French cinema does not express a politi- cal opinion, and the reason why is pretty much known. The two lms by Mennegoz are an exception, but they were shot al- most in secret and can be seen only in secret. Mennegoz perhaps makes lms that do not match your opinion (in fact, he is a communist), but at least you are not some Brune or Cardinal Gerlier (who believes in God and the devil) and you ask rst of all to see.

(…) We hear the dockers, who want to live, that is, who want more than to just exist, just survive. Mennegoz has lived a human adventure, as a man and as an art- ist, that was not easy for his companions: cranes are more beautiful on lm than in reality, and it is hard to not have anything to feed one’s own boys. When you do not believe much in God but only in happi- ness on earth, losing your life means los- ing everything, and the burial without a funeral of a docker killed in a protest is moving because it has a human meaning: it is an act of protest. During the lming, this political cinema became a politi- cal act. Considering that the dockers re- created their personal drama before the camera, it was not the perfect example of the street theater conceived of by Artaud. It was not a diversion for patrons or an end-of-year review because the dramatic action was a real political action. (…) To stay true to the anecdote, let’s not forget the arrival of the cof ns from Indochina lmed through a porthole in the ship’s hold; and that wonderful sequence in which the platoons realize that the car passing in front of them is armed with a camera, but understand it later, which creates a curious effect since the cam- era seems to look across a house of cards made of policemen.

François Michel, Cinéma clandestin Rob- ert Mennegoz, “Positif”, n. 9