1Similar to the Institut français (IF), the Alliances françaises (AF)1 play an important role in the non-commercial promotion of French cinema, Francophone cinema and (to a lesser extent) foreign cinema through the organization of screenings, forums and festivals. However, these missions are not well known. References and synthesized information on the activities of the Alliance française in the sector are strikingly few and far between. Very few books and articles have been written or published on the subject.2 Why does such a blind spot exist in academic research, especially when current and historical investigations of France’s foreign cultural policy have produced numerous publications and doctoral theses from some of the former staff of this cultural network?

2One possible explanation for this lack of research may be that archives are difficult to access, and archives themselves are incomplete. The archives at the Ministry of Europe and Foreign Affairs (Ministère de l’Europe et des Affaires étrangères or MEAE) for example contain little usable information on the Alliances françaises or on cinema.3 The archives at the Fondation des Alliances françaises (Alliances Françaises Foundation) are also lacking.4 As for archives kept locally (i.e. archives at Alliances françaises locations), they sometimes disappear altogether as the Alliances branch relocates or changes direction. These local archives are never fit for centralized or comprehensive use, and do not lend themselves to the collection of data across the entire network. Moreover, the Fondation’s recent governance difficulties,5 as well as its period of uncertainty surrounding the restructuring of the “French model” of cultural and soft diplomacy called for by the President of the Republic,6 do not make researchers’ missions easier. Neither does the trend of speeches in which “the French generally engage in noisy exercises of self-satisfaction”7 (i.e., the celebration of this “French model,” and the very undertaking of “think[ing] the state”).8

3Consequently, questions must be asked about “cinema” activities within the Alliance française network. Does the AF’s lack of knowledge indicate little to no activity within the cultural sphere, or does it obfuscate the inner workings of the AF in its promotion of cinema outside France?

4The aim of this particular article is to begin creating a general inventory. As the limited scope of an article does not allow for the exhaustive analysis of cinema activities worldwide, the specific geographical region of “Asia-Oceania”9 will be focused on in order to offer an initial response to the problem at hand. To that end, the article’s methodology builds upon the unprecedented mobilization and analysis of internal (i.e., non-public) reports of the Fondation des Alliances françaises, the (equally unprecedented) compilation of “cinema” data specifically related to the Alliances of the defined region,10 semi-structured interviews (Blanchet, Gotman, 2017)11 and the participant/observer position of the two authors.12 The article is also based on established principles of cultural and soft diplomacy (see above).

5Therefore, after first interrogating the relationship between the Alliance française, the cultural network and cinema – or in other words interrogating the unique position of AF activities – it will secondly be necessary to analyze these elements within the confines of the “Asian-Oceanic” zone. In doing so, concrete and measurable evidence will be amassed in order to understand the relationship between cinema and the Alliances.

The Alliance française, the cultural network and the promotion of cinema

6The global network of the Alliances françaises plays a part in France’s broader practices of cultural and soft diplomacy. That is to say, the AF has a unique and historical position in the world, but its activities in the film sector are overlooked.

The Alliance française and the cultural network: a unique position

7France’s cultural network13 made its mark in the early 19^th century and late 20^th century with the 1883 creation of the Alliance française in Paris14 and the establishment of the Bureau des oeuvres in 1909. The Bureau later became the Service des œuvres françaises à l’étranger in 1920, as part of the Political and Commercial Affairs Directorate at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (la direction des affaires politiques et commerciales du ministère des Affaires étrangères).15 The cultural network is accordingly defined by a bipolar (public and private) structuring of France’s foreign cultural initiatives. Today, the network consists of, on the one hand, the public sector of the Instituts français16 and the Cooperation and Cultural Action Service (les services de coopération et d’action culturelle or SCAC). On the other hand, it consists of the private sector of the Alliances françaises, which is also tasked with spreading French culture and language throughout the world. Influence is spread through “artistic exchanges, intellectual exchanges and the export of creative industries, but also through the promotion of the French language, as well as scholarly and technical cooperative initiatives, including ‘humanitarian development and collaboration.’”17 All of this is the result of a unique network (compared to the cultural networks of other countries such as Germany, England, Spain and China) of 98 Institut français, 834 Alliances françaises and 131 SCAC.”18

