The Chronicle of a Film
The Chronicle of a Film is described by Edgar Morin as a study and ethnographic film. "This film is a science project," Edgar says. "Paris is the setting for this study" (463). Morin states that the film is not imaginary, but rather about actual people. What people really do in everyday life. It is also a test of the performers' and writers' personal lives.
Morin's Definition of Cinéma Vérité
Morin identifies cinéma vérité as "fictional films that try to portray real-life realities but end up distorting the reality." "Soviet cinema of the Grande Epoque, and then films like Le voleur de bicyelette," Morin explains (461). According to Morin, cinéma vérité describes the attempts to produce a non-fictional film full of fictional aspects. The production of The Summer Chronicles is a new cinéma vérité because it tries to give the realities of life in a way that documentaries and news reports have not.
Morin's Interest in Filmmaking
Morin's interest in filmmaking is to present how people live their real lives. Morin says ". . . There is one truth that cannot be captured by fictional films, and that is the authenticity of life as it is lived" (461).
Morin's Approach to Filmmaking
Morin says the film will be made through "cinematographic interrogation" (463), seeking to get answers on how different people live their lives, their style of life, the attitudes they have towards themselves and towards others. How they conceive their most profound problems and the solutions they have to those problems (464).
Differences between Morin and Jean Rouch
Morin's ideas about editing the film depart from those of Jean Rouch on who or what to make the central point of focus. Jean Rouch thinks the individuals should be the center of attention based on the fact that they changed their views over time so that they can see the realities of inconsistency. According to Rouch, the way people evolved during the production of the film was so interesting that it was important to present the outcome of their own evolution. Morin, on the other hand, believes the focus should be on the overall "global problem of life in Paris" (466) and not make individuals film heroes. What's interesting about Rouch and Morin's differences is that both attempt to achieve the new cinéma vérité but using diverse angles.
Engaging the Audience
Morin and his team had intended to have the film involve the viewer, but its presentation did not engage the audience in a manner they are used to. According to Morin, the film was supposed to engage viewers but in an unexpected manner. Therefore, the viewers would have gotten more involved only if they had questioned themselves about how they lived their lives. Morin describes the audience response as ". . . More diverse (468) and in his view the diversity was more than that of aesthetic judgment but also of attitude towards the truth, towards what one should not say, towards what one has the right to say and towards others.
Direct Contact with Life
Morin and his team have a direct contact with life by watching and recording personal reflections of participants, especially those of Marceline. The scene where Marceline talks about herself and tells of her deportation at the age of fifteen is an experience with real life. Marceline speaks with a shaken voice and tears in her eyes giving life to the traumatic memories. Furthermore, shots of Marceline are mainly single shots which expose the vulnerability of a fifteen-year-old girl in the hands of oppressive authorities.
Changing Meaning of the Question
The film was produced as a way of getting to understand the lives of participants. However, the interactions between participants changed the meaning of the question "how do you live." People tended to answer the question based on who is hearing and what they have just heard. Rouch exemplifies this influence when he says "Sometimes people contradict themselves in a fantastic way" (465).
Works Cited
Morin, Edgar. Chronicle of a Film (1962.
