Remember, in March 2021, François Pirette did not like the release of Georges-Louis Bouchez at all. The comedian was even virulent in a message he had posted on his official page François Pirette (to be reviewed here).
In this December 24th, it is the president of the MR who “tackles”, in his own way, François Pirette, a critic of the latest measures of the Committee of the Consultation on Culture.
First of all, and so that there is no ambiguity, if I am speaking here, it is not to give you an account of a particular or personal situation since, as regards me, I do not have no current or upcoming show, at least not before the end of March, and I’m especially lucky to be able to work thanks to the loyalty and reciprocal loyalty of a television channel to me and me to she.
No, what prompts me to write to you here is the growing unease I feel towards an executive who clearly knows nothing about the realities of the performing arts and the unsuspected difficulties they face with courage, stoicism and determination for almost two years.
Yesterday evening, like you, I was sad, more than surprised, at the decisions which were taken in the name of the general interest, which I respect, and which for my part will always prevail.
In fact, it is not so much the decision that shocks me as the obvious ignorance of our profession, and especially of its economy, to which this decision testifies once too often.
This blatant ignorance of the realities of the performing arts and the “living arts” in general is almost confined to contempt.
What is heartbreaking is that the minute following the end of the executive’s press conference, it was nevertheless the duty of the ministers of culture of the two communities of our country to speak out to reassure a sector. already badly tested, and they did not. Once again, once too many for me.
And the vague promise of a meeting in January to assess the possible modalities of a hypothetical aid plan will not be enough to calm the anger, concerns, uncertainties and misunderstandings that remain the most flammable fuels of all populism. of the moment who didn’t need that.
Because, it is not in January that this working meeting must take place, it is this morning.
I am and never will be one of those who howl with wolves, nor a follower of “yaka-faukon”.
I leave that to the opposition politicians, so comfortably installed in their spectator chairs, so quick to breathe on the embers and so unscrupulous to pick up the crumbs of a disoriented electorate, even if it means saying everything and its opposite of a week to the other according to the popular mood of the moment.
This is why I will be careful not to shout haro on those who are in charge in these unprecedented times of complexity and uncertainty.
But once again, the spectacle has its own economy, precarious by nature, and already very severely tested.
And it is not in January that the technicians, the actors, the producers, the handlers of the spectacle, the musicians, the ushers, the stewards … and the countless little hands who make our profession, for the most part freelance, this is not in January that they need to be assured of unwavering support, ringing and stumbling, from those making these decisions, once again, and I will understand that, in the name of the general, it’s not in january, it’s now!
We are far, very far from the French “whatever it costs”.
If among those listening to me there are some who sit in these assemblies precisely because they were democratically elected, I ask them to voice an indignation fueled by the demonstration that our government has at no time taken the measurement of the human tragedies which are played out following the decisions which it takes concerning our sector in particular.
Because we too often have the very unpleasant impression that, if the spectacle remains a hobby for those who consume it, it is therefore also a leisure for those whose work it is and therefore the livelihood.
Finally, the discomfort is all the greater when the clear decision is not taken to close the sector, but just to keep the activity half-open under the condition of brutally shrunk gauges, making once again the economy of our profession completely flawed while not opening to any mechanism of rights or hoped-for aid.
But above all, these “neither open nor closed” situations cause real injustice.
Because if the directors of the subsidized theaters are indignant that their rooms are closed on the pretext that they can very well keep them open to play in front of 50 spectators, it is because they do not rely on the revenue to pay their tickets. invoices and their actors.
For all the others, and this is the lot of the vast majority of those who do this beautiful profession, they remain fairgrounds who can only hope to earn a living once all the costs inherent in their activity have been honored. by the fruit, and only by the fruit of the box office.
I do not want to oppose public and private here. The two theaters are partners and do the same noble profession. But it is unfortunate that in these times of crisis, the media are so quick to hand their microphone only to representatives of these large legitimately subsidized houses as soon as a new earthquake shakes the sector.
Because it is not so much in these big houses that the real drama of these brutal closures is played out, but in the homes of all the trades that I mentioned above. It is to them that you must extend your microphones, ladies and gentlemen journalists. Because they are the ones who make the curtain go up in the evening, or not.
The anger certainly legitimate, but also very theatrical and sometimes very egocentric, of the directors of these big subsidized houses is never more than the tree which hides a forest much larger and much richer in diversity.
My little bit of blood this morning is largely motivated by this oversight.
Also, ladies and gentlemen, ministers of whom I would certainly not want to be in charge, I ask you now, and immediately, to radically change your outlook on a profession which is at least as noble as yours and which deserves the same consideration. than all the others, with an exception of humility for the world of caregivers without a doubt, whom I greet here with respect and gratitude.
Thank you for your long attention.
Be careful, for yourself, for your loved ones and not to risk cluttering the corridors of hospitals.
I kiss you.
And Bouchez’s response:
“Hey, it seemed to me that criticizing Codeco’s measures was reserved for Sarma François Pirette’s populists [en vrai]. I do not dispute the substance of your message but the fact that when people revolt in the face of nonsense, it might be better to listen and analyze the substance of the message before insulting or having pithy judgments …
If not, in our region, we always say that El bac i s’ortorne toudi su l ‘pourcheau. Once again, my disagreement is not on the substance but these changing attitudes according to the wind blow me away. I gave my convictions at a time when it was fashionable to be in the line. But today the tide has turned and the weather vanes with it “.