8Communal in nature,19 “each Alliance is managed locally as an independent nonprofit organization (…), aiming to bring together Francophiles, offer general and specialized language courses worldwide and within France, and organize cultural and cooperative activities (…).”20 Falling under private law, the Alliances build upon public systems of cultural and soft diplomacy (see above). They may also be supported by (nonsystematic) subsidies, collaborative initiatives and the provisional assignment of state-paid officers for managing most Alliance branches (209 were assigned in 2017). The 834 Alliances across the world also count on the support of the Fondation des Alliances françaises21 headquartered on boulevard Raspail in Paris, which acts as “a kind of ‘keeper of the seal.’” After granting the “‘label of the Alliance française,’ and approving new associations’ status,”22 the Fondation in part coordinates region-specific activities and assessments for different Alliances françaises branches. The Alliances therefore constitute the “private” sector of the cultural network while remaining closely linked to the public policy of promoting French culture and language abroad. Their activities promoting French culture, and in particular cinema, suffer from a certain lack of visibility.

The Alliance française and cinema: a little-known story

9Having grown in number since the 1883 creation of its main branch in Paris (there were already 600 branches established by 1931),23 at the beginning of the 20^th century the Alliances françaises focused on the promotion of literature, conferences and the shipment of books.24 They have only gradually become an instrument in promoting French cinema abroad.

10Due to the disappearance of all archival material from before 1939 at the Alliance française de Paris,25 however, it is in general difficult to formally attest to this gradual change. We nevertheless hypothesize that the increasing popularity of cine-clubs in France during the 1920’s (spurred on by Louis Delluc and Ricciotto Canudo, and later by Charles Léger26) that were linked with the arrival of the first film criticism columns,27 were preceded a few years earlier by the appearance of film screenings (16 and 35 mm) in or via Alliance françaises branches.28 Such cinema promotion can, in part, be traced back to the post-war period. In addition to “book club” evenings, the Alliances have offered “cinema” evenings as part of their cultural programming since 1945. These evenings achieved immediate success due to the “charm of novelty” that they offered.29 At first, films were often projected “outside the walls” (i.e., outside of the Alliance branch and at local cinemas). Screenings were then relocated to Alliance branches as part of their cine-club programs. Brazil was the first Alliance location to create a cine-club in 1950-51. After acquiring a projector, the cine-club would show films purchased through the branch’s own funds or lent from the SCAC cinematheque.30 Moreover, “the Fédération acquired eight films (including Port of Shadows [Le quai des brumes] and First on the Rope [Premier de cordée]) for non-commercial use during a period of five years.”31 In the United States, by comparison, the first Alliance cine-club was not founded until 1965 in New York City, and made up the first such institution in the American network.32 Around the same time in the 1950’s, the Alliance française’s first film festival was launched in Hong Kong (see below) with the screening of the then seminal film Caroline Chérie hosted by star actress Martine Carol.33 Apart from these historical references, only fragmentary information on the subject is available. Some accounts from participants in cultural and soft diplomacy, as well as participants in local cinema, can shed light on certain historical moments. However, only a network-wide, data collection strategy that involves exploring local archives would make it possible to delve into and complete this missing history. Indeed, the lack of specific guidelines in this field (from the perspective of our participant/observer position, the lack of shared guidelines highlights the need to forensically conserve and develop cultural archives on site, especially when it comes to archives dedicated to cinema) breaks with local cultural strategies (see below example of Busan in 2000). Moreover, priority is sometimes given to other disciplines (in the United States from the end of WWII to the end of the 1970’s for example, priority seems to have been given to travelling theater and concert tours).34 All of this has not helped to preserve the AF’s cinematic history. Thus, the aim of this work is to put forward an initial assessment by focusing on the activities of a specific geographical area: the “Asia-Oceania” region. Although its activities are not well known, the region nevertheless contributes towards the non-commercial promotion of French and Francophone cinema throughout the world.

An initial assessment of the “Asia-Oceania” region

11According to the Fondation des Alliances françaises’ “2017 data” report, more than 26,000 cultural events were organized in 2016 throughout the entire AF network, attracting 3.3 million spectators. Within “Asia-Oceania,” there are 117 Alliances françaises – 76 of which are in Asia (in 21 different countries within North, South and Central Asia),35 and 41 of which are in Oceania (in 4 different countries).36 62% of these Alliances branches (or 73 out of 117 branches) have some form of “cinema” activity, according to our investigation (see above). By “cinema activity,” we mean film programs, the organization of film festivals and collaborations with festivals, or the occasional film event (conferences, meetings, special screenings, etc.). As such, the study of this region reveals a prolific level of activity within the field of cinema, accompanied by a historical precedent of festivals created by the Alliances françaises.

