See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325626521
« Hollywood Films in a French Working Class Milieu: Longwy 1945-1960 », in
Ellwood (D.W.) and Kroes (R.), Hollywood in Europe, Experiences of a Cultural
Hegemony, VU University of...
Chapter · January 1994
CITATIONS
0
READS
8
1 author:
Fabrice Montebello
Université de Lorraine, Metz, France
18 PUBLICATIONS   8 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Fabrice Montebello on 07 June 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
EUROPEAN COIITR BUTIONS TO
AMERICAN STUDIES XXVlll
ed1tec by
DAVID W. ELLWOOD
ROB KROES
Co bu'ors
G AN P BRUNETIA
VA aq A CAM"ORESI
::>AVID W ELLWOOD
n O\o1AS E SAE-SSE:R
JOSEPH GARNCARZ
DEf\i 7 GOKTURK
l=lOB KROES
IAN C JARVIE
RICHARD G MALTBY
FABRIC( MONTE-BE-LLO
PAUL SWAN~
RU H VASEY
RE NHOLD WAGNLEITNER
BR NO PF WANROO<J
Hollywood
in Europe
Experiences of a
Cultural Hegemony
VU UNIVERSITY PRESS
HOLLYWOOD FILMS
IN A FRENCH WORKING CLASS MILIEU: LONGWY 1945- 1968
Fabrfce Montebello, IUE Florence
In the days following the Second World War, French spectators rushed
into the cinemas in order to discover those American films that the
censorship of the previous governments had quite simply nppressed.
lo the emerging post-war climate, made worse by the eviction of
communut mini•ters from the government (1947), the presence of
American films on French screens could only provide another motive
for the political confrontation which grew out of the cold war,1 and
from other contemporary conflicts about "the industrial production of
culturalgoods'.1 Strengthened by itsnewly acquired political legitimacy
(TheWar, the Resistance) and by itsappropriation of native Jacobin and
Republican traditions, the French Communut Party (PCF) promoted
itself as the defender of national independence against the 'yankee
invader". The distribution and projection of American films, made
easier, some believe, by the Blum-Byrnes agreemenls,3 became one of
the main targets of the PCF in its struggle against 'the cultural and
ideologicalimperialism' ofthe UnitedStates, placingthe partyalongside
many Gaullists and intellectuals inclined by tradition to a certain anti-
americaoism.4
1Ricta1rd F. Kuud,•<=«•·Colaaadt.bcCold War.ThcPrcncb P1ccAmericaniuhoo,
19"1· 19.SJ•, Pttntb f-ll1to!'ical ~tudtes. Vol 17, DO. l, 1991, pp. 96·116, and rrom tbe same
1u.1bor, Scdurinathe frentb. tbe Dilem.maolAmericaaizatiop. Bc:tlr.tle7 and l..olAagelu:
UoivcnnyolC.h!oraia P~ 1993. Oa tbe position ol tbe PCP ta tbo f.c:Jd ol culture, cf
Jeaaine Vetdb·Lcrou1, •The Prcncb C.O.murust Pany i• tbe 1950s: Be1wecn N11ionaJ
Trad11ioo and Courucr-Cullurc:\ in: Brian RigbJ, l\Jcbola1 Hcwill, Funte and the Mau
Media, Loodon: Macm11laa, 1991, pp. S-19.
~ Cl. the v1oleru and by now cla1sic: denunc:1a1100 ot ..the industrial produc1ion et
cu1tural 1ood1"' by Max llorkhcimer and TbeodorAdorno, DialcklikderAufltllrurtc, New
York:l 1944 (Paris: Oalllmard, 1974).
Si&ncd In 1946, the Blum·Byrnes commercial agrcemcn11 ln<!luded a small clause
aimed al favourin& lhcdlltribution and projectionol American films on Prcnch territory
in exchan1e ror flnancial ani,caocc.
4 David S1rauu1 "The Rite.ofAnti·1mericani1m iJI France: French lntdlectualsand
the Amcric1n Film lnduJtry, 1927-1932'"", Journal ol Popullt Culcure, no. 4, 1977, pp.
1S2·1S9.
214 PABRJCB MONTEBBLLO
By putting into perspective statistics on the so-called American "tidal
wave•, and then by revealing the gap between the significant presence
of these films on the screen and their relatively poor reception, recent
studies have considerably toned down the 'black legend' of the massive
weight of American films, by which French cinema-goers were supposedly
manipulated against their wills, and whose mediocrity threatened
the •quality' ofnationalcinemaproduction.5 Thesenewstudieshowever
remain hampered by aseriesofintellectualprejudices. Bysystematically
focusing onstatistics, andparticularly on the numbersof admissions per
nationality of film, they tend to isolate cinema attendance from other
cultural or social activities, toseparate artificially the diffusion and the
'meaning• of films from thesocial conditions of their reception and use.
They lake for granted the existence of a homogeneous reality("American
films", 'French films•, ...) which is in fact merely a preconception.
Finally, whatever precautions are taken, they also make certain debatable
assumptions about the effects of cinema oo spectators' behaviour, disconnecting
it from the material and symbolic frameworks in which the
aesthetic experience takes place (autonomy of judgment on single film
performances and on the situations portrayed in films, on coded readings,
intertextualite, ...).
As is well known the question of American films bas often been
linked to the issue of the 'Americanisation• of European societies. This
term, vague and general, indicates in abstract fashion the process of
economic modernisation and the upheaval of European ways of life
which took place after the war under the influence of the United States.
This was a force whose effects can be explained in the real 'ideological'
fascination (Gramsci would have spoken of a •moral and intellectual
hegemony') exercised by an •American model' (an entire complex of
images, representations and stereotypes), which was diffused universally
by means like the Hollywood film industry.6 Generally conceived as
5 Patricia Hubert-Lacombe, ·L'accucil des films amCriea.ins en France pendartt la
gucrre froidc (1946-1953)'", Revue d'Histoirc Modcrne et Contemeorainc. Cinema et
50cil.rC, avrH-juln 1986, pp. lOl-313. Jaequcs Portci,•Lcs origincs de la ICgcnde noire
des accords Blum-Byrnes·. ibid. pp. 314-329. Francis Bordat, ·evaluation statistiquedc
la pCnCtration du cinCma amCricain en Prance•, Revue francaise d'Ctudes amCricaines.
no. 24-25, pp. 225-248.
6
ln addi1ion 101he book.of. Richard P. Kuisel and the article orDavid Strauss, cit.,
the French experience of the import ofAmerican techniques olmanagement is studied in
LucBo11ansld, ·America,Ametica ... Leplan Marshallet!'importationdu 'management••,
Actcs de la recbercbe en sciences socialcs, no. 38, pp. 19·41, 1981. For Great·Britain,
Germany, haly and Finland, see respectively, Peter Stead, •HolJywood's Message for the
World: Tbc British Response in the Nineteen Thirtiu", Historical Journal of Pilm, Radio
and Tclcvisio11, no. 1, 1981, pp. 19·32,ThomasJeffreySaundcrs, Wcimar,Hollywood. and
the Americanization or German Culture. 1921· 1933. Pbd, University of Toronto, 1985,
HOLLYWOOO FILMS IN A FRENCH WORK!NO CLASS MTUEU 215
a mass phenomenon which imposed itself with the streng1h of its
presenceand encountered little true 'resistance', the phenomenon ofthe
industrial production and universal diffusion or American rilms reinforced
the impression that little space was left for the freedom of
choice or spectators.
By reversing this outlook and starting not from the centre but from
the periphery, and by observing no longer from afar but from up close,
I would like to contrast this general appraisal of the situation and show
bow there really was room for manoeuvre which ensured that audiences
were able to make different usesofAmericu films, even those working
class sectors or the population generally imagined to be the most prone
to manipulation or social conditioning. Without in any way intending
to generalise excessively from hypotheses based strictly on local
experience, or claiming access to an exceptionally representative sample,
we will sec bow these micro-historical observationsallow us toenvisage
distinct popnlar uses of the cinema applicable to larger groups.7
The
analysis will deal with the years from 1945 to 1960 in the small town
or Longwy, situated in the north of Lorraine (at the crossroads of the
boarders of France, Belgium and Luxembourg), with a population distinguished
by a high concenlration of blue-collar workers and a significant
Italian immigration.8
aad bytbc&a.meautbor,•Comedya1Rcdc:mp1ion: AaKncaaSlapslickia WeuurCul1urc·1
Joutn1I olEuropeaa S1ud1c1, no. 4, l987, pp. lSl-277, Victoria OeOra111, •Ma•C1o1.lturc:
and Sovcrc:1a,nity:TbcAmcncan CbaUcngc to European Canea:ias1920-1960•1 The Journal
oCModern Hi1tory, no. 1, march 1989. Jerker BrikAon, Maui Haapancn, Martel Jtlll et
Rauno Lipponen, AmcriC"ln Olm in Finland. University of Turk:u, Institute 0( Ocnera1
Hillory, Publiutioiu (P1nland), no. tO, 1983, pp. 63-84, 127-130, t3t· 134 1nd 135·140.
7
However it i' not pio1Mble, la the limited frame•ork ol. this anicle, 10 tackle the
pr'OC>lcma ol mctbod linked 10 tbe oollc<:hoa oldau, upedllly t-ooc Crom workla& clua
.:>urea DOt ucd to wriln11 dow1 tbelr fcdiagaaad jud1emeats.. l1 addJtK>o tot beaatJysi.s
olt be rtp>otJ ormili1aa1 preu.ol pansh reporta.olaoc.du.b Itatcmcn11. r.ctd WOtk witb
aeneral etlllograpbic obacn111on1 was carried 0411 111rt1a1 from a senes al detalkd oral
in..,.eatigationsinvolv1n1teYentccn persoos(twclvc men andfive women,te1 ofwhom former
worlungdau peopleand 1birtecoolltaliaoorig,in).Tbcseque11ion1aredealt witb at lensth
in Pabrice Monte.bello, •Probll!mc1 d'hiatoire du public, le ciaCma romme e1thttlquc du
pauvre'", Proarammc de ttcherchc dt.a Premier ai~clc du c1nCma. Paris: Colll!&~ de Poly·
tcchnique/Ccarre National de la CinCmatograph1c, 1993, pp. 86·106.
1
ta1946, thcl..on&•y·Villcrupt district had S2,4021a.babitaotsolwbom 10,897wc.re.
f0tttpen (20,K). At tbat time, tbe. i.toe a.ad steel worU aad tbe iron miaaol 1bc repo.
cmploya! acarly 23,000 pc-..a (ZO*oC ltahaH, 10.or Bcl&iaaa aad Kol Al&cria..).
A SoOd number al Prea.cta people were also recently natt.arahJCd f0teipcn (from tK ea.d
ol tbe thirties and ju11 1ftcr the war period). Tbe ollic1al b.1crarcby ia the iron end steel
worktof tberegion. in the day11fter theSecond World Warw11 ufollowa: OPor ·ouvricr
prote11ionnc1• (·profe1sionn1I work.er•) (OPl, OP2, OP3), OS or •ouvricr 1pCci11i1C•
c·ac.ml·1killcd worker·) (OSl end OS2), MP or•m.1noouvrede force• (•un1k.llled work.er")
end MO or •maa.oeQvre ordin1irc" (•ordinary unskilled worker"). In 1948, the OS
216 PABRICB MO,..IEBELLO
Claes• •ttemduce, dbtribatJoa ud rele.ses
lo the overall development in the number of cinema-goers, 1946 was
the year when attendance reached its peak. It was also the year of the
most massive •off-loading• of American films in France 'both for
economic necessity and financial profit•.9 After a constant rise since
the cod of the Second World War, the number of spectators 'drawn• to
American films began to diminish after 1947. Related to the percentage
ofthe total numberofspectators, American films which were pratically
oa a par with French films between 1947 and 1949, then began to lose
ground after 1950 (45,17% of spectators for French films, 42,38% for
American ones. Table I). Compared to the percentage of the total films
projected, the decrease in films of transatlantic origin is even more
apparent(Table Ill).These arc national averageshowever and regionally
there were wide variations. Por example, the numerical superiority of
Prance over the United States is apparently reversed in the regions of
Strasbourg, Lillc and Marseille from 1947 to 1950, but it is true that we
do not have complete figures for the number of films shown by nationality
at the regional level. lo addition the administrative division of
France by the Centre National de la Cin~matographic (CNC, National
Center of Cinematography) uextremely general, vague and arbitrary,
and does not allow us to grasp local peculiarities.
