Cannes 2023: ‘Incredibly damaging rumour’, Ekaterina Corsini’s response to controversy over her film ‘The Return’

Ekaterine Corsini and her team respond to the allegations. Le Retour, which marks the director’s third appearance in Cannes competition, is at the center of controversy after Thierry Fremaux’s selection was announced on April 13.

Initially kept in the race for the Palme d’Or, the film was finally withdrawn from the selection at the last minute, while the board of directors considered “job status”until its reintegration with other selection complements on April 24.

It follows press allegations of alleged acts of harassment against the filmmaker and two members of his crew, as well as possible “serious” violations of the Act on the Protection of Underage Actors.

The filmmaker, his producer Elizabeth Perez (CHAZ Productions) and the two actors (Esther Gohrou and Dennis Podalides) revealed themselves in a press release, which is reproduced in full below.

Currently without a release date and appearing among the twenty-one feature films vying for the Palme d’Or on May 27. return In Corsica, a mother with painful memories is confronted, while her two teenage daughters succumb to all the temptations of summer.

Press Release – CHAZ Productions – Elizabeth Perez and Catherine Corsin

First of all, we would like to thank the Cannes Film Festival for confirming the invitation to Catherine Corsini’s film LE RETOUR.

Anonymous and slanderous letters were sent throughout the industry and the press, helping to create an extraordinarily damaging rumor for the film. Thankfully, the world’s biggest festival has taken the time to thoroughly verify its accuracy. That is why it makes sense to keep the decision to select the film in the competition. According to reports, another decision would be a serious precedent for copyright cinema and the event itself.

We applaud the Board of Directors of the festival, which decided on the freedom of the coach, Thierry Fremaux, as well as the freedom of expression of the filmmaker.

We would like to reiterate that there is no complaint of any kind filed against Catherine Corsini, nor against the production of the film. The only violation found after the Central Committee for Hygiene and Safety of Working Conditions (CCHSCT) investigation, which we admitted very early on, is an administrative violation, an undeclared stage violation and therefore not covered by the Infant Performance Commission. .

Indeed, Catherine Corsini added a scene between the two young actors, ages 15 ½ and 17, during filming. Even if it was with their agreement, we should have announced it. Failure to do so is a violation of the law and in fact the manufacture was sanctioned by the CNC. But let’s stop fantasizing here! The adults were dressed up and the scene was shot on their faces. There was no touching or inappropriate contact between them as we heard or read in the press. Cinema is the art of suggestion. And these young people understood it: without any coercion, they refused the intimacy and study that they still insisted on, convinced that they were in a relationship with the director.

We have always been against all forms of violence and harassment on set, we don’t minimize it, we have been involved from the first meetings of 50/50. Two reports of alleged inappropriate gestures by two film technicians led to an internal investigation that was referred to the CCHSCT, which Elizabeth Perez, as head of CHAZ Productions, conducted with a filming harassment referral. CCHSCT was able to see his good form.

We thank the technicians, the actors of the film for their support, the wonderful words and all their fair and nuanced testimonies that made it possible to explain what the reality of this shoot was like. Finally, thanks also to former collaborators, filmmaker friends and all our partners for their unwavering support.

Testimony – Esther Gohuru, actress

This letter put an end to this story, because we talked a lot in my place, but I didn’t. for the garden scene added to the roles of Farah and Orso. Catherine even offered me a double and an intimacy coach and I declined, and she offered Harold an offer and he declined. Before consulting each other, we had a mutual refusal. He offered us several times, but we always refused. They totally put us at ease during the scene, and they honestly saw that Harold and I had already filmed together, so we weren’t embarrassed. They gave us time and put everything in place to be good. We talked a lot before doing the scene, we knew what we were going to shoot that we would only see faces and not have to touch in real life. And so it happened. Some people called the high school social worker to say things that had nothing to do with what happened, so I explained to her too that it was okay that Harold and I got it and people extrapolated. So there is no reason to worry or anything. Harold is fine and I am fine. 🙂 Thank you for understanding.

Testimony – Dennis Podalides, actor

I found Ann Diatkin’s article in Liberation on the set of Catherine Corsin’s The Return, which I was involved in, and in these lines I absolutely do not recognize the series I knew. True, I shot for several days. It was in the middle of filming, so it was going well. At this moment, the life of the film has acquired its rhythm and found its general atmosphere, unless an accidental event transforms its nature. This rhythm and this atmosphere is introduced by the personality of the director, which is transmitted to the team. Depending on the progress of the shoot, complex or simple, inspired or arduous, tense or relaxed – which may depend on inherent or external problems of the project – the atmosphere turns out to be more or less heavy or light, depending on the project or not. A manager contains or diffuses the anxiety he owns, the humor he can instill, the calmness he can lose or keep. Halfway through the shoot, we know it’s not wrong.

I came to the set completely relaxed, focused, working well and even very well. From the stage manager who picked me up at Bastia airport to the first assistant, everyone was calm, purposeful, effortless. I found the young people I met for the reading in August, Susie, Esther and others: happy, supportive, united, happy to make this film. Ekaterine Corsini, as welcoming and friendly as possible, prepared and took her shots as a team, smoothly, without the slightest tension, except for the very fast passage of time, the movement of the sun, natural errors and distractions that sometimes lead to impatience. Nothing more normal. I have participated in hundreds of shootings, I know what sets are undermined by disagreements, conflicts, unsaid things, harassment. We feel it, we know it immediately, because the film set is so porous and transmits everything that happens there in coherent waves. At no time during my stay on the return set did I notice the slightest problem or the slightest discomfort, on the contrary.

That’s all I can say for what I saw and found. I wasn’t there the rest of the time, but I’m sure if something serious had happened before my presence in the film, I would have noticed hints, met, heard rumors, suspected something. So I didn’t learn anything even after that. I would add: there are many dangers when filming with young people: arguments, inconsistencies, mood swings, misunderstandings, awkwardness in love scenes, excessive sulography… Cinema is always an intense experience for teenagers. In Libé’s article, all the facts are presented on the same plane, as if they stem from the same weakness, the same malicious source. However, if we take them one after the other, they have nothing to do with each other and do not correspond to the same reality. How to put on the same level the accident that happened on the morning of the shooting night, the problem of an intimate scene between two teenagers that was not targeted by the Children’s Entertainment Commission, the stuntman’s attitude tested and interpreted as obscene and the claims of part of the team. The addition of these facts, actually mixed, suggests that the person responsible is Catherine, whose tyranny, callousness, cynicism would be obvious and confirmed. What nonsense. Catherine is the opposite of such a portrait. I am not his friend; I have admiration for the director and love for the woman. I don’t defend it for clan reasons or because we share interests. I’m just outraged by the incredible villainy that suddenly falls on him.