The Alliances françaises’ cinemas: prolific and disparate activity

12158 of the 834 Alliances worldwide37 (19%, or nearly one out of five),38 are equipped with a cinema – the vast majority of which are multipurpose spaces. Films projected come from custom programming, from partners, or from the “IF Cinéma” digital platform, which was established by the Institut français de Paris in 2011.39 A more detailed analysis shows that the Alliances françaises’ in-house cinema activities are even more dynamic in one part of the world: “Asia,” as outlined in our study of the region. The percentage of Alliances branches equipped with cinemas increases significantly when applied to the “Asian-Oceanic” region, where 38% of branches (or 44 out of 117) have a cinema and offer a cine-club program (47% of branches in Asia, and 22% in Oceania). The vast majority of these Alliances theaters (88%) offer free admission. More specifically, 81% of these cine-clubs take place in-house, and 19% take place “outside their walls” with the support of partners.40 In percentage terms, “Asia-Oceania” has developed “cinema” activities that are twice as extensive as the worldwide AF network average. “Cinema” activities are four times more extensive than the worldwide average when considered on the level of the Indian network alone, where 85% of AF branches (or 12 out of 14) have a cine-club (according to our 2018–2019 investigation, see above).

13Other Alliances françaises branches equipped with cinemas may have eliminated their projection capabilities due to relocating or changing direction. In the case of the Alliance française of Busan, South Korea, the cine-club acts as a symbol of the strong relationships maintained with local intellectuals and scholars. It also attests to the unilateral disappearance of such programming without any external consultation.

“While the film festival attracts more and more people every year, attendance levels at Friday and Saturday video projection screenings are a quite different case: 732 tickets were sold in 1998, and 749 were sold in 1997. This is a far cry from the 2,500 spectator average of the early 1990’s. I plan to eliminate such programming as soon as our video projector dies for good, which will be soon…,” notes the then director (…) “These screenings no longer attract Koreans, who now have VCRs, and many of whom subscribe to cable. They are also able to see more and more foreign films in other cinemas.”41

14Was this “elimination” the only possible solution? Admittedly, the arrival of the VCR shook up modes of cultural consumption, but should these modes have been put in competition with each other? Were they attracting the same audiences? Shouldn’t “something else” have been proposed, such as the relocation of screenings or the targeting of particular audiences? Entrenched in a restrictive environment – where traditional values were deeply rooted, political control was exerted, and society was becoming increasingly Americanized (i.e., the boom in multiplexes and mainstream cinema) –, the cinema at the Alliance française of Busan was nevertheless very active between the years of 1980 and 2000.42 Two film screenings, in 16 mm and 35 mm, were scheduled per day. These were managed by a projectionist and followed by a debate, averaging 40 to 50 spectators per screening. In the early 1990’s, the cinema at the AF of Busan could attract more than 2,500 spectators per year.43 Acting as the only space for free thought and exchanges, the cinema brought together Busan’s students and intellectuals, leaving its mark on them and occasionally spurring them on to change the city’s culture.44 For others, the cinema influenced their careers – as was the case for South Korean filmmaker Jeon Soo-il,45 who identified the theater as the source of his directorial vocation:

“These were provocative, shocking, challenging, frequently New Wave films with an unclear storyline. A long way from Hollywood, the Alliance of Busan was a breath of fresh air, and it gave me a taste for discussion, for another type of cinema… it made me want to study cinema in France.”46

15This cine-club influenced Jeon Soo-il in his decision to “study cinema in France,” and later his first film was selected for Un Certain Regard at the 1997 Cannes Film Festival. The unilateral discontinuation of the cine-club (which admittedly had been losing momentum) was synonymous with the loss of a cultural and soft diplomacy mechanism. Yet, this is indeed one of the objectives of such a public policy: to forge a lasting relationship with France.

