Following a request from the CST, the Union has given thought to the reform of the César Academy…

Founded in January 2019, the Union quickly became highly representative of the cinematographer’s profession — representative of the great diversity of practices and sectors of activity, but also representative of every generation, and committed to placing cinematographers on an equal footing regardless of gender.

Gender parity is thus an objective already achieved within the Union’s Board, which also takes care to ensure transparency in its electoral process. The Union can therefore only welcome the idea that the César Academy should, in future, be led by a gender-balanced board, elected transparently.

Like parity, the representation of different generations and of diversity lies at the heart of our association. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the proposed reform of the Académie des Césars’ statutes, as communicated to us a few days ago.

This reform seems very unambitious in one respect: it does not propose genuinely inclusive recruitment. Women, young filmmakers and social diversity are still not addressed, even though this default disregard was at the root of the recent scandals that shook the Césars.

As a preliminary point, it seems to us that the way this reform is being carried out contradicts it from the outset: it is being drawn up from within the very mechanisms it is meant to reform. The current college of voters (tasked with appointing a new board) is the only body called upon to implement its own reform, by establishing the new rules that would open up that same college. Isn’t there a contradiction in terms here?

For our part, it is important not to lose sight of this fact: these voters, as they have been assembled over the decades of the Césars’ existence, are not representative — neither of those who make films (artists or technicians, young or old, men or women, with roots in the North or the South), nor of those who go and see them. Women are scandalously under-represented. Young people are only admitted among actors, and even then, with a great deal of condescension. As for social diversity, it is barely more than a token gesture.

Widening the college of voters therefore seems to us a necessity.

Let us now turn to the key points we have identified in the current reform proposal, based on the former definition of the voting colleges:

1. Technicians’ college: eligibility requires “having contributed, in the five years preceding their application for admission, to the making of at least three feature-length films selected to compete for the Best Film César.” On this point, we particularly note this definition as it applies to the technicians’ college, though it seems no less absurd for other colleges. Why absurd? Because it denies the existence of those taking their first steps. Most of us need years, even decades, of practice before being entrusted with a position of importance on a feature film. A single film should therefore be enough to gain access to this form of recognition which, for professionals, means the possibility of being represented at the Césars — and of being able to vote. Incidentally, we note the omission of at least one profession among those the Césars are willing to recognise: that of 1^st assistant camera. This is one of the indispensable positions on any shoot, whatever it may be. Since the advent of digital image capture and post-production, the responsibilities of the camera assistant have grown considerably. Under labour law, the camera assistant holds management-level status. And this omission is underlined by the presence, among the eligible positions, of the sound assistant — image and sound assistants form a duo that is barely separable, in every crew. To recognise one and not the other is a regrettable, and irritating, oversight.
2. But let us widen this debate on the number of films required for election within each of the Academy’s colleges: why recognise only “feature-length films”, and not shorts? And what about feature-length documentaries? While they may be implicitly covered by the term “feature-length cinematographic film”, it would do no harm to specify that creative documentaries released in cinemas are included. And let us widen the debate further to the other colleges: 5 films for actors, 3 films for writers, 2 films for directors — this is just as absurd. We note in passing that the producers’ college is the only one that recognises short films, which introduces a discrimination (regrettable, again) against all the other colleges. Incidentally, we also note that having won an Oscar remains an exceptional dispensation for entry into the Academy: this seems to us a survival from a bygone age, in which the Césars could only derive legitimacy from their American model. We are past that point, don’t you think? In short: these colleges must be opened up, particularly to young people and to women, who make up many of the new entrants. Experienced professionals must no longer be left out of representation — professionals who, as things stand, may have contributed for decades to national cinematography without ever having had a say. Shouldn’t the Academy ensure that each of its members, equally, is given a representation and visibility that honours them, and the whole of French cinema production?
3. Aware that opening up to a large number of voters would make financial balance difficult to achieve, we propose that the “César boxed set” should now be made available through a digital release (secure streaming, with a limited validity period). This would allow the most fragile productions to feature in this pre-selection, and would ensure better image quality (HD). And yet this option has been ruled out of the proposed reform, on the pretext that it would be impossible to implement without risking piracy of the works.
   – This impossibility has yet to be demonstrated.
   – The risk mentioned is no greater than with a DVD, since any geek over the age of 14 knows how to crack a DVD and share it online.
   – Furthermore, regarding membership fees, we take up here the idea of Angelo Cosimano, president of the CST, of splitting it in two: a compulsory portion, to pay dues as a member of the Academy, and an optional portion, for participation in producing the César DVD boxed set, should it be retained (for reference, last year’s membership fee stood at €90, for the roughly 4,600 members of the former-style colleges).
4. Another absurdity: the “Audience César”. This is a minor point, but one that allows us to introduce an important new idea. This César is absurd because it is subject to a purely quantitative, box-office-counting approach to a film’s quality. This is not about disparaging mainstream films, of course, but assessing their quality solely on the basis of ticket sales strikes us as rather reductive. The old-style Academy must surely have realised this, since rather than awarding this prize to the single film with the highest admissions, it chose (this year, in 2020) to ask Academy members to vote among the 5 films with the highest admissions, reintroducing a degree of judgement into what would otherwise be an automatic prize. But it seems to us that this award could be an opportunity to introduce among the voters a new college, that of the audience. To involve this audience, a selection of viewers could be organised, drawn at random from a list of volunteers. This would also be an opportunity to bring some parity to these colleges: among all the volunteer viewers wishing to take part in the vote, these volunteers would be divided between men on one hand and women on the other, and an equal number of men and women would then be drawn at random. These voters could then vote specifically for the Audience Award, at the very least — and why not, indeed, for the others too.
5. To ensure transparency, and to rule out any accusation that some mysterious caste alone decides on the awarding of prizes and the organisation of the ceremony, the list of voters and their breakdown by college should be made public. In this way, the Césars would demonstrate their genuine will to move beyond an insularity whose (unfortunate, still, always) consequences no longer need to be proven.

This is the state of our thinking to date — thinking that has had to be done urgently, in response to the CST’s invitation, and the CNC’s directive. We hope decision-makers will have taken the time to read it. If our proposals seem radical, this is not out of a taste for provocation. Since the César Academy’s governance must be reformed, let us do it together, certainly, but let us do it honestly — including among the voters a young and diverse population, in which women are properly represented.

We, the cinematographers of the Union, believe that the Césars are a showcase for our profession, one so close to our hearts and our craft that even in this period of grave and violent crisis, we do not intend to abandon it.

Cinematography, in all its forms, is our life.

“Let us demand for cinema the right to be judged only on its promises.” — René Clair