Activities Report > 2004-2005 Activities Report >

Chair’s Report

Two years and several months after its creation in January 2003, has the Documentary Network accomplished what it set out to do?

The cohesiveness of the group has been maintained and most likely grown as a result of the quality, candour and seriousness of the discussions held during Network meetings. We have succeeded in defining a strong joint position in defence of high-quality documentary cinema. We share our visions and viewpoints in an atmosphere of tolerance and open-mindedness.

But does not a task remain—that of thrashing out what each of us understands documentary to be? To that end, I repeat what I said last year: such reflection must be at the very heart of the Network; indeed, it determines the force of our actions.

Is it certain that we are speaking of the same thing when we talk about documentary? What is the spectrum, the range, the shared platform that we are defending?

It seems to me that in recent years, as the genre has met with a measure of success, the meaning of the term has been extended and altered. This has led to the trivialization of the expression auteur documentaire (author-driven or point-of-view documentary), the overuse of the phrase documentaire-choc (blockbuster documentary) and the invention of new labels that only muddy the waters. It is our duty to see through the confusion, or we risk no longer knowing exactly what we are defending or where we stand.

The first task of an observatory like ours is to constantly redefine its subject, to observe it as a matter of priority, in its transformations, assertions and confusions.

We must not lose sight of that, for it represents the hallmark of the Documentary Network and its reason for being: knowing what it speaks of, and letting that be known.

We defend an idea of quality and the professions and creative conditions that make it possible to meet that requirement of quality. Like all craftspersons, we aim to accomplish our work following generally accepted practices and in the interests of our audience. Should not the Documentary Network meet that same requirement and give itself the means to ensure it is respected?

It is with that in mind that I peruse this year’s report, put together by our director Lucette Lupien—whose proficiency, dedication and thoroughness I acknowledge here. On reading the report, it will become evident that we were not content to establish ourselves as “a neutral moral authority, a sort of ombudsman’s office whose task it would be to oversee polite and orderly dialogue.” On the contrary, in many cases, we took a firm stand, whether on cultural documentary, on the crisis of distribution, on Télé-Québec, on training, on feature films, or on the presence of documentary on television.

Indeed, seen in that light, the Network is becoming recognized as a site of concerted action, of vigilance, of knowledge sharing, of pooled information, of dialogue. It must continue in that vein, without compromising, in order to defend the fundamental values of creative freedom for documentary and those who make it, in terms of its distribution, its role in society, its economy and its contribution to cultural diversity.

In the space of two years, the Network has carved out its own space. Its Board of Directors has succeeded in maintaining a high level of ethical rigour and a capacity for democratic debate that, I believe, has earned it the respect of the community and our stakeholders. I might add that beyond our borders, the Network is held up as an example that arouses the admiration and even the envy of our colleagues.

We must now turn to the very dense activity report prepared by our executive director so as to gauge the distance we have come, recognize our achievements, evaluate our successes and errors—in short, do the critical assessment needed to clearly set out our future directions.

Jean-Daniel Lafond
Filmmaker
Chair of the Documentary Network
May 2005