Calculations can however be made from the records of receipts kept
by the CNC for the ten principle cinemasofthe Longwy area, including
the towns of Longwy, Herserange, Longlaville, Mont-Saint-Martin,
Rehon and SauInes, representing 31274 inhabitants in 1950. The CNC's
records contain by calendar quarter and by 'cinematographic region',
the programme planning week by week of all the cinemas in France.
Thus we can read from left to right the name of the cinema, the number
of the cinematographic week (starting on wednesday), the last number
of the current year (for ex1cmple 5 for 1945), the headlines of the news,
the title of the "big film•, followed by that or those of the "shorts•, the
namesofthe distribuliogcompanies, the numberofadmissions, the cost
of renting the film, the gross receipts, the net receipts, and finally the
"total profit of the program•. Unfortunately, the coding in figures of
film titles, of distribution companies and of relevant data (nationality,
censor's certificate, date of release in Paris, number of reels ...) make
the exploitation of this data extremely painstaking and prolonged. In
reprucatcd 46,S"'-of•bc total'"'°'""' maapowcr, abcad o(tbc OP (25.8'), lbcMP(25"'-)
aod lbe MO (2,59'). ctUaioodes Mi1act de I• Mttallu.rciede Loe1w1, lpn1w1-Villerupt
~ Lon&wy, 19S6, p. 70. P0t a .yetbdi1ol1bc.soda.1 a.od poh11cal h1atoryoltbe reJ,ioa,
tee CUrard Noiriel, Longwt. immi1rt1 et ptol~taires. 1880...1980. Pans: PUP, 1984.
9 Patricia Hubert-Lacombe, l!14.!il.. p. JOI.
HOLLYWOOD flLMS IN A FRENCH WORKJ!'-;0 Cl.ASS MIUl!U 217
addition, there arc numerous irregularities in the registrations: gaps,
omissions, double counting, errors of re-transcription or simple
carclessness.10
As is apparent from the tablesof receipts constructed from the data
obtained in this fashion, the principle characteristics of attendance on
the national scale arc completely reversed at the local level (Tables ll
and IV). Whether in relative or absolute terms, in the average numbers
of spectators •attracted' by the dHferent film programmes on offer,
American films are well ahead of their French counterparts. It should
be noted that in terms of the percentage of the total number of
spectators, the figures are equivalent to those of the administrative
region of Strasbourg. This region is moreover the only one to see a
significant rise in the number of admissions between 1946 and 1947
(uearly 6 millions), whereas all the others, without exception, show a
decline (Table I). ls this exceptionaJ rise due to the adding on at a late
stage of the departments of the Vosgcs, of Hautc-SaOne, of Meuse and
Meurthe-ct- Moselle(which includes the townofLongwy)-previously
included in the Grande RlgionParisienne--tothe region ofStrasbourg?
Would this addition have contributed lo the total reversal of the ratio
of American to French films? In any case, the assumption would only
confirm the exceptional nature by nationalstandardsofour localobservation
point.
Even more intcrcst.ing are the following two facts: whereas on the
national scale, theshare of American films was close to 50%in 1946 and
reached more than 59%the following year, we sec in Longwy American
films progl'C$.Sively occupying screens, but in a fashion which culminates
in 1948 (50,04% of all films programmed in 1948 against 41,17% and
39,36% in the two previous years; cf. Table ill). ll is possible that this
discrepancy reflects traditional variations in distribution patterns
between Paris and the province.But the key point is that in Longwy, the
regular rise in the share of American films oo all the local screens is
accompanied by an almost idenlical rise in Lhe percentage of spectators
goingtosec those American films (true also in absolute terms: Table IV),
as though demand blindly followed the rise of supply. The average
number of spectators for American film in Longwy (unlike the nationaJ
situation) remains superior to that for French films. In other words, in
absolute values as well as in relative terms, American films in Longwy
are more successful than French films (cf. Table I: over the five years,
to lo tbe worst ca1U, tbe primary it1form1000 i11df m.1y be imperfect: 11Juc number
8ofmarch-1pril 1949of'tbe Bulle11n d'1n(orm1tion du CNC.1tates: ·The CNCdtp1nmcnt
Cor statement and film vedfic1tion notes 1h1t In sphe 0£ inform1tion to the rontraa
published In the bulletin ol the Center apd jp professional paoer1. many n21e1 of weekly
weekly re«1p11 arc sent to th11 service i1uymplctcty filled ig•
218 PABRICI! MONT'l!Bl!LLO
an average of 915 spectators saw the 1246 French films shown in
Longwy, against 992 for the 1244 American offerings).
Obviously these figures give no information about the behaviour of
audiencesand particularlyabout theattitudesoflhosc who, having paid
for their seats, left the cinema with a negative or hostile impression of
the lilm seen. So we will not try lo find in these statistics the key lo
American "innuence• on French cinema audiences. This avalanche of
figures reveals, in our opinion, more subtle and relevant questions, part
of the debates which the cinema bas never ceased lO generate since its
origins, and which concern its very nature. ls it an •art"or an "industry"?
To what extent doea the spectator choose his or her programmes? To
what extent does cinema-going constitute amechanical or social ritual,
divorced from the "value• of any particular film?11 And if, instead of
seeing io the rise in the n11mber of American films and the corresponding
numberofpeopleseeingthem,a mechanicalphenomenon characteristic
of an artificial and artificially created "need", a sort of imposition, we
recognised on the contrary a conscious choicc12 on the part of a11dieaces
who ia the name of "pleasure• preferred American films toothers?
It would then ao longer be aquestion of noting the presence of aconsiderable
number of very similar products, or of denouncing marketing
practices obsessed by profit, but of giving an account of the differentiation
made by any spectator between at least two films, two "types•
of films, two "styles• of films on the basis of criteria, of 'types•, and of
"styles• which he has constructed himself, as aresult of bisowa aesthetic
experience, in other words on the basis of his own familiarity with the
cinema. The choice may seem an illusory one, but it is a real illusion
which creates a real difference. ll is to the identification of this space
for manoeuvre, where standard observations are overturned and things
11 StudieaoltbclOC'iaJ fli51oryoltbcworki..ag d111de.vocc:d 1oit1eatet1aiAmca11,bave
anc11entiallyfu nction1U1t1ppro1ch to the tinema and leave11idcthe1pccilic11ly1c1tbetic
••ttcrolthe work.in&cla•appralul olrilms; d. tor cJ"amp1c EricJ. Hob.lbawm, ~
ollAbour. Loadoo: Wcidcafdd and ~icol.IOO, 1984; Stepbu0 Jooes,De 8riti1h Labour
Movement and Pjlm, 1911· 1939. London: Routlcd&e A Ksgaio Paul Ltd, 1987.
12 l'bc macroscopic point otview olPierre Sorlin con&idcr11pcc1ator11111cn11 wbo
an subject to tltc 1tazard1ofd1stnbutioll; d Pierre Sortia, Europea.n Qpcmas. F.uropea1
Societls1. 1939· 1990.London:Routledge, 1991,pp.81·110,andby tbcaame1u1bor1 ·wbat
Made a Popular Film in Pradce in 1he 1950.4
, in Brian Ri&by, Nicholas Hewill, op. eh..
pp.68·84. WcwiU rcivra to tbcdcbatcwi11tlacinem1 cntici.mtoltbefi(1tcson 1pcc111or'1
cboiC'C (-Thecntic gcncra1Jydcal1wi1b produc11 wb1clill areal~•d1 aM ruuh ola choice•,
Chria Marker, Cahicr1 du cinlm1, no. 4), and which 10lvc1 ill contr1diction1 by
coulrucliag a 1ystea ol ~la.ui.ficatioe ol films a po1-tcnori1 rccogi:nli..a.g tbem a1 tbe.
•ScptltmeAn•; cf.Aa.toiM: de Baecqvc, Les Cah1crsdu ~ntma. Histoire. d'unc teTM. tome
11 Paris: Bdition1 Cahicrs du cinlma, pp. 67·68.
JIOLLVWOOD FILMS IN A FRENCH WORXINO CLASS MILIEU 219
'imposed' became in the mindsof cinema-goers 'choices', that we must
DOW turn.
If we can sec in the period just after the Second World War, a considerable
number of distributors operating in mclropolitan France as a
whole, on closer inspection they turn out to be almost all subsidiaries
of the big American companies (Paramount, RKO, Pox, Metro, Universal,
Associalcd Artists, Warner, Columbia) or !heir French counterparts
(Alliance G~nErale, Discina, Cin~-~lection, Filmsonor, Sirius,
PatM, Gaumont).They allhave numerousoutlets, and in particular local
agencies. We also find independentdistributorsoperating althe regional
or inter-regional level, but the movement towards concentration which
began from 1948oneliminatedcompanies which onlydevotethemselves
to lhe physical dislribution of films, without taking a grcaler interest
in their production. Spread over time by means of phased disiribution
(from 'firs1-degree exclusive' cinemas where new film• were released
in Paris and in certain large provincial cities, lo cinemas of 'seconddegree'exclusiveness;
thenonto'first viewing' cinemasin citysurburbs
and large provincial 1owns, followed by 'second-viewing' cinemas in
lesser suburbs and small towns, finally general distribution in country
areas), the career of a film was already well under way when it arrived
on the screens of a provincial town like Longwy. The distribution of
films in cinemas of primary and secondaryexclusiveness, even in minor
'first-viewing' theatres, corresponded then to a 'life-chance' test and
allowed both the operator as well as the cinema-goer, from their own
points of view, to gel an idea of their supposed •worth'. The so-called
'locomotive• or bloc-booking system,13
which consisted of imposing
on a theatre owner a number of commercially un-allractivc films which
then allowed him to obtain a film likely to be successful, was violently
criticised and seemed to lock up audiences even more tightly into a
system of restricted and predictable 'choices'.
Neverl.beless, when the factsarc examined more closely, it becomes
apparent lhat the general scheme ofthingsdid allow certain margins for
manoeuvre. Thus in Longwy, one of the supporter• of bloc-booking,
the owner of the Cinema des Families, a theatre whose experience we
shall return to, showed between 1948 and 19S3 402 films of which 247
were distributed by six of the major American companies (Universal
(SS films). Paramount (45), Fox (45), Columbia (4S), Warner (30), RKO
(27)). He also entered into rental agreements with no less than 43
different distributors during these five years. If we then recall the fact
that this same owner possessed or ran four other cinemas throughoutthe
13
Ren~ Bonnt.11, U Cin~ma exploit~. Paris: Bdillona du Scull. 1978, Ram11y Poche
Cintm1, pp. 200·208.
220 PABRJCB MONTllBllLLO
urbanarea and the neighbouringtowns, we can easily imagine the possibilities
open lo him to 'vary' bis programmes, even if bis behaviour
seemsat firsUigbt to be dictated only by concern for profiLTbc practise
of block-booking was of course the object of general hostility on the
part of critics and cine-clubs, even from the PCF, which saw itself as
defending the 'freedom of artistic creation'. The programmers of the
circuitsof family balls tied lo the Church generally objected for reasons
ofmorality (demanding"wholesome", "clean• films for family audiences
and children). ICthose responsible for film society networks, such as the
militants of the PCF, could only offer "their' respective audiences a few
foll-length films on rare and unpredictable occasions, the Church, with
its Ctntralt Catholiqut du Cinema tt dt la radio (CCCR, 'Catholic
Association of the Cinema and the Radio"), tried to organise existing
cinemas and newly created ones into a 'pressure• network able to order
from distributors the films whose 'moral value' it approved of. In spite
ofthesomewhat disillusioned tone, the following report givessome idea
of the scope of the Catholic organisation of family cinemas in France
in the fiftieo;
But one ba1ro11cld to tbc facts tbat a muhuude or1maJJ cinemas has rcl11ivtly ao
Impact on 1bestructure o/ 1bc cinema as a whole: their irreplaceable role i1 r11bcr to
1ervc the healthy element• In 01.1r pari1be1 and so.mctimc• to &ivc matcritl bclp to
maiAta1a other setviceaof popular educ1uo11. U weown one lixtb ol the c1ocm11 ot
1ta.11dard au. we probably bave oaly ooe. 1catll oltbe tuts. aod it is docs oot aum
to be.•• e11ue:ntioa 10 •Y tbat 09r aoe•as ooJy reacb ooe twca1ictb ~ Prencb
aud1cncea. IC10me dcpar1cmcn1s have family cinemas wbicb reatb sixrypercent otall
1pecta1or11 others do dOI rcacb five per cent.14
It should be noted that the activities of the Church were oot only due
lo a desire for moral censorship. Catholics were anxious to stress the
artistic vocation of the cinema, but this required the cinematographic
education of the public,15
and at times led to tensions difficult to deal
14
Bulletin de Lia1.:>a1 des Com1tt1 Ototttains du Oplma (janvic:r 1954), in
Ripcnoirc genfral des film 1954-1955. Pan1: P.d1tion1 •peii• vra1e-, 19551 pp. 21-22.