16While the Fondation’s 2016 investigation of cinema activity did not gather any information on audiences, the follow-up actions of the IF of Paris and the CNC involved the digitization of cinemas in the cultural network. Introduced by French authorities,47 this initiative makes it possible to collect attendance figures at two digitized cinemas in the “Asian” region. To a certain degree, this policy thus measures the impact and integration of these cinemas into the local cultural landscape. In 2018, the cinema at the Alliance française of Singapore had 8,597 spectators attend their 115 screenings, averaging 74 spectators per session. While the Alliance cinema in Bangkok had 4,734 spectators attend their 134 screenings, averaging 35 spectators per session.48 The Fondation’s “cinema” investigation nevertheless reveals the Alliances françaises’ desire to raise awareness of cinema amongst young audiences: 57% of screenings were aimed at them. Just like our investigation did,49 this 2016 study shows that “Cine Kids,” “Cine Junior” and “Cine Teens” programs organized by the Alliances françaises have multiplied in number. AF cinemas from Ahmedabad and Tashkent (Uzbekistan) to Colombo attest to this trend. Occasionally, even the majority of films shown are aimed at young audiences, as is the case in Vanuatu (where 100% of the films screened between March and July 2019 was aimed at this demographic) or in Kandy, Sri Lanka (where 50% was aimed at this demographic).

17As far as programming is concerned, and according to our investigation, 79% of the films screened in the “Asia-Oceania” region in 2018 and 2019 were recent releases (i.e., released between 2010 and 2019).50 Films from 2018 (14%), 2017 (16%) and 2016 (15%) represented the largest share of films projected. With respect to genre, 42% of the films screened were comedies, 31% dramas, 11% animated films, 7% documentaries, 7% crime films and 1% science fiction films. While the Alliances françaises of “Asia-Oceania” tend to favor projecting comedies, in reality programming is varied and differentiated depending on the country and the specific Alliance français. Thus, of the 512 screenings analyzed between 2018 and 2019, 289 of the films were different. Recurrent projections of the same film were rather rare: Let the Girls Play (Comme des garçons) was the most popular film in the network, with a total of 14 screenings overall.51 Retrospectives were occasionally organized in honor of a particular actor (such as the Jean Gabin retrospective in Manila),52 a particular theme (such as the retrospective at the Singapore Alliance on female voices in a male world in July 2017, a retrospective on the love triangle in August 2017 and a suspense month in September 2017),53 a particular genre (such as a documentary month in Suva, Fiji)54 or a particular period (for example a retrospective on the Nouvelle Vague at the Wuhan Alliance in 2015).55

18These statistics indicate a great deal of freedom in programming on the part Alliance françaises branches, but also indicate a lack of consistency within the network, and therefore a lack of programming strategy as well. Should a network-wide strategy be prescribed by “Paris”? More precisely, should such a strategy be thought out with the help and expertise of the Fondation or the IF, or perhaps with the aid of specialized professional partners? Which films should be chosen, for which audiences, and to what end? Such questions could be asked, and could act as the guiding themes of global and regional policies. Above all, the establishment of criteria for the publication, collection, conservation and analysis of data – or even the sharing of filmic experiences – would be the first step towards a comprehensive understanding of the Alliances françaises. According to our participant/observer position, such an understanding is currently lacking.

19Our investigation also shows a lack of consistency in terms of the scheduling, frequency and regularity of screenings. Even if 25% of all screenings take place on Wednesdays, 11% on Fridays and 11% on Saturdays, this makes perfect sense as necessary in adapting to local circumstances. In addition to these statistics, it should be added that the average projection rate in “Asia-Oceania” is twice per month, with once a month projections being more common (31%). Additionally, films are for the most part shown in their original language with added subtitles: 80% of the films screened are subtitled in English, and just over 10% in the host country’s language. Similar to the cinemas of the Institut français, the cinemas of the Alliances play a role not only in the non-commercial distribution of French film, but also in the distribution of Francophone, foreign and local film. In this way, while 45% of the films screened within the Alliances françaises worldwide network were French according to the Fondation’s 2016 cinema investigation, 29% were Francophone and 18% were European. The rest of the films shown were from the local region. In “Asia-Oceania,” 90% of the films shown were French, 5% foreign, 3% local and 2% Francophone. Exceptions exist, such as in Penang, where 40% of the films programmed at the Alliance française were foreign (in 2019, for example, films by directors such as Cuaron, Kore-Eda and Bertolucci were shown). Here too, the distribution rate of French, Francophone, local and foreign films differs vastly according to the specific AF branch. One can see a lacking network-wide strategy, and/or total freedom entrusted to the supervising officer on-site in programming films, within this geographical region.56

20Ultimately, our investigation was able to collect information on the location of cine-clubs in “Asia-Oceania” and their programming characteristics (i.e., the percentage of French films shown, the genre of films, their language, the years in which the films were made). It also revealed a sustained but disparate level of activity in cinema promotion, as well as an obvious lack of a unified, network-wide AF strategy across the geographical region. Difficulties also arise in developing an initial list of analytical elements due to a lack of comprehensive records and due to the fact that much of the data from regional Alliances branches relies on a “declaratory” approach.

