Activities Report > 2003-2004 Activities Report >

President’s Report

The Documentary Network has kept the promises we made when we created it, in January 2003, after several years of maturing, a metamorphosis or two, and a host of compelling reasons why it should exist.

I use the term maturing advisedly, for the Network can already boast a history all its own. One of the highlights of the second Forum, held in tandem with the Rencontres internationales du documentaire de Montréal (RIDM), was Michel Houle’s report on the state of documentary filmmaking in Canada. At the close of the plenary session, I stressed the need for ongoing contact among participants—numbering some three dozen agencies and organizations—committed to defending the documentary. Almost as an afterthought, I raised the possibility of setting up a supervisory body, something along the lines of a ‘documentary watch.’ Some of those in attendance may have taken my remarks, made in the festive atmosphere of that evening, as one of those proposals designed to be forgotten. Others—some of whom are now members of this very Board of Directors—made it a priority.

Kirwan Cox went on to do follow-up research under the auspices of the RIDM and of the Documentary Network as a ‘department’ of the Rencontres, but as an entity it lacked legal standing. As an idea, however, it’s time had come.

A series of studies commissioned by the RIDM, as well as its associated Forums, had already confirmed the liveliness of debate, the desire for cohesion among partners, and the necessity for dialogue with institutions and government agencies. It had become clear that we shared an interest in documentary cinema. All that remained was to go deeper into what we meant by documentary, by way of defining our common ground. The reason was simple: when we speak of the concepts of independent or creative documentary, of point of view, we should all be promoting the same thing.

From idea to application, several obstacles had to be overcome. We had to surmount the prejudices and the suspicions that the concept aroused. To many it seemed synonymous with neutral moral authority, a sort of ombudsman’s office whose task it would be to oversee polite and orderly dialogue. I believed we needed a better definition, one that would express the convergence of many distinct points of view, the better to analyse and compare them, all in the spirit of enriching our shared outlook. This placed us in opposition to all forms of established truth: close to Galileo, far from the Pope.

Today, we have come to understand that the Documentary Network is a virtual space in which we can pursue common aims, maintain our vigilance, exchange knowledge, share information. The Documentary Network is in the process of devising its own analytical instruments, its own criteria, its own definitions—in a word, its own sense of objectivity—by allowing each of its members to compare, and to take the full measure of their practices, experiences, methods, interests and realities. That would make it quite like the art of documentary filmmaking itself, which could be summed up in Gaston Bachelard’s expression: “The real is not given; it is constructed.”

These then are the founding principles of the Documentary Network, its very raison d’être: to defend the fundamental values of creative freedom for the documentary and for its filmmakers, in terms of its distribution, its place in society, its economy and its diversity.

As an undertaking, it is fraught with risks and rife with pitfalls. For we construct our criteria, our knowledge and our tools as we go, each in his or her area of interest. In the fifteen months that now lie behind us, as we can conclude from a close reading of the report presented by Managing Director Lucette Lupien—whose determination, exceptional energy and knowledge of the field are truly remarkable—that we have indeed used all the means at our disposal, never shrinking from the risks inherent in joining the fray.

Perhaps the outstanding conclusion is that the Documentary Network owes its credibility to the cohesion of its members, the appropriateness of its actions, its ability to put forward clear, well-structured arguments, and to an ethical stance that is never taken for granted.

This is why the Documentary Network has proven its usefulness and its necessity on the Quebec and Canadian audiovisual scene; why it has affirmed its political function and its role in the democratic life of our society.

Through their solidarity and mutually accepted high standards, the Network’s nine member associations have established for it a clear image, and have developed a sense of self-assurance, whether in public debate or in dialogue with our institutional counterparts. The members who represent these associations have made our (fifteen) Board of Directors’ meetings a lively, enthusiastic and humane venue for the exchange of ideas. My sincere thanks to all. They provide the fuel that propels us forward.

In conclusion, I would like to say that the Documentary Network is and will be what its members make of it. We have put down roots in Quebec, established ties that give us an original role to play in Canada; we are also developing solid, long-term international relations—all, I firmly believe, in the best interests of documentary filmmaking in Quebec and in Canada. Our Managing Director’s report gives us a clear indication of progress achieved, of accomplishment, of shortcomings, of success, of errors: in a word, the critical evaluation that is essential if we are to continue along our path.

We have only begun. Allow me to quote myself: “the documentary is above all else an ecosystem of the intellect, of culture, of freedom. It is the barometer of a democratic society, as fragile and as necessary as the air we breath.”

Now, let’s get to work!

Jean-Daniel Lafond
Filmmaker
President, Chairman of the Board
May, 2004