The Ca1bolicor1aniutionfor 1upcrvisiogcincma1in Brittaoy b11been studied thorouahly
by J1cquea Denlel and Michel Lligrh, Le Cil'.l~m• en Bretagoe rur1le: csquisac pour une
bistoire, Anna!cs de Bret1gnc cl de& Paya de l'Oucst. tome 92, 19&S, ao. 3, pp. 257-288.
15 Stall ruled by tbccacychcal '"Vigi)aah Cura·olPope P1u• XI (1937), tbe 1t1il•dc
oltbe ca11lolic1tow1rdstbeciacm.1 wuambtguou1. Su.spiciow:oa principlc,catbohc:leaders
ocvcrtbcJeaa underlined the poten1ially pos.itivc1ctioa oltbc c•ncma ta the '"1piri1ua1· and
intell~tual elevation or hum1nhy, and in aprud1n& the evangelical me&&age. The desire
10 in1cre1t tbc public in •work.I of quality• and 10 make pubhc lo1ere.s1 more dcmandin&.
wu further cxpreacd ia the eacyclica.1 ktter ·w.rao.da pl'Of'SU;I•, Ot1ema Radio Tde-lilioa..cl
Pope Pnu XII (1957); d. Michd Kelly, Catboli< Callural Policy Crom 1944 10 1950c
·eande det!!p6c• aad Gnema, la Bnan R.t1by, Nicholas Hcw11t, ~pp. 20·36. for
HOLLYWOOD FILMS IN A FRENCH WORKJNO CLASS MILIBU 221
with between the Church's moral denunciation and its aesthetic appreciation
of the same film.16 To the two dominant practices of film use
in Loogwy in these years (one commercial, the other independent) ca.n
be added a whole series of initiatives now difficult to trace, which
depended mainly on the marketing of films in 16 mm (projection of
educational films in schools and youth clubs, information films dealing
with subjects such as the safety for factory workers; the showing of
Egyptian films in arabic for the North-African workers of the region
...).lo short, during those years 1940-50, in this litlle provincial town,
a very considerable number of films was on oCfer to spectators in a
variety of different circumstances.17
Behind the apparent uniformity
of the numbers is revealed a range of distribution practices, and
programmes numerous enough to encourage cinema-goers to believe that
they were carryingouta significant actofchoice when decidingon their
viewing. What we have to do now is to see how the thought-processes
involved in choosing served to justify the choices made after the event.
Tiie party, Ille cllarcll ud Ille rum-dabs
We maygrouptbe cinematographicestablishmentsofthe Longwyareinto
three catcgoriC$. The Circuit Familial de /'Est ("Family Network
of the East') provided the programmes for cinemas run by associations
organically linked to the surrounding factories and to local parishes, or
even to both of at the same time (Porisiono in Moot-Saint-Martin,
Sainte-Anne in Herseraoge,Gouroincourt-Cintmo in the neighbourhood
of the steel works of Longwy). Heirs to the old paternalistic system of
tbc cx1mplc ol fcaliaa c1tbolics. cf. Bruno P.F. Waarooij, below,
16 Here ii tbc advice ptto by tbc CCCR to •tbc:m. wbo b«omc aware ol tbc
importance ol 11M: dncma• i.a. tbe heart ol Pa.ru.b M1.uiocu::. •1bcy will be ol 1ervi.cc in
cd1i1c111a1 Use public. bJ pcn:aadiag people to li.M: tbc. dacma tbca to ea.age: ii, to Dow"
tbc a1cm1 bc:f()fe j•dsaa&H. Clui.sti•udaoold be tM moll iaD.catial cioe·dub mcmben;
tbc femlly eod parid room.i should be tbe most 1onucat11l culture ccairu-. Rieenoire
&Cntral dg Olm 1953·l9S4. Pari.c: Editions ·pcas6c •r•ic-, t9S41 p. 29. Oa a1.idie.Jlce
e.chicalioa tbrouab the control of ci.nemas, sec 1bc example ot Mila11 c1od1cd by Albcno
Oarni:·uc1ttedra popolare. Punziooi,~azioo.i,or&•ainnioDidell1 Alaaaemacog:rafica
cattolica ndla M1l1ao dcl dopoc,ucrra•, io ·11ci.Acma1 Milano d1l 1tcondodopocucrn ai
pnm1annt1e1&11n11•,cd.by Rattaclc De Berti,Comunir11iOn1IOCiah,1·2,A.noo XITI1 1991,
pp. 163·190.
17
Por 111 lbc town• Jludicd rrom July 1948 to December 19.SJ, cx-aminatioo ot 1he
local cdilion1 ot the paptr L'&t RCpublicaio, record• that 3396 film• were sbown, not
counlin& trailers or ncw1recls.
222 PABRICI! MOm'EBEUO
the organisation of workers leisurc,11 these establishments were
typically small neighbourhood cinemas in tbe villages on tbe periphery
of Longwy (Salle I eanne d'Arc in SauInes, Cine-Rehon in R~hon, Eden
in Longlaville) and distanced themselves, sometimes with contempt, from
the larger and more modern cinemas of tbe town-centre (Palace, Rex,
Cinlo and Cinema des Familles in Longwy, Nouveau.tls-Palace in
Herscrange), whereownersmore readHyemployed the practise of blocbooking.
Close to the concerns of tbe Church, one of the first associations
tried to promote in the Gouraincourt-Cinima a 'cinema for
children'. It was also in this cinema that one of tbe very first local film
societies in the region saw the light of day. As for the PCF and the CGT
(Conftdtration Gtotrale du Travail, tbe powerful union close Lo tbe
PCF), whose presence was feltstrongly in popular festivals and workers
gatherings after the war, they showed most of theu films in the biggest
commercial cinemas of the urban area: tbe Nouveautis-Palace and the
Palace. Localbranchesofmuch largernationalorganisations, which was
the attitude of these semi-official authorities towards the massive
presence of American films on the screens of Loogwy's cinemas?
Being mainly engaged in the great workers and union struggles of
the post-war period, the local militants of the PCF satisfied themselves
with a posture of hostility in principle towards the United States and
in particular to American film output, which they denounced as 'idiotic•,
and basely commercial, offeringworkersnothingbutescapism, far from
the real social problems of tbe time. Confronted with this 'ideological
offensive' by the American enemy, the PCF increased public demonstrations,
the number of cinema evenings it organised in support of the
USSR, festivals and commemorations of local members of the Resistance
movement who bad fallen during the War against the occupiers. All tbe
organisations of the Party and those close to it (like the CGT union and
the France-USSR friendship association}, were mobilised to distribute
edifying films dedicated Lo tbe glory ofsocialism, Stalin or the victories
of the "valiant red army', during tbe world conflict (Les 13, Nikita,
Gloire aMoscou, Salut aMoscou, Coeur d'acier, Dural, Le Chant de la
terre siberienne, L'Arc-en-ciel, Djoulbars, Zora, Jeunesse radieuse, La
Chutedu tyran, Le Serment,...). Militant workers very much appreciated
these "realistic' stories, drawn from 'true events' (in their eyes a
guarantee of cinematographic respectability): they were the type of story
in which the hero of modest origin, with whom they could identify,
18 On paternalism in Industrial Lorraine, cfO~r1rd Noiriel, op. cil.. pp. 164·226, and
from tbe ume author, •ou 'patronage• au 'patcraala1mc': la rcatructurahoo du (OrmCI
de domination de la m11D·d'oe11vrc ouvriCrc daa1 J'industrie mC.tallura.aqw.e franta1.sc"',
Ls Mo11vcmea1 Social. ao. 144, 1988.
HOLLYWOOD l'ILMS IN A FRENCH WORKINO CLASS MILIEU 223
struggled lhroughout to gain and pre•erve bis dignity (Histolre d'un
homme veritable).
By concentrating on 'the projection or films of a moral, intellectual
or artistic level higher than that on view in the majority of cinemas at
the momeot',19 cine-clubs (attended for the most part by teachers,
factory clerks, even by workers themselves on occasion) also rejected
commercial films, but they could not prevent themselves from allowing
1 certain contempt for their intended audiences to show through on
occasion. Heirs lo a movement for popular education which originally
grew out of the Resistaoce,20 the local cine societies were typical or
those first mass 'film enthusiasts' organisations where the desire to
educate the audience cinematograpbically prevailed. Sensitive lo the
question of raising the intellectual level of their public, they favoured
recognised works whose literary origins (typically, the cine-club of
Piedmont projected in April 1952 La Chartr~se de Parme),2t justified
the prestige conferred on them. II is easy to imagine bow this type of
outlook, based on the presumed artistic importance of the cinema
gradually came to give a greater place to uncommon works with artistic
pretensions, cbaracteristicof'the best' European national film-making,
rather than lo 'Hollywood' £ilms, which were easily written off as
standardised products, mass produced, the very opposite of the idea of
Art.
The programming of the Acier cine-club for the year 1953, reveals
a strangely dated mixture, with old favourites (Alexandre Newsky,
Citizen Kane), rUJ1niog alongside successe' of the moment (Sciuscia),
'French classics' (La Beaule du diable, Le Silence est d'or, Les Enfants
du paradis), eye-witness accounts or recent events (La DernMre ttape,
La Batail/e de l'eau /ourde), educational products (the scientific films
of Jean PainlevE), and films now long forgollen (Fantt>me avendre,
Whisky a gogo, Les Roseaux du lac Ba/aton). In these circles, where
people were working hardest to have the cinema recognised as a
legitimate and noble cultural activity (like literature), American films
in general did not yetenjoy thestatus thatsome critics would eventually
19
Te.xt ol the Gnt pcrl'orm1nce at tbc Ac1cr Ci.ai-Oub, L'EJt .Rfpyh!icain. 24
cltccmb"' 1952.
20
Pew a reeeat a:ya1beli• ol tbc dcb1tea oa.11 cv!tyre populaire (•popular culture•)
ia Prince after lbc Sctood Wor1d War, uadcrs-tOOd a11n entirety ol v1l\la cacouragiag
the devdopme1u ol bumaa pcnonali1y, see Brian Ri&tJ7, Popular Culture 1n Modtl'n Prance:
A Study ol Cultural D15('0yrte. London: Routledge, 1991, pp. 39-67.
ZJ Duringtbcaamc year t9S2, the PiedmooICine· Clubwouldshowthcfotlowlngfilms:
1..e Paradis des pilotc1 pcrdut, La Nuit rant11tique, k Oouu. 1..c CarreJour det cnfants
~. Sc:rvice de nuU .
224 PABRJCB MOITTBBBLLO
award them, using the notion of the director as arlist.22
This development
was or course even less likely lo occur at the local level since
in the leadership or the federations of film-societies (where communist
militants were strongly represented) contrasts of a political natureoften
exacerbated differences of aesthetic opinion. Emmanuelle Loyer bas
shown very well how during those cold-war years, American cinema
was the •subject of a war between critics', involving particularly Georges
Sadoul ( a member of the PCF) and Andr~ Ba1in23
(editor of the
Cahiers du Cinlma).