21However, the policy of digitizing theaters indicates which regions are the most active in the cultural network. Cinemas within these areas tend to have higher levels of demand and larger theaters (with an average maximum capacity of 208 spectators). They are on their way to becoming more professionally managed and programmed. Such cinemas specifically include Asian Alliances branches in Singapore and Bangkok. Other digitized cinemas within the Alliances françaises network include those in Bogotá, Dubai, Havana, Lagos, New York City and Buenos Aires – the latter being one of the most active Alliance branches in the world in terms of cinema, a domain that represents 50% of its cultural activities.

22While AF film programming seems to be an attractive feature of the cultural network, our investigation reveals a “fragmented” level of activity and an amount of influence that is difficult to measure. Nevertheless, the Alliances have founded long-term film festivals whose influence more clearly impacts local communities and professionals.

The Alliances françaises’ festivals: historical positioning

23As evidence of their dynamism, as well as their local and historical presence, the Alliances françaises have created festivals “outside their walls,” some of which have become famous. Eleven major French film festivals have been organized by the Alliances françaises around the world: one created in 1953 in Hong Kong, one created in 1985 in Singapore, one in 1990 in Australia, one in New Zealand in 1991, one in Málaga, Spain in 1994, in Cuba in 1998, in Bogotá in 2000, in Kuala Lumpur in 2001, in Nairobi, Kenya in 2004, in New York City in 2005, another in New Zealand in 2006, and in Puerto Rico in 2009.57 With approximately 24 films screened each year, these festivals attract an average of 380,000 spectators per year. Half of all festivals organized by the AF are in “Asia-Oceania,”58 two of which (the Hong Kong French Film Festival and the Alliances Françaises French Film Festival of Australia59) merit further analysis due to their significant role in the region’s cinematic landscape.

24Founded in 1953,60 the Hong Kong French Film Festival, as well as the “French Cinepanorama” program, offers an eclectic program.61 The Festival projects more than 40 recently released French films (both narrative and documentary) over the course of three weeks, with more than 120 screenings taking place in 6 different cinemas each December.62 The oldest film festival in Hong Kong and the cultural network, it has for 45 years assisted in the screening of more than 1,500 films for 500,000 people in total.63 It has also served as a model for other film festivals in the region, such as the Busan International Film Festival founded in 1956.64 The Alliance française of Hong Kong thus helps distribute French and Francophone films in Hong Kong, a competitive and restrictive environment for releasing French films.65 A driving force for distributing French cinema in Northeast Asia, the Alliance française of Hong Kong, like many other Alliances françaises, also organizes a smaller Francophonie Festival each year in March in collaboration with Hong Kong’s Francophone consulates and as part of the mois de la francophonie.

25Established in 1990, the “Alliance Française French Film Festival” of Australia showcases French cinema in Oceania. Every spring, it takes place over the course of five weeks throughout the extensive network of thirty Alliances françaises in Australia – from Adelaide and Brisbane, to Melbourne, Perth, Sydney and Canberra. Organized in collaboration with the Culture, Education and Science and Technology department of the French Embassy (the Service de coopération et d’action culturelle or SCAC), and offering an average of some fifty French films and co-productions (including action, romance, comedy, thriller, children’s films, animated films and documentaries), more than 168,000 spectators attended the Festival in 2016.66 Data from 2019 indicate an increase in attendance, with 197,093 tickets sold for the 54 films shown. Every year, French film celebrities are invited to attend.67 The Festival has become one of the most important film events in Australia. Along with Hong Kong, it is the largest French film festival outside of France in terms of the number of films screened. Moreover, over the past ten years, Australia has seen a strong growth in the audience attendance of commercially released French films. In 2015, 1.8 million spectators saw these films, versus the just under 434,000 spectators in 2005 (and with as many as 3.5 million spectators in 2012).68 In parallel with the Australian Festival, the New Zealand French Film Festival attracts 35,000 spectators each year in 13 cities and 16 cinemas, with a total of 932 projections.69

26Such festivals exemplify how local industry professionals (distributors) and French industry professionals (exporters and state officials) together organize events that promote French cinema within their zone of influence. Nearly 200,000 spectators attended the 2019 edition of the Australian Festival alone – and this figure is by no means insignificant. The AF’s activities complement the commercial distribution of French films financed by Unifrance and the SCAC at the French Embassy in Australia. It is tempting to focus exclusively on the organization of events of this size, to the exclusion of “smaller” Alliances programs.70 However, it is through long-term programming and through a network that spreads across all regions, in conjunction with such festivals, that influence can be spread globally.

