Talk:Le Cinéma du Peuple

Suggestions

[1] This is a great start! Thanks for your translation, @Aristoxène. I left some inline edits for some parts that were unclear or vague. Here are a few other questions I had as I read:

• Initially, anarchists were opposed to the arrival of cinema For a big claim like this about anarchists as a whole, readers will want to verify its contents so it's helpful to give a more specific page citation with {{sfn}} rather than the general citation page range. For an example, see it in use at The May Pamphlet or provide the direct quote here and I can format it.
• It's especially helpful to give specific pages/quotes when sources are in non-English languages to make it easier for English-only readers to verify
• The stocks: Is this in reference to ownership of the organization or is that something distributed for purposes of making the films?
• Unpublished theses and conference papers are seen as generally unreliable on English Wikipedia (WP:SCHOLARSHIP) so I'd recommend removing or replacing those Mundim sources
• Similarly generally considered the first left-wing activist group to engage in film production and considered the first feminist film in the world both need a stronger sources if they are only cited to a conference paper (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence)
• The organization produced a number of films Was there a final count?
• What is a founding act? Is it like articles of incorporation?
• anarchist, revolutionary syndicalist, and anarcha-feminist cooperative Do sources describe it like this, or just as anarchist?

czar 16:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Czar,

Thank you for your comments, corrections, and suggested improvements. I have provided the specific page for the introduction, where I linked (as Mannoni does) the initial rejection of both anarchists and conservative Catholics (noting that, in the context of French politics at the time, these were obviously two completely opposing factions).

Regarding the shares, Mannoni refers to "capital social", which is generally translated as "stock capital" in English, if I’m not mistaken. The company needs to secure funding, so it divides itself into shares, and since it’s a cooperative, each person purchases only one share (probably), with the amount set at a relatively low price. For instance, 25 francs in 1913 is equivalent to about $100 in 2024 (according to INSEE). Thus, we have a production company divided into 40 equal and (I assume) you were only able to get one share. I’m not sure if this answers your question, but it seems to be what emerges from Mannoni’s source, which is the most detailed regarding financial matters, etc.

For Mundim's sources, there is actually only one that is unpublished—the thesis—but The Miseries of the Needle of the Cooperative Cinéma du Peuple: A Feminist Movie in Early Cinema is published. I had provided the wrong link, but it was published in the scientific journal Significação. There is also another published source by Mundim, which can be found here, and it revisits these elements.

That said, as you can see on the page for the film in question, which I have since created, I corrected it there to say "likely", which is also the phrasing supported by Mundim in several instances and seemed more accurate. I have also corrected it here and added the Mundim source that I had not yet included.

Finally, on this point, the Cinémathèque explicitly links the film to the one directed by Germaine Dulac in 1922, which is generally considered the first feminist film. The Cinémathèque notes that this is interesting and highlights the temporal difference.

It seems clearly established by the sources that this is a feminist film. The sources either state that it is likely the first (Mundim, twice) or note the distinction from the one generally considered the first (Germaine Dulac – Cinémathèque). Therefore, this seems legitimate and well-sourced to me.

For the founding act, it is likely the founding charter of the cooperative enterprise. This is probably the document included in the first two pages of Mannoni's source.

Regarding the descriptors, Mannoni mentions anarchist and notes that a number of its members were revolutionary syndicalists. As for anarcha-feminist, Mundim emphasizes the feminist aspect of the enterprise and links it to its anarchism. Since not all anarchist movements of the period were explicitly feminist, and this specificity is highlighted here—especially in their productions, which are described as not merely feminist but anarchist/revolutionary/feminist as a cohesive whole—it seemed relevant to include it.

Notably, Jane Morand and Henriette Tilly are mentioned in this context. Rather than simply stating "feminist", the feminist approach of this enterprise appears inseparable from its anarchist foundation, forming a coherent framework. While the source does not explicitly label this as "anarcha-feminism", I believe it is the most accurate term to describe it. As you know, categorizing anarchist groups, movements, or individuals is often a complex task. But I'm maybe wrong and maybe we should change that, you see what you prefer.

PS : For the number of films, I think Mannoni says 6 were made, but in other sources it was less clear, because it seems they maybe did some films that weren't found or that were only released once in a popular session and then never shown again. This kind of contradictory infos made me avoid putting the exact number, but we could also consider that Mannoni (I think it's him) is probably more precise than the other sources on that point. Anyways, just in case, I avoided saying it.

Cordially, Aristoxène (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@Czar After checking more in detail the act of foundation, which is to be found at the beginning of the Mannoni's source, it was indeed only one share by individual. I quote :

Art. 7. — The initial share capital is originally set at the sum of 1,000 francs, represented by 40 shares of 25 francs each. (Approximately 4000$ capitalization for the cooperative company - according to the INSEE converter)

Art. 10. — The shares are registered and indivisible. The company recognizes only one owner for each of them; the liability of each associate is limited to the value of their shares. Aristoxène (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful explanation!

re: shares and founding act (charter) and descriptors, thank you. I've edited the article, if you can check that I accurately represented the source. (I.e., it's an anarchist cooperative but its members included revolutionary syndicalists and anarcho-feminists versus defining as "a revolutionary syndicalist/anarcho-feminist cooperative") Can still clarify in the text if the anarchist "subscribers" were stockholders or some other kind of subscription.

re: Mundim, the 2019 Significação article would likely be the best source for his claims, compared to his conference paper and the Café História history blog. The citations might appear similar but the published version (2019) appeared to be edited from the 2017 conference paper, and ostensibly has received greater vetting through peer review. I'd swap the Mundim citation in use if you agree and provide page numbers for verification.

re: first feminist film, can you link me to that Cinémathèque mention? (Is it [2]?) Mentioned at La Souriante Madame Beudet.

it seems they maybe did some films that weren't found or that were only released once Did any sources infer that the total was unclear? We could cite that (if so) after citing Mannoni's six. I think it's helpful to share what's known about their total output, or the reader will be left guessing. czar 05:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)