We have seen how the Church, although fixed in its determination to
moralise the cinema, notably by means of the judgments of the
CCCR,:i. nevertheless emphasised its potentially positive role in the
'spiritual' and cultural elevation of humanity. Generally speaking, it took
no notice of the nationality of films in the judgments it expressed, even
if some critics have insisted on its benevolent attitude towards a good
part of the American output.25 But there was a big difference between
22 Dun•& tbc nnt 1ra1n1111courtefor ciac·cluborpni1tr1, riia by by 1bc Federation
Pr1n~•iM dCJ Cini· Cubs (PFCC} (Prencb federation"' Cinc·Oub1), rrom the 9tb to
tbc lStb aepccmbe:r 1946, Ocorgcs Sadoul m•de commcn11 on tbc history ol the cincm1,
u11ng 1pproechc.1 and pcriodiuuoa1now coo.sidercd clauic,and which would be the b15i1
ror h11 subsequent reference work, Histoirc gtnCrate du cintma, 6 volumes Paris, OcnoCI
1948·197S (Archive• N1llon1lcs, Paris, core P/42/132). Tbcac: rccurren1 training courses
orthe PPCC In the years after the Second World W1r, with tbc con1ribu1ion of rhc beat
known directors1nd cri1ic1ot1bc time (Bazin, Lcenb1rdt1 Oremlllon, Rouquicr, Auric,.••)
contributed A1nHic1n1ly to lbc 1raining or CiDC·club oraanleers from Lonawy.
23 er the 1rt1dc ot Emmanucllc Loyer, ·11ouywood IU p•y• des cinC·clubs
(1947-1954)" In Vin11icme Siccle. no. 33 Juvicr-mar• 1992, pp.4S·SS. On film criticism
ol commuo11t inJpir11ioo, 1« the 1tudy of Olivier 81rrot1 L'Ecrtn Pr1nr1is t943·19S3.
biatoire d'yn loumal et d'une l:poal.lC, Pirie Lu EdJ1eun frlO(l11 Rl:unl1. 1979.
24 Tbe CCR bad a. film rati.oc,s: .3: l'.ilm..s w.biclti CIA be Wltcbed by C\'Crybody·. ·3
b&a: film1 wlaich na be acc:a by everybody altboup witll IOlfte clcmcot1 uas\utable !ex
cla.ildrca•, •4, tllms foe adu1t1•, •4 A: fihu for advlts witlti ra:tncttons'", '"4 bis: DOt
advilaible.1
"S: out d rupett fo.r Cb.ri.niaadi.scipliac, it ia rcquated 1ba1 you 1b1t1ia from
gcxna to ttt Cil11n1 marked Witb 1bc aumbers·. A Cihn could obvtoUilJ' cbanie from one
r1t1n1 to another dcptnd1ng oo whether the pcraon an cbar1c ol 1bc cinema bad made
·Judit1ou1· cutl or not (a prattise cw:tremely frcqueat in the eo..t11led !!Ilea Cam.ilialcs:
('"ramJly h1J11•)). A«ordinJ 10M1rtine Boyer, L'~tf!D de !'amour. P1ris;; Ploa, 1990, pp.
168-169, •raun1 Shad qu11l·official 1uthority. lt led to a dccrcas.1n& 111end1oce for aoy
film 10 rated- Some produccrt had to ocgo1i1te witb tbc '«ntralc' not to be given a S
ratio~· .
5 Bruno P.P. Wanrooij, op. cit., 1bo•1 ho• l1al11n catholic leader& could have seen
in theAmericanoutpur centredonentertainmentfilms a po1.ilivc1ub1tltutcforthe noxiou1
atmocphcre olltalf1n nco-reali1t films, even itcxprcuin& thiJ preference meant accepting
certain DOl very •1ult1ble• parts of these prnc American filml (•fitml nc:Mn• with •sex•
and ·violeace•). lrwin Wall poltulatcsan obviouscomplicity between Catholiccen10r1bip
HOLLYWOOD FILMS IN A FRJlNOi WORKING a.ASS MlUllU 225
the calm and measured judgments made by tbe cinema loving priests
of tbe CCCR, wbo saw in a certain type of cinema a means of spiritual
emancipation, and the more radical views of some of the parish priests
ofLongwy, whooftenspoke outagainstthe "tarzanneries• ("tanan-type
rubbish") and the "vamps, murdersand pornographicstories withoutany
consistency•,26 in films we can guess to be American in origin. In a
working class, deeply dechristianised world, where the varied ethnic
origins of the workers hardly facilitated religious proselytism, priests
easily felt bewildered.27
But it was the cinema as a whole that was
being rejected and this was all the more natural wbeo it was associated
with the bad life led in cities, in cabarets aod workfog class festivals.28
Within the most "intellectual" sections of the local public then,
whether for aesthetic, political or moral reasons, American cinema in
general was not deemed worthy of much ioteresL This did not prevent
films from the United States being the most widely distributed and
successful among the general puhlic.29 It was also on this "American
cinema• that the workers we spoke to based all their judgmcnts
concerning the cinema. This is all the more striking as most of the
(which mainly dealt with Prench films) and American political i.nllucn«: in Pr•ace, lrwtn
wauu,•1nnueace amfncainc surI• pobtiauc franC'ltlC. J94S·l9S4. Pa.ria.; BaU1ad, 1989.
Chrc1icntC Longwy·Bas (parish bulletin ot the region of Lonswy), no. 42.
01-01-19S4.
21 ·1a 1be mi.Bina basAo ofLonawy, lcM chan S*'ol adul11 were practiAn& catbollc1
or any tort, allhoua.b 95% ol them b.1d Cl!i&de thdr firat commua.ioo when tbey were.
cbildreit•, Oscar L ~e·Aroal, Pljtresea blcu de chauffe. Pan~ Les Editionsouvritrea,
1992, p.71,CPnes:ts1n workin•·clau hluc. The hillory or the worker.priests: <1943·1954).
New York: Paulist Prca, 1916). A MD•ll suneycanedout i• Loa.&wy iD 19SS Qowed tb.at
•2"otworkers, l09(..olemployees, 409lta/encince.n and t09liol employers were cburc:hprs",
Gerard Noiricl, David Cbarauc, Un ailcle d'lnt~gratlon des tmmig~• dans le
Pan-Haut !ornin, Parts: ~ Lo1ennuustcridk Redlemlc: Esptn..1ua,_ (MJ.R.B.),
1m,r 112.
2 BernardAlexandre, the minor priestofthe. Paysde Cl:ur,orda.iocdio 194S, rut.Us
ta bi.a memoirs tlle ambigDOUI at1ihtdc ol tbc Clluttb lO'tfard11hc cinema in 1bc forties,
and hi1 own connict111 a film eotbus.ia.st with the ecclc.s.iastical hierarchy. "'fbe cinema
i1 obviously DOI in tbe programme ol. tbc 1tmioary. Jt i.i even 1aboo. The pn«t is DOI:
allowed to go tbere. Tbesynodic statuleand the diocesan nilea arc stnct about that. The
curtain,often red ••In the theatre, I•an u.a.pleasant remioder ol tbc bd.l otche m1ddle·•sc
iD the. Mystcnu....aad all tbat aeoeaarily me.au aacm.a bu a Jmdl ol1ulfur.· Bernard
Alexandre, Ls Horuin. vivre et survivrc en P1vs de Caux. Paria: Pion, 1988. p. 7S. Por
tome priests In Lonawy, the cinema •as sce1 as1 mect1a1· place wlricb broke up •tamily
hrc· aid made J'OUDI people lazy. 0. Set&c Bo11et, L"llmnme du fer. tome 111 Nancy:
Presses Univerlit1irc1 de N1ncy, Bdltiont Scrpsnoises, 1987, p. 219.
29
()( tb• 3396 projec1ioas rcrordcd from 19-48 to 19S3, rdigaous all0dahoa1,
C1DC•clubs, the PCP, 1nd tbe COT did not contribute more than 1 hundred performance•
11roee1ber.
226 PABRICE MONTl!BllLLO
workers interviewed remain close to the PCF30 and that the latter is
still st.-ongly established in the local working-class, especially among
the Italian-born sections of iL31
The working class uses or cinema
The villages and towns or the mining and steel-making basin in the north
or Lorraine, what Serge Bonnel qualifies as 'suburbs without any
town•,32 are sometimes gathered around an older historical nucleus.
Such is Lhe case with Longwy, where Lhc specifically working-class
neighbourhood or Gouraincourt faces the steel works, and the town
centre serves as a focal point for the inhabitants or the surrounding
•suburban• towns, all geographically connected to the town of Longwy
io a continuous line more tba.n ten kilometers long.
The town square as such has been the favourite gathering place for
all the great worker demonstrations or the p05t-war period down to the
present day. People go there on foot, with the family or in the company
of 'gangs of mates". Daily life and the weekly tempo of work/rest/leisure
alsotake placeessentially within the framework oflhissocialgcograpby.
The neighbourhood is an entity which remains profoundly influenced
by the family and by social pressures of all sorts; 'going down to
Loogwy' thus means 'goingintotown', that is•marking a distance' from
the family world and in a certain sense going against parental authority.
Itis notsurprising then to see the local cinemas wedded to the same logic
of centre/outskirts and orrcring dirferent programmes according to their
geographic location or their social 'functions': for cinemas in the outer
areas, week-end arternoon or evening bills suited to family excursions
30 Tile pp be1wcc:1 the pro-COGLm.uAis:t workers' love ror Amencaa t'ilm.1 aod tbe
poliliC'alb1ck&f0Uadoltbe1ctiVi.s11i11tudiedin IDOft-dclaili• Pabncc Moetcbdlo~ •J01epll
Staliac. et H"mpbrey Boaar1: L"bommagc de$ OUYTicr1•, !2ill!!, ao. i. d6ccmbrc 1993,
pp. 115-133.
31
ra the l..ona•Y conn11uet1c1ia.19S6, lhc PCP wo111l41""1ol1be votes. The CGT
trade·union (clOK 10 tbe PCP) received 7390 ol the volca 1t lbc clcction1 10 the SodaJ
Securily ofllcc In Lon&wy in 1947, cf Gtratd Noiricl, Lon1wy, ..., ~ pp. 355-358.
Theconncc1ionbetwetn ll11iao immigrationand tbe commur._ilt votew111.Jndcrllncdcarly
onbyS. Donnet,Ch.Santini,H. Barthelemy,•Appartenance poll1iquect 111i1udc reli&icuse
dan1 l'~mlar1tlon lt1licnneen LorrainesidCrvrgiquc•,Arcblvcade tocioloa.Je des religions.
oo.131 1962(c(tbeBnalith tran'1ation inSergeBonnet,•Po1itlcalAU1nmcnt11nd Rcligiou.s
Attituda Wilb.io the llaJlan lmmiaration to the Metallurgical Districts ol Lorr1Jr1e•1 l2!!.m!I.
otSoci11 H111orr, no. 2, Vol. 21 1968, pp. 12S-1SS).
32 Serie Bonnet, Soclologic oolitiaueet religicuK- de I• Lorr•inc, tbtse d'I!tat, Paris,
1972 (Cabacn de 11 Pond111on N1tionaJe des Sc-acoccs Poli11que1, no. 111).
HOLLYWOOD FILMS IN A FRENCH WORKJNO a.ASS MJLIEU 227
with children and young married couples;33 less "conformist" evenings
typical of the outings of young adult workers for the more modern
cinemas in the centre of town. Marked out socially as a place of transgression,
the cinema "naturally' became one of those activities whose
function was to ease the transition from adolescent to adult Ii fe,in the
same way as the social life surrounding cares, bars, dances, sports events,
factory clubs, and group outings operated. These consequentsocial distinctions
traditionally opposed one generation to another, and within
these generations and di Ucrent social classes, the contrasts were
increased by the ostentatious "consumption' of American films. Considered
by the working class people we spoke to as a genre in itself, or
rather as the cinematographic form par excellence (the one there were
no doubts about), American cinema is in itself 'Cinema', in contrast to
French films in general, which were believed to be too boring, artjficial
or wordy, and so judged absolutely useless dramatically, if not simply
dismissed as •non-cinema•.34
Confronted at tbe time of the Liberation, with what they willingly
called a 'revelation• (the advent of American films on French screens)
these workers made their choices and justified them by constructing an
essentially aesthetic distinction between American and French films.