27To conclude, steady and varied programming is accordingly found throughout the “Asia-Oceania” region of the AF network, with twice as much “cinema” activity (in terms of cine-clubs) as the global average. India alone has four times as much “cinema” activity. Some Alliance branches have held festivals for nearly seventy years. These festivals are both renowned amongst and legitimized by industry professionals (local distributors, exporters and French talent). They thus complement non-commercial promotional activities carried out by the network across the entire region. Such activities are often overlooked – with the exception of festivals covered by the media, and in particular those featuring celebrities. It is thus difficult to promote these activities apart from conducting interviews with celebrities, as was shown to be the case in Busan. This disregard is explained, on the one hand, by the absence of effective and comprehensive policies concerning the collection and preservation of records (i.e., programs, posters), and the analysis of these records. On the other hand, it is explained by the lack of appreciation for such records (i.e., the absence of academic and/or “mainstream” publications on the subject). The Fondation des Alliances françaises has indeed produced literature on the topic, such as the “2017 data” report and the internal, unpublished report referred to in writing this article. However, the analysis of such documentation encounters a twofold challenge. Firstly, the Alliances do not possess any instruments for measuring this activity (for example surveys are currently based on a declaratory methodology, and are not mandatory), which brings into question how data should be used. This observation should be kept in mind when it comes to the two digitized theaters in the “Asia-Oceania” region that are monitored professionally. Secondly, all of the information available and accessible on the Internet (via Alliance websites) is incomplete and lacks consistency. For example, each individual Alliance branch website provides different information.

28Consequently, even if our findings suggest a notable level of activity within the field of cinema by the AF, the primary conclusion of this article is rather methodological in nature. The Fondation ought to, for example, take a comprehensive and scholarly approach in an extensive, network-wide collection and utilization of cinema data and records. In addition, a clearly defined policy of “on site” archiving (i.e., at each Alliance branch) should be implemented.

29The second conclusion that can be drawn is that within “Asia-Oceania,” there is a clear lack of strategy and coordination in the Alliances’ non-commercial film promotion activities. Each branch director is given considerable freedom in selecting, discontinuing, downsizing and drastically changing the cinema activities of an Alliance branch. Cine-clubs and festivals may be eliminated and reinstated in response to various changes and the individual preferences of each branch director. For example, the French Film Week in Hangzhou was eliminated three years after its creation. After twenty years of being active, the Busan cine-club was disbanded in 2000, as was the Wuhan cine-club in 2016. How can the long-term continuation of such activity be ensured? Would a programming strategy prescribed “by Paris” or by geographical region (i.e., by country or by group of countries) be possible, while at the same time giving on-site officials the ability to take local conditions into account? Should “cinema guidelines” be set up and observed by all Alliance branches? Or would clearer directives from the Fondation sufficiently allow them to promote, guide and draw up an inventory of such activity? 

30More generally speaking, how should the long-term be conceived? How should this sort of influence be conceptualized and ensured, especially when it is such a difficult concept to measure and is so often fleeting? The example of South Korean filmmaker Jeon Soo-il is a testament to this. As Robert Franck points out, “these sorts of exchanges have a more or less measurable effect”.71 The difficulty of measuring something like this within the humanities or social sciences is at the heart of some of the points and reflections made in this article. Moreover, these conclusions perhaps lay the groundwork for measuring the “cinema” activities of the Alliances françaises so that they may be more widely recognized. The major concern here undoubtedly involves recognizing important cinema activities within the Alliance network. Alongside Alliance management acknowledging the role of cinema activity, as well as its local presence and historical importance within the Alliance network, the obligation of all branch directors is to provide in annual reports72 accurate and consistent information on the “cinema” activity of their Alliances branch. Such a practice would constitute the first step towards a better understanding of these activities.