessaloniki, with Simon present to meet the audience after the screening. Here she explained that everyone who filmed had given their written consent in advance, and that applicants who were not selected for school were free to withdraw from the film. In addition, members of the recording committees saw the sequences with themselves in the locker room, and could then also ask to be removed from the documentary – which none of them did, according to the director.
Right of access. Simon himself has taught at La Fémis for several years, which one can assume has been an advantage in gaining the necessary confidence to carry out this film project. In an interview with American Film Comment (published March 15), she says just as well that she argued that a tax-funded educational institution has no right to deny the public access to how it works, something the school principal must have agreed.
The filmmaker's relationship with the institution, however, does not characterize the film in any clear polemic direction, as she, with her almost anthropological gaze, leaves to the viewer to draw conclusions about the depicted selection process. Although the admissions committees at La Fémis seem to carry out their work thoroughly and conscientiously, a great number of factors influence their decisions – some undoubtedly more random and less fair than others. In this way, the film is also a sobering reminder that there is no human right to make film, nor to get a place at a prestigious film school.
But first and foremost gives The Graduation a fascinating insight into a process that usually takes place behind well-closed doors, and with this it raises some interesting questions about the competition behind the arts.