Cinema was essentially American: individual films were then discussed
using a vocabulary 'drawn• from the world of the factories and from
the induslrial universe in general, as if tbe good points about American
films--i.beir "efficiency', "technical skill', 'performance', "construction',
'beautifully well-done work', 'great sbow"- were ways of expressing
the modernity ofthe moment. The words used to praise the actors came
from the samesources and had derogatory equivalents.I have beard bow
the use of professional categories such as 'cbOmeur' ('unemployed
person'). "garde rHectoire• ("canteen guard'), •manoeuvre• ('unskilled
worker"), to refer to deojgrated and degrading activities for skillled
workers, served to characterise the skills or tbe worst actors, or even the
films with which they were systematically identified.35 In this way
Humphrey Bogart found bis exact opposite in the figure of Eddy
Constantine (protagonist of the French series "Lemmy Caution"): real
33
M.icbd Vcm:t, lA CuhureouvriCrc. Saint-5'.buhca: AO.. Edition, 1911, p. 129.
34 Tbe cz:prusioo •Amtnc•• films• mv.11: be con.Ddcrcd as an aestbe1ic rtllyia.&uU,
•watchword which played 1 real role i• dilfercnhat1n1 ri.1.m.a for some people. I• term• ot
•1e1tbcticdilfCKDtiatiOD,.1(ot Cbcte WOrk.C-nil played I rofccqu1valeot tOthCcrvdltc notk>o
ot •cintma d'a\ltcur· ror inteHcctuals. Oa the •dlscuraivc• con1tructio11ol1tylC1, ICC the
example of tbc western In Jean-Loui1 Lcutrat, L'AUlance brll6e. le weatern det annCea
~ Lyoa: Presaea Ualvcrsltaircs de Lyon, 1985, p. 17.
S P1brice Mootebcllo, ·0c la rtcep1ion. dea filrn1 au c:inC.ma deaouvricrs•, Cintmas.
Moatrt&J, ao. 2-3, sprl•J 1992, pp. 123-148.
228 PABRICE MONil!BELLO
'cbOmeur' of the detective film, a colourless 'ersatz•, a ridiculous
pastiche, the incarnation of incompetence in films. We find then all tinds
of justifications for what was considered implausible directing and
artificial acting "It's all put on"; "It sounds wrong•; "It's badly made" (in
the sense of "badly manufactured").36
The comparison between the twocinemas (Sainte-Anne and Cinema des
Families) which showed the most American films in the a.rea, allows us
to reconstruct the logic inherent in the different use of the films shown
in each of the cinemas, a reflection of their status and their reputation
in the neighbourhood. The first of them was situated in Herserange and
clearly fulfilled the role or a local cinema aiming above all at children
and families.The filmsshown there were generally less recent than those
on offer in tbe cinemas at the centre of the general area. The fact that
it was run by an association with its origins in the local parish led to its
being known as the 'priests cinema' by the working class audience.This
was enough to get it characterised as naive and moralising, and to deny
it any legitimacy as "serious cinema•. ('You could send your children
to the So/nu-Anne with your eyes shut'). On the other band, at the
Cinema des Familles, which didn't really merit its name (elliptical
working class pronunciation soon reduced it to the •fami", thus
phonetically neutralising the social significance of the original), and
where more American films were shown and seen than anywhere in the
entire urban area, what counted was being together amongst friends,
in a good atmosphere, where it was possible to have a laugh, a chat,
something to eat, a smoke, to chat up the girls, all the while enjoying
the exploits of the heroes on the screen. The memories of non-working
class witnesses recall either the social charactcriBt.ics of the cinema,
sometimes with a hint ofscorn, as in the case of a retired primaryschool
teacher who spoke of a den of "riff-raff", or condemned the details of
programmes she considered aesthetically inferior. The u-president of
a cine-club said: "at the Cinima des Familles, the adventure film
reigned (•••) once I grew up, I didn't go there anymorc'.
36 Tbcte popular jud&mcnts praising America and ridicubn1 Prencb detective films
as poor parodies, can allO be found in some scholarly 101Jysi1 ol film crlticl1m1 d. Jill
Forbes, •The ·~rle Noerc••, Bri1n Riiby, Nicholas Hew1u. ~pp. 8$.97. These
opinion• arc similar 10 thc>te auigncd by Ma11·0baerva1ion 10 Bohon worken in Great
Bri11in in 1938, who preferred American films by Car to n11lonal produc1ion1, and \lsed
10 qualify lhe l11tcr 11 •dull 1nd lifeless" and the pl1yln1of1be 1ctor1 11 "stiff aod
artifici11·. Aa for the American film•~ they were •11ick., poli1hed, raatmoving and often
1pcctacular•1 and their aCIOtl •natural a.ad lifehkc". Cf. Jeffrey RJcb1td1 IDd Dorothy
Shcrldan, Mau·Obtetyalion 1t the movies. Londoo.: Rou1lc.d&e A Kc1an Paul Ltd, 1987,
p. 39.
HOU,YWOOD FILMS IN A FRENO! WORKINO Cl.ASS MTUEU 229
The analysis or the physical conditions in which the audience was
received and the logic of social distinctions brings out differences
between two cinemas that the statistical evidence seems to contradict.
orall the cinemu studied, these two do show, as. matter of fact, the
largest proportion ofAmerican films, and both have the highest average
audience for American film (cf. table IV). Detailed study of programming,
added to information gathered from interviews, shows bow real
choices were made between films and bow aesthetic distinctions were
constructed, whereas the raw statistical evidence only reveals patterns
of choice imposed by the trends or distribution. If we use, for example,
one of the criteria used by Catholic observers or the time, such as the
moral ratings or the CCCR, we can understand that for the workers it
was a question of seeing al the Cinema des familles, Lbe least •pure' and
'naive• films, the ones produced by Hollywood (if al random we take
1948 as our reference year, the borderline ratings 4a, 4bis, are by far
the most common at the Cinema des Families). In the light of the
individualised workingclassperceptionsencountered in the interviews,
and of our ethnographic observations, we can understand how far
American films were seen to be from th0'5C with the mogt obviom French
aesthetic characteristics ("long• and •talkative• pictures! melodramas
without no action, often qualified as •women's films•). 7
The search
for 'great American films• even took working people to other cinemas
where American films were less frcquenlly shown and also less successful
(the Palace and above all the Rex). But the special relations they
maintained with the owner of the Cinema des Families and the efforts
made by the laller lo project a majority of American films, were often
37 forcxamp&e tn l!M&, lbe cittema Saiote·Anne 1.bowc.d American (ilml IUCb aa: l&
et.ant de Bcrnade11eqbcSoagofBernadette. Hea.ri Kia&.1947, CCCR r11ing::3), LeCicl
ecwt attcadrc (Heaven C.n Wait. Brnsa Lubitsc._, 1946. 4). Lg g~1 du. royaumc ~
keJ!ollbc Kingdom. T<>a.aStahl019460Jbis), Dcuxsoc1;n• viv1it9tcp p•ix Cfhc Bacbckw
and 1be Bobby-Soxs.r. lrvini Reis, 19480 3 bis), Le. Pan10Gts. dt l'*r• CJ)e Pllaatom
oltbe Oeera. Arthur Lub1a1
1943, 3 bis), La Soeur dctoa valtl (His Butl.er•s Siucr. Prall
Botu1c. 1947, 3 bis), 1-Ai Vtc rrivCc d'Elisabcth d'An&lctcrrs lTbc Pnvatc J..i,vcs; cl
l!t1Abs:t) and f.m1. M1cbad Cunit.0 1941, 4), Le Cunc p9!r ITbc Black Swann. Reary
Kin&.t 1947, 3 bil), tit. In l~c same time, a.1 tbe Canfina 00 Pam1llre1. people eouJd ace.
Arirona <Ari1on1, We'1ey Ruu.te11 1947,3 bi,), La Rue rouge<Scarlru Strttt, Pritz Lani.
1947, 4 bit) Dcux ma1n1dan1 la nuit CTbc Spiral Staircase, RObc.rt SJodmak, 1947, 4 bis),
R~volle ti bord O:wo Years. Rcrore the Mas.-t, John Parrow, 1947, 3 b11) Double inigmc
<Dark Mirror, Robert Siodmak, 1947, 4), Evad~ de l'cnfer <Angel on My Shoulder,Arcbie
Mayo, 1947, 4) t,eTrjomphc de Tan.an <Tarzan's Triumph. Willian Thiele, 1947, 3) ~
R1j1jn1 de !1 COitec IThc. Orapcs oC Wrath. John Ford, 1947, 3 bla), Peux nigauds
d~mo!?i!IR1 <B1.1ck Privates Come Home, Charlct Barton, 1948, 3), Le Or1nd sommcil
<The Uig Sleep, 1-loward Hawks. 1947, 4 bi.s), etc. Sec alao Ttble V,
230 l'ABRICB MONTEBl!LLO
mentioned by the workers interviewed to justify the originality or their
cboices.31
Cinema and working class culture
Ap&rl from the generation differences which normally 'opposed' the
methods and thinkingof parentslo those ortheirchildren, it is necessary
to emphasise bow for another large section or the local population, Italian
immigrants, acultural 'gulf' nowseparated the parents, often or peasant
origin, illiterate, uprooted ud employed in the most menial heavy
labour, from their children wbo were born and schooled in France, and
so were more able to get 'skilled' job•. Even more fund&mentally, the
symbolic universe of the people concerned found itself transformed:
peasant beliefs, superstitions, local dialects, all kinds of a half-pagan
religiousness that French priests, like Italian ones, had difficulty in
grasping, were generally derided by children who bad become young
adults in the new environment. The gap became even wider when they
started to go back to the land of their birth at the beginning of the
fifties, visiting cousins, uncles, and aunts who had rcm&incd in the
peninsula.
Their accounts talk or a "backward' society, characterised by
shortages, scarcity, technical backwardness (villages "without running
water, gas or electricity"), and are ironic about habits or customs
coosidered •outof date' orold-fasbioned,particularly in matterssexual.
The illusions al the beartor the immigrante:rperience (of the temporary
departure, or continuing to live 'here' tbe way we lived 'there' ...) and
the relativisation which derived from it, eventually of course favoured
adapting to (and accepting) the new host country and its 'ways and
customs•.39 Tbe later a child arrived in a family, the less be or she
tended to reproduce the behavioural structures typical of the society or
origin. For all that, if an objective comparison is to be made between
the peasant societies or northern or central ltaly, al the beginningor the
century, and tbe organisation of working class society io the North or
Lorraine after the Second World War, we must not forget the strong
cooslraiots wbicb cootioued to weigh oo people in a working clas environment.
Patterns of behaviour from the past endured or were even
revived, such as sexual segregation at work, the most striking evidence
31 F1bri« Mon1ebc.Uo. ~Us.l&ca IOCiaux e1 oa1es popuJairesdu ciafm1. la qua:1ioa
du 1m11eun'"1 J!i!, ao. 17, (fon:lu:oauD&).
39 Abddmalek Sapd, L"Jmm1gn1t09 o.. kc earadoxcs de )'allfn1f. Bdi1ioes
Ua.avercit11ru, Bnaxelles:. De Bock UR&vel'lilt, 1991.
HOLLYWOOD FILMS IN A PRBNCH WORKINO CLASS MILIEU 231
of the structural logic inherent in working class culture, space and
work.40
Social tolerance and the logic of transgression which characterised
the beginning of working life and adulthood were therefore neither
uniform, nor unilateral. If it was easy for young adult workers born in
France to build their world "against' that of their parents, the same
cannot be said for their female counterparts, who were more subject to
family control and whose outings to dances, or to the cinema, were
limited in space (mostly, they were not allowed to go outside the neighbourhood,
so the space of childhood remained as a mark of immaturity
and subordination), and in time (girls were allowed go out mainly at the
week-end, and practically never during the rest of the week): parents
feared finding their daughters pregnant. Boys meanwhile challenged
society by making a •free and libertarian use of their time•,41
overturning
the order of "priorities' in the week, turning days off into
holidays and the moments when the family traditionally went out
together to the cinema, like Sundays, into days devoted Lo other leisure
activities (dances, sporting events etc.).
The ostentatious appropriation and consumption of American films
can be seen then as one of the possible responses to the fracture which
separated the old world from the new one,42
the uprooted peasants
from their "skilled worker' children, the country from the conforts of
town, the use of bastardised dialects from the need to master the
language of the host country, the submission of a disorganised
proletariat, with few rights and little protection, from the situation of
workers 'who stuck together' in the mass parfy organisations and the
unions.43
By allowing them to see the world through the eyes of the
cinema, the aesthetics of "American films• allowed these workers to
"think out• the rupture and as a result to bear it.44
4
oOUvier Schwartz, LeMondc prive des ouvricrs. hommcsct remmes du Nord. Paris;:
PUP, 1990.
41 Pierre Bourdicuet Jcan·Claude Pa.ueron,Lee •ICritier&,Paris: Editionsde Minuit,
1964,f' so.4 An equivalent point ()(view about immigrants can be seen at the bcginningol the
century in the United States: Roy Rosenz.weig. •Eight Hoursfor What We Wilr. Workers
and Leisure in an Industrial aty. 1870-19W. <:ambridge, New-York, Melboorne: <:ambridge
University p,...., 1983, pp. 196·197.
43 BxprcsQon of a •successful" "integration"? The fact remains that there were no
projectionsorItalian films in theoriginal version in Longwyin those years, unlike 1bc case
of Egyptian films in arabic1 brought in for Nortb·Alricao worker&of tbe region; who were
less numcrou1 and or more recent immigration.
44 Cf. Pabricc Mootebcllo, "ProblCmcs d'hi,toirc du public, le c:inCma commc
esthttiquc du pauvrc", op. cit.
232 PABRICB MONTEBBLLO
If "American modernity• therefore had any influence at all on
audiences, it was not to be found in a dumb and envious contemplation
of the outward signs of consumerist wealth and domestic "bliss• which
swept across the cinema screens of the time (cars, TV sets, washingmachines,
refrigeralors ...),as the intellcctualist prejudices mentioned
above would have us believe, but rather in the social use of American
films, that is to say their appropriation within the construction of a
specific working class identity, that of second generation 'ltalians'.4
s
What was modern for them was to go to the cinema to see American
films.
For all that, the act of going to the cinema cannot be understood
without being tied in to the overall picture of working class social
activities, that is tosay all the other ways of socialising which governed
collective life, whether at work, on the factory floor, in cafes, dances
and sports events, song contests, parties, strikes ... It is enough to
mention the reasons for their appropriation of the actor Humphrey
Bogart, the absolute incarnation of the American cinema, to perceive
the complex sytem of relationships working within the sphere of working
class pleasures.
We would in fact understand nothing of the admiration with which
Humphrey Bogart was regarded by the group of workers among whom
we conducted our interviews, if we did not first reduce the actor-that
is to say the character he embodied in films as well as the actor himself,
in the logic of the 'double contamination" described by Edgar
Morin46-to the ideal-type of all-male ladies man embodied to perfection
in the notion ofbarbeau (the ponce or pimp). The barbeau is not
so much here the pimp in the sense that the Larousse dictionary defines
him while still attributing the word to 'popular' language, so much as
the womaniser who seduces all women with disconcerting ease and
without being •naturally" handsome. Thus he personifies in the domain
of seduction all the social qualities required within the working class
social situation. In particular be embodies 'ease•, thatparticular quality,
distributed socially but unequally, including within the popular classes
themselves, which can be defined in the sense used by Pierre Bourdieu
as the 'indifference to the objcctivizingeyesofothers which neutralizes
their power•.47
To move with ease means knowing bow to adjust one's
45
Gerard Noiricl, Longwy. immlgrtset prolttaircs,op. cit.. and by the same aurbor,
Les lmmigris italien$ en Lorraine pendant l'cntrc..deux-gucrres; du rcjct xioopbobc aux
strattgies d'inttgration, in Pierre Mitia, Les Jtaliens en Prance de 1914 8 1940, Erote
fran-;aisc de Rome, 1986, pp. 609-632.
~6
Edgar Morin, Les Stars. Paris: Seuil, 1972 (Minuit 1956), pp. 36-64.
47
Pierre Bourdieu, •Remarques provisoircssur la perception socialc du corps•, Actcs
de la r-cchcrchc en sciences IOCiales. no. 14, avril 1977, pp. St-54.
HOLLYWOOD FILMS IN A FRBNCH WORKINO CLASS MILIEU 233
voice and place one's body-essential attributes for these sonsofltalian
immigrants who have to rcconstructthemselves togetoverthe linguistic
stigma and the peasantgawkinessofthe parents, andabsorb the national
characteristicsof the hostcountry.On!yin this way can they be accepted
by their "mates" in the working world.
There is in fact no domain in which this working class savoir-vivre
does not manifest itself, whether at the cinema, in the factory, in the
family, in the cafe, in politics, or again at dances. Dancing, because it
is a matterof placing the body in a precise way in a precise geographical
spot, expresses marvellously all that depends on inherited ways of
moving and acting in a given social space. At the 'dancing evenings',
as they were called by the regional papers of the time, 'knowing how
to speak' ('not like those who need to down three beers before they can
get talking to a girl') and "knowing how to dance' ("not like those who
dance like peasants, once they get to the end of the room, they turn
around') are the indispensable qualities involved in being presentable
('to cut a good figure•,•jouer les barbeaux"), notably in view of starting
up an affair. The absence of these attributes condemned workers who
were a little awkward, and "who bad nothing in their beads', the ones
who were embarrassed and shy, to go to country dances, which were seen
as pathetic by the others, places where their social destiny was bound
to 'folk wboare lower than us, who have really nothing". The last remark
expresses less the scorn ofsome workers for the 'lumpen proletariat' (in
the originalsense of the word "proletariat in rags', that is tosay dcprived
of everything) than the spontaneous perception ofan objective position
held within the social world. So it is this vision as a whole we must bear
in mind when we bear these workers saying of Humphrey Bogart that
be represented ' the real barbeau'. This understanding of an implied
aesthetic judgement is confirmed when we think of the mixture of cold
intelligence and ofscepticism, almost cynicism, which characterised all
the roles played by Bogart, and which fitted in with so many of the
attitudes of mistrust typical of the popular classes, along the lines of
'they won't get me•.48
Consciously thought of as a period of 'good times• before the constraints
of married life,49
the leisure activities of young people who
entered working life around 1945 from the age of fourteen on, offered
within their social world alternatives between, on the one hand, ascetic
strategiesofsocial climbingor devotion to a cause (as in the case ofparty
or union militants), and on the other, drifting of all kinds (going too far,
48
rucbard Hoggan, La Culturedu pauVTc, Paris: Editions de Minuil, 1970 (The Uses
of Literacy. London: Cbatto and Windus, 1957).
49~
234 PABRICB MOl'nllBBLLO
hanging around, laziness at work and tbe ultimate kind ofsocial debasement
that alcoholism represented). And there wasalso the "shady" world
-"shady" because subdued and little understood--of those last immigrants
who had arrived without their wives and who worked from one
"hell to another•, with tbe sole objective of sending money back to tbe
family at bome.50 At the heart of this universe of measured "enjoyments",
and in opposition to the constraints of factory work and to all
the varieties ofsocial control, we find strategics for protectiJlg the body
againstallthelikely rists(work accidents, physicaldegradation, fatigue,
exhaustion ...),and the symbolic compensation provided by the imaginary
transfer of the self to the cinema screen. As ooe e><-steelworker,
oow in early retirement, put it, "we were cinema fans, not like some of
the others who were only fit to work like madmen at the factory'.
Hollywood films have often b~o presented as culturalsub-products
responding to a logic of entertainment, ideological fascination or
commercial profit. Yetourlocal observationsreveala workers' audience
specifically adaptingthesesame American films toits owo purposesand
imbuing them with a variety of different 'meanings'. These films were
at the crossroads of a lot of different uses: transgression, aesthetic
assertion, the e><pressioo of a specific worlliog-class identity and of a
relationship with the world seen as a split-off from that of parents,
carriers ofsocial modernity. Different uses of the cinema that could be
summed up as follows: Many ofthe social uses ofthe cinema listed here
involved tbc diffusion of symbolic forms, which once reappropriated
by the popular classes allowed them to think out the new social world
and position themselves in it. Apart from the basic questions this study
raises for the historian of cinema audiences (such as those relating to
the success of films considered minor at the time, turned by critics into
masterpieces of the 7th Art years later),51 we can understand in
particular bow workers who voted 'communist• could be refusing, in
theadmiration they felt for American films, the conception of the world
implied by their politicalallegiances. In 1950, a shrewd observer of the
CNC noted: •Jn the suburbs, inspite of the we/I-known political opinions
of the majority of the population, the share ofAmerican films increases
year after year. It is the same trend In the East (...) and in the region of
50
Abdelmalek Sayad, ~ p. 128.
Sl Tbu.s~film1 were pa11 oltbcaes1be1icwortd olWOJkcn k>ag before they were
rcq.nlsed11m1s1crpiecc1ofthe7tb Art(in p1r1icularcer11in wc11ern1and ·n1m1 no:il'S•).
They raise the q"estioo ol tbc tr10Jformatio11ol1 commercial product into a cultural one.
HOLLYWOOD FILMS IN A FRBNCH WORKINO CLASS MILIEU 235
Lille (...). The region of Marseille is also showing a clearer and clearu
preference for American films•.52
This snapshot or the cinemalographic geography of France corresponds
very accuratelytothe traditional divisionof the country between
the industrial northand tbe"rural" south, followingaline from Le Havre
to Marseille. It also corresponds to some of the densest geographical areas
of communist sympathies.53 ll is a strange paradox that this love for
Hollywood films, denounced atthetimeas brainwashing devices, represenled
for the social classes with the least privileged cultural heritage,
an exceptional means for gelling to know the world.
52 Bulletin d'information du CNC, no. 14, juin..juillct•aolit 19SO.
53 Jean.. Paul Molinari, Le' Ouvricrs communiitcs. S()('iotogic de l'adbtsion ouvri~re
~. Tbonoo-les-Bains:: L'Albaron, 1991.
236 FABRICS MO:-rn!BELLO
TABl.BI
Pucca1ege ol the toeal a.amber olap«"t•ton accordill110 film a1ttonality, 1a Prance aad I
10 the ditrcrcnl rcc,i0n1 defined by 1bc CNC, from 1946 to 19SO. (in bold, lhc favourable
ratio of American films ovc:r French films, and lncrea1e ol the total Dumberof1pcct1tor1
Ctotn one year to 1nothcr). Soutce: C'IC.
1946-47 1947-48 1948-49 1949-50 1950
PARIS
French 42,79% 41,80% 41,30% 45,72'11> 47,72'11>
Amcricao 47,S5 48,911' 44,'IS1' 41,S2"' 41,001'
Tout 107.132.742 93.020.104 14.506.256 11.544.850 78.052.430
SUBURBS
Frcn.cb. 54,25% 48.3~ 44,77% 44,S1% 47,381'
Aacrit:aa 3S,001' 42,05.,. 42,)()IJ, 41,08* 40,001'
Total 47.834.082 43.726.878 40.954.940 38.182.771 38.365-546
ORP
Prcnc:b 63,96" 56,121' 51,989' 49,05% 51,2~
Amcricaii 25,68% 32,16"- 35,24.,. 36,77*' 35,16"
Tot1l 66.903.662 58.156.445 S9.119/S03 56.423.803 S1.US.SSS
STRASBOURG
French 51,91% 38,o3% 34,07*' 31,75*- 34.4~
American 41,3S% S0,111' s1.- si.- st;7211'
TOCal 23169.692 29.069.445 21.115.998 27.162.963 Zl-161017
BORDE!AUX
Preach 55,91% 52,2,.,. 50,211' 41.191' SO,S7%
American 33.- 36,65'1' 38.~ 37,SO.. 37,65.,.
TotoI 38.683.774 39.910.856 38.081.438 35.844.197 lS.634.769
ULl.B
French 49,05% 40,4R 37,19% l4,02'5. 37,35.,.
American 42,31% 46,34.,. 49,S1% S0,95 S0,24*
1·0111 38.631.744 39.697-316 39.031.944 36.985.623 37_78iUSQ
I.YON
French 55.56% 49,72"- 47,47% 45,69'll> 48,S5%
Americaa 34.81% 40,77% 38.~ 40,27% 39,05%
Toc1I 48.488.680 47.812.780 46.631.126 44.527.216 43.892.191
MARSEILl.B
Preach 44,15 36,46' 34,43% 36,S~ 37,351'
Ame.ric:ao 47,001' S2,l9!' Sl,711' 49,95 S0,011'
TotoI 53.544.311 49.555.814 49.031.293 48.488.137 47.992.291
llOU.YWOOD FILMS IN A PRENCH WORKJNO CLASS Mtueu 237
l'RANCl!
Preacb Sl,I"' 45,6~ 43,11.,. 41. - 45,17!1>
Amcncan 39,2"' 43,I~ 43,76" 43,.,.,. 42.~
To11I 419.389.996 401,709.691 386.243.483 369.159.560 367.131.749
TAllLll 11
Pcrccotaceol the total number ot1pcct11or1 according to film nahooallty, in Prince, in
1bc "'&lo• cl S1r1sbourg aad In Loeswy, from 1946 10 1950. Sou"": o;c.
PRANCE STRASBOURG LOSOWY
1946·47
Preach SI,!"' .s1;799'i s1.~
American 39,2"' 41,35.,. 38,33*
lln&lnb 6,36* 4,S"' 2,93*
Italian 0,93* 0,80% 0,32*
Others 2,29* 1,50% 1,12%
1947·41
Prcnch 45,63* 38,03.,. 48,60'Jlo
American 43,85 S0,11' 44,01.,.
lla&lllla 4.30' 4,71,,. 3,60'Jlo
ltaliaa 3,n-.. 3,34.,. 2,01.,.
01b<rt 3,0l'Wt 3,10-.. 1.~
1948·49
French 43,11* 34,07'11 35,9~
American 43,76.,. St,9"' 52,31%
Enali1h 4,..0% 4,70% 4,18%
Italian 4,24.,. 4,389' 3,97%
Others 4,69 4,88.,. 3,54%
1949·50
Preac~ 42,9ft 31,75'11> 33,n...
Americaa 43,04.,. Sl,061' S2,t~
l!nsJOJb 4,9~ S.261' 4,449'
ltahaa S,65.,. 6.10-.. 4.80l'
01bcrs 3,40% 4,13' 4,84*
1950
Prench 4S,17% 34,42* JZ,S6*
American 42,38% Sl,72* S0,88%
l?nsli•b 4,62* 4,31.,. S,419&
hahan s.~ S,64!1 6.~
Others 2,&l«t 3,91.,. s.~
238 PABRICI! MOl'<TllBELLO
TABU!UI
Perccnt•&cor1becotalnuMbcrol'OlmsrelealCdandofspectaton, inPranceaad io Looa•y.
rrom 19461019SO,lo<Amencaoaod PrucbIii.._Source; CNCc1 Hobcrt-Lacombc(l916).
19-46
1947
1944
1949
19SO
1946
1947
19-48
19"9
19SO
PRANCI!
fUm.1
%10111
37,1~
23,46%
22,33%
23,7S%
films
"total
49,77%
59,2~
SS.SS'
S2,49"
46,09%
PRJlNCll PILMS
Spe<t.
CJ& total
Sl,16"
4S.~
43,11%
42,43'lfr
LONOWY
films
9' IOlal
S6,38%
SI.OS%
36,71%
35,52%
33,'.IK
AMERICAN FILMS
Spc:ct. 6h111
'I& total ~total
39,26% 39.~
43,62'lfr 41,17%
43,76* S0.04%
44,54% 47.-
S0,88'lfr
Spc:c1.
"'total
51,29%
48.~
35,98"
33,~
32,56%
Spect.
9' total
38.33*
44,01%
S2,31%
S2,1391>
HOLLYWOOD FILMS IN A FRENCH WORKING CLASS MILIEU 239
TABLE IV
Numbcrof'filmsandnumbcrol'corresponding5pectators.,accordingto film na1ionalityand year,for the tencinemas
of tbc Longwy district from 1945 10 1950 (first according to the year, then 10 the cincma5). Source: CNC.
I) YEARS
1945 FRENCH AMERICAN ENGLISH ITALIAN OTHERS
Sainte-Anne 17 9081 13 10130
Nouv.. Palace 37 32136 IS 14n1 1 970 1 945
Eden 52 34102 9 7082 3 2018 I 561
Oour-anCma 1 940
Rex 52 88802 16 32326 1 753
Palace 22 51397 19 40233 4 7317 I 4780 5 161n
Parisiana 43 29766 14 9380 1 732 1 976 3 2170
Cint-Rthon
Jcanne·d'Arc
Pamillics 13 17330 20 34512 1 1421
Total 236 262614 106 148434 11 13211 4 7262 9 19287
Moycnnc 1113 1400 1201 1815 2143
1946 FRENCH AMERICAN ENGLISH ITALIAN OTHERS
Saiotc·An.nc 24 12863 32 25305 I 650 1 794
Nouv-Palace 26 29411 8 11694 3 5133 1 800 1 1325
Eden 20 12004 20 13873 1 732
Gour·Cinema
Rex 38 56260 24 27457
Palace
Parisiana 20 12023 23 14603 1 417 2 673
OnC-RChon 31 19511 4 2177 1 330
Jcannc-d'Arc
Pamilles
To<al 159 142132 111 95109 7 7262 1 800 4 2792
Moycnne 894 857 857 698
240 PA.BRIC!! ~10m'E8l!LLO
1947 FRENCH AMBRICAN BNOLISH ITALIAN OTHERS
S.ii:ne-Anne 18 10837 u 20156 6 S219 3 2472 2 1364
Nou.v- Pal1ce 28 30m 30 36912 I 1608 I 1254 I 1093
Bd•• 38 11sn 6 4108 3 1017
Govr-aatma
Rex SS 88464 30 34408 s 2572 s 4342
P111ce
P1risiana 56 28338 48 28S13 2 821
Cin~·Rihoo 33 20185 4 2434 I 546
Je.1nne-d•Arc 4 2298 8 4132
P1miUcs
• 8090 « SS834 3 3480 3 4146 I 1114
Toul 2-43 206S62 196 187097 21 1S263 7 8S72 9 7603
Moyenne ISO 9SS 727 122S 14S
1948 l'RBNCH AMIJIUCAN £!NOLISH ITALIAN OTHllRS
Sa1nte-Aa..ne 17 12025 30 28539 I 66&S I S66
l"ou•-Palace 2-4 24439 22 18947 4 3363 2 1981 8 8171
Bdca 32 13099 IS 87S9 1 S64 s 2108 1 400
Oour-anema
Rcr 33 Sl-460 36 36261 2 2893 3 3033 I S74
P1l1cc 16 3871S 30 69159 I 1618 2 S662 2 3039
P1rl&iana 32 18577 48 23085 l 1661 2 586 4 2339
C.nt-Rtbon 4 2532
Jcaooc-d'Att
Famillcs 5 S710 43 S823S 3 2706 4 5140 I 694
To1al 163 167SS7 224 243S8S 21 19490 18 18510 18 16490
Moycnne 1028 1087 928 1028 916
1949 FRENCH AMBRICAN 2NOLISH ITALIAN OTlll!RS
Saiare-Anne 13 7$44 36 30611 2 1187 2 1611
Nouv. Palace 20 20889 30 29986 2 19S7 2 1932 4 39S6
Bd<n 61 27343 46 IS962 19 6998 II 3232 7 2327
Oour-CinCma 28 2SS14 20 18277 3 1803
Rcr 34 47954 47 42635 6 6918 6 4008 8 7141
P1J1ce 17 33246 37 85607 I 1919 3 S439 3 74S2
PariJiana 49 25951 SI 25422 s 3343 4 1306 4 1880
Cint-Reboa
Juane-d'An:
Families s 5748 39 512« I 142'4 8 9998 s 5109
Toul 227 194195 306 2991« 39 25549 36 27596 31 2786S
Moyenne 8SS 980 6SS 767 899
HOLLYWOOD FILMS IN A FRENCH WORKING CLASS MILIEU 241
1949 FRENCH AMBRICAN ENGLISH ITALIAN OTHBRS
Sainte- Anne 13 1544 36 30611 2 1187 2 1681
Nouv.. Palace 20 20889 30 29986 2 1951 2 1932 4 39S6
Eden 61 27343 46 15962 19 6998 11 3232 7 2327
Oour-CinCma 28 25Sl4 20 18277 3 1803
Rex 34 47954 47 4263S 6 6918 6 4008 8 7141
Palace 17 33246 37 85607 1 1919 3 5439 3 7452
Parisiana 49 25951 SI 254?2 s 3343 4 1306 4 1880
Cinc..Rebon
Jcanne-d'Arc
Families s 5148 39 51244 I 1424 8 9998 s 5109
Toeal 227 194195 306 299744 39 25549 36 21596 31 27865
Moyenoc SSS 980 655 767 899
1950 FRENCH AMERICAN llNGLISH ITALIAN OTHERS
Sainte-Anne IS 6242 36 24S32 6 3097 2 1092
Nouv- PaJacc 21 14615 30 28685 5 3190 2 1777 s 4248
Bden 47 12745 63 28749 10 2065 12 4300 22 69S3
Gour-Cinema 22 1684S 21 21880 s 3918 2 2092 3 23S2
Rex 40 40043 3S 2919S 7 6671 6 6427 8 5387
Palace 28 S2806 30 71998 3 5311 3 7688
Parisian.a 34 12S16 S2 18001 10 2808 3 138S 7 2186
Cint-RCbon
Jeannc-d'Arc
famillC$ 11 10758 34 37402 1 960 9 7437 3 3378
To11.I 218 166690 301 260442 47 28020 37 31106 so 25596
Moycnnc 165 86S S96 841 512
2) CINEMAS
Sainte-Anne FRENCH AMERICAN ENOLISH ITALlAN OTHBRS
194S 17 9081 13 10130
1946 24 12863 32 25305 I 650 I 794
1947 18 10837 26 20156 6 S2!9 3 2472 2 1364
1948 17 12025 30 28539 8 6685 I 566
1949 13 7544 36 30611 2 1187 2 1681
1950 15 6242 36 24532 6 3097 2 1092
'fotal 104 S8592 173 139873 23 16838 5 4153 6 3816
Moycnnc S63 808 732 830 636
242 PABRICI! MOSTEBELLO
Nouv· Palace PRllNCH AMBRICAN BNOLISH ITALIAN OTHERS
1945 37 32136 IS 14n1 1 970 I 94.S
1946 26 29411
• 11694 3 Sl33 1 800 I 1325
1947 28 30777 30 36912 1 1608 1 1254 I 1093
1948 24 24439 22 18947 4 3363 2 1981 8 8878
1949 20 20889 30 29986 2 19S7 2 1932 4 3956
19SO 21 1467S 30 28685 s 3190 2 1777 s 4248
Total 156 IS2327 13S 14099S 16 16221 9 1619 19 19SOO
Moycnne 976 1044 1014 96S 1026
Bdcn PRENCH AMBRICAN ENOUSll ITALIAN OTHBRS
194S S2 34102
' 7082 3 2018 1 S61 I 940
1946 20 12004 20 13873 1 732
1947 38 17573 6 4108 3 1017
1948 32 13099 IS 87S9 1 S64 5 2108 I 400
1949 61 27343 46 IS962 19 6991 II 3232 7 2327
1950 47 1274S 63 28749 10 206S ll 4300 22 6953
Total 250 226866 IS9 78533 37 13394 29 10201 31 10620
Moyenne 467 494 362 352 343
Oour·CtKma FR~Ctl AMERICM BNOUSll ITALIAN OTIIERS
1949 28 25514 20 t82n 3 1803
1950 22 16845 21 21880 5 3918 2 2092 3 2352
Total so 42359 41 40157 8 ST.II
Moycaoe 847 979 71S 1046 784
Rex l'RBNCH AMBRICAN BNOLISll ITALIAN OTHBRS
1945 S2 88802 16 32326 1 7S3
1946 38 56260 24 274S7
1947 sa 88464 30 3440I 5 2S72 s 4342
1948 33 52460 36 36261 2 2893 3 3033 l S74
1949 34 47954 47 42635 6 6918 6 4008 8 7141
1950 40 40043
" 2919S 7 6671 6 6427
• 5381
Total 2SS 373983 188 202282 21 19807 IS 13468 22 17444
Moyenne 1467 1076 943 898 793
Palace PRBNCH AMERICAN ENOUSll ITALIAN OTlffiRS
1945 22 51397 19 40233 4 7317 I 4780 s 161n
1948 16 387lS 30 697S9 I 1618 2 S662 2 3039
1949 17 33246 37 8S607 1 1919 3 S439 3 7452
1950 28 52806 30 71998 3 S311 3 7688
Total 13 176164 116 267S97 9 16165 9 23569 10 26668
Moyenne 212l 2307 1796 2619 2667
HOLLYWOOD PILMS IN A PRBNCH WORKING CU\SS MJUEU 243
'
Parili.aaa FRENCH A.\ll!RJCAN BNGUSH ITAUAN OTHERS
194S 43 29766 14 9380 1 732 I 976 3 2170
1946 20 12023 23 14603 I 417 2 673
1947 S6 28338 48 28Sl3 2 821
1948 32 18577 48 2308S 2 1661 2 586 4 2339
I 1949 49 25957 SI 25422 s 3343 4 1306 4 1880
19SO 34 12S76 S2 18001 10 2808 3 1385 7 2186
Total 234 127237 236 119004 21 9712 10 4253 20 9248
Moyeode S44 504 466 425 462
Oot-Rtbon PRE.'IOI AMl!JUCA.'1 ENGLISH IJ"ALIAN OTHERS
19-16 31 t9S71 4 2177 1 330
1947 33 20t8S 4 2434 1 S46
1948 4 2532
TollI 68 42288 8 4611 2 876
Moyeonc 622 S76 438
Jeanne-d'Arc FRENCH AMERICAN BNGUSH ITALIAN OTHERS
1947 4 22'll
• 4132
Total
Moyttuie 574 516
Fam11ICJ FRENCH AMl'RICAN ENGUSH ITAUAN OTHERS
1945 13 17330 20 34S12 1 1421
1947 8 8090 44 55834 3 3480 3 4846 1 804
1948 5 S710 43 58235 3 2706 4 5140 I 694
1949 s 5148 39 51244 I 1424
• 9998 5 5109
1950 11 10758 34 37402 I 960 9 7437 3 3378
I Total 42 47636 180 237227 9 9991 24 27421 10 ms
Moycnoc 1134 Ull 1110 1143 999
LONOWY PRllNCH AMIJRICAN
Oeocr1I to11I 1246 1.139.750 1244 1.234.411
Average 915 992
244 PABRICE MONTEBELLO
TABLE V
100 films of the £ifties extracted at random from tbe diaries o( A.G. aod A.M.,
metal-workersand cinemalovers from Loogwy, boro io 1928 and 1929. The year iodicatcd
is that of first release in France.
A.G.
Scarface (Scarface, Howard Hawks, 1932, USA).
L'Appel de lo fore/ (Call of the Wild, William Wellman, 1935, USA).
La Grande illusion, Jean Reooir, 1937, Fr.
Lo Fi/le du puisotier, Marcel Pagool, 1940, Fr.
Qu'elle etoit verte ma vame (How Green Was My Volley, John Ford, 1940, USA).
Ne le criez pas sur les toils, Daniel Normand, 1943, Fr.
L'Odyssee du docteur Wassel (The Story of Doctor Wassel, Cecil B. De Mille, 1944, USA).
A choque oube je meurs (Each Down I Die, William Keighley, 1945, USA).
Aventure en Birmanie (Ob1ective Burma! Raoul Walsh, 1945, USA).
Le Grand sommeil (Tl1e Big Sleep, John Huston, 1947, USA).
Lo Charge fontastique (They Died with Their Boots on, Raoul Walsh, 1947, USA).
Pour qui sonne le glos (From 1+7iom the Bells Tolls, Sam Wood 1947, USA).
Le Trisor de lo Sierra Madre (Treasure of Sierra Madre, John Huston, 1948, USA).
Key largo (Key Largo, John Huston, 1948, USA).
DUee d'Anvers, Yves Allegre!, 1948, Fr.
Pilote du dioble (Chain Lightning, Stuart Heisler, 1949, USA).
La FUche brisie (Broken Arrow, Delmer Daves, 1949, USA).
Les Bos fonds de Frisco (Thieves' Highway, Jules Dassin, 1949, USA).
La Femme II abattre (The Enforcer, Robert Burks, 1950, USA).
Fort invincible (Only the Valiant, Gordoo Douglas, 1950, USA).
La Fltche et le flombeau (The Flame and the Arrow, Jacques Tourncur, 1950, USA).
L'/nconnu du Nord-Express (Stranger on a Train, Alfred Hitchcock, 1951, USA).
L'Homme tranquille (The Quiet Man, John Ford, 1951, USA).
Q11and Jes tambours s'arreteront (,Apache Dmms, Hugo Fr~gon~se. 1951, USA).
Le lour Oil la terre s'arrtta (The Day the Earth Stood Still, Robert Wise, 1951, USA).
Viva Zapata (Viva Zapata, Elia Kazan, 1952, USA).
Les Neiges du Ki/imandjaro (Snows of Kilimondjaro, Henry King, 1952, USA).
Le Train siff/cra trois fois (High Noon, Fred Zinneman, 1952, USA).
L'Homme des vollies perdues (Shone, Georges Stevens, 1953, USA).
Fenitre sur cour (Rear Window, Alfred Hitchcock, 1954, USA).
Du plomb pour l'inspecteur (Pushover, Richard Quine, 1954, USA).
Lo Comtesse 011x pieds nus (The Barefoot Contessa, Joseph Mankiewicz, 1954, USA).
Le Mouton II cinq puttes, Henri Vcrncuil, 1954, Fr.
Rozzio sur lo Chnouff, Henri Dccoio, 19.54, Fr.
Le Crime itait presque parfait (Dial M for Murder, Alfred Hitchcock, 1954, USA).
L'Homme du Kentucky (The Kenlllckion, Burt Lancaster, 1955, USA).
llOU.YWOOD I'll.MS IN A FRENCH WORKISO CLASS MILll!U 245
Honorl de Marseille, Maurice Regamey, 1956, Fr.
Douze hommes en co/ire (Twelve Angry Men, Sidney Lumel, 1956, USA}.
Le Temps de la coltre (Between Heaven and Hell, Richard Fleisher, 1956, USA).
L'Hommequi en savaittrop (The Man Who Knew Too Much, Alfred Hitchcoclc, 1956, USA).
Moby Dick (Moby Dick, John Huston, 1956, USA).
Ecrit sur le vent (Writen on the Wind, Douglas Sirk, 1956, USA).
Si tous les gars du mondt, Christian Jaque, 1956, Fr.
L'Adieu au.r armes (A Farrewell to arms, Charles Vidor, 1957, USA).
Le Grand chantage (Sweet Smell of Success, Alexander Makendrick, 1957, USA).
Les Di.r commandements (The Ten Commandements, Cecil B. De Mille, 1957, USA).
Orgueil et passion (The Pride and the Passion, Stanley Kramer, 1957, USA}.
Les Vikings (The Vikings, Richard Fleisher, 1958, USA).
En cas de ma/heur, Claude Autant-Lara, 1958, Fr.
La Mort au.r trousses (North By Northwest, Alfred Hitchcock 1959, USA).
A.M.
L'lmpasse tragique (The Dark Corner, Henry Hathaway, 1947, USA).
La Ville abandonnee (Yellow Sky, William Wellman, 1948, USA}.
Montana (Montana, Rey Enright, 1949, USA).
Marqul au fer (Branded, Rudolph Mat~. 1950, USA).
Colt 45 (Colt 45, Edwin L. Marin, 1950, USA).
Les Filches brCJ/ees (Flaming Feather, Ray Enright, 1951, USA)
Au pays de la peur (The Wild North, Andrew Narton, 1951, USA).
Les Affameurs (Bend of the River, Anthony Mano, 1951, USA).
La Val/le de la vengeance (Vengeance Valley, Richard Thorpe, 1951, USA).
Le Sentier de /'en/er (Warpath, Byron Haskin, 1951, USA).
Lu Conqulrants de Carson City (Carson City, Andrt de Toth, 1952, USA}.
Dallas ville frontiere (Dallas, Stuart Heisler, 1952, USA).
La Dernilre fllche (Pony Soldier, Joseph M. Newman, 1952, USA).
Le Trlsor des Cararbes (Carribean, Edward Ludwig, 1952, USA).
Le Retour au paradis (Return to Paradise, Mark Robson, 1953, USA).
Le Port des passions (Thunder Bay, Anthony Mann, 1953, USA).
Le Cirque infernal (Batlle Circus, Richard Brooks, 1953, USA).
Le Pirate du sept mers (Raiders of the Sevm Stas, Sidney Salkow, 1953, USA).
Rl>'Olte au Me.rique (Wings of the Hawk, Bud Boetticher, 1953, USA).
La Charge sur la rivi~re rouge (Charge at the Feater River, Gordon Douglas, 1953, USA).
Le Vagabond des mers (The Master of Ballantrae, William Keighley, 1953, USA).
La Ville sous le joug (The Vainquished, Edward Ludwig, 1953, USA).
La Piste des eltphants (Elephant Walk, William Dieterle, 1954, USA).
Les Nunes annees d'une reine (MlJdchenjahre tiner Konigin, Ernst Marischka, 1954, D).
L'Homme dt la plaine (The Man from Laramie, Anthony Mann, 1954, USA}.
View publication statsView publication stats
246 PABRICB M0"'1"1!Bm..LO
Ce n'est qu'un au revoir (The Long Gray Line, John Ford, 1954, USA).
La Brigade hlrorque (Saskatchewan, Raoul Walsh, 1954, USA).
La Lance brisle (Broken Lance, Edward Dmy1ryk, 1954, USA).
La F/amme pourpre (The Purple Plain, Rober! Parrish, 1954, USA).
A /'ombre des potences (Run for Lover, Nicholas Ray, 1955, USA).
La Guerre privle du major Benson (The Private War of Major Benson, Jerry
Hopper, 1955, USA).
La Furieuse chevauchle (Tall Man Riding, Lesley Selander, 1955, USA).
Horizons lointains (The Far Hot1zons, Rudolph Mate, 1955, USA).
Co/lines brlllantts (The Burning Hills, Stuart Heisler, 1956, USA).
le reviens de I'm/er (Toward the Unknown, Mervyn Le Roy, 1956, USA).
Le Mariage est pour demain (Tennessee's Partner, Allan Dwan, 1956, USA).
Un pitre au pensionnat (You're never too young, Norman Taurog, 1956, USA).
Les Ailes de l'esperance (Battle Hymn, Douglas Sirk, 1956, USA).
Les Annees sauvages (Rawhide Years, Rudolph Malf, 1956, USA)
L'Homme de San Carlos (Walk the Proud Land, Jesse Hibbs, 1956, USA).
L'Armada sauvage (Huie, John Barnwell, 1956, USA).
La Prisonniere du dbut (The Searchers, John Ford, 1956, USA).
La Derniere c11ravane (The L11st Wagon, Delmer Daves, 1956, USA).
Les Lavandieres du Portugal, Pierre Gaspard-Huit, 1957, Fr.
Tension aRocle City (TMsion at Table Rocle, Cb. M. Warren, 1957, USA).
L'Esclave libre (Band of Angels, Raout Walsh, 1957, USA).
Le Survivant des monts lointains (Night Passage, James Neilson, 1957, USA).
La Poursuite fantastique (Dragoon Wells Massacre, Harold Schuster, 1957, USA).
La Vallee de /'or noir (Campbell's Kingdom, Ralph Thomas, 1957, GB).
L'Hlritage dt 111 co/ere (Money, Women and Guns, R.H. Banletl, 1959, USA).